Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/1987 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission CITY OF EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 14, 1987 7:00 AM I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. NEW BUSINESS A. Prensentation - Doug Reuter, Reuter, Inc. Jerry Misukanis, Reuter, Inc. Dan Kemna, Buhler -Miag B. Waste Management Concept Flow Chart III. DISTRIBUTION A. Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan Draft IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: JANUARY 8, 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR JANUARY 14, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, January 14, 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 are 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. MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of December 10, 1986 is enclosed for your review on pages . These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation - Reuter, Inc. and Buhler -Miag - Doug Reuter and Jerry Misukanis of Reuter, Inc. and Dan Kemna of Buhler -Miag will be present at 7:00 a.m to make a presentation to the Commission on the Eden Prairie waste processing facility run by Reuter, Inc. using Buhler -Miag equipment. Mr. Kemna is forwarding print material on Buhler -Miag equipment which will be forwarded to you under separate cover or distributed at the meeting next Wednesday. The Reuter /Eden Prairie facility utilizes several different processes to manage municipal solid waste. This system includes intermediate processing to separate residual recylable wastes, a refuse - derived fuel system for combustable wastes, and a provision for co- composting of residual solid wastes. Mr. Kemna will provide a slide presentation on the Eden Prairie facility for Commission review. Mr. Reuter will discuss the regional solid waste situation and the part that Reuter, Inc. feels it will play in managing the area of solid waste. Mr. Kemna, Mr. Reuter and Mr. Misukanis will be available for questions at the close of their presentation. As you may be aware, Dakota County was unable to resolve all differences with Westinghouse regarding the construction of its refuse - derived fuel facility in Rosemount. If the County chooses to entertain new proposals from vendors, Reuter and Buhler -Miag will likely be among the proposers. Therefore, this presentation may be of special interest to the Commission as it may relate to the way we manage waste in Dakota County in the future. B. Waste Management Concept Flow Chart - Enclosed on pages you will find two waste management flow charts. The first, on page ___, was prepared by Staff to show the relationship of concepts under consideration by the Commission to the larger picture of waste management. The second, found on page , is taken from the Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Master Plan. Both flow charts indicate that mixed municipal solid waste must leave the system somehow. To date, the bulk of all wastes have proceeded down the left side of the concept flow chart without the benefit of processing or separation for the largest part. The function of the Commission is to develop means to enhance the incidence of waste flow along the right side of the column through waste reduction, separation, and resource and energy recovery. These ultimately direct waste away from land disposal to some form of market. The analysis clearly indicates the need for healthy and effective markets for all recyling and recovery products to ensure landfill abatement. It is anticipated that local municipalities will focus on those elements of the flow chart at the intermediate processing level or above. Dakota County will be responsible for the waste processing and certain intermediate processing elements. In the future, the alternatives considered by the Commission will be related to one of the cells in the flow chart for purposes of analysis. III. DISTRIBUTION A. Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan Draft - Enclosed on pages , please find a draft copy of the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan. Staff is in the process of reviewing the draft in anticipation of comments as part of the County's public input process. While Staff comments may be transmitted to the County in advance of the meeting on the 14th, Commission members may make additional comments either through Staff or directly to Warren Wilson of the Dakota County planning office. Commission members should take special note of the proposed Solid Waste Management System outlined in Chapter 3 and the implementation section of Chapter 4, particularly as it pertains to financial issues and organized collection. If you find you have additional comments after the initial review stage, please save them for the formal review stage which will follow draft approval. At that time, public hearings will be scheduled and the general public will be afforded an opportunity to comment on the plan. IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT The Commission meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 a.m. •. )-141,44.0,33aft, Ad � /nistrative Assistant Attachments JH /mc cc: City Administrator Hedges City Planner Runkle MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota December 10, 1986 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Wednesday, December 10, 1986, at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:00 a.m. The following members were present: Darlene Bahr, Tom Mann, Thom Yehle, Earl Milbridge and Jon Hohenstein. Absent were Tim Hoel, Delmar DeBilzan, Duane Soutor and Larry Knutson. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Dakota County Solid Waste Planner Warren Wilson, and Lannie Ross, co- owner of Waste Processing Corporation. INTRODUCTION Thom Yehle was introduced as a new member of the Commission. He introduced himself as an Eagan resident, working for Control Data, with a strong interest in solid waste abatement and recycling. MINUTES Upon motion by Mann, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the November 5, 1986 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were approved. WASTE PROCESSING CORPORATION PRESENTATION BY LANNY ROSS Administrative Assistant Hohenstein introduced Lanny Ross to make a presentation concerning Waste Processing Corporation's co- composting equipment. Mr. Ross indicated that Waste Processing Corporation is a young firm currently working with areas such as Crowing, Wright, Scott and Carver counties, Moorhead, Brainerd and the east iron range area on projects involving co- composting. He then presented a slide show promoting the Dano co- composting system which WPC markets. Mr. Ross indicated that the majority of all waste is recoverable in one form or another and that the use of land- fills can be reduced through waste recovery. He said that Dano currently has about 200 facilities around the world, representing 40 years of compost experience and 5,000 plant years of performance. Mr. Ross showed a schematic of the co- composting system. In the system, mixed municipal solid waste is dumped onto a picking conveyer where large materials are removed. The waste then enters the composting vessel where it is screened and agitated through a rotation process to begin decomposition and breakdown of compostable materials. The rough compost is then matured in windrows or piles before being shred and screened for final marketing. Mr. Ross showed the Salford recycling plant in England which currently processes 600 tons of waste per day and has a capacity of 1,500 tons per day. The Salford plant uses open air windrows to cure its compost and that an aeration system blows air through the windrow to maintain adequate decomposition. He said that the plant found that the curing piles are not a pest or odor problem. Mr. Ross indicated that Dano Systems can process as much as 2,000 per day as in the plant in Sao Paulo, Argentina and that WPC is also marketing a Smalltech system which can do as little as 20 tons per day. 1 Mr. Ross feels that the companies they represent have a proven technology and that his firm would like to locate a flag ship Dano co- composting facility in Rosemount as part of the Dakota County solid waste treatment facility. Mr. Ross then took questions from the group. Bahr asked what percent of the waste stream is compostable. Ross responded that 70 -80% is compostable and the rest is reduced in size thereby reducing the remaining volumes still further. Bahr then asked how a co- composting system deals with hazardous waste. Ross responded that it is monitored at the generator and collector level and that any toxins which get into the system are monitored and removed from the compost pile. Bahr also asked if this system created an odor problem. Ross said that odors tend to dissipate and break down microbally. Wilson said as long as air is in the pile and the decomposition is aerobic, it will not produce methane or other odors. Bahr then asked what such a facility would cost and why it would be necessary to have a refuse derived fuel plant if co- composting is effective. Ross indicated that a plant of the size Dakota County is considering would cost $10 -12 million to start. Hohenstein asked whether there was any estimate of operation costs. Ross indicated that he would have to research an answer and respond later but he estimated it to be in the area of one -third the cost of incineration. Wilson indicated that incineration costs are higher because of the boiler /energy transfer costs and air pollution control devices necessary. However, it was necessary to have more than one system since the County wished to diversify its treatment alternatives. Bahr asked if the County has considered using co- composting as a first means of treatment and refuse derived fuel for the remainder. Wilson responded that the refuse derived fuel plant received initial approval in 1981 when the costs for co- composting were too high. Since that time, cost comparisons may have changed but the County has expended significant time and effort in the pursuit of an RDF plant and would face a significant loss if it changed strategies at this time. Yehle asked what environmental impacts existed in the co- location of an RDF plant and co- composting facility in Rosemount. Wilson responded that the County request for proposal has specified that impact be minimized and that there are several ways in which that can be done. Operating plants tend to control odors through the use of negative pressure which draws odors into the burner area. Hedges asked how long co- compost material is matured in the open. Ross responded that the material is windrowed for three weeks and cured an additional three weeks for a total of six weeks of maturation time. He indicated that it was then marketed to nurseries, golf courses, the highway department and other resource related businesses. Hedges asked what area a plant of this kind would take. Ross responded 7 - 10 acres. Mann asked if any systems were working in the United States. Ross responded that there are none at the present time but that they want the Dakota County facility to be the first. Yehle asked why no systems were working in the United States at this time. Ross responded that the problem is just becoming critical in the United States now. Europe met the same crisis almost four years ago and has much more experience in it. Landfilling is relatively easy in the United States and incineration of waste has a head start over co- composting technologies. Wilson said, however, that sludge composting for municipal sewage is very common and that as much as 60% of all sewage sludge is composted. Wilson asked if it was possible to develop more than one level of product. Ross responded that it is possible and the quality of the product and its characteristics will be a big part of its marketing. Hedges asked who would do the marketing. Wilson responded that the RFP has two scenarios, one for public and one for private ownership and responsibility. Hedges asked if there are enough outlets for compost to keep the system viable. Ross responded that there probably are if its marketed properly. Hohenstein indicated that the markets may be present but like any commodity, compost material would be vulnerable to shifts in economic realities. He said that this situation implies the need for the Commission to address the philosophical question of whether waste abatement is going to be considered a business which should operate in the black or a public service which may require public subsidy. Yehle asked about reliability and down time. Ross indicated that on the average the Dano systems are operating 96% of the time. He said this is higher than the reliability of burning facilities which are typically operating only 84% of the time. He said that there are higher technology systems than the Dano but they prefer its proven track record and reliability. The Commission then took a brief break and Mr. Ross excused himself from the meeting. COMPOST PROGRAM UPDATE Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that he estimates the Compost Program to have collected approximately 650 yards of material or about twice as much as was collected last year. He said that this quantity falls short of the goals for the program and suggested that transportation and convenience issues need to be faced before the program will attract significantly higher participation. He said that it remains too easy for individuals to place their leaves and garden wastes at the curb. Since it takes extra effort to bring it to the compost site, this may raise some issues for organized collection. He said this is well illustrated by the woodchip program which remains very popular and may be able to charge for its service. Since it costs $20 - 40 a load to dispose of wood products, it is obvious why it is worth the extra time and effort for individuals to bring it to the City site. Wilson indicated that the program is important because yard wastes are mandated out of the landfills by 1990 like recyclable wastes. REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE PROFILES Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed the profiles of the alternatives presented to date. Mann indicated that the relative importance of the different alternatives depends upon the direction the County's program is going and he asked what progress is being made with Westinghouse in starting the RDF facility. Wilson responded that the agreement between the County and Westinghouse is not yet executed. He said the language of the contracts is largely complete but the numbers and guarantees are not. He says that Westinghouse has not come to terms with its equipment supplier, PLM Selbergs /Swentech, on performance guarantees. 3 He said that at the last County Board meeting direction was given to Westinghouse to get another equity partner. Hedges asked if Westinghouse would switch partners, Wilson said that was possible and that other systems would like a chance to break into Dakota County. Beuhler -Miag provides full spectrum waste management equipment. WPC is moving toward full spectrum treatment. He said that the County would like to stay with the RDF facility in anticipation of meeting the 1990 legislative mandate. He also said that the County prefers private ownership to minimize responsibility but realizes that public ownership reduces costs. Therefore, certain questions remain unanswered at this time. The Commission then turned to a review of the other presentations made to date. Bahr indicated that the Goodwill proposal is limited because it does not include a curbside component. She asserted that the curbside collection is an essential element to raising compliance and convenience for users. Hohenstein indicated that she was probably right about curbside collection but that several alternatives could be combined for an overall strategy. Wilson indicated that redemption centers, dropoff centers and curbside compliment one another in many cities. Wilson indicated that intermediate processing is another alternative which could be considered. NEXT MEETING The Commission considered alternatives for its next meeting. Mann requested that a schematic or tree diagram of waste options from generator to finished product be prepared for the group's review. The group also suggested that a full spectrum provider such as Ruter or a review of business product recycling be placed on the next agenda as well. Wilson suggested that the Commission address risk questions at some point in its considerations. He said risks included legal, cost, market, liability and hazardous waste issues. The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, January 14, 1987 at 7:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 a.m. JDH Dated Secretary WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART EDUCATION t GENERATORS { WASTE R EDUCTION MIXED SOURCE DROP OFF/ SOLID WASTE SEPARATION REDEMPTION CTR COLLECTION L SEPARATED WASTES MIXED SOLID WASTE INTERMEDIATE SEPARATED PROCESSING r WASTES Y WASTE PROCESSING COMPOST/ C [ PRODUCT1- ROF -- MASS BURN] LANDFILL :{---- MARKET 1 • >- CO Q O C J Ti - 0 U Q w 1- . 2 W 1 - To m y N cu W v z 1 . z y 0 z Z g)Z > W 0 L1J O h= m w 0 2 w • H= co U F-- w J w t Q w ¢�_ °� a cwi cc CD O Q E �► w m __ O cc 0 w — co —► a W p N N U U.. J W LI. f.. 3 N 0 ¢ a ° O < v Q co "rd N z H z w J o co : • in W 3 .m 0 z °C , o ` • 0 0 W C • 29 • Co `� • ��^ , „..., . , ... . , , .... ,., . ''.'. --- '''' . Dakota County ,.,,•• ..:. . .,.. , .. ,::,:.;„:„, ! , 3_ ,, 1 7 . 1 i,k , 1 , ■1 .,,,,,., . , , ,, : . ..,... „...,. , ....,, ...... ,......„....._..... 7- -.- -.' C i'-' : ;„'.',. • ''' ''•'•• ', , . : '-',.. '•'-' . " — . ' .' ' - SOLID WASTE MASTER • ri ,,... ... . .,. , , ., , .. ,,,, . . , .. ....,,, ..... .,....,...., . . . ., .. .. .,„ ,..,. , .. _..., .,.,...... ... . , ., , ...„.,... .. , .„ . .., , ,.. ,. , ... , .,, . ,„,,.. ,, . . . ., .. .... ,. .. ,.... . . • , , .. . .. , . . , . ,..,.....,.. . • _ . , ,, ....... • , ,.... ..2,..... . , . _ . . . . .,. :„ , , • , . . • . . ., , , , . . ..., . • .,..,.,....;,...!....,,,,.;.,,......,..,,.„..,..,...,,,,.......;,...,...,,,,,/..., . ...:...„:„...........,...,..,.... . . ...............,......,...., .. ................"... .,,.... , , ...... ............... ............ i :) 4 17:; :',. '''' ' ''''''' • ''' '. '4'1 ,". ( •;, ;!. .: ''' ' ' , ' , :. ' ';,, :::',.:::•,.....t,......,..;:i....:••:„..::i....;•,•.,•:,....:i„...,..::::,-.,;iy,-.:iiijeiiir.iii:.:1!iiiiii::::iiii!i:14:..'":::A.:;ii.g.::011:::::•:•i•ii.:.,,:‘..:,:ts‘H.:•..:§',',74.:::::.?:::;.'.*.s\"..,.:,•:-:','::::•:::::.01::::::::::::••.;:::..i..:, •••••••':.•,::::!::::',.' "'! t.,~. • • /. , :::, . • '• ‘:::::g..if..."•:::$•••.:kitl.•:.::::.:....-'1111:•:::::::::::::::i1::::::T.::::::.ili.:.;X:::::. •••••••• • ; 44e.::: . !i! i :I.P:iii . 'i::::::::.: , • c - \. ...,.. ,. . „ ..,,,„ : „... „::: „........„ . .. ,::, . ,. ... :i. .....,.. , 7\- ..; ,..., .;.: - ,?.,' ,, , , . . • ....;:;...:i..::::...:::::,.::'::::::': ‘f..;k71..1:!:11:1.;:ii,11::::'"1111.:iiliiiii,tlii:.*.. . '''''i.11110,:liggg:I.:fi5.M.: . • L ...., ....,,.:„...,:,,,,..,.:.:,,,,..,.., 7 : , ' .., ' ' ,'.','',.': :?, :,. ' i' -; ' ',','' • ',':''',' - -,' 7 ' ,..., :i'd.' ' , •: '.'. ,,, ,.- ',-.,; ',;,..:;„ . ,.. i';'.. •.. ',, :, ,',i'., i.:',';Y,',/.,...';:',,. .. -.'..':' )„, . ': - B ......:,,, ,..,., ...- .,.,. ,:,..---. ...,........-....--„,-.,..•...- :-.',.-:',- ,....i.....,.„":,-.,....-, • , : . ._,,, ,.- ,..,,,,-.-.,,,,,..,',.,--,.,...,..-,..-,:.::.:-.,.,...,,,...:..-,..,..:.,.„-:._' ,..-,.,..,,-.,: .„.... .., ,_.. -.. ., •, . , --, ,... ,„:, ..,,,,,,,..,,..... -.. -.......,:,...,„ .,',..„., ,.,.,,,,,.,.. ..... „:„,....,,,7.414 ,-; li••.=;,3:•••••T,..?!, 'y',,,:;•:-"';•i:;,;`,.-1.4:". ......., ,,... t q;":" i ',... ** ';' ',“,' f -'.''''. ' -1: ';'' ... -1. - * '•'•' {?[ _ '. '';, :• . '.....'":-!'-'' • : —''' ' ; •••;:-.., ;'• '• • ••• '•'•••• '. -....,, :', .,:, Y. .,:. , , ... ,: •,- , .,,a, ,:,:',. , ' No'vember 28, lutao , N _ ,., E r . ,„...,,,,„,„,,,„:,.:;:cr...a., ,„;..,..:„1::,., ,,ii .,,, ,,,,,, ,. ., ,,, , , , , . , .,.. ., .„„. , .,...,,,,,,..at.,.,..„,,, , 4 r '", ',, ' ,.. ,' '' ', ., ' ' ' ' . . ' v , c 7 , ' • , .'iI,■ F. ° 7 . r:: y s ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i''''1"' �: . v l fi 1€ ,� ' t "The Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan" was prepared by staff ' of the Planning and Program Management Department, Physical , :,j Development Division, and the Environmental Health Section, -1,- I Public Health Department, Human Services Division. Staff would 4 1 .' like to acknowledge the following people for their contributions during the course of the Plan's development: � DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS fl District 1 Joseph A. Harris, Chairman` Foil District 2 - Gerald E. Hollenkamp District 3 - John S. Voss District 4 - Steven G. Loeding t D istrict 5 - Russell L. Streefland '''T`` M 9 t DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Re Private Waste Management ement resentatives - _ Michael McGowen, Chairman Burnell Beerman ' Citizen Representatives , Mary Olson , Patrick Ramel Paul Juckel { City /Township Representatives ' Leland Knutson, City of Rosemount = A -F " 4 ` ., `` Richard Meyer, Tow of Ravenna a << : {{ ,, } 1-t- t , .'� ': r { C Y e .r METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ',� i MEMBERS, RESIDING IN DAKOTA COUNTY I ` , ( 1 rr` L Gary Brown Del Edwards 3 ' 4 . 4 .� k , Floyd Forsberg ; o- � . Betty Sindt ":),,,--,..,• ,' "� ' Jim Orange k METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBER , ,,71i4 " = li Patrick Scully 11 4r r.' f vA METROPOLITAN COUNCIL STAFF <+a Jane Davis James Uttley_ �_ ' ti , x G1 ynn i s Jones Susan Von Mosch = r ` l i;j a: `''. . F a t „.x. k n . n 1 '' .'tS :•d'-': k ✓` ; 1 J ;' ` rift L r [,:. DAKOTA COUNTY JEFFREY oREC TOR [4 PLANNING SERVICES /PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT 1612) 437 -0225 4.0'0 a C o tt + DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55 - HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 i , : "' ' . [ A l l t MEMORANDUM r f, TO: All Cities and Towns of Dakota County . FROM: Warren Wilson, Dakota County Solid Waste Planner DATE: December 4, 1986 l F SUBJECT: Review of Solid Waste Master Plan Draft [ . Enclosed is a copy of the draft Solid Waste Master Plan which will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners and the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee for evaluation I '2'. and comments. As part of the review process, we are asking each municipality to review this plan, assess its impact upon the community and send comments back to be considered in preparing the final draft. Please review the draft for: 1 1 1. Subject areas which have been omitted 2. Subject areas which have been treated less than adequately 3. Subject areas in which there is erroneous information 4. Impacts of this plan for your community that should be included but have been omitted from this draft, and 5. Impacts of this plan for your community which you disagree with. ` As you critique this plan, please be as constructive as possible. It is always better, for us as we prepare draft revisions, to work with criticisms which offer alternatives. r i . i Thank you in advance for your critique. We do not have any county -wide meetings scheduled to discuss this draft. However, after comments have been received, revisions to the draft have been prepared, and we are in the formal i review stage, public hearings will be scheduled. If, in your review, you have questions or need clarification, please contact 5 me. If you feel it would be helpful to meet with your council or board, please contact me as quickly as possible so a meeting can be scheduled. When you respond, please have your comments returned by January 15. [1! Metropolitan Council wants to have our final draft by the end of January and we anticipate at least two weeks to make revisions. Thank you. WWW /jmn Enclosure t q. • AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 �s TABLE OF CONTENTS ` Contents List of Tables List of Figures r Acknowledgments - Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Purpose 1 Authorization /Legislation 1 Public Input and Review 1 Goals, Objectives and Policies 2 Chapter 2 Existing Conditions and Solid Waste Management 13 General Description of Dakota County 13 Climate - 14 Physiography, Relief and Drainage 15 Geology 16 Soils 19 ti Chronology of County Solid Waste Management 23 Current County Solid Waste Management Organization 28 Current Disposal Methods 30 The Sanitary Landfill 31 t ; Reduction /Separation Programs 34 Waste Collection 41 L Current Solid Waste Planning Status 42 Waste Reduction 43 Chapter 3 Proposed Solid Waste Management System 48 Background 48 Proposed Dakota County System 50 4' Landfill 51 Waste Reduction 58 Materials Recovery 67 Pre - Collection Separation 69 !I Post- Collection Separation 69 Intermediate Processing of Recyclables 74 Special Wastes - Waste Tires 84 Household Hazardous Waste 91 1p, • y IT Chapter 4 Implementation 94 Preamble 94 Legislative 95 , Existing Ordinances 96 Future Ordinances 98 Financial Issues 98 Waste Assurance 102 Organized Collection 103 Staffing Implications - 105 Chapter 5 Monitoring 107 1711 Preamble 107 Waste Reduction 108 Source Separation - Yard Waste 108 Source Separation - Recyclables 108 Processing Facilities - Co- Compost 109 Processing'Facilities - RDF /Co- Generation 109 r Landfill /Ashfill Disposal Sites 110 Summary 110 /* 4 Fi Ej 0 y 1 1. r LIST OF NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1 Waste Reduction/Resource Recovery Development Schedule 4 2 Percent Reduction of MSW Through Waste l Reduction Activity 5 3 Percent Reduction of MSW Through Material Recovery 7 4. Percent Reduction of MSW Through Composting Yard Wastes 8 5. Percent Reduction of Total MSW Through Co— Composting 8 6 RDF and Process Reject Production From Processed MSW 10 7. Projected Volumes of Material Disposal by Landfill After Processing of MSW, Dakota County 11 8. Residential Waste Generation 46 ��, 9. Commercial /Industrial Waste Generation 47 10. Total Waste Generation 47 • �'_, 11. Energy Content of Selected Solid Fuels 89 L LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1. General Soils Map 22 2. Dakota County Solid Waste Management Organization 29 3. Special Waste Disposal Sites 30 4. Demolition Waste Disposal Sites 30 rl 5. Sanitary Landfill Disposal Sites 30 1.. -LI ri a ' i - r CHAPTER 1 F.,:i INTRODUCTION a i ri 1 . . 13. 1 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to summarize the Dakota County Solid Waste '- Master Plan, describing the County's policies, functions, activities, and facilities for collection, processing and disposal of solid waste in the [- County. The Master Plan, and its subsequent revisions, will serve the County as a guide for solid waste management as the County meets legislative mandates and strives to manage solid waste generated and /or disposed within its borders in a manner which is environmentally sound and fiscally responsible. AUTHORIZATION /LEGISLATION This report was prepared pursuant to the Minnesota Waste Management Act (WMA) of 1980, Minnesota Statute 473.803 and the Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan ", adopted March 14, 1985. PUBLIC INPUT AND REVIEW 1: As required by Minn. Stat. 473.803, Subd. 4, Dakota County has established its Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee to "involve citizens, local officials, and private business in the implementation of the County Solid Waste Master Plan" (Dakota County Resolution 84 -408). This committee has been instrumental, not only in the implementation of Dakota County's plan to date, but in the Plan's formulation as well. _ The Committee has reviewed this report on a chapter -by- chapter basis, and has made recommendations for revisions to the rough draft and draft versions. Recommendations were also formally made to the County Board regarding solid waste policy and the adoption of this report for submission to the Metropolitan Council. It was the policy of the f! Committee to meet on an as needed basis for purposes of review, public information, and the taking of appropriate action. 7 1IV 1 -1- x Following the completion of the report draft, copies of the draft were sent to all towns and cities for review and comment, along with a request ri for a formal response. Responses were reviewed by the Advisory Committee and staff, and appropriate revisions were made to the final draft. Copies of the responses received are included in Appendix B. In addition to the preceding, the County has received requests for information from public officials and private industry. Usually specific in nature, these requests and the responses to them are on file in the Dakota County Planning and Program Management Department. Likewise, a general request was extended to all local governments and private industry to keep Dakota County informed of developments at the local level. The County's plan and this report reflect, in part, response to this request. COALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The goals, objectives and policies contained herein are the nucleus of the. Dakota County Solid Waste Management Plan. It is through them that the Plan will be monitored and will be judged effective or ineffective. „' The topic areas addressed by the goals in this chapter will be expanded w1 upon in their respective chapters. The County's Plan will need to be updated from time -to -time, reflecting 1 changed legislative mandates and County policy, to make the program more effective. The goals of the Master Plan will change only when there are major developments in the solid waste industry or when there is + compelling evidence the program is environmentally and /or fiscally f irresponsible. Likewise, the criteria by which the goals are measured, xr i.e., the objectives, will change only when it is demonstrated that they miss the mark. When it is shown the standards which have been set for the program are more restrictive than necessary, and are not cost effective, or are not stringent enough to have the desired effect, then the objectives will be amended. ra [ 46 1 In all likelihood, the goals and objectives of any local program will parallel those of a higher authority; in this case the State and Metropolitan Council. In this respect, the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan is consistent with the State's and Metropolitan Council's mandates, goals, and guidelines. Policy, as set by local decision- makers, results in a series of actions aimed at achieving stated goals and objectives. It reflects the collective opinion of the policy - making body, and is more subject to change than either goals or objectives, being dependent on attitudes and P Y g personnel. Policy will also change when it is shown that objectives are not being met in a timely fashion. As long as goals and objectives for the solid waste program in Dakota County remain constant, subsequent changes to the County's Plan will remain minor. However, if either the goals or objectives of the program are changed as a result of County, Council or legislative action, a major Er revision of the Plan will be necessary. As previously stated, the following goals and objectives are consistent with the mandates, goals and directives of the State and the Metropolitan Council. They are also flexible enough to accommodate some change in a F' rapidly changing industry. Therefore, the plan should not become a obsolete immediately. It is also felt that the objectives and policies t strike a balance between the attainment of the goals and increased disposal costs. Therefore, the policies will be diligently pursued to achieve the desired objectives in a cost - effective manner. r -3- C ri OVERALL GOAL: IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM /-'i WHICH PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, PRESERVES NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDES COST- EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO LAND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE. i Overall Objective: Through use of management methods, ie., waste reduction; source separation /yard waste composting; central processing/co- composting; and 11 ' central processing /energy recovery, maximize landfill Abatement for Dakota County. Excluding demolition waste, process municipal solid waste by the following percentages. These percentages are consistent with Metropolitan Council's "Waste Reduction /Resource Recovery Development Schedule ". Table #1 r WASTE REDUCTION/RESOURCE RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE • C ACTIVITY PERCENT MSW SUBJECT TO ACTIVITY - BY YEAR 1 *7 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 -1995 1996 -2000 Waste Reduction 2.