COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
STEELE COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
Update, March 2004
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... E-1
1.0
SCOPE AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1
GENERAL ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3
SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................. 1-1
2.0
COUNTY BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................. 2-1
2.1
LOCATION ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND PROJECTIONS ................................... 2-1
2.3
EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4
LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5
LOCAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................................................................. 2-3
2.5.1 Median Household Income ...................................................................... 2-3
2.5.2 Current Economic Conditions.................................................................. 2-3
2.6
WASTE GENERATION ..................................................................................... 2-4
2.6.1 Waste Generated ...................................................................................... 2-4
3.0
COUNTY SOLID WASTE GENERATION, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1
SOLID WASTE GENERATION ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 General ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Large Waste Generators ........................................................................... 3-1
3.1.3 Demolition Debris .................................................................................... 3-1
3.2
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM ........................................................ 3-2
3.2.1 Transfer Stations ...................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Rural Collection ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.3
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ............................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1 General ..................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.2 Steele County Landfill ............................................................................. 3-3
3.3.3 Waste Handling ........................................................................................ 3-3
3.3.4 Landfill Monitoring.................................................................................. 3-4
3.3.5 Inspections ............................................................................................... 3-5
3.4
RATE STRUCTURE AND ABATEMENT INCENTIVES ............................... 3-5
3.4.1 Existing Rate Structure ............................................................................ 3-5
3.4.2 Waste Abatement ..................................................................................... 3-6
3.5
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION ....................................................................... 3-6
3.6
INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 3-6
3.6.1 Ordinance ................................................................................................. 3-6
3.6.2 Comprehensive Management Plan........................................................... 3-7
i
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
4.0
PLANNING HISTORY ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
PREVIOUS LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ................. 4-1
4.1.1 Steele-Waseca Counties Composting Study ............................................ 4-1
4.1.2 LJP Enterprises/NRG Energy Compost and RDF System ....................... 4-1
4.2
CURRENT LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES .................. 4-2
4.3
FUTURE REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ............................................. 4-2
4.4
IMPEDIMENTS OR BARRIERS TO REGIONAL EFFORTS .......................... 4-2
4.5
RESOLUTION OF PLANNING CHALLENGES .............................................. 4-3
5.0
ALTERNATIVES TO A LANDFILL-BASED SYSTEM ........................................... 5-1
5.1
ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES ............................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Olmsted County Waste-to-Energy Facility .............................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Prairieland Compost Facility ................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Steele Waseca Compost Facility .............................................................. 5-3
5.2
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................... 5-3
5.2.1 Waste Reduction Programs ...................................................................... 5-3
5.2.2 Municipal Solid Waste Composting Facilities ........................................ 5-3
5.2.3 Incineration and Energy Recovery ........................................................... 5-4
5.2.4 Solid Waste Volume Reduction Programs .............................................. 5-7
5.3
COUNTY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT OPTIONS .... 5-8
5.4
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE COSTS................................................................. 5-8
5.5
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 5-8
5.6
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 5-9
5.6.1 Technological ........................................................................................... 5-9
5.6.2 Environmental .......................................................................................... 5-9
5.6.3 Financial ................................................................................................... 5-9
5.6.4 Summary ................................................................................................ 5-10
6.0
STEELE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FEATURES ...... 6-1
6.1
WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS ................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Container Deposits ................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Packaging Reduction................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.3 Office Paper Reduction ............................................................................ 6-2
6.1.4 Product Charges ....................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.5 Bans.......................................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.6 Backyard Composting .............................................................................. 6-3
6.1.7 Volume-Based Garbage Collection Fees ................................................. 6-4
6.2
SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION ................................................................ 6-4
6.3
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT BUDGET ........................................................ 6-4
6.4
EDUCATION PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 6-5
6.4.1 Solid Waste Reduction Education Programs ........................................... 6-5
6.5
RECYCLING PROGRAMS ................................................................................ 6-6
6.5.1 General ..................................................................................................... 6-6
6.5.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action ........................................... 6-6
6.6
YARD WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS............................................... 6-7
ii
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
7.0
6.6.1 General ..................................................................................................... 6-7
6.6.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action ........................................... 6-8
SANITARY LANDFILLING .............................................................................. 6-8
6.7.1 General ..................................................................................................... 6-8
6.7.2 Landfill History ........................................................................................ 6-8
6.7.3 Environmental Concerns .......................................................................... 6-9
6.7.4 Steele County’s Current Facility and Proposed Action ........................... 6-9
WASTE TIRES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ............................................. 6-11
6.8.1 General ................................................................................................... 6-11
6.8.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action ......................................... 6-11
MAJOR APPLIANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS .................................. 6-11
6.9.1 General ................................................................................................... 6-11
6.9.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action ......................................... 6-11
USED OIL/BATTERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS .............................. 6-12
6.10.1 General ................................................................................................... 6-12
6.10.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action ......................................... 6-12
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ...... 6-12
6.11.1 General ................................................................................................... 6-12
6.11.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action ......................................... 6-13
DEMOLITION DEBRIS MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ............................... 6-13
6.12.1 General ................................................................................................... 6-13
6.12.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action ......................................... 6-14
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION ......................... 6-14
6.13.1 Collection Methods ................................................................................ 6-14
6.13.2 Transfer Stations .................................................................................... 6-15
STEELE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 7-1
7.1
PROJECT STRUCTURE .................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Project Participants .................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 Facility Ownership ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.3 Facility Operations ................................................................................... 7-1
7.2
WASTE ASSURANCE ....................................................................................... 7-1
7.2.1 General ..................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2.2 Public Entities .......................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.3 County Assessment .................................................................................. 7-3
7.2.4 Hauler Negotiations ................................................................................. 7-4
7.2.5 Market Participation................................................................................. 7-5
7.2.6 Private Sector Option ............................................................................... 7-7
7.2.7 Other Actions Taken ................................................................................ 7-7
7.2.8 Combination of Methods ......................................................................... 7-8
7.3
FACILITY SITING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. 7-8
7.3.1 General ..................................................................................................... 7-8
7.3.2 Review of Legislation .............................................................................. 7-8
7.3.3 Criteria Development ............................................................................. 7-10
7.3.4 Summary of Criteria............................................................................... 7-11
iii
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
PROCUREMENT .............................................................................................. 7-11
7.4.1 Procurement Methods/Related Issues .................................................... 7-11
ORDINANCE AND LICENSING..................................................................... 7-12
STAFFING OF SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS ................................................ 7-12
FUNDING OF SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS ................................................. 7-13
BACKUP TO PROPOSED DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE ............................... 7-13
MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS .............................................. 7-13
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW......................................................................... 7-14
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Follows Page
Table E-1
Table E-2
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Steele County Abatement Goals, 2003-2007 ....................................................... E-2
Estimated Solid Waste Budget, 2003-2007 ......................................................... E-6
Population of Cities and Townships .................................................................... 2-1
County Populations and Households ................................................................... 2-2
Employment Data ................................................................................................ 2-2
City Collection Services....................................................................................... 3-2
2003 Estimate: Municipal/Industrial Waste Quantities Collected by
Commercial Haulers ........................................................................................... 3-2
Landfill User Charges .......................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Follows Page
Figure II-1
Figure II-2
Figure 6-1
County Location Map .............................................................................. 2-1
Population Distribution by City and Township ....................................... 2-2
Phase IV Development........................................................................... 6-10
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
Goal-Volume Table
Steele County Solid Waste Management Budget
Steele County Solid Waste Ordinance
Steele and Rice Counties Household Hazardous Waste Management Program
Landfill Financial Assurance
iv
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Background
Steele County, located in southeastern (region) Minnesota, has developed this update to the Steele
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan of March 1998. This update contains the
solid waste data analysis and solid waste policies, which will guide the development of solid waste
programs within the County. It also includes Steele County's description of the solid waste abatement
programs commonly referred to as SCORE programs.
This update was developed and completed by Scott Golberg, Steele County Solid Waste
Administrator, with the assistance of the Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA).
Overview
The plan reviews the past and present solid waste management system, solid waste abatement
programs and policies, and anticipated solid waste management activities. The plan considers
various alternatives which can result in the most feasible and prudent reduction of the need for the
practice of land disposal of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) for the County.
This update proposes continuation of the County's current solid waste programs with emphasis on
waste abatement and waste assurance for the Steele County Sanitary Landfill.
The County's existing management system is an integrated solid waste management system that
includes:
- the Steele County Sanitary Landfill and Demolition Landfill,
- recycling and participation in the SCORE program,
- waste abatement and reduction programs,
- educational programs,
- special waste management programs, and
- addressing waste collection, transport, and assurance.
The plan proposes continuation of all programs and waste management facilities that the County
currently participates in.
GOALS FOR SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
The County has established solid waste abatement goals for a 10-year period. Table E-1 is a
summary of the first five years of the table that shows the annual tonnages that must be recovered to
achieve those goals. Percent of MSW generated in Steele County that will be recycled will
increase to approximately 51.7% percent by the year 2008.
E-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
TABLE E-1
STEELE COUNTY ABATEMENT GOALS, 2003-2007
(in tons)
Steele County, Minnesota
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Residential Recycling Programs
1,974
2,064
2,159
2,258
2,362
Commercial/Industrial - Documented
26,771
27,999
29,283
30,626
32,030
Commercial/Industrial - Non-documented
Problem Materials & Other Recycling
199
208
217
227
238
5,897
6,146
6,405
6,676
6,963
Total (Recycled)
34,841
36,417
38,064
39,787
41,593
Total (Waste Generated)
67,596
70,596
73,732
77,011
80,439
Annual Goal %
51.54
51.58
51.63
51.67
51.71
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
Existing System
Solid waste generated in Steele County is delivered to the Steele County Sanitary Landfill, owned
and operated by Steele County, and to a Lake Mills, Iowa landfill, owned and operated by Waste
Management. The existing waste management system contains the following components: 1)
landfilling at the Steele County Sanitary Landfill and the Lake Mills, Iowa landfill; 2) waste
reduction; 3) recycling; 4) yard waste composting; 5) household hazardous waste management; 6)
special waste management; and 7) waste education.
Proposed Disposal System
Through this ten year plan, the county will manage more than 40 percent of its waste generated. Of
this, up to 28 percent will be recycled through the year 2013. The remainder of the waste generated
in Steele County will be managed by private firms. The County plans to continue to manage its solid
waste through recycling and landfilling.
In the interest of environmental protection, Steele County will continue to consider additional
landfill abatement alternatives. The full analysis of the alternative solid waste management systems
analyzed in this plan is presented in Section 5.0.
Steele County's goal-volume table estimates that the County will need approximately 415,563 cubic
yards of landfill disposal capacity for the 10-year planning period (2003 to 2012 including daily/
intermediate covers). Information on the current permit status of the landfill including available
airspace as of 2003 is provided in Section 3.3.
E-2
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Waste Reduction
Steele County regards source reduction as its first priority in solid waste management. The County
intends to be a positive example to local municipalities, businesses, and residents by reducing waste
generated from County sources. The County believes that education is the most effective method of
reducing waste generation.
Steele County will maintain two programs on waste reduction: (1) public education and (2) waste
reduction in County facilities.
Waste Education
The County considers public education the most important component in its strategy to achieve
waste abatement goals and is planning accordingly. Ongoing public education will be provided for
all elements of the solid waste management program that can benefit from an informed public.
Public education will have a prominent role in Steele County's waste reduction, recycling, yard waste
composting, household hazardous waste and land disposal programs.
The County intends to use the local media, county-produced brochures, and school presentations to
present waste reduction initiatives.
Recycling
Steele County has adopted and endorses state recycling goals and policies. Steele County has met
and exceeded those goals. The County has established ambitious recycling goals calling for the
recycling of more than 50 percent by weight per year of the County's total municipal solid waste
through the year 2012.
The County intends to continue the recycling program begun in 1983 as a voluntary drop-off
program and organized as a county-wide residential recycling collection program in 1991.
Yard Waste Composting
The County has already banned yard waste from MSW. Four composting drop-off sites are available
in the County. The County will continue to promote on-site management of yard waste in
educational programs.
Household Hazardous Waste
The County will continue to participate in the regional household hazardous waste program in
conjunction with Rice County, and to provide household hazardous waste education programs.
Solid Waste Ordinance
Steele County updated its solid waste ordinance in 1998 to bring the ordinance into compliance with
the most current requirements of state law. The County intends to update its ordinance as needed to
comply with current state law.
E-3
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
CONTINGENCY SYSTEM AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ANALYSIS
Contingency System
In the event of a short-term emergency that requires bypassing the Steele County Sanitary Landfill,
the first course of action that the County plans to take is to contact other facilities within a reasonable
distance, including but not limited to the Prairieland Facility and the Rice County Landfill to
determine the best disposal option for the county based on available capacity, transportation factors
and cost.
In the event that the current primary management system fails, Steele County would most likely
deliver waste to one of the facilities listed above until the Steele County Sanitary Landfill was back
in operation or an alternative system could be implemented. The County would seek the assistance of
the OEA should the need for a contingent system arise.
Alternate System Analysis
Steele County intends to continue to consider alternative methods of managing its waste with the
goal of reducing the land disposal of solid waste as much as possible and making use of the resource
value of solid waste. The County has analyzed the potential for increasing solid waste processing.
At this time, the County does not consider the alternatives to be the most feasible and prudent for the
County due to cost, waste assurance, and facility capacity issues. However, the County intends to
continue to consider all of its options for greater landfill abatement. The County also believes that
over the long term it will be in the County's best economic and environmental interests to participate
in regional solid waste management programs to the maximum extent possible. The County has in
the past explored regional options with neighboring counties and intends to continue to do so.
The alternative financial analysis performed for 1) The Prairieland MSW Compositing Facility 2)
Steele/Waseca Composting Facility and 3) The Steele County Landfill, shows the Steele County
Landfill alternative to be most cost effective for the Steele County residences. The average disposal
costs per ton of waste for the three methods through 2013 are summarized below:
METHOD
COST
$51

Steele County Landfill


Prairieland MSW Facility
Steele/Waseca Compost Facility
$80
$90
LOCAL AND REGIONAL MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
Regional Planning
Steele County recognizes the need to evaluate and consider solid waste management alternatives,
including regional solutions for landfill abatement. The County is concerned about the rising cost of
waste management, the environmental impacts of land disposal, long-term waste abatement
E-4
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
solutions, and achieving waste reduction and recycling goals set by the state. Currently, the County is
participating in a regional task force made up of six regional counties (Mower, Freeborn, Waseca,
Steele, Rice, Blue Earth). The County intends to continue to participate actively in the group.
Local Planning
Steele County believes that the proposed waste management system described in this plan is the most
feasible and prudent system available to the County at this time. The County intends to continue its
solid waste management planning. Within nine and one-half years Steele County will submit a draft
of an update to this plan to address changes and improvements to the overall system, including
regional planning, initiation of greater resource recovery and landfill abatement.
WASTE STREAM FLOW AND BUDGET TABLES
Currently, Steele County generates approximately 67,000 tons of waste per year. Over the 10-year
planning period, approximately 45 percent of the waste will be land disposed while more than 50
percent will be abated through alternative management. The Goal-Volume table in Appendix A
provides a 10-year estimate of Steele County's waste system flow.
Waste System Budget
A detailed estimate of County solid waste costs and revenues for the 10-year planning period can be
found in the Steele County Solid Waste Budget provided in Appendix B. A summary of costs for the
first five years through the year 2007 is presented on the following page in Table E-2.
E-5
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
TABLE E-2
ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE BUDGET 2003 - 2007
Steele County, Minnesota
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
$18,000
$18,360
$18,727
$19,102
$19,484
$316,410
$322,738
$329,193
$335,777
$342,492
$6,800
$6,936
$7,075
$7,216
$7,361
$93,000
$94,860
$96,757
$98,692
$100,666
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$434,210
$442,894
$451,752
$460,787
$470,003
Landfill Capital Outlay
$225,000
$229,500
$234,090
$238,772
$243,547
Landfill and Demo Operations
$600,000
$612,000
$624,240
$636,725
$649,459
Total Solid Waste Disposal
$825,000
$841,500
$858,330
$875,497
$893,006
$330,000
$365,000
$370,475
$376,032
$381,673
$70,353
$79,165
$79,165
$79,165
$79,165
$2,200
$2,244
$2,289
$2,335
$2,381
$825,250
$835,250
$850,250
$875,250
$900,250
$1,227,803
$1,281,659
$1,302,179
$1,332,782
$1,363,469
Abatement Program Costs:

