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.
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 3
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 4
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.
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 5
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.”
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 6
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.
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 7
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 8
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 9
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 10
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 13
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 14
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 16
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 17
Recommend rule these out:Recommend rule these out:
• Regulatory: County public collectiong y y p• Economic incentive: “zero” tipping ffee
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 18
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 19
economic incentive
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
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 21
RecommendationRecommendation
• Rule outRule out– Intergovernmental service agreementLegislatively established entity– Legislatively established entity
• Continue to Evaluate– Joint exercise of powers– Waste management district
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 22
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
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 24
Ownership OptionsOwnership Options
• Recommend continue to evaluateRecommend continue to evaluate– Public ownershipPrivate ownership– Private ownership
– Public/private ownership alternatives
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 25
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
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
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
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 28
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?
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 29
waste system?
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?
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project 33