Final Agenda & Concept Framework for November 19, 2010 ... · General Notes: • The meeting will be webcast and available for viewing shortly after November 19th. • Microphones

w-swrule2-05 November 9, 2010

Final Agenda & Concept Framework for November 19, 2010, Meeting

Time: 9:00 am to noon

Location: Central Board Room, Lower Level, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul MN 55155

Meeting Objective: Introduce the MPCA Concept Framework and obtain stakeholder feedback 9:00am Introduction – Dave Richfield

• Meeting Logistics • Purpose of rulemaking • Go around room for attendees to introduce themselves • Introduce MPCA management and staff teams

9:20am Overview – Yolanda Letnes • Begin with PowerPoint on initial concepts; will do Q&A as we go • Overview: SSOM Rule Process

o Timeline of rule process • How is it scoped?

o Layout of Current Minn. R. 7035.2836: Two Tracks o Fitting SSOM into Current Compost Rule

• Ideas • SSOM Rule Concepts – Overall

9:50 am Location Standards – Jim Chiles 10:05am Design Requirements -- Tony Bello 10:20am Operational Requirements, Compost Classification, Distribution and End Use – Ginny Black 11:15am Open Discussion on Concepts for meeting attendees 11:45am What happens next; Closing Thoughts – Gary Pulford Noon Adjourn Questions/comments during the live webcast must be sent by e-mail to [email protected] Access the live webcast at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/mpca-news/webcasts/mpca-webcasts.html After the November 19th meeting, submit any additional stakeholder feedback (written) no later than December 10th to [email protected] General Notes:

• The meeting will be webcast and available for viewing shortly after November 19th. • Microphones will be used to ensure questions are audible to those viewing the webcast. • The meeting will be facilitated by Yolanda Letnes, MPCA.

Attach: Powerpoint presentation (3 slides per page handout) Attach: Comments received through 09/24/2010 Attach: Demonstration Agreement Template (most current)

mailto:[email protected]://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/mpca-news/webcasts/mpca-webcasts.htmlhttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/mpca-news/webcasts/mpca-webcasts.htmlmailto:[email protected] Text

jlehnerTypewritten Text








11/10/2010

1

Stakeholder Meeting to Discuss Scope and Key Concepts

November 19, 20101w-swrule2-05

Introduction: Meeting Logistics

• Note sign-in sheet for attendees

Mi h & ki• Microphone use & note taking

• Emails during live webcast should be sent to: [email protected]

2

Purpose of SSOM Rule ProcessRecognize 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

3

11/10/2010

2

Introductions

Introductions of attendees

I d i f MPCA i iIntroductions of MPCA participants

We want your opinion – we have made no final decisions

4

Compost Rules MPCA Mgmt. Team

Solid Waste Program Manager: Gary Pulford

Permitting Unit Supervisor: Paula Connell

Rulemaking Unit Supervisor: Dave Richfield

5

Compost Rules MPCA Staff TeamRulemaking Coordinator - Yolanda Letnes

Engineering - Tony Bello

Hydrogeology related to siting - John Elks

Operations & compost testing - Ginny Black

Solid Waste Policy Expert - Jim Chiles

6

11/10/2010

3

Overview: SSOM Rule ProcessAPA 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

7

Overview: SSOM Rule Process

How this meeting fits in the larger timeline, leading to publication of a draft ruledraft rule

Meeting purposeTimeline of rule process

8

Layout of Current Minn. R. 7035.2836: Two Tracks

Yard Waste Composting

Solid Waste Composting

Subp. 1. Scope Subp. 4. Design requirements

Subp. 2 Notification

Subp. 5. Operation requirements

Subp. 3 Operation Requirements

Subp. 6. Compost classificationSubp. 7. Compost distribution & end use

9

11/10/2010

4

Fitting SSOM into Current Compost RuleParameter Yard Waste

(current)SSOM

(to be added)Solid Waste

(current)Acceptable materials

yard waste only source separated yard, food and ? (TBD)

mixed solid waste & other

Siting * Min 5 ft to groundwaterand ? (TBD)

Yes

Permitting Permit by Rule See SW track Public notice, local rolerole

Pad for compost All-weather All-weather, unless ? (TBD)

Impermeable

Training * ? (TBD) Yes

Odor Controls * ? (TBD) Yes

Stormwatercontrols

* See SW track Yes

Classification, Distribution & End Use

* See SW track Yes

10

IdeasSource 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

11

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)

12

11/10/2010

5

SSOM Rule Concepts - Overall

Stringency of requirements might need to reflect material types accepted at the f ilitfacility:

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?

13

SSOM Rule Concepts - OverallFeedstocks beyond yard waste and food:

What about industrial by products from food processing (e.g. vegetable p g g gtrimmings)?

What about industrial byproducts notfrom food processing (e.g. paper sludge from deinking mill)?

14

SSOM Rule Concepts - ContinuedStormwater management requirements - carried forward from existing rules

Existing requirementsFlexibility when stormwater managed on-siteLess flexible if stormwater discharged off site

15

11/10/2010

6

SSOM Rule Concepts - Continued

Example, Industrial Stormwater permit requirement is triggered if:

Stormwater/leachate discharge offStormwater/leachate discharge off site, OROperator purchases feedstock materials, such as carbon for bulking

16

SSOM Concepts - ContinuedCurrently, 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

17

SSOM Concepts, ContinuedQuestion to discuss: should MPCA offer lesser requirements for “small” SSOM facilities?

Wh t t i l ld b t bl ?What materials would be acceptable?What site evaluation process would be acceptable?What size or input limit?

18

11/10/2010

7

Subp. 1. Scope Discussion

What should scope allow for SSOM?Statutory definition (broad)Use in rule (narrower)Use in rule (narrower)Industrial waste streams?

19

Subp. 1. Scope Discussion

FeedstocksThe following list is being considered as prohibited materials:p

Treated woods (they introduce metals)Demolition debris (sheet rock, insulation, etc.)Creosote or railroad tiesManufactured wood (glues)

20

Subp. X. Location Stds. Discussion

Not on Karst (Anoka Sand Plain?)

’ i i i bl5’ minimum separation to water table

Flood plain? 7035.2555? Same as with composting.

21

11/10/2010

8

Subp. X. Location Stds. Discussion

Should there be a minimal buffer distance?

Local government role?

22

Subp. 8. Design Rqmts. Discussion

Size______Large (more requirements)______Small (less requirements)

Type Windrows (aerated)Static Piles (non-aerated)In-vessel

23


Pad Impermeable pad required only under certain circumstancescertain circumstances

All weather work surface required (accessible for all seasons for management operations)

24

11/10/2010

9


Pad Soil infiltration necessary and verified every 5?-10? years with soil boringevery 5? 10? years with soil boring

Curing pad (may not)/(will not) need impermeable surface (in reference to using soil as a form of leachatemanagement)

25

Subp. 9. Operation Rqmts: Odor Control

Mixing food waste with bulking agentImmediately upon delivery of food waste, IF NOT, Place a biofilter on food waste and mix and incorporate into windrow be end of working dayg y

Odor Management Plan requiredIf odor complaints, plan will be required to be modified to include increasing odor mitigation steps (guidance document?)

Sampling and Analysis plan26

Subp. 9. Operation Rqmts. DiscussionWindrows (aerated)

Static Windrows/Piles (no mechanical aeration)

Invessel with aeration

Maintain aerobic conditions 55°C for at least 3

Maintain aerobicconditions 55°C for at least 7 daysTurn at least once every 3-5

Minimum retention time in vessel – 24 hours, temperature maintained at 55°C stabilization periodfor at least 3

weeksTurn at least once every 3-5 days

55 C, stabilization period of at least 7 days at 55°C

O2 requirements

Biofilter – VOC/control: approx. 6” to “12”, first 2-4 weeks (metro, non-metro??? Based on AQ classification)

Maximum windrow height (8’, 10’,12’ with/without biofilter??)

