The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-09-10 EEC Meeting PacketAgenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Members of the public can observe the meeting by watching the live stream on YouTube at youtube.com/edinatv or by listening in by calling toll free 1-415-655-0001 with Access code: 133 556 7465. Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission, August 13, 2020 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Welcome Student Commissioners B.Sustainable Infrastructure: Embodied Carbon Presentation VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Initiative 2: Education Events B.Initiative 5: PARC Initiative Feedback C.2021 Work Plan Approval VIII.Chair And Member Comments A.Business Energy Working Group Update and Receive Minutes IX.Sta1 Comments A.Energy Benchmarking Update B.Organics Recycling Update C.Sustainability Coordinator Position Update X.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli4cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Liz Moore, Engineering Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission, August 13, 2020 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve August 13, 2020 meeting minutes. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description August 13, 2020 Minutes Agenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Members of the public can observe the meeting by watching the live stream on YouTube at youtube.com/edinatv or by listening in by calling toll free 1-415-655-0001 with Access code: 133 789 4533. Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:00 PM I.Call To Order Chair Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. II.Roll Call Answering roll call were Chair Jackson and Commissioners Dakane, Horan, Hussain, Lanzas, Manser, Martinez-Salgado, Martinez, Satterlee, and Seeley. Absent: Student Commissioner Maynor III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion by Carolyn Jackson to Approve August 13, 2020, Meeting Agenda. Seconded by Bayardo Lanzas. Motion Carried. IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission, July 9, 2020 Motion by Carolyn Jackson to Approve July 9, 2020 Minutes. Seconded by Hilda Martinez Salgado. Motion Carried. V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Sustainability in Engineering Engineering Director Millner discussed the reorganization of Sustainability in the Engineering Department. Commissioner Martinez Salgado asked about the time frame of starting the Climate Action Plan based on hiring and training a new Sustainability Coordinator and urged Director Millner to make the Climate Action Plan a priority in the hiring process. Chair Jackson thanked Director Millner and furthered Commissioner Martinez Salgado's point that the Climate Action Plan's timeline is important to the Commission. B.Annual Water Resources Coordinator's Report Staff Liaison Wilson presented the Annual Water Resources Coordinator's Report. VI.Community Comment Chair Jackson invited the community to comment. Staff Liaison Wilson said there were no public comments or callers at this time. During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.2020 Work Plan progress report Staff Liaison Wilson presented an overview of each initiative in the progress report. B.Initiative 2: Education Events Commissioner Lanzas updated that Initiative 2 with Education Events. Chair Jackson added that a booth has been set up at the Farmer's Market. Commissioner Lanzas confirmed he will follow up and start finding volunteers. Staff Liason Wilson mentioned that the Open Streets on 50th event has been cancelled and that the Farmer's Markets are the only options left before they close for the season on September 24th. C.Initiative 5: PARC Initiative Feedback Chair Jackson presented a draft memo to share with the PARC and received comments from Commissioners. D.Chair and Vice Chair Elections Chair Jackson thanked the Commission for allowing her to serve as the Chair and opened the floor for new nominations. She nominated Commissioner Martinez Salgado for Chair. Commissioner Satterlee explained the benefits and experiences of Vice-Chair. Chair Jackson opened the floor for Vice-Chair nominations and was nominated. The floor was opened for votes. Hilda Martinez Salgado was elected as Chair and Carolyn Jackson was elected as Vice-Chair. Motion by Paul Hussain to Elect Hilda Martinez Salgado as Chair and Elect Carolyn Jackson as Vice Chair. Seconded by Ukasha Dakane. Motion Carried. E.2021 Work Plan Development Staff Liaison Wilson presented a spreadsheet on the work plan development and each Commissioner's priority rankings for each. Staff Liaison Wilson refined the priority list based on Commission comments and committed to bringing a formatted list of initiatives to be considered at the September meeting. The Chair will be invited to share the proposed work plan with the Council at their October 6th work session. Commission work plans will be approved in December and implemented in January of 2021. VIII.Chair And Member Comments A.Working Group Minutes B.Green Business Recognition Program Working Group Update Commissioner Horan gave an update about The Galleria Shopping Center, which has been awarded Gold recognition. A process is being considered for how to resubmit business applications without re-doing it so businesses can be recognized for the next year. C.Climate Action Plan Committee Update Chair Martinez Salgado gave an update about the Climate Action Plan Committee. The group reviewed Climate Action Plan work for cities similar to Edina. Recommendations of what can be improved were included in the priority list and will be beneficial for the Climate Action Plan Task Force. Commissioner Satterlee suggested adding researching ways to establish carbon neutrality to the proposed work plan. Vice-Chair Jackson thanked Chair Martinez Salgado for her work. Chair Martinez Salgado highlighted Commissioner Lauren Satterlee's previous research. IX.Staff Comments A.Energy Benchmarking Update Staff Liaison Wilson gave an update that 68% of buildings subject to the energy bench-marking ordinance have submitted their information. The remainder are actively working to submit their applications. Edina has the highest compliance rate out of energy coalition cities, such as St. Paul and St. Louis Park. B.Organics Recycling Update Staff Liaison Wilson reported that 97 tons of organic recycling were collected in July. There is a goal to collect 100 tons per month. She reported cross-contamination rates are extremely low and that the hauler has said that organic loads from Edina are the cleanest that they had seen. C.Senior U of M Engineering Capstone Projects Staff Liaison Wilson reported that every year, the commission works with the senior University of Minnesota Engineering class to come up with projects. Recent past projects from spring 2020 include a report on embodied carbon in infrastructure and an electric vehicle strategy. X.Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:38 PM. Motion by Hilda Martinez Salgado to Adjourn the Meeting. Seconded by Paul Hussain. Motion Carried. T he City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Chair Martinez Item Activity: Subject:Welcome Student Commissioners Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Ross Bintner, Engineering Services Manager Item Activity: Subject:Sustainable Infrastructure: Embodied Carbon Presentation Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: A presentation on the findings of the University of Minnesota Senior Engineering Capstone project. ATTACHMENTS: Description Student Report_Infrastructure: Embodied Carbon Sustainable Integrations 500 Pillsbury Drive S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 April 30th, 2020 Ross Bintner City of Edina 4801 W 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Ross: Thank you for choosing Sustainable Integrations to aid the City of Edina in reducing carbon emissions related to city construction projects. The report addresses the embedded carbon in the production of five common building materials used in Edina: aggregate, concrete, asphalt, and five types of pipe (Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe, High-Density Polyethylene Pipe, Cured-In-Place Pipe, Reinforced Concrete Pipe, and Ductile Iron). An overall value for embedded carbon was obtained for each construction material. The percent contribution to the total embedded carbon of each ingredient within the building material was also evaluated. Our analysis reveals that the majority of the embedded carbon in concrete and asphalt are due to the production of the binder material. Out of the pipe materials, the 12’’diameter ductile iron pipe had the highest embedded carbon. Sustainable alternatives for each material are identified in this report. The results from each analysis were used to create an Embedded Carbon Calculator, which the City of Edina can use to characterize the carbon emissions for future projects involving the building materials. We recognize the necessity of future research to fully characterize the lifecycle of each material investigated in this report. To this end, the report presents pathways for future characterization of embodied carbon in all four building materials, built upon the foundation of our study. We enjoyed being on the front lines of new research on energy efficient building materials and look forward to working with you and the City of Edina in our future careers. Regards, Celina Tragesser Tasha Spencer Jamie Klamerus James Jorgenson Enclosures: 1. Final Report 2. Embedded Carbon Calculator Excel Sheet 7KLVLVDVWXGHQWSURMHFWDQGDQ DFDGHPLFH[HUFLVH&LW\VWDII JUHDWO\YDOXHWKHZRUNRIWKHVH VWXGHQWVDQGWKHFUHDWLYHLGHDV WKH\EULQJWRUHDOLVVXHVWKDWWKH &LW\LVZRUNLQJRQ [Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.] 2 EDINA SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE: REDUCING NET- EMBODIED CARBON Prepared for the City of Edina April 30, 2020 Tasha Spencer Jamie Klamerus James Jorgenson Celina Tragesser i Certification Page By signing below, the team members submit that this report was prepared by them and is their original work to the best of their ability. Celina Tragesser Project Coordinator Jamie Klamerus Project Engineer Tasha Spencer Project Engineer James Jorgenson Project Engineer ii Executive Summary The City of Edina has set a goal to reduce 80% of their current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the year 2050. As a step towards meeting this goal, Sustainable Integrations was brought on to investigate decarbonization pathways within city construction projects and recommend sustainable improvements. This study evaluated carbon emissions associated with four commonly used construction materials in the city: 1. Aggregate 2. Concrete 3. Asphalt 4. Pipe (CIPP, RCP, Ductile Iron, HDPE, and PVC) The analysis of these materials focused on assessing the so-called embedded carbon, that is, the carbon emissions attributed to the extraction and fabrication processes of a material’s life cycle. Literature was used to select each material’s carbon coefficient; these are quantities relating the volume of carbon released for a unit volume of material used (lb CO2 / lb of material). The volume of each material used in Edina construction projects was characterized from 2018 project material data. The 2018 project data provided material type and quantities for construction materials purchased and installed in the city that year. Multiplying carbon coefficients by volume, quantified yearly carbon emissions associated with the construction materials. An Embedded Carbon Calculator was created as a deliverable. This tool compiled all the calculations and carbon coefficients into a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet can be used in future projects to prioritize sustainable improvements based on updated carbon coefficients. This study established that the binder material in asphalt and the Portland cement in concrete are the largest carbon emission producers; for example, the carbon coefficient for asphalt binder was approximately 160 times larger than that of aggregate. Regarding pipes, it was found that ductile iron has the largest embedded carbon, in units of lb of CO2 per linear foot of pipe, out of all the analyzed pipe types. In contrast, HDPE pipe material has the lowest embedded carbon. Sustainable Integrations recommends the City research tradeoffs associated with alternatives to binder and cement then use the alternatives when they meet project needs. For example, strength deficits in concrete are often associated with decreasing Portland cement content. However, alternative additives to Portland cement, such as fly ash and blast furnace slag, can reduce the embedded carbon of concrete significantly. With regard to pipe materials, HDPE pipe is the most sustainable alternative to use where applicable and endorsed by Sustainable Integrations. Appropriate HDPE installations include above and below ground water, gas, sewage, and wastewater pipelines. Ductile iron has the highest embedded carbon for pipes; therefore, limiting new installations is advised when other options are present. As Ductile Iron pipe is commonly used for water transport, it can be replaced with HDPE or PVC to achieve lower carbon emissions. Furthermore, it is suggested iii that the City request localized carbon coefficients and conduct a complete life cycle assessment of these materials to establish more feasible improvements the City can invest in. iv Table of Contents Abbreviations vii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Definition of Terms.................................................................................................................................. 2 3 Background Information ......................................................................................................................... 3 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Report Outline ................................................................................................................................. 3 4 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Selecting the Top Four Materials ................................................................................................. 4 Top Four Building Materials........................................................................................................... 5 Concrete .................................................................................................................................... 5 Aggregate (Loose) ................................................................................................................... 6 Asphalt ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Pipe ............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.2.4.1 Cured-in Place Pipe (CIPP) .................................................................................................... 8 4.2.4.2 High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) ..................................................................................... 8 4.2.4.3 Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) ......................................................................................... 8 4.2.4.4 Ductile Iron Pipe ...................................................................................................................... 8 4.2.4.5 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC) .............................................................................................. 8 5 Analysis & Sustainable Improvements .................................................................................................. 9 Concrete ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Aggregate ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Asphalt ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Pipes ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Carbon Benchmark ....................................................................................................................... 14 6 Future Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Future Research ............................................................................................................................ 15 Incorporating Manufacturer By-products in Projects ................................................... 15 Extend Lifespan ..................................................................................................................... 16 Effects of Transportation Distance ................................................................................... 16 Road Surface Effect on Gas Efficiency .............................................................................. 16 v Deconstruction for Reuse .................................................................................................. 16 Effects of Disposal ................................................................................................................ 16 Absorption of CO2 ............................................................................................................... 17 7 Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 17 8 References............................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix A MnDOT Curb and Gutter Drawings……………………………………………24 Appendix B Additional Information for Concrete & Aggregate………………………...……25 Appendix C Additional Information for Asphalt……………………………………………...28 Appendix D Additional Information for Pipe…………………………………………………29 Appendix E Schedule and Budget……………………………………………………….……34 vi List of Figures Figure 2-1 Terminology of carbon in the life cycle of construction materials 2 Figure 4-1 Top construction materials used in 2018, by cost 4 Figure 4-2 Percentage of each pipe type used by the City of Edina in 2018 7 Figure 5-1 Comparison of sustainable binder alternatives for concrete 10 Figure 5-2 Contribution of raw materials to volume and embedded carbon of one unit of asphalt 11 Figure 5-3 Total CO2 produced by the City of Edina in 2018, by pipe type 12 Figure 5-4 The CO2 per linear foot of each pipe type with a 12” diameter 13 Figure A-1 MnDOT Curb and Gutter Designs 24 Figure E-1 Total planned hours compared to actual project hours spent 34 Figure E-2 Percent completion of each task 34 vii List of Tables Table 5-1 Carbon coefficients for components in concrete 9 Table 5-2 Carbon to dollar comparison 9 Table 5-3 Carbon to dollar comparison of asphalt 11 Table 5-4 Total CO2 emissions from 2018 construction projects involving concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and various pipe materials. 14 Table B-1 SF concrete calculations 25 Table B-2 SY concrete calculations 25 Table B-3 Bulk Densities of Mix Materials 26 Table C-1 Breakdown of carbon emissions of asphalt components [E] 28 Table D-1 12 inch Diameter PVC CO2 Calculation Summary 29 Table D-2 12 inch Diameter HDPE CO2 Calculation Summary 30 Table D-3 12 inch Diameter CIPP CO2 Calculation Summary 30 Table D-4 12 inch Diameter RCP CO2 Calculation Summary 31 Table D-5 12 inch Diameter Ductile Iron CO2 Calculation Summary 31 Table D-6 PVC Primary Values and References 32 Table D-7 HDPE Primary Values and References 32 Table D-8 CIPP Primary Values and References 32 Table D-9 RCP Primary Values and References 33 Table D-10 Ductile Iron Primary Values and References 33 Table E-1 Project Budget with associated time and cost of each task. 35 Table F-1 Report outline showing section writer and reviewer. 36 viii Abbreviations C&D Construction and Demolition CIPP Cured-In-Place Pipe CO2 Carbon Dioxide CY Cubic Yard GHG Greenhouse Gas HDPE High-Density Polyethylene Pipe IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISI Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure LF Linear Feet LCA Life Cycle Assessment MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency PVC Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe SF Square feet SY Square Yard VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe 1 1 Introduction Public infrastructure serves as the skeleton of life for many communities. Without continued maintenance and construction, the structures that connect people and places would be underdeveloped and the quality of life would decline. As a result, accelerated by aging infrastructure and growing populations, construction is an essential investment for governments; a total of 302 billion dollars of U.S. funds were spent on new public construction in 2018 alone [1]. To maximize the overall public benefit of these funds, there has been an increasing interest, by both local and federal governments, in deploying sustainable building practices. Sustainability is defined as the ability of a system to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs [2]. A key issue in achieving a sustainable future is the control and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These gases encompass carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorocarbons which are emitted at high rates in human activities such as burning fossil fuels [3]. GHGs create a buffer in the atmosphere, trapping solar radiation on Earth. This effect causes global warming, a major contributor to climate change [4]. Climate change adds stressors to human life and the surrounding infrastructure. One undesirable consequence of developing, building, and maintaining sustainable cities are the GHG emissions associated with the construction process. The construction sector accounts for nearly 40% of all GHGs produced by global industries [5]. Thus, in order to fully meet sustainability objectives, government agencies need to find ways to build and maintain infrastructure that produces less GHG emissions. The City of Edina, Minnesota, has set a goal to reduce their current GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. An area where the city can implement change is within their construction projects, specifically with material selection. This report investigates the City’s construction materials and the most promising options for sustainable alternatives. Four common construction materials (concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and pipes) remain the focus of this investigation, which aims to characterize their carbon emissions associated with the extraction and fabrication processes as well as indicate alternative materials to reduce carbon emissions. Literature has established quantities relating volume of carbon released for a unit volume of material used, known as carbon coefficients. After the major sources of carbon emissions are quantified, it is possible to prioritize and recommend future sustainable improvements. As a result, Edina will be able to compare carbon emissions with cost and identify sectors of construction in most need of sustainable alternatives. A spreadsheet calculator for the City of Edina was created as a project deliverable to be able to calculate the embedded carbon for common projects performed by the city. This spreadsheet is meant to be updated with more localized carbon coefficients once the values become available. Substantial research is needed in the sustainable building field, beyond the scope of this report, to more accurately quantify carbon emissions by making carbon coefficients more widely available. This report provides a foundation of research on sustainable building materials for Edina which will act as a pathway for future practices. 