Certificate of Need

1. Certificate of Need

2. Outline of Discussion/Briefing • Purpose of Certificate of Need • Certificate of Need for greater Minnesota landfills • CON & County Plans • CON & Out of State MMSW • Examples • Obtain SWA Input on CON

3. 115A.917 CERTIFICATE OF NEED. No new capacity for disposal of mixed municipal solid waste may be permitted in counties outside the metropolitan area without a certificate of need issued by the commissioner indicating the commissioner's determination that the additional disposal capacity is needed in the county. A certificate of need may not be issued until the county has a plan approved under section 115A.46. If the original plan was approved more than five years before, the commissioner may require the plan to be revised before a certificate of need is issued under this section. The commissioner shall certify need only to the extent that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the additional disposal capacity, including waste reduction, source separation, and resource recovery, that would minimize adverse impact upon natural resources. Alternatives that are speculative or conjectural are not feasible and prudent. Economic considerations alone do not justify the certification of need or the rejection of alternatives. (1984 assigned to MPCA)

4. What is the purpose of CON? • Protect public health and the environment • Orderly and deliberate development and financial security of landfills • Expand materials and energy recovery from waste • Reduce the toxicity of waste • Reduce dependence on landfills

5. What is CON? • Prerequisite to building new MMSW capacity in greater Minnesota • Based on County/Metro Solid Waste Plan (115A.46 and 473.803) • Plans implement alternativesto land disposal • MPCA permits must be consistent Plans (§ 116.07 p. 4j) • MPCA may certify need only to the extent that no feasible and prudent alternatives

7. Metropolitan Policy Plan and County Solid Waste Management Master Plans • MPCA and Metro Counties established new goals for landfill abatement • Metro Master Plans show implementation of alternatives to land disposal • Metro Master Plans show reduced need for MMSW disposal – even with pop. growth • Metro Master Plans are done every six years – due again in 2016

10. Greater MN County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans • CON is based on information contained in a County Plan • County Plan outlines alternatives to land disposal slated for implementation • County Plan outlines amounts of MMSW for land disposal after implementing alternatives • County Plan specifies which landfill(s) will receive MMSW generated within the County

11. CON and County Plans Issues • County Plan and landfill permit may not be coordinated in time • Plan may fail to implement feasible and prudent alternatives to land disposal • Plan may show MMSW generation that is lower or higher than actual generation • County Board and Plan may elect not to specify a landfill to receive MMSW generated within the County

12. CON and County Plan solutions • Coordination and sequencing of Plan, CON and Permit is preferable • Effective County Plans or Regional Plans can streamline CON • Plans that landfill will simplify CON • County Board letter or Resolution that supports CON application is an alternative

13. Out of state MMSW and CON • New landfill capacity must obtain CON regardless of MMSW origin • CON documentation: applicable waste plan, alternatives analysis, contract, and/or clear designation by county or district board • MPCA review of CON is the same • Out of state MMSW may not contain items specifically banned from the waste stream under Chapter (115A.935)

14. Out of state MMSW and CON Issues • Every state has different frameworks for solid waste management and responsible local jurisdictions • Sovereign nations inside Minnesota may or may not have solid waste programs • MMSW may contain items specifically banned from the waste stream

15. Example – Ponderosa landfill • Owned by Blue Earth County • “Grandfathered permitted capacity – 2020 may be their first use of CON capacity • Landfill used by several Counties with and without approved Plans • Permit up in 2013/14 • Plans also due in 2013/14

16. Example – Mar-Kit Landfill • Owned by Kittson and Marshall Counties • Mar-Kit has contracts with 7-Counties and multiple “out of state” juristictions • Used up CON in 2013, requested and obtained more covering planning period for service area • Will need CON information for “out of state” • County Plans, CON, & SLF Permit due in 2014/15

17. Example – XYZ Landfill • Owned by County or “Merchant” • One or more County service area • CON application must be based on County Plan(s) or County Board statement that MMSW is available for XYZ landfill • Will need information from “out of state” • MPCA may require new County Plan(s) if Plan(s) is 5+ years old

18. Conclusions • To Implement CON effectively: • Authority of MN County Boards • Feasible and prudent alternatives land disposal capacity • County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan • Sequence CON with Plan & Permit • Obtain information and MMSW designation from out of state jurisdictions and sovereign nations

19. THANK YOU !! Questions ?

20. Certificate of Need – 9-19-13PowerPoint Prepared by:Sigurd ScheurleResource Management and Development Division – 612.669.1377