Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
13
Foreword
A special thanks for this report goes to Emma Wright for her tireless work in doing the primary research and drafting this report. Additional thanks goes to Dakotah Johnson, Jamison Tessneer, Joshua Winters (MS Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy), and Ryan Kennedy for their thoughtful feedback and guidance in the development of this report.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 History of the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center ........................................................................................ 7 Air Emissions ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Public Health .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 16 Toxic Ash Disposal ................................................................................................................................................... 19 The Cost of Incineration ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Inadequacies: ............................................................................. 22 A Path Forward ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Executive Summary
In 1989, Minneapolis became one of the few cities in the nation to approve and build a municipal waste incineration facility after the Clean Air Acts adoption. Covanta Energy, a multinational corporation that operates waste incineration facilities throughout the world, operates the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC). In the context of the Environmental Protection Agencys solid waste management hierarchy, only landfill disposal is less preferred than incineration. Covanta is seeking to expand the amount of waste burned by 212 tons a day, which would bring the facility to full capacity. This report seeks to outline the consequences and concerns related to garbage incineration at-large as well as those presented by the proposed 20% increase in waste burned. Further, this report outlines the very alternatives we should be pursuing as a better solution to our waste management challenges.
Key Findings:
The Hennepin Energy Recovery Center generates significant quantities of health damaging air pollutants. 1. When aggregating the health damaging air pollutants regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, HERC is Minneapolis top polluter by pounds of emissions. 2. The amount of health damaging air pollutants emitted per megawatt generated is higher than any coal, oil or natural gas fired plant. 3. The pollutants monitored by HERC are self-reported, with permits issued based substantially off of estimates. The emissions monitoring system used by HERC uses estimates, not actual emissions, to determine permit compliance for most emissions. The toxins emitted are a public health concern and disproportionally effect lower income communities and children. 4. HERC is a significant source of many toxins in Minneapolis, including but not limited to mercury, NOx, SOx, dioxins, furans, and particulate matter. 5. The health damaging air pollutants emitted affect the lungs of children disproportionally, as they are still developing. There are eighteen elementary schools within two miles of the HERC stack. 6. Communities within a two-mile radius of the HERC stack have rates of asthma hospitalizations that are significantly higher than those of Minneapolis as a whole. The materials being incinerated have not been efficiently managed up the waste stream. 7. Over half (51.5%) of the materials burned at HERC are recyclables. 8. Nearly an additional third (32%) of the materials are organics. 9. Most of the other waste is comprised of materials with established disposal methods other than incineration.
Conclusions:
Based on these considerations and others found in the report, MPIRG would strongly recommend the following: 1. The Minneapolis City Council should deny Covanta the conditional use permit to increase waste incineration at HERC by 20%, or 212 tons of garbage per day, as the citys comprehensive plan dictates negative health effects to Minneapolitans should be avoided in zoning decisions. 2. The City of Minneapolis should move towards curbside composting as a waste reduction strategy to remove the 32% of incinerated materials that are organics. 3. The City of Minneapolis should continue its efforts to streamline recycling to increase participation rates and remove the 51.5% of incinerated materials that are recyclables. 4. Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis need to seriously consider how HERC fits in the current waste management scheme. The key consideration being the rather perverse incentive that HERC creates by allowing for improperly sorted waste from across Hennepin County to be burned. By doing so, not only does Minneapolis bear the brunt of air pollution deposition, it also reduces the incentive that other cities have to reduce their waste through recycling and composting. 5. Failing these other policy recommendations, at the barest minimum a full EIS should be required to determine the extent of negative health effects.