Waste Reduction and Education

Recycling

Household Hazardous Waste

Staff and Administration

Problem Materials
Total Abatement Program
Solid Waste Disposal Costs:
Revenue:
Household Solid Waste Fee
SCORE
HHW Grants
Tipping Fee & Misc.
Total Revenue
E-6
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
1.0
1.1
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
GENERAL
Steele County, is updating this Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in order to meet the
requirements of the Minnesota Waste Management Act.
Currently, the primary disposal facility for the majority of waste generated in Steele County is the
Steele County Sanitary Landfill near the village of Bixby 10 miles southeast of the city of Owatonna.
A demolition landfill site is located directly adjacent to the Steele County Sanitary Landfill. Steele
County also supports recycling, waste abatement, composting, and special waste disposal programs
which are described in later sections of this plan.
1.2
OBJECTIVES
The preparation of this solid waste management study encompasses the following objectives:
1.
Inventory the existing solid waste management system in Steele County with regards to
collection, transportation, processing, and institutional issues.
2.
Estimate solid waste generation and its spatial distribution within the study area up to the
Year 2013.
3.
Assess opportunities in waste reduction, composting, and/or recyclable materials, along with
the need for expanded landfill facilities, to determine the relative feasibility of different
options, and how they compare in terms of environmental and monetary costs to the public.
4.
Inform elected officials and all interested citizens of findings and recommendations resulting
from the planning study through a public information meeting and the preparation and
distribution of a final report.
The overall objective of the study is to establish information leading to an intergovernmental
(county, city, local) solid waste management plan which meets the needs of the study area in an
economically feasible, reliable, environmentally sound and institutionally acceptable manner and
which addresses the current waste management hierarchy.
1.3
SCOPE OF WORK
This project involves a joint effort of the Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA), and the Steele
County Board and its Solid Waste Administrator, Scott Golberg, to update the 1998 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan for Steele County.
1-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
2.0
2.1
COUNTY BACKGROUND INFORMATION
LOCATION
Steele County is located in the southeast portion of the state approximately 70 miles south of
Minneapolis. Figure II-1 identifies the County location with respect to the state.
2.2
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND PROJECTIONS
Solid waste quantities have a direct correlation to population. The population of Steele County in
2000 was 33,680 with the population distribution illustrated below.
Table 2-1
Population of Cities and Townships in Steele County, Census 2000
Aurora township
625
Berlin township
508
Blooming Prairie city
1,933
Blooming Prairie township
519
Clinton Falls township
452
Deerfield township
693
Ellendale city
590
Havana township
607
Lemond township
510
Medford city
984
Medford township
681
Meriden township
631
Merton township
380
Owatonna city
22,434
Owatonna township
771
Somerset township
847
Summit township
515
2-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Based on population projections from the Minnesota State Demographers office for the design
period, it is estimated that the County's population will increase from the 2003 estimate of 34,569 to
37,107 by the year 2013 an increase of 7.3 percent over this period. The percentage of people living
within the limits of the four cities in Steele County is predicted to increase between the years of 2003
and 2013.
Similar growth in population is expected to continue over the 20-year period from 2003 to the year
2023. Overall, the population of Steele County is increasing and a larger percentage of people are
moving into the larger population centers.
Projections for the planning period (2003-2013) are summarized in Table 2-2.
TABLE 2-2
COUNTY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS1
Steele County, Minnesota
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Population
34,569
34,847
35,120
35,386
35,644
35,896
36,144
36,390
36,633
36,871
37,107
Households
13,245
13,351
13,456
13,558
13,657
13,753
13,848
13,943
14,036
14,127
14,217
1
The number of households is based upon 2.61 people per household.
Population distribution for Steele County by county and township is shown on Figure II-2.
2.3
EMPLOYMENT
Employment data for Steele County from 2000 through 2003 is presented in the following Table 2-3.
TABLE 2-3
Employment Data for Steele County, 2000-2003
Month
Through
11/03
Annual
2002
Ave.
Annual
2001
Ave.
Annual
2000
Ave.
2003
Labor
Steele
Unemployment
Unemployed
MN Rate US Rate
Force Employment
Rate
20,097
19,169
928
4.6%
4.5%
6.0%
20,031
19,118
913
4.6%
4.4%
5.8%
20,439
19,645
794
3.9%
3.7%
4.7%
19,993
19,371
622
3.1%
3.3%
4.0%
2-2
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
2.4
LAND USE
Land use in Owatonna, Blooming Prairie, Medford and Ellendale is a mix of single and multiple
family residential dwellings, commercial, industrial and public uses. In the smaller communities,
land use consists primarily of single family homes and commercial establishments located along a
main street. Agriculture is the primary activity in the outlying rural areas with industrial
development occurring primarily in the cities of Owatonna and Blooming Prairie.
2.5
LOCAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
2.5.1 Median Household Income
Income estimates
Personal income is an estimate of income received by residents of a state. These income
estimates are part of the National Income and Product Accounts prepared by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis and are derived from a wide range of administrative records. The data
included here is presented on a per capita basis using population estimates provided by the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
1991
2000
2001 % Change 1991-2001 % Change 2000-2001
United States $20,023 $29,760 $30,413
$20,427 $32,231 $33,059
Minnesota
$18,410 $27,771 $27,942
Steele
16.8%
24.5%
16.8%
-0.6%
-0.2%
-2.1%
The Demographic Center at Minnesota Planning analyzes and distributes data from state, U.S.
Census Bureau and other sources. In November 2002 a statistical profile of all the counties in
Minnesota was prepared using the 2000 census information. The profile includes specific
information on the people and households in Steele County. The following table utilizes
information from that statistical profile.
1999 Median household income
$46,106
1999 Median family income
Population below poverty level
Percent of population below poverty level
$53,981
2,055
6.2
2.5.2 Current Economic Conditions
Economic conditions in Steele County have remained stable. This can be attributed to a strong
economy in the southern portion of Minnesota, and Minnesota in general. Manufacturing accounted
for 40% of the job types in Steele County. The unemployment in Steele County in November, 2003
was 4.6%, which is slightly higher than statewide unemployment of 4.5% at this time.
2-3
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
2.6
WASTE GENERATION
2.6.1 Waste Generated
The 2003 per-capita solid waste generation rate for Steele County was approximately 10.71 pounds
per person per day, which includes commercial waste. The estimated residential solid waste
generation rate was 3.64 pounds per person per day.
2-4
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
3.0 COUNTY SOLID WASTE GENERATION, COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION
3.1
SOLID WASTE GENERATION
3.1.1 General
The estimated average daily waste collected is approximately 84 tons per day, and is composed of
volume from commercial and municipal haulers and self haulers within Steele County taken to
landfills.
A total of approximately 64,727 tons of MSW was generated in the Steele County in 2002. Of this,
approximately 29,357 tons or approximately 45 percent was landfilled, 33,333 tons or approximately
52 percent was recycled, and 1,418 tons or approximately 2.2 percent is considered “problem
materials.” Of the quantity landfilled, approximately 16,103 tons went to the Steele County Landfill.
Using available information, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of the County's population
are serviced with waste collection.
In summary, residential and commercial entities generated approximately 177 tons per day of solid
waste of which approximately 44 tons per day is taken to the Steele County Landfill and
approximately 91 tons per day is recycled. Of the remaining 42 tons per day, 37 tons per day is
disposed of at out of county facilities and 5 tons is managed onsite by rural residents.
Although there are no records of waste tire generation available, it is estimated, using national
averages, that Steele County generates approximately 26,000 waste tires per year.
According to available hauler information, collection areas for the solid waste center on the cities
and towns of Steele County. A hauler route does not cover a portion of the rural area. This absence
of service is to be expected as many of the rural dwellers dispose of their waste on their own land
and the low population density in these areas makes collection services expensive.
Estimates of the existing amount of waste being recycled are included in the Goal-Volume
spreadsheets in the Appendix A.
3.1.2 Large Waste Generators
The largest waste generator in Steele County is commercial and industrial base services producing
approximately 42,915 tons in 2002. The second largest waste generator is residential producing
approximately 22,117 tons in 2002.
3.1.3 Demolition Debris
In 2002, approximately 4,825 tons of demolition waste was disposed of at the County's demolition
landfill. Of this, 3,855 tons was landfilled and 970 tons recycled. The recycled material consisted
of concrete and asphalt. This amount is not expected to increase or decrease greatly in the future.
3-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
3.2
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM
There are primarily three methods of solid waste collection: municipal, commercial and individual
haulers. Municipal services are provided either by city workers and equipment or by equipment and
crews under contract to the city with billings through the municipality. Commercial collection
services are provided by direct agreement between the generator and the hauler. Individual haulers
are generally persons not living in a serviced area, or not wishing to be served, who haul their own
waste to a disposal facility.
Waste collection in Steele County is primarily handled through commercial services whereby the
individual generator hires a commercial collection firm. Billing for residential and commercial units
is handled through the City or through the hauler, depending upon location within the County.
Collection is provided in the city of Ellendale by the municipality. Collection is not mandatory in
any cities of Steele County.
MSW is generally collected on a weekly basis contracted individually with costs ranging from $9.00
to $13.00 per month. Service costs are variable depending on such factors as the type of service
(curb versus garage), frequency of service (once versus twice per week), quantity of waste,
population density, haul distances and disposal costs.
Open dumping is not a major problem according to County officials, although some rural residents
have no collection service, and it is not mandatory to do so. Some of these individuals self haul
directly to the landfill and a small percentage self manages their waste on their own property.
Roughly 90 percent of County residents contract with haulers or have access to collection service.
There are currently eight licensed haulers in the County. Names and service areas and quantities of
waste collected of these haulers are provided in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, respectively.
3.2.1 Transfer Stations
There are no existing transfer stations in Steele County.
3.2.2 Rural Collection
Currently rural collection is contracted individually by residents and business. State law allows rural
farm households to dispose of household waste on their property in a nuisance free manner.
Approximately 5 tons per day is disposed of in this manner.
3.3
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
3.3.1 General
Municipal solid waste generated in the County is primarily disposed of inside the County at the
Steele County Sanitary Landfill. According to landfill and hauler information approximately
260 tons per week is collected by Waste Management in Steele County and disposed of outside of
the County.
3-2
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
3.3.2 Steele County Landfill
In 1973 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued a construction permit for a 14 acre
(Phase I) municipal solid waste landfill (MSW), MPCA Permit No. SW-131. The MPCA modified
the permit in 1978 to allow construction and operation of the 6 acre Phase II. Phases I and II had a
combined capacity of approximately 523,770 cubic yards.
A Compliance Order issued by the MPCA on May 30, 1985 revoked the previous permit allowing
the facility to operate under the terms of the order. Construction plans for Phase IIIA were approved
by the MPCA on July 5, 1985 in accordance with the Compliance Order. On October 23, 1987, the
MPCA modified and reissued the permit to allow filling in Phase IIIA, B, and C providing a total
MSW capacity of 535,291 cubic yards. Plans and specifications for the construction of Phase IIIB
and Phase IIIC were approved March 28, 1988, and July 2, 1990, respectively. On July 25, 1994, the
MPCA again modified and reissued the permit. The modification authorized the development of the
approximately 16.6-acre Phase IIID fill area which increased the capacity of the entire Facility by
350,782 cubic yards of airspace. The total airspace capacity permitted for the MSW fill operations in
Phases I, II and III is 1,409,443 cubic yards.
On January 17, 2002, the MPCA reissued the permit after the county submitted development plans
for a new Phase IV development with an air space capacity of 1,483,000 cubic yards. The MSW
total ultimate capacity for Phase I through IV is 2,892,443 cubic yards. The MSW permitted
capacity authorized by the reissued permit is 1,409,443 cubic yards (Phase I, II, III’s capacity) plus
222,000 cubic yards (Phase IV, Cell 1’s capacity) equals 1,631,443 cubic yards. As of December,
2003, approximately 311,972 cubic yards of permitted airspace remains to be filled.
Approximately 50 percent of the solid waste currently collected in Steele County is hauled to the
County-owned landfill located in Section 28 of Aurora Township. The site receives solid waste from
Steele and smaller quantities from Freeborn, Mower, Waseca, and Dodge Counties. In 2003, the site
received approximately 20,300 tons of solid waste, of this approximately 20 percent is from out-ofcounty waste. Table 3-1 lists the recorded MSW disposed of at the Steele County Sanitary Landfill
from 1997 to 2002.
3.3.3 Waste Handling
Solid waste at the Steele County landfill is managed in accordance with the approved facility
Operations Plan. Solid waste accepted for disposal includes mixed municipal solid wastes and
approved industrial wastes. Management of approved industrial wastes is in accordance with the
facility Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan.
Municipal Solid Waste is screened at the landfill facility by the certified landfill operator to ensure
that prohibited wastes do not enter the landfill. The certified landfill operators undergo training to
detect prohibited materials that could enter the facility. If prohibited wastes are detected, the landfill
operator rejects the waste and provides information on alternate disposal facilities. If an
unacceptable load is dumped in the landfill, this area is quarantined-off and the MPCA is contacted
for assistance with proper disposal.
Approved industrial wastes are managed in accordance with the facility industrial waste management
plan. Steele County has developed a notification procedure for all potential industrial solid waste
3-3
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
generators and haulers that could use the facility. This notification informs generators and haulers of
implementation of the Industrial Solid Waste Plan. All wastes from industrial generators must seek
prior approval for disposal of their wastes at the Steele County landfill. Evaluation of the wastes
includes review of inventories physical test results. If insufficient data is available from the
generator prepared evaluation form, additional testing will be requested, which could include
Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Paint Filter Liquids test and Chemical
Composition Analysis. Upon acceptance, a waste approval letter will be sent to both the generator
and hauler. In this letter, disposal conditions will be specified including quantity, frequency of
disposal, and packaging of wastes. Waste is then tracked from the generator to the hauler and finally
at the disposal facility by waste tracking forms. Since the implementation of the Industrial Solid
Waste Management Plan in 1993, approximately 3,000 tons of industrial wastes have been disposed
of in the Steele County landfill to date.
3.3.4 Landfill Monitoring
The site monitoring program at the Steele County Landfill consists of sample collection and analysis
for leachate, ground water, and surface water. In addition, landfill gas is monitored around the
perimeter of the property.
Leachate generated by the facility is transported to the City of Owatonna for treatment by
Owatonna’s wastewater treatment plant. The City of Owatonna establishes monitoring requirements.
Currently, Steele County collects leachate samples for analysis four times per year. The
concentration and fluctuations in leachate chemistry are typical of leachate generated by mixed
municipal solid waste (MSW).
The existing ground water monitoring program includes the collection and analysis of ground water
samples from 12 wells consisting of two (2) upgradient or background monitoring wells, five (5)
detection monitoring wells, and five (5) compliance monitoring wells. Ground water samples are
collected three times per year (spring, summer, and fall) and analyzed in accordance with the facility
permit. A number of metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in wells
downgradient of the Phase I and II Areas. Although the detections appear landfill-related, only two
parameters at the site occasionally exceed Ground Water Performance Standards (MPCA
Intervention Limits): arsenic and manganese. However, compared to leachate chemistry, the
detections of arsenic and manganese do not appear to be leachate-related. Arsenic is believed to be
present due to past agricultural land use and manganese is believed to have been oxidized out of
native soils as a result of the shallow water table and disturbance from landfill construction and
operations.
Surface water monitoring at the site includes the collection and analysis of surface water from one
location within an on-site drainage ditch downgradient of the waste disposal areas. Monitoring
frequency and the analytical parameter list are the same as for the ground water monitoring points.
Although the concentration of manganese exceeds its MPCA Intervention Limit, it is believed to be
naturally occurring as a result of oxidation. Landfill-related impacts are not apparent in surface
water samples.
Methane gas is monitored at the facility through a network of 16 permanent gas probes. The gas
probes are monitored for percent gas or percent lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane four times
3-4
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
per year. The construction of the gas cut-off trench and installation of trench vents in the Phase I/ II
areas in 2002 appears to have significantly reduced methane migration at the facility.
3.3.5 Inspections
The landfill is inspected monthly in accordance with MPCA requirements including:






