12010 – 2030 DRAFT Metropolitan solid waste policy plan Presented by Paul Smith, Tina Patton, and Johanna Kertesz, MPCA2010 – 2030 DRAFT Metropolitan solid waste policy plan
2DRAFT METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN 2010-2030 Document is near public review readyAug 5 – SWMCB Regional Analysis CoAug/Sept – Public ReviewSept/Oct - Public Meeting and CommentsOct/Nov – Commissioner Adopts
4COMPONENTS OF 2004 PLANVision; Goals; Key Themes; How the plan will be usedGoals and PoliciesOpportunities and challenges; Tools for implementation; Metro statutory requirementsOverview of Metro SW SystemAppendices:Citizens Jury reportSWAC reportOther reports and referencesPre-drafting noticeRemaining capacity at MSW facilitiesReview criteriaCounty Master Plan requirementsGlossary
5COMPONENTS 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 CostsImplementation (pgs 24-27)*Metro Governance; MPCA Initiatives; Monitoring; MLAAAppendicesOverview: Current Metro Solid Waste SystemPre-drafting NoticeMPCA Integrated Stakeholder ProcessMPCA Review CriteriaPermits; Contracts; Waste Districts; Designation; Landfill CONs; County Certification Reports; County PlansGlossary
6KEY 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.”
7SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT OBJECTIVES Required by statute to set quantifiable objectivesReduction/reuse, recycling, and organics objectives are presented in ranges, with the lower end representing a “floor” or minimumResource recovery objectives were set to maximize existing capacityLandfill objective is given as a “ceiling” or maximum
9METRO 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.
10SYSTEM COSTSData provided by metro and non-metro county solid waste staff and haulersCosts per ton presented as ranges to reflect inherent variabilityCosts actually reflect price or charges paidCompared potential costs of maintaining status quo in 2015 vs. reaching the plan objectives in 2015High level assessmentMade 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% SSOAfter consulting with metro staff, agreed that the organics split for all new tons would be 50/50. Costs for Goal 2015 reflect this split.
11TABLE 4:Estimated Costs per Ton Management MethodTotal Cost per TonTip feeCollection and other costsRecycling (residential)$110 - $143Not applicableUnable to separate these costsRecycling (CII)$85 - $90Organics (Food to animals)$0 - $49Organics (SSO)$80 - $193$40 - $45$40 - $148Waste to Energy$168 - $207$49 - $84$119 - $123Landfill$130 - $162$39 - $43$91 - $119
13STRATEGIES TO REACH THE OBJECTIVES Table 3 in Plan provides potential strategies and guide for implementationResponsible parties and roles, need for new tools are identifiedFlexibility is emphasized; not mandatory or exhaustive listRegional solutions are preferred when more effective and efficient
14MPCA’S ROLE In the Plan, the MPCA agrees to: Enforce laws and rules forMetropolitan mandatory processing (M.S. § )Public Entities Law (M.S. § 115A.471)Certificate of Need law (M.S. §§ 115A.917 and )Permits and operating requirementsOther statutes in WMA that MPCA must enforceFor financial assistance decisions, recommend eligible projects in centroids
15MPCA’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 assistanceLead a process/take responsibility for improving measurement and evaluation of progressInitiate discussions and develop joint Agency policy, with the Dept of Commerce on waste-to-energyAlign internal workings of MPCA to support the Plan
16DISCUSSION QUESTIONWhat do you like about the plan/what can you support?
17DISCUSSION QUESTIONIf you could change one thing about the plan, what would it be?
18DISCUSSION QUESTIONOne 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?
19DISCUSSION QUESTIONThe 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?