Introduction
Waste brought to HERC is trucked in by waste haulers from the Minneapolis community and other areas within Hennepin County, where it is processed and burned. The Minneapolis waste incineration facility is what the industry considers a waste-to-energy facility because it generates electricity; as waste is burned the heat turns water into steam, which then powers a generator. But the waste also produces three main by-products: air emissions, toxic ash, and ferrous recycled metals. Because the exact content of each load of waste is unknown, it is nearly impossible to know the chemical composition of the ash and air emissions.1 The Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency have adopted a waste hierarchy as follows for the order of the best waste management options possible:2 Waste reduction and reuse Recycling Composting Resource recovery, including waste-to-energy or waste composting Landfilling with methane recovery Landfilling without methane recovery Incineration is one of the bottom-tiered methods of waste management. Despite that, Covanta is seeking to expand the amount of waste burned by 212 tons a day, which would bring the facility to full capacity. Incineration may be above land filling on the waste hierarchy, but it doesnt follow that it should be the waste disposal method of choice. That waste could be reduced, reused, recycled or composted. These very alternatives were expected to be increased when the HERC facility was first built, as a temporary waste-management solution to supplement new recycling and waste reduction efforts. By focusing on burning and landfilling alone, there is a false choice. Better than a landfill is not good enough for the communities subjected to the pollution from HERC; responsible waste management plans for Minneapolis have always treated HERC as a temporary solution while recycling and composting capacity became more available. Nearly a quarter-century after HERCs boilers came online, it is more critical than ever to reevaluate our waste management strategies to divert recyclables and compostables from incineration. In the following report, the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group will examine the history of HERC, the air emissions produced, the cost to Minneapolis, and alternative means of waste disposal.
Combs, Susan. "Municipal Waste Combustion." Http://www.window.state.tx.us/. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/renewable/municipal.php>. 2 Hennepin County Environmental Services. "The Hennepin Energy Recovery Center: A Waste-to-Energy Facility." Http://hennepin.us/. Hennepin County, Minnesota, 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://hennepin.us/herc>.
3 4
Hennepin County Environmental Services. MPCA Enforcement Files 5 "Citizen's Petitions for an EAW for HERC Expansion." Letter to Craig Affeldt, Supervisor Environmental Review Unit. 08 Sept. 2009. Pca.state.mn.us. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 11 Sept. 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Ibid 9 Minneapolis Planning Commission Minutes. June 23, 2009. 10 Ibid. 11 State Representatives, Frank Hornstein, Jean Wagenius , Jim Davnie , Bobby Joe Champion , Diane Loeffler , Patricia Torres Ray , and D. Scott Dibble. "Hennepin County Recovery Center's Conditional Use Permit Proposal." Letter to Minneapolis City Council Members. 16 July 2009. MS. Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul, Minnesota. 12 Frank Hornstien, State Representative. "Request for an Environmental Impact Statement on the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center." Letter to Mike Opat, Chair, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. 14 Apr. 2011. Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Air Emissions
Despite requisite filters and precautions for a facility of its age and design, HERC produces a significant amount of pollution, ranking as one of the top point-source polluters in Minneapolis. These pollutants have significant health and environmental impacts on local communities, yet many go unregulated. In addition to direct health impacts on the community, the incinerator emits copious amounts of greenhouse gases, contributing to the larger problem of global climate change.
13 14
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Point Source Air Emissions 2005 & 2009. Raw data. Minnesota, Minneapolis. "Citizen's Petitions for an EAW for HERC Expansion." 15 MPCA Point Source Air Emissions 2005. Raw data. 16 MPCA Point Source Air Emissions 2009. Raw data.