2 2 Definition of Terms This analysis uses several key terms to describe and quantify GHG emissions. As several terms are used interchangeably in this report, commonly used words are defined below. Figure 2-1 illustrates the commonly used terms. x Life cycle of a product includes material extraction, fabrication, installation, maintenance, and disposal [6]. x Life cycle assessment (LCA) traces the progression of each phase in the life cycle, documenting the resources consumed and the emissions released [7]. x Carbon footprint is the amount of GHGs released into the atmosphere associated with the production, use, and end-of-life of a product or service [8]. x Embodied carbon is the carbon footprint of a material. It is the total amount of GHG emissions attributed to a material throughout its life cycle [9]. x Embedded carbon is the total amount of carbon emissions attributed to a material from extraction to fabrication processes, and does not include all other life cycle emissions. x Cradle-to-gate as it is the partial life cycle analysis, for quantifying embedded carbon, from resource extraction (cradle) to the factory gate, prior to transportation to the consumer [9]. Figure 2-1: Terminology of carbon in the life cycle of construction materials Embodied and embedded carbon for a material are reported as a mass (pounds or kilograms) of CO2 released because CO2 is the highest produced GHG and therefore responsible for the greatest amount of environmental impact [6]. 3 3 Background Information The City of Edina covers an area of approximately 16 square miles within the Minneapolis metro area. The land is 95 percent developed and largely residential [10]. As of 2018, Edina has a population of approximately 52,000 people and the median income per household is $99,295 [10]. In general, the Edina community is interested in sustainability, and actions that will promote this movement in the city. Sustainability Edina saw an opportunity to progress their sustainability mission as they move forward in replacing highly used aging infrastructure in the city. The Edina Engineering Department manages city contracts and has been implementing several reconstruction projects that would ideally incorporate more sustainable solutions. Edina wanted to understand how sustainability parameters are practiced within the Engineering Department by conducting an Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment using the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) rating scale. Envision with the ISI’s scoring system helps rate project sustainability choices within 5 major categories: community quality of life, leadership, resources, climate and risk, and the natural world [11]. Even more importantly than benchmarking, the Envision assessment indicated areas where future improvements can be made on projects. The Envision rating system serves as a best practice resource for guidance on how to develop a project management system to foster sustainable designs. The Envision Sustainability Self-Assessment analyzed the City’s neighborhood street reconstruction program in 2015. The three Edina road reconstruction projects assessed were Arden Park Drive and 54th Street ($8.5M), Birchcrest Boulevard ($3.5M), and Valley View Road ($2.0M). The total points earned for each project, respectively, were Arden-102, Birchcrest- 68, and Valley- 67 out of the 789 total points available [12]. Edina would like to improve their Envision rating because it is a marker for the success of their sustainability mission. A section of Envision that the city can greatly improve their score in is Resource Allocations, it embodies the choice and use of materials throughout their lifespan [10]. The Envision review assessed a score of zero for resource sustainability in the three road rehabilitations. The Sustainable Infrastructure Project mainly focuses on the Resource category of Envision and how the city can select more sustainable materials to increase their ISI score. Report Outline The long-term goal is to characterize the lifetime carbon impact of every construction material, including the fabrication, installation, maintenance, and removal phases. The scope of this report is to perform a cradle-to-gate assessment of the four most commonly used construction materials. The body of this report is separated into three sections: Methodology, Analysis & Sustainable Improvements, and Future Work. 4 The Methodology section qualitatively describes the theory and process behind determining the four most commonly used construction materials and their associated embedded carbon. The Analysis & Sustainable Improvements section presents the values obtained for the embedded carbon of concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and pipe, and delivers the results from the analysis (calculations are provided in the Appendix). This section also identifies sustainable improvements, or components of each material which contribute most heavily to the total embedded carbon. Lastly, the Future Work section proposes the next steps for the city and identifies areas of future research which show promise for continued GHG reduction. 4 Methodology Selecting the Top Four Materials Quantifying the embedded carbon in construction materials is an intensive process. To that end, it was determined that only the top four materials used by the city would be selected for this analysis. All the projects completed in 2018 were categorized by material and ranked by total budget. Figure 4-1 presents a comparison between the budget allocated to different physical construction materials. Figure 4-1: Top construction materials used in 2018, by cost Projects including specialty items, such as fire hydrants, valves, and construction signs, in addition to construction administration, were not included in the above ranking. Note that the landscaping category does not entail other materials on the list, and is limited to water, soil, and trees. For the purpose of this analysis, the landscaping category was not considered a material as it is not suspected to contribute significantly to carbon emissions. 5 Out of the remaining categories in Figure 4-1, the top four construction materials are pipe, concrete, aggregate, and bituminous. Each of these construction materials have different manufacturing processes and raw material components, and therefore required separate analyses. The following sections describe the methodology for each construction material, including several sub-categories within concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and pipe. Top Four Building Materials Concrete In order to calculate the embedded carbon of concrete, the following assumptions were made: x Any sort of support material, such as steel bars or wood frames were not included in these calculations. x CO2 was calculated in pounds (lb) CO2 per lb of material, and the CO2 of three main materials in concrete were calculated: cement, fine aggregates, and coarse aggregates. x Water and various admixtures were not considered in these calculations due to their low contribution overall to the embedded carbon of concrete. x Only coarse and fine aggregates incorporated in the concrete mix were considered. x A standard M20 concrete mix ratio of 1 part cement to 1.5 parts fine aggregate to 3 parts coarse aggregate with a 1.54 safety factor was assumed. Evaluating the embedded carbon of concrete first involved assessing how much concrete was used by Edina in 2018. A copy of the 2018 Quantities spreadsheet was created, with each individual project spreadsheet sorted according to item description. Once all concrete items were isolated, any concrete items listed under “removal” were eliminated. The majority of the construction projects completed with concrete were sidewalks, gutters, driveways, curbs, and castings. Installed concrete was reported in a variety of units. Concrete items were sorted according to the unit used to quantify the material: LF (linear foot), SF (square foot), SY (square yard), and EA (each item as a whole unit). For items with units of SF and SY, the volume of concrete was calculated by multiplying the quantity of area by the depth, provided in the item description (Calculations in Appendix B [23, 24]). Items with units of LF are MnDOT curbs and gutters: B618, D412, and Surmountable (See Appendix A for drawings). To find the volume of concrete, the cross-sectional area of the specified designs were multiplied by the LF. Finding the volume of items that were labeled as EA was difficult, as the dimensions of these items varied with each project and were not disclosed in the spreadsheet. Estimations were made according to base designs provided by the City of Edina’s Standard Plates and Specifications website. Total compiled volume of concrete was then multiplied by the standard M20 concrete mix ratio of 1:1.5:3 and a safety factor of 1.54 to establish the individual material’s volume within the 6 concrete mix. Once the total cement, fine aggregate, and coarse aggregate volumes were obtained, the volumes were then multiplied by the material’s respective bulk density in order to obtain the weight of each material. These weights were then multiplied by the appropriate carbon coefficient in order to obtain pounds of CO2 per pounds of material. These coefficients are provided in the analysis portion of this report and detailed calculations are presented in Appendix B [23, 24]. Aggregate (Loose) In order to calculate the embedded carbon of loose aggregate, the following assumptions were made: x Use of recycled loose aggregates were not considered in these calculations. x Aggregate incorporated in concrete or asphalt mix was not considered in these calculations. x Loose aggregates were assumed to be a mix of 50% coarse and 50% fines. x Coarse and fine aggregates were assumed to have the same bulk density of 104 lb/ft3. Loose aggregate used by Edina in 2018 was placed as a base in road construction, part of retaining walls, and as a base for concrete sidewalks and roads. Determining the embedded carbon of loose aggregates involved isolating loose aggregate items in the 2018 Quantities spreadsheet and sorting according to the unit used to quantify the material: cubic yard (CY) and ton. For items with units of CY, the weight of loose aggregate was calculated by multiplying the volume by the bulk density of aggregate. This weight was then converted to tons and added to loose aggregate items already given in tons. Tons of loose aggregate were then multiplied by the estimated percentage of coarse and fine aggregate present (50/50) in order to determine the weight of coarse and fine aggregates. These weights were then multiplied by the respective carbon coefficient. These coefficients are provided in the analysis portion of this report and detailed calculations are presented in Appendix B [23, 24]. Asphalt The following calculations are simplified in order to highlight the general relationship between carbon and asphalt. These assumptions apply to the analysis: x Support material, such as steel bars or wood frames were not included in these calculations. x The two ingredients in asphalt are binder (bituminous) and aggregate. The City of Edina primarily uses asphalt for driveways and roads, and is open to using it as an alternative to concrete for sidewalks, if asphalt proves more sustainable. Asphalt is approximately 95% aggregate, and 5% bituminous binder [18]. A wide range of published values for the weight of carbon produced per weight of material, carbon coefficients, were identified in literature. As it was not possible to identify the most accurate source relevant to Edina, several reputable sources were reported and compared for analysis. The data from 2018 was 7 converted to a volume of cubic yards or tons. The analysis for asphalt was significantly simpler than concrete due to less ingredients and simpler given units. The specific asphalt calculations are presented in Appendix C [16, 18]. Pipe As shown in Figure 1, piping is one of the most used and most costly construction materials in the City of Edina 2018 public projects. The types of pipe used in Edina are: cured-in-place pipe (CIPP), reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), ductile iron, copper, vitrified clay pipe (VCP), and polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC). To determine which pipe type would potentially have the largest impact on CO2 emissions, the percentage of LF of each pipe installed was determined and is shown in Figure 4-2 below. Figure 4-2: Percentage of each pipe type used by the City of Edina in 2018 Figure 4-2 shows CIPP, HDPE, RCP, ductile iron, and PVC pipes had the most LF installed. Further analyses of the five most used pipe types were completed to characterize the total CO2 emissions for each pipe type. Calculations were carried out for the actual pipe sizes used by the City of Edina. This primarily consisted of determining the diameter and wall thickness to calculate the cross section and volume. Then multiplying the volume by density to determine the total weight, and the carbon coefficient (pounds of CO2 per pound of pipe) to determine the total pounds of CO2 per linear foot of each pipe type. Using the results from these calculations along with the quantities of materials used by the City of Edina, the total pounds of CO2 produced in 2018 for each pipe type was determined. Upon completion of these calculations, it was apparent that a 12 inch diameter was a common size used in the construction industry for the top five pipe types. Edina only used 12 inch RCP in their 2018 projects; therefore calculations were also completed for 12 inch CIPP, HDPE, 8 Ductile Iron, and PVC. Quantifying the CO2 per linear foot of each pipe type, considering a 12” diameter, allowed for a direct comparison between each pipe type. The step-by-step calculations for each 12” diameter pipe are presented in Appendix D [6, 25- 43]. The following subsections give background information for each pipe type and further clarification on calculations if applicable. 4.1.4.1 Cured-in Place Pipe (CIPP) Cured-in-Place Pipe is most commonly used where an existing pipe is severely damaged and is in need of replacement. CIPP piping is a jointless pipe lining that is inserted into an existing pipe to extend the service life of the pipe. To analyze the embedded carbon of CIPP piping, each component of CIPP piping should be considered to achieve the most accurate results. CIPP piping consists of layers of flexible felt, and fiberglass reinforcement to hold the resin inside the tube. In order to simplify the calculations, a weighted average of each material density was used to produce a single value for the density of CIPP pipe. The volumes of each material component were summed together to get a single volume for the CIPP pipe. 4.1.4.2 High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) High-Density Polyethylene piping is commonly used for above and below ground municipal and industrial pipelines. Higher density HDPE piping is currently being used for water, gas, sewage, and wastewater distribution systems in Edina. The production of HDPE piping consists of extrusion, cooling, hot embossing, and cutting. The raw materials used are HDPE pellets made from virgin polyethylene granulates and recycled HDPE [6]. 4.1.4.3 Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) Reinforced Concrete Pipe is commonly used for applications such as sanitary sewers, storm drains, culverts, and irrigation distribution systems. RCP is composed of portland cement, aggregate, water, and the steel reinforcement bars. The calculations for RCP were completed using a weighted average of each component to produce a single value for density. 4.1.4.4 Ductile Iron Pipe Ductile Iron Pipe is commonly used for potable water transmission. To avoid corrosion, internal linings and external coatings are often applied. Ductile Iron pipe has a relatively long lifespan when compared to other pipe types and can often exceed 100 years. 4.1.4.5 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC) Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe is most commonly used for plumbing and drainage applications. PVC has become a common replacement for metal piping due to its flexibility, durability, strength, and low cost. 9 5 Analysis & Sustainable Improvements Each material has a quantified embedded carbon which can be used to analyze alternative materials and technologies to reduce the GHG emissions. Each material: concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and pipe can all be sustainably improved. This section identifies opportunities within each material for simple sustainable improvements. Concrete The calculations for concrete are presented in Appendix B [23, 24]. The carbon coefficients for the main components in concrete are shown in Table 5-1. Source [13] utilizes information on concrete production from The Concrete Centre in the United Kingdom, source [14] utilizes more regional concrete production information from the United States, and source [15] utilizes information on concrete production from South Korea. The carbon coefficients vary depending on numerous assumptions made by researchers and are generally region specific. Table 5-1: Carbon coefficients for components in concrete Concrete Component Carbon Coefficients (lb CO2/lb) Cement Fine Aggregate (Sand) Coarse Aggregate Blast Furnace Slag Fly Ash Source Production Source 0.9497 0.00323 0.00224 * 0.0722 [14] USA 0.9 0.0044** ** 0.057 0.0044 [13] UK 0.82 0.0139 0.82 0.143 0.027 [15] South Korea *Not published **Source does not distinguish between coarse and fine aggregate Table 5-2: Carbon to dollar comparison Carbon to Dollar Comparison (using 2018 data) Source Production Source $ / lb CO2 lb CO2 / $ 0.74 1.36 [14] USA 0.77 1.30 [13] UK 0.20 5.00 [15] South Korea In Table 5-2, the carbon to dollar comparison relates the embedded carbon to dollars spent in 2018. According to source [14], for every $0.74 spent on concrete, 1 pound of CO2 is embedded. This parameter relates carbon emissions to budget, which can be used as a quick estimate to calculate embedded carbon for large projects. The embedded CO2 of cement mixtures using varying quantities of blast furnace slag and fly ash were calculated. Fly ash is a coal combustion byproduct and blast furnace slag is a byproduct of 10 iron production. When mixed with lime and water, these alternatives form a compound similar to Portland cement [19]. Figure 5-1 shows the estimated reduction of CO2 within a year based upon Portland cement being substituted with either fly ash or blast furnace slag in different ratios. These numbers show that even a small decrease in the amount of Portland cement used will decrease the total amount of CO2. Figure 5-1: Comparison of sustainable binder alternatives for concrete The above figure represents the benefits to sustainability by using alternative binders but does not address the negative consequences of alternative binders such as strength deficits. Further research is necessary to wholly characterize the effects of alternative binders to the integrity of concrete. Aggregate The calculations for loose aggregate are presented in Appendix B [23, 24]. While aggregates have a relatively small carbon coefficient, they often are used in large quantities, which can amplify the amount of embedded carbon in aggregates to comparable numbers. When focusing explicitly on loose aggregate, or aggregates not used within concrete mix or asphalt, one sustainable alternative is using recycled loose aggregate. Edina already utilizes this strategy and in 2018, Edina used approximately 10,000 yd3 of reclaimed loose aggregate salvaged from city construction sites. This equates to an estimated yearly reduction of 122,216 lbs of CO2. Significant amounts of CO2 can be reduced if recycled loose aggregate is used in place of new loose aggregate. Asphalt The calculations for asphalt are presented in Appendix C. Note that the results of this analysis are only as accurate as the initial carbon coefficient values entered in (Table 5-3). The long term goal is to obtain local carbon coefficients from manufacturers in order to select between 11 manufacturers. For the purpose of this analysis, several reputable sources were selected to highlight the process. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Carbon to dollar comparison of asphalt Published Carbon Coefficient Source Carbon to Dollar Comparison (using 2018 data) lb CO2 / lb asphalt $ / lb CO2 lb CO2 / $ 19.6 [16] $0.002 626.93 0.285 [17 $0.110 9.12 0.0238 [18] $1.314 0.76 Each of the above published carbon coefficients produce a significantly different value, resulting in high uncertainty. While some of the above coefficients produce a total embedded carbon value similar in magnitude to concrete, other sources differ by several factors of magnitude. Furthermore, the above values should not be taken as fact, but rather as a starting point and initial benchmark for future obtained carbon coefficients. One accurate aspect of this analysis, which can be taken at face value, is the breakdown of the contribution of each asphalt ingredient to the total embedded carbon. Figure 5-2 compares the contribution of each raw material to the total volume and embedded carbon of asphalt. (See Table C-1 in Appendix C [16, 18] for values used in the figure). Figure 5-2: Contribution of raw materials to volume and embedded carbon of one unit of asphalt The majority of the associated carbon emissions is from the binder material. Although the binder only contributes to 5% of the total weight of asphalt, the CO2 coefficient of the binder is approximately 160 times that of aggregate. There is an opportunity to increase the sustainability of asphalt with alternative binders or by using processes which decrease the 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Contribtuion to Embedded Carbon Contribution to Volume of Apshalt Bituminous binder Aggregate 12 associated carbon emissions from binder production. However, any alternative binder material must meet strength requirements set by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Pipes To evaluate the total CO2 produced by various pipe types in the City of Edina in 2018, the CO2 per linear foot of each pipe type was calculated, taking into consideration the different pipe diameters used. Examples of these calculations, considering a 12 inch diameter, are shown in Appendix D.1 [6, 25-35]. These calculations gave the results shown in Figure 5-3 below. Figure 5-3 : Total CO2 produced by the City of Edina in 2018, by pipe type The total carbon produced is greatest for CIPP, followed by Ductile Iron, RCP, HDPE, and PVC. Note that this is not an accurate representation of each pipe’s carbon intensity, or pounds of CO2 per linear foot of pipe, as the quantity of material used is not considered. For example, although CIPP produced the most emissions, it is not necessarily the most carbon intensive since a significant amount more of CIPP was used. This does however give a good gauge on the total CO2 produced from each pipe type by the City of Edina in 2018, showing which pipe types are responsible for the majority of the CO2 produced. A standardized pipe size allows for a direct comparison across the top 5 pipe types in terms of the pounds of CO2 per linear foot of pipe manufactured. The results of this comparison, considering a 12” diameter for each pipe type, are shown in Figure 5-4 below. 