Figure I.1

* Tires, appliances, lead acid batteries, etc.

In summary, the achievement of the principal outcomes will have the following impact on the tons of MSW managed in the six-county region.

1. The region is projecting a 2.25% increase in per capita and per employee MSW generation. By 2017 this results in a projected amount of 5,048,000 tons, an additional 2,098,000 tons of MSW generated over the 1997 level.
    
2. The reduction outcome is very aggressive and many details for its accomplishment have yet to be developed. However, failure to achieve these ambitious regional outcomes will force community leaders and local and State policy makers in the foreseeable future to establish new processing facilities, significantly increase the volume of waste being landfilled, or both. In 2017, the region will need to generate 1,342,000 fewer tons of MSW than projected to meet the reduction outcome.
    
3. Recycling 42% of the tons of MSW through 2017 is the same as the region's current recycling rate. (Note that with the source reduction and yard waste recycling credits, the region has an outcome of a 50% recycling rate.) However, the tons of MSW requiring recycling in 2017 increases by 353,000 tons over the 1997 level. The region will need to increase its recycling from 1,204,000 tons in 1997 to 1,557,000 tons in 2017.
    
4. The processing outcome calls for maintaining the current processing rate of 65% of the MSW available after the reduction and recycling outcomes are achieved. The current capacity at the region's three primary processing facilities is 1,165,000 tons. To meet the principal processing outcome, the region would need to have an additional 212,000 tons of available capacity by 2017.
    
5. With the achievement of the reduction, recycling and processing outcomes, the region will have 741,000 tons of waste needing management either through landfilling or another management strategy by 2017. This represents an increase of 116,000 tons over the tons of MSW landfilled in 1997.

Each of the sections in the Master Plan further describes the principal outcomes and the strategies needed to achieve these principal outcomes. The strategies recognize that to achieve the outcomes, the SWMCB will need to work closely with the business community, waste industry and other waste generators.

Each of the sections in the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan further describe the principal outcomes and the strategies needed to achieve these principal outcomes. Finally, Section XVI addresses measurement of the region's performance in achieving the outcomes and implementing the various strategies.

II. Introduction and Plan Preparation

Plan Preparation Process
For the first time in the development of a solid waste master plan, the SWMCB counties agreed to prepare a joint master plan, with individual county sections attached to the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan core. The regional elements are called the "Regional Solid Waste Master Plan". The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan, when combined with the county sections is called the "Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan." This approach allowed for a significant portion of planning to be completed through the SWMCB, furthering the regional collaboration of the solid waste system. Figure II.1 illustrates the regional model for the Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan.

Figure II.1

This model for the collaborative preparation process was outlined in the SWMCB's Joint Powers Agreement. The Joint Powers Agreement states that the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan shall include: jointly negotiated solid waste management outcomes for the region; implementation strategies to accomplish the regional outcomes; and jointly negotiated solid waste management outcomes for each of the Counties. Prior to adoption of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan by the SWMCB, the representatives of each County consented to the jointly negotiated solid waste management outcomes for their respective County. The Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan, which was collaboratively prepared by the SWMCB and the OEA, provided the foundation for the outcomes and implementation strategies.

The SWMCB assigned responsibility for the preparation of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan to the SWMCB Needs Assessment Committee. On January 15, 1998, the Needs Assessment Committee approved a development process and schedule, which included three workshops to develop a set of regional outcomes and implementation strategies for each major topic area in the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan.

In addition to developing regional outcomes and strategies, the SWMCB worked with its member counties to develop negotiated county outcomes. These regional county outcomes are specific to the individual county, set expectations and are the responsibility of individual counties; however, counties are accountable to the region for their performance. By including negotiated county outcomes in the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan, counties commit to taking action to achieve outcomes, and counties are answerable to the SWMCB.

The Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan consists of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan elements described above and the individual county elements. The county elements include specific county implementation strategies, county policies and any additional county outcomes. The SWMCB will compile the regional elements and the county elements to form the Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan. This Regional/County Solid Waste Master Plan will be submitted to the OEA for approval on March 1, 1999.

Input was sought from private industry through the SWMCB Industry Advisory Work Group as the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan was developed as well as from other interested parties. In addition, the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan was developed with considerable input from the OEA and the MPCA; OEA and MPCA members actively participated in the development of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan, and provided comments, suggestions, and guidance during the preparation process.

Plan Revisions
Minn. Stat. § 473.803, subd. 1, requires each metropolitan county, following the adoption or revision of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan to prepare and submit to the director of the OEA a solid waste master plan. This Regional Solid Waste Master Plan was prepared following the October 1997 adoption of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan. Revisions to the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan will occur as required in Minn. Stat. §473.803, subd.1.

Outcome Based Planning
As outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement, the SWMCB used an outcome based planning model for the preparation of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan, building specific outcomes and strategies to support the achievement of the overall vision and goals stated in the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan. The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan includes short-term outcomes and implementation strategies for 2003 and long-term outcomes and implementation strategies for 2017. Where a year for implementation of a strategy or completion of an outcome is given, it is assumed that the date of completion will be December 31 of that year, unless otherwise specified. Figure II.2 illustrates the process and how the various components of the process are connected.

Figure II.2

Each of the sections in the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan further describe the principal outcomes and the strategies needed to achieve these principal outcomes. The strategies recognize that to achieve the outcomes, the SWMCB will need to work closely with the business community, waste industry and other waste generators.

The vision and goals in the Policy Plan, adopted October 1997, provide the foundation for the policies in the Policy Plan and the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan’s regional outcomes, implementation strategies, and negotiated county outcomes. The vision established in the Policy Plan is as follows:

A sustainable community seeks a better quality of life for current and future residents by maintaining nature’s ability to function over time. It minimizes waste, prevents pollution, promotes efficiency and develops local resources to revitalize local economies. The waste management system is a component of the infrastructure of a sustainable community. Therefore, solid waste will be managed by technologies and methods that support sustainable communities and environments. The solid waste hierarchy, with its associated goal of protecting the state’s land, air, water, and other natural resources and the public health, is central to attaining the objectives of sustainability and appropriate solid waste management.

In addition to the vision, five specific goals in the Policy Plan provide the basis for which the outcomes in the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan were developed. The goals represent elements of the vision of sustainability. The Policy Plan recognizes that the goals may conflict, in part (e.g., protecting the environment and minimizing costs), and notes that conflict is part of the challenge of achieving a sustainable waste management system.

The goals for the region, as established in the Policy Plan are:

1. To manage waste generated in the metropolitan area in a manner that will protect the environment and public health and that will conserve resources.
    
2. To manage the region’s waste in an integrated waste management system in accordance with the hierarchy in order to minimize landfilling.
    
3. To manage the region’s waste in a cost-effective manner and to strive to minimize the potential liability of the citizens, businesses and taxpayers in the region.
    
