Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY APRIL 8, 1987, 7:00 A.M. EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS A. Analysis of Recycling Alternatives III. NEW BUSINESS A. Centralized Processing System Tours B. Container Deposit Legislation IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Draft Waste Management Report - Citizens League B. Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN AND HOEL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: APRIL 3, 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR APRIL 8, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, April 8, 1987 at 7:00 a.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center conference rooms A and B. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you unable to attend this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Wednesday. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission Meeting of March 11, 1987 is enclosed for your review on pages through — I . These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Analysis of Recycling Alternatives -- Enclosed on pages q through _ �_ you will find a series of cover pages to facilitate the combination of all alternative profiles discussed to date. Please refer to your packets for February 4th, February 25th, and March llth. Please take the sheets which indicate the profiles that have been transferred to summary and insert them in each of the appropriate packets while removing the alternative profiles. Those profiles would be found on the following pages. For February 4th, they will be on pages 9 - 30. For February 25th, they will be found on pages 5 - 8. From the March llth packet, the profiles are found on pages 6 and 7. Finally, on page it you will find a cover sheet for the profiles you have removed from respective packets. Please put these together to facilitate discussion of them. At the request of the Commission at the last meeting, Staff has prepared an outline of Solid Waste Issues, enclosed on page 13 , and categorized by Short Term Issues, Waste Abatement Philosphy and Long Term Issues. This outline should serve as the basis for the group's discussion at coming meetings. In addition, it was Staff's understanding that the Commission would be interested in a review of several combinations of waste abatement alternatives to provide a prospective during the review. You will find four scenario examples on pages 14 __ through 1'1 The examples are based upon relative level of technology and relative level of cost. Please be aware that these are not the only alternatives but are simply offered as examples of possible combinations of strategies the City could pursue. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Centralized Processing System Tour - -Staff has had conversations pertinent to the two tour possibilities earlier discussed by the Commission. First, Router Resource Recovery offers two alternatives for the Commission to consider. If you would like to see the facility in operation, they have invited us for any Tuesday at 11:00 o'clock in the morning, provided we give reasonable notice. As an alternative, we can view the system, when it is not running, any weekday at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Because these alternatives are relatively liberal, Staff has not set specific dates, but rather would offer these alternatives to the group. The second facility, the 3M Cottage Grove Incinerator, can be viewed in the late afternoon and Doug Wilcox has indicated that the facility could accept a tour of the Commission sometime late in April. The Commission may wish to consider some possible dates for that tour as well. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide Staff direction for scheduling /processing facility tours. B. Container Deposit Legislation -- Enclosed on pages )l,__ through _ Lp you will find correspondence from the League of Women Voters pertinent to the Container Deposit Legislation currently before the State Legislature. As has been discussed before, container legislation has traditionally sparked controversy between environmental concerns and the container industry. The league is encouraging individuals and organizations to join the Container Conservation Coalition, a membership list of which is found on page A While it is apparent that no municipalities have joined the coalition to date, it might be appropriate for the Commission to at least consider a position on this matter. If the Commission wishes to make a statement, the appropriate venue would be a resolution to the City Council for consideration to be forwarded to the City's legislative delegation. As an alternative, the Commission may wish to take no specific action or request additional information. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To direct staff to prepare a resolution expressing a position on Container Deposit Legislation for consideration by the City Council or request additional information in this regard. IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Draft Waste Management Report — Citizens League -- Enclosed without page numbers, you will find a copy of the Citizens League Draft on Waste Management. Please review specifically the conclusions and recommendations being considered by the group. They have softened somewhat their initial finding that no benefits be given to centralized processing, but have continued to assert that any advantages be phased out over time to provide market activity within the Waste Management System. Enclosed without page numbers, you will find copies of Chapters 3 - 8 of the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan. This is the updated draft and it incorporates many of the comments made by the Commission and Eagan Staff. Other chapters have been omitted due to their similarity to the original document. While many of the Commission recommendations have been incorporated into the plan, if you have any additional comments which you wish to make to the county in this regard, they must be returned by April 14th. Staff does not anticipate extensive additional comments but will be prepared to forward same to the county if the Commission so desires. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 a.m. �.,� .girl�..•� - -... Ad 'his ative Assistant JH /af 3 SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING Eagan, Minnesota March 11, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Wednesday, March 11, 1987, at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:08 a.m. The following members were present: Tim Hoel, Tom Mann, Earl Milbridge, Darlene Bahr, and Jon Hohenstein. Absent were: Larry Knutson, Duane Soutor, Delmer DeBilzan and Thom Yehle. Also present were: Doug Wilcox and George Kinney, lead worker in hazardous waste management for Dakota County. MINUTES Upon motion by Milbridge, seconded by Hoel, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the February 25, 1987 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were approve. HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PRESENTATION Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that Mr. George Kinney, the resource person for the meeting, had a conflict later in the morning and asked to be moved up on the agenda. Chairman Mann acknowledged the modification of the agenda and Hohenstein introduced Kinney to the Commission. He stated that Mr. Kinney is the lead worker in hazardous waste management for Dakota County and that he coordinates permits and disposal for hazardous waste producers and that a recent emphasis has been placed on household hazardous waste collection. Mr. Kinney indicated that he has been with Dakota County for 2 1/2 years and was their original hazardous waste staff person. He stated that in addition to his principal function of dealing with industrial hazardous waste generators, he is beginning to focus on household hazardous waste as well. He said that Inver Grove Heights was the first city in the state to undertake an annual household hazardous waste program. He said they are currently planning their third annual collection. He stated that Inver Grove Heights originally combined resources from Browning - Ferris Industries, the owner of Pine Bend landfill, and the State Pollution Control Agency to fund and manage their pick ups. Since Inver Grove Heights began their program, the State of Minnesota has funded roughly 18 other pick ups but does not have funds for future programs. He said that Hennepin County did the most recent collection in October of 1986. Mr. Kinney stated that he is charged to plan the County's approach to household hazardous waste collection. Mr. Kinney indicated that household hazardous waste is anything which would be hazardous if it were held by a business. Because of the small quantities involved, he said that farms and homes can dispose of materials in ways that would be illegal for business. He stated that business generators have been cleaning up their means of disposal while households have continued to throw away many hazardous materials. Apparently, he said that homes are creating the highest current hazardous waste burden on landfills. 1 He stated that the only way to affect household wastes to date is to do one day hazardous waste collections and to keep the types of materials collected separate. He stated that this works well as an educational tool because it teaches people what items are hazardous and it causes them to be more careful about using them in the future, but that it is not a cost effective or volume effective system. As an example, he stated that Inver Grove Heights served roughly 350 cars for a total cost of $25,000 at last year's collection. He also said that Hennepin County spent $79,000 for 400 cars at its collection. He said the reason for this increase was the discovery of PCB's in certain of the Hennepin County materials which raise the cost of disposal. He indicated the cost and liability are the two most significant issues facing those considering a collection. He said that liability is tracked by placing the name of the generator on the collection drums so that any landfill which must be cleaned up later will have a record of its contributors in it. He stated that liability for such wastes never ends and is treated like a ticking time bomb by many generators. He said that any household hazardous waste collection requires that some agency, either the city or the vendor taking the material must place its name on the drums and hold that liability. He stated that Pollution Control Agency took that liability for Inver Grove Heights at one of its earlier collections but refuses to do so in the future. He also stated that incineration or recycling of household hazardous waste causes its liability to the generator or collector to disappear. He said that this is the reason that incinerationary recycling is a preferred method but both are more expensive than landfilling. He said that the County would like to encourage collections but has yet to offer to accept liability for them. However, he said that the County will have to get into the household hazardous waste business when its RDF facility goes on -line in the future. Wilcox asked if Dakota County would have an incinerator at its RDF campus. Kinney responded that they would not but that they would sort materials and ship them to other locations. He said that Hennepin County can burn some of its materials at its mass burn facility, but not much. He further stated that one typical type of household hazardous waste is depressurized or aerosal containers, the contents of which can be recycled or incinerated but which cannot be thrown whole into incineration facilities due to the potential for explosion. Wilcox asked if the media has paid much attention to hazardous household waste. Kinney responded that the press has been very interested in both Inver Grove Heights and the Hennepin County collections but that a typical drop off only impacts about 5% of the population. Mann asked if part of the problem is education as to what constitutes hazards. Kinney responded that education can help people to understand what is reusable, recyclable or can be cleanly disposed. He further stated that part of the problem is the convenience of disposal at the curb and the lack of responsibility for the small generator. Hohenstein asked if it would be feasibile to separate household hazardous wastes at an intermediate processing facility with the current collection system. Kinney said no because certain hazardous wastes should not be separated and then combined. Further, he said that packer trucks often crush hazardous waste containers thereby releasing the hazardous material and contaminating other parts of the load. He said that Newport and other facilities will have hand picking stations for larger hazardous wastes like 2 pressurized containers, car batteries and the like but that smaller items and contaminated loads are not easily separated. Milbridge asked about aerosals and other pressurized containers which are not typically taken in hazardous waste collections. Kinney responded that such collections reduce impact but do not eliminate it and that such wastes must continue to go to the landfill if an incineration facility refuses to take it. He stated that the best way to handle aerosals, paints and other materials is to use them and allow them to dissipate into the air or dry onto a surface. He said that aerosal cans could be taped open or punctured to relieve pressure within them and that even old separated painted may be spread onto scrap lumber and other materials to release the hazardous agents from binding materials, etc. He said that such a release into the atmosphere where it can dissipate is preferable to such materials remaining in a liquid form in landfills where they can leach into the groundwater. Mann asked what was available in terms of education and eduational resources. Kinney responded that Inver Grove Heights uses the education committee of its solid waste task force to undertake such work. The committee used its grade schools to undertake poster contests, science units, etc. He said scout groups and 4 -H groups did leaflet drops of material provided by Citizens for a Better Environment. He also stated that documentation was available through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. He further stated that education can only offset a certain amount of the convenience involved in curbside disposal. He stated that the best response comes from people over 60 and people in their 30's who are in the process of moving. He said people in transition are forced to dispose of large quantities of leftover paints, solvents, etc. and would prefer to do it in a responsible manner if it's available. He said the greatest shortcoming of such collections are their one -time nature and lack of availability of an outlet for such wastes on a regular basis. Mann asked if there was any other means of educating adults. Kinney stated that the usual media blitzes with buttons, stickers, print and personal promotion are best. Milbridge asked how wide an area such a collection typically serves. Kinney stated that most collections attempt to serve only a closed area but that they often attract individuals from a much wider area due to the availability for a clean outlet for such materials. He said that regardless of the area served, such collections do raise issues such as who is responsible for unloading the car or trailer, what materials can be taken and who makes such decisions and how unacceptable materials will be handled. Hoel asked what the comparative costs of disposal were. Kinney responded that landfilling costs are lower than incineration or recycling initially but that the liability for the material remains as long as the material is in the ground. He said that landfilling a 5 gallon pail of hazardous waste costs $80 while incinerating can cost $270. He said that incinerating a 55 gallon drum of paint can cost $300 while a 55 gallon drum containing PCB's can cost up to $1,000 if a vendor is willing to accept it. Hoel said that he understood Kinney to say that the best thing to do is to use up the material and asked if dispersion was an acceptable disposal strategy. Kinney stated that with the components of hazarous waste, operators are supposed to when used. He said they break down, bond with other materials and disperse into the atmosphere. He stated that metals and other materials in paint will affix to material and not leach away. (10 Wilcox asked what Inver Grove Heights has done with its waste. Kinney stated that Browning - Ferris Industries and their subsidiary Cecos landfilled the material in the first year and incinerated it in the second. Bahr expressed particular concern about the liability issues involved in collection and landfilling. Kinney stated that corporate sponsors often undertake such collections for their communities because they are large generators of hazardous wastes who bear a certain level of liability anyway. Mann stated that staff should continue to coordinate the possibility of such collections with Mr. Kinney and Dakota County because of the positive impact it could have on the waste stream. He further indicated that he feels that the success of such programs could be enhanced if there were a state or county environment week or clean up program of which the hazardous waste program would be one part. Staff was directed to include this in the options considered for future analysis. Kinney thanked the group for its attention and excused himself at 8:11 a.m. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON BUSINESS RECYCLING Hohenstein introduced the draft resolution and stated that the Commission should consider whether it wanted to make the recommendation at this time or wait until it was prepared to make a full report to the Council. He stated that the Commission should consider whether it is the correct time for such a resolution, whether it is appropriate to make a general statement of the kind contained therein and how such a proposal would relate to the County master plan. He then read the entire resolution for the Commission's consideration. Bahr stated that the resolution was appropriate because i focuss on private sector alternatives and provided the best available list of those alternatives for local businesses. Mann stated that it should be considered carefully because the Commission is still in its fact finding mode and had not completely analyzed all alternatives. Hoel stated that the private sector alternative is probably most appropriate because it will be acceptable regardless of the direction the County takes. Milbridge stated that this is probably true because companies like Blue Cross /Blue Shield already recycle and will continue to regardless of what the County may do. Wilcox stated that 3M probably gets up to 40% participation in their program. Hohenstein indicated that Eagan City Hall had begun its office papaer recycling program and that participation to date had been good. Bahr stated that she believed that private sector recycling of business recyclables would be a good alternative at least until the County system is in place and that the same sort of separation could integrate with a County program if one were instituted for commercial recyclables. Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Hoel, all members voting in favor, the draft resolution concerning commercial recycling was approved and recommended to the City Council for further consideration. OATH OF OFFICE Hohenstein stated that one item of organizational business had been omitted at the previous meeting and that was the oath of office for Commission members. Hohenstein administered the oath for all Commission members present. ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY Hohenstein introduced the draft scope of work for the City's organized collection study and reviewed it with Commission members. Mann stated that it appeared that the draft covered alternatives and costs related � to them and entertained a motion. Upon motion by Milbridge, seconded by Bahr, all members voting in favor, the draft scope of work for the Eagan organized collection study was approved and staff was directed to complete the request for proposal based upon such scope of work for consideration by the City Council. CITIZENS LEAGUE SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE Hohenstein introduced the draft outline of the Citizens League report on recycling and asked the group for comments. Bahr indicated she was surprised that the Citizens League has concluded that only hazardous wastes need to be removed to reduce the impact of landfills on the metropolitan system. Hohenstein agreed that it tended to focus on that issue to the exclusion of landfill disposal on the larger system. He suggested that the task force further consider the report as a resource as it makes its decision. Wilcox stated that the Citizens League report does correctly identify hazardous wastes as a major factor in land disposal. He said that additional restrictions are being considered in the legislature and congress for non - point source pollution for city storm sewers and other types of surface water. In the near future, he said, cities will have to get permits for their storm sewer outlets and will therefore be much more careful about what sorts of things are allowed to be disposed of or used on the surface. DISCUSSION OF SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES Hohenstein indicated that the Commission is near the end of its fact finding phase and should begin a more careful analysis of the alternatives it has considered to date. Mann asked if it would be possible for staff to organize and prioritize the alternatives considered to date and set some specific time frames for future consideration. He said that it may be necessary to form some committees to focus on some specific issues and that by targeting certain concepts for consideration, staff can make it easier to form those sorts of work groups. The Commission determined that they will take up an anlaysis of certain of those targeted priorities at its next meeting. NEXT MEETING Staff was directed to call all members to determine if the morning meeting time is convenient for all members and determine whether or not they can attend. The next meeting was scheduled for April 8, 1987. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Hoel, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 a.m. JDH Secretary 5 CITY OF EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION ISSUES I. Short Term A. Compost Program - Schedule, Costs, Marketing B. Clean Up Promotion - Haulers v. Central Pick -up, Now or Fall C. Organized Collection Study II. Waste Abatement Philosophy A. Waste Management /Recycling as a Public Service or a Self - Supporting Business B. Timing - What decisions can be made before the county masterplan is finalized? III. Long Term A. Education - Essential to any program 1. Who should be responsible? 2. Who are the targets? B. Waste Reduction 1. How much is packaging, how much education? 2. How is this best effected? C. Source Separation and Collection 1. Donation centers and /or routed collection 2. Channels of responsibility 3. Role of volume based fees 4. Scattered site v. centralized 5. Hazardous waste D. Intermediate Processing 1. Role as compliment or alternative to source seperation 2. Role of the City in its utilization E. Centralized Processing 1. Alternatives 2. Proper input from the City 13 SCENARIO EXAMPLES I. Low Tech - Low Cost (Example: Attended donation center with compost program) A. Education - Emphasis on waste abatement, ease of separation, and location of donation centers B. Source Separation /Donation Centers - Location of one or more full- service donation centers (Costs dependent on number and responsibility) C. Yard Waste Composting - Maintenance of community program utilizing County system as market D. Collection - Require either volume -based fees or separate collection of recyclables E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Low cost - Limited City responsibility 2. Cons - Metropolitan Council requires mandatory separation if voluntary separation fails to meet targets. II. Low Tech - High Cost (Example: Curbside recyclable collection with donation center backup) A. Education - Emphasis on separation, convenience and relative costs B. Source Separation /Collection - Routed residential collection of separated recyclables, yard wastes, and mixed wastes. C. Yard Waste Composting - Full scale independent program to assure high quality compost and marketing. D. Donation Centers - Location of relatively few donation opportunities as safety valve for routed collection. E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Higher participation - Economies of scale 2. Cons - High cost - Possible duplication with County programs '4 III. High Tech - Low Cost (Example: Reliance on County intermediate processing with voluntary programs) A. Education - Minimal B. Source Separation - Limited to hazardous and special wastes and voluntary programs C. Collection /Intermediate Processing - Designate all wastes to County facility and rely on it for separation D. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Low cost - No need to change disposal habits 2. Cons - Metropolitan Council and County plans require source separation - Reduces quality of recovered recyclables IV. High Tech - High Cost (Example: City participation in RDF or co- compost system) A. Education - High intensity - locally managed B. Source Separation - Variable depending upon technology, allowing for voluntary programs C. Collection /Processing - Locally managed waste processing system D. Intermediate Processing - Locally managed and operated E. Pros and Cons 1. Pros - Local direction 2. Cons - Costs and duplication - County designation of wastes limits viability • /6 Minnesota Recycler Page Two "...(t)he bottle bill will encourage and develop recycling. We have several new recycling centers open in Michigan and that is one of the areas in which new jobs have been created." Thomas L. Washington, Executive Director Michigan United Conservation Clubs January, 1987 Of particular concern to recyclers is the increasing use of plastics. The beverage industry continues its plans for a massive marketing effort of soft drinks in plastic bottles and cans. Several years ago, the plastic industry admitted that plastic recycling was only economically feasible in deposit states, where it was returned in large quantities. Deposit states report an average redemption rate of about 90% for all beverage containers, whether plastic, glass or metal. Minnesota's proposal calls for a ten cent deposit and would allow consumers to return the containers to a retailer, a licensed local redemption (recycling) center and to reverse vending machines (RVM's). Retailers could petition to be exempt from redeeming empty containers if a local redemption center is available and convenient to consumers. Existing drop - -off centers and buy -back programs can take advantage of this opportunity to expand their operations. Retailers, redemption centers and operators of RVM's would be reimbursed 10 cents per container by the distributor for the redeemed containers and in addition, would be provided two cents per container as a handling fee. Other ways recyclers could participate in and benefit from the container deposit law include servicing beverage distributors -- collecting material from their facility, processing and selling it; collecting containers from retailers for a fee; and if you are a commercial waste stream recycler, by collecting containers from bars, restaurants and other establishments for a fee, redeeming the con- tainers (for the deposit and handling fee) and selling them for their scrap value. Some curbside programs could suffer an income disruption from the possible removal of aluminum cans and beverage glass from their volume. This shortage can be alleviated by the development of a drop -off station (thus becoming a paid redeemer) or by an increase in volume of newspaper, food glass and cans. Minnesota's proposal would also require distributors to submit all unclaimed deposits to a State fund. This fund would directly benefit recyclers by using funds to support statewide recycling programs, including curbside programs; to provide market and product research to use reclaimed waste materials and to increase public awareness of all recycling opportunities. Container Conservation Coalition members are listed with the enclosed material. We would like your recycling program to become a member and join the statewide support that a container deposit law already enjoys. Whether your organization 11 Minnesota Recycler Page Three decides to become a coalition member or not, a letter or call asking for your legislator's support now would be appreciated. If this letter does not answer your questions about how a container deposit law would affect recyclers, please write or call me or the persons listed below. Sincerely, 6 14-t.14 Jeanne Crampton League of Women Voters JC:lh Enclosure Other contacts: Cathy Berg Moeger Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 612/296 -8439 Dan Krivit Waste Management Board 123 Thorson Center 7323 58th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55428 612/536 -0816 $ CONTAINER CONSERVATION COALITION League of Women Voters of Minnesota Minnesota Audubon Council Minnesota Coalition of Bicyclists Common Cause North Star Chapter Sierra Club Izaak Walton League of America Association of Minnesota Counties Minnesota Conservation Federation Minnesota Public Interest Research Group Association of University Women of Minnesota Minnesota Farm Bureau White Bear Recycling Clean Water Action Project S.O.R.P. (Save Our Recycling Program) Joint Religious Legislative Coalition Poor Richard, Inc. Eagle Sanitation St. Cloud Area Environmental Council Minnesota Project Wm. Mitchell Environmental Law Society Save Green Acres Cooperative Waste Industries W.S.C.O. (West Side Citizens Organization) Save Lake Superior Association Northern Sun Alliance Duluth Chapter Izaak Walton League SAVE America's Vital Energy, Inc. S.P.E.A.C.— Bemidji State 19 A CONTAINER DEPOSIT LAW COULD PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS TO RECYCLERS: 1. Stabilize long -term markets. (Material is returned at a predictable rate.) 2. Allow recyclers to become redeemers of deposit containers, obtaining a base price of two cents for each container redeemed, in addition to the scrap value. 3. Establish State fund from unredeemed deposits to encourage product and market development for reclaimed material , grant programs for additional recycling opportunities, and public education. 4. Stimulate recycling of other materials. 5. Count beverage containers recycled in the deposit system as tonnages recycled for purposes of county abatement goal s for tiie Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 6. Successful curbside programs can, and do, operate in container deposit states. Recyclers in those states believe participation in their curbside programs is much greater because of the educational effect and experience citizens have from returning beverage containers. Name Tel. No. Address Organization a Yes, I want to join the Container Conservation Coalition Please send me more information Return to: Jeanne Crampton Container Conservation Coalition c/o League of Women Voters 555 Wabasha St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 2, M OT O R L EASE FINDINGS WASTE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IH THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA I. Waste Generation and Composition in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area The Twin Cities metropolitan area generates more than 5,600 tons of waste per day. Of that, about half is generated by the residential sector and half by the commercial - industrial sector. Approximately 51 percent of all waste is generated within Hennepin County. Every person in the metropolitan area generates about one ton of waste per year. By 1995, the Metropolitan Council estimates that population and employment increases in the area will cause daily waste generation to increase to more than 6,000 tons. (footnote: Metropolitan Council, Solid Waste - At What Cost ?, September 1986, page 8) The composition of the waste stream in the metropolitan area is estimated to be as follows: Waste type Proportion by weight Organics: Paper 32 Yard wastes 9 Wood • 8 Other Organics 34 Inorganics: Ferrous metals 5 Glass 4 7.. Aluminum 1 Other Inorganics 7 % "Other Organics" include rubber, textiles, plastics, and other combustibles. "Other Inorganics" include rock, dirt, cement, plaster, and ceramics. (footnote: Metropolitan Council, Solid Waste - At What Cost ?, September 1986, page 9. Based upon data from Hennepin County Comprehensive Recycling Study, Pope -Reid Associates, July 1985.) The quantity of waste generated daily in the metropolitan area is not constant over the year. Instead, it varies on a seasonal basis. This is because yard wastes, while making up on average nine percent of the waste stream, essentially are absent during winter months and make up about 15 percent of the stream during fall months. The Metropolitan Council estimates that yard waste currently reaches about 1,000 tons per day in September, bringing the total waste stream to levels well above 6,000 tons per day. Waste generation then falls to about 5,000 in the winter months when there is no yard waste. (footnote: Metropolitan Council, Solid Waste - At What Cost ?, Sept. 1986, page 17) This seasonal variation has an impact on the logistics of waste management. Collection equipment and disposal facilities must be able to handle the peaks in generation. During months of lower generation, then, some equipment and facilities are under- utilized, making the cost -per -ton of waste management higher than would be the case were generation constant. II. Waste Management in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area All that waste that we generate daily must be handled in some way -- whether by disposing or re -using it. Our society's standards do not allow waste to be just thrown in our yards, streets, or parks. Not only can such littering look very displeasing, but it can also present a serious threat to public health. Some wastes pose a risk to good health dust as they are. They may, for example, be hazardous when they get into the supply of drinking water. Others create a risk when they mix with other wastes or when rodents come in contact with them and consequently carry diseases to the population. Hence, we have put requirements upon ourselves for special management of our waste. There are many public agencies and employees whose responsibilities are continual analysis of how we are and should be managing waste. They watch for any environmental or health risks posed by any management technique and recommend what methods are superior and which should not be allowed. It was not long ago when these experts said we should not allow "dumping" of waste into open pits. Now they have discovered risks that landfilling poses to the environment and public health. The analysis and debate over waste management are both very technical and very political. This is perhaps one of the most complex issues facing the nation today. Total spending in the Twin Cities metropolitan area on waste management is more than $130 million'per year (using 1985 generation rates and December 1985 collection and disposal fees). Of that, about $102 million (78 percent) covers collection and transportation of waste and $28 million (22 percent) is for disposal. Management of residential waste costs about $88 million annually, and commercial- industrial solid waste costs about $42 million. (footnote: Metro Council, Solid Waste at What Cost ?, pg. 5) A. Waste management today is conducted mostly by an open, competitive waste industry. Generally, there are two pieces to the waste management system working today -- (1) waste collection from the generator and transportation and (2) disposal. The operation of each piece of the system has been dominated by private industry, with public regulation to insure that health and environmental standards are met. The public regulations that have bearing on arrangements for waste management include that all contractors, both waste haulers and disposal facility operators, must be licensed by the public sector to insure that health and safety regulations are followed and that waste can be delivered only to a licensed disposal facility. 1. Waste collection and transportation to a disposal facility almost always is done by someone other than the waste generator (the household or business). The generator, or the municipality in which the generator is located, usually contracts with a private business to provide the waste management services. - 3- ' Pee).dential Wei=te There are at least 700 private businesses. •alled "haulers", in the Twin Cities area who collect most residential waste end transport it to a di7:1 facility. M 7j.f theee hauleer. . ‘e small businesses, with only one or two 4 .ilIC!:5 en lev , employees. (footnnte: Metro Council. Eclidwa at What_Le_ pg. 10) Arrangements te have residential waste eelleeted Rnd tranere te a dispeeal facility usually are made in one ef three wave - (a) househeld contracting with a waste heuiere, commonly called "opsn haulina"; (t) municipal contracting with a hauler, called "eroanized collectien". or (r) municipal crewe rroviding the -- vice. called "municipal enllectien". In every arrangeeeet. hie rvice ually allrwr: for the household te set eut ae unlimited aeeuet ef waete for nolleetien. Qnly eecasionally aye seme waste=. usually bulky white cnod=, not a/erected, a) All but three municipalities in the Twin Cielies metropniitan srea have an "npen hauling" waste collectie• eystem. Each heu=ehnld is re=pensihle for delivering et waste to e disposal facility, either by doing so itself or n7 nontractine with a hauler fnr waste collection and traneportateen. Usually, the household will contract for service. This open haulino system cevers about i79 percent all househeld= in the metropolitan area. The househeld aorees to pay a set fee periodically, whieh n runs about s10 per month. The fee covers the hauler's eeste of reflection And trenevortatien, a' well as the tee charged to the hauler hv the disposal facility. The proportion of the fee r-ontenlied hv the services are about three-quarters and one-cuarter respectively. Most haulers charae a fixed fee, which does not chance as uelume of waste collected and disposed increases or decreaees. This is hecause, while the hauler's costs for disposal are determined entirely hy the uniume nf waste delivered to the facility, his costs to collect and transport the waste are not. There are many fixed costs in addition to costs determined hY waste volume. For -example. reaardlees of hew much waste a household may =et cwt for nnllentinn, the hauler must step at that house, the truck must travel the distance between that house and the others on the route, an empinyee mue walk to the waste can and lift them to the truck. and se nn. b) Three municipalities, coverina another 21 eercent of all households. actually do the enntractinc with waste haulers for "nrcanieed rrliPrtirn" of residential waste. Municipalities often will employ this system, rather than reguire each household to make collection arrangements, in order to have greater control over management. The contract with the waste hauler(s) is based upon the number of residential units to be serviced, and is not sensitive to ceiangee i.n eolume collected. The municipality then holds a -4- separate contract with disposal facilities, through which the municipality is billed according to the volume of waste disposed. The municipality then bills each household for the collection and disposal services either through the property tax or a special waste fee. The municipalities currently running organized collection in the metropolitan area are Columbia Heights, Robbinsdale, and one -half of Minneapolis. c) The remaining nine percent of all households' waste is collected by municipal crews. Farmington and the other half of Minneapolis operate "municipal collection" of waste. Like organized collection, the household pays for the service to the municipality through the property tax or a waste fee. (Sources: Metropolitan Council and League interviews) The contractual agreements under both open and organized hauling usually are made on a competitive basis. Households or municipalities make contractor selections based upon the quality and price of service promised. A hauler's ability to offer competitive prices will depend upon efficiency in operation and costs of transportation to disposal facilities. The hauler, then, selects a disposal facility based how far it is from the hauler's collection points and the fee it charges for disposal. Once a municipality has held a contract for organized waste collection, though, the contract may simply be renegotiated periodically, ratKer than open for competitive bidding. The city of Minneapolis, for example, has held a contract with Minneapolis Refuse, Inc. (MRI) since 1972 for waste collection in one -half of the city. That contract never has been open for bids from other collectors. MRI is a consortium of 49 private haulers; it contends that, were the contract to be let on a competitive bid, a large, national waste company could underbid the consortium. The result would be the end of 49 private haulers' businesses. There is evidence that a municipality's move from open hauling to organized collection can improve efficiencies in collection, and therefore reduce costs. The Metropolitan Council states that a household or city's waste bill can be reduced by as much as 25 to 30 percent with organized collection. This translates into about $2 to $3 per month for a household. The efficiencies result from contracting with one hauler for a particular residential area. Rather than have several haulers doing scattered collection within a municipality, they will collect from a concentration of households. This avoids haulers' crossing in the street and the inefficiency in stopping at only every two or three households. It keeps distance and time between collection stops at a minimum. A concern often voiced about organized collection is that the household loses its control over selecting a hauler who will give good service at a reasonable cost. Another concern is that small haulers will be unable to compete against large waste management companies. The result could be a waste industry dominated by very few large companies. Inefficiencies and -5- higher costs could be the long -term consequences. (footnote: Metropolitan Council, Why Consider Organized Solid Waste Collection ?, April 1986, and Chuck Kutter, MRI, speaker at committee meeting, date.) Commercial- Industrial Waste Again, service for waste collection and disposal may be made either by each commercial- industrial establishment or by the municipality in which the establishment operates. In either case, the fee charged for the service is determined more by volume than is the case in residential collection. Whether collection is done by municipal crews or under contract with a private hauler, the contrct fee is based upon the size of the waste dumpster used by the business and the frequency of collection. The costs of commercial- industrial waste collection, however, sometimes will not be charged precisely based upon volume. :..: business pays per dumpster. But if it does not fill the dumpster completely, then it is paying for more service than it theoretically is receiving. It's per -unit cost simply is higher than it would have been if the dumpster had been full. 2. Waste disposal in the metropolitan area is accomplished by one of three methods in the metropolitan area today -- (a) landfilling, (PI incineration, and (c) recycling. a) Landfilling is the primary means of waste disposal today, handling about 95 percent of the waste generated in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. "Sanitary landfills" are sites of land where waste is deposited and frequently covered by soil. The predecesor to landfilling was "open dumping ", a practice of simply dumping waste into open pits. Open dumping was banned when experts discovered that it posed public health risks; rodents that came into contact with the waste then carried diseases to the public. The move to landfilling was considered a more to the "state -of- the -art" in disposal. b) Recycling handles approximately three percent of waste generated by the metropolitan area. (See the section on Recycling, starting on page XX) c) Slightly more than one percent of the metropolitan area's waste (72 tons per day) is burned at Richard's Asphalt Plant in Savage, Minnesota. Richard's constructed its burner during the nation's "energy crisis" as . a. cost- saving measure; it produces energy off of which the plant operates. Since the price of oil has dropped dramatically, however, the burner is not as economical for the company today. Incineration as a disposal method is expected to handle greater proportions of the metropolitan area's waste stream in the near future. A second facility, built by Northern States Power Companv (N F) under contract with Ramsey and -6- Washington Counties, will begin accepting about 1,000 tons of waste per day in the summer, 1987. That facility will not directly burn all the waste it receives. Instead, it will select certain burnables, shred them and then burn them at a retrofitted coal- burning plant owned by NSP. The waste that eventually gets burned is called "Refuse Derived Fuel." Other similar facilities, as well as a mass burn facility like the Richard's plant, are proposed for the metropolitan area. (See section XX, page XX.) B. Waste management in the Twin Cities metropolitan area is changing. The Legislature, the Metropolitan Council, and the seven counties - of the metropolitan area all are involved in the effort to find and implement new disposal techniques for waste management. 