Regional Solid Waste Master Plan

Transcription

1 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan Approved: September 22, 2004

2 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board Regional Solid Waste Master Plan Adopted: September 22, 2004 Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan Compiled:, SWMCB Chair: Dick Stafford, Washington County Commissioner SWMCB Vice-Chair: Susan M. Haigh, Ramsey County Commissioner Regional Policy Development Committee Chair: Joseph Harris, Dakota County Commissioner Board Members: Jim Kordiak Anoka County Peter McLaughlin Hennepin County Dennis Berg Anoka County Randy Johnson Hennepin County Jim Ische Carver County Victoria Reinhardt Ramsey County Tom Workman Carver County Susan M. Haigh Ramsey County Joseph Harris Dakota County Dennis Hegberg Washington County Michael Turner Dakota County Dick Stafford Washington County Ex-Officio Members: Gordon E. Wegwart Art Dunn Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance This Regional Solid Waste Management Master Plan was prepared under the direction of the SWMCB Regional Policy Development Committee Members. For more information, contact the SWMCB at: Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. 477 Selby Avenue, St. Paul, MN Fax:

3

4 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan Foreword 1 Executive Summary..2 Chapter I: Introduction...3 A. Master Plan Organization 3 B. Master Plan Preparation...4 C. Public Participation..4 D. Master Plan Implementation.5 Chapter II: Vision, Goals, and Key Themes 6 A. Vision 6 B. Goals...6 C. Key Themes.7 Chapter III: Description of the Solid Waste Management System.9 A. Introduction.9 B. History of the Solid Waste Management System 9 C. Description of Existing Solid Waste Management System 10 D. Benefits and Values of the System.11 E. Critical Challenges Facing the Region in the Next Planning Cycle 30 Chapter IV: Regional Outcomes, Regional Strategies, and County Supporting Initiatives..32 Part One: Introduction...32 Part Two: Toxicity Reduction 33 a) Introduction..33 b) Regional Outcomes, Strategies, and County Supporting Initiatives.34 Part Three: Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling.39 a) Introduction...39 b) Regional Outcomes, Strategies, and County Supporting Initiatives.39 Part Four: Processing...48 a) Introduction...48 b) Regional Outcomes, Strategies, and County Supporting Initiatives..49 i

5 Part Five: Landfilling.53 a) Introduction..53 b) Regional Outcomes, Strategies, County Supporting Initiatives 53 Part Six: NonMSW Management 56 a) Introduction...56 b) Regional Outcomes, Strategies, County Supporting Initiatives 56 Part Seven: Regulation.60 Part Eight: Cost and Finance..62 Chapter V: Performance Measurement.64 Appendices Appendix A: Major Milestones in Minnesota Solid Waste History.65 Appendix B: Summary of Master Plan Public Participation Focus Groups.73 Appendix C: Regional and County Solid Waste Management Activities 81 Appendix D: County Ordinances Related to Solid Waste Management.89 Appendix E: Performance Measurement.90 Appendix F: Solid Waste Management Acronyms.98 Appendix G: Glossary of Solid Waste Terms..99 Appendix H: Statutory Definitions and Obligations.105 ii

6 Foreword Prior to 1970, the Twin Cities metropolitan area faced a host of serious challenges related to managing solid and hazardous waste. Open burning and open dumping of waste were the most common methods of waste management. These practices led to significant environmental problems, including fires, the release of toxins into the air, and the leaching of hazardous chemicals into the land and groundwater. In the 1970s and 1980s, federal and state government responded to the challenges by passing four key pieces of legislation that changed how the region manages its waste: In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA established the solid waste hierarchy, which places emphasis on recycling, resource conservation and resource recovery. In addition, the RCRA established Subtitle D, which required solid waste planning and new regulations for landfills. Also in 1976, the State of Minnesota passed the Metropolitan Solid Waste Act (Chapter 473), which required planning for solid waste management in the metropolitan area and solid waste master plans for each county. In 1980, the State passed the Waste Management Act, establishing the goal of fostering an integrated waste management system and a preference of reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and resource recovery over landfilling. Metropolitan counties were charged with planning, developing, and managing an integrated solid waste management system. In 1989, the addition of SCORE (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment) legislation to the Waste Management Act established recycling goals, required political subdivisions to develop and implement programs or practices to meet their recycling goals, and provided funding for recycling, waste reduction and market development activities. In 1984, solid waste management became a primary tool for protecting the region s environmental and public health and for conserving natural resources. As home to more than half the state s population and labor force, the metropolitan counties have become increasingly aware of the need for a coordinated approach to planning in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Therefore, in 1989, the seven metropolitan counties created the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB), whose mission is to increase the efficiency and environmental effectiveness of the region s solid waste management system. Today, the members of the SWMCB include Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington Counties. In the beginning of the 21 st century, the region faces new challenges stemming from changing demographics; growth in population; employment and waste generation; a stagnant recycling rate; limited capacity to process waste; and increases in landfilling. Furthermore, new products with components that are toxic or difficult to recycle are frequently and consistently introduced to the marketplace. The region is challenged with fostering generator responsibility, product stewardship, and sound solid waste management in a market-driven system. To address these challenges, the region will need the same kind of unity, commitment to the environment and innovation that led to the creation of the SWMCB and our solid waste management system. Regional Foreword Page 1 of 1

