Solid Waste Management Plan Prairieland Waste Management Board, Minnesota Adoption Date:

Transcription

1

2 Solid Waste Management Plan 2013 Prairieland Waste Management Board, Minnesota Adoption Date: Primary Point of Contact: Billeye Rabbe Director, Prairieland Solid Waste Management County Solid Waste Coordinator 801 East 5 th Street North P. O. Box 100 Truman, Minnesota (507) billeye@prlandswm.com Secondary Point of Contact: Emmanuel Frimpong Boamah Resource Development Planner Community and Economic Development Department Region Nine Development Commission 10 Civic Center Plaza Mankato MN (507) emmanuel@rndc.org Prepared By Prairieland Solid Waste Management Board 201 Lake Avenue Fairmont, MN Region Nine Development Commission Community & Economic Development Department 10 Civic Center Plaza Mankato MN With Support from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES... iv LIST OF FIGURES... vi CHAPTER ONE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Overview - Collaborative Solid Waste Planning and Management Framework Recommended/Preferred Solid Waste Management Practice Contingency Solid Waste Management System Plan Process and Public/Stakeholders Participation SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND PROGRAMS WASTE STREAM FLOW AND BUDGET TABLES Budget CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF COUNTIES INTRODUCTION LOCATION AND SIZE OF COUNTIES DEMOGRAPHICS Population, Household and Ethnic Composition of Counties Population Distribution among Cities and Townships Population Projections of Counties CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE LOCAL ECONOMIC CONDITION Labor force outlook for both counties Employments, Wages and Incomes of Counties Housing Situation SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC, LAND USE AND ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT Solid Waste Generation and Composition SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION Current Collection and Disposal Rates SUMMARY OF WASTE GENERATION AND COLLECTION CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS BY COUNTIES Joint County (Prairieland Solid Waste Board) Activities/Initiatives Local Activities/Initiatives Past Impediments/Barriers to Joint County Activities/Initiatives Resolution Measures for Conflicting/Overlapping Local Activities/Initiatives i

4 CHAPTER THREE EXISTING AND PROPOSED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND/HISTORY OF EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Policy/Goals for Improvement under the Existing System DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WASTE FACILITIES IN USE Cost of Operating and Maintaining the Integrated Solid Waste Management System SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS PROPOSED INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Alternatives to the Proposed Integrated Waste Management System BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING GREATER INDEPENDENCE FROM LAND DISPOSAL Reasons for the Continued Use of Land Disposal System CHAPTER FOUR SOLID WASTE SYSTEM EVALUATION AND TEN YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION SOLID WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS Existing Solid Waste Reduction Program(s) Solid Waste Reduction Programs to Implement for the next 10 years SOLID WASTE EDUCATION PROGRAMS Existing Solid Waste Education Programs Solid Waste Education Programs to Implement for the next 10 years SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAMS Existing Public and Private Sector Solid Waste Recycling Program(s) Solid Waste Recycling Programs to Implement for the next 10 years YARD WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Existing Public and Private Sector Yard Waste Program(s) Yard Waste Management Programs to implement for the next 10 years SOURCE-SEPARATED ORGANIC MATERIALS COMPOSTING PROGRAMS Existing Collection System for Source-Separated Organic Materials Source-Separated Organic Materials Programs to implement for the next 10 years SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND ENERGY RECOVERY Existing RDF Programs MSW Solid Waste Incineration and Resource Recovery Programs to Implement for the next 10 years MSW LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES Existing Programs/Proposed to be Developed MSW Land Disposal Programs to Implement for the next 10 years SOLID WASTE TIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Existing Programs/Proposed to be Developed Solid Waste Tire Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS Existing Programs Electronic Products Programs to Implement for the next 10 years ii

5 4.11 MAJOR APPLIANCE MANAGEMENT Existing Programs Major Appliance Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years AUTOMOTIVE MERCURY SWITCHES, MOTOR VEHICLE FLUIDS AND FILTERS, AND LEAD- ACID AND DRY CELL BATTERIES Existing Programs Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE (HHW) Existing Facility and Programs Household Hazardous Solid Waste Programs to Implement for the next 10 years CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS MANAGEMENT Existing Programs Demolition Debris Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years ILLEGAL ON-SITE DISPOSAL Existing Programs On-site and Illegal Disposal Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years SUMMARY OF PLAN EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER FIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, REVIEW, MONITORING AND EVALUATION INTRODUCTION JOINT- COUNTY SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE Current Problems with Ordinance Enforcement Plans to Develop or Amend Ordinances MITIGATION EFFORTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS Illegal On-Site Disposal of MSW by Farms or Households Illegal Disposal ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE SYSTEM MULTI-COUNTY PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM Documentation Location REVIEW PROCESS AND TIMELINES DOCUMENTATION OF THE ONGOING PROCESS APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: GOAL-VOLUME TABLES APPENDIX 2: DETAILED BUDGET OUTLINE FOR THE 10-YEAR PLAN PERIOD APPENDIX 3: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE REFERENCES iii

6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Updated Programs for the 2013 Plan... 2 Table 1.2: Goals, Strategies and Programs for the Next Ten Years... 8 Table 1.3: Waste Stream Flows Table 1.4: Summary of Anticipated Solid Waste Cost Table 1.5: Summary of Anticipated Solid Waste Revenue Table 2.1: Past Population and Household Trends for Faribault and Counties Table 2.2: Population Distribution -Faribault County Table 2.3: Population Distribution - County Table 2.4: Employment and Wages of Counties Table 2.5: Employment Projections by Industry in South-west Minnesota Table 2.6: Median Household and Per Capita Incomes (2011) Table 2.7: Housing Situation in Faribault County Table 2.8: Housing Situation in County Table 2.9: Solid Waste Collection/Disposal Information (in tons) for Table 2.10: Greater Minnesota Sampling Summary Table 2.11: Greater Minnesota Weighting Factors by Facility Table 2.12: Greater Minnesota Reported Composition of Mixed Loads Table 2.13: Composition of Solid Waste Generated at the Prairieland Facility Table 2.14: Greater Minnesota MSW Composition - Estimates of Materials in MSW (by weight) Table 2.15: Volume of Solid Waste Disposed at each Disposal Site/Facility Table 2.16: Faribault County Municipal Refuse Collection Programs Table 2.17: County Municipal Refuse Collection Programs Table 2.18: Major Solid Waste Generators in Faribault and County Table 2.19: Faribault County Special Waste Recycling (in tons) for Table 2.20: County Special Waste Recycling (in tons) for Table 2.21: Faribault County General Recycling (in tons) for Table 2.22: County General Recycling (in tons) for Table 2.23: Disposal Practices of Residential and Commercial Generators Faribault County (2012) Table 2.24: Disposal Practices of Residential and Commercial Generators - County (2012) 1 46 Table 2.25: Summary of Constraints and Opportunities for Waste Generation and Collection Table 3.1: Unacceptable waste at Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Table 3.2: Cost of Operating and Maintaining the MSW Disposal Facilities Table 3.3: 2012 Operation and Maintenance Cost for the Prairieland s Integrated System Table 3.4: 2012 Operation and Maintenance Cost for Faribault and Counties Table 3.5: Goals and Strategies Proposed to Improve the Integrated System Table 4.1: MSW Management Targets for the Next Ten Years Table 4.2: Cumulative Annual Solid Waste Reduction Targets iv

7 Table 4.3: Project Planning Matrix for Waste Reduction Programs Table 4.4: Annual Staff (FTE) for Solid Waste Reduction Programs Table 4.5: List of Existing Solid Waste Education Programs Table 4.6: Project Planning Matrix for Waste Education Programs Table 4.7: Annual Staff (FTE) for Solid Waste Education Programs Table 4.8: List of Existing Solid Waste Recycling Programs Table 4.9: Annual Tons of Solid Waste Recycled by Generators Table 4.10: Project Planning Matrix for Waste Recycling Programs Table 4.11: Annual Staff (FTE) for Solid Waste Recycling Programs Table 4.12: Yard Waste/Compost Sites available in Faribault and Counties Table 4.13: Project Planning Matrix for Yard Solid Waste Programs Table 4.14: Annual Staff (FTE) for Yard Waste Management Programs Table 4.15: Project Planning Matrix for Source-Separated Organic Materials Programs Table 4.16: Annual Staff (FTE) for Source-Separated Organic Materials Programs Table 4.17: Annual RDF Generated by the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Table 4.18: Projected Annual RDF from the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Table 4.19: Project Planning Matrix for Energy Recovery Programs Table 4.20: Annual Staff (FTE) for Energy Recovery Programs Table 4.21: Landfill Facilities and Operation Status Table 4.22: Annual Waste Received and Processed by MSW Land Disposal Facilities Table 4.23: Project Planning Matrix for MSW Land Disposal Programs Table 4.24: Annual Staff (FTE) for MSW Land Disposal Programs Table 4.25: Tire Haulers and Means of Transportation Table 4.26: Project Planning Matrix for Solid Waste Tire Management Programs Table 4.27: Annual Staff (FTE) on Solid Waste Reduction Programs Table 4.28: Project Planning Matrix for Electronic Products Programs Table 4.29: Annual Staff (FTE) for Electronic Products Programs Table 4.30: Project Planning Matrix for Major Appliance Management Programs Table 4.31: Annual Staff (FTE) Matrix for Major Appliance Management Programs Table 4.32: Project Planning Matrix for Automotive Mercury, etc. Programs Table 4.33: Annual Staff (FTE) for Automotive Mercury, etc. Programs Table 4.34: Project Planning Matrix for Household Hazardous Waste Programs Table 4.35: Annual Staff (FTE) for HHW Programs Table 4.36: Permitted Demolition Debris Facilities at Faribault/ County Table 4.37: Project Planning Matrix for Demolition Debris Waste Programs Table 4.38: Annual Staff (FTE) for Demolition Debris Waste Programs Table 4.39: Project Planning Matrix for On-site and Illegal Disposal Management Programs Table 4.40: Annual Staff (FTE) for Illegal On site Disposal Programs Table 4.41: Estimated Staffing Requirements in Implementing the Programs v

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Solid Waste Management Hierarchy of Preferred Methods... 1 Figure 1.2: Flow Chart of Plan Process... 5 Figure 1.3: System Objectives for the Region (Prairieland) by the Year Figure 1.4: System Objectives for Faribault County by the Year Figure 1.5: System Objectives for County by the Year Figure 1.6: Regional Ten-year Forecast for Solid Waste Generation Figure 1.7: Faribault County s Ten-year Forecast for Solid Waste Generation Figure 1.8: County s Ten-year Forecast for Solid Waste Generation Figure 2.1: Map of Faribault County with Cities Figure 2.2: Map of County with Cities Figure 2.3: Population of Faribault County (2011) Figure 2.4: Population of County Figure 2.5: Ethnicity of Population in Faribault and Counties (2011) Figure 2.6: Location of Prairieland Solid Waste Facility and Cities in Faribault and Counties Figure 2.7: Map of Population Distribution-Faribault County Figure 2.8: Map of Population Distribution- County Figure 2.9: Population Projection of Faribault and Counties Figure 2.10: Land Use/Cover Map for Faribault County Figure 2.11: Land Use/Cover Map for County Figure 2.12: Faribault County s Labor Force Outlook Figure 2.13: County s Labor Force Outlook Figure 2.14: Solid Waste Generating Formula Figure 2.15: Annual Waste Generated by Counties Figure 2.16: Summary of Greater Minnesota MSW Composition Figure 2.17(a): Illegal On-Site Disposal Trends for Faribault and Counties (Tons of Waste) 40 Figure 2.17(b): Illegal On-Site Disposal Trends for Faribault and Counties (No. of People).. 40 Figure 4.1: Summary on Number of Solid Waste Programs to be implemented for the next 10 years Figure 4.2: Total Estimated Annual Budget for Faribault and Counties and Prairieland Office vi

9 CHAPTER ONE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 BACKGROUND Faribault and Counties independently developed an integrated solid waste management system to protect public health and the environment, and to offer convenient and efficient services for residents and businesses of these counties. These contiguous counties, located in south central Minnesota have worked closely with each other as partners in the Prairieland Solid Waste Board, which operates the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility is located in Truman, in County, and has been in operation since Although both counties have in the past prepared their solid waste management plans separately, this document -which is to consolidate earlier solid waste plans for both counties-, is the first joint-county comprehensive solid waste management plan to be developed. This joint-county effort represents a continued effort by both counties to conserve resources, protect the environment and meet the public s goals for solid waste management. The plan describes current and future measures to meet goals for waste reduction, recycling, household hazardous waste and landfill abatement. In developing these measures, attention is paid to the solid waste management hierarchy of preferred methods in order to maximize environmental benefits. The hierarchy as shown in Figure 1.1 illustrates that environmental benefits increase if solid waste management measures target the top measures (waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and organics recovery). The gap between the top and bottom measures (resource recovery and landfilling) signifies the level where the environmental benefits of a jurisdiction s waste management practices is very insignificant. Figure 1.1: Solid Waste Management Hierarchy of Preferred Methods1 MOST PREFFERED PRACTICE DECREASING ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 1

10 As summarized in Table 1.1, this plan also contains modifications to the existing programs while new programs (italicized in the Table) have also been added. These modifications are according to the MPCA s Solid Waste Plan Review Checklist, which was based upon provisions in Minn. Rule For instance, Used Oil Management and Battery Management now have a new program category Automotive Mercury Switches, Motor Vehicle Fluids and Filters, and Lead-Acid and Dry Cell Batteries. Again, Fluorescent bulbs and tubes and Waste electronic appliances are all now grouped under Electronic Products. In addition, instead of the initial requirement for a five-year plan review and update, the Statute now mandates a ten-year review and update (Minn. R ). Table 1.1: Updated Programs for the 2013 Plan Programs in the 2001 Plan Programs in the 2013 Source Reduction Source Reduction Waste Education Waste Education Recycling Recycling Yard Solid Waste Management Yard Solid Waste Management MSW Composting Source Separated Organic Materials Composting Land Disposal of MSW Solid Waste Incineration and Energy Recovery Waste Tire Disposal and Recovery MSW Land Disposal Facilities Major Appliance Management Solid Waste Tire Management Programs Used Oil Management Electronic Products Battery Management Major Appliance Management Household Hazardous Waste Management Automotive Mercury Switches, Motor Vehicle Fluids And Filters, And Lead-Acid And Dry Cell Batteries Demolition Debris Household Hazardous Waste Management Fluorescent bulbs and tubes Demolition Debris Waste electronic appliances On-site and Illegal Disposal Overview - Collaborative Solid Waste Planning and Management Framework The plan reviews the past and present solid waste management system, solid waste abatement programs and policies, and anticipated solid waste management activities. The plan considers various alternatives to attain the most feasible and prudent reduction of the need for land disposal of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) for both counties. This plan in some instances proposes the continuation (and sometimes expansion) of existing solid waste programs operated by both counties and the Prairieland Solid Waste Board, and/or the introduction of new programs to help meet set solid waste reduction and recycling targets. The Counties remain strong as active partners in the Prairieland Solid Waste Board, and continues to support the Board s efforts. A review of the previous solid waste management plans of both counties shows that their existing solid waste program is an integrated solid waste management system which includes elements listed below: 2

11 Comprehensive public education on solid waste issues and the opportunities available to reduce waste, recycle and participate in programs to divert problem materials and household hazardous waste from the waste stream; Aggressive curbside recycling programs in cities in the County, as well as numerous locations for rural residents to drop-off recyclable materials; and Landfill abatement through use of the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. This integrated solid waste program supports the Minnesota law, which guides counties in developing solid waste management programs. While Faribault and Counties have mature and stable solid waste management systems in place, this plan identifies three areas in which both counties are seeking future improvements in system performance: Greater participation in the solid waste system by rural residents; Improved performance and efficiency of waste abatement efforts, notably for household hazardous waste and problem materials; and Long-term stability in the management of MSW at the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Recommended/Preferred Solid Waste Management Practice The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires all counties to assess the feasibility of resource recovery when completing the solid waste management plans. It is recommended that the Prairieland Solid Waste Board continues to pursue the following state solid waste management hierarchy to the extent possible emphasizing the continued utilization of existing and future local options: Pursuant to the Statutes of State of Minnesota, Chapter 115A.02, section (b), the waste management goal of the state is to foster an integrated waste management system in a manner appropriate to the characteristics of the waste stream. The following waste management practices are in order of preference (as already shown in Figure xx): 1. Waste reduction and reuse; 2. Waste recycling; 3. Composting of yard waste and food waste; 4. Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration; and 5. Land disposal. In 1999, the land disposal component (5) of the State s hierarchy was revised further broken into the following: 5a. Land disposal which produces no measurable methane gas or which involves the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on-site or for sale; and 3

12 5b. Land disposal which produces measurable methane and which does not involve the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on-site or for sale. State law requires the development of county solid waste reduction, recycling, yard waste management, and household hazardous waste programs. In addition, state law requires that Greater Minnesota counties consider and, where feasible and prudent, implement programs to process mixed municipal solid waste by solid waste composting, incineration or other mixed waste processing techniques. As a part of the Prairieland Board s commitment to an alternative solution to the disposal of solid waste, the Board should continue to generally endorse the current public/private enterprise system in place which utilizes and maximizes the existing resource recovery facilities Contingency Solid Waste Management System In the event of a short-term emergency that would require bypassing the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility, the contingency system calls for short term holding of RDF at the Facility. The Facility s tipping floor has the capacity to store over 200 tons of waste and the fuel storage area will hold approximately 900 tons. In the event that the emergency should extend over a longer period, haulers would continue to tip at the Prairieland Facility. Prairieland would then transfer the waste to the landfill. At this time, the Prairieland Solid Waste Board anticipates considering other alternatives to improve the flow of waste to the Prairieland Facility. The Prairieland Solid Waste Board also believes that over the long term it will be in the Prairieland Solid Waste Board's best economic and environmental interests to continue to participate in regional solid waste management partnerships to the maximum extent possible Plan Process and Public/Stakeholders Participation Preparation of this plan followed a 3-stage consultative process as shown in Figure 1.2. The first stage involved: a number of consultations between the staff of Region Nine Development Commission, Prairieland Solid Waste Board and MPCA (the client); documentary review of; MPCA s checklist for preparing solid waste plans, MN Statutes on solid waste management, previous solid waste plans for both counties, and solid waste plans of other counties in Minnesota. Having gathered the relevant technical information and knowing what is expected, the second stage was initiated. This stage involved the actual plan preparation. A plan outlined was prepared for the client and MPCA to review. This second stage relied on the involvement of the public and key stakeholders. Apart from Region Nine making presentations to the Prairieland Solid Waste Board, individual plan sections prepared were 4

13 also given to the Prairieland Solid Waste Board and MPCA for review. Each reviewed section was later posted on the websites of Faribault and Counties and that of Region Nine for public comments. By the third and final stage of the process, the client, residents of Faribault and Counties and the MPCA have had the opportunity to review the plan s chapters. Such a consultative process ensured that the client and the public were made active participants and owners of the plan. The draft plan after the 30 days mandatory public review period was revised and submitted to Prairieland Solid Waste Board for adoption and to MPCA for final approval. Figure 1.2: Flow Chart of Plan Process 5

14 1.2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND PROGRAMS Faribault and Counties have a well-established waste abatement program that exceeds the State of Minnesota s goals for diverting materials from the waste stream for reuse and recovery. Recycling levels as at 2012 were 50.7 percent and 65.5 percent of the total waste volume for Faribault and Counties respectively. The Counties anticipate that their existing efforts need to be maintained, but the particular focus for future improvements is centered on greater recovery of household hazardous waste and problem materials, notably those products containing lead, mercury and PCB s. The Counties ten-year goals are contained in the Goal Volume Table, which is included in Appendix xx of this plan. Figures 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 show the system objectives for the Region, Faribault and Counties respectively. The abatement programs and budget for the programs necessary to achieve these goals are described in detail in Chapter 4. Table 1.2 provides a summary of the goals, strategies and programs to be implemented for the next ten years. Figure 1.3: System Objectives for the Region (Prairieland) by the Year

15 Figure 1.4: System Objectives for Faribault County by the Year 2022 Figure 1.5: System Objectives for County by the Year

16 Table 1.2: Goals, Strategies and Programs for the Next Ten Years Area Goal Strategies Programs Source Reduction Waste Education 1. Explore avenues to encourage households and businesses (especially rural residents) on how to reduce their solid waste. 2. Encourage REUSE rather than disposal for some items in the waste stream. 3. Use pricing measures to encourage source reduction 1. Promote education initiatives to encourage waste recycling and reduction. 2. Raise public awareness about the proper management of waste and enforce public entities laws. 3. Promote the Prairieland RDF Facility and improve system efficiency. 4. Greater participation in HHW and VSQG programs to de-toxify the waste stream. 1. Work with several volunteer businesses to demonstrate options for reducing waste generation 2. Make sure the waste guides for households and businesses explain how to reduce waste. 3. Encourage the use of consignment shops, collection programs and garage sales as a means to reduce waste and encourage reuse of items. 4. Promote volume-based pricing to give generators of waste a clear incentive to reduce the amount of waste generated 1. Build news coverage of Prairieland into wider coverage of toxic materials programs, recycling opportunities, and the benefits of reducing the amount of waste produced 2. Continue education on source reduction, with special emphasis on toxicity reduction 3. Inform citizens and public entities on how, when and where for proper disposal of waste, especially HHW. 4. Investigate the use of social media as an inexpensive way to communicate with the public about waste options 5. Inform citizens how, when and where solid waste can be recycled Target outreach to businesses that have strong source reduction potential. Increase source reduction promotion and assistance to rural residents as part of expanded rural waste management and recycling programs. Examine opportunities to integrated source reduction measures into building projects. Further development of purchasing guidelines that support source reduction. Promote Reuse by drafting a directory of thrift stores or reuse opportunities Setup reuse areas at TS/landfills Promote Neighborhood Reuse events Create greater source reduction incentives through variable-rate pricing requirements for solid waste collection. Numerous public service announcements on the local cable access channel and in newspapers. Keep Solid Waste Information up to date with current waste handling information and programming. Develop a Facebook page for local waste education. Television and radio appearances. Development and use of traveling displays promoting solid waste activities. Educational materials and displays at a manned booth during the county fair and other events. Visiting businesses in both counties, in person, with recycling and waste reduction information. Continue to meet and discuss waste issues (such as encouraging city run yard waste compost sites). Staff training for businesses on recycling and waste reduction. Keep county website up to date with local waste education materials. 8

