Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Projectstatic1.squarespace.com/static/.../direction_on_technology...29-14.pdf · Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project Direction

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project

Direction on Technology and Policy Evaluation

April 29, 2014

The Policy Questions to be Answered in 2015

Looking ahead to the future (20‐30 years):Looking ahead to the future (20 30 years):

1 How should processing of MSW be integrated1. How should processing of MSW be integrated into the solid waste system in the East Metro area?area?

2 What should be the role of the Counties with2. What should be the role of the Counties with regard to integrating processing into the solid waste system?

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 2

waste system?

Action Requested TodayAction Requested Today

1. Establish guiding principles for waste processing system changes;processing system changes;

2. Narrow the range of technologies to further l i i 2014 devaluation in 2014; and

3. Identify policy options to further evaluate in 2014.


Fi D i iFirst Decision

Establish guiding principles for waste i hprocessing system changes.

Why? T t h t ifi iTo serve as a touchstone as specific issues are debated and decided – allowing the C ti t t t th i t it f d i i


Counties to test the integrity of decisions.

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

1 Plan for a 20‐30 year horizon;1. Plan for a 20 30 year horizon;2. Build on the current system and allow

changes in processing to emerge over time;changes in processing to emerge over time; 3. Assure flexibility4. Manage risks; and5. Pivot the view from “waste” to “resources”

to add value to the local economy and the environment.


Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

“Frame the future role of wasteFrame the future role of waste processing with a 20‐30 year horizon, b ild th t t d llbuild on the current system and allow changes in processing to emerge over time, assure flexibility, manage risks, and pivot the view from “waste” to p f“resources” to add value to the local economy and the environment.”


economy and the environment.

Second Decision:Second Decision:

d if h ifi i l i ( )Identify the specific processing alternative(s) the counties should further research and d l i 2014develop in 2014.


Technology ReviewTechnology Review

• Alternative Technologies for Municipal SolidAlternative Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste, July, 2013

• Preliminary Technical Status of the NewportPreliminary Technical Status of the Newport and Two Xcel Combustion Facilities, October 2013

• Preliminary Resource Recovery Feasibility Report, January 2014

• Technology Comparative Analysis, January 2014


Technologies Individually ReviewedTechnologies Individually Reviewed

• RDF productionRDF production• Gasification • Pyrolysis• Pyrolysis • Plasma arc M b• Mass burn

• Anaerobic digestion • Mixed waste processing• Plastics‐to‐fuel


Combined TechnologiesCombined Technologies

• Combining technologies that may fit the EastCombining technologies that may fit the East Metro

• Compared combinations and evaluated using• Compared combinations and evaluated using several factorsFi i l l i• Financial analysis

• Ranking


Combined Technologies: What might b bl fbe possible for East Metro

• Discontinue county involvement in waste processing with an increased focus on source d li d i d li l dfilli MSWseparated recycling and organics management, and a reliance on landfilling MSW

• Contract with a vendor other than RRT for waste processing at an existing facility, such as the Elk River Facility owned and operated by GRE.y p y

• Current RDF System – using Newport and Xcel combustion units as they currently exist

• Newport with Mixed Waste Processing and Gasification

• Newport with Anaerobic Digestion and Gasification

• Newport with Mixed Waste Processing and Anaerobic Digestion

• Mixed Waste Processing and Anaerobic Digestion

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 11• Mass Burn

ntal

Technology

echn

ical

in

anci

al

nviro

nme

erm

ittin

g iti

ng

Relia

bilit

y le

xibi

lity

otal

T F E P S R F T

Current RDF System 8 9 8 5 5 5 3 43 Newport with MWP/Recycling and G ifi i 6 13 15 4 3 2 5 48Gasification 6 13 15 4 3 2 5 48

MWP/Recycling/Organics with AD 5 7 7 3 2 3 4 31 Mass Burn 10 5 8 1 1 5 3 33Sanitary Landfill 10 8 3 1 1 4 2 29 Newport with MWP/Organics with Anaerobic Digestion and 6 9 15 4 3 2 5 44 GasificationNewport with MWP/Organics with Anaerobic Digestion and Xcel RDF Combustion

7 7 8 5 5 4 4 40 Combustion

Recommended: Rule these out for f h dfurther study

• Discontinue county involvement in waste sco t ue cou ty o e e t asteprocessing, with an increased focus on SSO and recycling, with landfilling of MSW

• Plastics‐to‐fuel• Mass burn• Newly developed anaerobic digestion• Newly sited and developed mixed waste processing

• Landfilling


Recommended: Continue to EvaluateRecommended: Continue to Evaluate

• Role of source separation and mixed wasteRole of source separation and mixed waste processing for organics and recycling to meeting recycling and organics targets

• Use the current system as a base to make change including potential use of GRE

• Source Separated Organics and Mixed waste processing with organics to existing/planned anaerobic digester (Sanimax)

• RDF to Gasification


Proposed Issues for Further Evaluation in 2014

Technology Waste Assurance Ownership GovernanceTechnology Waste Assurance Ownership Governance

Role of source separation and mixed waste processing for organics and recycling to

Regulatory/Waste Designation (Flow Control)

Public Ownership Continuing to examine the joint exercise of powers

for organics and recycling to meeting recycling and organics targets

Use the current system as a base to make change

Economic Incentive /Market Participant P blic Entities

Private Ownership Waste Management Districtbase to make change; including potential synergy with the Great River Energy processing facility in Elk River.

Participant ‐ Public Entities

Source Separated Organics and Mixed waste processing with organics to Sanimax

Monitor Regulatory/State enforcement of 473.848

Public/Private Ownership

RDF t G ifi ti E i I ti /H lRDF to Gasification Economic Incentive/Hauler RebatesEconomic Incentive/Service Agreement with Private Facility Ownery

Economic Incentive/Use of Hauler‐Collected Service Charge

Policy ReviewPolicy Review

• Waste Assurance• Waste Assurance• Governance• Ownership


Waste AssuranceWaste Assurance

• The key economic issue related to anyThe key economic issue related to any processing alternative and ownership option selectedselected.

• Two CategoriesR l t– Regulatory

– Economic incentive


Recommend rule these out:Recommend rule these out:

• Regulatory: County public collectiong y y p• Economic incentive: “zero” tipping ffee


Recommend continue to evaluateRecommend continue to evaluate

• Regulatoryegu ato y– Waste Designation (Flow Control) – Monitor State enforcement of 473.848

• Economic Incentive – Hauler Delivery Agreements – Market Participant ‐ Public Entities – Hauler Rebates S i A t ith P i t F ilit O– Service Agreement with Private Facility Owner

– Use of Hauler‐Collected Service Charge as an economic incentive


economic incentive
















Governance AlternativesGovernance Alternatives

• Joint Exercise of PowersJoint Exercise of Powers• Intergovernmental Service Agreement

i l i bli h d i• Legislative Established Entity• Waste Management District


RecommendationRecommendation

• Rule outRule out– Intergovernmental service agreementLegislatively established entity– Legislatively established entity

• Continue to Evaluate– Joint exercise of powers– Waste management district

















OwnershipOwnership

• Types of ownership evaluatedTypes of ownership evaluated– Public ownership– Private ownershipp– Public/private combined ownership

• Issues associated with ownershipIssues associated with ownership– Benefits and risks of

• Form of ownership• Form of financing• Form of operating


Ownership OptionsOwnership Options

• Recommend continue to evaluateRecommend continue to evaluate– Public ownershipPrivate ownership– Private ownership

– Public/private ownership alternatives
































Pending Board Approval…Pending Board Approval…

• Further work on technology and policy issuesFurther work on technology and policy issues, including meetings with stakeholders

• Technology tours/meetings• Technology tours/meetings • Cancel June meeting• Progress report to Project Board at July 24thmeeting

• Report to Project Board at September 25thmeeting


g

The Policy Questions to be Answered in 2015

Looking ahead to the future (20‐30 years):Looking ahead to the future (20 30 years):

1 How should processing of MSW be integrated1. How should processing of MSW be integrated into the solid waste system in the East Metro area?area?

2 What should be the role of the Counties with2. What should be the role of the Counties with regard to integrating processing into the solid waste system?


waste system?

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project

Technology Timing IssuesTechnology Timing Issues2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Processing Agreement with RRT in Effect

M difi ti t t RDF t h l ld b liRDF T h l tl i Modifications to current RDF technology could be on‐lineRDF Technology currently in use

Xcel Combustion Units Under Contract to RRT Xcel Combustion Units Can Safely and Reliabilty Operate if planned maintenace occurs

Mixed Waste Processing @ Newport could be on‐line

Anaerobic Digestion @ Sanimax could be on‐line

Density separation of organics @ Newport could be on‐line

RDF Gasification System @ some location could be on‐Line

Continuum of County Involvement in Waste Processing

Category More

Waste

Assurance Waste

Designation

County Contracts with

haulers for delivery of waste

Private facility contracts with

haulers for waste; County

subsidy to

County pays haulers a rebate for processing at

any facility

Market-driven merchant approach delivery of waste subsidy to

facility

Ownership

Public Ownership Public/Private Joint Ownership

Private Ownership with a Service

Agreement

Private Ownership with no service

agreement

Questions to keep in mindQuestions to keep in mind• With regard to selection of processing technology, what policy tool is the

best fit for the counties in deciding which technology ( ies) will processbest fit for the counties in deciding which technology (‐ies) will process waste over the next 20‐30 years?

• With regard to assuring a supply of waste for processing over the next 20‐g g pp y p g30 years, what policy tool (s) will be most appropriate for the counties to implement?

• What are the risks associated with the various policy tools?• What are the risks associated with the various policy tools?

• Which governance and ownership structure will best position the East Metro area to implement various policy tools for the next 30 years?p p y y

• Are there any further policy analyses needed prior to decision making in April?


Documents

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Projectstatic1.squarespace.com/static/.../direction_on_technology...29-14.pdf · Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project Direction