Committee on the Environment, November 17, 2025

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, November 17, 2025 1:11 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE

250768 - - -

Good afternoon, everyone. And thank you so much for joining us. I now note that the hour has come and this hearing is called to order. This is a public hearing of the City Council Committee on the Environment. The purpose of this public hearing is to hear testimony on Bill No. 250768. Will the Clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Ahmad.

Present.

Councilmember Driscoll.

Present.

Councilmember Harrity.

Present.

Councilmember O'Rourke.

Present.

Vice-Chair Bass.

Present.

Chair Gauthier.

Present. Thank you. I now note for the record that a quorum of this committee is present and this hearing is now called to order. Good afternoon, everyone. During our recent municipal worker strike, Philly got a stinky, dirty reminder that breathing in trash harms both our mental and physical health. Now, imagine breathing all that in and more every single day of your life. As we will hear in painful detail today, that is the unjust reality endured by our neighbors in the city of Chester, Plymouth Township and other communities flanked by the five trash incinerators in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The Reworld Covanta Incinerator in Chester City is the largest and one of the oldest trash-burning facilities in America. The Chester incinerator is Southeastern Pennsylvania's top industrial polluter, burning 3500 tons of waste daily, and 37% of that comes right here from Philly. Chester and Delaware County experience the worst of this environmental and health disaster. Chester has one of the highest asthma and infant mortality rates in America. But air does not stop at the county line, so it is no surprise that Philly suffers too. in of our young people have asthma, earning us the unfortunate designation as the 2025 asthma capital. The city's priority is making Philadelphia safer, cleaner and greener, but we cannot do that at the expense of our neighbors who are left sicker, dirtier and less safe because of the trash we send into their air. We need to stop making ourselves, our kids and our planet sick. And that's what the Stop Trashing Our Air Act will do, prohibit the City of Philadelphia from contracting with waste disposal partners that profit by turning our trash into pollution and sickness. I want to thank everyone here today, elected officials, health and environmental experts, Reworld and everyone from Chester, Philly and beyond who took time out of their day to be here with us. The City of Philadelphia's waste disposal contracts expire at the end of the fiscal year and we ended FY25 with more than $1 billion in our fund balance, the largest balance in Philadelphia's history. Right now is our chance to chart a healthier, cleaner and greener path. It has never been more urgent and we have never been better-equipped to do it. We don't need another study to tell us what we already know to be true, to give the city an excuse to kick the can down the road for another seven years, condemning Chester and Philly to years of preventable sickness and fueling a climate crisis that is already out of control. I urge this committee to hear the cry of the people and do what's right for our constituents, neighbors and planet and stop trashing our air. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

I note for the record the presence of Vice-Chair Councilmember Cindy Bass. And I also will ask if any of my colleagues have opening comments that they'd like to offer. Councilmember Ahmad.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to my colleagues and the advocates and everyone who's here who have been sounding the alarm on this for years. As a member of City Council's Committee on the Environment and the Chair of Public Health and Human Services, I want to be very clear: Burning trash is not a solution to our waste problem. It is a public health problem and an environmental justice issue. Right now a significant portion of Philadelphia's trash is burned at the large incinerator in Chester. It is one of the largest trash incinerators in the country, burning thousands of tons of municipal and industrial waste every single day and is a major industrial air polluter in our region. But the people who pay the price are not the ones creating most of the waste. Only a small fraction of the trash burned there comes from Chester itself. The rest is shipped in from Philadelphia and other communities. Chester is a predominantly Black working-class city that has already been overburdened with industrial pollution for decades. Children there experience high rates of asthma and residents face elevated risks of cancer, heart disease and other serious illnesses tied to air pollution. Airborne hazards do not respect municipal boundaries. What we burn in Chester does not stay in Chester. It travels on the wind across Delaware County and back into Philadelphia. Incineration does not make trash disappear. It turns it into toxic air and ash that still must be landfilled. Our responsibility is two-fold: First, we must move away from burning our trash, supporting policies and investments that reduce reliance on incineration and prioritize public health and environmental justice. Second, we must generate less trash. That's a cultural issue. All of us need to participate in that, investing in reuse, composting, better recycling and product design that doesn't assume communities like Chester will quietly absorb our waste. Environmental justice is a critical determinant of health. Our neighbors in Chester have been breathing the cost of our convenience for far too long. It's time we align our waste policies with our values, protect the air we all share and commit to solutions that safeguard every community's right to breathe. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, Councilmember Ahmad. Do any other members of the committee have opening comments? (No response.)

Will the Clerk now read the title of the bill.

Bill No. 3 250768, amending Title 17 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Contract and Procurement" to prohibit contractors providing solid waste recycling or composting services to the City from incinerating discarded matter, under certain terms and conditions.

The Clerk will please call the first panel of witnesses to testify on the bill.

The first panel includes the Honorable Mayor Stefan Roots, the Mayor of the City of Chester; Dr. Kristin Motley, Health Commissioner, City of Chester; Rebecca Yurkovich, County Sustainability Officer, Delaware County; Laura Werner, Director of Delaware County Health Department. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon, Mayor Roots. Thank you so much for joining us today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is Stefan Roots.

Proceed.

Thank you. Before I proceed with my prepared remarks, I'm just going to say that your remarks, Councilwoman Gauthier and Councilmember Ahmad, were so, so heartfelt. We've been in this battle for a long time and sometimes we wonder is anyone listening. And to know that it's penetrating, particularly here in the city of Philadelphia, is very heartwarming. Good afternoon, Councilmember Gauthier and members of the Committee on the Environment. I am Stefan Roots, Mayor of the city of Chester, your neighbor just down the Delaware River, just minutes down I-95. 7 As Pennsylvania's oldest 8 city, Chester is rich with history 9 and home to an amazing community. 10 We also face some huge challenges. 11 One of those challenges is the 12 presence of the Reworld Covanta 13 Incinerator on our waterfront. 14 Decades ago, pressured 15 by bad politics, the leaders of 16 Chester opted to trade our public 17 health for table scraps by hosting 18 the largest trash incinerator in 19 the United States. It would have 20 been one thing just to burn Chester trash. I wouldn't have been happy to burn the entire Delaware County's trash, but we're burning trash from New York, Philadelphia and beyond. Since then, the trash burned in Chester has caused us misery, and the negative impacts have compounded over time. Our childhood asthma rate is the highest in the United States. The incinerator has devastated property values and prevented the development of new housing. We are Delaware County's waterfront city, yet our potential for economic revitalization is held back by the massive incinerator occupying 50 acres of that precious waterfront. How much does prime waterfront property sell for in Philadelphia I ask? Converting that 50 acres of wasteland into something of value is my objective. This incinerator, which is now also one of the oldest in the country, persists today because large municipalities continue to send their trash there to be burned. One-third of the trash comes from Delaware County, one-third from New York City and one-third from Philadelphia. Last year, thankfully Delaware County committed to weaning itself off of incineration by directing its trash to landfills over the next five years. (Applause.)