7 Executive Summary The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan) is the plan for managing the six-county metropolitan area's solid waste through the year The Master Plan was prepared by the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, a joint powers board of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington, in conjunction with the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA). The Master Plan was prepared to fulfill the requirements of Minn. Stat. 115A.46 and The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan is the second Master Plan to adopt a strong regional approach to solid waste planning. The six metropolitan counties, through the SWMCB, jointly prepared the regional core of the Master Plan. Each of the counties developed their supplemental portion of the Master Plan addressing individual county issues. The intent of the regional approach is to work toward a common vision and common goals, while recognizing the diversity of the counties. The Vision, Goals, and Key Themes for the region incorporate the direction of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and are described in Chapter II of the Master Plan. The Master Plan reflects a systematic effort to move the regional 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. The four Goals represent elements of the vision of sustainability. The Key Themes identified in this section of the Master Plan are reflected throughout the Plan and stress the importance of all generators, businesses, manufacturers, and government entities taking responsibility for the management of waste in accordance with the State's hierarchy of preferred waste management practices. Chapter III of the Master Plan describes the existing solid waste management system. In 2003, the sixcounty region managed 3.4 million tons of waste in accordance with the hierarchy of preferred waste management practices. Despite the successes of the system, the region faces alarming growth in waste generation over the next 20 years as population and employment increase. The metropolitan area is projected to experience a 22% growth in people living in 29% more households and working in 26% more jobs in 2020 than in As a result, it is estimated that the regional solid waste management system will have to manage approximately 4.3 million tons of waste per year by 2010 and 6.5 million tons per year by This chapter provides an overview of the critical issues facing the region as it attempts to manage its growing waste stream. Chapter IV describes how the region will work to manage the region's waste through toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse, and recycling, processing and landfilling, as well as nonmsw management. This chapter sets forth the Regional Outcomes, Regional Implementation Strategies, and County Supporting Initiatives for each management practice or tier of the hierarchy. This Master Plan shifts the region's focus and resources higher on the hierarchy, establishes toxicity reduction as a top priority, and works to reinvigorate recycling. Additionally, the Master Plan recognizes the new opportunities and benefits of source-separated organics management in the regional solid waste management system. The Master Plan promotes the full utilization of the three waste-to-energy facilities serving the region, but recognizes the need to reduce the costs and public subsidies of this mature element of the regional system. Finally, the Master Plan recognizes the need to place greater attention on the appropriate management of nonmsw, a significant waste stream with nearly 2.3 million tons per year landfilled in disposal facilities serving the region. Chapter V of the Master Plan addresses the measurement of the region's performance in achieving the Regional Outcomes and implementing the Regional Strategies and County Supporting Initiatives. Regional Executive Summary Page 1 of 1

8

9 Chapter I: Introduction A. Master Plan Organization The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan) is the second Master Plan to adopt a strong regional approach to solid waste planning. Six of the metropolitan counties, through the SWMCB, jointly prepared the regional core of the Master Plan. Each of the counties developed supplemental portions of the Master Plan addressing individual county issues. The intent of the regional approach is to work toward a common vision and common goals, while recognizing the diversity of the counties. The structure of the regional planning model is defined in the SWMCB Joint Powers Agreement. The Joint Powers Agreement states that the Master Plan shall include jointly negotiated solid waste management outcomes for the region, implementation strategies to accomplish the regional outcomes, and jointly negotiated solid waste management outcomes for each of the counties (entitled County Supporting Initiatives, or CSIs, in the Master Plan). The figure on the next page illustrates the model for the Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan. The shaded center circle contains the regional elements. The regional vision, goals and policies from the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan (Policy Plan) established a framework for solid waste management in the region and guided the development of the Master Plan. The regional outcomes and strategies presented in the Master Plan establish measurable outcomes and implementation strategies that help move the region towards achieving its vision and goals. Implementing regional strategies will require a significant contribution from each county. The role of each county in implementing each regional strategy is not included in this Master Plan, but will be decided during annual work plan and budget processes. In addition to regional outcomes and strategies, the Master Plan includes CSIs. Both regional strategies and CSIs are designed to work toward achieving the regional outcomes. In general, a CSI reflects the expertise and/or particular need of a county (or group of counties) on an issue in which the results or information learned can be helpful elsewhere in the region to work toward a regional outcome. By including CSIs in the Master Plan, a county has committed to making a significant effort on those initiatives, to making information regarding the CSIs available to the region, and to being accountable through the SWMCB to the other counties regarding progress on their CSIs. The counties' portions of the regional Master Plan contain unique visions, goals, policies, outcomes, and strategies. These individual elements are intended to supplement, rather than duplicate or contradict, the Master Plan (see Figure 1.1, next page). I. Regional Introduction Page 1 of 3