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 I* Source Separation Yard Waste 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Recyclables 5.75 8.50 10.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Central Processing 1 Co- Composting 0 1.50 3.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 1 Resource Recovery 0 69.00 69.00 69.00 County Total 8.0 12.5 18.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 a ii 1 1. -4- Policies Dakota County by Statute is responsible for the management of mixed municipal I' solid waste (MSW) within its borders. Therefore all aspects of MSW management by municipal, private, private non - profit, and service agency entities shall be subject to the Dakota County Solid Waste Management Plan. I Local municipal, private, private non - profit and service agency programs which f are existing will be incorporated into this plan and will be built upon, if t possible. Local programs in the planning stages are incorporated to the extent they are compatible with and further the goals of this plan. Waste Reduce the volume of waste disposed preferably Reduction: by curtailing generation, secondly by reducing materials being discarded. Objectives: On a per capita basis for estimating Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), the following percentages of reduction need to occur before Dakota County can meet its goal of maximizing landfill Abatement. Table #2 I PERCENT REDUCTION OF NSW THROUGH WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITY l: Projected Tons Projected Percent MSW Without Tons Year Reduction Reduction Reduced 1987 .2 214,580 4,292 1988 2 220,237 4,405 1989 4 225,879 9,035 li 1990 5 231,321 11,566 1991 -95 5 257,489 12,874 1996 -2000 5 283,488 14,174 f! • . I 5- ii l [I Policies: Educate and inform consumers of product packaging characteristics and produce reuse, and promote less wasteful buying habits. Y a Establish model purchasing procedures for use by institutions, businesses and industries. - [: 1 Monitor participation to more accurately determine the real influence reduction activities has upon disposal. M Promote to businesses the sale of products to the consumer which have value in reuse or are packaged in a manner which encourages reuse. 1 . Assist in implementing and promoting backyard composting and mulching programs for yard wastes. Source Separation pi Material Provide for the separation of Municipal Solid ter Recovery: Waste (MSW) into fractions which can be collected, and } ' used for the manufacture of new products. Objective: I.' On a per capita basis for estimating MSW, the following percentages of 1_ material recovery need to be met before Dakota County can meet its goal of reducing its landfill needs by 85%. The rate of participation must [ increase to virtually 100% by the year 1991 in the work place and in the (t} home in order to meet these objectives. l s 4- ' I`4 a ' 0 IT r Table #3 PERCENT REDUCTION OF MSW THROUGH MATERIAL RECOVERY Projected Projected I Percent Tons MSW Tons Year Reduction W /Out Recovery Reduced 1987 5.75 214,580 12,338 1988 8.50 220,237 - 18,720 1989 10.00 225,879 22,588 1990 13.00 231,321 30,072 1991 -95 13.00 257,489 33,474 1995 -2000 13.00 283,488 _ 36,853 1 Policies Assist consumers, businesses and local units of government with initiating waste separation programs. Support efforts to develop new markets or stabilize existing markets for recyclable waste. I ' Establish educational and informational materials to increase awareness of recycling opportunities and proper recycling procedures. M1'y' 'ryx Implement measures to increase participation in waste separation programs through curbside collection or central drop -off stations. Source Separation Composting Provide for the separation of compostable yard waste Yard Waste and the eventual elimination of these materials from deposit in landfills. Objective: On a per capita basis for estimating Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) the I! nta es of and waste are projected to be following pence processed as Dakota g yard p � p County meets its goal of reducing its landfill needs by 85% Iii Table #4 1 �, PERCENT REDUCTION OF MSW THROUGH COMPOSTING YARD WASTES Projected Projected . 1 Percent Tons MSW Tons Year Reduction W /Out Reduction Reduced 1 -1 1987 0.25 214,586 536 1988 0.50 220,237 1,10 2 1989 1.00 225,879 2,259 ca 1990 2.00 231,321 4,626 L 1991 -95 2.00 257,489 5,150 1996 -2000 2.00 283,488 5,670 [' Co- Composting: Eliminate the landfilling of compostable Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) F Obje ctive: 1 The following percentages are projected to be processed as co- composted MSW [:' as Dakota County meets its goal of minimizing its landfill needs by 1990. 1 : Table #5 PERCENT REDUCTION OF TOTAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE THROUGH CO- COMPOSTING 1 Tons Tons Percent Co- Compost Landfilled [-? Year Reduction Processed Rejects 1987 10.3 28,000 5,863 1988 10.3 28,678 5,998 " 1989 10.3 29,356 6,134 l ..-7, 1990 10.2 29,832 6,284 1991 -95 10.3 33,657 7,074 A 1996 -2000 10.3 34,860 7,736 A [' - 0 -8- Policy: Explore the economic feasibility of co locating, with the RDF facility, a facility to co- compost process rejects from the RDF facility. Initiate a program to develop local, metro -wide, and regional markets for compost produced by co- compost facilities in Dakota County. Encourage the use of compost as a soil amendment for homeowners and for retail and wholesale markets in the agricultural, turf, horticultural and nursery industry. Local municipal co- compost projects will be supported land shall be included as part of this Master Plan to the extend they work in concert with, and do not adversely affect, the Dakota County Municipal Solid Waste Management System. As part of this Master Plan and the subsequent Designation Plan, local municipal co- composting facilities working in concert with the Dakota County Municipal Solid Waste Management System, shall have designated to that facility a volume of MSW to be determined allowing for efficient operation initially and allowing for anticipated volume increases through the year 2000. Energy Pursue development or cooperate in the development of a facility Recovery to convert most non - recycled, non - composted waste into a usable l' source of fuel as energy. Objective • The following percentages are projected to be processed as RDF. as Dakota County meets its goal of maximizing landfill Abatement. • !•tc -9- [. ra Table #6 1 7. RDF AND PROCESS REJECT PRODUCTION FROM PROCESSED NSW I Tons Tons Tons Percent MSW RDF Process Year Reduction Processed (1 Produced Rejects 1987 65 167,039 108,575 58,464 1988 65 165,570 107,621 57,949 • 1989 65 166,556 108,261 58,295 1990 65 159,741 103,832 55,909 1991 -95 65 181,613 118,048 63,565 `= 1996 -2000 65 199,958 129,972 69,986 I 1) Total MSW less 15% demolition waste, source separated waste, and waste designated to City of Farmington facility l'i Policies: P., Implement facilities which utilize a proven capable technology, are kr environmentally suitable, cost - effective and financially stable. [I Encourage private sector development, financing, ownership and operation of energy recovery facilities to reduce public sector risks and obligations. 1. Encourage inter - county cooperation in the implementation of energy recovery facilities. ii Enhance the feasibility of financing energy recovery facilities by assuring [.':''' a steady supply of solid waste through contracts with refuse haulers, municipalities and /or a waste designation ordinance. 4 Inform and educate the public and decision - makers on the details of energy recovery implementation. Utilize energy recovery facilities in conjunction with efforts to reduce, A A reuse, recycle and compost solid waste. ii 13 1 -10- • r Provide for adequate landfill capacity for residues rejects and unprocessed waste. [- Explore the feasibility of co- locating a co- composting facility to further reduce process rejects that would otherwise be landfilled !- Land Minimize disposal of Dakota County Municipal Solid Disposal (MSW) in landfills. Objective: The following volumes, by weight, are expected to require disposal by landfill following the processing of the MSW stream through RDF I classification, local co- compost projects, co- compost of project (RDF) rejects, and incineration of RDF, and source separation Table #7 • PROJECTED VOLUMES OF MATERIAL DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL AFTER PROCESSING OF MSW, DAKOTA COUNTY .Projected Tons Projected Percent il Year Processed MSW (1) Tons Disposal (2) Reduction 1987 182,393 27,400 85 1988 187,201 28,160 85 1989 191,997 28,723 85 1990 196,623 28,947 85 1991 -95 218,866 32,465 85 1996 -2000 240,965 35,691 85 1. Total MSW less 15% demolition waste II 2. Including incinerator ash E r_ 1 1- 6 l Policies Eil Ban all disposal of all non processed MSW. 1 The Dakota County Solid Waste Management system shall utilize the [714' economically feasible processes available to reduce the need for landfill including, but not exclusive to: 1 ..1 Processing as RDF Mass -burn Incineration of RDF 4 k. , Co- composting RDF project rejects Co- composting MSW - Account for all material in the MSW stream of Dakota County, designating 1 all non - exempt material to a processing facility or facilities. _ }- ' Encourage the initiation of ground water protection measures such as use of '' leachate collect lines and collection of leachate, treatment of .a 3 leachate, and ground water monitoring. , Inform and educate the public and decision - makers on the risks and costs, <e seen and unseen, associated with land disposal of unprocessed MSW. L :' r 4 1 9 ..._ AA tiab, is idi -12- f 1 CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT F • Understanding the present waste management system, the generation of solid waste currently and projected, and the environment that a system must occur in, will give an insight into where a future management system is directed. The following chapter describes: 1. The natural system of Dakota County [- 2. Current and projected generation of solid waste 3. The historical events that have shaped the management system in Dakota County today, and 4. The existing solid waste management system. 9. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF DAKOTA COUNTY Dakota County is the southeastern part of Minnesota near the junction of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. Its land area is approximately 576 _- square miles, or 368,640 acres. The Minnesota River forms its northwestern boundary and the Mississippi River its northern and northeastern boundaries. Scott County is on the west, Ramsey and Hennepin Counties on the north, Rice County on the south, and Goodhue County on the south and j waste. Dakota County contains 13 townships. The City of Hastings is the County Li seat. Other important cities are Farmington, Lakeville, Rosemount, South St. Paul, West St. Paul, Burnsville, Eagan and Apple Valley. The northern one half of the County is mainly urbanized, and the southern one —half is i._ dominantly rural. In 1986 the population of the County was 220,850. Farmland makes up about 50% of Dakota County. About 3 percent is woodland. The remaining is mostly urban land. I l! r i, V. -13- ii I I s ATE A , } :? Dakota County is cold in winter and quite hot with occasional cool periods in summer. Precipitation during the winter frequently occurs as r snowstorms; and during the warm months, it is mainly showers, often heavy, that occur when warm, moist air moves in from the south. Total annual I - rainfall is normally adequate for corn, soybeans, and small grains. L; 4,0 Occasional tornadoes and severe thunderstorms are local and of short C. duration. They result in sparse damage in narrow belts. Hailstorms occur 1 .: during the warmer part of the year in irregular patterns. In winter, the average temperature is 16 degrees F, and the average daily minimum temperature is 7 degrees. The lowest temperature on record, which occurred at Farmington on January 15, 1972, is minus 36 degrees. In summer f' the average temperature is 70 degrees, and the average daily maximum E temperature is 81 degrees. The highest recorded temperature, which [2 occurred on June 30, 1963 is 99 degrees. ‘t. Growing degree days are equivalent to "heat units ". Beginning in the spring, growing degree days accumulate by the amount that the average 1 temperature each day exceeds a base temperature (50 degrees F). The normal monthly accumulation is used to schedule single or successive plantings of 11 crop between the last freeze in spring and the first freeze in the fall. Li Of the total annual precipitation, 21 inches, or 70 percent, usually falls in April through September, which includes the growing season for most 4 crops. In 2 years out of 10, the rainfall in April through September is 5 less than 18 inches. The harvest 1 -day rainfall during the period of record was 5.10 inches at Farmington on July 8, 1955. Thunderstorms occur on about 36 days each year, and 22 occur in summer. Average seasonal snowfall is 41 inches. The greatest snow depth at any one time during the period of record was 36 inches. On an average of 43 days, at least 1 inch of snow is on the ground. The number of such days varies l: greatly from year to year. ii tt -14- The average relative humidity in mid afternoon is about 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in summer and 45 percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the northwest. Average wind speed is highest, 12 miles per hour, in April. PHYSIOGRAPHY, RELIEF, AND DRAINAGE Dakota County is a geological complex area. It includes several distinct geomorphic regions. The northwestern and western parts of the County consist of complex moraines. The topography is hilly and irregular. There are many deep depressions that are poorly drained. Most of the natural lakes in Dakota County are in this area. A large area in the central and eastern parts of the County and parts of the extreme south are level to gently rolling outwash plains. A few short, steep escarpments separate terraces along the Mississippi River. Most of these areas are well drained; however, some areas in the central part of F the County are poorly drained, and several have large peat bogs. Much of the southern part of the County has gently sloping topography controlled by bedrock y In some places, bedrock buttes stand 100 feet or more above the surrounding areas. Most of the bedrock is covered by thin [- layers of silty or loamy sediments. Short, steep slopes of bedrock are common across much of the area; but long, very steep slopes are common in f: the extreme southeast. Along the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers are extensive flood plains. Most are nearly level and poorly drained. Oxbow lakes and bogs are common. The Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers drain the northern part of the County. The Vermillion River drains the central part. The extreme southern part of the County is drained by the Cannon River. The highest elevation in the county are on the moraines in the northern and f! western areas. Buck Hill, the highest point in the County, has an elevation of 1,195 feet. Most of the County slopes toward the east. It drops from an average elevation of about 1000 feet in the west and south to . -15- I 1 ; about 800 feet at the top of the Mississippi River Valley. The lowest =- elevation, about 675 feet, occurs where the Mississippi River leaves the County. GEOLOGY 1 ; Following is a brief description of the regional geology of Dakota County. It must be emphasized that this description and accompanying figures are general and that site specific data is necessary for a specific application. The geology can be broken into two areas: the unconsolidated, surficial [• geology and the consolidated, bedrock geology. Only the bedrock geology will be discussed in this section, surficial geology will be discussed under the Section entitled "Soils ". The bedrock formations underlying Dakota County were deposted during the Cambrian and Ordovician geologic period approximately 450 - 550 million years ago. They consist of sedimentary shales, calcitic limestone, r dolomitic limestone, sandstones and siltstones. Generally, the bedrock surface tends to slope towards the northeast having an anticline (upthrust surface) running southwest to northeast through the townships of Castle r Rock, Hampton and Vermillion. The uppermost geologic unit is Decorah Shale found in small areas of West L St. Paul and Mendota Heights. The rest of the formation was eroded away prior to glaciation. The formation is found at depths of 50 - 100 feet [ below the surface and its depth is 0 - 95 feet. ' The next lower unit is the Plattville Limestone /Glenwood Shale Unit. It includes limestone and dolomitic limestone of Plattville formation and shale, siltstone and shaley sandstone of the Glenwood formation. Plattville Limestone tends to be a soft limestone which is highly fractured. The layers of limestone are intubedded with discontinuous beds of siltstone and shaley sandstone; the result of intermittent deposition and erosion during the period of limestone formation. The siltstone and shaley sandstone act as aquatards and limestone fissures act as water S ,5 0 16- conduits. If a landfill was located above this formation leachate and groundwater movement downward through the fissures would pose a problem. However there is not an active landfill located above this formation. There are also few domestic wells which draw water from this formation [` because of the low water yield. The unit tends to be 0 - 100 feet below the surface and is 30 -50 feet in depth. Below the Plattville /Glenwood Unit lies the St: Peter Sandstone Unit. It is characterized by fine quartz sand graines commonly known as sugar sand. While greater in extent than the units above it, this unit tends to exist in linear beds, reflecting erosion by moving water. It underlies less than one - quarter of Dakota County and is important in some areas as a source of domestic well water. The aquifer in this formation can be [- confined aquifer if an aquitard isolates it from overlaying surficial deposits. This unit is important as an aquifer for shallow domestic wells 1. and recharge is local. Therefore, if pollutants do enter the groundwater, it is likely those same pollutants will enter the domestic water supply in close proximity to the pollution source. Location of waste treatment and disposal facilities should be handled carefully to avoid aquifer pollution. The St. Peter Sandstone unit is found 0 - 200 feet below the surface and its depth ranges between 140 - 160 feet. Below the St. Peter Sandstone lies the Prairie du Chein Group, a continuous formation that underlies all of Dakota County with the exception of the ancient Mississippi River Valley. This formation is composed of fractured dolomitic limestone and a narrow, discontinuous band of sandstone. It, and the Jordan Sandstone, which lies immediately below, form the primary aquifer for Dakota County domestic wells. This formation is especially consider when planning to c p g for Dakota County solid waste management. 1! 9 , The dolomitic limestone in the Prairie du Chein Group is fractured which '! poses problems for solid waste management. Fractures in the dolomite are continuously being enlarged as water having a neutral or acidic PH perculates downward reacting with the limestone which has a basic PH. This results in direct pipelines for water perculating downward when it encounters the surface of the Prairie du Chein formation. If the water is polluted, the pollution will move down into the _aquifer. When sufficient enlargement of the fractures has taken place, caverning 1 occurs. Water then moves not only downward, but there is considerable horizontal movement as well. Eventually, as caverns are enlarged, the roof r becomes thin and roof collapse occurs, creating sinkholes. This phenomenon �< is common throughout Dakota County, especially in the southeast. When the phenomena is pronounced enough, the area is said to have Karst F ' Topography. Karst Topography is found in Ravenna, Marshan, Hampton, Douglas and Randolph Townships. Care must be taken not to locate disposal facilities over caverned areas; roof collapse will negate any engineering efforts made to control pollution. The Prairie du Chein Group is generally found 0 -200 feet below the surface \. and ranges in depth from 105 - 170 feet. The Burnsville and Freeway landfills, and possibly the Dakhue landfill are located over this r formation. The ancient Mississippi River eroded through the Prairie du Chein Group and i. ' into the Jordan Sandstone and the St. Lawrence /Franconia Formation. Jordan Sandstone is a porous bedrock consisting of white quartz sand. It is f sufficient important to domestic water supply as a bedrock which yields suff f quantities of clean water at a depth which isn't prohibitive. - When r drawdown is great enough, recharge of the aquifer will be from the Prairie du Chein Group. Because of the possible recharge from the Prairie du Chein I Group, any solid waste planning must consider the potential of pollution to the domestic water supply. When Jordan Sandstone is the uppermost bedrock n formation, it is covered by an over burden of glaciated material ranging from 100 - 400 feet deep. The depth of the bedrock formation ranges from . 80 - 105 feet. 74 18- IT The deepest formation acting as bedrock is the St. Lawrence /Franconia Formation. It was in this unit that the Ancient Mississippi River flowed through Dakota County prior to glaciation. During glaciation, the ancient [- river valley was filled with glacial material ranging from 200 - 400 feet deep. This formation is not important as a domestic water source due to its depth and its low yield. Water perculating downward must either pass through upper payers of bedrock or through glacial over burden until it meets the permanent aquifer, presumably above the formation. Wells drawing water from above this bedrock, therefore, are located in glacial deposits and draw from a surficially charged aquifer. The Pine Bend landfill is located over the St. Lawrence /Franconia Formation in glacial deposits; their status as a polluting source has been documented and further testing is taking place to determine the extent of the landfills contribution and the corrective measures needed to remedy the problem. SOILS Most of the soils found in Dakota County were formed in glacial deposits and the remainder were formed in weathered bedrock and recent alluvium. The soil's colors range from light to dark, are found on topography ranging from flat to very steep, and were formed under original vegetation of tall grass prairie and mixed decidious hardwood forest The general soils map (Figure 1) shows broad areas that have a distinctive pattern of soils, relief and drainage; each map unit is a unique natural landscape. The general soils map and description which follow are suitable for comparison of large areas for general land use suitability. Specific sites and specific land uses require more detailed soil map identification and on site verification of soil units. The numbers assigned the following soil associations are shown on the general soil map. L Nearly level, silty and loamy soils; on flood plains. These poorly drained to moderately well drained soils are on flood plains that are subject to o floodin and are formed in alluvium. The native vegetation varies from flood plain forest to marsh. AA- I Only one map unit is in this group, making up about three percent of Dakota County. Most areas are used for woodland and pasture, and some areas are used for cultivated crops and urban development. Major concerns of ' management are flooding and wetness. j 1. Colo- Algansee - Minneiska Nearly level, poorly drained to moderately well drained soils formed in [ -4 loamy, silty, or sandy alluvium; on flood plains of major rivers. Level to very steep, silty, loamy, and sandy soils; on outwash plains and terraces. These well drained to excessively drained soils are on glacial outwash plains and terraces. Slopes are level to very steep. These soils were .; formed in loamy or silty sediments that are generally underlain by sandy outwash. The native vegetation was mainly tall grass prairie. A . Two map units make up this group covering approximately 39 percent of '" Dakota County. The soils are well suited to cultivated crops and most areas are used for urban development. Major concerns are droughtiness and soil blowing. 2. Waukegan - Wadena- Hawrich Level to very steep, well drained and excessively drained soils formed in silty and loamy sediments over sandy outwash; on outwash plains and 1 _ terraces. L 3. Hubbard- Sparta - Plainfield Level to moderately steep, excessively drained soils formed in sandy i sediments; on outwash plaines and terraces. ii Nearly level, silty, and loamy soils; on outwash plains and terraces. These poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils are on glacial outwash plains; slopes are nearly level. These soils were formed in silty or loamy sediment that is generally underlain by sandy outwash. The native vegetation was mainly tall grass prairie. -2 - 2 1 Only one unit makes up this group covering approximately 7 percent of Dakota County. Most areas of this map unit are used for cultivated crops but some are in permanent pasture. Wetness is the primary management concern. 4. Marshan - Cylinder Nearly level, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils formed in silty and loamy sediments over sandy outwash; an outwash plains and 1 terraces. !! Nearly level to steep, loamy and silty soils; on uplands. Y P+ Y Y uP These somewhat excessively drained to poorly drained soils are on glacial morains, till plains and loess - moutled uplands; slopes are nearly level to steep. They formed in medium textured material. The native prairie varied . from prairie to mixed hardwood forest. '- Four map units are in this group, making up approximately 23 percent of Dakota County. The soils are well suited for cultivation and most areas • are used for this purposes. The major management concerns are erosion and droughtiness. • 5. Lester - Blooming- Merton Gently sloping to moderately steep, well drained to somewhat poorly drained E ;; soils formed in loamy and silty sediments, and loamy glacial till; on uplands. 6. Ostrander - Klinger - Maxfield Nearly level to sloping, well drained to poorly drained or somewhat poorly drained soils formed in silty and loamy sediments and loamy glacial till; on uplands. 7. Ostrander - Cormi- Burkhardt Gently sloping to moderately steep, well drained and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in loamy sediments and in the underlying loamny and sandy glacial drift; on uplands. -21- 8. Tallula -Port Byron -Bold Nearly level to steep, well drained soils formed in loess; on uplands. i . Nearly level to sloping; loamy soils that are underlain by bedrock; on uplands and terraces. These well drained soils are on bedrock ridges, terraces, and escarpments. They are nearly level to sloping, and formed in shallow to I: moderately deep loamy sediments underlain by limestone or sandstone ( bedrock. The native vegetation was prairie or oak forest. Only one map unit is in this group, making up approximately 9 percent of Dakota County. The soils are fairly well suited for cultivated crops or pasture and most areas are used for these purposes. Some steep slopes are under native vegetation and the primary management concerns are droughtiness and hazard of erosion. i 9. Etter - Rockton- Copastan Nearly level to sloping, well drained soils formed in loamy sediments over L sandstone or limestone bedrock; on uplands and terraces. K; Gently sloping to very steep, loamy and sandy soils; on uplands and pitted outwash plains. [ : These well drained to excessively drained soils are on end moraines; slopes [' are sloping to very steep. These soils were formed in medium to course texture glacial sediments and the native vegetation was mainly deciduous hardwood forest. Only one map unit is included in this group making up approximately 19 `' percent of Dakota County. Most of this unit is used for residential development; some areas are idle, in unmanaged woodland, or in pasture and 4 crops. 9 ki 3 - 22- _; >, ,_ cWiuii Z .1! : • i ax a ^ 8 __ l E ?z 1 r f Z -� 7 , - ^ z I y a i 2 3 a S 1d , = 3 f 1 g I a 4 ' ' i r. vsa O - 0. § € .. #S . E G f ; s t.4 N T 8 $ : fag 3 e i I:1 II f I f o = a WrF ..1 Z : -1:: J o iC u L g : o 8E t E 8 a . c 3 Y i = t 4=u < =O L N g . € S I g ! 2 t ,IN l€ 3s s St 1 3 ! i o21 ZQ d g t € s 1 i � 3 1 3 r g3 f i Q « S = o s ° i . G i if 3 2 e x ... i G l if it s: 3 / W I a 1 _ :? - g o 3 , e - s -En s / 1 1 d :I is °i i i i2 £ele F# g if 3 i x'3 i 11 z 3! iA 11 3. A u a 01011::: • Air 1.111 A - . re 1 .� , _ . 1 I it « �� I = I .. it ' A a zl = iii __ 0( 1.., s , __.1 - II *N. • . I I r C «I I ` -: _. .„', 1r 2, , 41; 2 91 At 1 41:741 .. \. di 1 I ' 5 i i, 1 Ag \',,, tr ua„,4- I Ali' . Ji, LI it 10. Kingsley- Mahtomedi Gently sloping to very steep, well drained and excessively drained soils formed in loamy and sandy glacial till and sandy glacial outwash; on x uplands and pitted outwash plains. CHRONOLOGY OF DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Following is a brief chronological description of events and actions that have brought Dakota County to its present status in waste management. This summary is not intended to be all inclusive, rather it is meant to list those significant events that have measurably impacted Dakota County and IT have shaped its management decisions. 1957 League of Women Voters conducts a metropolitan -wide survey of landfill /solid waste conditions in response to numerous nuisance complaints. L 1967 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Metropolitan Council are created by Statute. 1969 Concurrent consultant reports to Metropolitan Council and MPCA 1: ` !£ recommend the closing of dumps and the licensing of "sanitary landfills ". The State adopts the Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Management Act. The rules of Chapter 473 were adopted establishing new standards for the location and operation of landfills, and calling for the closure of all non - conforming dumps by July 1, 1972. Metropolitan counties were required to develop solid waste management plans. This is the beginning of routine solid waste planning and enforcement in Dakota County • 1970 Federal grants become available through Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The State used them to inventory dump sites, and planning for dump closure and new strategies for land disposal in Minnesota. • ,4 -23 1 Dakota County prepared a Solid Waste Disposal Plan. The Plan's intent was to upgrade existing sites, locate new landfill sites, create a County landfill inspection and regulatory program, and recommend closing of non- comforming sites. 1 1971 Dakota County adopted Dakota County Ordinance 105, Solid Waste Ordinance. Enforcement was placed in the Dakota County Highway [- Department. 1973 The State's solid waste rules were amended. Dakota County designates its first solid waste administrator within the Highway Department. 1976 Congress passes the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); included were federal solid waste guidelines for state and regional solid waste plans "to assist in developing and encouraging �s methods for the disposal of solid waste which are environmentally T sound and which maximize the use of valuable resources and c f encourage resource conservation" based on comprehensive planning. L Dakota County hires a second staff person to deal with water quality, solid waste and hazardous waste. 1977 Dakota County adopts Dakota County Ordinance 110, Solid Waste Management; Ordinance 105 was repealed. 1978 Minnesota mandates that counties will be responsible for solid waste planning and disposal of waste generated within their boundaries. County waste management plans are mandated. 