27

11/10/2010

10

Subp. 9. Operation Rqmts. Training

• Training with ceu’s required for facilities over XX size, if rule proceeds with a “big/small” approachg pp– 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?

28

Subp. 10. Compost Classification

Use readily available test methods (bucket method & log of testing – this list kept up to date by guidance not alist kept up to date by guidance, not a list specified in rule)

Industry standard testing methods for finished product

29

Subp. 10. Compost Classification

Maturity testing – Solvita

STA i ddi i l d ilSTA requirements – additional detail on methods?

30

11/10/2010

11

Subp. 11. Compost distribution & end use

No change to current rule languageClass I

Unrestricted distributionComply with DOA Rule 18C.005, if sold as a fertilizer, specialty fertilizer, soil amendment or plant amendment

Class IIRestricted distribution – commissioner approvalDocuments required for use

31

Closing ThoughtsThere will be plenty of opportunity in months to come for more public engagement

Contact rules staff during informal phaseSecond stakeholder meeting to share preliminary draft in 2011Formal public comment period when rule is proposed

32

Closing Thoughts

Keeping the scope focused on clarifying technical requirements suitable to SSOM composting will helpsuitable to SSOM composting will help this rulemaking move more quickly

33

11/10/2010

12

Closing Thoughts

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

34

Closing ThoughtsSSOM rule clarification could help bring down the capital costs of future capacity (e.g. by cutting per-acre costs for compost

d)pad)

But rules can’t fix other, key factors that drive up total composting costs compared to costs of cheap landfill disposal

35

Closing Thoughts

Fixing the larger economic problem will need new action by policymakerswill need new action by policymakers at county level and in Legislature

36

11/10/2010

13

Questions?

Reminder: Written comments (informal) should be submitted no later than December 10, 2010, to: [email protected]

37

Questions?

38

Comments on the Compost Rule through 09/24/2010

1

2

3

4

5

6

A B C DTopic Date Company or Organization Comment

Barriers 8/31/2010 Hennepin County Department of Environmnetal Services

“urgent need for the rule revision to achieve the goals for management of compostable waste in draft 2010-2030 Metropolitan Solid Waste Mgnt. Policy Plan”


“The overly stringent MSW compost rules present a significant financial barrier…+


“We do not believe that sites that accept SSCM pose the same potential environmental impacts as facilities that compost unseparated municipal solid waste (MSW).

Barriers 8/30/2010 Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. (SET)

Source separated compostable materials such as food, leaves, grass, and non-recyclable paper does not pose the same hazard…”[as MSW]

Barriers 8/24/2010 City of Edina Lack of facilities lead to haulers being hesitant to collect organic materials for composting. Haulers have indicated an interest in collecting organics, but lack convenient sites for the materials. Residents unwilling to do backyard composting of food waste.

Barriers 8/23/2010 City of St. Paul MPCA rules related to processing facilities inhibit the ability to provide service within our...

7

8

9

10

11

12

community… Changes must be made to MPCA' s rules to make it easier to site facilities that accept SSCM for composting.

Barriers 8/31/2010 Eureka! Recycling Current rules create serious and unnecessary barriers, not incentives, for the composting industry.

Barriers 8/31/2010 Eureka! Recycling MPCA uniquely position to provide technical and financial assistance, develop policy and pull together many partners…” This new emerging industry will need all of these thing from the MPCA….

Barriers 8/31/2010 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

Agency needs sufficient staff and capacity to knowledgably review permit applications in a timely manner, inspect facilities to ensure proper management, and advance opportunities as they arise, an increase in staffing and associate agency budgets for composting is needed.

Barriers 8/30/2010 MN Grocers Association Announcement ambiguous, difficult to provide thoughtful comments; look forward to reviewing the rule once written.

Barriers 8/31/2010 City of Minneapolis Single compost facility available to accept co-collected SSCM/YW

Page 1 of 8 November 9, 2010



13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Barriers 8/31/2010 City of Minneapolis Expedited rule process is needed, as the lack of rules prohibits investors

Barriers 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light Businesses reluctant to get into composting business while rules are so uncertain-difficult to get financing

Barriers 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light not an MPCA priority and lack staff allocated to the issues. The MPCA should reverse this.

Barriers 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light need a state mandate to recycle organic materials or organics cannot be landfilled

Barriers 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light inserte SSCM into the exemption clause of 115A. organized collection

Feedstocks 8/30/2010 Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. (SET)

“…view compost feed stocks as a usable product, not as waste requiring disposal.”


“…remove inclusion of diapers and sanitary products from the SSCM definition.


Recognize operational and siting differences between facilities process only mixed residential organics and those processing commercial and residential organics

Feedstocks 8/30/2010 Specialized Environmental Recognize need to stock pile carbons sources for

21

22

23

24

25

26


Recognize need to stock pile carbons sources for facilities that accept only SSCM w/o yard waste


Evaluate the feasibility of separating siting requirements for those sites that accept only mixed (YW +FW) residential materials.

Feedstocks 8/31/2010 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

Ensure that source-separated yard trimmings, food scraps and non-recyclable paper are classified as compostable, not MSW


Should not wholly prohibit feedstocks produced in “industrial facilities” from being composted, review industrial feed stocks on a case-by-case basis, allowing low risk food scraps to be composted.


Craft regulations that explicitly allow compost facilities to accept certified compostable bioplastics as determined by the STTM D6400/D6868 standards Est. by the Biodegradable Plastics Institute

Feedstocks 8/27/2010 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)

New rules should cover composting SSCM with YW or other high carbon bulking agents.




27

28

2930

31

32

Feedstocks 8/27/2010 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)

Agency should clearly reference the statutory definition of SSCM in rule making to minimize ambiguity/confusion of which materials/feedstocks are governed by the new rules.

Feedstocks 8/30/2010 Waste Management The addition of non-recyclable paper as a bulking agent or feedstock should be limited, 5% of total incoming volume limit of 5 tons of non-`recyclable paper annually recommended.

Feedstocks 8/31/2010 City of Minneapolis Co-composting of the widest array of materials (YW, brush, SSCM, certain construction waste materials of organics origin, etc.) will aide in incenting potential operators to invest in cost effective, convenient facilities in the Metro Area.

Feedstocks 9/24/3010 Linden Hills Power & Light Co Collection of YW and FWFeedstocks 9/24/2010 Western Lake Super Sanitary

DistrictClearly define when a materials becomes MSW (is YW delivered to a compost pad MSW?)

Feedstocks 9/24/2010 Western Lake Super Sanitary District

Clarify that curbside mixing of food waste withyard waste for collection is allowed; definition of this material

Feedstocks 9/24/2010 Western Lake Super Sanitary consider guidelines for proper food waste storage

33

34

35

36

37

/ / p yDistrict

g p p gprior to collection (vector/odor prevention, public nuisance/health concerns) which may reduce problems on the receiving end (odors, liquids, vectors)

Testing Methods 8/30/2010 Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. (SET)

Update compost and leachate testing methods and standards to be reflective of current industry protocol


EPA water testing methodologies and PCB methodologies listed in the rules for requiring testing need to be updated to reflect standard methods currently used in laboratories


PCB contamination in compost no longer poses a significant contamination risk in SSCM compost, the need for this analysis should be re-evaluated


Require finished compost to be tested using the USCC Seal of Testing Assurance program.