You'll hear from them soon. I immediately sent a letter to Mayor Parker, my very first communication with her as we both came in at the same time. I pleaded with her to lead Philadelphia to do the same, to divert Philadelphia's trash away from the incinerator here in Chester. I didn't yet receive a reply, but I was pleased that Councilmember Gauthier later reached out and visited Chester to see firsthand the impact of Philadelphia's trash being burned in Chester. Thank you, Councilmember Gauthier, and thank you to the other Councilmembers and staffers who'd visited Chester as well, because you didn't come alone. There was a van full of you guys. Those visits birthed the bill that is now before you, the Stop Trashing Our Air Act. As Mayor of Chester, I'm here to ask you to do exactly that, stop trashing our air. I respectfully request your participation in addressing this longstanding matter, which has profoundly infected the health and the future of Chester residents for generations, and I urge you to join us in this effort by passing the Stop Trashing Our Air Act without delay. By doing so, the City of Philadelphia has the opportunity to demonstrate regional leadership, uphold a shared commitment to public health and help unlock new opportunities for economic revitalization along Chester's waterfront. Your leadership is this critical moment. At this critical moment, we'll help secure a healthier and more sustainable future for our residents, communities and entire nation -- entire region. In closing, I'm asking for your help to correct this injustice which has been going on for generations and needs to end now. Be a good neighbor, do the right thing and stop burning Philadelphia's trash in Chester. We don't want it. Burning trash in Chester is an impediment to our economic and community development, but most importantly, the health and wellness of my citizens. You'd certainly feel the same way if you were in my situation. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, Mayor Roots. Dr. Motley, please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, Kristin Motley, for the record. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Gauthier, for introducing this act into the entire committee, for having me here today. I'm Dr. Kristin Motley, the Health Commissioner for the City of Chester, and I'm proud to serve in that role because I was born and raised there. Unfortunately, Chester has carried the environmental burden of this entire region for far too long. The nation's largest trash incinerator is just down the road from here. The disease- causing emissions produced there do not have a city limit. We are breathing the same toxic air. We also deal with emissions from other sources, including highway traffic, airplanes, manufacturing firms and others. We just cannot afford to continue to burn trash. I do not have any personal resentment against Reworld. I am sure the leadership are lovely people. The issue is that Chester should have never been home to a trash incinerator. It's too densely populated. I get it. They are a business. The problem is that they are in the wrong business at the wrong time. Reworld published this report suggesting that their operations do not contribute to the poor health outcomes that show up in Chester. I was beside myself reading this report. Nowhere in the history of trash incineration will you find a reputable analysis built on such an unrealistic model. The report references the health impacts of farmers and fishermen in Chester. There is no one in Chester farming or producing fish that we eat. It is not happening. It is not a thing. However, this analysis is based on that fact. Please know that the report also failed to disclose the millions of pounds of toxic emissions produced from burning trash. These toxins are known to increase rates of infant mortality, heart disease, kidney disease, cancers and asthma and other preventable health conditions. And just last week alone, I spoke to four different people from Chester who was recently diagnosed with cancer. These are people who I know personally. Tiffany, 44-year-old with breast cancer; David, 61-year-old with Stage IV lung cancer; Ms. Barbara, 75-year-old rectal cancer, Ms. Paula, 73-year- old with ovarian cancer. And by the time this hearing is over today, Ms. Paula is going to know if the cancer has spread to anywhere else in her body. Chester's infant mortality rate is five times the national average. The pediatric asthma rate is four times the national average and the health disparities go on. Children with asthma have more missed days of school. They perform worse in math and reading, and they have lower standardized test scores than their peers. These children live with the impacts of having asthma for the rest of their life. Chester and Philadelphia have something else in common. We share in the dismal rates of all these conditions. And yes, Chester needs a hospital, but we can have 10 hospitals and that still won't address the health disparities that we have. We have to address the problem at its sorts, and it's the toxic air pollution. Even with the state-of- the-art healthcare facilities and world-renowned academic research centers, we lack adequate resources. We're still feeling the impact of the closing. And with Crozer closing recently, people from Chester are taking up seats in your ERs and beds in your hospitals, and cutbacks from Jefferson put additional strain on our healthcare infrastructure. So the report's notion that trash incinerator has minimal impact on human health and the failure to mention the multiplicity of the environmental burdens in Chester is a disgrace and it's an insult to your intelligence. Next, do not be fooled by the propaganda. I'm sure you have seen the videos of Reworld giving back to the community. Yes, they have dropped a couple of checks and those checks were a drop in the bucket for this multi- billion dollar corporation. A community that has been ignored for so long would appreciate the gesture. I, however, am not impressed.