4. To encourage generators to take responsibility for the environmentally sound management of their waste.
    
5. To allocate solid waste management system costs equitably among those who use or benefit from the system.

IV. Existing Solid Waste Management System

Introduction
Metropolitan counties developed an integrated approach to mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) management in response to the 1980 Minnesota Waste Management Act. The approach reflects the State’s preferred waste management practices delineated in Minn. Stat. §115A.02, emphasizing waste reduction, reuse and recycling over composting, waste-to-energy, and land disposal. The counties developed reduction, recycling and household hazardous waste programs as well as three waste-to-energy processing facilities. Two sanitary landfills that accept MSW are located in the metropolitan area. In addition to county efforts, the private sector has been and continues to be a key participant in the system and has an active role in the collection, recycling, processing and landfilling of waste.

Since 1990, the SWMCB has provided a forum for metropolitan counties to collaborate on the development of policies and programs that further the region’s goal of managing MSW in an environmentally safe and economic manner consistent with the preferred waste management practices identified in the Waste Management Act.

This Section highlights the achievements of the metropolitan counties and provides an overview of the reduction, recycling, household hazardous waste, MSW processing, MSW landfilling and nonMSW management programs and activities in the region.

Note that the information in this Existing Solid Waste Management System Section, with the exception of the Projected MSW Growth through 2017, describes the activities of the seven metropolitan counties. In 1998, Scott County withdrew from the joint powers agreement establishing the SWMCB. Therefore, all other sections of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan that plan for the future include the six metropolitan counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington.

Achievements in Management of MSW
The region’s aggressive waste management programs and policies have resulted in a system that managed 3,045,095 tons of MSW in 1997. The region achieved a recycling rate of 49% when the 3% source reduction and 5% yard waste credits are added. Figure IV.1 illustrates how the seven-county region managed its MSW in 1997.

* Appliances, tires, etc.
** Tons are subtracted to eliminate double counting.

Solid Waste Characteristics
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Composition Study 1991 - 1992, dated April 1993, provides the most comprehensive description of the metropolitan area waste composition; that Study is incorporated into this Regional Solid Waste Master Plan by reference.

Projected MSW Growth through 2017
The Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan, adopted in October 1997, included MSW growth projections through the year 2017. During the development of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan, the SWMCB updated the waste growth projections used in the Policy Plan to incorporate two additional years of data and the revised Metropolitan Council population and employment projections. Additionally, the projections now reflect planning for a six-county region. 

 Because the Metropolitan Council population and employment projections are higher than previously projected and the additional years of data incorporated into the projections were years of high MSW growth in comparison to previous years, the projected MSW generation is significantly higher than projected in the Policy Plan. The revised projections use the 1991 - 1997 per capita and per employee historical waste growth of 2.25%. Figure IV.2 shows the MSW projections for the planning periods of 2003 and 2017. A table with the waste growth projections for each year through 2017 can be found in Regional Appendix C.

Source reduction, often called waste reduction or waste prevention, is the nation’s highest priority for managing waste. Minnesota has given source reduction the highest priority in its hierarchy of preferred waste management strategies. The region has given both source and reduction in the toxic/hazardous character of waste the highest priority in the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan. Over the last several years, the counties have implemented progressively more aggressive commercial and residential source reduction programs. This section describes the source reduction activities in the region. Source reduction definitions and statutory obligations can be found in Regional Appendix D.

Data Summary and Achievements
Because of the inherent difficulties of measuring source reduction, counties have relied primarily on two measurement indicators for the overall success in source reduction. The first measurement tool is the total amount of MSW generated in the region. The total amount of MSW managed has been increasing each year, though some of the increase can be attributed to the region’s increasing population and employment.

A second measurement tool used by the counties is an assessment of the source reduction programs implemented by the counties. Each year, the counties report to the OEA the types of programs and activities that have been implemented. If a specified level of program implementation is achieved, the counties are eligible for a 3% source reduction credit that applies to the counties’ overall recycling rates. For 1997, each of the seven counties in the region was awarded the 3% source reduction credit.

MAX (Metro Area eXchange)
The region reaffirmed its commitment to source reduction by undertaking the development and operation of a materials exchange program. Metro Area eXchange (MAX), the SWMCB’s materials exchange program, reduces waste by facilitating the exchange of materials businesses no longer need with other businesses or non-profit organizations that can use those materials. MAX was established in 1995 by the SWMCB and is operated on SWMCB’s behalf through an agreement with the University of Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP). MAX has a 1998 goal of achieving the exchange of 5,000 tons of materials.

Public Information
Public information is a valuable tool used by the region and the counties to achieve source reduction. In 1995 and 1996, the region implemented a $500,000 radio and newspaper advertising campaign promoting source and toxicity reduction, recycling, MAX and knowing where one’s waste goes.

In the campaign, and in general, the region has focused its public information efforts on topics or messages that were universal among the counties. Through a collaborative effort, the region has also been able to access media, such as radio and daily newspapers, that are not cost-effective for individual counties.

All counties use public information tools to promote their county’s waste management objectives. Among the tools frequently used by counties are newsletters, press releases, brochures, displays, community presentations, special events, Internet, bus benches, billboards, posters, fact sheets and local newspaper advertisements. Counties frequently work with their municipalities to expand their promotions and to promote municipality-specific program information. Additionally, haulers and the solid waste industry provide informational pieces to their customers.

Technical Assistance
Counties provide technical assistance to businesses and institutions within their boundaries. The types of assistance provided includes visiting sites to analyze the businesses’ waste streams, referring businesses to recycling vendors or suppliers, identifying opportunities for source reduction and providing information on the liability associated with disposing of garbage. The counties also work closely with MnTAP, Minnesota Waste Wise and municipalities to deliver technical assistance.

Environmentally Responsible Government Procurement Guide
In 1994, the SWMCB, in collaboration with State and city purchasing and solid waste staff, the OEA and the MPCA, developed the "Environmentally Responsible Government Procurement Guide" ("Guide"). The Guide was designed to assist both front-line purchasers and procurement staff in identifying opportunities for source and toxicity reduction, recycling and responsible waste management, as well as provide relevant statutory requirements. The Guide was distributed to over 1,200 government procurement staff statewide. As demonstrated through survey results, procurement managers found the Guide to be a useful tool.

Internal County Source Reduction Activities
All counties in the region have undertaken internal county source reduction initiatives. These initiatives have included adopting County resolutions establishing source reduction policies and purchasing guidelines, conducting source reduction surveys at county facilities, establishing internal source reduction implementation and promotion teams and using employee recognition programs.

Yard waste in the region is managed through county, municipal and private programs. The region and its member counties focus efforts on the reduction of yard waste by promoting mulching and backyard composting. Two counties operate yard waste collection sites that allow citizens to drop-off yard waste and pick up compost. However, most yard waste sites in the region are sponsored by municipalities or private firms. Definitions and statutory obligations regarding yard waste can be found in Regional Appendix D.

