October 29, Mr. Mark Rust Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road N. Saint Paul, Minnesota

Transcription

1 October 29, 2012 Mr. Mark Rust Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road N. Saint Paul, Minnesota RE: Comments by Ramsey County Regarding SAIC Report for the Grocery Manufacturers Association: Evaluation of Extended Producer Responsibility for Consumer Packaging Dear Mark: Recently we became aware of a study prepared by the consulting firm SAIC for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, entitled Evaluation of Extended Producer Responsibility for Consumer Packaging. The report includes several case studies, including one regarding recycling in Ramsey County, Minnesota, the only case study cited in the United States by the consultants. We are aware that interest has been expressed in learning Ramsey County s stance regarding the SAIC report. As requested by Peder Sandhei and Garth Hickle with MPCA staff, here are our comments. We have concerns about this report, including: The consultant s process for including Ramsey County as a case study, The potential implication that Ramsey County, a strong supporter of the concept of product stewardship/extended producer responsibility (EPR), supports the conclusions in this report against EPR, A key conclusion that mentions Ramsey County and is not adequately supported, and Incorrect or incomplete statements. Process for selecting Ramsey County as the sole U.S. case study It is disconcerting that no one from SAIC contacted Ramsey County during the preparation of this report, which we were unaware of until recently. Ramsey County had a series of consulting contracts with R.W. Beck, now part of SAIC, from 2000 through early 2011, to provide technical assistance to cities and other public entities in Ramsey County regarding recycling and other solid waste issues. Our primary contacts with R.W. Beck are based out of their local office in Eagan, Minnesota, so between their local presence and their work over the years with many municipalities within Ramsey County, and the County itself, they certainly would have some familiarity with Ramsey County. Norm Schiferl on my staff was the project manager for those consulting contracts, so if anyone from SAIC had sought to contact someone

2 in Ramsey County, it would likely have been Mr. Schiferl or me; SAIC did not contact either one of us during preparation of its report. It is not entirely clear why SAIC selected Ramsey County as the lone case study for the entire United States to represent a non-epr recycling program. It appears SAIC selected Ramsey County at least in part because of SAIC s general familiarity with it and because of the availability of recycling cost data in the ReTRAC database system; the latter is important to SAIC because they mention that availability of full cost data for recycling programs is difficult to come by and generally not available. Nonetheless, it appears that at least one other Twin Cities metropolitan area county has some similar characteristics (SAIC has also worked for neighboring Hennepin County; as in Ramsey County, all but a few communities contract for residential recycling services, and they report recycling cost data into ReTRAC). Ramsey County supports the concept of product stewardship/extended producer responsibility Because Ramsey County was not informed that its data were being used in this report, the County did not have the opportunity to opine on EPR versus government-funded recycling. It is ironic that SAIC chose Ramsey County, because, in fact, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has made support of product stewardship/epr its top priority in solid waste policy, as noted in the Overarching Policy 1 from the Ramsey County Solid Waste Master Plan: Ramsey County strongly supports a product-stewardship framework, also known as extended producer responsibility, which creates effective producer-led reduction, reuse and recycling programs, to address a product s lifestyle impacts from design through end-of-life management, without relying solely on state and local governments. Product stewardship has historically focused on products with a toxic or hazardous character, but should be focused broadly on other products, such as packaging. Such an approach can reduce the need for government programs to assure proper end-of-life management of discarded items. Ramsey County believes that the objectives in the [Twin Cities area metropolitan solid waste management] Policy Plan are more likely to be met and sustained in an affordable manner only if a product stewardship framework is implemented in Minnesota. Given that SAIC only included one case study for the entire United States for a non-epr recycling program, and it used the information to justify a conclusion that non-epr policies can achieve high recycling rates with reasonable cost, we are concerned that some readers of this report might conclude that Ramsey County implicitly concurs with the report conclusions, in spite of the strong support of the product stewardship/epr concept by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. To make it clear: Ramsey County does NOT concur with the conclusions, which are not adequately supported in the report. As noted below, substantial quantities of recyclable materials remain in the trash generated by residents, businesses and institutions in Ramsey County, and Ramsey County continues to explore 2

3 methods to increase recycling, and welcomes the opportunity to evaluate proposals using an EPR approach. Making a broad conclusion not adequately supported by the facts SAIC begins its analysis in the Executive Summary, under Objectives of Packaging EPR, by mentioning that advocates for EPR make arguments that ultimately condense into the following four assertions: 1. EPR causes producers to change packaging design and selection, leading to increased recyclability (higher recycling rates) and/or less packaging use. 2. EPR provides additional funds for recycling programs, resulting in higher recycling rates. 3. EPR improves recycling program efficiency, leading to less cost, which provides a benefit to society. 4. EPR results in a fairer system of waste management in which individual consumers pay the cost of their own consumption, rather than general taxpayers. Under Evaluation of EPR, the Executive Summary then states that the primary arguments put forward by advocates for packaging EPR, at least in the United States, involve the first two assertions. Regarding the third assertion about cost, the report states: The third assertion, occasionally made by advocates of EPR but not explicitly cited as an objective in EPR laws themselves, is that EPR will result in more efficient programs, ultimately savings consumers cost. However, under Conclusions in the Executive Summary, cost becomes primary: The crux of the debate over EPR is how cost-effective it is in compared [sic] to non-epr alternatives. The report then concludes: This study found that U.S. communities and states that have instituted non-epr policies can achieve high recycling rates within a reasonable cost, addressing more comprehensive portions of the waste stream than narrowly focused EPR laws that only address packaging and printed paper, often only from the residential sector. For example, this study profiles Ramsey County Minnesota with its 47 percent overall recycling rate (55 percent including yard waste), which was achieved at a net cost of $156 per ton for residential packaging and paper recycling. Example states that have made extensive use of policies to achieve high overall MSW recycling rates include Minnesota at 43 percent, and California with a reported landfill diversion rate of 65 percent. (It is also interesting to note that on page 3-3, under Overview of Packaging EPR Performance, SAIC states, Furthermore, as was discussed previously, it is critical to scrutinize any cost or recovery statistic 3

4 to identify what is included or not included before attempting to make comparisons. It appears that the consultants did not always follow their own advice in this report.) The concluding paragraph above includes statements, and is based on other statements, which are not adequately justified in the report: a. This study found that U.S. communities and states that have instituted non-epr policies can achieve high recycling rates within a reasonable cost The report only cites recycling rates for three jurisdictions -- Ramsey County, Minnesota, and California -- and only cites one cost figure, the $156 net cost for residential recycling in communities in Ramsey County. For the recycling rates, nowhere in the report is there any discussion regarding how those recycling rates are defined and reported, nor how they compare to recycling rates cited for Belgium and Canadian provinces. b. For example, this study profiles Ramsey County Minnesota with its 47 percent overall recycling rate (55 percent including yard waste), which was achieved at a net cost of $156 per ton for residential packaging and paper recycling. What SAIC does not say is that the 47% recycling rate reflects recycling tonnage from both the commercial and residential sectors, and that commercial recycling tonnage reported each year by Ramsey County is its annual recycling/solid waste reports (SCORE/Certification reports) to the MPCA dwarfs the residential tonnage; in recent years residential recycling has accounted for an average of about 1/5 of total reported recycling tonnage. Thus, with reference to Ramsey County and its communities, the statement that communities that have instituted non-epr policies can achieve high recycling rates within a reasonable cost is not based on comparable information. Earlier in the Executive Summary SAIC called the recycling program in Ramsey County a well-performing U.S. program, while in the body of the report SAIC acknowledged that it is not possible to derive separate recycling rates for Ramsey County for residential vs. non-residential recycling. Thus, in an apples-to-oranges comparison SAIC in essence cites the overall 47% recycling rate as a high recycling rate but only the net municipal cost for the residential sector as the basis for reasonable cost. Just to set the record straight, we want to say emphatically that Ramsey County has a strong recycling program as a key element of a strong integrated solid waste management system. Some highlights include the following: Coupled with directives from the State of Minnesota, such as the requirement that all residents must have the opportunity to recycle, Ramsey County and its 17 municipalities have invested significant resources in residential recycling since the late 1980 s, resulting in curbside and multiunit recycling available in municipalities throughout the county. 4

5 Ramsey County s yard waste and household hazardous waste programs provide residents with convenient days and hours of operation at numerous sites in the county. Almost a decade ago Ramsey County developed a sizable County Environmental Charge (CEC), charged as a percentage of hauler invoices for trash (but not recycling or organics collection), with the intent to provide a financial incentive to separate more recyclables and food waste/organics from their trash. Of particular note are the numerous examples in which the CEC has provided the economic driver for some commercial entities to begin diverting their food waste from the trash and instead to recycle it. Since the 1980s Ramsey County and neighboring Washington County have worked jointly with the private sector to provide a facility in Newport, Minnesota, that processes the majority of trash generated into refuse-derived-fuel that is then combusted to generate electricity. Note that while residents and businesses in Ramsey County (and other Twin Cities metropolitan counties) separate a significant portion of the recyclable materials they generate for recycling, waste characterization studies at the Newport refuse-derived-fuel facility and other MSW facilities still reveal substantial quantities of recyclable materials that remain in the trash. Thus, Ramsey County continues to explore methods to increase recycling and welcomes the opportunity to evaluate proposals using an EPR approach. Incorrect or incomplete statements The report cites cost and program information relating to Ramsey County. As shown in Attachment A, not all of the statements are entirely correct and complete. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Zack Hansen Environmental Health Director Cc: Victoria Reinhardt, Ramsey County Commissioner Julie Kleinschmidt, Ramsey County Manager Rina McManus, Director of Public Health Ryan O Connor, Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board Garth Hickle, MPCA Peder Sandhei, MPCA 5

6 ATTACHMENT A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. On page ES-7 the report mentions, Ramsey County, Minnesota, with its 47 percent overall recycling rate (55 percent including yard waste) This incorrectly attributes 8% recycling to yard waste, instead of a combination of the 5% yard waste credit plus 3% source reduction credit (note that the MPCA will no longer be allowing these credits in calculating county recycling rates). RAMSEY COUNTY MINNESOTA 2. On page 4-15, for the list of municipalities in Ramsey County, they included footnotes to indicate that two cities are in multiple counties, Spring Lake Park and White Bear Lake, but neglected to mention that St. Anthony straddles both Hennepin and Ramsey counties. 3. On page 4-15, regarding, The cities, however, contract for the collection of recyclables with private haulers in the region : That is mostly but not entirely correct. Neither Mounds View nor St. Anthony contracts for residential recycling services. Of the other municipalities that contract for recycling (ignoring Blaine, with no residents, and Spring Lake Park, with a small number of its residents within Ramsey County), about half include all single-family and multi-unit residents in their contract, while the others do not include all multi-unit residents in their contract. 4. On page 4-15, regarding, The type of recycling collection services varies among dual stream, singlestream, and multi-sort, but collection is generally weekly : All residential collection is either dual stream or single-stream (although in some cases there may be an item collected, such as clothing/linens/shoes or lead-acid batteries, which are not placed within regular recycling bins or carts). The majority of residents are in communities with weekly collection, but the majority of communities, 10, have every-other-week collection. 5. On page 4-15, the typical materials collected curbside in Ramsey County residential recycling programs appears to reflect items collected by communities that contract with Eureka Recycling. For example, not all programs in the county collect pizza boxes, milk/juice cartons, or textiles. On the other hand, at least in 2012 the majority of communities have expanded plastics collection (there is no date for this table, although presumably the information is for 2011, and there is no ReTRAC data yet for 2012). 6. On page 4-16, regarding, Many communities also provide drop-off recycling centers for residents that accept standard curbside recyclables as well as other materials : This is not correct. There is only one such center, the Veolia Environmental Services transfer station in Saint Paul, which offers a free recycling drop-off area through an arrangement with Saint Paul s contractor, Eureka Recycling. 7. On page 4-16, regarding, Activities that support the achievement of high recycling levels include:.long-term funding mechanism in place to support recycling. This includes: State grant funds[footnote cites SCORE]. A Recycling Market Support Fund to mitigate some of the market price risk faced by municipalities in collecting and marketing recyclables : From our perspective another key point is that the County through its solid waste master plan has for a long time required each municipality to have a long-term recycling funding mechanism (such as a city service charge or utility bill). 6

7 8. On page 4-16, regarding, Public spaces recycling opportunities at all Ramsey County facilities including county buildings, parks, beaches, golf courses and ice arenas : One could add that, with the help of recycling bins and containers provided by Ramsey County, recycling opportunities are also available at municipal buildings and public spaces. 9. On page 4-16, regarding, Promotion of recycling at private commercial buildings through: County Environmental Challenge an initiative to increase recycling in businesses, schools and institutions : Presumably they meant the County Environmental Charge, charged like the State Solid Waste Management Tax on hauler trash bills, excluding recycling/organics, with the same intent of helping to increase recycling. 10. On page 4-16 and 4-17 the report lists Extensive promotion, education, and outreach led by the County using the following methods. Some of the information included in the report is incomplete or not entirely accurate. Here is a corrected version: Extensive promotion, education, and outreach led by the County using the following methods: Electronic media Including a county website; Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts; and an online A to Z Disposal guide Recycling and Disposal hotline, answered 24 hours, 7 days/week. Print materials: Direct mail - Going Green Guide, mailed to every resident; HHW (household hazardous waste) and yard waste postcards Calendars, post cards, and bill inserts produced by the County and distributed through municipal/local government offices, festivals and events, solid waste haulers and transfer stations, and new resident packets. Materials have been developed in Somali, Spanish, and Hmong to reach as many citizens as possible. Presentations the County presents to a variety of audiences including schools and community organizations. 11. On page 4-17, regarding: All Minnesota communities provide data to the Minnesota Department of Pollution Control using the ReTRAC system : This is not correct. The six-county, Twin Cities metro area Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) contracts for the ReTRAC system for use by its member counties. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is not involved (except that the MPCA has an ex-officio board member on the SWMCB governing board). 12. On page 4-17, regarding: Data includes tons recycled, as well as costs of recycling, including collection costs, administrative staff costs, costs associated with collection, processing, education and outreach, and capital costs (e.g., typically for collection containers). Communities also report revenues received for the sale of materials, grants, and other revenues. From this reported data, SAIC was able to estimate gross and net costs of providing residential recycling by subtracting revenues earned on the sale of materials from the sum of all costs. In 2011, the communities in Ramsey County indicated that their net cost of providing residential recycling was $6,510,493. This equates to an average of $ per ton. Note that while the data from municipalities on recycling costs can be very useful, Ramsey County staff has not closely vetted the reported cost numbers, as they have not been used for a formal purpose to date. At first blush, at least a few inconsistencies in the data are evident, the largest of which are for Vadnais Heights and White Bear Township, which both report much higher expenditures than revenues. Both communities have contracts with haulers for both residential trash and recycling 7

8 that provide that the hauler bills residents; it appears that they have included the recycling portion borne by residents in the collection expenditures. The ReTRAC figures cited by SAIC and used in their $156 per ton calculation represent only those figures reported by municipalities in Ramsey County into ReTRAC in There are other governmental and non-governmental expenditures related to residential recycling that are not reflected. Within government, for example, Ramsey County and other entities expend some resources to promote residential recycling. Non-governmental expenditures would include what residents in Mounds View and St. Anthony pay directly to their trash hauler, including recycling services, and similarly what owners of multi-unit buildings not covered under municipal recycling programs pay directly to their hauler. NON-EPR POLICY MECHANISMS 13. On pages 5-5 and 5-6, regarding the following: The investigation of Ramsey County that was performed for this study found that the following policies were in place there: Automatic recycling enrollment; Pay-as-you-throw disposal pricing; Mandatory recycling materials (e.g., at least four broad classes of materials, such as paper/cardboard, metal, plastic, glass, textiles); Mandatory recycling service levels (e.g., at least other week collection, collection services provided to multi-unit and commercial businesses, etc.); Recycling program management; Solid waste management plan (integrated with the state and Twin Cities regional plans); Recycling infrastructure/program grants (i.e., SCORE grants); and Building design standards to accommodate recycling collection containers. They do not clearly distinguish what policies are for residential vs. non-residential recycling. Presumably automatic recycling enrollment refers to the State statute requiring the opportunity to recycle for all residents. In its solid waste master plan and grant agreement requirements for municipalities, Ramsey County reinforces the importance of providing recycling services to all residents at their place of residence. Mandatory recycling requirements apply to public entities, per State statute. Ramsey County has recycling requirements in its solid waste master plan for municipalities, not directly for residents. The County does not have recycling requirements for commercial businesses, except for food and beverage establishments it licenses within 15 communities. The County does not have building design standards within its solid waste master plan related to recycling collection containers. CONCLUSIONS 14. Under Program Cost in Table 6-1 for Ramsey County, it states, US $6.5 million net municipal including offsetting materials revenues but excluding grant funds. ReTRAC financial data by community includes SCORE grant funds and those expenditures paid with SCORE grant funds. 8