uncontrolled vegetation growth
soil erosion
vandalism on the monitoring systems
rodents and burrowing animals
malfunctions in the leachate, gas detection and collection systems; and
settlement in closed areas
Inspection activities are recorded on field inspection log forms maintained on-site. Deficiencies are
documented on the log. Repairs or corrections are implemented immediately and noted on the site
inspection log. To date, the majority of problems observed on site during the monthly inspections
have been uncontrolled vegetation growth particularly in drainage areas. Also soil erosion has been
observed in areas having channelized surface water flow adjacent to the existing closed Phase I/II.
These problems have been rectified. Overall, the Steele County landfill has little problems with
these nuisance elements.
Directly adjacent to the Steele County landfill are 2 property owners. Steele County has received and
responded to a few complaints from these property owners primarily concerning windblown trash.
Steele County implements a rigorous operating procedure during windy conditions which includes
wind fences, facility closure, and daily picking of blown trash if needed.
The MPCA makes periodic visits to the site and records problems and violations. Any of these
problems were rectified and a follow-up letter was sent to the MPCA notifying the date and type of
correction.
3.4
RATE STRUCTURE AND ABATEMENT INCENTIVES
3.4.1 Existing Rate Structure
Private haulers collect residential and commercial solid waste. The haulers charge between $9.00
and $13.00 per household per month for solid waste collection. Waste from businesses is collected
by haulers who use a volume-based rate per cubic yard based on the number of pick-ups required per
month, the size of the container and the distance to the facility. The remainder of business and
commercial solid waste is hauled by the individual businesses.
Sanitary landfill costs are paid with landfill tip fees. Present tipping fees charged by the landfill are
presented below in Table 3-3.
3-5
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
TABLE 3-3
LANDFILL USER CHARGES
Steele County, Minnesota
Item
Cost
Mixed Solid Waste:
Contracted
$39/ton
Non-contracted
$46/ton
Car
$9.60/each
Pickup, trailer or station wagon
$18.00/each
Demolition waste
$20/ton
Tire (each)
$2-10/each
Appliances (each)
$10-20/each
3.4.2 Waste Abatement
The County’s current recycling program is described in Section 6.0 of this report. Also described in
Section 6.0 are the County’s yard waste management program and all other solid waste abatement
programs currently in force.
Currently, recycling programs in Steele County have been managed through the efforts of the county
and private recycling companies.
3.5
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
Numerous studies have been performed across the United States in an attempt to quantify and qualify
solid waste characteristics. What has been found is that what is average or "normal" for one region
or city can be totally different from a similar area in a different part of the country or state, or even
from the same location at different times of the year. Solid waste quantities and characteristics vary
on a daily, weekly and seasonal basis, depending on various outside influences. While it is possible
to characterize an area's waste by sampling and classification, to be effective this must be performed
daily for an extended period of time. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies have performed detailed sampling for a number
of U.S. communities and have compiled some average values for a number of constituents of solid
waste. Based upon information presented in the Goal-Volume Table (Appendix A), approximately
66 percent of MSW generated in Steele County is commercial and industrial. The remaining
34 percent is considered residential.
3.6
INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
3.6.1 Ordinance
3-6
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Steele County's solid waste ordinance was enacted in 1973 and updated in 1998. The ordinance
gives the County government authority to regulate all solid waste operations as stipulated by state
regulations. The ordinance provides for a Solid Waste Officer position. The Solid Waste Officer is
responsible for reviewing and issuing hauler licenses, inspecting solid waste operations and
investigating violations, enforcing the ordinance and working with other agencies to further the
purpose of the ordinance. Private haulers, some of which are licensed by the City in which they
collect, primarily handle solid waste collection in Steele County. A copy of the existing solid waste
ordinance is included in Appendix C.
3.6.2 Comprehensive Management Plan
Solid waste management planning has been an on-going process over the past five years. This
management plan is an update of the plan completed in 1998. This update will review the
conclusions and recommendations included in the 1998 Management Plan. Solid waste management
in Steele County is the responsibility of the Steele County Board of Commissioners. Working with
the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, the Steele County Board of Commissioners is the
decision-making authority within the County. As the organizational solid waste authority, the
County Board is responsible for resolving conflicts regarding solid waste issues. It is anticipated that
the cities within the County may be given some authority as solid waste programs develop over time.
The County Solid Waste Administrator is the primary contact for solid waste issues in the County.
The County Solid Waste Administrator working with the County Board of Commissioners will be
responsible for the annual review and implementation of the County's Solid Waste Management
Plan. The Board has the ultimate responsibility in making solid waste management planning
decisions.
3-7
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
4.0
4.1
PLANNING HISTORY
PREVIOUS LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES
In 1993, the Steele and Waseca County Boards entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for the
purpose of exploring and planning cooperative solid waste management projects. The Joint Powers
Board discussed and reviewed regional projects including:


the Steele and Waseca Counties Composting Plan, and
the LJP Enterprises/NRG Energy Compost and the RDF system.
4.1.1
Steele-Waseca Counties Composting Study
A comprehensive regional solid waste plan for Steele and Waseca counties was prepared by OSM in
May of 1994. As part of this study, OSM evaluated the feasibility of a joint composting plan.
Three different composting alternatives were presented in this study, identified below as:



Alternative 1) - Steele and Waseca Counties only
Alternative 2) - Steele, Waseca, Freeborn, and Mower Counties
Alternative 3) - Steele, Waseca, Freeborn, Mower, and Rice Counties
Based upon this study capital costs for this project would range from approximately $5,374,000 to
$16,907,000, resulting in tipping fees ranging from approximately $64/ton to $90/ton in 1997
dollars. Considering the capital expenditures to these alternatives, long term cost associated with
operations, the uncertainty of maintaining long-term competitive tipping rates, and legal issues with
waste designation, both Steele and Waseca Counties decided not to proceed with this project
development.
Also, as part of this study other existing regional solid waste management facilities including the
Olmsted County Waste-to-Energy Facility in Rochester, Minnesota, and the Prairieland composting
facility in Truman, Minnesota were also evaluated to determine whether Steele could participate with
these facilities. In order for Olmsted County to accept Steele County waste, an additional
combustion unit would need to be added to the existing waste to energy facility. Olmsted County is
currently considering adding a third combustion unit which would increase capacity by an additional
200 tons/day. Disposing of Steele County solid waste at the Prairieland composite facility would
require expansion of this facility. Costs for disposal at this facility are projected to be $75/ton (2003
dollars). Also, a transfer station would be required for this option adding $18/ton to the disposal
cost. Based upon these costs, this option is not considered economically viable.
4.1.2
LJP Enterprises/NRG Energy Compost and RDF System
Under this plan, fuel and compost derived solid waste would be produced. The primary facilities of
this plan would include the Prairieland Compost Facility, NSP’s Wilmarth Power Plant, and the
Ponderosa landfill. Solid waste from the county would be collected at a central dumping point for
transferring to the compost facility where refuse derived fuel would be produced. Upon study of this
4-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
proposal by the Joint Powers Board, the proposal was rejected due to high level of financial capital
and service fees.
4.2 CURRENT LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Since 1994, Steele County has been participating in a five-county (Mower, Freeborn, Steele, Rice,
and Waseca Counties) solid waste working committee. Blue Earth County was added to the group in
2001. From each county two commissioners are appointed to participate in solid waste discussions.
Steele County has been a member of the Southeast Minnesota Recycler’s Exchange since 1993. This
association provides cooperative market development for recyclable materials, cooperative
marketing of recyclables, and a materials exchange program.
Since 1992 Steele and Rice Counties entered into a contract for management of Household
Hazardous waste. A copy of this contract is provided in Appendix D. Under this agreement, Steele
County is the co-sponsoring organization that is responsible for the local education program that is
involved in managing household hazardous wastes and the household waste management facility
itself. Since 1993, the household hazardous waste facility at the county landfill has been accepting
waste.
4.3 FUTURE REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Steele County will continue to pursue a regional discussion on MSW landfilling with adjacent
counties including Rice, Waseca, Freeborn, Blue Earth, and Mower. These discussions will focus on
regionalizing solid waste disposal needs including landfilling. Because of Steele County’s new
landfill with approximately 40 years of disposal capacity, adjacent counties may consider achieving
their disposal needs by using the Steele County Facility. Steele County will continue these
discussions quarterly, at the Regional Solid Waste Committee Meetings. Meeting minutes will be
prepared from each discussion outlining follow-up actions, if needed. The meeting minutes will be
filed at the Steele County Environmental Services Office.
4.4 IMPEDIMENTS OR BARRIERS TO REGIONAL EFFORTS
Regional efforts at composting, as well as some other solid waste management methods, have been
tried, as described in the previous sections. The primary reason these efforts have been unsuccessful
relates to the relatively high transport costs over rural transportation ways. In all cases, cost was the
governing factor in not pursuing the regional facilities.
Aside from high transport costs, other reasons exist which are somewhat less quantifiable. Steele
County is just one tier of counties north of the Iowa border and less expensive disposal facilities exist
within the northern Iowa border counties. When transport in the southernmost tier of counties must
be paid for either to the north or to the south, the less expensive disposal option (usually to the south)
will force the decision. Steele County’s proximity to northern Iowa is significant.
4.5 RESOLUTION OF PLANNING CHALLENGES
4-2
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Steele County is open to ongoing discussions with neighboring counties in this regard. To offset the
loss of generated waste going to other disposal facilities, Steele County has looked to other entities
located within the region as sources of waste for the Steele County Landfill.
4-3
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
5.0
ALTERNATIVES TO A LANDFILL-BASED SYSTEM
5.1 ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES
5.1.1
Olmsted County Waste-to-Energy Facility
The 1994 Steele-Waseca Counties Composting Study, an evaluation for disposal at the Olmsted
County Waste-to-Energy Facility was performed. In order for Steele County waste to be disposed of
at this facility, a third burner unit would have to be added. Presently, Olmsted County is planning on
expanding this facility for increased disposal capacity.
The Olmsted County Waste-to-Energy facility opened in 1987 and is permitted to receive
approximately 92,000 tons annually. Currently two burners utilize Riley Takuma municipal waste
combustors rated at 46.5 million BTUs per hour. Waste is received from Olmsted and Dodge
counties through a Joint Powers Agreement and currently operates at 100% capacity. Each unit is
equipped with a natural gas-fired auxiliary burner located at the rear wall of the furnace. Ash is
stored at the Kalmar landfill. The burners are designed to process 200 tons/day. A third burner is
currently being planned and is proposed to come on line in 2007. The addition of this third burner
will allow Olmsted and Dodge counties to continue disposal of all garbage currently going to that
facility.
The WTE facility processes about 200 tons per day of mixed municipal solid waste and operates 24
hours per day, 7 days per week. MSW is delivered to the facility Monday through Saturday. The
facility has, on average, been available for operation 90.58% of all hours in each year. It is
calculated that the plant operates 331.6 days per year, burning an average of 181 tons per day.
This facility is located on the east side of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. The Olmsted County
Waste-To-Energy facility is currently operating at 100% capacity and cannot accept any additional or
new waste.
The Olmsted County facility cost approximately 23 million dollars to construct. Currently the
facility charges $65 per ton for disposal.
The Olmsted County system is set up with voluntary contracts with waste haulers. The present
contracts with haulers expire in 2007. Olmsted County will work toward building relationships with
the haulers that will lead to negotiated and renewed contracts.
The facility is consistent with Minnesota waste management hierarchy. There is a continuous
monitoring system in place for emissions. All processing is done in an enclosed area. There is little
or no risk to surface water. The use of specially designed landfills for ash minimizes the risk for
ground water contamination.
The flue gas system is comprised of individual electrostatic precipitators, induced draft fans, and
stack flues. Continuous emission monitor systems are used to measure CO, CO2, O2 and SO2, and
opacity. Flue gas flow in the stack is also measured because emissions must be reported in either
parts per million by volume or by lbs/hr emission rate. The facility operates a potable water system
using groundwater and a sewer system that serves the Campus, the Department of Natural Resources
5-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
and the Federal Medical Center.
5.1.2
Prairieland Compost Facility
As part of the 1994 Steele-Waseca Counties Composting Study, waste disposal at the Prairieland
Compost Facility was also evaluated. In order for Steele County waste to be accepted at the
Prairieland Facility, the Prairieland Facility would need to be expanded and cost for the expansion
would be paid by increased tipping fees to Steele County. In addition, a transfer facility would also
have to be built in Steele County centralized collection. With the addition of the transfer station
construction costs, total cost for this alternative would exceed $90 per ton tipping fee.
Faribault and Martin Counties, owns and operates the Prairieland Compost Facility, which began
operations in September 1991. The facility is located on 20 acres in the City of Truman (Martin
County) and is 74,000 square feet in size. The buildings are enclosed for environmental and quality
control purposes. The enclosed buildings help control odors of incoming MSW, control noise from
processing equipment, help maintain the temperature of the compost piles and prevent leachate
generation from precipitation.
The Prairieland Facility operates 8 hours per day, 5 days per week and has a permitted process capacity
of 26,000 tons per year (100 tons per day). The Prairieland Facility currently receives waste from
Faribault and Martin Counties.
Martin County has determined that the long-term environmental and economic costs and benefits make
the Prairieland Facility the most prudent and feasible waste management system available at this time.
The feasibility and efficiency of the project has been examined several times since operations began in
1991, and the results have reaffirmed that the Prairieland Facility is a sound technical and financial
approach to integrated solid waste management. The Board fully intends to continue in its efforts to
provide an integrated waste management system, which will reduce the waste stream, recover materials
for recycling and minimize the land disposal of unprocessed MSW.
Facility Description
The processing of MSW into compost, recyclables, refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and residuals is a fourstage process. The following description outlines the process used at the Prairieland Facility.
Tipping Floor
The mixed MSW is delivered by packer trucks to a tipping floor where it is visually inspected for
non-processible waste. Non-processible waste (listed in Table III-1) is removed by a picker on the
tipping floor and a front-end loader and stored for recycling or disposed of as appropriate. The tipping
floor is sized to allow for several days of storage capacity and ample truck maneuvering area. In
addition, facility staff identify and separate recyclable materials, such as wood and metals, and items
prohibited from the waste stream (e.g., tires, appliances, household hazardous wastes). The front-end
loader pushes the processible waste on a conveyor for delivery to the processing building.
5-2
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Processing Building
The conveyed processible waste from the tipping floor is delivered to the shredder located within a
concrete enclosure. The shredder rips open plastic bags, and shreds the processible waste to a
nominal size of three inches. The processible waste is conveyed from the shredder to a magnetic
separator and the ferrous material is separated and conveyed to the load out area for transport to
market. The remaining compostable waste is conveyed to a two stage trommel screen, which
includes 1 inch and 3 inch openings that separate the processible waste into three fractions: less than
one inch, greater than one inch but less than three inches, and greater than three inches. Materials
that are greater than 3 inches are conveyed to a load-out area for delivery to the NRG-Wilmarth
waste-to-energy facility as RDF. Delivery to NRG-Wilmarth is dependent on available capacity each
day. If capacity is not available to accept the material, it is delivered to a landfill. The intermediate
fraction that is greater than one inch and less than three inches is conveyed to the mixer. The fraction
less than one inch is directed to the vibrating screen which contains an air classifier that separates the
heavier non-compostable material from the lighter organic fraction. The lighter organic fraction is
conveyed to the mixer where process water is added to achieve a moisture content of approximately
50 percent. The moisture conditioning of the compost feedstock is the final step in the mechanical
processing procedures. The compost feedstock is then conveyed to the silo building. The small,
heavy non-compostable fraction from the vibrating screen, which consists primarily of glass, stones,
and ceramics, is directed to a roll-off container. This material may be used as aggregate for highway
projects.
5.1.3
Steele Waseca Compost Facility
The Steele and Waseca Counties Compost Facility Study is outlined in Section 4.1.1.
5.2 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
5.2.1
Waste Reduction Programs
All Waste Reduction Programs, whether implemented or not, are covered in Section 6.0 of this
report.
5.2.2
Municipal Solid Waste Composting Facilities
5.2.2.1
General
In a MSW composting system, approximately 55 to 75 percent of the waste stream is compostable.
The remainder consists largely of inert materials such as metal, glass and plastic that must be
disposed of in a permitted sanitary landfill.
When a relatively small quantity of material is involved, a static pile system would be utilized for the
composting process. In the static pile, solid waste is mixed with sludge, manure, urea or other
moisture and nutrient sources to develop a suitable mixture for decomposition. While in the static
pile the material is aerated to maintain aerobic conditions and control odors. Following a four-week
detention period in the static pile, the material is windrowed in long piles for four to eight weeks to
complete the stabilization of the compost.
5-3
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
When dealing with larger quantities of material, a mechanical digester system would probably be
utilized to begin the decomposition process and reduce the volume. In the digester, solid waste is
mixed with sludge, manure, urea or other moisture and nutrient sources to develop a suitable
composition for digestion. While in the digester the material is aerated to maintain aerobic
conditions and control odors. The contents of the digester are kept at a controlled temperature of
approximately 135-150o F to aid in the destruction of pathogens. Following a one to three day
detention period in the digester, the material is windrowed in long piles for six weeks or more to
complete the stabilization of the compost. Application of immature compost to land can draw
nutrients from the underlying soils.
As noted in the 1994 Steele-Waseca Counties Composting Study, the most likely alternative is for
the development of a compost facility to serve Steele County in conjunction with other counties
either in or outside the study area.
It should be kept in mind that as the size of the project increases, increased transportation costs may
offset the economies of scale inherent in a larger facility and risks from the lack of an assured market
in the region increase with the size of the facility.
5.2.2.2
Steele and Waseca Counties Composting Study
In 1994 Steele and Waseca Counties prepared a composting study to determine the feasibility of
solid waste composting. The study reviewed five alternatives using different technologies and
number of participating counties. These alternatives were:
1A
1B
2A
2B
3
High Tech, Steele and Waseca Counties only
Low Tech, Steele and Waseca Counties only
Source Separated, Steele, Waseca, Freeborn and Mower Counties
High Tech, Steele, Waseca, Freeborn and Mower Counties
High Tech, Steele, Waseca, Freeborn, Mower and Rice Counties
“Low tech” composting facilities were considered as facilities with daily capacities of less than 80 to
100 tons per day (TPD) with a low level of control over the composting process. “High tech”
composting facilities were considered as facilities with throughput capacities of 100 TPD or greater
and having a high level of process control. Freeborn and Mower Counties were awarded a $2
million dollar grant for an 80 TPD source-separated organic facility. Due to expected high tipping
fees for development of this type of facility, the plan was rejected.
5.2.3
Incineration and Energy Recovery
5.2.3.1
General
Several waste-to-energy technologies are currently available as solid waste disposal alternatives.
These technologies must be compatible with the quantity and composition of the solid waste stream,
as well as the area's energy markets. The waste quantity estimates indicate that approximately 60
tons per day of solid waste is available from Steele County. Additional waste may be available from
neighboring counties.
5-4
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
5.2.3.2
Incineration
Two main technologies, field erected mass-burn incineration and modular incineration are the most
common waste to energy incineration systems presently in use today. The differences between the
two types of systems, their applicability to the study area, and their advantages and disadvantages are
discussed below.
Field Erected Mass-burn Incineration
Mass-burn incineration involves the direct combustion of the waste stream with little or no
preprocessing which makes this process a very efficient method of waste reduction. The maximum
portion of the energy available in the refuse is recovered as heat, and converted to steam for process
use or for generating electric power.
Mass burning is the predominant waste-to-energy technology used in Europe and the United States
today. Mass-burn systems can be divided into two types: excess-air and starved-air. In general,
excess-air combustion can be used in both small and large-scale systems, whereas starved-air
combustion is used in small systems with capacities up to 300 tons per day. Process air for either
system is drawn from within the building, through the incinerator, maintaining a negative building
pressure to control odors.
In a typical large-scale incinerator installation, refuse is unloaded and dumped into a storage pit.
From the pit, the refuse is moved with a clamshell crane to the furnace-charging hopper, which feeds
by gravity into the incinerator. As the movement of the grate system removes material from the
bottom of the hopper into the incinerator, the material level drops and more material must be added.
The hopper is kept full to seal the incinerator and keep combustion gases from leaking into the
building. Refuse is burned on a system of moving grates, which keep the material moving and
allows air to circulate through the fuel bed for thorough combustion. The residue, having about 10
percent of the original input volume and about 20 percent of the original weight, consists of ash,
glass, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and unburned organic materials, and must be disposed of in a
landfill.
Heat from the burning waste is captured in the heat recovery system to produce either steam or hot
water. The combustion gases are passed through air pollution control devices prior to leaving
through the stack. Steam produced in these incinerator facilities may be used for domestic or
industrial applications such as home heating and cooling, district heating and cooling, process
heating or for electrical generation.
Modular Incineration
Modular incineration is also a mass-burning concept; however, all the components are factory
fabricated and shipped to the site for installation. This feature provides the economic advantages of
standardized design and relatively simple shipment and assembly. Each module is small, typically
handling up to 50 tons of waste per day. Modular incineration systems with energy recovery offer
the same advantages to small communities and industrial parks that field-erected incinerators due to
5-5
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
large municipal and regional areas. With or without steam generation, modular incinerators are
relatively easy to build and operate, and are readily available. Heat recovery boilers, which generate
steam from the hot flue gases, are available to serve each incinerator module, or group of modules.
In a typical modular incinerator installation, the incinerator/boiler units are housed in a building with
a concrete slab floor, and insulated metal sidewalls with a structural steel frame. The building
provides shelter for the incinerator/boiler units, and the tipping floor or a storage pit area for
unloading refuse delivery trucks and storage of refuse. The refuse is loaded into the modular
incinerator-charging hopper using a small front-end loader or clamshell crane. A hydraulic charging
ram then forces the refuse into the primary combustion chamber.
Waste is moved through the primary chamber either on a series of reciprocating grates or by means
of hydraulic rams. Combustion gases, meanwhile, flow upward into a secondary combustion
chamber where they are burned again. This heat is then captured through heat recovery boilers in the
form of steam. This steam can be sold directly or used to produce electricity. After quenching in a
water trough, residues are removed from the primary combustion chamber by an automatic ash
removal system. The residue produced by this system must be hauled to a landfill disposal facility.
Until recently, the emphasis in waste-to-energy facilities was on disposal of the waste. The energy
generated was considered a cost-free benefit, and in some cases, was even wasted when the steam
user's needs did not fit the waste flow. That approach, however, has been seen to be economically
unsound since the energy payments can be a principal source of revenue to repay the capital cost of
the project.
Refuse Derived Fuel
Another method of recovering energy from waste is to produce fuel, or refuse derived fuel (RDF),
from solid waste that can be burned directly in a conventional boiler. The starting material, raw
municipal solid waste, is typically composed of 80 percent combustibles (including organic food
waste, paper, plastic, wood, rubber, leather and textiles), 10 percent glass, 9 percent metals, and 1
percent miscellaneous materials, such as white goods and dirt.
In the waste processing facility, a high percentage of the undesirable non-combustibles are removed
from the waste stream to produce fuel that has a lower ash content and a higher energy content. The
process usually includes size reduction of the refuse by shredding to produce a product with a fairly
uniform particle size. Inert materials are removed, and ferrous metals, aluminum and glass are
typically recovered. There are two basic types of RDF processing units - one employing a dry
processing system and the other wet processing. The systems differ in how they attempt to separate
the various components of the waste.
The dry processing system is the most widely used. In this system, the waste is first mechanically
shredded and then separated into a light, organic RDF fraction and a heavy, inorganic material
fraction using an air classifier. About 85 percent of the shredded waste is separated as RDF.
Following the air classifier, the shredded RDF is processed in a trommel screen, which further
reduces the average size of the RDF by separating out the larger size particles. The resultant product
is called "fluff" RDF. From the trommel, the fluff RDF may be used directly as a fuel, or it may be
further processed. A disadvantage of the dry processing system is the high risk of fire or explosion.
5-6
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
The wet RDF process involves the use of a wet pulping machine, or hydropulper, in which solid
waste is mixed with water and reduced to a slurry by intensive mixing with high-speed cutting
blades. Large indestructible items are rejected, and the slurry is pumped to a liquid cyclone where
the heavy fraction is removed. Further processing to recover metals and glass is possible. The
dewatered and dried slurry is the RDF product. Two advantages of the liquid process over the dry
process are: (1) a reduction in risk of fire or explosions and (2) a reduction of dust control problems
during size reduction. The disadvantage of the wet process is that it is highly energy consumptive.
Experience has shown that processing requires energy equivalent to 40 percent of the RDF's fuel
value.
Since RDF facilities are quite costly and complex, a waste load of at least 200 tons per day is
typically required. As this quantity is significantly higher than the amount produced in the study
area, these RDF options will be eliminated from further consideration.
Two additional systems that are being used to bring the production of RDF to small facilities are
waste separation and co-composting. Waste separation uses a combination of manual and
mechanical means to remove the heavy noncombustible fraction. The Brini Fuel system
manufactured by PLM Sellbergs is an example of this type of system. Co-composting uses
biological means to produce humus from which the heavy fraction can be screened. Both processes
produce material that can be pelletized using a process similar to any of the RDF systems that
produce pellets, or densified RDF (d-RDF). The moisture content of the material is controlled to
allow extruding the fuel into a pellet or briquette. The two advantages d-RDF offer over shredded
RDF are: (1) a longer storage life before bacterial decomposition will occur, and (2) the higher
density and weight of the fuel allows handling in standard coal handling systems.
Environmental Concerns
There are two areas of environmental concern with the incineration of municipal solid waste: air
pollution control and the disposal of incinerator ash. Air pollution control may require expensive
additional equipment including dry scrubbers and bag houses. The concern over ash disposal
revolves around the possibility of the incinerator ash being classified as a hazardous waste that
would require additional safe guards. Due to the high costs and implementation barriers surrounding
the energy recovery alternatives, this option has been eliminated from further detail analysis in this
management plan update.
5.2.4
Solid Waste Volume Reduction Programs
5.2.4.1
General
Shredding
Shredding is a solid waste volume reduction process that uses hammermilling and other processing
equipment to shred the solid waste, producing smaller and more uniformly sized particles.
Shredding is a preparatory process that precedes sanitary landfilling or some types of incineration.
The advantages of shredding are: (1) reduced landfill space, because shredded solid waste can be
compacted to a density up to 50% greater than uncompacted solid waste; (2) reduced landfill
5-7
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
operating cost by eliminating need for daily soil cover; and (3) reduction of vectors, i.e. rats and flies
at the landfill.
Shredding reduces sanitary landfilling costs, but it substantially increases total processing and
disposal costs. This type of operation was utilized at Madison, Wisconsin from 1967 to 1977.
Madison has since upgraded its operation and produces refuse derived fuel. Records maintained at
the Madison facility indicate shredding of solid waste is generally too expensive for smaller landfill
facilities. Estimated cost for the shredder equipment alone, including installation, would be
$200,000. Additional costs would include a building, site work and other accessory equipment. In
addition, shredding does not reduce the quantity of waste sent to the landfill. It merely increases
potential landfill life by increasing the compactability of the waste. As such, shredding is a shortterm option to extend landfill life but does not solve the long-term problem.
Baling
Baling is a solid waste volume reduction process that consists of compacting solid waste into
high-density, rectangular-shaped bales. Baling achieves 50-100% higher in-place density in a
sanitary landfill than utilizing conventional compaction methods. A potential disadvantage of baling
is that the high density may hinder biological decomposition, thus extending the period over which
leachate is a concern at a particular landfill.
The advantages of baling include lower transportation costs; reduced risk of landfill fires; reduced
vector problems; minimizing many of the environmental impacts of landfills; and extending landfill
life because of the greater density of wastes.
Based on estimates provided by a local manufacturer, a baling system capable of processing 50 tpd
of solid waste would cost approximately $15 per ton to construct, operate and maintain. Even if the
baler could reduce landfill space requirements by 50 percent, and eliminate the need for daily cover,
it will not reduce the need for leachate collection and treatment systems, ground water monitoring,
closure, and other substantial landfill costs. As with shredding, baling is not a permanent solution to
the landfill problem. Baling can help extend landfill life but not alleviate the need for a landfill.
5.2.4.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Steele County currently has no plans to implement any volume reduction program.
5.3 COUNTY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT OPTIONS
All County collection and transport options, whether implemented or not, are addressed in
Section 6.0 of this report in order to keep similar discussions in one area for the sake of clarity.
5.4 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE COSTS
Financial analysis performed for the Prairieland MSW Facility, Steele/Waseca Compost Facility,
and the Steele County Landfill, are summarized in a table provided in Appendix E. Based upon this
analysis, the Steele County Landfill will be significantly less costly as the other alternatives.
5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
5-8
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Each of the alternatives to landfill has inherent environmental risks with development.
5.6 CONCLUSION
5.6.1
Technological
Current technology for all four alternatives is well developed. With the exception of Steele-Waseca
Composting Facility, the other listed facilities are operating. Landfilling, however, is the “low tech”
solution compared to the others. The current “state of practice” for landfilling has shown to be
available and workable for county operations. It is questionable at this time given the higher degree
of technology with composting and waste-to-energy facilities how viable these technologies are to
many rural counties.
5.6.2
Environmental
Environmental risk for the different alternatives is difficult to compare. Past landfills developed
prior to implementing Subtitle D have leaked, contributing to groundwater contamination. However,
since the introduction of composite liners under Subtitle D landfills to date have provided greater
environmental protection. Other environmental risks associated with landfills such as surface water
impacts and erosion can be controlled by proper operational practices. Other alternatives including
composting and waste-to-energy also have inert environmental risks. With waste-to-energy
facilities, air quality is a major risk that can only be controlled using high technology emission
control devises. However, this is a “moving target” with continuous changing regulatory
requirements. Even with air quality goals achieved ash disposal of secure landfill is needed. The
same environmental problems with sanitary landfills are also a concern with landfilling ash. For
some MSW burn facilities, the resulting ash is considered hazardous resulting in disposal at Subtitle
C facilities.
The Prairieland RDF and other composting facilities have minimal groundwater and surface water
risks since processing is contained indoors. The major environmental concern for these facilities is
air quality and odor. Air quality and odor can be controlled by “high tech” systems installed within
buildings. Finished compost products may contain high levels of leachable metals. End use of this
material could result in soil and groundwater contamination thereby limiting its use.
5.6.3
Financial
Financial consideration is important for development of any type of disposal facility. The cost of
using alternatives to the current county landfill based system can be expressed in terms of cost
per ton disposed. For a detailed description of the financial analysis of the alternatives see the
1998 Steele County Solid Waste Management Plan Update. The 1998 Update used factors such
as tipping fees, operating costs, bond debt, transportation distance, and capital outlay to
determine the cost per ton of waste disposed at the resource recovery systems listed in table 5-2.
The analysis showed that the current method of disposal, landfill based, is much more
economically feasible than the alternatives listed in table 5-2. The 1998 Steele County Solid
Waste Management Plan update 10-year financial analysis remains valid for this current update
due to the fact that the economic aspects of the financial analysis have not changed such that the
alternatives have become less expensive.
5-9
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Regarding the proposed Olmsted Waste to Energy facility, Olmsted County has indicated that it
is considering adding a third combustion unit increasing capacity by 200 tons per day. The
process for implementing this type of project will include considerable effort to obtain
environmental approvals. Depending on the size of the unit being considered, an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet or Environmental Impact Statement could be required. The project is
currently in the feasibility study stage and figures for construction and operations at the facility
have not yet been developed. Therefore, any future estimation of costs for analysis, including
tipping fees, is currently premature and will not be developed in this Solid Waste Plan update. If
Olmsted County chooses to subsequently explore and substantially modify its solid waste
management system by adding additional capacity during the 10-year planning period an
Amendment to the Steele County Solid Waste Management Plan could be created which would
include a detailed cost analysis of this option.
5.6.4
Summary
With this chapter, the county has completed the technical, environmental and economic analysis
of the possible alternatives available to its current solid waste management system. Each of the
alternatives is technically feasible and is believed to pose equal or less environmental risk than
land disposal. However, the concluding reasons why these two options were found not to be
prudent & feasible alternatives in the 1998 plan update also remain; namely:

The potential costs remain substantially higher on a per ton basis for delivering
MSW to these facilities as compared to the current disposal facility of the Steele
County Sanitary Landfill, since economic aspects have not decreased since the 1998
plan update;

Both these resource recovery facilities are at maximum capacity and cannot accept
additional MSW without major facility expansion;

Major political hurdles remain in coordinating contracts between private haulers
to ensure delivery of MSW to a specified facility.
Based on the analysis of alternatives in this Plan Update, the county proposes to continue to landfill
unprocessed MSW at the Steele County Sanitary Landfill. This will be done as a part of an overall
integrated solid waste management system that includes waste reduction, reuse, recycling, problem
materials management, an aggressive waste education program, and toxics abatement programs. For
the purposes of this county Solid Waste Plan update, the county therefore names as its preferred
disposal facility the Steele County Sanitary Landfill, located in Steele County. Alternatives to
landfilling MSW will again be explored within the next county plan update as required by Minnesota
statute.
5-10
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
6.0
STEELE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FEATURES
6.1 WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
Waste reduction is part of the solution to solid waste management. Waste reduction involves
reducing the quantity of waste produced by changing product designs and consumer behavior. Some
approaches to waste reduction are outlined in the following sections. Annual percentage of solid
waste reduction through recycling and other abatement programs for Steele County from 2002
through the year 2006 are listed below:
RECYCLING GOALS
% OF TOTAL MSW GENERATED
Steele County, Minnesota
% Recycled
6.1.1
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
59.5
59.5
59.6
59.6
59.7
Container Deposits
6.1.1.1
General
Several states have legislated beverage container deposit laws. It is estimated that the container laws
substantially reduce landfill costs, and that a law in Minnesota could result in a seven percent
decrease in solid waste production. Resistance to beverage container laws has been voiced not only
by distributors and retailers, but also by recyclers who fear a loss of supply. A proposed compromise
is to allow only recyclers to redeem deposits.
6.1.1.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Since local governments such as Steele County would be unable to implement this kind of legislation
themselves, the County would consider lobbying the state legislature to enact such statutes.
6.1.2 Packaging Reduction
6.1.2.1
General
Reducing the amount of packaging used on commercially purchased items has the highest waste
reduction potential when compared to other waste reduction techniques. According to EPA reports,
packaging and container wastes constitute up to 35 percent of the total waste stream.
Public education programs can be instituted to make consumers aware of needless packaging and to
urge them to consciously select products that reduce the waste stream.
Examples of items which require less packaging include returnable soft drink and milk containers;
bulk foods that can be purchased with reused bags or jars, economy (sized) packages; unpackaged
items (such as pens or pencils). Consumers can also be encouraged to purchase items in easily
6-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
recyclable containers such as aluminum or glass as opposed to plastic and steel that are less
frequently recycled.
Regulation and industrial education are also approaches to decreasing packaging, but again are
difficult to implement on a county level. The MPCA presently has the authority through Minnesota
solid waste regulations to ban excessively packaged goods, but has never enforced the rules.
6.1.2.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Steele County has established a Waste Management Education Program. Steele County promotes
packaging reduction to both businesses and residences through public education efforts. Flyers have
been prepared for general shopping, plus seasonal shopping for holidays, and back to school
shopping. The brochures educate consumers about wasteful excess packaging and encourage
customers to call or write manufacturers that use excessive packaging. The county also maintains a
“recycling hotline” which provides additional consumer information.
Internally, Steele County has implemented source reduction activities including purchasing
guidelines, an employee source reduction recognition program, and distributes education material to
employees.
6.1.3 Office Paper Reduction
6.1.3.1
General
Various techniques can be used to reduce the amount of office paper that is discarded, thereby
reducing the waste stream. Easily implemented waste reductions techniques include printing double
sided copies, increasing use of microfiche and magnetic tapes, using throw away paper for scratch
paper and office note pads, and reducing the size of business forms. The County has implemented
such a program at the County offices and encourages programs in other facilities.
6.1.3.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
As described above in Section 6.1.2.2, Steele County has established a Waste Management
Education Program to promote recycling, waste reduction and other waste management issues.
Steele County promotes office paper reduction to businesses through public education efforts.
Information posters encouraging using double sided copies have been distributed. Steele County has
implemented internal source reduction activities including an employee source reduction recognition
program and distributes education material to employees.
6.1.4 Product Charges
6.1.4.1
General
One method to encourage industry to be more conscientious is the establishment of product charges
which more accurately reflect the cost of product disposal and provide an economic incentive to
reduce potential waste volume. The MPCA has, however, chosen not to pursue imposing product
charges to avoid conflicts with the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution.
6-2
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
6.1.4.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Steele County has chosen not to pursue imposing product charges.
6.1.5 Bans
6.1.5.1
General
Bans prohibit the sale of certain wastes that are costly or difficult to dispose. Bans could be a viable
means of waste reduction if implemented on a national or state level. At the county level, bans can
be difficult to implement and enforce. State laws passed in 1986 and 1987 prohibited the delivery of
processed or collected recycling materials to resource recovery plants or a landfill. Starting in 1992
for out-state counties, yard waste was banned from land disposal facilities. Lead-acid batteries and
nickel-cadmium batteries have also been banned from such disposal practices.
6.1.5.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
In accordance with state law, yard waste is banned from burial in the landfill. Tires, vehicle
batteries, major appliances, fluorescent lamps, and used motor oil and motor oil filters are also
banned from disposal and must be recycled. Steele County has established an education program
through its Waste Management Education Plan to educate the public on proper recycling of these
materials. Informational brochures outlining recycling locations have been published. Steele County
has also established a recycling hotline to assist with management of these banned materials. The
Steele County Household Hazardous Waste Facility recycles some of the banned materials.
6.1.6 Backyard Composting
6.1.6.1
General
Backyard composting is another potential method of waste reduction. Yard wastes constitute
approximately 10-12 percent of the waste stream, and ideally this percentage of the waste stream
could be eliminated by educating and encouraging the public to compost.
Because the majority of the study area is comprised of rural areas and small cities, residents could be
encouraged to dispose of yard wastes only in wooded or undeveloped areas. Residents in urban areas
can be encouraged to cut lawns frequently enough so that clippings can be left on the lawn, and
allowed to mulch (decay) naturally. Public education would be required to successfully implement
these methods. In larger urban areas, County or City sponsored composting programs with curbside
collection of yard wastes could be developed. In medium-sized cities, leaf composting sites could be
developed that are open on weekends for residents to haul their yard wastes. This option is discussed
in a separate section on composting.
6.1.6.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
In accordance with state law, yard waste is banned from burial in the landfill. Therefore, Steele
County has enacted a major education program on backyard composting and established community
yard waste compost sites.
6-3
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
The education program includes brochures explaining the composting process and materials
conducive to composting. Plans for five different backyard composting systems are available to the
public. Reduction in yard waste is also encouraged by mulching with your lawn mower and leaving
grass clippings on the lawn. Steele County has also targeted rural residents to use backyard
composting to manage suitable degradable materials. Information on composting is also available to
residents by calling the recycling hotline.
The cities of Blooming Prairie, Ellendale, Medford and Owatonna have established community
compost sites for residents. The compost is available for sale as a beneficial reuse product.
6.1.7 Volume-Based Garbage Collection Fees
6.1.7.1
General
A volume-based garbage collection rate is a program where the generator is charged on a per can, per
bag, or weight basis. Experiences show that volume-based fees encourage the general public to
reduce waste.
6.1.7.2
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Haulers in the County offer volume-based fees.
6.2
SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION
Currently, the County employs an equivalent 5.1 full-time staff for management of the solid waste
programs as listed below:
Responsibilities
Full Time Equivalent
Landfill Operations
Solid Waste Abatement Programs (including
education programs, HHW program, and recycling)
TOTAL
6.3
3.7
1.4
5.1
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT BUDGET
The Steele County Solid Waste Management Budget is provided in Appendix B. Estimated annual
budget for the abatement programs from 2003 through the year 2007 is provided below:
ABATEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET
Steele County, Minnesota
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
$369,472
$380,556
$391,973
$403,732
$415,844
Sources of revenue for the abatement programs are obtained from a number of different sources
6-4
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
including HHW grants, SCORE funds, and the Solid Waste Service Fee.
6.4
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
6.4.1 Solid Waste Reduction Education Programs
6.4.1.1
General
The primary key to implementing any program to reduce the volume of solid waste disposed is a
public education program. Public service announcements on radio or TV, brochures, a series of
newspaper articles on waste disposal problems, and speeches at schools or civic meetings can
stimulate the necessary public awareness of waste generation practices to initiate changes in disposal
habits. A public education brochure on waste reduction could be distributed with information on
recycling programs to reduce duplication of printing and distribution efforts. Waste reduction
practices that could be encouraged include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
6.4.1.2
Encourage shoppers to bring their own bags and containers to stores.
Rent or borrow appliances such as garden tillers, floor sanders, and rug shampooers
rather than purchasing them.
Seek extended warranties on automobiles, tires, furniture, TVs radios.
Repair items rather than throwing them away.
Use reclosable and reusable containers such as lunch boxes and garbage cans rather
than disposable bags.
Buy beer, soft drinks, and milk in refillable containers. If this is not possible, buy a
biodegradable or recyclable container.
Buy items in larger, more economical packages.
Buy in bulk or unpackaged when possible.
Avoid aerosol cans since more resources are consumed per product delivered, the
cans are not reusable or recyclable, and empty cans constitute an explosion hazard at
some waste-to-energy facilities.
Avoid buying disposal products such as one-use lighters, razors, paper lunch bags.
Mulch or compost yard waste.
Donate unwanted items to charitable organizations such as Goodwill, Salvation
Army, or churches. Not only is less waste thrown away, but donations are tax
deductible.
Encourage friends and family to practice conscientious waste disposal practices,
including recycling.
Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
As described in Section 6.1.2.2, Steele County has established a Waste Management Education
Program focusing on waste reduction issues. The total 2003 waste management education budget
was established at $20,000 and is expected to remain stable or decrease slightly due to SCORE
reductions. Funding for this program is primarily through SCORE funds.
Target audiences identified in the Plan include: homes in the four cities located within the County
and apartment dwellers on recycling and household hazardous waste management; seniors and
families who utilize cleaning services; farmers for a sustainable agriculture workshop; school
6-5
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
districts and small businesses for recycling; retail businesses which sell hazardous products to
publicize proper use and disposal; and, area businesses to receive recycling and waste reduction
information.
Four goals have been established in the Plan. These are:
1.
To increase participation in recycling by apartment tenants, Steele County residents who
receive curbside recycling, small businesses, bars, restaurants, and public schools.
2.
To increase the business and citizen awareness of waste reduction ideas and alternatives to
using hazardous products.
3.
To maintain homeowner usage of the household hazardous waste facility and product
exchange.
4.
To increase business, farmer, citizen, and youth awareness of what constitutes a sustainable
community and increase actions to promote sustainability.
The tactics identified to achieve these goals include operating the Recycling Hotline, speaking at
schools and other groups, distribution of news releases, conduct print and/or electronic ad
campaigns, brochures, and newsletter information.
Steele County has implemented internal source reduction activities including purchasing guidelines,
an employee source reduction recognition program and distributes education material to employees.
Staffing of the educational program is included under the overall County abatement programs.
6.5
RECYCLING PROGRAMS
6.5.1 General
Source separation involves the separation of recyclable materials from the main solid waste stream at
their source by the waste generator. The separated materials are then collected from the source by
means of special collection trucks, volunteer (non-profit) groups or are taken by the generator
directly to a recycling center, which may pay for the materials or merely accept them for recycling.
Separation of recyclable materials can also be accomplished by manual or mechanical separation
from the combined solid waste stream. Manual separation usually takes place to some degree during
collection by the haulers. Mechanical separation requires relatively complex and costly mechanical
equipment operations. Mechanical separation is often used along with an RDF process but is seldom
used alone.
6.5.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Steele County encourages recycling through numerous programs including education, residential
collection, community recycling centers, and a Recycling Hotline.
Recycling education is addressed by Steele County in its Waste Management Education Program
which focuses on waste reduction and recycling. The tactics identified in the program include
6-6
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
operating the Recycling Hotline, speaking at schools and other groups, distribution of news releases,
conduct print and/or electronic ad campaigns, brochures, and newsletter information.
Steele County has maintained a residential recycling program since June 1991. The County has
established an Agreement with a private contractor (Waste Management) until July 31, 2004. The
Agreement provides for:
1)
Curbside pickup of residential recyclables every other week in the communities of
Owatonna, Medford, Ellendale, and Blooming Prairie.
2)
A drop-off center in Owatonna open six days per week and permanent drop off sites at the
Steele County Landfill, Blooming Prairie, Ellendale, Hope, Medford, and Meriden.
3)
Recycling service to all multi-family dwelling units that have requested this service from the
County.
All materials must be marketed for re-use or reclamation. The Agreement defines recyclable
materials as brown, green, blue or clear glass, all bottle shaped plastic containers #1 through #7,
ferrous metal, aluminum, newsprint, corrugated paper, magazines, and catalogs, office paper,
computer paper and textiles. In 2002, approximately 2,433 tons of material was recycled in
accordance with this residential program.
The agreement also provides for recycling of problem recyclable materials including automotive
batteries, tires and household appliances (white goods). Presently these materials are collected at
either the County Landfill and/or the Steele County Recycling Center in Owatonna. Fluorescent
lamps are recycled by Retrofit Recycling, located in Owatonna.
Annual costs for the recycling program for 2003 were approximately $316,410. Annual costs are
expected to increase to approximately $373,364 by the year 2012. This program is primarily funded
through the County waste management fee.
6.6
YARD WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
6.6.1 General
Composting is a biological process used to partially decompose the organic materials in solid waste.
The decomposition may take place aerobically or anaerobically, but is normally carried out
aerobically to avoid odors. The bacterial activity produces a dark, humus-like material characterized
by a low nutrient value and high moisture retention. The nutrient value of solid waste compost can
be increased significantly by co-composting the waste with dewatered sludge from a municipal
wastewater treatment facility.
Minimal processing composting systems are primarily used for composting yard wastes. Although
the same process could be used to compost a complete solid waste, because of the length of time
involved, volume of waste and potential environmental problems, this process is generally limited to
yard waste. Due to its higher moisture content, lower contaminant content and homogenous quality,
yard waste compost produced from leaves and grass clippings has been marketed more successfully
than compost from municipal solid waste. Yard wastes comprise a small percentage of the solid
6-7
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
waste stream, and therefore do not over supply the limited market for compost. Development of yard
waste composting is a simple, environmentally preferable method to reduce solid waste volumes, and
should be considered by any community.
6.6.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
In accordance with state law enacted on January 1, 1992, yard waste is banned from burial in the
landfill. Therefore, Steele County has enacted a major education program on backyard composting
and established community yard waste compost sites.
The cities of Blooming Prairie, Ellendale, Medford, and Owatonna have established community
compost sites for residents. The sites are open seasonally in the spring through the fall and collect
yard waste defined as garden wastes, lawn cuttings, weeds and prunings or brush under six inches in
diameter. The sites also collects trees and stumps (less than 10 feet long), Christmas trees and
wreaths, sod strippings, pumpkins, melons, and straw. A residential fee schedule has been
established for disposal of these materials.
The materials are composed or mulched at the compost sites and resold. Products include Brush
mulch, oak hardwood landscape mulch and screened compost. Information is also provided at the
compost centers for beneficial reuse of these products (i.e., weed control, soil amendment, etc.).
Steele County primarily provides public education for the municipal yard waste compost programs.
6.7
SANITARY LANDFILLING
6.7.1 General
Sanitary landfilling is currently the primary method for solid waste disposal in Steele County.
Sanitary landfilling is a controlled burial operation which is intended to protect the public health,
minimize environmental impacts, and prevent nuisance conditions. The basic requirements of a
sanitary landfill which achieve these objectives and thus distinguishing from an open dump, are as
follows: (1) confinement of waste to a small working area; (2) compaction of waste in shallow
layers; (3) apply daily soil cover, and controlling surface waste run-in, and (4) operated to ensure
compliance to all state and federal regulations.
Siting of new sanitary landfills must now follow stringent state and federal regulations which are
intended to protect public health and the environment. New state rules were adopted on October 12,
1992, which included the USEPA 40 CFR, Subtitle “D” requirements. Siting criteria for landfills are
outlined in the MPCA Solid Waste Management Rules Chapter 7035, which limit development in
areas considered unsuitable. This information is outlined in more detail in Section 7.3.
In the past, many landfills have been improperly sited, constructed, and operated when evaluated
against current regulations and state-of-the-art ground water and surface water protection measures
for landfills. Properly selecting, designing, constructing, and operating a sanitary landfill will
minimize the environmental impact associated with this solid waste management option.
6.7.2 Landfill History
The MPCA issued a permit to the original private landfill Permittee on October 5, 1973, to construct
6-8
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
and operate Phase I, a 14 acre MSW landfill. The MPCA modified the permit on October 3, 1978, to
allow for construction and operation of Phase II, totaling 20 acres at the facility. Both Phase I and
Phase II had a clay liner and leachate collection system installed. The combined Phase I and Phase II
areas had an authorized capacity of 523,370 cubic yards of air space including waste and cover. The
1978 permit expired October 3, 1983. A Compliance Order was issued on May 30, 1985, revoking
the previous permit and allowing the Facility to operate under the terms of the order. At that time
Steele County assumed landfill ownership and operations. Construction plans for development of
Phase III A were approved July 5, 1985, in accordance with the Compliance Order. On October 23,
1987, the MPCA modified and reissued the permit to allow filling in Phase III A, B, and C of the
Facility for 535,291 cubic yards of airspace. Plans and specifications for the construction of Phase
III B and Phase III C were approved March 28, 1988, and July 2, 1990, respectively. On July 25,
1994, the MPCA again modified and reissued the permit. The modification authorized the
development of the 16.6-acre Phase III D fill area which increased the capacity of the Facility by
350,782 cubic yards of airspace. The total airspace capacity permitted for the MSW fill operations in
Phases I, II and III is 1,409,443 cubic yards. On January 17, 2002, the MPCA reissued the permit
after the county submitted development plans for a new Phase IV development with an air space
capacity of 1,483,000 cubic yards. The MSW total ultimate capacity for Phase I through IV is
2,892,443 cubic yards. The MSW permitted capacity authorized by the reissued permit is 1,409,443
cubic yards (Phase I, II, III) plus 222,000 cubic yards (Phase IV, Cell 1’s capacity) equals 1,631,443
cubic yards. As of December, 2003, approximately 311,972 cubic yards of permitted airspace
remains to be filled.
6.7.3 Environmental Concerns
Much information has been discussed regarding the potential environmental risks associated with a
sanitary landfill. Primary concerns relate to ground and surface water contamination and gas
generation at the site.
Steele County recognizes the potential risks inherent in landfilling and work to control and minimize
the risks, by proper design, construction, and operation practices. Hydrogeologic studies at the site
are necessary to assess local ground and surface water conditions. A study of the existing landfill
indicates no measurable impacts on the ground water have occurred thus far. The permitted site
areas have been designed and operated to minimize the formation of leachate from the waste. A liner
and leachate collection system is used to control leachate. Leachate head levels on the liner are
limited to a one-foot depth through the use of collection pipes, holding tank, and pumps. In addition,
regular inspections of the site by MPCA staff by County officials ensure an environmentally safe
operation. Funding has been established for long-term care and monitoring at the site. These and
other efforts can help reduce the risks associated with the landfilling of solid waste.
6.7.4 Steele County’s Current Facility and Proposed Action
Currently, the Steele County Landfill is operating under MPCA Permit SW-131, re-issued on
January 17, 2002. Remaining ultimate capacity of the landfill as of the 2003 Annual Report is
approximately 1,572,972 cubic yards, leaving approximately 56 years of site capacity. Capital and
operating costs for the landfill are paid for by tipping fees. Disposal facility operating and capital
costs for 2003 through the year 2007 are listed below:
6-9
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
LANDFILL DISPOSAL FACILITY COSTS
Steele County, Minnesota
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
$825,000
$841,500
$858,330
$875,497
$893,006
These costs are inclusive of both the MSW and demolition landfills. Currently, Steele County
employs three full time staff for landfill operations.
The new landfill (Phase IV) is shown on Figure 6-1. The new landfill Phase IV measures
approximately 21 acres and has approximately 1,295,000 cubic yards of airspace capacity. The
landfill will be divided in 7 separate phases each measuring approximately 3 acres. The first phase to
be developed will be Phase 1 having an estimated capacity of 182,100 cubic yards. The new landfill
will provide the County with approximately 37 years of disposal capacity. The following Table lists
each individual Phase capacity and expected closure date.
PHASE CAPACITY
(1)
PHASE NO.
CAPACITY (cy)
ESTIMATE CLOSURE DATE(1)
1
182,098
2008
2
176,772
2013
3
182,651
2018
4
123,813
2022
5
199,156
2028
6
236,059
2035
7
194,451
2040
TOTAL
1,295,000
Based upon 35,000 cy/year
The new landfill Phase IV is designed to be completely separate from the current operating landfill,
including its leachate collection system, landfill gas management system and its groundwater
monitoring system. The new landfill is designed using current state-of-practice features including a
composite base liner system consisting of a High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane placed
over a clay barrier. Overlying the composite liner is a leachate collection system consisting of a 1foot thick permeable granular drainage layer and collection piping. The combination liner/leachate
collection system exceeds the requirements specified by the MPCA Solid Waste Rules Chapter
7035.2815. Other environmental controls for the new landfill includes a surface water management
system to control on-site surface water run-off designed for a 25 year, 24 hour storm and gas
management system to control landfill gas. These features meet or exceed the MPCA requirements
specified under Chapter 7035.2815. Currently, Steele County is paying approximately $2,000 a
6-10
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
month for Closure/Post Closure and Contingency Action.
6.8
WASTE TIRES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
6.8.1 General
A waste tire is a tire no longer suitable for its original intended purpose because of wear, damage, or
defect. The Waste Management Action (1988 amendments) require that counties include collection
and processing of waste tires in their solid waste management plans (Minnesota Statute §115A.914,
subd. 3). Under this statute, counties shall adopt ordinances for the management of waste tires that
meet or exceed the MPCA Rules (MS 115A. 914, subd. 3., and MR 9220.0200 to 9220.0680).
Waste tires were banned from land disposal in Minnesota after July 1, 1985 (MS 115A.904).
Although banned from disposal in landfills, waste tires may be stored above ground at landfills
permitted by the MPCA. A permitted landfill may store no more than 10,000 waste passenger car
tires or the equivalent weight of other tires or tire-derived products at any time without obtaining
additional permits.
Any person that collects, stores, or processes 500 or more waste tires must have a waste tire facility
permit. State statute does exempt individual and businesses from the need to obtain a waste tire
facility permit if certain criteria are met.
6.8.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Tires are accepted at the Steele County Landfill and the Steele County Recycling Center in
Owatonna for recycling. In 2003, approximately 1,900 tires were recycled at the Steele County
Landfill site. The tire management program including costs and staffing are included under the
overall County Recycling Program outlined in Section 6.3.
6.9
MAJOR APPLIANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
6.9.1 General
A person may not place major appliances in mixed municipal solid waste or dispose of them in a
solid waste processing or disposal facility after July 1, 1990 (MS 115A.9561).
Major appliances are clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, hot water heaters, garbage disposal,
trash compactors, conventional ovens, ranges and stoves, air conditioners, microwave ovens,
refrigerators, and freezers.
6.9.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Major appliances are accepted for recycling at the Steele County Recycling Center and the Steele
County Landfill. Costs for this program are included in the County Recycling Program outlined in
Section 6.3.
6.10
USED OIL/BATTERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
6-11
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
6.10.1 General
Minnesota Statute §115A.916 states a person may not place used oil in mixed municipal solid waste
or place used oil in or on land, unless approved by the agency.
Used oil includes: spent automotive lubricating oils (including car and truck engine oil), transmission
fluid, brake fluid, turbine, bearing oils, hydraulic oils, metal working oils, gear oils, electrical oils,
refrigerator oils, railroad drainings, and spent industrial process oils.
Minn. Stat. §325E.11 requires that any person selling at retail or offering motor oil for retail sale in
Minnesota must provide a notice indicating the nearest location, or a location within ten miles of the
point of sale, where used motor oil may be returned for recycling or reuse, and provide a collection
of used motor oil and post notice of the availability of the tank.
A person may not place a lead acid battery in mixed municipal solid waste or dispose of a lead acid
battery. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor (Minn. Stat. 115A.915).
A person selling lead acid batteries at retail or offering lead acid batteries for retail in this state shall
accept, at the point of transfer, lead acid batteries from the customers (Minnesota Stat. §325E.115).
Retailers are also required to accept your used lead acid batteries, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT
PURCHASE A BATTERY.
6.10.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Businesses that sell automotive batteries accept used batteries for recycling in accordance with State
law. The Steele County Recycling Center in Owatonna also accepts vehicle batteries for recycling.
Steele County has two tanks for used oil that may be used by the public: one at the Steele County
Landfill and another at the Steele County Recycling Center in Owatonna. Full service auto centers
often accept used oil as well. Many places that sell oil filters accept them for recycling, as does the
Landfill and Recycling Center. Costs for this program are included under the County Recycling
Fund.
6.11
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
6.11.1 General
Minn. Stat. 115A.96, subd.1 (b) defines household hazardous waste as waste generated from
household activity that exhibits the characteristics listed as hazardous waste under MPCA rules. A
waste is defined as hazardous waste if it is:




ignitable,
toxic,
corrosive, or
reactive.
Household hazardous waste (HHW) may include: pesticides, solvents, preservatives, cleaners,
6-12
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
paints, and other common household products. These wastes may affect the environment by
impairing air quality, or by contaminating soil, surface water, or ground water. If improperly
managed, household hazardous waste may be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin.
6.11.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
One of the goals of the waste education program is to maintain homeowner usage of the household
hazardous waste facility and product exchange. The tactics identified to achieve these goals include
operating the Recycling Hotline, speaking at schools and other groups, distribution of news releases,
conduct print and/or electronic ad campaigns, brochures and newsletter information.
In 1998, Steele and Rice Counties adopted a Joint Powers Agreement for management of household
hazardous waste. A copy of this agreement is provided in Appendix D. This agreement outlines
responsibilities of each county for joint management of household hazardous waste.
The Steele County Household Hazardous Waste Facility is located at the Steele County Landfill and
is operated from May through September. Household hazardous wastes are accepted free of charge
for Steele County residents. Usable products are placed on shelves, product exchange, to be taken
free for use by others. The Rice County Household Hazardous Waste Facility is open year around
and can be used by Steele County Residents without a fee.
The County also provides information on safer substitutes for commercial cleaners to reduce the
amount of household hazardous waste generated and information on how to correctly dispose of
hazardous wastes such as old paint, disposable batteries, cosmetics, etc.
Staffing of this program is included in the overall abatement programs. This program is funded
through HHW grants and the Solid Waste Fee. Estimated annual budget for the program funded by
Steele County for 2003 was $15,000.
6.12
DEMOLITION DEBRIS MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
6.12.1 General
The North Demolition Debris Disposal Area (Phase I) began operating in 1986 and was closed in the
summer of 1989. This area covered approximately 3.4 acres and had a completed airspace volume of
approximately 104,740 cubic yards. The South Demolition Debris Disposal Area (Phase II) began
filling in 1989 and was closed in 1995. The South Demolition Debris Disposal Area was permitted
for a total air space of 73,400 cubic yards. The Fisher Demolition Landfill (addition to Phase I) was
constructed in 1995, and approved for operation by the MPCA under its permit-by-rule program. On
October 24, 1996, the solid waste permit was modified to allow a long-term operation of the 3.15acre Fisher Demolition Landfill with 66,800 cubic yards of airspace. The airspace capacity permitted
for demolition fill in the South, North, and Fisher Demolition Landfill areas is 104,740 + 73,400 +
66,800 = 244,940 cubic yards. The proposed 7-acre Phase III demolition landfill will add an
additional 326,000 cubic yards capacity to the existing Facility, for an ultimate airspace capacity of
588,940 cubic yards. The permitted capacity for demolition debris authorized by this permit will be
244,940 cubic yards plus 97,600 cubic yards (Phase III, Cell 1 & 2’s capacity) equals 342,540 cubic
yards. Operations are currently being conducted in the Fisher Demolition Landfill. The total
demolition permitted airspace capacity remaining as of December, 2003 is 114,025.
6-13
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
6.12.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Steele County will continue to operate the demolition landfill and may consider a recovery program
in the future for certain demolition debris. Cost for operation of the demolition landfill is included
with the MSW landfill.
6.13
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
6.13.1 Collection Methods
6.13.1.1 General
The most common collection method in areas of reasonably high population density is collection by
packer trucks (compacters mounted on a truck chassis) at the street curb or in the alley adjacent to
the source through a commercial hauler who contracts directly with the generator. The packer truck
completes its collection route and then hauls to a transfer station, processing plant, or directly to a
sanitary landfill. Currently, packer truck collection is the predominant collection method in Steele
County, with trucks disposing of their loads directly at the sanitary landfill facility.
Individual hauling by the residential, commercial, or industrial generators is sometimes practiced,
particularly in rural areas with low population density. Some residents of Steele County haul directly
to the sanitary landfill. This is necessitated by two factors:
(1)
Many rural areas have such a low population density that packer truck collection is
too costly, i.e. to make a profit the waste hauler has to charge more than the waste
generator is willing to pay; and
(2)
Some rural residents either have insufficient land on which to bury their own
wastes or have no desire to bury wastes on their property.
A container system is a method to provide collection service to rural areas at a lower cost than packer
truck collection, while reducing the distance individual waste generators must haul their waste. A
container system uses four cubic yard to ten cubic yard dumpsters (steel containers with hinged lids)
as drop off points for individual haulers. A packer truck, or another type of vehicle, is used to collect
the waste from the dumpsters and haul the waste to a processing plant, transfer station, or sanitary
landfill. Container systems are used in several Minnesota counties, including Cook, Lake,
Koochiching, and St. Louis.
6.13.1.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Action
Steele County may investigate providing collection to the County as a service. Steele County may
investigate providing this service by contracting with individual haulers or by issuing one contract to
a single hauler. The Supreme Court has struck down designation ordinances as unconstitutional
based on the fact that it restricts the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is unclear
whether licensing or contracting by a County with an individual hauler would be viewed similarly.
Steele County Solid Waste staff have sought legal consultation in this matter. This issue is further
discussed in Section 7.2.
6-14
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
6.13.2 Transfer Stations
6.13.2.1 General
When transporting waste a long distance to a processing plant or sanitary landfill, the transportation
cost becomes a major share of total collection and disposal costs. In these situations a transfer
station can be used. A transfer station is simply a facility where packer trucks and individual haulers
can discharge their solid waste, which is then loaded into large transport trailers and hauled to the
disposal point.
Two types of transfer stations have been used: (1) compaction; and (2) non-compaction. In a
compaction type transfer station, waste is dumped on a tipping floor, pushed by an endloader into a
compactor hopper, and then mechanically pushed and compacted into a specially designed trailer,
which is bolted to the compactor during loading. A semi-tractor then pulls the trailer to the disposal
point, like a conventional trucking operation. The advantage of the compactor system is a larger
payload, although this is offset in part by road limits. The city of Moorhead has a compactor type
transfer station presently hauling 60 tons per day. The disadvantage is the capital and operating cost
of the compactor and special trailer.
A non-compaction type transfer station uses large, open-top trailers. The endloader pushes the waste
directly into the trailer from the tipping floor. Due to Minnesota road weight restrictions, the pay
load is similar for both types of systems. The advantage of the non-compaction type transfer station
is simplicity and cost. However, given the small volume of waste generated in portions of the study
area, the large size of the haul vehicles would require many days of wastes prior to getting a full load
to haul to a transfer station. This long storage time could result in odor problems and the potential
development of rats and flies at the transfer station
6.13.2.2 Steele County’s Current or Proposed Plan
Steele County has no plans to construct or operate a transfer station. No private hauler or other
service provided has indicated an interest in doing so.
6-15
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
7.0
7.1
STEELE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT STRUCTURE
7.1.1 Project Participants
The participants in any project will naturally depend on the alternative selected. How these entities
participate in a project can vary significantly. Implementation of a project can be accomplished by a
single county, a multi-county joint powers board, or a solid waste management district. The
structure will depend on the individual and collective needs of the participants. There are several
other issues associated with project structure discussed in the following sections.
7.1.2 Facility Ownership
The solid waste management facility could be owned by one of the counties, a joint powers board, a
solid waste district, or a private company. Ownership of the facility will impact the financing
options available. Generally, private ownership will increase project financing costs over a countyowned facility that would qualify for tax-exempt financing. Also, only a publicly owned facility
would be eligible for state grant assistance. From a financing standpoint, it would be favorable for a
county or a joint powers board to own the facility.
7.1.3 Facility Operations
The solid waste management facility could be publicly or privately operated. A publicly operated
facility may provide the counties with the greatest control of the facility; however, it would increase
the number of county (or counties) employees and would minimize private business involvement in
the counties’ solid waste management system. If the facility were to be operated by a county or
counties, the selected vendor would be responsible for training personnel in the operation and
maintenance of the facility.
A private company could also be selected to operate the facility through a contract with the county or
joint powers board. Private operations would not offer the counties direct control over facility
operations. However, the operations contract, which could be for a short term or long term, could
give the counties control with provisions for renewal, termination, operational oversight,
performance guarantees, and compost marketing. If tax-exempt financing were utilized, there may
be a limit on the length of time for an operating or management contract with a private company.
7.2
WASTE ASSURANCE
7.2.1 General
One of the most important issues associated with the implementation of a sanitary landfill project is
the assurance of a steady supply of solid waste to the facility. It is critical that this issue be carefully
evaluated. The options for waste assurance are discussed in this section.
Waste assurance is a fundamental element of the successful operation of the Steele County Sanitary
Landfill facility. Should the county begin processing MSW in the future, the quantity and
7-1
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
composition of waste received at processing facilities directly effects the facility performance from a
resource recovery standpoint and a financial perspective. An effective approach to waste assurance
also contributes to the county's ability to ensure that waste is managed according to the preferred
strategies established by the county. Therefore, Steele County recognizes the need to assess the
various waste assurance options available in order to continue the waste abatement efforts currently
in place and to ensure that waste generated in the County is properly managed. These five options
have been used successfully in other Minnesota counties:





Public Entities
County Assessment
Hauler Negotiations
Market Participation
Private Sector Option
The public sector uses waste assurance for four key reasons:
1. To compete effectively in the marketplace;
2. To ensure that waste is managed in a way that protect the public health and welfare and benefits
the environment;
3. To ensure that waste is managed in a way that protects taxpayers from the liabilities associated
with the management of waste; and
4. To protect the public investment that was made to build waste management facilities.
The private sector uses waste assurance to compete effectively in the marketplace.
7.2.2 Public Entities
Public Entities must ensure that their waste is managed in a manner consistent with the County's
preferred methods for waste management, according to the state Public Entities Statues (Minnesota
Statute §§ 115A.46, subd. 5, and 115A.471). These statutes state that public entities that manage
waste, or contract to have their waste managed, must manage their waste in a manner that is not
inconsistent with the county plan, unless they obtain the permission of the county to do otherwise.
Steele County can inform public entities of the requirement to comply with MN Statute §§ 115A.46
subd.5 and MN Statute 115A.471, stating that public entities that manage waste must manage their
waste in accordance with the preferred waste management practices in the County Solid Waste
Management Plan.
The definition of public entities includes any of the following:
 An office, agency, or institution of the state;
 The metropolitan council;
 A metropolitan agency;
 The metropolitan mosquito control district;
 The legislature;
 The courts;
 A statutory or home rule charter city;
7-2
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota




A town;
A school district;
Another special taxing district; or
Any contractor acting pursuant to a contract with a public entity.
In order for these provisions to work effectively, the County can take a number of steps to further
improve the ability of the Public Entities Statutes to achieve the desired result:
 The county’s waste management preferences should be clearly stated in the County’s Solid
Waste Management Plan and subsequent updates.
 Clearly articulate that only waste collected by or contracted for collection by a public entity is
covered under this statute, and provide information to public entities that explains the benefits of this
law to public entities.
 The county can work closely with the State to ensure that the Public Entities Law is enforced.
Numerous counties have sent letters to public entities, or the State has sent such letters, explaining
what public entities must do to be consistent with the county plan. Counties have also requested
assistance from the state in enforcement. Thus far, all public entity cases have been resolved with
contact and assistance from the state. The state has not had to resort to using the state's formal
enforcement procedure and penalties.
7.2.3 County Assessment
Counties have the authority to make assessments for environmental programs. Some examples of
environmental programs are: environmental education, household hazardous waste collection,
recycling programs, and activities supporting the management of waste as preferred in the county
plan, including the direct funding of facilities and/or using the Funds to lower tipping fee at MSW
management facilities.
Counties have a number of options to acquire funding to support environmental programs: ad
valorem taxes, service fees on property tax statements, and hauler collected service fees.
1. Ad Valorem Tax
An ad valorem tax is assessed based on property value or in the case of commercial establishments,
the value of the business, rather than the amount of waste generated. Funds are collected twice a
year via the property tax statement and are part of the general fund. Funds collected may be used to
support any county environmental program, including: environmental education, household
hazardous waste collection, recycling programs, and activities supporting the management of waste
as preferred in the county plan, including the direct funding of facilities.
2. Service Charge on Property Tax Statement or Utility Bill
Counties may support environmental programs through a service fee billed on the property tax
statement or the utility bill also pursuant to Minnesota Statute §400.08. The service charge can be
structured based on the volume of waste generated or by property type. Typically, residents are
charged a lower fee than businesses. Funds collected may be used to support any county
environmental program, including: environmental education, household hazardous waste collection,
recycling programs, and activities supporting the management of waste as preferred in the county
plan, including the direct funding of facilities.
7-3
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
3. Hauler Collected Service Charge
This is a service fee levied on the waste generator pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 400.08, and is
designed to be collected by the waste hauler and then remitted to the county. The fee can be set up as
a percentage of the collection/disposal bill or it can be based on the volume of waste produced by the
generator. According to a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the proceeds from a haulercollected service charge may, in part, be used to lower the tipping fee at an MSW resource recovery
facility.
7.2.4 Hauler Negotiations
Counties have the ability to negotiate contracts with haulers to bring the waste to the facility
preferred in the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Many counties and cities use negotiated
contracts with haulers to bring waste to the county preferred waste management facility.
Several counties have recently negotiated contracts with the waste haulers within their jurisdictions.
Contracts with subsidized tipping fees
In response to competition from haulers disposing of waste in landfills with lower tipping fees, many
local governments that own resource recovery facilities have employed financial incentives for waste
delivery. These local governments usually have contracts to deliver required amounts of waste ("put
or pay") to privately or publicly-owned resource recovery facilities and have chosen to reduce the
higher tipping fees at these facilities and enter into contracts with haulers that provide waste delivery
assurances in return for a lower tipping fee.
Tipping fee are subsidized through revenues from the general property tax, a property-based service
charge, or a service charge collected by haulers. Property-based charges are collected via county
property tax statements. Separate charges are often established for households and commercial,
industrial and institutional parcels to equate to estimated amounts of waste generated. Service
charges collected by haulers are often assessed on container size with different amounts per
container, or as a percentage of the hauler's bill to the generator. Service charges collected by haulers
often include a small percentage to the hauler for the administrative costs of fee collection.
Advantages of hauler contracts with subsidized tipping fees are that such contracts are an
accepted form of waste assurance pursuant to the Carbone decision, which stated that general
taxes can be used to subsidize resource recovery facilities to provide tipping fees that are
competitive with lower out-of-state tipping fees. The Minnesota Supreme Court in the WLSSD
decision also approved this approach. Properly structured contracts provide the waste delivery
assurances desired by local governments, and provide the hauler the certainty of a waste
management facility at a certain tipping fee.
Disadvantages of these types of contracts are that they tend to be relatively short term when
compared to the estimated useful life of the resource recovery facilities, and the amount of the
tipping fee subsidy could increase each time the contract is up for renewal. Thus, the certainty of
waste assurance for local governments is relatively short-term under this approach.
7-4
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Approaches of Certain Minnesota Counties
A variation of this approach is utilized at the Polk County Resource Recovery Facility, where
participating counties have set a zero tipping fee at the facility. Hauler's fee to their customers is
for collection and transportation of the waste only and a facility fee is included with the sewer
charge on the property tax statements.
Contracts with unsubsidized tipping fees
Some local governments have entered into contracts with haulers that include waste delivery
assurance with unsubsidized tipping fees, or tipping fees that are close to actual cost. For
example, Olmsted, Stearns, Martin, and Faribault Counties have entered into waste delivery
contracts with haulers for tipping fees that are very close to actual cost. In each case, the
Counties were faced with haulers that had begun delivering waste to out-of-state landfills with
lower tipping fees than the resource recovery facilities associated with the local governments.
The haulers had begun taking the waste to the lower cost landfills after the Carbone decision.
Subsequently, Olmsted County took the issue to its citizens in the form of several public
meetings at which the options of subsidizing the tipping fee through a property-based assessment
or an assumption of waste collection by the County were discussed. The citizens opposed a
property-based fee and encouraged the County Board to proceed with public assumption of waste
collection using a market participant approach. The local waste haulers opposed public
assumption of collection and instead entered into ten (10) year waste delivery agreements. As
part of the agreements, the haulers also agreed to collect a generator service charge of five
percent (5%) of the hauler’s gross receipts.
Stearns County, after a series of public hearings, enacted an ordinance to assume control of solid
waste collection within its jurisdiction and a second ordinance providing for contracts with each
hauler to deliver waste to the County’s designated resource recovery facility. The haulers were
given the choice of contracting directly with the Tri-County Solid Waste Commission, a joint
powers board of which Stearns County is a member, or be subject to the Stearns County public
collection ordinance. Most of the local haulers chose to sign contracts of twelve (12) years with
the Tri-County Commission at a tipping fee that included a declining local government subsidy.
The Prairieland Solid Waste Board (Martin and Faribault counties) negotiated multi-year
contracts with local haulers to deliver waste to the Prairieland composting facility at $75 per ton
for waste collected in the two counties and $80 per ton tipping for waste collected outside the
counties. The waste delivery agreement contains a specific provision that if Prairieland
establishes public assumption of waste delivery services either directly or through contract,
haulers under contract will not be subject to public collection. The counties also enacted a
hauler-collected service fee ordinance, but have not imposed such a fee.
7.2.5 Market Participation
A county or city can act to become the provider of MSW collection and management services
within its jurisdiction and contract with private haulers to collect and manage MSW on their
behalf or provide such services themselves. Chapters 145A and 400 of Minnesota Statute
provides specific authority to counties to provide solid waste collection and management
7-5
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
services. Recent court decisions have determined that once a local government acts to become
the provider of MSW collections and management services, the local government becomes
potentially liable for the MSW under state and federal Superfund laws, and the local government
becomes a "market participant" exempt from Commerce Clause requirements. Because of this,
the local government has the ability in its contract(s) with private haulers to direct where and
how the MSW will be managed.
Counties and Cities Acting as Market Participants--Examples
There is a long history and statutory authority in Minnesota for local governments, primarily
cities and towns, assuming responsibility for the collection and disposal of solid waste within
their jurisdiction. There are several sources of statutory authority for cities to enter the solid
waste collection and disposal business. In many cases, municipal solid waste is collected from
residential generators only and private haulers compete to collect from commercial generators
within the same jurisdiction. There are many cities within the seven-county Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area that currently operate public collection programs either through use of public
employees and publicly-owned trucks or through service contracts entered into with private
haulers. The most obvious example of this arrangement is that which is used by the City of
Minneapolis, in which the City provides collection of all residential solid waste and has divided
the collection service between its own employees and a contract with a consortium of private
haulers. The haulers and the City employees each collect approximately half of the City’s
residential solid waste.
At the county level, Stearns County in 1998 enacted an ordinance (Stearns County Ordinance
194) that established public control of solid waste collection, delivery and disposal as authorized
by Minn. Stat. §145A.05, Subd. 4, and Minn. Stat. Section 400.08. This statute allows counties
to provide for or regulate the disposal of solid waste, MSW and other refuse. Under a second
ordinance (Stearns County Ordinance 193), Stearns County may solicit proposals from waste
haulers to provide collection and conveyance services for covered solid waste and may either
accept a proposal or negotiate with one or more haulers to obtain new or different terms from
those originally proposed by the haulers. The ordinances establish that certain areas may be
exempted because a municipality or other political subdivision already provides solid waste
collection. The County may establish a blanket exemption or limit it to certain classifications
such as only residential solid waste collection. The ordinances also provide an exemption for
haulers who contract with the Tri-County Solid Waste Commission for delivery of waste to the
Elk River Resource Recovery Facility to meet the Commission's waste delivery requirement.
Most haulers chose to enter 12-year contracts with Tri-County, rather than be subject to the
Stearns County ordinance. A few chose to be subject to the ordinance and entered into a 5-year
contract with the County that requires delivery to the Elk River facility. Both contracts provided
for a phase-out of the tipping fee subsidy after one year. Any overages under the Tri-County and
Stearns County contracts may be delivered to a permitted facility selected by the hauler.
In June of 1999, Wabasha County adopted a county-wide collection ordinance but has elected not
to implement the ordinance because the haulers elected to sign long term contracts with the
county to deliver MSW to the facility selected in the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The
ordinance is similar to the Stearns County ordinance, but also provides exact service district
boundaries and designated resource recovery facilities for each service district.
In the City of St. Cloud, all residential refuse is collected by the City’s own refuse collection
7-6
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
service. Private haulers are not allowed to operate residential refuse collection services. The City
of White Bear Lake in Ramsey County has been contracting for services since 1984. The City
cites many advantages to this system, including: guaranteed collection of garbage from each
residential property within the community, same day collection of refuse and recyclable, reduced
collection rates and less wear and tear on municipal streets. They are also able to ensure that
their waste is managed according to the waste management hierarchy by specifying the disposal
site for all waste generated in White Bear Lake: “The Contractor shall dispose of all refuse at a
Refuse Derived Fuel processing facility at which the operator has assumed all liability arising
from the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation
and Liability Act; and similar federal and state statutes.”Grant County became a market
participant in the early 1970’s when the County established a Solid Waste Service Area. The
Grant County Board maintains complete jurisdictional control over the Count’s solid waste
management. Contracts for services are let out to bid by the Grant County Board. A contract
with the County’s hauler is currently in place for four years. As this contract comes to a close,
Grant County negotiates to renew the contract with the hauler. According to State Statute, Grant
County is allowed to negotiate with the existing hauler for continued collection rather than letting
bids every four years. Although this system works in Grant County, a County which has a
number of haulers providing service may resist the establishment of a Solid Waste Service Area
with County control, as they may be at risk of losing their routes. An option that may be more
palatable to the haulers would be to establish territories within the County area and allow them to
bid on territories of interest or establish territories based on market share.
Ramsey and Washington Counties also recently explored the market participant public collection
approach. However, the counties decided to withhold implementation of public collection
ordinances because long term waste delivery contracts were achieved with local haulers. The
counties also chose to implement a hauler-collected service charge.
7.2.6 Private Sector Option
Some waste management companies use vertical integration to compete efficiently in the
marketplace, and assure waste is delivered to the facilities that bring the most profit to the company.
To vertically integrate, companies develop or acquire landfill capacity and waste collection
enterprises in a regional area. Doing so allows them to profit from both hauling and landfill
operations and has the advantage of control over directing collected waste to their facilities.
An important company strategy to maximize profits at a private landfill is to own landfills capable of
accepting large amounts of waste per day. Because landfills have certain fixed costs, a large daily
capacity allows the company to operate at lower cost per ton, because the fixed costs of operating a
landfill are spread out over a large amount of waste. These landfills can offer very competitive
pricing and help companies secure a major part of the waste stream in Minnesota.
7.2.7 Other Actions Taken
Steele County has implemented the measures outlined below to assure flow into the county landfill.