38

39

40

41

42

43

44


“…review new testing protocols to ensure they are reflective of current technology, and are also operationally feasible.”

Testing Methods 8/31/2010 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

Craft testing requirements that would more efficiently ensure protection of human health and the environment while reducing the operating burden of composters.


Adopt the USC Composting Councils STA testing methods and parameters.


Continue to require new operators to conduct frequent testing, but after a successful 3-year period allow composters to conduct testing bi-annually or at another interval based on the amount of compost produced – Oregon example given.


Require porosity testing and inclusion of this data on annual reports, addresses odor problems.

Testing Methods 8/31/2010 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)

Consider testing requirements for finished compost resulting from SSCM feedstock, such as using the STA program, to ensure high quality finished compost that enhances market opportunities.

Testing Methods 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light Use the US Composting Council's Seal of Testing A44

45

46

47

48

49

Assurance programTesting Methods 9/24/2010 Western Lake Super Sanitary

DistrictClarify guidelines for operations dictated by maturity tests, ie. when can materials be moved off the liner; which test best determines when it is appropriate to move the materials of the liner (slovita, PFRP, a final lab test indicating maturity). This is a critical issue as it impact the amount of space/acres needed at a facility to process materials

Testing Methods 9/24/2010 Western Lake Super Sanitary District

employ acceptable field tests that have been modified for the compost industry (Solivita and other field tools)

Testing Methods 9/24/2010 Western Lake Super Sanitary District

Establish standard feedstock testing parameters

Finance 8/30/2010 Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. (SET)

Newly emerging green industry will be on standby until the proposed rule changes are in place

Finance 8/30/2010 Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. (SET)

“Private industry would be hesitant to invest in building new sites under existing rules if the possibility of less stringent rules and subsequently less costly construction costs are pending.”




50

51

52

53

54

Finance 8/27/2010 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)

Overly stringent MSW compost facility rules present a significant financial barrier to entry; amendments could help reduce economic barriers....allow for greater quantities of organic materials to be diverted from trash.

Finance 8/31/2010 City of Minneapolis Co-collection of SSCM & YW and their subsequent co-composting is critical to cost effectiveness of services; avoids GHG emissions

Resources for rule making

8/31/2010 Hennepin County Department of Environmnetal Services

Utilizing the element of the (Demonstration Agreement) template to develop the rules for facilities that compost SSCM


8/27/2010 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)

Language developed for the Demonstration projects would be an appropriate point from which to begin developing amendments to the compost rules; addresses environmental & nuisance issues (odors, setbacks from other uses, buffers, noise, litter, etc.)


8/30/2010 Waste Management SCS Engineers to study regulations in 20 states; will provide more comments when the study is complete.


9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light EU landfill initiative would be worth looking at and emulating

55

56

57

58

59

60

Markets 8/31/2010 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

Agency should look for ways to partner with governments to provide compost to urban farmers conveniently and at a low or no cost. City of Toronto has a model program that provides residents with one free cubic meter of compost yearly.

Other 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light MPLS diversion goal: recycling 50%, organics 10% by 2013; expand SSO recycling city by 2013

Other 10/12/2010 Hubbard County concerned the rule making will change YW rules and make it more difficult to operate a YW compost site, driving up costs. Understands that food waste/SW composting need different rules.

Permit/Operations 8/30/2010 Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. (SET)

Operator training should be required


Individualized site pad, water quality monitoring requirements and potential nuisance issued based on specific site conditions such as soils, proximity to neighbors, and other site specific and environmentally sensitive parameters.




61

62

63

64

65

66

67


Existing sites with SW permits should be given the opportunity to “step down” to the less stringent permit type w/o undergoing a major permit review process.

Permit/Operations 8/31/2010 Eureka! Recycling Need for BMP’s for composting; BMP have greater

Permit/Operations 8/31/2010 Eureka! Recycling Operators should be certified

Permit/Operations 8/31/2010 Eureka! Recycling “….YW compost facilities should be allowed to accept up to 10% of their total weight in food scraps and nonrecyclable paper under the MPCA’s Demonstration Project Agreement.”

Permit/Operations 8/31/2010 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

A component of the engineering design plan should mandate how composters will clearly manage the site to minimize odors and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategies.


Craft rules to restrict the height of static compost piles to 10‘ or prohibit their use entirely


To minimize odors, consider requiring non-aerated windrows be partially covered by a compost blanket.

Permit/Operations 8/31/2010 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Conditionally exempt small operators from permit

68

69

70

71

72

73

74


Conditionally exempt small operators from permit requirements ; help increase composting capacity – Oregon example given.

Permit/Operations 8/27/2010 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)

Does not support permit-by-rule for facilities that accept SSCM, i.e. additional nuisance potential


New rule should allow SSCM composting in a manner that protects the environment, public health, and minimizes nuisances, such as odor and litter.


Flexible approach based on factors such as site-specific soil types, location, and scale of operation in terms of requirements for pad construction


Manage feedstocks as aerobically as possible to reduce the potential of odor generation,


address ration of SSCM and timely incorporation w yard waste and other bulking agents


Consider requiring aeration of sites that compost SSCM




75

76

77

78

79

Permit/Operations 8/30/2010 Waste Management Supports the US Composting Council recommendations on compost quality criteria and on minimum operating standards for compost facilities

Permit/Operations 8/30/2010 Waste Management Addition of food waste will require more stringent regulations: air emission monitoring/controls, leachate collection & treatment, impervious pad for composting, ground water monitoring, stormwater runoff controls, etc.

Permit/Operations 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light Operators should be trained, or certified with continuing education

Permit/Operations 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light A collection of best management practices would be useful for vendors

Permit/Operations 9/24/2010 Linden Hills Power & Light require all vendors hav an approved operational plan that at a minimum prevents odors, outlins progressive step to be taken if odors occur, now they will notify neighbors/surrounding community and involve them in the detection of odors.

Permit/Operations 9/16/2010 Mississippi Top Soils consider adopting the EPA's 40 CFR Part 503 rules regarding time and temperature: windrow composting 55 degrees C for 15 days (MN 55 degrees C / 21 days); in-vessel/static aerated pile

80

81

82

degrees C / 21 days); in-vessel/static aerated pile 55 degrees C for 3 days (MN 55 degrees C/4 days for in-vessel; 55 degrees C /7days for static pile). the longer period retard decomposition process and does not improve pathogens kill.

Permit/Operations 9/23/2010 Mississippi Top Soils update maturity test protocol; cress seed test no longer used/replaced by cucumber seed test; ignigion-loss test is a biosolids test and does not work well for compost. Use the US Composting Council's protocols as described in the "Test methods for the Examination of Composting and compost (TMECC). See comments attached.