17 Area Goal Strategies Programs Waste Education (Continued) Inform public entities and residents (especially those in rural areas) about rules regarding waste disposal (with focus on illegal waste disposal) and recycling. Advertising to promote successful examples of source reduction by businesses. Conduct periodic waste composition study. Work with the larger generators to reduce and recycle their waste. Development of county specific brochures that outline where individuals and businesses can take waste within each county and how to handle it. Solid waste newsletters to citizens and businesses on proper disposal and recycling of waste such as white goods and electronics. Businesses in Faribault and Counties will be encouraged through social media and the solid waste pages on the county websites, to contact MPCA for help in startup and expanding their business to develop uses for recycled materials by offering technical, financial and marketing assistance. Promote the Recycle Your Holidays program for electronic cords and other RAM programs with STEP, Inc. of and Faribault Counties. Promote Backyard Composting materials and community demonstration programs with County Soil and Water Conservation Programs. Provide recycling and What A Waste educational programs to school districts. Promote Take It To The Box program for unwanted medications by providing information and links on solid waste Facebook and County Solid Waste Web pages. Promotion of special days for handling hazardous waste. County training program that includes information on waste abatement and disposal of HHWQ, white goods and electronics. 9

18 Area Goal Strategies Programs Recycling 1. Refine recycling education efforts to maintain a consistent message to residents, businesses and public entities (especially schools) about the importance of recycling. 2. Encourage businesses and public entities to recycle and reduce volume of waste and enforce recycling regulations. 3. Encourage recycling though social media 1. Encourage single sort curbside recycling programs for towns in both counties. 2. Identify greatest potential for recycling by businesses and public entities, and help waste haulers and recyclers meet those needs 3. Gain the cooperation of businesses that currently recycle to keep track of recycling tonnages and report them to both counties 4. Ensure that public entities and businesses are following recycling regulations. Tours of the RDF facility. Be sure public entities know how state recycling laws apply to them and ensure they recycle 3+ materials. Organizing and promoting events such as recycling week, pollution prevention week, and Earth Day activities. Encourage rural residents to use single sort rural drop sites throughout both counties through the Education Program. Ensure students have access to recycling programs through the Education Programs and also exploring options to improve collection and disposal in schools. Provide improved opportunities for rural recycling by researching to identify alternative collection options and also monitoring current rural collection efforts. Work closely with recycling collectors to improve the quality of data, especially data on business recycling efforts by requesting for periodic documentation on recycling levels and efforts as part of the licensing procedures. Encourage single sort curbside recycling in more towns in Faribault and Counties by talking to city administrators and presenting information at city council meetings and explaining options. Keep county websites updated with current recycling information Develop a Facebook page and include current recycling information. Offer recycling collection points as well as curbside collection in towns and cities in both counties. Provide public entities with rules regarding recycling and make sure they are following. Encourage recyclers to contact commercial / industrial customers and discuss options for recycling in their business. Find options for conducting waste audits in commercial and industrial businesses to help businesses identify recycling or reuse options for portions of their waste stream. 10

19 Area Goal Strategies Programs Yard Solid Waste Management Source Separated Organic Materials Composting Solid Waste Incineration and Energy Recovery 1. Comply with the restrictions on landfill of yard waste. 2. Educate the public on options for managing their yard waste. 1. Enhance education about source separated organic materials, options and collection opportunities. 2. Improve on collection of source separated organic materials. 3. Encourage business producing organic waste to use licensed Source Separated Organic haulers. 1. Recover resources from the solid waste stream in both counties and other neighboring counties 1. Explore alternatives in enforcing restrictions on landfill of yard waste. 2. Continue to educate consumers on back yard composting and proper disposal of yard waste. 3. Enhance existing local yard waste management and composting efforts. 1. Help inform residents about maintained municipal run composting sites. 2. Encourage residents to use curbside collection of compostable organic materials. 3. Increase the number of haulers licensed to collect separated organic materials for composting. 1. Continue to maintain Prairieland partnerships/contracts with waste to energy facilities for MSW produced and explore avenues for future Use current practicing public entities as models for programming to encourage non-cooperating entities to comply Encourage development of city run yard waste compost sites through the Education Program. Use Facebook and county websites to encourage residents to manage their yard waste through composting and use of municipal yard waste composting sites. Continue to promote reduction options through mulching and backyard composting as well as the drop-off/curbside collection options. Organize annual Christmas trees collection with the help of cities, community volunteers, civic organizations and Service-to-Service crews. Design informative message and post on Counties website on the rules and health risks associated with backyard garbage burning. Collaborate with the Master Gardeners and / or Soil and Water Conservation Service of both counties in disseminating information on yard waste composting including offer of composting bins for sale. Licensing haulers who specifically run source separated organic materials with county recycling license. Make list of licensed organic material haulers available to businesses and consumers. Identify high organics generating businesses and work with them to establish organics diversion programs. Encourage Backyard composting. Design and implement measures for business waste audit options. Develop long-term waste agreements with current and future energy recovery facilities. Explore and develop potential partnerships between the Prairieland RDF and other energy recovery facilities. 11

20 Area Goal Strategies Programs MSW Land Disposal Facilities Solid Waste Tire Management Programs (through partnerships) 2. Meet current capacity needs and ensure future production improvements of the Prairieland RDF facility. 1. Continue to discourage landfill sites and emphasize that waste to energy is the best option for MSW 2. Conserve the need for land disposal through reducing the waste stream and exploring alternative means for disposing wastes not suitable for RDF. 1. Reuse or recycle the tire material into other useful products. 2 Enhance education of tire management. partnerships. 2. Continue to process waste to make RDF and deliver to energy recovery facilities. 3. Meet the capacity needs of the Prairieland RDF facility by securing waste from outside counties 1. Continue to use other landfill facilities located in other jurisdictions other than Faribault and Counties. 2. Seek alternative environmentallyfriendly disposal means for waste not suitable for RDF 1. Promote existing tire collection options 2. Keep waste tires out of the landfills, woods and ditches; 3. Use social media to help residents know the options for managing unwanted tires. In conjunction with Xcel Energy, identify and list materials not suitable for RDF and list alternative disposal options for these materials. Have list available to consumers and haulers. Maintain current RDF processing levels and consider possibility for future increases by increasing the staff and capacity of the RDF facility. Provide public education regarding the life cycle of garbage. Investigate and possibly put into play the reenactment of the designation ordinance to ensure waste delivery to the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. Secure waste for the RDF facility from other potential sources by identifying options and costs associated with entering into partnership agreements with haulers and neighboring counties. Have list of neighboring landfills available for waste not suitable for RDF. Have list of alternatives to landfilling of materials not suitable for RDF such as furniture, mattresses, asphalt, shingles, C& D, etc. Organize and intensify publicity (at least once a year) on the reduction of waste types not suitable for RDF. Conduct research on environmentally-friendly alternative disposal means for wastes not suitable for RDF. Establish a process with cities and townships to identify and clean-up clandestine tire sites in rural areas. This may involve a limited county grant incentive program. Organize publicity of tire collection options at least once a year Support tire recycling facilities or businesses generating resources from waste tire materials. Work with cities in both Counties to include tires in their public clean-up days. 12

21 Area Goal Strategies Programs Electronic Products Major Appliance Management Automotive Mercury Switches, Motor Vehicle Fluids 1. Assure a clean and healthy environment by keeping white goods out of lakes, woods, and ditches. 2. Comply with Minnesota Laws on electronic products recycling and disposal. 3. Enhance the county electronics recycling program. 1. Assure a clean and healthy environment by keeping white goods out of lakes, woods, and ditches. 2. Comply with Minnesota Laws on appliance recycling and disposal. 3. Give residents more options for managing unwanted appliances. 1. Promote environmental and health-hazard free options for disposing automotive mercury 1. Make collection opportunities available to the public 2. Use enforcement tools to ensure proper disposal of electronic products 3. Give residents more options for electronics recycling at reasonable rates. 4. Use social media to help residents know the options for managing unwanted electronics. 1. Make collection opportunities available to the public 2. Use enforcement tools to ensure proper disposal of major appliances products 3. Use social media to help residents know the options for managing unwanted electronics. 1. Provide for the general public convenient collection points for the disposal of automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and Encourage private tire dealers to continue to monitor numbers of tires for disposal which are kept on site and use the existing tire recycling program which they already have in place to recycle tires which have reached their maximum life. Continue make tire sales and service retail businesses major drop-off sites for waste tires. Use county websites and Facebook to deliver options for tires management to the public. Inform the public on the need to properly recycle electronic products through the Education Program. Have list of licensed recycling options available to the public. Have day collections for electronics throughout Faribault and Counties as needed. Develop and periodically review enforcement tools on the disposal of electronic products in both counties. Use county websites and Facebook to deliver options for electronics management to the public. Inform the public on the need to properly recycle appliances through the Education Program. Have list of licensed recycling options available to the public. Have day collections for appliances throughout Faribault and Counties as needed. Develop and periodically review enforcement tools (such as the waste ordinance) on the disposal of electronic products in both counties. Use county websites and Facebook to deliver options for appliance management to the public. Publicize and distribute through the Education Program used oil and oil filter drop-off sites locations. Continue to accept oil, batteries, and mercury switches at all HHW collections 13

22 Area Goal Strategies Programs And Filters, And Lead-Acid And Dry Cell Batteries Household Hazardous Waste Management switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries 2. Comply with state laws regarding the disposal of automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries. 3. Improve on disposal options for automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries. 1. Promote education on alternatives to HHW products and encourage separation and management of materials containing lead, mercury, and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the waste stream. 2. Increase separation and management of materials containing lead, mercury and PCB s from the waste stream managed at Prairieland. filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries 2. Publicize drop-off sites and ensure retailers compliance of regulations regarding automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries 3. Keep mercury from being disposed of in a manner that damages the environment and/or creates a health hazard. 4. Keep batteries from being disposed off in a manner that damages the environment and/or creates a health hazard or precludes the opportunity for the product to be recycled. 5. Use social media to inform residents of proper management of above items. 1. Intensify education options on HHW disposal 2. Develop a long-term strategy for HHW that focuses on reducing purchases of products that contribute to the HHW stream, emphasizes the reuse of remaining products, and ensures the proper disposal of these wastes. 3. Design and implement strategic measures (in collaboration with local businesses and households) to discourage the selling and purchasing of items containing lead, mercury and PCB s. Encourage regulation compliance by retailers through enforcement measures in the waste ordinances regarding posting nearest drop-off sites for mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries. Provide list of options for oil filter recycling to the public via web sites and social media. Continue to maintain drop sites at city and county offices throughout and Faribault Counties for batteries by regular monitoring and collection. Continue to provide public education (at least twice a year) relating to proper disposal of mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries Educate the public on the dangers of improper disposal of mercury and mercury spills. Use Facebook and county websites to deliver options for proper management to the public. Promote the use of the Prairieland HHW Facility through our Education Program. Encourage participation for the Take It To The Box Program for unwanted medicine. Provide information for households through websites and social media to identify proper handling and use of safer alternatives to chemical based household cleaners. Have lists also available at HHW collections. Continue with regular May through September collection events including every Wednesday at the Prairieland site and one-day off site event collections. Research to identify an education initiative that addresses alternative products or procedures to those containing HHW and stresses proper management techniques. Target materials that contribute to lead, mercury and PCB s in 14

23 Area Goal Strategies Programs 3. Improve on existing disposal opportunities for residents and businesses on proper disposal of HHW products. 4. Use social media to help inform residents of proper management of HHW. the waste delivered to Prairieland. Continue partnership with Blue Earth County to provide HHW collections to ensure residents have ample opportunities to properly dispose of HHW wastes. Promote through the Education Program on websites, social media etc. the VSQG program for small businesses needing disposal options for hazardous waste. Make disposal options available to the public and to contractors through the Education Program. Contractor annual meetings with MPCA enforcement staff to better understand rules and regulations. Develop and periodically review enforcement tools provided by MPCA on the disposal of demolition debris in both counties. Work closely with contractors, haulers and residents through periodic reporting requests and documentation, to improve on the quality of data on construction and demolition debris generated and disposed. Expand disposal options, through either staffed or nonstaffed drop-off sites. Promote options through the Education Program, for waste collection throughout the Counties, including. Implement an aggressive education program to inform residents about the need to shift away from on-site disposal. Use enforcement tools to further discourage illegal disposal practices. Demolition Debris 1. Provide public with options for disposal of demolition debris. 2. Work with MPCA staff to ensure that demolition projects follow MPCA and Federal rules of disposal. 1. Encourage do-it-yourselfers to use demo disposal options 2. Provide demo contractors with rules and procedures for demolition disposal. 3. Provide forms and educational materials for residents working on demolition projects. On-site and Illegal Disposal 1. Build participation of rural residents in the waste management system 2. Use enforcement to discourage dumping in isolated areas and illegal disposal options 1. Remove barriers for self-haulers at Prairieland by making it convenient and cost effective to drop off waste at the facility. 2. Provide opportunities and incentives for rural residents to use the household hazardous waste, recycling, and processing facilities through information and access. 15

24 1.3 WASTE STREAM FLOW AND BUDGET TABLES In 2012, 42,924 tons of municipal solid waste was generated by Faribault and Counties. Approximately 69 per cent of this waste is generated in County. Households produce about 70 percent of solid waste generated in both counties, while businesses and institutions produce the remaining 30 percent. About 15 percent of the County s households manage their waste on-site, either through burning or burying. Figures 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8, also present the projected waste stream flows for the region and the two counties. Table 1.3: Waste Stream Flows County Volume (Tons) Recycling MSW Processed On-site Landfill Total Faribault 6,953 4, ,594 13,701 17,122 6, ,292 26,151 Total 24,075 10,409 1,490 3,886 39,860 Figure 1.6: Regional Ten-year Forecast for Solid Waste Generation 16

25 Figure 1.7: Faribault County s Ten-year Forecast for Solid Waste Generation Figure 1.8: County s Ten-year Forecast for Solid Waste Generation 17

26 1.3.1 Budget The existing solid waste management programs are financed through the County Solid Waste budgets and the Prairieland Solid Waste Office budget. Yard waste composting is managed at the municipal level. Recycling collection is managed at the county level through drop-off sites or hauler collection contracts. and Faribault Counties individually contract for the processing and marketing of recyclables. The following table projects the individual county and Prairieland Solid Waste Office budgets for the next 10 years. These budget projections are estimates that are subject to change depending on legislative mandates, SCORE funding, special assessment tax revenues and program cost. The projections are also subject to the prevailing inflation rate. An assumed inflation rate of 3% was used for Faribault and Counties projections and 2.4% for the projections the Prairieland Solid Waste Board. Appendix 2 shows the detailed budget outline for the entire plan period (using the 2012 budget as the base year). Table 1.4: Summary of Anticipated Solid Waste Cost Jurisdiction Estimated Annual Cost ($) Prairieland 1,731,835 1,773,399 1,815,960 1,859,544 1,904,173 1,949,873 1,996,670 2,044,590 2,093,660 2,143,908 Solid Waste Board Faribault 270, , , , , , , , , ,976 County 570, , , , , , , , , ,740 County Total 2,573,142 2,639,946 2,708,504 2,778,863 2,851,072 2,925,179 3,001,235 3,079,292 3,159,403 3,241,623 Table 1.5: Summary of Anticipated Solid Waste Revenue Jurisdiction Estimated Annual Revenue ($) Prairieland 1,746,079 1,777,785 1,810,252 1,843,498 1,877,541 1,912,402 2,055,713 2,094,850 2,134,926 2,175,965 Solid Waste Board Faribault 336, , , , , , , , , ,006 County 665, , , , , , , , , ,937 County Total 2,747,933 2,788,272 2,829,630 2,872,034 2,915,511 2,968,260 3,129,996 3,188,111 3,247,735 3,308,907 18

27 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF COUNTIES 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter is in two phases- all focused on providing a background of Faribault and Counties. Phase one describes basic demographic, economic, housing, land use and prevailing economic conditions of both Counties. The section concludes with a summary of challenges and opportunities that this background profile presents to these counties in terms of solid waste management. The second phase also discusses background information of both Counties but the discussion is focused on solid waste generation and management of both Counties. This phase presents basic data on waste generation and management in both counties and also concludes with a list of some opportunities and challenges for solid waste generation and management in Faribault and Counties. The entire chapter is concluded with a review of solid waste management efforts of both Counties and the Prairieland Solid Waste Board. 2.2 LOCATION AND SIZE OF COUNTIES Faribault County is to the east of County and both are within South Central Minnesota. Both share a common southern boundary with the State of Iowa. Blue Earth city (the capital of Faribault County) is 125 miles from the Twin Cities while s capital (Fairmont) is 150 miles from the Twin Cities. With a total area of approximately square miles, Faribault County houses 11 cities and 20 townships (see Figure 2.1). County, with an estimated area of square miles harbors 9 cities and 20 townships (see Figure 2.2). 19

28 Figure 2.1: Map of Faribault County with Cities 20

29 Figure 2.2: Map of County with Cities 21

30 2.3 DEMOGRAPHICS Population, Household and Ethnic Composition of Counties The US Census Bureau in 2011 estimated the populations of Faribault and Counties respectively as 14,690 (representing 38 per cent decrease from 1960) and 20,821 (representing 23 per cent decrease from 1960). There has also been consistent although not so perceptible decrease in the number of households since 1990 for both counties. The majority of the population for both males and females are within the age cohorts for Faribault County and and age cohorts for County (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4 for the 2011 population structure of both counties). The minority population constitutes 5.1 per cent of the population in Faribault County while that of County constitutes 5.4 per cent (see Figure 2.5). In both counties, the Hispanic population makes up more than 50 per cent of the total minority population. Table 2.1: Past Population and Household Trends for Faribault and Counties Category County Population Faribault 23,685 20,896 19,714 16,937 16,181 14,553 14,690 26,986 24,316 24,687 22,914 21,802 20,840 20,821 Household Faribault N/A N/A N/A 6,772 6,652 6,236 6,274 N/A N/A N/A 9,129 9,067 9,035 8,943 Figure 2.3: Population of Faribault County (2011) Female Male Population 22

31 Figure 2.4: Population of County Female Male Population Figure 2.5: Ethnicity of Population in Faribault and Counties (2011) Faribault County White alone County White alone Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino 566 Asian alone 711 Asian alone 13, Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Two or more races 19,750 1, Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Two or more races Population Distribution among Cities and Townships 2 The relative distribution of population within the geographic space of both counties is crucial for solid waste transportation arrangements. It also plays a crucial role in deciding on where to site solid waste facilities to enhance greater accessibility to these facilities. Site location for solid waste facilities and transportation options for solid waste management are part of the critical factors that jurisdictions consider before embarking on joint or regional solid waste planning. 23

32 The highest populated cities in Faribault and Counties as at 2011(see Tables 2.2 and 2.3) Blue Earth city and Fairmont city respectively- are approximately 20 minutes apart (see Figure 2.6 below). The distance from Blue Earth city to the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility (30 minutes) is almost twice the distance from Fairmont city to this facility. Transporting solid waste from these populated cities to the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility is relatively convenient for both counties. Comparing the 2000 and 2011 population of cities and townships for both counties, only Winnebago township recorded an increase in Faribault County. The city of Sherburn as well as Fairmont and Galena townships had increases in their population between this period in County. Contrarily, population is relatively widely scattered within both counties (see Figures 2.7 and 2.8 of population density maps for both counties). For instance, the next populous cities in County -Sherburn (21 minutes from Fairmont) and Truman (15 minutes from Fairmont)-are located west and north of Fairmont respectively. Similarly, Wells (45 minutes from Blue Earth) and Winnebago (17 minutes from Blue Earth) are located northeast and north-west of Blue Earth respectively. The relatively scattered population translates into transportation cost for hauling solid waste to facilities such as the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. Table 2.2: Population Distribution -Faribault County City % % Township Population Population Change Population Population Change Blue Earth 3,621 3, % Barber % Bricelyn % Blue Earth % Delavan % Brush Creek % Easton % Clark % Elmore % Delavan % Frost % Dunbar % Kiester % Elmore % Minnesota Lake -8.2% Emerald % Walters % Foster % Wells 2,494 2, % Jo Daviess % Winnebago 1,487 1, % Kiester % Lura % Minnesota Lake % Pilot Grove % Prescott % Rome % Seely % Verona % Walnut Lake % Winnebago % 24

33 Table 2.3: Population Distribution - County City % % Township Population Population Change Population Population Change Ceylon % Cedar % Dunnell % Center Creek % Fairmont 10,899 10, % East Chain % Granada % Elm Creek % Northrop % Fairmont % Sherburn 1,082 1, % Fox Lake % Trimont % Fraser % Truman 1,259 1, % Galena % Welcome % Jay % Lake Belt % Lake Fremont % Manyaska % Nashville % Pleasant Prairie % Rolling Green % Rutland % Silver Lake % Tenhassen % Waverly % Westford % Figure 2.6: Location of Prairieland Solid Waste Facility and Cities in Faribault and Counties 25

34 Figure 2.7: Map of Population Distribution-Faribault County Figure 2.8: Map of Population Distribution- County 26

35 2.3.3 Population Projections of Counties The general population trend as forecasted by the MN Demographic Center shows decreasing population for both Faribault and Counties (see Figures 2.9). Population is a major determinant of Municipal solid waste generation rate in any locality. The higher the population, the higher the demand for goods/consumption (all other things being equal) and such high consumption will finally translate into increases in solid waste generated by both households and businesses. Between 2010 and 2025, population of Faribault and Counties are expected to decrease by 11.4 percent and 5.3 percent respectively. 25,000 Figure 2.9: Population Projection of Faribault and Counties Faribault 20,000 Total Population 15,000 10,000 5, Faribault 16,181 14,553 14,373 14,152 12,899 12,327 11,765 11,233 21,802 20,840 20,732 20,597 19,734 19,261 18,758 18, CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE The land use changes of an area play a crucial role in solid waste generation. Growth in residential and commercial land uses might translate as well into increases in household and commercial solid waste generation rates. The agrarian nature of Faribault and Counties are manifested by the vast proportion of land area under cultivation. Approximately, 90.1 percent (650 square miles) and 88.2 percent (642 square miles) of the land and for Faribault and Counties respectively constitute the cultivated lands 1. The developed land constitutes 2.2 percent and 2.5 percent respectively of the total land area for Faribault and Counties. Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show the 2001 land cover maps for both counties. Although the proportion of developed land is expected to increase, cultivated lands will still remain as the highest proportion of land for both counties. 1 The land use and cover statistics are based on the 1990 Census of Land by the MN Dept. of Administration / Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis / MnGeo 27