Since August, 2000, Steele County has been contracting with the law firm of Lindquist and
Vennum to provide legal counsel on issues like waste assurance and waste delivery contract
development.
7-7
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota

The Steele County Board has authorized the disposal of out-of-county waste at the Steele
County Landfill.

Since 2001 Steele County has entered into waste delivery contracts with seven waste haulers
to ensure delivery of waste to the Steele County Landfill.
7.2.8 Combination of Methods
It is likely that a combination of waste assurance methods would be utilized to implement the
facility. A combination of these methods would provide the protection Steele County needs to
ensure a successful project, as well as involving other affected parties such as the private haulers. If
volumes to the landfill drop significantly, Steele County will pursue the above-mentioned methods of
market participation, always heeding the legal status of these issues, and they will also consider
subsidizing tipping fees.
7.3
FACILITY SITING REQUIREMENTS
7.3.1 General
Siting criteria are based on applicable federal, state, and local regulations along with other
discretionary criteria. These criteria can be revised by local officials reflecting local concerns. With
an agreement on the siting criteria to be considered for a new landfill, a screening procedure would
be applied to land in the study area to develop potential sites. These sites would then be evaluated in
greater depth to determine their suitability for use as a landfill.
One method for preliminary screening of land is by using the Minnesota Land Management
Information System (MLMIS). MLMIS has been widely used in other siting programs and allows for
correlation of local criteria desires and those required by the affected regulated agency. Additional
screening may be necessary for specific criteria.
7.3.2 Review of Legislation
7.3.2.1
Introduction
This section is a review of Federal, State, and local regulations and policies applicable to the siting of
sanitary landfills. Included are reviews of:
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations (Federal Register - 26 March 1979)
- Minnesota State Regulations
- Steele County ordinances
Institutional and practical considerations for siting a landfill in Steele County are provided in
Table 7-1.
7.3.2.2
Federal Regulations
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 directs the U.S. Environmental Protection
7-8
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
Agency (EPA) to publish guidelines that describe recommended considerations and practices for the
location, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of solid waste landfill disposal facilities.
EPA is also responsible for implementation of these guidelines. This is generally accomplished
through approval of a state's regulations. The regulations for disposal of solid waste in any state must
be as stringent or more stringent than the Federal regulations. In Minnesota, the Pollution Control
Agency is responsible for enforcement of both State and Federal regulations.
Federal guidelines recommend avoiding environmentally sensitive areas in the location of landfill
disposal facilities. According to Federal guidelines the following areas are environmentally sensitive:
- Wetlands;
- Flood plains (l00-year flood);
- Critical habitats of endangered species;
- Recharge zones of sole source aquifers;
- Zones of active faults; and
- Areas of karst topography (limestone region with sinks, underground streams,
and caverns).
Federal guidelines also recommend that landfill site selection be done in consideration of:
- Ground and surface water conditions;
- Geology, soils, and topographic features;
- Social, geographic, and economic factors; and
- Aesthetic and environmental impacts.
Other factors to be considered in landfill site selection are:
- Sites traversed by pipes or conduits for sewage, stormwater, etc.;
- Suitability of on-site soil for cover material and vehicle maneuverability;
- Sites located near airports where birds would become a hazard to aircraft;
- Sites should be accessible by all-weather roads from the public road system; and
- Safety considerations of vehicular traffic.
These guidelines permit the location of a landfill disposal facility in a generally unsuitable area if no
other feasible alternative exists, provided the site is prepared through the application of proper, and
in some cases sophisticated, engineering techniques for design and operation. The final design of a
landfill disposal facility can only be accomplished after a thorough analysis of tradeoffs among
environmental impacts, economic considerations, and future use alternatives. These general
guidelines, when applied to a site-specific situation, are subject to interpretation by the MPCA with
regard to the intrinsic suitability of the given site.
7.3.2.3
State of Minnesota Regulations
The regulations for siting and operating a sanitary landfill in Minnesota are set forth in Minnesota
State Regulations under Chapter 7035, Solid Waste Rules. The MPCA is responsible for enforcing
these regulations. A summary of state landfill siting requirements are presented on the following
page. MPCA is also responsible for reviewing and approving the permit applications for sanitary
landfill sites. Chapter 7035 prohibits MPCA from approving permit applications for landfills located
7-9
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
in the following areas:
- 1,000 feet from the normal high water mark of a lake, pond, or flowage;
- 300 feet from a stream;
- a regional flood plain (100 year flood);
- wetlands;
- 1,000 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any state, federal or interstate highway;
- 1,000 feet from the boundary of a public park;
- 1,000 feet from an occupied dwelling; and
- location considered hazardous because of proximity to airports.
Chapter 7035 also prohibits sanitary landfills from being sited in areas which are unsuitable due to
topography, hydrology, geology, or soils. However, these criteria arc subject to interpretation by
MPCA. These criteria may be modified at the discretion of the MPCA Director, taking into account
such factors as noise, dust, litter, and other aesthetic and environmental considerations.
7.3.2.4
Local Regulations
The county has met all applicable local regulations and restrictions as outlined in the County Solid
Waste Ordinance provided in Appendix C.
7.3.3 Criteria Development
The land environment has certain waste disposal limitations; therefore, the site selection process
must measure the level of environmental protection provided by the site's physical characteristics,
and the degree to which the proposed site is consistent with public policy and values. In general,
sanitary landfills should not be located in environmentally sensitive areas. When no feasible
alternative exists, disposal facilities proposed for these sensitive areas will require special design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to assure environmental safety.
The following land areas may not be used as landfills:
-
Areas where existing land use would be incompatible with a landfill, such as urbanized areas
and areas of significant rural population. Also included are areas constrained by local land
use plans or zoning.
-
Water bodies, water courses, wetlands, and areas with groundwater tables at depths less than
five feet from the surface.
-
Areas of extremely steep slopes or hills.
Once search areas are determined, broad engineering and environmental analyses should be applied
to those areas to identify specific sites. Specific sites should then be subjected to detailed
hydrogeological studies. Maps should be used to document the entire screening and selection
process.
7-10
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
The following factors should be considered:
- Topography
- Soils
- Geology
- Surface water
- Ground water
- Surface drainage
- Climatology
- Environmentally unique areas
- Present and future land use
- Utilities
- Transportation
7.3.4 Summary of Criteria
The site selection criteria compiled in this study are summarized in Table 7-2. Most of the criteria
presented have specific limitations based on the foregoing regulations. These limitations are stated
in the "Exclusionary Factors" column. The remaining columns explain the discretionary factors
which have been included in the criteria.
For example, soil texture is a major criterion because the ideal site should have: (l) an upper layer of
medium-grained soils, e.g. loam, which is workable in all weather conditions for daily soil cover,
while having a low enough permeability to minimize infiltration of precipitation, which leads to
leachate production; and (2) an underlying layer of fine-grained soils, i.e. clay, which minimizes the
rate of leachate percolation into the groundwater and maximizes the soil attenuation of pollutants in
the leachate.
Another discretionary criterion is distance from a 9-ton road. The cost of building an access road is
high, so this factor becomes an important economic criterion. A third discretionary criteria is land
ownership. Use of county tax-forfeited land if possible eliminates the removal of property from tax
rolls and reduces the impact of a new landfill; however, in Steele County the availability of such land
is limited.
7.4
PROCUREMENT
7.4.1 Procurement Methods/Related Issues
There are three basic procurement methods available for the construction of a solid waste
management facility: Architect/Engineer (A/E) Design, Turnkey, and Full Service. Under the A/E
method, a consulting firm designs, the system and prepares final specifications for the equipment. A
competitive bid process is then used to select a firm to construct the facility and to install the
equipment.
Turnkey procurement utilizes one company to provide design, construction, equipment, start-up, and
acceptance testing for the facility. The facility is required to meet performance guarantees prior to
acceptance of the facility by the counties. The advantage of this method is that one company is
7-11
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
responsible to the counties for the performance of the facility (technically and financially). The
major disadvantage is that the counties cannot control the design of the facility and the counties will
not know exactly what will be included in the facility during the contracting process. With turnkey
procurement, the facility can be operated by the counties or the counties can contract with a private
company for facility operations. This could be the same company that the counties select to design
and build the facility or a different company.
Full service procurement is very much like turnkey procurement in that one company is responsible
for the design, construction, equipment erection, start-up, and acceptance testing. However, the
same company is also contracted to operate the facility, normally for a long term. Full service
procurement can also include ownership of the facility by the same company. However, there are
financing considerations that the counties should consider before making this decision.
Selection of a turnkey or full service company is normally done through a competitive process
utilizing a Request for Proposals (RFP). A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) can also be used ahead
of the RFP process so that the counties only receive proposals from qualified companies. Prior to
the issuance of an RFP, several decisions should be made about the project. These decisions include:






public versus private ownership;
public versus private operation;
financing method;
facility capacity;
facility site; and
hauling responsibilities.
Environmental issues associated with a sanitary landfill are initially examined at the state level by the
environmental process. After the environmental review these issues are re-examined during the solid
waste permitting process.
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is a review of potential environmental impacts
and issues associated with a proposed project. The criteria in the examination of potential for
significant environmental effects includes the following:




type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects;
the extent to which the environmental affects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority; and
the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled.
7.5
ORDINANCE AND LICENSING
Steele County has a Solid Waste Ordinance governing solid waste practices in Steele County. A
copy of this Ordinance is provided in Appendix C. This ordinance was updated in 1998 to provide
more comprehensive management of the County’s solid waste.
7.6
STAFFING OF SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
In 2003, 1.4 equivalent full time staff worked on the County’s solid waste abatement programs
7-12
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
including: source reduction, yard waste education and household hazardous waste education.
Approximately 3.7 full time equivalent employees manage the landfill operations.
7.7
FUNDING OF SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
Steele County employs different means for funding of the solid waste programs. Residential service
fees obtain the majority of revenues supporting solid waste programs. In 2003, $333,372 was
collected through service fees, $70,353 was obtained through SCORE funds, and $5,058 from the
Household Hazardous Waste Regional Program for a total of $408,783.
7.8
BACKUP TO PROPOSED DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
Landfilling is the primary method of disposal for Steele County’s solid waste. Alternatively to
landfilling at the Steele County’s facility could be disposal at the Rice County Landfill or the
Prairieland Composite Facility. Both of these options would require a centralized waste drop off
center and then transferring to the out-of-county facility. Cost for disposal would probably range
from $60 per ton to more than $90 per ton. The description of these alternatives is provided in
Section 5.0.
7.9
MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Every solid waste management method or technology has a certain level of risk associated with it.
Most people intuitively recognize the most common and dramatic risks, such as groundwater
contamination from landfills. The pathways of exposure identified include:
Air: Several of the solid waste management methods release contaminants or odors into the air.
Airborne pollutants have the potential to affect surface water, groundwater, land or public health.
Surface Water: Surface water includes streams, lakes, wetlands.
Ground Water: Regardless of whether it is used as drinking water source of for some other purpose,
it is Minnesota’s policy to protect all ground water as a potential source of drinking water, regardless
of its location or present use.
Land: Some types of solid waste management and contamination can render land unusable for some
uses such as for growing certain crops of for building construction.
Health Risks: Each solid waste management technology has a potential impact on human health. In
Minnesota, standards for drinking water and other pathways of exposure are based on assumptions
about an “acceptable” level of risk. An acceptable level of risk is one that results in excess cancers
in fewer than one in 100,000 persons over a 70-year life span.
Nuisances: Solid waste management systems may result in nuisances such as vermin, dust, and
odors. While these may not pose a direct risk to public health or to the environment, nuisance
conditions can exacerbate other adverse features of a waste system, may contribute to public
concerns of a particular system and could lead to public health risks if not controlled.
Many of the risk factors can be mitigated. For example, landfills can be constructed and operated in
7-13
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
a controlled manner that reduces the potential to pollute the area environment. Landfills presently
accepting waste in Minnesota are required to be equipped with leachate collection systems, cell
liners, final cover system and gas/ground water monitoring to provide an early warning of
contamination if it occurs.
Mixed municipal solid waste composting is not risk-free. Uncertainties with compost of cocomposting projects usually pertain to the potential for pathogens, metals or organic contaminants
remaining in the finished compost. Contamination by pathogens is greatly minimized with proper
operation to ensure that all of the waste is completely composted. The level of metals and organic
chemical contaminants can be reduced in the final compost product if recyclable materials and
household hazardous wastes are collected before the composting operation begins.
7.10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental issues associated with a sanitary landfill are initially examined at the state level by the
environmental process. After the environmental review these issues are re-examined during the solid
waste permitting process.
The EAW is a review of potential environmental impacts and issues associated with a proposed
project. The criteria in the examination of potential for significant environmental effects includes the
following:




type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects;
the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority; and
the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled.
In addition to these required notifications, Steele County has kept the public informed through
notification in the local paper, public meetings, and direct mailings to property owners around the
landfill. The meetings educated the community on the project development including site
background hydrogeologic information and design aspects.
7-14
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
APPENDIX A
GOAL-VOLUME TABLE
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
APPENDIX B
STEELE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BUDGET
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
APPENDIX C
STEELE COUNTY SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
APPENDIX D
STEELE AND RICE COUNTIES HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
APPENDIX E
LANDFILL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
TABLE 3-1
CITY COLLECTION SERVICES
Steele County, Minnesota
City
Method of Collection
Commercial Collection Service
______________________________________________________________________________
Owatonna
Commercial
Waste Management
Starman Waste Removal
Stewart Sanitation
Blooming Prairie
Commercial
Walsh Garbage Service
Waste Management
Triple JJJ Disposal
Medford
Commercial
Jim’s Garbage Service
Starman Waste Removal
Stewart Sanitation
Waste Management
Ellendale
Commercial
Thompson Sanitation
Solid Waste Management Plan
Steele County, Minnesota
TABLE 3-2
2003 ESTIMATE: MUNICIPAL/INDUSTRIAL WASTE QUANTITIES COLLECTED
BY COMMERCIAL HAULERS
Steele County, Minnesota
Avg. Tonnage (tons/week)
Collected in
Steele
County
Collected
Outside
Steele County
Landfill
Location
% Disposed in
Steele County
Landfill
Starman Waste
Removal
159
8
Steele County
100%
Waste
Management
230
N/A
Out-of-County
0%
Stewart Sanitation
68
3
Steele County
100%
Triple JJJ Disposal
0
63
Steele County
100%
Jim’s Garbage
Service
16
1
Steele County
100%
Walsh Garbage
Service
21
1
Steele County
100%
Thompson
Sanitation
14
14
Steele County
100%
Hauler
Notes: 1) All tonnage estimates are based on 2003 landfill records and hauler license application
information
2) Quantities for haulers that do not use the Steele County Landfill are estimates only