These givebacks have not improved our cancer rates or infant mortality rates or our asthma rates. We do not need them to give back in that way. We need them to give back our air. Lastly, as you'll hear from Delaware County, there have been studies proven for years that diverting trash to landfills is far better for the environment, is better for human health and it costs less money. Here's the bottom line: Traction. Generation is outdated. I urge you to pass this act. The country is watching your decision on this and there won't be another opportunity to do it any time soon. So let's partner and let's work together on advancing more sustainable solutions to waste disposal. Because if you continue to burn trash in Chester, that toxic air will continue to blow right back here to burn you. Thank you. )

Thank you, Dr. Motley. And I'm very sorry to hear about the significant health issues experienced by your residents and people that you know personally, but thank you for sharing that story and for being here today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Thank you. Rebecca Yurkovich. Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Yurkovich. And I'm the Delaware County Sustainability Officer. In this role, I'm charged with making Delaware County community and its governmental organization operations more sustainable and resilient to climate change. I come to this work with experience in environmental compliance, long-range community planning and municipal management. And on behalf of our 576,000 neighbors in Delaware County, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit my niece. And upon my arrival, beneath pigtails and Bluey pajamas, I was met by a lethargic, grumpy 3-year-old with a heart-shattering cough. When I asked what was wrong, I was met with a meek, it's my asthma. Weekend of fun turned into coughing fits, gasping breaths and treatments out of a ladybug nebulizer. This is the everyday experience and reality for more than 12,000 children in Delaware County and 32,000 children in the city of Philadelphia who suffer from pediatric asthma, some of the worst rates in the country. These conditions are exacerbated by polluting industries like that of Reworld in the city of Chester, where more than 15% of the population, over four times the national average, suffers from asthma and other lung-related conditions. These are the unspoken casualties of systematic policy failure and unchecked industry. In 2021, Delaware County commissioned Dr. , with assistance from the Zero Waste Associates, to compare the comprehensive impacts of incineration at Reworld with the landfilling of ash versus that of landfilling unburned waste directly at the Delaware County Solid Waste Authority-owned rolling hills landfill in Berks County. The study evaluated and assigned environmental economic values or costs to the environmental and health impacts associated with the waste process to allow for dollar-for-dollar comparisons between incineration and landfilling. The study evaluated nine different health and environmental impacts, including climate change, cancer-causing and noncancer- causing toxics, respiratory effects from particulates such as stroke and heart attacks, ground-level smog formation as well as four other environmental factors. These environmental economic values represent those unspoken costs of the environmental and health effects of the communities that are burdened with these polluting industries, such as higher health care costs, premature deaths, damages to our natural environment and more. 3 times more harmful for the health, environment and climate impacts than going directly to landfill without burning first. When separating out health and environmental impacts, the study found that it costs $193 more per ton to incinerate the landfill directly. 3 million in community impacts. Transportation is also a large consideration in this study, as landfilling waste would require an additional five times more hauling miles. 1% of impacts of landfilling, further highlighting the detrimental impacts of incineration over landfilling. While this life-cycle analysis utilized data from Delaware County, these results are not unique. The City of Philadelphia is currently sending approximately 400,000 tons of waste into the Reworld incinerator each year, further crippling the community and the environmental and health impacts of Chester. The harmful pollutants emitted in the air from these facilities do not know our county lines and are without a doubt impacting your residents in the city of Philadelphia as well. Delaware County Council recently enacted the county's first zero waste plan this past August, which seeks to phase out local trash incineration, as they recognize the serious threat that it causes to our health, environment and economy of Delaware County and the region.

On behalf of Delaware County, I would like to applaud this Committee for its leadership in considering the alternatives to incineration for the city's upcoming solid waste management contract. In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and express Delaware County's support of Bill 250768 Stop Trashing Our Air. Thank you. )

Thank you. Thank you so much. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Thank you. Lora Siegmann Werner. Thank you again for the opportunity to join my colleagues to reinforce Delaware County's strong support for the Stop Trashing Our Air Act. I'm the Director of the Reworld Delaware County Health Department. Prior to serving the county, I worked at the federal level for regional offices of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, CDC and FEMA here in Philadelphia. I have over 30 years of experience that includes directing responses to chemical exposure and environmental public health concerns. The incredibly impactful proposal you're considering today matters for health. It matters for the health of communities here in Philadelphia and it matters for the health of your over half a million neighbors in Delaware County, as you heard from Dr. Motley and Becca. It matters for the sustainability of our region, as you heard from Mayor Roots. It matters to address longstanding inequities in how we handle waste in this region. We're all navigating a shifting landscape right now, changing federal priorities, uncertain funding, lack of support for health equity efforts. These realities make public health work challenging, but they also make it more important than ever. In times of instability, it's local partnerships that allow us to continue to focus on what's really, really important. This proposal is an important step forward that would advance our mutual objectives to promote and protect the health and well-being of residents in both Philadelphia and Delaware County, and it will shine as a model for other jurisdictions across the country. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much and I really appreciate you being here. Were you also going to read --

Yes. I'll follow with a letter written by our Delaware County Council Chair, Dr. Monica Taylor. She said, I'm writing to express my support for Bill No. 250768, Stop Trashing Our Air Act, introduced by Councilmember Jamie Gaut -- Gauthier. I urge you to enact this legislation without delay. Delaware County Council recently enacted the county's first zero waste plan, which seeks to phase out local trash incineration. We took this action in part because we recognize that incineration poses a threat to the health, environment and economy of Delaware County, the city of Philadelphia and the entire Southeastern Pennsylvania region, America's largest incinerators in Delaware County. Toxic ash produced by this incinerator is more than twice as harmful to our constituents and the environment than if we had landfilled the unburned trash instead. The Chester incinerator is the largest single source of pollution in the region. It contributes to Chester having the highest asthma rate in the United States. in Philadelphia children also have asthma, leading to the city being recently designated as the asthma capital, as you recognized. One-third of everything burned at the Reworld Covanta incinerator in Chester comes from Philadelphia. Delaware County is doing its part, but we need the City of Philadelphia's help to chart a safer, cleaner and greener path. If you do not act now, it may be almost a decade before the City of Philadelphia will have another chance to phase out trash incineration. Please help us keep trash out of our air, lungs and atmosphere by enacting the Stop Trashing Our Air Act before the City of Philadelphia renews its waste disposal contracts. Sincerely, Dr. Monica Taylor. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. I have one question and then I'll open it up to members of the Committee. My question is for Ms. Yurkovich. In your testimony, you mentioned that the study Delco commissioned found that "The current practice of burning trash and then landfilling is 2.3 times more harmful for the health, environment and climate impact than going directly to the landfill." And from what I understand, the study also found that if we only look at the human health impact of each option, without factoring in global impacts of climate change, incineration is times worse. 19 And it sounds like the 20 direct health impacts are much more 21 concentrated than the climate 22 impacts mainly affecting people who 23 live nearby. Am I understanding that correctly and can you elaborate?