Minn. Stat. §115A.02 lists recycling as a preferred waste management strategy second only to waste reduction and reuse. Over the last decade, with the support of SCORE and other State funding, the region has worked to put residential and commercial recycling programs in place. Residential recycling programs in the region consist of curbside collection and drop-off sites, including recycling services for multi-family housing. Curbside recycling programs in the region are either provided by municipalities or are provided by haulers through contracts with or, under licensing conditions of, a municipality. Most counties provide some funding for municipal programs. Public drop-off locations for recyclables are provided by the municipality, the private sector, or the county. Additionally, many businesses have active recycling programs, and commercial recycling accounts for a significant portion of the recycling in the region. The success of the region’s recycling program is not only a result of county and city efforts, but of the significant contribution the private sector has made to the advancement of recycling through the development of markets, provision of drop-off locations, collection of recyclable materials, and the many other elements needed to develop the recycling infrastructure. Counties address their progress on meeting the statutory recycling obligations set forth in Minn. Stat. 115A.552 through the annual SCORE and Certification reports submitted to the OEA.

Data Summary and Achievements
The tons of material recycled and the percent of MSW recycled has grown steadily over the last decade. Figure IV.3 shows the tonnage and percent of MSW recycled for the period 1993 - 1997. In 1996, the region met the statutory goal of recycling 50% of MSW when the 3% source reduction and 5% yard waste credit are added.

* Does not include the 3% source reduction and 5% yard waste credits.

Source: SWMCB Annual Reports

In 1997, 23% of the tonnage of material collected for recycling came from residential programs, 74% from the commercial sector, and 3% was a combination of residential and commercial recyclables that were separated at transfer stations, drop-off centers and processing facilities.

Public Information
The region included recycling messages in its 1995 and 1996 multi-media campaign. (See Source Reduction in this Section.) Additionally, the SWMCB demonstrated its support of America Recycles Day in 1997 through a SWMCB resolution and by county participation in local America Recycles Day events promoting the "buy recycled" message.

Counties have a long history of promoting residential and commercial recycling programs. As in source reduction, counties have used a variety of media to promote recycling. Much of the counties’ recent promotional messages have focused on the importance of recycling and buying recycled materials. Additionally, the counties collaborated on the development of the "Resourceful Waste Management Guide" ("Guide"). This Guide provides a directory of companies that accept recyclables, as well as other recycling information of value to businesses. Generally, the municipalities provide specific information on which materials can be collected at the curbside or at drop-off locations. The waste management industry has also been very active in promoting recycling and providing information to customers.

Technical Assistance
Counties provide technical assistance to businesses and other organizations that want help recycling or reducing waste. (See Source Reduction in this Section.)

Internal County Recycling Programs
The counties’ internal recycling programs are well-established; however, counties continue to make modifications to their internal programs to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Counties use a variety of public information tools to encourage county employees to participate in the internal recycling programs, including e-mail, stories in internal county newsletters, signage and hosting special events.

Municipal Curbside Programs and Drop-Off Sites
Residential recycling programs are well-established in the region, with nearly all of the region’s cities and townships having curbside collection available. Additionally, drop-off sites for recyclables are available in some cities and townships. Some counties also own or operate drop off sites where citizens or businesses can drop off recyclables. Some multifamily units are served through curbside programs and others contract separately for services.

Reduction of the toxic/hazardous character of waste is a primary focus of the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan. This section summarizes programs that reduce the toxic/hazardous character of waste generated in both the residential and commercial sectors. Definitions and statutory obligations regarding household hazardous waste and hazardous waste can be found in Regional Appendix D.

Household Hazardous Waste Programs
Since the 1980's, counties have been collecting household hazardous wastes (HHW) to reduce the toxic/hazardous character of the waste stream. In 1997, 6.4 million pounds of HHW were collected through the system of programs. This waste was managed as follows:

The average program cost per vehicle has steadily declined over the last few years, and in 1997 was approximately $50 per vehicle. In 1997, an average of 68 pounds of HHW was collected per vehicle.

The metropolitan counties inspect, train and license hazardous waste generators. Figures IV.5 and IV.6 show the number of licensed hazardous waste generators and the number of inspections of hazardous waste generators, respectively.

* Other includes inspections that were conducted at non-generator facilities.

Hazardous Waste Transfer, Storage and Processing Facilities
Counties also license and inspect hazardous waste transfer, storage and processing facilities. In 1997, the counties conducted 132 inspections at 44 hazardous waste transfer, storage and treatment facilities.

Contract with the MPCA for Management of HHW
The SWMCB negotiated an agreement with the MPCA to provide State indemnification of the counties for risks associated with collecting and managing HHW with the State. In addition, the region worked with the State to select a HHW contractor, resulting in dramatically reduced waste disposal costs beginning in 1997.

Reciprocal Use Program
The region continues to have in place Reciprocal Use Agreements which allow residents across the metropolitan area to use any HHW facility at their convenience, regardless of their county of residence.

County Contracts with NSP
In 1994, the SWMCB negotiated a model agreement with Northern States Power Company (NSP) for the collection of fluorescent and other mercury-containing lamps from residents. The agreements, effective through 1999, obligate NSP to reimburse counties for expenses associated with lamp collection.

Public Information
The SWMCB developed a regional brochure and other public education materials which provide information on where and how HHW can be managed. In addition, the region contributed to a recent product-labeling initiative of the MPCA, which includes displays and brochures.

Product Stewardship/Extended Producer Responsibility
The SWMCB has undertaken two major initiatives to promote product stewardship for specific waste streams. In 1997 and 1998, a CRT Collection Demonstration Project was conducted with three private sector partners: Target Stores, IBM and Materials Processing Corporation. In addition, manufacturer and retailer groups were invited to discuss ways to reduce the amount of waste latex paint generated and to gain financial support from manufacturers and retailers for proper management of waste latex paint.

Used oil, one of the largest waste streams handled through HHW programs, has also been addressed in conjunction with statutory requirements for oil manufacturers. The region worked with the OEA and the MPCA to determine ways to enforce statutory requirements.

County Programs
Counties operate permanent, temporary, and mobile HHW collection facilities and sites. In addition to the county HHW collection activities, many municipalities offer cleanup days where certain items such as used oil, tires, appliances, and electronic goods are collected from the public.

Individual counties operate hazardous waste regulatory programs which are needed to comply with statutory requirements. While individual county programs may differ, efforts have been made to increase consistency of county regulatory programs. In addition to ensuring compliance with Federal, State and County laws, statutes, rules and ordinances, hazardous waste regulation programs impact the generation of toxic and hazardous wastes. For example, regulation has played a key role in the elimination of toxic metals in printing inks and the near elimination of the most toxic cleaning solvents used for industrial part washing. Enforcement drives up the cost of using toxic and hazardous products, thereby encouraging the use of products that are more friendly to the environment.

Processing means the treatment of waste after collection and before disposal. Waste processing is referred to in the list of waste management methods identified in Minn. Stat. §115A.02, as "resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration."