36 Figure 2.10: Land Use/Cover Map for Faribault County Figure 2.11: Land Use/Cover Map for County 28

37 2.5 LOCAL ECONOMIC CONDITION Labor force outlook for both counties 3 Figures 2.12 and 2.13 show declining labor force population for Faribault and Counties respectively, even though the decline in the former will be much steeper between the years 2015 to Irrespective of how steep the decline will be for Faribault County, its total labor force is expected to decline by 8.9 per cent (from 2010 to 2035) with that of declining by almost twice that of Faribault s (16 per cent). These forecasts were taken into consideration by the GVTs in projecting the solid waste generation for the next 10 years for both Counties Figure 2.12: Faribault County s Labor Force Outlook Total Figure 2.13: County s Labor Force Outlook Total

38 2.5.2 Employments, Wages and Incomes of Counties Faribault and Counties as well as the Region and State experienced declines in the annual average employment (shown in Table 2.4). Employment in South-west Minnesota is however expected to increase by 10.4 per cent by the year 2020 (indicated in Table 2.5). Significant in these employment projections is how the various industries are expected to grow. This gives an initial overview of the type of waste and generation rate expected. For instance, County is noted for its hog production in the State of Minnesota, approximately 38 hogs per person as at The farming industry is expected to grow by 14.1 per cent by 2020 giving an initial idea of an expected waste volume to be generated from hog farming and other agriculture-based production in County. Faribault County is also noted for its food production (home to two of the world s top 100 Food and Beverage Companies, Kerry Ingredients and Seneca Foods). The production industry is expected to grow by 8.6 per cent. Significant in all these industrial employment projections is that of the Construction and Extraction industry, expected to grow by 21.4 per cent. This implies making good arrangements for managing demolition debris and other wastes from the extractive industry within this plan period. The US Census Bureau s statistics in 2011 shows that the average weekly wage for Faribault County in 2011 was higher than that of County as well as that recorded in the region. However, as shown in Table 2.6, the Bureau s estimates in 2011 also indicate slightly higher incomes for residents in County over those in Faribault County. Approximately 11.8 per cent and 9.3 per cent of residents in Faribault and counties respectively had incomes below the poverty level. These percentages were higher than Minnesota s average of 7.1 per cent (based on the US Census Bureau s estimates for 2011). With the relatively higher poverty level in Faribault County compared to County, there will be the need for a more equitable pricing of solid waste management (hauling and disposal fees) for these two counties. Pricing should take into consideration the income disparities to ensure that the poor as well as the rich pay their fair share of managing solid waste in both counties. The volume-based pricing promoted by both Counties and the Prairieland Solid Waste Board in hauling of solid waste is the first of such means in ensuring such equity-based pricing. Table 2.4: Employment and Wages of Counties 4 Jurisdiction Year Avg. Annual Employment Total Wages Av. Weekly Wage ,024 $134,282,119 $429 Faribault ,693 $212,538,617 $717 County ,033 $194,061,495 $ ,581 $229,918,545 $461 County ,379 $269,561,990 $ ,002 $305,648,925 $ ,995 $3,476,937,263 $ ,885 $3,079,938,339 $570 Region Nine ,240 $3,476,937,263 $661 30

39 Jurisdiction Year Avg. Annual Employment Total Wages Av. Weekly Wage ,608,844 $92,436,655,611 $ ,637,323 $107,714,426,206 $785 MN ,603,459 $124,596,558,565 $920 Table 2.5: Employment Projections by Industry in South-west Minnesota 5 Employment Change Occupation Estimated 2010 Projected 2020 % Numeric Transportation and Material Moving 14,686 16, % 2,091 Production 21,053 22, % 1,805 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 8,138 9, % 913 Construction and Extraction 8,062 9, % 1,728 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 4,019 4, % 567 Office and Administrative Support 25,045 26, % 1,619 Sales and Related 18,835 20, % 1,470 Personal Care and Service 9,183 11, % 2,591 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 6,723 7, % 625 Food Preparation and Serving Related 14,886 15, % 647 Protective Service 2,502 2, % 17 Healthcare Support 9,938 13,312 34% 3,374 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 9,679 11, % 1,768 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, &Media 2,838 3,036 7% 198 Education, Training, and Library 11,376 11, % 35 Legal % 77 Community and Social Service 4,605 5, % 581 Life, Physical, and Social Science 1,553 1, % 143 Architecture and Engineering 2,349 2, % 124 Computer and Mathematical 1,380 1, % 71 Business and Financial Operations 7,314 8, % 864 Management 21,459 21, % 69 Total 206, , % 21,377 Table 2.6: Median Household and Per Capita Incomes (2011) County Median Household Income Per Capita Income Faribault $43,214 $23,185 $44,791 $25, Housing Situation Occupied housing units have decreased for both counties (-5.6 per cent and -1.4 per cent for Faribault and Counties respectively) between 2000 and 2011 (see Tables 2.7 and 2.8). Such decreases are accounted for by the increasing homeowner vacancy rates for both counties. With decreasing rental vacancy rates as opposed to the increasing homeowner vacancy rates, there is a preliminary indication that prevailing housing conditions in both counties support rental housing over homeownership. Projections made and solid waste programs developed in this plan takes into account the household solid waste needs for both homeowners and renters. 31

40 Table 2.7: Housing Situation in Faribault County Characteristics Occupied housing units 6,652 6,545 6,236 6,274 Vacant housing units Population in owner-occupied housing units 13,152 11,657 11,666 11,803 Population in renter-occupied housing units 2,579 2,769 2,551 2,461 Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) Rental vacancy rate (percent) Average household size of owner-occupied units Table 2.8: Housing Situation in County Characteristics Occupied housing units 9,067 9,130 9,035 8,943 Vacant housing units ,089 Population in owner-occupied housing units 17,107 16,289 15,988 16,614 Population in renter-occupied housing units 4,215 3,775 4,504 3,812 Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) Rental vacancy rate (percent) Average household size of owner-occupied units SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC, LAND USE AND ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES The constraints and opportunities presented here relate to the demographic, housing, topographic and local economic characteristics of Faribault and Counties and their impacts on both counties solid waste system. Appendix xx summarizes the subsequent discussion. A. Demography and Housing Key issues with respect to the demographic and housing characteristics of both counties deal with: a. declining population of both counties; b. decreased number of occupied housing units; and c. Increasing homeowner vacancy rates as opposed to increasing rental vacancy rates. The decrease in population and housing occupancy might impact on per household cost for solid waste management in both counties. As cost for solid waste increases, price paid per household increases if population decreases or even remains constant. Again future planning efforts (mostly estimates) of household solid wastes might become highly uncertain since rental housing is becoming more popular in both counties compared to homeownership. On the other hand, the declining population and housing occupancy also imply future declines in source reduction of household solid waste. Similarly, the increases in rental 32

41 housing in both counties also represent an opportunity for both counties and the Prairieland Solid Waste Board to collaborate/partner with landlords and the hauling agencies to determine future waste generation patterns for rental households (based on tenancy arrangements) and the realistic prices for waste collection and disposal. B. Topography and Land Use The location of Faribault and Counties relative to the other counties in the region makes it difficult to plan and implement regional projects. Any effort for regional solid waste planning and management depends on how close the other counties in the region are to these two counties. The opportunity here relates to how easy both Faribault and Counties can embark on joint county efforts due to their close proximity to each other. Their contiguity makes it very efficient in transport solid waste from both counties to a common facility. C. Local Economic Conditions Finally, the current local economy of these two counties, which is a mix of agriculture and locally based businesses, also serves as an opportunity for both Faribault and Counties. This type of foundation provides a buffer to market extremes as they are often complementary to one another in job growth, for example. As part of the goals and programs for this plan, current and future efforts will seek to encourage and support more business to implement waste recycling into their business models. 2.7 SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT Solid waste generation is the sum of the total waste disposed, incinerated, composted and recycled, as illustrated in Figure Problem materials that are not recycled are included in the amount disposed category. The overall solid waste stream can be subdivided into various sectors. For the purposes of this J oint-county Plan, the solid waste stream will be divided into: 1) Residential; and 2) Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) sectors. The waste stream will be broken into these two sub-streams to estimate the overall solid waste generation and per capita generation rates. Figure 2.14: Solid Waste Generating Formula Amounts Incinerated Composted Recycled Landfilled, On-site and Problem Materials not Recycled MWPC, RRT amounts Standardized Rate Residential CII 33

42 2.7.1 Solid Waste Generation and Composition Each year the Prairieland Solid Waste Administrator surveys commercial haulers and area businesses to obtain information on the amount of materials recycled and the disposal information of municipal solid waste generated in each county. These figures are then reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on the county s annual SCORE report. Figure 2.15 shows the trend of solid waste for Faribault and Counties as well as that of the State. Figure 2.15: Annual Waste Generated by Counties 6 Counties' Annual Waste Volume (Tons) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Faribault MN State 6,142,420 5,926,951 5,650,780 5,630,000 5,674, YEAR 6,200,000 6,100,000 6,000,000 5,900,000 5,800,000 5,700,000 5,600,000 5,500,000 5,400,000 5,300,000 State's Annual Waste Volume (Tons The total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated in Faribault and Counties in 2012 from the GVTs was 39,860 tons. Table 2.9 summarizes the details of the solid waste generated for the year 2012 based on the GVTs. Prairieland Solid Waste Office estimates that approximately 1,490 tons per year are managed on-site for the two Counties, based on current population estimates. Table 2.9: Solid Waste Collection/Disposal Information (in tons) for 2012 County Volume (Tons) Recycling MSW Processed On-site Landfill Total Faribault 6,953 4, ,594 13,701 17,122 6, ,292 26,151 Total 24,075 10,409 1,490 3,886 39, SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION In the 2001 separately prepared solid waste plans for Faribault and Counties, the composition of waste stream was estimated using the Greater Minnesota data from the 2000 Minnesota Statewide MSW Composition Study by the Solid Waste Management 34

43 Coordinating Board (SWMCB). During the writing of this plan, the 2013 MPCA Waste Characterization Study was disbursed and further review is needed. The 2013 Study found that Minnesota still has the opportunity to recycle more of its solid waste. Since the 2013 Study has only been disbursed for further review, the discussion here on waste composition presents the data reported in the 2000 Study. The aggregate results from the rural (non-metropolitan) disposal sites that participated in the 2000 Study, of which the Prairieland Facility was part, were used to estimate the waste composition from Faribault and Counties. A total of three facilities were selected to represent Greater Minnesota. The three solid waste facilities whose waste sort data was used to represent Greater Minnesota in the 2000 Study included: Polk County s Waste-to-Energy facility in Fosston, MN; Prairieland MSW Compost (currently an RDF) Facility in Truman, MN; and St. Louis County s Landfill in Virginia, MN. The field sort data for 140 samples originating from residential, CII, and mixed waste loads from the participating facilities were used in calculating the results. The Project Team s analysis of Greater Minnesota was performed using the same aggregation methodology as with the Metropolitan Region. Tables 2.10 through 2.12 present the data from the sample facilities. The results of Greater Minnesota s MSW composition are summarized in Figure 2.16 and Table 13 provides the composition for only the Prairieland Facility. Table 2.14 presents the details of the Greater MN Composition Study. Table 2.10: Greater Minnesota Sampling Summary Facility Residential CII Mixed Waste Total Samples Samples Samples Samples Polk County WTE Prairieland MSW Composting St. Louis County Landfill Total Note: 1 Represents one sample from each MSW Commercial hauling vehicle using the facility during the sorting event. Table 2.11: Greater Minnesota Weighting Factors by Facility Facility Estimated Tons Disposed (1999) Weighting Factor Polk County WTE 30, % Prairieland MSW Composting 16, % St. Louis County Landfill 49, % Total 96, % 35

44 Table 2.12: Greater Minnesota Reported Composition of Mixed Loads Facility Residential Average Composition Polk County WTE 55.8% 44.2% Prairieland MSW 48.1% 51.9% St. Louis County Landfill 67.4% 32.6% AVERAGE (not weighted) 57.4% 42.6% Note: The total/subtotal may not equal the sum of the material categories due to rounding. Figure 2.16: Summary of Greater Minnesota MSW Composition Metal, 6% ICI Other Waste, 19.1% HHW, 1% Paper, 34.2% Organic Materials, 22.9% Problem Materials, 2% Glass, 3% Plastic, 11.7% The Greater Minnesota results from the 2000 Study were used as a basis for characterizing Faribault and Counties solid waste stream. However, it should be noted that the accuracy of the characterization is limited and the data is also old. An actual waste audit should be conducted for both counties for current data and to also enhance the accuracy of the waste characterization. Table 2.13: Composition of Solid Waste Generated at the Prairieland Facility Primary Material Category Estimated Percent Composition Paper 34.2% Plastic 11.7% Metals 6.0% Glass 3.0% Organic Materials 22.9% Problem Materials 2.0% Household Hazardous Waste 1.0% Textiles 3.4% Carpet 1.5% Sharps and Infectious Waste <0.1% Rubber 0.7% Construction & Demolition Debris 3.2% Household Bulky Items 2.9% 36

45 Primary Material Category Estimated Percent Composition Empty Household Hazardous Waste Containers 0.7% Miscellaneous 6.7% Total Waste 100% Table 2.14: Greater Minnesota MSW Composition 7 - Estimates of Materials in MSW (by weight) Material Material Categories Average Composition Newsprint (ONP) 4.30% High Grade Office 3.1 Magazines/Catalogs 2.7 Uncoated OCC recyclable 4.6 Paper Uncoated OCC - nonrecyclable 0.5 Coated OCC 0.3 Boxboard 2.8 Mixed Paper recyclable 5.3 Mixed Paper nonrecyclable 10.8 Total Paper 34.2% PET Bottles/Jars clear 0.50% PET Bottles/Jars colored 0.4 Other PET 0 HDPE Bottles natural 0.3 HDPE Bottles colored 0.3 Plastic PVC 0.1 Polystyrene 0.9 Film transport packaging 0.2 Other Film 4.4 Other Containers 0.5 Other non-containers 4.2 Total Plastic 11.7% Aluminum Beverage Containers 0.90% Other Aluminum 0.5 Metals Ferrous Containers 1.3 Other Ferrous 3.3 Other Non-Ferrous 0.1 Total Metals 6% Clear Containers 1.60% Green Containers 0.4 Glass Brown Containers 0.5 Other Glass 0.5 Total Glass 3% Yard Waste Grass & Leaves 1.70% Yard Waste woody material 0.1 Food Waste 14.5 Wood Pallets 0.4 Organic Materials Treated Wood 1.6 Untreated Wood 1.1 Diapers 2.7 Other Organic Material 0.9 Total Organic Materials 22.9% Problem Materials Televisions 0.00% 37

46 Material Material Categories Average Composition Computer Monitors 0 Computer Equipment/Peripherals 0 Electric & Electronic Products 1.9 Batteries 0.1 Other 0 Total Problem Materials 2% Latex Paint 0.00% Oil Paint 0.1 Unused Pesti/Fungi/Herbicide 0 Unused Cleaners & Solvents 0 HHW Compressed Fuel Containers 0 Automotive Antifreeze 0 Automotive Used oil filters 0.1 Other 0.6 Total HHW 1% Textiles 3.40% Carpet 1.5 Sharps & Infectious Waste 0 Rubber 0.7 Other Waste Construction & Demolition Debris 3.2 Household Bulky Items 2.9 Empty HHW Containers 0.7 Miscellaneous 6.7 Total Other Waste 19.1% TOTAL 100% 2.9 WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION Residents in Faribault and service areas have access to some form of solid waste disposal service. MSW collected in both counties is delivered to the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility or taken to a landfill in the surrounding region. Table xx indicates the volume of solid waste disposed at each facility. Residents can either utilize a collection service or if that option is not available, self-haul to a solid waste facility. Approximately 90% of rural and urban residents located in both counties have collection services with commercial haulers or self-haul waste to the designated disposal sites. Those without collection service or do not self-haul their waste reflects in the number of illegal on-site waste disposal presented in the discussion below. Table 2.15: Volume of Solid Waste Disposed at each Disposal Site/Facility County Faribault County Name of Disposal Site/Facility Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Central Disposal Systems Location Annual Volume of Solid Waste Disposed (Tons) E 5 th St N, Truman, MN ,316 6,886 6,735 6,808 6, th St., Lake Mills, IA

47 County Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Dickinson County Sanitary Landfill 801 E 5 th St N, Truman, MN ,697 9,129 8,928 9,024 8, th St., Spirit Lake, IA Illegal on-site solid waste disposal is defined by the two main disposal methods burning and burying- as identified by the MPCA. In 2012, total tons of illegal on-site waste disposed for Faribault and Counties respectively were 894 tons (representing 2,131people) and 596 tons (representing 1,420 people). Figures 2.17a and 2.17b respectively shows the tons of illegal on-site waste disposed per 1000 of the population and number of people who illegally burn or bury their waste per 1000 of the population 2. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and the State s Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) seeks that Counties adopt no-burn resolutions due to the harm caused by backyard burning of waste. When waste, containing plastics and other synthetics are burned at low temperatures, it releases smoke containing harmful dioxins and particulates. The dioxin then enters into the human food chain when livestock eat contaminated feed and vegetation. The Prairieland Solid Waste Board, Faribault and Counties will continue to educate the residents on the health risks associated with backyard garbage burning and also inform them of the State s regulations on such practices. The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility is the main disposal facility for solid waste from both Faribault and counties (as shown in Table 2.15). The Central Disposal facility in Lake Mills, Winnebago County, Iowa has consistently received solid waste from Faribault County over the past five years. In 2012, Dickinson Sanitary Landfill facility also started receiving solid waste from County. Figure 2.18 shows the location of these facilities. These two disposal facilities will be discussed further in the Chapter Four of this plan. It is also worth noting here that these landfills are primarily used for residuals from the Prairieland Facility. 2 The tons of illegal on-site waste and the number of people who disposed off their waste illegally on-site for each year were divided by the annual populations for each county, multiplied by 1,000 respectively provided the tons of illegal on-site waste disposed per 1000 of the population and number of people disposing off their waste illegally on-site per 1000 of the population. Population estimates from 2007 to 2011 are from the Minnesota State Demographic Center while the 2012 population are based on projections by the US for the Counties are based on US Census Bureau s annual estimates. 39

48 Figure 2.17(a): Illegal On-Site Disposal Trends for Faribault and Counties (Tons of Waste) Statewide Faribault Tons of Illegal On-site Solid Waste for Counties Figure 2.17(b): Illegal On-Site Disposal Trends for Faribault and Counties (No. of People) Tons per 1000 of the Population burned/buried Statewide Data Not yet Available Tons of Illegal On-site Solid Waste for State Numbe of people burning/burrying for Counties Statewide Faribault Statewide Data Not yet Available Number of people burning/burrying for State Number of People burning/burying per 1000 of the Population Current Collection and Disposal Rates Refuse collection rates represent the range of rates across Faribault and Counties. Residential rates vary according to the type of collection system. Some cities offer various garbage cart / bag sizes while other cities only have a per bag fee. It should also be noted that some of the fees listed include separate City taxes and or solid waste taxes while other fee structures may not as that information is City and waste hauler contract specific. While the haulers do not provide both counties with published rates, the per bag price ranges from $1.75 to $3. Waste from businesses is collected by haulers who use a volumebased rate per cubic yard based on the number of pick-ups required per month, the size of 40

49 the container and the distance to the tipping or transfer facility. The remainder of business and commercial solid waste is hauled by the individual businesses. Haulers are required to renew their license on an annual basis, subject to the County s approval. All licensed solid waste haulers must employ volume-based pricing as required by the license. Private haulers collect residential and commercial solid waste. For MSW collection, the haulers use a colored bag system and charge an advertised rate per 10 bags or, charge an advertised monthly rate for the use of a 30, 60, or 90 gallon tote. The subsequent discussions on collection and disposal rates are done under the categories of residential, commercial, recyclables, special wastes and MSW. A. Residential Most of the incorporated cities in Faribault and Counties have organized collection programs for solid waste and recycling services. Tables 2.16 and 2.17 indicate the municipal refuse collection programs by city, their contracted hauler and the pricing system used. Table 2.16: Faribault County Municipal Refuse Collection Programs City Hauler Pricing System City of Blue Earth City of Bricelyn City of Delavan City of Easton City of Elmore City of Frost City of Kiester City of Minnesota Lake City of Walters City of Wells City of Winnebago Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Waste Management Recycling County Contract Hometown Sanitation Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage B & B Sanitation Recycling B & B Sanitation Garbage Waste Management Recycling County Contract Hometown Sanitation Garbage Waste Management Recycling City of Kiester Garbage City of Minnesota Lake Recycling County Contract Hometown Sanitation Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Open City / Private Contracts Recycling City of Wells Garbage B & B Sanitation Recycling B & B Sanitation No Response No Response No Response No Response 1 30 lb / 30 gallon bag - $11.33 / month / additional tags $3 / bag Recycling - $2.04 / month Bag System Recycling - $41 / year Bag System for garbage Recycling $1 / month $44.10 / year Recycling - $41 / year No Response No Response Garbage - $12.80 / month Recycling - $2.50 / month 41

50 Table 2.17: County Municipal Refuse Collection Programs City City of Ceylon City of Dunnell City of Fairmont City of Granada City of Northrop City of Sherburn City of Trimont City of Truman City of Welcome Hauler Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Open City / Private Contracts Recycling County Contract Hometown Sanitation Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Waste Management Recycling Waste Management Garbage Hometown Sanitation Recycling Hometown Sanitation Garbage Open City / Private Contracts Recycling County Contract Hometown Sanitation Garbage Hometown Sanitation Recycling Hometown Sanitation Pricing System (rates are per month) No response No response Garbage Open City / Private Contracts Recycling - $41 / year No response $1.90 / bag Recycling - $2.50 / month 32 gallon cart - $ gallon cart - $ gallon cart - $21.26 Recycling - $3.47 / month 35 gallon cart - $ gallon cart - $ gallon cart - $13.20 Recycling - $2.29 / month Garbage Open City / Private Contracts Recycling - $41 / year 35 gallon cart - $ gallon cart - $ gallon cart - $21.48 Auto Pay Pricing Available Senior Citizen Pricing Available Recycling - $41 / year B. Commercial Waste from businesses is collected by haulers who typically use a volume-based rate per cubic yard and is determined on the number of pick-ups required per month, the size of the container and the distance to the tipping or transfer facility. The remainder of business and commercial solid waste is hauled by the individual businesses. Table 2.18 presents the major non-residential solid waste generators in Faribault and Counties. Although the type and quantities cannot be estimated, Chapter 4 provides strategies for improving communications with and coordinating with solid waste haulers on volume base pricing for businesses to improve understanding of type and volume of business waste. The SCORE Reports for Faribault and Counties show that in each county, 60% of MSW is generated by the Commercial and Industrial Sector. Since neither the Prairieland nor the individual counties control pricing for commercial waste generation, it is not possible to offer financial incentives for solid waste abatement to 42