10 Figure 1.1: Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan Organization B. Master Plan Preparation Minn. Stat , subd. 1, requires each metropolitan county, following the adoption or revision of the Policy Plan, to prepare and submit a solid waste master plan to the director of the OEA. This Master Plan was prepared following adoption of the Policy Plan in December of Revisions to the Master Plan will occur as required in Minn. Stat , subd. 1. As outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement, the SWMCB used an outcome-based planning model for the preparation of the Master Plan, building upon specific outcomes and strategies to support the achievement of the overall vision and goals stated in the Policy Plan. When a year for implementation of a strategy or completion of an outcome is given, it is assumed that the date of completion will be December 31 of that year, unless otherwise specified. C. Public Participation The SWMCB held three public information meetings to solicit comments on proposed outcomes and strategies for the Master Plan. The SWMCB held a waste industry forum on July 22, 2004 and a citizen/business focus group on July 27, The purpose of the focus group was to solicit comments from people not affiliated with the waste management profession. Finally, the SWMCB met with municipal recycling managers and coordinators on August 12, In addition, each SWMCB member county consulted its solid waste advisory committee to solicit input on the development of individual county master plans. D. Master Plan Implementation I. Regional Introduction Page 2 of 3

11 The SWMCB and the counties will make a significant contribution to the solid waste management system during the next planning period. However, the Policy Plan and this Master Plan call for a greater role by the private sector, waste generators and other stakeholders in working toward the public vision for waste management. The SWMCB and the counties recognize that collaboration with the state and federal governments and the private sector will be necessary. I. Regional Introduction Page 3 of 3

12 Chapter II: Vision, Goals and Key Themes A. Vision The vision and goals in the Policy Plan, adopted December 2003, provide the foundation for the policies in the Policy Plan and for the Master Plan s outcomes, strategies, and county supporting initiatives. The vision for the region, as established in the Policy Plan, is as follows: A sustainable community seeks a better quality of life for current and future residents by maintaining nature s ability to function over time. It minimizes waste, prevents pollution, promotes efficiency, and develops resources to revitalize local economies. The waste management system is a component of the infrastructure of a sustainable community. Therefore, solid waste will be managed by technologies and methods that support sustainable communities and environments. The solid waste hierarchy, with its associated goal of protecting the state s air, land, water, and other natural resources and the public health, is central to attaining the objectives of sustainability and solid waste management. B. Goals In addition to the vision, four specific goals in the Policy Plan provide the basis for which the outcomes in the Master Plan were developed. The goals represent elements of the vision of sustainability. The Policy Plan recognizes that the goals may conflict, in part (e.g., protecting the environment and minimizing costs), and notes that such conflicts are part of the challenge of achieving a sustainable waste management system. The goals for the region, as established in the Policy Plan, are as follows: Goal 1: To manage waste in a manner that will protect the environment and public health and that will conserve natural resources. Goal 2: To manage waste in an integrated waste management system in accordance with the hierarchy in order to minimize landfilling, with an increased focus on maximizing reduction of toxicity and volume of waste, reuse, recycling and source-separated organic waste management. Goal 3: To manage waste in a cost-effective manner that maximizes environmental benefits and minimizes long-term financial liability for citizens, businesses and taxpayers. Goal 4: To cause generators to take responsibility for the environmentally sound management of their waste and to allocate solid waste management system costs equitably among those who use or benefit from the system. II. Vision, Goals and Key Themes Page 1 of 3

13 C. Key Themes The Policy Plan incorporates seven key themes. These themes were given special emphasis in the development of the Master Plan and will be the major focus of the next six-year planning period ( ). The key themes for the next planning cycle are as follows: Waste as a Resource. Vast amounts of materials are thrown away in the metropolitan area - materials that could be designed to reduce waste or be reused, recycled or recovered for resource value. The Policy Plan advocates a transition to a new way of thinking about waste, based on principles of sustainability and resource conservation. Treating waste as a resource reduces pollution. It can initiate cost savings by using resources more efficiently. Considering waste as a resource allows greater flexibility to deal with challenges facing the metropolitan area s solid waste system. Solid Waste Management Hierarchy. The Policy Plan stresses the need to manage waste in an integrated system in accordance with the hierarchy of preferred waste management practices, with an emphasis on waste reduction and reuse in order to promote resource conservation and environmental protection. Scientific research has pointed out the environmental benefits of the hierarchy, such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions resulting from waste reduction and recycling. Generator Responsibility. The Policy Plan contains policies to aggressively foster and encourage responsibility at multiple levels (personal, corporate, government). While, from a legal perspective, generators (a person or entity that produces waste) are inherently responsible for what they produce, surveys show that most believe that their responsibility ends once the waste is hauled away. The Policy Plan clearly states that generators are responsible for the waste they produce. That means generators must make wise purchasing and wise disposal decisions paying the true cost of managing waste and evaluating the effects of their waste disposal decisions. Government as a Leader. Government provides health care, feeds and houses people, manufactures goods, provides a variety of services, builds structures, and more. In all of these activities, waste is generated. The policies in the Policy Plan are designed to steer the region toward a vision, and government will have to lead the way by assuring that government actions are consistent with the Policy Plan. Product Stewardship. The Policy Plan steers the region toward more product stewardship, with the intent being that government will reduce its role in the management of some wastes, while those that produce, sell, and use products will assume greater responsibility for the management of products at the end of their useful lives. Product stewardship means that all parties involved in designing, manufacturing, selling, and using a product take responsibility for environmental impacts at every stage of that product s life. In particular, product stewardship requires manufacturers to share in the financial and physical responsibility for collecting and recycling products at the end of their useful lives. Private Sector Initiative. In many parts of the United States indeed, in parts of Minnesota government is the primary provider of waste management services. In the metropolitan area, however, there has been a long history of solid waste services provided by private businesses and II. Vision, Goals and Key Themes Page 2 of 3

14 nonprofits. Policies in the Policy Plan call for a greater role by the private sector in solving waste management dilemmas consistent with the public vision for waste management. Reinvigorate Recycling. The metropolitan area is a national leader in recycling. The recycling rate has flattened since the late 1990s, in spite of the significant positive economic impact that recycling has had on Minnesota. The Policy Plan seeks to reinvigorate recycling so that Minnesota can more fully realize the environmental and economic benefits of conserving resources by separating recyclables from trash. II. Vision, Goals and Key Themes Page 3 of 3

15 Chapter III: Description of the Solid Waste Management System A. Introduction Approximately 2.6 million people live in the metropolitan area and about 1.5 million people are employed in the metropolitan area. In addition, almost one-half of the tourists visiting Minnesota visit the metropolitan area. In 2003, an estimated 3.4 million tons of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW), and 2.3 million tons of nonmsw (such as construction and demolition waste, industrial waste, and medical waste) were produced, collected, transported, and managed in some manner in the metropolitan area. The system designed to deal with this huge amount of waste is composed of private and public services that continually handle the variety of waste materials coming out of homes, businesses, and institutions in the region. This waste is managed by a regional solid waste management system. This system offers tremendous value to the region, in both environmental and economic benefits, yet it is faced with significant challenges during the next planning cycle. This section of the Master Plan provides a brief history of solid waste management in the region, a description of the existing solid waste management system, a summary of the value and benefits of the system, and an overview of critical issues facing the region in the next planning cycle. B. History of the Solid Waste Management System Solid waste management has changed significantly over the last 50 years. A brief summary of major milestones is included below and a more detailed timeline is included in Appendix A. Prior to 1970, open burning and open dumping were the most common methods of waste management. These practices led to significant environmental problems, including fires, the release of toxins into the air, and the leaching of hazardous chemicals into the land and groundwater. This period also marked the rise of the "throwaway lifestyle" and the use of synthetic materials. Households began to generate more waste from disposable products and packaging materials. Households also began to dispose of toxic substances that ended up in open dumps and landfills. In the 1970s, open dumps were closed and sanitary landfills were established as the primary method of land disposal. In 1976, Congress passed RCRA, an act that established the solid waste hierarchy, which places emphasis on recycling, resource conservation and resource recovery. In addition, RCRA established subtitle D, which required solid waste planning and new regulations for landfills. Also in 1976, the State of Minnesota passed the Metropolitan Solid Waste Act (Chapter 473), which required planning for solid waste management in the metropolitan area and solid waste master plans for each county. In 1980, the State of Minnesota passed the Waste Management Act, establishing the goal to foster an integrated waste management system and the pursuit of reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and resource recovery over landfilling. Metropolitan counties were charged with planning, developing, and managing an integrated solid waste management system. In 1985, the State of Minnesota required that unprocessed municipal solid waste generated in the metropolitan area could not be disposed of in landfills after January 1, Later, the state modified this requirement to allow the landfilling of waste that has been certified as "unprocessible". The first resource recovery facility in the metropolitan area opened in With the increasing amount of garbage and the construction of additional resource recovery facilities, government implemented policies to control the increasing amount of garbage and how it was managed. III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 1 of 23