1. Legislative action since the late-1970s has led to a ban of landfillina "unprocessed" waste after 1990 in the metropolitan area. The Minnesota Legislature of 1978 established a loint legislative commission to study waste manaaement and make recommendations on the methods to reduce the amount of solid and hazardous wastes generated, recover materials and energy from the wastes, and reduce dependence on land disposal of wastes (Minnesota Laws 1978, Chapter 728). The issues at this time centered on concern about running out of landfill capacity and the political difficulty of siting new landfills. Thus grew the need to find new methods to manage waste. The 1978 Legislature also called on the Metropolitan Council to prepare a comprehensive long range plan for solid waste management in the metropolitan area. And it directed each of the seven metropolitan counties to develop its own master plan and report to the Council. The 1980 Legislature then passed the Waste Management Act which, focusing on landfill abatement, took many waste - related steps, including: (Minnesota Laws 1980, Chapter 564, Article II) a) The Waste Management Board was created and given responsibility to acquire sites for hazardous waste storage facilities, evaluate facility designs and operations, evaluate all alternatives to disposal of hazardous wastes, and develop a hazardous waste management plan. b) The Legislative Commission on Waste Management was created to oversee the work of the Waste Management Board. c) Recycling and procurement practices of the state government were established, to be the responsibility of the commissioner of administration. d) A solid waste management planning assistance program was created to provide technical and financial assistance for regional and local efforts, to be administered by the Metropolitan Council in the metropolitan area. -7- e , ,A solid was e ':ianaaement de meest r atien program was rreated to provide grants for implementation of projects that developed alternatives to landfiliing. f) The 1978 law was amended to call on the Metropolitan Council to estimate the solid waste disposal capa='7'7 :- ±t would be needed in the metropolitan area for the {L1! . t re p o rt on the potentials for abating the need for land disposal, to inventory eliaible waste disposal sites in 17n metropr. iitan area, and to determine the number of di_ p'3S ?1 sites that must be acquired within each metropolitan co,;nty. q) Metropolitan counties were required to develop matter plans as called for in the 1978 legislation. inventory four sites suitable for a solid waste disposal facility, and suhmit t th Metropolitan Council a preorsal to rr9d te need for land disposal of waste. Adding to the issue of landfill _aoacity was the discovery th•af th p of i andfi llina wy_te ease- threats of around .:_ ter contamination, What was found was that the reactions of rerteen materials o the are in th landfills produces a substanre called "leachate ". This often leaks throl.t•ah the ground and into the groundwater, which then changes the water's composition, often dangerously. The contamination, in turn, poses health threats to the population that relies on that groundwater supply. Knowledge ato "the extent of groundwater contamination by leachate a the e :act materials that produce the leachate is limited. Regardless, the result_ino public outcry against landfills ha_ been so great that public officials have found it difficult (and bearing probable political ramifications) to do anything but look for and employ alternatives. Even one potentially viable option -- the addition of technical measures to landfills to prevent most leaking and collect what leachate might leak -- has not been considered because of the complete distrust of landfills. The 1984 Leoislature passed the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Act, which established a fund from which grants could be given to programs that reduce the reliance on landfills. The Act requires landfill facility operators to pay a fee of $.50 per cubic yard of waste received. Waste that is to be processed into energy or re -used is subject to one half the amount of the f The revenues rot farted are divided in two between a) the Landfill Abatement Fund and b) the Landfill contingency Action Fund. a) The Landfill Abatement Fund is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council and is to be !ised to the purpose of reducing the region's reliance on landfills for disposal. Monetary Grants can be given for such things as solid waste planning, public education, and market development for recyclables. (See Section XX, Page XX.) -8- b) The Landfill Contingency Action Fund is the responsibility of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and is to be used for closing waste facilities and correcting toxic conditions up to 20 years after a facility is closed. The 1985 Legislature amended the Waste Management Act to ban landfillinq of any "unprocessed" waste after 1990. "Processed'' means that only waste that has been run through a central processing facility can be landfilled. This would include the residuals and ash from the incineration processes, the wastes that are rejected by the facilities. It also would include wastes that, though they are delivered to a facility for processing, are not processed because the facility does not have enough capacity to handle all the waste :gent to it. That waste legally can be landfilled. 2. The Metropolitan Council, takit.0 its responsibility from the Waste Management Act, determined tint the most ac:ceptanle and promising alternative to landfills would be the techniques run at "central processing" facilities. This recommendation was not surprising, because other countries and states in the U.S. also were reaching their own crises with waste, searching for new answers, and finding this one. "Central processing ", which includes incineration or central :composting of waste, became the preferred solution, because it can handle large amounts of waste (just like landfilling), requires no real change in the system of waste collection from households and businesses, can produce usable energy, and is believed by many to pose low risks to the environment. This last issue of environmental risk has been hotly debated, especially with regard to "mass burning" of waste. The Metropolitan Council's Solid Waste ?Management Development Guide /Plan was completed in March, 1985. It calls for management of the metropolitan area's solid waste by 1990 through the following: 80 % central processinc 16 % source separation 4 Y, waste reduction. a) Central Processing -- The Guide says that 80 percent of the region's waste should be managed by central processing facilities by 1990. The most frequently considered types of central processing are mass burn and refuse-derived fuel processes. Each is capital- intensive, especially when compared to the current disposal method, landfilling. Mass burn is the combustion of mixed solid waste, which will produce electricity. Refuse - derived fuel is pellets of shredded mixed solid waste which are burned in boilers to produce energy. Central composting, a biological process, breaks down the organic fraction of the waste stream by providing optimal conditions for bacteria, the enzyme in the process, to feed and breed. A potting soil -type of soil amendment is the final product from composting. -9- If the metropolitan counties follow the Metropolitan Council's Guide and construct facilities to centrally process 80 percent of their waste in a central facility, then about 4,480 tons per day will be centrally processed. This accepts the data that the metropolitan area generates 5,600 tons of waste each day. With that, about 1,200 tons will need to !e managed in some other way. In addition, to the 1,200 remaining tons, the rass burn a i RDF processes will produce residuals (waste that cannot he run through the processes) and ash (left over after the rurc: process) that must be managed in some way. Of the waste processed in a mass burn facility, about 34 percent in weignt becomes residuals and ash; in the RDF process, about 26 percent is left. (Metropolitan Council, Technical Assistance Package, December 1986) Using a mean figure of 30 percent that could become ash and residuals, then at feat 1 r._r per day of waste (out of 4,480 tons) that is processed in these facilities will remain. That 1,300 tons will need to be dealt with in some way, most likely by landfilling. Between the 1,200 tons of waste per day that will not be processed centrally according to the Metropolitan Council's Guide and the 1,300 tons per day of ash and residuals, the metropolitan area still will have about 2,500 tons per day of waste to manage in some other fashion. That is nearly half of all waste it generates daily. b) Source Separation -- The Metropolitan Council's Guide recommends managing another 16 percent of the waste stream through source separation of waste. That would be almost 900 tons daily or about six Mmes the amount recycled today. "Source separation" means that the household or business that generates waste separates the waste into various segments -- some for disposal and others for re -use or recycling. The materials that the Guide recommends should be separated out of the disposal -bound stream are those commonly recycled: yard wastes, office paper, corrugated paper, mired waste paper. newspaper, aluminum, ferrous metal scrap, other non - ferrous metals, glass, automobile crankcase oil and batteries. Source separation is recommended as the means to generate a supply of recyclables in the metropolitan area; it does not ensure actual recycling, the process that makes the materials into a re-usable form. According to the Guide, counties will be required to adopt mandatory source separation ordinances by July 1, 1988 if programs that rely on voluntary separation have not achieved sufficient participation by January 1, 1988. Exactly how "sufficient participation" will be determined is not stated. c) Waste Reduction -- The Guide estimates that four percent of the waste stream can be eliminated through yard waste mulching and backyard composting. Yard wastes make up an average of nine percent of the waste stream over the year and cause great swings in waste generation rates throughout the -10- year. "Mulching" is mowing the lawn more frequently, leaving it taller, and using less inorganic nitrogen fertilizers. "Backyard composting" is piling the yard wastes and turning the piles frequently to aid rapid decomposition. The Guide predicts that, with mandatory ordinances, participation in mulching and backyard composting could reach 60 percent. This would reduce the waste stream by about 90,000 tons per year, or four percent. Theoretically, "waste reduction" calculations should include any material that never enters the waste disposal stream, but is managed in some other way. 3. Each county in the metropolitan area is required by state law and the Metropolitan Council's Guide to develop a master plan for waste management following the Uuide's outlines. The first plans, although late, were filed with the Metropolitan Council for review and approval in November 1986 by Hennepin and Washington Counties. Hennepin County subsequently has withdrawn its draft of plans for further work, but Washington County's plan is scheduled for final Metropolitan Council approval in May, 198 The remainder of county plans should be approved by the end of the summer, 1987, according to Council staff (footnote: Council staff, 3/27/87). As of January 1997, four counties had plans to construct a central processing facility: -- Ramsey and Washington Counties, who together generate about 1,600 tons of waste per day, are constructing under contract with Northern States Power Company an RDF facility to handle about 1,000 tons per day. The facility is expected to be operational by June 1987. -- Hennepin County and Blount Energy Resource Company have agreed to construct a mass burn facility to handle about 1,000 tons of the county's 2,900 tons of waste each day. Hennepin County probably will send another 400 tons per day to a facility to be constructed by Reuter, Inc.. although no formal agreement has been reached. -- Anoka County and NSP will construct a 1,500 ton per day RDF facility, which will handle its own waste as well as 800 tons from Hennepin County, through a contract between the counties. Counties' plans also are supposed to include details about how they will reach the four percent waste reduction and 16 percent source separation guidelines. The only county that has taken official action on these goals is Hennepin County. Hennepin County has passed a "source separation" ordinance which states that municipalities must arrange for some program that will give residents the opportunity to participate in source separation. Should a municipality have no program organized and operating by January 1988, then the county will make source separation mandatory within that municipality's borders and -11- implement a program itself. The program can be anything from curbside collection to cooperating with other municipalities to have drop -off sites. But if no program is implemented, or if participation is not moving toward the 16 percent goal, then the county will take action as described. The county then plans to charge the costs of the program back to the municipality, although it is not certain how yet. III. Management and Pricing Structures of the Emerging Waste Man a € t System The waste management system that is emerging brings with it new management and pricing structures. The current system is best described as open and competitive, with economic considerations driving most decisions made by the households and businesses (or • municipalities) who generate waste and the private haulers who collect and transport the waste to disposal facilities. The emerging syate still will have private haulers playing the large role they now play. But their ability to direct the industry through pricing competition is being diminished significantly. At the same time, the public sect= is assuming a stronger managerial position in the waste industry. In order to better manage waste in the future, the 1980 Legislature gave the counties authority to control where waste would be disposed. With this "flow control designation," counties can control where all waste from one geographic area must be delivered for disposal. The only waste that is exempted from such designation is that destined for recycling. This flow control removes the right of facilities to compete for waste supply and the right of haulers to select the facilities to which they will take waste. One result of flow control has been unwillingness of private sector representatives to take risks in the waste industry without public sector guarantees and backing. They are not interested in taking risks in a business in which the government controls the product, waste. Add to that the fact that central processing facilities, such as mass burn and RDF, do not meet a market test. They are significantly more costly to construct and operate than other disposal methods, especially landfilling, thus making them unable to compete in an open market. The average landfill tipping fee (the fee charged to the hauler for each ton of waste disposed) is $22.50 per ton. The lowest tipping fee expected at a planned central processing facility will be $32.00 per ton, at the Ramsey and Washington Counties' RDF facility. (That fee will be subsidized by taxes in the counties, so the true fee is higher.) And the value of the energy they produce does not come even close to covering the costs to produce it. All these factors have made private industry unwilling to accept all the risks of constructing and operating central processing facilities. The public sector, therefore, has had to be responsible for finding contractors to construct and operate the facilities and has accepted significant financial risk. In all facility agreements to date, the county involved has issued bonds to finance construction of the facilities. Hennepin County's bond sale was $140 million and Ramsey and Washington Counties' was $31.7 million. The facilities officially will be owned by the private contractors. All the contracts being made today by counties with operators are similar, although involving different financial and volume figures. Thom rnntrarts have a life of 20 years. Anoka County has an agreement -12- with Northern States Power Company for construction and operation of a RDF facility, and Ramsey and Washington Counties with NSP are near completion of construction of their RDF facility. Hennepin County has reached a contract with Hennepin Energy Resource Company, of which Blount Energy Resource Corporation is the general partner. In each case, the counties' obligations to the contractor include the following: The county must supply a minimum amount of waste to the facility for guaranteed operation. For example, the Ramsey and Washing•(.on facility can process 1,000 tons per day, but the counties must supply at least 750 tons per day. NSP is not required to accept more than 1,000 tons. The Hennepin County facility can process 1,200 tons per day, but the county must supply at least 1,000 tons. Flow control designation is the key to ensuring these suupl. levels. The county must pay a service fee to the facility owner and operator based upon a formula in the contract, which includes t following factors: The formula includes a flat fee for the minimum amount of waste guaranteed. If the volume falls below that guarantee, the cost per ton simply nets more expensive. Above that guaranteed minimum, the counties pay a fee per ton, so that the cost per ton decreases. At a determined tonnage level, however, the facility contractor is not required to accept any more waste. The formula also covers the costs of retiring the bond debts, including principal and interest over 20 years. The formula covers several pass - through costs, which can include adjustments for operation and maintenance costs due to circumstances that close down or damage the facility, landfill disposal costs of hazardous ash, and the cost of additional environmental controls that may be required in the future by the regulatory agency. • Credits for the value of the energy produced by the facility and the tipping fees paid by haulers when they deliver waste to the facility will be applied against the fees charged to the county. The county will set the tipping fee based upon the costs it experiences in the service charges. The counties differ on the philosophy about how the tipping fee should be set. Ramsey and Washington Counties will hold the tipping fee artificially low (120 percent of that at landfills), so that haulers will not be tempted to ignore waste designation and take waste to landfills instead of the facility. Hennepin County, on the other hand, will calculate the costs of all waste management facilities within the county, including landfills, and find,the weighted average tipping fee to be charged at every location. In the case that the facility produces usable energy, the nearest utility by federal law must purchase that energy from the facility. NSP must buy the electricity that the Blount /Hennepin County facility will produce. But NSP is the owner and operator of the Ramsey and Washington facility, and therefore the producer of its own energy. -13- IV. The Costs and Effectiveness of the Current Waste lanagement The public sector's reaulation of waste generators, haulers, and disposal facilities has succeeded in keeping this metropolitan area essentially litter-free. There is little waste on the Ftreets, in the parks, or in private yards, especially compared to other major metropolitan areas. If not just for health reasons, proper management of waste has helped to maintain nice, clean eurreundincs. Reeent discoveries of some groundwater contamination from iandfillina improper wasteF and air contamination from incineration emmissions, however. are creating pressure tn be even more careful and technical with waste management. The Twin Citiee eetrnnolitan area spends about slm) million per veer nn waste manademPnt. Abcwt S89 Million is spent hY the residmntial sec+cr and s47 million by the cnmmmrnial-industrial mentor. (Usino Eecember 1985 data: tfetronoiiten Cnunnil, qnlid waq at at Cost?, While the aogreoate waste management r finure may seem high, the costs to the individual waste cenerator, in both convenience and expenditures, actually are ouite low. The averadm hnusehnld or commercial-indumtrial mmtAimhmmnt spends little time "managing" its waste. MCIFt waste oPneratnrm lumt throw all their waste into "tramh cans", which sometimes must then be moved to the curb or alley for periodic collection hy a eontractor. There rarely is a limit on the amount of waste that will be COlirtcad. Pxnerit that larom, bulkv items sometimes are refused. Consequently, the waste oPneratnr need not be concerned with the volume or the types of wastes being disposed. And the averace household spends only S8-10 pPr month to have its waste collected, transported, and disposed. The fee is minimal, mspeciany when compared to othmr utility costs such as electricity, gas. and water. Many households do not even know how much is spent for waste management services. And in the areas where the costs are covered thrnugh the property tax, rather than through a mpmcial fee or hill to the hauler. Enm households may not even know they mav for waste management. ...Commercial-industrial spending.