51 businesses. The Prairieland Solid Waste Office can provide technical assistance to businesses on waste issues, including waste audits when requested. Table 2.18: Major Solid Waste Generators in Faribault and County Name of Facility/Company Location County Annual Waste Type of Solid Waste Generated (Tons) Materials Generated Blue Earth Area Schools Blue Earth Faribault N/A N/A United Hospital District Blue Earth Faribault N/A N/A Aerospace Systems, Division Blue Earth Faribault N/A N/A of Nortech Systems, Inc. Kerry Ingredients, Inc. Blue Earth Faribault N/A N/A Seneca Foods Corp. Blue Earth Faribault N/A N/A Mayo Health System Fairmont N/A N/A Fairmont Public Schools Fairmont N/A N/A Avery Weigh Tronix, Inc.. Fairmont N/A N/A Torgerson Properties Fairmont N/A N/A C. Construction and Demolition Debris Generation Generally, the amount of construction and demolition (C&D) debris in the waste stream varies considerably over time because the quantities disposed are directly influenced by the economy and the scope of residential and commercial building activities. Although current C&D quantities cannot be estimated, Chapter 4 provides strategies for managing C&D which includes coordinating with haulers to improve on C&D records keeping. Presently, there are two facilities that accept only C&D and these are: 1. SMC Demfill and Compost, rd Avenue, Mankato, MN 2. SMC Transfer Statio, 11 Marcus Street, Fairmont, MN Other facilities that will accept C&D are: 1. Ecog Transfer Station, Estherville, IA; 2. Ponderosa Landfill, Gooseberry Lane, Mankato, MN; 3. Cottonwood County Landfill, Windom, MN; 4. VONCO/Veit Demo Debris Landfill, U.S. Highway, Austin, MN; 5. SKB Lansing Landfill, rd St, Austin, MN; 6. Albert Lea Demo LF, 2506 Richway Drive, Albert Lea, MN 7. Waste Management Inc. (Transfer Station), th Ave. Clarks Grove, MN; 8. Dickenson Landfill, Spirit Lake, IA; and 9. Central Disposal, Lake Mills, IA. D. Special Waste/ Problem Materials A special waste or a problem material is typically a non-hazardous or industrial waste that may require special handling or consideration at the disposal area due to its characteristics. 43

52 Special waste consists of major appliances, fluorescent bulbs, tires, used oil, oil filters, vehicle batteries, electronic waste and other similar items. Prairieland in coordination with Faribault and counties has specific programs to collect and recycle these items. Tables 2.19 and 2.20 provide a summary of special wastes recycled in Faribault and Counties for Table 2.19: Faribault County Special Waste Recycling (in tons) for 2011 Waste Item Volume (Tons) Major appliances 99 Used motor oil 15 Oil filters 9 Vehicle batteries 90 Waste tires 40 Fluorescent bulbs 1 HHW 3 Latex 1 Electronic Waste 33 Antifreeze 2 Total 293 Table 2.20: County Special Waste Recycling (in tons) for 2011 Waste Item Volume (Tons) Major appliances 182 Used motor oil 38 Oil filters 16 Vehicle batteries 178 Waste tires 99 Fluorescent bulbs 53 HHW 11 Latex 4 Electronic Waste 56 Antifreeze 4 Total 641 E. Recyclables Rural residents and some small business self-haul their recyclables. All municipalities within both Counties have recycling services provided by a licensed hauler to their residents. Hometown Sanitation in Fairmont has been designated as the county recycling site. Residents can bring recycling to this site during business hours. Rural residents can also use the drop sites throughout the county. There is no specific recycling business site for recycling in Faribault County. Residents and small businesses can bring their recycling to Hometown Sanitation in Fairmont and rural residents can use the drop sites though out Faribault County. 44

53 All licensed haulers report the recycling tonnages to the Solid Waste Coordinator (see Tables 2.21 and 2.22) as required by law each year for annual reporting regardless of where they deliver recyclables. Table 2.21: Faribault County General Recycling (in tons) for 2012 Volume (Tons) Recycling Material Residential Commercial 1 Total Corrugated cardboard 346 3,106 3,452 All other paper 665 2,080 2,745 Metals 505 1,481 1,986 Glass 95 N/A 95 Plastics Textiles/Other 16 N/A 16 Recycled Problem Materials Total 1,992 6,862 8,854 1 Commercial/industrial numbers include undocumented recycling. 1 All tonnages were obtained from 2011 SCORE reports for residential and commercial recycling. Table 2.22: County General Recycling (in tons) for 2012 Volume (Tons) Recycling Material Residential Commercial 1 Total Corrugated cardboard ,244 All other paper ,155 Metals ,651 Glass Plastics ,009 Textiles/Other 12 N/A 12 Recycled Problem Materials 641 N/A 641 Total 8,708 13,090 21,600 1 Commercial/industrial numbers include undocumented recycling. 1 All tonnages were obtained from 2011 SCORE reports for residential and commercial recycling. F. MSW Tables 2.23 and 2.24 present the 2012 disposal practices recorded for residential and commercial/industrial waste generators in the Prairieland service area. This information is required by law to be reported annually by our licensed solid waste haulers. Additional information is provided by the commercial/business sector on their solid waste and recycling habits. Some businesses completely rely on licensed haulers to manage their solid waste and recycling while others can be their own hauler of recyclables and other solid waste materials. Table 2.23: Disposal Practices of Residential and Commercial Generators Faribault County (2012) 1 Disposal Practice Volume (Tons) Residential Commercial Total Landfilled 346 (can t differentiate between residential 346 and commercial) Processed at Prairieland 6220 (can t differentiate between 6,200 45

54 Disposal Practice Volume (Tons) Residential Commercial Total residential and commercial) Illegal On-Site Disposal 2180 n/a 2,180 Problem Materials 301 n/a 301 Recycled ,370 Total ,397 1 All tonnages were obtained from 2011 SCORE reports for residential and commercial recycling. Table 2.24: Disposal Practices of Residential and Commercial Generators - County (2012) 1 Disposal Practice Volume (Tons) Residential Commercial Total Landfilled 497 (can t differentiate between 0 residential and commercial) Processed at Prairieland 8951 (can t differentiate between residential and commercial) 9,024 Illegal On-Site Disposal 2375 n/a 2,375 Problem Materials Recycled ,600 Total ,401 1 All tonnages were obtained from 2011 SCORE reports for residential and commercial recycling. 2.8 SUMMARY OF WASTE GENERATION AND COLLECTION CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Table 2.25 summarizes the identified constraints and opportunities for solid waste management throughout for this plan period. The one constraint which stands out is the declining population for both Counties. The increasing cost of solid waste management will have to be shared by a decreasing population. The population declines for both Counties were taken into account in projecting the future solid waste generation. The goals, strategies and actions presented in this plan also address these constraints. Table 2.25: Summary of Constraints and Opportunities for Waste Generation and Collection Issue Constraint Opportunity Waste Generation and Collection Existing Solid Waste Management System As recycling opportunities and consumer awareness increases, the make-up of the garbage stream changes. The Prairieland facility is dependent on waste haulers signing contracts to bring garbage to the facility. Not Meeting the capacity needs of the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Other counties have contractual obligations to divert waste in directions other than the Prairieland facility. Rising Cost of Solid Waste Management as against population declines. Processing the garbage to make RDF becomes more important. Haulers being unwilling to sign contracts with Prairieland to bring garbage to the facility. This might be an opportunity for the counties to legally designate the garbage to Prairieland. Proximity to other counties offers the opportunity to collect waste from them in reducing the capacity needs of the RDF facility Existence of possibility for cost sharing among counties if other contiguous counties can join the Prairieland Board. 46

55 Issue Constraint Opportunity Increases in transportation cost for other counties who would like to use the Prairieland RDF facility. Tipping fees higher than area landfills may also be a constraint from receiving more waste at the Prairieland facility. Willingness of other nearby counties to use the Prairieland RDF facility if cheaper alternative transportation and tipping fees can be arranged. 2.9 REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS BY COUNTIES Joint County (Prairieland Solid Waste Board) Activities/Initiatives The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approved the Faribault and Counties Solid Waste Management Plan in July The Joint Powers Agreement, established in 1989, designates that the Prairieland Solid Waste Board has the authority to oversee the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility, and to support other solid waste management activities in Faribault and Counties Local Activities/Initiatives Faribault and Counties have determined that the proposed solid waste management system described in this plan is the most feasible and prudent system available at this time. Within ten years, the Counties will submit an update to this plan to address changes and improvements to the overall system, including regional planning and initiation of greater resource recovery and landfill abatement. The Counties recognize the need to evaluate and consider MSW management alternatives, including regional solutions for landfill abatement. The Counties and the Prairieland Solid Waste Board are concerned about the cost of solid waste management, the environmental impacts of land disposal, long-term waste abatement, and achieving waste reduction and recycling goals set by the state Past Impediments/Barriers to Joint County Activities/Initiatives It is difficult for counties to develop and implement regional projects. One critical barrier to greater regional participation is the size of each of the counties within the region. The distance between facilities increases transportation costs and restricts the ability of other counties to choose to make the necessary arrangements for waste to be delivered to the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Resolution Measures for Conflicting/Overlapping Local Activities/Initiatives The Prairieland Solid Waste Board has not experienced conflicting or overlapping management efforts. Close collaboration throughout the history of the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility has ensured that each County is well aware of the critical issues, and fully participates in decision-making related to the facility and solid waste programs. 47

56 CHAPTER THREE EXISTING AND PROPOSED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility currently serves as the integrated solid waste management system for Faribault and Counties. Resource recovery therefore serves as the waste management system under this integrated waste management Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility system. This Chapter focuses on discussing the existing integrated waste management system in place as well as the existing goals for the system s improvement. Since the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility will still be in place as the proposed integrated waste management system for the next ten-year planning period, goals and strategies for improvement are also outlined in this Chapter. Alternatives to the proposed system are also offered to respond to any operational challenges that the SWM Facility may face during this plan period. Reasons for the continued use of land disposal facilities in both counties and at the Prairieland are discussed as the conclusion section of this Chapter. 3.2 BACKGROUND/HISTORY OF EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Minnesota state law (chapter 115A) directs counties to implement solid waste management systems that reduce land disposal, to the extent feasible and prudent, and expresses a clear preference for resource recovery over landfills. This direction, provided in the Waste Management Act, provides specific direction to the authority given to counties for solid waste management under chapter 400: In order to protect the state s water, air and land resources so as to promote the public safety, health, welfare and productive capacity of its population, it is in the public interest that counties conduct solid waste management programs. To meet these requirements, Faribault and Counties established the Prairieland Board, comprised of representatives from both Faribault and Counties. The following goals (described subsequently in Section 3.2.1) were developed for an integrated solid waste management system. The key focus in establishing the board was for the management of the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility, which began operations in September 1991 as an MSW Compost Facility. 48

57 The long-term environmental and economic costs and benefits make the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility the most prudent and feasible waste management system available at this time. The feasibility and efficiency of the project has been examined several times since operations began in 1991, and the results have reaffirmed that the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility is a sound technical and financial approach to integrated solid waste management. The Board fully intends to continue in its efforts to provide an integrated waste management system, which will reduce the waste stream, recover materials for recycling and minimize the land disposal of unprocessed MSW Policy/Goals for Improvement under the Existing System The Board has a strong commitment to operate the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility in the most environmentally sound and efficient manner possible. The Prairieland Board has several goals that would improve waste abatement programs, such as reduction and recycling, and resource recovery efforts at Prairieland. The goals are summarized here and are priority areas for improvement in the resource recovery system. GOAL #1: Raise public awareness about waste management Continue to discuss waste issues with civic and business groups, cities, and school groups. Build the news coverage of Prairieland into wider coverage of toxic materials programs, recycling opportunities, and the benefits of reducing the amount of waste produced. GOAL #2: Remove more toxics from the waste stream. Offer household hazardous waste collection and exchange events in the population centers of Blue Earth, Wells and Fairmont. Schedule small cities for one-day collections. Market the Very Small Quantity Generator program extensively to businesses in the two counties. Continue to hold weekly collections for HHW at the HHW facility located on the Prairieland Solid Waste Management site in Truman, MN as the primary method of recovering toxics. GOAL #3: Demonstrate increased recycling Identify greatest potential for improved recycling by businesses, and help the waste haulers and recyclers meet those needs. Gain the cooperation of businesses that recycle now to keep track of recycling tonnages and report them to the County. Choose one or more materials for Prairieland to recover for recycling beyond the current materials (glass, metals), which will also demonstrate that much of what is discarded is recyclable. 49

58 Evaluate the recycling numbers and focus efforts to promote recycling more in areas with lower recycling rates. GOAL #4: Reduce the amount of waste generated. 1. Work with several volunteer businesses to demonstrate options for reducing waste generation. 2. Make sure the waste guides for households and businesses explain how to reduce waste. 3. Promote volume-based pricing to give generators of waste a clear incentive to reduce the amount of waste generated. GOAL #5: Build participation of rural residents in the system. Remove barriers for self-haulers at Prairieland by making it convenient and cost effective to drop off waste at the facility. Provide better opportunities and incentives for rural residents to use the household hazardous waste, recycling, and processing facilities through information and access. GOAL #6: Recover and Faribault Counties waste. Seek voluntary contracts for waste recovery from all haulers in and Faribault Counties. Re-examine the various volume-based tax and fee options, and discuss these options with the public. Select and implement one that is fair and can reduce the tip fees at Prairieland, in order to compete with landfills in the region. Examine and re-instate Waste Designation Ordinance in and Faribault County. GOAL #7: Improve the operations at Prairieland. Open negotiations with RRT to increase the amount of waste being delivered to Prairieland from Nicollet, Sibley, Le Sueur and Blue Earth Counties, and lower the costs to Prairieland for RDF combustion in Mankato. Open negotiations with Xcel to lower costs to Prairieland for RDF combustion in Mankato. Continue to work with Xcel Energy / Wilmath plant to increase efficiency in producing RDF. Research and discuss installing a generator to shave peak energy use for the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Establish an equipment replacement fund. Closely track use of Hauler Collected Service Fee for accurate revenue generation of Prairieland Solid Waste Management. 50

59 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING WASTE FACILITIES IN USE A. Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility The facility is located on 20 acres in the City of Truman ( County) and is 74,000 square feet in size. The enclosed buildings help control odors of incoming MSW and control noise from processing equipment. The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility operates 8 hours per day, 5 days per week and has a permitted process capacity of 50,000 tons per year (192 tons per day). The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility currently receives waste from Faribault and Counties. The processing of MSW separates recyclables, refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and residuals by using a two-stage process. The following description outlines the process used at the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. Tipping Floor The mixed MSW is delivered by packer trucks to a tipping floor where it is visually inspected for non-processible waste. Non-processible waste (listed in Table 3.1) is removed by a picker on the tipping floor and a front-end loader and stored for recycling or disposed of as appropriate. The tipping floor is sized to allow for several days of storage capacity and ample truck maneuvering area. In addition, facility staff identify and separate recyclable materials, such as wood and metals, and those items that the state has prohibited from the waste stream (e.g., tires, appliances, household hazardous wastes). The front-end loader picks up the processible waste and runs it through a pre-shredder for size and bulk reduction. The operator then deposits the shredded waste on a conveyor for delivery to the processing building. Processing Building After removing metals and non-burnables, the MSW is processed by a pre-shredder to reduce the size of the materials. It is then placed on a steel in-feed conveyor. The conveyed processible waste from the tipping floor is delivered to the shredder located within a concrete enclosure. The shredder shreds the processible waste to a nominal size of three inches. The processible waste is conveyed from the shredder to a magnetic separator and the ferrous material is separated and conveyed to the load out area for transport to market. The remaining waste is conveyed to a two stage trommel screen, which includes 6 inches openings that separate the processible waste into 2 fractions: less than 6 inches, greater than 6 inches. Materials that are greater than 6 inches are conveyed to a load-out area for delivery to the NRG-Wilmarth wasteto-energy facility as RDF. The fraction less than 6 inches is directed to the vibrating screen which contains an air classifier that separates the heavier non-burnable material from the 51

60 lighter fraction. The small, heavy non-compostable fraction from the vibrating screen which consists primarily of glass, stones, and ceramics is directed to a roll-off container. This material is landfilled. The Prairieland is licensed and inspected by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and holds annually renewable conditional use permit from the City of Truman for operation. Employee safety is very important. Safety meetings held with the employees stress areas where risks exist and how to minimize the risk. In 2013 the facility requested an onsite OSHA inspection and added improvements to meet the needs highlighted by the inspection. Rules of the facility exist to safe guard people who haul to the facility. These rules are given to new haulers and to self -haulers to make their visit to the facility a safe one. Table 3.1: Unacceptable waste at Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Hazardous Wastes as defined by Federal and State rules and regulations Pesticide Containers Asbestos Waste containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls in any concentrations Wastes That Could Spontaneously Combust Foundry Waste Paint Residues, Filters, and Dust Fiberglass Urethane, Fiberglass Dust, Polyurethane and Epoxy Resin Waste Explosive Waste Liquid Waste of any type in large quantities Radioactive Waste Steel Banding Paints, Solvents, Gasoline and Flammable Liquids Used Engine Oil Propane Tanks Hospital Wastes which is infectious, hazardous, or toxic including human remains Tires Auto Hulks and large auto parts, including gasoline tanks, hardened steel shafts, engine blocks and steel wheels Large Metal Items Steel Fence Materials Sludges Mining Wastes Ash Street Sweepings Large Wood Items Demolitions and Building Waste including asphalt shingles Cathode-ray tubes (televisions, computer monitors) Pesticides, Insecticides, Chemicals, or Other Toxic Materials (when not normally in residential or commercial waste) Plastics (PVC, HDPE, PET) in large quantities such as waste from a plastics plant 52

61 B. Other Facilities Aside from the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility, Table 3.2 lists the other disposable facilities where MSW from both Faribault and Counties are disposed. Table 3.2: Cost of Operating and Maintaining the MSW Disposal Facilities Name of Facility Location Central Disposal Systems th St., Lake Mills, IA Dickinson County Landfill th St., Spirit Lake, IA HHW Facility at the Prairieland Site 801 E 5 th St., N., Truman A. Central Disposal Systems Central Disposal Systems (CDS) Landfill which is owned and operated by Waste Management Inc. is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Lake Mills, Winnebago County, Iowa, in the NW ¼ of Section 21, R99N, R23W. CDS operates the landfill under the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Sanitary Disposal Permit No. 96-SDP-1-72P, as well as required local, air and surface water permits. The Landfill provides municipal solid waste disposal for customers in northern Iowa, as well as southern Minnesota. The Landfill property encompasses approximately 621 acres and has a projected permitted capacity and remaining life of over 50 years. Landfill gas is actively withdrawn from the waste mass via an active gas extraction system and directed to a gas-to-energy facility located on landfill property. The landfill gas is used to power engines for electrical generation. Jacket heat from the engines is captured and utilized to heat an adjacent greenhouse, which produces organic tomatoes and other organic produce. As required by IDNR regulations, the landfill maintains all required operations plans, including closure and post-closure plans which detail the schedule for and the methods by which the operator will meet the conditions for proper facility closure and post-closure care. These plans include the proposed frequency and types of actions to be implemented prior to and following closure of the facility, the proposed post-closure actions to be taken to return the area to a condition suitable for other uses, and an estimate of the costs of closure and post-closure and the proposed method of meeting these costs. CDS has an IDNR approved Financial Assurance Plan and maintains a financial assurance mechanism for site closure and post-closure care. The Financial Assurance Plan is updated on an annual basis, as required by IDNR solid waste regulations. B. Dickinson County Landfill Dickinson County Landfill (Dickinson) is owned and operated by Waste Management Inc. It is located approximately 5 miles south of Spirit Lake and 3 miles east of Arnolds Park, Dickinson County, Iowa, in the NE ¼ of Section 27, R99N, R36W. Dickinson is permitted by the IDNR as a municipal solid waste disposal facility under Permit No. 30-SDP-01-75P, and 53

62 maintains all required local, air and surface water permits. Dickinson provides municipal solid waste disposal for customers in northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Dickinson property encompasses over 463 acres and the permitted facility footprint offers over 50 years of life. Landfill gas is actively withdrawn from the waste mass and is directed to a utility flare located on Landfill property. As required by IDNR regulations, the landfill maintains all required operations plans, including closure and post-closure plans. These plans are include the proposed frequency and types of actions to be implemented prior to and following closure of the facility, the proposed post-closure actions to be taken to return the area to a condition suitable for other uses, and an estimate of the costs of closure and post-closure and the proposed method of meeting these costs. Dickinson has an IDNR approved Financial Assurance Plan and maintains a financial assurance mechanism for site closure and post-closure care, which is updated on an annual basis as required by IDNR regulations. C. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility The Prairieland Household Hazardous Waste Collection program is associated with the Blue Earth County Regional program although Prairieland owns and operates its own local HHW facility. This facility is intended to serve three functions: Provide a central point for aggregating HHW for proper management; Establish a system for reuse of materials; and Temporary storage of HHW prior to proper disposal. Faribault and Counties utilize the HHW facility located on the Prairieland Facility site and a mobile collection vehicle made specifically for HHW collection. HHW received at the Prairieland HHW facility is sorted into categories for recycling/reuse, bulking and packaging. Material that is not usable is prepared for disposal. This process is done by hand, with various materials being sorted into categories in the sorting area of the HHW facility. Materials that need to be lab-packed are sent to the packaging area. Paints, solvents and other liquids needing to be bulked are transferred to the bulking area in the HHW facility and placed in 55- gallon barrels. Latex paint that is bulked is stored until the contractor transfers the material for disposal. The drums of flammable materials that have been bulked are moved using a forklift to the specialized, flammable storage unit located in the HHW facility. A key element to the HHW facility is the product exchange and material recycling program. Prairieland staff involved in the HHW program work with area groups, associations and the general public to provide unused or bulked quantities of paint for reuse. All items are inspected and if found to be useable are put on exchange room shelves for the public to take for use. This program is offered free of charge. 54