13 Figure 5-4: The CO2 per linear foot of each pipe type with a 12” diameter From the results shown in Figure 5-4, final conclusions were made as far as which pipes are more or less carbon intensive in terms of pounds of CO2 per linear foot. Ductile Iron pipes should be avoided as much as possible because they have the highest CO2 per linear foot of pipe. As Ductile Iron pipe is commonly used for water transport, it can be replaced with HDPE or PVC to achieve lower carbon emissions. Although CIPP produces the second most CO2 per linear foot and does not appear to be the best option, it is widely known as one of the most sustainable material solutions. This is due to the fact that CIPP is used as a trenchless rehabilitation method used to repair existing pipelines. The installation of CIPP normally extends the life span of existing pipes by 50 years or more while avoiding the carbon intensive aspects of a full pipe repair such as concrete or asphalt cutting, trenching, removal of the existing pipe, installation of the new pipe, and concrete or asphalt repair. This is where the full life cycle analysis will be crucial in the final decision as to which pipe types should be selected to reduce future carbon emissions in construction projects. Pipe values such as the dimensions, density, and carbon intensity vary from source to source, creating uncertainty in the calculations. The sources and values found and used in this analysis are shown in Appendix D.2 [6, 36-43]. Error can be attributed to the differences in the manufacturing processes that are considered by each source as well as the specific material composition used in the manufacturing process. To accommodate for these sources of error, a carbon calculator for each pipe type was provided to the City of Edina. The calculator allows the user to modify inputs, such as the carbon coefficient and density, in order to yield more accurate results as more reliable inputs become available. 14 Carbon Benchmark A summary of the total Carbon emitted in 2018 is provided in Table 5-4. This table can be used as a benchmark for future years to compare the reduction in carbon emissions. As the City of Edina implements more sustainable practices, they can expect to see a decrease in the yearly CO2 emissions within each sector. Table 5-4: Total CO2 emissions from 2018 construction projects involving concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and various pipe materials. Material Amount of material used in 2018 CO2 emissions produced in 2018 [lb CO2] Concrete 10,280,731 lb 1,853,221 Aggregate (Loose) 117,136,620 lb 320,367 Asphalt 25,152,562 lb 7,168,480 CIPP 15,000 LF 486,732 RCP 2,926 LF 201,299 Ductile Iron 2,653 LF 158,355 HDPE 13,133 LF 52,989 PVC 1,701 LF 22,687 Total 9,614,298 Note that the above table should not be used to compare construction materials categories as the underlying assumptions differ between sources (i.e. concrete and asphalt should not be compared, but individual pipe materials can be compared). 15 6 Future Studies Next Steps This report paved the way for future research on sustainable construction materials in the City of Edina. However, significant work is needed to fully and accurately characterize the materials discussed in this report. The following actions are recommended next: 1. Ask manufacturers for localized data on carbon emissions. Localized values for embedded carbon will produce reliable data that the City of Edina can use to begin making significant reductions in CO2. This would allow for a more accurate prioritization of material replacements and an accurate comparison between asphalt and concrete for road surfaces. 2. Estimate the contribution to the total embedded carbon for each part of the material life cycle (transportation, maintenance, and demolition). This may include suggestions in section 6.2 below. 3. Compare options and trade-offs within each material. What are the most optimal combinations of sustainable alternatives in terms of cost, maintenance, and demolition? For example, while some binder alternatives may reduce the embedded carbon, they will also likely reduce the strength and lifetime of the material. 4. Develop methods to incentivize the optimal sustainable solutions detected from the previous step. For example, give preference to local manufacturers when bidding projects or utilize a weighted ranking system for selecting materials, with a heavier weight on carbon than monetary cost. The following section elaborates on specific areas of research which may assist in performing the above tasks. Future Research Many sustainable solutions were identified throughout the course of this investigation. Not every idea could be investigated within the scope and schedule of this report. The following topics showed promise for reducing carbon emissions. It is recommended that the City conducts further research in these areas to meet their goal of 80% GHG reduction by 2050. Incorporating Manufacturer By-products in Projects Many manufacturing processes create by-products as a secondary result from synthesizing the desired material. The formation of by-products wastes raw materials, but they are inevitably produced during the energy intensive manufacturing process. The city is advised to investigate byproducts that can replace traditional construction materials. Implementing these changes would increase the ISI score for the Envision Leadership category, section LD2.1- Pursue By- product Synergy Opportunities. 16 Extend Lifespan Performing maintenance at optimal times on infrastructure such as bridges and roads has proven to increase their lifespan. Research can be done to schedule maintenance that will lengthen the longevity of structures. Scheduling maintenance at a frequency that will most extend the lifespan could reduce the number of replacements and financially benefit the city long term. Implementing these changes would increase the ISI score for the Envision Leadership category, section LD3.1- Plan for Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance. Effects of Transportation Distance Transportation of materials to job sites adds to the material’s embodied carbon. Decreasing the distance from manufacturer locations to job sites lowers emissions from vehicles. Quantifying the portion of a material's embodied carbon attributed to transportation is advised to assess the efficiency (cost, time, and carbon emissions) of using manufacturers located close to the site. Implementing these changes would increase the ISI score for the Envision Resources category, section RA1.4- Use Regional Materials. Road Surface Effect on Gas Efficiency Asphalt and concrete are the two most used materials for road surfaces. Different textures promote gas efficiency by reducing friction between road and tires. Comparing CO2 emission reductions for cars on various surfaces could impact future road design choices. Deconstruction for Reuse Deconstruction is the process of salvaging components for reuse and recycling after a structure is disassembled [20]. Deconstruction is an alternative to demolition and disposal that significantly reduces waste. Encouraging careful deconstruction maximizes the recovery of materials, reduces the need for raw materials, and diverts demolition debris from landfills. The process can be complicated and time consuming; additionally, certain materials are more ideal for recovery than others. For the city’s sustainable mission, it is advised to design for disassembly and assess what factors make materials more easily reused and recycled. Implementing these changes would increase the ISI score for the Envision Resources category, RA1.7- Provide for Deconstruction and Recycling. Effects of Disposal Construction materials are disposed of in various ways, and most materials that are not recycled end up in landfills [21]. Different materials degrade at various rates and generate various amounts of CO2. Further exploration can be conducted to characterize which materials produce the most CO2 while degrading in landfills. The Waste Reduction Hierarchy places “reducing materials” as the most important step for reducing CO2 emissions from materials followed by reuse, recycle, recovery, and safe disposal [22]. Thinking about this hierarchy is beneficial when prioritizing possible decarbonization 17 routes. Implementing these changes would increase the ISI score for the Envision Resources category, section RA1.5- Divert Waste from Landfills. Absorption of CO2 Certain materials like concrete and wood had been proven to absorb CO2 throughout their lifespan which may offset the carbon footprint associated with manufacturing. 7 Summary Sustainability is often thought of as a goal to be met in the future. Those goals will not be met unless sustainable measures are implemented in the present. The City of Edina takes sustainability seriously and aims high to see an 80% reduction of their current greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. One sector that has proven to be difficult to sustainably improve for Edina is construction, which scored low on the ISI rating system. Construction is a vital component of keeping the city safe and efficient, especially as infrastructure ages and the population continues to grow. Construction is notoriously unsustainable, with the lifecycle of the materials used sporting high embodied carbon values. However, significant research has shown that there are sustainable options in construction that are safe and can lower the embedded carbon. In addition to using sustainable materials, other measures can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributed to the transportation, maintenance, and disposal lifecycle phases. In this report, Sustainable Integrations presented Edina with a roadmap to quantify the amount of carbon attributed with several high-use construction materials. The top four budget construction materials in 2018 were concrete, aggregate, asphalt, and pipes. The five pipe types included: Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC), High-Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE), Cured-In- Place Pipe (CIPP), Reinforced Concrete Pipe, and Ductile Iron. We focused exclusively on determining the embedded carbon through a cradle-to-gate assessment. By providing Edina with carbon coefficients of these four materials and a method of calculating the specific embedded carbon for each material, the city can make more informed choices where feasible. Through our research, Sustainable Integrations established that the binder in concrete and asphalt contained the highest embedded carbon. While asphalt binder only contributes to 5% of the total weight of asphalt, the carbon coefficient of the binder is approximately 160 times that of aggregate. Portland cement, the binder in concrete, only contributes a small portion of the concrete mix but has a significantly high carbon coefficient. Alternatives to Portland cement, such as fly ash and blast furnace slag, can decrease the embedded carbon of concrete significantly. We recommend future research regarding the effect of alternative binders in concrete and asphalt in their life cycles. Regarding pipe materials, HDPE pipe is the most sustainable alternative in terms of embedded carbon. It is recommended to use HDPE installations where applicable, in above and below ground water, gas, sewage, and wastewater pipelines. Ductile iron has the highest embedded carbon for pipe; therefore, it is advised to limit new installations. Ductile Iron pipe is commonly used for water transport and can be replaced with HDPE or PVC to achieve lower carbon emissions. 18 During the process of finding the four construction materials, researching their carbon coefficients, and calculating their embedded carbon, Sustainable Integrations compiled all the calculations and coefficients into a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet can be used by city engineers and other employees to gain insight on how much embedded carbon future projects could contain. The embedded carbon calculator spreadsheet was created as a tool to aid Edina in meeting its sustainability goals in the years to come. While more research is needed to fully characterize sustainable solutions, Edina now has the advantage of knowing the embedded carbon of their construction materials. This information can help Edina formulate policy surrounding sustainable construction practices and eventually be polished to be incorporated within specifications and bidding contracts. 19 8 References [1] Wang, T., “U.S. Public Construction - Statistics & Facts,” Statista, September 2, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/topics/1256/public-construction/. [Accessed: April 12, 2020]. [2] M. Grant, “Understanding Sustainability,” Investopedia. April 5, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sustainability.asp [Accessed: April 5, 2020]. [3] NASA Conceptual Image Lab. “Greenhouse Gases Effect on Global Warming,” NASA, September 7, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/20114 [Accessed: March 10, 2020]. [4] NASA, “Overview: Weather, Global Warming and Climate Change,” NASA. [Online]. Available: https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming-vs-climate-change/ [Accessed: March 10, 2020]. [5] “New report: the building and construction sector can reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050,” World Green Building Council, September 23, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/WorldGBC-embodied-carbon-report- published [Accessed: February 5, 2020]. [6] A. Alsadi. “Evaluation of Carbon Footprint During the Life-Cycle of Four Different Pipe Materials” Louisiana Tech University. Dissertation 37, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.latech.edu/dissertations/37 [Accessed: March 10, 2020]. [7] “Life Cycle Analysis,” The Environmental Literacy Council. [Online]. Available: https://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/life-cycle-analysis/ [Accessed: April 5, 2020]. [8] L. Albeck-Ripka, “How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint,” The New York Times, [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to- reduce-your-carbon-footprint [Accessed: March 10, 2020]. [9] Circular Ecology, “Glossary of Terms- Circular Ecology,” Circular Ecology. [Online]. Available: https://www.circularecology.com/glossary-of-terms-and- definitions.html#.XpPF_C2ZOu4. [Accessed: April 13, 2020]. 20 [10] U.S. Census Bureau. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Edina city, Minnesota,” U.S. Census Bureau. [Online]. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/edinacityminnesota [Accessed: March 1, 2020]. [11] Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. “A Ranking System for Sustainable Infrastructure,” Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. Envision, v. 2, 2012. [12] Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. “Envision Sustainability Self - Assessment of City Road Projects,” December 2015. [13] T. García-Segura, V. Yepes & J. Alcalá. “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of blended cement concrete including carbonation and durability.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(1), 3–12. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0614-0, 2013 [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11367-013-0614-0 [Accessed: February 15, 2020]. [14] S. H. Smith and S. A. Durham, “A cradle to gate LCA framework for emissions and energy reduction in concrete pavement mixture design,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 23–33, 2016. [Online]. [Accessed: March 10, 2020]. [15] T. Hong, C. Ji, and H. Park, “Integrated model for assessing the cost and CO2 emission (IMACC) for sustainable structural design in ready-mix concrete,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 103, pp. 1–8, 2012. [Online]. [Accessed: March 10, 2020]. [16] Emerald Eco Label, “An Environmental Product Declaration for Asphalt Mixtures,” Environmental Product Declaration 14.20.67 v10, March 3, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://asphaltepd.org/published/epd/67/ [Accessed: February 27, 2020]. [17] J. Chehovits, L. Galehouse, “Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Pavement Preservation Processes for Asphalt Concrete Pavements,” Compendium of Papers from the First International Conference on Pavement Preservation. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/657850209.pdf [Accessed March 12, 2020]. [18] L.P. Thives, E. Ghis, “Asphalt mixtures emission and energy consumption: A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72 (2017) 473-484, 2017. [Online] Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.087 [Accessed: April 2, 2020]. 21 [19] Federal Highway Administration, “Pavements,” Federal Highway Administration. June 27, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Pavement/recycling/fach01.cfm [Accessed: February 9, 2020]. [20] Urban Sustainability Directors Network, “Encouraging and Mandating Building Deconstruction,” Urban Sustainability Directors Network. [Online]. Available: https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/initiatives-list/encouraging-and-mandating- building-deconstruction [Accessed: March 14, 2020]. [21] Environmental Protection Agency, “Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials,” Environmental Protection Agency, November 13, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and- demolition-materials [Accessed: February 22, 2020]. [22] Environmental Protection Agency, “Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy,” Environmental Protection Agency, August 17, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management- non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy [Accessed: March 20, 2020]. [23] S. M. Dumne, “Effect of Superplasticizer on Fresh and Hardened Properties of Self- Compacting Concrete Containing Fly Ash,” American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 205–2011, 2014. [Online]. [Accessed: March 5, 2020]. [24] S. H. Kosmatka and M. L. Wilson, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 2017. [Online]. [Accessed: March 5, 2020]. [25] PVC Fittings Online, “PVC Pipe Dimensions ⅛” through 24”” , September 25, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.pvcfittingsonline.com/resource-center/pvc-pipe-dimensions-18-through-24/ [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [26] N. Narita, M. Sagisaka, A. Inaba, “Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of CO2 Emissions Manufacturing Commodity Plastics in Japan”, September, 2002. [Online] Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02978888 . [Accessed: March 25, 2020] [27] “HDPE Pipe Reference,” HDPE Pipe. [Online]. Available: https://www.petersenproducts.com/HDPE-Pipe-s/1983.htm. [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [28] “High-density polyethylene,” Wikipedia, 14-Feb-2020. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_polyethylene. [March 25, 2020]. 22 [29] “Environmental Technical Brief: HDPE,” Environmental Technical Brief: HDPE - Dordan Manufacturing. [Online]. Available: https://info.dordan.com/hs-fs/hub/194012/file- 19954038-pdf/docs/environmental_tech_brief_hdpe.pdf. [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [30] “Liners,” Fast Pipe Lining, Inc. [Online]. Available: https://fastpipelining.com/liners/. [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [31] “12’, 15’, 18’, 24’, 30’ Diameter Reinforced Concrete ‘B’ Wall Pipe,” Reinforced Concrete Pipe, 11-Feb-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.jensenprecast.com/Reinforced- Concrete-Pipe/Concrete-Pipe-p14510/. [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [32] “15’ Dia. Round Reinforced Concrete Pipe,” Oldcastle Infrastructure, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://oldcastleinfrastructure.com/product/15-dia-round-reinforced-concrete- pipe/. [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [33] “Emission Factors of Construction Materials,” Supplementary Information - MDPI, 2015. [Online]. Available: www.mdpi.com. [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [34] Standard Dimensions. [Online]. Available: https://american-usa.com/products/ductile-iron- pipe-and-fittings/fabricated-items/wall-pipe/standard-dimensions. [Accessed: March 25, 2020 [35] The Density of Ductile Iron. [Online]. Available: http://www.iron-foundry.com/ductile-iron- density.html. [Accessed: March 25, 2020]. [36] “Water Treatment Solutions,” Lenntech Water treatment & purification. [Online]. Available: https://www.lenntech.com/polyvinyl-chloride-pvc.htm. [Accessed: April 29, 2020]. [37] “Amounts of CO2 Released When Making & Using Products,” CO2List.org. [Online]. Available: http://www. CO2list.org/files/carbon.htm. [Accessed: April 29, 2020]. [38] J. M. Baldasano Recio, “Estimate of energy consumption and CO2 emission associated with the production, use and final disposal of PVC, HDPE, PP, ductile iron and concrete pipes,” CO2 Emissions - Spending Smarter, 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.spendingsmarter.ca/assets/life_cycle_analysis.pdf. [Accessed: March 15, 2020]. [39] “Welcome to the British Precast Drainage Association (BPDA),” British Precast Drainage Association | Concrete Pipes | BPDA. [Online]. Available: https://www.precastdrainage.co.uk/. [Accessed: April 30, 2020]. 23 [40] “Flotation of Circular Concrete Pipe,” Design Data 22 - American Concrete Pipe Association, 11-Dec-2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.concretepipe.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/DD_22.pdf. [Accessed: April 15, 2020]. [41] M. Meinshausen, “The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300,” Research Gate, Nov-2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229032271_The_RCP_greenhouse_gas_conce ntrations_and_their_extensions_from_1765_to_2300. [Accessed: March 15, 2020]. [42] V. Fthenakis, “Ecoinvent Database,” Ecoinvent Database - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ecoinvent-database. [Accessed: April 29, 2020]. [43] “Ductile Iron Through-Wall Pipe,” Manufacturers, Suppliers, Exporters & Importers from the world's largest online B2B marketplace-Alibaba.com. [Online]. Available: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Ductile-Iron-Through-wall-Pipe- Flange_60237561129.html. [Accessed: April 29, 2020]. 