1980 The Minnesota Legislature enacts the Waste Management Act (WMA) of 1980, adopting similar objectives to the federal RCRA to: t! 1. Reduce the amount of waste generated 2. Separate and recover material /energy from the waste stream 3. Reduce dependence on landfill waste disposal -24- 4. Coordinate solid waste management among state and local i government units - i \ 5. Provide orderly development and financial security of waste disposal and processing facilities. [ The Waste Management Board is created by Statute to site hazardous waste facilities in Minnesota - A consultant's report Background Study for Solid Waste Master M • Plans, was prepared for the Metropolitan Inter - County Association. Including baseline data, and recommendations for the 5 region, individual counties, it recommended resource recovery as a processing strategy coupled with land disposal sites. It also recommended integrated regional systems as opposed to county - f+ specified facilities. - Dakota County develops the Solid Waste Policy Plan as part of the master plan requirement. „% i The Background Study for Solid Waste Master Plans and the Solid Waste Policy Plan are submitted by Dakota County to Metropolitan Council to satisfy the requirement for a County Solid Waste Master Plan. Metropolitan Council performs a study recommending the siting of I:: solid waste disposal sites in the metro - region. The Dakota County Planning Department becomes involved in the solid waste planning for purpose of siting solid waste facilities. Dakota County adopts Ordinance 111 Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance. rl 1981 All non - conforming dumps in the metro - region are closed. , Y 1._ - There are four landfills in Dakota County designated as "sanitary landfills ". They are now known as the Freeway, Burnsville, Pine Bend, and Dakhue Sanitary Landfills. MPCA begins review of its solid waste rules and facility classification. 1982 Solid Waste administration in Dakota County moves from the Highway t Department into the Community Health Division, Human Services Department. Dakota County develops the Land Disposal Abatement Interim Report which identified five potential landfill sites, in addition to the one already in use, and discussed disposal Abatement options. 1983 Dakota County prepares its Land Disposal Abatement Proposal with recommendations for land disposal, waste reduction, source separation, composting, and resource recovery. a 1983/84 Metropolitan Council incorpor ates proposals from Dakota County's Land Disposal Abatement Proposal and proposals into a Regional Land Disposal Abatement Plan. The Regional Plan identified the timing, location and land disposal requirements for each county. 1984 Minnesota Legislature amends the Waste Management Act of 1980. The act requires MPCA to certify need for land disposal capacity in Greater Minnesota and Metropolitan Council to certify need in the metro- region. Owners of land disposal facilities in the metro - region are required to collect and pay a 90 cent per cubic yard surcharge and to establish financial assurance for their landfills. Dakota County hires its Solid Waste Planner. I! 1985 Dakota County undergoes departmental reorganization. Responsibility for solid waste regulation is in the Human Services Division, Public Health Department, Environmental Health. F' -26- r Responsibility for solid waste planning and local technical �` assistance is in the Physical Development Division, Planning Department. f 1985 Dakota County implements its plan to offer grants -in -aid to I - municipalities wishing to develop community reduction and separation programs; $71,656.00 is allocated. I Dakota County advertises its waste management Request for Proposal H - to potential vendors. A vendor proposing a Refuse Derived Fuel /incineration system is chose.., The Metropolitan Council adopts its Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Master Plan, March 14, 1985. This plan revises Metropolitan Council regional policy and becomes - policy for managing the Metropolitan area's solid waste until the year 2000 I `F and beyond. It includes specific objectives for Dakota County to implement Abatement programs and activities. I f I E Ii ii . !I 4 n .0 4 4 t -27- • / CURRENT COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION In Dakota County, the responsibilities of solid waste management is split between three divisions and departments. The organizational framework and the respective responsibilities are shown in Figure 2. ORDINANCES t There are currently two ordinances that regulate waste disposal in Dakota County; Ordinance 111, the Hazardous Waste Ordinance, and Ordinance 110, the Solid Waste Management Ordinance. Both are administered by the Environmental Health Section, Public Health Department. The Hazardous Waste Ordinance establishes rules, regulations and standards E. for the identification, labeling and classification of hazardous waste; the handling, collection, transportation and storage of hazardous waste; the treatment, processing and disposal of hazardous waste; and the licensing of hazardous waste generators and facilities. The Solid Waste Management Ordinance establishes standards for, and regulates mixed municipal solid waste disposal sites, resource recovery facilities, recycling facilities, disposal sites for demolition wastes, disposal sites for special wastes, and transfer facilities for mixed municipal, special and demolition solid wastes. e F 9) —28— lw. 1 i Q 0 ` W � 0� o W o Ix ��► /�� �.. 1 z W i- z p C ' . 2 c o J Z <0 a a co W ~� . 2 o = Q O za w a J OMB „k > z Q W Z U 0 a a p =' p p o } z W W I— o a a> z = Q j N "' 0 P- CO �a oI- ? WQ W X 0 4 °'' J O. DC C 3 ¢ 0 x W z W r m W n� Z W CC z� w W z ° Z = G. w= o� o o v Q a � Q Q �.� �� %.......0 ' _ O a co J = c n to �- N N Q to cc< ›- a U. en D C7 J III Z '^ H Q z a p 7 D p W J z a 2 OMW w Z U. a 0< o (..) V f- Z J 0 J a W LL. °' Z a Z < W > 0 p W C M> > O >> W z o z W p zF z CC z I G� U 1-- U Q J 0 w Q Z QW o 0 O° W Q s} < f r o a . z te a () m ill n o f z y yWQ cc W U a Q to z W N Q Q �./ \..�r� z u. 0 a a a o z Q, O , N M f 0., M . < w co o O M r-1 W co 4 � a °` • J ' J (7 U' F- J cc 0 W 1 - ,, . Q z z • W > 2 Z c/) 2 . i W f W Z Z W Z O W <a Cl- C7 w O v� Z Z z w O� z °° o J Q Q Q z V _10_ w o V u. a w a aF�O L cc Z =w? a W a ° a cc cc acn Q >� W a} z w z �� g J w o ~ z aicnv~i z z LU i > J— a 2W} o 2 a QI O zua. a MOW o as I-a Cl.. � / , N N Q DO ma • CCU 1, H . IL • • JO E ` : CURRENT DISPOSAL METHODS Today's waste streams can be characterized by the type of land disposal Y Y YP P site which accepts it, ie., special, demolition or sanitary landfills. The one kind of waste which doesn't fall into this method of characterization is hazardous waste. Currently there are no sites in Dakota County which [- accept hazardous waste from reported generators. At the present time disposal of this material is the responsibility of the generator and is handled either by the generator, if volumes are great enough, or by a full service contractor. The full service contractor is responsible for pick- up, transportation and ultimate disposal of the material. The special waste facility is either a land disposal site or a processor of "special waste ". As defined by Dakota County Ordinance No. 110, special wastes include but are not limited to: auto hulks, white goods (refrigerators, water heaters, etc.), street sweepings, demolition and construction debris, mining waste, ash, foundry sands and slags, furnace dust, shredded car interiors, sludges, waste trees, yard wastes, waste tires, and other materials that no longer serve their intended purpose or use. In Dakota County there are three licensed special waste facilities, • all are landfill sites. The three sites are shown in Figure 3. A demolition landfill accepts only demolition or construction debris. As defined by Dakota Ordinance No. 110, demolition waste includes, and is limited to "concrete, blacktop, brick, stone facing, concrete block, stucco, glass, structural metal and wood from demolished structures and other inert waste materials as may be approved by the (Human Services) Department ". There are four licensed demolition landfills in Dakota County; the four sites are shown in Figure 4. L The sanitary landfill accepts mixed municipal waste and disposes of it in accordance with a plan of operation. The intent of the sanitary landfill is to confine dumped waste "to the smallest practical area, to reduce it to the smallest volume, and to cover it with an adequate layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's operation... ". Generators are from all sectors of society including residential, commercial, industrial and community -30- 1 J /rvvi 41L E . t vid MENCOtI► _ ST PAW- + s uN� 1sM rr� / M .NOO'TA �1TS. l i , t1 ■ ` i EA4AN INVER GaoYE “Ti. �� f: , y I Go AT1.S LilltNssi 11-‘..E APPLEVAL`LY ROSEMOUJNT N1N1NyER HASTING'S fy r . 1 —1 1 vaaMUwoN 1 I I i 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 L1.AKRvILIE FARMIN4TON UM'mE 2/EAMILUON 1 MAASNAN _ _ — MVWNP. I I N/aMPTON L I i NEW RI IMLSNI�L ( I L--' i I I 1 ir: 1 1 1 1 1 1 . , . I ROCK HAM4TON DOU4uks _ J I I I I t 1 GosuiVALE _ 1WRTaWFO1tO 1 SGIOTA I '., SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES '`Dakota Figure 3 County 'ft, 1- ,_4 .. r: l WEST A ST TAM . t AI MEND•TA ST.WWI / MA.MCOTA 1 A76. l t ...., ,,. .) i __., r ' K . . :, EAf�AN INVER GROVE Hrs. 1 .". \____ ,L I : I t GOATES '. 7 1 -\‘' N ‘L ' N 's. \ ......... i i \ 117RliSV11.LE. ATT L! VJ►LLEY aost ouNT NININCRER HASTINyS l VERMII LION I=1 1 1 ii " 1 ! 1 , 1 1 , 1 r LI- AKEVIIIE FARMIN4T £MP1RE 1 1 1 MARS1iAN RAM � E.NNA . �; I HAMPTON _ I *— ❑ NEW TR1ER' iA*LSV11.li 1 I ip I 1 , 1 1 I I 1 EVREKJ► ---- �LCAST1.i.ROCX _ HAM?TON - _- T 2O VGd.A% r_ RA — i -- — r - - NDOL.pN 1 1 I 1 KAwoot.9% ) E. _ 1 I I 1 1 GRttuvAIE _ IWm.&&ORO I scum.. I r i i: DEMOLITION WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Dakota Figure 4 v Countr 47 F--- N a ;e VVliT 1-- • t' A y j , MENOOTA St % flat. F.sN / M.%H0OTA WC I EA40.N1 INVER GROVE Iils. �� 1 ;x 1 GoAT A eui LLE APPLE VALLEY FIo twouIJT 141•1NyE0. HASTIN4S ` [it 1 I I 1 VERMILLION 1 I o 1 i r9 I I 1 I LLAKEVILLE FARMIN4TON EMPIRE 1VERMILLION I MARSNAN — _ _ RAV WNA I HAMP TON 1 NEW TRIM' IMLSNILLL I I E 0 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 ' H 1 1 I 1 EuREK1► i GAfiTL1L RACK HAM4fON DOVyLAf I .,, i s__ •••■• mom.. ■mwm op■ :ma ■ 7 _ J I I 1 RA■OOIPN � 1 I 1 1 I 3 ‘ 1 GREE1dVAlE .. jWKTi11R0R0 I SOIOTA ( LICENSED SANITARY LANDFILL SITES rp Figure_ 5 Dakota County 4-46 generators. This waste type includes all waste which is not from reported hazardous waste generators or is not directed to a special or demolition landfill sites. One part of the waste stream going to the sanitary landfill which is identifiable and is causing concern, is that part called Household Hazardous Waste. This waste type consists of household quantities of toxic materials including solvents, paints, pesticides, fertilizers, acids, r! flammable liquids such as oil, etc. These substances are now exempt from regulation because of the small quantities generated by a single generator, ie., a household. However, in aggregate they do present a formidable problem. Mixed municipal waste constitutes the largest percentage, by far, of the total waste stream. It is estimated that approximately 186,150 ton of mixed municipal waste is generated annually in Dakota County. This is 85% of the total waste stream.. The four licensed sanitary landfills are shown in Figure 5. I THE SANITARY LANDFILL The sanitary landfill is the center of today's waste disposal system. In Dakota County there are four licensed sanitary landfills. These landfills receive approximately 50% of all waste disposed in the metropolitan region and serve Dakota County, all the other counties of the metropolitan region and parts of St. Croix and Pierce Counties in Wisconsin. Following is a description of the four sites in Dakota County. Current Received Rates (1985) Freeway Sanitary Landfill '146,601 cubic yards /year Burnsville Sanitary Landfill 599,858 cubic yards /year Dakhue Sanitary Landfill . 199,944 cubic yards /year Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill 1,860,965 cubic yards /year 31— 1, Rates and Charges at Waste Facilities 1 + Rate schedule for Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill as of January 1, 1986: Refuse $12.50 /ton I - Car 12.50 Tires 3.00 /car t 6.00 /truck Appliances 7.00 l i*I4 Tree Stumps 120.00 /ton Bed Springs 7.00 Tree (3 ") 57.00 minimum Rate schedule for Burnsville Sanitary Landfill as of January 1, 1986 . Refuse $16.00 - Demolition 40.00 /load plus $3 tax; single axle tl 50.00 tandam axle 70.00 truck/tractor Pick- ups /trailers 18.00 Cars 18.00 k Rate schedule for Freeway Sanitary Landfill as of January 1, 1986: ff 4 Commercial - compacted $ 5.00 /yard Commercial - loose 5.00 /yard Pick -up /trailers 15.00 minimum Cars 8.00 minimum Tires No Tires Rate schedule for Dakhue Sanitary Landfill as of January 1, 1986: [-,. Commercial - compacted $ 4.75 /yard Pick -ups 6.50 minimum t''' Station wagons ' 6.50 /yard Cars 3.00 plus .90 tax 7 Appliances 4.00 Bed Springs /Mattresses 2.00 Brush concrete 6.90 50 2- F Remaining Capacity of Landfills Freeway Sanitary Landfill: - approximately 353,399 cubic yards remaining volume - closing in 2 -3 years Burnsville Sanitary Landfill: r - approximately 1,400,142 cubic yards remaining volume - closing in 11 years 71 Dakhue Sanitary Landfill: - approximately 203 280 cubic yards remaining volume PP Y Y g - closing in 15 months Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill: - approximately 14,718,625 cubic yards remaining volume - closing in 16.5 years All four "sanitary" landfills are presently on the State of Minnesota Superfund List and are in various stages of investigation. This problem is of grave concern to Dakota County residents since it relates directly to groundwater and potable water supplies. Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill has also been placed upon the National Priority List and has been directed to: 1. Complete its Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study, and 2. Prepare a Response Action Design and commence appropriate [I response actions The Burnsville Sanitary Landfill was put on the Superfund List in the Spring of 1986 and has been requested to submit its Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study. Previous testing between the landfill and rl the well field for the City of Burnsville has established that leachate was not flowing towards the well field at the depths tested. 33- r The Freeway Sanitary Landfill has been requested to update its engineering plans and submit a Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study. It is just w beginning the process. The Dakhue Sanitary Landfill was put in the Superfund List in the fall of 1985 and was instructed to improve its monitoring well system and prepare Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study. - REDUCTION /SEPARATION PROGRAMS M Dakota County has established a grant -in -aid program for municipalities /1 that wish to implement abatement programs in their communities. Funding for the programs is taken from the surcharge funds generated from the $.25 County share of the $.90 surcharge rate charged to haulers. Each municipality is eligible for $1.00 per household which can be used for abatement related planning and start -up costs. In 1985 there were six requests by eleven municipalities for funding under 1 the County Program: q, 1. Cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount - an attended recycling center and compost site for yard waste. i 2. City of Burnsville - an attended recycling center. 3. City of Eagan - a compost program for yard waste L 4. City of Farmington - planning activity for a co- compost facility. 5. City of Hastings - expansion of its yard waste compost program. 6. Cities of Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and 1 _, South St. Paul - a compost program for yard waste. Of the six programs, progress was made in five of them, as per the grant request in 1985. e 1. The Cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville and Rosemount will open their recycling center in May, 1986 and their yard compost facility in the fall of 1986. Goodwill Industries has been contracted with to manage ;' the recycling center collecting and processing recyclables in addition to materials collected previously. .0 J - 34- ET 2. The City of Burnsville has scheduled the opening of its recycling center for May, 1986. It has also contracted with Goodwill Industries to manage its recycling center. 3. The City of Farmington is actively persuing its co- compost program. 4. The City of Hastings has expanded its yard waste composting program and has made improvements to the compost site. 5. The City of Eagan continued its program of composting yard wastes and scheduled two special "Clean up and Recycling Days" in April and May for purposes of collecting recyclables. - In addition to the municipal programs, the following list of recycling firms and organizations operated in Dakota County as of December 1985: LOCATION /FACILITY MATERIALS CITY OF APPLE VALLEY 1. Goodwill Industries Cloths, Household, Hayes & County Road 42 Appliances, Toys Pilot Knob Rd & 138th St. 2. Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount All Recycling Center and Compost Site (New - May, 1986) 3. Dick's Valley Service Waste Oil 1:2 213 Co. Rd. 42 CITY OF BURNSVILLE 1. Goodwill Industries Cloths, Household, Burnsville City Hall Appliances, Toys Sullivan's Super Value Union 76 Sta. 1! W. 126th St. & Nicollet Avenue • 53 5- I [.] 2. Crosstown Standard Aluminum 8973 13th Avenue 1 '" 3. Burnsville Standard Waste Oil, Tires 12991 Co. Rd. 11 4. Mary Mother of the Church Paper, Aluminum I 3333 Cliff Road 5. Burnsville Sanitary Landfill Glass, Paper, Aluminum, Bimetal, Steel Cans [ 6. Burnsville Donation Center Glass, Aluminum, Paper i (Proposed) Household 7. Cub Foods /MSD Recycle Aluminum & Steel Cans I •5 Highway 13 Plastic Pop Bottles i 8. Country Stores Aluminum & Steel Cans 12701 Pleasant Avenue South Plastic Pop Bottles 1 CASTLE ROCK TOWNSHIP NONE 1 CITY OF COATES NONE f DOUGLAS TOWNSHIP NONE # CITY OF EAGAN 1. Coca Cola Bottling Clean Aluminum Aluminum Recycling Center 2772 Eagandale Industrial Blvd `'`° 2. Contract Recyclers, Inc. Metals 2767 Highway 55 1 3. Goodwill Industries Clothing, Household, e Eagan City Hall Appliances, Toys Fai In - 36- 4. Barrel Reconditioner 15, 30, 55 Gallon Drums [- 3378 Mike Collins Drive 5. Easter Lutheran Church Paper, Aluminum 4200 Pilot Knob Road I- 6. Mount Calvery Lutheran Church Paper, Aluminum ` 3930 Rahn Road t 7. Country 66 Waste Oil, Tires 3206 Highway 13 I 8. Eagan Standard Waste Oil, Tires 4205 Nicols Avenue _ i EMPIRE TOWNSHIP NONE EUREKA TOWNSHIP NONE CITY OF FARMINGTON 1. Goodwill Industries, Inc. Clothing, Household, 302 Oak Street Appliances, Toys (Dale Thrift & Craft) [.-. GREENVALE TOWNSHIP NONE II HAMPTON TOWNSHIP NONE CITY OF HAMPTON NONE El CITY OF HASTINGS Appliances, A 1. Goodwill Industries, Inc. Clothing, PP + ! 2211 Vermillion Street Toys, Household l! 2. Hastings Composting Yard Waste Glendale Road 0 A ,. -37- ii 1-] . 3. Hastings Recycled Cans Westview Mall Aluminum, Aluminum Cans rte. r CITY OF OVER GROVE HEIGHTS 1. Beerman Services Aluminum Cans, Glass I 6900 Dixie Avenue East f 2. Old Emmanuel Lutheran Paper [ 2075 70th Street E. r.: r! 3. Salem United Methodist Paper, Glass 5590 Babcock Trail 4. Shepherd of the Hills Paper, Aluminum [, 2700 70th Street E. _ E 5. Bud's Standard Waste Oil, Tires 6976 Cahill Avenue East E } 6. 7- Elevan Store Newspapers v:; 7501 Concord Blvd L _ 7. Red Owl Store /MSD Recycle _ • Aluminum & Steel Cans, I 6600 Cahill Avenue E. Plastic, Pop Bottles L 8. Action Disposal ? 4300 E. 65th Street L 9. Village Square Mobile Waste Oil 6500 Cahill CITY OF LAKEVILLE 1. Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount Yard Wastes & All Recycling & Compost Center Recyclables (New - May 1986) P CITY OF LILYDALE NONE 3 8- MARSHAN TOWNSHIP NONE CITY OF MENDOTA NONE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1. Goodwill Industries Household, Appliances • Photo Booth, Dodd Road & Hwy 110 CITY OF MIESVILLE NONE CITY OF NEW TRIER NONE NININGER TOWNSHIP NONE RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP NONE CITY OF RANDOLPH NONE RAVENNA TOWNSHIP NONE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 1. George's Used Equipment, Inc. 1982 153rd St. E. 2. Spectro Alloys Scrap Aluminum 13220 Doyle Path 1: 3. Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount Yard Waste, All Recycling Center & Compost Center SCIOTA TOWNSHIP NONE CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL 1. MSD Recycle Aluminum & Steel Cans, fl Country Club Market Plastic, Pop Bottles 245 Concord Exchange -39- fi > = 2. Knowlan's Stores Aluminum & Steel Cans Southview Blvd. & 13th Avenue Plastic, Pop Bottles L 3. Grace Lutheran Church _Paper, Aluminum [1: 149 Eighth Avenue South 4. Bunny's Service Center Waste Oil 920 Southview Blvd A 5. Matt's Service Waste Oil, Tires 535 12th Avenue No. CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE NONE VERMILLION TOWNSHIP NONE L.. CITY OF VERMILLION NONE WATERFORD TOWNSHIP NONE "' CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL 1. Brady High School Recycling All I _} High School [ 2. 7 -11 Stores Newspapers 1869 Oakdale Avenue [I . 3. NSD Recycle Aluminum & Steel Cans, !- Country Club Market Plastic, Pop Bottles 1200 S. Robert g 4. Church of St. Michael Paper 337 W. Hurley tl F' il 5g 1 OTHER 1. Recycling Unlimited Glass, Newspapers 775 Rice Street - St. Paul Aluminum Cans 2. Champion International Corp. Newspaper, Corregated r Vandalia Street - St. Paul _ 1 3. Reynolds Aluminum Aluminum Cans 3180 Spruce Street - Little Canada 4. Great Western Iron & Metal Co. 521 Concord - St. Paul 5. ARC Tire Disposal Tires 12420 Wyoming Avenue South- Savage [[ SOURCE: Dakota County Planning and Program Management; Public Health Departments, March, 1986 Dakota County is also conducting a twelve month pilot project of office a er recycling in its offices and some municipal P P Y g al offices. In the first p six months of the project, approximately 2 tons of office paper were recycled. WASTE COLLECTION L There is only one municipality in Dakota County controlling the waste stream within its boundary - the City of Farmington. Collection in the City is a public service and is performed by City employees. Collection in the rest of the - County is by the private sector and licensing varies with the municipality. There is no organized collection' system except at Farmington. Municipalities licensing haulers in their jurisdiction are: the Cities of Apple Valley, Coates, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale, Rosemount, South St. Paul, West St. Paul and Hastings. The City of -41- Farmington has a city collection system using city personnel and city owned `' trucks. Those not licensing haulers operating in their jurisdictions include the Cities of Burnsville, Sunfish Lake, Hampton, Mendota Heights, Mendota, I :' Miesville, New Trier and Randolph and all of the townships. f There is no designation of disposal sites and there is no organized t voluntary or mandatory separation of recyclables in Dakota County A In addition to licensing of haulers, several municipalities have enacted ', solid waste ordinances regulating the manner of storage, placement for I collection, time of collection, definition of acceptable materials, and method of payment for services. Municipalities having solid waste r ordinances regulating collection include the Cities of Inver Grove Heights, ( Coates, Lakeville, West St. Paul, Apple Valley, Eagan and Hastings. The City of Burnsville has an ordinance regulating the disposal of "Garbage fr 4 and Refuse" specifying the terms of acceptable disposal and the conditions owners must meet before a license to operate is issued. It also has a "Health Nuisances" ordinance which sites solid waste and its containment as ...' , a potential nuisance if handled improperly. CURRENT SOLID WASTE PLANNING STATUS [3 Planning activity is taking place in every facet of solid waste management in Dakota County; this includes the areas of waste reduction, source i] separation of recyclables and yard waste, compost of yard waste, co- compost of mixed municipal waste and process rejects from the RDF facility, [Li production of RDF and its incineration to co- generate electricity, and land disposal. 0 Central to the entire system will be the RDF facility. Two agreements have been negotiated for RDF facilities: one between NSP and Dakota County in .,! which Dakota County would have transferred its MSW to a facility located in the City of Newport, Washington County; the second between PLM t :. Sellbergs /Westinghouse and Dakota County in which a RDF /co- generation ( Pp -42- 1 facility would be built in Dakota County. In May, 1986, the County Board decided to postpone entering into the agreement with NSP. The Agreement with Westinghouse /PLM Sellbergs has not been acted upon, but, negotiations have been completed. Waste reduction and source separation programs will be integral parts of the overall management system. Both rely very heavily upon education programs for their success. An Educational Subcommittee of the Solid Waste 1 Management Advisory Committee has been formed with the charge of developing a well rounded educational program addressing reduction and source separation. _ f A second part of the source separation segment will be the collection and marketing of recyclables. The economic feasibility of constructing a Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables is being explored. Co- compost planning is taking place on two funds. The City of Farmington has conducted a feasibility study for a city owned facility; work is progressing on the obtaining of financing and on logistics connected with siting the facility. Dakota County has advertised a Request for Qualifications /Request for Proposal for a owner /constructed /operated facility to be co- located with the RDF /co- generation facility. WASTE GENERATION ill Waste generation can be shown in two ways: 1) using measured disposal data - and 2) using per capita generation rates to calculate waste generation. A L waste disposal volume study for Dakota County was completed for Dakota County in November 1986 which measured actual waste generated in Dakota County which was disposed in area landfills. This was the first study, using field data, completed for the County. A combination of landfill 0 scale data, portable scale data and truck counts were used to compute the weight of disposed material. Not all the landfills have scales, therefore, the combination of methods had to be used. !1j c31 ii -43- I. . ' The measured field data was taken during the summer and fall seasons. = Projections of annual waste disposal were made by extrapolating the field [ 75- data, and applying several variation factors. Projections of high and low disposal rates can be made in this way as well as annual disposal. The I . preliminary report indicates annual disposal of 248,513 tons, a low disposal of 529 tons per day in winter and a high disposal of 799 tons per f day in summer. v This information, while valuable, is not enough upon which to base projections. With time, as processing facilities and landfills all have scales, and several years of data can be gathered, using field data will be the most reliable way to make projections. The field data gathered in 1986 will give a benchmark from which to make future decisions. For purposes of I this report, however, per capita generation rates will be used to project disposal through the year 2000. It is from these projections that all [ ' estimates of tonnages for the management goals and objectives listed in Chapter 1 were derived. There are two major generator types in Dakota County; commercial /industrial ( and residential. Commercial /industrial waste generation is estimated on a 1.? per - worker basis, using covered employment to estimate the labor force. Labor force information was obtained from the Minnesota Department of � Economic Security which had information on the Average Annual Covered Employment by Two Digit Industry for SDA 12. SDA 12 is the statistical area Dakota County is a part of; the two digit industry refers to the major employment sectors as identified by the Standard Industrial '' Classification Code (SIC Code). (( The rate of generation per worker was developed by the Dakota County l ip Environmental Health Section, Public Health Department in 1985. Two surveys were made to determine this factor; one was a waste hauler survey and the other was a waste generator survey. From these surveys, which Pi yielded almost identical data, the generation rates were computed. These N:_; rates and waste generation are shown in Table 9. L _ -44- [- Residential rates were taken from similar studies completed in the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. These studies indicate that residential generation rates are 2.2 lbs /person /day for rural (R) residents and 2.45 lbs /person /day for urban (U) residents. Generation is shown in Table 8. Table 10 shows the combined commercial /industrial and residential generation for the years 1985 - 2000. 1 - 04 1 F.� I L -45- 6 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N 44 0 41 0 44 44 41 43 v n A o .0 0 0 d 41 0 A N O O. O. O a) 0 4 41 01 0. n A 0 o V 1 44 N 44 0 0 0 0 H N O N n N M 0 0 0 44 0100'0 000 O f 01 a0 N 40 O N n N .O .4 VI NA N 4, M NN CO 01 et CD CO d N Z • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • . • • •. • • . . . . . . . . . . . d M .. Z d 01 d 0, •O . •O d H um O A A .0 M .. O •O M 01 M A •p d .-1 N N A ..� M Vf •O y O •O In N < ON m'0 N000OtMN d Of .4 CO 00 .Q- O. 0, 00 °'4 - •A •O 0, . - . . N. 44 NN d 004,44 A N N .4 O N N N d .O N .O A'0 N N d d 00 N A 41 44 .O N d fV ... N M N CO M N d 7 4 N • 0 N .. ... .. O 0 d 40 V) CI . N C7) A '0 44 H d . N N . - I N N N > O 1 4 00N OO CO 0000'0 d N 00400000000 O 00 O A '001 NN ONO444 •.w M '0 .4 O44N .0 A AO '00000 .O 40 10 . 0 .. 00 M 041000 41 O ON 410001... .-4 d a0'0 00.•. a0 O n .•. H'0 VI 01 '0 A d ..4 - M N N 4! 41 44 CO M 01 0 N N Ch d d x0 00 0 0 44 n 4, '0 M G n .. n 0.4 '0 N .+ .d . • . • • w . . . Of 00 0 N d •a M .OH d 01 N M H N 00 44 .N.. H . V1 N .. '0 M .0 ° ' 1 4, 4, O N 0 0 0 N O 44 0 0 O O VI O 0001001 N 0 0 44 41 0 0 44 44 44 0 0 0 N 0 V1 .o N 0 0 0 .-1 0 0 O 0 044 410 '0A 00 01 N ON N'0 4441N '0 d 00000 '0 00 00 < n 0101 N OOO .O.nN 00'0'0 M N N .-. Nn d 40 N n 0 0 00 4444 CO Of .1 CD AN . . . 5 . . . • . . . . . . . . ...ft . . . . . . . . . '0 N 0 0 0In c0.4 00 00 0 01 0 7 d 01d 41 d'0 NN 0141 Nn'0 n n 01 4 O N fs. .4000 '0O CO 00 40 Z - 40 1 0N.O01I , 00044 MA of '0 .4) ea d"'� Od A N N. -.04144 NN Of '0'0 NA .O a0 .••. 6 V1 n M vs N In A d N H d M .O 0 N N 01 M M A N V1 N V1 .4 rI n A CO n V1 d . . 01 N 4.4 4 4 .. .. 01 .4 O d N 00 01 CO 47 '0 N .4 N 44 0 N d d .I .•. .-. N N N N . ' > O A 0000 Of 0N4.O On 00 OD .0 0005044 440044 M OO Of A 0t.V 0041 '0 O N .1 0 001 M 44 410144 NN H 0f 00 OO V CO O 01 N H •O '0 - ..1 .ONO o0 0 .s 40 N 0000 '0 40 4.044 d 0 0 .,001'041 d N 41 0 M ..w n M d .. .. 0 .-. .Y • O N 0 41 M ...V .4 41 00 01 .4 N .o d 0 A a0-1 A M N44 N N'0 d 01 N • N 4 „ 4 - 44 40 N 41 1-- .I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 N O o 0 0 V1 0 44 41 44 O N 0 0 0 44 N 01 < 00000 N 041d O d a0 .� V 44 of M O 7 N0044a0 OA Nd 1 CO .0d d 441 000 .................... O 0000'0 '044 •• '0 44 . . . 01 O d N n VI N V1 V. d Ch A 01 A N .n O O d .•1 .n V1 O M CO O N A .4 0, .n 4444 O O . M 0 O N CO N 00 .0 .0 44 00 CO N N V 1•4 . N M 0 n UI O .O 00'0 N d .0 M .4 0, 4 cc) N O A O O -4 .- .4 .•. 44 44 4444.,04144'0 M O c0 0 N '0 40 n.-. 0000 d N M .n 00n Nd . O1 4000 .1 se NA 4 w . w d d 0 01 1 .. ...Y .. -4 0 N 0 M H.4 40 .n -1 N O H 4 .. N N • • O N OOOCO 00.0 CD VD N'0 CO 000 0041 000 NM 0.. NUM ON N Uf 44 M M ...1 00 d GO r4 '0 d 00 000.4 nn '0 O N V) O '0 N CD CD V1.. V1 d . -•'0 0001 O 00'0 00 '0 N 01 < 00 000.•1.,44 O d NMNOA OOH 00.. 4, 0 d'0 C0 n 01 7 N o d 4.4 ..4 d .. n M N CO N n 01 01 ... N '0 0f . N CO .0 N AO Of .4 Mdd N .Y d 41 00 .4 N 44 1 O O CD 0044 05044 0 444400 ON 4441004141410 N444DN o 0O n A O Ch . 40 < 001 d O141 01 CO N 01 - .0f 0 41... 01 44.0 M 0001 00. 00000 ON 00 0000'0 O O O 5 N N ..A MA CO 01 01 00 0. 44 A . . NN C h .0,47.4 0 2 01 01 0 0 0 . . . . 4 . N'0 00 . . Z . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . • w . . . • . . • . • w . . . . Z d .•. 00.. A01 d 041 0 .. 410 05 4„ 44.. d0 '044 M 00100 AONA 000'0 N H p < 4401 ,•+44.00 "ON'0a0 .O '0A 00A p N01 01.1 N A 4pd..N OfN A . .. V .•4 N N N 40 M 0 N'0 M '0 N O 1 N 0 N M .4 .0 M d N 0 0 ...Y H N 0 4 M d . O ~ 00 .4 4444. .4 .4 01 40 A d'0 .VAA '0 4OA N OOff 0- 01 N n M .. .. .•4 .4 .. N ~> 04, 404, A Of M N 041 A'0 M '0 141 '0d'0'0 PI '0... N N M 01 ... N 01 '0 N 0 00 1 00 .7 CO V 0 d N n 4444 M N0.'.d 40 01 000 n N N00.OM 000'0 Crest 0 '041.-. 41 co 00 0 0 0'0 .0)0 .Y • 0 ' NO I '0 01 0 44 .4 4400 OV d .0 ...0 44 d M CO O M 00 n 00 Of A N < n ... M M d.Y.Y 44 O 4, 4414 n 0, 4100 A ... A 01 NN 00 44 N C. 0 Of.. 0'0'0 N ..0 '0 '0 A •• N N -1 O N 0 44 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 44 0 44 44 0 4 0 y • 0- ...- 01'0 0101 '0000 A n 01 .0 N N 4..40 N 0000004044'000 H 0 H'0N O 01 N 5 N-. ON.O V O A 0044 00 04.