63 3.4.3 Cost of Operating and Maintaining the Integrated Solid Waste Management System The integrated solid waste management system for Faribault and Counties comprises of facilities located within and outside of both Counties. A total of $1,691,245 was spent on Prairieland s solid waste integrated system for the year 2012 (presented in Table 3.3). Plant and employees expenses account for approximately 60% of this amount. In addition, this total cost represented $ gross cost per household and $41.72 gross cost per ton of MSW generated for As shown in Table 3.4, Faribault and Counties each had lower gross cost per household and gross cost per ton of MSW generated. Generally, tipping fees usually cover these operation and maintenance costs. The operation and maintenance cost of some programs are financially supported by the Prairieland and some programs are supported by the individual Counties. Table 3.3: 2012 Operation and Maintenance Cost for the Prairieland s Integrated System Cost Cost Item Amount % of Total Cost of Goods Sold $592, % Employee Expenses $697, % Plant Expenses $308, % Building Expenses $40, % Office Expenses $14, % Board Expenses $5, % Legal Expenses $18, % HHW Program Expenses $12, % Total Cost $1,691, % Gross cost per HH per year $ Gross cost per ton MSW generated $41.72 Table 3.4: 2012 Operation and Maintenance Cost for Faribault and Counties Cost Item Faribault County County Amount % of Total Amount % of Total Recycling $54, % $442, % Special Wastes $17, % $21, % Administration $24, % $31, % Settlement $307, % $393, % Total Cost $404, % $888, % Gross cost per HH per year $62.67 $94.81 Gross cost per ton MSW generated $26.95 $

64 3.4 SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS The Faribault and Counties and the Prairieland Board systematically implemented and continue to implement the goals as specified in Section Their efforts have produced several outcomes that improve the resource recovery and disposal system in both Counties, and have significantly improved the performance of the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. The Prairieland tip fee has been established at $35 per ton with haulers also charging and remitting a hauler collected service fee. The County s solid waste management service charge has been reduced. Prairieland has voluntary five year contracts for waste delivery to the facility with waste haulers in the two Counties. The solid waste budget for the County and Prairieland are balanced. Operations at the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility are improved. The recovery rate is higher and more residuals are sent to Xcel-Wilmarth as RDF. A. Waste Assurance Waste assurance is a fundamental element of the successful operation of the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. The quantity and composition of waste received at the facility directly affect the facilities ability to produce quality RDF which also affects the facility s financial picture. An effective approach to waste assurance also contributes to both Counties ability to ensure that waste is managed according to the preferred strategies established by Faribault and Counties. This section describes the waste assurance options that allow an organization to manage waste in a way that it prefers. The following options have been used successfully in Minnesota. Public Entities County Assessment Hauler Negotiations Waste Designation Private Sector Option The public sector uses waste assurance for four key reasons: To compete effectively in the marketplace; To ensure that waste is managed in a way that protects the public health and welfare and benefits the environment; To ensure that waste is managed in a way that protects the taxpayers from the liabilities associated with the management of waste; and To protect the public investment that was made to build waste management facilities. The private sector uses waste assurance to compete effectively in the market place. 56

65 B. Public Entities Public Entities must ensure that their waste is managed in a manner consistent with a County s preferred methods for waste management, according to the state Public Entities Statutes (Minnesota Statute 115A.46, subd. 5, and 115A.471). These statutes state that public entities that manage waste, or contract to have their waste managed, must manage their waste in a manner that is not inconsistent with the county plan, unless they obtain the permission of the county to do otherwise. The definition of public entities includes any of the following: An office, agency, or institution of the state; The metropolitan council; A metropolitan agency; The metropolitan mosquito control district; The legislature; The courts; A statutory or home rule charter city; A town; A school district; Another special taxing district; or Any contractor acting pursuant to a contract with a public entity. In order for these provisions to work effectively, a County can take a number of steps to further improve the ability of the Public Entities Statutes to achieve the desired result: The county s waste management preferences should be clearly stated in the County s Solid Waste Management Plan. Clearly articulate that only waste collected by or contracted for collection by a public entity is covered under this statute, and provide information to public entities that explains the benefits of this law to public entities. The County can work closely with the State to ensure that the public entities law is enforced. Numerous counties have sent letters to public entities, or the state has sent such letters, explaining what public entities must do to be consistent with the county plan. Counties have also requested assistance from the state in enforcement. Thus far, all public entity cases have been resolved with contact and assistance from the state. The state has not had to resort to using the state s formal enforcement procedure and penalties. Consistent with this, Faribault and Counties hereby establishes that recovery of resources from MSW at the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility is the Counties preferred method for managing MSW, including but not limited to MSW collected or generated by Public Entities in these two Counties. 57

66 C. County Assessment Counties have the authority to make assessments for environmental programs, such as environmental education, household hazardous waste collection, recycling programs, and activities supporting the management of waste as preferred in the county plan, including the direct funding of facilities and/or using the Funds to lower the tipping fee at MSW resource recovery facilities. Counties have a number of options to acquire funding to support these programs: ad valorem taxes, hauler collected service charges, and service charges on property tax statements. Ad Valorem Tax An ad valorem tax is assessed based on property value, or in the case of commercial establishments, the value of the business, rather than the amount of waste generated. Funds are collected via the property tax statement and are part of the general fund. Funds collected may be used to support any county environmental program, including environmental education, household hazardous waste collection, recycling programs, and activities supporting the management of waste as preferred in the county plan, including the direct funding of facilities. Hauler-Collected Service Charge This service charge is levied on the waste generator pursuant to Minn. Stat , and is designed to be collected by the waste hauler and then remitted to the county. The fee can be set up as a percent of the collection/disposal bill or it can be based on the volume of waste produced by the generator. According to a Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the proceeds from a hauler-collected service charge may, in part, be used to lower the tipping fee at a MSW resource recovery facility, such as the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. Service Charge on Property Tax Statement or Utility Bill Counties may support environmental programs through a service charge billed on the property tax statement or the utility bill, also pursuant to Minn. Stat., section The service charge can be structured based on the volume of waste generated or by property type. Typically, residents are charged a lower fee than businesses. Funds may be used to support county waste management programs, including environmental education, household hazardous waste collection, recycling programs, and activities supporting the management of waste as preferred in the county plan. D. Hauler Negotiations Counties have the ability to negotiate contracts with haulers to bring the waste to the facility preferred in the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Many Minnesota counties and cities use negotiated contracts with haulers to bring waste to the preferred waste management facility. 58

67 E. Waste Designation Counties have the ability to require that waste generated in the county be delivered to a specific facility. Several Minnesota counties use waste designation to legally require that waste be delivered to a preferred facility. F. Private Sector Option Some waste management companies use vertical integration to compete efficiently in the market place, and assure waste is delivered to the facilities that bring the most profit to the company. To vertically integrate, companies develop or acquire landfill capacity and waste collection enterprises in regional area. Doing so allows them to profit from both hauling and landfill operations, and direct collected waste to their facilities. A key company strategy to maximize profits at the landfill is to own landfills capable of accepting large amounts of waste per day. Because landfills have certain fixed costs, a large daily capacity allows the company to operate at lower cost per ton, because the fixed costs of operating a landfill are spread out over a large amount of waste. These landfills can offer very competitive pricing, and help companies secure a major part of the waste stream in Minnesota. Implications for Faribault and Counties Currently, the Prairieland Board has five years waste delivery contracts in place with nearly all of the solid waste haulers operating in both Faribault and Counties, negotiated during 2011 (see Appendix xx). Prairieland has pursued these contracts to further promote stability in the resource recovery and disposal system. In addition, both Counties have a property-based service charge that contributes to the funding of solid waste management activities, including operations at the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. Since 1998, hauler contracts and service charge revenues used to subsidize the tip fee at Prairieland have contributed to improved waste assurance for the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. In 2007 a hauler collected service fee was enacted. The resulting improvements in operations and financial performance have contributed to greater stability for both Counties and Prairieland. Both counties will continue to support the use of negotiated contracts with waste haulers as a primary waste assurance tool. These contracts are intended to work in combination with the continuation of the service charge, hauler collected service fee and the continued implementation of the Public Entities Statutes by both Faribault and Counties. Additionally, Faribault and County seek to investigate the re-enactment of the designation ordinance for further waste assurance. A designation ordinance in both counties was established with County Designation Plans written in 1989 and ordinances passed in 1991 to assure waste delivery to the Prairieland facility. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States Haulers Association Inc. vs. Oneida-Herkimer Solid 59

68 Waste Management Authority, that waste designation (or flow control ) ordinances to publicly owned and operated facilities are not per se in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Designation provides a workable, timely, reliable longterm assured waste supply adequate to meet the needs of the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. At present, long term contracts are in place. However, contracts do not provide a complete, reliable means to secure the assured supply of waste that is vital to the success of the Prairieland Facility. If the counties chose to do so or if the hauler agreements are breached or otherwise terminated, designation will be enforced. Designation provides a means for a direct legal requirement that waste be delivered to the Prairieland Facility. Without the security and reliability that designation provides, Prairieland Solid Waste Management would face significant long term financial risk. 3.6 PROPOSED INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility, which is a resource recovery management measure will continue to serve as the primary waste management option for Faribault, and hence, the Prairieland Waste Management Board. Minnesota Statute 115A.02 outlines the goals of integrated waste management and defines the solid waste management hierarchy. Prairieland s existing integrated waste management system as outlined in the previous sections is consistent with the Solid Waste Hierarchy and with Minnesota Statute 115A.02. Table 3.5 presents the goals and strategies identified by stakeholders towards the improvement of the existing system. Programs to be implemented under each goal and strategy (including implementation schedules) are presented in the form of Project Planning Matrices (PPMs) in the next chapter. Table 3.5: Goals and Strategies Proposed to Improve the Integrated System Area Goal Strategies Source Reduction 1. Explore avenues to encourage households and businesses (especially rural residents) on how to reduce their solid waste. 2. Encourage REUSE rather than disposal for some items in the waste stream. 3. Use pricing measures to encourage source reduction 1. Work with several volunteer businesses to demonstrate options for reducing waste generation 2. Make sure the waste guides for households and businesses explain how to reduce waste. 3. Encourage the use of consignment shops, collection programs and garage sales as a means to reduce waste and encourage reuse of items. 4. Promote volume-based pricing to give generators of waste a clear incentive to reduce the amount of waste generated 60

69 Area Goal Strategies Waste Education Recycling Yard Solid Waste Management Source Separated Organic Materials Composting Solid Waste Incineration and Energy Recovery 1. Promote education initiatives to encourage waste recycling and reduction. 2. Raise public awareness about the proper management of waste and enforce public entities laws. 3. Promote the Prairieland RDF Facility and improve system efficiency. 4. Greater participation in HHW and VSQG programs to de-toxify the waste stream. 1. Refine recycling education efforts to maintain a consistent message to residents, businesses and public entities (especially schools) about the importance of recycling. 2. Encourage businesses and public entities to recycle and reduce volume of waste and enforce recycling regulations. 3. Encourage recycling though social media 1. Comply with the restrictions on landfill of yard waste. 2. Educate the public on options for managing their yard waste. 1. Enhance education about source separated organic materials, options and collection opportunities. 2. Improve on collection of source separated organic materials. 3. Encourage business producing organic waste to use licensed Source Separated Organic haulers. 1. Recover resources from the solid waste stream in both counties and other neighboring counties (through partnerships) 2. Meet current capacity needs and ensure future production improvements of the Prairieland RDF facility. 1. Build news coverage of Prairieland into wider coverage of toxic materials programs, recycling opportunities, and the benefits of reducing the amount of waste produced 2. Continue education on source reduction, with special emphasis on toxicity reduction 3. Inform citizens and public entities on how, when and where for proper disposal of waste, especially HHW. 4. Investigate the use of social media as an inexpensive way to communicate with the public about waste options 5. Inform citizens how, when and where solid waste can be recycled 1. Encourage single sort curbside recycling programs for towns in both counties. 2. Identify greatest potential for recycling by businesses and public entities, and help waste haulers and recyclers meet those needs 3. Gain the cooperation of businesses that currently recycle to keep track of recycling tonnages and report them to both counties 4. Ensure that public entities and businesses are following recycling regulations. 1. Explore alternatives in enforcing restrictions on landfill of yard waste. 2. Continue to educate consumers on back yard composting and proper disposal of yard waste. 3. Enhance existing local yard waste management and composting efforts. 1. Help inform residents about maintained municipal run composting sites. 2. Encourage residents to use curbside collection of compostable organic materials. 3. Increase the number of haulers licensed to collect separated organic materials for composting. 1. Continue to maintain Prairieland partnerships/contracts with waste to energy facilities for MSW produced and explore avenues for future partnerships. 2. Continue to process waste to make RDF and deliver to energy recovery facilities. 3. Meet the capacity needs of the Prairieland RDF facility by securing waste from outside counties 4. Meet capacity needs by enforcing designation of waste to Prairieland Facility 61

70 Area Goal Strategies 1. Continue to discourage landfill sites and emphasize that waste to energy is the best option for MSW 2. Conserve the need for land disposal through reducing the waste stream and exploring alternative means for disposing wastes not suitable for RDF. MSW Land Disposal Facilities Solid Waste Tire Management Programs Electronic Products Major Appliance Management Automotive Mercury Switches, Motor Vehicle Fluids And Filters, And Lead-Acid And Dry Cell Batteries 1. Reuse or recycle the tire material into other useful products. 2 Enhance education of tire management. 1. Assure a clean and healthy environment by keeping white goods out of lakes, woods, and ditches. 2. Comply with Minnesota Laws on electronic products recycling and disposal. 3. Enhance the county electronics recycling program. 1. Assure a clean and healthy environment by keeping white goods out of lakes, woods, and ditches. 2. Comply with Minnesota Laws on appliance recycling and disposal. 3. Give residents more options for managing unwanted appliances. 1. Promote environmental and health-hazard free options for disposing automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries 2. Comply with state laws regarding the disposal of automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries. 3. Improve on disposal options for automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and leadacid and dry cell batteries. 1. Continue to use other landfill facilities located in other jurisdictions other than Faribault and Counties. 2. Seek alternative environmentallyfriendly disposal means for waste not suitable for RDF 1. Promote existing tire collection options 2. Keep waste tires out of the landfills, woods and ditches; 3. Use social media to help residents know the options for managing unwanted tires. 1. Make collection opportunities available to the public 2. Use enforcement tools to ensure proper disposal of electronic products 3. Give residents more options for electronics recycling at reasonable rates. 4. Use social media to help residents know the options for managing unwanted electronics. 1. Make collection opportunities available to the public 2. Use enforcement tools to ensure proper disposal of major appliances products 3. Use social media to help residents know the options for managing unwanted electronics. 1. Provide for the general public convenient collection points for the disposal of automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries 2. Publicize drop-off sites and ensure retailers compliance of regulations regarding automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and leadacid and dry cell batteries 3. Keep mercury from being disposed of in a manner that damages the environment and/or creates a health hazard. 4. Keep batteries from being disposed off in a manner that damages the environment and/or creates a health hazard or precludes the opportunity for the product to be recycled. 5. Use social media to inform residents of proper management of above items. 62

71 Area Goal Strategies 1. Promote education on alternatives to HHW products and encourage separation and management of materials containing lead, mercury, and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the waste stream. 2. Increase separation and management of materials containing lead, mercury and PCB s from the waste stream managed at Prairieland. 3. Improve on existing disposal opportunities for residents and businesses on proper disposal of HHW products. Household Hazardous Waste Management 1. Intensify education options on HHW disposal 2. Develop a long-term strategy for HHW that focuses on reducing purchases of products that contribute to the HHW stream, emphasizes the reuse of remaining products, and ensures the proper disposal of these wastes. 3. Design and implement strategic measures (in collaboration with local businesses and households) to discourage the selling and purchasing of items containing lead, mercury and PCB s. 4. Use social media to help inform residents of proper management of HHW. Demolition Debris On-site and Illegal Disposal 1. Provide public with options for disposal of demolition debris. 2. Work with MPCA staff to ensure that demolition projects follow MPCA and Federal rules of disposal. 1. Build participation of rural residents in the waste management system 2. Use enforcement to discourage dumping in isolated areas and illegal disposal options 1. Encourage do-it-yourselfers to use demo disposal options 2. Provide demo contractors with rules and procedures for demolition disposal. 3. Provide forms and educational materials for residents working on demolition projects. 1. Remove barriers for self-haulers at Prairieland by making it convenient and cost effective to drop off waste at the facility. 2. Provide opportunities and incentives for rural residents to use the household hazardous waste, recycling, and processing facilities through information and access Alternatives to the Proposed Integrated Waste Management System In the event of a short-term emergency that would require bypassing the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility, the contingency system calls for short term holding of RDF at the Facility. The Facility s tipping floor has the capacity to store over 200 tons of waste and the fuel storage area will hold approximately 900 tons. In the event that the emergency should extend over a longer period, haulers would continue to tip at the Prairieland Facility. Prairieland would then transfer the waste to the landfill. At this time, the Prairieland Solid Waste Board anticipates considering other alternatives to improve the flow of waste to the Prairieland Facility. The Prairieland Solid Waste Board also believes that over the long term it will be in the Prairieland Solid Waste Board's best economic and environmental interests to continue to participate in regional solid waste management partnerships to the maximum extent possible. The current integrated waste management system is working to meet the goals and policies of this plan as well as meet the MPCA preferred waste management plans. If the 63

72 current system dramatically changes within the plan period or other emerging technologies are approved by the MPCA as being able to meet the goals and policies stated under MN Statute 115A for processing solid waste materials, the Prairieland Solid Waste Board would then consider the options available at that time and work with the MPCA to continue preserving its solid waste processing goals. During that time, the Joint Powers Board would continue to promote the solid waste management hierarchy of preferred methods of reduce, re use, recycle and household hazardous waste management in order to maximize environmental benefits. Again, the Board would also proceed with an evaluation and preliminary planning process for waste management options of the following alternative technologies that are emerging. 1. Gasification A thermal process that converts solid waste to a synthetic gas (syngas), using limited amounts of air or oxygen. 2. Pyrolysis A thermal process that breaks down solid waste without air or oxygen and uses heat to produce syngas. 3. Plasma arc A process that uses very high temperatures (5,000 to 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit) to breakdown waste into elemental byproducts, 4. Mass Burn Waste-To-Energy A process that burns solid waste in a combustion chamber, without presorting of waste components, and recovers heat energy. 5. Anaerobic Digestion A process that decomposes the organic (carbon-based) portion of solid waste in the absence of oxygen, producing syngas or natural gas, and a digestate with a liquid and solid component. 6. Mixed Waste Processing MWP Also known as front-end separation, this is a process that removes recyclable materials from mixed solid waste; it can either be stand-alone or be part of a front-end process before another technology. 7. Plastic to Fuel A heat and distillation process to convert various plastics into oil. The type and amount of mixed municipal solid waste available in the future needs to be considered when reviewing applicable technologies. Projecting waste volumes takes into consideration the changes likely to occur in the solid waste system, with increased levels of recycling and separate management of other wastes such as organic waste. The waste composition over time is expected to change as well, with reduced volumes of recyclable paper, glass, metal and organics. The type and amount of materials that are discarded with Faribault and Counties depend heavily on a number of factors, such as changes in population, the economy, consumer habits, and types of commercial industry development. When comparing these technologies it will be prudent to also consider the following parameters: Whether the technology is proven in North America Is there available documented system cost information 64

73 MPCA permitting a new technology & due diligence process time frame Present system flexibility and in the years to come Will the technology be applicable to the solid waste characteristics in Faribault and Counties? Should there be a dramatic negative change of circumstances to the current integrated waste to energy where perhaps the processing of solid waste is hampered or becomes financially unstable and the Joint Powers Board s only recourse is to consider other technologies, more landfilling may become an unfortunate short term side effect. This term would only last until other processing technologies(s) would become approved by the MPCA as meeting the goals and policies under MN Stat 115A. 3.7 BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING GREATER INDEPENDENCE FROM LAND DISPOSAL The lack of proven technology and or financially affordable technology could be considered a main barrier to prevent more or continued land disposal. There are currently technologies that are still being refined and perfected, they then have to become commercially available to the masses and at about the same time, reach a scale of economies which can make the technology affordable to the masses and further develop end markets for products created from the new process. The list of challenges mentioned in section 2.8 (Chapter 2) could as well be considered as barriers. Certainly lack of funding to private business to conduct pilot programs/projects to get these new technologies off the ground can also be considered a barrier. The lack of funding to government programs could also be applied here. Many Counties have limited funding available to expand recycling programs to more rural areas or work with private business to develop future technologies or markets for their products. The lack of flow control or tools to easily implement flow control methods can also be considered a barrier to achieving landfill independence. Lastly, specific legislation or lack thereof can be considered a main barrier. One need not look any further than the electronic waste (e-waste) / CRT ban and what has transpired in the electronics markets and associated commodities markets. Product stewardship legislation models can work if done properly when all vested parties are invited to the table Reasons for the Continued Use of Land Disposal System Landfills continue to play a role in the solid waste system for the Prairieland service area. Although land disposal is the least preferred option in the solid waste management hierarchy, an integrated waste management system requires that some landfill capacity be available. This plan acknowledges that landfills are necessary and that landfill capacity is needed because 100% of the waste cannot be reduced, reused, recycled or processed. Newer technologies such as leachate recirculation, bioreactors and landfill mining provide 65

74 opportunities to improve landfill management, but need to first be evaluated and then designed in a manner that prevents negative environmental outcomes. Ultimately, conservation of landfill space and the use of new technologies should be encouraged, but only when they also provide for optimal environmental protection. Landfills that serve the Prairieland service area are both privately and publicly owned and operated. Prairieland and it governmental partners should therefore specifically focus on the regulatory issues that govern landfilling; landfill design and operation in Minnesota is regulated by the MPCA, counties and cities. This Joint-County Plan stresses the need for landfills to be designed and operated in an optimal manner while also recognizing that landfills as well as all other waste facilities' operations will need to be expanded or changed in the future to achieve this Plan s objectives. Affordability is mostly likely the other main reason for continued landfilling. Landfilling has historically been the cheapest means to dispose of unused or no longer needed materials. In addition, as private businesses have heavily invested in landfills, they have become vertically integrated in the solid waste markets from trucking, to transfer station and to owning landfills. These are capital investments that must be paid for by continued / future business contracts to continue to receive solid waste materials. It is our hope that future technologies and product stewardship models will lead to more price competitive option to land disposal. 66

75 CHAPTER FOUR SOLID WASTE SYSTEM EVALUATION AND TEN YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4.1 INTRODUCTION Minnesota Statutes 115A.46 subd. 2 specify that County Solid Waste Plans are to properly document how they will achieve set goals. In reaction to this Statutory provision, this section outlines the goals, strategies and programs specified in Minnesota Statutes 115A.411, subd. 2. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the Goal Volume Tables and Appendix 2, provides a detailed budget for this entire solid waste management plan. The overarching policy of Prairieland Solid Waste Board is to implement and maintain an integrated solid waste management system which supports environmentally-friendly and MPCA s approved practices and technology for ensuring waste re-use, reduce and recycling to safeguard the health and well-being of the residents and ecology of Faribault and Counties. This policy guides the goals, strategies and projects developed under the solid waste programs discussed in this Chapter. Table xx, specifies the targets that each of these counties are determined to reach by the end of the plan period (10 years) based on the goal-volume tables. Since MN Statute 115A.02 places more emphasis on waste reduce, re-use and recycle options for solid waste management, the specified targets aligns with the spirit and intent of this statutory provision. Table 4.1: MSW Management Targets for the Next Ten Years Solid Waste Activity Existing Levels 10-year Target Faribault Prairieland Faribault Prairieland County County County County Resource Recovery 6,220 8,951 15,171 8,050 11,125 19,175 Recycling 8,854 21,806 30,660 8,739 22,187 22,196 Landfilled On-site 2,180 2,375 4,555 2,099 1,511 3,610 The MPCA s 2009 Solid Waste Policy Report supports the solid waste goals set by the 2009 Integrated Solid Waste Management Stakeholder (ISWM) Work Group, which were based on legislatively-mandated greenhouse gas reduction goals and a legislative request for achieving higher recycling and composting diversion. The goals are by 2025: 6% cumulative source reduction, 60% recycling, 6.5% organics management, 24.1% resource recovery, 9.4% land disposal. In order for the state to reach the goals identified in 2009 ISWM process, counties must go beyond the current 35% recycling goal and set a new goal in their solid waste plans of at least 50% recycling within the next 10 years. In addition, counties should pursue increased waste reduction, organics management and resource recovery, where available, to increase to landfill diversion. Counties, cities, the state, and other partners will need to look at new 67

76 strategies for achieving these higher goals and it will not be easy. The 2009 ISWM process included a compilation of strategies by waste management method and is posted on the MPCA s website. ( 4.2 SOLID WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS General Policy and Goals Source reduction involves any activity that prevents waste at its source. Source reduction is identified as the first priority among solid waste management options. It offers the benefits of reducing environmental impacts associated with waste handling, processing and disposal. There is also the potential for the waste generator, whether a business or household to save money by reducing the quantity of waste. As defined in State Statutes: Waste reduction or source reduction means an activity that prevents generation of waste or the inclusion of toxic materials in waste, including: reusing a product in its original form: increasing the life span of a product; reducing the material or the toxicity of material used in production or packaging; or changing procurement, consumption, or waste generation habits to result in smaller quantities or lower toxicity of waste generated. (Minnesota Statutes 115A.03, subd. 36b) The Waste Management Act contains specific requirements for source reduction efforts, including requirements for county solid waste management programs. Political subdivisions, educational institutions and other public agencies must aggressively pursue purchasing practices that encourage solid waste and toxicity reduction. Each county s solid waste management plan must include mechanisms for providing financial incentives to businesses, households and all other solid waste generators to reduce the amount of waste generated. Licensing authorities must require that licensed haulers impose charges for collection of MSW that increase with the volume or weight of waste collected. A local government that collects fees for picking up MSW directly from businesses, households and others that generate the waste must implement charges that increase with the volume or weight of waste collected. Any political subdivision that provides or pays for the costs of collection or disposal of solid waste must make the share of those costs for each business, household or other entity visible and obvious to the generator of that waste. 68

77 Goals Based on the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for solid waste reduction programs for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Explore avenues to encourage households and businesses (especially rural residents) on how to reduce their solid waste; 2. Encourage REUSE rather than disposal for some items in the waste stream; and 3. Use pricing measures to encourage source reduction. Table 4.2: Cumulative Annual Solid Waste Reduction Targets County Current tons to area landfills Cumulative Annual Faribault Prairieland Existing Solid Waste Reduction Program(s) The existing programs for solid waste reduction for Faribault and Counties are listed below. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be added. Programs: 1. Work with several volunteer businesses to demonstrate options for reducing waste generation. 2. Make sure the waste guides for households and businesses explain how to reduce waste. 3. Promote volume-based pricing to give generators of waste a clear incentive to reduce the amount of waste generated. 69

78 4.2.2 Solid Waste Reduction Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.3: Project Planning Matrix for Waste Reduction Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Program Budget Target outreach to businesses that have strong source reduction potential. Increase source reduction promotion and assistance to rural residents as part of expanded rural waste management and recycling programs. Examine opportunities to integrated source reduction measures into building projects. Further development of purchasing guidelines that support source reduction. Promote Reuse by drafting a directory of thrift stores or reuse opportunities. Setup reuse areas at TS/landfills. Promote Neighborhood Reuse events. Create greater source reduction incentives through variable-rate pricing requirements for solid waste collection. Duration for Implementation See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.4: Annual Staff (FTE) for Solid Waste Reduction Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

79 4.3 SOLID WASTE EDUCATION PROGRAMS General Policy and Goals Minn. Stat. 115A.46, subd. 2(f) requires that solid waste plans prepared must indicate programs or measures for educating the public. Describing further the general policy guideline for solid waste education, Minn. Stat. 115A.072, subd. 2 requires MPCA (as the commissioner for solid waste management) to: 1. develop a statewide waste management public education campaign with materials that may be easily adapted by political subdivisions to meet their program needs; and 2. develop and make available to schools educational curricula on waste education for grades kindergarten to 12 to address at least waste reduction, recycling, litter, and proper management and disposal of problem materials. These education programs are to help achieve the goals for environmental education programs specified in Minn. Stat. 115A.73 as follows. (a) Pupils and citizens should be able to apply informed decision-making processes to maintain a sustainable lifestyle. In order to do so, citizens should: 1. understand ecological systems; 2. understand the cause and effect relationship between human attitudes and behavior and the environment; 3. be able to evaluate alternative responses to environmental issues before deciding on alternative courses of action; and 4. understand the effects of multiple uses of the environment. (b) Pupils and citizens shall have access to information and experiences needed to make informed decisions about actions to take on environmental issues. Goals Based on the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for solid waste education programs for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Promote education initiatives to encourage waste recycling and reduction; 2. Raise public awareness about the proper management of waste and enforce public entities laws; 3. Promote the Prairieland RDF Facility and improve system efficiency; and 4.Greater participation in HHW and VSQG programs to de-toxify the waste stream. 71

80 4.3.1 Existing Solid Waste Education Programs Table 4.5 presents the solid waste education programs which exist in both Faribault and Counties. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. There are currently no education providers and partners. Table 4.5: List of Existing Solid Waste Education Programs List of Programs Education Providers Jurisdiction Numerous public service announcements on the local cable access channel, in newspapers, and on Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Faribault and Counties the Counties website. Television and radio appearances. Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Faribault and Counties Development and use of traveling displays promoting solid waste activities. Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Faribault and Counties Educational materials and displays at a manned booth during county fairs and other events. Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Faribault and Counties Visiting businesses in the counties, in person, with recycling and waste reduction information. Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Faribault and Counties Staff training for businesses on recycling and waste reduction. Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Faribault and Counties Advertising to promote successful examples of Solid Waste Coordinator Faribault and source reduction by businesses. Development of county specific brochures that outline where individuals and businesses can take waste within each county and how to handle it. Solid waste newsletters to citizens and businesses. Promotion of events for handling hazardous waste. County training program that includes information on waste abatement Tours of the RDF facility. Organizing and promoting events in recycling week, pollution prevention week, and Earth Day activities. Be sure public entities know how state recycling laws apply to them and ensure they recycle 3+ materials. Prairieland Director Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Counties Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Solid Waste Coordinator Prairieland Director Solid Waste Coordinator Counties Faribault and Counties Faribault and Counties Faribault and Counties Faribault and Counties Faribault and Counties Faribault and Counties Faribault and Counties Solid Waste Education Programs to Implement for the next 10 years The Prairieland Waste Management Board and the Solid Waste Program Committees of Faribault and Counties anticipates that at least one of the identified solid waste programs in Table xx will be carried out within each quarter of each year. 72

81 Table 4.6: Project Planning Matrix for Waste Education Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule Program Budget Numerous public service announcements on the local cable access channel and in newspapers. Keep Solid Waste Information up to date with current waste handling information and programming. Develop a Facebook page for local waste education. Television and radio appearances. Development and use of traveling displays promoting solid waste activities. Educational materials and displays at a manned booth during the county fair and other events. Visiting businesses in both counties, in person, with recycling and waste reduction information. Continue to meet and discuss waste issues (such as encouraging city run yard waste compost sites) with civic and business groups, cities, and school groups. Staff training for businesses on recycling and waste reduction. Keep county website up to date with local waste education materials. Inform public entities and residents (especially those in rural areas) about rules regarding waste disposal (with focus on illegal waste disposal) and recycling. Advertising to promote successful examples of source reduction by businesses. Tours of the RDF facility Organizing and promoting events such as recycling week, pollution prevention week, and Earth Day activities. Conduct periodic waste composition study Work with the larger generators to reduce and recycle their waste Development of county specific brochures that outline where individuals and businesses can take waste within each county and how to handle it. Solid waste newsletters to citizens and businesses on proper disposal and recycling of waste such as white goods and electronics.. Promotion of special days for handling hazardous waste. See Budget at the Appendix 73

82 Programs Location Implementation Schedule Program Budget Businesses in Faribault and Counties will be encouraged through social media and the solid waste pages on the county websites, to contact MPCA for help in startup and expanding their business to develop uses for recycled materials by offering technical, financial and marketing assistance. County training program that includes information on waste abatement and disposal of HHWQ, white goods and electronics. Promote the Recycle Your Holidays program for electronic cords and other RAM programs with STEP, Inc. of and Faribault Counties. Promote Backyard Composting materials and community demonstration programs with County Soil and Water Conservation Programs. Provide recycling and What A Waste educational programs to school districts. Promote Take It To The Box program for unwanted medications by providing information and links on solid waste Facebook and County Solid Waste Web pages. Duration for Implementation Table 4.7: Annual Staff (FTE) for Solid Waste Education Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

83 4.4 SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAMS General Policy and Goals Recycling reduces the volume of the waste stream, conserves resources and creates useful products. A successful recycling program hinges on ensuring that households and businesses have convenient options for participating in recycling efforts. Minn. Stat. 115A.03 subd. 25b considers recycling means as; the process of collecting and preparing recyclable materials and reusing the materials in their original form or using them in manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction of recyclable materials in a manner that precludes further use. In specifying recycling targets, Minn. Stat. 115A.551 subd. 2a stipulates that by December 31, 1996, a county outside the metropolitan area should have its goal of recycling 35 percent by weight of total solid waste generation and a metropolitan county should have 50 percent by weight of total solid waste generation. This provision does not however prohibit a county from recycling more than the stipulated target goals. Efforts aimed at achieving the recycling targets set in the GVTs for both Counties will look towards; enforcing provisions regarding recycling in the solid waste ordinances, periodically monitoring recycling levels, continuing organizing single sort collection, and continuous research for alternative disposal options for non-recycling materials. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for solid waste recycling programs for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Refine recycling education efforts to maintain a consistent message to residents, businesses and public entities (especially schools) about the importance of recycling; 2. Encourage businesses and public entities to recycle and reduce volume of waste and enforce recycling regulations; and 3. Encourage recycling though social media Existing Public and Private Sector Solid Waste Recycling Program(s) Table 4.8 presents the solid waste education programs and recycling haulers and facilities in both Faribault and Counties. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Sufficient data is not available for an economic analysis of the recycling market. The counties contract with private haulers for recycling collection and marketing of recyclables. The county does not market recyclables. Businesses in Faribault and Counties will be encouraged to contact MPCA for help in startup and expanding their business to develop uses for recycled materials by offering technical, financial and marketing assistance. 75

84 Table 4.8: List of Existing Solid Waste Recycling Programs Faribault and Counties Recycling facilities List of Programs Recycling Waste Haulers Name and Location Materials Recycled 1. Hometown Sanitation County Recycling Center- Plastic, Glass, Metal, Serving Hometown Sanitation and Paper Curbside Collection in Fairmont, Business Hours: Appliances and Welcome, Truman, Trimont, Frost, 9 4 M-F electronics Riverside Heights, 9 noon - Saturday Rural Drop Sites 1031 Fairview Avenue, Commercial Accounts Fairmont, Refine recycling education efforts to maintain a consistent message to residents and businesses about the importance of recycling Ensure students have access to recycling programs Provide improved opportunities for rural recycling Work closely with recycling collectors to improve the quality of data, especially data on business recycling efforts Offer recycling collection points as well as curbside collection in towns and cities in both counties Ensure public entities are recycling at least 3 items Public Entities Include: All municipal buildings and offices All municipal contracts for collection All school district offices All government buildings and offices All government contracts for collection 2. Waste Management, Inc. Serving Curbside collection in Sherburn, Dunnell, Granada, Delavan, Easton, Bricelyn, Blue Earth Commercial Accounts 3. B & B Sanitation Serving Winnebago and Elmore / Faribault County 4. LJP Enterprises, Inc. Serving Faribault and Counties 5. Thompson Sanitation, Inc. Serving Wells / Faribault County 6. The Trash Man Serving and Faribault Counties 7. Sanimax Recycling Organics Serving and Faribault Counties 8. Full Circle Organics Recycling Organics Serving and Faribault Counties Pooley s Scrap Iron & Metal Inc 620 North Main Street Fairmont B & K Auto Salvage th Street Fairmont Trimont Salvage 270 Main Street West Trimont B & B Sanitation Winnebago Peterson Refuse and Demo Wells Wells City Recycling Site Wells Kiester City Recycling Site Kiester All grades of scrap metal/aluminum cans Used car parts Scrap metal Used car parts Scrap metal Table 4.9: Annual Tons of Solid Waste Recycled by Generators County Solid Waste Generator Annual Waste Recycled (Tons) Faribault Documented CII 3,033 3,665 3,885 3,900 3,909 Mech/Hand-separated Residential 1,502 1,632 1,880 1,893 1,992 Documented CII 4,542 5,102 5,780 5,997 6,010 Mech/Hand-separated Residential 8,173 8,441 8,286 8,573 8,658 Total 18,248 19,841 20,850 20,988 21,204 County collection site for appliances and electronics County collection site for appliances and electronics Plastic, Glass, Metal, and Paper Plastic, Glass, Metal, and Paper 76

85 4.4.2 Solid Waste Recycling Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.10: Project Planning Matrix for Waste Recycling Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Program Budget Encourage rural residents to use single sort rural drop sites throughout both counties through the Education Program. Ensure students have access to recycling programs through the Education Programs and also exploring options to improve collection and disposal in schools. Provide improved opportunities for rural recycling by researching to identify alternative collection options and also monitoring current rural collection efforts Work closely with recycling collectors to improve the quality of data, especially data on business recycling efforts by requesting for periodic documentation on recycling levels and efforts as part of the licensing procedures Encourage single sort curbside recycling in more towns in Faribault and Counties by talking to city administrators and presenting information at city council meetings and explaining options. Keep county websites updated with current recycling information. Develop a Facebook page and include current recycling information. Offer recycling collection points as well as curbside collection in towns and cities in both counties. Encourage recyclers to contact commercial / industrial customers and discuss options for recycling in their business. Find options for conducting waste audits in commercial and industrial businesses to help businesses identify recycling or reuse options for portions of their waste stream. Provide public entities with rules regarding recycling and make sure they are following. Use current practicing public entities as models for programming to encourage noncooperating entities to comply Duration for Implementation Faribaualt & See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.11: Annual Staff (FTE) for Solid Waste Recycling Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Prairieland Part- County Solid Total Director Time Staff Waste Officer Faribault Total

86 4.5 YARD WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS General Policy and Goals Yard waste increases the solid waste flow, especially in the spring and fall months. Minnesota Statute 115A.03 subd. 38 specifies yard wastes as being; garden wastes, leaves, lawn cuttings, weeds, shrub and tree waste, and prunings. The Minnesota legislation adopted in 1991 banned the disposal of yard waste in landfills after January 1, Specifically, MN Minn. Stat. 115A.931 (a) prohibits the placing of yard waste in: Mixed municipal solid waste; Disposal facility; and Resource recovery facility except for the purposes of reuse, composting, or cocomposting. Goals Based on the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for yard solid waste programs for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Comply with the restrictions on landfill of yard waste; and 2. Educate the public on options for managing their yard waste Existing Public and Private Sector Yard Waste Program(s) Presented in this section are the existing yard solid waste programs in Faribault and Counties. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Presently there are no private businesses in or Faribault County with a county license to collect and/or compost yard waste. Programs: 1. Continue to promote reduction options through mulching and backyard composting as well as the drop-off/curbside collection options; 2. Organize annual Christmas trees collection with the help of cities, community volunteers, civic organizations and Sentence-to-Service crews; and 3. Collaborate with the Master Gardeners and/or Soil and Water Conservation Service of both counties in disseminating information on yard waste composting. 4. Encourage Soil and Water Conservation Services to continue to distribute and encourage composting by selling composting bins to the communities. 78

87 5. Encourage record keeping to track level of composing and changes in behavior. At present there is no level of tracking for home compost. Table 4.12: Yard Waste/Compost Sites available in Faribault and Counties County Faribault County County Compost Site (YES/NO) Weigh or Monitor Quality of Branch Chipping Site Use / Demand for Chips from Site Curbside Collection (YES/NO) Owner/Operator City of Blue Earth YES NO YES High / High NO City of Elmore NO NO YES High / High NO City of Walters NO NO YES High / High NO City of Delevan NO NO YES High / High NO City of Easton NO NO YES High / High NO City of Wells NO NO YES High / High NO City of MN Lake NO NO YES High / High NO City of Frost NO NO YES High / High NO City of Bricelyn NO NO YES High / High NO City of Kiester NO NO YES High / High NO City of Fairmont YES NO YES High / High YES City of Truman NO NO YES High / High NO City of Ceylon NO NO YES High / High NO City of Dunnell NO NO YES High / High NO City of Sherburn NO NO YES High / High NO City of Trimont NO NO YES High / High NO City of Granada NO NO YES High / High NO City of Northrop NO NO YES High / High NO At this time there are no haulers licensed for yard waste or back year compost Yard Waste Management Programs to implement for the next 10 years Table 4.13: Project Planning Matrix for Yard Solid Waste Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Program Budget Encourage development of city run yard waste compost sites through the Education Program. Continue to promote reduction options through mulching and backyard composting as well as the dropoff/curbside collection options. Organize annual Christmas trees collection with the help of cities, community volunteers, civic organizations and Sentence-to-Service crews. Collaborate with the Master Gardeners and / or Soil and Water Conservation Service of both counties in disseminating information on yard waste composting including offer of composting bins for sale. Design informative message and post on Counties website on the rules and health See Budget at the Appendix 79

88 Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Program Budget risks associated with backyard garbage burning. Use Facebook and county websites to encourage residents to manage their yard waste through composting and use of municipal yard waste composting sites. Duration for Implementation Table 4.14: Annual Staff (FTE) for Yard Waste Management Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Part- Time Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

89 4.6 SOURCE-SEPARATED ORGANIC MATERIALS COMPOSTING PROGRAMS General Policy and Goal Minnesota Statute 115A.03 subd. 32(a) defines Source-separated compostable materials as; materials that: 1. Are separated at the source by waste generators for the purpose of preparing them for use as compost; 2. Are collected separately from mixed municipal solid waste, and are governed by the licensing provisions of section (Minn. Stat. 115A.93); 3. Are comprised of food wastes, fish and animal waste, plant materials, diapers, sanitary products, and paper that is not recyclable because the commissioner has determined that no other person is willing to accept the paper for recycling; 4. Are delivered to a facility to undergo controlled microbial degradation to yield a humus-like product meeting the agency's class I or class II, or equivalent, compost standards and where process residues do not exceed 15 percent by weight of the total material delivered to the facility; and 5. May be delivered to a transfer station, mixed municipal solid waste processing facility, or recycling facility only for the purposes of composting or transfer to a composting facility, unless the commissioner determines that no other person is willing to accept the materials. Goal Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goal for sourceseparated organic waste materials programs for this joint county plan is broadly defined as: 1. Enhance education about source separated organic materials, options and collection opportunities; 2. Improve on collection of source separated organic materials; and 3. Encourage business producing organic waste to use licensed Source Separated Organic haulers Existing Collection System for Source-Separated Organic Materials Currently, instead of a compost facility, Prairieland now operates a Refuse-Derived Facility (RDF). No food waste composting facilities exist in Faribault or County at this time. Also presented in this section are the existing source-separated organic materials programs in Faribault and Counties. Section contains some of these programs 81

90 which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. The largest organic materials composter in the area is Full Circle Organics, located in Good Thunder Township, Blue Earth County. This facility currently composts organic material from businesses and institutions from the Mankato/North Mankato and surrounding areas. Full Circle Organics filed for licensing permission to operate in the Prairieland area in Their application was approved. A. Collection Amounts and Types In 2013, Full Circle Organics picked up 1.8 tons of organics in Faribault County in Full Circle Organics is permitted to collect SSOM, an unlimited quantity of yard debris for blending purposes, and gallons of pure liquids per visit. Sources of SSOM include food waste (both liquid and solid), paper waste, garden waste, and animal bedding. B. Organic Material Generators Generators producing SSOM for Full Circle Organics facility are area coffee shops, garden centers, restaurants, grocery stores, food manufacturers, and city yard debris collection sites. Industry / Institutions that Generate Organics in Faribault County are listed as follows: United Hospital; All Health Care Facilities; Senica Foods; Nuvex; All School Districts; Grocery Stores; and Nursery and Greenhouses. Industry / Institutions that Generate Organics in County are: Mayo Clinic and Hospital All Health Care Facilities Fairmont Foods All School Districts Grocery Store Nursery and Greenhouses C. Composting Facility The only privately owned composting facility located close to or Faribault County is Full Circle s facility which is situated on 10.0 acres approximately 12.0 miles southwest of Mankato, in Blue Earth County. Access to the facility is on existing state and county roads. Compost material is received in the mixing building and the liquids are stored in a 20,000- gallon underground storage tank. Liquid from the tank is used in the mixing process and the active composting process. Excess liquid from the mixing process is collected in the underground storage tank and reused in the mixing process. 82

91 After the compost material is received in the mixing building, it is combined with yard waste and other organic material until the appropriate blend is reached. The blended material is moved only after it has reached 131 F, after which it is relocated to the composting pad and placed in windrows. Windrow composting consists of placing the mixture of raw materials in long narrow piles that are turned on a regular basis. The turning mixes the composting materials and enhances passive aeration. It remains in windrows until it has completed the active compost process that further reduces pathogens, and reaches maturity. At maturity, the compost is screened and then stored on the final product storage pad. The finished compost is sold in bulk to residents, commercial landscapers and other businesses for land application, counties and cities for their facilities and erosion control, rain garden construction, and other purposes, and used by agricultural industry for a soil amendment and animal bedding. Programs: 1. License haulers who specifically haul source separated organic materials. 2. Make list of licensed organic material haulers available to businesses and consumers. 3. Design and implement measures for business waste audit options Source-Separated Organic Materials Programs to implement for the next 10 years Table 4.15: Project Planning Matrix for Source-Separated Organic Materials Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Program budget Licensing haulers who specifically run source separated organic materials with county recycling license. Make list of licensed organic material haulers available to businesses and consumers. Design and implement measures for business waste audit options. Identify high organics generating businesses and work with them to establish organics diversion programs. Encourage Backyard composting Duration for Implementation See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.16: Annual Staff (FTE) for Source-Separated Organic Materials Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Part- Time Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

