Hennepin County: A national leader in recycling and diverting waste from landfills. Hennepin County. Solid Waste Management.

Transcription

1 Hennepin County: A national leader in recycling and diverting waste from landfills. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan Hennepin County Environmental Services Adopted April 10, 2012

2

3 Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan Adopted April 10, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Waste Generation and Composition... 4 II. Developing the Plan... 5 A. State Waste Management Policy Plan and Regional Plan... 5 B. Hennepin County Master Plan... 5 C. Public Engagement Process for Developing the Master Plan...6 III. Existing System... 7 A. Waste Managed... 7 B. Environmental Education and Outreach... 8 C. Source Reduction and Reuse... 8 D. Recycling Residential Curbside Commercial Multifamily...10 E. Organics...11 F. Event and Away from Home Waste...12 G. Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials...12 H. MSW Collection and Solid Waste Facilities...13 I. Resource Recovery...13 J. Landfilling...14 K. Other Wastes...15 IV. Trends...15 V. Strategies...16 A. Introduction...16 B. Education and Outreach...17 C. Source Reduction and Reuse...18 D. Recycling...21 E. Residential Curbside Recycling...22 F. Commercial Recycling...24 G. Multifamily Recycling...26 H. Organics Recovery...28 I. Event and Away from Home Waste...31 J. Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials...33 K. Resource Recovery...34 L. Landfilling...36 M. Non-MSW...36 N. Role of Others...38 O. Long-Term Strategies...39 Appendices Appendix A: Waste Generation Projection...A1 Appendix B: Waste Composition: Hennepin County and Rational Energies Study...B1 Appendix C: Hennepin County Ordinances Relating to Solid Waste... C1 Appendix D: Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services Budget...D1 Appendix E: Map of Solid Waste Facilities in Hennepin County...E1 Appendix F: Fees and Charges at Hennepin County Solid Waste Facilities...F1 Appendix G: Residential Recycling Funding Policy...G1 Appendix H: Documents submitted to MPCA...H1 Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

4 Introduction Hennepin County s Solid Waste Management Master Plan ( Master Plan ) was developed by the Department of Environmental Services with valuable input derived from an extensive public engagement process. This plan demonstrates the county s commitment to conserve natural resources, protect the environment and ensure public health and safety. The county is a national and regional leader in environmental management, and the Master Plan was developed with the goal of maintaining and strengthening this leadership position. Hennepin County is required by state statute to prepare, either individually or jointly as a region, a revised county solid waste plan that aligns with the goals and policies in the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan ( Policy Plan ). In response to the Policy Plan, the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board has developed a Regional Solid Waste Master Plan ( Regional Master Plan ) that outlines the strategies metro counties will use to achieve the outcomes identified in the Policy Plan. The County Master Plan details the strategies the county will pursue in managing waste to achieve regional outcomes. This plan was adopted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on April 10, It was developed to be consistent with the board s mission to enhance the health, safety and quality of life of our residents and communities in a respectful, efficient and fiscally responsible way. It is also consistent with the Department of Environmental Services (DES) mission of protecting the environment and conserving resources for future generations and overarching strategic goal that Hennepin County s environment is preserved for future generations. Part I of this plan describes waste generation in the county and the composition of that waste. Part II provides the context in which this plan was developed by describing statutory requirements, the role of the metropolitan region and county responsibilities, and the public engagement process used to gather input. Part III discusses the existing integrated solid waste management system along with the programs and activities carried out by the county. Part IV provides a brief description of the trends that will affect the amount and composition of solid waste to be managed into the future. Part V sets forth the strategies the county plans to implement to meet state goals. Appendices at the end of the plan provide additional detail about the solid waste management system. This Master Plan is intended to guide waste management in the county through Most of the strategies focus on meeting the 2015 objectives established by the state in the Policy Plan. Other strategies will lay the foundation for achieving long-term goals. Progress on implementing strategies will be reviewed regularly, and revisions and new strategies will be developed as appropriate to continue progress towards achieving the primary outcomes. I. Waste Generation and Composition There are 1.2 million residents and thousands of businesses in Hennepin County. Each and every person and business generates waste. In general, waste generation has increased along with population and job growth. Historical trends show that the amount of waste tends to increase as the economy grows and decrease when the economy contracts. The financial crisis in 2008 led to a decline in economic activity and rising unemployment. The recession and continued economic stagnation have resulted in a decrease in waste generation. Despite this short-term reduction in waste generation, generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Hennepin County is projected to grow 25 percent by The projected generation of MSW is contained in Appendix A. Hennepin County partnered with Rational Energies to complete a waste composition study on MSW delivered to the county s Brooklyn Park Transfer Station. Results of the study are summarized below. More detailed results by sector are contained in Appendix B. Bulky Waste 12% Other 21% MSW Composition in 2011 Organic Waste 33% Paper 14% Plastics 14% Metals 6% 4... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

5 II. Developing the Plan A. Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and Regional Solid Waste Master Plan Recognizing both the need to reduce waste and the unmet opportunity to use waste as a resource, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency updated its Policy Plan to provide a framework for change by establishing higher goals and describing tools for achieving objectives through The Policy Plan sets forth a vision for sustainability for the metropolitan area solid waste management system: A sustainable community minimizes waste, prevents pollution, promotes efficiency, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, saves energy and develops resources to revitalize local economies. The integrated waste management system is an essential component of the infrastructure of a sustainable community. The overarching message of the Policy Plan is that fundamental change brought about through greater accountability and utilization of more-effective tools is necessary among the stakeholders responsible for solid waste generation and management. The Policy Plan promotes aggressive goals that support the upper end of the waste management hierarchy. Quantifiable objectives establish minimum standards and encourage higher achievement. Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan MSW Management System Objectives Management Method Hennepin County is required by state statute to prepare, either individually or jointly as a region, a revised county solid waste plan that aligns with the goals and policies in the Policy Plan. These requirements are specified in Minn. Stat Following MPCA approval of the updated Policy Plan on April 6, 2011, a one-year process began to update the regional and county master plans that implement the Policy Plan s vision and objectives. The Regional Master Plan was developed by the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, a joint powers board of six metropolitan counties that includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington counties. It provides an overall regional vision and includes high-level regional and partnership strategies to enhance solid waste management into the future. B. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan The County Master Plan details individual strategies the county will use to manage waste, consistent with and complementary to regional strategies. The Master Plan should not be viewed as a standalone document, but instead as part of an integrated set of planning materials that include the Policy Plan, the Regional Master Plan and the county s forthcoming workplan. The workplan will outline specific initiatives derived from the foundational strategies set forth in the Master Plan. Together these documents provide a statewide, regional and countyspecific view of the solid waste management landscape, based on a long-term vision and short-term strategies that will enable the county to fully achieve its solid waste management objectives. Source Reduction and Reuse 1-2% 2-4% 3-5% 4-6% Recycling 45-48% 47-51% 49-54% 54-60% Organics Recovery 3-6% 4-8% 6-12% 9-15% Resource Recovery 32-34% 32-33% 30-31% 24-28% Maximum Landfill 20% 17% 15% 9% Hennepin County adopted the goals established by the MPCA in its Policy Plan with the exception that the county has an organics recovery goal of 6 percent by 2015 and by Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

6 C. Public Engagement Process for Developing the Master Plan State statute requires each county to establish a solid waste management advisory committee to aid in the preparation of the County Master Plan. A committee comprised of 11 members helped develop the 2004 plan. For the development of this plan, the county decided to go above and beyond state requirements by hosting a comprehensive public engagement process that reached many more stakeholders. Stakeholder feedback process conducted by consultant Interview of city recycling coordinators Regional chamber of commerce survey Community forums Action Participants Timeline Presentations to city environmental commissions Booths at community events Sustainable Neighborhood Conferences Summary of Public Engagement Process The county gathered feedback on how to improve recycling from 1,900 participants at public meetings, events and community forums and from online and in-person surveys. Participants included residents, representatives from businesses, city environmental commission members, education partners, school staff, multi-family property managers, haulers, recycling companies and municipal recycling coordinators. Based on the feedback the county received, the following strategies have wide support: Standardize materials collected and education materials. More technical assistance and support to municipal recycling coordinators, businesses, schools, multifamily property owners and away-from-home venues to improve recycling. Expand organics recycling programs and plastic recycling opportunities. Improve education efforts. 176 stakeholders including recycling coordinators, businesses, education partners, schools, multi-family, haulers and recycling processors Jan. Mar recycling program administrators Nov Jan businesses Dec highly engaged residents from Medina, Bloomington and Crystal HRG Board, Golden Valley, Champlin, Edina, Eden Prairie, Brooklyn Park 10 events Earth fairs, yard and garden expos, 275 surveys completed 83 local government representatives and residents Feb. Mar Feb. Mar Feb. Mar Apr Online survey Residents 961 surveys completed Mar. Apr Multi-family survey in Bloomington 29 property managers Nov. Apr The following key findings informed the development of these strategies: Residential Recycling Residents want less sorting. Forty percent would recycle more if they had a larger container or weekly pickup. Could be recycling more paper and plastic bottles. Most want organics recycling collection and to recycle more kinds of plastics. More education is needed clear but simple information. Multifamily Minimal enforcement of current requirement to offer services. Property managers don t perceive a problem with their recycling program. Limited education provided by property managers. Property managers would like help with education and signage. Public would like to see more done at multifamily properties. Commercial/Businesses Business owners don t perceive a problem with their recycling program. Limited actions have been taken to increase recycling. Received little to no technical assistance on improving their programs. Less than one-quarter think a change in the solid waste management tax would affect what they recycle. Strong interest in business certification program. Favor education and incentives, rather than mandates. Public would like to see more done to improve recycling at work Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

7 City Recycling Staff/Environmental Commissions Supportive of the county s efforts to improve recycling and composting and decrease landfilling. Standardization would be beneficial to reduce confusion, increase participation and improve recycling rates. Want education before enforcement. Mixed reactions to mandates, county or state would need to mandate changes. Enforcement of multifamily requirements is minimal. Desire a stronger role from the county to improve multifamily recycling. Supportive of modifying the Residential Recycling Funding Policy and expanding the use of recycling grant funding to support organics programs. Support including multifamily units and small businesses with curbside collection, if feasible. Identified needs for cities include technical assistance, funding or help offsetting the costs of collection, additional staff, and educational resources. III. Existing Waste Management System Under state law, counties are tasked with managing municipal solid waste. This section begins with an overview of waste collection in the county before turning to a discussion of county efforts to reduce waste and manage it resourcefully. These efforts start at the top of the waste management hierarchy and include a robust education and outreach program; promotion of source reduction and reuse; recycling and organics programs at home, events and away-from-home venues; proper disposal of household hazardous wastes and problem materials; resource recovery; landfilling and finally management of non-msw. Waste Management System Tons collected, %, 2010 Delivered to county facilities 36% What's Left in the Garbage Can Results from recovery rate studies Trash 46% Household Hazardous Waste / Problems Materials 1% Bottles & Cans 6% Stays in the private sector 57% Mostly private but managed by city recycling contracts 7% Organics 34% Paper & Cardboard 13% solid waste is found in Appendix C. To meet state goals, the county also operates solid waste facilities, uses financial incentives and provides services such as education and technical assistance. Hennepin County operates its solid waste programs as an enterprise fund. In 2012, the county budgeted approximately $54 million to operate its Department of Environmental Services. The program areas supported by the enterprise fund include solid waste, waste reduction and recycling, household hazardous waste, environmental protection and administration. Appendix D describes the primary sources of revenue and the principal expenses. A. Waste Managed Over 90 percent of the waste generated in Hennepin County is collected by private haulers. In general, haulers choose where to deliver the waste they collect. In 2010, almost two thirds of the waste generated stayed in the private sector of the waste management system. The county retains active oversight over the efforts of the private sector by enforcing several ordinances, which include the licensing of haulers and solid waste facilities. A description of all ordinances relating to Tons MSW Managed (Thousands) Tons MSW Managed (Thousands of Tons) Target Recycling Waste to Energy MSW Landfilling Organics Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

8 In 2010, 41 percent of the waste generated in Hennepin County was managed through recycling and organics recovery. However, 31 percent of waste was still managed by landfilling, which ranks lowest on the waste management hierarchy established by the state. The graph on previous page shows tons of MSW managed by each method for the past five years and the targets for Residential recovery rate studies show there is considerable opportunity to recover more recyclables and organics from the garbage (What s Left in the Garbage Can, previous page). Over half of what is thrown away is actually recyclable, including organics. B. Environmental Education and Outreach County efforts to reduce waste and manage it resourcefully begin with a robust education and outreach program. Efforts to deliver public education go beyond building awareness by providing tools for residents to take action and make environmentally-responsible changes in behavior. The following is a brief list of activities undertaken in 2011: C. Source Reduction and Reuse Hennepin County has worked with over 100 community organizations and awarded $785,000 in funding over the past 10 years through the Community POWER (Partners on Waste Education and Reduction) and Networks programs. Grants help community organizations and schools conduct waste reduction, toxicity reduction and recycling education projects. The county organizes an annual Choose to Reuse Campaign to promote reuse opportunities with over 80 reuse organizations participating and 100,000 coupon books distributed. COUPONS Great stuff... Great values... Offers from local reuse retailers. Hurry! Coupons valid October 1 to November 30, 2011 Save cash! Save the environment! Get great stuff! Partnered with community groups, through the Community POWER and the Networks program, to implement environmental education projects that result in behavior changes among their audiences. Implemented education campaigns focused on reuse, recycling, organics and household hazardous waste. Shared resources and successes through Green Notes and Green Partners monthly e-newsletters and press releases. Developed resources such as factsheets, brochures, newsletter articles and toolkits for distribution at events and through community partners to educate residents on environmental issues. Accessed research and education expertise through the Hennepin-University partnership to develop more effective educational campaigns and programs. Used trained volunteers to implement communitybased projects and education campaigns. Hennepin County operates Free Product Centers at its two permanent recycling facilities where usable products brought to the drop-off facilities for disposal are made available to the public free of charge. To support innovation and the creation of successful, financially viable waste diversion programs, the county has sponsored reuse projects at county facilities, where items are separated from the trash and re-marketed. In addition, the county has supported the Green Institute s deconstruction program to divert demolition materials from landfills, with wood, household goods, building materials and shingles diverted by the Green Institute to be sold at the Reuse Center. The county has several internal initiatives that cover both recycling and source reduction and reuse. These include the green products initiative, environmentally preferable purchasing and the Lead-by-Example Incentive Fund Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

9 D. Recycling This section describes general programs and strategies that have broad application across the entire recycling initiative specific programs are covered in following sections. Hennepin County does not provide for the collection of recycling from residents or businesses. However, to incentivize recycling, the county created Ordinance 15, which establishes a solid waste management fee on garbage service. The residential rate is 9 percent and the commercial rate is 14.5 percent. The county operates two drop-off centers for residents and businesses: Hennepin County Recycling Center/Transfer Station in Brooklyn Park Office Depot Business Review County purchases in 2010 Other 47% Recycled Products 53% The recycling centers accept common recyclables from homeowners and businesses that self-haul their materials. In partnership with PPL Industries, the county developed one of the first mattress recycling programs in the United States. The program recovered the foam, metal, cotton and wood from over 7,000 mattresses collected at the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station and through curbside pick up in Minneapolis in South Hennepin Recycling and Problem Waste Dropoff Center in Bloomington Although the primary purpose of the facilities is to accept HHW and problems materials and, in the case of Brooklyn Park, to serve as a transfer station, these locations provide an option for recycling as well. PPL mattress recycling program Internally, the county began collecting office paper at the Government Center in The in-house recycling program has now expanded to all county owned facilities, many leased locations, all 41 Hennepin County libraries and the Hennepin County Medical Center. The county s Lead-by-Example Incentive Fund grant program supports county departments in implementing innovative, internal waste reduction and recycling projects. In 2001 the county board passed a resolution supporting environmentally preferable purchasing and waste reduction. The county worked with other agencies to write an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Guide and incorporated environmentally preferable components into county contracts. The county also implemented a Green Products Initiative with Office Depot for the purchase of office supplies that automatically substitutes more environmentally friendly office supply products. More than 50 percent of products since purchased have been green products, with no extra cost to the county. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

10 1. Residential Curbside Recycling In 1986 Hennepin County passed Ordinance 13, which required cities to meet a recycling goal of 16 percent. Each city was responsible for adopting, implementing and enforcing a source separation ordinance. Ordinance 13 required reporting and contained consequences for not meeting the standard. Today this goal has been exceeded and curbside recycling collection service is available to all single family households in cities within Hennepin County. All household structures up to fourplexes are collected curbside and many five- to eight-unit structures are collected curbside as well. Recycling by Sector Percent of tons in 2010 Residential 23% Commercial 77% Most cities enter into a contract with a recycling hauler to provide service. Four cities Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Richfield and St. Anthony have an open system where the resident is responsible for making recycling arrangements with the hauler. Several cities offer special recycling drop-off days or community clean up events where materials are collected for recycling as well as disposal. Permanent drop-off facilities are also available in a few cities. 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 Residential Curbside Recycling Tons by year 2. Commercial Recycling Commercial recycling tonnage, which accounts for 77 percent of the county s recycling, was last estimated in 1993 and has since been adjusted annually based on employment data. Recyclables from the commercial sector are collected by private waste haulers and delivered to private MRFs to be processed and marketed. Ordinance 15 provides an incentive to recycle by establishing a 14.5 percent solid waste management fee on garbage collection. Recycling in the commercial sector has not been the primary focus of county initiatives and resources, but the county has provided technical assistance to businesses to reduce waste and improve recycling by conducting waste audits and offering online resources. The county has also provided funding for the collection of plastic bags through a program called It s in the Bag. 20, Recyclables are delivered to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), where contaminants are removed and materials are sorted by type and grade. Three MRFs are currently operating in the county, owned by Allied Waste, Waste Management and Eureka Recycling. Randy s operates a MRF in Delano, which is in Wright County just across the western border of Hennepin County. The county provides financial support and technical assistance to municipalities for curbside programs. The county continues to pass through 100 percent of the state s SCORE funding ($2.9 million in 2010) to municipalities with grants for curbside and other residential recycling and waste reduction programs. To receive a grant, cities are required to meet the terms of the county s residential recycling funding policy. Residential recycling has increased significantly over the past 25 years and numbers have remained relatively strong despite the economic downturn Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan Multi-Family Recycling Similar to the commercial sector, the multi-family sector has not been the primary focus of county initiatives and resources. However, the county has worked with cities to promote recycling in multi-family units and test different methods to encourage residents to recycle. The county has also developed promotional materials in several different languages to help educate residents with diverse cultural backgrounds. Municipalities were required to pass ordinances in the early 1990s that required owners of multi-family housing to provide the opportunity to recycle for their residents. However, these ordinances are difficult to enforce and have fairly nominal penalties for violations.

11 Our building recycles There are many challenges to improving multi-family recycling rates. Buildings can have sporadic recycling collection, and those that do have recycling programs Paper Plastic Glass often experience low participation and high contamination rates. Like the commercial Recycle: Recycle: Recycle: Mail, office and school papers Milk and juice jugs Food and beverage bottles and jars sector, multi-family Magazines and catalogs Water, soda and juice bottles No: Newspapers and inserts Ketchup and salad dressing bottles Window glass or mirrors recycling is difficult to measure. While it is not commercial, Phone books Dishwashing bottles and Drinking glasses, mugs or vases Shredded paper in a closed paper bag detergent jugs Containers that held hazardous it is often Boxes collected by Shampoo, haulers soap and lotion along bottles with products, commercial such as nail polish Cereal, cracker, pasta and No: accounts. cake mix boxes At the same time, it does not have the characteristics electronics of boxes Containers that held Plastic Shoe boxes, gift boxes and grocery bags store recycle at the Metal single-family curbside recycling. Residents of Boxes from toothpaste, medications hazardous products, such as Recycle: and other toiletries motor oil multi-family housing typically move more frequently and Cardboard Food and beverage cans Aluminum foil No: therefore have difficulty keeping informed of programs paper Pizza boxes, soiled egg with cartons food or other No: Aerosol cans Boxes from refrigerated or frozen foods Containers that vary Gift wrap by building. Educational materials must address products, such that as held automotive hazardous fluids cultural Questions? diversity and be developed in appropriate languages Contact your building and manager formats. Containers are located: visit Hennepin County Environmental Services E. Organics Recovery Preparation: Empty and rinse bottles and cans Flatten boxes Hennepin County is a leader in organics programs to recover food waste and non-recyclable paper. Through education and outreach, grants and technical assistance, the county has implemented and supported organics recycling programs in nearly 120 schools, numerous businesses and more than 5,000 households in nine cities. The county is also supporting several pilot projects in Minneapolis neighborhoods. If a curbside organics collection program is not available, residents can reduce waste by participating in backyard composting. Over 22,000 compost bins have been distributed to residents to encourage the recycling of food waste into compost at their homes. The county provides $300,000 annually in Waste Abatement Incentive Grants to cities, schools and other public organizations for innovative reuse, recycling and composting programs. Since 2000 the county has awarded over $1.7 million for this purpose. Of that amount, $1.2 million has gone to support collection of organic waste for recycling into compost. Hennepin County also offers a reduced tipping fee of $15 per ton for organics delivered to the county s Brooklyn Park Transfer Station (BPTS). Because the tipping fee for garbage is $47 per ton at BPTS, there is an incentive to save money by managing organics separately from garbage. Brooklyn Park Transfer Station now accepts organics for free from residents and small businesses. To support other approaches to organics recovery the county has provided $50,000 annually to Second Harvest since 1998 for food collections from wholesale produce suppliers for distribution to food shelves. The county is also collaborating with the University of Florida, the St. Paul Port Authority and others to assess the feasibility of processing organics by anaerobic digestion. These efforts build on existing collections of food waste for feeding livestock by Endres Processing and area hog farmers. 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Food for Thought Tons of outbound organics from BPTS Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

12 F. Event and Away from Home Waste The county has provided funding for the Message in a Bottle program to increase away from home recycling of bottles and cans at gas stations. The county also promotes GreenGatherings, a guide created by Rethink Recycling to help with the greening of events of all sizes. Resources offered include planning guides, case studies, helpful links and more. The county supports green events by making portable recycling units available for recycling and organics collection at events. These recycling units have proven very successful in recovering clean materials and aiding litter control at events held away from home. The loan program is available to cities, community groups, non-profit organizations, businesses and others who wish to collect and properly recycle beverage containers and organic materials generated at events held in Hennepin County. G. Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials The county operates two permanent drop-off facilities: the Hennepin County Recycling Center and Transfer Station and the South Hennepin Recycling and Problem Waste Drop-Off Center. Residents can use these facilities to drop off HHW and problem materials. In addition, the county co-sponsors collection events at various locations each year in partnership with host cities. Separate from these events, the county has also provided residents the opportunity to properly and safely dispose of their unwanted, unused and expired medicines at several collection events. Medicine collection events have been sponsored by the Hennepin County Sheriff s Office, Hennepin County Environmental Services Department, North Memorial Partnership for Change and the participating cities. The county continues to promote toxicity reduction, separation of materials from the trash and proper disposal of HHW through a variety of methods including direct mail, Green Notes newsletter articles, communication releases, social media and presentations. The number of people participating at events and visiting drop-off facilities to dispose of HHW and problem materials increased 3.6 percent from 120,304 in 2009 to 124,463 in Many of the materials managed by these programs are banned from municipal solid waste. Although there are various private options for disposing of these wastes, the drop-off facilities provide a convenient one-stop location. These facilities accept a wide range of materials including electronics, paint, appliances, vehicle wastes (oil, batteries and tires), household batteries, fluorescent lamps and products that contain ignitable, reactive, corrosive or toxic chemicals. All items except appliances and tires are accepted without a fee. In addition to accepting a wide range of materials, the facilities have convenient hours. The county also participates in reciprocal use agreements with other metropolitan counties to allow their residents to deliver HHW and problem materials to the county s permanent facilities and event collection sites. This agreement also allows Hennepin County residents to deliver HHW and problem materials to other participating metro area counties. The county of origin reimburses the receiving county for the cost of managing the waste. Since 2004, the county has been working in partnership with the City of Minneapolis to find a location for an additional drop-off facility. HHW/PM Program Participation Number of vehicles using the facilities and events 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

13 Hours of Operation at the Facilities Day Monday Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday Wednesday Saturday Sunday Holidays Hennepin County has supported product stewardship initiatives for electronics, mercury thermostats, rechargeable batteries, lead-acid batteries, motor oil, tires and fluorescent lamps. Product stewardship means that all parties involved in designing, manufacturing, selling and using a product take responsibility for environmental impacts at every stage of that product s life. Greater private sector involvement and reduced dependence on government funding and programs are needed to achieve this outcome. Materials Managed: Percent by weight in % 13% 54% Electronics Paint Appliances Motor Oil, Batteries, Tires 8% 8% Hours Closed 10 a.m. 6 p.m. 10 a.m. 8 p.m. 8 a.m. 5 p.m. Closed Closed most major holidays H. MSW Collection and Solid Waste Facilities The county licenses all garbage haulers in the county under Ordinance 17 and as part of the metropolitan area regional licensing program. Recycling haulers are not licensed. Under Ordinance 17, the conditions of the operating license include basics such as vehicle decals, written reports on operations upon request, language regarding cleanup charges and the right to examine hauler records. Licensing does not currently require performance 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% Flammables, Aerosols, Pesticides Household Batteries Miscellaneous Chemistries Other Fluorescent Lamps standards or reporting on waste quantities. Some municipalities in the county also license haulers. Fifteen of the county s 44 cities have organized collection. Only two cities use city employees for collection. The rest contract out for service. Commercial garbage collection is a completely open system. Under the authority of Ordinance 2, Hennepin County licenses solid waste facilities. The purpose is to establish standards for disposal of solid waste within the county. Recycling facilities are not included. A map of these facilities is provided in Appendix E. I. Resource Recovery The county uses its transfer station in Brooklyn Park to facilitate the delivery of MSW to resource recovery facilities. The county negotiates waste delivery agreements with haulers to deliver MSW to the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station or directly to the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC). The fees are included in Appendix F. HERC is a mass burn waste-to-energy facility owned by the county and operated by Covanta Energy. The facility produces enough electricity to power 25,000 homes each year, provides steam to downtown Minneapolis district heating and cooling system, and reduces the amount of waste going to landfills. HERC is currently permitted to burn 365,000 tons per year. (see chart next page). For 20 years the county had a contract with Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) to process up to 235,000 tons of waste annually for Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) at the Elk River Resource Recover Facility (ERRRF). The contract with RRT terminated in August of 2009, at which point the county stopped delivering waste. Ownership of the facility has changed and arrangements were made with Great River Energy (GRE) to resume deliveries in 2011 to the renamed Elk River Resource Processing Plant (ERRPP). Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

14 Resource Recovery Tons of MSW processed at HERC and ERRRF ERRRF HERC 600, , , , , , J. Landfilling There are no landfills operating in Hennepin County. MSW generated in Hennepin County is delivered to either local or out-of-state landfills. In 2010, about 99 percent of unprocessed MSW was delivered to landfills in Minnesota. Unprocessed MSW Deliveries to Landfills in 2011 From Private System Landfill Tons Location Owner Pine Bend 123,880 Inver Grove Heights, MN Allied Waste Elk River 73,990 Elk River, MN Waste Management Burnsville 60,968 Burnsville, MN Waste Management Spruce Ridge 46,901 Glencoe, MN Waste Management Superior 7-mile 3,685 Eau Claire, WI Veolia Subtotal 309,424 From Hennepin Facilities Landfill Tons Location Owner Elk River 32,096 Elk River, MN Waste Management Pine Bend 7,305 Inver Grove Heights, MN Allied Waste Subtotal 39,401 Non-processible items and excess waste (waste received that is over the daily processing capacity) from Hennepin facilities are delivered to nearby landfills. The county also landfills the ash that remains after processing waste at waste-to-energy facilities. Ash from HERC is delivered to the SKB landfill in Rosemount and the Allied Waste landfill in Sarona, Wisconsin. Residues, the fraction of noncombustible waste resulting from the creation of refusederived fuel, are also land disposed. K. Other Wastes Traditionally, the emphasis in county solid waste management master plans has been on municipal solid waste. The regulation of commercial hazardous waste generation also plays a role in achieving the goals and policies of the Policy Plan. Hennepin County regulates businesses that generate hazardous waste to ensure that their wastes are being properly managed. Various programs are in place to ensure businesses properly manage their hazardous wastes, including licensing and site inspections, enforcement actions, and training and outreach. Waste minimization and toxicity reduction are also encouraged. By minimizing their hazardous wastes, generators can ease their regulatory burden, reduce hazardous waste disposal costs and improve their image related to pollution prevention and environmental initiatives. Non-MSW wastes include industrial, construction, pathological and infectious wastes. These materials are managed almost exclusively by the private sector. However, the county has made progress in using recycled tear-off shingles for road construction projects. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has issued specifications that allow for the use of up to five percent manufacturers shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt. Because of the high demand for feedstocks, shingles are used regularly in road construction projects. As for other non-msw, the county has an Industrial Waste Management Plan that addresses the management of these materials if they are received at the county s solid waste facilities Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

15 IV. Trends Waste generation decreased following the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent economic stagnation. Despite this short-term reduction in waste generation, MSW generation in Hennepin County is projected to grow 25 percent by 2030 (using 2010 as a baseline). Most of this increase will be attributable to population growth, but demographic changes will also affect waste generation. As baby boomers retire, their consumption expenditures are projected to decrease, which will result in the generation of less waste. Young families will continue to generate the most waste, though it is hoped that kids will continue to show an interest in greening their schools and homes. The county will need to develop messages for all age groups. Consumer preferences with respect to digital media will continue to have an impact on recycling. Newspapers have become physically smaller, and subscriptions have dropped dramatically as content has migrated online. As a result, tonnage of newspapers picked up curbside has dropped dramatically. This trend will continue. A Morgan Stanley inquiry discovered that 42 percent of U.S. tablet owners will cancel their print newspaper subscription. According to a study from forest products industry information provider RISI, paper end uses (including magazine, book and newspaper) will drop percent by 2015 from 2010 numbers. Over the next 15 years, paper usage will decrease more rapidly, with numbers dropping another percent. Innovations in packaging materials will also have an impact on recycling. Many businesses have introduced sustainable packaging initiatives. Industry has responded by using lighter materials, reducing the amount of packaging and the cost of transportation. This applies to plastic, paper and even glass new wine bottle designs are up to 27 percent lighter than conventional wine bottles. The county is creating strategies now to meet goals established for 2015 through The past several years have demonstrated how rapidly products and markets change. The county will continue to monitor trends as they relate to recycling. The information gathered can be applied to the implementation of recycling strategies as the county adapts to changing circumstances. Tons Recycled Residential Recycling Hennepin County 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Newspaper Mixed/Other Paper Glass Metal Cans/Scrap Plastic Bottles Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

16 V. Strategies A. Introduction The county has implemented many successful waste management programs in an effort to meet state goals. Details about these programs were provided in the description of the existing solid waste management system. The county will maintain its support for effective existing programs. However, the new Policy Plan goals will require more than business as usual. The state goal of 45 percent recycling by 2015 is significantly higher than the county s current rate of 38 percent. In addition, the county has chosen to set a goal of 6 percent for organics recycling by 2015, double the minimum state goal of 3 percent. Given the gap between current performance and future goals, the county will need to implement new programs and significantly expand existing programs. Critical elements contained in various strategies throughout include the following: Performance measurement is difficult, but it is critical to demonstrating achievement of strategies and desired outcomes this will require actions by the county as well as the region and the MPCA. Commercial recycling and organics present the best opportunities to significantly increase waste abatement levels. Ability to meet plan objectives will be determined by choices and behaviors residents and businesses make, hence the importance of education, proactive assistance and appropriate incentives. Standardization of collection methods, materials collected and education should increase levels of residential curbside recycling. Expanded program efforts will focus on apartment recycling and recycling at events and other away-from-home venues. Despite these efforts, a significant volume of recyclables will still be discarded in MSW bound for landfills and will require separation either at transfer stations or landfills prior to disposal of the waste. Because of the importance of moving beyond the status quo, the strategies will focus on what the county is doing differently than in the past. There are strategies for each waste management method and other supporting sections. Each section begins by establishing overall targets and listing county actions. A table indicates whether the county program is a continuation of past efforts, a significant expansion or a newly created strategy. The maintenance and incremental improvement of existing programs will contribute to progress toward state goals; however, programs that are simply a continuation of past efforts will not be described in the strategies. Please refer back to the description of the existing system for more detail Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

17 B. Education and Outreach The ability of the county to reach the solid waste management goals outlined in this plan will be determined by the everyday choices and behaviors of the county s 1.2 million residents and thousands of businesses. When people choose to use less, recycle more and properly dispose of waste, their actions will be reflected in the county s waste management data and results. Each major waste management strategy will have a new or expanded education and outreach component. Details on some strategies have been provided in the master plan but others will be developed in the future. In general, the county s education and outreach strategies will include the elements listed below. General Strategies 1. Develop high quality messages and materials The county will engage and collaborate with the community to gather information on current behaviors, identify barriers to action and improve feedback to develop messages that are effective. The county will use innovative, evidencedbased education strategies that have been proven effective to motivate behavior change and share these materials with our partners to expand the reach and consistency of the message. The county will also expand its resources to provide information in languages other than English and in multimedia formats, including videos and interactive websites. 2. Deliver messages using mass communication channels The county will use mass communication channels, including advertising, media coverage, direct mail, print materials, websites and social media, to build awareness of how to reduce waste, recycle more and properly dispose of waste. 3. Deliver messages using direct outreach methods The county will use direct outreach methods, including technical assistance, presentations, events, tours and multicultural outreach to communicate with individuals on a one-on-one level to address their unique situations and challenges. 4. Facilitate peer-to-peer education The most effective messages are delivered by a trusted member of one s community. To facilitate peer-to-peer education, the county will partner with community groups, congregations, youth-serving organizations and others to deliver environmental education programs. The county will offer educational resources, training and grants to communities. The county will also expand its volunteer program, including the Master Recycler/Composter program, to extend the reach of our educational efforts. Implementation Implementation of these strategies will be ongoing. The county will measure outputs such as number of campaigns produced, number of materials shared with partners and number of events attended. The county will also track the number of people reached through these education and outreach efforts. Ultimately, these strategies will help the county reach its goals for source reduction, recycling and organics recovery. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

18 C. Source Reduction and Reuse Target The county will rely on the MPCA to develop a quantitative model and measure the primary source reduction outcome of a 1 percent to 2 percent reduction in waste generated. The county will measure program outputs such as the number of partnerships developed, people reached with educational campaigns and businesses receiving technical assistance Actual: unknown 2015 Objective: 1-2 percent Program/Activity Continue Expand New Research existing source reduction and reuse options to address barriers and service gaps Partner with retailers, non-profits, and schools Reinvigorate the Business Waste Reduction Program Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Educational Campaign 3 Choose to Reuse 3 Free Product Centers 3 New and Expanded Strategies Research the existing source reduction and reuse system to address barriers and services gaps Garbage and recycling are huge industries dominated by a short list of companies. It is an understatement to say that source reduction and reuse are not nearly as well developed. There are many different participants in a highly fragmented marketplace. Research in this area will help the county gain a better understanding of the existing system, identify barriers to development and formulate strategies that will address service gaps and overcome the difficulties associated with source reduction and reuse. First, the county will research the existing source reduction and reuse system. In some ways, this is an infrastructure assessment. One way to identify opportunities for improvement is to focus on infrastructure and draft a plan revolving around those facilities. Pioneers of zero waste practices say six facilities are needed to reach 90 percent recovery. This list includes MRFs and compost facilities, but it also includes reuse and repair facilities. When it comes to reuse, the term facility could apply to a small business or non-profit. The point is the county needs to have a complete picture of the reuse environment in order to support it. Second, the county will identify the barriers facing those who are involved in source reduction and reuse. For example, a reuse non-profit may be burdened by an excess of unwanted and unusable items. Donations often include items such as paint, HHW and broken items. The reuse organization incurs the high cost of disposal Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

19 Third, the county will identify service gaps and propose improvements. The county will assess whether there is a need to expand its reuse network to include businesses such as auction houses, estate sales, salvage businesses and reuse/overstock stores. The county will address the fact that many reuse businesses do not take bulky items. Reuse opportunities are difficult to find and these items often end up in a landfill. The county will also work to find a financially viable replacement for the Green Institute s Reuse Center and its deconstruction services. Finally, the county will evaluate the potential use of incentives. These could include grants for waste reduction actions by businesses to streamline operations, grants for waste reduction actions above and beyond waste prevention week education, and monetary assistance to non-profits involved in reuse and waste prevention. Implementation The county will develop a proposal for the scope of the research in the second half of Research will be performed in Recommendations will be evaluated and implemented in The deliverable will be a research paper. Specific measurements will be developed later to track the performance of strategies that are implemented. 2. Partner with retailers, non-profits, schools and others The county will work to expand donation opportunities for unused products from businesses to non-profits. This includes assisting non-profits that funnel unused products to schools, teachers and the disadvantaged. The county will work with schools to provide more reuse opportunities for school events, classroom supplies, daily operations and facility rentals. Waste prevention will be addressed, including food waste prevention in the school cafeterias. The county will also provide Hennepin County Libraries and school libraries with educational resources on waste reduction and reuse. Finally, the county will reach out to emergency preparedness planners to have them include in their plans resources on reuse and deconstruction during cleanup after damage from a disaster. The county will provide resources and connections to cities, contractors and deconstruction services to get salvageable items removed. Implementation This strategy will begin immediately. The county will create a list of partners as an output metric. The county will work actively with its partners to determine the best way to measure results. 3. Reinvigorate the Business Waste Reduction Program The county values the opportunity to work with businesses on reducing the volume of discards coming out of buildings and offices. Work will be done to provide resources and direction to businesses to develop internal and external reuse protocols for machinery, office supplies, furniture, fleet and the like. The county will provide resources to link businesses to reuse businesses and promote Adaptive Reuse altering a building for a new purpose instead of demolition and new construction. Implementation Implementation will begin in the first half of Measurement will include the number of businesses the county reaches and a count of the materials that are distributed. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

20 4. Review county s results in procuring environmentally preferable products as directed by County Board Resolution , and recommend changes and updates to procedures as necessary to increase procurement of environmentally preferable products As a large purchaser and waste generator, the county has a responsibility to lead by example as directed by County Board Resolution , in 2001 the county established an in-house environmentally preferable purchasing program (EPP). The review of the EPP program will assess current procurement practices, provide baseline information and identify products to eliminate or substitute. Specific recommendations will be made at a later date, but there are several actions that will likely facilitate improvements to the program. An EPP team would coordinate efforts across the different areas involved in the purchasing process, from the buyers and product users to the vendors and advocates in environmental services. Successful implementation will require broad support and feedback from all levels. Guidelines and training will help ensure the application of environmental criteria. The county should revisit specific goals and set environmental standards without sacrificing performance and costs. Finally, the county should consider the possibility of integrating environmental considerations into purchasing documents. Implementation Staff will report to the County Board by March 31, Recommendations will be provided by the second half of The implementation of recommendations will occur in At the time of implementation, metrics will be developed. 5. Implement an educational campaign focused on source reduction and reuse The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board launched a new campaign in October 2011 that encourages residents to reduce waste by getting less. The campaign was well received. The county will extend the campaign into 2012 by purchasing additional commercial airtime. The county will also develop educational campaigns on other waste reduction topics, for example junk mail reduction, greening celebrations and reuse of household and bulky items. Implementation The county will extend the SWMCB campaign during the first half of 2012 and develop additional campaigns from 2013 to Output metrics will include the amount of airtime and an estimate of the size of the audience reached. Other education campaigns will be measured by tracking the number of materials distributed Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

21 D. Recycling Expanded Strategies Program/Activity Continue Expand New Recycling at county facilities 3 Master Recycling/Composter Program Ordinance 15 Solid Waste Management Fee County drop-off facilities 3 Waste Abatement Incentive Fund grants Lead by Example grants 3 1. Recover plastic and metal from the waste stream at county facilities The county owns and operates the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station. This presents an opportunity to recover materials from the waste stream. The county has negotiated a contract with Rational Energies to lease space at the transfer station and set up a sorting line to recover plastic and metal from the incoming waste. About one third of the estimated 22,000 tons recovered from the waste stream will be recycled. Two thirds will be converted into synthetic crude oil. The county will evaluate the option of replicating this initiative at HERC Recovery Target Recycling strategies are divided into several different sections. The first section, addressed immediately below, pertains to general recycling strategies that have broad application across the different areas. The other sections include residential curbside, commercial and multi-family recycling Actual: 514,199 tons recovered (38 percent recycling rate) 2015 Objective: 639,000 tons recovered (45 percent recycling rate) Implementation The Rational Energies sort line is tentatively scheduled to be operational by May of The county will track the tons recovered. 2. Expand the Master Recycler/Composter Program The county offered the Master Recycler/Composter Program for the first time in the spring of Master Recyclers receive an eight-week training on waste reduction, recycling and composting in exchange for thirty hours of volunteer payback. Volunteer activities include staffing booths at events, creating educational resources and displays, and designing and implementing waste reduction plans for special events, schools and the workplace. Once the thirty hour commitment is fulfilled, participants are certified Master Recycler/Composters and encouraged to continue volunteer service. The county will offer two courses each year, training up to thirty participants per course. Implementation This strategy will be ongoing. The county will measure the number of participants and keep a record of the volunteer services performed. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

22 E. Residential Curbside Recycling Target Residential curbside recycling accounts for 20 percent of the total tons recycled in the county. Studies show there is an opportunity to recover more recyclables from the waste stream and contribute to the overall 45 percent recycling goal established by the policy plan. Because residential curbside recycling programs are administered by cities, the focus will be on implementation at the municipal level Actual: 92,583 tons recovered 2015 Objective: 125,000 tons recovered New Strategies Program/Activity Continue Expand New Residential Recycling Funding Policy 3 Education and technical assistance 3 Ordinance #13 Municipal Recycling 3 1. Implement the Residential Recycling Funding Policy The county will use SCORE funding as an incentive to improve recycling. The residential recycling funding policy was recently revised to require more materials to be collected, require a single or dual sort collection method and set expectations for education and outreach efforts. Cities must meet one of three performance standards established in the funding policy: an average of 725 pounds of recycling per household per year, a 35 percent recycling rate or an 80 percent recovery rate. The county will continue the current distribution of all SCORE funds received from the state to all cities within Hennepin County for their recycling programs. However, if the cities do not meet the performance standard, an improvement plan must be negotiated with the county. The funding policy is attached in Appendix G. Implementation A transition to the new standards will occur in Performance will be evaluated on an annual basis and the county will work closely with cities to develop recycling programs. Haulers report to cities per contract requirements. Each city must report contract, program, tonnage and financial information to the county. 2. Expand education and technical assistance As a part of the revised funding policy, the county will play a larger role in education and outreach. The county will form a communications committee to organize efforts, provide promotional resources to partners, create a priority message campaign on an annual basis and distribute a template to encourage consistent messaging. Cities will be required to use county images and terminology for recycling guidelines. Cities will mail a recycling guide to residents once each year and complete two other outreach activities from a menu of options. The county will also provide technical assistance to cities. This will include assistance with RFPs, model contract language, support with implementation of new activities, information sharing, research and assistance with enforcement. Implementation Standard terminology and recycling guidelines will be developed in The county will also develop an annual priority message campaign beginning in Performance measurements will include the number of direct mail pieces, number of people reached through other media, number of materials shared with partners and general feedback on the visibility of the campaigns Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

23 3. Update Ordinance 13 on municipal recycling to update minimum requirements Ordinance 13 was passed in 1986 to establish a recycling goal of 16 percent. This goal has been far surpassed and the ordinance is out of date. The county will revise Ordinance 13 to reflect changes to the funding policy and support the new policy plan goals. Minimum standards such as materials to be collected will be incorporated into the ordinance. These standards will apply to all cities, even those that opt out of the funding agreement or those with an open recycling collection system that do not rely on the county s funding. Implementation This ordinance will be reviewed in the second half of If other ordinances are involved in a wholesale reevaluation of solid waste ordinances, the review process may extend into After the review process, recommendations will be provided. The county will develop performance measures after changes to the ordinance are adopted. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

24 F. Commercial Recycling Target The commercial sector generates over half of the total waste in the county and accounts for 77 percent of the total tons recycled. Any significant improvement in the recycling rate will need to include progress in the commercial sector. Hennepin County will work with the SWMCB to explore the expansion of regional hauler licensing to include non-msw, recycling and organics haulers. This includes efforts to work collaboratively with them PCA to develop a standard commercial recycling data collection program Actual: 387,000 tons recovered 2015 Objective: 450,000 tons recovered New Strategies Program/Activity Continue Expand New Partnership with Waste Wise and other business organizations Business assistance program Evaluation of financial incentives to encourage recycling Evaluation of low-cost service options for small/medium businesses It s in the Bag plastic film collection 1. Investigate opportunities and secure partnerships with Waste Wise and other businesses organizations to inform, support and promote business recycling Previous county efforts to develop a commercial sector recycling campaign have not been sustained. To revive county efforts, various private sector stakeholders such as Minnesota Waste Wise (a member-supported nonprofit that provides sustainability consulting to businesses and organizations), local chambers of commerce, BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) and hospitality associations will be included in the design and development of a new, ongoing program. Once developed, the county will explore partnering with private sector organizations, such as Waste Wise, to implement the program. This approach places emphasis on a business-to-business peer relationship Implementation A partnership will be developed in the second half of 2012 and the roll out of a joint recycling campaign will begin in The county will track the number of businesses reached and the number of businesses who seek additional assistance. 2. Design a comprehensive business assistance program that encourages businesses to take advantage of the environmental, social and economic benefits of recycling in the workplace In addition to partnering with various organizations, the county will expand outreach efforts by working directly with businesses. Efforts will be focused on large individual generators and commercial areas that generate large amounts of recyclables. Assistance will center on a short list of best management practices. The county will explore the possibility of developing a set of minimum standards for a Green Business Certification component of the commercial recycling program Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

25 The county will encourage co-branding of the business assistance program and materials in each community, emphasizing the importance of presenting a unified program county-wide. If cities have the resources and ability to administer aspects of the program locally, the county will encourage them to do so and allow them the flexibility to address local conditions and tailor outreach to the needs of their respective business communities. Implementation The county will design an assistance program in conjunction with partners during the second half 2012, identify initial targets and begin assistance during the first half of 2013, and select additional targets for assistance annually thereafter. The county will track the number of businesses that are targeted and the success of providing assistance. 3. Evaluate financial incentives to encourage recycling Stakeholder feedback has indicated that many businesses prefer incentives over mandates. The county will evaluate possible incentives for the commercial sector such as providing containers, mini-grants and low-interest loans, as well as changes to garbage and recycling service pricing structures. Implementation This will begin in 2013 and the deliverable will be a report analyzing the options. Recommendations will be brought forward and implementation will begin after strategies are adopted. Performance measures will be developed to track the success of the strategies. 4. Evaluate low-cost service options for small and medium businesses The cost of recycling services can be a barrier for small businesses wishing to participate in recycling. To reduce this barrier, the county will evaluate low-cost service options such as including small and neighborhood businesses in residential recycling programs, expanding the use of city and county drop-off recycling centers and instituting cooperative collection programs. Implementation This will begin in 2013 and the deliverable will be a report analyzing the options. Recommendations will be brought forward and implementation will begin after strategies are adopted. Performance measures will be developed to track the success of the strategies. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

26 G. Multifamily Recycling Target Multifamily recycling is usually collected with commercial recycling. Since it is lumped in with businesses, it is difficult to measure. It is important to address multifamily recycling separately: It is not commercial, and while it is residential housing, multi-family households have different characteristics than single-family households with curbside collection. The county will develop a customized approach for multifamily recycling focused on Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Edina, Minneapolis, New Hope, Plymouth, Richfield and St. Louis Park, where most multifamily housing in the county is located Actual: unknown 2015 Objective: 19,000 tons recovered Strategies Program/Activity Continue Expand New Education and technical assistance 3 Evaluation of incentives 3 Evaluation of low-cost service options 3 1. Create new educational materials and provide technical assistance The county will create new educational materials and provide technical assistance to building owners, building managers and residents. New resources will include best management practices for multi-unit buildings and townhome developments of varying sizes, ready-to-print signs, labels and resident educational materials (in multiple languages), a resident pledge, program tips and troubleshooting, case studies, and links to additional local and regional resources. To develop a targeted multi-family recycling campaign, the county will include cities and key multi-unit building and townhome development stakeholders such as the Minnesota Multi Housing Association (MHA), local property management associations, condo and townhome associations, tenant groups, public housing authorities and large property management companies in the design and development of the program. Tools will include informational resources, onsite assistance, waste audits, phone and assistance, and general marketing. The county will work with cities to develop a unified program county-wide that can be co-branded in each community. The county will recruit haulers to champion the program and assist in recruitment by marketing the program through their existing outreach channels. Implementation This strategy will begin immediately and be ongoing. The county will measure the number of buildings visited and work with cities to develop other performance measures Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

27 2. Evaluate incentives In addition to educational materials and technical assistance, incentives can also be used to improve recycling performance. The county will evaluate the following incentives for multifamily recycling by consulting with building owners, managers and residents. Free containers Recycling infrastructure grants Bulky waste pick-up (large items) Recycle Bank earn points and get rewards for recycling Reverse vending machines that accept recyclables Implementation This will begin in 2013 and the deliverable will be a report analyzing the options. Recommendations will be brought forward and implementation will begin after strategies are adopted. Performance measures will be developed to track the success of the strategies. 3. Evaluate low-cost service options As with small businesses, the cost of recycling can be a barrier to participation. The county will evaluate municipal collection contracts and drop-off collection points as potential low-cost service options for multifamily recycling. Implementation This will begin in 2013 and the deliverable will be a report analyzing the options. Recommendations will be brought forward and implementation will begin after strategies are adopted. Performance measures will be developed to track the success of the strategies. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

28 H. Organics Recovery Target Several studies show that organics comprise almost 30 percent of the waste being discarded by businesses and residents. This represents a significant opportunity to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by recovering organics Actual: 49,972 tons recovered (3.7 percent) Commercial = 49,369 tons Residential = 603 tons 2015 Objective: 85,000 tons recovered (6 percent) Commercial = 77,000 tons Residential = 8,000 tons Program/Activity Continue Expand New Target large commercial generators Evaluate the use of start-up grants Support cities to develop curbside collection Evaluate and support development of adequate processing capacity Reduced tip fee 3 Free drop off for residents & small businesses Waste Abatement Incentive Fund grants Backyard composting Support Second Harvest food reuse program New and Expanded Strategies 1. Target large businesses and commercial areas that produce large quantities of organic waste The county has worked extensively with schools and cities to recover organics. There is a significant opportunity to replicate this success in the commercial sector. Going forward, the county will expand education and technical assistance to businesses. The creation of a targeted organics campaign in the commercial sector will focus on grocery stores, full service restaurants, event centers, hotels and workplace cafeterias. Efforts will focus on large generators of organics and commercial nodes that generate large amounts of organics. The county will facilitate partnerships between waste generators and haulers, not only to make progress on issues unique to each audience, but also to strengthen a connection between the two groups. These efforts will help businesses set up organics collection and reduce waste disposal costs, while helping haulers build efficient routes and provide excellent service. Implementation An assistance program will be designed in conjunction with partners during the second half of Initial targets will be identified in early 2013 and assistance will begin afterwards. Additional targets will be selected for assistance on an annual basis Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

29 2. Evaluate the use of grants to businesses to get organics programs up and running The county has offered Waste Abatement Incentive Grants to public schools and other public entities since 1999, and non-public schools became eligible in These grants have been very successful in encouraging development of organics collection projects. The county will continue to offer incentive grants and will consider the possibility of providing similar start-up grants to the commercial sector. Implementation This will begin in 2013 and the deliverable will be a report with recommendations. Implementation will begin after strategies are adopted, and performance measures will be developed to track the success of the strategies. 3. Support municipalities in developing curbside organics collection programs The county will support municipalities in developing curbside organics collection programs in several ways. Currently, the county offers support to municipalities for developing curbside organics collection programs in the form of grants, technical assistance, and educational and promotional materials. To continue to expand residential organics collection in Hennepin County new forms of assistance will be offered. First, the county s Residential Recycling Funding Policy is being amended to allow municipalities to use SCORE funding to support residential organics programs. Second, the County will collaborate with municipalities to develop a model contract for curbside collection of organics. Recent changes to state law removed the biggest barrier to municipalities contracting for citywide curbside organics collection by including source-separated compostable materials in the definition of recyclable materials, which are exempt from many of the organized collection statutes. Combined with these changes to state law, a model contract could help accelerate implementation of curbside programs for municipalities that seek to make such programs work in their communities. Third, various collection options will be evaluated to determine cost and diversion effectiveness, including co-collection with MSW, co-collection with recyclables, commingled collection with yard waste and every-other-week garbage collection. Development of additional curbside collection programs is needed in order to meet organics diversion goals, but the programs need to be implemented in a cost effective manner. Implementation A model contract will be developed with input from the municipalities in the second half of The model contract will be distributed in Before the end of 2012, the county will determine what collection methods will be studied. Evaluation will begin in early 2013 and additional methods will be selected for evaluation thereafter. The result will be a written analysis. Recommendations will be brought forward and implementation will begin after strategies are adopted. Performance measures will be developed to track the success of the strategies. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

30 4. Evaluate and support development of adequate processing capacity Additional capacity is needed to receive and transfer organics in close proximity to high density routes. Additional capacity is also needed for processing organics within a reasonable distance from key areas of generation in the county. In order to keep pace with the continued increase in organics diversion, the county will evaluate available short-term and long-term processing options. The county will also consider various ways to best support development of adequate processing capacity, including private sector development, public-private partnerships, partnerships with other public entities and the county serving as a lead developer. In the short-term, additional composting capacity will be needed to handle the increased quantities being diverted. Recent local composting efforts that relied on static pile composting experienced serious odor problems. County efforts to grow local composting capacity should focus on aerated methods, including aerated static piles, in-vessel composting and indoor systems. Simultaneous with efforts to develop additional composting capacity, the county will continue research into additional processing methods capable of managing large quantities of source separated organics and create renewable, bio-based energy as a byproduct. Examples of these technologies include anaerobic and aerobic digestion, thermal gasification, and various technologies to produce biodiesel and green chemicals. For any of these technologies, research should include the feasibility of implementing these technologies at smaller, communitylevel scale, as well as large-scale. Research will also investigate the feasibility of using these processing technologies as the center and source of energy of a larger development that provides additional community benefits Implementation The evaluation of the feasibility of new technologies will be ongoing. Research results will be documented. The county will develop a plan for developing processing capacity during the second half of Implementation will begin after the plan is approved. Performance measures will be developed to track the success of the developing capacity Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

31 I. Events and Away-from-Home Waste Program/Activity Continue Expand New Customized assistance for events and public places Evaluate funding for public spaces 3 Container loan program 3 New and Expanded Strategies 1. Assist event planners, cities and park districts with the design and implementation of waste prevention, recycling and organics recovery at events and in public places Interest in green events is expanding. The county will respond by expanding its education and outreach efforts to develop online resources for event planners, cities and park districts. The resources will complement current offerings on the Green Gatherings website, a guide that helps events of all sizes go green by providing best management practices on public place recycling. The county will work with City Recycling Coordinators, organizations and individuals to identify events for free customized assistance. The county will assist event planners with zero waste event planning, education and outreach to vendors, volunteer recruitment and hauler service agreements. The county will consider sponsoring the recycling and organics collection portion of the event as an incentive. Master Recycler/Composter program volunteers can assist with zero waste events by monitoring containers and providing education. Implementation This strategy will begin during the second half of The county will measure the number of events where assistance is provided and work with event coordinators to share the results of their green events. These results could include estimates of waste diverted or number of people in attendance. 3 Target Event and away from home waste prevention and management is another area where measurement is difficult. It accounts for a very small proportion of total recycling and organics recovery, and it usually gets mixed in with larger streams. However, the value of implementing strategies at events and away-from-home venues goes beyond that of the actual tons collected. These activities serve as an important outreach tool by increasing the visibility of waste prevention, recycling and organics recovery by educating people and building good habits Actual: unknown 2015 Objective: 1,000 tons recovered 2. Evaluate funding for recycling in public spaces The county will evaluate the possibility of providing funding for recycling in public spaces. This will be a part of the county s effort to work with the City Recycling Coordinators, park districts and business associations to expand recycling collection opportunities in public spaces. Implementation This will begin in 2013 and the deliverable will be a report with recommendations. Implementation will begin after strategies are adopted. Performance measures will be developed to track the success of the strategies. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

32 3. Expand the event container loan program by purchasing additional containers and increasing outreach and advertising for the program The container loan program has been a successful strategy to promote and increase recycling at events. To match the growing interest in collecting organics and recycling at events, the county will expand its container loan program. Implementation This strategy will begin immediately. The county will measure how many containers are loaned and work with event coordinators to share the results of their green events. These results could include estimates of waste diverted or number of people in attendance Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

33 J. Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials Expanded Strategies Program/Activity Continue Expand New Product stewardship 3 Medicine collection 3 Drop-off facilities 3 HHW events 3 Reciprocal use agreement 3 1. Support additional product stewardship initiatives through legislative and voluntary activities. The county will monitor product stewardship developments, provide information and analysis, and participate in various groups to lay the groundwork for future initiatives. In particular, the county will collaborate with battery manufacturers and others to develop a national system that maximizes the collection and reuse of spent primary batteries. Target The Policy Plan does not set a specific goal for recovery of household hazardous waste (HHW) and problem materials. The state provides an annual estimate of problem materials recycled, and the county uses the state number when reporting on solid waste management. Actual tons are tracked internally Actual: 21,889 tons provided by the MPCA 2015 Objective: estimate will be provided by the MPCA Implementation This strategy will be ongoing. Measurement will be qualitative and may include a description of the process, major updates or future trends. 2. Collaborate with partners to provide and expand options for the collection of unwanted and leftover medicines. The county collaborates with law enforcement and other partners to provide collection opportunities for unwanted medicine. The county will support the expansion of these efforts and advocate for the development of a permanent system for ongoing collection. The county intends to transition away from medicine collection events to permanent drop boxes at law enforcement locations. The county will advocate for a change in federal rules in order to facilitate more convenient collection of unused and unwanted drugs. Implementation This strategy will be ongoing. The county will measure the number of events, estimate participation and track the amounts collected. 3. Support the efforts of the city to develop a Minneapolis-Hennepin Household Recycling and Drop-off Center. Minneapolis has the largest population and highest density of any city in Hennepin County. Its residents can find most services locally, but this is not true with respect to the services offered at the county drop-off facilities. One facility is located in Brooklyn Park on the north end of the county and the other facility is located in Bloomington on the south end of the county. Minneapolis is in the Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

34 middle, and the distance to the facilities is a barrier to participation. A facility in Minneapolis will increase participation and ensure that more HHW and problem materials are managed properly. Implementation This strategy will be ongoing. The outcome is a facility in Minneapolis. Target The Policy Plan calls for managing 32 percent to 34 percent of waste through resource recovery. The county has set a lower goal because more waste will be managed higher up the waste management hierarchy. A majority of the resource recovery goal will be met by operations at HERC. The county will ensure that all MSW delivered to the county s solid waste system will be processed when processing capacity is available. In the event that the MPCA enforces State Statute , the county will adopt the MPCA s criteria for and definition of unprocessible waste as outlined in Appendix D, Section C, Subsection 2c of the Policy Plan. If the county elects to certify waste as unprocessible, the county will use only the Policy Plan s criteria to determine if waste is processible or unprocessible Actual: 352,064 tons processed (26 percent) 2015 Objective: 470,000 tons processed (34 percent) K. Resource Recovery Expanded Strategies Program/Activity Continue Expand New Hennepin Energy Recovery Center 3 Elk River Resource Processing Plant 3 Public entity waste management 3 Brooklyn Park Transfer Station 3 1. Use of existing capacity at HERC To meet the Policy Plan s resource recovery goal, the county seeks to use the existing 11 percent additional capacity of HERC, which requires an amendment to Covanta Energy s conditional use permit with the City of Minneapolis and an MPCA environmental review. The benefits of this proposal to use the existing capacity at HERC include a reduction in the amount of waste landfilled, additional electricity and steam for downtown Minneapolis, recovery of scrap metal from the garbage, generation of additional revenue to fund improvements to recycling and composting programs and compliance with state law on waste management. Implementation The completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Conditional Use Permit, which will move this strategy forward, are anticipated by the second or third quarter of The county will continue to use its solid waste information system to track all waste that is processed at HERC. 2. Utilize Great River Energy s Elk River Resource Processing Plant The county has an interest in continuing its deliveries to Great River Energy s (GRE) Elk River Resource Processing Plant. The county will negotiate a contract to extend deliveries beyond The county currently plans on sending approximately 50,000 to 75,000 tons per year to GRE from the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station. Implementation A new contract with GRE will be negotiated by the third quarter of Waste sent to GRE is tracked using the county s solid waste information system Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

35 3. Work closely with municipalities to manage public entity waste It is the county s expectation that cities will follow the county s Master Plan and manage waste according to the preferred practices established in state law. Resource recovery through incineration is preferred over land disposal. If a public entity chooses to manage MSW through land disposal rather than resource recovery, that public entity must determine the potential liability of doing so, develop and implement a plan to manage the potential liability, and submit the information to the PCA. The county will survey municipalities to determine the quantity and destination of public entity waste. Haulers should deliver public entity waste to the Hennepin County solid waste management system for processing. Several organized cities have language in their contracts to ensure this. Other cities have a hands-off approach. In general, there is an unmet opportunity to provide guidance to cities on waste management best practices. Implementation The county will complete the survey in 2012 and identify cities where follow up is needed. The county will measure the amount of waste delivered for processing and the amount landfilled. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

36 L. Landfilling Target Because landfilling is the least preferred method of disposal under state law, the amount of waste landfilled is determined by the extent to which the above strategies are implemented. While there are no operating landfills in Hennepin County, the county can directly reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by making progress in the areas of source reduction, recycling, organics recovery and resource recovery Actual: 414,446 tons (31 percent) 2015 Objective: 200,000 tons (15 percent) New Strategy Program/Activity Continue Expand New Focus efforts on source reduction, recycling, organics recovery and resource recovery Focus efforts on source reduction, recycling, organics recovery and resource recovery Because there are no operating landfills in Hennepin County, the county cannot take any direct action on landfills. But most landfill abatement strategies do not focus directly on landfills. Instead, the focus is on source reduction, reuse, recycling, organics recovery and resource recovery. By allocating resources and concentrating efforts further up the waste management hierarchy, the county is reducing the amount of waste going to landfills. All the strategies detailed above support landfill abatement. Implementation This strategy is ongoing and will follow the timelines established above. M. Non-MSW 3 Target There are no statutory goals for non-msw materials reduction or recycling. According to the policy plan, the focus should be on three materials: asphalt shingles, biomass fuel and wallboard. Targets established in an MPCA report to the legislature, the 2008 Metro Area Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Report, will guide county programs Actual: unknown 2015 Objective: none Program/Activity Continue Expand New Review past efforts and provide recommendations Measure recycling at C&D transfer stations Partner with other organizations to support deconstruction Use tear-off shingles in county road projects New and Expanded Strategies 1. Review past efforts to recycle non-msw and recommend improvements to increase recycling The county will review past efforts to recycle building and other non-msw materials. In conjunction with the MPCA and SWMCB, the county will identify opportunities to increase recovery of building and other non-msw materials identified in the Policy Plan for reuse, recycling and conversion to energy Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

37 Implementation Past efforts will be reviewed by the end of Recommendations will be provided early in 2013 and performance metrics will be developed based on those recommendations. 2. Measure recycling at C&D transfer stations The county licenses solid waste facilities through Ordinance #2. As a part of the licensing requirements, the county will require reporting at C&D transfer stations. The reports will include the tons of materials recycled by type of material and a description of waste that is landfilled. This will allow the county to evaluate recycling performance and identify areas where improvements are needed. Implementation The county will review its ordinance in 2012 and develop recommendations. The county will begin collecting performance information in In 2014 the county will identify materials where market development is needed. 3. Partner with other organizations to support deconstruction Hennepin County will partner with other organizations to support deconstruction services in order to reduce disposal of non-msw. For many years, Hennepin County reduced disposal of non-msw by supporting the Green Institute s ReUse Center and DeConstruction Services. In 2011, the Green Institute ceased operations of both the ReUse Center and DeConstruction Services. This change in the local marketplace has reduced the capacity available to reclaim valuable building materials. Hennepin County will explore opportunities for expanding deconstruction services in the county. One opportunity to be explored is utilizing underemployed segments of the county s population to provide deconstruction services. In addition to reducing disposal of non-msw, this approach will help the county fulfill a social services mission by providing job training and livable wages to residents in the county who might otherwise remain unemployed or underemployed indefinitely. Implementation The county will review potential partnership options in 2012 and develop those partnerships in The county will work closely with its partners to develop ways of tracking results. 4. Promote the use of tear-off shingle scrap in paving projects The county will specify the use of tear-off shingle scrap in paving projects and encourage other public entities to do the same. Implementation This strategy will begin immediately. The county will work internally to estimate the quantity of shingles used. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

38 N. Role of Others The state, metro counties and cities all play a role in solid waste management. The goals outlined in the Policy Plan can only be achieved with support from each level of government. Hennepin County already coordinates with the region to license garbage haulers and provide convenient options to residents by allowing them to drop off HHW and problem materials at any metro facility. Additional cooperation among the counties is detailed in the SWMCB Regional Master Plan. The county Master Plan establishes strategies that involve the cities building on existing relationships. Additional support is needed from the state, particularly by taking the following actions: Enforce Minnesota Statute Incorporate waste diversion standards into permit requirements for landfills. Adopt new rules to encourage the development of organic waste composting facilities. Measure recycling performance, particularly in the commercial sector. Support the development of markets for recyclables. Adopt product stewardship legislation to achieve source reduction. Measure source reduction performance in the metro area Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

39 O. Long-Term Strategies Because the goals for 2015 are ambitious and will require significant changes to the existing system, the county has focused on short-term strategies to meet those immediate goals. Strategies for 2030 are largely dependent on what happens in the next four years. Strategies for 2015 fall broadly into the categories of county facilities operations, education and outreach, targeted technical assistance provided by staff and financial incentives (which for the most part consist of grants that target all non-businesses, with the organics tip fee subsidy as a major exception). If these strategies do not produce the desired results, different options will be presented to the County Board for discussion and potential action. These potential options include the following: 1. Changing ordinances to require performance measurement by haulers and MRFs The ability to measure performance in achieving outcomes is a critical element in demonstrating progress. Ordinance changes requiring additional measurement and reporting would be proposed if measurement of outcomes remains difficult despite initiatives in this plan. 2. Providing financial incentives for the commercial sector Research will be completed during the course of implementation of this Master Plan on the role of financial incentives in achieving outcomes in commercial recycling and organics management. If research shows incentives would be valuable in achieving desired outcomes, the County Board will enact promising incentives and consider the use of additional incentives. Through Ordinance 15 (Solid Waste Management Fee) or other mechanisms, the county could incentivize generators to manage waste at the upper levels of the waste management hierarchy. 3. Review regulations that would require specific actions by stakeholders Although the county has chosen a voluntary system to achieve desired outcomes, a more regulatory approach would be proposed for consideration if there is not adequate progress toward achieving outcomes. Approaches to be considered could include mandatory collection or separation requirements on haulers and/or generators, disposal bans, and sector or material specific requirements. 4. Requiring county management of underperforming city recycling programs The county has passed on to municipalities the responsibility to operate curbside recycling collection programs for their residents. However, the county would consider taking over city-operated recycling programs that perform poorly and fail to achieve performance standards as laid out in the county s Residential Recycling Funding Assistance Policy. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan

40 Appendix A Waste Generation Projection Hennepin County Waste Generation Projection Tons of MSW 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , , Actual Projected Year Tons MSW Year Tons MSW ,248, ,295, ,337, ,403, ,444, ,488, ,518, ,559, ,604, ,568, ,625, ,580, ,610, ,609, ,605, ,481, ,386, ,360, ,350, ,367, ,384, ,401, ,419, ,437, ,455, ,474, ,492, ,511, ,528, ,545, ,562, ,579, ,597, ,615, ,632, ,650, ,669, ,687,473 A1... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

41 Appendix B Hennepin County Ordinances Relating to Solid Waste Ordinance #2 - Solid Waste Management Ordinance establishes standards and regulates solid waste disposal, and the operation of waste facilities and resource recovery facilities; requires a license for the establishment and operation of a waste or resource recovery facility; establishes requirements for certain facilities; provides for application and license fees, performance bonds and penalties for lack of compliance with these provisions. Ordinance #7 - Hazardous Waste Management establishes rules, regulations, and standards for hazardous waste management including the identification, labeling, and classification of hazardous waste; the handling, collection, transportation, and storage of hazardous waste; and the treatment, processing and disposal of hazardous waste. The ordinance also provides for the licensing of hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste facilities; payment of license fees; penalties for failure to comply with the provisions of this ordinance; issuing, denying, modifying, imposing conditions upon, suspending or revoking licenses. Ordinance #10 - Solid Waste Surcharge establishes rules, regulations, and standards to collect a solid waste surcharge on operators of landfills accepting mixed municipal solid waste; the amount of the surcharge fee; a full and partial exemption from the surcharge fee; fee payment and reporting requirements; and penalties for failure to comply with provisions of this ordinance. Ordinance #13 - Solid Waste Source Separation requires the separation of recyclable materials from mixed municipal solid waste by generators before collection of such materials and establishes procedures to be followed by municipalities in order to reduce the volume of solid waste generated. Ordinance #15 - Solid Waste Management Fee establishes authority for a Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Fee to fund environmental programs which protect the health and welfare of Hennepin County citizens pursuant to state mandates governing waste management programs. The ordinance includes: procedures for establishing a Solid Waste Management Fee; the fee payment method; reporting requirements; and penalties for non-compliance with provisions of this ordinance. Ordinance #17 - Solid Waste Hauler Licensing establishes rules, regulations, and standards for the regional licensing of municipal solid waste haulers in the six metropolitan counties participating in the SWMCB. Ordinance #18 - County Collected Solid Waste Fee establishes authority to fund waste management programs which protect the health and welfare of Hennepin County citizens through a county collected solid waste fee imposed against the market value of taxable property pursuant to state mandates governing waste management programs. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan B1

42 Appendix C Waste Composition: Hennepin County and Rational Energies Study November 30, 2011 Mr. Paul Kroening Hennepin County 417 North 5 th Street Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN Subject: Waste Composition Study Final Report Dear Mr. Kroening: Overview Hennepin County (County) and Rational Energies retained SAIC to conduct a waste composition study (Study) of the municipal solid waste (MSW) disposed at the County s Brooklyn Park Transfer Station (BPTS). The main objectives of the Study were to develop an accurate waste composition identifying the types and estimated quantities of MSW received at the BPTS and to estimate the types and quantities of potentially recoverable materials in the waste stream. Key materials for recovery included plastics, metals, and organic waste. This report outlines the Study design including sampling methodology, statistical modeling, data analysis, and characterization of the results. Study Design The Study design included the following steps: Determine material categories and definitions; Complete pre-sort site assessment; Formulate materials sorting protocol; Conduct sampling and sorting event; Compile and review collected data; and Complete statistical modeling. Determine Material Categories The material categories identified for this Study were selected based on SAIC s comprehensive waste composition experience and discussions with Hennepin County staff and Rational Energies staff regarding their respective objectives. Thirty-one (31) categories were selected for the Study and are listed in Table 1 below. The definitions of each of these categories are included in Appendix A for reference. C1... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

43 November 30, 2011 Mr. Paul Kroening Hennepin County 417 North 5 th Street Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN Subject: Waste Composition Study Final Report Dear Mr. Kroening: Overview Hennepin County (County) and Rational Energies retained SAIC to conduct a waste composition study (Study) of the municipal solid waste (MSW) disposed at the County s Brooklyn Park Transfer Station (BPTS). The main objectives of the Study were to develop an accurate waste composition identifying the types and estimated quantities of MSW received at the BPTS and to estimate the types and quantities of potentially recoverable materials in the waste stream. Key materials for recovery included plastics, metals, and organic waste. This report outlines the Study design including sampling methodology, statistical modeling, data analysis, and characterization of the results. Study Design The Study design included the following steps: Determine material categories and definitions; Complete pre-sort site assessment; Formulate materials sorting protocol; Conduct sampling and sorting event; Compile and review collected data; and Complete statistical modeling. Determine Material Categories The material categories identified for this Study were selected based on SAIC s comprehensive waste composition experience and discussions with Hennepin County staff and Rational Energies staff regarding their respective objectives. Thirty-one (31) categories were selected for the Study and are listed in Table 1 below. The definitions of each of these categories are included in Appendix A for reference. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C2

44 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 2 Table 1 Rational Energies Hennepin County Waste Composition Study 2011 Material Categories PAPER 1. Corrugated Cardboard 2. Newspaper 3. Mixed Paper 4. High-Grade Paper 5. Boxboard PLASTICS 6. #1 PET Bottles 7. #1 PET Injection-Molded Containers 8. #2 HDPE Bottles 9. #3 PVC Non-Bottle Food & Beverage Containers 10. #2 and #5 Non-Bottle Food & Beverage Containers 11. Empty Retail Carryout Bags 12. Retail Carryout Bags containing MSW 13. Garbage Bags 14. Film Plastic 15. PVC 16. Other Rigid Plastics 17. All Other Plastics METALS 18. Ferrous Metals 19. Aluminum Used Beverage Containers 20. Aluminum Scrap Metal 21. Brass 22. Copper 23. Other Non-Ferrous Metals ORGANIC WASTE 24. Food Waste 25. Liquid Waste 26. Food-Soiled & Non-Recyclable Paper 27. Compostable Food Service Ware & Other Compostable Items 28. Yard Waste BULKY WASTE 29. Large Bulky Materials OTHER WASTE 30. Containers that Held Food Waste and/or Liquid Waste 31. All Other Waste C3... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

45 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 3 The plastics material group had twelve material categories as requested by Rational Energies. For this report, SAIC reduced the number of plastics categories to eight to align with generally accepted material categories by combining the following categories for reporting the waste composition results: Categories #9 and #10 were combined into #2, #3 and #5 Non-Bottle Food & Beverage Containers; and Categories #11, 12, 13 and 14 were combined into Film Plastic. Complete Pre-Sort Site Assessment Prior to the sorting event, a site assessment was conducted at the BPTS. The purpose of the site assessment was to ensure transfer station staff support and cooperation for the sorting event, understand facility operations, and determine the specific location for conducting the sorting event. Formulate Sampling Methodology (Sorting and Sampling Protocol) Upon completing the pre-sort site assessment, a materials sorting and sampling protocol was developed to obtain consistent and representative waste composition data. The critical aspects of the sampling and sorting plan relating to the materials sort protocol were the generator types and the frequency of sampling. Generator Types BPTS transaction data was reviewed to identify the average daily and weekly quantities of materials received at the transfer station, as well as the number of hauling vehicles using the BPTS. Limited data was available regarding the proportion of trucks hauling residential waste versus trucks hauling industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) waste. To gather data by generator type, SAIC typically uses the sampling randomization inherent in the Nth truck approach. The Nth truck approach is based on the number of samples required for the Study to yield statistically sound results and the number of vehicles expected at the facility each day that will be delivering residential waste, and the number of vehicles expected that will be delivering ICI waste. Because the County does not track incoming waste by generator type, an alternative means for defining and quantifying the materials by generator type during the sorting event was developed. A member of SAIC s waste sort crew interviewed the driver of the Nth truck (based on the average daily number of vehicles hauling MSW to the BPTS; this number varied day to day, but usually it was every 6 th or 7 th truck). The drivers were asked if the waste they were hauling was generated by residents or by commercial businesses/institutions/industries, or both. Provided below is a discussion of the issues associated with each of the generator types that was considered when establishing the waste sort protocol. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C4

46 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 4 Residential Waste. Public or private haulers typically serve residents with large compactor trucks that collect waste from multiple households. The waste from these households is thoroughly mixed during the collection and tipping process. It is SAIC s opinion that, as long as trucks are captured from most geographic and demographic areas, it is fairly straightforward to obtain representative samples of residential waste. This conclusion is based on our overall opinion that: Residential waste composition does not differ materially based on the time of day it is collected; and Residential waste composition does not differ materially based on the day of the week it is collected. Residential waste includes MSW generated by both single-family and multi-family households. The identification of multi-family residential waste can be a challenge. Waste generated from multifamily buildings is often collected on commercial garbage routes with front-end loading vehicles and thus may be mixed with ICI wastes. SAIC utilized the driver interview process in conjunction with visual observation of the sample loads to discern multi-family loads that should be classified as residential, as opposed to ICI. ICI Waste. The ICI sector typically has the greatest variation in waste composition from sample to sample because it may include waste from restaurants, retail establishments, offices, institutions, manufacturing businesses, warehouses, general contractors, etc. When evaluating any particular fraction of ICI waste, some of the same assumptions hold true as for residential waste. In other words, for example, waste generated at a restaurant typically will not differ materially based on the day of the week it is generated, nor on the time of day it is collected. The same holds true for offices, retail, etc. Yet, because the composition of ICI loads arriving at the transfer station for disposal is so variable during the course of a single day, it is vital during any waste composition study to obtain samples from most of the subcategories that contribute to the ICI stream. This can best be performed by sampling from a variety of vehicles delivering ICI waste. The Nth truck approach was designed to capture the wide range of subcategories within an individual substream. This approach, along with driver interviews, was used in the Study. Mixed Waste. Mixed waste is composed of waste originating from both the residential and ICI sectors. When loads are randomly chosen for sampling, there will occasionally be a mixed load chosen. For this Study, five (5) loads were identified as a mix of residential and ICI waste. The sort crew utilized both the information gathered from the vehicle driver and from observing the sample load to obtain a sample that was classified as either residential or ICI. Because the primary focus of the Study was on the MSW stream, the sampling protocol excluded loads that could be clearly identified as homogenous such as truckloads containing all food waste or all construction & demolition (C&D) debris or industrial processed wastes. C5... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

47 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 5 Frequency of Sampling The sampling approach taken should result in an adequate number of representative samples being sorted that provide statistically meaningful results. The approach selected included a one-week sorting event during a "typical" week at the BPTS. In total, forty (40) samples were selected and sorted at the transfer station. Conduct Sampling and Sorting Event SAIC conducted the field sort the week of August 22, 2011 at the BPTS. The SAIC sort crew sorted a total of forty (40) samples representing 8,902 pounds of MSW. For this Study, 15 residential and 25 ICI loads were targeted for sampling. As mentioned previously, five (5) loads were identified as a mix of residential and ICI waste, however within each load the waste was able to be classified as either residential or ICI. The selection of vehicles to secure waste materials for sampling was based upon the BPTS facility transaction data provided by the County along with the Nth truck approach and driver interviews to determine generator types residential, ICI, and mixed. From the randomly selected loads, a minimum of 200 pound samples were taken for sorting. Two to three hundred pound samples are considered the appropriate size to provide representative results per accepted industry standards. The portion of the load to be sorted was randomly chosen from each sample load. Once each sample was selected, the materials were pre-sorted for any hazardous or infectious wastes. The materials were then sorted by the sort crew into individual containers representing the various 31 material categories. Each container was weighed to determine the quantity of materials by material type in each sample. (At the beginning of the week, prior to sorting the first sample, each of the containers labeled with the material categories was weighed to obtain the tare weight of the empty container.) The weights for each material category were recorded on individual data sheets to document the sorting process. At the end of the week, the data sheets were forwarded to SAIC s analytical staff for review and analysis. Review Collected Data Upon completing the sampling and sorting event, the data sheets for each sample were reviewed to ensure the following: Individual entries were legible; Generator types were clearly identified and consistent with the types of materials recorded on the data form; Specific comments on any unusual aspects of the sample were legible and understandable; and A minimum of 200 pounds as recorded on each sample sheet was sorted for each sample. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C6

48 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 6 The tare weight of the individual material's container and the weight of the individual materials were recorded on the actual data sheets for all materials weighed. These two sets of quantitative data for each material and each sample are critical to conducting the statistical analysis. Complete Statistical Modeling All of the data from the sorting events were entered into SAIC s specially-designed waste composition statistical model (Model). This Model has been developed in Microsoft Excel for easy accessibility and use. The Model statistically manipulates the data to calculate the mean, 90% confidence intervals, and standard deviation for individual material categories by generator type. In addition, the Model is structured to identify where specific samples could be considered statistical outliers. The mean represents the mathematical average or average percent of material composing the MSW stream by weight. The confidence interval is an expression of accuracy. It provides the upper and lower limits of the "actual" mean for all the MSW received at the transfer station based upon the sorting and sampling observations of the sampled materials. For example, the 90% confidence interval represents that there is a 90% level of confidence that the true population mean falls within the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. The 90% confidence interval is the generally accepted industry standard for solid waste composition studies. In general, the more samples that are sorted, the narrower the confidence interval becomes for a given level of confidence. The narrower the intervals, the less variability in the data. Overall, the outputs of the Model provide multiple measures for evaluating the results. It is critical when comparing the MSW composition results that the confidence intervals are considered along with the mean percentages. Study Results The results of the statistical modeling of the quantitative data gathered during the sampling and sorting event are provided below. The specific steps of the analysis included: Step 1 Generator Type: SAIC calculated the composition of the residential and ICI waste streams based solely on the samples obtained. These two data sets serve as the basic building blocks for performing the remainder of the analysis. Step 2 Aggregate Annual Results: SAIC developed a weighted-average aggregate composition of the MSW entering the transfer station. The residential and ICI waste results from Step 1 were weighted based on the total quantities of MSW received at the BPTS in calendar year The following assumptions and limitations should be considered upon reviewing the Study results: C7... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

49 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 7 The sorting event was performed the week of August 22, Although the results are considered representative, it is possible that some bias may exist with respect to select material categories because of the study involving only one field event. The statistical results represent projections for the individual generators and the transfer station as a whole. As the number of samples decreases, the confidence intervals tend to widen. The primary objective of the Study was to characterize the transfer station s MSW waste stream. The combined generator (residential and ICI) results for the transfer station have reasonable confidence intervals. However, in some instances, caution is recommended when using the generator results because of the level of variability. It is important to note that the same statistical principles were applied in performing the composition calculations in all of the above steps. In general, statistical principles dictate that roughly 10 to 15 representative samples be obtained from the residential waste stream and 20 to 25 samples from the ICI waste stream to adequately characterize the waste stream for these individual generators. SAIC was able to sample an adequate number of loads from each generator type to meet these thresholds. SAIC is of the opinion that the data depicted in this Study provides a reasonable snapshot of the composition of MSW entering the BPTS. MSW Composition Tables 2 and 3 depict the transfer station s residential and ICI waste composition by weight, respectively. Based on data provided by the County, the quantity of MSW received in calendar year 2010 at the BPTS was 106,491 tons. It is the transfer station staff s opinion that approximately half of the waste delivered to the BPTS is generated from the residential sector and half is from the commercial sector. Therefore, SAIC applied the waste composition percentages to 53,246 tons for both the residential and ICI sectors. The detailed results have been characterized as percentages, by weight, of materials. The results include the mean percentages and 90% confidence intervals, as shown in the tables below. The individual subcategories and primary categories may not sum due to rounding. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C8

50 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 8 Table 2 Rational Energies Hennepin County Waste Composition Study 2011 Statistical Composition - Residential 90% Confidence Interval Material Group Material Mean (%) Tonnage Lower Bound Upper Bound Paper 13.7% 7, % 17.0% 1 Corrugated Cardboard 1.1% % 1.5% 2 Newspaper 2.4% 1, % 3.6% 3 Mixed Paper 6.2% 3, % 8.4% 4 High-Grade Paper 2.1% 1, % 3.4% 5 Boxboard 1.8% % 2.3% Plastics 13.8% 7, % 16.9% 6 #1 PET Bottles 1.1% % 1.3% 7 #1 PET Injection-Molded Containers 0.4% % 0.5% 8 #2 HDPE Bottles 0.9% % 1.4% 9 #2, #3 and #5 Non-Bottle Food & 1.0% % 1.2% Beverage Containers 10 Film Plastic 5.4% 2, % 6.5% 11 PVC 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 12 Other Rigid Plastics 1.8% % 2.8% 13 All Other Plastics 3.3% 1, % 5.3% Metals 6.3% 3, % 8.0% 14 Ferrous Metals 3.1% 1, % 4.6% 15 Aluminum Used Beverage Containers 0.4% % 0.5% 16 Aluminum Scrap Metal 0.5% % 0.8% 17 Brass 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 18 Copper 0.4% % 0.9% 19 Other Non-Ferrous Metals 1.9% 1, % 2.9% Organic Waste 33.1% 17, % 39.7% 20 Food Waste 14.0% 7, % 16.8% 21 Liquid Waste 1.5% % 2.5% 22 Food-Soiled & Non-Recyclable Paper 7.8% 4, % 9.5% 23 Compostable Food Service Ware & Other 1.1% % 2.2% Compostable Items 24 Yard Waste 8.7% 4, % 15.5% Bulky Waste 12.1% 6, % 16.5% 25 Large Bulky Materials 12.1% 6, % 16.5% Other Waste 21.1% 11, % 28.3% 26 Containers that Held Food Waste and/or 0.5% % 0.7% Liquid Waste 27 All Other Waste 20.6% 10, % 27.7% GRAND TOTAL 100.0% 53,246 C9... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

51 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 9 Table 3 Rational Energies Hennepin County Waste Composition Study 2011 Statistical Composition - ICI 90 % Confidence Interval Material Group Material Mean (%) Tonnage Lower Bound Upper Bound Paper 17.7% 9, % 21.9% 1 Corrugated Cardboard 6.5% 3, % 9.4% 2 Newspaper 0.9% % 1.5% 3 Mixed Paper 5.2% 2, % 7.6% 4 High-Grade Paper 4.1% 2, % 6.4% 5 Boxboard 1.0% % 1.4% Plastics 16.8% 8, % 20.8% 6 #1 PET Bottles 1.3% % 2.0% 7 #1 PET Injection-Molded Containers 0.3% % 0.5% 8 #2 HDPE Bottles 0.8% % 1.3% 9 #2, #3 and #5 Non-Bottle Food & 1.0% % 1.5% Beverage Containers 10 Film Plastic 6.0% 3, % 8.1% 11 PVC 0.0% 5 0.0% 0.0% 12 Other Rigid Plastics 1.9% % 2.9% 13 All Other Plastics 5.5% 2, % 8.6% Metals 4.9% 2, % 7.2% 14 Ferrous Metals 3.3% 1, % 5.4% 15 Aluminum Used Beverage Containers 0.3% % 0.5% 16 Aluminum Scrap Metal 0.1% % 0.1% 17 Brass 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 18 Copper 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 19 Other Non-Ferrous Metals 1.2% % 2.0% Organic Waste 17.3% 9, % 24.0% 20 Food Waste 6.3% 3, % 9.3% 21 Liquid Waste 0.6% % 0.9% 22 Food-Soiled & Non-Recyclable Paper 8.7% 4, % 12.2% 23 Compostable Food Service Ware & Other 0.2% % 0.3% Compostable Items 24 Yard Waste 1.7% % 3.2% Bulky Waste 22.7% 12, % 32.9% 25 Large Bulky Materials 22.7% 12, % 32.9% Other Waste 20.6% 10, % 27.0% 26 Containers that Held Food Waste and/or 0.3% % 0.4% Liquid Waste 27 All Other Waste 20.4% 10, % 26.8% GRAND TOTAL 100.0% 53,246 Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C10

52 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 10 It is critical when evaluating the results to consider not only the mean composition but also the applicable confidence intervals. For example, Table 2 depicts the total residential plastic material category with a mean of 13.8% and corresponding confidence intervals of 10.9% and 16.9%. The confidence intervals characterize the level of variability associated with the mean estimate of 13.8%. In other words, we are 90% confident that total residential plastic comprises between 10.9% and 16.9% of the transfer station s MSW stream. Generally, the more samples taken, the narrower the confidence interval because the accuracy of the estimate is increasing. However, some material types offer inherent variability and their confidence intervals may be wide regardless of the extent of the data used in the calculations. Residential waste is relatively homogenous. Although there are some differences in waste generation depending on local characteristics, most households dispose of similar types of waste. Variation generally occurs as a result of the extent of source reduction and recycling activities. In contrast, the composition of the contents of ICI loads is typically more variable. One hauler s truckload may have been collected from restaurants, another from offices, and one from an industry. Each of these generators generally produces different waste streams. Overall, the width of the confidence intervals for the major material categories in the Study is reasonable and consistent with other similar types of waste composition studies. Because the Bulky Waste and Other Waste categories included so many subcategories of materials, it is reasonable that those confidence intervals are wider than the other categories. It should also be noted that the category Containers that Held Food Waste and/or Liquid Waste had a wide range of weights per sample because the containers had varying weights and included glass jars and bottles as well as plastic containers and bottles. Aggregated Composition Table 4 represents the overall MSW composition for the BPTS. The percentages by material type were aggregated and applied to the total tons received at the transfer station in calendar year C11... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

53 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page 11 Table 4 Rational Energies Hennepin County Waste Composition Study 2011 Statistical Composition Aggregated Waste 90 % Confidence Interval Material Group Material Mean (%) Tonnage Lower Bound Upper Bound Paper 15.7% 16, % 18.3% 1 Corrugated Cardboard 3.8% 4, % 5.3% 2 Newspaper 1.7% 1, % 2.3% 3 Mixed Paper 5.7% 6, % 7.3% 4 High-Grade Paper 3.1% 3, % 4.4% 5 Boxboard 1.4% 1, % 1.7% Plastic 15.3% 16, % 17.8% 6 #1 PET Bottles 1.2% 1, % 1.5% 7 #1 PET Injection-Molded Containers 0.4% % 0.5% 8 #2 HDPE Bottles 0.8% % 1.2% 9 #2, #3 and #5 Non-Bottle Food & 1.0% 1, % 1.3% Beverage Containers 10 Film Plastic 5.7% 6, % 6.8% 11 PVC 0.0% 5 0.0% 0.0% 12 Other Rigid Plastics 1.8% 1, % 2.5% 13 All Other Plastics 4.4% 4, % 6.2% Metals 5.6% 5, % 7.0% 14 Ferrous Metals 3.2% 3, % 4.5% 15 Aluminum Used Beverage Containers 0.3% % 0.4% 16 Aluminum Scrap Metal 0.3% % 0.4% 17 Brass 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 18 Copper 0.2% % 0.4% 19 Other Non-Ferrous Metals 1.6% 1, % 2.2% Organic Waste 25.2% 26, % 29.8% 20 Food Waste 10.1% 10, % 12.2% 21 Liquid Waste 1.0% 1, % 1.6% 22 Food-Soiled & Non-Recyclable Paper 8.2% 8, % 10.2% 23 Compostable Food Service Ware & Other 0.6% % 1.2% Compostable Items 24 Yard Waste 5.2% 5, % 8.5% Bulky Waste 17.4% 18, % 22.9% 25 Large Bulky Materials 17.4% 18, % 22.9% Other Waste 20.9% 22, % 25.6% 26 Containers that Held Food Waste and/or 0.4% % 0.5% Liquid Waste 27 All Other Waste 20.5% 21, % 25.2% GRAND TOTAL 100.0% 106,491 Summary of Findings Based on our analysis of the waste composition results and the total material counts, SAIC provides the following conclusions: Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C12

54 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page The aggregated MSW composition revealed lower than average quantities of paper in the waste stream (15.7%), by weight. Although SAIC did not conduct a detailed comparison of the BPTS results to other waste composition studies, we did review the major material categories of waste composition studies that SAIC has conducted in recent years. Other studies had the following Total Paper percentages in the aggregated MSW composition: Sarasota County, FL (2011) 23.8% Cedar Rapids Linn County, IA (2011) 19.5% City of Chicago (2010) 29.5% Alameda County, CA (2009) 20.9% 2. Mixed Paper made up the largest percentage by weight of the paper material category in the residential stream (6.2%) and in the aggregate (5.7%). In the ICI loads, old corrugated cardboard (OCC) made up the largest percentage of the paper material category at 6.5%, followed by Mixed Paper (5.2%) and High-Grade Paper (4.1%). 3. The MSW composition revealed average quantities of plastic in the waste stream (15.3% aggregated), by weight. Although SAIC did not conduct a detailed comparison of the BPTS results to other waste composition studies, this conclusion is based on our comprehensive waste composition experience. 4. Film Plastic and All Other Plastics made up the largest percentage by weight of the plastic material category in each analysis: residential, ICI, and aggregated. This is consistent with other recent waste composition studies SAIC has conducted. 5. The remaining plastics categories contained minimal amounts of material, ranging from less than one percent to no more than two percent. 6. The overall metals percentages were fairly consistent in each analysis, ranging between 4.9% (ICI) to 6.3% (residential) for an aggregated percentage of 5.6%. In each case, Ferrous Metals made up the largest percentage by weight. Less than one percent of Aluminum, Brass and Copper were found. 7. Overall, Organic Waste made up the largest percentage of the waste stream by weight 25.2% of the aggregated results. Organics also made up the largest percentage of the residential waste stream at 33.1%. It should be noted that the transfer station receives dedicated loads of organic waste, however those loads were excluded from the vehicle selection process for this Study. 8. Of the Organic Waste, Food Waste made up the largest residential portion at 14% compared to only 6.3% from the ICI sector. Food-Soiled & Non-Recyclable Paper made up the largest portion of the ICI sector s organic waste at 8.7%. However the residential waste stream also contained a similar amount of Food-Soiled & Non-Recyclable Paper at 7.8%. C13... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

55 Paul Kroening November 30, 2011 Page The percentage of Yard Waste in the residential waste stream was high at 8.7 percent, considering this material has been banned from disposal in Minnesota since However, when compared to the BPTS results from the Minnesota Statewide MSW Composition Study conducted in 1999, the amount of yard waste in the residential waste stream has decreased. Yard Waste (grass, leaves, and woody material) made up 13.5% of the BPTS residential composition in The category that made up the second largest percent of the aggregated waste stream was Other Waste, at 20.9%. This category included materials such as glass, other organic waste (including disposable diapers), inorganic waste, and non-recyclable paper. 11. Not surprisingly, Bulky Waste also made up a large portion (17.4%) of the aggregated waste stream by weight, because the materials in this category tend to be heavier. Items identified as bulky included wood, carpet, furniture, textiles, rubber, and construction and demolition debris. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you have any questions about the results, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Mary Chamberlain Project Manager Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C14

56 Paper Material Category Definitions Hennepin County & Rational Energies 1. Corrugated Cardboard Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) cartons and boxes with corrugated paper medium. 2. Newspaper Old newspaper (ONP) including newsprint, glossy paper inserts & advertisements included with the newspaper at the time of distribution. 3. Mixed Paper Low grade recyclable paper. Includes junk mail, all envelopes (with & without windows), magazines and other glossy-coated paper, catalogs, phone books, text books, brown paper (Kraft) bags, paper towel & toilet paper cores, etc. 4. High-Grade Paper High-grade, recyclable paper including office and school papers, bond paper, stationery with or without color, ledger paper, photocopy paper, computer printouts, index cards, etc. 5. Boxboard Uncoated box board such as cereal and cracker boxes. Does not include refrigerated and frozen food boxes. Plastics 6. #1 Polyethlylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottles 7. #1 PET Injection-Molded Containers Plastic containers coded #1 used for containing soda, water, fruit juice, sports drink, ice tea, liquor, etc. Plastic caps on bottles will remain with the bottles and will not be removed. Jars for peanut butter, mayonnaise, etc. plus microwavable food trays and other containers. 8. #2 HDPE Bottles Plastic containers such as milk jugs, shampoo bottles, and laundry detergent bottles coded #2. Plastic caps on bottles will remain with the bottles and will not be removed. 9. #3 PVC Non-Bottle Food & Beverage Containers 10. #2 and #5 Non-Bottle Food & Beverage Containers 11. Empty Retail Carryout Bags [Count] 12. Retail Carryout Bags that were used for containing MSW [Count] 13. Garbage Bags [Count] Rigid plastic packaging (non-bottle) coded #3 (PVC) such as take-out/clamshell containers. Plastic containers, that are not bottles with a neck, coded #2 (HDPE) such as ice cream pails, and #5 (PP) such as yogurt containers and margarine tubs. Also includes plastic bottle caps that are loose in the MSW (i.e., have been removed from the bottle). Includes plastic grocery, retail shopping bags, and other bags provided at retail (of any color) used for carrying items home. Plastic grocery/retail shopping bags used to contain municipal solid waste (MSW). Does not include typical garbage bags. Plastic garbage bags including kitchen bags (typically 18-gallons or less) and lawn/leaf bags (typically 30-gallons or more). SAIC will provide a count of: The number of kitchen garbage bags and the number of lawn/leaf garbage bags. The number of kitchen garbage bags and the number of lawn/leaf bags that contained plastic food and beverage containers. 14. Film Plastic Any film plastic including sheet plastic, shrink wrap, tarping, and other non-rigid plastic. 15. PVC Rigid plastic piping, fencing, etc., and flexible PVC such as tubing and wire/cable insulation. C15... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

57 Material Category Definitions Hennepin County & Rational Energies 16. Other Rigid Plastics Other rigid plastics such as toys, plastic casings, clothes hangers, plant pots, etc. 17. All Other Plastics Plastic containers coded #4, #6, #7 and any other plastics not defined above. Metals 18. Ferrous Metals Includes food and beverage containers composed primarily of iron, plus other scrap ferrous including clothes hangers, sheet metal products, pipes, miscellaneous metal scraps, and other magnetic metal items. 19. Aluminum Used Beverage Containers Used beverage containers (UBC) made from aluminum used for containing soda, fruit juice, sports drinks, iced tea, beer, etc. 20. Aluminum Scrap Metal Scrap aluminum such as door & window frames, siding, softball bats, outdoor furniture, crutches, ladders, pots & pans, etc. 21. Brass Yellow to light red in color; found most often in decorative items such as lamps, jewelry, plumbing, faucets, planters, etc. 22. Copper Red-orange metal used in pipes, rods, sheets, wire, pots & pans, etc. May be plated (enameled) or non-plated. 23. Other Non-Ferrous Metals Other non-ferrous metal besides UBC, aluminum scrap, brass, or copper. Includes bronze, lead, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and other non-magnetic metal. Stainless steel may or may not be magnetic. Organic Waste 24. Food Waste 1 Food preparation wastes, food scraps, and spoiled food including meat and bones. 25. Liquid Waste 2 Liquids such as water, soda, juice, etc. that are disposed in a sealed bottle or other type of container. 26. Food Soiled & Non-Recyclable Paper 27. Compostable Food Service Ware & Other Compostable Items Paper products including paper napkins, towels, and tissues; paper plates, cups and food containers; paper egg cartons; fast food paper bags and wrappers, including waxed paper and parchment; paper milk & juice cartons (no juice boxes or pouches); pizza boxes and boxes from refrigerated & frozen food packaging; and coffee filters & grounds and tea bags. Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI)-certified compostable plastic utensils, cups and containers; paper vacuum bags, dryer lint, human and pet hair, wooden toothpicks, ice cream & corn dog sticks, chop sticks, cotton balls, house plants. 28. Yard Waste Grass clippings, leaves, braches, sticks, garden waste, brush, and trees. Bulky Waste 29. Large Bulky Materials that can be Hand Picked Other Waste 30. Containers that Held Food Waste and/or Liquid Waste Includes: Wood such as plywood, lumber, pallets, and crates. Carpet and padding. Household furniture and mattresses. Textiles including clothing, rags, blankets, shoes, and leather products such as purses and belts. Rubber tubing, mats, and hoses. C&D debris such as concrete, brick, asphalt, roofing materials, fiberglass insulation, etc. Any container that was used to contain Food or Liquid Waste (categories #24 & #25) such as PET plastic bottles, other plastic containers, milk cartons, glass jars, Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan C16

58 Material Category Definitions Hennepin County & Rational Energies [Count] etc. 31. All Other Waste Includes waste not found in the categories listed above, such as: Paper with metal or plastic coatings, aseptic drink boxes and pouches, multilayer paper packaging, cigarette packages, photographs, etc. Glass including clear and colored food & beverage bottles and jars, other glass such as incandescent light bulbs, mirrors, windows, safety glass and cooking ware. Other Organic Waste including disposable diapers, adult sanitary products, manure/feces (including cat litter), cork, etc. Inorganic waste including rock, dirt, and sand. Electronic goods. Household hazardous waste (HHW). 1 When feasible, food waste will be removed from containers (e.g., Tupperware, carry-out containers, etc.) and the food waste will be placed in the Food Waste category and the container will be placed in category #30 Containers that Held Food Waste and/or Liquid Waste. 2 Liquids such as water, soda, juice, etc. will be removed from containers (e.g., PET bottles, milk cartons, glass jars) and the liquids will be emptied into a 5-gallon or similar-sized bucket and the bottle or container will be placed in category #30 Containers that Held Food Waste and/or Liquid Waste. C17... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012

59 Appendix D Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services Budget The primary sources of revenue for the county s solid waste programs are described below. Solid Waste Tipping Fees These are the fees paid by waste haulers for delivery of MSW to the county s solid waste facilities. Fees are also received from citizens disposing of solid waste and problem materials such as appliances and tires. Hauler Collected Solid Waste Management Fees (Ordinance 15) Hennepin County Ordinance 15 requires every MSW waste hauler to collect and remit a fee from waste generators for solid waste management services. The fee is a percentage of the amount the waste generator is billed for MSW service by its waste hauler. The percentage rates were set in 1994 and have not changed. The residential rate is 9 percent of the bill, and the non-residential rate is 14.5 percent of the bill. State Grants The county receives grants from the State of Minnesota and other agencies for special purposes. Commercial Hazardous Waste Fees All direct costs associated with the Commercial Hazardous Waste Program including licensing and inspections, enforcement of the regulations, ordinance amendments and rule changes, are covered by license fees that are paid by the regulated companies. Other Revenue Additional revenue results from items such as interest earned from investments and finance charges, electrical sales, Covanta lease payments, licensing fees and recycling material sales. The primary expenses for the county s solid waste programs are described below. Solid Waste Program In 2011 the major expenditures for the Solid Waste Program were for processing MSW for generating energy. The costs of operating a mass burn waste-to-energy facility and sending waste to GRE was approximately 20.3 million dollars in Operating a transfer station, and hauling waste to processing facilities and non-processible waste to landfills, cost 4.2 million dollars in In 2011 the County spent approximately ninety-five thousand dollars for the enforcement of solid waste ordinances, mostly for staff salaries. In 2012 it is anticipated that the County will expend 21.6 million dollars on waste processing and 2.7 million dollars on transferring waste to processing facilities. In 2012 the County will only landfill waste that it controls if processing capacity is not available. The County has budgeted $100,000 to landfill non-processible waste. Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials Programs The Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials Programs include operating the drop-off centers and collection events for these materials. Other programs include the free product centers, the battery program, the consumer electronics program, the fluorescent and HID lamp program, the major appliance program and the mercury collection program. Actual expenditures for the Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials Programs were 4.7 million dollars in The 2012 budget for the Household Hazardous Waste and Problem Materials Programs is 5.0 million dollars. Waste Reduction & Recycling Programs Waste Reduction and Recycling expenditures are for county programs and activities aimed at reducing and recycling as much of the waste stream as possible. Staff salaries include county staff who focus on these activities. Expenses for recycling center and program operations include allocated facility operational and capital costs for the county s two recycling centers as well as costs to provide in-house recycling collection service to all county facilities. Public education and information expenses are related to information and promotion aimed at affecting behavior change to get county residents to reduce waste, reuse, and recycle as much waste as possible. Grants and project funding includes recycling grants to municipalities; incentive grant programs aimed at new and innovative waste reduction, procurement and recycling projects; and agreements with other agencies for targeted waste abatement projects. Actual expenditures for Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs in 2011 were 5.5 million dollars. The 2012 budget for Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs is 7.1 million dollars Environmental Protection Program Environmental Protection expenditures cover activities of the Contaminated Lands Unit (CLU) and the Commercial Hazardous Waste Program. IT and database operations are expenses related to tracking generator annual reports, licensing, fee payments, inspections and enforcement activities. Consulting services includes contracted environmental due diligence work for projects managed by CLU staff as well as sampling and analytical services for commercial hazardous waste inspection and enforcement. ERF grants redistribute the revenue that comes in from the mortgage registry and deed tax. Actual expenditures for Environmental Protection Programs were 5.1 million dollars in The 2012 budget for Environmental Protection programs is 3.8 million dollars. Administration Administrative expenditures directly related to solid waste programs cover depreciation costs and interest expenses related to the HERC facility and transfer stations. Other expenditures included advertising and printing costs related to waste reduction and toxicity reduction. Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan D1

60 Appendix E Map of Solid Waste Facilities in Hennepin County A. H. F. I. K. C. B. D. J. E. Facility Name Type A. Waste Management Maple Grove Transfer Facility (MSW) B. Tubs, Inc. Transfer Facility C. SKB Malcolm Transfer Facility D. Minneapolis South Transfer Station Transfer Facility E. Allied Waste Flying Cloud Transfer Facility (MSW) F. Broadway Resource Recovery Transfer Facility / C&D MRF G. Commercial Container Transfer Facility H. Hennepin County Transfer Station Brooklyn Park Transfer Facility I. Veit Disposal Transfer Facility J. SET in Minnetrista Wood Waste and Compost K. HERC Processing Facility E1... Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2012 G.