Currently, there are three main waste processing facilities serving the metropolitan counties: the Hennepin Energy Resource Company (HERC), the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility (NSP-Elk River), and the Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility (NRG-Newport). Each facility will be described in more detail in this Section. Processing definitions and statutory obligations can be found in Regional Appendix D. In addition, several other facilities that process MSW in or near the metropolitan area will be described in this Section.

Data Summary and Achievements
Figure IV.7 shows the permitted capacity for the three main processing facilities serving the metropolitan counties.

* This represents the metropolitan portion of the capacity for NSP-Elk River, which has a total capacity of 468,500 tons.

Tons Processed
Figure IV.8 shows the tons of MSW processed during the five year period of 1993-1997.

Source: SWMCB annual data reports and OEA annual SCORE Reports. A small portion of the total tons figures were processed at facilities other than the three primary facilities that currently serve the metropolitan area counties.

Hennepin Energy Resource Company (HERC)
HERC is a privately-owned, mass-burn facility located in downtown Minneapolis in Hennepin County. Hennepin County contracts with HERC for the operation of the facility, which opened in October 1989. Hennepin County is contractually obligated to deliver 365,000 tons of acceptable waste to HERC each year through 2019.

HERC uses a mass-burn technology to combust MSW. The facility produces steam for use in making electricity. The electricity is currently sold to Northern States Power (NSP); the facility produces enough electricity to power 23,500 homes annually. Ferrous metal is recovered from the ash before the ash is transported for disposal.

According to State statute, HERC is limited to burning 365,000 tons annually, or an average of 1,000 tons per day. However, the design capacity of HERC is 442,380 tons annually or an average of 1,212 tons per day assuming the plant operates continually during the year and does not shut down for maintenance.

Currently, Hennepin County’s disposal fee is $60 per ton, or $39 per ton for waste delivered under contract to the County.

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility
The Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility, also known as NRG-Newport, is a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) processing plant located in Newport in Washington County. NRG-Newport is owned and operated by NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSP, according to the terms of a service agreement with Ramsey and Washington Counties that expires in July 2007.

Waste is delivered to the facility, is shredded and then separated by a series of screens, air classification equipment, and magnets into three waste streams: light-weight RDF, ferrous metal, and heavier residue. RDF is transported to NSP power plants in Red Wing and Mankato where it is burned to generate electricity. Ferrous metal is recycled. Residue is delivered to a landfill.

NRG-Newport’s permitted capacity is 500,000 tons per year or 1,700 tons per day. The plant accepts waste six days per week.

In 1998, the tip fee at NRG-Newport is $38.00 per ton for waste generated in Ramsey and Washington Counties that is delivered under contracts between haulers and one or both counties. The tip fee for waste generated in either county, but not delivered under contract, is $50.00 per ton. The tip fee for waste generated outside Ramsey and Washington Counties is $66.79 per ton.

Elk River Resource Recovery Facility
The Elk River Resource Recovery Facility, also known as NSP-Elk River, is a RDF processing plant located in the City of Elk River in Sherburne County. NSP-Elk River is owned by NSP and is operated by NRG. The RDF produced by NRG is burned to create electricity at the United Power Association (UPA) combustion facility at UPA’s Elk River electric power station.

Waste is delivered to the RDF facility, shredded, and then separated by a series of screens, air classification equipment and magnets into three waste streams: light-weight RDF, ferrous metal and heavier residue. RDF is transported to the UPA power plant where it is burned to generate electricity. Ferrous metal is recycled at AMG, in Newport. Residue is delivered to a landfill.

NSP-Elk River’s permitted capacity is 468,500 tons per year, or 1,526 tons per day (tpd). The plant accepts waste 307 days per year. Anoka County, Hennepin County, Sherburne County, and the Tri-County Solid Waste Management Commission (Benton, Stearns, and western Sherburne Counties) signed separate service agreements with NSP. Each participant is guaranteed the following waste processing capacity: Anoka County – 500 tpd, Hennepin County – 800 tpd, Sherburne County – 50 tpd, and Tri-County – 150 tpd. Metropolitan counties’ capacity is approximately 1,300 tons per day, or 399,100 tons per year.

In 1998, the tip fee at NSP-Elk River is $38.75 per ton for waste generated in Anoka County, if the hauler is under contract with Anoka County. The tip fee for Anoka County waste not delivered under contract with the County, is $68.00 per ton. The tip fee at NSP-Elk River for waste generated in Hennepin County is the same as the tip fee at the HERC facility. Ninety-nine percent of the Hennepin County waste delivered to ERRRF comes from Hennepin County’s transfer stations.

East Central Solid Waste Commission Material Recovery and Composting Facility
The East Central Solid Waste Commission (ECSWC) facility’s permitted capacity is 65,000 tons per year, or 250 tons per day at 260 days per year. This MSW composting facility is located near Mora in Kanabec County. It is owned by the ECSWC, a joint powers entity composed of Pine, Kanabec, Isanti, Chisago and Mille Lacs Counties. The facility is operated by MICROLIFE Minnesota, Inc. The facility is reportedly in the start-up phase of its reopening and is expected to be fully operational again in 1998. Carver County, and haulers in Carver County, are working to get MSW transported to Mora for processing. This facility is described here because it is included as possible future waste processing capacity in the MSW Processing section of this Master Plan.

SKB Environmental, Inc. (SKB), constructed a source-separated organic composting facility in Empire Township in Dakota County. The County owns and leases the land to SKB. SKB owns and operates the facility which began operations on September 1, 1998. The facility has a permitted capacity of 20,000 tons per year of which 10,000 tons is for source-separated organics and 10,000 tons is for yard waste.

Wright County Solid Waste Composting Facility
The Wright County Solid Waste Composting Facility’s permitted capacity is a 60,225 tons per year or 165 tons per day. This MSW composting facility is located near Buffalo in Wright County and is owned by Wright County. This facility is currently closed; however, it is listed here because it is included as possible future waste processing capacity in the MSW Processing section of this Master Plan.

MSW transfer stations throughout the metropolitan area play a significant role in moving MSW throughout the region to final destinations. There are several permitted transfer stations located within the metropolitan counties: two in Anoka, two in Carver, three in Dakota (operations are currently suspended at two of the three), four in Hennepin, three in Ramsey, one in Scott, and two in Washington. These transfer stations are collection points for MSW. The MSW is then transferred to processing facilities or landfills in the metropolitan area or to facilities outside the metropolitan area, including to facilities in Greater Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota and Wisconsin. Hennepin County has the only publicly owned transfer station in the metropolitan area: Hennepin County Recycling Center and Transfer Station in Brooklyn Park.

The Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan acknowledges that landfills have a role in the region’s integrated waste management system, although landfilling continues to be the least preferred management practice.

Landfills and landfill expansions currently proposed or constructed are incorporating extensive liner systems, with leachate collection, methane gas collection or venting systems, and systems that collect and burn methane gas as a fuel. Currently, there are two sanitary landfills operating in the metropolitan area, Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill and Burnsville Sanitary Landfill. Each facility will be described in more detail in this section. Definitions and statutory obligations can be found in Regional Appendix D.