Permit/Operations 9/24/2010 Western Lake Super Sanitary District

site considerations vital to program success/longevity; proximity to businesses and residential sectors; prevailing wind direction; vector attractant (warm temp./food source); consider worst case scenarios when siting (persistent rain/inversions, uncooperative prevailing winds); allow upgrades to existing sites; ID what migh be a "25" or "100" event & establish contingency plans for operations




83

84

85

86

87


allow a range of construction types based on incoming tonnages and feed stocks


consider wetland/duck pond-style for leachate collection. Do not make cost prohibitive, consider adjusting requirements for pone construction based on organics (type/volume) bein composted


leachate pond design should take into account what operational steps are proposed to reduce leachate production in the first place (such as food pits, absorption, decanting)


Establish multiple categories of pad types based on amounts of waste processed, how it is processed(ASP vs. turned aerated pile, how PFRP and maturity are reached, site use patterns for equipment, how proposed operations will impact the integrity of the liner


require that all waste delivered must be processed by the endo of the operational day (occasional allowances for emergency incidents)

87

88


clearly define the permitted operations/methods for meeting PFRP


STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AGREEMENT TEMPLATE

DRAFT NOVEMBER 9, 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: [__NAME___] Source Separated Compostable Materials

Demonstration Project 1. Parties. This Demonstration Project Agreement (Agreement) applies to and is binding upon

the following parties:

a. [__NAME___] and b. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

Unless specified otherwise in this Agreement, where this Agreement identifies actions to be taken by the MPCA, the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s designees shall act on the MPCA's behalf. In this Agreement, [__NAME___] is also referred to as “Regulated Party”.

2. Purpose and Scope of Demonstration/Research Project Agreement. This

Demonstration/Research Project (Project) is a limited scale project designed to investigate the environmental impacts of composting source separated compostable material (SSCM) at a site that, at a minimum, meets the design requirements of a permit-by-rule yard waste compost site. In addition, the MPCA will be evaluating operational issues related to composting SSCM with yard waste at a yard waste compost site. Under current MPCA rules, SSCM are required to be composted at a permitted solid waste composting facility. Permitted solid waste compost facilities have more stringent design requirements than yard waste compost facilities, which the regulated community argues are more stringent than necessary to protect the environment and pose a barrier to increased use of composting as a management method in Minnesota. To establish whether the more stringent standard can be reduced, the Regulated Party is proposing to accept SSCM for co-composting with yard waste at a permit-by-rule yard waste compost facility and to monitor the site for environmental impacts and other operational concerns. The Project is designed to obtain scientific and operational information about a specific method for managing solid waste not currently available. The purpose of this Agreement is to specify actions the Regulated Party agrees to undertake and to establish other terms and conditions that pertain to the Project. Under Minn. R. 7035.0450, subp. 1, the Commissioner may, as part of an approved demonstration/research project, allow temporary noncompliance with permit and rule conditions to allow the collection of information and data.

3. Background.

a. SSCM will be delivered to the site and mixed with yard waste. The Regulated Party will use the windrow composting method for this Project.

b. The MPCA intends to collect information on the composting of SSCM at a facility that is designed to a lower standard.

1

c. As part of the proposal, the Regulated Party has requested that the MPCA allow temporary noncompliance with Minnesota solid waste management rules, including Minn. R. 7035.2836, subp. 4, which outlines the design requirements for solid waste composting facilities; Minn. R. 7035.2836, subp. 5, which outlines the operational requirements for solid waste composting facilities; and Minn. R. ch. 7001, which requires an MPCA permit for this type of activity.

d. The MPCA has reviewed the Project and has concluded that it will result in the generation of scientific or other information about a specific method for managing solid waste not currently available, and that the Project should be approved.

4. Requirements and Work Plans. By entering into this Agreement, the Regulated Party agrees

to prepare and submit the following plans:

a. The Regulated Party shall provide the MPCA with a copy of a letter sent to [__NAMES OF RELEVANT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS___] notifying them of the Regulated Party’s intent to conduct this project. The Regulated Party shall not begin the Project until any and all conditions imposed (including licensing requirements) by the local units of government have been satisfied.

b. The Regulated Party shall notify the residents within a one-mile radius of the Facility. Notification shall consist of a letter or a notice in the local newspaper. The notice or letter must include a brief description of the Project and how to contact the MPCA.

c. The Regulated Party shall submit an Odor Management Plan to the MPCA for review and approval. 1) The Regulated Party shall submit the Odor Management Plan within 60 days of the

effective date of this Agreement. 2) The Odor Management Plan, at a minimum, shall consist of procedures for receiving

complaints, investigating complaints, rectifying conditions that have resulted in the complaint, and keeping a log of the complaints.

3) The Regulated Party shall not begin the Project until the MPCA approves the Odor Management Plan.

d. The Regulated Party shall submit a Sampling and Analysis Plan to the MPCA for review and approval. 1) The Regulated Party shall submit the Sampling and Analysis Plan within 60 days of

the effective date of this Agreement. 2) The Sampling and Analysis Plan, at a minimum, shall consist of procedures for

sampling stormwater and finished compost (see Section 5e below). In addition, the plan shall identify parameters that samples of stormwater and finished compost are to be analyzed.

3) The Regulated Party shall not begin the Project until the MPCA approves the Sampling and Analysis Plan.

5. Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, the Regulated Party agrees to meet the following conditions:

a. The Regulated Party will conduct the Project in accordance with the proposal submitted

on [__DATE___], and this Agreement. Should the proposals and this Agreement be in conflict, the requirements in this Agreement shall govern.

2

b. The Regulated Party may accept yard waste, as defined in Minn. R. 7035.0300, subp. 121; and SSCM, as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 32a, except for [__LIST OF PROHIBITED MATERIALS___] for composting at this Facility.

c. The Regulated Party shall only conduct this Project at the Facility identified in Section 3a of this Agreement.

d. The Regulated Party shall not exceed the capacity of the site. The site can accommodate up to [__DESCRIPTION OF INITIAL AND ULTIMATE CAPACITY LIMITS ___]. The approval of additional capacity will depend on the experience gained and the ability to successfully continue the Project without operational problems or issues. The Regulated Party must request and obtain a written approval from the MPCA prior to adding more capacity.

e. The Regulated Party shall collect samples of stormwater run-off from the Project compost site in accordance with the sampling plan required in Section 4 of this Agreement. A separate stormwater collection system must be established for the SSCM. The stormwater samples shall be analyzed, unfiltered, for: 1) pH 2) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (EPA Method 351.2), Phosphorus (EPA Method 365.4), and

Potassium (EPA Method 200.7) 3) Total Dissolved Solids (Standard Method 2540C) 4) Total Suspended Solids (Standard Method 2540D) 5) CBOD5 (Standard Method 5210B) 6) 503 metals (Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel,

Selenium, Zinc) (EPA Method 200.7) 7) Total Coliform and E. Coli (Standard Method 9223B)

If the Regulated Party wishes to use an analytical method different than those described above, the Regulated Party must first obtain an approval from the MPCA.

f. The Regulated Party shall maintain all its sampling locations at least annually. If any sampling points become unusable, the Regulated Party shall immediately contact the MPCA upon discovery.

g. The Regulated Party shall analyze the finished compost for all the parameters required in Minn. R. 7035.2836. This shall be done once per screening event. Each time finished compost is screened, the finished product shall be sampled. Additional screened compost may not be added to an already tested pile without the newly screened compost being sampled.

h. The Regulated Party shall follow the process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP) for the composting method chosen. These requirements are listed in Minn. R. 7035.2836, subp. 5(I).

i. A static windrow, which is windrow without forced aeration, will be utilized for the Project. 1. The windrow shall be turned at least three times after the compost pile has met the

PFRP requirement, and 2. After PFRP has been reached, no new material may be added to the windrow.

j. The Regulated Party shall ensure that the initial free air space is 55% to 65%, by volume. This shall be measured using the Bucket Test identified in Appendix A. The Regulated Party shall keep a log of Bucket Test results in an on-site log for inspection by the MPCA. If the Regulated Party wishes to use a test other than the Bucket Test,

3

the Regulated Party may use oxygen meter or Bulk Density to test for air space provided that the Regulated Party notifies the MPCA of the method used.

k. The Regulated Party shall develop and follow an Odor Mitigation Plan as required in Section 4 of this Agreement. The Regulated Party shall document all odor complaints, causes and steps to remediate the cause of odors, and modify the Odor Mitigation Plan accordingly.