[HERC] Reevaluating Waste Management in Minneapolis 9 Table 1: Emissions Generated per Megawatt of Energy (Coal v. Incineration)17
Energy Generated (Megawatts) Total Pounds of Health Damaging Air Emissions/ Year Pounds of Health Damaging Air Emissions /Megawatt Generated 2,823.674 Pounds of Mercury Emitted/ Year Pounds of Mercury/ Megawatt Generated Tons of NOX / Year Tons of NOX/ Megawatt Generated
39.58
111,761.029
9.83101
.24838
552.888
13.960
511
96,327.206
118.507
105.7966
.20704
45.487
.089
As illustrated in Table 1, The HERC incinerator generates significantly more health damaging air pollutants and criteria pollutants per megawatt of energy than the former Riverside Generating Facility, which was coal powered in 2007, and retired in 2009.18 Table 2: Air Emissions from HERC by Pollutant19
Potential to Emit Tons Per Year 94.2 94.2 100 881.2 261.6 26.2 1 98.8 0.126 0.09 7.35 x 10-5 94.2 2007 Actual Emissions Tons Per Year 8.09 8.09 9.52 539.96 49.98 1.14 0.00684 65.01 0.00294 0.00101 1.33 x 10-6 8.09 2008 Actual Emissions Tons Per Year 25.7 25.7 13.05 525.99 48.31 0.87 0.00233 52.74 0.00358 0.000317 3.29 x 10-6 25.7 2009 Actual Emissions Tons Per Year 16.98 16.98 11.69 552.87 39.45 0.58 0.00114 52.77 0.00484 0.00115 5.23 x 10-6 16.98 Projected Actual Emissions Tons/Year 30.2 30.2 15.3 530 56.8 1.3 0.008 76.4 0.0057 0.0014 6.14 x 10-6 30.2
Pollutant Particulate Matter Particulate Matter 10 Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) Carbon Monoxide Volatile Organic Compounds Lead Hydrochloric Acid Mercury Cadmium MWC Dioxins/Furans MWC Metals
Table 2 shows the emissions of HERC, as self-reported, in comparison to the potential the facility has to emit. Though reported emissions often of allowed potential, each pollutant is significant in its environmental and public health impacts. See pages 11-12 for a list of health effects directly linked to each pollutant.
17 18
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Xcel Energy Inc. "Riverside Generating Station." Xcelenergy.com. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Generation/Riverside_Generating_Station>. 19 Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company LP. & Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Hennepin Energy Recovery Center Environmental Assessment Worksheet Draft. Draft V. Minneapolis, 04 Dec. 2009.
10
20 21
"Citizen's Petitions for an EAW for HERC Expansion." Waste Incineration and Public Health. National Academy of Sciences. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5803 22 "Citizen's Petitions for an EAW for HERC Expansion."
Public Health
With an increase in materials burned, Minneapolis and surrounding communities can expect to see a proportionate increase in emissions. Although these increased emissions are not likely enough (in isolation) to push Minneapolis into nonattainment of federal air standards, these standards only reduce health concerns; they do not eliminate health issues. As shown in Table 3 below, emissions from HERC have significant health consequences when introduced to human lungs.
Health Effect
Low levels of nitrogen oxides in the air can irritate your eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, possibly causing you to cough and experience shortness of breath, tiredness, and nausea.23 CO can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen delivery to the body's organs (like the heart and brain) and tissues. At low concentrations, fatigue in healthy people and chest pain in people with heart disease. 24
Rate Monitored
CEM System (Greenhouse Gas & Criteria Pollutant) CEM System (Criteria Pollutant)
Children who live in or near heavily industrialized areas where CEM System sulfur dioxide occurs may experience difficulty breathing, (Criteria changes in the ability to breathe deeply, and burning of the nose Pollutant) and throat. Children may be exposed to more sulfur dioxide than adults because they breathe more air for their body weight than adults do. Long-term studies surveying large numbers of children indicate that children who have breathed sulfur dioxide pollution may develop more breathing problems as they get older, may make more emergency room visits for treatment of wheezing fits, and may get more respiratory illnesses than other children. Children with asthma may be especially sensitive even to low concentrations of sulfur dioxide.25
Particulate
23
Estimate
"ToxFAQs for Nitrogen Oxides." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CDC, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=396&tid=69>. 24 "Basic Information on IAQ: Carbon Monoxide (CO)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html>. 25 "ToxFAQs for Sulfur Dioxide." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CDC, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=252&tid=46>.