24 Appendix A- MnDOT Curb and Gutter Drawings When calculating the volume of concrete used by Edina in 2018, the data provided quantified concrete in various units. One unit used was linear feet (LF). Items with units of LF are MnDOT curbs and gutters: B618, D412, and Surmountable (Figure A1). To find the volume of concrete, the cross-sectional area of the specified designs were multiplied by the LF. Figure A-1: MnDOT Curb and Gutter Designs 25 Appendix B - Additional Information for Concrete & Aggregate B.1 Calculations Calculating the embedded carbon of concrete and loose aggregate involved two main parts. The first part involved converting units used within the 2018 Quantities spreadsheet to a single volume unit. The second part involved finding the weights of each individual material and then multiplying that weight by the appropriate carbon coefficient. The following tables (Tables B-1& B-2) show how data was presented in the 2018 Quantities spreadsheet, and the calculations needed to find the volume of concrete. Table B-1: SF concrete calculations Rows from actual spreadsheet SF Item Description Quantities Used Volume (ft3) BA-445 4-INCH CONCRETE WALK 2 0.67 Description of Column Unit Used (ft2) Depth of concrete is 4 inches 2 quantities of unit, so 2 Square feet Multiply “Quantities Used” by Depth provided “Item Description” Calculations ሺʹ݂ݐଶሻሺͶ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏሻ ൬ ͳ݂ݐ ͳʹ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ൰ ൌ ͲǤ͸͹݂ݐ ଷ Table B-2: SY concrete calculations Rows from actual spreadsheet SY Item Description Quantities Used Volume (ft3) BA-445 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 49 220.5 Description of Column Unit Used (yd2) Depth of concrete is 6 inches 49 quantities of unit, so 49 Square yards Multiply “Quantities Used” by Depth provided “Item Description” Calculations ሺͶͻݕ݀ଶሻ ቆͻ݂ݐଶ ͳݕ݀ଶቇ ሺ͸݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏሻ ൬ ͳ݂ݐ ͳʹ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ൰ ൌ ʹʹͲǤͷ݂ݐ ଷ 26 Loose aggregate quantities were provided in the same style in the spreadsheet as concrete. Loose aggregates were given in units of cubic yards and tons. For cubic yards, loose aggregate was multiplied by a combined bulk aggregate density of 104 lb/ft3, and then converted to tons by dividing the weight by 2000 lbs. The second part of the calculations involved finding the individual weights of the different raw materials that make up concrete and loose aggregate. Concrete is composed of portland cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, water, and various admixtures. Water and various admixtures were not considered in these calculations due to their low contribution overall to the embedded carbon of concrete. A standard M20 concrete mix ratio of 1 part cement to 1.5 parts fine aggregate to 3 parts coarse aggregate was assumed. This ratio is then used to determine the volume of the mix material within the overall volume of concrete. This ratio was then multiplied by a safety factor of 1.54. This safety factor accounts for the approximately 50% increase in volume from wet to dry concrete. Once a volume is obtained, the volume is multiplied by the mix material’s bulk density (Table B-3) to obtain the weight of each mix material. The weight is multiplied by the respective carbon coefficient (unique to each mix material) to obtain lbs of CO2. Carbon coefficients are provided in the analysis portion of the report. Example, calculate the lbs of CO2 contributed by portland cement in 100 ft3 of concrete: 1:1.5:3 concrete mix ratio, total concrete mix ratio of 5.5 1 part cement, so ଵ ହǤହ כ ͳǤͷͶ כ ͳͲͲ݂ݐ ଷܿ݋݊ܿݎ݁ݐ݁ ൌ ʹͺ݂ݐ ଷ݌݋ݎݐ݈ܽ݊݀ܿ݁݉݁݊ݐ ʹͺ݂ݐଷ݌݋ݎݐ݈ܽ݊݀ܿ݁݉݁݊ݐ כ ͻ͵Ǥ͸Ͷ ݈ܾ ݂ݐଷ ൌ ʹǡ͸ʹʹ݈ܾݏ݌݋ݎݐ݈ܽ݊݀ܿ݁݉݁݊ݐ ʹǡ͸ʹʹ݈ܾ݌݋ݎݐ݈ܽ݊݀ܿ݁݉݁݊ݐ כ ͲǤͻͶͻ͹ ݈ܾܥܱଶ ݈ܾ݌݋ݎݐ݈ܽ݊݀ܿ݁݉݁݊ݐ ൌ ʹǡͶͻͲ݈ܾܥܱଶ In order to find the weight of each mix material within concrete, the bulk density of each mix material must be used. Bulk densities of the mix materials are provided in Table B-3: Table B-3: Bulk Densities of Mix Materials Units are lb material/ft3 Source: [23], [24] Cement Fine Aggregate (Sand) Coarse Aggregate Blast Furnace Slag Fly Ash 93.64 105 103 76 70 For determining the lbs of CO2 from loose aggregates, once the quantity of loose aggregate is calculated in tons, the percentage of coarse and fine aggregates that make up the total loose aggregate must be considered. Even though the same bulk density can be used for coarse and fine aggregate, the carbon coefficients are unique to each type of aggregate. For calculating the 27 total CO2 emitted by construction materials used by Edina in 2018, an 50/50 ratio was assumed. Meaning, loose aggregate was assumed to be composed of 50% fine aggregate (sand) by weight and 50% coarse aggregate by weight. Multiplying the total loose aggregate by the respective percentage gives the weight of the respective aggregate type. The weight is multiplied by the respective carbon coefficient to obtain lbs of CO2. Carbon coefficients are provided in the analysis portion of the report. Example, calculate the lbs of CO2 contributed by fine aggregate in 10 tons of loose aggregate: ͳͲݐ݋݊ݏ݈݋݋ݏ݁ܽ݃݃ݎ݁݃ܽݐ݁ כ ͲǤͷ݌݁ݎܿ݁݊ݐ݂ܽ݃݁݅݊݁ݏ ൌ ͷݐ݋݊ݏ݂݅݊݁ܽ݃݃ݎ݁݃ܽݐ݁ݏ ͷݐ݋݊ݏ כ ʹͲͲͲ݈ܾݏ ͳݐ݋݊ ൌ ͳͲǡͲͲͲ݈ܾݏ݂݅݊݁ܽ݃݃ݎ݁݃ܽݐ݁ ͳͲǡͲͲͲ݈ܾ݂݅݊݁ܽ݃݃ݎ݁݃ܽݐ݁ݏ כ ͲǤͲͲ͵ʹ͵ ݈ܾܥܱଶ ݈ܾ݌݋ݎݐ݈ܽ݊݀ܿ݁݉݁݊ݐ ൌ͵ʹǤ͵݈ܾܥܱଶ The same carbon coefficients used for coarse and fine aggregates in concrete were used for loose aggregate. This is because the coarse and fine aggregates used in concrete are defined as loose aggregates until they are incorporated into the concrete mix. It is assumed there is negligible change, especially when only considering the fabrication portion of the material life cycle. 28 Appendix C - Additional Information for Asphalt C.1 Calculations This section describes the basic calculations used to produce the asphalt tab of the Embedded Carbon Calculator Spreadsheet. The following assumptions apply to the calculation: x Any sort of support material, such as steel bars or wood frames were not included in these calculations. x CO2 was calculated in pounds (lb) of CO2 per ton of material, and the CO2 of the two materials in asphalt, binder (bituminous) and aggregate. x The density of asphalt is assumed to be 145 lb/ft3, x The carbon coefficient from source [16] is used, 19.6 lb CO2 per lb asphalt. For this sample calculation, a 6-inch-deep, 3-foot-wide, 6-yard-long piece of sidewalk will be laid. This equates to 1 cubic yard. This process can be repeated by simply replacing the constant, 19.6 lb CO2/lb asphalt with a different value. Three values are provided in the spreadsheet tool. The final quantity of CO2 produced varies greatly depending on the source used for the initial carbon coefficient. This can be attributed to varied initial assumptions, errors in analysis, and the use of different material components. Table C-1 displays the breakdown of carbon emissions for each component in asphalt [18]. Although the specific values in the table are from one source, which may or may not be used in the future, the ratio between values is consistent and can be used regardless of the initial carbon coefficient selected. Table C-1: Breakdown of carbon emissions of asphalt components [18] Component % Weight lb CO2 / lb material lb CO2 from component Total lb CO2 / lb asphalt Aggregate 0.95 0.0026 0.0025 0.0238 Asphalt cement (binder) 0.05 0.426 0.0213 29 Appendix D - Additional Information for Pipe D.1 Calculations As mentioned in the pipe methodology, Quantifying the CO2 per linear foot of each pipe type, considering a 12” diameter, allowed for a direct comparison between each pipe type. Step-by- step CO2 calculation summary tables are shown below. D.1.1 PVC The following table summarizes the calculations completed to determine and standardize the CO2 emissions produced per linear foot of 12” diameter PVC pipe. Table D-1: 12 inch Diameter PVC CO2 Calculation Summary Line Number Value Description Values Calculation By Line Number (If Applicable) References 1 Nominal Pipe Size [in] 12 2 Outter Diameter [in] 12.75 [25] 3 Inside Diameter [in] 11.889 [25] 4 Thickness [in] 0.861 2 - 3 5 Cross Sectional Area [in2] 16.662 6 Volume Per Linear Foot [in3] 199.939 7 Density [lb/in3] 0.0524 [6] 8 Total Weight Per Foot [lb] 10.477 6 x 7 9 CO2 [kg CO2/kg PVC] 1.7 [26] 10 Total CO2 [lb CO2/Linear ft PVC] 17.811 8 x 9 30 D.1.2 HDPE The following table summarizes the calculations completed to determine and standardize the CO2 emissions produced per linear foot of 12” diameter HDPE pipe. Table D-2: 12 inch Diameter HDPE CO2 Calculation Summary Line Number Value Description Values Calculation By Line Number (If Applicable) References 1 Nominal Pipe Size 12 2 Outer Diameter [in] 12.75 [27] 3 Thickness [in] 1.159 [27] 4 Cross Sectional Area [in2] 22.157 5 Cross Sectional Area [ft2] 0.154 6 Density [lb/in3] 0.034 [28] 7 Volume Per Linear foot [in3] 265.884 8 Total Weight [lb] 9.029 6 x 7 9 CO2 [kg CO2/kg HDPE] 1.478 [29] 10 Total CO2 [lb CO2/Linear ft HDPE] 13.345 8 x 10 D.1.3 CIPP The following table summarizes the calculations completed to determine and standardize the CO2 emissions produced per linear foot of 12” diameter CIPP pipe. Table D-3: 12 inch Diameter CIPP CO2 Calculation Summary Line Number Value Description Values Calculation By Line Number (If Applicable) References 1 Outer Diameter [in] 12 2 Thickness 0.3543 [30] 3 Cross Sectional Area [in2] 6.580 4 Volume [in3] Per Linear Foot 78.958 5 Total Weight [lb] Per Linear Foot 3.454 4 x 6 6 Total Density 0.0437 [6] 7 CO2 [lb CO2/lb CIPP] 16.917 [6] 8 Total CO2 [lb CO2/Linear ft CIPP] 58.434 5 x 7 31 D.1.4 RCP The following table summarizes the calculations completed to determine and standardize the CO2 emissions produced per linear foot of 12” diameter RCP pipe. Table D-4: 12 inch Diameter RCP CO2 Calculation Summary Line Number Value Description Values Calculation By Line Number (If Applicable) References 1 Outer Diameter [in] 12 2 Wall Thickness [in] 2 [31] 3 Density [kg/ft^3] 175.75 [32] 4 Cross-sectional Area [in2] 34.557 5 Cross-sectional Area [ft2] 0.240 6 Volume per linear ft [ft3] 0.240 7 Total Weight Per Linear ft [kg] 42.177 6 x 3 [32] 8 CO2 [kg CO2/kg RCP] 0.153 [33] 9 Total CO2 [kg CO2/linear ft RCP] 6.453 7 x 8 10 Total CO2 [lb CO2/linear ft RCP] 14.227 D.1.5 Ductile Iron The following table summarizes the calculations completed to determine and standardize the CO2 emissions produced per linear foot of 12” diameter Ductile Iron pipe. Table D-5: 12 inch Diameter Ductile Iron CO2 Calculation Summary Line Number Value Description Values Calculation By Line Number (If Applicable) References 1 Outter Diameter [in] 12 2 Wall Thickness [in] 0.4 [34] 3 Cross-Sectional Area [in2] 7.414 4 Cross-Sectional Area [ft2] 0.051 5 Volume [ft3] Per Linear Foot 0.051 6 Density [lb/ft3] 455.72 [35] 7 Weight [lb] Per Linear Foot 23.464 5 x 6 8 Embedded Carbon [lb CO2/lb] 2.7 [33] 9 Total CO2 [lb CO2/linear ft Ductile Iron Pipe] 63.352 7 x 8 32 D.2 Pipe Values and Sources As mentioned in the pipe analysis, section 5.4, uncertainty is present for pipe calculations largely due to pipe values such as density and carbon intensity or pounds of CO2 per pound of pipe varying from source to source. To accommodate for this error, carbon calculators were provided to the City of Edina that currently are using the values highlighted green in the tables below to calculate the desired coefficient of pounds of CO2 per linear foot of pipe. As these values become more standardized and other sources are found, new values can be added to these tables for comparison and substituted into the carbon calculators to achieve a more accurate result. D.2.1 PVC Table D-6: PVC Primary Values and References PVC Density [lb/in3] Reference CO2 Factor [lb CO2/lb PVC] Reference Source 1 0.0524 [6] 4.86 [28] Source 2 0.05 [36] 1.7 [26] Source 3 4.4 [37] D.2.2 HDPE Table D-7: HDPE Primary Values and References HDPE Density [lb/in3] Reference CO2 Factor [lb CO2/lb HDPE] Reference Source 1 0.03486 [6] 1.478 [29] Source 2 0.03396 [28] 1.99 [38] Source 3 2.97 [39] Source 4 2.52 [33] Source 5 2 [37] D.2.3 CIPP Table D-8: CIPP Primary Values and References CIPP Density [lb/in3] Reference CO2 Factor [lb CO2/lb CIPP] Reference Source 1 0.0437 [6] 16.917 [6] 33 D.2.4 RCP Table D-9: RCP Primary Values and References RCP Density [kg/ft3] Reference CO2 Factor [lb CO2/lb RCP] Reference Source 1 175.75 [32] 0.48 [6] Source 2 145.8 [40] 0.113 [41] Source 3 0.148 [28] Source 4 0.147 [39] Source 5 0.153 [33] Source 6 0.12 [42] D.2.5 Ductile Iron Table D-10: Ductile Iron Primary Values and References Ductile Iron Density [lb/ft3] Reference CO2 Factor [lb CO2/lb Ductile Iron] Reference Source 1 455.72 [35] 2.7 [33] Source 2 437 [43] 1.43 [28] Source 3 2.55 [38] 34 Appendix E - Schedule and Budget At the beginning of this project a schedule and budget was created that estimated the hours each task would require to be completed. Figures E-1 shows the difference between cumulative planned hours and actual project hours spent over the course of the project on a weekly basis. Figure E-2 Figure E-1: Total planned hours compared to actual project hours spent Figure E-2: Percent completion of each task Table E-1 gives more detail on the budget with total hours planned, actual time, and cost associated with each project task. 35 Table E-1: Project Budget with associated time and cost of each task. Project Task Projected time expenditure (hrs) Projected cost Responsible team member(s) Actual time expenditure (hrs) Actual cost Project Plan (PP) 15.0 $1,125.00 ALL 23.0 $1,725.00 Meet with Mentor(s) 36.0 $2,700.00 ALL 44.3 $3,318.75 Biweekly Project Reports 25.0 $1,875.00 ALL 34.3 $2,568.75 Report 1st Draft 36.0 $2,700.00 ALL 53 $3,975.00 Report 2nd Draft 38.0 $2,850.00 ALL 26.0 $1,950.00 Final Report 38.0 $2,850.00 ALL 81.5 $6,112.50 Midterm Presentation 32.0 $2,400.00 ALL 34.5 $2,587.50 Final Presentation 49.0 $3,675.00 ALL 46.0 $3,450.00 Task #1: ISI Category Review 36.0 $2,700.00 ALL 12.0 $900.00 Task #2: Carbon Analysis 61.0 $4,575.00 Tasha, Jim, Celina 71.5 $5,362.50 Task #3: Reserach Alternatives 90.0 $6,750.00 Tasha, Jim, Celina 3.5 $262.50 Task #4: Consult Experts 40.0 $3,000.00 Jamie 3.5 $262.50 Task #5: Specification Writing 50.0 $3,750.00 None 0.0 $0.00 Task #6: Life Cycle Analysis 68.0 $5,100.00 ALL 0.0 $0.00 Task #7: Cost Analysis 70.0 $5,250.00 Celina and Tasha 22.0 $1,650.00 Task #8: Determine Standardized Reporting Methods 51.0 $3,825.00 ALL 6.0 $450.00 TOTAL 735.0 $55,125.00 461.0 $34,575.00 (Avg. Per Person) 183.75 $9,187.50 115.25 $5,762.50 Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: From:Commissioner Lanzas Item Activity: Subject:Initiative 2: Education Events Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Commissioner Jackson Item Activity: Subject:Initiative 5: PARC Initiative Feedback Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve memorandum to send to PARC. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Recommendations from EEC to PARC MEMORANDUM To: Edina Parks and Recreation Commission From: Edina Energy and Environment Commission Date: September 10, 2020 Regarding: Incorporating sustainability into the priority for capital improvements in Edina’s Parks The Edina City Council asked the PARC to develop criteria that incorporates sustainability for prioritizing capital improvements for Edina park infrastructure. Drawing from the City’s Redevelopment Questionnaire, here are the sustainability issues we recommend that the PARC consider: 1. Sustainable Design and Energy. The City has the goal of reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2025 and 80% by 2050. The Comprehensive Plan directs the City to lead by example. a. Have you utilized Xcel Energy and/or Centerpoint Energy’s Energy Design Assistance program? b. Will the buildings meet SB2030 energy goals? Will they be Energy Star certified? If not, please share steps to support energy conservation. c. Renewable energy generation on site? d. Purchase of renewable energy credits? e. Have the buildings been sited to maximize natural light in the winter and shade in the summer? f. What is the carbon footprint of the materials used for construction? g. Have you applied for any other green building certification? (list examples) 2. Managing Water a. What percent of the property has impervious surface before the project? And after? b. What new services will be pervious? c. How will the landscaping support the natural ecosystem? (e.g. rain gardens, native plants, pollinator friendly plants) d. Is this park part of the City’s stormwater management plan? How can it be used to reduce flooding risk in the neighborhood due to climate change? e. Can foot paths and parking lots be pervious surfaces? 3. Managing Tree Canopy a. What percent of the property is covered by tree canopy before redevelopment? What percent post development? b. Will you be replanting/replacing trees at least 4 to 5 inches in diameter to positively impact the tree canopy? c. Are you planting a variety of tree cultivars? d. Are the trees part of a water management plan? Part of a shade plan? 4. Managing Waste. Hennepin County and Edina have the goals of recycling 75% of solid waste and sending zero waste to landfills by 2030. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan states that the City will take environmental actions that lead by example. a. Have you provided recycling and/or organics recycling in this location? b. If existing structures are being removed, do you plan to use green-deconstruction methods with maximum recycling of materials? c. In construction, is there a plan to minimize materials that go to landfills? 5. Sustainable Transportation a. Is there bike parking available? b. Is the park connected to bike/ped paths? Are these clearly marked and easily accessible from the park’s amenities? c. Are there ride-share designated parking places? d. Is there an opportunity for EV chargers? 6. Sustainable Education a. Does this park have opportunities for ecology education? For example, signs pointing out natural features (plants, trees, geology), access to ponds and water features, pollinator gardens. b. Are there unique horticulture features to this park, such as experimental grass, tree management, plan for reduction of invasive species? Once these questions have been answered, we recommend the following priorities: 1. Incorporating the park in question into Edina’s stormwater management plans. 2. Using design to minimize the energy footprint of the buildings in the park. 3. Designing the parking and path elements to encourage safe biking and walking and to encourage carpooling to the park. 4. Reducing the solid waste created in construction. 5. Reducing the solid waste created in operation of the park 6. Encouraging ecology educational opportunities in the park. Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.C. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Liaison Wilson Item Activity: Subject:2021 Work Plan Approval Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve proposed 2021 work plan. INTRODUCTION: Draft proposed 2021 work plan attached. City Council packet materials related to to-go-packaging and plastic bags from November 8, 2017 are attached to support the proposed 2021 work plan development discussion. The Chair will present the proposed work plan to the Council at the October 6th City Council work session. T he City Manager and staff will finalize the work plans and seek Council approval in December. The Commission officially starts implementing 2021 work plans in January of 2021. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft 2021 proposed work plan City Council packet selection_2017_11_08 Commission Work Plan Instructions Updated 2020.06.25 Instructions:  Each section with a white background should be filled out.  Do not fill out council charge. Scott will complete this section with his proposed charge to the Council.  Liaisons are responsible for completing the budget and staff support columns.  List initiatives in order of priority Initiative Type:  Project – This is a new or continued initiative.  Annual / On-going: – Initiative that is on the work plan every year.  Event - Event or awards coordinated by the commission (not City staff). Timeline: SEPT MEETINGS: Commission approves proposed work plan. Plans due to MJ September 25. OCT 6 WORK SESSION:Chairs present proposed work plan to Council. Chairs present. NOV 4 WORK SESSION: City Manager presents staff proposed revisions. Liaisons present. DEC 1 COUNCIL MEETING: City Manager incorporates council feedback and submits final draft for approval. JAN 1: Commission officially starts implementing work plans. Commission: Choose an item. 2021 Annual Work Plan Proposal Initiative # 1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and comment on Climate Action Plan during development and final plan. One Commissioner to serve on Task Force. Research tools and information for GHG emissions inventory and various routes to establish carbon neutrality in early Q1. Deliverable -Commission comments on plan at multiple stages -Task Force seat -Report on tools/info for emissions inventory and routes to establish carbon neutrality Leads H. Martinez Dakane A. Martinez Horan Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Staff Liaison (40hrs) Liaison Comments: EEC completed a Study and Report on parameters of a Climate Action Plan. Development of a Climate Action is a staff work plan item. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and comment on development of plastic bag ordinance and policy avenues. Deliverable -Commission comments Leads Dakane Horan A. Martinez Seeley Lanzas Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Staff Liaison (20hrs), Health Division (40hrs) Liaison Comments: EEC completed study and report in 2017. Staff report in 2017 about plastic bag ban noted two policy options due to state ban on outright plastic bag ban; education or fee. 2017 staff report went further to say the only action with minimal unintended consequences is education. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and comment on development of to-go packaging ordinance and policy avenues. Deliverable -Commission comments Leads Dakane Horan A. Martinez Seeley Lanzas Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Staff Liaison (20hrs), Health Division (40hrs) Liaison Comments: EEC completed study and report in 2016. Staff report in 2017 about to-go packaging ordinance recommended establishing residential organics recycling infrastructure first, which is now in place. Current resources can review policy and make recommendations. Implementation of to-go food packaging ordinances require significant resources. The 2017 report from Sustainability Coordinator noted other cities’ initial rollout and communication takes 1,500 hours of staff time in the year leading up to the ordinance change and then 800 hours of staff time for the first year of the ordinance. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☒ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and decide on commission members coordinating and tabling at City events to educate the community on organics recycling and sustainable living. Deliverable -Presence at City events and Farmer’s Markets Leads Lanzas A. Martinez Horan Seeley Target Completion Date June – September 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. Funds available, $200 for supplies and food. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Coordinator (20hrs) and Organics Recycling Coordinator (8hrs) can advise and provide materials already created. Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and comment on Green Building Policy. Deliverable - Commission comments on policy Leads Jackson H. Martinez Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Staff Liaison (16hrs) Liaison Comments: Developing a Green Building Policy is a staff work plan item. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and Comment on an enhanced tree ordinance and strategy. Deliverable - Commission comments on ordinance and strategy Leads Hussian A. Martinez Seeley Lanzas Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Forester and Assistant Director of Natural Resources (24hrs) Liaison Comments: Reviewing the tree ordinance and strategy is a staff work plan item. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 7 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and Decide on the Business Recognition Program outreach and application review. By the end of Q1, complete a program evaluation. Deliverable -Awards to successful applicants -Recognition for new and sustaining businesses -Program evaluation -Program outreach Leads Horan Dakane Jackson Target Completion Date Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Staff Liaison support to manage intake and acceptance process (16hrs), Communications to support communication updates (16hrs), Community Engagement Coordinator (8hrs). Liaison Comments: The Commission will continue outreach and review of applications for the program launched in 2019. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 8 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and Comment on Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) fund proposed Capital Improvement Plan. Deliverable - Commission comments on Capital Improvement Plan Leads Target Completion Date Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Staff Liaison (4hrs) Liaison Comments: EEC annual review of the CAS fund CIP is part of the CAS policy. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 9 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and Comment on organized trash collection. Support a cross- commission project with ETC to investigate the impacts of organized trash collection with regard to Travel Demand Management, environmental goals, and reducing wear-and-tear on City streets. Deliverable -Memos to ETC for their study and report Leads Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Staff Liaison (4hrs) Liaison Comments: Dependent on ETC lead. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Commented [A1]: Potential work plan item proposal from Edina Transportation Commission (ETC). Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Develop a program with realtors to give sellers the opportunity to showcase environmental improvements to their homes (such as insulation). Coordination with other cities on climate action. Study and report on inequities in the environmental movement. Advocating for street sweeping. Education and engagement on water initiatives like Adopt a Drain. Research enforcement of state law requiring water sensors for irrigation systems. Exploring ways of partnering with under-served/other communities to outreach/educate businesses. Community wide environmental event listening to what the community is saying. Proposed Month for Joint Work Session (one time per year, up to 30 minutes): ☐ Mar ☐ April ☐ May ☐ June ☐ July ☐ Aug ☐ Sept ☐ Oct ☐ Nov Agenda City Council Meeting City of Edina, Minnesota Edina City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday, November 8, 2017 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the City Council will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Council or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Council might refer the matter to sta) for consideration at a future meeting. V.Adoption Of Consent Agenda All agenda items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda by a Member of the City Council. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Agenda. (Favorable rollcall vote of majority of Council Members present to approve.) A.Approve Minutes Of October 17, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting B.Receive Payment of Claims As Per: Pre-List Dated 10/19/2017 TOTAL: $1,929,037.25 And Credit Card Transactions 7/24/2017- 8/25/2017 TOTAL: $51,824.40 And Per Pre-List Dated 10/26/2017 TOTAL: $1,893,758.44 And Per Pre-List Dated 11/02/2017 TOTAL: $1,282,834.40 C.Resolution No. 2017-124: Authorizing the Issuance of Special Permits for Extended Liquor Sale Hours During Super Bowl 2018 D.Ordinance No. 2017-09 & Resolution No. 2017-109: Final Rezoning, Site Plan Approval & Development Agreement for Trammell Crow at 5150 Eden Avenue E.Resolution Nos. 2017-121 and 2017- 127: Providing for the Sale of $9,480,000 G.O. Refunding CIP Bonds Series 2017C and $1,640,000 G.O. Recreational Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2017D F.Resolution No. 2017-122: France Avenue Sidewalk Cooperative Agreement G.Resolution No. 2017-123: Setting Public Improvement Hearings for Concord A and G, and West 62nd Street Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction H.Approve Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreements I.Request For Purchase: 2017 Toyota Prius J.Authorize Second Amendment to Access Agreement for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to Install Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells K.Resolution No. 2017-126: Setting Public Hearing for Lake Nancy Lake Association Request for City Coordinated Aquatic Services L.Resolution No. 2017-128: Removal of Hazardous Conditions VI.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Introduction: MN GreenCorps Member B.Report Submission: To-Go Packaging, Plastic Bag, and Residential Waste Reduction Action VII.Public Hearings During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony after City sta) members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the eGcient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary. Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A.PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Appeal, 5712 Woodland Lane, First Floor Elevation Variance, Resolution No. 2017-114 B.PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review with a Parking Stall Variance for Simon Properties to Build a Shake Shack at Southdale, Resolution No. 2017-115 C.PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Street and Utility Easement Vacation at Market Street, Resolution No. 2017-116 D.PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat for Market Street, Resolution No. 2017-125 E.PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2017-12 Amending Chapters 24 & 36 of the Edina City Code Regarding Small Cell Facilities in Public Right-Of-Way F.PUBLIC HEARING: Normandale Park D Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA-446, Resolution No. 2017- 117 G.PUBLIC HEARING: Country Club C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA-448, Resolution No. 2017- 118 H.PUBLIC HEARING: Bredesen Park A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA-450, Resolution No. 2017- 119 I.PUBLIC HEARING: Bredesen Park E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA-499, Resolution No. 2017- 120 VIII.Reports/Recommendations: (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A.Market Street: Revised Elevations to the Parking Ramp B.Updated Policy: 50th & France Employee Parking Permits 2018- 19 C.Resolution No. 2017-107: Approving Grants and Donations IX.Correspondence And Petitions A.Correspondence B.Minutes 1.Minutes: Heritage Preservation Commission, September 12, 2017 2.Minutes: Human Rights and Relations Commission Sept. 26 and Oct. 3, 2017 3.Minutes: Transportation Commission, September 28, 2017 4.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission, September 14, 2017 X.Aviation Noise Update XI.Mayor And Council Comments XII.Manager's Comments XIII.Schedule of Meetings and Events as of November 8, 2017 XIV.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampliJcation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: November 8, 2017 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Tara Brown, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Report Submission: To-Go Packaging, Plastic Bag, and Residential Waste Reduction Action Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Energy & Environment Commission’s 2017 Work Plan included three initiatives around waste reduction: Initiative 1: Study and Report on proposal to ban Styrofoam food packaging materials in Edina. Council gave a ‘Charge 1: Study and Report’ to this initiative. Initiative 2: Study and report on the advisability of implementing a ban on the use of plastic bags, similar in scope to the ban recently adopted in the City of Minneapolis, in the City of Edina. Council gave a ‘Charge 1: Study and Report’ to this initiative. Initiative 7: Review and make a recommendation regarding staff’s action plan to attain Hennepin County’s residential waste reduction goal. Council gave a ‘Charge 3: Review and Recommend’ to this initiative. Attached are the reports from the Commission along with staff reports. Initiative 7 is posted first as it takes a holistic look at waste reduction opportunities and makes recommendations on actions to take to tackle residential waste reduction. ATTACHMENTS: Description Initiative 7: Staff's action plan to attain waste reduction goal Initiative 7: Advisory Communication to attain waste reduction goals Initiative 1: Staff Report on To-Go Food Packaging Initiative 1: Study and Report on To-Go Food Packaging Initiative 2: Study and Report on Plastic Bag Bans Initiative 2: Staff Report on Plastic Bag Bans City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Administration Department Phone 952-927-8861 • Fax 952-826-0390 • EdinaMN.gov Date: July 13, 2017 To: Energy & Environment Commission cc: From: Tara Brown, Sustainability Coordinator, and Solvei Wilmot, Environmental Health Specialist/Recycling Coordinator Subject: Staff’s action plan to attain Hennepin County waste reduction goal for residential Staff has put together the below report to ensure Edina can meet our Edina Vision theme where “Edina community is focused and invested in world-class citywide resource management systems, built around the leading principles of environmental sustainability” as well as meet Hennepin County goal to reduce residential solid waste by 75%. Importance of Waste Management Measurement and Goals Waste is an important output of our community to manage because reduction in waste directly affects our reliance on landfills, pollution prevention, reduction in toxicity of waste, conservation of natural resources and energy, improved public health, supporting the economy, and reduction in greenhouse gases that affect climate change. Below is a reminder of the waste hierarchy to best meet our waste reduction goals.1 There are many things happening in the waste management: • MPCA published Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan 2016-2036 • County is reviewing its Master Plan • EEC has three of their eight 2017 work plan initiatives tied to waste • Upcoming Comprehensive Plan Edina has strived to meet the state and county’s waste reduction initiatives since 1986 when Edina started a pilot curbside recycling collection program, which turned into a citywide collection program by 1989. They residents’ participation rate for the curbside recycling program has increased from 75% to today’s 91%. In addition, the curbside program started collecting newspapers, cans and glass bottles. Now the program 1 Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan 2016-2036 Page 2 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 collects Magazines, cardboard, boxboard, newspapers, cans, and plastics. The next material to remove from the waste stream will be organic/food waste materials. Hennepin County is developing its 2018 Solid Waste Management Master Plan to reach the goal of recycling 75% of residential waste by 2030. This will be a guiding document for the city. While the Master Plan has yet to be published, the Hennepin County 2016 Waste Sort Study will be used in developing the Master Plan. The waste study found: • Recycle organic waste: Recycling organic materials, which include food and compostable paper, is the biggest opportunity to reduce our trash. Organics make up about 25 percent of our trash, and not many people are participating in organics recycling programs yet. • Recycle more paper and cardboard: Residents are doing a pretty good job of recycling, but there are still opportunities to improve. The study found we could be recycling more paper and cardboard, and people are still confused about what plastics can be recycled. • Use drop-off options: There are opportunities to improve recycling of materials that are not accepted in curbside recycling programs. Clothing can be brought to donation centers for reuse or curbside collection through charitable organizations, plastic bags and film can be recycled at many to recycle electronics, mattresses and off options -e dropgrocery and retail stores, and there ar scrap metal. • Focus on waste prevention: The study found that there’s still a lot of trash in the trash. Several materials in the top 10 list of items in the trash don’t have good reuse or recycling markets. This includes diapers, pet waste, non-recyclable plastic and paper, home improvement waste, and small items (those that are less than half an inch in size). Reducing the amount of waste generated in the first place is the most impactful waste management practice, and there is considerable potential to improve waste prevention. Additionally, the study found there is opportunity to divert materials from the waste stream. The materials for the focus of diversion efforts to make progress toward the state’s weight-based recycling rate goal: 1. Organics, 2. Mixed fiber and cardboard, 3. C&D, and 4. Textiles (in order of impact).2 http://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/your-government/projects-initiatives/documents/hennepin- county-waste-sort-study-2016.pdf?la=en Staff Proposed Action Plan Based on our goals and studies like the above, staff is presenting priority projects that will go beyond incremental change and position us to support the community in responsibly managing their waste. In order of importance, the projects we need to manage are: • Curbside Recycling: Contract will need to be renewed or rebid by December 31, 2019. • Organic Recycling: Improve resources to facilitate better residential participation in organic collection. • Waste Management Education: Continue education on waste reduction, recycling and organics. • To-Go Food Packaging: Roll out policy/ordinance to assist in lowering food waste and packaging. • Monitor for New Opportunities: Other waste reduction opportunities and innovations may be the catalyst to meet our waste reduction goals (ex. bio digester, construction and demolition policies or incentives). 2 Hennepin County Waste Sort Study 2016 Page 3 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Proposed Work Plan by Year: * Designates a resource need Recycling Collection Current recycling collection contract is with Republic Services for every other week curbside recycling materials. This contract expires December 31, 2019. This successful contract took additional resources to complete and we anticipate a similar resource need for the RFP, negotiations, and implementation of a new contract. Edina’s current contract was awarded based not only on lowest cost for collection but also environmental impacts of lower transportation emissions by picking up only every other week. Should weekly collection for recycling be considered to improve access to recycling and avoid missed collection opportunities? This and other considerations around capture rate and education will be considered in the next contract. Edina has one of the highest recycling rates in the region. To maintain this positive trajectory post contract process, there will be a focus on services and education. Organics collection Edina’s top sustainability city goals are to reduce our GHG emissions 30% by 2025 and to reduce our waste by recycling 75% of residential solid waste. Organic materials do not have to be waste. Organic matter is the largest residential waste category that can affect both our GHG and waste reduction goals. Currently, one residential waste hauler provides Edina residents with organic materials with yard waste pick up (apx 529 tonnes of organic and yard waste). As mentioned in the 2016 Hennepin County Waste Study Report, organic material (food waste) is the largest component of the waste stream (making up 25% of the trash). Organics is a biological resource that goes to waste in a landfill and emits larger amounts of GHG emissions in a landfill state. However, if commercially composted, organic matter is a renewable resource that can be utilized in a variety of industry sectors. This makes organic collection and recycling a top focus to tackle waste reduction to landfills or waste to energy plants. For these reasons, our governing bodies states: 2017 2018 2019 2020 Recycling RFP * Dependent on Provider Organics Study, Awareness Policy, plan* Implementation * Management * Education Ongoing To-Go Food Packaging Study, Report Policy, plan* Implementation * Monitor for new opportunities Ongoing Page 4 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • “By 2020, each county should require that all licensed haulers offer curbside organics collection. By 2022, Edina3 should provide an organized residential organics collection program” (MPCA’s Metropolitan Solid Waste Mater Plan 2016-2036 states). • Hennepin County is also considering the above goal along with tying funds that they give to cities to organic recycling initiatives. The County’s SCORE funds will continue to shift allocation of funding from recycling to organics: “By 2019, 40% of the funds will be allocated towards organics recycling and 50% by 2020.4” Other municipalities, counties and states are seeing the value in separating organics at a larger scale including our Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, and our city comparable of Highland Park, Manhattan Beach and Menlo Park have all implemented some form of organics recycling to recapture this resource, reduce waste and reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, staff recommend tackling organics as a top priority for waste management. The barriers to rollout organics involve compost facilities, MPCA facility processing regulations, and the lack of interest to add additional refuse vehicles on Edina’s roads. A more detailed report on barriers and possible routes to increase residential organics recycling can be produced with current staff resources. Though, additional resources are needed to rollout and manage any new organics policy or program. Resource need depends on policy chosen. Education Education empowers residents and business owners to make informed decisions that can positively impact the community. Waste management education is a current service the Recycling Coordinator provides in partnership with the Communication team. Education will continue to be a priority with current staff resources. As we look to the future, key topics to improve waste reduction and proper disposal will include: • Drop-off options and sites for household problem waste, recycling and hazardous waste • Food waste – utilizing US Ad Council on Reducing Food Waste and Hennepin County resources to help residents how they can save money • Recycling paper and cardboard To-Go Food Packaging To reduce the amount of waste going into landfills, it is recommended to first support the organics recycling infrastructure for residents where to-go food packaging is disposed. Then, re-look at the impact of a To-Go Food Packaging policy in reducing food and packaging waste. Current resources can review policy and make recommendations. Additional resources are needed to rollout and manage new policy. Resource need depends on policy chosen. Monitor for New Opportunities 3 Statute states ‘cities of the first and second class (as defined in Minn. Stat. 410.01)’ which Edina is included. 