Sure. Thank you. So you are correct. It was found in the study that when you separate out the climate impacts and only evaluate the human health impacts, it is times more 8 damaging to be using this 9 incinerator versus landfilling 10 directly. 11 When looking at the 12 dollars and cents, incineration is 13 $193, more human health impacts per 14 ton than disposing at landfill 15 directly. This is incredibly 16 damaging to those that are living 17 in what's considered the fallout 18 zone, which is those communities 19 that are directly under the stacks. 20 And I think it's also 21 important to consider that when 22 hearing testimony of all of these 23 studies, especially from our participants from Reworld later, also consider the boots on the ground. These are hundreds of trucks that are sitting in local communities every single day. And while there may be certain studies that show impacts from the stacks, it's not expressing the lived experience of those that are having to sit there and breathe in the trucks' emissions every single day. I previously worked in a municipality in Delaware County and we would get calls from our trash crew saying, hey, just so you know, we're probably going to get complaints that trash isn't getting picked up because we're in a three- hour-long line to drop off at Covanta. So it's those emissions that our children are breathing in and our residents are breathing in. And while we certainly consider it important that we are having climate impacts, it's those health impacts of the people that are having to live and breathe that air every single day that we're here fighting for today. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. Councilmember Harrity.

Thank you all, first off, for taking time out of your busy schedule to come down here. We know what you have going on because we have the same things going on, so we appreciate your time. Mr. Mayor, your county just enacted the county's first zero waste plan, which seeks to phase out local trash incineration. Can you walk us through how your plan will be implemented? Where is the landfill you will be using? Will there be a financial impact by this change? And if so, can you tell us what that will look like from a budget standpoint?

Surely. I can't speak to how the trash is going to get to the landfill. There's another organization that manages that. But I think your real question is the financial impact of moving trash out of being burned in Chester to somewhere else. We are in budget season right now. I will tell you that not a moment is being spent on the impact of the impact that Reworld Covanta has on our budget. We are budgeting so that the host agreement that we have and have had over the years that has not moved, has not escalated, is the same amount that it was years ago 23 that it is today, is not factored 24 in, you know, to our budget decisions. We also know that if it were to shut down today, we have many developers and many opportunities for that 50 acres of land to be profitable in ways that can sustain us forever. So if we could turn off the switch today, we would have someone -- once we clean up the environmental mess that's been less left for the last 35 years -- to replace the revenue that comes in from the host agreement there. Does that answer your question?

Not really. I get that point. What I'm trying to get at is for our budget asks too. I'm sure there's a cost related to changing from the incinerator, which is actually right where you're at, to wherever the landfill will be. A, do you have a landfill picked out already and have you already stopped sending your trash to the incinerator?

Okay. I understand what you're saying. So what you have to understand first is it's Delaware County's incinerator. So the question should be answered by either Rebecca or --

Oh, I'm good with whoever. I'm just trying --

I just wanted to understand --

I'm just trying to figure out how much extra we're going to have to pay also in order --

Gotcha.

Point of information. We know the cost to be pretty much the same, pretty much level with incineration on average. And also, I wanted to point out there's a difference between sort of the stated financial cost and the sort of cumulative cost of impacts that we're not considering in that financial amount, which as stated by the sustainability officer, is times worse. But the cost is 10 the same virtually. 11

12 Yeah, I get it. What I'm trying to 13 get at is there's going to be a 14 cost to change over, right. And 15 what I'm trying to also get to a 16 point is do you already have a 17 place for it to go? Because have 18 you already stopped burning Delco's 19 trash at the incinerator? 20

If I 21 may, so a couple questions to 22 address there. First, I don't have 23 dollar-for-dollar ton change for you. The current process for waste in Delaware County is that they'll go to one of two transfer stations owned by the Delaware County Solid Waste Authority. From there, in skipping the incinerator we will be sending to the Rolling Hills Landfill in Berks County, which is owned by the Delaware County Solid Waste Authority. At this time, we are not diverting our entire waste stream due to a lack of infrastructure for that hauling. Our two transfer stations are actually defunct incinerators from the 1950s. They were never built in a way for us to be hauling 476,000 tons of trash. It's fine for the little puddle jump that it's taking to Covanta. However, most Delaware County communities are also doing direct drop-off. At this time, our Solid Waste Authority is going through redesign of those transfer stations to build them in a fortified way in which we'll be able to have the physical infrastructure in order to ship the further distance. So while we're not diverting our full total currently, it's around 15% going directly to the Rolling Hills Landfill. I will also implore you to also consider what Councilwoman said. And while you'll see potentially different costs in shifting away from landfill, the City should also see reduced costs in your health and human services over time, as residents are no 18 longer going to be breathing in this toxic air.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get to the point of, you know, what the -- the Councilwoman answered my question. When it comes to the cost, it's almost comparative. I'm good with that. All I'm trying to see and make sure is that we're trying to stop sending our trash to you guys. I want to make sure that if we're doing that, you guys are doing that too, you know what I'm saying, because it's got to be equal. We're going to have to find a new thing. We're going to have to find a new way to go, but we want you guys to be leading by example too, you understand?

Unfortunately, we do have infrastructure that needs to be updated for us to be able to make that choice and --

When do you think you would be able to fully implement it? I get it, yeah.