Figure IV.9 shows that landfilling of unprocessed MSW since 1993 has increased and has shifted from primarily in-State disposal to a greater incidence of out-of-state disposal. Court decisions restricting counties’ designation authority, as well as changes in landfill, transfer station and hauling company ownership, are largely responsible for this shift.

Source: ^{SWMCB annual data reports and OEA annual SCORE reports.}

The Policy Plan recognizes that the private sector has the primary responsibility for the delivery of landfilling services for the metropolitan area. There are no publicly-owned sanitary landfills in the metropolitan area, but there are two private MSW sanitary landfills currently operating (Pine Bend and Burnsville Landfills).

A county solid waste master plan may include a determination that the implementation of solid waste management objectives will be carried out by the private sector. Minn. Stat. §473.803, Subd. 5, supports the role of the private sector, in part or in whole, in achieving the goals and requirements of §473.149, Metropolitan Solid Waste Comprehensive Planning, and §473.803, Metropolitan County Planning. In this situation, the counties’ role becomes one of oversight, performance monitoring, regulation, enforcement and reporting.

The two active sanitary landfills (MSW landfills) in the metropolitan area are located in Dakota County. Burnsville Sanitary Landfill is located in Burnsville and is owned by Waste Management Inc. (WMI). Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill is located in Inver Grove Heights and is owned by BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI). In 1998, WMI estimated the capacity remaining at Burnsville Landfill is 3.5 million cubic yards with an anticipated life expectancy of approximately 9 years. In 1998, Pine Bend Landfill has approximately 5.6 million cubic yards of remaining capacity, based on annual State report information.

Burnsville and Pine Bend Landfills installed methane gas-to-energy systems in 1994 and 1996, respectively. These systems burn the methane gas generated by decaying waste in the landfills to produce electricity. Anoka Regional Sanitary Landfill, although currently closed, has methane gas recovery as well.

There are several non-metropolitan landfills located within and outside Minnesota that receive waste generated in the metropolitan area. The facilities located in Minnesota include: Spruce Ridge Landfill in McLeod County (WMI), Forest City Road Landfill in Wright County (Superior Services) and Elk River Landfill in Sherburne County (WMI). Facilities located outside Minnesota include: USA North Dakota in Gwinner, North Dakota; Central Disposal Landfill in Lake Mills, Iowa; Dickinson County Landfill in Spirit Lake, Iowa; and Timberline Trail Landfill near Ladysmith, Wisconsin. All of these landfills are owned by WMI.

NonMSW includes non-hazardous industrial waste, construction/demolition debris (C&D waste), materials banned from disposal with MSW, problem materials, infectious waste and many other waste streams that are not MSW or otherwise defined or regulated as hazardous waste. The management of nonMSW has not been as closely examined as MSW, mainly because it is believed that much of this waste stream is less likely to pollute the environment. Some nonMSW waste, however, has tested hazardous under certain conditions, and nonMSW does include banned and problem materials, as well as infectious waste. NonMSW definitions and statutory obligations can be found in Regional Appendix D.

The Policy Plan recognizes the need to place greater attention on nonMSW management and the need for better data in order to best determine environmentally sound management practices.

Existing Recycling Efforts
Several materials are separated for recycling at some construction and demolition transfer stations and landfills, including: concrete, bituminous, aluminum, copper, steel, brick, mattresses, appliances and tires. Many other recyclable materials may have the potential to be separated from C&D waste.

The private sector owns and operates most of the metropolitan area management facilities for nonMSW waste streams. There is some public sector activity in managing certain nonMSW materials in the metropolitan area, such as tree waste processing and crushing and recycling concrete or road base material.

There are four construction and demolition landfills open to the public located in the metropolitan area. Dem Con Landfill is located in Scott County. Three C&D waste landfills are located in Dakota County: SKB Rich Valley Demolition Landfill, located primarily in Inver Grove Heights with a small portion in Rosemount, owned by SKB Environmental, Inc.; Dawnway Demolition Landfill located primarily in South St. Paul with a small portion in Inver Grove Heights, owned by A. Kamish & Sons, Inc.; and Burnsville Dem/Con Landfill, located in Burnsville, owned by WMI. There are three facilities in Scott County that process concrete and asphalt: Commercial Asphalt; Northwest Asphalt; and Sheily, which also processes bottom ash and shingle waste.

There are seven transfer stations located in the metropolitan area that accept only C&D waste: Veit Transfer and SKB Transfer are located in Hennepin County; Veit Disposal Systems, Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service, Ray Anderson & Sons, and Red Arrow Waste Disposal are located in Ramsey County; and Lloyd’s Transfer Station is located in Scott County. Some MSW transfer stations also accept C&D waste.

There are two facilities in Dakota County that process C&D waste: Materials Recovery, Ltd., and All Star Disposal. Two other facilities process only wood waste - Dunham Bros., and SMC-Rosemount Wood Waste. SKB has a facility that processes wood and shingles.

Two special waste facilities are located in Anoka County: the L & G Rehbein offices are located in Centerville and they spread lime sludge and 1^st State Tire processes tires in East Bethel.

One special waste landfill is located in Dakota County. It is used for the disposal of residuals from the production of alum at Koch Refinery. Koch Refinery and the Koch Spent Bauxite Landfill are located in Rosemount. An expansion of the lined, bauxite disposal basin was approved in 1992; it covers 3.8 acres, with a capacity of 60,000 cubic yards.

One special waste facility is located in Ramsey County. BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. operates a medical waste processing facility in St. Paul.

Two special waste processing facilities are located in Dakota County: Bituminous Roadways processes bituminous material and Endre’s Processing processes food waste into a livestock food supplement.

Two special waste processing facilities are located in Scott County: Greenman, formerly BFI Tires, processes waste tires; and Clean Sweep processes street sweepings.

Industrial Waste Management Facilities
The only industrial waste landfill in the metropolitan area is located in Dakota County. Safety-Kleen (Rosemount), Inc., operates a facility in Rosemount for the disposal of non-hazardous industrial waste and MSW combustion ash. The design of the waste containment/disposal areas consists of four containment cells, covering an area of approximately 78 acres. Cells 1, 2 and 3 are for the disposal of nonhazardous industrial solid waste, and cell 4 is for the disposal of waste combustor ash. The nonhazardous industrial waste disposal cells have a combined capacity of 5,237,547 cubic yards. The waste combustor ash cell has a total capacity of 800,436 cubic yards. The facility accepts waste mainly from industries in the metropolitan area, but also accepts waste from outside the metropolitan area.

Ash Facilities
One ash processing facility is located in Woodbury in Washington County. Black Diamond Industrial Waste Land Disposal Facility accepts coal slag material. The coal slag is processed at this facility into three waste streams: blasting grit (used instead of sand), granules for roofing shingles and slag fines that are used to fill in the space where sugar sand is mined.

One ash landfill is located in Oak Park Heights in Washington County. The NSP A. S. King Ash Landfill accepts fly ash. This landfill provides a dedicated cell specifically for accepting coal combustion ash.

The Safety-Kleen, Inc., facility, located in Rosemount in Dakota County, is also approved by the MPCA and Dakota County to accept waste combustion ash. Waste combustion ash from the HERC facility in Minneapolis is scheduled to be disposed at this facility in late 1999.

V. Source Reduction

A. Regional Source Reduction Introduction

Since 1980, source reduction has been the preferred waste management practice in the State of Minnesota. The Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan establishes source reduction as the highest priority in the planning for and development of the regional solid waste management system (Policy 5.1.2.1). The Policy Plan calls for aggressive programs that challenge government units to act as leaders and, at the same time, promotes a shifting of responsibility from government to manufacturers for the proper management of waste. Additionally, it calls for the change in manufacturing practices to eliminate the need for special management when products become waste (Policies 5.1.2.3, 5.1.2.4 and 5.1.2.5). The Policy Plan sets forth criteria for targeting source and toxicity reduction strategies (5.1.2.7).

The need for the reduction priority is clear. Waste generation continues to grow at increasing rates. In 1997, the six-county region managed 2,950,000 tons of MSW. By 2017, the region will need to manage 5,048,000 tons of MSW if waste generation is unchecked. This represents an increase of nearly 71%.

The costs of managing the growth in the waste stream will be significant. If the waste is reduced at the source, these management costs, as well as the initial expense of producing and purchasing finished materials, will be avoided. For instance, according to the Tellus Institute, avoiding the manufacture of finished products also avoids the expenditures otherwise needed to purchase energy for manufacturing, and for the control of air and water emissions during manufacturing. In addition, businesses and other consumers can save money avoiding the purchase of unnecessary items: avoiding the purchase of one ton of paper could potentially save a business $500 in purchase costs, while reducing the amount of food disposed by one ton could save consumers $1,000 in food purchase costs. "A One-Year Snapshot: Resource Conservation Benefits-prepared by the Tellus Institute for the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 1996."

The outcomes in this section of the Master Plan establish a strong regional approach to waste reduction. The principal waste reduction outcome establishes MSW generation rates in 2005 at the 1999 level. Then, from 2006-2017, the per capita and per employee generation rate will remain at that 1999 level. The intermediate outcomes contribute to this overall outcome by targeting specific materials. The negotiated county outcomes create specific areas of concentration for each county, with the expectation that information and implementation strategies will be shared region-wide.

B. Regional Outcomes, Implementation Strategies and County Negotiated Outcomes

Principal Source Reduction Outcome

If this principal source reduction outcome is achieved, the region will generate 429,000 tons per year less than projected in 2005. Avoided expenditures associated with the production and purchase of finished goods could be in the millions of dollars. However, only a portion of the avoided expenditures will occur within the metropolitan area, unless all of the manufacturing facilities are assumed to be located within the metropolitan area.

The OEA, working with the Tellus Institute, has estimated that the 1998 Statewide source reduction potential is 360,000 tons. As shown in Figure V.1, for the planning year of 2003, the result is that the region would generate 235,000 tons of MSW fewer than projected and 1.3 million tons fewer than projected in 2017.

The region will work toward achievement of the principal outcome by implementing a strategy of targeting certain materials in the commercial sector, as described below, and by working in partnership with the OEA, MnTAP and Minnesota Waste Wise. Because of the difficulty of achieving reduction outcomes, collaboration with clearly defined roles and responsibilities will provide for the best use of limited resources. Additionally, the region will promote reduction in the private sector. This section will describe roles and responsibilities for the implementation of source reduction strategies.

1. The roles and responsibilities of the SWMCB will include:
1. Coordination of direct business assistance programs and working with trade associations and industry groups;
2. Promotion and public information;
3. Coordination of residential education;
4. Participating in legislative initiatives and advising the OEA on resource development; and
5. Program implementation.
    
2. The roles and responsibilities of the counties will include:
   1. Direct business assistance;
   2. Program implementation; and
   3. Residential public information.
       
3. The roles and responsibilities of the OEA will include:
   1. Research and data collection;
   2. Resource development, including case studies, fact sheets, curriculum, and other related products;
   3. State and federal legislative initiatives; and
   4. Financial assistance.
       
4. The roles and responsibilities of Minnesota Waste Wise will include:
   1. Promotion; and
   2. Direct assistance to Minnesota Waste Wise members.

Regional Implementation Strategies
To achieve the principal outcome, it will be necessary to work in close partnership with commercial waste generators to identify programs and assistance that are most helpful in business and industry, and to make it easy for commercial generators to achieve source reduction. To achieve the principal outcome, the region will:

1. Develop, as needed, task forces comprised of business and commercial generators and trade associations to assist in the identification of the most effective programs and in the distribution of reduction messages and tools.
    
2. Establish a consistent source of information for reduction.

Negotiated County Outcomes
Each county will undertake activities designed to reduce the amount of waste generated by businesses, residents and government units.

Intermediate Source Reduction Outcomes
To achieve the principal outcome, the following eight intermediate outcomes were identified as the most reasonable opportunities for reduction. Together, the intermediate outcomes will move the region toward the achievement of the principal source reduction outcome. The opportunities are based on the OEA's Source Reduction Tactical Plan, dated May 8, 1998. This plan targets four specific waste streams: food waste, old corrugated containers (OCC), pallets/crates, and office paper. The targets were selected based on the 1992 MPCA analysis of waste composition and also represent the targets identified by the OEA's Business Environmental Resource Center, MnTAP and Minnesota Waste Wise.

As shown in Figure V.2., these targeted areas are expected to result in the source reduction of 220,000 tons of MSW. The remaining tons needed to reach the 235,000 principal tonnage outcome are expected to be achieved through more general source reduction efforts.

Figure V.2

This outcome combines two of the OEA's target areas, old corrugated cardboard (OCC) and wood pallets and crates. Eleven percent of the MSW generated in Minnesota is OCC. In 1996, Minnesotans generated approximately 701,500 tons of OCC, of which 440,000 tons were recycled and 261,500 tons disposed. The OEA and Tellus Institute estimate the potential for OCC reduction is 99,215 tons statewide. Of that amount, the SWMCB estimates that the metropolitan reduction potential is 60% or 59,529 tons. The base year for comparison purposes is 1997.

Pallets and crates comprise 2% of MSW disposed, or 62,000 tons statewide in 1996. Using the "EPA Source Reduction Program Potential Manual", the OEA estimates the potential to reduce pallet waste generation is 32,600 tons. The metropolitan potential is estimated to be 19,560 tons or 60% of the statewide total.

Because the projected potential for reduction is based on 1992 MPCA waste composition data and national calculations, the SWMCB has targeted a conservative, combined potential reduction for commercial packaging of 75,000 tons per year by the year 2003.

Regional Implementation Strategies

1. The region will implement a pilot project to demonstrate the feasibility of reusable transportation packaging in businesses and counties.
    
2. The region will target major generators and disposers of transport packaging in a tailored public information/education campaign and will work with the OEA to develop educational and promotional materials and directories.
    
3. The region will work with the OEA to investigate legislative and policy barriers to OCC and pallet reduction and reuse. The region will then actively promote the resolution of those barriers.
    
4. The region will provide supplemental technical assistance by distributing listings of pallet re-manufacturers and fact sheets targeting large generators.
    
5. The region will provide government leadership by working with public entities to promote ways that government facilities can reduce OCC, pallet use and waste.

Negotiated County Outcomes

1. Anoka County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of transport packaging in manufacturing and distribution centers.
    
2. Carver County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of commercial packaging in light industrial facilities.
    
3. Dakota County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of commercial packaging in County purchasing, including identifying the need for changes in the State and County purchasing contracts.
    
4. Hennepin County will concentrate its efforts on analyzing the potential for increased reduction of commercial packaging in County purchasing and in major retail centers, such as the Mall of America.
    
5. Ramsey County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of commercial packaging in office buildings.
    
6. Washington County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of commercial packaging in the grocery industry.

Approximately 4% of total MSW generated in Minnesota is high grade office paper. Offices generate 170,300 tons of high grade office paper per year. The OEA has estimated, using the "EPA Source Reduction Program Potential Manual", that the statewide potential to reduce high grade office paper is 30,000 tons. The metropolitan potential is estimated to be two-thirds of this amount or 20,000 tons. Thus, the annual regional target for office paper reduction is 20,000 tons by 2003.

Regional Implementation Strategies

1. The region will undertake a pilot project in SWMCB operations to maximize reduction of office paper through electronic networking, duplex copying, eco-printing (using printing methods that reduce waste volume and toxicity), and other applicable techniques.
    
2. The region will undertake the following education strategies:
   1. Work with vendors of copiers and printers to educate customers on equipment features for two-sided printing and duplicating.
   2. Work with the OEA to promote an office paper reduction event.
       
3. To provide technical assistance, the region will:
   1. a. Target major generators and disposers of office paper.
   2. b. Distribute the OEA's Tool-Kit for businesses and other resources addressing office paper reductions to trade associations, public entities, and major office paper generators.
       
4. To promote government leadership, the region will encourage and promote office paper reduction and eco-printing among public entities.

Negotiated County Outcomes

1. Anoka County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of office paper in government office buildings.
    
2. Carver County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of office paper in government office buildings.
    
3. Dakota County will concentrate its efforts on promoting the reduction of office paper through modified County and public entity practices with an emphasis on information management practices.
    
4. Hennepin County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of office paper in office buildings.
    
5. Ramsey County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of office paper in office buildings.
    
6. Washington County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reduction of office paper in schools.

The OEA has not targeted unwanted, unsolicited mail in its Source Reduction Tactical Plan because of the difficulty of achieving success and the level of effort needed to make an impact. Although this outcome is not of the highest priority, some level of effort is recommended in light of the public interest in reducing this waste stream.

Regional Implementation Strategies

1. The region will work with one or more municipalities on a pilot program to examine opportunities for residential reduction of unwanted, unsolicited mail.
    
2. To provide education, the region will work with the OEA and Minnesota Waste Wise to develop and provide information in business assistance programs and work with municipalities to promote the reduction of unwanted, unsolicited mail.
    
3. The region will work with the OEA and the Attorney General's Office to identify ways to make it easier for recipients to reduce unwanted, unsolicited mail.

Negotiated County Outcomes

None. Primarily a State and regional responsibility.

Reuse has significant potential in the region. One tool that the SWMCB has used since 1995 to facilitate the reuse of materials is MAX, a materials exchange program operated by MnTAP under contract with the SWMCB. For the 17-month reporting period ending December 1997, 1,591 tons were exchanged through MAX. While the current contract with MnTAP has an annual exchange goal of 5,000 tons, SWMCB and MnTAP staff estimate that the amount of materials exchanged could be increased to 10,000 tons through this program. In addition, there is significant potential for reuse in the residential sector, the deconstruction industry, and through other business programs that promote reuse. Therefore, the region is targeting a reuse of 50,000 tons of material per year by 2003.

Regional Implementation Strategies

1. To promote reuse through materials exchange, the region will:
   1. Provide resources to support materials exchange programs.
   2. Increase promotion, program development and resources to businesses, including Internet access.
   3. Focus efforts on targeted materials.
       
2. To provide education to businesses, the region will develop targeted educational materials for selected business sectors.

Negotiated County Outcomes

1. Anoka County will concentrate its efforts on facilitating the reuse of residential materials (e.g., clothes, toys and small electronics).
    
2. Carver County will work with its Recycling Centers to expand its reuse options.
    
3. Dakota and Ramsey Counties will concentrate their efforts in generating and analyzing data that will be used to develop stronger, more effective source reduction and reuse messages that target the residential sector.
    
4. Hennepin County will concentrate its efforts in facilitating the reuse of glass, deconstruction materials and latex paint.
    
5. Washington County will concentrate its efforts in facilitating the reuse of residential materials (e.g., clothes, toys, small electronics).

Food waste represented approximately 11% of total MSW generated in Minnesota or approximately 514,800 tons. Of this amount, the OEA estimates that residents generated 50%, restaurants and grocers generated 30%, food processors generated 10% and 10% is generated by others. The OEA developed the Statewide reduction potential for food waste by using several sources, including the "EPA Source Reduction Program Potential Manual", MnTAP, national contacts and the Garbage Project at the University of Arizona.

The total food waste reduction tonnage potential is derived by disaggregating it into the potential of key programs, including backyard composting, food-for-people, and meal planning. The OEA estimates that the Statewide potential for backyard composting is 137,000 tons per year. The SWMCB estimates that of this amount, the region could achieve 36% or 50,000 tons. This lower percentage reflects the limited practicality of backyard composting in certain urban areas. The Statewide potential for food-for-people programs is 10,500 tons. It is estimated that the regional potential is 75% or approximately 7,500 tons. Statewide, meal planning has the reduction potential of 50,000 tons. It is expected that the region could achieve 17,500 tons. (However, the OEA found meal planning reduction potential the most difficult to estimate.) Meal planning is primarily focused on restaurants and institutions. Together, these food waste reduction potential estimates total 75,000 tons per year, by the year 2003. The total is a conservative estimate that reflects the uncertainty of the data and the potential for success. The annual regional target for food waste reduction is 75,000 per year, by 2003.

Regional Implementation Strategies

1. The region will:
   1. Work with the OEA to research the feasibility of institutional on-site food waste composting.
   2. Work with the OEA to identify and remove barriers to residential on-site food waste composting.
   3. Support food-for-people programs through promotion and research.
   4. Work with institutional food service providers to develop methods for reducing food waste.
       
2. To provide education tools, the region will:
   1. Work with the OEA to develop educational and promotional materials for each targeted trade group.
   2. Work with the OEA and others to coordinate an educational campaign on appropriate, safe and clean backyard composting techniques.
       