— U. The Coets end PffeetIveneee of the 7, rieroing Wsmtm !lanaqfnmnt 5,ytcam Even as the primary means of disposing waste chances from landfilling to central proeessina. the average waste aeneratnr's commitment in time and effort to waste manaaement probably will not chanae. The low or no-hassle nature of waste management today will continue -- waste still will be dumped into one container for frequent Collection. The only way this could change is if separation of recvciables from the rest of the waste should be mandated by the public sector. Put waste generators are °Dina to be paying more for waste management than they now do. The averaae fee charged by landfills in the metropolitan area today is about S'2.' per ton. When a transfer station must be used (haulers deliver waste to a station rather than directly to a landfill), then the tipping fee is about $27.00 to s28.50 Per tnn. -14- The mass burn and RDF facilities being proposed and constructed are significantly more expensive to construct and operate than are the disposal methods currently being used most notably landfills. The RDF facility being built by NSF for Ramsey and Washington Counties will cost about $32.00 per ton. The capital - intensive nature of such a facility is a major reason why its operation will be more expensive. But the cost of retiring the debt to construct the facility also adds significantly to the per ton processing cost. This RDF facility is being built at a cost of 531.7 million. The panning and construc'rlea cost of Hennepin County's mass burn facility and the tour accon;pan }an transfer stations is expected to be about $140 milli -r.. The tiepin; fee is estimated to be $48.00 per ton. These costs compare to the current average landfill fee of 522.50 per ton. (footnote: Metropolitan Council, System Costs and Finance Report, November 1986, page 9) What this means is that, were the market to decide how waste will i.,e disposed and the public sector allow any technologies co operate, su facilities most likely would not be built. They could only become competitive in an open market if costs to use other disposal met ;errs, especially landfills, were to rise. A by- product of the central processing facilities' inability to meet a market test is that competition in the waste industry will be decreased. In many cases, it may disappear. Today, waste generators or their local governments, as "sellers" of waste, have their choice of haulers. And haulers, in turn, have their choice of disposal facilities, the "buyers ". Decisions about with whom to contract for services and where to dispose of waste are made based upon economic considerations, such as tees and transportation distance and cost to a facility. The competition among haulers keeps the system efficient and prices down. Now, though, the Legislature has given the counties authority to designate where waste will be disposed, known as "flow control designation." (See Section XX, Page XX.) Once a facility is constructed, waste generated within a determined area around that facility (or all waste within a county's borders) must be dis csed at the facility. Haulers no longer will be able to choose among facilities. Competition in the waste hauling_ industry will diminish significantly, as one of the major variables in determining price and efficiency will be eliminated. The only waste that each county !rust exempt from flow control designation ordinances is that which is going to be recycled. -15- RECYCLING IN THE TWIN CTTIF METROPOLITAN ARFA I. The Definition nf "Reeycling" The Minnesota Waste Management Act and the Metropolitan Council define "recycling" as: "the process of collecting, preparing, processing and reusing the recyclable materials in their original form or in a manufacturing process, but not used for fuel." (footnote: Waste Manaaement Act_, sertion...) Recycling includes the simple re-use of a container within the household. For example, a luice jar may h used to hold other liquids once its orioi.nai contents are aone. This type of recycling probably never is tallied into the total ;mount of recycling occuring today. But recycling typically iF much more complex than re-use within the household. And it is more than lust a heusehold or business separatinn of rervrlablee from the waste stream. As the definition stated ahnv. note, reeve:ling has not nreursd until the material is actually re-ussd, whether in its oriainal nr a manufactured for. II. Factors That Affect When Recyrlina Occurs Today One reryclahlee are separated from the waste stream, there is no guarantee that the •rtuall7 will he reryrIed. There are many factors which can determine who!?ther or not recyeina will occur, including: (a) existence of the teehnnIcay to do the recvrling, (h) market etahilify and pricns for recyclable, (c) demand for recycled products the end product), and (d) the sueply nf rseyclables for the end market. These factors are, of cmurEe, eerY intertwined. Actnal recycling of a material first depends upon the availability of a tschrenloav that can process it into a new form. Plastirs are a good example of a product for which reryclino processes are lust now being developed. If the technology exists, then there must he some Party willing to accept the material and conduct the recycling process. That willingness often is largely dependent upon the costs of the process, the value of and demand for the finished product, and the costs of processes that produce competing materials from raw resnurres. Recyclahles are, therefore, commodities whose values are determined to a large extent by international markets. If the price of raw bauxite (which makes aluminum and is traded internationallvl is very low, for example. the value of I aluminum will drop. Or if there is a shortage of trees, causing the cost of paper produced from pulp to rise, the demand for and value of recycled paper will improve. Simply, the rPrvriir,0 fnlInws principles of economics -- when a proriuct can he made at Less cost through recycling than with raw matsrials. then recycling will occur and/or when there is a demand for recycled products, then recycling will occur. The markets for recyclablee only sometimes meet one of these tests. -16- ConoeJ1 :pntly, rervrlir collectors 7+ :=`. -:r al with — •1 are rongtantly chanicir, Thera i no crua n tP e of prise for r- ^yrl abl e7. because the international market situation makes ^ricer fluctU3te greatly. Arvi m th huv r e- ycl.ahles will var`' their prices hcaaFr; upon the consistency of supply ani q,:al of the materials. T.` a supply of 3 r'ertain material is not separated by color or is not .'Lear. then the price paid to th collector will he e iclnifirant.i l than if it is separates and clean. The fol low, n ' ch=art depicts the Treat variat i_ in prices for ,niter i -, , over one v in the TwZr f itiE✓s ar °=a. t e r i 7 e t cql Material 7i511.49 r :r 1 F eet OC , thorwi s Glass s r ri r 47 Aluminum _C - ;_.�,n- .fir :o it, 1n/1 i _f_1) ice 1 2 ,':]i r cr. t'Rn r } c -- r r__ Office paper S •ln Newspaper V * price varies depending upcnt , :pantity C}i suppiv # price varies depending upon whether raper is loose or baled, delivered or picked -up; also the maior end -user typically pays more fo corruoated than does the major broker in the reoion. (SOURCE: Metropolitan Council) Recycling collection programs of the past have attempted to depend upon revenue from the sale of materials to end -users (the actual recyclers) to cover operational costs. But because the markets are volatile, as described above, many of those programs no longer exist. Material sales rarely cover the collection and processing costs, except in the cases where operating costs are kept low such as throuah volunteer labor. The ma'or collection programs now operating depend on contract fees for a large portion of their revenue. A final, important factor that determines when recycling occurs is strong, constant supply of recyclable materials. If a recycler can depend upon a supply, then it will be more likely to pay a better price and adjust its operations to a higher volume. But the generation of a strong supply of recyclables, of course, is very closely tied to the markets' stability and price for the materials. III. Mechanics of Generating, Collecting, Processing, and Selling Recyclables A. A supply of recyclables must be generated by separating them from the waste stream. This can be done after waste has been collected from generators, but before it is disposed. Or it can be done by the waste generator, by not ever mixing recyclables into the disposal -bound waste stream. -17- 1) The technology does exist to pull some recyclables from the disposal -bound waste stream mechanically. One such means is to magnetically pull metals. For the materials that cannot be pulled mechanically, there are some proposals that'they be pulled by hand. Reuter, Inc. is a company that makes such proposals in the metropolitan area. Its theory is that most waste generators will never keep recyclables separated from the rest of the waste stream, therefore ways to do the separating after waste has been collected must be employed. Critics of such proposals state that the recyclables will be contaminated after being mixed with the other waste materials, making them unacceptable to the recycling markets in the area. Even if a market will buy a material that is not clean, it will not pay as high a price as it would otherwise. The proponents of mechanical and hand separation, however, claim that there are other, non - traditional markets for the materials. One often mentioned is a market that could produce "glassphalt ", which is asphalt with glass cullet (crushed glass) as one ingredient. 2) The other, more traditional method of generating a supply of recyclables is to depend upon the households and businesses that generate waste to keep them separated from disposal- destined waste from the start. Currently, waste generators can throw all waste materials into one can. But with separation, they would have to use several cans so that they could throw glass into one container, metal cans into another, paper into another, and the remaining mixed waste into another. The advantage stressed by proponents of "source separation" is that the materials are clean, never contaminated by other wastes, and therefore acceptable to the major recyclers in the area. The disadvantage to source separation is that it adds inconvenience to the generator's waste management routine. Also, it could add some costs if the generator must deliver the recyclables somewhere for processing. B. Collection and processing of recyclables for sale to a market today is carried out in the Twin Cities metropolitan area through (1) curbside pick -up, (2) drop -off centers, and (3) reverse distribution systems. Each method can be done by a variety of parties, will reach a different level of success than the other methods, and involves a varying degree of commitment by the households and businesses that generate waste. The persons or organizations involved in collecting and processing recyclables include the waste generators, single waste haulers, non - profit organizations, for - profit businesses, the soft drink industry, neighborhood organizations, and municipalities. 1. Curbside pick -up programs take the collection program to the households, businesses and other waste generators. This is done to make it as convenient as possible for the generators to participate. Curbside essentially mimics waste collection systems, by pulling up to the generator's location, picking up cans or bags from the curb or alley, and driving away. -18- In 1984, the metropolitan area had 12 curbside programs operating, whereas in 1985 that number had dropped to eight. By 1986 there were 12 programs again, covering XXX households. The trouble experienced by almost all such programs is that costs can run as much as two times what the materials collected are valued on the • market. If a program can hold the costs of such variables as labor down, then it will have a better chance of surviving. But then the likelihood that it will become a viable business diminishes, because it probably will have an undependable labor pool. 2. Drop -off centers, on the other hand, depend upon the waste generators to deliver recyclables to them. The costs associated with such programs may be lower than curbside collection, especially those programs run by non - profit groups, such as churches that collect newsprint. But drop -off is more inconvenient to the waste generators than is curbside, thus making them even less likely to participate by keeping recyclables separated from the waste stream. Also as of June 1986, there were about 100 drop -off locations throughout the metropolitan area. With the metropolitan area covering more than 2,800 square miles of land, though, there are drop -off locations only at about every 28 square miles. 3. Reverse distribution systems would include any arrangement through which the organization that sells a product would get the recyclable materials back once the product has been used. Many soft drinks, for example, are sold in "refillable" containers. The consumer pays a deposit, usually about five or ten cents, on top of the price of the product when it is purchased. When the consumer returns the empty container, the deposit is refunded. The distributor of the product then buys the containers back from the retailer. Nine states have institutionalized this "container deposit" system by subjecting most or all beverage containers to such deposits and redemptions. The range of containers covered by such a law varies among states, and sometimes even includes liquor containers. The results typically have been that about 90 percent of all containers are returned through the redemption system. The states with container deposit legislation are California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. (This will be expanded later into a fuller discussion of the pros and cons.) (A description of several curbside and drop -off programs in the metropolitan area can be found in Appendix B. Similar descriptions of recycling programs around the nation can be found in Appendix C.) C. Locally, there are markets for the primary materials recycled today, which are papers (corrugated, office, newsprint, and other mixed), glass, and aluminum. Anchor Glass Company buys and recycles glass that meets its specifications. Waldorf Corporation buys and recycles paper, and Pioneer Paper Company buys recyclable paper. The soft drink industry has an active aluminum- buying business in the area. It ships the aluminum to ALCOA, a major recycler in Tennessee. -19- IV. The amount of recycling done today and how much is expected in the future The Twin Cities metropolitan area currently recycles about three percent of its waste. The Metropolitan Council's goal is to recycle about five or six times as much (16 percent), but the potential is much greater. A. Today only three percent of the metropolitan area's waste stream is recycled. Only about 18 percent of all households in the metropolitan area participate in curbside collection of recyclables. About six percent deliver recyclables to a drop -off collection point. These figures are low largely because not all households have a convenient opportunity to participate in recycling. In the area's 188 municipalities, there are only 12 curbside programs and 100 drop -off centers currently operating. But even if a household has the opportunity to participate in recycling through a collection or drop -off program, it most likely still will not. Only 10 to 35 percent of those households served by curbside collection in June 1986 actually participated. (Metro Council, Solid Waste at What Cost ?, page 13) Little is known about how much recycling the commercial - industrial sector does. A study conducted by Ramsey and Washington Counties offers some data about what types of establishments recycle and what materials they recycle. It found that about 39 percent of all heavy industrial establishments recycle, but their waste makes up less than one percent of the waste stream. About 18 percent of all schools and 23 percent of all higher education institutions recycle; in each case, their waste makes up about one percent of the stream. Other data about recycling by the commercial- industrial sector include: 18 percent of shopping centers recycle (two percent of the waste stream), 20 percent of all light industrial establishments recycle (nearly ten percent of the waste stream), and 19 percent of offices recycle (six percent of the waste stream). The materials most recycled • by the commercial- industrial sector, according to this study, are paper, cardboard, and aluminum. Such low participation by households, businesses, and other waste generators means that little supply of recyclables is generated, which in turn means that little recycling is occurinq. Official estimates of recycling today are at about three percent of the waste stream by weight. In 1985, that amounted to an estimated 143 tons of waste recycled per day, according to the Metropolitan Council (footnote: Metro Council, Solid Waste at What Cost ?, page 13). How much recycling actually is occuring is hotly debated and difficult to determine. The soft drink industry, for example, argues that it is higher than three percent. It states that nearly 20 percent of all soft drinks purchased in the area come in refillable containers. When a person buys such a beverage, a deposit on the container is paid. When the person returns the container for reuse, the deposit is redeemed. This recycling is not calculated, the industry explains, in the studies about how much recycling is done today. -20 - Estimates about how much of specific materialE are 1 - _11s7o are difficult to est.ablir:b. 5: drink incfustry tha;.: percent of all aluminum in the mo-trr_Toliten led today. Paper, glass B. The Metropolitan I:Du:loll: ta,, area to recycle thc. this goal in response to the LE , waste management be devalcie.f tor f c.n The Council's analysis that percent of source separated (and ncoe.fully rek.:771o..1) '..•aenc removing 50 percent of what it calls - 2nrf 1 0c. 1 percent of yard wasts from .t the Council are glass, aLumirwm, office paper. These are materiiii.2 thnt A:0 extent and for which relati- !1i :d which is included in the "F.