4 The calculation of these funds is based on the number of households with curbside organics. Page 5 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 As new State and County research and development (ex. bio digester, construction and demolition policies or incentives) comes out, Edina will monitor for opportunities to capitalize on new waste reduction and management programs to meet the County residential waste reduction goals. As Edina looks to the future we should envision a comprehensive plan that not only tackles existing waste, but opens future possibilities in regards to new and innovative ways to reduce and manage waste. Edina should look to institute city-wide curbside organics collection sooner than the 2022 date set forth by the MPCA Solid Waste Master Plan. With the recycling contract up for bid in December 2019, staff time would be best spent drafting an RFP for organics collection by the end of 2018. While the current infrastructures address our needs for managing waste, let us keep all options open and on the table. A comprehensive review of solid waste would include evaluating the issue of organized hauling. Additionally, technology and innovation will potentially change the way we currently handle waste and we want to keep ourselves open to all possibilities. Date: September 14, 2017 To: City Council From: Energy & Environment Commission (EEC) Subject: Action plan to attain Hennepin County waste reduction goal for residential. Situation: Energy & Environment Commission’s 2017 Work Plan Initiative 7: review and make a recommendation regarding staff’s action plan to attain Hennepin County’s residential waste reduction goal. Council gave a ‘Charge 3: Review and Recommend’ to this initiative. Background: In 2016, there were four report actions on EEC’s work plan to tackle different topics within residential waste. Tackling these topics individually could lead to putting large resources around policies or initiatives that had a small impact on overall waste reduction goals. For this reason, Initiative 7 was recommended and approved on the 2017 Work Plan. This initiative directed staff to review residential waste reduction opportunities that would make the greatest impact and made recommendations on priority and resource need. Assessment: See report ‘Initiative 7: Staff’s action plan to attain waste reduction goal’ Recommendation: July 11, 2017 Mayor and City Council Tara Brown, Sustainability Coordinator, and Solvei Wilmot, Environmental Health Specialist/Recycling Coordinator Study and Report on To-Go Food Packaging Ordinances Information / Background: To further reduce waste and increase environmental conservation, City Council approved a work plan initiative on the Energy and Environment Commission’s (EEC) 2017 Work Plan to do a Study and Report on the advisability of implementing a To-Go Food Packaging ordinance similar in scope to ordinances recently adopted by the City of Minneapolis and St Louis Park. (2017 EEC Work Plan Initiative 1) Cities around the country have tackled Food Packaging differently. Many of the ordinances have not focused on a ban, but focused on goals to minimize waste and utilize materials that are reusable, recyclable or compostable. The EEC engaged the community on this topic over the past two years and submitted a Study and Report in the November 7th, 2016 Advisory Communication. Attached is the EEC study and report. As noted in EEC’s To-Go Food Packaging Study and Report, in order to meet waste reduction goals with to- go food packaging policies at businesses, there needs to be a prevalent organics infrastructure in place for all residents to recycle organics to-go packaging when residents take it from the business to home. St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have taken on To-Go Food Packaging Ordinances, and do have curbside organic recycling services. To-Go Food Packaging Ordinances requires a significant amount of resources. Other cities indicate initial rollout and communication takes 1,500 hours of staff time in the year leading up to the ordinance change and then 800 hours of staff time for the first year of the ordinance. Currently the Environmental Health Specialist/Recycling Coordinator is a 0.5 FTE dedicated to residential recycling and will need additional resources to successfully implement and positively affect our waste goals with a to-go food packaging policy. To ensure a to-go packaging policy reduces the amount of food and packaging waste, staff recommends prioritizing support of residential organic recycling infrastructure first. Once organics recycling infrastructure improves and organic recycling participation increases, then, re-assess the conditions and recommend the best policy to reduce waste as it relates to to-go food packaging. 1 The MPCA Guide can be found online at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf 2 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf 3 Polystyrene bans are also in place at the local level in other states including Florida, Maine, Oregon and Massachusetts. Date: November 7, 2016 To: City Council From: Energy and Environment Commission Subject: Study and report on proposal to ban Styrofoam food packaging materials in Edina. Action Requested: The Energy and Environment Commission is seeking Edina City Council’s input on how they would like to proceed. Background: With Zero Waste and Environmental Packaging ordinances being enacted in surrounding communities and across the nation, the Edina City Council asked the Edina Energy and Environmental Commission (EEC) to research and report on a proposal to ban polystyrene food packaging in materials. This report outlines the EEC’s findings. The Edina Energy and Environmental Commission (EEC) researched national and regional trends relating to bans, Zero Waste and Environmental Packaging ordinances. The extent of the movement towards bans, restrictions, and ordinances is best summarized in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Guide1 which outlines goals, considerations, resources, and policies on product bans and restrictions. Through our research we found bans were not as productive as packaging ordinances. Packaging Ordinances are driven by waste reduction goals and can be flexible if new data or market change. In this report, you will find information regarding polystyrene bans and the considerations around packaging ordinances. Assessment: Polystyrene Bans Currently, the MPCA does not have a blanket position on policies to prohibit or restrict any single-use consumer packaging products at the city, county or state level.2 However, the MPCA report shows that there are 65 city or county ordinances in California that ban the use of polystyrene food containers for food vendors, restaurants and at government facilities.3 Additionally, Haiti has a (poorly enforced) ban on polystyrene containers, and Guyana plans to ban import and use of expanded polystyrene foam in 2016. Table 1 below, also from the MPCA guide, outlines the rational and impact of comparable ordinances in Cities throughout the United States: Page 2 Table 1 Polystyr ene containe rs City Ordinance/ Policy Enacted Rationale Impact Ordinance Amherst, MA Prohibits food establishments and City facility users from dispensing prepared foods in expanded polystyrene Novemb er, 2012 (effective January 1 2014) Reduce waste that is not recyclable; To protect health, safety of residents from styrene. Information on the impact of this policy is not readily available https://www.amherstma .gov/Docum entCenter/View/24818 Seattle ,WA Ban on polystyrene foam food containers and packing material. The ban applies to all food service businesses, including restaurants, grocery stores, delis, coffee shops and institutional cafeterias. January 2009 Reduce amount of waste and negative environmental impacts to bird population. Seattle aspires to be a zero waste city, and this ban was part of this policy objective. Information on the impact of this policy is not readily available http://clerk.seattle.gov/ ~scripts/nph- brs.exe?s3=&s4=12275 1&s5=&s1=&s 2=&S6=&Sect4=AND&l =0&Sect2=THE SON&Sect3=PLURON &Sect5=CBORY &Sect6=HITOFF&d=O RDF&p=1&u=% 2F~public%2Fcbor1.htm &r=1&f=G Minneapolis, MN Requires all takeout food containers to be recyclable, reusable, returnable or compostable (rigid and expanded polystyrene are not included on the list of plastics meeting the requirements). Covered food establishments must have recycling and composting programs. April 2015 To promote reusable, refillable, recyclable or compostable food and beverage packaging. Information on the impact of this policy is not readily available http://www.ci.minneapo lis.mn.us/w ww/groups/public/@he alth/docume nts/webcontent/wcms1 p-130775.pdf New York, NY Ban on single-use expanded polystyrene foam, including packing peanuts. January 2015 Reduce waste that is not recyclable. None; ordinance under appeal after judge struck it down, saying that EPS is recyclable. No ordinance in effect currently. Page 3 4 Prepared by David J. Power & Associates http://losgatos.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1321&meta_id=137201 5 Prepared by Monica F. Harnoto http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2013final/HarnotoM_2013.pdf 6 Prepared by Franklin Associates https://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/life-cycle-inventory-foodservice-products 7 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf 8 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf Lifecycle Considerations and Trade-offs One of the primary concerns identified by the EEC in regards to a polystyrene food packaging ban is the need to consider the complete life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) of a product in order to determine its true impact on the environment. The lifecycle of a product includes the extraction of raw materials, the manufacturing of the product, transportation, use, and disposal. Lifecycle assessments are very complex and the results may vary depending on bias of the sponsoring institute and the quality of the data. A few LCA/LCI studies include ‘A Summary of Life Cycle Assessments and Life Cycle Inventories’4, ‘A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Compostable and Reusable Takeout Clamshells at the University of California, Berkeley’5, and ‘Life Cycle Inventory of Foam Polystyrene, Paper-Based, and PLA Foodservice Products.’6 The impacts articulated therein outline the trade-offs that will result from the replacement materials. Some impacts of particular interest to the commission were in relation to take-out food packaging. The MPCA report reads, “a ban on polystyrene containers will result in an increase in the products that replaces it – another type of plastic, paper with plastic lining, or compostable containers. Some specific alternative products may be manufactured in such a way to decrease life cycle impacts compared to polystyrene. Though more of the alternatives may be recyclable, they are also likely to weigh more than polystyrene, so waste generation tonnage may go up along with recycling rates. Switches to compostable products are beneficial only if there are prevalent organics collections programs in place.”7 Trade-offs were also found by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. “Polystyrene used less energy and chemical inputs and resulted in fewer emissions than other packaging types (e.g. paper), but caused more solid waste by volume. In terms of toxics, styrene, from which polystyrene is made, is a likely carcinogen; on the other hand, most types of packaging plastics leach chemicals that can interfere with human hormone activity”8 Policies will have trade-offs because of environmental impacts of different product materials or because of how a policy affects citizen behaviors. Instead of looking at outright bans, The Edina City Council should explore a policy that holistically supports our environmental goals to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Waste and greenhouse gas reductions were what drove our neighboring cities to enact packaging ordinances. The rest of this report looks at the law, economics, arguments and considerations for a packaging ordinance. Statute and goals driving a packaging ordinance A packaging ordinance in the City of Edina would support our solid waste and greenhouse gas reduction goals. • Waste – Our current rate and use of materials is not sustainable. For this and many other reasons, the Waste Management Act and The Landfill Abatement Act requires that the state’s waste management system move away from landfill disposal and adopt a hierarchy for solid waste processing in order of preference: reduce, reuse, recycle, organics recycling, landfill. Page 4 To assist businesses and the public in minimizing waste, additional statues and goals have been developed: o Business - As of January 1, 2016, the Minnesota legislature expanded the recycling requirements to businesses. Businesses in the seven-county metro area that contract for four cubic yards or more of trash per week must recycle three materials. o Residential - Counties have been required to amend their solid waste master plans in order to meet these goals of waste prevention, recovery and landfill abatement. Hennepin County’s Master Plan includes the following goals to be attained by 2030 for residential waste collection: Increase recycling from 41% to 54-60%; Increase organics recycling from 3% to 9-15%; Decrease landfill disposal from 19% to 9%. Page 5 9 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/reducing_wasted_food_pkg_tool.pdf 10 https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/execsum.pdf • Greenhouse gas reduction – Food waste is a significant contributor to our greenhouse gas emissions.9 Food and its packaging containers account for almost 45% of materials landfilled in the United States. Using packaging that is easily recycled, composted or reusable not only reduces solid waste generation, but also reduces negative environmental impacts by using less energy and raw materials and emits less greenhouse gas (GHG). In an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, which examined the relationship between municipal solid waste (MSW) management and Climate Change, it states that: o Source reduction, in general, represents an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions in a significant way. For many materials, the reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions from the raw material acquisition and manufacturing process, and the absence of emissions from waste management, combine to reduce GHG emissions more than other options do. o For most materials, recycling represents the second best opportunity to reduce GHG emissions. For these materials, recycling reduces energy-related CO2 emissions in the manufacturing process (although not as dramatically as source reduction) and avoids emissions from waste management. Paper recycling increases the sequestration of forest carbon. o Composting is a management option for food discards and yard trimmings. The net GHG emissions from composting are lower than landfilling for food discards (composting avoids CO2emissions), and higher than landfilling for yard trimmings (landfilling is credited with the carbon storage that results from incomplete decomposition of yard trimmings). Overall, given the uncertainty in the analysis, the emission factors for composting or combusting these materials are similar.10 The economics behind a packaging ordinance When looking at reducing waste, there are economic benefits to selecting materials that can have another life, materials that are recyclable and compostable. Understanding the materials that have another life, recyclable or compostable, and a market in Minnesota is important to factor in when selecting the materials for a packaging ordinance. The following is a brief overview of the different resins that have economic value and are sorted and collected in Minnesota MRFs: PET Resin #1 Roughly 75 percent of recycled PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) bottles go to domestic markets. Although Minnesota does not have a PET reclaimer it does have companies that purchase recycled PET flakes and pellets. The out-of-state reclaimers are not at capacity for PET, therefore, any increase of PET recovered from Minnesota would be in demand at these national and regional reclamation operations. HDPE Resin #2 Approximately 80% of HDPE (High-density polyethylene) stays in domestic markets. Unlike PET Minnesota does have in-state reclaimers for HDPE. Currently Minnesota’s reclaimers need to purchase HDPE from out-of-state to meet their demand of recycled HDPE. Any increase in HDPE recovery will decrease Minnesota’s need to purchase out-of-state HDPE. Page 6 11 Recycling and Solid Waste Infrastructure https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/w-sw1-09.pdf 12 St Louis Park Council Votes Unanimously in Support of Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Seth Rowe for the Sun Sailor, published December 15, 2015, http://sailor.mnsun.com/2015/12/15/st-louis-park-council-votes-unanimously-in-support-of-zero-waste-packaging- ordinance/ Resin #3-#7 These resins are generally packed together at MRF as pre-picked rigid grade. This grade generally needs to be sent somewhere else to be further sorted, the majority being exported to China. Included in this category is rigid Polystyrene (resin #6). Currently, Polystyrene, both rigid #6 or food service foam are difficult to recycle economically. Therefore, there are not strong after markets for these plastics. However, in the last few years, there have been companies around the nation that have begun to sort and resell these mixed resins to reclaimers, but until these end markets grow, the demand for rigid #6 is not significant in Minnesota. Resin #7 These resins can include Polylactic Acid (PLA) Polylactic Acid is a biodegradable thermoplastic aliphatic polyester. It is made with renewable resources such as corn starch, tapioca, or sugar cane and is used in compostable products.11 Stakeholder engagement The Recycling Solid Waste and Organics working group (RSWO) met with many stakeholders to learn more about Zero Waste and Environmental Packaging ordinances. These events and meetings kicked off in November of 2015 and continued through 2016. Through the discussions and articles, the arguments against the Minneapolis and St. Louis Park ordinances mainly came from the chemical and restaurant industry. Letters and/or Representatives from DOW Chemical Company and the American Chemistry Council came in to argue that both the City of Minneapolis’ and St. Louis Park’s ordinance should include polystyrene as a recyclable and acceptable packaging option. They also argue that polystyrene is recycled in other states, but if it continues to be rejected as a recyclable material in Minnesota it will be difficult to create the “robust markets” that the Minneapolis and St. Louis Park ordinances require. The St. Louis Park City Council’s rejected the “arguments from industry representatives opposed to an ordinance aimed at banning food packaging the city deems to be unable to be recycled, composted or reused.”12 An additional concern from the Minnesota Restaurant Association is mainly concerned with performance and price of the acceptable packaging options. There were many positive responses from some business/restaurant owners/managers. Some business owners, have multiple locations and have already made the switch because they are already under the Minneapolis ordinance. Some know their customers want it and are doing it anyway with compostable products because they already compost. Additionally, businesses see it as a way to reduce their waste and hopefully reduce their costs in hauling. Lastly, businesses shared that transitioning to the new products was not difficult. Below is an in-depth listing of the meetings and information shared. 1. Minneapolis Packaging Ordinance – EEC Commissioners met with Minneapolis staff to understand the work that went into drafting their ordinance; including their process, research and lessons learned. Page 7 2. Compostable serve ware – EEC Commissioners met with Simon Hefty from Litin Eco to understand the state of the compostable serve ware market. Simon has been in the compostable products business for over ten years. He was used as the “expert” on compostable products for both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park 3. Minnesota Restaurant Association – On March 2, 2016, Solvei Wilmot, Health and Recycling Coordinator; Melissa Seeley, EEC Commissioner; Michelle Horan, EEC Commissioner met with Dan McElroy, Executive Vice President of the Minnesota Restaurant. Dan shared businesses concerns: the quality hot and cold cup packaging and potential cost increase of packaging. Additionally, franchise owners need to hold to national pricing and will be unable to pass on any pricing increase to customer. 4. Public Meetings – EEC held two public, stakeholder meeting to get input from businesses and the public. a. January 27, 2016, Stake holders meeting – In attendance: Solvei Wilmot; Michelle Horan; Lauren Satterlee, EEC Commissioner; Melissa Seeley, and Simon Hefty. No businesses attended. b. March 2, 2016, Stake Holders meeting 2 – In Attendance: Solvei Wilmot; Michelle Horan; Lauren Satterlee; Melissa Seeley, Simon Hefty. Businesses in attendance: Dave Fashant, Fairview Southdale Hospital; Bill Chrysler, Edina Country Club; Eric Wold, Neighborhood Ice Cream Shop, owner; Jordan Hamilton, Hello Pizza. Below are the comments: i. Fairview Southdale Hospital - Wanted to be on record to let Edina know that he hoped we did NOT exempt hospitals from our ordinance. Current waste composition: 40 yard dumpster of MSW picked up 4 times/week; 40 yard dumpster of recycling picked up 2 times/week; 40 yard construction & demolition; and organic collection with Barthold’s Farms (food for animals) 1. They currently have a 30% recycling rate (single sort). They contract with Sodexo for food service. They are working with them to ban polystyrene foam. 2. They are changing to a full organics program with Aspen as the hauler. Started a food to hogs program 12-15 years ago capturing food from the kitchen during prep. 3. Concerns: Space on the loading dock for an additional dumpster. Although they support a ban of polystyrene foam for food containers, Fairview does not want the ordinance to ban all polystyrene foam. They have unique situations with vendors/products that currently require foam. ii. Edina Country Club – They currently collect recycling and have had a food to hogs program for 3 years. The food to hogs program covers kitchen food prep and leftover food from dining operations. The only polystyrene foam they currently use is cups out on the golf course. 1. Concerns: Additional costs related to an organics program. He was made aware of grant money and assistance available from Hennepin County. Asked about education of club members. Wondered if ECC would be responsible for contamination/compliance with all three waste streams. Additional costs regarding compostable cups members would use on the course. Page 8 iii. Hello Pizza – When they first opened they had every intention of having all compostable products. They have no objections to the proposed ordinance. Currently they use compostable cups. 1. The obstacle: Their loading dock is shared among three restaurants and two of the restaurants are not interested in collecting organics. 2. Once they are able to incorporate organics collection the only MSW they foresee is straws and items brought in by customers from outside the restaurant. iv. Neighborhood Ice Cream - Currently serve everything in polystyrene foam and only collect MSW. Any recyclables collected are taken home by the manager. They share a loading dock with other tenants and there is currently only one 4 yard container for MSW collected once per week. The manager came to collect information and is willing to make the switch. Considering reusable wares versus compostable. They were also made aware of available assistance from Hennepin County 5. Convention Grill – EEC Commissioner met with the owners who have eight other restaurants many in Minneapolis and has already switched packaging for those establishments. 