3. The region will work with the OEA to investigate legal and other barriers to food reuse programs and will work to resolve such barriers, including providing education regarding the Good Samaritan Law.
    
4. To provide technical assistance, the region will:
   1. Work with the OEA to create a directory of food redistribution centers and distribute the directory to restaurants and grocers.
   2. Work with the OEA to develop a prototype food waste reduction action plan for each major generator type.
   3. Target on-site assistance to major generators.

Negotiated County Outcomes

1. Anoka County will concentrate its efforts on reducing residential non-animal food waste through composting.
    
2. Carver County will concentrate its efforts on reducing food waste through backyard composting.
    
3. Dakota County will concentrate its efforts on reducing food waste by providing case study data for public institution food-for-people programs.
    
4. Hennepin County will concentrate its efforts on reducing food waste in institutional food preparation.
    
5. Hennepin and Ramsey Counties will concentrate their efforts on reducing food waste through food-for-people programs.
    
6. Washington County will concentrate its efforts on reducing food waste through composting.

A significant theme in the Policy Plan is that government will serve as a leader in the implementation of the Policy Plan. Specifically, Policy 5.1.2.3 provides that the State, counties and local government will aggressively implement source reduction strategies, maximize internal reduction efforts and purchase products that reduce the volume of waste. The intermediate outcome is intended to use both reduction and recycling strategies.

Regional Implementation Strategies

To promote government leadership in source reduction in counties, the region will:

1. Update and implement its "Environmentally Responsible Government Procurement Guide".
    
2. Work with the OEA to develop a standard cost analysis based on county and State facility contracts and bids for waste collection and recycling services.
    
3. Promote with member counties the use of standard vendor contract language for source reduction and recycling.
    
4. Work with the counties to develop specific strategies for decreasing the amount of waste and recyclables discarded from county-operated facilities.

Negotiated County Outcomes

1. Each county will reduce waste generated at county-operated facilities by 10% by 2003.
   1. Each county will determine the baseline year and will determine how to measure its progress. For example, a county may choose to use a per employee measurement, a total tonnage measurement or some other measurement specific to its unique characteristics.
   2. Each county will increase recycling efforts and adjust purchasing decisions to reduce the amount of MSW generated in its county-operated buildings.
   3. Each county will assure that, in accordance with State law, all facilities under its control have recycling programs in place by 2000 to collect and recycle at least four materials, including office paper and cardboard when they each comprise a portion of a facility's waste stream.
       
2. Dakota County will support eco-printing techniques and practices (e.g. using soy inks recycled content paper and recyclable paper).

The purpose of this proposed outcome is to measure the success of reduction education, public information and business assistance efforts in reaching people and businesses and in changing behavior.

Regional Implementation Strategies

To assist public education efforts the region will:

1. Ensure that public education/information materials developed by the SWMCB and counties include specific practices that can be measured.
    
2. Conduct periodic surveys to evaluate performance.

Negotiated County Outcomes

1. Anoka County will:
   1. Provide County-wide outreach and education to businesses annually, at a minimum, and actively offer assistance to 10% of its businesses each year through site visits, telephone assistance and targeted promotions.
   2. Focus its residential source reduction efforts on working with its municipalities and haulers to evaluate the potential for a residential materials exchange program.
       
2. Carver County will:
   1. Promote reduction through public information.
   2. Focus its residential source reduction efforts on backyard composting.
       
3. Dakota County will:
   1. Assure business assistance is provided.
   2. Focus its residential source reduction efforts on food purchasing practices.
       
4. Hennepin County will:
   1. a. Provide on-site waste assessment to 100 businesses annually and will assist an additional 1,000 businesses annually through advertising, outreach and other public education strategies through 2001, and then will evaluate the results of the assistance to determine its subsequent reduction initiatives.
   2. Focus residential source reduction efforts on landscape practices in conjunction with the University of Minnesota Extension Service.
       
5. Ramsey County will:
   1. By 2003, offer all known non-household waste generators at least two opportunities to receive education, consultation and technical assistance on source reduction, and focus additional commercial outreach efforts on reduction of waste cardboard and office paper from office buildings and on reduction of food waste through food-for-people programs.
   2. Work with other entities in the county to ensure that residential source reduction messages are consistent and frequently provided. The County will ensure that every household is offered source reduction messages at least once per year.
       
6. Washington County will:
   1. Provide on-site waste assessment to 50 businesses annually and will assist an additional 2,000 businesses annually through advertising, outreach and other public education strategies.
   2. Focus its residential source reduction efforts on reuse and backyard composting.
   3. Focus its commercial source reduction efforts on grocers and schools.

This intermediate outcome goes beyond source reduction. It promotes the integrated waste management system and discourages open burning and improper disposal of waste. Generators in the region will make daily choices regarding waste management. Generators must make informed choices in order for the region to succeed in meeting the vision and goals of this Regional Solid Waste Master Plan.

Regional Implementation Strategies

The region will work with counties to develop specific strategies for informing consumers about the benefits and impacts of waste management choices.

Negotiated County Outcomes

Each county will work to have its generators be informed consumers of waste management services and to have its generators understand the benefits and impacts of their disposal practices.

VI. Reduction in Toxic/Hazardous Character of Waste

A. Regional Reduction in Toxic/Hazardous Character of Waste Introduction

The Policy Plan requires the region to give source reduction and reduction in the toxic/hazardous character of waste the highest priority in planning for and development of the regional solid waste management system (Policy 5.1.2.1). In addition, the region supports the concept of shifting responsibility from government to manufacturers for proper waste management of products that require separate management or are shown to cause environmental harm (Policy 5.1.2.4). Whenever possible, efforts to eliminate the manufacture and sale of products with toxic/hazardous components will be supported (Policy 5.1.2.5).

Minn. Stat. §115A.02 establishes reduction in the toxicity of waste as a key purpose associated with improving waste management. This Master Plan interprets the statutory term "toxicity reduction" to mean reduction in the toxic/hazardous character of waste. Under more specific federal and State laws, toxicity is one of four characteristics of hazardous wastes, the others being corrosivity, ignitability (flamability), or reactivity (explosiveness).

B. Regional Outcomes, Implementation Strategies and Negotiated County Outcomes

Principal Toxicity Reduction Outcomes

The impact of toxic/hazardous materials on the environment can be significant. Wastes with toxic/hazardous components that are burned for energy recovery can create problems with air emissions and/or management of ash resulting from incineration. Toxic or hazardous components can leach into groundwater, or if properly contained by a leachate collection system, create additional costs associated with the management of collected leachate.

The region recognizes that it alone cannot reduce the toxic/hazardous character of the waste and that collaboration with the State and Federal government and the private sector will be necessary.

Regional Implementation Strategies

To work toward achievement of the principal outcomes, the region will:

1. Place a strong emphasis on extended producer responsibility and retailer involvement in the management of wastes which require special handling or management.
    
2. Continue collection and management of HHW that is not being managed through private-sector initiatives.
    
3. Increase coordination of hazardous waste regulatory activities that will include education and technical assistance.