Good question. The initial cost for the transfer station redesign was at approximately million per 4 station and that was about three 5 years ago. More recent updates are 6 now estimating at $45 million per 7 transfer station. As you may be 8 aware, Delaware County underwent a 9 23% tax increase last year and is 10 slated for another 19% this year. 11 So while our operations 12 and upgrades may be delayed, we are 13 steadfast in this commitment, but 14 we also want to be aware that we're 15 not overburdening our residents 16 further to push this when the 17 finances are also not there. So it 18 is a full commitment. We're still 19 looking for additional 20 opportunities to fund the 45 21 million required for transfer 22 station updates at this time. 23

If I may 24 add one piece, I would not be sitting here today if the county had not made that commitment to move out of the incinerator in Chester. It wouldn't be fair. If we can't do it ourselves right in Delaware County, I can't come to Philadelphia and ask them to do the same. I think we've learned a little bit today --

You're getting to what I was -- exactly. But still I would like to know that -- $45 million, right, that's a lot of money to come up with to build your own transfer stations. Just trying to get a timeline on this. Because for us, there's going to be a lot of preparation that's going to have to go into this. Just like you spoke of, we now have to figure out where we're sending all that stuff, how we're getting it there logistically, where our transfer stations are going to be. We're pretty good set up like that, but -- you know what I'm saying. So I'm trying to find out basically what kind of a timeline do we have here that we're working on because this stuff doesn't happen overnight. Of course, we have to figure that part out once we pass this or whatever it happens. Just trying to figure out how much time we have comparative to what you guys are doing in that phase-out or however it's going. You get what I'm saying. So we're not going to send our trash to you guys, you know what I mean. You guys are not sending your trash there, right. That's all I need to -- I want to make sure that this is comparative. It's not just like we're going to stop sending our trash over there and have to figure that all out. Meanwhile, you guys will still be using and implementing the facility. From what you're saying is that you're trying to phase out the money issue on the transfer stations. So all I'm saying is what do you think your timeline looks like so we have an idea of what our timeline kind of will look like?

Sure. Well, I think Philadelphia is in a different position in that you have the necessary transfer infrastructure. I will say I do not feel comfortable stating a direct time frame, as I'm not from the Delaware County Solid Waste Authority. It's a separate municipal authority. However, they -

But you get what I'm getting at, right --

I understand that.

You guys have no time limit on when you're going to stop sending your trash there, but you want us to stop sending our trash there now --

Correct.

-- or right now.

However, you're also in a position with infrastructure to make that change today.

-- but that leaves us in a place where we have to find out where we're going to stick this stuff. And from what it sounds like to me right now, you don't actually have a full working plan of how you're going to phase out your own trash.

We have a plan. We need upgraded infrastructure at our transfer station --

The plan has no timeline. That's what I'm saying. Do you under --

I understand what you're saying. I do.

And I'll say I'm not for burning. All I'm trying to figure out here is if we stop sending our trash, we have to do all this stuff over here, but you're still burning your trash. Why do we do this, you know what I mean. It's got to be equal. If we're going to do this and this is actually really about the environment, we should have a plan that says, all right, this is it, we're going to phase this out Delco, Philadelphia together because it involves both of us. We're going to phase out by this date. You get it, what I'm trying to say?

Yes.

All I'm trying to say is to get a time frame. But from what you're saying is your time frame requires -- it depends on the money coming, and you don't know if that money is actually going to come. So you don't have an actual time for your phase-out. You have a plan which is great, but you don't know when you're actually going to stop sending your trash to Chester.

Only because I'm not from the organization that makes those decisions.

Okay. That's good. So are they testifying?

The Solid Waste Authority is not, but we would be happy to put you in contact with our Solid Waste Authority that would be able to speak further to the financials of that transfer station redesign.

I also believe that there was a time given in the testimony. Has she answered the question to your satisfaction?

Councilwoman, I don't have a timeline. I'm in favor of the thing, but you know what I'm saying. Things got to be fair here.

I'm just asking if you're done with your line of questioning.

I would let -- well, as long as somebody is going to get back to me with a timeline on when they're going to phase out their trash.

Great. I think there was a timeline given in the testimony. I also believe that some of the questions around --

I asked for a timeline. Councilwoman, if there was a timeline given, I would have said okay, I accept that timeline. There wasn't -- they said they don't have a timeline because they do not have the money so they cannot put a time on it until they have the actual --

I understand. I heard them say they were developing a five-year plan to phase out incineration. Did I miss hear that or misunderstand?

That is still the goal, yes.

Thank you very much.

So that will do for my -- so it's five years you're saying that you guys will stop burning your trash?

Yes.

Thank you, Councilmember. I think that some of the questions asked are actually more suited for Sanitation in terms of what we will do and how that will work out logistically. But I appreciate your line --

I know what we're -- I get what we're going to do. My whole thing is what they were going to do, Councilwoman. You don't like my line of questioning. I appreciate that but --

As the Chair, I would like to continue. I think that some of the questions are very suited for Sanitation and they'll be up. In terms of some of the --

How is Sanitation going to --

As the Chair, I would like to continue running the hearing. Thank you.

Well, then you just lost me. Thank you.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. In terms of some of your other questions, right now we pay about $65 per ton for both landfilling and incineration. And I just want to make it clear to the members of the Committee, we actually have two waste management contracts. So we already send almost 60% of our trash to be landfilled through a contract with a landfilling company. And so, there's the option to send more of our trash that way, which is not an ideal or perfect solution, but it is better for health impacts than incineration.

I wasn't concerned about our trash. I know we'll do it once we implement. My concern is we're doing this as a partnership. When are they going to do it.

Thank you, Councilmember. The other thing that I wanted to note and I don't want people to forget is that there's a timing element here. We're in the midst and we're coming up on the end of our contract. So that's why it's important from a timing perspective to be considering this action right now because our next contract will last for a very long time. I'll move on to additional committee questions. Minority Whip Nicolas O'Rourke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me begin by saying thank you all, Mr. Mayor and all, for coming here and welcome to the city of Philadelphia.

Thank you.

The City of Brotherly Love, Sisterly Effectiveness and Sibling Solidarity. It is emblazoned in the seal of this city for some time, a phrase. It's kind of like broken Latin, Philadelphia Maneto. It's actually a reference to a letter that Paul wrote to one of the churches I believe in Philippi, Let brotherly love endure is essentially the concept. And I'm a Member At-large. My name is Nicolas O'Rourke. I'm a Member At-large here for the body, and I have the benefit and the honor of serving the entirety of the city and it makes me concerned about everybody's well-being. And if we are going to live, I believe in the model that we emblazon and we really market. I believe it calls us to be concerned about the well- being and the health of our sibling municipalities. Certainly, the oldest one in the Commonwealth. And so, I thank you for being here and hearing our questions. And please, I know that you may have not heard a response back when you reached out, Mr. Mayor, but we do welcome you and are grateful that you are all here to come provide testimony as it relates to concerns that are important to your citizenry as well as yourselves. You did mention in your testimony, Mr. Mayor, as well as I think I read it in Dr. Taylor's commentary as well in that fourth paragraph, that Philadelphia's trash is only a portion of the trash that's being processed at the incinerator, and that the rest of the trash comes from Delaware County and New York. I think you said is like one-third Philly, one-third Delco, one-third New York. Quick question, are you also in touch with officials from those municipalities and other areas as well about their contacts with Reworld?

So you only mentioned the three municipalities. We're talking to Philadelphia today. We have Delaware County with us, flanked on the end. New York is the other. That contract is a very long-term contract. I'm not sure how long that contract is. But I think it was a -- let me get some help from the gallery in the back. 20-year contract? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

Yeah, 20-, 30-year contract.

But are you in touch with the actual officials from New York and Delco -- obviously, you're here as well -- as it relates to their contracts with Reworld?

Yes. And we would be in contact with anybody who would even be considered for replacement if Delco or Philadelphia went out.

Do you know what their positions are on this matter?

Who, New York?

New York.

Their position is they're very happy it was approved to come down to Chester.

What is the racial demographic of Chester, if I may ask?

It's 75% Black, maybe 15% to 20% Hispanic and it's interesting to say other as White, but that's about the difference.

One of the panelists mentioned that there was 576,000 neighbors in Delco. How many are actually in Chester proper?

Chester has 35,000.

35,000. But 35,000 and 75% that are Black folk?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I'm really shocked -- I was extended the opportunity to come, but then another obligation came up and it kept me from being able to tour with you all recently. But the reports that I got back from colleagues that were there as well as the testimony that you looked up today really, really concerns me. One of my colleagues mentioned that upon going, it activated her asthma immediately that she was dealing with. And she came to visit myself. It was a cold day. I think it was Veteran's Day. She came by the house to meet my son and she was coughing. I'm like, what's going on? And she mentioned that she picked up the cough after having done the tour at the incinerator in Chester. And I'm just thinking about the reality that the immediate impact, right, to have someone, a grown adult woman, to be so immediately impacted by that, the long-term effects that it would have on anybody else in the fall- out areas or wherever else, including that many Black children that are growing up with that and what it causes. And I think about all of the conversations that we've had about environmental justice across this country, thinking about Flint, Michigan and what they were doing with water and other places as well down in Mississippi and issues around these sorts of things. And how if it was a couple of years ago, a few years ago, there would be much more of an uproar about the reality of this. But I think the political winds have changed so things are quieter. Obviously, money is being pulled back to focus on these sorts of things. But I do think that it's really important and I'm really grateful that you shared this, and I hope that others will watch back this particular hearing and to learn more about the reality of this. Apparently, you guys are one of the biggest incinerators or I guess the --

The largest.

-- the largest one on the Eastern Seaboard; is that true?

No, in the country.

Well, excuse me. So not just on the Eastern Seaboard. We're talking about the whole U.S. of A. Well, thank you again. It's really particularly important. I do hope that we all can hear beyond the facts and figures and numbers the moral challenge that is before us to care about our siblings if we're going to be the City of Philadelphia letting brotherly love or sibling solidarity endure, that I think it calls us to be genuinely, genuinely concerned about the health concerns of our neighbors just to the south. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. (Applause.)

If I could add one thing -

Majority Whip Councilmember Bass.

When you mentioned --

I'm so sorry.

-- the adult who was aggravated with her asthma during her visit -- my Health Commissioner's here, she can correct me if I'm wrong -- but in the city of Chester, the incidence of adults getting asthma as adults occurs in Chester at a much higher rate than it does just about anywhere else. Asthma is usually contracted in childhood, in those teen years. But in Chester, you find adults at very mature ages getting asthma for the first time. She's not correcting me, so I'm not wrong.

Majority Deputy Whip Councilmember Bass.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So good afternoon. Thank you for being here this afternoon. And I just had a few questions for you. And so, the first thing I just wanted to state is that a few weeks ago I was here in Council on the floor and I got a call from a neighbor. And whenever you're at work and you get a call from one of your nearby neighbors, you pick up because you're like, something's going on. And what was going on is that water was running brown in all the houses, you know, in the neighborhood, and there was some work being done by the Water Department, and it kicked up sediment and whatnot. And so, people were worried, and rightfully so, because their water was now brown. And so, when just thinking about what the citizens of Chester are going through, obviously we don't like it when things are going wrong where we live so we don't want to push that off on someone else where they live. And so, we certainly do understand exactly where you're coming from and what your thought process is there. I wanted to also make mention that as long as I can remember, the City of Philadelphia has been talking about where do we put our trash. And I forget which mayor, I don't remember if it was Goode or Rendell, I don't know, as they talked about trash to steam. And like that was something that was being discussed many moons ago here in the city of Philadelphia. But we've been talking about and trying to figure out where to put our trash for a very long time. And I think that now we're at that moment. I think that my colleague's question about how long, what's your timeline makes a lot of sense, because assuming that we are going to really seriously begin looking at what are we going to do about this situation, that we'll have to come up with some concrete resolutions and do that now. The moment is now to begin thinking about that. I wanted to know, Mr. Mayor, if you could talk a little bit about what you mentioned -- and I was unaware that the plant is sort of like waterfront. And we've got our fantastic waterfront Walmart here. So I don't know who makes these decisions about what to put along the waterfront, but it just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Some of the most valuable real estate that a city or a town or places like Chester that you have is occupied by something like this. And I have no doubt that there's some residual effect on the water that's in the area. So can you talk to us about Chester's possibilities, their economic opportunities that would exist minus this plant being where it is? Because we all know that Chester has been a good neighbor, a neighbor that many of us have been to. We have family and friends there. We certainly are familiar with Chester. But what are the opportunities that exist that could really propel Chester from what we know today and the struggles and challenges that it faces, just like any other municipality, the challenges that you face today versus what the opportunities could be in having that waterfront stretch available for development and growth and tax revenue for the city of Chester?