•.44'0 AA 01 - .000 0 005 M 00 N.. ICO Z .4. fa N , 4440 d C. VD V 00.0.1 N N••. OO 01 MN 00 N N 01 O < 44 Ch Of 04140,.0.000. -.000 '0 44001 M 01 01 010 0 0...-..0 In .4..Of 00 '0 d N CO .•. '0 ,44 4144 d.O M'0 N d M A '0N.•. N NON Of NA.. - n0.. MI A CO . . • 4) 4) 0 01 1 .. .Y .4 ... N 0. N A N d .N-. '0 .O '0 .000 N 0t 0 • N M M ..... .. -. N N -±' > 0 4( 4 . 4 '0 0 40 01 41 40 40 1 ' - 4. 1 44 N n d000O0'0 .Y44N N 01..00 N MA 01 d M J .4 OON 010....1 .0 A 40 '0'00 444 . - 441 404(4 '.405 '040 '0l' - 04. . .44041'0 e4 N M 00 OH 0144 NA 0 A d A N 41 n 0 0 . . 010.. 0) .•4 d o '0 .0 .0 40 41 4. 9 05 44 - . N < Ms. N n N '0 .. H'0 .M .. • 0 .0 O N 00 N 41 '0.O H .. .0 01 N M CO 41 N C. 0 00 .•. 41 0 4 N - d d H 40 - N N ..5 O 0 00004144 0044 0 N 00 00 O NON 0 NON 44 4444410444141 .-1 00 44 < OA N 0044101 O ON 410 O .O 000 M 0140 MN d Ch N47 010O N.. 010 d M it O M 5 N N c) JD N Os C4 100144 at •O A Ch VD CO et Of 4144 O . 00 O1 ... CO d.. 01 .1 4400 Z a -4 . . • dd 4, Z 01'0044 M .O N NO.O n d0 d M d M 01.,0 N MO NA.O OON. at A .-. O G r4 Cif AN 4.0 d AN 01.04401 d.•.0, 01.. 44, 44 .•. 0,.. '0d O A . A '0 0 4. 4 '0 40 41 (4 44 l '0 41 4 d M 4, ..o Hd d 0, OMB M N 44 410144 41'0 of . . M N - Of •• •... •. .. OS N A 0 d N A 0 N. N CO N Of 0 44 41 n .•1 .4 .Y H .4 H N > ON 00 '0044 00A'0 0 00of 0 .. 44 0 '0 N 41'0.•.NA 41 MOO N n 01 '0 .•11041001 H N CO . .4 00 41' '0 O N O..'0 p 01 A.0 N A'0 0 14044 O "00 010040'0 4'0•005 N 41 A '0 01 '0 N 4.4 041 04. -141'0 00004005. -10 d 04 '005(44'00'005001'0'041 .4,1000 05 41 N W < M ... N 41 ... d N d N N • . Z 0 40 00 • n 0, M A'0 H 0 40 05 .. 41 00 0 N 40 0 03. • 41 00 N H'0 d N 111 44 41 CU . 00 004144 44, 04444041 O 4 , 000 N NON NN,441.14400 n 00 A < OO.O n N d .10 01 .1 40 000 N 01'0.0'0 O . - .0, 000 '0 '0 N4O MOO MOIA 01.-.41 M CO d Z 5 Nd o1.0 es P. O...-1 44 01 CO A 000440040.. 0101 400 4, 0 '0., 41 .4 • w . • • O Z . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • w A N 01 7 d 01A A0 N'04p.V IN 0 N 4105.••400101 01 N 0.O A d. -.0A N d 01 r 0 Ca N .•.? ., 444 d d .•.0, 01 .•1 N d A CO d 01 • • •O ••. O••• NN d n d e4 at M 44 4041 .. .0 •f N O.•.0141N M.Y.. MOOn d. • • 00 01 00 W O1 .. 4 4 4 ..4 ... .4 01 d 40 00'0 NA44 A 4400 f, 00 01 Z •• N M N A A A N H .4 H W U .4 0 0 0.0 0.000....44 000.30 4o OA .OM 44 ..4...01 V N '0n O d. 44 4 d 01 1.1 In Vs 4OO M d at O C O n W 0.1 01 O " 44 .• 01 00 01 01 . 0 O N .O A N OV '0 d .•. 01 01 01 0 01 '00444404.1.'4 Of 0 N F 0 H 1 N N.-. H.•. M N '0 1.11 0 '0 0 4,. N4oM.. 0 4, .. et CO 41 = N .00 A .-. n'0d N ..N d V4 0 O 0 .0 0O 0 0 0000 0000 0 O 044 44 000NN 00 044 N 0 4400041 0 N 0 0 0 U 0 . f 00 O < 0 40 0 ' 4 . 4 . O . ' 4 4 45 '0 '. 4 40 . 0 1' . '0 4'041.4 40040.440'0'0404..40 0 N N If) 3 440001000541'0 N MA44 '0 O 44001044 00004- 00.0014.00 NO O ' ..I Z d'0 0.0000 04- OO '0 C. Md A.od.0NA M d NA 0 ".•Id00VN'0 00 O '0 < 44 d A MI n0, 0.•.01 CO M. .44 '00000400 00.00.•.41. - 1'00.,44 A .-. Os < 44 . 0 0 0 •-. 01 44 44 01 01 d 41 N 44.4 .. .. A d n d 0, CO Z 01 01 44 N . . ...4 H H Of d 0 00 d .-140 0 4 A 000 .O O 0 04 4 CU 0 NN N .Y ...1 > Odo 00'0'0 N d 444400 .0 '0 41010.4 '0 44044'0'0'0.4'0010010 41'0 N O '0 0 .4 0040.0 d '000100 A.-1 0541444'005005'0'0'005'00505'0414(.'0 01 .-. t o 00 < 0 041 NN d '0 M.. Oi PO N . - - A 010044'0 AA 00'041 O NA d0, 00404400 NN at d N 0 �' N 44 44 CO OO M.Y ICON.. Of 44 0 .4d CO OO A < 0. N 40 01 A .. 41 d'0 .Y .4 N d 0 41 o 0 > z > F I 0. 0. -4.. !. N O. o N N -t . 0 2 0. F . .. u O. F 0. 0. 3 E. X E. C ' F o tt o 4.4 v 0. 2 2 IT 0. .. a '0 4 .44 46 0 0 0 N CO y 6 C FF V FFC NL F . N " N ...4 N N 1 o x 4 0 4 41 46 0 0.. x •444. o O R 6 . ▪ u . u k > o t0 O . N .. o N > ..a 00 C coo •. d 41 4..44 .4. O. 7 .0 .. 0 O. F C N .M • 4 ✓ > N 0 0 0 M o o✓ •.. 1. W O • N .. • ✓ W Y 1V -• 1 ..0 C✓.0 C O Z0.-1/. 0 0 N o C ..1 ✓ •.4 f. > '0 0 0> F .0 O E✓ •.. •. 0 0 .. .. .4 1 01 ✓ M •Y o 0 0. N .4 '0 o O 0 o ✓ .4 0 0 0. 0 o 0, >. ' 01 ✓ 't1 o 0, 40 44 ✓ 10 .0 m 44 1 g .1 7 0. . 0 1. C C> • 0 .0 0. H 10 M I. e N > .5 ti '7 0 N 6g N t C C o 2 0 14 .0 < < .L2 A O E 7 t. 10 h •.. '4 44 o N 0. U 0 0 0 ream o 0 f0 '4 o •. • o . 46 0 40 0 0 4. 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 .L V G ILI t17vZX Za OC N> 3 40 <3 v{ti t+.s x 4 ' 4 .• 1 • ZX ZZ 06'0144 >3 N F [• • 3 a% 333 ee . 44 < 3 C 3 i C C OG of » » » »» » » » >77 V £ k2 !!! l22� | ��B ® k�k�ld\ . i 33133‘.33 . . Ia , ® ■ § 22 ■! § ' 9 ■§ " Z " A ' 2 2 } ` (( • $@ @!E@® • A - " "A`AZ ! a1 3$ 1 r, . , ! ■B - " ! ® :4"I'P ¢\ `§ \332/ . , 3 § 2 . • . • a 22 ig3f32i - | §■§ . § �:.. ! ` \ ( g " §eaaa,a■ . ■ 'Z'�'22 | 22 lif §;g "2 .. r r � \ 0 en 1 � 4 3 �� ) a\ a 2§ 33131E336;33 k �� o° ' " 2 ' 8 . n `` .- ■ . § 2■_ §■ ■■ | . ._ B a i 1!s ;■;■, li §23E3as ^; k£si�� =�� aid - �§ ®��S .. • Rillitl2 � \ . ' 1 § {■ .. ! ! 2 a § ;;8. 22 NOV d ,_.. 0.. !B - ` , B 2 . 2. - . § 7§ � ■ - _ � � / \ § • f - _ k . . .� k.. g . .4. - § q; ;_■ ; ;_ 8 & k� It k §§ II 6 / ).} . �� } 2 :',.., 3 | . §7 .. . ! E.. §! ' 1 B 3 ,! § 1 . 15 ) ..\ 1; kI: © ] IS +ll��;;a5 ■ k ; § %. § . 2{ 1. _ i \ §j �� ;.. • . - ,S k § ■ai ■ ■ ■E■ 1 , f--1 _ • [ , r 0 N _ CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM \ (I , [. 4 - ri t.t; fit , 1 R • I, c, . r BACKGROUND' Dakota County, in its 1983 Land Disposal Abatement Proposal /Master Plan, analyzed and made recommendations regarding several waste management technologies and techniques. Activity since 1983 has been consistent with, and is now at the point of going beyond the Plan. Metropolitan Council has amended its Master Plan Guidelines requiring a more definitive program than presented in the 1983 Plan, and more detailed assurances that progress will be r made in landfill abatement. In addition to changes at the regional level, conditions are also changing in Dakota County; hence the need for a Master Plan update. Following is a brief discussion of the technologies and techniques available to the County for waste management. WASTE REDUCTION [1 . Landfill abatement achieved by reducing the amount of waste entering the waste stream is the most desirable form of abatement. There are no collection, processing or disposal costs incurred, therefore, this approach should receive a "systems first" priority. Unfortunately, we are a consumption /disposal oriented society, and many of the techniques used in waste reduction require a context larger than Dakota County. Some, however, can be applied at the county, municipal and even the individual level. These should be stressed, those requiring a larger context should be participated in. Several approaches to waste reduction are: 1: 1. Reduced yard waste disposal. 2. Changes in individual buying habits, 3. Production of one's own foodstuffs. 4. Product Changes. 5. Reduction of packaging. 6. Container deposits. 7. Charges or penalties on manufacturers of non - reusable packaging. 8. Extended product warranties. 9. Reduced office paper use. -48- fry . rl 10. Reduced material use in manufacturing use. 11. Bans. 12. Waste disposal surcharges. YX 13. Most importantly, public education. 5 WASTE SEPARATION l + Landfill abatement achieved by reducing the amount of disposed material through retrieval should receive a systems second priority, especially when the cost of disposal or processing exceeds the cost of retrieval. This facet of waste management is less capital intensive than processing or disposal, returns useful material into the economy, reduces the need for virgin environmental resources, and in many instances reduces process/ manufacture costs. There are four basic methods of separation,_each having variations, with combinations of methods being common. They are: 1. Source separation. : 2. Collection centers as drop -off centers or redemption centers. 3. Salvaging, i.e., employing crews to separate recyclables from the waste stream. l• 4. Mechanical separation of recyclables from the waste stream. It can be seen that the methods range from low -tech to high -tech, and the cost borne by the generator is related to the amount of generator effort expended. L MECHANICAL WASTE PROCESSING I - Landfill abatement through densification and /or volume reduction reduces the amount of land required for disposal. Some of the processes yield a useful product, some do not. Methods of mechanical waste processing are: A 1. Shredding materials to a uniform size, transporting it to a shredfill, and compacting it as in a typical landfill. Compacted density is increased by approximately 30Z and land requirements are decreased by the same percentage. 2. Baling material, either shredded or unshredded, transporting it to a balefill and covering it. Land requirements are about 1/3 typical 1:,': landfill needs, due to very high density of bales, uniform bale size and reduced covering requirements. 4 49 - • • r 3. Incineration of shredded or mass burn material. 4. Reso urce recover y from mass burn or Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) incineration systems capturing energy held in the waste stream. Both incineration and resource recovery systems reduce the total waste stream 50 -65% by weight and landfill volume by 60 -70X. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT AND RECOVERY (COMPOSTING) Landfill abatement through composting results in volume reduction, and recovery of humus and /or methane gas. As old as nature itself, and commonly used in Europe and the Orient, composting has been "rediscovered" in the U.S., as its principles have begun to be applied for processing sewage sludge and mixed municipal waste. Composting systems can be small enough to serve a single residence and large enough to serve a city or county, they can be high- ! tech or low -tech, and the systems can be anaerobic (oxygen- starved) or aerobic r (oxygen- rich). Anaerobic systems produce methane gas which can be captured, 1 and humus which can be oxygenated and distributed. Aerobic systems produce a week free and pathogen free, sterile humus which can be distributed. Composting systems are very compatible with RDF or mass burn incineration systems. If combined with them, the system configuration will be the most environmentally safe and most efficient possible, providing the necessary volumes are available. Composting technologies are: 1. Backyard. L 2. ,Static pile. 3. Static enclosed. 4. Windrow. 5. In- vessel dynamic. 6. Aerobic day digester. El 7. Co- composting (sewage sludge and mixed municipal waste). PROPOSED DAKOTA COUNTY SYSTEM Our solid waste problems have been discussed to the extent that it comes as no surprise to anyone that disposal of solid waste will cost more in the future. The question becomes "How much more ?" What escapes many, however, is , Ago_ • ot ,that there is no panacea, no single way of handling solid waste stream which -- is environmentally safe and is cheap. ri What emerges is a complex system, each part of which is designed to handle a part of the total waste stream in as cost - effectively as possible. Following N is a discussion of the Dakota County system as it is emerging, broken into its components. Each part will be described, and Dakota County's utilization of E that component. I. LANDFILL BACKGROUND Landfills will always be required (given today's technologies) �.> regardless of what technology or technologies are employed. Ten to fifteen percent of the waste stream will not be able to be processed Vi or recycled, this must be separated and diverted to "special landfills" or to "demolition landfills ". This includes waste defined r as special waste or demolition waste. 1 1= There will also be 5 -15% of processed material that must be landfilled i:11 as reject material or as incinerator ash. Bypass material may also a have to be landfilled if there is a breakdown or if the amount of processible material exceeds the facility capacity. Reject and bypass materials will have to be disposed of in a fully engineered sanitary w landfill. Incinerator ash from Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) will have to be disposed of in a fully engineered site permitted for ash disposal; it cannot be landfilled with the reject and bypass material, even though the sites may have to be engineered the same. . The landfill picture will change considerably in the next 2 -3 years. • There are currently four permitted, licensed sanitary landfills in Dakota County. It is expected that within the next three years, this will be reduced to two. Assuming the same rate of fill as 1985, it is estimated the Dakhue Landfill will close in 1987 or early 1988, and 10 - \ Freeway Landfill will reach capacity in 1988 or 1989. The remaining sanitary landfills will be Burnsville Landfill and Pine Bend Landfill. f.; Burnsville Landfill is currently operating on its five -year amended permit, which expires June 23, 1986. At its current. fill rate, the site has an expected remaining life of eleven years. Three conditions t- will affect the future operations of this site. r 1. The volume of material received will increase as Dakota County and other Metro -Area landfills reach capacity. 2. The volume of material received will be reduced after 1990 or after waste processing facilities come on line; this is the result of the mandate that no Metro -Area landfill may receive unprocessed waste after 1990. 3. The conditions cited in the 1986/87 amendment permit, because of the sites superfund status. Burnsville Sanitary Landfill has been placed on the State's Permanent List of Priorities (superfund list). However, it has not been placed on the National Priority List, nor is it proposed. Groundwater sampling of on -site monitoring wells in 1985 detected volitile hydrocarbon contamination. The identified action needed on the J superfund list is to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Pending this study, Response Action and Implementation may be required. The MPCA is just beginning the process of reviewing the Burnsville` Landfill application for a five -year amended permit. It is likely that the permit will be conditional, upon the owner's meeting conditions related to the site's superfund status. These conditions have not been determined at this time. Pine Bend Landfill is in the process of amending its operating permit. At its current fill rate, the site has an expected life of 15 -16 years. As with Burnsville Sanitary Landfill, the volume of f! material received will be influenced by the closing of other area landfills and the 1990 mandate. -52- i - :- Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill has been placed on the State Permanent List of Priorities and is recommended for placement on the National Priority List. Twenty -six Volitile Organic Compounds were detected in ( -- the groundwater beneath the landfill in 1983. Since that time, a - Consent Order between the MPCA and landfill owner was executed in 1985 and the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study has commenced. Response Action Design and Implementation will follow the study. f It is anticipated the amended operation permit will be issued in 1986 and will be effective until 1991. The provisions of the permit have not been finalized, but it is known that approximately one -half of the 4 owned acreage remains and that the new, horizontal expansion of the active site will have a leachate liner and collection system. NEED ` Metropolitan Council, in its March 1985 "Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan" indicates that Dakota County has enough landfill capacity within its borders to satisfy the County's needs beyond the year 2000. This assumes administration will remain in the private sector and that the sites will be designed to accept residuals, by -pass and ash from MSW incineration ash. Therefore, Dakota County does not need to site a new landfill; it needs to work with the owners of existing landfills to assure a disposal site. A basic assumption must be made that "Demolition and Special Landfills" will continue to operate in the same manner as now. This is due to the nature of material they receive. It is non - putrescible and does not contain the toxic substances contained in household or mixed municipal waste. The Demolition and Special landfills will be able to accept 10 -15% of the total waste stream. This material cannot til be processed at all. The remaining 85 -90% of the waste stream will be processible through !I recycling, composting or incineration. It is this part of the waste stream which will be the most difficult to handle and which will s receive the most attention in the foreseeable future. It is this ii . 17- 53- • fraction which, processed or unprocessed, will be received by the sanitary or ash landfill as a final destination. Therefore, the sanitary landfill of today will be the repository for residual from '- central processing, bypass due to lack of capacity or breakdown, and ash from incineration of MSW. I It can be seen that the characteristics of future disposed waste will be vastly different than waste being landfilled today. It will be more homogeneous, more dense, its composition will be different, and perhaps it will be more toxic. Homogeneity will increase in two ways. _The volume of recycled and composted fractions of the waste stream will increase as more community programs become available, and as the fee for disposal increases. The County has a program of starting community recycling and composting programs, making them more accessible to the homeowner. It is also known that disposal fees will increase making reduction, recycling and and waste composting more attractive. The Y g yard P g result will be a processible waste with a higher percentage of putrescibles, paper and plastics: Particle size will also be more homogenuous. Bypass is apt to be shredded and proces rejects will be size reduced and screened. The result is material which can be compacted to a greater density in the landfill. Process rejects will consist of glass, sand, stone, heavy plastics, etc; they would not include paper, light plastic or other light burnable material that would go into RDF and which add the most volume. The County is also active in promoting backyard composting to reduce the amount of yard waste entering the waste stream. During the spring, summer, and fall months, yard wastes can range from 10 -30% of the processible waste stream. This material has low incineration 4 value and requires a lot of landfill volume, especially in the fall. 13 -54 Mi [,,, Toxicity of processed, landfilled material may be greater than non- processed material per unit volume. There will be attenuation of some k toxins during incineration, but there will be a greater concentration r: of others. During incineration, some organic toxins will be volatilized and destroyed, other organic compounds will be volatilized "� and must be scrubbed from stock emissions. Those being scrubbed will become part of the bag house ash which also includes particulates i scrubbed from stock emissions. Bottom ash, i.e., ash taken from the bottom of the incinerator, will also contain a higher concentration of toxins than the charged waste I did, on a per unit volume basis. Inorganic elements and compounds, especially heavy metals, are not destroyed by incineration. Some may IL be caught in stack emission scrubbing, but most will remain in the bottom ash. r . The Minnesota PCA and Federal EPA are both in the process of testing incinerator ash from mixed municipal waste, and are assessing the 2 toxicity of its leachate. The Minnesota Study will become available in 1987. It is possible that bag house ash or bottom ash, or both, lf- could be declared hazardous. Much depends on what material is charged into the incinerator and what standards will be established. If ash is declared hazardous, it will be required to be disposed of in a hazardous facility. There are none in the State. There will be periodic testing to determine whether our ash is hazardous or not. If it is determined to be non - toxic, the ash may be ( _ disposed in a permitted, licensed site. In addition to developing toxicity standards, the MPCA is also developing design standards for ash disposal sites., The design standards are expected to be in place during 1988 or 1989, but there is no estimate, at this time, when toxicity standards will be in place. / ►P. -55- 1 In the interim, MPCA has set administrative policy reflecting the absolute minimum standards for leachate toxicity. Before being considered for disposal, the ash and leachate is subjected to the standard tests for hazardous determination, corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, and toxicity. Of these corrosivity and toxicity are the most important. It is known that leachate from ash is likely to be acid, but it is likely to be less acid than leachate from unprocessed MSW. Tests reflecting toxicity y are the EP Toxicity Test and the Acute Toxicity Test. The EP Toxicity Test measures the kinds and amounts of metallic elements that dissolve out of ash in an aqueous solution of pH 5.5 during a 24 -hour period. pH 5.5 is less acid than MSW leachate; therefore„ it is possible metals that are closely bonded won't dissolve during the EP Toxicity Test, but will do so under actual landfill conditions. The Acute Toxicity Test uses live animals to determine whether leachate will be lethal, carcinogenic or have other effects on animal species. Both tests will have to be repeated periodically; how often has not been determined. At a minimum, repetition will be annual. Assuming the ash and leachate are determined to be non- hazardous, the ash can be landfilled in permitted, licensed ash disposal sites. The MPCA has also set minimum standards for disposal sites, pending adoption of formal rules. There are two alternative disposal methods. Ash may be landfilled as the last lift (layer) of an existing landfill. It is limited to this layer because it is not desirable to have leachate from MSW passing through the ash due to the low pH (high acidity) of the leachate. Due to limited surface space of existing landfills, this is a short -term solution. The alternative disposal method is viewed as .longer and safer, environmentally. Ash disposal will be segregated from all other disposal, the site will have a leachate lining and collection system, [. and a lycimeter collection system. The liner may be a natural clay 56- 03 liner or a synthetic liner. The liner used will be dependent upon the '� site, design specs, and its ability to keep leachate from perculating downward. The collection system consists of a tile system and a El collection tank. H When leachate encounters the liner barrier, movement downward is stopped, the leachate enters the tile system and is stored in the i li collection tank. It can then be pumped out and treated. The lycimeter collection system is a second tile system located below the liner, allowing the liner to be monitored. If leachate is detected in the system, the liner system has failed. In addition to its primary function, the lycimeter system also acts as a back -up to the main system, and discharges into the collection tank. ~ - CONCLUSION L From the preceding discussion, it can be seen that: Iv 1. The landfill of tomorrow will be designed differently, and will accept different materials for disposal. ; 2. The need for siting a new landfill before the year 2000 does not -�P exist. 3. It is assumed that demolition and special wastes will continue to be handled as they currently are. 4. The need for a landfill will still exist after central processing AV i and county -wide recycling are in effect. a It will be in the County's interest to make certain that landfill space is available. Not only should space be available, but it needs to be the right kind of space. To do this, two things need to occur: 1. The ash needs to be kept non - hazardous. To do this, the composition of the waste being processed as RDF needs to be controlled. 2. A disposal site, or sites, for ash disposal need to be confirmed. Burnsville and Pine Bend Landfills have amended permits in process. The County needs to stay in close contact with the MPCA and the landfill owners to make sure the new permits include design for ash fill. ett -57- 1 WASTE REDUCTION BACKGROUND The March, 1985 "Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan" E- by the Metropolitan Council 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 compostingof yard wastes." As discussed previously, waste reduction activities are the most cost effective manage s to a solid waste because material does not enter g the waste stream and does not have to be handled. It is ironic that these activities are also the most difficult to accomplish. They revolve around changes in lifestyle, consumption patterns, and work habits. Almost all reduction activities require voluntary effort by businesses, agencies and individuals. Very diverse in nature, waste reduction is very difficult, at best, to legislate. What is needed to accomplish waste reduction is attitude adjustment; this is best accomplished through education. From the definition above, it can be seen that cost cutting measures regularly practiced by business and industry qualify as waste reduction. Unfortunately, business and industry are driven by the American consumer and the American consumer is willing to pay handsomely for convenience. The result is a vicious circle of packaging and merchandising design to attract the consumer, with the consumer not only responding but demanding more. Our per capita waste generation continues to increase. Emphasis must be placed on making the consumer aware of the consequences of their actions, and on informing citizens, public officials and businesses of methods to reduce waste volumes. As noted previously, there are some techniques of waste reduction that `„' require a context larger than Dakota County. These techniques should be supported and participated in whenever possible. They include • -58- 5 --,,...A product changes, packaging changes, extended product warranties, and reduced material use in manufacturing. These techniques require ( :i industry support and regional coordination. A Product Changes a, Product changes are occurring daily; lines are becoming obsolete and f are replaced, and other materials are being substituted for use in a product. The industry needs to make these changes in a manner which t '4 allows the product to be used in its entirety or to be reused or recycled. _ 1 -.: Packaging Changes I - Packaging has been a favorite target of abatement advocates, and with good reason. Packaging and containers make up a very part of the waste stream; that portion of packaging which is strictly for convenience is wasteful and does not increase the usefulness of the product at all, e.g., aerosol cans. In aerosol cans, the product is suspended in a gaseous carrier. The result - we waste hard - earned ' i.. money to pay for the gas carrier as well as the product, we waste landfill space, and in some cases we throw away a hazardous waste when 1f we put the can on the curb with the rest of our trash. Product packaging is also changing daily, usually for the sake of 1 _! convenience. Individually wrapped cheese slices and cartons of milk are two examples. Wrapped cheese slices probably represent the zenith in absurdity in the packaging industry. There is absolutely no good reason for them. With milk cartons, there is at least the need for F; sanitation. However, there is an alternative to disposable paper and plastic cartons, the returnable milk jug. Now used are two -quart and gallon jugs for milk. Since all the required information can be printed on the jug cap, it is possible for the jug to be returned and just the cap thrown away. Milk purchased using returnable jugs is also less costly. ri 0 -59- [- Extended Product Warranties Extended product warranties would partially reverse the trend of producing products that are cheaper to replace than to repair. Many electronic gadgets fall into this category. It would also make the product more expensive initially, because better quality would be required. For this reason, unless the American public /consumer looks beyond the purchase price, this technique will not be effective. Reduced Material Use - Reduced material use in the manufacturing process can influence the waste stream. This should be encouraged providing the quality of a product is not reduced. Changes in the industry itself, often allows reduced material use to occur, an example is the newspaper industry. E Press design is now making it possible to print newspapers on a lighter weight paper without sacrificing readability. l There are many waste reduction techniques that can be done by the g individual, by agencies and businesses. These include reduction of A paper use by paper intensive businesses, governmental offices and [! educational institutions; purchasing recycled and used equipment; changing individual buying habits; producing one's own foodstuffs; and eliminating or reducing yard waste disposal. Paper Use L Paper use in some businesses, in governmental offices and educational i__ institutions is intensive. Measures that can reduce this use are [ double -sided copying and simplification of forms. Another technique now evolving is the "paperless office ", i.e., using the micro- computer /word processor to reduce the need for composition paper and rough draft paper. By composing and proofing a letter or report on the screen, at least one -half of the paper used is eliminated. 14. • -60- il 1z 1 Purchasing Programs k Purchasing programs can be used effectively in business and j government. Preference should be given to purchasing reusable materials or eliminating conventionally used material. Use of paper towels can be replaced by air dry blowers or cloth towels; pop machines could be bottle machines, rather than can. Purchasing used 1 and recycled equipment or reusing equipment can be very effective at the governmental and institutional level. Both Federal and State f - ; governments have warehouse outlets at which used, obsolete, and surplus equipment is sold at a fraction of retail cost. A policy is in place in Dakota County Administration which directs purchase of equipment from these sources, when possible. I Preference should also be given to the purchase of supplies and equipment made from recycled materials. This will strengthen markets for recycled material, if the practice is used widely enough. This practice should be part of a coordinated state and nationwide r3 program. If Dakota alone does this, it will have no effect. Back Yard Composting and Mulching Eliminating or reducing yard waste will have the largest impact of all C reduction techniques on the waste stream. Estimates place yard waste during and immediately following the growing season at between 10 and 30 percent of the waste stream. With the exception of a few percent, this is all generated by the homeowner. Methods available to the homeowner for yard waste use are mulching and composting. By not picking up grass clippings, the homeowner allows nature to produce a thatch in one's yard which eventually will compost itself. In the event it does not, de- thatching a yard is required only about Z* ;4. once in five years to keep a lawn healthy. Thatch actually acts as a mulch, conserves moisture, keeps the roots of grass cool, and reduces 1 soil compaction from foot traffic. As long as it is not allowed to get too deep and the grass is cut frequently enough to allow the y clippings to sift down into the grass, thatch is beneficial. -61- Grass clippings also make excellent mulch in vegetable and flower gardens. If layers are spread thinly and allowed to dry rather than rot, the mulch will conserve moisture, keep the soil cool and suppress weed growth. If the mulch is tilled in, humus is added to the soil, giving better tilth. Backyard composting is a second method for using yard wastes. Yielding a soil -like humus, composting is an effective way of getting [- rid of grass clippings, leaves, small twigs, small branches if they are chipped, and weeds. The temperature of a compost pile is great 1 ' enough to destroy weed seeds and pathogens such as fungi, bacteria and viruses. When thoroughly composted, humus is sterile. When incorporated into the soil, humus adds tilth, reduces inorganic fertilization requirements, retains moisture, and reduces surface runoff because the soil is more open for percolation to occur. Humus can also be used as a mulch. The Metropolitan Council in its unpublished Composting Study, has projected the following for yard wastes in Dakota County: 1984 1990 2000 Total Municipal Solid Waste (In Tons) 153,341 201,762 236,415 Total Yard Waste Available for Composting (In Tons) 15,299 18,456 21,033 Yard Waste as Percentage of Municipal Solid Waste (Aggregate) 10.0% 9.1% 8.9% p SOURCE: Dakota County Yard Waste Generation and Acreage Requirements, ti Metropolitan Council Composting Study, May, 1986. It is unknown how much volume is currently being mulched or backyard composted, since no volume figures can be generated. An indication of reduction by these methods is given in the Twin City Area Survey and Low Income Survey, 1984 (TCAS). (Minnesota Center for Social Research, University of Minnesota, 1984.) f! t • t -62- [.: The TCAS states that 54 percent of the total population mulch or backyard compost their grass clippings and 27 percent their leaves. 