12
[HERC] Reevaluating Waste Management in Minneapolis the airways, coughing, and difficulty breathing, reduced lung function, aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks, and some cancers.26 Eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea; damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause cancer in animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans.27 Lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.28 based on four days a year (Criteria Pollutant) Estimate based on four days a year
Matter (PM)
Mercury
Cadmium
Estimate based on four days a year. Pb is a bioaccumulating substance (Criteria Pollutant) Chronic occupational exposure to hydrochloric acid has been EPA has not reported to cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and established a photosensitization in workers. Prolonged exposure to low Reference concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and Dose for 29 erosion. hydrochloric acid. Impaired neurological development for children. Mercury Estimate exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, based on four lungs, and immune system of people of all ages.30 days a year Long-term exposure to lower levels of cadmium in air, food, or Estimate water leads to a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and possible based on four kidney disease. Other long-term effects are lung damage and days a year fragile bones.31 Are persistent, bioaccumulated and likely to be human Estimate carcinogens and are anticipated to increase the risk of cancer at based on four background levels of exposure.32 days a year
26
"Particulate Matter (PM)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 23 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/pm/health.html>. 27 "Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html>. 28 "Lead." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/lead/>. 29 "Hydrochloric Acid (Hydrogen Chloride)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan. 2000. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrochl.html>. 30 "Health Effects of Mercury." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 7 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm>. 31 "ToxFAQs for Cadmium." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CDC, 3 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/TF.asp?id=47&tid=15>. 32 "Dioxins and Furans." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/dioxins.htm>.
[HERC] Reevaluating Waste Management in Minneapolis 13 Heath Concerns about Dioxins, Furans and Particulate Matter Two pollutants considerably harmful to human health, dioxins and furans, are among the toxins emitted during the incineration process. Incinerators cause significant emissions of dioxin and other chlorinated organic compounds that have well known toxic impacts on human health and the environment.33 Dioxins are known carcinogens at low doses and bioaccumulate over time, so communities in the vicinity of an incinerator continue to store these harmful pollutants each time they are introduced in their bodies. 34 Particulate matter (PM) is a criteria pollutant that is made up of very small particles that penetrate lungs and cause adverse health effects. These health problems include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues and premature death.35 The matter is categorized based on size. PM is the name of particulate matter emitted, and is labeled with a number that describes the size of the particle. PM 10 is one of the smaller particles. It is these respirable particles, and especially the ultrafine particles, which can reach the deepest regions of the lungs, and which are thought to be responsible for causing adverse impacts on human health.36 The majority of particulate matter from incinerators is ultrafine in size, and current air pollution control devices on incinerators only prevent 5 to 30% of the respirable (<2.5 m) sized particles from entering the atmosphere, and can do very little to prevent ultrafine (<0.1 m) particulates from escaping.37 The permits for PM 2.5 have changed since Covantas permit expired and Covanta has openly admitted that it has not made adequate changes to its control devices to meet current EPA permitting standards.38
33
Platt, Brenda, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi. Stop Trashing The Climate. Rep. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, June 2008. Web. Nov. 2011. <www.stoptrashingtheclimate.org> pg. 43. 34 Dioxins and Furans." E.P.A. 35 "Particulate Matter (PM)." 36 Allsopp, Michelle, Pat Costner, and Paul Johnston. Incineration and Human Health: State of Knowledge of the Impacts of Waste Incinerators on Human Health. Issue brief. Green Peace Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK., Mar. 2001. Web. Dec. 2011. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet2/report/2001/2/incineration-and-human-health.pdf 11. 37 Platt, Brenda, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi 43. 38 State Representatives, Frank Hornstein, Jean Wagenius , Jim Davnie , Bobby Joe Champion , Diane Loeffler , Patricia Torres Ray , and D. Scott Dibble.
14
Some reported elevated exposure among nearby residents while others found no evidence of increased exposure.39 Map 1: Average per capita income in communities surrounding HERC
HERC
Tables 1 and 2 were created at the request of Representative Karen Clark (District 62A)
39
[HERC] Reevaluating Waste Management in Minneapolis 15 Map 2: Asthma hospitalizations per 10,000 people in communities surrounding HERC
HERC
As seen in Maps 1 and 2, the residential areas within a two-mile radius surrounding HERC is primarily low-income and has high levels of asthma hospitalizations. With an expanded permit, the negative health effects of air pollution can be expected to increase. Although many studies confound data about incineration in general, scientists have directly linked toxins like particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to diseases like asthma and other chronic health problems. The average rate of asthma hospitalizations for the United States is 17 per 10,000 people in the most recent data from 2004.40 As can be seen in Map 2, the majority of the communities around the HERC have over 41 asthma hospitalizations with some areas as high as 200+ hospitalizations due to asthma per 10,000 people. This data also indicates what scientists have known for some time; childhood exposure to pollutants increases with decreasing socioeconomic status.41
"Asthma Prevalence, Health Care Use and Mortality: United States, 2003-05." CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 06 Apr. 2010. Web. 4 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/asthma03-05/asthma0305.htm>. 41 "The Biology of Disadvantage: Socioeconomic Status and Health." ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1186.1 (2010): 1-275. Web. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.2010.1186.issue-1/issuetoc>.