l. The Regulated Party must contain litter from SSCM. All loads containing SSCM must be inspected for contamination and mixed immediately upon receipt or covered with wood chips or unscreened compost or yard waste or other biofilter material. All SSCM delivered to the site must be mixed by the end of the working day. Loads containing large amounts of contamination should be rejected and generator contacted immediately for removal from site. Grounds must be inspected and cleaned daily of loose litter materials. If necessary, portable catch screens or fencing must be used to limit blowing of litter off of site. The Regulated Party shall document all litter complaints and all actions taken to address the litter complaints and all actions taken to proactively address litter issues.

m. The Regulated Party shall document all noise complaints and the cause of the noise complaints.

n. The Regulated Party shall document any vector issues identified at the site and steps taken to address these issues.

o. The Regulated Party shall document any other complaints or operational issues (including best management practices that works well) that occur during the term of this Agreement.

p. The Regulated Party shall collect information on stormwater run-off, finished compost, odor, litter, noise, vector, and other operational issues as would be considered for a yard waste only compost pile.

q. The Regulated Party shall document the volumes of yard waste and SSCM accepted at this Facility.

r. The Regulated Party must maintain, or have readily available for use, feed stock to SSCM ratios, by volume, of not more than 20% SSCM to no less than 80% feed stock materials.

s. The Regulated Party must utilize feed stocks to construct piles that maintain a Carbon/Nitrogen ratio in the range of 25:1 – 30:1.

t. The Regulated Party must maintain pile moisture in the range of 50-60%. Moisture measurements in piles can be measured utilizing the “Squeeze” test as detailed in Attachment A.

u. The Regulated Party must cover each pile containing SSCM with a compost blanket or wood chips of at least eight inches in depth, immediately following pile construction. The Regulated Party shall maintain an eight-inch cover of finished compost or wood chips for at least 14 days.

v. The Regulated Party shall develop a “Communication Plan” to effectively facilitate communication regarding site operations that may affect neighbors to the site. These operations would include, but are not limited to: turning that may create temporary odors, temporarily increased traffic to the site, compost collection opportunities, or increased noise created by temporary use of special equipment.

w. The Regulated Party Facility personnel are trained in all procedures relevant to their positions, including contingency action implementation and compost-quality data collection, within six months after their date of employment. Facility personnel are

4

provided with training appropriate for the level of activities to which they are assigned. Training is provided in the following areas:

• using, inspecting, repairing, and replacing Facility emergency and monitoring

equipment; • activating communication and alarm systems; • procedures for ceasing feed stock deliveries; • appropriate response to fire and other emergencies as outlined in the local unit of

government (i.e., County and Cities) policy; • responding to groundwater or surface water pollution incidents; • managing incoming waste other than acceptable wastes; • rejecting waste not accepted at the Facility; • feedstock quality control; • mixing feed stocks; • PFRP requirements and documentation; • oxygen readings in compost piles; • temperature readings in compost piles; • sampling techniques for chemical analysis, moisture analysis, or other analyses; • estimating monthly volumes; • preparation of chain of custody papers to transfer samples to analytical laboratories; • operation of on-site laboratory equipment and scales; • data entry and record keeping; • bucket test; • squeeze test.

New employees are trained by experienced staff in proper data collection and sampling techniques as described herein. All Facility employees are sent to one of several compost courses, including. but not limited to: those offered by the University of Minnesota or the United States Composting Council, or on-site training is provided. The Facility operator is required to have achieved a passing grade in order to operate the Facility alone. Re-training takes place on an as-needed basis.

x. In accordance with 40 CFR 258.4, the Agreement shall end three years after the effective

date (described in Section 7 below) of the Agreement. A final report must be submitted within six months of the end date of this Project, in accordance with Minn. R. 7035.0450, subp. 5. The final report must include a full discussion of the results of the sampling and data evaluation.

y. In accordance with 40 CFR 258.4, the Agreement may only be renewed up to three times for a total of 12 years.

z. The Regulated Party shall cease to accept new SSCM material at the Facility for this

Project by [__END DATE FOR WASTE ACCEPTANCE RELEVANT TO THIS 3-YEAR PERIOD___] . After the Project is completed, the Regulated Party must return to compliance with all rules and permit conditions.

5

aa. The Regulated Party shall submit an annual report on this project to the MPCA by March 1st covering the activities of the preceding calendar year. The report must, at a minimum, include the items required in Minn. R. 7035.2836, subp. 5(K), a summary of all operational issues at the Facility, and a copy of all laboratory analytical sheets.

bb. A final report must be submitted [__DATE FOR FINAL REPORT RELEVANT TO THIS 3-YEAR PERIOD___]. The final report must contain, at a minimum: 1. Results of all water, stormwater run-off, and leachate samples collected. 2. Results of all analysis conducted on all finished compost.

cc. If the Regulated Party decides to terminate the Project prior to completion for any reason,

the MPCA must be immediately notified in writing of the date of termination. The Regulated Party must produce a report, no later than six months after termination, detailing all the information that was collected to the point of project termination, including, but not limited to the “Annual Reporting” requirements. After termination, the Regulated Party must comply with all rules and permit conditions.

6. No Action. So long as the Regulated Party remains in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and it is not otherwise terminated by any party, the MPCA agrees to take no action for the Regulated Party’s failure to comply with terms and conditions of its permit and the requirements in Minn. R. ch. 7001 and Minn. R. 7035.2860, to the extent these rules would apply to composting solid waste at a yard waste composting facility. This Agreement shall not be construed as releasing the Regulated Party from any other liability or obligation.

7. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is signed by the MPCA. 8. Termination. The MPCA reserves the right to terminate this Agreement:

a. If it is discovered that the Regulated Party is not complying with the terms and conditions of this Agreement;

b. If the MPCA determines that the Project is causing adverse affects on human health or the environment;

c. Conditions at the Project create a nuisance condition that has not been adequately addressed by the Regulated Party; or

d. The MPCA determines that the Project is not resulting in the creation of valuable information.

If the Agreement is terminated by the MPCA, the Regulated Party must, immediately upon notice, end activities under the Project and return to compliance with existing permit or rule conditions. If the Regulated Party wishes to continue the Project following termination, the Regulated Party must apply for and obtain approval of a variance or permit amendment, as appropriate, before the Project continues. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed satisfied and terminated when the Regulated Party receives written notice from the MPCA that the Regulated Party have demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the MPCA, that all terms of the Agreement have been completed.

6

9. Extensions. If the Regulated Party wants an extension of a deadline included in a schedule set out in Part 4, the Regulated Party must request the extension in writing at least ten days before the scheduled deadline, or as soon as possible before that date, if the reason for the extension request arises less than ten days before the deadline. Each deadline extension request shall separately specify the reason why the extension is needed. No requested extension shall be effective until approved in writing by the MPCA. The MPCA shall grant an extension only for the period of time the MPCA determines is reasonable under the circumstances. The written approval or grant of an extension shall be considered an enforceable part of the Agreement.

The Regulated Party has the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the MPCA that the request for extension is timely, and that good cause exists for granting the extension. Good cause can include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Circumstances entirely beyond the reasonable control of the Regulated Party; and, b. Delays caused by the MPCA in reviewing timely submittals required by this

Agreement that the Regulated Party submitted in complete and approvable form which make it not feasible for the Regulated Party to meet the required schedules.

Good cause does not include unanticipated costs, increase in the cost of control equipment, or delays in MPCA review of submittals when the submittals are not in complete and approvable form.