+ape:" catr in tiie targeted by the Coun.ril h?.CEILIFF2 it lo 12 i." C. At least •ne-1.7.1f rilf_ composed of recyclable materi catedories rfThlTr:nri y recycled today make up F,bout 51 perr:Eni. cf UnT total 7aste stroam (see the composition table on rad 1 The materials nalculated ars- paper, yard wastes, ferrous metA.s, aluminmr!.. and mlass. t inoluded are some materials that also cId and are to :7:_c■To= t7 such as plastics. V. Some History of REC 1 :"IrT It is a recent phenomenon that waste is lust "thrown away" without consideration of the quantity thrown or for savino some materials for re-use. Many people can remember that a common practice of households in the past was to throw some waste materials - into the 'trash can', and to separate the rest into materials that should Lo returned to the grocery store for re-use and Tateriais that shoul !:!),e hwIck yard. Many people also remember the r.: effort:7 of citizens during World War II, when materials were saved for the war effort. -21- VI. Recycling's Impact on the Environment The recycling process is not known to pose any serious threats to the environment. In fact, recycling is the preferred method of managing waste by many individuals because it is safe and it conserves natural resources. When paper is recycled, fewer trees must be cut down to make pulp for paper manufacturing. Likewise, when aluminum is recycled, less bauxite must be mined. And land space is conserved if more wastes are recycled, causing less to be landfilled. Some recycling proponents even suggest that, because recycling is a conservation measure, it can help the United States become more independent. The U.S. would not have to turn to other countries as much for natural resources supplies. Recycling, though, cannot solve or prevent any environmental hazards caused by waste. The materials traditionally recycled -- aluminum, paper, and glass -- pose little or no risk to the environment and public health when they are disposed. Such materials can be landfilled or burned without concern for environmental damaae. The only real risk is if the paper has a cadmium -based ink on it. VII. The Economics of Recycling The recycling process rarely can stand on its own economically, because its costs usually exceed the value of the recyclables. But collecting and recycling a unit of waste can be done at less cost than collecting and disposing that same waste. A. Some recycling programs are run with apparent economic health. The soft drink industry, for example, actively buys aluminum in the metropolitan area for recycling. The industry, through its Minnesota Soft Drink Association, has redemption centers throughout the area at which payments are made for aluminum. The payment amounts to about one cent per aluminum can. The Association also has reverse vending machines in locations throughout the area, which give cash or food coupons for aluminum cans, and runs a curbside recycling program. The industry uses recycling as a tool to strengthen its relationships with can manufacturing companies. If it can guarantee to manufacturers a supply of aluminum for recycling, then it can receive in return a guarantee of a finished product at a reasonable price. Recycling is not the soft drink industry's primary business, but it is a subsidiary business to help insure the health of the primary business. Whether or not the industry makes or saves money through recycling is unknown. B. Recycling programs usually cannot cover operational costs through material sales, meaning that they rarely make a profit or even break -even. Generally, mayor recycling contractors in the metropolitan area that collect paper, glass, and aluminum from the curbside today have costs of about 535 per ton for collection and 525 per ton for processing (preparation for sale). Total costs, therefore, are about 560 per ton. But the revenue from sale of the materials runs only about 535 per ton, leaving a net loss of about 525 per ton. (These figures do not include any subsidization such as with a contract fee.) _72_ Many past programs in the Twin Cities metropolitan area that have used paid labor have failed just because the revenu e from the material sales cannot cover operating costs. Clearly, if operating costs can be reduced, such as through volunteer labor, then it is possible to make a recycling program profitable. Non- profit organizations, Bauch as Lo;r Scouts and churches, have proven that this is possible witn their recycling programs. Nonetheless, as lonci as operating costs pea ten remain above revenue per ton, a program wall nerd ubsidi._ ati car,. will fail. C. But recycling collection and processing costs less than waste collection and disposal. Recycling should. therefore be able to reduce total srendino on waste management in the metr000li_t n area. Municipal contracts with recycling collectors in the metxccoiiteu _.. -a today cost about $35 per ton. This figure compares poait.ivety waste collection and landfilling costs today which run about $ail p;-, ton. (The collection and transportation of waste coats about $6:i sea tore and landfill disposal now costs about $25 per ton.) Recycling compares even better when expected future costs of a4.. collection and disposal are calculated. Aasaming the collection _.aa transportation piece remains about S65 per ton, with waste dieposai expected to rise to at least $45 per to at the mass burn facility br. Hennepin County, the total cost of that system will run about $110 per ton. That is about s75 more than recycling costs. -23- VIII. The Incongruity Between Recyclinq's Environmental and Economic Acceptability and the Amount of Recycling Occurinq Even though recycling is environmentally acceptable and recycling programs can be run at less cost than waste disposal, efforts to separate, collect, and process some recyclables today are minimal. This is evidenced by the fact that, as noted earlier, only about three percent of the Twin Cities metropolitan area's waste stream is recycled today. Why a process that appears to present only advantages, both environmentally and economically, commands such a small portion of the waste stream needs analysis. Reasons for this apparent incongruity may be found with regard to all parties involved in the waste management system -- A) those who generate the waste (households and commercial- industrial establishments), B) the municipalities, as those who are responsible for proper management, and C) those who are in the business of managing waste. A. Waste management at the household and commercial - industrial level has been easy and inexpensive. To get the average generator to chance both the routine and attitude about daily waste management, then, would require some sort of incentives. But any incentives to compel most households and commercial- industrial establishments to keep recyclables separated from the waste stream and deliver them to a recycler or a collection point are lacking. As found earlier (see section .., page..), most waste generators in the metropolitan area simply have not been asked to participate in recycling, nor have they been aiven the opportunity. If there is neither a program doing curbside collection nor a convenient drop -off location, chances are great that' the average waste generator will not make the effort to separate recyclables from the waste stream. Even if waste generators have the opportunity to participate through a collection or drop -off program, many still do not (see section.., page..). The most frequently cited reasons that generators do not participate are economic -- only rarely does the participant benefit financially, either in the form of payment or a reduction in the waste management bill or property tax. Instead, the participant usually experiences some costs. There are a few recycling opportunities in the metropolitan area that reward participants financially. The soft drink industry, for example, has redemption centers and reverse - vending machines set up across the metropolitan area. Persons who bring aluminum cans to those locations receive a payment, in cash or food coupons, in exchange for the cans. Most curbside and drop -off collection programs, though, do not make financial payments to participants for providing recycables. Such programs have to contend with a generally low market value for recyclables, as well as volatile markets (see section ....). These factors make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to pay for recyclables. Their operating costs easily would run higher, if they don't already, than the materials collected are worth. -24- The recycling participant also is not rewarded.financiaily with a reduced waste management bill, even though the waste volume that must be collected and disposed has decreased. Waste collection contracts in this metropolitan area, whether made by the generator or the municipality, are based upon the collection stop and not on the volume of waste collected. In open hauling, the fee paid by the waste generator to the hauler _a flat fee; it does not vary with volume (see section XXX). If the waste volume decreases, then, the generator simply pays more per unit for collection. And in organized collection, the municipality pays the fee to its contractors) based upon the number of units receiving the collection service. Finally, on top of the fact that the participant is not rewaraed financially, most households and businesses find that there is a eost to participating in recycling. The total cost includes non- fi.nancYal costs, such as the inconvenience and time involved in separati.r,j recyclables feom the waste stream and storing them. The cost al:o could include financial expense, such as what could he involved it the recyclables must be delivered to a collection location, or if additional storage space must be purchased or leased. While activities like separating and storing recyclables may not seem to be inconvenient to some households and businesses, to many they are. This is especially serious because waste management today, as noted earlier, is easy and inexpensive for the average waste generator to accomplish, Participation in recycling means that some convenience will be lost. And the knowledge that waste is being reused rather than disposed, or that natural resources are being conserved, does not sufficiently repay for most households and businesses the inconvenience and economic costs associated with recycling participation. B. Municipalities also do not have the incentive to contract for or conduct recyclables collection and processing programs, even though they should be able to reduce waste management spending within their borders. This is so because most contracts for waste collection employ for a flat fee based upon the number of establishments requiring the service rather than the volume of waste collected. The cost of waste collection will not decline even if the volume of waste declines. With a recycling program, then, a municipality will increase total spending by about $35 per ton. The municipality's officials would have to raise that money through some means, such as an increase in taxes or utility bills. Such increases are politically unpopular. (See Appendix C) C. Finally, private sector activity in the recycling industry is low. The instability of the markets for recyclables, the fact that costs usually exceed material sales, the unwillingness of most waste generators to separate recyclables to generate a supply, and the expectation that recycling collection should be at least a free service rather than something to be paid for all contribute to the basic absence of serious recycling businesses. The private businesses that are beginning to do serious recycling collection in the metropolitan area are doing so through contracts with municipalities. These contracts include a fee for the service to cover the difference between costs and revenues. But, as noted above, very few municipalities are making such contracts because total waste management :;pending is increased as a result. -25- IX. Efforts by the Public Sector to Give Support for Recycling Efforts made by the public sector to support recycling include financial support and mandates that programs be implemented. A. The Metropolitan Council runs several programs that give financial support to recycling, using the landfill surcharge funds that are put into the Landfill Abatement Fund (see section xx, page xx). The Fund had received for deposit more than $2 million between July 1, 1985 and June 30, 1986 (fiscal year 1986). The programs through which payments were made in the fiscal year 1986 included the following: 1. The Household Rebate program makes payments at a rate of $.50 per household to municipalities as reimbursement for landfill abatement and resource recovery expenses. For 1985 expenses, this program made payments to 42 municipalities totaling more than $250,000. 2. The Tonnage Payment program makes payments of $4 per ton of recyclables collected and recycled within a municipality. About $10,500 was paid to municipalities for a total of 2,640 tons recycled. 3. The Council runs several grant and loan programs for the purposes of solid waste management planning assistance, resource recovery projects and related education, and market development for recyclables. Some of the grant programs include: • -- Management Assistance Grants. ($184,000) to give recycling business and programs the funds to hire consultant assistance for management problems. -- Incentive Grants ($132,000) to give up to 25 percent funding of the costs to expand existing or create new landfill abatement programs for aluminum, glass, newspaper, office paper, corrugated paper, and yard waste. The appropriations for grants and loans in fiscal year 1986 totaled over $1 million. B. Counties are urged by the Metropolitan Council and the Legislature to give incentives to municipalities to employ recycling programs. Hennepin County has taken official action to require municipalities within its jurisdiction to make recycling opportunities available to all residents. If a municipality does not do so by January 1, 1988, then the county will put a program in place itself. At that point, the county would make source separation of recyclables by households mandatory within that municipality. -26- CONCLUSIONS I. We prefer a waste management system which strives, first, to safeguard the environment and the public from damage due to waste disposal and,_ second, to operate with as much economic efficiency as is possible. A system in which only environmentally acceptable management options are allowed to operate is essential. This might include landfilling, incineration, recycling, and any other options that the public sector determines are acceptable. For some of these techniques, technology may need to be added to serve as guards against damage to the environment. For example, landfills may need to be well -lined and use leachate collection systems in order to meet environmental standards. And incineration facilities may need scrubbers and special bags. But the key is that only techniques which meet the public's environmental standards should be allowed to operate. Once only acceptable options are operating, they should be allowed to operate side -by -side, with none given advantages through public policy o7er the others. They should be given the opportunity to compete for waste on even ground. This is the way to achieve the greatest economic effic__ency. II. Recycling meets both criteria for what makes a good waste management system. Its process is not known to pose any risks to the environment, it helps to conserve natural resources, and it has the potential of helping build economic efficiency into the waste management system. III. But recycling is not being considered a serious waste management option by households, businesses, and other waste Generators or by the private sector. And the public sector, while it has determined that we should recycle some portion of the waste stream and the Metropolitan Council is giving subsidies and grants to recycling programs, is focusing most of its attention on central processing. It is giving little attention to what might be done realistically to help recycling become a viable management option. IV. The Goal of recycling 16 percent of the waste stream is modest, since at least one -half of the stream is composed of materials that are recycled today. It also is a modest goal in light of the fact that recycling should have an economic advantage over disposal, since it generally can be accomplished at less cost than waste collection and disposal. V. The pricing structure of waste management today rewards the generation and disposal of waste, and clouds any potential incentives to recycle. First, most households and other waste generators (businesses usually are otherwise) essentially can dispose of unlimited amounts of waste without financial penalties. There is no differential pricing for collection and disposal services based upon the quantity of waste they generate. Because of this, the pricing structure works against any management options outside the collection and disposal system. -27- Second, although recycling rarely can pay for itself, it does usually cost less as a waste management process than do collection and disposal processes. But the savings that would be expected are never seen by waste generators, since the fee paid for waste collection and disposal rarely is reduced as the volume of waste it handles is reduced. Hence, because there is no financial penalty for disposing of waste and no reward for recycling it, recycling is not considered a serious management option by waste generators. Accordingly, few private entrepreneurs are willing to offer recycling services because there is little assurance that there will be a supply of the commodity. VI. Recycling will have its best chance at becoming a viable waste management option when measures are taken to sour recycling activity by waste Generators and private businesses. To spur such activity, the economics of waste management must be put in order. !� Public subsidies and grants may help to keep some recycling programs alive and operating. But if recycling is ever to become a serious, stable, long -term management option, it must be adopted by the business community as a real venture. This means that its true economic advantage over other options must be uncovered. A dollar value, rather than a cost, must be put on waste. Households, businesses, and other waste generators must be able to see the economic advantage to recyclina. With this, their willingness to participate in recycling by generating the commodity will increase. Supply, in turn, will be greater and more constant, and the business community will be stimulated to establish more recycling opportunities throughout the metropolitan area, making it easier for generators to participate. And markets for recyclables will respond to the increased activity, most likely positively. VII. Also necessary to spur such activity in the recycling industry is a waste system in which no manaaement option is given competitive advantages through public policies over other acceptable options. Public policies creating the emerging waste management system give competitive advantages. to central processing. The advantages come in the form of the public sector's subsidization of the facilities, which includes the flat disposal fee many counties are agreeing to pay up to a certain quantity of waste and the counties' requirement of haulers to deliver waste to the facilities. As long as public policies give such advantages to certain techniques, such as central processing, and as long as they are espoused to be the solution to waste management, recycling never will reach its potential. Private sector entrepreneurs will be unwilling to take risks in recycling and waste generators will believe that they do not need to participate in recycling. VIII. But as long as advantages are given to some management options, other public policies must be designed to give advantaaes to recycling and other acceptable options. Even .round must be created so that all acceptable options can fairly compete for waste. IX. The end result of these efforts may not be a dramatic increase in recycling activity. But it should cause an increase of some maanitude and, perhaps most imoortantly, bring about a stable, healthy recycling industry for the long -term. RECOMMENDATIONS I. The Legislature should require the employment of volume -based fees inwastf. management services. A prime tool to spur such activity is volume -based pricing in waste cc,iec' ?]._}:a and disposal. Waste generators should be charged for services based u'c:r `heir waste volume that must be collected and disposed. And they should r 2xactl'- how much they are paying for waste management. With this, they may be Inclined to reduce their waste volume through means such as separating out recyclables. In turn: -- supply of recyclables will be increased and will be more constant, - - business activity in collecting, processing, and recycling the mater ls; may increase due to the availability of a greater supply. and -- the market demand and prices for recyclables may be affected. likely positively. The Legislature should require municipalities to insure that mar!kF *. )_i for waste exists. Costs of waste collection and disposal should be positi y responsive to changes in the volume of waste they handle due to recycii.r : r' other waste management methods. - - If a municipality has organized collection of waste, then its contract(s) should base payment upon the volume of waste collected. -- If a municipality has an open hauling system of waste collection, then the municipality should pass an ordinance that would require haulers to offer households a fee structure based upon volume. II. The Legislature should require the appropriate public sector agency to develop and implement public education programs about solid waste management generally and the benefits of participating in recycling specifically. III. The Legislature should phase -out the advantages to any management method once it is satisfied that only proven, acceptable techniques are operating. This should include the authority granted to counties to control the flew of waste to particular facilities. IV. Until the Legislature can phase-out advantages in order to create an even Around for competition for waste, public policies should be designed to make up for the competitive disadvantaoe to recycling. These measures should include: - - Continuation of the Metropolitan Council's grant and loan programs, focusing on giving seed money to private businesses to help implement recycling enterprises. The funds should be given upon the Metropolitan Council's determination that (1) the business is financially sound but needy of the financial support and (2) the program to be implemented holds the likelihood of success without recurring subsidy. - - Continuation of the Metropolitan Council's Tonnage Payment program, but allowing the Council to make the payments to private recyclers as well as municipalities running recycling programs. The source of funds for these programs should be a surcharge on waste disposed at landfills and central processing facilities. ii il r Dakota County SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN i. 1 i % .e.: _..