16 In 1994, the Supreme Court struck down government s authority to control the flow of waste, finding that waste flow control was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. Since then, using hauler contracts and subsidies, counties have encouraged the delivery of waste to waste-to-energy and composting facilities. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, waste generation continued to increase. The State of Minnesota responded with the passage of SCORE legislation in 1989, which set mandated county recycling goals and established state funding for waste reduction, recycling and problem materials management through a sales tax applied to garbage collection services. In the 1998 Master Plan, the state and metropolitan area began a shift towards a new way of thinking about solid waste management, away from landfills and toward an integrated waste management system that was rooted in a vision of sustainability. This new way of thinking emphasizes generator responsibility, product stewardship and treating waste as a resource, which appear as key themes in the Policy Plan. Over the last six years, through the SWMCB, metropolitan area counties have moved towards greater regional collaboration to carry out the vision of sustainability. Highlights of these activities are included in Appendix B. The legislative directives and the active response of the metropolitan counties produced a successful solid waste management system, which achieves some of the highest recycling and resource recovery levels in the United States. Nonetheless, during the past several years, the rate of growth of the waste stream has outstripped recycling and waste processing and the use of landfills continues to increase. III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 2 of 23

17 C. Description of the Existing Solid Waste Management System Since the passage of the Waste Management Act, the metropolitan area's municipal solid waste management system has changed significantly. Metropolitan counties have developed an integrated approach to MSW management. This approach reflects the state s preferred waste management practices delineated in Minn. Stat. 115A.02, emphasizing waste reduction and reuse, recycling, source-separated composting, and waste-to-energy over land disposal. In response, the counties developed reduction, recycling and household hazardous waste programs as well as sponsored three waste-to-energy processing facilities. Because the government is no longer able to control the flow of waste, the private sector has been and continues to be a key participant in the system. The following information summarizes the components of the existing solid waste management system. Overview of Waste Generation, Composition, and Collection Historic Waste Generation Municipal solid waste generation grew from 3.0 million tons in 1998 to nearly 3.4 million tons in Figure 4.1 shows historic waste generation trends. 4 Figure 4.1: MSW Generation Tons (millions) Forecasted Waste Generation The metropolitan area is projected to experience significant growth in population and employment over the next 20 years. There will be 22% more people, living in 29% more households, and working in 26% more jobs in 2020 than in Population and employment growth are closely linked to waste generation. The MSW generation forecasts prepared for this Master Plan estimate that MSW generation would continue to grow at a significant rate over the next 20 years in the metropolitan area. The growth in waste generated will result from residential, commercial, and industrial activities. These increases will result in more waste generation, both nonmsw and MSW. While the current system manages over 3.3 million tons of waste per year, it is estimated that the system will have to manage approximately 4.3 million tons of waste per year by 2010 and 6.5 million tons per year by Figure 4.2 shows waste generation forecasts for the next 20 years. The projection was prepared by the OEA by extrapolating historic per capita waste generation (2.1% average growth ) by the population projections from the State Demographic Office at the Minnesota Department of Planning. III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 3 of 23

18 7.0 Figure 4.2: Projected Metropolitan Area Waste Growth Tons (millions) Waste Composition In 1999, the SWMCB and the OEA conducted a waste composition study to analyze the character of MSW deposited at landfills and resource recovery facilities in the region. This study provides valuable information about exactly what materials people in the region are throwing away, and is important in developing solid waste policy. For example, the study highlights the opportunity to reinvigorate recycling. In spite of a recycling rate of almost 50%, large volumes of recyclable materials are still thrown out each year. In addition, 27% of the waste stream is organic material, much of which could be recovered through food rescue, recycling, or composting. Figure 4.3 provides a breakdown of the major components of MSW according to the study. Figure 4.3: MSW Composition (1999) Other Waste 18.3% HHW/HW 0.3% Paper 34.2% Problem Materials 1.8% Organic Materials 27.3% Glass 2.7% Metals 4.4% Plastic 11.0% Using waste composition and other data, one can calculate that the trash tossed by an average Twin Cities household in one year contains the following recyclable materials: Over 100 pounds of newspaper a stack over 3 feet high. III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 4 of 23