92 4.7 SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND ENERGY RECOVERY General Policy and Goals Minnesota Statute 115A.03 subd. 27 defines Resource Recovery as; the reclamation for sale, use, or reuse of materials, substances, energy, or other products contained within or derived from waste. Hence, a waste facility established and used primarily for resource recovery, including related and appurtenant facilities such as transmission facilities and transfer stations primarily serving the resource recovery facility is referred to as a Resource Recovery Facility (MN Stat. 115A.03 subd. 28) The existing resource recovery facility utilized by Faribault and Counties is the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. The operational history of this facility has been described in section 3.3 of this plan. The Prairieland Facility diverts waste from the landfill through the production of RDF. The facility is compatible with the Prairieland Solid Waste Board s waste reduction, waste education and recycling programs and benefits these programs. The Prairieland Facility separates and recovers both recyclables and RDF from the waste stream. The process reduces dependence on landfills. The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility operates under MPCA permit #357. A permit reissuance application was submitted to the MPCA in September of The new permit was issued on March 6, 2012, and the expiration date is March 6, The current plan permit allows for the facility s increase from 100 tons a day to 190 tons per day. Prairieland does not market RDF, but develops long-term waste agreements with energy recovery facilities. Prairieland will continue to do this in the future. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for solid waste energy recovery for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Recover resources from the solid waste stream in both counties and other neighboring counties (through partnerships): and 2. Meet current capacity needs and ensure future production improvements of the Prairieland RDF facility. 84

93 4.7.1 Existing RDF Programs Presented in this section are the existing resource recovery programs in Faribault and Counties. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Tables 4.17 and 4.18 present respectively the previous and proposed annual tonnage of RDF generated by the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility. Programs: 1. Develop long-term waste agreements with current and future energy recovery facilities. 2. Explore and develop potential partnerships between the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility and other energy recovery facilities. 3. Provide public education regarding the life cycle of garbage. Table 4.17: Annual RDF Generated by the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Facility Location Annual RDF (Tons) Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Truman, MN Table 4.18: Projected Annual RDF from the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Facility Location Proposed Annual RDF (Tons) Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Truman, MN , MSW Solid Waste Incineration and Resource Recovery Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.19: Project Planning Matrix for Energy Recovery Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Cost & Fund Source In conjunction with Xcel Energy, identify and list materials not suitable for RDF and list alternative disposal options for these materials. Have list available to consumers and haulers. Explore and develop potential partnerships between the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility and other energy recovery facilities. Maintain current RDF processing levels and consider possibility for future increases by increasing the staff and capacity of the RDF facility. N/A Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Site See Budget at the Appendix 85

94 Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Cost & Fund Source Provide public education regarding the life cycle of garbage. Secure waste for the RDF facility from other potential sources by identifying options and costs associated with entering into partnership agreements with haulers and neighboring counties. Investigate and possibly put into play the reenactment of the designation ordinance to ensure waste delivery to the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility Neighboring Counties Duration for Implementation Table 4.20: Annual Staff (FTE) for Energy Recovery Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland County Solid Prairieland Staff Director Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

95 4.8 MSW LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES General Policy and Goals The use of land disposal facilities is discouraged as a general policy in the planning and management of solid waste in Minnesota. Minnesota Stat. 115A.46 subd. 2. (d) states that; The plans shall address at least waste reduction, separation, recycling, and other resource recovery options, and shall include specific and quantifiable objectives, immediately and over specified time periods, for reducing the land disposal of mixed municipal solid waste and for the implementation of feasible and prudent reduction, separation, recycling, and other resource recovery options Faribault and Counties actively encourage businesses and residents to reduce, reuse and recycle materials to conserve resources, and to divert waste from land disposal to recover resources and protect the environment. Neither County operates a landfill nor plans to open a landfill at any point in the future. Contracted solid waste haulers are responsible for delivering any waste or process residuals to a permitted land disposal facilities. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for MSW land disposal for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Continue to discourage landfill sites and emphasize that waste to energy is the best option for MSW; and 2. Conserve the need for land disposal through reducing the waste stream and exploring alternative means for disposing wastes not suitable for RDF. Closed Landfill Status County Closed Landfill Site The Gofer Landfill is located in Rutland Township, County (in Section 6, T103N, R30W, Section 6). The permitted area was 40 acres with a fill area of 34 acres that contained approximately 523,000 cubic yards of waste. The facility was issued a solid waste permit on July 7, The landfill operated between 1972 and 1986 under private ownership. When the operation began to fail, the County took ownership and closed the facility. The facility accepted mixed municipal solid waste from 1972 until its closure December 1, The facility came into the Closed Landfill Program in The landfill had a thick soil cover, but did not meet current solid waste requirements. Because of a high groundwater table, water was moving through the waste mass and aggravating the ground 87

96 water contamination situation. In 2004, a cover upgrade project was begun. The new cover project included relocation of and consolidation of the waste to reduce the footprint and provide a cutoff from groundwater moving through the waste. Because of an extremely wet construction season, the project was not completed and was finished in Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in the groundwater beneath the site and extending south to Elm Creek. The tile line discharge to the creek has contained contaminants from the landfill in the past. As part of the upgrade project for the site, a new tile was installed along the west side to intercept ground water moving onto the site. Along the south, a solid pipe was installed to take the collected ground water to a new discharge structure. Additional information on the monitoring of this site is available in the annual report. The data from 2005 did show a drop in ground water levels and a decrease in contaminants. Faribault County Closed Landfill Site The Faribault County Sanitary Landfill, located in Faribault County, Emerald Township (T102N, R26W, Section 1), received its first permit to accept waste on 5/10/1972, and continued operating until 5/1/1990. In accordance with the legislation enacted in 1992, (Minn. Laws 1992, Ch. 513, Art. 2, Sec. 2, Subd.3), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) assessed and classified closed landfills in Minnesota. According to that assessment and classification, the Faribault County Sanitary Landfill was rescored and given a ranking of C and a score of While this classification may be revised annually as needed, the rank of C indicates that this landfill requires a cover upgrade, minor construction (such as gas vents) and/or future corrective actions which may be needed because the cover does not meet MPCA standards. The Faribault County Sanitary Landfill is 23.2 acres in size and contains approximately 785,000 cubic yards of waste. The Landfill was under mixed ownership when it was in operation. The Environmental Monitoring System includes 10 monitoring wells. Of these, two wells are located in an upgradient direction, eight are downgradient, and none are sidegradient. There are two surface water monitoring points. There are five landfill gas monitoring points at the Faribault County Sanitary Landfill. The MPCA controls the perpetual monitoring of any mitigation requirements of these closed sites. MPCA continues ground water and methane monitoring and inspections. Property north and east of the landfill is also monitored for gas migration problems Existing Programs/Proposed to be Developed Prairieland contracts for disposal of non-compostable and residual materials with Waste Management, Inc. Waste Management, Inc. uses either the Central Disposal Systems (at Lake Mills) or the Dickinson County (at Spirit Lake) landfills, both located in northern Iowa (current operational status presented in Table 4.21). In recent years, only the Dickinson County Landfill has been used for Prairieland s disposal. These landfills are permitted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Through these disposal contracts, Waste Management, Inc. provides Prairieland (and and Faribault Counties) with 88

97 indemnification from future liability associated with either landfill facility. Annual MSW waste received and processed by these facilities are presented in Table Programs: 1. Organize and intensify publicity (at least once a year) on the reduction of waste types not suitable for RDF. 2. Conduct research on environmentally-friendly alternative disposal means for wastes not suitable for RDF. Table 4.21: Landfill Facilities and Operation Status Facility Location Status Central Disposal Systems th St., Lake Mills, IA Active Dickinson County Landfill th St., Spirit Lake, IA Active Table 4.22: Annual Waste Received and Processed by MSW Land Disposal Facilities Facility Location Annual Amount Received and Processed (Tons) Central Disposal th St., Lake Mills, IA 150, , ,659 97, ,646 89,293 Systems Dickinson County Sanitary Landfill th St., Spirit Lake, IA ,895 48,045 45,255 44, ,951 33, MSW Land Disposal Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.23: Project Planning Matrix for MSW Land Disposal Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Program Budget Have list of neighboring landfills available for waste not suitable for RDF. Have list of alternatives to landfilling of materials not suitable for RDF such as furniture, mattresses, asphalt, shingles, C& D, etc. Organize and intensify publicity (at least once a year) on the reduction of waste types not suitable for RDF. Conduct research on environmentallyfriendly alternative disposal means for wastes not suitable for RDF. Duration for Implementation Neighboring Counties Neighboring Counties See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.24: Annual Staff (FTE) for MSW Land Disposal Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

98 4.9 SOLID WASTE TIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS General Policy and Goals Waste tires means a tire that is no longer suitable for its original intended purpose because of wear, damage, or defect (Minn. Stat. 115A. 90 Subd. 11). Old tires that are collected for proper management have a number of end uses, including tire-derived fuel (TDF), shredding for road construction, and other miscellaneous uses. Disposal of waste tires in the land is prohibited under the Statutes (Minn. Stat. 115A. 904). Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for solid waste tire management programs for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Reuse or recycle the tire material into other useful products; and 2. Enhance education of tire management Existing Programs/Proposed to be developed This section presents the existing waste tire management programs in Faribault and Counties. Section contains some of these programs, which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. The Solid Waste Ordinances for both Counties include language that meets the MPCA requirements related to tire storage and disposal. Programs: 1. Establish initiative to identify and clean-up clandestine tire sites in rural areas; 2. Organize publicity of tire collection options at least once a year; 3. Research and install a facility for recycling or generating resource from waste tire materials; 4. Work with cities in both Counties to include tires in their public clean-up days; and 5. Continue to make tire sales and service retail businesses major drop-off sites for waste tires. 6. Continue to hold summer collections for tires with availability as needed and requested. Table 4.25: Tire Haulers and Means of Transportation Name of Hauler Operational Areas Location of Disposal Site(s) Liberty Tire and Faribault Savage Counties Means of Transport of Tires to Disposal Site Truck 90

99 4.9.2 Solid Waste Tire Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.26: Project Planning Matrix for Solid Waste Tire Management Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule (20 ) Program Budget Establish a process with cities and townships to identify and clean-up clandestine tire sites in rural areas. This may involve a limited county grant incentive program. Organize publicity of tire collection options at least once a year Work with cities in both Counties to include tires in their public clean-up days. Continue to make tire sales and service retail businesses major drop-off sites for waste tires. Support tire recycling facilities or businesses generating resources from waste tire materials. Use county websites and Facebook to deliver options for tires management to the public. Encourage private tire dealers to continue to monitor numbers of tires for disposal which are kept on site and use the existing tire recycling program which they already have in place to recycle tires which have reached their maximum life. Duration for Implementation Faribault and Faribault and Faribault and Faribault and Neighboring Counties Faribault and Faribault and See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.27: Annual Staff (FTE) for Tire Managment Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland County Solid Prairieland Staff Director Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

100 4.10 ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS General Policy and Goals Waste electronic appliances represent a growing segment of the waste stream. Some electronic products are of particular concern for Faribault and Counties, especially televisions and computer monitors which have cathode ray tubes. Minnesota Stat. 115A.9565 prohibits a person from placing an electronic product containing a cathode-ray tube into a mixed municipal solid waste. These tubes contain significant amounts of lead. Priority attention is given to them when they are delivered to the Prairieland facility. Faribault and Counties provide simple, convenient and affordable collection opportunities for residents. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for electronic products programs for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Assure a clean and healthy environment by keeping white goods out of lakes, woods, and ditches; 2. Comply with Minnesota Laws on electronic products recycling and disposal 3. Enhance the county electronics recycling program Existing Programs Electronic retail businesses arrange with a collection service in both Faribault and Counties to manage returned electronics. The existing electronic products programs in Faribault and Counties have been presented in this section. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Major electronic product recyclers are licensed through MPCA and the solid ordinances of both Faribault and Counties capture the applicable laws. Some components in electronic products contain hazardous materials such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic. There are a large numbers of electronic components in use today in homes as well as in the workplace. These products can cause environmental problems if disposed of in the regular municipal solid waste stream. Minnesota law requires business and institutions in the state to manage electronic devices and components in conformance with state and federal laws. The Prairieland Solid Waste Office will assist businesses by providing them with informational fact sheets and the names of companies that can recycle their old electronic 92

101 components. The Office will also assist residents to dispose of their home electronic components by having a local program that is easy and convenient to use. Currently, residents and businesses in the Prairieland service area have the following options to dispose of their electronic items in the area. 1. Hometown Sanitation, 1031 Fairview Ave. Fairmont, MN 2. County Clean Up Day (held in June each year) 3. B & B Sanitation, Winnebago 4. Peterson Refuse Demon, Wells Programs: 1. Inform the public on the need to properly recycle electronic products; 2. Have a list of licensed recycling options available to the public; 3. Have event collections for electronics throughout Faribault and Counties as needed; and 4. Develop and periodically review enforcement tools on the disposal of electronic products in both counties. 5. Prairieland Solid Waste Management holds a current electronics recycling license. Continue to develop a Prairieland electronics recycling program for electronics in and Faribault County Electronic Products Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.28: Project Planning Matrix for Electronic Products Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule Program Budget Inform the public on the need to properly recycle electronic products through the Education Program. Have list of licensed recycling options available to the public. Have day collections for electronics throughout Faribault and Counties as needed Develop and periodically review enforcement tools on the disposal of electronic products in both counties. Use county websites and Facebook to deliver options for electronics management to the public. Duration for Implementation See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.29: Annual Staff (FTE) for Electronic Products Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

102 4.11 MAJOR APPLIANCE MANAGEMENT General Policy and Goals The policy here is to ensure that appliance disposal options exist for major appliances, consistent with State law (Minn. Stat., 115A.552). The statutes define this waste type as; "Major appliances" means clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, hot water heaters, heat pumps, furnaces, garbage disposals, trash compactors, conventional and microwave ovens, ranges and stoves, air conditioners, dehumidifiers, refrigerators, and freezers (Minn. Stat. 115A.03 subd. 17a). Minn. Stat. 115A subd. 1 prohibits the disposal of major appliances in a mixed municipal solid waste or on the land or in a solid waste processing or disposal facility. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for major appliance management for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Assure a clean and healthy environment by keeping white goods out of lakes, woods, and ditches; 2. Comply with Minnesota Laws on appliance recycling and disposal. 3. Give residents more options for managing unwanted appliances Existing Programs Appliance retail businesses arrange with a collection service in both Faribault and Counties to manage returned appliances. The Counties and towns include major appliances in clean-up days. Hometown Sanitation provides collection at their drop-off site. The Counties contract with Hometown Sanitation which ensures that management of collected appliances complies with all regulations. Major appliance recyclers are licensed through MPCA and the solid ordinances of both Faribault and Counties capture the applicable laws The existing major appliances programs in Faribault and Counties have been presented in this section. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Programs: 1. Inform the public on the need to properly recycle appliances; 2. Have list of licensed recycling options available to the public; 94

103 3. Have day collections for appliances throughout Faribault and Counties as needed; and 4. Develop and periodically review enforcement tools on the disposal of appliances in both counties. 5. Ensure appliance recyclers in Faribault and County are licensed with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Major Appliance Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.30: Project Planning Matrix for Major Appliance Management Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule Program Budget Inform the public on the need to properly recycle appliances through the Education Program. Have list of licensed recycling options available to the public. Have day collections for appliances throughout Faribault and Counties as needed Develop and periodically review enforcement tools (such as the waste ordinance) on the disposal of electronic products in both counties. Use county websites and Facebook to deliver options for appliance management to the public. Duration for Implementation See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.31: Annual Staff (FTE) Matrix for Major Appliance Management Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

104 4.12 AUTOMOTIVE MERCURY SWITCHES, MOTOR VEHICLE FLUIDS AND FILTERS, AND LEAD-ACID AND DRY CELL BATTERIES General Policy and Goals Minnesota requires retailers of motor oil to either collect used oil or post signs indicating the nearest location where used oil is accepted. Faribault and Counties are committed to supporting these used oil collection and management activities. The Solid Waste Ordinances for both counties state that waste oil shall not be poured, dumped or unlawfully placed on public or private lands, shore lands, roadways, or waters. Minn. Stat. 115A.932 prohibits the disposal of mercury switches into a solid waste, waste water disposal system, solid waste processing or disposal facility. Similarly, there are prohibitions for the disposal of lead-acid batteries (Minn. Stat. 115A.9152) and dry cell batteries containing mercuric oxide electrode, silver oxide electrode, nickel-cadmium, or sealed lead-acid (Minn. Stat. 115A.9155) into mixed municipal solid wastes. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Promote environmental and health-hazard free options for disposing automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries; 2. Comply with state laws regarding the disposal of automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries. 3. Improve on disposal options for automotive mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries Existing Programs The existing programs in Faribault and Counties have been presented in this section. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Programs: 1. Publicize used oil and oil filter drop-off sites; 2. Continue to accept oil, batteries, and mercury switches at all HHW collections; 3. Ensure regulation compliance by retailers regarding posting nearest drop-off sites for mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries; 96

105 4. Identify opportunities to address oil filters; 5. Continue to maintain drop sites for batteries throughout and Faribault Counties; 6. Continue to provide public education (at least twice a year) relating to proper disposal of mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries; and 7. Educate the public on the dangers of improper disposal of mercury and mercury spills Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.32: Project Planning Matrix for Automotive Mercury, etc. Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule Program Budget Publicize and distribute through the Education Program used oil and oil filter drop-off sites locations. Continue to accept oil, batteries, and mercury switches at all HHW collections Encourage regulation compliance by retailers through enforcement measures in the waste ordinances regarding posting nearest drop-off sites for mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries. Provide list of options for oil filter recycling to the public via web sites and social media. Continue to maintain drop sites at city and county offices throughout and Faribault Counties for batteries by regular monitoring and collection. Continue to provide public education (at least twice a year) relating to proper disposal of mercury switches, motor vehicle fluids and filters, and lead-acid and dry cell batteries. Educate the public on the dangers of improper disposal of mercury and mercury spills. Use Facebook and county websites to deliver options for proper management to the public. See Budget at the Appendix Duration for Implementation Table 4.33: Annual Staff (FTE) for Automotive Mercury, etc. Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

106 4.13 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE (HHW) General Policy and Goals Minnesota counties are required to incorporate a program for the management of household hazardous waste (HHW) generated within county borders into the Solid Waste Management Plan. The HHW program must include: Broad based public education component; A strategy for reduction of HHW from waste stream; and A strategy for separation of HHW from MSW and the collection, storage, and proper management of the waste. Successful HHW programs reduce the toxicity of waste delivered to the Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility, thus helping to ensure that RDF the facility produces contains less toxins as well. HHW management programs are a partnership between the State and counties, which is supported by the development of a network of regional HHW programs. These programs ensure that permanent collection and handling facilities exist throughout the State and provide assistance for local collection events by individual counties or cities. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for HHW management for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Promote education on alternatives to HHW products and encourage separation and management of materials containing lead, mercury, and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the waste stream; 2. Increase separation and management of materials containing lead, mercury and PCB s from the waste stream managed at Prairieland; and 3. Improve on existing disposal opportunities for residents and businesses on proper disposal of HHW products. 98

107 Existing Facility and Programs The existing HHW programs in Faribault and Counties are presented in this section. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Faribault and Counties are part of the regional HHW program, centered on a regional HHW management facility located in Mankato. Blue Earth County is the regional HHW program sponsor. Faribault and County own and operate a Household Hazardous Waste Facility at the Prairieland Solid Waste Management site in Truman, MN. This facility is open every Wednesday from 9 until 3 from May through September the facility also does mobile collections throughout the two counties. Programs: 1. Promote the use of the Prairieland HHW Facility; 2. Education of households in identifying, reducing, proper handling and using safer alternatives to household hazardous chemicals; 3. Continue with regular May through September collection events including every Wednesday at the Prairieland site and mobile off site event collections; 4. Define an education program that addresses alternative products or procedures to those containing HHW and stresses proper management techniques; 5. Target materials that contribute to lead, mercury and PCB s in the waste delivered to Prairieland; and 6. Continue to provide HHW collection to ensure residents have ample opportunities to properly dispose of HHW wastes Household Hazardous Solid Waste Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.34: Project Planning Matrix for Household Hazardous Waste Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule Cost & Fund Source Promote the use of the Prairieland HHW Facility through our Education Program. Provide information for households through websites and social media to identify proper handling and use of safer alternatives to chemical based household cleaners. Have lists also available at HHW collections. Continue with regular May through September collection events including every Wednesday at the Prairieland site and one-day off site event collections. See Budget at the Appendix 99

108 Research to identify an education initiative that addresses alternative products or procedures to those containing HHW and stresses proper management techniques. Target materials that contribute to lead, mercury and PCB s in the waste delivered to Prairieland. Continue partnership with Blue Earth County to provide HHW collections to ensure residents have ample opportunities to properly dispose of HHW wastes. Encourage participation for the Take It To The Box Program for unwanted medicine. Promote through the Education Program on websites, social media etc. the VSQG program for small businesses needing disposal options for hazardous waste. Duration for Implementation Table 4.35: Annual Staff (FTE) for HHW Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland County Solid Prairieland Staff Director Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

109 4.14 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS MANAGEMENT General Policy and Goals Demolition debris or construction debris means; waste building materials, packaging, and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of buildings and roads (Minn. Stat., 115A.03 subd. 7). Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for demolition debris management for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Provide public with options for disposal of demolition debris; and 2. Work with MPCA staff to ensure that demolition projects follow MPCA and Federal rules of disposal Existing Programs The existing demolition debris management programs in Faribault and Counties are presented in this section. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. The number of demolition debris facilities and their status has been presented in Table Programs: 1. Make disposal options available to the public and to contractors. 2. Contractor annual meetings with MPCA enforcement staff to better understand rules and regulations. 3. Develop and periodically review enforcement tools on the disposal of demolition debris in both counties. Table 4.36: Permitted Demolition Debris Facilities at Faribault/ County Name of Facility Location Owner Status Number of Permits Southern Minnesota Construction Marcus Street, Fairmont, MN SMC In Operation N/A 101