„,„„\.......N.....siii, i . . 1 , \ - - - - - - - \-_-_-_,\ 1 I , _ _ _ .., _ _ . s , ‘11. \ - - - - - \ji --:-:- 's\._____\----. 'cl \----- [ _......---\\ 7_ I 1 H r, [- March 24, 1987 } 1 DAKOT E A COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District 1 - Joseph A. Harris District 2 - Donald J. Maher District 3 - John S. Voss - District 4 - Steven G. Loeding, Chairman District 5 - Russell L. Streefland k DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Private Waste Management Representatives Michael McGowen, Chairman John Curry Citizen Representatives Patrick Ramel Richard Meyer City /Township Representatives Leland Knutson, City of Rosemount Burnell Beerman, City of Inver Grove Heights Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee Representatives Del Edwards Floyd Forsberg Betty Sindt Jim Orange L L L Prepared by Dakota County Planning and Program Management March, 1987 SW- MasPlnl 1- 1 CHAPTER 3 PROGRAM GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES L� PROGRAM GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Dakota County has been actively moving toward a municipal solid waste management system since 1983 when it developed its first Solid Waste Master Plan. Since that time, consideration of systems has progressed from consideration of incineration only, to a system that includes waste reduction, source separation of yard waste and recyclables, composting/co- composting of separated yard waste and mixed municipal solid waste, marketing of recovered material and energy, and disposal of residue. The breadth of solid waste management has increased considerably in the minds of decision �- makers and staff; this is reflected in the policy statements adopted as part of this plan. f PROGRAM GOAL: A comprehensive solid waste management system protects public health and safety, preserves and protects the environment and natural resources, and provides cost - [ effective alteratives to land disposal of mixed municipal solid waste. ( PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: Maximize landfill abatement in Dakota County through the use of sound management methods, including waste reduction, source separation, municipal composting of yard waste, municipal and other local recycling programs, regional processing of recyclables and central processing for material and energy recovery according to the following schedule: i - Table 5 DAKOTA COUNTY LANDFILL ABATEMENT SCHEDULE Year 1991 1996 r ACTIVITY 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995* 2000* Waste Reduction (7. of waste stream) 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 (Projected tons) 2085 4198 4300 4414 9056 11589 61831 68371 Source Separation " (7 of waste stream) 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15 (Projected tons) 4168 8400 12900 19861 24904 34770 185554 205113 (- Central Processing (7 of waste stream) 0 0 0 1.6 1.6 80 80 80 (Projected tons) 3531 3622 185436 989618 1093936 -# County Totals L- & of waste stream 3 6 8 12.6 16.6 100 100 100 Projected tons 6253 12598 17200 27806 37582 231795 1227023 1367420 *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period E_J I The percentages of waste diverted from the waste stream through waste reduction and source separation are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Waste Reduction /Resource Recovery Development Schedule. The percentages of waste processed by central processing differ from those established by the Metropolitan Council for the years 1985 - 1989 for the following reasons: • The percent of the total waste stream processed by central facilities for the years 1985 through 1987 assumed a pilot project for co- composting would develop. It did not, therefore, no waste was processed by central processing facilities in those years. • In the years 1988 and 1989, waste will be centrally processed by the City of Farmington, Co- compost facility. The percentages shown reflect processing residential waste only, and the volume projected to be processed by this facility. PROGRAM POLICIES • The Solid Waste Master Plan will serve as a guide for management of all the municipal solid waste generated within Dakota County. • The Dakota County Solid Waste Management Program will emphasize a balanced system, to include all waste reduction, source separation, central processing, disposal and planning programs and activities. • Dakota County shall develop a Designation Plan and adopt a Designation Ordinance to assure volumes of material to facilities requiring waste assurance. • Dakota County shall establish a Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, through t which all costs of solid waste management will be funded. All solid ( 1 waste related costs and revenues shall be accounted for in this fund. Dakota County costs and revenues shall include, but not be limited to: , * Costs incurred for the vendor search, vendor negotiations, project financing, project design and construction, and [i during acceptance testing of waste management facilities. * Costs incurred during the preparation of reports and L documents required to obtain all permits. * Costs incurred during administration of present solid waste planning and regulatory programs. i_ * Costs incurred for the operation, maintenance and replacement of system facilities. [2 * Revenues generated from tipping fees. C -1R- * Revenues generated from the sale of assets, and materials or energy generated be the system. * Revenues from the solid waste surcharge tax to landfills. * Revenues generated as interest from profits generated by the system. • Dakota County shall incorporate, as parts of its program activities: technical assistance to communities as they work towards meeting the community schedules and implement their local programs, continued administration of the Community Landfill Abatement Project Grant Program, market development for resources recovered, and monitoring and reporting on the program to the Metropolitan Council. 1 • Dakota County urges the communities, as they develop their local programs for reduction and source separation, to co- sponsor programs with existing organizations, building upon their experience and public support. • Dakota County shall add appropriate staff resources, as required to implement the various programs outlined in this Master Plan. Funding for existing and additional solid waste management staff shall be through the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. f F f _ I �. SW -Chap3 I. _lo_ t . 444 • 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c, 1 1 F 1 1 _ T 1 1 r 1 - 1 Ca o i ' W 1 1 1 2 1 1 - 1 1 j CC 1 1 1 j, q co — CC r 1 I a 1 1, ELL' I z 1 ' 1 1 CU to 1 1 z �' CD LL _ N , ' i 1- 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 >- M 1 1 I ' - - 0 kl L .0 0 Z r V 03 4 - , z H ,-2 CC w Q -- } O J 0 W wQ - 0 F— Q J -, - 7 ¢ U Q 0 0 [ Z Z O 0Q¢ _ Z z H 0 2 a awOr O t-0 2 Q z � ¢ ¢ W f- g ¢ w OwZ O 0 0 Q 2 W ¢ JUZU F w0°"¢ L �Q� 0 W m a� U¢ o t-zJZ w11100- W U CC W OzO - w � W ��?H 0 m U ¢ O aOv,wZ ZZCnQLLt- CO < Z ¢ Q Z FOQ 7 00HJ0z rU Z - a L z cLocw O QOZ 0 o >- Z J }W _10-J0Z o Z OcZ¢�z < i."'n V -a: ¢ z <0Z 0 0 W W 0 > CCw 7 00 -� W cc WwZO . O O Z� Z W Wn.Y co F-ZJ¢¢ W (~ W>z�F_ (n ~ 0�0 J�� U WU E'(�0r 1 L E ¢Qm Q H 0 CC w I z ¢n O��oJ CC cn E gwZO.Z ›- 0 I- CI- aim Z ?m ? w ?°"w�Z J owa ° I— L -J > Z0 cn GO O Z 0 2 QLT 00W0w I- z 0 > F 00W-_,Z Z.T. w¢ OZO 0 o1wO¢ > 1t'w Z wZZQw¢U 1— co c,, <0z< UO oa0 Q 0¢0 0 000UW?az¢ W >wWaWQ U r •••40 • ~c •40 . • • " • •40 40 • • U ••40••• = _ - -20- > I f F' f CHAPTER 4 WASTE REDUCTION [- 1 WASTE REDUCTION The Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan" defines Waste Reduction as "The process of reducing the amount of solid waste generated. It includes product reuse, increased product life, reduced material use in product design, and decreased consumption of products. It also includes activities such as mulching /backyard composting of yard wastes." From this definition, it can be seen that cost cutting measures regularly practiced by business and industry and conscientious purchasing patterns practiced by consumers qualify as waste reduction. Business and industry respond to the profit motive, which is perhaps the greatest incentive to reduce unnecessary consumption in their processes. Most consumers, however, are willing to pay for convenience resulting in the purchase of products that are packaged for that purpose or products that are not needed. Waste reduction activities are the most cost - effective ways to manage solid waste because material does not enter the waste stream. These activities are also the most difficult to accomplish, since they require changes in lifestyle, consumption patterns, work habits, and require voluntary effort by homeowners, businesses, agencies and individuals. Waste reduction is also difficult to legislate. For these reasons, waste reduction is best accomplished through education. Emphasis must be placed on making consumers aware of the consequences of their actions, and on informing citizens, public r officials and businesses of methods to reduce waste volumes. There are some techniques of waste reduction that require a context larger than Dakota County. These techniques will be supported and participated in ( whenever possible. They include product changes, packaging changes, extended product warranties, and reduced material use in manufacturing. These techniques require industry support and regional coordination. Product Changes: Product changes are occurring daily; product lines are becoming obsolete and are replaced, and other materials are being substituted for use in a product. Industry needs to make these changes in a manner which allows a product to have a longer product life, be used in its entirety, be reused and /or be recycled. Packaging Changes: Packaging and containers constitute a large part of the waste stream; packaging which is strictly for convenience is viewed as wasteful and does not increase the usefulness of the product. Changes in packaging are also occurring continuously, usually for the sake of convenience. Consumers need to be made aware of the cost of this convenience, and the alternatives available for the purchase of products having comparable quality but without the wasteful packaging. Extended Product Warranties: This item would partially reverse the trend of producing products that are cheaper to replace than to repair; many electronic gadgets fall into this category. This will make the product more expensive initially, because better quality will be required. For this reason, unless the consumer looks beyond the initial purchase price, this technique will not be effective. Reduced Material Use: Reduced material use in the manufacturing process should be encouraged, providing product quality is not reduced. Changes in an industry often allows reduced material use to occur; an example is the newspaper industry. Press design is now making it possible to print 11 newspapers on lighter weight paper without sacrificing readability. There are many waste reduction techniques that can be done by the individual [- and by businesses. These include, but are not limited to: reduction of paper use, purchasing used and recycled equipment, eliminating or reducing yard waste, and purchasing groceries and home products with the intent of reducing waste. Paper Use: Paper use in some businesses, governmental offices and educational institutions is intensive. Measures that can reduce this use are double - " sided copying, simplification of forms, and eliminating all but the essential use of paper through the use of the micro- computer /word processor. These measures can reduce paper consumption by one -half and efficiency is usually increased in the process. Procurement Programs: Due to volume and repetitive purchases by business and government, procurement programs stressing the purchase of products and equipment that can be reused and products made from recycled material can be very effective. Examples are the use of cloth towels or air dryers rather than paper towels, having soft drinks vended in glass bottles rather than cans, purchase of products in returnable containers, the use of paper made with secondary or recycled fiber, and the purchase of used equipment. tr_ Reduction of Yard Waste: Eliminating or reducing yard waste will have the largest impact of all reduction techniques on the waste stream. Estimates place yard waste during and immediately following the growing season at between ten and thirty percent of the waste stream. With the exception of a small percentage, this is all generated by the homeowner. Methods available to the homeowner for yard waste reduction are mulching and composting. The Metropolitan Council, in its unpublished Composting Study, has projected the following for Dakota County: ` 1984 1990 2000 Total Municipal Solid Waste (In Tons) 153,241 201,762 236,415 Total Yard Waste Available for Composting (In Tons) 15,299 18,456 21,033 Yard Waste as a Percentage of Municipal Solid Waste 10.07. 9.17. 8.97 (Aggregate) It is not known what volume of yard waste is currently being mulched or backyard composted, since no volume figures have been generated. An indication of reduction by these methods is given in the Twin City Area Survey and Low Income Survey, 1984 (TCAS) by the Minnesota Center for Social �- -22- Iy Research, University of Minnesota, 1984. This report states that 54 percent (' of the total population much or compost their grass clippings and 27 percent I handle their leaves in a similar manner. These percentages cannot be used, however, to establish volume because it is not known what the generation rate(s) are for persons in these categories. WASTE REDUCTION GOAL: Reduction in the volume of solid waste ( disposed, by curtailing generation and reducing ! the volume of material discarded. 1 WASTE REDUCTION OBJECTIVES: Reduce the amount of waste generated in Dakota County through waste reduction activities by the following amounts: f Table f6 WASTE REDUCTION SCHEDULE - PERCENT WASTE ABATEMENT COUNTY WIDE Annual Projected Reduction Projected Percent (tons) Total Reduction Year Reduction Residential Comm'l /Ind. (tons) 1985 1 981 1,105 2,085 1986 2 1,998 2,200 4,198 . 1987 2 2,036 2,264 4,300 1988 2 2,074 2,340 4,414 ' 1989 4 4,224 4,832 9,056 1990 5 5,374 6,215 11,589 1991 -1995 5 27,924* 33,927* 61,851* it 1996 -2000 5 29,677* 38,694* 68,371* *Note: Aggregate amounts for five year time period .' The objectives cited for reduction by residential generators are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Waste Reduction Development Schedule. These objectives are also consistent with the Community Residential Waste Reduction Schedule objectives for individual communities at the end of this Chapter. The objectives cited for commercial /industrial generators are also consistent with the Metropolitan Council Development Schedule. WASTE REDUCTION POLICIES: L • Dakota County will compile a waste reduction education and information package through the staffs of the County Planning and Program L A Management Department and the University of Minnesota Extension t=- Services, Dakota County, for use by local municipalities, consumer groups, clubs and service organizations, and homemaker's organizations. 1 r' . -3 -, • Dakota County will include in its presentations of waste management at F meetings in all communities of the County, a segment on waste reduction, and will make available information on the subject, 1 indicating that further technical assistance and information on waste reduction will be made available to communities or individuals requesting it. • Dakota County will distribute literature and technical assistance on the subject of waste reduction targeted at the homeowner and small business through its Planning and Program Management Department and [ t the University Extension Services. • Dakota County will provide technical assistance and information, upon f, request, to local governments, schools, and quasi - public institutions kI such as hospitals, health care facilities, and housing for the elderly, enabling them to implement local waste reduction programs. I • Dakota County will provide technical assistance and information for promoting and implementing backyard compost and mulching programs for t yardwaste to homeowners and residential developers. • Dakota County strongly urges communities to support voluntary reduction activities of their citizens through the sponsorship of an education and information program, and creation of incentive programs to meet the objectives cited in the Community Residential Waste Reduction Schedule by 1989. In the event the 1989 objectives are not met, the County urges communities to consider the feasibility of F adopting municipal ordinances eliminating the collection of yard waste with municipal waste by 1990 • In the event the volunta r y efforts or the passage of ordinances by i municipalities is not effective in keeping yard waste out of the central processing facility, Dakota County will consider the feasibility of adopting an ordinance in 1992 which will eliminate the processing of yard waste as the central processing facility. 0 • Dakota County Government agencies will implement in -house purchasing procedures resulting in less waste being generated, and procedures that encourage the purchase of materials that have a reuse value and the purchase of materials made from recycled material. [ • Dakota County agencies and departments shall investigate opportunities to expand upon the County's present policy of purchasing used equipment when possible. • Dakota County shall participate in legislative initiatives by the Metropolitan Inter - County Association, and support state legislation seeking to reduce solid waste generation. • Dakota County, within its solid waste administrative program will i' provide a monitoring program for waste reduction activities and reporting to the Metropolitan Council as part of the County's annual solid waste report. The monitoring program to assess the impact of reduction activities shall include: -24- * Comparison of disposed waste (processed) on an annual basis using the 1986 per capita disposal rate calculated in the Dakota County Solid Waste Quantity Study, January, 1987 as the benchmark. 4 ,_ * Annual assessment of the impact of the educational program by recording the requests for information, and the amount of ( literature distributed. {l * Compilation of annual survey, results from the reduction {{ section of the solid waste survey which will be a random sampling of households and businesses in Dakota County. • Financing of the Waste Reduction Program shall be through a budget category in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to establishment of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund ,waste reduction related activities shall be funded from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. Funding shall be for, but shall not be limited to the following: * County staff time and expenses related to waste reduction ( including, but not limited to, technical assistance, monitoring and reporting, development of education and information package, and development of the solid waste monitoring /administration program. * Materials and services needed to develop and distribute waste reduction information. �.,.•: Costs associated with the development of the waste reduction monitoring part of the solid waste administration program. • Dakota County expects the communities in the County to undertake the following roles and responsibilities: * Implement an in -house procurement policy which will result in less waste being generated, and procedures that encourage the purchase of materials that have a reuse value. * Strongly support the voluntary efforts of citizens to reduce waste disposal through education and information programs, and creating incentive programs in a effort to meet the lY 1989 waste reduction objective. * Require as a condition of licensure or organized collection the banning of collection of yard waste with the collection of mixed municipal waste. F ■ :.,, Serve as a distribution point for literature related to waste reduction activities. I . * Utilize the technical assistance offered to communities by the County as it relates to a waste reduction program. t r • Meet the Community Residential Waste Reduction Schedule: COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION SCHEDULE r Table #7 ` {1 1991- 1996- 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 • 2000 • Percent Reduction 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 Community Projected Tons Reduction ff Castle Rock T. 5.6 11.2 11.2 11.2 22.5 28.1 143.5 148.5 Douglas Twp. 2.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 9.8 12.2 62.5 65.0` Empire Twp. 5.2 10.6 10.8 10.9 22.2 28.1 146.5 156.5 Eureka Twp. 5.4 11.2 11.6 12.0 24.9 32.1 166.5 176.5 Greenvale T. 2.7 5.4 5.5 5.5 11.1 ' 14.1 72.7 76.7 Hampton Twp. 3.6 7.5 7.8 8.1 16.7 21.5 110.5 115.5 Harshen Twp. 7.1 14.2 14.6 14.8 30.1 38.1 193.5 198.5 Nininger Twp. 3.3 6.6 6.6 6.7 13.5 17.1 86.9 88.7 Randolph Tvp. 1.7 3.5 3.6 3.7 7.5 9.6 49.9 53.0 Ravenna Twp. 7.1 14.4 14.6 14.8 30.1 38.1 190.5 190.5 Sciota Tvp. 1.