That's a layup question there.

I'm trying to give it to you.

But historically, you know Chester being the oldest city and on a river, industry loves water, so industry is set up across the entire waterfront in Chester. There is very little public access to our waterfront. Very little, very little. Interestingly though, where the Reworld Covanta plant sits, it's right next door to our partner, the Philadelphia Union Stadium and Complex. Now, over the last year, year and a half, they've taken what used to be a parking lot and turned it into a youth sports mecca, and they just cut the ribbon just three months ago on a $100 million sportsplex on their property. So the Philadelphia Union franchise believes in the waterfront property, so much so that they've invested over $100 million in expansion in the last year, year and a half. They're looking to acquire more space. Because as soon as they opened it up for youth sports activity, they ran out of space almost immediately. So they're still acquiring the small parcels that are left to expand that operation to have 50 acres right next door to them. They may not need all that for sports, but it would open it up to what we know as just this absolutely beautiful waterfront community that could be both commercial and residentially utilized with condos and shopping. That was the original plan for the stadium. The stadium was to go here. There's a wharf building that's Class A office space there, right in the middle. It was supposed to be the residential commercial space, but the building took place in 2008, right, when the banks tanked so they had to take every dollar that they could muster just to put the stadium up. The financial situation in America right now is far different than it was in 2008. People are ready to invest in Chester. There is no waterfront for them to invest in. This would be a prime location directly next door to where the biggest investment in this whole region has occurred. So I can just tell you the tax revenue that will come as a result of people building there, if nothing else, a four-star hotel right there on that place would be a very strong investment, and we've had people interested in doing that. People fly into the city to play sports in the city of Chester right now. The World Cup or the Club World Cup that happened last summer, the team that was here actually stayed at the DuPont Hotel in Wilmington. That's got to make you upset. You didn't even get any of that money. And the hotels that are in Chester are also considered airport hotels because of their proximity. So hotel space, condos, retail, when we get hundreds of young people playing down there every day and thousands on the weekend, their parents are dropping them off for the soccer tournament, soccer camps with nothing to do, nothing to do. They're just hanging out. So in order to have room for the restaurants, for the bars, for the entertainment space that is super prime, probably the most prime space on our waterfront in the city.

I think that, you know, having that information about what has already happened there just recently and to know that there has been this 100 million dollar sports complex that's been just recently opened, you know, the Philadelphia Union's involved they want more space. When you think about that -- my daughter plays lacrosse. And I just know when you travel around to these different places, you need hotels, you need restaurants, you want shopping. There's a whole economic engine that goes with what has already been produced there. And so, I don't know if it's been formalized in terms of what an economic redevelopment plan looks like for that waterfront, but I would strongly encourage, if it's not already done, to do that as soon as possible to put it on the table that there are other things that are desirable for Chester besides trash and incinerators.

I will send you and all of you here on the committee the plans that were done by the Riverfront Alliance. It's a group of the biggest businesses in Chester whose concern basically is the waterfront from end to end. The plan is there. We'll be happy to send it to you.

And I just have one other quick question for you, because I'm certain that there's considerable economic profit from the operators of the incinerator right now. And so, I'd like to know what kind of economic compensation has Chester received from these operators?

Yeah. You talked two things there. We believe that the Chester plant that's owned by Reworld Covanta is their biggest, biggest profit center of all the places that they have. Why, because it's the oldest and it operates at a very, very high level. It pretty much operates at 99% of capacity every day. I think it's a fabulous business model where people pay you to send you their fuel and then you get paid from the electricity that's made from it and then somebody buys the ash. There couldn't be a better business model that will give you straight profit. We know on the back of a napkin how much we believe that they're bringing in in terms of profit, but that's neither here nor there. Your second question is how much does it benefit the city. There's a host agreement that brings the city about $5 million a year. And that's not just (inaudible), but it's something that hasn't escalated at all. It's been locked in for, like I said, 20, years. There's been no 18 escalator. There's been no 19 formula. 20 As the profit increases, 21 the city receives additional 22 benefit. As the Health 23 Commissioner mentioned earlier, 24 they do contribute mightily in the community. When I make the call and say some organization would love for you to fund snacks or goodies or trinkets for the events, they never say no, but it's --

Well, they shouldn't if you're asking for snack money, you know. They shouldn't.

Well, that's my point. That's my point. It's really quite outrageous. If you ask for peanuts, you're just a monkey. So that's where we are --

Okay. I'm not even going to touch that one, you know, because we can really go deep on that. But I just think for the amount of damage that they're doing and the response in terms of there being a giveback that they do this for the community, they do that. And when we talk about a $5 million contribution to the operation of the city of Chester that has been that same $5 million forever, I'm outraged. It's just really speaking to the fact that this is all about profit --

We also generate electricity, but not a kilowatt.

So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Bass. Councilmember Ahmad. And then we're going to wrap up this panel and move on to our second panel.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for the excellent testimony to frame this for us to really look at those hidden costs that are hard to quantify, right, with dollars and cents. This is a moral question. I know people want every last detail of how exactly we're going to put this here, there and everywhere that's going to come, but we do not answer the moral question which is how have we allowed this to go on for this long. That's the first step. That's the first step. So I appreciate everybody trying to be, you know, specific about things. Every time we have change in our country, in our world, any time there's a disruption there's a pushback. That's expected, right, especially those who are in the business of giving those services that you're trying to change. So I think having the mayor here speaks to that. He's the elected representative of your citizens in Chester. Your word carries a lot of weight because you have taken and you understand that there's going to be a cost for making this transition, but the cost to not doing it is greater. The cost to not doing it is going to cause harm for generations to come. So I applaud all of you. It's more of a statement. I have a lot of questions, but the questions are all sort of, you know, can be answered. I just want to piggyback on what my colleague Councilmember O'Rourke said about the other municipality which has a -- other state that has a long investment or a long contract, so they might not be thinking about this. And I think Councilmember Gauthier kind of pointed at it. There's been a change in who is going to lead that city, and I think this is an opportune moment to get in there and to have a conversation and to see how that can be moved. Because if we have all the people who are utilizing your city for dumping our trash, then you have a stronger position. And there's also some remuneration that should come from all of us doing this for this long. I don't want to put a crimp on our budget, but I think we owe you something for continuing to do that. And New York can also -- they have a massive, more, bigger budget. They owe you something as well. So I think there's a way to configure this so that the actual cost to you is going to be minimized. And then of course, you gave us the offset from the economic development. So more power to you. Keep doing this. Your people have spoken through you and all of you. I appreciate that. And we're here, at least I am here as the Public Health Chair to work with you to see if we need to refine some things and we need to get more details for people to wrap their heads around, I am happy to do that with you. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Ahmad. I also wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the presence of Council President Kenyatta Johnson, who I know cares deeply about these issues. (Applause.)