19 500 aluminum cans. 400 plastic beverage bottles. Equivalent of 28 reams of mixed paper. The composition of non-municipal solid waste is complex and involves waste materials from construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of buildings, roads, and other structures; waste generated from industrial or manufacturing processes; and solid waste generated from non-manufacturing activities such as service and commercial establishments. A detailed description of the composition of nonmsw is found in Part 6 of Chapter IV: Description of the Solid Waste Management System. Waste Collection There were 238 waste haulers licensed by metropolitan counties in 2003 to collect and transport MSW. The counties licensed about 1,600 vehicles for the collection and hauling of MSW. State law requires waste haulers to provide volume-based service. The region does not license nonmsw, recycling, or organic waste management haulers, although some individual counties do, therefore no count is available for those types of entities. Residents in 39 of 167 communities in the metropolitan area (including half of Minneapolis) are served by organized collection, in which the city or township arranges for waste management service by contract or provides its own collection service. These communities represent 30 % of the households in the region (although not all multi-family residences in these cities are included in these services). Nearly all commercial waste management services throughout the region are provided by subscription service, although some communities allow small businesses access to organized collection. Recycling collection services are provided to residents in two general ways: by subscription, in which a resident contracts with an individual hauler for service, or by municipal contract. In the metropolitan area, 94 municipalities have a government contract for service (half of Minneapolis is collected by city crews), which represents 67 % of the households in the region. Nearly all commercial recycling collection services throughout the region are provided by subscription service. Waste that is collected from generators is hauled directly to a local resource recovery facility or land disposal site, or is taken to a transfer station for aggregation and transported to facilities located further away. In the metropolitan area, there are 19 transfer stations. Of these, 14 transfer stations are licensed to accept MSW, and the remaining five may accept only construction and demolition waste. Two of the transfer stations are publicly owned, the others are all privately owned. Figure 4.4 shows processing and land disposal facilities that reported receiving waste from SWMCB counties. III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 5 of 23

20 Figure 4.4: Facilities Receiving MSW from SWMCB Counties (2001) III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 6 of 23

21 1. Toxicity Reduction Introduction There are two principal ways the metropolitan area addresses the hazardous character, or toxicity, of waste. The first is aimed at residents and consists of promoting the reduction of wastes with hazardous characteristics, and maintaining a network of household hazardous waste collection programs operated by counties. The second is aimed at commercial generators of hazardous waste and includes the regulation of federal RCRA standards for businesses in the metropolitan area and providing technical assistance. Data Trends Household Hazardous Waste System Household hazardous waste (HHW) collection programs play an important role in removing toxic materials from the waste stream for proper management. Each of the metropolitan counties has at least one year-round site for the collection of HHW and most augment these permanent sites with seasonal, temporary, or satellite locations and/or special one-day collections. These sites operate pursuant to an agreement between the counties and the state that addresses risk and liability. The agreement specifies that the state shall manage all risks associated with the management, transportation and disposal of wastes collected through HHW programs. A separate agreement between the SWMCB member counties provides for reciprocal use, which allows residents to use any of the HHW collection sites located in the six metropolitan area SWMCB counties. Over ten million pounds of HHW were collected in 2003, a slight increase over However, the amount of most types of HHW collected decreased in These decreases were offset by a 15% increase in electronic waste collected. In 2003, 26% of all HHW collected was electronic waste, and another 21% was latex paint waste. Figure 4.5 provides a breakdown of the types of HHW materials collected. Figure 4.5: Problem Materials Collected (2003) Latex Paint 21% Oil Paint 10% Motor Oil/Filters 14% Consumer Electronics 26% Lead Acid Batteries 4% Other 21% Of the hazardous waste collected by HHW facilities in 2003, 82% of it was recycled or fuel-blended, 3% was taken from product exchange shelves for reuse, and the remaining 15% that could not be reused, recycled, or fuel-blended was managed at hazardous waste incinerators or landfills. III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 7 of 23

22 Figures 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 illustrate the growth in use of HHW collection sites from 1998 to 2003 and growth in the amount of material collected. Electronic waste continues to be one of the fastest growing HHW streams, although only three counties collected this waste at their HHW collection facilities during the last planning period (note: Figure 4.8 does not include electronics collected through municipal and special event collections). Vehicles (thousands) Figure 4.6 Participation at HHW Collection Sites Pounds (millions) Figure 4.7: HHW Collected Figure 4.8: Electronic Waste Collected 4 Pounds (millions) Regulation of Commercial Hazardous Waste The metropolitan counties inspect, train, and license hazardous waste generators. Figure 4.9 shows the number of licensed hazardous waste generators and the number of inspections of hazardous waste generators, respectively. Counties also license and inspect hazardous waste transfer, storage, and processing facilities. Figure 4.9: Hazardous Waste Generators and Inspections Year Total licensed hazardous waste 8,773 9,591 9,805 9,962 9,804 9,629 generators Total hazardous waste inspections 4,252 4,460 4,471 4,863 4,587 4,585 III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 8 of 23

23 2. Waste Reduction Introduction Waste reduction (sometimes referred to as source reduction) is the nation s highest priority for managing waste. Minnesota and the region have also given waste reduction the highest priority in the hierarchy of preferred waste management practices. Data Trends Waste reduction is typically measured by the change in tons of waste generated per capita, comparing growth in total waste to growth in population, as shown in Figure This measure indicates that negligible change has occurred in the amount of waste generated per capita for several years, which may represent the achievement of a major SWMCB goal. The reasons for this are not known. It is likely that the continued slow economy of 2001, 2002, and 2003 had an impact on waste generation. Figure 4.11 shows that there is a relationship between a key economic indicator for the state (real per capita gross state product) and a waste indicator (per capita waste generation). Tons Figure 4.10: Waste Generation per Capita Figure 4.11: Per Capita Gross State Product vs. Per Capita Waste Generation Growth (Percent) Per Capita Waste Generation Real Per Capita GSP III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 9 of 23

24 3. Recycling Introduction Residential recycling programs in the region consist of curbside collection and drop-off sites, and include recycling services for both single-family and multi-family housing. Curbside recycling programs in the region are provided by haulers through a contract with a municipality, or are provided by subscription service under licensing conditions of a municipality. Most counties provide some funding for municipal programs. The private sector, municipalities, and two counties provide numerous public drop-off locations for one or more types of recyclables. Commercial recycling accounts for most of the recycling in the region. The success of the region s recycling program is not only a result of county and city efforts but of the significant contribution of the private sector. The private sector has advanced recycling through financial investments, development of markets, provision of drop-off locations, collection of recyclable materials, and the many other elements needed to develop the recycling infrastructure. Recyclables collected are taken either directly to a recycling market, a recycling broker, or to a materials recovery facility. Four firms operate materials recovery facilities that handle residential recycling materials: Waste Management in Minneapolis, BFI in Minneapolis (with a partial materials recovery facility in Inver Grove Heights), Eureka Recycling in Saint Paul, and E-Z Recycling in Saint Paul. Materials commonly recovered for recycling include: Paper and fiber (including corrugated, mixed paper, newspaper, office paper, magazines, phone books, and boxboard) Glass bottles Metals (scrap metal, aluminum and steel cans) Plastic bottles and film Food waste (to animal feed) Wood pallets Tires Used oil Appliances Certain batteries Data Trends The region s recycling rate dropped from 47.8% in 1998 to 46.4% in 2003, falling short of the regional 50% recycling goal (note: the recycling rate and goal include a 5% credit for waste reduction and a 3% credit for yard waste composting). The reasons for this are not known, but it is likely that fluctuating markets for recyclable materials and the need for more public education contributed to the drop in the recycling rate. Despite the challenge to maintain the region s recycling rate, Minnesota and the metropolitan area still remain national leaders in providing curbside recycling service and recovering recyclable material. Figure 4.12 shows the percent of total MSW recycled in the SWMCB region from III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 10 of 23

25 60% Figure 4.12: SWMCB Counties Recycling Rate % Recycled with Credits 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Materials recycled in 2003 came from the following sources: 74% from commercial/industrial/institutional (CII) recycling. 22% from residential recycling (includes single- and multi-family dwellings). 4% from mechanical/hand-sort recycling (of mixed CII and residential). In 2003, residential waste made up just over 45% (1,521,000 tons) and CII waste made up 55% (1,859,000 tons) of the total waste stream. Historically, SWMCB recycling data show that 20% to 25% of residential waste is recycled, while about 50% of CII waste is recycled. Figure 4.13 depicts residential and CII recycling by major material groups for Figure 4.13: CII and Residential Recycling By Material Groups Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Recycling Residential Recycling Est. CII 66% Doc. CII 34% Paper 45% Metal 17% Organics 27% Glass 1% Plastics 3% Paper 53% Metal 9% Glass 12% Plastics 3% Organics.04% Other 7% Problem Materials 0.2% Other 9% Problem Materials 14% III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 11 of 23

26 Yard Waste Yard waste is prohibited by law from being mixed with other MSW (Minn. Stat. 115A.931). Yard waste is either collected by MSW haulers using separate collection vehicles or by special yard waste collectors (such as lawn services). Residents also drop their yard waste off at collection sites. Yard waste in the region is managed through county, municipal, and private programs. Two counties operate yard waste collection sites that allow citizens to drop off yard waste and pick up compost. However, municipalities or private firms sponsor most yard waste sites in the region. Since the early 1990s, yard waste volumes have not been reported to the OEA, so specific data are unavailable on yard waste quantities managed in the region. III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 12 of 23

27 4. Processing/Resource Recovery Introduction Waste processing is referred to in the list of waste management methods defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.02 as resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration. In 2004, there are four waste processing facilities serving the metropolitan area, including three waste-toenergy facilities and one composting facility. Waste processed at the Hennepin Energy Resource Company, the Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility, and the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility generates enough energy to power over 100,000 homes. At full capacity, NRG Processing Solutions will compost 38,000 tons per year of source-separated organic material. Hennepin Energy Resource Company (HERC) in Minneapolis uses a mass-burn technology to combust MSW. The facility is owned by Hennepin County and operated by HERC, a division of Covanta Energy. The facility produces steam for use in making electricity and recovers ferrous metal for recycling from the ash. HERC's permitted capacity is 365,000 tons per year, but the design capacity is 442,380 tons per year. Nearly all of the 365,000 tons processed by HERC is generated in the SWMCB region. Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility (NRG-Newport) is a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) processing plant. The facility is owned and operated by NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG). Waste is delivered, shredded, and separated into three waste streams: RDF, ferrous metal, and heavier residue. RDF is transported to Xcel Energy power plants in Red Wing and Mankato where it is burned to generate electricity. The ferrous metal is recycled, and residue is delivered to a landfill. NRG-Newport s permitted capacity is 500,000 tons per year. The facility's capacity to process waste generated in the SWMCB region is 400,000 tons per year. Elk River Resource Recovery Facility (NRG-Elk River) is also a RDF processing plant. It is owned and operated by NRG. The RDF produced by NRG is burned to create electricity at the Great River Energy combustion facility at its Elk River electric power station and at Xcel's Wilmarth facility. Waste is processed in a similar manner as the NRG-Newport facility. NRG- Elk River s permitted capacity is 468,500 tons per year. The facility's capacity to process waste generated in the SWMCB region is 388,100 tons per year. Anoka, Hennepin, Sherburne Counties, and the Tri-County Solid Waste Management Commission (Benton, Stearns, and western Sherburne Counties) signed separate service agreements with Xcel Energy. The agreements were transferred to NRG in NRG Processing Solutions, located in Dakota County, is permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to operate as a processing facility. The facility is owned by NRG and operated by Specialized Environmental Technologies. The facility is designed to compost source-separated organic material (SSOM) and other organic material, and process MSW. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permit allows the facility to accept 150 tons per day of organic material and 300 tons per day of MSW, totaling 39,000 tons per year and 78,000 tons per year respectively, based on a five-day workweek. In 2004, the facility has approximately 38,000 tons per year of unused SSOM capacity and 59,000 tons per year of unused MSW capacity. (Note: Dakota County has licensed the facility, based on its design capacity, to accept 46,800 tons of organic waste and 93,600 tons of MSW per year.) III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 13 of 23

28 Data Trends The three waste-to-energy facilities serving the SWMCB region have a combined processing capacity of 1,153,100 tons, which did not change between 1998 and Although the total amount of waste processed increased between 1998 and 2003, the percentage of total available waste that was processed fell from 67% in 1998 to 50% in 2003, due to the steady growth in the waste stream. This trend mirrors the increase in the population of the SWMCB region. The region delivered 1.1 million tons and processed 1 million tons of waste in Figure 4.14 shows the percent of MSW processed in the region from Figure 4.14: Percent of MSW Processed in the Region 70% 60% 50% Percent 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 14 of 23

29 5. Landfilling Introduction Two MSW landfills are located in the region, both in Dakota County. Burnsville Sanitary Landfill is located in Burnsville and is owned by Waste Management Inc. (WMI). Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill is located in Inver Grove Heights and is owned by BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI). Burnsville and Pine Bend Landfills installed methane gas-to-energy systems in 1994 and 1996, respectively. These systems burn the methane gas generated by decaying waste in the landfills to produce electricity. Several non-metropolitan MSW landfills located within and outside of Minnesota receive waste generated in the metropolitan area. The facilities located in Minnesota include Spruce Ridge Landfill in the City of Glencoe in McLeod County and Elk River Landfill in the City of Elk River in Sherburne County, both owned by WMI. Facilities located outside of Minnesota include the Central Disposal Landfill in Lake Mills, Iowa, and Dickinson County Landfill in Spirit Lake, Iowa, both owned by WMI; Sarona Landfill in Sarona, Wisconsin, owned by BFI; the Seven Mile Creek Landfill near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, owned by Superior Services; and Timberline Landfill near Ladysmith, Wisconsin, owned by WMI. Data Trends Landfilling increased from about 724,000 tons in 1998 to about 1 million tons in Figure 4.15: Tons Landfilled in Region Tons (millions) III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 15 of 23

30

31 After two years of declining amounts, MSW landfilled out of state increased in 2003 to about 332,000 tons. Landfilling in the metropolitan area of Minnesota was nearly 362,000 tons, and non-metropolitan landfilling was nearly 230,000 tons in 2003, with both sectors posting continued increases. Figure 4.16 depicts the location of MSW landfilled from 1998 to Figure 4.16: Location of MSW Landfilled Tons (thousands) Metro Non-Metro Out Of State III. Description of the Solid Waste Management System Page 16 of 23