1 These percentages cannot be used, however, to establish volume because it is not known what the generation rate(s) of persons falling into these percentages are. f r7 1 I ' --= 1. 1 rl 1 ., ..) .4. .,,, 6 . 1 f,..:, N , 1 1 8, . 1 -63- 1 Education From the individual's perspective, waste reduction activity appears to have an insignificant impact. An extra can here or there, buying three [- small containers of cereal instead of one, or making a 2- page memorandum one -sided instead of two -sided just doesn't seem to increase E the amount of trash set out at the curb by much. However, when taken in aggregate, the savings can be substantial. r Using the amount of waste Dakota County will commit to a central processing facility as a base, the savings can be calculated. The County was willing to commit 450 ton per day (TPD) to the facility, six [- days a week. This converts to 140,000 tons annually. The service fee projected for the facility now under consideration ranges from $37.00 per ton to $40.50 per ton in 1989. By expending no more effort than shopping more wisely or copying memos and reports on two sides, a 1% reduction in generation results in $51,800 to $56,700 savings in service fees. If this is projected over the twenty year life of the central processing facility, about $1,000,000 can be saved. It is realistic to expect a 1$ to 2% reduction in waste generation due to individual, corporate, and governmental actions, excluding yard wastes. If yard waste is included, a 5% to 107. reduction can be expected. However, these activities will not happen by themselves. A coordinated information and education program needs to be implemented as an integral part of the total solid waste program. Through the media, school curricula, special publishings and mailings of flyer material, and the efforts of doing or not doing waste reduction activities can be brought before the public. There has been formed an Education Subcommittee of the Dakota County Solid Waste Management [- Advisory Committee, which will make recommendations to staff and the County Board how this I & E Program should be structured. • r P_K -64- f 3 F NEED For those activities which need a context larger than Dakota County, there needs to be constant monitoring of events that will place these activities in context. Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Pollution i Control Agency, Waste Management Board, the State Legislature, the Federal EPA, and national publications such as Biocycle and Resource 3 Recycling are all sources that should be monitored for trends. While ij some will be more immediate and more useful than others, they are all good sources of information. For those activities which can be practiced at the individual, ' corporate and governmental levels, a well coordinated information/ education program is needed. There is nothing, other than individual effort required to achieve between 5% to 10% reduction, but this will require change in habits. Pt The program could include, but is not limited to: 1. A cooperative effort with merchants to categorize products as reusable, recyclable and other. 2. A cooperative effort with merchants to print messages on grocery bags. 3. A cooperative effort with merchants to stock reusable merchandise. wa 4. Printed material that can be distributed to service organizations, churches, fraturnal groups, etc. 5. A multi -media package which can be updated, as needed. 6. A media package that can utilize the emerging video industry. 7. Curricula which can become a part of education's mandated environmental education requirement. N '' 8. "How to" literature for homeowner mulching and backyard composting. 9. An in -house demonstration procurement program by Dakota County, expandable to other agencies and institutions which includes: o Preferencial purchasing of reusable materials; -6 5- o Preferencial purchase of equipment offering opportunities for less waste (two -sided photocopying); I; o Initiating policies directing employees to alter use habits to produce less waste. 1- o Purchase of recycled materials; and o Purchase of recyclable materials. CONCLUSION From the preceding discussion, it can be seen that: 1. Volume reduction is the most efficient way of reducing costs of waste a. processing/disposal; there are no costs. 2. This is the only way for the homeowner to avoid cost of processing/ disposal. 3. A total of 5% to 10% volume reduction can be realistically achieved. ij 4. The largest percentage of the reduced volume will come from mulching and backyard composting of yard waste. 5. Volume reduction can be practiced by the individual, by business and industry, local governments, and institutions such as school systems and hospitals. 6. To accomplish volume reduction, a change in material use, product packaging, purchasing patterns, consumer attitude, and disposal habits must take place. 7. The best way to initiate attitudinal changes is to implement a public [_ education program. The Dakota County solid Waste Management Advisory Committee has an Education Subcommittee which will be making recommendations to staff and County Board regarding the configuration of a program. It is known that an educational program cannot be a one -shot media blitz; while it may have a short -term impact, it will not be effective for the long -term. The program must be continually brought before the public, must be geared to all ages, and must be current. 8. The Dakota County Waste Management Sy stem needs to keep pa ce with trends in waste reduction. All available sources of information should be monitored, techniques suitable for local use should be implemented, and techniques that are part of a larger area should be participated in. • - 66- Li MATERIALS RECOVERY BACKGROUND 1 As the home owner looks at his /her garbage bag, considering ways to E reduce the amount disposed and cost of disposal, the first thought that comes to mind is to not throw away as much in the first place. This i l was discussed in the preceding section. The second thought is to give the garbage to someone who can do something worthwhile with it. Why waste it if you don't have to? As the cost of disposal increases, as land disposal becomes more critical in environmental impact and 1 k capacity, and as the public becomes better educated and more aware of E+ landfill impacts, the public's attitude toward recycling and composting is becoming more positive. Through recycling and composting, the homeowner can dispose of a part of his /her waste stream at.no cost or at less cost than the rest of the waste stream can be handled; this is [ ,:, the main incentive. Recycling and composting in this section refers to municipal or regional scale programs. Composting is limited to yard -'_`, waste composting at a centralized site. There are also many materials processed by commerce and industry which `: fall into the category of "recovered materials ". Usually considered as l c by- products to a primary processor, they become raw materials for a i second processor. These materials do not enter the waste stream now (they may have previously), and will not be considered in this plan. The kinds of materials to be considered in this section of the plan are those that normally enter the waste stream and would be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. They include cardboard, newspaper, office paper, ferrous metals, non - ferrous metals, glass, some plastics, leaves, grass, and other g , and wastes. Y All composting and recycling programs are very dependent on the market. Composting programs are in the infancy of market development 3 in the United States. Other cultures have used compost for many years, using compost is very common and is a matter -of- course by the average t 4 person in Europe and Asia. The U.S. is just beginning to use compost, 0 -111c- 1 and the average person has to be convinced of its worth. With time, a market will be established. 1 Wide market fluctuations are common in the recycling industry regionally, nationally, and world -wide. The local processor is powerless to influence market price; this is driven by national and international forces which eventually trickle to the local level. While the availability of recyclables continues to steadily increase, F the demand and price paid for recyclables is a series of lows and highs. Even with fluctuating markets, private recyclers are the largest collectors in Dakota County and the region. As community programs become better established, this is expected to change, s percentage of collection will be through however. The largest public p g g P programs or joint public /private programs. I To recover materials from the waste stream, techniques can be used that are high -tech, low -tech, or a combination. As a rule of thumb, capital intensity becomes greater as one moves from low -to -high tech systems and personnel costs become less; this is true with both recycling and composting. The low -tech systems tend to be labor intensive, this means personnel and 0 & M costs will be higher but it also means that jobs will be provided. Labor costs need to be balanced against capital costs when the configuration of a program is designed. • !I Recovering materials from the waste stream not only reduces landfill .., space needs, it can also result in collection and disposal cost L',., savings, reduced pollution impact, reduced reliance on virgin raw materials, and in most instances reduced energy use needed to process �, virgin material. Following is a discussion of material recovery techniques. It should be noted that there are several versions on the L theme of source separation. Each will be discussed separately. f! :-.y, . .=,4 , . ii 6 8- ( PRE- COLLECTION SEPARATION (SOURCE SEPARATION) Source Separation of Recyclables With Drop -Off Sites Collection at a drop -off site requires the generator to transport the 1 materials to the collection site. This requires effort on the part of the generator and usually participation is less than it would be for r source separation with pick -up. However, the drop -off program is considered the least costly recycling program available, and is r attractive for that reason. Depending upon the individual program, recyclables may be mixed or they may have to be separated by type. Again, separation by type requires an effort on the part of the generator and participation will be less than if the recyclables can be mixed. Conversely, having- recyclables separated by type means that less labor will be required to prepare r them for market. If drop -off sites are used, a decision will have to be made between costs of processing and higher participation. Where is the priority placed? 2 Drop -off sites can be very simple. In urban settings, they can be p single containers (compartmentalized or uncompartmentalized), located g c i at street corners or central to a neighborhood. These can be serviced 1 � regularly and material taken to the processing facility. In rural settings where the population base is less, a roll -off container is L often located at the small, rural landfill or at a central location to a township. Usually, these containers are not compartmentalized. It is recommended that rural sites be attended when open. [! A variation of the single container permanently located at a site is the circuit -rider recycling station. By having an attended, ti containerized vehicle scheduled for a particular location at a regular time, it is possible to service a much larger area without tying up equipment and personnel at a permanent facility which isn't used to its full potential. s ti -69- 1 - Drop -off sites can also be sophisticated mechanically and quite extravagant. If a site serves a large population, it is common for it to be a processing center and to have it developed around a particular theme. The rationale for this is the visibility and P.R. value. Often associated with these centers are buy -back programs for singular materials such as aluminum cans. The materials brought back can then f be sold profitably. The purpose of buy -back programs is to increase the volume of merchantable materials. 1 Buy -back programs can also be brought to the public in the form of buy- back machines and traveling collection services. Buy -back machines are often located in high traffic areas and are accessible for disposal of a small number of aluminum cans or glass bottles for a set amount of cash or tokens. Traveling collection services are generally limited to collection of aluminum cans. A truck with a can crusher usually parks in an accessible location and purchases cans on a per pound basis. Typically, both the buy -back machines and traveling collection services are operated by for - profit enterprises. Source Separation of Recyclables With Routed Pick-Up P Y P The largest volumes and greatest participation rate occurs with regular, routed pick -up of recyclables. With this variation, recyclables may also be mixed or separated by type. In terms of r r participation, it is more convenient for the homeowner if the material (` does not have to be separated by type, and if the program is voluntary. Volumes will be greatest, however, if recyclables can be mixed, the program is mandatory, and there is routed pick -up. Most routed collection programs use the "separate truck" method. This approach employs an independent truck and crew to collect recyclables. Other programs utilize vehicles that have separate racks, baskets, compartments or trailers for collecting recyclables. The latter is common among trash haulers that recycle a few items and they A collect these at the same time they collect the rest of the garbage. -$70- 1. Source Separation of High -Grade Paper and Corrugated Cardboard The markets for high -grade paper and corrugated cardboard are much more ;;J stable than the markets for mixed paper and newsprint. The prices paid are also higher, usually. Office buildings, educational institutions ( and government buildings generate waste which is at least 50% high - grade paper. The percentage is even greater for educational I institutions and where computer use is high. � 1 The high grade paper is usually white, pastel, ledger or computer paper � and index cards. Corrugated cardboard usually is generated by retail or wholesale businesses and restaurants. This is the bulk of their waste volume. Both of these paper types can be readily separated in quantities great enough to either be generators of revenue or at least I to be disposed of at less cost than landfilling. _ Dakota County has implemented a high -grade office paper program to capture that part of office paper which normally would end up in the Lt waste basket. Previous collection of computer paper from the Government Center was being done by a church youth group and shredded paper was being collected from the Wentworth Building by Boy Scouts. H Previous programs were not eliminated. The first six month period, (( which focused on the Government Center, collected approximately 3,600 l ;_ pounds of paper. The second six months will include the Wentworth Building (Human Services Departments) and collection is expected to L _ double. ( Source Separation of Yard Waste l As cited in the volume reduction section, 9 -10% of the annual waste t' = stream is composed of yard waste. In Dakota County, this results in 15 -20 thousand tons per year or 84,000 - 115,000 cubic yards per year. :: In 1985, 172 tons or 942 cubic yards of waste were composted at municipal or private composting sites (Source: "Dakota County Yard fr. Waste Generation and Acreage Requirements ", Metropolitan Council, May, 1986) . 71- E According to the Twin City Area Survey (TCAS) , 32 percent of those who generate grass clippings and 58 percent of those who generate leaf waste set them out for collection by their waste hauler. It can be seen, therefore, that a very small percentage of yard waste is being composted at municipal or private composting sites. This is definitely one area that can be improved. 1: There are currently active composting programs for yard waste at the Pine Bend Landfill and in the Cities of Hastings, Burnsville and Li Eagan. A joint program will begin in the fall of 1986 for the Cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville and Rosemount. Through the Dakota County Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance Program, it is possible to establish new sites or expand existing sites. To date, the Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount program has been established and the City of Hastings has improved its site under the County's Funding Assistance Program. It is anticipated that other municipal programs will begin, expand or be improved in 1987. It is also anticipated that equipment suitable 4 for improving the end product will be purchased by the County and will be available to municipalities for use on an as needed basis. Operation of the equipment will be by the County. It is expected that the compost programs will remain at the municipal level and those activities not efficient at the municipal level will be the responsibility of the County. There are several alternatives for program administration: a program should be entirely voluntary; it may involve a charge for yard waste disposal when disposed; a blanket yard waste charge may be assessed with an exemption for those who mulch, backyard compost, or use a central compost site; or it can be mandatory with no exception. The administration of a program will have a greater influence on public acceptance and participation than program operation will. f! All compost programs have the same requirements, whether it be backyard composting, large scale yard waste composting, municipal solid waste (MSW) composting, or sludge composting. How fast decomposition takes - 72- [ place depends on how close to optimum the conditions of moisture lt content, oxygen level, and the carbon/nitrogen ratio are. As long as s organic material is involved, decomposition will take place, but the s speed of the process is dependent upon how far away the conditions are from optimum. It is also possible to combine programs, e.g., MSW and sludge or yard waste and sludge, in co- composting programs. When it has been determined what the purpose of the yard waste program is to be, then the operation of the program can be decided upon. If i'-'4 program is to produce a commercial product for retail sales, the end P roduct will need to be a uniform, fine humus. This will require _ sophisticated equipment and the conditions should be optimum to keep s turn- around time to a minimum. Typically, however, yard waste compost programs are not geared toward production of a commercial product. The exception would be a regional 6 facility dealing in high volumes. Generally, local programs are looked upon as a method for disposing of yard wastes, while keeping them out $ of the landfill and allowing area residents to get humus back for their lawns and gardens. The product is usually much less than uniform. The ' '� product may or may not have been screened and the minimum turning of "') piles and windrows have been made. 9 Under these conditions, 18 through 24 months is required to achieve full decomposition and curing. This time could be reduced to 6 through 1 F _ 9 months if conditions are optimum. Composting will occur as fast in winter as in the rest of the year. Therefore, it is conceivable that materials received in late summer or early fall could be ready for the next planting season, but it is typical to have the product distributed in the second growing season. Markets for most municipal programs are the residents of the municipality and the park and street departments. In these situations, P the product is used as a soil amendment incorporated into the soil, as a garden mulch, as top dressing for lawns, and as a mulch around trees _ and shrubs. Generally, the material is picked up by the resident or k !. -73- 1 delivered by the municipality for a fee that covers delivery costs. Markets for small private programs tend to be the homeowner, but there is a fee for the product. Larger private programs and regional public programs deal in volumes great enough to require a marketing program. Typically, the product is marketed as a soil amendment and is sold to nurseries, golf courses, green houses, sod farms, etc. Most sales are in bulk. It is also possible to sell the product to a broker who in turn markets the material wholesale or retail. If a composting program F is to have any size at all, a marketing program must be in place. POST- COLLECTION SEPARATION OF RECYCLABLES Post - collection separation involves manual and /or mechanical l recyclables after collected garbage has been delivered to a central processing facility. While it is possible to separate all the 1 fractions normally separated in source separation programs, this is not usually done. Items separated out are usually limited to those that would cause problems for the central processing facility or items that are cost effective to separate. Dakota County is considering the construction of a Refuse Derived Fuel / (RDF) facility, and these facilities of necessity must classify the garbage as it arrives. A natural out - growth of such classification is the separating of recyclables. Compost facilities also require separation before processing begins. Mass burn facilities, however, do [ not require classification. Any classification would require additional mechanization and /or personnel to separate recyclables. This is usually done after incineration bulk of material is less and mechanical separation can be done. Usually separation is limited to ferrous metals. INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING OF RECYCLABLES As indicated previously, marketing of recyclables will continue to be a problem for local programs. Volume is part of the overall problem. Local programs lack the volume to command contracts with local markets, or explore regional and national markets. Transportation and volume 93 -74- c are also closely linked. Without volume, the cost(s) of transportation -;L become prohibitive, restricting a program to local markets. A second part of the marketing problem is the processing of materials. Those markets that pay premium prices require: 1. A pure product; - II 2. A product "packaged" to specifications; and 3. Product in minimum volumes. 4 To receive premium price, the objective is to deliver a "pure" product which is "packaged" correctly. This requires machinery and equipment beyond the scope of most local programs. Again, the lack of volume is prohibitive and purchase of this equipment is not feasible. - The Metropolitan Council has set its strategies for achieving its 2 . objective of meeting the 1990 mandate set by the State, which prohibits burial of unprocessed trash in the region's landfills after 1990. Two 5! of these strategies relate directly to recycling. They are: - "To recycle as much office paper and corrugated cardboard from commercial and industrial sources as possible." s - "To recycle as much aluminum, glass and newspaper from residential ._: sources as possible." r An assumption being made by the Council, as it makes its projections, i is that two intermediate processing facilities will be built in the region. It is thought that the facilities will collect recyclables from local programs and central processing facilities of MSW, process them and market them (Metro Monitor, Volume VIII, No. 2, June, 1986). L 1 It is anticipated that marketing recyclables to markets which pay premium prices and to markets not now accessible will be facilitated in il this way. The Council has established six grant and loan programs for a variety of landfill abatement activities. The Demonstration Project Grants Program is a Request for Proposal (RFP) program which has issued RFP's for six project types. One of the project types is the Intermediate NI 7 5 - r Processing Facility (IPF) Demonstration Project. Through this program, the Council hop es to establish one or two IPF's. A successful project proposal must demonstrate the following concepts: 1. "Innovative working relationships between public and private !- parties in implementation of the project and development of the processing facility. This may include: a. Arrangements for acquisition of land and possible co- location r of the processing facility with other public and private solid waste management facilities or operations; b. Arrangements to finance the capital costs of the project; c. Negotiated service contracts with a private sector operator; and d. Agreements to process mechanically separated recyclables from the region's centralized processing facilities. 2. Investigation of transportation issues in the marketing of recyclable materials both locally and regionally, such as Chicago. Analysis may include investigation of the cooperative marketing; analysis of rail versus truck transportation or other transportation options for shipping glass to the local end market in Shakopee; investigation of shipment options and costs for glass, t' tin can and newsprint markets in Chicago or other metropolitan regions; and examination of local or regional back hauling opportunities. 3. Investigation of alternative markets, specifically for the marketing of mixed- colored and color- sorted glass, tin cans and newspapers in Chicago and other viable market areas. 4. Development of preliminary feasibility information on the models, costs and operational track records of processing equipment." (Metropolitan Council, Demonstration Project Grants Program booklet, May, 1986). The IPF should be able to process 50 -100 tons per day. Before issuing its RFP for intermediate processing, the Council staff surveyed several facilities, the closest being the Olmstead County Facility at Rochester, Minnesota. For that facility, it is estimated that net costs per ton for all capital and operating costs is about 850 /ton. (Interview Questions: Intermediate Processing Facilities, #7 Ability Building Center (ABC) Facility, Olmstead County, Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, March, 1986. -76- l'' It is assumed that neither the markets nor product availability will 1,1 happen overnight. Therefore, research and development should continue and the marketing component of the Dakota County I & E program must be on-going. The I & E program also needs to address the front end of the recycling process, i.e., source separation and collection. This part of the { program is definitely within the scope of Dakota County. The County has set objectives, which are measurable, for recycling in the County. They are quite ambitious; if they are going to be met they will require a high percent of participation. This will require an intensive, on -going I & E program. As stated in the Materials Recovery Objective, it is the objective of =- Dakota County to recover between 6 percent of the total waste stream in 1987 to 11 percent in 1989 and 15 percent thereafter. These objectives are consistent with "Source Separation" percentages listed by Metropolitan Council in its "Waste Reduction/ Resource Recovery Development Schedule ". In this plan, the percentages of material a recovery include both recyclables and yard waste. This is also ‘ consistent with the Metropolitan Council's definition of "Source f . Separation ". +% Fifteen percent recovery, by weight, of recyclables and yard waste is [_ considered by many to be the maximum amount of material that can be collected in a well -run program. Others estimate that 20 percent can be achieved. Regardless of which percentage is used, a participation rate of 90 -95 percent will be required to reach the objective. This will require an intensive, extensive I & E program, as discussed previously. It will be important to keep the efforts of the materials recovery program visible, so the public's efforts can be appreciated. ii i Not only will there have to be an intensive, on -going I & E program, reaching the necessary 90 -95 percent participation rate will require a separation process which is as easy as possible for the generator to use, especially for recyclables. This means that recyclables can be separated as mixed vs. sorted; that there is routed, regular pick -up in W gg -79 F urban areas; and that there are drop -off sites with regular pick -up in rural areas. With yard waste composting, separation should also be easy for the generator to do. Historically, it has been the pattern in Dakota County to have the generator deliver material to the drop -off site. If /- this pattern is to continue, the site must_ have convenient access and !