2010 – 2030 DRAFT Metropolitan solid waste policy plan Presented by Paul Smith, Tina Patton, and Johanna Kertesz, MPCA 2010 – 2030 DRAFT Metropolitan solid waste policy plan

DRAFT METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN 2010-2030 Document is near public review ready Aug 5 – SWMCB Regional Analysis Co Aug/Sept – Public Review Sept/Oct - Public Meeting and Comments Oct/Nov – Commissioner Adopts

DRAFT METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN 2010-2030 Required by Minn. Stat. § 473.149 History – 1970; 1979; 1985; 1991; 1997; 2004 MPCA/Counties/SWMCB – guide decisions (plans; budgets; regulatory actions; assistance) Business and Waste Industry – guide decisions; investment Producers – guide decisions; actions Generators, Citizens – guide decisions; behavior Legislature – guide decisions; legislative initiatives

COMPONENTS OF 2004 PLAN Vision; Goals; Key Themes; How the plan will be used Goals and Policies Opportunities and challenges; Tools for implementation; Metro statutory requirements Overview of Metro SW System Appendices: Citizens Jury report SWAC report Other reports and references Pre-drafting notice Remaining capacity at MSW facilities Review criteria County Master Plan requirements Glossary

COMPONENTS OF THIS PLAN Background; Challenges; Accomplishments (pgs 2-5) Vision; Key Themes; Goals; Policies (pgs 6-9)* Metropolitan System Plan 2010-2030 (pgs 10-23)* Forecasts; Abatement Objectives; Benefits; Strategies; System Costs Implementation (pgs 24-27)* Metro Governance; MPCA Initiatives; Monitoring; MLAA Appendices Overview: Current Metro Solid Waste System Pre-drafting Notice MPCA Integrated Stakeholder Process MPCA Review Criteria Permits; Contracts; Waste Districts; Designation; Landfill CONs; County Certification Reports; County Plans Glossary

KEY THEMES: Accountability “This plan places a great emphasis on accountability. Many entities, public and private, have the responsibility for implementing this Plan, including state and local governments; private waste and recycling businesses; citizens; manufacturers of products; retailers and other businesses; and environmental groups. All must be held accountable. The WMA gives the state agencies and counties primary oversight for holding the parties accountable. However, the authorities granted to the state and counties may not be sufficient, and this issue will have to be monitored, and possible changes in authority sought.”

SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT OBJECTIVES Required by statute to set quantifiable objectives Reduction/reuse, recycling, and organics objectives are presented in ranges, with the lower end representing a “floor” or minimum Resource recovery objectives were set to maximize existing capacity Landfill objective is given as a “ceiling” or maximum

TABLE 1: System Objectives Management Method Current System (2008) 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source Reduction & Reuse 1 – 2% 2 – 4% 3 – 5% 4 – 6% Recycling 41% 45 – 48% 47 – 51% 48 – 54% 53 – 60% Organics 2% 3 – 6% 4 – 7% 5 – 9% 7 – 9% Resource Recovery 29% 32 – 34% 34 – 35% 32 – 33% 29 – 30% Landfill 28% 20% 15% 11%

METRO MANDATORY PROCESSING MINN. STAT. § 473.848 A person may not dispose of unprocessed MSW at a landfill, unless the waste has been certified as unprocessible by a county. To be processed, the MSW must be reduced in weight by 65 percent. The MPCA will use its regulatory authority with respect to landfills to enforce the law. Counties need to work with the Agency regarding the data analysis in order for the enforcement to be effective.

SYSTEM COSTS Data provided by metro and non-metro county solid waste staff and haulers Costs per ton presented as ranges to reflect inherent variability Costs actually reflect price or charges paid Compared potential costs of maintaining status quo in 2015 vs. reaching the plan objectives in 2015 High level assessment Made assumptions based on current system for 2015 status quo – i.e. recycling split according to SWMCB report = 70% commercial, 30% residential; organics = 90% food to animals, 10% SSO After consulting with metro staff, agreed that the organics split for all new tons would be 50/50. Costs for Goal 2015 reflect this split.

TABLE 4:Estimated Costs per Ton Management Method Total Cost per Ton Tip fee Collection and other costs Recycling (residential) $110 - $143 Not applicable Unable to separate these costs Recycling (CII) $85 - $90 Organics (Food to animals) $0 - $49 Organics (SSO) $80 - $193 $40 - $45 $40 - $148 Waste to Energy $168 - $207 $49 - $84 $119 - $123 Landfill $130 - $162 $39 - $43 $91 - $119

TABLE 5: Potential Changes to Solid Waste Management Costs Management Method Status Quo 2015 Cost ($ million) Goal 2015 Cost ($ million) Difference in Cost ($ million) Recycling $140 - $160 $166 - $189 $26 - $29 Organics $0.7 - $6 $5 - $21 $4.3 - $15 Waste to Energy $163 - $201 $214 - $263 $51 - $62 Landfill $150 - $187 $57 - $71 ($93 - $116) Total $454 - $554 $442 - $544 ($10 - $12)

STRATEGIES TO REACH THE OBJECTIVES Table 3 in Plan provides potential strategies and guide for implementation Responsible parties and roles, need for new tools are identified Flexibility is emphasized; not mandatory or exhaustive list Regional solutions are preferred when more effective and efficient

MPCA’S ROLE In the Plan, the MPCA agrees to: Enforce laws and rules for Metropolitan mandatory processing (M.S. § 473.848) Public Entities Law (M.S. § 115A.471) Certificate of Need law (M.S. §§ 115A.917 and 473.823) Permits and operating requirements Other statutes in WMA that MPCA must enforce For financial assistance decisions, recommend eligible projects in centroids

MPCA’S ROLE Prioritize solid waste rule-making Initiate and support policy initiatives that implement the Plan (new tools and modify old) Provide research, support and technical assistance Lead a process/take responsibility for improving measurement and evaluation of progress Initiate discussions and develop joint Agency policy, with the Dept of Commerce on waste-to-energy Align internal workings of MPCA to support the Plan

DISCUSSION QUESTION What do you like about the plan/what can you support?

DISCUSSION QUESTION If you could change one thing about the plan, what would it be?

DISCUSSION QUESTION One way this plan differs significantly from the 2004 plan is it’s inclusion of a System Plan that includes specific and quantifiable objectives as required in statute. Do you feel these objectives are achievable? If you don’t think they are, how would you change them?

DISCUSSION QUESTION The plan emphasizes accountability and provides potential strategies/tools that can help hold all parties accountable for implementing the plan. Are there other tools that would help? Which can be achieved without legislative changes? Which are best implemented regionally?

OTHER QUESTIONS?