1. 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

2. 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

3. DRAFT METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN 2010-2030
Required by Minn. Stat. §
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

4. 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

5. COMPONENTS OF THIS PLAN
Background; Challenges; Accomplishments (pgs 2-5)
Vision; Key Themes; Goals; Policies (pgs 6-9)*
Metropolitan System Plan (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

6. 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.”

7. 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

8. 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%

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

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

15. 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

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

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

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. OTHER QUESTIONS?