110 Demolition Debris Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.37: Project Planning Matrix for Demolition Debris Waste Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule Program Budget Make disposal options available to the public and to contractors through the Education Program. Contractor annual meetings with MPCA enforcement staff to better understand rules and regulations. Develop and periodically review enforcement tools provided by on the disposal of demolition debris in both counties. Work closely with contractors, haulers and residents through periodic reporting requests and documentation, to improve on the quality of data on construction and demolition debris generated and disposed. Duration for Implementation See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.38: Annual Staff (FTE) for Demolition Debris Waste Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total

111 4.15 ILLEGAL ON-SITE DISPOSAL General Policy and Goals Minnesota Statutes require counties to develop plans and programs for mitigating the environmental risks associated with illegal on-site disposal. Minnesota Statutes on Groundwater Quality, Surface Water Quality, And Air Quality and Soil Protection (Minn. R , Subp. 3) requires that; A person who operates or maintains a solid waste management facility or permits the use of property for such, must operate and maintain the site in conformance with the agency air pollution control rules. Open burning is prohibited, unless a permit is obtained as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 88.17, and the material to be burned complies with Minnesota Statutes, section A program to reduce illegal on-site disposal should seek to combine a number of factors: make service convenient and affordable, enforce policies and procedures consistently, and provide education about the environmental hazards of illegal on-site disposal. The goals and programs outlined here are aimed at providing such mitigation and education measures. Goals Subsequent to the above policy and prevailing conditions, the goals for illegal on-site disposal for this joint county plan are broadly defined as: 1. Build participation of rural residents in the waste management system; and 2. Use enforcement to discourage dumping in isolated areas and illegal disposal options Existing Programs The existing on-site and illegal disposal programs in Faribault and Counties are presented in this section. Section contains some of these programs which are to be continued and/or modified as well as new programs that are to be implemented for the next ten years. Programs: 1. Expand disposal options, through either staffed or non-staffed drop-off sites; 2. Provide options for waste collection throughout the County, including rural areas; 3. Implement an aggressive education program to inform residents about the need to shift away from on-site disposal; and 4. Use enforcement tools to further discourage illegal disposal practices. 103

112 On-site and Illegal Disposal Management Programs to Implement for the next 10 years Table 4.39: Project Planning Matrix for On-site and Illegal Disposal Management Programs Programs Location Implementation Schedule Program Budget Expand disposal options, through either staffed or non-staffed drop-off sites. Promote options through the Education Program, for waste collection throughout the Counties, including rural areas. Implement an aggressive education program to inform residents about the need to shift away from on-site disposal. Use enforcement tools such as county law enforcement, DNR and MPCA to further discourage illegal disposal practices. Duration for Implementation See Budget at the Appendix Table 4.40: Annual Staff (FTE) for Illegal On site Disposal Programs Jurisdiction Prairieland Director Prairieland Staff County Solid Waste Officer Total Faribault Total SUMMARY OF PLAN EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Figure 4.1 summarizes the total number of programs to be implemented over this 10 year planning period. Out of a total of 109 programs to be implemented for the next 10 years, the majority of programs to be implemented (approximately 24%) are geared towards solid waste education. Creating the necessary awareness through educational programs is central in achieving the waste reduction, re-use and recycling targets set for the next 10 years. The annual cost estimates in managing solid waste in the Prairieland service area have been presented in Figure 4.2. The estimated average annual revenue to cost ratio for this 10 years plan period is This means that each year s estimated revenue exceeds the cost by an average of 4%. The budget projections are estimates that are subject to change depending on legislative mandates, SCORE funding, special assessment tax revenues and program cost. The projections are also subject to the prevailing inflation rate. For Faribault and Counties budget projections, an assumed inflation rate of 3% was used while 2% was used for Prairieland Office s budget. Appendix 2, presents the details of the budget by jurisdiction (Faribault and counties as well as that of the Prairieland). Table 4.41 also shows the total staffing requirements in implementing the programs. 104

113 Figure 4.1: Summary on Number of Solid Waste Programs to be implemented for the next 10 years 30 Number of Solid Waste Programs Figure 4.2: Total Estimated Annual Budget for Faribault and Counties and Prairieland Office Annual Cost Estimate Annual Revenue Estimate $3,500,000 $3,000,000 COST/REVENUE AMOUNT $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ YEARS 105

114 Table 4.41: Estimated Staffing Requirements in Implementing the Programs Program or Task Prairieland Prairieland County Solid Director Staff Waste Officer Total FTE Hours Waste Reduction Education-SW Recycling Programs Yard Waste Programs SSOM Resource Recovery ,472 MSW Land Disposal ,082 Tire Management Electronic Waste Appliance Management Automotive Waste HHW Demo Debris Illegal Disposal Totals ,

115 CHAPTER FIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, REVIEW, MONITORING AND EVALUATION 5.1 INTRODUCTION Based on the similarity of solid waste issues addressed by Faribault and Counties, their Solid Waste Ordinances are generally also similar in the issues they address. Notwithstanding these similarities, each county is individually responsible to educate, implement and enforce if necessary within its own legal County boundaries. This Chapter discusses in summary the ordinances of both counties and amendment plans to improve on the management of waste for the planning period and even beyond. 5.2 JOINT- COUNTY SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE The Faribault County s Ordinance was originally created and signed into effect in County s Ordinance was also adopted in Since their adoptions, the ordinances for Faribault and Counties were last amended in 1992 to cater for the changing waste management issues and needs of the County. Both Ordinances address various items under MN Stats. 115, 115A, 116 and 400. The following items summarize what the contents of the ordinances address: Solid waste management general provisions and definitions; Solid waste licensing requirements (License Fees, Bonding and Insurance); Additional requirements for specific waste management programs (Industrial Waste, Yard Waste, Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Waste Tires, etc); Enforcement and Inspections; and Violations and Penalties (Equitable Relief, Cost as Special Assessment, and Suspension or Revocation of Licenses) Current Problems with Ordinance Enforcement Counties have the authority to regulate solid waste management within their borders through county ordinances. It is in their best interest for Counties to review their ordinances periodically to assure compliance with the most recent requirements of state law and to stay current in regards to facility licensing, hauler licensing, land disposal restrictions for various waste stream components, special management requirements for waste tires, household hazardous waste, appliances, batteries and other materials, and compliance enforcement. The existing solid waste ordinances for Faribault and Counties provides guidance on licensing, fees, disposal options for solid waste, enforcement and violations. Major issues serving as challenges in the implementation and enforcement of these ordinances relate to: a. Haulers collected service fees; 107

116 b. License needed for hauling MSW and not Demo waste; and c. Staff limitations Plans to Develop or Amend Ordinances The management of solid waste has changed since the most recent amendments to the solid waste ordinances of both counties. As part of implementing this Solid Waste Management Plan, the intent of both counties and the Prairieland Solid Waste Board is to continue to review or amend the ordinances at a minimum, as required by state and federal law. The ordinances are currently in compliance with all state laws and local conditions. Copies of the most up to date ordinances for all Counties (including adopted amendments) can be found in the Appendix 3. The two counties will continue to have separate ordinances and do not intend to create one ordinance that would cover both counties in the next ten years. During the preparation of this plan, it became evident that it may be necessary to amend some sections of the ordinances in order to make efforts toward waste reduction, meeting recycling goals and to support the preferred systems for managing solid waste over the next planning period. The amendments are to cover: Haulers Collected Service Fees Changing the language for better tracking of these fees. Demolition Waste Improving on records keeping in the collection and disposal of demolition debris by haulers in both Counties. Volume-Based Fees - Implementing a volume-based rate system offers several benefits. These benefits include an incentive to customers to reduce the amount of waste generated, making rates equitable, increasing support for recycling programs and delays or avoid mandatory recycling. 5.3 MITIGATION EFFORTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS As well planned and thought out a solid waste management method or technology may be, there is still a certain level of risk for environmental and/or public health impacts associated with its use and operations. These associated risks are important factors to consider during the planning process as various solid waste management alternatives are evaluated by a county. Goals, strategies and projects formulated in this plan take into consideration their environmental and health impacts on the counties. In addition, risks associated with illegal on-site disposal are subsequently discussed Illegal On-Site Disposal of MSW by Farms or Households Minnesota Statute, Section allows only farmers to bury or burn solid waste generated from the household and farming operation, if the burying or burning is done in a nuisance free, pollution free and aesthetically acceptable manner on the land used for farming. People living on a farm, but not actively farming, are not eligible for this exception 108

117 to State law. Based on this Statute, the ordinances of both Counties states that on-site disposal of non-hazardous waste from a single family farm household, a member of which is the owner, occupant or lessee of the property, is allowed without a license, if operated and maintained in a nuisance-free manner. Specifically, sub-section III. 7 (b) of the Waste Ordinance states that: A License shall not be required from a person who owns or operates land used for farming that buries, or burns and buries Solid Waste generated from the person s farming operation if the burying is done in a nuisance free, pollution free, and aesthetic manner on the land used for farming. This exception does not apply if regularly scheduled pickup of Solid Waste is reasonably available at the person s farm as determined by the County. This farm exemption is a limited exemption to the requirement that a permit of PBR be obtained for disposal of waste. It does not allow burning of prohibited materials, and it does not allow uncontrolled disposal of large quantities of waste from a commercial farming business that could not be considered a person and which does not operate as a household. The farm exemption also does not allow the unpermitted disposal of demolition debris because demolition debris is not normally generated by the household of farming operation. However, clean wood can be burned under an open burning permit. The State Statute (MN Stat ) disallows farmers from burying or burning tires, most plastics, HHW, appliances, household batteries, used motor oil or lead-acid batteries from motor vehicles. It also states that a permit is not required from a state agency, except under Minn. Stat. 8816, 88.17, and (open burning permits). Enforcement is done on a case-by-case basis by county law enforcement, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Natural Resources depending on the conditions of the situation. On-site disposal for certain situations, including, but not limited to the demolition of farm buildings, trailers, and fencing is regulated by the State. A Permitby-Rule currently allows for some instances of waste to be buried on-site. This permit must be completed by the person wishing to dispose of the waste material and submitted to the MPCA for approval. The permit is reviewed by the solid waste officer of Faribault and Counties prior to the MPCA Illegal Disposal Current County Solid Waste Ordinances prohibits illegal dumping and has provisions regarding the proper storage, collection and transportation of solid waste. Both Counties encourages voluntary compliance through direct dialogue with the alleged violators. If an illegal dumping violation is encountered, or a complaint registered, the site is inspected and pictures are taken. The property owner and others are interviewed regarding the problem. 109

118 The waste is investigated for possible identification of any contributors. Any hazardous materials are secured or arrangements are made to take proper care of these materials. Letters are then sent to the property owner and any identified waste contributors indicating the specific violations of any rules or ordinances and a time frame to clean up the property. Minnesota Statutes on Groundwater Quality, Surface Water Quality, And Air Quality and Soil Protection (Minn. R , Subp. 3) requires that; A person who operates or maintains a solid waste management facility or permits the use of property for such, must operate and maintain the site in conformance with the agency air pollution control rules. Open burning is prohibited, unless a permit is obtained as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 88.17, and the material to be burned complies with Minnesota Statutes, section Faribault and Counties have prepared Local Water Management Plans to address the presence of contamination of groundwater. This includes well sealing of abandoned wells as well as additional methods to reduce the risk of harm to the environment and human health from potential contamination. 5.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE SYSTEM This section deals with the processes to evaluate and, identify and implement specific alternatives if the Joint-County s integrated system is not developed or has major operational difficulties. Section under Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion on such alternatives. Section 1.4 under Chapter 1, also provides an executive summary of the alternatives discussed. 5.5 MULTI-COUNTY PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM A consultative stakeholder s participation process was used in preparing this Solid Waste Plan (see section of Chapter 1 for the flow chart on the planning process). The Prairieland Solid Waste Joint Powers Board and Executive Sub-Committee meets monthly. All meetings are open to the public. Aside posting completed chapters on Region Nine s website (which was referenced on Faribault and Counties websites) for public comments, some sections of the plan were also sent to interested parties such as private haulers to review any all related solid waste and recycling issues, ordinances and State Statutes under Minn. Stat. 473 and Minn. Stat. 115A. After getting approval from the Prairieland Joint Powers Board, the plan was sent to the MPCA for the Public Notice Process. Upon the MPCA s preliminary decision to approve the Plan, the plan was made available to the public for review and comment for thirty (30) calendar days. After the thirty-day public comment period, the MPCA and each individual County Board of Commissioners considered all information received in making a final decision on the Plan and its approval. 110

119 5.5.1 Documentation Location Following are the locations of documentation of discussion and public input by interested parties, including citizens, regional authorities, local units of government and waste service companies: Prairieland Solid Waste Management Facility 801 East Fifth Street North Truman, MN Faribault County Board of Commissioners Faribault County Courthouse 415 North Main P.O. Box 130 Blue Earth, MN (507) County Board of Commissioners County Courthouse 201 Lake Avenue Fairmont, Minnesota (507) REVIEW PROCESS AND TIMELINES Documentation of the Ongoing Process Periodic review of this Plan is the only means by which it will remain active and responsive to the changing waste management issues in the joint-county area. Encouraging public participation in this review process is essential in capturing all varied solid waste management issues in Faribault and Counties. The Prairieland Solid Waste Board and its sub executive committee meet a minimum of four times a year. During these meetings, the solid waste programs are reviewed by assessing participation levels, expenses related to these programs measured with the success or short-comings. These meetings also serve as the platform for inviting comments from residents, businesses and civic groups. All media sources and city clerks are notified of the meetings and encouraged to attend. Minutes of the Prairieland Solid Waste Board are made available to the public for review. Ensuring these review measures at meetings and encouraging public participation in plan implementation and review will continue to be an integral part of implementing this Plan for the next ten years. The Prairieland Solid Waste Board and individual county boards will continue to focus on solid waste management issues, and encourage public participation in board discussions. The process of publicizing meeting agendas includes notices to all cities and media sources. Official minutes are available for public scrutiny as per state statute. An aggressive public 111

120 information and education program will be pursued through periodic letters and press releases sent to local communities and groups and media sources, as is currently the case. Comments received from the public will be documented to help develop program history and also formulate future actions. 112

121 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: GOAL-VOLUME TABLES A. PRAIRIELAND GOAL VOLUME TABLE MANAGEMENT METHOD OBJECTIVES for the County MSW Solid Waste Management System Source Reduction RECYCLE -- excluding Organics Recycle 60.5% 59.4% 59.5% 60.1% 58.5% 59.6% RECYCLE -- Organics (excl. YW compost) 0.00% 0.50% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55% 1.00% WASTE-to-ENERGY Combustion 26.0% 24.7% 24.9% 25.0% 26.8% 26.7% LANDFILL -(includes WTE prosessing residue) 9.7% 11.7% 11.5% 10.8% 10.6% 9.3% On-Site Disposal - burned / buried 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.4% 3.3% 113

122 Yr Totals Planning Year # Planning Yr 1 Planning Yr 2 Planning Yr 3 Planning Yr 5 Planning Yr 10 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES Recycle -- excluding yard waste 60.5% 59.9% 60.0% 60.6% 59.1% 60.6% Resource Recovery 26.0% 24.7% 24.9% 25.0% 26.8% 26.7% Landfill 2.1% 4.5% 4.2% 3.5% 2.8% 1.5% On-Site Disposal - burned / buried 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.4% 3.3% Recycling % Detail Residential recycling % 24.5% 24.1% 24.1% 24.3% 24.6% 24.7% Commercial recycling % 27.3% 26.9% 27.0% 27.4% 25.0% 26.0% Organics Recycling (source separated food to people &livest 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 1.0% Mechanical /Hand Res Rec Fac. 6.4% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.6% 6.6% Banned Problem Materials + Other recycle 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% Percent of Total MSW 60.5% 59.9% 60.0% 60.6% 59.1% 60.6% 10Yr Totals Total MSW Generated 40,000 40,000 40,000 39,000 39,000 39, ,000 On-Site Disposal - bury, burn barrel, open burn -- tons 1,500 1,500 1,400 1,400 1,300 1,300 13,533 Recycling - tons Residential 9,700 9,600 9,500 9,600 9,700 9,600 96,100 tons Commercial/ Industrial/ Institutional - documented 10,860 10,700 10,700 10,800 9,800 10, ,300 tons Organics Recycle (s. separated commercial & residential) ,700 tons Mechanical / Hand Res Rec Fac. 2,540 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,600 2,600 25,200 tons Problem Materials - Banned + Other recycle ,200 tons RECYCLING total tons 24,100 23,800 23,800 23,900 23,200 23, ,400 tons Resource Recovery -tons tipped Prairieland Solid Waste Management 15,900 15,063 15,149 15,189 16,233 16, ,000 tons tons Total RR Facilities MSW Tipped 15,900 15,063 15,149 15,189 16,233 16, ,000 tons MSW from other Co's sent to a County Res. Rec. Facility Jackson County tons tons tons tons tons tons TOTAL RECEIVED AT RR FACILITY in Co. -- tons 16,541 15,701 15,787 15,827 16,871 16, ,776 Landfill - MSW from within the County to LF - tons 800 1,800 1,700 1,400 1, ,600 tons LANDFILL DISPOSAL DISTINATIONS for /Faribault Counties Co's MSW tons THAT County Landfill tons Another #3 LF tons Another #2 LF tons Out-of-State Landfills WMI Spirit Lake, Iowa - Dickenson County 800 1,800 1,700 1,400 1, ,000 tons tons tons Total All Co's MSW to ALL LF's - tons 800 1,800 1,700 1,400 1, ,600 tons LF Capacity USED + Cover - for ALL Co MSW -cy 6,000 7,200 7,000 6,600 6,400 5,600 63,800 cu yds LANDFILL DISPOSAL of Solid Waste at landfills located WITHIN the COUNTY MSW GENERATION to LF tons All MSW Imported to LF in the Co. - tons tons TOTAL MSW to - tons tons Industrial & non-msw Waste to MSW LF's in the Co. - tons 3,100 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,200 3,200 31,100 tons Total Solid Waste to LF within Co. - tons 3,100 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,200 3,200 31,100 tons LF Capacity USED + cover for ALL Wastes -cu yds 5,800 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,900 5,800 51,900 cu yds Demolition Debris - received at C&D sites in Co - cy C&D Waste - received at C&D sites in Co. - Cu Yds cu yds Yard Waste - received at YW sites in County Yard Waste - received at YW sites in Co. - Cu Yds cu yds 114

123 B. FARIBAULT COUNTY GVT Planning Year # Planning Yr 1 Planning Yr 2 Planning Yr 3 Planning Yr 5 Planning Yr 10 MANAGEMENT METHOD OBJECTIVES for the County MSW Solid Waste Management System Source Reduction RECYCLE -- excluding Organics Recycle 50.7% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 47.6% 48.1% RECYCLE -- Organics (excl. YW compost) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% WASTE-to-ENERGY Combustion 31.1% 27.2% 27.2% 27.2% 31.3% 32.1% LANDFILL -(includes WTE prosessing residue) 11.6% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% 14.6% 13.3% On-Site Disposal - burned / buried 6.5% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 6.5% 6.5% 115

124 Yr Totals Planning Year # Planning Yr 1 Planning Yr 2 Planning Yr 3 Planning Yr 5 Planning Yr 10 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES Recycle -- excluding yard waste 50.7% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 47.6% 48.1% Resource Recovery 31.1% 27.2% 27.2% 27.2% 31.3% 32.1% Landfill 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 5.5% 3.9% On-Site Disposal - burned / buried 6.5% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 6.5% 6.5% Recycling % Detail Residential recycling % 12.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.3% 11.5% Commercial recycling % 28.5% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.2% 26.3% Organics Recycling (source separated food to people &livest 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mechanical /Hand Res Rec Fac. 7.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 7.7% 7.9% Banned Problem Materials + Other recycle 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% Percent of Total MSW 50.7% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 47.6% 48.1% 10Yr Totals Total MSW Generated 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 13,000 13, ,000 On-Site Disposal - bury, burn barrel, open burn -- tons 900 2,200 2,200 2, ,900 Recycling - tons Residential 1,700 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 15,300 tons Commercial/ Industrial/ Institutional - documented 3,910 3,600 3,600 3,500 3,500 3,500 35,300 tons Organics Recycle (s. separated commercial & residential) tons Mechanical / Hand Res Rec Fac. 1, ,000 1,100 9,900 tons Problem Materials - Banned + Other recycle ,200 tons RECYCLING total tons 7,000 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,400 6,400 63,600 tons Resource Recovery -tons tipped Prairieland Solid Waste Management 6,570 5,726 5,699 5,674 6,500 6,566 62,000 tons tons Total RR Facilities MSW Tipped 6,570 5,726 5,699 5,674 6,500 6,566 62,000 tons MSW from other Co's sent to a County Res. Rec. Facility tons tons tons tons tons tons TOTAL RECEIVED AT RR FACILITY in Co. -- tons 6,566 5,726 5,699 5,674 6,500 6,566 61,969 Landfill - MSW from within the County to LF - tons ,200 tons LANDFILL DISPOSAL DISTINATIONS for Generic Co's MSW Out-of-State Landfills tons tons tons tons Winnebago County / Lake Mills, IA, Central Disposal ,000 tons tons tons Total All Co's MSW to ALL LF's - tons ,200 tons LF Capacity USED + Cover - for ALL Co MSW -cy 2,500 2,200 2,200 2,200 3,000 2,700 26,100 cu yds LANDFILL DISPOSAL of Solid Waste at landfills located WITHIN the COUNTY MSW GENERATION to LF tons All MSW Imported to LF in the Co. - tons tons TOTAL MSW to - tons tons Industrial & non-msw Waste to MSW LF's in the Co. - tons 1,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,200 11,800 tons Total Solid Waste to LF within Co. - tons 1,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,200 11,800 tons LF Capacity USED + cover for ALL Wastes -cu yds 2,300 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,300 2,300 19,600 cu yds Demolition Debris - received at C&D sites in Co - cy C&D Waste - received at C&D sites in Co. - Cu Yds cu yds Yard Waste - received at YW sites in County Yard Waste - received at YW sites in Co. - Cu Yds cu yds 116

125 C. MARTIN COUNTY GVT MANAGEMENT METHOD OBJECTIVES for the County MSW Solid Waste Management System Source Reduction RECYCLE -- excluding Organics Recycle 65.5% 61.7% 61.8% 62.0% 62.2% 62.6% RECYCLE -- Organics (excl. YW compost) 0.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% WASTE-to-ENERGY Combustion 23.5% 23.2% 23.5% 23.7% 24.4% 24.5% LANDFILL -(includes WTE prosessing residue) 8.8% 11.9% 11.6% 11.3% 10.7% 10.3% On-Site Disposal - burned / buried 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 117