10. Hold Harmless Agreement. [__NAME___] agrees to indemnify, save and hold the MPCA,

its agents and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action arising from or on account of acts or omissions of [__NAME___], its officers, employees, agents, or contractors in implementing the activities conducted pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that [__NAME___] shall not indemnify the MPCA or save or hold its employees and agents harmless from any claims or causes of action arising out of the acts or omissions of the MPCA, or its employees and agents. When [__NAME___] is required to hold the MPCA harmless, the MPCA shall give [__NAME___] notice of any claim or cause of action subject to this Part and [__NAME ___] shall have the right to participate in the defense against any claim or cause or action.

11. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Regulated Party and their successors

and assigns and upon the MPCA, its successors and assigns. If the Regulated Party sells or otherwise conveys or assigns any of their right, title or interest in the Project, the conveyance shall not release the Regulated Party from any obligation imposed by this Agreement, unless the Party to whom the right, title or interest has been transferred or assigned agree in writing to fulfill the obligations of this Agreement and the MPCA approves the transfer or assignment.

12. Amendments. Except with respect to extension of schedules granted under Section 9, this Agreement may be amended only by written agreement between the parties.

BY THEIR SIGNATURES BELOW, THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENT THAT THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO BIND THE PARTIES THEY REPRESENT, AND THEIR

AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, AND SUBSIDIARIES 7

8

[__NAME___]. By: ________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________

STATE OF MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY By: __________________________________ Lisa J. Thorvig Division Director Municipal Division

Date: _______________________________ Date: _________________________________

Attachment A

The Bucket Test

How to measure free air space in your compost pile: The Five Gallon Bucket Test

Materials needed:

• A five-gallon pail • A one-gallon plastic milk jug • Typical mix of materials added to the compost pile (manure, grass clippings, straw,

wood chips, shredded bark, etc.)

1. Check the volume of your five-gallon pail by filling the one-gallon jug and emptying it into the five-gallon pail five times. Mark the five-gallon "full line" on the pail.

2. Fill the five-gallon pail one-third full with a typical mix of compost materials and drop the pail ten times from a height of six inches onto a cement floor or sidewalk (being careful to keep all the material in the pail).

3. Add compost to fill the five-gallon pail two-thirds full and drop the pail ten times from a height of six inches onto a cement floor or sidewalk.

4. Add compost to fill the five-gallon pail up to the "full line" and drop the pail ten times from a height of six inches onto a cement floor or sidewalk.

5. Add compost to fill the five-gallon pail to the "full line."

6. Now add and keep track of the amount water you can add to the five-gallon pail before it overflows.

• If you can add 2.75 to 3.25 gallons of water to the five-gallon pail without it spilling over the top, you have adequate free air space. Your initial free air space is correct.

• If you cannot add at least 2.75 gallons of water to the five-gallon pail without it spilling over the top, you have inadequate free air space. Add more bulking material like straw, coarse wood chips, or shredded bark.

• If you can add more than 3.25 gallons of water to the five-gallon pail without it spilling over the top, you have too much free air space and you need to reduce the particle size. This can be done by grinding or shredding the materials or by adding finer materials to the mix.

7. Make the needed corrections and retest until the test shows the correct initial free air space.

Squeeze Test

The squeeze test is appropriate to use for a “quick” assessment of moisture content and can be taken in conjunction with temperature and oxygen readings. To do this, a staff member reaches into the pile about one foot with a gloved hand, grabs a sample and squeezes it in his/her fist. If the material holds together and a couple of drops of water ooze out when the fingers are opened, the material is in the appropriate moisture range. If the material crumbles and no water is squeezed out, it is too dry. If the material is soggy and a steady stream of water squeezes out, the material is too wet.


89

90

91

92


Barriers 12/1/2010 Winona County Environmental Services

Standards more restrictive than yard waste composting,but less restrictive than Solid Waste Composting FacilityRules, will provide an opportunity for agencies withlimited resources and modest volumes of materials toparticipate in diverting specified organic wastes fromlandfilling to the production of a useful soil amendment.


As you move forward in this process, know that rulessupporting smaller facilities, with fewer restrictions, willenable those agencies wishing to participate in sourceseparated composting to do so within their budgetconstraints.


Providing agencies with an opportunity to participate inan organics compost program, while still meetingstandards to protect the environment and public health,will serve the citizens of Minnesota well, and reducelandfill methane production.

Feedstocks 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County supports MPCA verification of feedstock sources prior to permit approval for any new SSOC facility (much like a more simplified CON for LF's). The goal would be keep the "fly-by-night operations" from proliferating once the SSOC Rule is adopted and requests for permits would likely increase drastically.

93

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County's disposal facilties operate based upon premise of a closed system, where all available waste generated within the wasteshed is expected to be managed within the County's integrated waste management system. As such, the County's infrastructure relies upon the revenues from that waste to off-set those operational costs. Reclassificaiton of the organic fraction of the MSW stream to a non-MSW material will potentially result in a net loss of waste within the wasteshed if not properly regulated and adequate oversight provided. This could result in the potential loss of the County's ability to manage the material as part of its integrated waste management system in the future.

Page 1 of 19 January 3, 2010



94

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County's concerns based upon an unfortunate incident related to SSOM being collected from a local business and illegally disposed of at an unpermitted land disposal/compost facility. While this experience seemingly was an isolated incident, many of the issues that allowed that situation to occur are still ongoing in our neighboring communities. It is this experience that has provided the County with a candid view of the potential shortcomings of any SSOM/SSOC Rule (Rule). Should any resulting Rule not provide the necessary guidance, defined roles, specific requirements and adequate oversight and enforcement, the incident that ocurred in County will likely be played out in other communities throughout MN in the forseeable future.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities In general, supportive of the concept of Organic Waste Composting and the MPCA's intent to identify and remove any overly burdensome requirements where they are not necessary or justified for managing this material. However, there is great concern on the part of the County that for all of the potential benefits SSOM/SSOC supporters cite, there are many underlying issues that must also be addressed in the Rulemkaing process to avoid the issues experienced here firsthand.

95

96

97

p p

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities MPCA should invest the time and resources necessary to create a comprehensive Rule that would adequately address all aspects and stages of the life-cycle of this material. County believes this can be accomplished while the MPCA allows worthy waste abatement projects to move forward with a reasonable level of regulation, as it has been doing to date.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities Concerned that creating a new sub-classification of MSW (SSOM), combined with an anticipated sudden increase in the number of SSOC facilities of all sizes, will create too many opportunities for MSW and/or 'dirty Organics' (MSW) to disappear from the established waste management system (no tracking of the waste to ensure proper management, illegal dumping, non-SSOM material deliberately handled as SSOM, etc.)




98

99

100

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities Concerned that very little consideration has been given to requirements for the SSOM generator and collector, or the process in general. It is County's recent experience with SSOM that if there is no check and balance between the generator and collector - not all SSOM will be handled at an SSOC facility. County supports Rules for the separation, storage, collection, transportation and reporting of SSOM - much like MSW.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities Polk County supports requirements for entities using a SSOC facility to disclose the volume, material and destination of their SSOM - both for SCORE Reporting and check & balance to ensure no illegal disposal is occurring under the guise of composting.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County has concern that given the current and expected future fiscal considerations on local and state government, the required resources to oversee, regulate and enforce the rules will be unavailable.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County supports MPCA flexibility to allow existing permitted solid waste facilities (TS, LF, Compost Facilities, WTE's) to modify their permits and facilities to incorporate SSOC operations into their existing and established integrated solid waste mangaement systems

101

102

103

established integrated solid waste mangaement systems until a comprehensive Rule can be implemented.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County supports the development and implementation of a mandatory SSOC Manager and Operator certification program. Permit requirements and facility operational controls should be based upon the content and expected knowledge these required Certified persons must possess. Certification levels and requirements should correlate to the facilities permit.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County supports MPCA approval of any SSOC facilities be contigent upon approval of the County the facility be cited within. The approval shall be based upon the SSOC facility location, its operational plan, compliance with Countys required Solid Waste Plan and its impact upon any Integrated Solid Waste Management System in that community.