6. St. Louis Park ‘Zero Waste’ Ordinance – EEC Commissioners met with St. Louis Park staff to understand their process and decision making that lead to the passage of the ordinance. a. EEC Commissioners also attended the St. Louis Park’s Packaging Fair to see the communication and resources provided to businesses. Businesses attending were receptive to the ordinance change and resources available from Hennepin County 7. DART Container Corporation – Solvei Wilmot, Michelle Horan, Sarah Clarke, DART Lobbyist, and AnnMarie Treglia, from DART (phone) were in attendance. DART made the argument that Polystyrene, both rigid and expanded, are recyclable materials, and there are places in the states where it is currently being recycled. Their request is to include polystyrene products as an acceptable packaging option in Edina's proposed Acceptable Packaging Ordinance, because polystyrene is recyclable. Their argument is valid, however, currently, in the state of MN, there is not a strong market for polystyrene, and therefore, it is not recyclable here. When markets grow and there is demand for polystyrene, due to the wording of the ordinance, the adjustment to add polystyrene can be made. 8. Organic Processing Facility Tour – Members of the Energy and Environment Commission’s Recycling, Solid Waste and Organic Workgroup toured Full Circle Organics processing facility, Hennepin County’s Brooklyn Park Transfer Station where commercial organic material is collected and Mdewakanton Sioux’s Organic processing facility. Members learned the challenges of managing yard waste compostable materials with organic materials and the laws that have requirements for management of those items. In addition, the members visited with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency about the requirements a compost and organic processing facility must meet. Next Steps: In summary, the MPCA is supportive of policies that result in net prevention of waste, conserve natural resources, lower life cycle pollution and emissions, and push management of wastes to their highest and best uses. By creating a preferred packaging ordinance, Edina would be leading the way in improving both Minnesota’s economy and environment with the following direct and indirect affect: Page 9 • It would support Edina businesses in complying with the new recycling business legislation; • It would increase the amount of recyclable materials being diverted from the waste stream and landfills; • It would increase the amount of recovered materials going into the markets and Minnesota’s economy. Attached is the Minneapolis and St Louis Park’s packaging ordinances. The Energy and Environment Commission is seeking Edina City Council’s input on how they would like to proceed after reviewing this study and report. 1 Study and Report on Regulating Plastic Bags Table of Contents 1.Why Regulate plastic bags 2.Types of plastic bag regulations 3.Arguments against plastic bans 4.Which type of bags is better for the environment 5.Economic impacts of plastic bag bans or fees 6.Recommendations to include or consider in a plastic bag ordinance 7.Sources 8.Appendix Edina Energy & Environment Commission's 2 WHY REGULATE PLASTIC BAGS? Why are citizens, cities, counties, states and countries interested in regulating plastic bags? First let us deﬁne exactly what type of plastic bags are the focus of these regulations: thin, carryout plastic bags with handles, that are given out free to customers at many retail check out registers. Plastic bag regulations have been popping up across the United States and internationally because plastic bags continue to be a source of visible litter, a pollutant in water ways and for wildlife, end up in the waste stream, and landﬁlled. The adoption of plastic bag bans/fees have resulted in the immediate and dramatic reduction of plastic bag consumption and litter. Because of the thinness of plastic bags and their “aerodynamics”, even if plastic bags are disposed of properly, they can manage to take ﬂight in the wind and get caught in trees, accumulate on roadsides, and clog up storm drains. This can result in costly cleanups for cities. Both on land and in our water ways, plastic bags can threaten wildlife either by entanglement or ingestion (sea turtles, mistaking ﬂoating plastic bags as jellyﬁsh). Over time plastics will break apart, but will NOT biodegrade. They remain in the environment forever as plastic. For more details on the effects of plastics in the environment and oceans here are links to a few of the many articles and websites: http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2014/PDF/chapt8.pdf http://www.originmagazine.com/2013/12/31/plastic-pollution-coalition-can-an-ocean-full- of-plastic-sustain-life/ http://www.nature.com/articles/srep03263 https://www.scientiﬁcamerican.com/article/do-plastic-bag-bans-work/ http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/ plastic_ocean_report.pdf There can be many reasons why a municipality initially decides to limit the use of plastic bags: reduction of litter, negative environmental impacts, toxicity, green house gas reduction, reduction of solid waste, impacts on wild life and bodies of water. It could be many reasons, or like in the case of the City of Minneapolis, it can be one speciﬁc reason: the reduction of litter. As a city, it is important to know exactly what the goals are for passing a plastic bag law. Understanding the goals will help clarify the arguments supporting the legislation, which will be necessary when opposition groups try to stop these efforts. This will also help guide the decision of which ordinance structure will be most effective and will avoid unintended consequences. 3 TYPES OF PLASTIC BAG LEGISLATION There are a few ways a municipality can structure their plastic bag legislation. 1.“Straight” Plastic Bag Bans. Straight bans on plastic bags are effective in reducing the use of plastic bags, however, they can result in customers switching over to alternative bags such as paper, which may not be much better for the environment. If one of the goals of a municipality is to reduce environmental impacts of plastic bags, it may ﬁnd itself not only with unintended consequences but possible litigation. Opposing groups have ﬁled lawsuits requiring full Environmental Impact Reports.¹ Example (click on cities in blue to link to their ordinance): Minneapolis Cambridge, Mass. Chicago Los Angeles San Francisco Seattle Austin 2. Hybrid Bans and Charges Including Second-Generation Plastic Bag Bans. This structure would place a ban on all thin plastic bags, some ordinances specifying bags less than .25 mm thick, plus a charge on all other carry out bags such as paper or reusable bags.² Examples: San Francisco China 3. Charges, Fees, and Taxes on all carry out bags. This structure is very effective in reducing single-use carry out bags while still providing customers options.³ Examples (click on cities in blue to link to their ordinance): Boulder, Colo. Brownsville, Texas Montgomery County, Md. Portland, Maine Washington D.C. New York, N.Y. According to Jenny R. Romer, founder and director of plasticbaglaws.org, and an expert on carry out bag policy, fees are very important to an effective plastic bag law and recommends municipalities incorporate an ordinance structure using fees or charges. The fee does not have to be high. Even a $0.05 charge per bag is enough to make people consider if they actually need one. People “react disproportionately strong” to the smallest fee attached to a seemingly valueless product. For a listing of current and pending bag ban/fee legislation click on http://www.ncsl.org/ research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx 4 ARGUMENTS AGAINST PLASTIC BAN REGULATIONS As more cities look into plastic bag regulations, the plastic bag industry and opposition groups have intensiﬁed their efforts to thwart these actions. These groups claim there is a lot of misinformation about plastic bags and have put together marketing pieces and programs such as Bag the Ban ( http://www.bagtheban.com ) to get a different message out about plastic bags. Below are some of these messages: 1. Plastic bags are more environmentally friendly than paper or reusable bags. Part of this is true. One of the unintended consequences of a bag ban is the increase of paper bag use. A single-use paper bag does have more negative environmental affects than a single-use HDPE plastic bag. Further in this report are summaries of four different Life Cycle Assessments, which come to different conclusions about the negative effects of reusable and other types of bags. 2. Plastic bags are 100% recyclable. Plastic bags are recyclable and most plastic bags are recycled into composite lumber. Currently the options for easy recycling are not widely available. Most recycling haulers do not take plastic bags curbside because the bags get caught in their machinery at their Material Recycling Facilities. (MRF). However, there are programs which provide customers plastic bag drop off recycling at participating retail locations. One such program available in Minnesota and provided by The Recycling Association of Minnesota is It’s in the Bag™. For more information visit http://recycleminnesota.org/ work/its-in-the-bag/ . Another company which provides local drop off plastic bag recycling is plasticﬁlmrecycling.org. ( http://www.plasticﬁlmrecycling.org/s00/ index.html ). Increasing recycling plastic bag opportunities in more retail locations would be beneﬁcial. 3. According to a 2007 study by APCO insight, for the American Plastics Council over 90% of Americans reuse their plastic bags (http://www.bagtheban.com/assets/ content/bag-recycling-signage-testing.pdf) It is true that plastic bags are reused by many people for various purposes such as liners for trash bins and pet pick up. An unintended consequence of plastic bag legislation (particularly a ban) could be an increase in the purchasing of plastic bags for these purposes. 4. Plastic bags are not made from oil, but from natural gas. According to the US Energy Information Administration, “although crude oil is a source of raw material (feedstock) for making plastics, it is not the major feedstock for plastics production in the United States. Plastics are produced from natural gas, feedstocks derived from natural gas processing, and feedstocks derived from crude oil reﬁning.⁴ 5. Plastic bags make up only 0.3% of the municipal waste stream according to EPA data. This argument is used often to prove that plastic bags are not worth the effort to regulate. A few cities have citied this reason for not implementing a plastic bag 5 ordinance (see Appendix A). However, some counter this argument by stating that all plastics, no matter the quantity are “of increasing concern because of their persistence and effect on the environment, wildlife, and human health.”⁵ Plastic Bags in Our Local Waste Stream In 2013, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) did a state wide Waste Characterization Study. The MPCA collected data on the composition of materials in Minnesota’s mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW). The study found the that the largest categories of material in the waste stream were: Organics 31% Paper 25% Plastics 18% Other 26% In the plastics category, plastic bags and ﬁlm represented a mean percentage of 6.6%, approximately 192,600 tons. These numbers show that there is great potential to recover large portions of our waste through recycling but more preferable by reducing. The MPCA and the EPA have a “waste management hierarchy”. Starting from the “Most Preferred” to the “Least Preferred” management method, both the EPA and MPCA rank Source Reduction and Reuse ﬁrst, followed by Recycling/Composting. Whenever possible, Reduction is the more desired and environmentally friendly option.⁶,⁷ Please note: Opposition groups have successfully blocked plastic bag bans or fees by helping pass preemptive bills. These bills contain speciﬁc language that prevent the passage of any local laws or ordinances regulating plastic bags. For example California’s bill AB 2449, a pro-plastic bag recycling bill states “ The bill would declare that certain matters regarding plastic carryout bags are matters of statewide interest and concern. The bill would prohibit a city, county, or other public agency from adopting, implementing, or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule that requires a store to collect, transport, or recycle plastic carryout bags or conduct additional auditing or reporting, or imposing a plastic carryout bag fee upon a store”.⁸ Other states that have passed preemptive plastic bag regulations are Arizona, Missouri and Idaho.⁹ WHICH TYPE OF BAG IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? Life Cycle Assessments Many Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) have been done on plastic, paper, and reusable bags to evaluate a bag’s ultimate environmental impact. LCAs take into consideration the impact of a product over it’s entire life cycle; from material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, utilization, recycling and disposal. Results from these studies can vary depending on the location, the parameters or the sponsor of the report. Below are a few of the more cited LCAs in regards to plastic bag legislation, with portions of the authors’ summaries and tables included. 6 1. UK Environment Agency Lifecycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags available in 2006 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ﬁle/291023/ scho0711buan-e-e.pdf General Conclusions •The environmental impact of carrier bags is dominated by resource use and production. Transport, secondary packaging and end-of-life processing generally have a minimal inﬂuence on their environmental performance. •The key to reducing the impact of all carrier bags is to reuse them as much as possible and where reuse for shopping is not practical, secondary reuse in application such as bin liners is beneﬁcial. •The reuse of conventional HDPE and other lightweight carrier bags for shopping and/or as bin-liners can substantially improve their environmental performance. •Reusing lightweight carrier bags as bin liners produces greater beneﬁts than recycling bags due to the beneﬁts of avoiding the production of the bin liners they replace. •For the impacts categories considered, the HDPE bag with prodegradant additives increased the environmental impacts from those of the conventional HDPE bag. •Starch-polyester blend bags have a higher global warming potential than conventional polymer bags, due to the increased weight of material in a bag, higher material production impacts and a higher end-of-life impact in landﬁll. •Recycling or composting generally produces only a small reduction in global warming potential and abiotic depletion. The reduction is greatest for the biodegradable bags – paper and starch-polyester. Composting of starch-polyester bags signiﬁcantly reduces the contribution of the end-of-life stage to global warming. •The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least four, ﬁve, 14 and 173 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional HDPE carrier bags. The number of times each would have to be reused when the conventional carrier bag is reused in different ways is shown in the table below 7 2. Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analysis of Shopping Bag Alternatives. Prepared by Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd for Sustainability Victoria http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resources/publications/plastic-bag-phase-out/ LCA_shopping_bags_full_report[2]_2.pdf KEY FINDINGS: •Reusable bags have lower environmental impacts than all of the single use bags •A substantial shift to more durable bags would deliver environmental gains through reductions in greenhouse gases, energy and water use, resource depletion and litter. •The reusable, non-woven plastic (polypropylene) ‘Green Bag’ was found to achieve the greatest environmental beneﬁts •The shift from one single use bag to another single use bag may improve one environmental outcome, but be offset by another environmental impact. As a result, no single use bag produced an overall environmental beneﬁt. •Recycled content in bags generally led to lowering the overall environmental impact of bags •The end of life destination is crucial, with greater environmental savings achieved from recycling all bags at the end of their useful life. 8 9 3.Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags - Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper Prepared for the Progressive Bag Alliance by Chet Chaffee and Bernard R. Yaros Boustead Consulting & Associates Ltd. https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Life-Cycle-Assessment-for-Three-Types-of- Grocery-Bags.pdf This LCA was conducted “on three types of grocery bags: a traditional grocery bag made from polyethylene, a grocery bag made from compostable plastics (a blend of 65% EcoFlex, 10% polylactic acid or PLA, and 25% calcium carbonate), and a paper grocery bag made using at least 30% recycled ﬁbers.… It was recognized that a single traditional plastic grocery bag may not have the same carrying capacity as a paper bag, so to examine the effect of carrying capacity, calculations were performed both on a 1:1 basis as well as an adjusted basis (1:1.5) paper to plastic.” The results show that single use plastic bags made from polyethylene have many advantages over both compostable plastic bags made from EcoFlex and paper bags made with a minimum of 30% recycled ﬁber. When compared to 30% recycled ﬁber paper bags, polyethylene grocery bags use less energy in terms of fuels for manufacturing, less oil, and less potable water. In addition, polyethylene plastic grocery bags emit fewer global warming gases, less acid rain emissions, and less solid wastes. The same trend exists when comparing the typical polyethylene grocery bag to grocery bags made with compostable plastic resins— traditional plastic grocery bags use less energy in terms of fuels for manufacturing, less oil, and less potable water, and emit fewer global warming gases, less acid rain emissions, and less solid wastes. 10 4. Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Single-use Plastic Bags in California, January 2011. Produced under contract by California State University Chico Research Foundation and funding provided for by Keep California beautiful. http://www.truereusablebags.com/pdf/ lca_plastic_bags.pdf The data is Table 10 represents the environmental impacts of using equal-carrying capacity bags for 1 year. Table 10. Cradle-to-gate LCA of plastic bags, single-use paper bags, and reusable plastic bags Table 10 illustrates that single-use reusable bags made from polypropylene or polyethylene have signiﬁcantly worse environmental impacts than the single-use polyethylene bags. The reusable bags have a better environmental impact if they are used more that 8 times, which is an environmental cross-over point for reuse. The reusable plastic bags have signiﬁcantly better environmental impact if they are used 26 times (once a week for 6 months) or more. Table 10 11 Table 11 illustrates that 1,000 single-use reusable non-woven PP plastic bags require 5 times more energy, emit 7 times more GHG, generate 5 times more waste, and consume 7 times more water than 1,500 single-use polyethylene plastic bags….The reusable non-woven plastic bag that is used 52 times has signiﬁcantly lower environmental impact than the single-use polyethylene plastic bag…. if the reusable bag is used once a week for 52 weeks, the reusable non-woven PP bag bags require signiﬁcantly less energy, emit 87% less GHG, generate 91% less waste. It would however consume 4 times more water than 1,500 single-use polyethylene plastic bags due to washing 20% of the bags every week. Table 11. Environmental indicators for single-use plastic bags, single-use paper bags, and reusable plastic bags per standardized single-use polyethylene bag. Conclusions and Recommendations Reusable plastic bags can reduce the amount of green house gas emissions, solid waste generation, and acid rain pollution than single-use polyethylene plastic bags. The plastic bag with the least amount of environmental impacts would have the following features: • Reusable, • Made from recycled plastics, and • Lightest weight possible. Currently, PP non-woven bags could not be produced from PCR due to the lack of recycling infrastructure in the Unites States. However, PE reusable bags could be made with PCR in concentrations of 40% to 100% PCR. Likewise, single-use plastic bags can be produced with 40% to 100% PCR. The use of PCR can offer signiﬁcant environmental beneﬁts for reduced carbon dioxide emissions, reduced solid waste, and reduced pollution. The polyethylene based reusable bag with 40% PCR is the plastic bag with the least amount of environmental impacts. The reusable bags though will require more fresh water than a single-use polyethylene bag due to the washing requirements of the bags that carry meats and dairy products. 12 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PLASTIC BAG BANS OR FEES There is not a lot of information about the economic impacts once a plastic bag ban/fee law has passed, therefore the information below is from two main sources, each with differing conclusions: •Plastic Bag Bans: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts October 2013. By The Equinox Center, an organization based in San Diego, known for creating local reports related to local sustainability and economics, focusing on energy and water supplies, housing infrastructure, land use and transportation systems ( https:// energycenter.org/equinox). •A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County’s Plastic Bag Ban, by The National Center for Policy Analysis, a public policy research organization committed to the development and promotion of private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control (http://www.ncpa.org). The Equinox Center’s report concluded: While there is substantial literature available on the environmental impacts of Plastic Bag Bans (PBB’s) determining the economic impacts can be more challenging. Due in part to the number of variables affecting consumer behavior, it is difﬁcult to quantify how manufacturers, retailers, and consumers may be affected. Based on reports from jurisdictions with PBB’s in effect, there has been no substantial negative long-term impact to retailers, as well as no demonstrated migration of consumers to jurisdictions without PBBs. Retailers may be negatively impacted in the short-term due to increased baggage costs associated with increased paper bag usage, but this is projected to decrease over time as consumers transition to reusable bags. Furthermore, while it is logical that the plastics industry would be negatively impacted, a lack of research on the topic makes it difﬁcult to estimate what this impact may look like. If the impact is signiﬁcant, plastics manufacturers could begin producing reusable bags as well, considering the reusable bag type recommended in this report can include plastics as long as it is at least 20 percent post-consumer recycled polyethylene and meets the criteria for reusable bags. The City of San Diego should experience savings through litter abatement, considering the City spends approximately $160,000 per year to clean up plastic bag litter. Cost savings realized by the City could be used to purchase reusable bags for giveaways, which would promote reusable bag adoption in low-income communities.