MPCA Rulemaking Project for Source-Separated Organic Material (SSOM) Compost Facilities

1. MPCA Rulemaking Project for Source-Separated Organic Material (SSOM) Compost Facilities Stakeholder Meeting to Discuss Scope and Key Concepts November 19, 2010 w-swrule2-05

2. Introduction: Meeting Logistics • Note sign-in sheet for attendees • Microphone use & note taking • Emails during live webcast should be sent to: william.wilde@state.mn.us

3. Purpose of SSOM Rule Process • Recognize state strategy of moving organic material management up the hierarchy • Clarify regulatory requirements appropriate to SSOM composting facilities • Provide regulatory relief without jeopardizing environmental protection

4. Introductions • Introductions of attendees • Introductions of MPCA participants • We want your opinion – we have made no final decisions

5. Compost Rules MPCA Mgmt. Team • Solid Waste Program Manager: Gary Pulford • Permitting Unit Supervisor: Paula Connell • Rulemaking Unit Supervisor: Dave Richfield

6. Compost Rules MPCA Staff Team • Rulemaking Coordinator - Yolanda Letnes • Engineering - Tony Bello • Hydrogeology related to siting - John Elks • Operations & compost testing - Ginny Black • Solid Waste Policy Expert - Jim Chiles

7. Overview: SSOM Rule Process • APA requirements must be followed, once formal process begins • MPCA is not yet in that formal process: has been working on scope and key concepts, along with fact-gathering

8. Overview: SSOM Rule Process • How this meeting fits in the larger timeline, leading to publication of a draft rule • Meeting purpose • Timeline of rule process

9. Layout of Current Minn. R. 7035.2836: Two Tracks

10. Fitting SSOM into Current Compost Rule

11. Ideas • Source Separated Organic Material (SSOM) must be source separated at the generator, not picked from Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MMSW) at a transfer station or a landfill • Goal is not to develop excessively prescriptive standards, but outcome-based ones that are matched to the needs and any environmental or health risk

12. Ideas • Portions of Demonstration Agreement template will be used for rule (most current version) • Guidance documents to follow will fill in some of the details (e.g. technical standards on how to measure compaction)

13. SSOM Rule Concepts - Overall • Stringency of requirements might need to reflect material types accepted at the facility: • If the variety of SSOM to be accepted were to go beyond food and yard waste, does it make sense to require greater stringency for feedstock testing and monitoring?

14. SSOM Rule Concepts - Overall • Feedstocks beyond yard waste and food: • What about industrial by products from food processing (e.g. vegetable trimmings)? • What about industrial byproducts not from food processing (e.g. paper sludge from deinking mill)?

15. SSOM Rule Concepts - Continued • Stormwater management requirements - carried forward from existing rules • Existing requirements • Flexibility when stormwater managed on-site • Less flexible if stormwater discharged off site

16. SSOM Rule Concepts - Continued Example, Industrial Stormwater permit requirement is triggered if: • Stormwater/leachate discharge off site, OR • Operator purchases feedstock materials, such as carbon for bulking

17. SSOM Concepts - Continued • Currently, Financial Assurance (FA) requirements are not planned, retain existing authority based on risk factors • Would continue to rely on current 503 standards, as modified in Minn. R. 7035.2836, Subp. 6A

18. SSOM Concepts, Continued • Question to discuss: should MPCA offer lesser requirements for “small” SSOM facilities? • What materials would be acceptable? • What site evaluation process would be acceptable? • What size or input limit?

19. Subp. 1. Scope Discussion • What should scope allow for SSOM? • Statutory definition (broad) • Use in rule (narrower) • Industrial waste streams?

20. Subp. 1. Scope Discussion • Feedstocks • The following list is being considered as prohibited materials: • Treated woods (they introduce metals) • Demolition debris (sheet rock, insulation, etc.) • Creosote or railroad ties • Manufactured wood (glues)

21. Subp. X. Location Stds. Discussion • Not on Karst (Anoka Sand Plain?) • 5’ minimum separation to water table • Flood plain? 7035.2555? Same as with composting.