104

105

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities Once a comprehensive Rule is adopted, Polk County would support allowances for large volume (feedstock/organic) singular entities such as businesses or school campus to manage their materials on-site/internally with a lower degree of environmental protections (violations would revoke permit). This would be based upon the entities volume being under a pre-determined capacity threshold, and having obtained required certifications, operational plan, and permit approval by the MPCA and LGU.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County is concerned about discussions thus far to automatically exclude organic materials extracted from MSW from consideration. While it may not be feasible now, allowance for future program growth to utilize existing permitted hand/mechanical separation infrastructure should be made. The benefits for making this future allowance include: decreased dependence on lower-preferred waste management options of the Waste Hierarchy, expanding the capacity of existing waste disposal systems, encouraging the integration of organic composting into existing waste management systems rather than turning SSOC into a competitor with those systems.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County wishes to bring to the State's attention that local

106

107

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County wishes to bring to the State's attention that local land use controls are not consistent across the State-some small cities do not engage in land use, others have a designated person/department. Some Counties only implement land use zoning in Shoreland (1,000' of protected lake, 300' of stream or river or Floodplain areas--others conduct county-wide zoning. Polk County suggests that if there is no land use ordinance in place in the community where the SSOC facility is proposed, require aproval should be by resolution of the County Board and/or City Council.

Other 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County has not heard a definitive answer on how the SSOM reclassification will impact SWMT. SSOM is MSW by definition. With the state budget issues, and the MPCA relying heavily on SWMT revenues in the general fund, has MPCA made a determination if the SWMT system will apply to the collection, hauling and disposition of this material?




108

109

Permit/Operations 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County encourages the MPCA to recognize that 'one size does NOT fit all'. SSOC facility permits should take into account the conditions present at the site, future potential conflicts, and unique characteristics of the proposed operation. Facility size, operation, location, feedstock source(s), surrounding land use, etc all play a role in setting appropriate operational standards, and are essential to ensuring facilities are regulated to the level needed to protect the environment without being finanacially overburdened by overregulation.

Permit/Operations 12/3/2010 Polk County Solid Waste Facilities County supports allowing MPCA flexibility to address facility-specific issues dealing with operations/capacity/siting via the facilities operational plan on a a case-by-case basis (i.e. leachate control, feedstock mix ratios, odor control, etc.).

Feedstocks 12/7/2010 Waste Management 14) Given the MSW tax structure in Minnesota their exists a strong financial incentive to exclude items from the MSW waste stream and direct them to these facilities. As a result, WM suggests that incoming industrial feedstocks be initially tested or screened and repeated on a regular basis to ensure feedstock quality. We also suggest that these procedures be detailed in a feedstock screening plan to be submitted as part of

110

111

feedstock screening plan to be submitted as part of facility permitting.

Finance 12/7/2010 Waste Management Both the potential for environmental impacts and history of the composting industry here in MN indicated that some form of Financial Assurance to cover potential contingency actions and closure liabilities is needed to protect the State from liability. Given the fledgling nature of the industry and low capital requirements for market entry, the likelihood of new market entrants that may not be properly capitalized, have the expertise or understanding of either the waste system or the technical background required to be successful, we believe financial assurance is a necessary and prudent requirement. Financial Assurance should be required to ensure that site closure is accomplished and any impacts can be mitigated in the event of operator insolvency.



A B C D

Topic Date Company or Organization Comment

112

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management Waste Management (WM) agrees with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) general approach presented at the November 19 hearing, which includes using some sections of the existing MSW Compost rule as the basis for the SSOM rule. Those requirements from the existing MSW compost rule include the stormwater run-off and management requirements, permitting requirements, and the current classification, distribution and end use system for finished compost.

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management WM fully supports organics composting; indeed, we currently own 34 sites nationwide and are committed to evaluating and investing in innovative technologies to make soil amendments, energy, fuel, and chemicals from organic materials. From a scientific standpoint, studies are just becoming available to help government and industry begin to understand the complexities of byproducts generated and the regulatory requirements that must be in place to avoid environmental impacts. And, regardless of the amount of feedstock or the site size, these byproducts need to be controlled to prevent impacts. There should be no exemptions for small sites, especially for the sole reason of making organics composting more cost effective and thus, able to be

113

114

composting more cost effective and thus, able to be implemented more quickly on a broader scale.

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management Exemptions from certain regulatory requirements for smaller sites will result in operational issues and possibly even site failure that could end up undermining the efforts of local government and industry in advancing the overall objective of material diversion. Minnesota has had some success with organics composting facilities and we have developed industry and state government expertise that will allow us to compost even more material in the future. As we provide more regulatory certainty through these rules, interest and investment in composting organics should increase. We need to ensure that there are no unintended environmental consequences of diverting SSOM from highly regulated and environmentally protective MSW landfills.




115

116

117

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management 5) Compost facilities should be subject to the same Environmental Review procedures (EAW/EIS) as are required for other environmental projects involving similar materials and processing. This process is important as it facilitates public involvement during the process of siting new facilities or expanding existing facilities. Existing facilities, including MSW landfills, that have already undergone Environmental Review should be exempt from this requirement.

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management 6) Public notice requirements should be applied to compost facilities due to the nature and past operating experience of these facilities; particularly concerning odor issues and operational issues that affect nearby residences and businesses. WM suggests that the requirements outlined in Minnesota Statute 116.07 Subpart (a) which call for notifications of each resident and owner of real property within 5000 feet.

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management 12) To ensure optimal operation of these facilities, operator training should be developed and provided by the MPCA.

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management 13) WM suggests that existing facilities be given one year to comply with the new standards This is

118

119

120

year to comply with the new standards. This is consistent with other grace periods granted by MPCA rules.

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management 15) Rules and permits should incentivize processing and production of a product. This is especially important in Minnesota with its high MSW tax structure that provides the primary financial benefit simply for material acceptance. Other states that have not addressed this issue in rules or permits have been plagued by facilities accumulating inappropriate types and quantities of feedstock and long production cycle times. This creates nuisance conditions. To minimize issues related to material accumulation or high residual levels permits should address processing capacity versus storage to avoid problems with accumulation of unprocessed materials or residuals.

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management 16) All existing Minnesota Solid Waste enforcement and compliance statutes and rules should apply to these facilities.




121

122

Other 12/7/2010 Waste Management Incorporation of these provisions (1-16 listed above) into the rule will provide appropriate public involvement in the process of siting a new facility, protect the state from future liability and provide the environmental protection appropriate for these practices.

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management As discussed at the rule hearing and in WM’s previous comments submitted on August 30, 2010, the record of peer-reviewed research strongly supports that the composting of organics of any type, other than yard waste, requires more stringent regulation to protect the environment. While food waste and other organics may initially seem like a fairly innocuous feedstock, the byproducts from composting these materials include free liquids, volatile organic compounds (V0C), pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, methane and other emissions, and can cause nuisance conditions such as odors, pathogens, and vectors, all of which necessitate increased control measures to protect human health and the environment.