- should be capable of moving vehicles in and out quickly so site users aren't tied up. There are also pick -up programs that can be used. There are several schemes for pick -up, and just as many ways to pay for tk them. The municipality planning a project needs to determine which collection system best fits its situation. The Dakota County Landfill Abatement Funding Program for Local Governments can be used to help start community composting projects or expand and improve existing projects. Funds can be used for planning and capital _improvement activities. ij There are now four yard waste compost programs operating in Dakota County; it is anticipated that there will be others as municipalities t, take advantage of the County funding program. While considered effective locally, it is not known what percent of participation there 1 is or what volumes are bein g collected from the service areas. For Dakota County to effectively manage its MSW, a method needs to be devised to quantify the amount of material being diverted as yard waste. This will become more important as more projects come on line. Chapter 5 outlines the method Dakota County will use to monitor yard composting results. r The quality of yard waste compost will influence the success of a project. It is in the interest of the County to work with municipalities making their product acceptible to the public. In part, this will be the task of the I & E program, but it then is more required. A product which is well mixed and has a uniform particle size is more acceptible than a product which has large chunks and is a mixture of leaves, grass, sticks and sand. To get the preferred E product requires equipment to shred, pulverize and screen material to be composted and the end product. -80- 1 EDUCATION As with waste reduction, the success of a materials recovery program L depends upon resident participation; attitude adjustment is essential. Individuals, businesses, institutions, and agencies not I - only have to separate recyclable and compostable material from the rest I of the waste stream, they are also the market for compost and for products made from recyclables. The education program needs to reflect this by addressing both sides of the issues of composting and wi recycling. In the previous discussion of waste stream reduction through yard waste separation, the process of composting and the kinds of compost market were discussed. The role of the education program, as outlined in that section, was targeted toward keeping yard waste out of the waste stream. For purposes of material recovery, i.e., yard waste composting at the municipal or regional scale, the educational (I & E) program needs an enlarged scope. Not only must it urge the generator to , separate yard waste from the rest of the stream, it must also convince people who can use compost to do so. Whether the compost program is municipal or regional, the target market needs to be identified. It is likely that a municipal project will target local residents and possibly one or two local, volume customers. The I & E Program can be quite low key for this size L: project. It will concentrate on home use of compost and its value as mulch, as a source of humus for gardens, etc. L Regional compost projects, either public or private, face a more difficult marketing problem. The volumes dealt with make it imparitive that there be a constant, larger volume market, or a series of them, 0 and that revenues generated make the project viable as a business. As a result, marketing programs are much more high profile and are in effect an I & E program and a P.R. program rolled into one. Large s c, compost programs cannot afford to have an inventory of product which isn't moving; they have to aggressively market their product. F . • q4 -77- For this master plan, the I & E program for compost projects will projects at the municipal scale. This is the t concentrate on small p � p type of project currently being used in Dakota County and their numbers will [- increase as urban municipalities take advantage of the Dakota County Landfill Abatement Funding Program to Local Governments. At this scale of project, the effects of abatement are very tangible and residents tend to support such programs with minimum persuasion. The second type of material recovery has a less immediate link between generator and consumer than yard waste composting does, and the entire process is more complicated. This is recycling. The process between generator and consumer has three and sometimes four more steps in it, /- and the entire industry is driven by the markets. The markets occur at two levels: the market for recyclables as raw materials, and thee market for products made with recyclables. Of the two, the latter is the most important because it is the source of demand for recycled raw materials. As a rule of thumb, there is usually no shortage of recyclable material, there is a lack of demand for product. It is well known that many products can be produced at less cost using a recycled material /virgin material mix rather than 100% virgin material. If a reliable demand for a product mad e with recycled material exists, at a price which yield a reasonable profit, industry generally is willing to use recycled materials in its processes. What remains then is the creation of a reliable market. An I & E program in Dakota County is not going to create a market for an entire industry. However, the County would be remiss if it did not include a marketing component in its I & E program. Markets are comprised of people and businesses; the County had a population of • 220,000 in 1986 and the businesses sector is growing rapidly. These potential users of products lade from recyclables comprise a considerable market. The I & E program should do two things for them: f! 1. Inform them of sources of products; and 2. Apprise them of the characteristics of recycled products and the advantages in their use. 9i —78— I [-: Due to the cost of equipment needed to improve the product, it isn't cost effective to purchase the machinery for a single project. It is, however, within the scope of the County Abatement Program to purchase $ such equipment with surcharge funds. In this way, all of the municipal programs can have the advantage of using or contracting for the L equipment. The equipment use will be more constant and the compost product will be improved. The purchase of this equipment is included 1 in the 1986 Surcharge Fund budget. CONCLUSION Material recovery is considered the second line of defense when keeping the cost of solid waste management down. After reduction, source separation of yard waste and recyclables is the least capital intensive activity that can be used to manage the MSW stream. While composting and processing recyclables does require capital investment, the 1? investment is much less intensive than either landfilling or processing for incineration the same materials. Combined, the effort of the generator and the cost of processing source separated materials is less than the cost of other disposal methods. it It is the goal of Dakota County to "minimize disposal of solid waste in landfills ". It is the responsibility of the County to do this in a i' `' cost effective manner which will require programs for recycling and composting yard wastes. Dakota County's objective is to recycle and Li compost 15 percent of the total waste stream after 1990; this will require a 90 -95 percent participation rate. Materials recovery can occur at two times during waste management; y either pre - collection (source separation) or post collection. Most recycling programs and all yard waste compost programs consider source t! separation as preferable to post - collection separation: 1,11 o Yard waste is either lost completely or must go through a t classification system before it can be separated from the rest of the waste stream. 1 8 0 1 0 - o Food waste contaminates recyclables and becomes trapped in bottles and cans. o Bottles break and cans get crushed during collection, in packer . trucks, on the tipping floor, and during processing. o There are added costs for equipment needed to separate recyclables from the rest of the waste stream. F o There are added costs for equipment needed to separate recyclables fr from the rest of the waste stream. To achieve a artici ation rate of 90 -95% for source separation of P P P recyclables, the separation/collection program will have to be configured to make it as easy as possible for the generator to participate: o Materials should be separated as mixed recyclables, rather than [74 sorted by type. o There should be convenient, regularly picked -up drop -off centers in L the rural areas of the County. o There should be regular, routed pick -up in urban areas. 1 .: An intermediate processing facility (IPF) will make it possible to L utilize regional markets and premium local and regional markets. Increased volume allows an IPF to: o Process recyclables as a "pure" product packaged to specifications of buyers paying premium prices. o Process recyclables in dense packages that maximize transportation utilization. o Utilize transportation modes not available to small, local programs. -s2- fi 3 reducing the overall cost of _ ki To attain 15 percent reduction of the waste- stream, composting programs for yard waste must be expanded or implemented in the urban area of Dakota County. Characteristics of yard waste are its low value as a t q fuel and its seasonal nature. A program of yard waste composting will: o Make it possible for homeowners and businesses to have a low cost 1 alternative for the disposal of their material which cannot be composted on site. ff� o Remove material from the waste stream which has a high moisture content, a low heat value, and is seasonal; all of which make it undesirable as an RDF. \: o Provide the homeowner with an excellent product to use as .a soil f amendment /source of humus, as a top dressing for lawns, and as a mulch in flower beds and gardens. 1.: To be successful, the yard waste compost program is dependent upon: [- o Participation by generators, which will require an easily accessible site; fR o An understanding of the inherent value of compost by the average 0 citizen, which will require an I & E program; and o A product of good quality which is uniform and well mixed, which will require shredding and screenign equipment. 1 0 1. -83- The I & E program being developed by staff and the Dakota County Solid Waste Management Committee will address the issues of recycling and yard waste composting. The I & E program will need to be broad, based in its use of distribution mediums and its audiences. It will consist of information suitable for use in school curricula, as well as in media release, etc. SPECIAL WASTES - BACKGROUND Special wastes consist of materials that _don't fall neatly into MSW accepted by most sanitary landfills but need to be disposed of by the generator. In some instances small quantities will be accepted by landfill operators as part of the MSW stream, however, the landfills in large quantities. In other instances, t accept the material g q , State or Federal regulations have banned landfilling altogether, while other materials must be handled specially and a drop fee is charged by the landfill. The following discussions outline the extent of Dakota County's consideration of these wastes and recommendations for handling them. WASTE TIRES Waste tires are a serious disposal problem; this was recognized by the State when it passed legislation in 1984 prohibiting land disposal of tires after July 1, 1985. When the legislation passed, it was projected that processing would be in operation to satisfactorily recycle used tires being generated and begin to abate stockpiled tires. However, the processing facilities has not materialized and E today tires are being disposed of legally in licensed storage areas and at Tonson, Inc. of Andover which shreds tires. They are also being disposed of illegally in some landfills, in unlicensed storage areas, and along the roadsides. 103 -84- d Tires traditionally have been a problem for disposal in landfills ::,, because they are resilient and tend to rise in the landfill during compaction and as the landfill subsides. Their resiliency also causes them to take up more space in the landfill than desirabl, and the lack 1 4 : of compaction and voids created increase the potential for groundwater to infiltrate the abandoned landfill easily. �.a Stored tires present other problems. The danger of fire is always present with the threat of very serious environmental impact. Tire fires are virtually impossible to extinguish, and they create a dense =n smoke and toxic residue. Groundwater contamination is extremely • difficult to avoid, can cost millions to prevent and will cost even [71 more to clean up. It is also well documented that stockpiles of tires act as breeding grounds and incubators for mosquitoes and as shelter for rodents and other vermin. El To deal with these problems, MPCA has adopted emergency rules and has drafted permanent rules addressing tire processing, stockpiling, licensing of haulers and processors and illegal disposal. It is VI anticipated the permanent rules will be adopted by the end of 1986 or `Y early 1987. Until the permanent rules are in place, Dakota County ..; adopted an interim tire ordinance to meet the July 1, 1985 ban on land [ disposal of tires. It is anticipated by the County that when MPCA rules are adopted, the County's ordinance will be revised to be in s conformance or to be more restrictive in order to achieve desired results. The State Legislation passed in 1984 cited four activities that are to take place. They are: 1. Develop and administer a permitting program for waste tire collection and processing; 2. Develop and administer a waste tire dump abatement program; as 3. Conduct a waste tire study for Minnesota; and i! 104 -85- 4. Develop and administer a waste tire grant and loan program that would encourage waste tire recycling in Minnesota. Activities 1 and 2 are covered in the rules. Activity 3 was . accomplished in the reports, Scrap Tires in Minnesota, October 1985, and The Waste Tire Collection and Incineration Study, Final Report, April 1986. 1 The fourth activity is the grant and loan program administered by the Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) which is being funded by the $4.00 Title Transfer Tax. Available to private industry, up to 50Z of facility costs can be financed through the grant portion of the program and the remainder may be financed through the loan portion. The loan portion is based on good fiscal policy and as such requires the applicant to be capable of covering the loan under normal loan criteria. Companion programs are available to the public sector through the Waste Management Board (WMB). WMB has two programs which can be used. The tz first is a grant program which covers up to 25% of eligible development cost up to $2,000.000.00 The second program is the grant and loan program which grants up to 50% eligible development cost up to $400,000.00. Under the second program, a combination of grant and loan may be used, but combined eligible costs may not exceed $400,000.00. < [I It is possible to combine the DEED and WMB programs if a joint public /private venture is undertaken, providing all the applicant infusion requirements are met. 11 Secondary use of tires nationally accounts for only 30 percent of all waste tires on an annual basis. Uses include: 1. retreadable carcasses (20Z), L 2. as used tires, 3. use in the splitting industry for gaskets, sandals, rubber mats, rx fencing, etc. X05 NO - 86— I ` 4. whole, non - tire use such as crash barriers, playground equipment, erosion control, barrier reefs, etc. 5. production of ground or crumb rubber, 6. chemical or thermal devulcanization and reclamation, and t 7. incineration. 4 Source: Scrap Tires: A resource and Technology Evaluation of Tire Pyrolysis and Other Selected Alternative Technologies, EG & G Idaho, Inc., Nov., 1983 Recognizing the above secondary uses, the authors of the report, Scrap Tires in Minnesota, conclude: The apparent absence of other suitable high volume applications makes TDF (Tire Derived Fuel) the best short - term use for Minnesota's scrap tire volumes." The following discussion r outlines reasons for considering incineration of TDF and questions that must be answered it is determined whether a particular system can burn :;Y TDF. 1 `y It is important to consider these Refuse Derived Fuel facilities for scrap tire disposal because: 1 .: 1) Scrap tires are or can be considered a part of the solid waste stream. 2) Higher value markets for TDF may not exist to preclude tire inclusion with the municipal waste stream. 3) TDF or whole tires have a high energy content that is a beneficial 0 supplement (fuel sweetener) to the low energy content of municipal solid waste. [4 Vil X 0 1 0 -87- r Questions to be addressed before the operators of incinerators or RDF facilities may use tires as a fuel are: [- 1. What specifications must a tire fuel product meet? i.e. can it burn whole tires, or do the tires have to be processed? 2. Will the feed conveyor systems of the waste to energy facility be able to handle tires? - r 3. Can ash handling systems deal with tire residue? 4. Is the combustion time adequate to burn TDF and /or whole tire forms? 5. Are air emission control systems adequate to satisfy pollution control requirements when burning rubber? 6. Does one need to evenly blend TDF with municipal waste for mass incinerators or RDF combustion units? TDF must be used in boilers designed to burn solid fuel, i.e., grated, fluidized bed and gasifier systems. The TDF must be blended with the primary fuel, in Dakota County's case, RDF. Facilities that do burn TDF and RDF tend to blend it at the rate of 3 -10Z TDF. The limiting factor usually isn't how much TDF a particular facility can burn, rather it is the constraints placed on the facility for air quality. Testing has shown that TDF can be blended with other fuels in percentages ranging from 32 -50% of the total fuel successfully. The low end of the the range (3%) represents facilities with little or no emission control and the high end of the range represents facilities having control systems with 99.9% efficiency. It appears that limitations on using TDF will be due to capacity of charging systems, optimum operating temperatures of the incineration system or permit conditions for air emissions. �- released throw h the incineration of TDF is very The amount of energy g y high. The following table identifies the energy value of TDF and energy values of other solid fuels with which TDF is commonly blended. L2 ^ gy m Table #11 ; ENERGY CONTENT OF SELECTED SOLID FUELS ff� FUEL TYPE ENERGY CONTENT (in million BTU's per ton) t 1. Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) 29 -31 t ll 2. Bituminous Coal 18-27 3. Subbituminous Coal 17 -23 4. Petroleum Coal 18 -19 5. Lignite Coal 12 -14 * 6. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) 11 -13 L 7. Bark - Wood 8 -17 _ * 8. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 8 -9 NOTE: Fuel types 6 and 8 added by the Dakota County Planning . and Program Management Department Source: Scrap Tires in Minnesota, Waste Recovery, Inc. Oct., 1985. ,"il Following is an application of the previous data illustrating what the incineration of 10% TDF would mean for the Dakota County RDF/co- generation facility. It is proposed to process 735 TPD, municipal a solid waste; this will yield approximately 480 Ton of RDF per day. I The RDF will be incinerated to drive the co- generation facility producing 22 megawatts electricity, or 22,000 kilowatts. The energy " A ' released in burning the 480 Ton RDF will be 5,760 million BTU. For this illustration, let us assume the incinerator can burn an 1 .., additional 10 %, or 48 tons per day, which would be TDF. Incineration ti releases 75% of a tire's BTU value, therefore an additional 1,080 million BTU would be available for co- generation. _'+ Making a second assumption; the additional BTU's will be used at the same rate as the BTU's already programmed. It requires 5,760 million BTU to generate 22 megawatts electricity under the proposed agreement, ioD -89- r or 261.8 million BTU per kilowatt. Assuming this is correct, adding 10% TDF will allow slightly more than 4 megowatts to be generated. t` . Using a six day work week, processing 48,000 tires per day will allow 14,976,000 tires to be processed annually. The report, Scrap Tires in Minnesota, estimates there are approximately 3,000,000 tires generated annually in the entire State. [ Given the above statistics on tire generation and being realistic, it is unlikely that a facility would be built which would generate 48 tons of TDF per day. Presently there is one facility, Tonson, Inc. at Andover, Minnesota which processes 1.5 million tires annually, or about 5,800 tires per day. A new facility planned for Babbitt, [- Minnesota will have a maximum capacity of 6,000.000 tires annually or 19,230 tires per day. However, it is expected the plant will have a break -even point of 300,000 tires annually and may operate at a 3,000 - 6,000 tires per day rate. It would be more realistic to expect a facility to be built that would f be in the range of these two facilities. Scaling the facility back to the size of the Tonson, Inc. facility would result in processing 1.5 - 2 million tires per year or 5,000 - 7,000 tires per day on a six day per. week basis. Seven thousand tires per day, six days a week, will _, yield 7 tons of TDF per day, capable of making up 1.4% of the incinerator's fuel requirement. This will yield enough energy to be converted into .6 megawatt electricity. Seven thousand tires per day results in processing 10 times the waste [r tire generation of Dakota County, and more than the generation of all the Metro -Area. The Metro -Area generates 1.7 million tires per year. The report, Scrap Tires in Minnesota, lists stockpiled tires in f the Metro -Area, in 1985, totaling 6,621,000 from reported sources. L, There was no estimate of non- reported numbers nor the number of tires being transported out of the Metro -Area, primarily north and east of t '^ R the Metro -Area. t! coq -90- t' `1S:3i T here appears to be a potential for meeting the legislative mandate, banning the landfilling of tires, for increasing the percentage of landfill abatement in Dakota County, and for generating greater revenues from the incineration /co- generation facility. In short it may be possible to turn a problem into an asset. As the previous 1 discussion shows, there are many unresolved questions that must be answered before production of TDF can seriously be considered. There are enough positive indicators, however, to warrant the recommendation to investigate the conversion of scrap tires into Tire Derived Fuel and to link this process to the incinerator /co- generation under consideration. C HOU SEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE A Household hazardous waste is a part of the MSW stream- which only recently has been recognized for the magnitude of the pollution ff problems associated with landfills that it really presents. This source of toxic and hazardous substances is responsible, in large part, for the exotic compounds found in landfill leachate. If not ted these compounds percolate throw collected and trea , po through the base of p g z the landfill downward into ground water, often into a potable water source. The uncontrolled mixing of singularly non - hazardous substances is also responsible for previously unexplained fires and explosions in garbage trucks, landfills and processing facilities. ,,, Every household uses materials which can be classified as hazardous. Cleansers, paints, varnishes, thinners, solvents, antifreeze, weed killers, ant and rodent killers, insecticides, gasoline, waste oil, chlorine bleach and many, many more are either hazardous by themselves or become hazardous when combined with other materials. If households P in Dakota County are "typical ", between 0.13 % -0.31Z of the residential waste stream is household hazardous waste, and between 40 and 60 pounds are stockpiled for future use or stored waiting disposal. Using these rates, between 285 and 680 tons household hazardous waste will be generated in Dakota County per year and there will be between 1,640 and 2,460 tons stockpiled and stored. [ 6 ti ►10 -91- 1 Due to the small quantity generated by each household and the administrative nightmare created by trying to regulate disposal, . households are exempt from regulations requiring proper disposal of hazardous waste. The bulk of household hazardous waste is disposed of in the residential waste stream and the remainder is flushed into the sanitary sewer or dumped on the ground. Currently, there is one pilot collection project in Dakota County which is a one day Y program amnest ro ram allowing homeowners to bring material to a central collection point for disposal at no cost to the homeowner. The City of Inver Grove Heights, through its Solid and Hazardous Waste Task Force, and Browning Ferris, Incorporated cooperated for a one day amnesty collection in 1985 and will do so again in 1986. In 1985, 24 barrels of household hazardous waste and over 500 gallons of waste oil were collected. The program is planned [. to continue annually. When the proposed RDF/co-generation facilities come on line, responsibilities for household hazardous waste will change drastically. After 1990 no unprocessed waste may be landfilled in the Metro -Area; this means all processable waste must go to a processing facility. In Dakota County, the proposed facilities are an RDF 1 facility and a Co- compost facility. Both types of facilities are sensitive to acceptance of household hazardous waste for several reasons: 1. The danger of explosions and fire, 2. contamination of compost and product, 3. contamination of RDF, leading to greater concentrations of heavy metals in bottom and fly ash, 4. contamination of RDF resulting in poor air quality performance, 5. danger to personnel, and 6. contamination of process rejects that will be composted or a landfilled. III a -9 2- • In the agreement negotiated between the vendor and the County, the County will be responsible for the safe disposal of all household hazardous waste, separated from the waste stream before the MSW enters the classification process. After the MSW enters the classification process, any household hazardous waste which is detected or RDF and 'l reject material that becomes contaminated is the responsibility of the ' 3 y vendor. I t ' Therefore, the County has assumed a risk and responsibility associated 1 with household hazardous waste; a responsibility no one assumed in Dakota County before. There are several alternatives the County will explore to determine how best to handle and carry out its new -found responsibility. q 1. Work with local amnesty programs as they collect household hazardous waste. ` 2. Establish a county -wide amnesty program to perform the same function, in the same manner, as the local programs and coordinate z the amnesty collection days through local municipalities. 4 3. Maintain an ongoing collection program co- located with the RDF f facility on the waste processing campus, and work with local ll amnesty programs. ,. 4. Maintain the ongoing collection program at the waste processing L ,, campus, only. s Qz r „ r. -W [I -4 1 1 1. . -93- . .-, Li [...: 4 . CHAPTER 4 - Ji IMPLEMENTATION .. - •:-.4 ,..-,.: .1 _ , 4 . 'CI [ --,-. - sl 'IA rt `1 :74 113 . F PREAMBLE The following excerpt from Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan ", March 14, 1985 summarizes a county's responsibility when implementing a solid Waste management program. "In the Metropolitan area, municipalities, townships and counties are responsible for regulating collection and transportation of solid Waste and certain aspects of facility location and operation. Counties are directed to prepare master plans that describe and govern existing and proposed solid Waste activities, functions and facilities of the counties and municipalities within the counties jurisdiction (Minnesota Stat. Sec. 473.803). These plans in turn, are governed by and required to be consistent with the Council's guide on sold Waste management.. their master plans to implement counties must amend the lement Waste p P reduction and resource recovery facilities and activities. The siting and reduction /recovery process is governed by and must be consistent with the Council's solid Waste guide." More specifically, Metropolitan Council subsequently issued a "Plan Content Requirements" summary which lists several implementation -type issues that must be addressed in the master plan. As applied to Dakota County, they include: 1. "Implementation procedures, including planning, operating, ownership financing arrangements and financin ements and marketing approach...; L g 2. How existing facilities and services will or may be used to implement the plan; 3. Contingency procedures for situations when the management alternative cannot be implemented or are temporarily out of [1 service...; { jjFF {rr rz � 4. Role of local governments in County programs, including a description of city and town programs that would qualify for landfill abatement cost recovery...; 5. Role of waste flow designation; and 1 -1 ` 6. County and municipal enforcement activities, including monitoring 1 programs, and expected licensing and permitting requirements and ordinances." Chapter 1, of this report, contains the goals, objectives, and l' policies of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners for its solid waste management program. The policy statements and objectives are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Waste Reduction /Resource 1. Recovery Development Schedule and its percentages by County. Implied in Dakota County's goal and policy statements are actions that must occur before implementation can take place and objectives can be achieved. This Chapter will discuss the resources available to Dakota I County and strategies that could be applied as the plan is implemented. C LEGISLATIVE State legislature rules, administered by MPCA, guidelines of Metropolitan Council, ordinances and rules administered by Dakota County, and ordinances and regulations administered by cities and [1 towns all play a role in shaping Dakota County's solid Waste management system, State legislation, MPCA rules and Metropolitan guidelines all address the solid Waste issue from a regional or state perspective. As such, these tools address the larger picture and must be monitored by the County, and where appropriate, the County should try to influence the legislation, rules or guidelines. It must be realized that Dakota County is part of a larger system, but that l" � effects of such legislation may be detrimental to the County's system. 0 1 15 . -95- Ordinances and regulations administered by towns and cities must be accommodated before a facility or a system can be built. The County i - needs to work with local governments to assure compliance and perhaps to suggest changes in local regulations that will further protect citizens and /or accommodate a proposed use. Most of the ordinances and rules that enable a solid waste management f: "= system to be built and regulate its performance are administered by [- Dakota County, as permitted and precribed by state enabling . legislation. ;"q The following discussion is limited to _those ordinances and rules directly controlled by Dakota County. iZ EXISTING ORDINANCES Solid Waste Management Ordinance - Ordinance #110. [.2 Ordinance #110 is the ordinance which establishes standards and regulations for solid waste management, the operation of waste disposal facilities, and the operation of resource recovery facilities. Current, proposed amendments to this Ordinance include: r T: 1. A section on the collection, storage, processing and disposal of Waste tires, � Lri 2. Amendments to include a definition of Transfer Station and regulations for same, 3. An amendment to the Definitions section to include "Special Waste" 4. Amendments to include all types of Waste processing facilities, ie., resource recovery vs. recycling, vs compost, vs. co- compost facilities. r Future amendments to Ordinance #110 to be considered include, but are a a not limited to: r! 1. Designation of municipal solid Waste (MSW) 2. Organized collection of MSW 3+ 3. Licensure of haulers ! 96 r i , 4. Source separation of recyclables a, 5. Routed pick -up of recyclables 6. Source separation of yard waste, and 7. Collection, storage and transport of recyclable waste oil 1- Hazardous Waste Ordinance - Ordinance #111 Ordinance #111 is the ordinance which establishes standards and regulations for the collection, transport, treatment and disposal of . hazardous and /or toxic waste in Dakota County. It is this Ordinance i s which will be cited when household quantities of hazardous waste are addressed. A comprehensive revision of Ordinance 111 has just been completed, no further revisions are scheduled at this time. Building and Land Use Regulations Local regulations (county, city and town) will apply when any solid L : 1 waste processing or disposal facility is sited. County regulations to s be considered are contained in the Shoreland and Floodplain Management ry Ordinance for Dakota County, June 17, 1986. This Ordinance manages development of shoreland and floodplain areas in unincorporated lands VI of Dakota County to minimize: pollution. of surface waters, contamination of local potable water resources, flood damage and their associated public costs and inconveniences. Solid Waste facilities of any kind are prohibited in both the Shoreland and Floodplain 1:_! Districts. A A variance to this prohibition is probable, but unlikely. To obtain a variance, application must be made to the Dakota County Planning and Program Management Department, a public hearing will be held by the Dakota County Board of Adjustment, and if the variance is denied, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to Dakota County District Court as provided in Minnesota Statutes SS 394.27. All land use permits issued under the Shoreland and Floodplain Management 5 1 Ordinances are issued by the Dakota County Planning and Program Management Department. g -97- E ubdivision, zoning and other land use regulations are IT administered by cities and townships. Incorporated municipalities may have floodplain and shoreland ordinances similar to the County's and E all have some form of subdivision or zoning ordinance regulating land use. Similarly, all townships have zoning and subdivision ordinances. All building permits are issued by the municipality in which building will occur. Prerequisites to issuance of building permits include: sewer or septic permits, approval of the drawings necessary to satisfy • state and local building code requirements, receipt of the necessary tti MPCA permits for disposal and processing facilities, and access permits for driveways and access roads. - 1 FUTURE ORDINANCES It is felt that the existing legislative vehicles, with the necessary amendments, are sufficiently broad to allow for the management of a solid Waste processing /disposal system, regardless of its �{ configuration. This is true at the county and municipal levels. Therefore, no additional regulatory vehicles are being recommended at this time. 1 _- • FINANCIAL ISSUES Financial issues, and their resolve, are true indicators of how a policy making body is willing to invest its efforts and commit its resources. This assumes the body is aware of the financial avenues open to it and the programs involved. Putting this in the context of solid waste management, a financial package to fund the full solid waste management system has not been committed to at this time. Consideration has been given to what will be needed to fund the RDF /co- generation facility, but the total system has not been addressed. In keeping with the emphasis of this plan, all aspects of the waste management system should be given due consideration as fiscal policy is made. f! [: 18 -98- � -� _ The following discussion shows some of the vehicles or strategies that can be employed to fund waste management, but it is by no means exhaustive. The county has retained a financial consultant as an integral part of all financial deliberations; not only in solid waste, but on all capital programs. The expertise of a financial consultant I` should be relied upon as decisions are made on funding the solid waste management system. (( ll REVENUE PRODUCTION I' Revenues can be generated through a variety of ways. The most obvious are user fees or tipping fees for use of the various facilities in the F system. This is similar to fees charged by landfills for use of their disposal facilities. There are various ways this type of fee may be handled: 1. As a "postage stamp" fee (everyone pays the same fee) 2. As a weighted fee by user type, ie., residential vs business vs 4' industrial 3. As a volume -based fee, ie., the concept of charging a customer ,, based upon the amount of waste put out for collection rather than charging one or several.flat rates. Just as there are several kinds of user fees, there are several ways to administer them. Some possibilities are: 1. Charging haulers who in turn bill their customers F 2. Assess flat rate, per capita, and bill residents through the municipal billing process 3. Use a "metered bag" approach, charging residents for empty bags or ;b cans; this can be billed directly to the resident by the haulers of a municipality, or bags can be purchased at area retail stores. 1 31 !--, ilq -99- F . Revenues can also be generated by sale of products. This would be true of the RDF /co- generation component, recycling component, co- compost component, and possibly the yard waste compost component. gn These revenues will never cover all management costs in any of till components; they will reducing the respective service fees. Another type of revenue available to municipalities is funding fo7 local landfill" abatement programs. Metropolitan Council makes $.5) per household available to plan, implement and operate communit,r 1 programs; Dakota County will fund $1.00 per household for the sama purposes. After programs have begun operating, $4.00 per ton oE recyclables separated from the waste stream annually is available fron the Council. FUNDING - It is recognized that the sale of product will never generate enougz L'' f revenue to retire capital costs and cover operating and maintenance () & M) costs, regardless of which part of the system you consider. Th= combined costs, when applied to a measured unit (usually a ton) oE r. 2 Metropolitan Solid Waste (MSW),represent the service fee or the totaL cost per unit MSW required to administer a system. The goal is tp F .. keep the service fee, and the cost to County residents as low as possible. Dakota County, through this plan, recognizes that economies of scale may be realized if the diverse physical facilities required by tIe management system can be co- located. Hence, the concept of a waste IL management campus. The same rational may apply to funding facilities and programs. L It has been determined that the funding of the RDF /co- generation facility will be accomplished best through the issuance of revenue bonds. Cost of the RDF /co- generation facilities make up the largest percentage of capital outlay required to build the entire system. ! r r I20 -10 l i There are indications that savings will be realized if the costs of the other capitalized facilities, ie., co- compost, intermediate processing for recyclables, and household hazardous Waste, could be T combined in the same bond issue. The feasibility of this should be determined by the County's financial consultant. Subsidization of facilities will be an issue that must be resolved I- before the waste management system is implemented. There are three ` possible sources of revenue for a system or a facility: 1) product revenue, 2) tipping or user fees, and if necessary, 3) subsidization through special assessment or service fees. The need for a subsidy arises when tipping fees are set artificially low and do not make up I the difference between product revenue and the service fee or total cost of running a facility. Many times the tipping fee is set artificially low to compete with a J facility having a low tipping fee naturally. In 1986 most process facility tipping fees are set to compete with landfill fees. With 4 time landfill costs will increase and the pressure to subsidize the r- ) tipping fee of a process facility will be reduced. Two assessment types are common as subsidies. The first is a charge added to the property tax, either as a flat rate or as a percentage. ! .r The second is a volume -based service fee applied to residences and businesses. The chief advantage to the volume -based service fee is [ ? that it reflects, more accurately, the proportional use of the system I or a facility. Its chief disadvantage is that it is more difficult to administer. It is more complex and appeals will arise due to L designation of a parcel which may not reflect its usage. The result of these assessments is revenue coming from outside of the system to . make up a shortfall. Another form of subsidy is within the system itself, ie., between components. As noted previously, no single element of a waste 2, management system will be totally self sufficient. Due to the characteristics of the various programs, it tends to be much easier to ILI I 'LI -101- U generate subsidy or user fee revenues in some programs than in others. For example the logistics of generating revenues from an RDF facility are much easier than for a recycling program. Hennepin County has acted to pay for the subsidy required by its recycling 1 program through increased revenue generation at its incinerator. - F To date, no consideration of subsidization has been made, either from outside the system or from within the system. Before a system can be [ implemented, Dakota County will have to assess the need for a special t assessment to make up shortfalls in service fees vs revenue generation. A firm service fee reflecting the total system costs must to be determined, and comparisons need to be made between it, landfill user fees and tipping fees at competing processing facilities. If there is a wide discrepancy, it is likely a subsidy will be employed. WASTE ASSURANCE [[ Waste assurance will be key to several components of Dakota County's Waste management system. It is likely that all the capital intensive I :: facilities will require some form of financing which is backed by the County. These include the County co- compost . facility, the intermediate process facility for recyclables, the collection facility for household hazardous Waste, and the RDF /co- generation facility. Before financing can be obtained for the facilities designation to the RDF facility and Waste assurance for the co- compost and intermediate process facility must be in place. If application is made for Waste Management Board or Department of Energy and Economic Development grants or loans, a designation plan must also be in place. The City of Farmington Co- Compost Project will also be dependent upon designation of MSW to its facility. A formal request has been made by the City to the County for designation of 20 ton per day to its facility. This is the low end of the volume range needed by the facility to operate efficiently; the upper end os 30 ton per day. I -102- 4 A critical aspect of financing for the facility is receipt of a Waste i Management Board construction grant; designation by the County to the City facility is required before the grant will be awarded. I When completed and approved by the County Board of Commissioners and I / Metropolitan Council, the Dakota County Designation Plan will become an addendum to this Master Plan. _ 11 Licensure of haulers by Dakota County will also be necessary to assure 1 waste to County designated facilities. All metropolitan counties that put themselves in a position of guaranteeing a certain energy threshold or a certain amount of volume to a facility or to another county will want / to employ all possible ways for assuring that volume. Licensure, and conditions upon the license, is one of the I -- methods available to the counties. _ There may be a problem associated with licensure. Metropolitan counties should negotiate a reciprocity agreement so that multiple A -'. licenses do not have to be issued for a single truck or hauler. This could become complicated if each county has different conditions for "y licensure. Uniform licensure procedures and conditions need to be ` negotiated under an umbrella of a multi- county organization such as Metropolitan Council or as was done for the Surcharge Agreement 4 through Metropolitan Inter - County Association. [. Any provisions requiring licensure of haulers in Dakota County will require amendments to the existing Solid Waste Management Ordinance - Ordinance 110. ORGANIZED COLLECTION ti Organized collection refers to the manner in which refuse is collected from the waste generator. Organized collection means a solid waste 4 collection system wherein overlap of collection service areas and , types of collection services is prevented or controlled. The rli 11.3 -10 11 organizing body may be public or private, and may exert its control by directly providing the collection service or contracting for collection services. Organized collection does not mean that refuse '- collection is mandatory or that the county or city will direct where the Waste will be delivered or that a public agency will necessarily perform the collection service. '- The different methods to organize refuse collection are contract, franchise, municipal or other private arrangement. The contract method is where a municipality contracts with one service provider to collect refuse in a specific area and the city pays the contractor for the service. The franchise method is - where the city permits one service provider to collect refuse in a specific area and establishes 1 the price but the service provider retains responsibility for collection of the service fee. Municipal collection is where the city (- provides the service with public employees. Private arrangements include neighborhood groups contracting with a refuse collector for the service of several refuse collectors 'forming a new company in order to organize their collection routes. t Metropolitan Council performed a study of organized collection and published its findings in June, 1985. Briefly its findings and L- conclusions were: 1. Organized collection ma reduce the costs of residential refuse collection by increasing collection efficiencies. Additional study is needed to determine if organized collection may benefit commercial and industrial waste generators. 2. Organized collection reduces adverse environmental impacts when more than one hauler services a given area or provides the same type of collection service. 3. Organized collection does not inherently increase participation in recycling or other abatement programs. It can be implemented in ways that would help to achieve the abatement objectives of the Solid Waste Management Guide /Policy Plan. 44" IZ -104- i [• 4. Organized collection cannot substitute for waste designation by the County, but can complement it. 1 - :; 5. Municipalities and towns have adequate authority to organize collection of residential refuse. Fi 6. Organized collection of residential refuse may be a net benefit to I solid waste management because it may reduce costs and _ ` environmental impacts; help implement abatement programs; and improve information about waste generation, composition and abatement. 1 -' ` 7. There is no need for a regional system for implementation of organized collection. However individual communities should l_: consider the potential benefits of organized collection_ As the state statutes are now worded, it is unclear whether counties have the authority to mandate a county -wide organized collection system. Until it has clear authority to do so, it is not recommended 71 that Dakota County consider county -wide organized collection. _'3 Technical assistance, however, should be given to municipalities It wishing to explore this type of refuse collection system. The City of Eagan, or part of its application for community landfill abatement funds, proposes to study the implications of organized collection for the city, its solid waste program and its citizens. STAFFING IMPLICATIONS f t k Solid waste personnel in Dakota County currently consists of two persons responsible for administering Ordinance #110, an assistant C ounty attorney, a solid waste planner, and the equivalent of .75 FTE other planning staff, and secretarial personnel equal to 1.5 full time N equivalents. This does not include other consultant personnel active in negotiations on the RDF /co- generation facility. -•r 6 125 -105- Dakota County is now at the point of deciding whether the RDF /co- compost facility and possible the 'other smaller but still capital intensive facilities will be owned by a private vendor or by the `' County. The decision made by the County Board of Commissioners will have a large bearing on future personnel needs in solid waste management. Assuming that the facilities are privately- owned, the minimum number r of new positions required will be two. They are the position of Waste Management Coordinator and a position often referred to as Recycling t Coordinator. The County Board has approved a position within the of Planning and Program Management o P g ement which will act as a g g Waste Management Coordinator, to be filled in 1987. As municipal programs become more numerous and as municipalities strive to meet the set down for them, it will be important for the County to be able to coordinate the programs and provide technical assistance in the areas of program development and education. Assuming the facilities are owned by Dakota County, the administration of the system will change drastically. It is estimated that due to f? increased administrative load, one and perhaps two persons, in addition to those cited above, will have to be added. L L 1 f � J a Ztp -106- [ ..4. [ P : . I I .- 11 CHAPTER 5 - MONITORING \r- L 1 , LI [ , ' 1 h .-. . IL/ !- PREAMBLE Both the Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan and Minnesota Statutes Section 473.803 require that a county master plan include measurable performance standards and that annual reporting be made to determine how well the performance !- standards are being satisfied and /or measuring progress on implementing the Council's solid waste guide. The vehicle exists through which reporting to meet this requirement Oi will be made; the annual report. The report submitted for Dakota County through the Environmental Health Section, Public Health [- Department consists largely of a reporting on staff activities while administering Ordinance #110, reporting on landfill status in the County and brief descriptions of solid waste management - related activities in the County. While these areas will continue to be reported upon, the report will be expanded to progress on implementing [- Council's solid waste guide and more importantly, progress in meeting the stated objectives of the master plan. The base to which all abatement reporting will be tied, at least initially, will be the waste volume disposal study completed for Dakota County in December, 1986. This study which indicates annual disposal, seasonal variation, disposal by residential vs commercial /industrial generators, and for which per capita disposal rates were calculated will be used for calculating percent of abatement. As subsequent annual reports are made, it will be determined by the County whether this base is adequate and satisfactorily reflects disposal rates, composition, etc. It is anticipated that eventually ' the waste volume disposal study will have to be amended reflecting future disposal patterns. f! t% -107- I . Fs'l WASTE REDUCTION It will be very difficult to measure the success of waste reduction programs since their goal is to reduce generation and to keep material from entering the waste stream. Through the 1986 waste volume I - . disposal study, per capita disposal rates have been estimated without a concentrated reduction program. Future disposal rates will be f compared to this base rate as an indicator of waste reduction. As described for the other abatement programs, several measured and rri estimated tonnages will be available to estimate the effect of the !; . Waste reduction effort. At best, however, this will be an estimate. `' A second indicator will be evaluation of the waste reduction element of the information /education program. While still more subjective than measured estimates, the participation rate by Dakota County citizens will indicate success of the program. Participation will f ; have to be estimated from sample surveys performed either by the County or as part of the Twin Cities Area Survey (TCAS). SOURCE SEPARATION - YARD WASTE [a. ` Material in this program will go to one of three places: municipal I: yard Waste compost sites, the City of Farmington co- compost site or the County co- compost site. In all three instances it will be possible to either weigh the material entering the sites, or to measure the piles. If piles are measured, standard conversion rates, acceptable to metropolitan Council will be used to convert cubic yards of material to tonnages. 0 SOURCE SEPARATION - RECYCLABLES 3 Source separated recyclables will go to private recycling companies; citizen programs; service organizations or civic programs such as Boy Scouts; municipal recycling programs and possibly an intermediate ;4 processing facility (IPF) for recyclables. Actual tonnages will be measured at the IPF and in the municipal programs as a matter of course. Receiving an accounting from the other recycling groups, however will be more difficult. ii 11..q -108- . [- Dakota County maintains a list of all active' recycling groups anu individuals operating in the County. As part of its monitoring activity, the County will develop a reporting format and distribute it to these groups and individuals. The attitude of most recyclers is such that they are willing to share the fruits of their labor; having consistent reporting will, however, be a problem. [- Cities are also encouraged to review an accounting of materials recycled within their borders. Each city is eligible for receipt of a r $4.00 per ton reimbursement providing there is an accurate documentation of weight. '- PROCESSING FACILITIES - CO- COMPOST The City of Farmington and Dakota County co- compost facilities will have available to them scale facilities. Because of- agreements dependent upon an accurate accounting of processed and rejected material, all material entering and leaving these facilities will be weighed. Reporting for purposes of Metropolitan Council and designation summaries will be a fairly simple, straight forward process. PROCESSING FACILITIES - RDF /CO- GENERATION As with the co- compost facilities, all materials entering and leaving the RDF and co- generation facilities will be weighed and /or metered. Operation of these facilities requires an accurate accounting of all materials processed, utilized, rejected, and disposed. Not only must material designated and delivered to these facilities be accounted L for, but there is likely to be material crossing the boundaries between designation districts. This will have to accurately be El reported for purposes of delivery credit or assessment of tipping fees. 139 -10 RI 1 : All weights will be quite precise, requiring a format to be developed [1 that will isolate Dakota County's volume from other county volumes. This will be very important if counties otherthan Dakota County use the RDF and co- compost facility. LANDFILL/ASHFILL DISPOSAL SITES After 1990, all licensed sanitary landfills are prohibited from I accepting unprocessed MSW. The two unscaled landfills in Dakota P g un P x;;;+ County will have reached capacity by 1990, given their current fill rates. The two landfills remaining are logical choices to receive process rejects and incinerator ash, both are scaled facilities. Therefore, all material entering the landfill will be weighed and periodic landfill reports will be filed with Dakota County. f L SUMMARY It can be seen that reporting activity will be extensive not only because of the requirement placed on the County by statute and r Metropolitan Council, but more importantly, an accurate accounting will be required to execute and perform under contract. In the past, ,r there has been almost no reporting except by landfills and even these tend to be estimates. 7 Dakota County in the next two years must design and put into practice a system of reporting to administer its entire solid Waste system. ,r This will require a computer program due to the many system components ` and their diverse natures. �r "j rq r k 131 -110- CITY OF EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1987 7:00 A.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS erX'.. C III. OLD BUSINESS IV. C, NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan Draft V. DISTRIBUTION A. Goodwill Drop Box Removal Update B. Metropolitan Council Household Rebate Correspondence VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: JANUARY 28, 1987 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR FEBRUARY 4, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, 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 are 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. MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission meetipg of January 14, 1987 is enclosed for your review on pages b y sl/ These minutes, subject to any change, require approval the Commission. II. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS Administrative Assistant Hohenstein will introduce Mr. Terry Schnell who has been appointed as alternate to the Solid Waste Abatement Commission. As alternate, Mr. Schnell will attend Commission meetings and will vote in the event that a member is absent. Depending upon the time of adjournment of the Tuesday evening Council meeting, City Administrator Hedges will join the Commission to discuss newly adopted City Council policies for its advisory commissions and committees. A final item of Organizational Business will be the election of a chairperson for the Solid Waste Abatement Commission. As indicated in the past, the position of chairperson will largely require that the individual so chosen conduct the meetings. At such time as the Commission shall prepare its final report or the City Council shall ask for a report on its progress, it would be appropriate for the chairperson to make such a presentation to the Council. However, staff does not anticipate that this position will require significantly more effort or responsibility than that required of the Commission as a whole. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Election of a Solid Waste Abatement Commission chairperson. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Review of Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan Draft —_ Enclosed on pages � you will find a copy of the staff response to the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan Draft. The staff has received an indication from Warren Wilson that the Metropolitan Council is requiring a rewrite of certain sections of the Master Plan and that additional comments will be solicited at such time as the updated draft is complete. Please review the Draft Master Plan in your January 14 packet, in preparation for any input you wish to make at this time. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend additional staff direction on Master Plan comments. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Waste Management Alternatives Enclosed on pages y- ,.._3 O you will find the solid waste abatement service profiles and highlighted waste management concept flow charts pertinent to the concepts we have discussed to date. The proposals of specific vendors are reviewed and their general impact on the waste stream graphically depicted. We will attempt to review all concepts or proposals in overview at least once and return to specific profiles as time allows. In many cases, costs have been unspecified to date since the magnitude of costs will depend entirely upon the extent of the service provided. Also, certain of the proposals are currently concepts only while others are providing service elsewhere in the Metropolitan area and can give a specific tonnage or per household cost. Please take time to jot any comments you consider pertinent on the profile or flowchart sheets for consideration by the whole group. Your comments and reactions to the information provided today will be significant since it will be the first opportunity you have had to begin to shape the direction the Commission's future discussions will take. Some broad, general directions may be discernible by the end of Wednesday's meeting and it may become possible to begin to focus on specific strategy elements for further consideration in anticipation of a recommendation to the Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: This information is provided primarily for discussion purposes and no specific action is anticipated at this time. Additional direction and specific action is at the option of the Commission. IV. DISTRIBUTION A. Goodwill Drop Box Removal Update Enclosed on pages ,3/-,3-3 you will find a press release, news article and memo concerning the removal of the Goodwill drop box from the Fire Administration Building parking lot. As you will recall, Del Edwards of Goodwill indicated that it was to be Goodwill's strategy to focus their collection efforts on the attended donation centers and to remove all collection boxes from locations throughout the Twin Cities. As you will note, staff has ordered a no dumping sign but has arranged with Goodwill Services to allow individuals to continue to contact Goodwill for landfill abatement purposes. The removal of the Goodwill drop box raises certain implications for the consideration of the group. Further discussion of this matter is invited at the meeting. B. Metropolitan Council Household Rebate Correspondence Enclosed on page _ _ you will find a copy of the correspondence received of the Metropolitan Council pertinent to the 1987 Household Rebate program. The program makes available rebates in the amount of $.50 per household to communities which can demonstrate waste abatement expenditures in the previous year. Staff submitted an application covering staff time, site monitor time and site improvements totalling in excess of $7,000. The community was eligible for a rebate of $6,272.50 based on 12,545 households. The application was approved in its entirety and the full amount of the rebate will be forwarded to the City Finance Department in the near future. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Commission meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 a.m. I lk, ' 314‘,0"%21 7 1... Ad Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Planner Runkle Enclosures JDH /jeh MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota January 14, 1987 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Wednesday, January 14, 1987 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:00 a.m. The following members were present: Dwayne Soutor, Tim Hoel, Delmer DeBilzan, Earl Milbridge, Darlene Bahr, Larry Knutson, Tom Yehle, Tom Mann and Jon Hohenstein. Also present were: Warren Wilson, Dakota County Waste Planner; Doug Reuter and Jerry Misukanis, Reuter Resource Recovery; and Dan Kemna of Buhler -Miag. MINUTES Upon motion by DeBilzan, seconded by Yehle, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the December 10, 1986 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were approved. REUTER RESOURCE RECOVERY /BUHLER -MIAG PRESENTATION Doug Reuter of Reuter Resource Recovery Incorporated introduced himself, Dan Kemna and Jerry Misukanis and indicated that they represented the solid waste processing facility operated by Reuter Incorporated in Eden Prairie. Mr. Reuter stated that Reuter Incorporated has been in the waste management business since 1970. It first focused on the collection of solid waste and then turned to disposal alternatives to landfilling and burning. He stated that a corporate decision was made to focus on an integrated system of refuse derived fuel production and composting with intermediate processing of recyclables to enhance the quality of the end product. He stated that Reuter located its facility in the Twin City area because of the attention given to solid waste abatement in recent years and because the company wanted its flag ship plan to be located near its corporate headquarters. He stated that Reuter is currently negotiating with the city of Minneapolis and several haulers in an attempt to guarantee up to 400 tons of mixed solid waste per day at the Eden Prairie facility. He said that the facility would go on -line in March of this year when the appropriate quantities of material can be guaranteed. Misukanis indicated that Reuter considers itself to be in the materials recovery business, not just the waste energy business. He stated that the process involves removing all combustibles from the waste stream, recovering metals, plastics and corrugated material from the wastes, composting the wet fraction and transferring the remaining 10% to sanitary landfills. Reuter indicated that while the plant does remove recyclables from the waste stream, under current law such activity is not officially recognized as recycling. If state law could be changed to allow for such an interpretation, a facility such as that in Eden Prairie could meet Dakota County's needs with a capacity anywhere from 400 to 800 tons per day depending upon design. He indicated that Reuter would probably be among the firms making a proposal to Dakota County in the near future and that the company would appreciate local support in the county decision process. Knutson asked what tipping fee was charged at the facility, Reuter responded that the tipping fee is $35 per ton which is currently above the cost to landfill. However, he said, landfill fees are bound to increase as the 1990 deadline approaches and that cities, counties or firms which take advantage of long -term agreements will offset the higher charge by guaranteeing a rate into the future. Misukanis said that communities which choose to source separate will recognize costs, in addition to landfill tipping fees of a scale which would likely offset the difference between landfilling and processing. Knutson asked what fraction the company anticipated recycling. Misukanis responded that up to 8% of the waste stream will be compostable yard waste and 15% will be metals and plastics. Next, Dan Kemna reviewed slides describing the Buhler -Miag equipment to the Commission. He explained that the Reuter plant made use of a Buhler- Miag system which had been in use in Europe for many years. Buhler -Miag is a European company whose United States headquarters is based in Minneapolis. The company originally built grain and materials handling equipment which required such things as particle separation, particle reduction and material transfer. It became obvious to the company that these same principals could be applied to refuse management. He stated that the first plant was opened in Switzerland in 1958 and that 107 plants have since been built or signed. He indicated that the waste processing system involved reduction of waste volume through screening, agitation and hammer milling, densified RDF processing and co- composting. The system focuses on residential solid waste but can be expanded to accept commercial solid waste of a non - industrial nature. Kemna described the co- composting element of the system. He stated that compostable materials were separated through hand and mechanical separation and hammer milling. He said fermentation is begun through in- vessel co- composting and the material is windrowed to be cured. He said that the material was tended and rolled for six weeks and that air was drawn through the compost to maintain its aerobic decomposition. Hoel asked if any odors were associated with the process. Kemna responded that there was a musty odor but that it was not offensive due to the aerobic decomposition. Nonetheless, he commented that such a facility would need to be located in an industrial area, at least 1/2 mile from residential development to insure adequate buffering from homeowners. He stated that the material was hammer milled again and screened again to insure high quality compost. Kemna stated that combustible material was reduced in volume and then extruded through a press to form densified pellets about the size and shape of a cigar. He stated that it would be mixed with coal for burning in any coal fired furnace or energy generating system. He stated that it has a high BTU content and is an acceptable alternative to coal firing. Soutor asked how many tons per day were generated in Minneapolis. Reuter responded that 380 tons of residential waste were anticipated from Minneapolis haulers. Misukanis stated that two other haulers may designate their wastes to the Eden Prairie plant as well in exchange for a twenty year agreement to dispose of their waste. DeBilzan asked what was done with industrial wastes. Reuter responded that Hennepin county is not designating industrial wastes. Misukanis stated that the plant prefers to rate waste on an acceptable or unacceptable basis since certain commercial wastes are compatible with the system but that special treatment is necessary for hazardous wastes and heavier industrial wastes which are unacceptable to the system. Hoel asked if source separation of recyclables could decrease operating costs. Reuter responded that they could reduce the cost to the company for operation of the plant, but that they will have to have sufficient personnel and equipment to engage in intermediate processing anyway because no program will achieve 100% compliance. Therefore, source separation may be an unnecessary duplication of effort. He stated that Minneapolis has directed its lobbyists to encourage legislators to exempt any processed waste from the source separation mandate, to reduce the need for such duplication. Soutor asked if there was a sufficient demand for recyclable products. Misukanis answered that there was a sufficient demand if sufficient quantities can be guaranteed to larger regional and international markets. Bahr asked if there was a list of unacceptable wastes which could not be processed through the system. Misukanis responded that there was and that he would forward a copy to the Commission for its review. At this point, Messrs. Reuter, Misukanis and Kemna excused themselves. The Commission briefly reviewed the presentation and made several comments regarding the technology. DeBilzan indicated that the comprehensive approach was a positive element of the Reuter /Buhler -Miag system. It integrated treatment of all types of wastes and reduced the need for a variety of vendors. Knutson indicated that the system did not require that individuals modify behavior to source separate and that it would be more effective because it would focus on disposal under current patterns rather than developing new disposal patterns. DeBilzan also stated that he felt that the technology would be more acceptable than it might have been a few years ago since people have come to recognize the value of certain European technologies. Mann indicated that the Reuter system effectively dealt with virtually all the problems that the waste management legislation raises. The Commission suggested that staff arrange for tours of the facility for Commission members. WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed a waste management concept flow chart prepared by staff for Commission consideration. Commission indicated that the flow chart would be useful if it could be integrated with the waste abatement alternative profiles previously reviewed. Hohenstein indicated that he could prepare a profile and highlighted flow chart for each of the alternatives reviewed by the Commission to date. Commission members indicated that such an assessment would be appropriate at the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission was scheduled for Wednesday, February u, 1987. 3 ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Knutson, seconded by Yehle, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m. JH Date ' city of Cagan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN LAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members January 14, 1987 THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk WARREN WILSON, DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE PLANNER DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES APPLE VALLEY COMMONS 7300 WEST 147TH STREET APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 Re: Comments on the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan Draft Dear Warren: In response to your request for comments on the draft solid waste master plan, please consider the following. I have broken the comments out to reflect general observations, editorial observations and specific observations. By way of general observations, I would suggest three elements. First, the structure within the chapter and subchapter headings could be served by the application of an outline format or more variety in the way in which headings and subheadings are depicted. Particularly in the goals and objectives section where it was sometimes difficult to keep track of which objectives and policies related to which larger goals. Headings in subsequent chapters could likewise benefit from an outline format or some greater differentiation between major and subheadings. Second, certain abbreviations may require centralized or repetative explanation, particularly if they are used with frequency throughout the plan. For example, terms like "I & E, IPF, MSW," etc. could be contained in a glossary of terms to facilitate their use but facilitate reader comprehension. While it is true that many of these can be defined in general from the context in which they are used, the ease with which decision makers can review this product will bear on its success and readability is essential. A third and final general observation is that the fundamental role of education in the system of habit change and formation cannot be emphasized enough. The draft appropriately focuses on this role and, if anything, that emphasis should be expanded. THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Solid Waste Master Plan Draft January 14, 1987 Page Two There are four editorial observations. First, as I am sure you are aware, the map figures beginning on page 31 are incomplete and we are unable to comment on them in their current form. Second, on page 36 and 37 please remove Goodwill Industries, Country 66 and Eagan Standard from the list of recyclers as they are no longer accepting recyclables in the City. Please insert St. John Neumann Church, 4030 Pilot Knob Road, as a paper recycler. In the same vein, on page 41, Recycling Unlimited should be replaced by Minnesota Soft Drink Recycle /Supercycle. Third, at the top of page 77 it might be appropriate to insert the term "habit modification" in place of "attitude adjustment ", as the latter may carry a certain connotation despite its obvious meaning. Fourth and finally, on page 100, MSW is defined as "Metropolitan Solid Waste" and is more appropriately defined as mixed municipal solid waste. Finally, there are a number of specific observations which principally involve shadings of meaning or relative adequacy of concept treatment. These will be reviewed in the order in which they appear. PAGES COMMENTS 8 -11 Tabular information largely shows instantaneous implementation of particular strategies. It would seem more appropriate to list realistic expectations of phased implementation then to project target results prior to the implementation of the master plan strategy. This is particularly true in table 7 where projected volume reductions through processing are illustrated beginning in 1987 when the processing facilities cannot be in place prior to 1990. 32 A discussion of hidden costs and consequences should be delineated as a separate section so as not to leave decision makers with the sense that the rates and charges for landfills are the only costs associated with that method of disposal. Certainly, those costs are mentioned throughout the draft in a general sense, but a specific discussion would be appropriate in the discussion of existing conditions. 44 The use of covered employment as a planning number without benefit of some adjustment for rapid growth will understate actual aggregate generation for commercial waste producers. The rapid job formation occurring in northern and western Dakota County is only reflected in covered employment with a lag time of six months to a year. This situation should be acknowledged or corrected in the draft. 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Draft January 14, 1987 Page Three PAGES COMMENTS 54, 61- Encouragement of back yard composting and county waste 63, 98 designation authority should be considered in the context of prohibitive local ordinances which may need to be amended to allow implementation of waste reduction or processing alternatives. As an example, the Eagan City Code requires that all mixed municipal solid waste be appropriately collected and disposed of in sanitary landfills. While the County appears to have authority to implement over local constraints, these ordinances and controls should be recognized. 58 -63, While the County may or may not wish to take a position 67 -70 on the matter of legislative mandates for packaging, the draft should at least recognize the potential impact of such possibilities as container laws which would mandate certain types of waste reduction and facilitate pre - collection separation. 69 In the same vein, it may be appropriate to treat source separation as a separate concept and engage in a brief description of residential and commercial source separation and what it entails in terms of separate storage and packaging. In that context then, it makes sense to relate the concept of source separation to drop off sites, routed pick up, business recycling and yard waste. 78, The master plan should help focus on regional /county 80 -81 compost programs or, at a minimum, regional assistance to the local composting programs. As the master plan indicates, local programs cannot afford certain capital items such as shredding and screening equipment. The County could assist local programs significantly by providing such equipment on a loan or lease basis as well as providing coordination for all marketing and education programs. The County could serve as a central service location for expertise and equipment, including shredders, vacuums, temperature probes, testing equipment and other specialized equipment. Consideration should also be given to certain County property, especially larger under utilized parks, for availability as compost sites or curing locations for the communities. 84 Other special wastes could include whites goods, oversized wastes and items which could not be adequately separated or properly disposed of within the context of the plan. 7 Solid Waste Master Plan Draft January 14, 1987 Page Four PAGES COMMENTS 99 Emphasis of volume based fees as a financial incentive is essential and should be emphasized even more than it is if possible. 104 The master plan should address the legal implications of organization, including the existence of anti -trust questions if it proposes that such collection be part of the master plan. Certainly, this cannot be addressed exhaustively but should at least be acknowledged within the plan document. 108 Under source separation of yard wastes, the first sentence should read "source separated yard waste material will go to one of three places . . . " to recognize the part back yard composting and mulching play in waste reduction and to remove the implication that yard waste must be removed from the site to help meet abatement goals. 108 The County should consider making the scales at its waste management campus available to all recyclers to weigh all recyclable material for free. This would not reach all recyclers but would tend to be an incentive for them to weigh material where it could best be monitored by the County. Thank you for this opportunity to present comments on the master plan draft. We look forward to the public hearing process and eventual implementation of the plan. If you have any questions about our comments or if they would be more appropriately addressed in the public hearing process, please let me know. Sincerely yours, 4 344At2d617 on Hohenstein Administrative Assistant JDH /jeh g SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: City /State PHONE: ADDRESS: SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Waste Reduction through Education COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: Glass: Newsprint: Other: Responsible Party: Equipment: INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Responsible Party: Equipment: SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Responsible Party: Equipment: MARKETING: Market Description: Responsible Party: Equipment /Transport: COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: Useful Life: Operations: Unspecified Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: City Funds:Unspecified Other Funding Sources: County /Met Council Programs and Grants Operating Revenue: COMMENTS: Met Council Targets expect 4% of waste stream to be abated by reduction. q City /State Waste Reduction Through Education WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART {EDUCATION. [GENERATORS WASTE REDUCTION UCE DROP OFF/ &OL SEPARATION} REDEMPTION CTR {COLLECTION r SEPARATED WASTES IXE D r ID WASTE [INTERMEDIATE SEPARATED 1 PROCESSING WASTES WASTE PROCESSING CO- COMPOST } PRODUCT L REF PRODUCT -- - 4 MASS BURN V [LAN MARKET In SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: Goodwill Industries PHONE: 646 -2591 ADDRESS: 2543 Como Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Attended Donation Center COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: x Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: X Glass: X Newsprint: X Other: Household Goods Responsible Party: Goodwill /City Ownership Equipment: Semi - Triler and Site Modifications INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Light Separation and Packaging Responsible Party: Goodwill Equipment: Various SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Separation and Sale Responsible Party: Goodwill Equipment: N/A MARKETING: Market Description: Local and Regional Markets Responsible Party: Goodwill Equipment /Transport: N/A COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: $17,709 Useful Life: 7 Operations: 17,833 Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: N/A City Funds: 16,724.50 Other Funding Sources: 18,817.50* Operating Revenue: Tonnage Rebate (Goodwill requests pass through) COMMENTS: * If household rebate funds are wholly committed to the program. /1 Goodwill Attended Donation Center WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION] GENERATORS REDUCTION 1 MIXED SOURCE f DROP OFF/ CSOLID WASTE SEPARATION REDEMPTION CTR l � I • 4 - COLLECTION SEPARATED V L WASTES MIXED SOLID WASTE I INTERMEDIATE 4SEF' PROCESSING WASTES WASTE PROCESSING COMPOST/ 4PRODUCTI- CO-COMPOST -+ _ REF [PRODUCT- -4 MASS BURN • N F 4- [MARKET LA D ILL l� SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: Minnesota Soft Drink Recycling PHONE: 224 -5081 ADDRESS: 775 Rice Street, St. Paul, MN 55117 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Recyclable Redemption /Donation Center (Redemption of aluminum, glass and plastic for cash, donation of paper and tin for free) COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: X Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: X Glass: x Newsprint: X Other: Plastic, Tin Responsible Party: MSD Equipment: Facility, containers, transfer equipment INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Moderate Separation Responsible Party: MSD Equipment: Various SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Separation and Packaging Responsible Party: MSD Equipment: N/A MARKETING: Market Description: Regional Market Responsible Party: MSD Equipment /Transport: N/A COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: Unspecified* Useful Life: Operations: MSD Responsibility /City Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: City Funds: Unspecified* Other Funding Sources: County ( ?) Operating Revenue: Tonnage Rebate COMMENTS: *May be required for establishment of center_ Wnrks tnc3Pt - her with Supercycle on Ramsey Co. Curbside (Also Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Fridley and Plymouth) /3 MSD Recycling Donation /Redemption Center WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION: r 1 [GENERATORSJ ' i REDUCTION •F _ , .. C MIXED 6EP SOU RCE DROP OFF/ OOLID WASTE ARATION: REDEMPTION CTR} 1 4 4 ------4 [COLLECTION v r fS WAS MIED SOLID X WASTE 1 {INTERMEDIATE iSERARATEDy 1 PROCESSING WASTES le WASTE PROCESSING ___ COMPOST 4PRODUCTI -9 REF .{PRODUCT- - 4 MASS BURN] • LANDFILL 1 k-- {MA1 . it SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: MSD Recycling PHONE: 224 -5081 ADDRESS: 775 Rice Street, St. Paul, MN 55117 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Reverse Vending Machines (Redemption of containers on -site of Grocers) COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: X Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: X Glass: Newsprint: Other: Responsible Party: MSD Recycling Equipment: Reverse Vending Machines INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: N/A Responsible Party: Equipment: SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Collection and Packaging Responsible Party: MSD Equipment: MARKETING: Market Description: Regional Markets Responsible Party: MSD Equipment /Transport: N/A COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: Unspecified Useful Life: Operations: Unspecified Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: Unspecified City Funds: Unspecified Other Funding Sources: Operating Revenue: COMMENTS: Should not require substantial investment by the City. /_5. MSD Reverse Vending Machines WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION GENERATORS REDUCTION 4 MIXED SOURCE DROP OFF/ SOLID WASTE SEPARATION ) REDEMPTION CTA} COLLECTION L SEPARATED WASTES MIXED SOLID WASTE INTERMEDI ATE SEPARATED PROCESSING r WASTES Y WASTE PROCESSING COMPOST/ , .PRODUCT} CO- COMPOST r 1 r • --} RDF PRODUCT - ``�� MASS BURN] - 't �- MARKET LANDFILL • i6 SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: State PHONE: ADDRESS: SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Container Legislation COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: X Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: X Glass: X Newsprint: Other: Plastic Responsible Party: State of Minnesota /Vendors /Manufacturers Equipment: INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: N/A Responsible Party: Equipment: SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Deposit or Required Recycling Legislation Responsible Party: Vendors /Manufacturers Equipment: Various MARKETING: Market Description: Responsible Vendor /Manufacturer Responsible Party: Same Equipment /Transport: N/A COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: Useful Life: Operations: Unspecified Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: City Funds: Other Funding Sources:Vendors /Manufacturers Operating Revenue: COMMENTS: Legislation currently before state. Significant opposition within certain manufacturing sectors. /7 WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION {GENERATORS WASTE REDUCTION MIXED {SE4ATIONj SOURC DROP OF F/ SOLID WASTE REDEMPTION CTR} C . 4. 4. COLLECTION ,r L S WASTES ED MIXED SOLID WASTE `le L I NTERM E EDIAT -rSD} PROCESSING WASTES ERARATE WASTE PROCESSING , [PRODUCT]- 1 CO—CDMPDST --+ REF -- -} PRODUCT -- -4MASS BURN LANDFILL -- [MAI IR SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: City PHONE: ADDRESS: SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Compost Programs COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: X Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: Glass: Newsprint: Other: Yard Wastes Responsible Party: City of Eagan Equipment: N/A INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Removal of foreign materials Responsible Party: Compost Monitor Equipment: SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Rolling, Aeration and Chipping Responsible Party: City Parks Department Equipment: Front end loader, chipper MARKETING: Market Description: Local Residents and Park Program Responsible Party: City Equipment /Transport: N/A COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: N/A Useful Life: Operations: $6,500 Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: City Funds: Other Funding Sources: Dakota County, Met Council Operating Revenue: COMMENTS: Site is currently improved, 101 1I_Wi,],,1,_need tJ7.e moved in the future. Continuation of Program may depend on County Master Plan treatment of yard waste disposal. Could be expanded to include collection component. I9 City of Eagan Compost Program WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION) Y L WASTE iREDUCTION [ MIXED SOURCE DROP OFF/ SOLID WASTE SEPARATION ' - '�1' REDEMPTION CTR [COLLECTION 1 SEPARATED WASTES MIXED SOLID WASTE I • INTERMEDIATE SEPARATED PROCESSING WASTES Y WASTE PROCESSING -1 COMPOST' [PRODUCT}- CO-COMPOST RDF -- }PRODUC -4 MASS BURN LANDFILL �- MARKET SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: Dakota County Court Services PHONE: 452 -9500 ADDRESS: 2030 Cliff Road, Eagan MN 55122 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Routed Collection and Intermediate Processing using Juvenile and Adult Offenders as Labor COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: x Drop Site Separate: Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: X Glass: X Newsprint: X Other: Responsible Party: Dakota County /City of Eagan Equipment: County Trucks and City Site or Facilities INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Hand Sorting of Source Separated Wastes Responsible Party: Dakota County Court Services Equipment: Roll -off Containers /Trailers SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Collection, Separation and Sale Responsible Party: Dakota County Court Services /Planning Services Equipment: N/A MARKETING: Market Description: Local and Intermediate Markets Responsible Party: Dakota County /Goodwill ( ?) Equipment /Transport: N/A COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: Useful Life: Operations: Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: City Funds: Other Funding Sources: Operating Revenue: Tonnage Rebates COMMENTS: No cost breakdowns currently available. Possible funding sources include: Dakota Cunt • .• - :.. -u -s •• u- • . grants, court services funds and City funds. * Could coordinate with a crop - off renter c2/ Dakota County Court Services Routed Pick- Up /Int. Processing WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION - 1 [GENE R E DUCTION I SOLID x WASTE {SEPARATION ' -' REDEMPTION CTR}" [COLLECTION if EpARATEDJ__ WASTES MIXED SOLID WASTE INTERMEDIATE F 4SEP PROCESSING WASTES ,'- WASTE PROCESSING CO- COMPOST iPRODUCT -4 1 REF , PRODUCT -- - 4 MASS BURN � Y LANDFILL MARKET 7-) SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: Supercycle PHONE: 224 -5081 ADDRESS: 775 Rice Street, St. Paul MN 55117 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Curb Side Recycling COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: X Drop Site Separate: Curb -Side Mixed: Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: X Glass: X Newsprint: X Other: Plastic, Tin Responsible Party: Supercycle .Equipment: Specialized Trucks and Trailers INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Moderate Separation Responsible Party: Supercycle /MSD Equipment: Various SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: Separation and Packaging Responsible Party: Supercycle /MSD Equipment: N/A MARKETING: Market Description: Regional Markets Responsible Party: Supercycle /MSD Equipment /Transport: N/A COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: N/A Useful Life: N/A Operations: $35 /ton Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: N/A City Funds: $35 /ton Other Funding Sources: County /Met Council ( ?) Operating Revenue: Pass Through User Fee /Tonnage Rebate COMMENTS: Requires City Contract for separate collection (3 Supercycle Curb Side Collection WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION) [GENERATORS = WASTE R'[EDUCTION l ' 4. DROP OFF/ SOLIDxWASTE SEPARATION REDEMPTION CTR COLLECTION Y , SEPARATED MIED SOL X ID WASTE, {INTERMEDIATE SEPARATED PROCESSING WASTES Y WASTE PROCESSING CO- COMPOST } PRODUCT L -i[ REF [PRODUCT -4{ MASS BURN LANDFILL � �- {MARKET a � SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: Waste Processing Corporation PHONE: 854 -8666 ADDRESS: One Appletree Square, Suite 961, Bloomington MN 55420 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Co- composting Facility (Prefers to be vendor for County, but has suggested a City sized facility as an alternative) COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: Curb -Side Mixed: x Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: Glass: Newsprint: Other: Mixed Solid Waste * Responsible Party: Private Haulers w /City or County Designation Equipment: Regular Hauling Equipment INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Separation of non - compostables. recyclahlps & residue Responsible Party: WPC /City /Other Equipment: Various SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: In- vessel co- composting system Responsible Party: WPC /City /Other Equipment: Co- composting container and windrow equipment MARKETING: Market Description: Regional markets for compost and recyclahles Responsible Party: WPC /City /Other Equipment /Transport: COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: $10 -12m Useful Life: Operations: Unspecified Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: Unspecified City Funds: Unspecified Other Funding Sources: ,Equity Partner /Owner to take over turn - Operating Revenue: Unspecified key system COMMENTS: * Can be coordinated with source separation prnjar- -c but not essential to the system. a WPC Co Composting System WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART {EDUCA T ION' {GENERATORS [ EON [ SOLID [SEPARATION M � Ff REDEMPTION CTR 4 [COLLECTIONI _ I SEPARATED WASTES MIXED SOLID WASTE Nie I NTERMEDIATE ARATED PROCESSING 4SEP WA STES Y WASTE PROCESSING -4 [CO- COMPOST PRODUC RDF PRODUCT -4 MASS BURN] Ne LANDFILL 44--- [MARKET' _ 9 / n SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT SERVICE ALTERNATIVE PROFILE FIRM: Reuter Resource Recovery PHONE: 941 -7225 ADDRESS: 11000 West 78th Street, #250, Eden Prairie MN 55344 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: RDF /Co- composting Facility (County proposal from Reuters likely to be forthcoming) COLLECTION METHOD /MATERIALS: Method: Curb -Side Separate: Drop Site Separate: Curb -Side Mixed: x Drop Site Mixed: Materials: Aluminum: Glass: Newsprint: Other: Mixed Solid Waste* Responsible Party: private Haulers w /City or County Designatinn Equipment: Regular Hauling Equipment INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING: Extent: Separation of non-compnstahles, recyc1ahlPs and residue Responsible Party: Reuter Incorporated Equipment: Various SYSTEM PROCESS: Description: In- vessel /Window Co- Composting and DensifieCl RDF Responsible Party: Reuter Incorporated Equipment: Various (400 -800 ton/day capacity) MARKETING: Market Description: Regional /National Markets Responsible Party: Reuter, Incorporated Equipment /Transport: Various COST /REVENUE: Expense: Capital: $20 +m Useful Life: Operations: tJnsper.if i Pd Other: Revenues /Assets: Equity: Unspecified City Funds: Unspprified Other Funding Sources: r - Operating Revenue: Unspecified COMMENTS: *Can be coordinated with source sPparafinn prn3Prt - but not essential to the system. Requires statute revision to get intermediate processing to qualify. 7 Reuter Incorporated Co- Compost /RDF WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [EDUCATION] GENERATORS WAS MIXED I SOURCE DROP OFF/ L SOLID WASTE SEPARATION REDEMPTION CTR [ COLLECTION 1 L SEPARATED WASTES MIXED SOL X ID WASTE I NTERMEDIATE SEPARATED PROCESSING WASTES [ WASTE PROCESSING T - ‘8 2 80 3 W9023 . 4; PRODUC RDF 1PRODUCT} -- - -MASS BURN LANDFILL [M ARKET' Recyclable Alternatives WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART [ EDUCA T I ON GENERATORS REDUCTION CSOLID SE PARATION' - ! REDEMPTION OFF/ REDEMPTION CTR} 1 _ COLLECTION SEPARATED T I__ MIXED SOLID WASTE INTERMEDIATE WASTES 1 WASTE PROCESSING CO- COMPOST ilDRODUCTI- ROF - [PRODUCT}- MASS BURN] LANDFILL �- MARKET 7 Yard Waste Alternatives WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT FLOW CHART 1 [EDUCATION, GENERATORS REDUCTION 4 MIXED SOURCE 1 DROP OFF/ [9LIDWASTE SEPARATION REDEMPTION CTR J [COLLECTION L [ SEPAATEDl. WASTES MIXED SOL X ID WASTE INTERMEDIATE f SEPAATEDL PROCESSING WASTES WASTE PROCESSING COMPOST/ [ PROOUCT]- '1 CD-COMPOST RDF [PRODUCT]- - 4 MASS BURN �- LANDFILL LMAR FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jon Hohenstein, 454 -8100 GOODWILL DROP BOX REMOVED The Goodwill Industries drop box has been removed from the Eagan Fire Administration Building parking lot at 3795 Pilot Knob Road. This is no longer a donation site and those using it to dispose of household items may be prosecuted for illegal dumping. Eagan residents wishing to donate items may still do so by contacting Robert Ramsted of Goodwill at 646 -2591. Other wastes should be taken to one of the area recyclers or landfills. Goodwill Industries has indicated to City officials that a corporate decision to suspend the use of drop boxes was based on the high waste factor associated with them. Goodwill has chosen to focus instead on attended donation centers located throughout the area. Such centers accept household goods and recyclables with a minimum of waste. The City will post "No Dumping" signs at the old site to prevent continued illegal disposal. Dumping wastes anywhere in the City or failing to properly dispose of wastes with recyclers, landfills or waste haulers constitutes illegal dumping. Illegal dumping may carry a sentence up to ninety days, a fine up to $700.00 or both. For more information, call Jon Hohenstein at the Eagan Municipal Center, 454 -8100. - 30 - 3/ ill's drop box Goodv� is removed from site The Goodwill Industries drop box has been removed from the Eagan Fire Administration Building parking lot at 3795 Pilot Knob • Rd. Donations will no longer be accepted at the site and using the site for disposal could result in prosecution for illegal dumping. Those who still wish to donate items to Goodwill may arrange to do so by contacting Robert Ramsted of Goodwill at 646 -2591. Other • wastes can be taken to area recyclers or landfills. City officials received word from Goodwill of a corporate decision • to suspend the use of drop boxes because of the high waste associated with them. Goodwill has c o the area. Such ceendters attended ccept household centers located throughout goods and recyclables with a minimum of waste. The city will post "no dumping" signs at the old site to prevent con- • tinued disposal. Dumping waste anywhere in the city or failing to properly dispose of wastes with recyclers, landfills or waste haulers constitutes illegal dumping. dumping may carry a sentence of up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $700 or both. For more information, call Jon Hohenstein at the Eagan Municipal Center at 454 -8100. • t ) /' l MEMO TO: TOM COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: JANUARY 15, 1987 SUBJECT: SIGNAGE FOR FORMER GOODWILL DROP SITE I contacted Bob Ramsted of Goodwill Industries about the former drop site at the Fire Administration Building. They will monitor it for two more weeks automatically and will collect material on a call out basis after that. Please order a sign to be posted to limit additional dumping. Goodwill should be listed as a contact on the sign if appropriate. They will route people to drop off alternatives. I believe that we should included a landfill number as well for those who want to get rid of material immediately. I would suggest the following text. NO DUMPING To Dispose of Materials Call: Goodwill Industries 646 -2591 Burnsville Landfill 890 -1081 Admi stra ive Assistant JDH/jeh e p s A J u r c a n tl ut L b : n■inTot -D asp 1 kva 4100.00 • 33 Ol O Q C> 0 Metropolitan Council 4 f 300 Metro Square Building � Seventh and Robert Streets �� ta; St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 ? Telephone (612) 291 -6359 I tvIN (:I I January 20, 1987 Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan 3930 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Application for Household Rebate Dear Jon: Staff has reviewed your application for $6,272.50 and finds it acceptable for approval. Your eligible reimbursement is calculated based on 12,545 households in your municipality times 50 cents, a total amount of $6,272.50. The request for reimbursement has been forwarded to the Finance Department and a check will be mailed to you shortly. Sincerely, j•t4W • ) Sunny Jo ' <erson Grants Assistant SJE:kp An Equal Opportunity Employer