¹⁰ The Equinox report also addresses the The National Center for Policy Analysis’ Survey and states: The study, released in August 2012, …performed by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is…cited repeatedly by campaigns opposing PBBs, and forms the basis for what many PBB critics substantiate as economic harm from bag bans. The authors stated that stores within the boundaries of the Los Angeles County 13 PBB+Fee ordinance reported a decrease in sales of 3.3 percent, while those outside of the impacted zone enjoyed an increase in sales of 3.4 percent based on before-and-after sales comparisons. However, limitations in the NCPA’s methodology must be considered when examining its claims. Conclusions of the economic analysis were reportedly based on (1) a sample size of only three percent of impacted retailers, (2) standard deviations of reported sales changes were not included, and (3) no attempt was made to ensure that the changes in sales weren’t due to an external factor. Other PBB supporters have questioned the methodology used by the NCPA in compiling this study, bringing to light a segment that claims PBB’s are bad for the environment, because “plastic bags are better for the environment than reusable or paper bags.” As argued in the environmental analysis section of this report, (the Plastic Bag Bans: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts October 2013. By The Equinox Center) LCAs, after considering the number of uses of each bag type, demonstrate that reusable bags impact the environment to a lesser degree than single use plastic bags.¹¹ In July 2011, the Los Angeles County bag ban took effect in the unincorporated areas of the county. The National Center for Policy Analysis conducted a survey of store managers in both the incorporated cities, which did not have a plastic bag ban and the unincorporated areas which did pass a plastic bag. The purpose of the survey was to determine the effects of the ban on sales and employment at the stores affected by the ban. The study also sought to determine if consumers changed their shopping behavior by increasing purchases at stores that could still offer plastic bags. The survey found that following full implementation of the ban, sales increased at stores in incorporated cities (no plastic bag ban) compared with stores in unincorporated areas(where plastic bag ban took affect). Of these respondents to the survey affected by the ban: •Over a one-year period (pre- and post-bag ban), 60 percent of stores in incorporated areas reported an increase in sales averaging 9 percent. •Four- fifths of the stores in the unincorporated areas reported a decrease in sales averaging, –5.7 percent. Examining the overall change in sales of all the stores that responded among the two groups (incorporated versus unincorporated): •Incorporated stores experienced an increase in sales of 3.4 percent. •However, unincorporated stores reported a decline in sales of –3.3 percent. •The ban negatively affected employment at stores inside the ban area. While every store inside the ban area was forced to terminate some of its staff, not a single store outside the ban area dismissed any staff. •By the fourth month after the ban, all unincorporated stores reduced their plastic bag purchases 91 percent.Over the same period, the stores in incorporated areas reported little to no change in plastic bag purchases. •Approximately 48 percent of stores reported losing money on reusable bags, while 52 percent did not lose money on such bags. The stores that lost money 14 reported an average loss of more than $600 per month. In order to stop losing money, 29 percent of stores ceased providing free reusable bags, and another 36 percent increased prices on these bags. Most stores also lost money on paper bags. •Almost 20 percent of stores noted increases in the loss of shopping carts or hard shopping baskets. These losses totaled $500 to $3,000¹² RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCLUDE OR CONSIDER IN A PLASTIC BAG ORDINANCE The document, Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinances: New York City’s Proposed Charge on All Carryout Bags as a Model for U.S. Cities authored by Jennie R. Romer and Leslie Mintz Tamminen is a great resource for municipalities interested in regulating plastic bags. It can be used as a template on how to prepare, create and implement such legislation. http://plasticbaglaws.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ 2010/04/Romer-Tamminen_Tulane-ELJ-article-on-NYC-bag-bill.pdf . Listed below some of the recommendations that Jennie R. Romer and Leslie Mintz Tamminen include in the document: 1.Avoid the “Unconstitutional Tax” argument and let the retailers keep the fees collected for carryout bags. 2.What type of businesses should be covered by the ordinance? 3.State a speciﬁc requirement for post consumer recycled content in paper bags. 40% is typical. Consider making similar requirements for reusable bags. 4.What is the amount to charge for any carryout bag? 5.Apply charges to all carryout bags. 6.First Violation: warning. 7.Speciﬁcally state any exemptions for certain types of bags (for example produce and meat bags without handles). 8.Make sure customers using food stamps are exempt. 9.Require education and outreach. 10. Build a “strong administrative record for an ordinance”. Please go to http://plasticbaglaws.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Romer- Tamminen_Tulane-ELJ-article-on-NYC-bag-bill.pdf to see details of the above recommendations and read the entire document. There are also three YouTube videos made by Jennie R. Romer: plasticbaglaws.org talks – part 1 – Why are plastic bags the target of local legislative actions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqzmW1cfxXs plasticbaglaws.org talks – part 2 – What are the most effective bag ordinance structures? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6aij2yvp48 plasticbaglaws.org talks - part 3 – What happens to the money collected? https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV1dJQw-VkY 15 Sources 1,2,3, Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinances: New York City’s Proposed Charge on All Carryout Bags as a Model for U.S. Cities Jennie R. Romer Leslie Mintz Tamminen http://plasticbaglaws.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Romer- Tamminen_Tulane-ELJ-article-on-NYC-bag-bill.pdf 4, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. How much oil is used to make plastic? http:// www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=34&t=6 5, EPA, Trash-Free Waters https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters 6, Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management- non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy%20 7, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency December 2013 Statewide Waste Characterization https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/ﬁles/w-sw1-60.pdf 8, California BILL NUMBER: AB 2449 CHAPTERED BILL TEXT ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ ab_2449_bill_20060930_chaptered.html 9, STATE PLASTIC AND PAPER BAG LEGISLATION http://www.ncsl.org/research/ environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx 10,11, Plastic Bag Bans: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts October 2013. By The Equinox Center https://energycenter.org/sites/default/ﬁles/ Plastic-Bag-Ban-Web-Version-10-22-13-CK.pdf 12. A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County’s Plastic Bag Ban, by The National Center for Policy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st340.pdf Appendix A Environment and Sustainability Commission – Plastic Bag Position Statement St. Louis Park, Minnesota “Our position is that an ordinance banning point of sale… shopping bags is not the way to go and would result in possible unintended consequences that are opposite to the City Councils’ original goals… [it] could distract us from tackling more serious issues that we face in our waste stream. “Let’s not fall into the trap of competing with our surrounding cities by racing to a ban on retail plastics bags… It is less important that we appear green, let’s be green.” —St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission, Zero Waste Work Group OVERVIEW: In its initial consideration of plastic bag regulation policies in May 2015, the St. Louis Park City Council sought to increase product reuse, minimize litter, address health toxicity concerns, reduce greenhouse gases and promote recycling, composting and waste reduction. But after examining the issue and consulting with experts, the city’s Zero Waste Work Group of the Environment and Sustainability Commission determined St. Louis Park would be better off without a plastic bag ban. The group cautioned that a bag ordinance could be worse for the environment, harmful to small businesses and distract from more important sustainability issues. PLASTIC BAG POSITION STATEMENT SUMMARY: “The life cycle analysis of a thin, plastic bag reveals that the carbon footprint of this bag is smaller than any of the alternatives including reusable bags of both the polyethylene variety and the cloth variety.” –Zero Waste Work Group •Plastic retail bags—made of high-density polypropylene (HDPE)—are “one of the most resource efficient containers ever created.” •In comparison to paper bags, HDPE plastic retail bags require 70% less energy to manufacture and significantly less water. •Reusable bags are far more resource intensive than plastic, and their environmental value only becomes valid when used many times, which is complicated by the need for frequent washing. •A paper bag must be reused three times to be more environmentally friendly than a plastic bag used once. A cloth bag would require 131 reuses to have the same impact as a plastic bag used once. •Plastic retail bags are made in the USA from natural gas—not foreign oil, like many alternatives. “Plastic bags are reusable, recyclable and are a desirable commodity in the recycled materials stream.” –Zero Waste Work Group •Even though plastic retail bags are not recycled curbside in St. Louis Park, there are many locations—especially in grocery stores—where plastic bag recycling drop-off points are offered. Public education of these recycling locations is key. •Plastic bags can be recycled—and reused. •Plastic bags are reused for many purposes—from collecting garbage and lining trash bins to picking up after family pets. If plastic bags were not available, people would have to purchase trash can liners, which may have a larger environmental impact and produce even more greenhouse gases in the end. “[P]lastic bags, no matter how you look at it in terms of volume or weight, make up only a tiny fraction of our waste stream.” –Zero Waste Work Group •According to the U.S. EPA, HDPE plastic retail bags make up only 0.3% of the waste stream. •In St. Louis Park, 41% of residential garbage was organic materials. Encouraging more St. Louis Park residents to participate in composting would be much more useful in terms of waste reduction. •In the recent Minnehaha Creek Clean up, plastic soda and water bottles, plastic tops and straws from fast food sodas and cigarette butts were found in greater abundance than plastic retail bags. “Education is key and a there are more positive ways to approach this issue, possibly using incentives instead of bans.” –Zero Waste Work Group •Rather than banning plastic bags, St. Louis Park should first work to educate its population on the importance of waste reduction and try to promote a behavior changein opposition to the “throw away” society.   July 11, 2017 Mayor and Council Tara Brown, Sustainability Coordinator, and Solvei Wilmot, Environmental Health Specialist/Recycling Coordinator Study and Report on Plastic Bag Ban Information / Background: To further reduce waste and increase environmental conservation, City Council has asked the Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) to do a Study and Report on the advisability of implementing a ban on the use of plastic bags, similar in scope to the ban recently adopted by the City of Minneapolis. (2017 EEC Work Plan Initiative 2) Attached is a Study and Report on Plastic Bag Bans from the EEC. In the report, you will find the EEC reported on reasons why plastic bags are regulated, types of plastic bag regulations, arguments against plastic bag bans, which type of bags is better for the environment, economic impacts of the plastic bag bans or fees, recommendations to include or consider in a plastic bag bans or fees. St. Louis Park considered a plastic bag ban policy in 2015 but has not move forward with an ordinance and instead encourages residents to bring their own bag.1 The City of Minneapolis did approve a single-use plastic bag ban last year that was supposed to go in effect June 1, 2017.2 This ordinance was instituted based on the cost to cleanup plastic bags in parks. Minneapolis staff was utilizing a full-time staff during the rollout of the ordinance this year. However, the State’s SF 1456, Omnibus jobs and economic appropriations bill, was approved with Sec. 14 [471.9998] “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no political subdivision shall impose any ban upon the use of paper, plastic, or reusable bags for packaging of any item or good purchased from a merchant, itinerant vendor, or peddler.” Below is a staff summary of potential policies that tackle goals from waste reduction, littering of waterways, to reducing threats to wildlife. Staff agrees with EEC’s Report that plastic bags and bans are a complex topic and policies vary depending on the goal(s) leadership is looking to accomplish. There are many unintended consequences if a focus is on banning plastic bags versus policy’s focused on reduction of and proper recycling of single-use bags. Of the policies listed in the attached, the only action with minimal unintended consequences is education. Education can be rolled into current work and proposed work plan. 1 https://www.stlouispark.org/sustainability/plastic-bags.html 2 http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@clerk/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-177406.pdf STAFF REPORT Page 2 Goal/Rationale Ordinance/ Policy Impact Unintended Consequences Resource Need Residents can bring plastic bags to grocery store drop-offs where they are recycled. No policy Status quo Plastic bags could be thrown away and not recycled, could become litter, and can get stuck in None Educate residents and businesses to the benefits of not using single use bags No policy but institute education Voluntary waste reduction. Will be challenging to measure behavior changes of community and the impact of the education. None Staff time to produce education material and educate. Disincentive single-use bags Fee for plastic bag and paper bag use Penalizes the bad behavior of utilizing single-use bags May benefit retail (more income) more than environment. Could be a hurdle for low-income individuals. May not be a high enough hurdle to inhibit use of single-use bags Staff time for rollout. Minimal oversight from staff after rollout. Below are additional policies considered, but can no longer be instituted based on the approval of the Minnesota State Legislatures’ Jobs and Economic Growth (SF1456). * Monitor and reduce supply of plastic bags. City would have oversight of facilities that use plastic bags and could create limits on number of plastic bags allowed per type of retailer. License fee for plastic bags Plastic bag supply reduction. City would benefit from the fee, retailer could charge a fee for plastic bags. When the limit is reached within the year, retailer would have to provide alternative bags. Oversight of the number of plastic bags order per facility may be challenging or unenforceable. May put a bigger focus on paper which is a higher resource demand Staff time ordinance development, for enforcement and licensing. Anticipate at least 40 hours per person involved with development of ordinance. Then 4 hours per week for continuous oversight Environmental waste reduction and impact to waterway. Plastic bags must be certified compostable Results in an environmental waste reduction as bag would disintegrate over time if it was not disposed of properly. Retailers may choose not to use compostable bags, but instead rely on single-use paper bags, which have a higher resource demand. May be confusing for residents/businesses as they may not be easy to differentiate between compostable bags and the plastic and biodegradable bags that would be banned. Ordinance creation and review. Potential enforcement action for lack of compliance. Would need further examination to determine amount of staff time required. Reduce littering of waterways and threats to wildlife. Ban plastic bags Less litter Reduce impact of fugitive bags in natural water systems (currently minimal contamination) May put a bigger focus on paper which is a higher resource demand Initial oversight and enforcement. Education material and time for new businesses that come to Edina. Would need further examination STAFF REPORT Page 3 * The below provision was written in Minnesota State Legislatures’ Jobs and Economic Growth (SF1456). : Sec. 14. [471.9998] MERCHANT BAGS. Subdivision 1. Merchant option. All merchants, itinerant vendors, and peddlers doing business in this state shall have the option to provide customers a paper, plastic, or reusable bag for the packaging of any item or good purchased, provided such purchase is of a size and manner commensurate with the use of paper, plastic, or reusable bags. Subd. 2. Prohibition; bag ban. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no political subdivision shall impose any ban upon the use of paper, plastic, or reusable bags for packaging of any item or good purchased from a merchant, itinerant vendor, or peddler. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective May 31, 2017. Ordinances existing on the effective date of this section that would be prohibited under this section are invalid as of the effective date of this section. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/journals/2017-18/J0522062.htm#6934 to determine amount of staff time required. Reduce waste Ban on plastic and paper bags Require patrons of stores and take out facilities to provide their own bag Many reusable bags are made from a plastic that is not recyclable and therefore would not be reducing plastic use or waste. Staff time for residents and business concerns Would need further examination to determine amount of staff time required. Disincentive single-use bags Fee for plastic bag use Penalizes the bad behavior of utilizing single-use plastic bags May benefit retail (more income) more than environment. Could be a hurdle for low-income individuals. Staff time for rollout. Minimal oversight from staff after rollout. Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Liz Moore, Engineering Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Business Energy Working Group Update and Receive Minutes Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Receive minutes from BEWG. ATTACHMENTS: Description BEWG Minutes August 11, 2020 BEWG meeting August 11, 2020 via Zoom Attendees: Carolyn Jackson Michelle Horan Janet Kitui Ukasha Dakane 1. Discussed the meeting with Michael Olson, Engineering Manager for the Galleria, which is owned by and he is employed by Hines. He also filled out the GBRP application for the Galleria which received Gold recognition 1. Confirmed the actions they recorded on application 2. Learned the how and why they achieved them 3. Discussed how we might be able to leverage their recognition; 1. Encourage their tenants to apply and take further green action 1. Michael was going to pass on information about the GBRP to his tenants 2. Was open to the idea of including the GBRP into their yearly tenant meetings 2. Encourage other businesses to apply or take actions 3. Further promote the Galleria in their sustainability 2. Michelle will send Carolyn Michaels contact information 3. Carolyn will contact Louann to talk to her about the Galleria’s hiring of certified salt applicators 4. Michelle will follow up with Michael about the possibility of putting the GBRP on their tenant meeting agenda, and will look into any opportunities to have someone from the County, CEE or Xcel attend. 5. Carolyn will find out ore about Xcel’s Turn Key program to help businesses with energy efficiency. 6. Michelle will find out who our new contact is at CEE 7. Janet will find out about the green purchasing process and products for DEED 8. Michelle will contact Jared from the Starbucks on 50th and France to see if he might be able to model their stores sustainable actions with the one in the Galleria. 9. Discussed the topic of yearly recognition 1. Can we renew their application without having them fill out the entire form again - just send in updates? 2. Create a communication asking the recognized business if everything has remained the same and if so we can re-up their recognition. Do we include a site visit (not necessarily every year but maybe one every three)? 3. How do we continue to publicize their recognition - add value? 4. Do we set a permanent date each year ( i.e. Earth Day) when we go over past recognized businesses for re-recognition independent of when they apply? 10. Circle back with Deb Hanson from the Edina Chamber. Give her updates on the program. 11. Think about future events with current recognized businesses and industry/county resources to create a one stop shop experience. Have applications at the ready. This could be done remotely. 12. Ask Jessica and Liz about creating a “branded” package of GBR documents to hand out to businesses. 1. It is sometimes easier to look at the application on paper so you can go back and forth through it. 2. Includes resources document. 13. Michelle will try to get in touch with the Edina Noodle’s restaurant to see if we can help with application (they were just shy or recognition) and discover if there are further actions they could take to be recognized. Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: IX.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: From:Liaison Wilson Item Activity: Subject:Energy Benchmarking Update Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: IX.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: From:Liaison Wilson Item Activity: Subject:Organics Recycling Update Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Date: September 10, 2020 Agenda Item #: IX.C. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: From:Liaison Wilson Item Activity: Subject:Sustainability Coordinator Position Update Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: