Loading...
Washington Co. Solid Waste Advisory Committee Meeting Notice 6/10/1998`NGTONCO MINGTON COUNTY 3 G2� Mary L. McGlothlin WAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT I Director Rose Gree n 4 N LANDMANAGEMENT Office Manager �oUS)Ry..ApGAESSs GOVERNMENT CENTER 14900 61ST STREET NORTH, P.O. BOX 3803 • STILLWATER, MN 55082-3803 Office (612) 430-6655 • TDD (612) 439-3220 • Facsimile Machine (612) 430-6730 WASHINGTON COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE WEDNESDAY, NNE 10, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. Washington County Government Center 14900 61St Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes and Agenda 3. Review Regional Policy Plan Regional Outcomes* Planning Process* Fitting Components Together* *These materials will be handed out at the meeting as they are currently being revised 4. Washington County Yard Waste Component (Draft enclosed) Current System Gaps in the Current System Policies Outcomes 5. Other Business 6. Adjourn ptow 00 �0 a d 3 a Printed per 5% Post Consumer Naste AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ' Aeua 0' Washington County Solid Waste Advisory Committee Summary Minutes May 20, 1998 Members Present Joe Rheinberger, Martina Johntz, Les Burshten, Willie Tennis Staff Present Judy Hunter, Anne Kleinschmidt, Deb Cook The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Judy Hunter. Agenda for May 20, 1998, meeting was approved. Judy introduced Anne Kleinschmidt, Washington County Environmental Specialist; and Deb Cook, Committee Secretary. Judy described the process the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) will be using to develop the Regional Master Plan. Washington County's Master Plan will be based on the Regional Master Plan. She also noted that Scott County has decided not to join the Coordinating Board. So the SWMCB now consists of six (6) metro counties. Background/Review of Regional Master Plan A committee meeting schedule was provided with dates showing specific topics to be discussed. The green sheet in this packet details the County time line for development of the Proposed Master Plan. Anne will provide a copy of the Regional Policy Plan to any member who would like one. This is the basis for which the Regional Master Plan is developed. The committee reviewed the draft outcomes within the Regional Master Plan. Source Reduction Principal Source Reduction Outcome: In 2005, per capita and per employee waste generation rates will be no higher than the 1999 rates. Beginning in 2006, there will be a I % per year decrease in the per capita and per employee waste generation rate for the SWMCB region. Intermediate Source Reduction Outcomes: By 2003, the region will reduce 50, 000 tons of commercial packaging waste based on 1996 levels. 2. By 2003, the region will reduce 20, 000 tons of office paper. 3. By 2003, the region will reduce 6,500 tons of 3rd class mail. 4. By 2000, Materials Area Exchange (MAA) will facilitate the reuse of 5, 000 tons of material that would otherwise have been disposed; 10, 000 tons by 2003. 5. By 2003, the region will reduce 141, 000 tons of food waste. 6. By 2003, counties will incorporate reduction guidelines at all county facilities in line with the primary outcomes. The region will achieve a 10% reduction in the amount of waste generated at county owned facilities. 7. By 2003, 50% of the region's households will be able to identify five specific waste reduction activities they have practiced within the past 12 months, and 50% of the region's businesses will be able to identify three specific waste reduction/reuse changes they have implemented in the past 12 months. The Committee will need to go through outcome statements to see how our County fits into this. We have a mature system to work from, but we have not captured all goals yet. The committee will need to review gaps and refine the County plan. Toxicity Reduction Principal Toxicity Reduction Outcomes: 1. Reduction of toxic,'hazardous materials found in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) by 2017, with progress demonstrated at 5 year intervals - Statutorily banned materials 100% - Hazardous Materials 50% - Heavy Metals 50% (This outcome cannot be reached through cross media transfers, i.e., disposing of hazardous elements in the air or water rather than in waste.) 2. Consumer products will not require special handling because of toxic or hazardous components. May 20, 1998 SWAC Minutes page 2 Intermediate Toxicity Reduction Outcomes: 1. Product prices reflect life cycle costs by 2008, focusing on products containing heavy metals, pesticides, and pressurized flammable gas cylinders. 2. Two new take -back programs, or public/private partnerships to share the costs of managing household hazardous waste and problem materials, are in place by 2003 with manufacturers and/or consortiums. - Candidate products include computer monitors, TVs, coatings (paints and finishes), and mercury bearing products. 3. By 2003, all consumers, businesses and government entities are aware of how improper management of toxic and hazardous materials affects the environment and public health. 4. Hazardous ingredients in consumer products are disclosed via clear labeling by the year 2003. Labeling is included on pesticides and cleaning products by the year 2000. 5. Government is a leader in the use of reprocessed and recycled hazardous wastes and in the use of substitute products that do not contain hazardous products. Recycling Principal Recycling Outcomes: 1. Maintain at least 50% regional recycling rate (including a 3% waste reduction and 5% yard waste credit). 2. Collect the most materials at the least possible cost. 3. Increase the recycling industry at least a rate equal to the rate of economic growth in Minnesota. Processing Principal Processing Outcome: By 2017, the region will process 50% to 90% of the MSW not reduced or recycled. Intermediate Processing Outcomes: 1. By 2000, 100% of current metropolitan capacity will be fully utilized to process waste not reduced or recycled. 2. By 2000, metropolitan capacity will be increased by 3% by increasing the permit at Hennepin County's Mass Burn Facility (HERO). 3. By 2003, metropolitan processing capacity will increase up to 13% above current capacity. 4. Generators will be informed consumers of waste management services, including having an understanding of generator responsibilities and liabilities. 5. By the end of 2000, an implementation plan to process waste available through 2017 will be completed. May 20, 1998 SWAC Minutes Page 3 Non -MSW (municipal solid waste) Principal Non -MSW Management Outcome: Beginning in 1999 and completed by 2002, waste characterization data (definitions, quantities and composition) along with information on existing and alternative management practices will be available for use in policy and program development. 1. By 2003, 75% of public entities in the region will implement strategies to reuse, recycle or process non -MSW waste generated through public activities (i.e., tree waste, asphalt, concrete, ash). 2. Markets for and processing or recycling of non -MSW will increase. 3. By 2002, non -MSW that is disposed in regional landfills will not contain hazardous components in excess of 50% of hazardous waste standards, unless it is disposed in an appropriate industrial waste landfill with safeguards above the minimum required for sanitary landfills (includes C & D landfills). Landfilling Principal Landfilling Outcomes: 1. Landfill capacity is available through the year 201 7for MSW that cannot be reduced, recycled or processed. 2. Landfills are designed, operated and managed to minimize environmental harm. Intermediate Landfilling Outcomes: 1. Public entities should serve as leaders in making responsible waste management choices about landfilling. 2. Generators direct their waste to appropriate waste management facilities. Next SWAC meeting is June 10, 1998 at 5:30 pm - 4tn Floor Training Rooms in the Washington County Government Center. Respectfully submitted by, Deb Cook Committee Secretary May 20, 1998 SWAC Minutes Page 4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN SYSTEM PLAN WASTEYARD EWASTE Yard waste, including leaves, grass clippings, garden waste, and other herbaceous (non -woody) waste, has been banned from mixed -municipal solid waste (MSW), disposal facilities, and resource recovery facilities since January 1. 1990. In 1992, tree waste, including brush, branches, shrubs, stumps, and other woody plant material was also banned (Minn. Stat. §I15A.931). Yard waste and tree waste are banned from resource recovery facilities except for the purposes of reuse, composting, or co -composting (Minn. Stat. § 115A.931). Beginning in 1984, with the development of several community based yard waste compost sites, the county has shown a commitment to responsible yard waste management. Since that time, the cities and townships have taken over funding the sites (1992). However, the county remains committed to promoting yard waste reduction, providing the cities and townships with technical assistance, and encouraging the private sector to establish yard waste management projects. The county will also be expanding existing programs and alternative tree waste management options. Like the county's approach to yard waste management, its tree waste management strategy will advocate utilization, provide technical assistance to communities and private operations, and encourage private sector involvement in tree waste management projects. GOAL 4: WASHINGTON COUNTY ADVOCATES YARD WASTE AND TREE WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THAT, _FIRST, PROMOTE WASTE REDUCTION AND REUSE, AND SECOND, PROMOTE COMPOSTING. POLICY 4A: THE COUNTY ENCOURAGES BACKYARD COMPOSTING AND MULCHING OF YARD WASTE AS THE PRIMARY METHOD OF YARD WASTE REDUCTION AND - PROMOTES TREE WASTE UTILIZATION. Implementation Strategy: Washington County will continue to address the topics of backyard composting and mulching primarily through its public education and information program. As stated in the previous System Plan component titled "Public Education and Information" (page 72), the county will develop and implement a process for evaluating existing and Potential new public education and information activities by July 1, 1993. The content and vehicle for yard waste Public education and information activities will be established in this process. The county will continue to work with the Minnesota Extension Service and the County Extension Service to promote backyard composting. It will also provide technical assistance and referrals to individuals, communities. and other organizations requesting information on yard waste reduction and tree waste utilization. _-- -- The role of the county in tree waste utilization will be one of encouraging private sector involvement in tree waste 08I"Inent Projects (see Policy 4C below). The county will also develop a tree waste management plan as a roaVomnt of its Non -MSW Management Plan, to be developed by January 1, 1994 (see page 112). This plan COMPOncnt will identify tree waste management needs in the county and will develop a strategy for meeting those Dead:. 87 SYSTEM PLAN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTMir-cst Rt+VV POLICY 4B: THE COUNTY WILL CONTINUE ITS COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EXISTING CITY/TOWNSHIP YARD WASTE DROP-OFF SITES. Implementation Strategy: While the county no longer funds community-based yard waste compost sites (1992), it will continue to advoeile composting and will provide technical assistance to cities and townships operating sites, as well as, priv" operated sites. The county will also periodically evaluate the need for additional compost sites, and where appropriate, may encourage, first, the private sector, and second, specific communities to develop new sites. POLICY 4C: WASHINGTON COUNTY ENCOURAGES PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN ESTABLISHING AND OPERATING YARD WASTE AND TREE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT. Implementation Strategy: As stated above, the county will develop a tree waste management plan component, and will continue to evaluate yard waste composting needs. Both of these endeavors will give foremost consideration to the private sector in the development of potential new yard waste and tree waste management projects. 88 WASHINGTON COUNTY L7 YARD WASTE CURRENT SYSTEM: Yard waste has been prohibited in mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) since January 1, 1990. A person residing in the metropolitan area cannot place yard waste in mixed municipal solid waste, in a disposal facility or in a resource recovery facility, except for the purposes of reuse, composting or co -composting. Yard waste is currently managed in Washington County in one or more of the following manners: reduction or elimination of the generation of yard waste; backyard composting; use of community compost sites and hiring of private waste haulers to collect and manage yard waste. Washington County offers technical assistance on yard waste management to all cities and townships. Previously, the County offered financial assistance to cities and townships, but in 1992 a decision was made to discontinue funding for yard waste programs. The County also promotes the availability of compost sites through the Environmental Update, a newsletter that is distributed to all County residents twice per year. Currently, there are 7 compost sites operating in the County. Table provides information on existing compost sites as of 6/98. Table 1998 Washington County Compost Site Information Site Access to all Privately Owned? Fees Charged? County Residents Cottage Grove Yes No Yes Forest Lake No. Forest Lake and No No Township only Hugo No No No Stillwater Yes Yes-Buberl Yes Recycling and Composting St. Paul Park No. St. Paul Park and No Yes Grey Cloud residents only. Marine on St. Croix Yes No No Woodbury Yes Yes -Compost Yes Concepts SYSTEM PLAN POLICIES: The County will provide technical assistance to existing city/township yard waste drop- off sites. The County will continue to encourage private sector involvement in establishing and operating yard waste management projects. Responsibility for promotion of yard waste sites and backyard composting will be shared between the County, cities and townships OUTCOMES STRATEGIES Residents will have access to compost Cities and townships will provide sites and are in compliance with the residents with compost sites. Yard Waste Prohibition. County will provide technical assistance to cities/townships. County will assist in promoting availability of compost sites and respond to public inquiries. 6/2/98 WASHINGTON COUNTY GTON COG2� Mary L. McGlothlin Director DEPARTMENT C HEALTH, VI Rose Gree n AND LAND MANAGEMENT Office Manager Sr GOVERNMENT CENTER /��USIHT • 70.GGP•`S . 14900 61ST STREET NORTH, P.O. BOX 3803 ° STILLWATER, MN 55082-3803 Office (612) 430-6655 ° TDD (612) 439-3220 ° Facsimile Machine (612) 430-6730 WASHINGTON COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998 Resource Recovery Facility 2901 Maxwell Avenue Newport, MN (Map enclosed) Tour begins at 4:00 Meeting begins at 5:30 AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of agenda 3. Background/review of Regional Policy Plan Executive Summary/Regional Outcomes (enclosed) Planning Timeline 4. Washington County Master Plan Process Timeline and meeting schedule* 5. Summary of 1992 Washington County Master Plan * 6. Format of revised master plan Vision, goals, policies, outcomes* 7. Other Business 8. Adjourn *These materials will be distributed at the meeting OS OM C0� e a 3 � 115% Post Consumer Waste AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER °�`°• n°••• "� m Im LO 0) 11 N C7 ST P UL Q�.� O 1440 N N y­55� N A PL EOOQ U U A I ff C%T Xf t� J 1'�'t1.7iZtl�tlJ1 l�(W �+9 V ,11011680 ? ¢ iLEY Lu4f � fl #: cm <! •.. j ♦fir C ESI ETERT�i ^ * �+ ��� RD � 04 CHERT u -NEWPORT ,_. 21 ST .c 12000 ac 20 TH ST 1" 17TH ST %a K! W v ..... �: SK ES .5- 16TH 16TH ST ,v i' CORD T. �, � �c'�C� WILD RiDDE s CT X ST r CT ILD RD 2000. RIDGE � r G MARK CT KDL CT''""�m18TH Resource R{ Recovery Facility ST O 4� T 17TH ST HIGH Q�.� O 1440 N N y­55� N A PL EOOQ U U A I ff C%T Xf t� J 1'�'t1.7iZtl�tlJ1 l�(W �+9 V ,11011680 ? ¢ iLEY Lu4f � fl #: cm <! •.. j ♦fir C ESI ETERT�i ^ * �+ ��� RD � 04 CHERT u -NEWPORT ,_. 21 ST .c 12000 ac 20 TH ST 1" 17TH ST %a K! W v ..... �: SK ES .5- 16TH 16TH ST ,v i' CORD RD �, � �c'�C� WILD RiDDE s CT X ST T CT ILD RD 2000. RIDGE � ST ` MARK CT KDL CT''""�m18TH r TR n c V7s,,,T, ST O T 17TH ST HIGH 55055 L6 c a ST WOODBURY A GLE ' RD SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Source Reduction Attachment ,4 II Outcome Statement I Measures/Indicators I Notes/Rationale II In 2005, per capita and per employee waste generation rates will be no higher than the 1999 rates. Beginning in 2006, there will be a 1% per year decrease in the per capita and per employee waste generation rate for the SWMCB region. Outcomes 1. By 2003, the region will reduce 50,000 tons of commercial packaging waste based on 1996 levels. 2. By 2003, the region will reduce 20,000 tons of office paper. 3. By 2003, the region will reduce 6,500 tons of 3 d class mail. 4. By 2000, MAX will facilitate the reuse of 5,000 tons of material that would otherwise have been disposed; 10,000 tons by 2003. The 1999 waste generation rates will be determined by the 1999 MPCA two season waste sorts as well as County/SWMCB regional report information. Data from OEA, waste composition study. Data from OEA, waste composition study. Data from OEA, waste composition study. Data from MAX reports. Amount of waste generated each year. By 2005, the region will generate 235,000 tons less than projected if outcome is achieved. By 2017, the region would generate 900,000 tons less than projected. Rationale: The potential reduction statewide is 82,000 tons, based on 1996 levels'. Metro potential is 60%. Rationale: 60% of statewide potential. OEA estimates. Annual goal in MAX contract is currently 5,000 tpy. Potential reduction was developed by the OEA in conjunction with the Tellus Institute. Source Reduction - 1 SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale 5. By 2003, the region will reduce Data from waste sort. Metro potential for more: 141,000 tons of food waste. Composting: 55,000 tons Food to People: 38,000 tons Meal Planning (38,000) Home Reduction (10,000) 6. By 2003, counties will incorporate reduction guidelines at all county facilities in line with the primary outcomes. The region will achieve a 10% reduction in the amount of waste generated at county owned facilities. 7. By 2003, 50% of the region's 1. Survey. households will be able to identify five specific waste reduction activities they have practiced within the past 12 months, and 50% of the region's businesses will be able to identify three specific waste reduction/reuse changes they have implemented in the past 12 months. 111,hNi 0j/ � ,,' da.-��� Source Reduction - 2 SWMCI3 Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Toxicity Reduction II Outcome Statement I Measures/Indicators I Notes/Rationale II 'Principal Toxicity Reduction.` Outcomes:x. 1. Reduction of toxic/hazardous materials found in MSW by 2017, with progress demonstrated at 5 year intervals: - Statutorily banned materials 100% - Hazardous Materials 50% - Heavy metals 50% (This outcome cannot be reached through cross media transfers, i.e. disposing of hazardous elements in the air or water rather than in waste.) 1. Waste Sorts in 1999 and 2004 In order to access progress on reducing toxicity as well as progress on other regional goals, including recycling, processing, etc. it is proposed that the region work in consort with the MPCA to conduct a waste sort in 1999 to serve as a base line. Another waste sort should be scheduled for the year 2004 to measure intermediate progress towards the region's 20 year goals. 2. Consumer products will not 2. Amount of household hazardous require special handling because of waste collected at household toxic or hazardous components. hazardous waste facilities will decease. 1. Product prices reflect life cycle 1. Legislation or regulatory costs by 2008, focusing on requirements are in place by the products containing heavy metals, year 2008. pesticides, and pressurized 2. Prices reflect disposal costs. flammable gas cylinders. These goals are best projections since complete information on the amount of toxic/hazardous materials found in MSW at this time is not well documented. This outcome acknowledges that bans are tools for achieving a reduction in the amount of toxic/hazardous material in MSW, and are not 100% effective. Bans must be supplemented with effective collection systems, public education, monitoring and regulatory activities, etc. in order to achieve the outcome of eliminating improper disposal of banned wastes. This outcome reflects producer responsibility emphasis and can be achieved either through manufacturers and retailers increasing prices and assuming responsibility for management of wastes or through government taxes on products Toxicity Reduction - 1 Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale containing specified Life cycle costs include not only the cost to manufacture and distribute the products, but also costs associated with proper disposal of the product at the end of its useful life. 2. Two new take -back programs, or 1. Agreements/programs in place Take back programs may be very effective public/private partnerships to share 2. Effectiveness of take back for certain products, however, it is the costs of managing household programs and/or public private recommended that the region proceed hazardous waste and problem partnerships with caution with regard to comprehensive materials, are in place by 2003 3. Pre and post -measures of the support for take back programs for all with manufacturers and/or amount of a particular product in products. The reason for this is that it is consortiums. the waste stream. difficult to develop an effective, efficient 4. Measures of the amount of collection system if consumers are Candidate products include products separately managed required to take products back to computer monitors, tvs, coatings through take -back programs or numerous sources and locations. It is (paints and finishes) and mercury public/private partnerships. assumed that government programs to bearing products. support the collections of HHW and special wastes will be a necessary part of waste management for at least the next ten years. Even if take back programs could be effective in changing the way manufacturers produce products, experience of our household hazardous waste programs show that products and materials as much as 20 years old continue to come in to county sites. In light of this, it is assumed that there will continue to be role for county government in terms of collecting household hazardous waste and special materials for at least 10 years out. Toxicity Reduction - 2 Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale 3. By 2003, all consumers, businesses 1. Pre and post -surveys of and government entities are aware consumers, businesses and of how improper management of government procurement staff to toxic and hazardous materials assess their level of awareness. affects the environment and public health. 4. Hazardous ingredients in consumer 1. Legislation and/or rules will be in For pesticides and cleaners, federal rules products are disclosed via clear place. and actions are expected to require labeling by the year 2003. 2. Consumer surveys. labeling by the year 2000. The MPCA is Labeling is included on pesticides supporting this activity. With regard to and cleaning products by the year labeling for other toxic or hazardous 2000. components and ingredients in consumer products, further work must be done to identify which products should be given the highest priority. 5. Government ' a leader in the use Data reported by purchasing departments. Examples include reprocessed oil, o reprocessed and recycled antifreeze and paint. hazardous wastes and in the use of _ substitute products that do not contain hazardous products. Toxicity Reduction - 3 SWMC13 Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, .1998 Recycling Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale Principal Recyciing Uutcomes. . 1. Maintain at least 50% regional Total amount recycled (reported and Note that to achieve this outcome, the recycling rate (including a 3% estimated) as a percentage of total region, by 2003, will need to increase the waste reduction and 5% yard MSW managed. amount recycled by 260,000 tons over its waste credit). 1996 level. Measure residential tonnage per person. By use of indicators, we will obtain a Survey commercial generators on accurate picture of recycling progress. recycling efforts other than tonnage. Cost effectiveness equals getting the most Waste sorts: at generators -location; by materials collected at the least cost. industry type or classification. Concern about method used to determine % (use of estimates for commercial Monitor amount disposed at resource recycling). recovery facilities and landfills per person/employee. 2. Collect the most materials at the Cost per ton/household. Compete with waste disposal cost. least possible cost,( tlW' Sustain recycling program. e er or Comparison of different recycling programs Improve public acceptance of recycling. - source separated versus multi -sort single Improve/increase potential for economic pass, blue bag. development of markets. Recycling - 1 SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9,1998 Outcome Statement . Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale 3. Increase the recycling industr at Evaluate growth using OEA model for If economic growth increases, recycling a rate equal to the rate of Minnesota value added (two primary must increase and industry must increase economic growth in Minnes a. indicators; jobs, sales tax) to have more economic impact on the system and in the State. Monitor annually but evaluate trends. We need to increase the amount of Measure capital equipment expenditures recycled materials used (by manufacturers via tax exemption, and consumers) to keep pace with growth 611� Survey availability of recycled good to in waste generation. consumers (e.g. NEC recycled P.G. OEA Increase local markets capacity. recycle P.G.). . Better market prices/more Consumption of recycled goods purchased competitiveness. by public entity number of units overtime. Recycling - 2 SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Processing Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale Principal Prvicesstng Outcome: By 2017, the region will process 50% to Amount of waste processed divided by 48% continues current level of processing 90% of MSW not reduced or recycled. waste not recycled: plus 35,000 tons additional to the year 2017. Data needs: total processed at 10% "marginal landfilling". facilities Range allows for growth in processing capacity (private or public). Formula: tons -processed tons landfilled) = Factor ons processed and Acknowledges "reality" of market place and loss of regulatory tools. Processing Measures and Indices Does not preclude region moving toward 2003 2017 Total MSW 3,367,000 4,311,000 n n consideration of market participant Recycled 42%* 1,414,000 - 1,811,000 approach. Non -Recycled MSW 1,953,000 2,500,000 Current Processing 1,165,000 1,165,000 Provides flexibility for policy decisions on Added Processing 35,000 35,000 Total Processing 1,200,000 1,200,000 processing capacity. Percent of Non -Recycled MSW 61% 48% Processed Makes a "statement" that resources should * 42% Recycling Rate does not include credits for Yard Waste be shifted to reduction and recycling. and Source Reduction (Policy 5.2.2.5) 2017 Acknowledge resource conservation value of resource recovery. Non Recycled MSW = 2,500,000 Processing Level = 48% 1,200,000 processed Landfilled = 52% 1,300,000 landfilled Processing Level = 90% 2,250,000 processed Landfilled = 10% 250,000 landfilled Processing - I SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Continue to operate as the region has been through 2003. 2. By 2000, metropolitan capacity Legislation is passed, permit at HERC is 3% is 35,000 tons, or what could be will be increased by 3% by increased. achieved through change in HERC's increasing the permit at NERC. permit. 3. By 2003, metropolitan processing Data - amount processed. Increasing capacity is difficult, and a range capacity will increase up to 13% gives flexibility to work in a variety of above current capacity. Compare to capacity range. ways. 11 13%is= 35,000 tons at HERC 50,000 tons at non -metro facilities (40,000 @Wright) (10,000 @ ECSWC) - 73,500 tons at Newport (to reach 500,000 ton permit level) 158,500 tons Range creates room to negotiate and doesn't tie the region to any one facility. Processing -2 SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale 4. Generators will be informed Survey tools This outcome should be accomplished in consumers of waste management — baseline by 2000 conjunction with the implementation services, including having an — biennial survey after that strategies for the integrated solid waste understanding of generator management system. responsibilities and liabilities. 5. By the end of 2000, an Completed implementation plan. Need to know if RDF facilities will be implementation plan to process functionally useful to 2017, under what waste available through 2017 will conditions, and at what cost. be completed. Processing - 3 SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1995 IST A T" T V 7 M- 1\Vll-1V10 VV Iviall'dy-Clnclll Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale Principal Non MSW Mainagement Outconne , . . Beginning in 1999 and completed by 2002, waste characterization data (definitions, quantities and composition) along with information on existing and alternative management practices will be available for use in policy and program development. Consistent definitions of non -MSW agreed upon. Regional data collection system established. Regional data base management system established. Existing and alternative management practices identified. This is a mid-term outcome for which the SWMCB would be accountable. It incorporates a number of policies in the Policy Plan, including Policy 5.5.2.1. Achievement of this outcome will provide the data necessary to support and develop strategies for achieving other non -MSW management outcomes and the goals in the Policy Plan. Intermediate Non -MSW Managern�int Outcome 1. By 2003, 75% of public entities in Data reported by governmental entities. This is a mid-term outcome for which the the region will implement SWMCB and individual counties would be strategies to reuse, recycle or accountable. It incorporates a number of process non -MSW waste policies in the Policy Plan. An established generated through public activities private sector system exists as an (i.e. tree waste, asphalt, concrete, alternative to land disposal or burning of ash) these wastes streams. Achievement of this outcome would a) preserve landfill capacity for those waste streams for which no alternative management system exits; b) reduce impact on air quality caused by burning and methane generation caused by burying tree waste; c) conserve natural resources since recycled material would Non -MSW Management - 1 SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale replace use of virgin material. The outcome can be achieved with relatively minimal effort/resources. 2. Markets for and processing or Increase in percent of non -MSW recycled This is a long term outcome for which the recycling of non -MSW will or processed. SWMCB and individual counties would be increase. accountable. The achievement of the principal outcome described above will allow the development of a more specific outcomes and indicators as well as strategies. 3. By 2002, non -MSW that is Data from facilities and the counties that This is a mid-term outcome for which disposed in regional landfills will regulate those facilities. individual counties would be accountable. not contain hazardous components Incorporates a number of policies in the in excess of 50% of hazardous Policy Plan, including Policy 5.1.2.1, waste standards, unless it is Policy 5.4.2.4, Policy 5.5.2.2. disposed in an appropriate industrial waste landfill with safeguards above the minimum required for sanitary landfills (Includes C & D landfills.) Non -MSW Management - 2 SWMCII Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 11998 Landfilling Obtain annual landfill reports that include: • overall available capacity • overall rate of use by type of waste • rate of use by type of waste from metropolitan area Permitted capacity is equal to or greater than projected annual need. 2. Landfills are designed, operated, and Landfills meet criteria set forth in Policy managed to minimize environmental 5.4.2.4. harm. No significant enforcement violations are found. No significant environmental impacts on neighboring properties. Intermediate Landfilling Outcomes Capacity and need are constantly changing and need to be evaluated annually. Projected capacity and need should be determined based on a five year projection. The approach used to address landfill capacity assumes that non -MSW will be managed appropriately so as not to compete with MSW for sanitary landfill capacity. Landfills currently used should be evaluated for compliance with Policy 5.4.2.4. 1. Public entities should serve as leaders State monitors public entity compliance. Consistent with Policy 5.4.2.5. in making responsible waste management choices about landfilling. 2. Generators direct their waste to Survey generators on waste management appropriate waste management facilities used. facilities. Landfilling - 1 SWMCB Regional Outcomes: Working Draft- April 9, 1998 Outcome Statement Measures/Indicators Notes/Rationale 5. By 2003, 80% of the region's Data from public entities. The Guidelines will be completed in 1998. public entities will incorporate The SWMCB would be accountable for sustainable architectural guidelines achieving the outcome but would need to in bid specifications for the collaborate with others. Note that construction of government University of Minnesota has received a buildings. grant to train architects in the use of the Guidelines. Non -MSW Management - 3 SWMCB Master 1Am Policies: - -- ► Guidelines ► Establish framework ► Direct strategies Attachment B Outcomes: ► Results ► Link directly to vision and goal ► Should be "optimistic"; but grounded in reality ► Measurable: Statements to include "how much" and "by when" Strategies: ► Activities: What we do to achieve outcomes Implementation oriented How to's Measures 10. Indicators 10. Best ones focus on outcomes, not strategies 10. Should be looped into process to support decision-making planning, budgeting, and continuous improvement Executive Summary The Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan (Policy Plan) is the plan for managing the seven -county Metropolitan Area's solid waste through the year 2017. The Policy Plan was jointly prepared by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance ("OEA") and the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB), a joint powers board of the seven metropolitan counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. The Policy Plan will steer the region's solid waste management system toward a vision of sustainability. To achieve a sustainable environment, the region must manage its waste in a manner that will not compromise future generations' ability to meet their own needs. A sustainable environment conserves resources, protects public health and the environment and bears the associated costs. Section 2 of the Plan sets forth a vision of sustainability and establishes five specific goals for the region, as the key components of sustainability. The goals for the region are: 1. To manage waste generated in the Metropolitan Area in a manner that will protect the environment and public health and that will conserve resources. 2. To manage the region's waste in an integrated waste management system, in accordance with the hierarchy', in order to minimize landfilling. 3. To manage the region's waste in a cost-effective manner and will strive to minimize the potential liability of the citizens, businesses and taxpayers in the region. 4. To encourage generators to take responsibility for the environmentally sound management of their waste. 5. To allocate solid waste management system costs equitably among those who use or benefit from the system. As Section 3 describes, the region's solid waste management system is one of the most successful in the nation and represents a vast improvement over past management practices. From 1985 to 1995, landfilling dropped from nearly 80 percent to18 percent of the waste generated in the region. Recycling climbed from 19 percent to 41 percent, and processing of waste to recover energy rose dramatically from 1 percent to almost 40 percent. These efforts conserved over 500 acres of landfill space. The conservation benefits, *however, extend well * The hierarchy of preferred waste management practices is established in Minn. Stat. § 115A.02. beyond landfill space and include the conservation of materials, energy, air and water. Innovative research undertaken in preparing this Policy Plan showed that in 1995 alone, the value of the resource conservation benefits of the Metropolitan Area's solid waste management system exceeded S129 million for materials, S56 million for energy and S43 million for emissions. Nevertheless, the region faces a very difficult task in maintaining the system's performance levels. New challenges include the recent judicial decisions limiting Counties' authority to control the flow of wastes, as well as increased reliance on the Counties' property taxes to subsidize the system. If prices charged generators are below cost, there is less incentive to reduce, reuse and recycle. Moreover, as described in Section 4, volumes of waste are rapidly increasing as the rate of waste generation per person and per employee continues to grow. This effect is compounded by the projected growth in the number of people and jobs in the region over the next 20 years. Thus, in 1995, the region managed nearly 2.8 million tons of waste; by 2017, the region is expected to generate over 4.3 million tons of waste. This represents an increase of 54 percent. In six years, it is estimated that the region will generate 20 percent more waste or 3.3 million tons. The purpose of the Policy Plan is to provide guidance to policy -makers. Limitations on the use of flow control, combined with an ever growing MSW waste stream, make more apparent the role of government if the goals established in the 1980 Waste Management Act are to be met. The alternative is to abandon the goal of landfill abatement and live with the consequences of increased landfilling. Section 5 sets forth specific policies addressing the management practices of reduction, recycling, processing, MSW and non -MSW landfilling, as well as waste collection, governance and cost and finance policies. The Plan and its policies assume that government has responsibility to ensure that waste is managed in a manner that protects the environment and public health and conserves resources. These policies, however, reflect a significant shift in the tools used by government, from regulation of the market place to an approach based in leadership, education, incentives and market participation. As described in Section 5.1, source and toxicity reduction represents the most sustainable waste management practice and results in the greatest resource conservation benefits. It is also the most difficult to implement, especially in light ofthe subsidies of system costs. The State goal of 10 percent reduction by 2003 means that the region must generate 900,000 tons less than projected. The policies in Section 5.1 call for increased emphasis on reduction and aggressive reduction programs that will require leadership from both government and manufacturers. Further, the State and region will work to educate consumers about choices that will promote both source and toxicity reduction. Section 5.2 establishes policies designed to maintain the current recycling performance level of 50 percent of MSW generated. This means recycling 1.4 million tons in 2003, an increase of 315,000 tons over the current effort, because of the growth in the waste stream. To ii accomplish this goal the policies focus on government leadership, increasing commercial recycling and assuring a stable recycling collection system and markets. Waste processing is needed to manage the remaining large volume of waste, as discussed in Section 5.3. The region currently processes 1.1 million tons of waste. By 2003, 762,000 tons of waste will remain available for processing and landfilling, assuming current processing facility capacity is fully utilized and 50 percent of the waste stream is recycled. Because existing processing capacity is nearly fully used, additional capacity will be necessary to meet the growing demand. Yet, counties have been restricted in their ability to build new facilities by recent court decisions limiting counties' authority to assure the delivery of waste to processing facilities. The policies promote cooperation among the counties to use the existing facilities to the greatest extent possible, and encourage the State to work to remove constraints on existing combustion capacity. The policies attempt to minimize risk to taxpayers and counties. Educating generators about the risks and potential liability associated with landfills plays a key role in encouraging processing. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 address the landfilling of MSW and non -MSW. The MSW landfilling policies set forth in this Policy Plan acknowledge that landfills have a role in the integrated waste management system, although landfilling continues to be the least preferred management practice. The policies recognize that the private sector has primary responsibility for the delivery of landfilling services. Generators have the responsibility to purchase such services in an environmentally sound manner; and government has the responsibility to regulate landfills to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens. The non -MSW management policies recognize the need for greater attention to non -MSW management and the need for better data in order to best determine environmentally sound management practices. Section 5.6 recognizes waste collection as an integrated part of the solid waste management system and promotes responsible waste collection practices. Section 5.7 addresses the governance of solid waste and acknowledges the SWMCB's evaluation of regional governance. It sets a deadline of December 31, 1998, for the establishment of a long-term governance structure to oversee the solid waste management system. Finally, Section 5.8 addresses system costs and finance. The policies recognize the value of economic incentives to encourage appropriate waste management. The policies also stress the importance of shifting the burden of government funding away from county revenue sources (property taxes and service charges) to state-wide funding. Given the limited availability of public resources, government should target public funds for policy priorities and measure and evaluate its performance. Section 6 of the Policy Plan discusses the implementation of the Plan, research needs, reporting, county master plan requirements and implementation monitoring. It also addresses the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Account, as well as the relationship of the Plan to the Waste Management Act re-examination process. in