22. Subp. X. Location Stds. Discussion • Should there be a minimal buffer distance? • Local government role?

23. Subp. 8. Design Rqmts. Discussion • Size • ______Large (more requirements) • ______Small (less requirements) • Type • Windrows (aerated) • Static Piles (non-aerated) • In-vessel

24. Subp. 8. Design Rqmts. Discussion • Pad • Impermeable pad required only under certain circumstances • All weather work surface required (accessible for all seasons for management operations)

25. Subp. 8. Design Rqmts. Discussion • Pad • Soil infiltration necessary and verified every 5?-10? years with soil boring • Curing pad (may not)/(will not) need impermeable surface (in reference to using soil as a form of leachate management)

26. Subp. 9. Operation Rqmts: Odor Control • Mixing food waste with bulking agent • Immediately upon delivery of food waste, IF NOT, • Place a biofilter on food waste and mix and incorporate into windrow be end of working day • Odor Management Plan required • If odor complaints, plan will be required to be modified to include increasing odor mitigation steps (guidance document?) • Sampling and Analysis plan

27. Subp. 9. Operation Rqmts. Discussion

28. Subp. 9. Operation Rqmts. Training • Training with ceu’s required for facilities over XX size, if rule proceeds with a “big/small” approach • Need training only if greater than XX size • All should be trained? • Add as a permit requirement? • Training set out in rule language or Guidance?

29. Subp. 10. Compost Classification Use readily available test methods (bucket method & log of testing – this list kept up to date by guidance, not a list specified in rule) Industry standard testing methods for finished product

30. Subp. 10. Compost Classification Maturity testing – Solvita STA requirements – additional detail on methods?

31. Subp. 11. Compost distribution & end use • No change to current rule language • Class I • Unrestricted distribution • Comply with DOA Rule 18C.005, if sold as a fertilizer, specialty fertilizer, soil amendment or plant amendment • Class II • Restricted distribution – commissioner approval • Documents required for use

32. Closing Thoughts • There will be plenty of opportunity in months to come for more public engagement • Contact rules staff during informal phase • Second stakeholder meeting to share preliminary draft in 2011 • Formal public comment period when rule is proposed

33. Closing Thoughts • Keeping the scope focused on clarifying technical requirements suitable to SSOM composting will help this rulemaking move more quickly

34. Closing Thoughts • Minnesota’s source-separated organics-handling capacity (all types, from compost to animal feeding) is much too small to process up to 15% of the MSW stream if source separated as organics

35. Closing Thoughts • SSOM rule clarification could help bring down the capital costs of future capacity (e.g. by cutting per-acre costs for compost pad) • But rules can’t fix other, key factors that drive up total composting costs compared to costs of cheap landfill disposal

36. Closing Thoughts • Fixing the larger economic problem will need new action by policymakers at county level and in Legislature

37. Questions? Reminder: Written comments (informal) should be submitted no later than December 10, 2010, to: yolanda.letnes@state.mn.us

38. Questions?

39. Discussion: Key questions on Scope • Material range: Should MPCA allow • The full range of materials that could fit the broad statutory definition of SSOM (incl. diapers, industrial byproducts) • OR, limit to yard and food waste only? • Should certain substances be subject to a flat prohibition from all SSOM facilities • No CCA lumber or Other ___________________? • Differences in capacity of size • Are all SSOM facility sizes equal, or should “small” SSOM facilities be relieved of certain protective requirements? • If so, what size threshold?

40. Discussion: Key questions on Location • Prohibited locations: • Karst and flood plains • Other__________? • Minimums: • Require 5-foot separation to water table? • Minimum buffer distance? • Other? • How build in local government role

41. Discussion: Key questions on Design • Big vs. small, vs. “one size fits all” approach (discussed) • Compost Pad Design • When is an impermeable liner needed, vs. a less expensive all-weather work surface? • Where soil quality is relevant to leachate/stormwater treatment, how do we verify this before siting, and then check after 5-10 yrs. of operation – soil borings? • Curing Pad • Does curing pad ever need an impermeable liner?

42. Discussion: Key questions on Operations • Odor Control and Testing • Rqmt. to mix food with bulking agents, use biofilter? • Reliance on Odor Management Plan - Lay out BMPs or make OMP adjustable based on facility performance? • Feedstock testing frequency – Standard, or based on facility specific circumstances? • How much detail on windrows, static piles, in-vessel? • Training • Size related, or apply to all SSOM as a permit rqmt.? • Details in rule language or in guidance?

43. Discussion: Key questions on classification • Use of Guidance for readily available test methods, or in rule? • Additional details on testing of finished products, outside MPCA purview of protecting health and the environment? • Maturity testing with Solvita, any updates? • STA requirements – additional detail on methods?