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 4.4 5.6 28.6 29.6 Vermillion T. 4.7 9.4 9.4 9.5 19.1 24.1 123.5 128.5 Waterford T. 2.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 7.6 9.4 48.5 51.0 Township Subtotal 51.9 105.0 106.7 108.1 219.5 278.1 1423.6 1478.5 ..... ....... ....... __ __ _3 3 3- - - _ Coates 0.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 3.6 4.6 24.5 ' 27.0 Farmington 21.4 43.5 44.2 45.0 91.5 116.3 601.4 634.9 Hampton 1.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 5.4 6.8 34.4 34.9 Lilydale 1.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 8.3 10.5 53.5 55.9 Mendota 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 4.4 5.6 27.6 27.1 Mendota Hts. 36.0 73.8 75.4 77.1 157.6 201.2 1046.3 1113.4 Miesville 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.9 3.6 17.8 17.2 New Trier 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.6 3.4 17.0 17.0 Randolph 1.4 2.8 2.8 2.9 5.7 7.2 36.0 36.0 Rosemount 28.6 58.4 59.7 61.0 124.4 158.7 827.2 883.1 Sunfish Lk. 1.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.4 8.0 42.0 44.7 Vermillion 2.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 8.9 11.2 58.0 60.9 4th Class City Subtotal 98.6 198.5 202.5 206.9 421.7 537.1 2785.7 1952.1 == =s= ass=aaas=_=_=___ _________________ ...... ........ _ _________= _ Apple Valley 120.4 246.2 251.7 257.3 525.5 670.7 3554.6 3890.0 Burnsville 180.4 365.5 370.3 375.0 759.5 961.3 5007.8 5343.1 Eagan 134.6 286.9 304.6 322.3 680.0 894.3 4806.6 5365.5 Hastings 59.6 120.3 120.6 120.9 242.6 304.0 1533.5 1556.0 Inver Cr. Hgts 84.7 171.3 173.2 175.1 353.9 447.1 2302.6 2414.5 Lakeville 77.2 159.3 164.2 169.1 347.9 447.1 2336.2 2504.0 Northfield 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 2.0 2.0 So. St. Paul 92.2 183.4 182.2 181.1 360.0 447.1 2235.5 2235.5 W. St. Paul 81.3 161.0 159.4 157.9 312.6 386.8 1934.0 1934.0 2nd & 3rd Class [... City Subtotal 830.5 1694.1 1726.4 1758.9 3582.4 4558.8 23712.8 25244.6 =_ = =a =___ ... _____________ ______ ________________ TOTAL 981.0 1997.7 2035.6 2073.9 4223.6 5374.0 27922.1 28675.2 *Note: Aggregate amounts for time period 1 -26- ANTICIPATED WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM COSTS COST Consulting Annual ITEM 1. .25 FTE staff ($7,000 in 1987 dollars including fringe benefits) $7,000 2. Waste reduction component of the waste management education and information program: $ 5,000 d 3. Waste reduction part of the waste management system: $10,000 ls: ` t" l_ SW -Chap4 („., i. r 0,- a) CO •••• CD M ..■ N o W rn cc — J CO c)— Q I— ' -, _ M CO 0 tt N CO V[ N U..1 CC W 0 oo L co c.lo— co Cf).< L I _ 1 1 1 O o �— 1 U Q �� H ._� 1 0 �� a ci) C 0 a J Z p } >. O < 0 m L Z Z< 1- 0 w U w CC � - a O c� i-� W Z C7 1_. ZZ w 0 pm 0 CC V) 2 << > Z Z g� 0 w cr -) ¢ w 1- < = v) 0 0 0 >-0 0 w Zca0 cc '- ~ F- . 2 O Z n. a < r O2 w 0w < > < 00 F- 0 > M (3 ~ U Z 0, 2 0 0 Z p p � cc a w p O ¢ � ci) r 2 w < 0 p � Z 00 0 Z O > - w w 0 = Z Y w CC — F- 1— Z2 < w Z - < Z ri 0 _, ! , w m t - - F- Z< w Zcn p Z p z Om 0 Z Ocnz Occ 00 0 0< w 0<< 0a 2U Q r c'i ci v LC) cG —28— i r t CHAPTER 5 SOURCE SEPARATION SOURCE SEPARATION Source separation implies the separation of materials from the municipal solid waste stream prior to its collection by the generator. The materials subject to "source separation" are yard waste and recyclable glass, tin, aluminum, ferrous metals, paper, corregated cardboard, and some plastics. Also implied are systems of collection, processing, and marketing of separated materials. Source separation is one method of meeting legislative requirements for "materials recovery ". The effort expended by the generator consists of separating the materials from the waste stream collected as trash and making them available for either pick- up or taking them to a drop -off site. This may currently be considered by some as an inconvenience, but as the cost of disposing or processing solid waste increases and as the public becomes more aware of solid waste management, source separation becomes more attractive. Depending on how the program is designed, recyclable materials may be mixed together or may have to be separated by type. Yard waste typically is bagged if it is collected via routed pick -up or it can be loose if it is delivered to a drop -off site. Collection consists of routed pick -up either separately or in conjunction with the pick -up of trash, or delivery of materials to a drop -off site by the generator. Routed pick -up is appropriate to areas that have a fairly dense population, such as the larger cities of Dakota County. Drop -off sites are more appropriate to smaller cities and townships. Drop -off sites can be as simple as an attended site with containers for disposal or they can be redemption centers at which materials can be redeemed for cash. Processing of separated material will be different for compostable material (yard waste) and recyclable material. The degree to which recyclables are processed also depends on the market to which they will be sent. Yard waste is commonly processed through composting. Currently there are community composting programs for the cities of Eagan, Burnsville, Hastings, and a joint program for the cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville and Rosemount. Regional composting of yard waste is also planned in conjunction with the co- composting programs of Dakota County and the City of Farmington. Recyclabes are processed to respond to market and transportation requirements. A small program which has minimal exposure to regional or premium markets will likely limit its processing to sorting the material by type (aluminum, clear glass, green glass, and amber glass), crushing cans and breaking bottles. Transportation is usually in barrels on small trucks, or loose in semi - trailers if paper is being transported. The opposite end of the processing spectrum involves an Intermediate Processing Facility which { will accept 50 - 100 tons of material per day, processing it for regional and premium markets, and transporting it via semi - trailer or railroad. The Intermediate Processing Facility will process and package the material to maximize the amount of material which can be handled by a single vehicle because of transportation cost. Thies means crushing and baling cans, baling paper, and cardboard, chippi a plastics, and pulverizing glass. nn SOURCE SEPARATION GOAL: Separation of Municipal Solid Waste into fractions which can be collected as recyclables and yard waste, process recyclables for use in [- manufacturing new products, and process yard waste as compost for use as a soil amendment. SOURCE SEPARATION OBJECTIVES: Reduce the amount of waste disposed of in Dakota F County through source separation alternatives in the following amounts: Table 18 SOURCE SEPARATION SCHEDULE - PERCENT WASTE ABATEMENT COUNTY WIDE Percent Projected Tons Source Without Source Separation Projected Tons Year Separation Residential Comm'l /Ind'l Source Separation 1985 2 1959 2209 4168 1896 4 3996 4400 8400 I. 1987 6 6108 6793 12900 1988 9 9332 10529 19861 1989 11 11615 13289 24904 1990 15 16124 18646 34770 1991 -1995 15 83772* 101782* 185554* 1996 -2000 15 89031* 116082 205113* 1 *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period SOURCE SEPARATION POLICIES: • Through the County Solid Waste Management Committee, the Planning and Program Management Department and the University of Minnesota Extension Services, Dakota County, the County shall develop a source separation education and information package; parts of which will inform local officials, chambers -of- commerce and other ` business /industry organizations, civic and service agency -type L organizations, and the residents of Dakota County of the benefits of source separation. • Dakota County shall continue to support and encourage the initiation and expansion of community source separation programs through its grant program by funding communities at the rate of $1.00 per house- hold for approved, community sponsored programs. • Dakota County shall encourage communities to co- sponsor existing '— source separation programs, through the joint use of contracts, the S1.00 per household County grant program, the $0.50 per household Metropolitan Council grant program, and the $4.00 per ton [_: Metropolitan Council rebate program. • Dakota County shall provide technical assista " e, and funding where possible, to local communities wishing to Implement a route.: L: collection of recyclables and yard waste. t - -30- • Dakota County shall encourage those communities that do not have a j,. community yard waste composting program to utilize any future County co— composting facility as a disposal site for yard waste, and shall make the County facility available to them for no service or tipping fee. • In the event that community or county source separation objectives ( are not being met, Dakota County shall determine the level of participation for separating yard waste through a survey in the cities of the County, shall meet with cities not meeting their source separation schedule, enlisting their support for increased voluntary separation, and shall consider the adoption of a county ordinance which would not allow the delivery of yard waste to the County's central processing facility. • Dakota County shall make available the scales of the Intermediate Processing Facility to all recycling programs for purpose of weighing source separated materials in the interest of obtaining reliable weight data from area recyclers. • Dakota County shall purchase processing equipment that is considered necessary but may possibly be under utilized when serving just one community, is beyond the ability of small community programs to purchase, and will be of benefit to several community programs. �: • Dakota County shall continue to expand its office paper recycling program through the purchase of fire retardant containers to use in County offices; encourage local governments, businesses and community facilities to initiate the program; and provide technical assistance to those who want to begin a program. • Dakota County shall support and participate in the efforts of Metropolitan Council and the State to develop new and expanding markets and to stabilize existing markets for recyclables and CC compost. • Dakota County shall implement a policy of purchasing bond paper made from recycled fiber when it is economically advantageous to do so. • Dakota County shall determine the feasibility of developing an Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables having the capacity to process large volumes (50 — 100 tons per day) and having the ability to utilize regional and premium markets. �` • Dakota County, within its solid waste administration program, will include a monitoring program of source separation programs and reporting to Metropolitan Council through the County's annual solid waste report. The monitoring program will assess the impact of '} source separation activities and will include: * An inventory of all existing source separation programs . r`. including yard waste compost and recycling programs. r- * A standard reporting format for all source separation collection and processing facilities so an accurate accounting of volumes separated can be maintained. * A reporting procedure, similar to that already in place for use in administering the County grant program, for all community sponsored or co— sponsored source separation programs. * Comparison of the percent and volume of materials actually f source separated with the objectives stated in this chapter. • Financing the Source Separation Program shall be through budget i categories in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, funding for source separation related activities shall be from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. Funding shall be for, but 1:; not limited to the following: * Staff time and expenses related to source separation including, but not limited to, technical assistance, inventory of source separation programs, ongoing reporting, and market development. * The Community Landfill Abatement Grant Program. * Capital equipment owned by the County and used for community, programs. * Materials, equipment, and consultants required to develop the source separation part of the waste management education and information program. * Consultants required to develop the source separation part of f the solid waste monitoring/ administration program. * Feasibility analysis of an Intermediate Processing Facility r for recyclables. . • Dakota County will urge the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the State to revise the definition of "Recycling" to include materials recovered through the process of mechanical separation at central processing facilities as well as i_ materials recovered through source separation. • The Cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Northfield, South St. Paul, West St. Paul, Farmington, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, and Sunfish Lake are strongly encouraged to investigate and determine the feasibility of the following programs, techniques and actions, as they deliberate on how they will meet the community source separation schedule: -32- * Organized collection, as a means of limiting the collection of material which is recyclable or compostable along with the collection of mixed municipal waste. * The placing of restrictions on the license of waste haulers banning the collection of yard waste and recyclables with the collection of mixed municipal waste. * Mandatory source separation ordinances. * Routed collection of yard waste and recyclables E' * Contracting with existing source separation programs allowing the programs to become the official recycling and /or yard waste composting programs of the city. * Utilization of any future County Intermediate Processing Facility for Recyclables, as an outlet for source separated recyclables. * Utilization of the County Co- composting facility and the City of Farmington Co- compost facility as outlets for source separated yard waste. j,, • Dakota County expects the communities in the County to undertake the following roles and responsibilities:. * Sponsor or co- sponsor source separation programs for yard waste and recyclables. * Provide for the processing of source separated yard waste either through the use of community compost projects or the utilization of any future County Co- compost facility. * In those communities not served by the City of Farmington Co- compost Facility, consider the adoption of ordinances banning the collection of yard waste with the collection of mixed municipal waste if the community objectives listed in the Community Source Separation Schedule are not being met. * As part of an organized collection system or as conditions of licensure, provide for the collection of yard waste and recyclables separated from the mixed municipal waste stream by the generator either by routed collection or drop -off '' sites. * As part of the Community Landfill Abatement Programs, include a program segment on source separation education and i4 information for community residents and businesses. * Utilize the technical assistance on source separation which is offered to communities by the County. * Meet the Community Source Separation Schedule. -33- COMMUNITY SOURCE SEPARATION SCHEDULE Table #9 1991- 1996 - Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 * 2000 * L Annual % Reduction 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15 COMMUNITY Castle Rock T. 11 23 34 51 62 84 431 446 Douglas T. 5 10 15 22 27 37 188 196 Empire T. 10 21 32 49 61 84 440 470 Eureka T. 11 22 35 54 68 96 500 525 Greenvale T. 5 11 16 25 31 42 219 230 [- Hampton T. 7 15 24 37 47 66 340 355 Marshan T. 14 29 44 67 83 114 581 596 f Nininger T. 7 13 20 30 37 51 260 266 Randolph T. 3 7 11 16 21 29 150 159 P'1 Ravenna T. 14 29 44 67 83 114 570 570 Sciota T. 2 4 7 10 12 17 85 90 Vermillion T. 9 19 28 43 53 72 370 385 11 Waterford T. 4 8 12 17 21 28 147 153 Twp. Subtotal 102 211 322 488 605 834 4281 4441 [ Coates 2 3 5 8 10 14 73 82 Farmington 43 87 133 202 252 349 1805 1905 Hampton 3 5 8 12 15 20 105 105 Lilydale 4 8 12 18 23 32 161 168 Mendota 2 4 6 10 12 17 83 80 Mendota Hts. 72 148 226 347 433 604 3140 3340 1-.,. Miesville 1 3 4 7 8 11 55 50 New Trier 1 2 3 5 7 10 50 50 Randolph 3 6 9 13 16 22 110 110 Rosemount 57 117 179 274 342 476 2482 2649 t Sunfish Lake 3 6 9 14 18 24 125 133 Vermillion 4 9 13 20 24 34 174 183 t 4th Class City Subtotal 195 398 607 930 1160 1613 8363 8855 r Apple Valley 241 493 755 1158 1445 2012 10664 11670 Burnsville 361 731 1111 1688 2089 2884 15023 16029 Eagan 269 574 914 1450 1870 2683 14420 16095 Hastings 120 241 362 544 667 912 4602 4668 Inver Gr. Hts. 169 343 520 788 973 1341 6908 7244 Lakeville 154 319 493 761 957 1341 7009 7511 Northfield 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 5 So. St. Paul 185 367 547 815 990 1341 6705 6705 West St. Paul 163 322 478 710 860 1160 5800 5800 i__ 2 & 3 Class City Subtotal 1662 3390 5181 7915 9852 13675 71136 75727 N TOTALS 1959 3999 6110 9333 11616 16122 83780 89023 *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period. !` Li -34- ANTICIPATED SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM COSTS ( ITEM Consulting /Other Annual 1. 757 of one staff position $21,000 ($21,000 in 1987 dollars including fringe benefits) 2. Source separation part of the solid waste $10,000 management education and information program: consultant $ 10,000 3. Source separation part of solid waste $ 2,000 management monitoring /administrative program: { Consultant $ 5,000 4. Continued support of the County Community I : Landfill Abatement Grant Program ($76,000 in 1985 - $102,000 in 2000) $76,000 - $102,00 5. Capital equipment $ 50,000 6. Intermediate Processing Facility for $750,000 Recyclables C . SW -Chaps • • * • • — F rn � :11 N 1 1 CM ... 1 O 1 w ! O 1 m a 1 w LI _ T 1 M 1 z E O co I c,_ 1 CC [ Q N 1 a O _ 1 CO ti `° co 1 U C')... _ O u- 0) - T > 1 1 O 1 U �.. 1 H r O L.� cam O Q } G m z < 2 w 2 L ¢ w 0 > = = g z v C7 w a = w 0 —1 O a 0 0 0 O ,a L u a a w t- t ¢ ° Z Z w > CO o ¢ a z C7 z w Q z U Q Z z O w 2 V Q w H F w >- L J ¢ LL. Z ¢ U 0 1- 0 m Q . w O w } o _1 2 wcc ¢ t- F- w w < ¢ O Cl- 0 U r= O r < zw ( 0 = -J r g� p Z = Q I- U 0 U z 11' O = O � CC = z 0 Ud ¢ M w w Z I- 0- w p O p1 - 0 Q 2 2 Q w r I- z Q > 0 >"' wz wz 0 O Z F_ 0 0 Z CC W i- 0 W J f 0 - z J CO cc = F-- = O = Q • z.& z U < w z m w F- z U O I- U ? c[ > f= r 0 < p (/) c U 0 -J < H z N Q zQ Z U = H Zcn <Q zU QO 2 LU ZO I- O m O w 0 Oc w= 0< < 0 > w 0 c U 0< 0 w z UQ LL. CL Uw wa g ? c= Ua Q N Cv c ui CO ti Oi - . -36- F CHAPTER 6 CENTRALIZED PROCESSING [. I.` CENTRAL PROCESSING Central processing is defined as "The processing of mixed municipal waste collected from within a designated area at a single facility ". Central , processing facilities have the capacity to process large volumes of waste for the purposes of volume reduction and /or resource recovery; some facilities accomplish both. They are the most capital intensive parts of a waste management system, but have the potential of achieving the greatest percentage of volume reduction and as currently envisioned in Dakota County, will be capable of energy recovery and /or material recovery. 4 Types of facilities which can serve as central processing facilities are composting /co- composting; mass burn waste incineration; refuse derived fuel (RDF) production including RDF fluff, densified RDF, and dehydrated densified RDF; and incineration of refuse derived fuel. The incineration processes are able to produce steam for use as heat and through co- generation, production of electricity. Composting produces heat, composted humus, and anearobic { composting produces methane gas which can be captured. t{ Since central processing will have more impact upon the waste management system than the other parts of the system, it is very important to have a strategic framework within which central processing can be designed. Dakota County has taken the position that a diverse central processing system is preferable to single purpose systems for the following reasons: • A diverse system, with two or more compatible central processing facility types, will be flexible and will be able to respond to changes in market demand, waste composition, waste volume, and environmental t ` criteria. • A larger percentage of landfill abatement can result because of the diversity of materials processed. • The value of energy and material recovery will be greater because it ( will be possible to maximize recovery from more than one type of !Y_' facility. • A diverse system should be more environmentally sound than a single purpose system because it processes waste in a variety of ways and can process a wide range of waste types. 1 Regardless of the central processing system used, there will be process residues that require disposal. It is Dakota County's goal to limit the landfilling of process residues to a minimum. Mass burn incineration generates ash and material which will not burn, refuse derived fuel production generates process rejects and its incineration also generates ash, and composting of solid waste results in residue which will not compost. Mass Burn: A mass burn system incinerates waste in virtually the same condition it is delivered to the facility. Prior to incineration waste is usually mixed by front end loaders or grapple cranes and undesirable material is removed. Some facilities also mechanically or hand - separate recyclables before the remaining waste is incinerated. Most mass burn technologies have a primary chamber which incinerates the waste and moves g waste the burning horizontal) from the point of charging to the point I ` Y of discharge. Heated air, unburned gases and particulates driven from the burning waste move into a second chamber where the gases and most 1 particulates are burned. It is the secondary chamber which reaches the i- highest temperatures due to heat generated in the primary chamber plus additional heat derived from the burning gas. It is possible to capture most of the energy contained in the heated air by passing it through a boiler to produce steam. Steam then has value as a heat source and a source of electrical generation. P Refuse Derived Fuel: The production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) i significantly alters the condition of solid waste before it is burned. As with mass burn, many RDF facilities mechanically or hand - separate recyclables L4 before the remaining waste is processed. When waste is processed for refuse - derived fuel the goals are to: 1) size reduce the waste to give better, more consistent burning characteristics, and 2) classify the material received to increase the heat value. A series of shredders, hammer mills and air knives I classify the waste to produce a product that is lightweight, uniform in size (usually four inches or less) and has a greater energy value per unit than a comparable unit of unprocessed solid waste. Following production the refuse - derived fuel can be used in its original form (fluff), it can be densified to enhance its handling characteristics, or it can be dehydrated and densified to yield a product which can be stored. Incineration of refuse derived fuel differs from mass burn incineration in the type of incinerator used. Mass burn incinerators use mechanical devices to move the charged and burning material from the front of the burning chamber to its rear. Incinerators used for refuse derived fuel are typically fluidized bed incinerators which use air forced into the burning chamber to keep particles suspended. This allows for a more complete burn than occurs when small particles are charged and are allowed to pack in a pile. Composting /Co- Composting: A biological process which occurs naturally, composting can yield both energy and material which can be utilized. There are two different processes that can be employed; aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic composting takes place in the presence of sufficient or excess 1.44'.' oxygen; the microbes active in aerobic composting produce heat but do not produce methane gas. Anaerobic composting takes place in conditions which are oxygen starved; microbe active in anaerobic composting produce both heat and methane gas. When left alone, a decomposing pile of organic material will naturally go from an aerobic state to an anaerobic state. When processing municipal solid waste, most vendors utilize the aerobic process. Until recently, it has been a faster process than anaerobic composting, or it has been less capital intensive when comparing similar technologies. Recently, Belgian technology has developed an invessel system which speeds up the anaerobic process, making it comparable to invessel, [i aerobic processes. Vendors of compost systems use static piles which are turned infrequently; windrows which facilitate frequent turning; and invessel systems which mix the composting material, usually aerate it, and screen it at the point of discharge. All composting material will go through an active composting stage when high temperatures are produced, and a curing stage during which ! _ lower temperatures are produced and the compost becomes stable. i ,tea -38- Both aerobic and anaerobic composting produce humus and heat. Heat is �: generated during the processes due to activity by microbes. This heat can be 17; ` ` utilized for such purposes as to heat buildings and preheat water. When the temperature begins to drop, the compost is entering its curing phase and is i - beginning to stabilize as humus. It is also possible to capture methane gas generated through the anaerobic process, either from old, time consuming processes or the newer Belgian process. The value of this gas must be compared with the capital • costs for its capture and the payback period. [ Past efforts of Dakota County to implement a central processing system included entering into negotiations with two vendors of facilities to be owned and operated by the private sector. In both instances, negotiations were i terminated before agreements were signed. rqi Currently, legal, financial and engineering consultants have been retained to assist county staff in all activities related to implementing a central processing system. CENTRAL PROCESSING GOAL: A central processing system, capable of J ., eliminating the landfilling of all non- source separated municipal solid waste in Dakota County from which energy or materials can be recovered. CENTRAL PROCESSING OBJECTIVES: Process the following amounts of the Municipal Solid Waste Stream in central processing • facilities: t Table 110 i ' CENTRAL PROCESSING SCHEDULE - PERCENT WASTE STREAM PROCESSED COUNTY WIDE P Percent of Projected Tons Total waste Processed by Projected Stream Processed Central Processing Total Volume Res. Comm'1 /Ind. Residential Comm'l /Ind. Processed 1985 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 1986 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 1987 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 1988 (2) 3.5 90 3,629 0 3,629 1989 (2) 3.5 0 3,684 0 3,684 1990 (3) 80 80 85,847 99,443 185,290 1991 -1995 80 80 433,026* 542,863* 975,889* 1996 -2000 80 80 460,740* 619,105* 1,079,895* Notes: * Aggregate volumes for five year period i 3 (1) Percent of waste stream processed differs from the Metropolitan Council - Waste Abatement Development Schedule because anticipated pilot project did not develop. (2) Percent of waste stream processed based upon capacity of proposed City of Farmington Co- Compost Project (3) Dakota County central processing facilities proposed to be operational percent of waste stream processed assumes capacities able to process all of Dakota County waste. -39- CENTRAL PROCESSING POLICIES: I 0 Dakota County shall pursue the construction of central processing facilities to serve the County and, if feasible, other metropolitan [- counties. The facilities shall be capable of processing all non — source separated municipal solid waste including burnable, high moisture organiz and recyclable wastes. • Dakota County shall issue, as appropriate, Requests For Proposals for a central processing system to be owned and operated by the private I sector, to include mass burn, refuse derived fuel, and compost/co— compost. • Dakota County shall include, as a part of the Request For Proposal, the requirement that vendors consider mechanical separation of aluminum, ferrous, and glass as a part of their response. • Dakota County shall seek firms which are financially responsible, and offer proven technologies and equipment, thereby reducing public risk r and obligation. C • Dakota County, in cooperation with the chosen vendors and other participating counties shall establish markets for all recovered materials and energy generated by the central processing facilities. • Dakota County shall enhance the feasibility of financing central processing facilities by assuring a steady supply of municipal solid waste through contracts with refuse haulers and municipalities, development of a waste designation plan, and adoption of a waste designation ordinance. • Dakota County, within its solid waste administration program, will provide a monitoring program of central processing, and will report to the Metropolitan Council the effectiveness of the central processing system. The monitoring program used to assess the impact of central procssing system will quantify: F * The volume, by weight, of municipal solid waste delivered to { L the central processing facilities. { * The respective volumes processed by County sponsored central processing facilities and other specified facilities. * The volumes processed, broken down by origin. * Revenues generated through tipping fees and the sale of [.. materials and energy, the costs of operation and maintenance, and financing costs. * Relative compliance with the Residential Community Source L Separation Schedule to be determined through the use of an annual solid waste survey. t_ -40- C-' • Dakota County shall continue to pursue the feasibility of utilizing ash from the incineration of municipal solid waste as an admixture with compost, and other potential technologies that may develop. • Dakota County shall develop an education and information program on the role of central processing within the waste management system, the role of designation of waste to specified processing facilities, the receptive roles of citizens, haulers, municipalities and county; costs and benefits of central processing; and cost of waste disposal related to the homeowner and businesses in the County. The program will be developed by the Dakota County Planning and Program !; Management Department, and the University of Minnesota Extension Service, Dakota County. • Dakota County shall conduct a series of presentations on its waste management program throughout the County. The p- resentations will include a segment on central processing. • Technical assistance in the form of staff time, examples of documents, and other material needed to implement the central processing system at the local level, and presentations on the waste management system will be made available to local governments, citizens groups, haulers, and other special interest groups in Dakota County. �' • Dakota County shall contribute information to all residents and businesses in the County, in cooperation with local communities, through such means as community newsletters, utility billings, or tax statements. • Dakota County shall finance all activities related to central 1 : processing through a Solid Waste Enterprise Fund anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, all central processing related activities will be funded through the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. It shall also be the policy of the County, as it funds related activities from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account, that costs of activities will be capitalized when possible, and that revenues will be returned to the Solid Waste Surcharge Account or Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, whichever is in effect at that time. Funding shall be for, but not limited to the following: * County staff time and expenses, allotted to central processing activities. E:y * Materials and services needed to develop an educational and ,J program related to central processing. fN * Services and equipment required to develop an administration/ monitoring program for central processing. * Services required for the securing of central processing vendors, for execution of agreements, and subsequent central processing activities. E -41- * All costs incurred by urred b the County in securing financing of F central processing facilities. Dakota County expects the communities in the County to undertake the [- following roles and responsibilities: * Participate in local meetings at which the solid waste [- management system, specifically the central processing system will be presented. , in the distribution of with the County, * Participate, along information on the central processing system. * Participate, along with the County, in the designation of all non - source separated municipal solid waste to specified central processing facilities. i , * Through the use of Joint - Powers - Agreements and contracts with haulers, secure waste for specified central processing facilities. )! * Utilize the technical assistance offered to communities by the County. Assist the County in meeting the Community Central Processing Schedule. * The City of Farmington shall work together in the designation of municipal solid waste to the City's Co- Compost facility. k l- L L L -42- COMMUNITY CENTRAL PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Table #11 1991- 1996 - Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 * 2000 * Annual % ff Central Proc. 0 0 0 3.5 3.5 80 80 80 1 COMMUNITY PROJECTED CENTRAL PROCESSING TONS [ Castle Rock T. 0 0 0 450 450 450 2297 2377 Douglas T. 0 0 0 0 0 196 1004 1044 1 Empire T. 0 0 0 437 443 450 2344 2505 Eureka T 0 0 0 481 497 514 2644 2826 Greenvale T. 0 0 0 221 223 225 1163 1227 Hampton T. 0 0 0 0 0 344 1771 1849 j Marshan T. 0 0 0 0 0 610 3099 3180 F`4 Nininger T. 0 0 0 0 0 273 1389 1420 Randolph T. 0 0 0 0 0 153 800 849 Ravenna T. 0 0 0 0 0 610 3050 3050 �` Sciota T. 0 0 0 87 89 . 90 460 475 Vermillion T. 0 0 0 0 0 385 1975 2056 Waterford T. 0 0 0 154 152 151 778 819 I Twp. Subtotal 0 0 0 1830 1854 4451 22796 23677 Coates 0 0 0 0 0 74 393 434 f Farmington 0 0 0 1800 1830 1860 9622 10159 Hampton 0 0 0 0 0 109 551 558 f Lilydale 0 0 0 0 0 168 855 894 Mendota 0 0 0 0 0 89 442 433 * Mendota Hts. 0 0 0 0 0 3219 16740 17815 Miesville 0 0 0 0 0 58 283 277 New Trier 0 0 0 0 0 55 275 275 Randolph 0 0 0 0 0 116 580 580 Rosemount 0 0 0 0 0 2540 13235 14129 [' Sunfish Lake 0 0 0 0 0 129 671 716 Vermillion 0 0 0 0 0 180 930 975 ,. 4th Class l- City Subtotal 0 0 0 1800 1830 8597 44577 47245 Apple Valley 0 0 0 _ 0 0 10731 56874 62240 Burnsville 0 0 0 0 0 15381 80125 85490 Eagan 0 0 0 0 0 14308 76906 85484 Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 4865 24537 24896 1-- Inver Gr. Hts. 0 0 0 0 0 7154 36844 38630 Lakeville 0 0 0 0 0 7154 37380 40062 Northfield 0 0 0 0 0 7 35 35 So. St. Paul 0 0 0 0 0 7154 35620 35770 ,. West St. Paul 0 0 0 0 0 6188 30940 30940 t.: 2nd & 3rd Class 72942 379261 403911 � City Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 i TOTAL 0 0 0 3629 3684 85990 446634 474833 *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period I i s -43- ANTICIPATED CENTRAL PROCESSING PROGRAM COSTS: [- COST ITEM Consulting /Capital Annual 1. Solid Waste and Energy Program Manager ($55,000.00 in 1987 dollars including $55,000 fringe benefits 2. Consultants needed for vendor selection, 8830,000.00 negotiation of service, and design and construction agreements, project financing, and execution of contracts. 3. Consultants needed to design and develop $ 25,000.00 the central processing monitoring / ( t administration program. 4. Processing equipment upon which the $ 10,000.00 central processing monitoring / adminisration program will be loaded. 5. County personnel time and expense, related $ 50,000.00 to vendor selection, negotiation service, • and design and construction agreements, project financing and execution of contracts. 6. Costs related to the development and implementation of the central processing education and information program: Consultant $ 30,000.00 7. County staff time and expense, related to ongoing central processing activities not included in No. 3, above ($35,000.00 in 1987 dollars) 8. Private sector costs for permits, design, unknown construction, and acceptance testing of the central processing site and facilities. (Estimates have ranged from $50,000,000.00 to $125,000,000.00 in 1987 dollars) L -44- f i -N0 CDC 0 CO T O - O 0) <c- W "!; m cn r 1 - O- ' Z r �^ —N - III W CO �. U O CC CL I T om _ CC = f h I W CD f T U L r-- F- co 1 " T cn •. • O U I-- w 1- I _ z O O • C w ›- 0 cc z w w z Y O F ¢ ! .- 2 O f- ¢ ¢ w O w -J co ? O a w v v ¢ F- z w > 0 U U Z E a: w ¢ C -`- O— w ¢ C w w � - Z_ Z Q . z a_ Q. w o 0 : p a 2 M Z Z < < a= CC cc nl.p p z ¢ -I C Z O a_ a CO O OQ :� �z O H < z w z z Z z z> O v z z 2 H p Z O - 0 w Cn - ¢ w cn z m 1- i= O� o t- t- n � F W F- Z W < w Q C J < C a _ Cn U O O Z 0 w Z F- Z ZC 0 Z z Cr Z 0 0 Cc Q °- a. w C 7 C7 > w C7 O C7 ›- a, w w > ¢ ¢ 0 CO O � - CO Z O > z z > C 0 C U Z W wcc O w W 1 rLC F- w Z z 0 a. 0 p ¢ C o a s �o W F a_ w I- W W C W CL 0 F- F- � > W J w Q L_ J J J LL J U) w F- F- ¢ W F- a. F- W D Z z < •C W C C C Z U CO C 0 z CO w U ~ �v 0 > 0 a 0 < O 0 � < S CI- �CC 0 • ¢ N • ' ) LCJ ca; . 1� Q7 O O ,- N C'7 V O t:) _ _;1C_ r r . r : - .... I I 4, f CHAPTER r.: . SPECIAL [.:,.... k. l',.....:: f [ • . L . L' L SPECIAL WASTES HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE Household hazardous waste recently has been recognized for its contribution to the pollution problems associated with landfills. Every household uses materials classified as hazardous but because of the small quantities per household, they are exempt from the hazardous waste laws and can be disposed of in sanitary landfills. Examples of products that are considered household hazardous wastes are: cleansers, paints, varnishes, thinners, solvents, weed killers, ant and rodent killers, insecticides, gasoline, waste oil, and chlorine. It is estimated that 1,640 to 2,460 tons of household hazardous waste is being stored for reuse or future disposal and 285 to 680 tons are disposed each year in Dakota County. Current abatement of household hazardous waste landfilling in Dakota County is limited to one amnesty program in the City of Inver Grove Heights; this program has been a joint effort between the City and Browning Ferris Incorporated. One day a year residents of the city may dispose of their household hazardous waste, at no cost, by bringing it to a drop -off center. The material is then disposed of properly. The County is currently working with municipalities and local corporations to develop a similar program in a different section of the County. Household hazardous waste will likely become a greater problem when central processing facilities are built. Owners of these facilities do not like to accept these materials because: 1) air emission from incinerators can be affected, 2) sometimes explosions occur, damaging processing equipment, and 3) the quality of humus is reduced if they are included in waste to be 1. composted. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GOAL: A program for household hazardous waste which will reduce the amount of waste generated and provide a safe method of disposing wastes that are generated. `�. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE POLICIES: • On a interim basis, Dakota County shall pursue its program of { establishing amnesty day programs in several sections of the County, jointly sponsored by the County, municipalities and local corporations. 1 Dakota County shall develop and implement a permanent program for the management of household hazardous waste; alternatives to be considered include, but are not limited to: 1) continued financial and technical support to municipal amnesty programs, 2) maintenance '' of a permanent collection and transfer facility associated with the central processing facility, 3) contracting with a private contractor to operate a collection and disposal service. • Dakota County, as part of its education program, shall compile and distribute information on reducing the use and unnecessary disposal of household hazardous waste, and the correct and safe disposal of them. -48- WASTE TIRES Waste tires are a waste posing serious waste management problems in Dakota County. Tires use valuable space in landfills and tend to move upward in l the landfill due to the air spaces they create, their resiliency, and vibrations caused by heavy equipment. Stored tires also pose serious health and safety problems. The danger of fire is constant, and they act as incubators for hatching mosquitoes and are shelter for rodents. The State of Minnesota passed legislation in 1984 banning the landfilling of waste tires, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has adopted emergency rules governing their storage and disposal. The emergency rules will remain in effect until permanent rules are adopted; it is anticipated the permanent rules will be adopted in 1987. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency report, Scrap Tires in Minnesota, concludes that "Tire Derived Fuel" is the best short term use for waste tires due to the absence of other suitable, high volume uses. They do have a very high energy content compared to other solid fuels (29 - 31 million BTU's per ton compared to 18 - 27 million BTU's per ton for bituminous coal.) There is a potential for meeting the legislative mandate banning the landfilling of waste tires, while increasing the percent of landfill abatement in Dakota County. At this time, however, the County has not determined how this may occur. As the County's waste management system becomes operational, the problem of waste tires will be addressed and policies will be developed. OTHER SPECIAL WASTES Street Sweepings: Street sweepings may become a solid waste issue in Dakota County in the future due to volume or toxicity, but it is not an issue at this time. Disposal of sweepings is considered to be a municipal responsibility; some municipalities incorporate the sweepings into their yard waste compost program. Because of the presence of metals, especially lead, it is recommended that compost that includes street sweepings be used for purposes other than vegetable gardening. Brush and Tree Waste: Small diameter materials can be chipped and are commonly used as mulch. There is one municipal site currently operating in the city of Eagan. The County also has a portable wood chipper which is used by the Dakota County Parks Department. Large diameter logs cannot be handled with chippers, but the Dakota County Parks Department does operate a saw mill which accepts logs from municipalities; the logs are debarked and sawn into dimension lumber. The lumber is either retained by the County, or returned to the municipality. If the lumber is retained by the County there is no cost to the municipality. If the lumber is returned to the municipality, . there is a charge covering the cost of sawing. The bark is chipped and used as mulch. Both the debarker and saw mill are portable and may by moved to a site if large volumes of logs are to be handled. {{ SW -Chap8 -49-