40
16
"OEHHA Air: Air Pollution and Children's Health." Oehha.ca.gov/. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assesment, 26 Nov. 2003. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/airkids.html>. 43 "OEHHA Air: Air Pollution and Children's Health." 44 "The Biology of Disadvantage: Socioeconomic Status and Health." ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1186.1 (2010): 1-275. Web. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.2010.1186.issue-1/issuetoc>.
42
The analysis and modeling of greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste combustion (MSW) in Table 4 only includes scope 1 & 2 emissions, which are the two types of emissions in direct control of the facility. Covantas draft EAW for HERC fails to report or model the scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, which include the activities and shipment of waste before and after its time at the Center. 47 This is a major deficiency in that HERC receives waste not only from Minneapolis, but from its neighboring cities in Hennepin County. As a result, transportation of that waste and emissions related to the transportation must be measured to assess HERCs full impact.
45 46
Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company LP. & Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 31. Eureka Recycling. Recycling, Composting and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Minnesota. Eureka Recycling. Web. 5 Nov. 2011. http://www.eurekarecycling.org/pdfs/Composting_Recycling_GreenhouseGases.pdf 2. 47 Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company LP. & Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 31.
18
In 2007, the Minnesota legislature passed the Next Generation Energy Act, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions among all sectors by 15% below 2005 levels by 2015, 30% by 2020, and 80% by 2050.48 Increasing the waste burned in the incinerator will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions and is converse to the goals of this Act. The proposed expansion would increase the amount of CO2 emitted from the incinerator by 53,701 tons of CO2e, which is equivalent to consuming 113,295 barrels of oil, using 9,552 passenger vehicles for a year, or sequestered by 10,387 acres of fir-tree forest. 49
48 49
50
State Representatives, Frank Hornstein, Jean Wagenius , Jim Davnie , Bobby Joe Champion , Diane Loeffler , Patricia Torres Ray , and D. Scott Dibble. 51 Combs, Susan. 52 Lam, Charles H. K.; Ip, Alvin W. M.;Barford, John Patrick;McKay, Gordon. 2010. "Use of Incineration MSW Ash: A Review." Sustainability 2, no. 7: 1943-1968. 53 "Municipal Solid Waste." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 9 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/wte/basic.htm>. 54 Rowan, S. C. "Incinerator Toxic Emissions: a Brief Summary of Human Health Effects with a Note on Regulatory Control." Medical Hypotheses 52.5 (1999): 389-96. Pubmed.gov. Harcourt Brace & Co. Ltd, May 1999. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10416945 pg. 5. 55 Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company LP. & Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 20.
20
As shown in Table 5, the 2011 base unit charge was set at $24 per dwelling unit with adjustments of $7 made for recycling credits. Monthly charges for large and small disposal carts are set at $5 and $3, respectively. Increase in service revenue is due to anticipated revenues from large cart to small cart conversions.58 The $3 $5 disposal fee paid by Minneapolis residents goes towards tipping fees paid by waste haulers to HERC. As a result Minneapolis taxpayers are paying upwards of $6,300,000 annually to pay for the cost of its operation (assuming all Minneapolis residents have a large cart). In essence, Minneapolis residents are paying for an industry to pollute themselves and their neighbors. When you contrast these economics with those of recycling, which are addressed later on, this is an incredibly difficult policy to justify and maintain.
56
Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, U.S. Energy Information Administration in November 2010 57 City of Minneapolis. "Billing." City of Minneapolis, Minnesota - Official Web Site. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/solid-waste/billing.asp>. 58 "City of Minneapolis 2011 Budget Financial Plan." City of Minneapolis. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. <www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/finance/docs/2011BudgetSolidWasteRecyclingFund.pdf>.
Though there is much variability in the data, it is evident on a simple cost per ton basis that garbage incineration is the most expensive way to address this issue. In contrast, source separated organics (or composting) and recycling offer far better rates of return per dollar spent. The operating costs of HERC are anticipated to be $21.5 million in 2011. When this cost is contrasted with the estimated $5.5 million spent on recycling programs by Hennepin County, it reflects a huge disparity in that per-ton garbage incineration expenses are nearly 4 times as great as recycling programs. While it should be noted that the costs stated here are total costs of these programs versus just the public costs incurred, they do reflect the price of these solid waste management strategies. Finally, this report doesnt include additional economic costs of an expansion to burning related to air pollution. The various health impacts, though often difficult to quantify in direct economic values, are nonetheless real and should be a serious consideration when pondering the costs and benefits of expanding garbage incineration. Further, this analysis does not address the costs and benefits of reducing waste altogether.
22
59
State Representatives, Frank Hornstein, Jean Wagenius , Jim Davnie , Bobby Joe Champion , Diane Loeffler , Patricia Torres Ray , and D. Scott Dibble. 60 Frank Hornstien, State Representative. 61 Michael R. Greenberg, Environmental Policy Analysis and Practice, pg. 191 62 Frank Hornstien, State Representative. 63 State Representatives, Frank Hornstein, Jean Wagenius , Jim Davnie , Bobby Joe Champion , Diane Loeffler , Patricia Torres Ray , and D. Scott Dibble.
According to SCORE data shown in Graph 2, the recycling rate of Hennepin County has remained flat since the plant began its operations in 1989.64 This rate looks at the proportion of total waste that is recycled, not the percentage of recyclables that are recycled. Despite stagnant performance for two decades, the Hennepin County waste management plan only seeks to increase the recycling rate by a small percentage. Extrapolating this plan, we have added what the recycling rates would be expected to look like over the next 8 years to the graph.
64
24
Though garbage incineration was originally proposed as a transition solid waste management strategy, this data seems to indicate a stall in policies aimed at increasing recycling rate.
Eureka Recycling 4. Eureka Recycling 2. 67 Platt, Brenda, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi 19. 68 Platt, Brenda, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi 55. 69 Platt, Brenda, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi 55.
Glass Bottle
30% energy savings v. raw materials
Aluminum Can
90-97% energy savings v. raw materials
Ljupka Arsova, Rob Van Haaren, Nora Goldstein, Scott M. Kaufman, and Nickolas J. Themelis. "The State Of Garbage In America." BioCycle 49.12 (2008): 22. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001782.html>. 71 The Institute for Local Self Reliance 62. 72 The Institute for Local Self Reliance 21.
26
resources such as coal and oil. These non-renewable fuel sources have significant impacts on air pollution, land degradation and climate change. Many of the health damaging air pollutants also have a negative impact on the environmental surroundings and bioaccumulate in the soil and animals. These toxins include mercury; this chemical travels to bodies of water and has been found to increase the risk of cancer for people consuming fish with high mercury content. Particulate matter also contributes to a reduction of visibility in industrial facilities, acidifying lakes and rivers, and acid rain that degrades stone and other materials.73
As Graph 3 shows, the most recent waste analysis required of Covanta under its permits show 32% of the materials entering HERC are organics and over 51% are recyclables.75 This means the majority of material can be captured and diverted to recycling and reuse efforts, leaving only 16.5% as other waste. Most of this other waste is comprised of items (like electronics, appliances, construction debris, and tires) that have specialized disposal requirements and cannot be incinerated. This leaves the remaining ~10% of waste, which is largely made up of furniture, mattresses, leather, clothing, carpets, and all the small materials that fall to the bottom throughout the sorting process. These items are the items that would remain if our waste stream was properly managed before materials reached the HERC. With such a small group of items to dispose of in an efficiently managed waste stream, focus can
73 74
"Particulate Matter (PM)." Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company, L.P. Solid Waste Composition Study Report of the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center. 14 Sept. 2007. Raw data. Minnesota, Minneapolis. 75 Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company, L.P. Solid Waste Composition Study Report of the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center. 12 Nov. 2012. Raw data. Minnesota, Minneapolis
[HERC] Reevaluating Waste Management in Minneapolis 27 shift to how to best reuse and recycle these remaining products. This is what San Francisco has done, beginning to create jobs by establishing markets for the reuse of goods that would be otherwise disposed. The alternatives before our community, along with the fact that the amount of recyclable and compostable materials is significantly greater than the amount of waste for which HERC is seeking to increase incineration, effectively eliminates the need for such an expansion. With over 90% of the materials currently being incinerated at HERC having already established disposal methods that are more efficient than incineration, the conversation must shift to better waste management systems. Graph 1 showed that residential carts are better sorted than the waste that arrives at the HERC, as seen in Graph 3. This leaves the impression that while residents are to blame for some of this errant disposal, there are huge holes in our system that we must explore before we can even consider burning more of our so-called garbage.
28
Conclusion
When HERC was approved and built in the late 1980s, it was assumed to be a short-term alternative to direct landfilling while other programs and capacities were developed. Recycling and composting were assumed to eventually take away the need for the Center itself. Separate from the desires of Covanta, the HERC facility was intended not as a waste management solution, but rather a placeholder for technologies to come. Today, we have the technology and information to understand - more than those involved in the original construction of HERC ever could - just how deep the impacts of incineration are and just who poorly we are doing at recovering materials. Decision makers need to reevaluate whether HERC is a necessity for an era where nearly everything being incinerated could be diverted from the waste stream into already established processes for reclaiming materials.
Recommendations
As demonstrated in this report, waste incineration presents challenges in energy efficiency, economic efficiency, public health concerns, and more. MPIRG strongly contends that the preponderance of the evidence supports the following recommendations: 1. The Minneapolis City Council should deny Covanta the conditional use permit to increase waste incineration at HERC by 20%, or 212 tons of garbage per day, as the citys comprehensive plan dictates negative health effects to Minneapolitans should be avoided in zoning decisions. 2. The City of Minneapolis should move towards curbside composting as a waste reduction strategy to remove the 32% of incinerated materials that are organics. 3. The City of Minneapolis should continue its efforts to streamline recycling to increase participation rates and remove the 51.5% of incinerated materials that are recyclables. 4. Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis need to seriously consider how HERC fits in the current waste management scheme. The key consideration being the rather perverse incentive that HERC creates by allowing for improperly sorted waste from across Hennepin County to be burned. By doing so, not only does Minneapolis bear the brunt of air pollution deposition, it also reduces the incentive that other cities have to reduce their waste through recycling and composting. 5. Failing these other policy recommendations, at the barest minimum a full EIS should be required to determine the extent of negative health effects.
[HERC] Reevaluating Waste Management in Minneapolis 29 Appendix A76 Table of recycling rates in Minneapolis by year
Recycling Rates Minneapolis Year Total Trash Total Recycling 1991 713,747 617,438 1992 700,762 659,256 1993 689,081 676,992 1994 729,326 686,982 1995 752,218 561,795 1996 791,457 577,621 1997 844,730 571,563 1998 885,288 577,914 1999 904,947 588,053 2000 939,831 594,111 2001 986,001 591,289 2002 959,509 593,274 2003 1,005,694 591,844 2004 947,994 603,722 2005 984,538 597,180 2006 982,230 598,219 2007 982,805 604,239 2008 854,215 596,972 2009 784,128 573,038 Total Waste 1,331,185 1,360,018 1,366,073 1,416,308 1,314,013 1,369,078 1,416,293 1,463,202 1,493,000 1,533,942 1,577,290 1,552,783 1,597,538 1,551,716 1,581,718 1,580,449 1,587,044 1,451,187 1,357,166 Recycling Rate 0.463825839 0.484740643 0.495575273 0.485051274 0.427541432 0.421905107 0.403562681 0.394965288 0.393873409 0.38730995 0.374876529 0.382071416 0.370472565 0.389067329 0.377551498 0.378512056 0.380732355 0.411368073 0.411368073 46.38258394 48.47406431 49.55752731 48.50512742 42.75414322 42.19051069 40.35626809 39.49652885 39.38734092 38.73099504 37.48765287 38.20714163 37.04725647 38.90673293 37.75514978 37.85120558 38.07323552 41.13680732 41.13680732
Appendix B Definition: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) An EIS must contain a detailed statement of the following 5 factors77 1. The Environmental impact of the proposed action 2. Any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed action is implemented 3. Alternatives to the proposed action 4. The relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity 5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the proposed action is implemented
76 77
MN SCORE Recycling Data Environmental Policy Analysis and Practice, Michael R. Greenberg (189)
30
Allsopp, Michelle, Pat Costner, and Paul Johnston. Incineration and Human Health: State of Knowledge of the Impacts of Waste Incinerators on Human Health. Issue brief. Green Peace Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK., Mar. 2001. Web. Dec. 2011. <http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2001/2/incinerationand-human-health.pdf>. "Asthma Prevalence, Health Care Use and Mortality: United States, 2003-05." CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 06 Apr. 2010. Web. 4 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/asthma03-05/asthma03-05.htm>. "Basic Information on IAQ: Carbon Monoxide (CO)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html>. "Citizen's Petitions for an EAW for HERC Expansion." Letter to Craig Affeldt, Supervisor Environmental Review Unit. 08 Sept. 2009. Pca.state.mn.us. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 11 Sept. 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=4168>. Combs, Susan. "Municipal Waste Combustion." Http://www.window.state.tx.us/. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/renewable/municipal.php>. Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company, L.P. Solid Waste Composition Study Report of the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center. 14 Sept. 2007. Raw data. Minnesota, Minneapolis. "Dioxins and Furans." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/dioxins.htm>. Eureka Recycling. Recycling, Composting and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Minnesota. Rep. Eureka Recycling. Web. 5 Nov. 2011. <http://www.eurekarecycling.org/pdfs/Composting_Recycling_GreenhouseGases.pdf>. Frank Hornstien, State Representative. "Request for an Environmental Impact Statement on the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center." Letter to Mike Opat, Chair, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. 14 Apr. 2011. MS. Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul, Minnesota. "Health Effects of Mercury." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 7 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm>. Hennepin County Environmental Services. "The Hennepin Energy Recovery Center: A Waste-to-Energy Facility." Http://hennepin.us/. Hennepin County, Minnesota, 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://hennepin.us/herc>. "Hydrochloric Acid (Hydrogen Chloride)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan. 2000. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrochl.html>. "Lead." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/lead/>. Ljupka Arsova, Rob Van Haaren, Nora Goldstein, Scott M. Kaufman, and Nickolas J. Themelis. "The State Of Garbage In America." BioCycle 49.12 (2008): 22. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001782.html>. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Hennepin Energy Recovery Center Environmental Assessment Worksheet Draft. By Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company LP. Vol. Draft V. Minneapolis, 04 Dec. 2009. Print. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Point Source Air Emissions, 2005 & 2009. Raw data. Minnesota, Minneapolis. "Municipal Solid Waste." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 9 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/wte/basic.htm>.
[HERC] Reevaluating Waste Management in Minneapolis 31 "OEHHA Air: Air Pollution and Children's Health." Oehha.ca.gov/. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assesment, 26 Nov. 2003. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/airkids.html>. "Particulate Matter (PM)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 23 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/pm/health.html>. Platt, Brenda, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi. Stop Trashing The Climate. Rep. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, June 2008. Web. Nov. 2011. <www.stoptrashingtheclimate.org>. State Representative, Frank Hornstein, Jean Wagenius State Representative, Jim Davnie State Representative, Bobby Joe Champion State Representative, Diane Loeffler State Representative, Patricia Torres Ray State Representative, and D. Scott Dibble State Representative. "Hennepin County Recovery Center's Conditional Use Permit Proposal." Letter to Minneapolis City Council Members. 16 July 2009. MS. Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul, Minnesota. "ToxFAQs for Cadmium." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CDC, 3 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/TF.asp?id=47&tid=15>. "ToxFAQs for Nitrogen Oxides." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CDC, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=396&tid=69>. "ToxFAQs for Sulfur Dioxide." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CDC, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=252&tid=46>. "Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html>. Xcel Energy Inc. "Riverside Generating Station." Xcelenergy.com. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Generation/Riverside_Generating_ Station>.