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 1) WM supports that detailed locational standards be developed for these facilities and offers the following suggestions to protect surface water, groundwater and

b id

123

124

125

nearby residences:

*appropriate shoreline setbacks (separation from bodies of water, including lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands)*location in foodplain is prohibited*1000 feet from a community well.*100 feet from a private well*1000 feet from karst or sinkholes*200 feet from nearest resident

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 2) Leachate collection and treatment systems should be required, as well as the submittal of a Leachate Collection and Treatment Plan.

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 3) Any liquids that have been in contact with compost feedstock need to be controlled. WM recommends that the Leachate Collection and Treatment Plan include a section on how the facility operator will control contact water. This is in addition to the Stormwater rule requirements in the existing MSW Compost rule.




126

127

128

129

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 4) In accordance with the Stormwater regulations a NPDES permit or SDS permit will be required due to the potential for runoff or leachate impacts to surface waters from composting facilities.

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 7) All sites should be required to submit an Odor Management Plan as part of their facility permit application.

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 8) Windrow height for static pile composting should follow the height limit of 8 feet in the draft California regulations (1133.3(d)(D), August 20,1010). A shorter pile height is important in preventing anaerobic decomposition that results in odors and methane production.

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 9) The MPCA needs to consider requiring emission control measures in the event of ozone non-attainment, including compost blankets and increased use of biofilters for sites within a certain distance of the metro area. At a minimum, non-attainment should trigger these additional regulatory requirements. In addition, MPCA should develop appropriate thresholds whereby emission controls will be required. These thresholds should consider the amount and type of emissions.

129

130

131

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 10) WM recommends an impermeable pad (liner) that meets a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10⁻⁷ cm/sec for all sites, regardless of the site geology, size of the site, or quantity of feedstock accepted. This is similar to MSW landfill rules that are applied to all landfills, regardless of the size or site geology.

Permit/Operations 12/7/2010 Waste Management 11) The rule should include certain operational requirements for example C:N ratio, pathogen kill requirements (PFRP), and curing time.




132

Feedstocks 12/8/2010 Carver County Department of Environmental Services

Based on our experience with the demonstration projects, residential organics has a lower moisture content and higher carbon content than commercial organics and thus presents reduced operational concerns. In addition, we have found that residential organics contain much less contamination than commercial loads. These factors make residential organics a preferred feedstock that poses far fewer potential risks. In waste sorts conducted at the Carver County demonstration sites, residential organics were found to be present in concentrations as high as 20% (by weight) in some incoming loads with an average of closer to 10% during the growing season. During the winter months, residential loads were 100% organics since yard waste is not generated in these months.

Feedstocks 12/8/2010 Carver County Department of Environmental Services

Carver County operated the demonstration site at the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum for two years as a co-collected residential organics composting facility and experienced no operational issues and received no complaints. We began receiving complaints from residents neighboring the site in the Spring of 2009. There was a direct correlation between these complaints and the acceptance of commercial organics.

133

During this same time frame, the operator intensified site operations by accepting additional feed stocks. The main source of additional feed stock was organics originating from commercial sources including schools and restaurants. Based on this direct experience, it is Carver County’s position that applying higher standards to facilities that also chose to accept commercial organics would be appropriate to address the operational differences.




134

Other 12/8/2010 Carver County Department of Environmental Services

As it stands now, there are two collection systems in place for residential organics. Some communities have chosen to collect organics separately. This is true for municipalities that do not offer curbside yard waste and/or utilize the Hennepin County’s Brooklyn Park Transfer station which prohibits yard waste. This material is being delivered to the SET facility in Empire Township. In other communities, haulers offer co-collection of yard waste and residential organics as a strategy to achieve greater collection efficiencies. Haulers that offer co-collection of residential organics and yard waste in the metro are currently either taking material to an alternative solid waste transfer facility, which allows yard waste, or directly to a compost facility.

To make residential organics composting more readily available, Carver County recommends focusing on looking for opportunities to expand the resource of existing yard waste sites into facilities that can also accept co-collected residential material. This strategy, to leverage existing yard waste site resources, can be achieved provided unnecessary regulatory burdens are not placed on these operators.

134




Permit/Operations 12/8/2010 Carver County Department of Environmental Services

As part of the permitting process for three organics composting demonstration projects that Carver County has initiated, we have asked the MPCA to consider a tiered permitting system. We have cited examples of how other state regulatory agencies are encouraging and supporting the composting of source-separated organics through a multilevel permitting system. Texas for example, recognizes differences in feed stocks and how facilities accept these feed stocks and requires different levels of regulatory oversight. Their regulatory regime for composting sites classifies facilities under one of four tiers – exempt operations, facilities requiring a notification, facilities requiring a registration, and facilities requiring a permit. This type of tiered approach dovetails nicely with the findings of the Carver County organics demonstration projects, which recognized that composting source-separated organics from commercial sources differs from composting co-collected residential organics and yard waste. It is Carver County’s belief that sites which process co-collected residential organics should have reduced regulatory standards in areas such as bulking agents and pad requirements. These standards should be reflective of the decreased risk of residential sources

135

136

compared with composting facilities that compost commercial organics.

Permit/Operations 12/8/2010 Carver County Department of Environmental Services

Another issue of concern to Carver County is potential pad requirements for the receiving and active composting areas of SSOM sites. Carver County agrees that a firm driving surface (e.g. compacted aggregate) is an operational necessity to allow for all season truck and heavy equipment traffic. However, the MPCA funded Carver County Demonstration Project utilized two compost facilities without an engineered pad. In addition, contact water was collected and analyzed throughout the project. No regulatory thresholds were exceeded during the time the Carver County sites were operational. Accordingly, based on these accepted results, the added cost to require an engineered impermeable pad would be unnecessary to protect groundwater. Accordingly, this would represent a significant economic barrier to moving the SWMCB’s policy goal of increasing organics diversion ahead.




137

138

Other 12/9/2010 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)

It is very important that the MPCA address as many issues as possible during rule making and limit guidance documents, if any to site specific issues that could not have been contemplated during rulemaking.


In addition to SWMCB comments that were made at the meeting, we wanted to reiterate our support of the Agency's position to not apply the highly impermeable pad design currently required for composting mixed municpal solid waste to composting source separated compostable materials. We concur with the MPCA that such a pad design is not necessary that that the standard should be relaxed. The MPCA, however, should consider site conditions, including sub soils, in determining the permeabilty of the pad design. We also feel receiving, mixing, and the active composting stage should be required to be on a pad or compacted surface but curing, screening and storage of finished compost does not need to be done on an impermeable pad.

Feedstocks 12/10/2010 SKB Environmental In terms of feedstocks, SSCM should be limited to food and yard waste. We are greatly concerned about the

139

140

141

use of industrial wastes used as bulking agents at these facilities. At the November meeting, MPCA staff noted past incidents where composting facilities had accepted byproducts from industrial processes where contaminant levels were beyond acceptable limits. Given the risks and uncertainties associated with these industrial wastes and given the likely relaxation of regulations under these rules, the definition of SSCM under this rule should be limited to food and yard waste.


IATP recommends that the Agency allow composting of the widest array of food scraps and vegetative material possible without compromising odor concerns, human health and the environment.


The MPCA should not wholly prohibit feedstocks produced in industrial facilities from being composted. Instead, the Agency should either allow or disallow materials according to established regulatory tiers that categorize feedstocks based on potential risks or review potentially compostable industrial material on a case-by-case basis.




142

143


State of Washington, determines a material's suitability for composting based on four defined categories of feedstocks. "Type 1 feedstocks in