Organics Recycling in Minnesota

1. Organics Recycling in Minnesota Presented by: Lori Golightly November 27, 2007

2. Introduction • Policy Problem • Background • Evaluation Criteria • Alternatives • Data • Comparing Alternatives • Recommendations • Next Steps

3. Policy Problem • The language change in 1994 defined source-separated organics as municipal solid waste in the Minnesota Waste Management Act (Minnesota Statue 115A.03 Subd. 21 (b) and 115A.03 Subd. 32a.) has limited the expansion of composting facilities and organics recycling programs in the state of Minnesota.

4. Background-Policy Context • Definition change • Mixed municipal solid waste processing payment • Source-Separated Organics Composting/Organics Recycling programs expanding in Minnesota counties • Hennepin, Dakota, Carver, Ramsey, McLeod, Saint Louis

5. Background-Social Context • Source-Separated Organics Composting/ Recycling programs • Impact of definition change • Composting Facilities • Recent change in general public perception on the environment

6. Background-Participants • Stakeholders • Waste haulers • Food-to-animal haulers • Food-to-people programs • Recycling facilities • Compost facilities • County employees in waste management departments • State employees in waste management departments Pictures source: Hennepin County

7. Evaluation Criteria • Outcomes measured • Political, Economic, and Environmental Impacts • Technical feasibility/Effectiveness • Estimating impacts through comparison of other states and their definition of SSO • Program impacts prior to change • Political viability • Interviewed Legislatures and Legislatives workers on reason for definition change • State’s waste hierarchy versus state’s waste reduction goals

8. Other Evaluation Criteria • Equity • Distribution of benefits and costs of definition change • Effect of policy change on current stakeholders • Legal • Comparison of past and present laws concerning MSW and SSO

9. Alternatives • Creation of different composting facility permit requirements from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Have state or county owned and operated composting facilities • Change the definition source-separated organics in the Minnesota Waste Management Act • Take no action

10. Data Collected • Primary Data • Phone interviews with organics recycling program managers • San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Hutchinson, Los Angeles, and Massachusetts • Secondary Data • Legislative history of the Solid Waste Management Act • SWMCB Report • 2007 Source Separated Food Waste and Organic Materials Management Report • MPCA Report • 2005 SCORE report

11. SSO Programs in Other States

12. MSW Compost Facilities Versus SS Compost Facilities (1993-2004)

13. MSW Compost Facilities SS Compost Facilities MSW Compost Facilities Versus SS Compost Facilities (1993-2004)

15. Comparing Alternatives Analytical Methods Used • Intuitive Forecasting • Potential diversion with and without definition change • Political Feasibility • Required action for each alternative • Scenario Writing • Best-case and worst-case scenarios Alternatives • Creation of different composting facility permit requirements from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Have state or county owned and operated composting facilities • Change the definition of source-separated organics in the Minnesota Waste Management Act • Take no action

16. Recommendations • MPCA establish a separate permitting process for organics composting facilities similar to the permitting process for yard waste composting facilities • Have state or county owned and operated compost facilities • Redefine source-separated compostable materials in the MN Solid Waste Management Act

17. Next Steps • Meet with MPCA staff members • Meet with state legislatures • Continue to work with consultant in finding compost facility sites • Monitor current MSW and SS Compost Facilities • Conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis

18. QUESTIONS? Pictures Sources: SF Recycling and Portland Composts!