Okay. And with that, I just want to thank you for your time. Thank you for sharing your story. Thank you for being here to stand up for your people. It's very inspiring. Thank you so much. Will the Clerk please call the next panel of witnesses to testify.

The second panel includes Carlton Williams, Director of Clean and Green, City of Philadelphia; and Crystal Jacobs Shipman, Sanitation Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon, Director Williams, Commissioner Jacobs, to the whole team. Thank you so much for being here today. Director Williams, please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Gauthier and members of the Committee on the Environment. My name is Carlton Williams. I'm the Director of Clean and Green Initiatives for the city of Philadelphia. Joining me today is Sanitation Commissioner Crystal Jacobs Shipman. And we are here to testify regarding Bill No. 10 250768, a bill that seeks to prohibit the City of Philadelphia from sending waste or recyclable materials to a waste energy facility. The City's Sanitation Division collects approximately 600,000 tons of municipal solid waste material each year and approximately 85,000 tons of recyclable material. The City of Philadelphia contracts with private waste companies to haul and dispose of municipal solid waste material. The city does not collect from large scale commercial establishments or private businesses that are not within the sanitation regulations. These entities contract directly with waste companies outside the city's contract and dispose of approximately 1 million tons of material annually. The Sanitation Department utilizes private waste companies that provide transfer stations and disposal facilities to manage waste from approximately 550,000 households. The city also owns one transfer station in Northwest Philadelphia. Transfer stations allow city trash compactors to unload material to locations around the city officially, where the material is then reloaded into larger vehicles to transport to its final destination at a disposal facility. The Sanitation Department uses four transfer stations across the city. Three of these stations are privately-owned and one is owned by the city. The solid waste material is transferred from the transfer station to long- term disposable cities that are located outside the city. There are two companies that manage and dispose of the city solid waste. These companies are WM, formerly known as Waste Management, Inc. and Reworld, previously known as Covanta. The city entered into the contracts with these companies on July 1, 2018. The term of the municipal solid waste contract was a four year plus three 1-year renewable options for seven years. The city is currently in the final year of the contract term and a new request for proposal is scheduled to be released this fall, with the new contract agreement scheduled to be in place by July 1, 2026. The present contract (inaudible) attracted companies primarily used to waste disposal practices to dispose of the city's waste, which include landfill and waste to energy. WM owns landfills in Tullytown and Fairless Hills, both are located in Bucks County, to dispose of approximately 430,000 or roughly 70% of the city's municipal waste. Reworld owns a waste to energy facility in Chester and disposes of approximately 180,000 to 200,000 tons of waste, which represents about 30%. There is a longstanding debate on the impact these facilities have on both health and the environment. Some advocates believe that waste to energy facilities negatively impact air quality and cause adverse health effects, while others contend that landfills produce harmful methane gas and leachate that negatively impact the environment. Bill No. 250768 seeks to end the city's practice of utilizing waste to energy facilities. It also contends that they are far more hazardous than landfills when it comes down to the health of those who live near these facilities, especially in the case of the residents in Chester, Pa. The administration applauds the bill's efforts to improve air quality and environmental justice concerns for the residents of Chester. However, there's a need for more objective data to support the claims of this bill in its entirety. There are both pros and cons to both waste disposal facility processes. Wasted energy reduces waste volume about 90%, produces energy and can reduce greenhouse gases compared to landfills. However, waste to energy facilities can be a source of air pollution and generate ash that needs proper disposal.

Landfills take up significant land, increase harmful methane gas and have a risk of groundwater contamination. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Material Management Hierarchy of 2016, waste to energy is viewed as a more sustainable practice than traditional landfills. The hierarchy ranks various waste management practices from the most to least environmentally preferred. The hierarchy places emphasis on reducing, reusing and recycling and composting as key to the materials management. The city is seeking to award a new contract that is both fiscally responsible and environmentally sustainable in managing the city's municipal solid waste. We need additional data to ensure that we are awarding the best viable option to manage the city's waste. Additional data is needed to ensure that we consider all impacts of both waste to energy and landfills have on the environment, specifically as it relates to Philadelphia and our surrounding communities. We need to look beyond traditional solid waste disposal practices and develop new strategies that are both environmental, sustainable and cost-effective. For example, the city of Chicago uses an anaerobic digester system to produce energy and nutrient-rich soil compost. This type of system increases the diversion rate tremendously and is more environmentally sustainable than both landfills and WTE. The City of Philadelphia is utilizing a new process to review all bidders and responses to the RFP, including environmental sustainability, capacity and cost, all of which are part of the negotiation process. The RFP includes a provision that allows for an objective analysis and evaluation of the various waste strategies. This will allow for an effective and efficient determination of the environmental impacts of each option submitted. We are hoping that this RFP will encourage multiple waste companies to offer solutions that provide environmentally sustainable and fiscally responsible proposals for the city to consider that meet the vision for a safer, cleaner, greener Philadelphia. Therefore, we respectfully request that Bill No. 7 250768 be held in committee until the results of the RFP are completed and more data is available to consider all options to manage and dispose of the city's municipal waste. Thank you for your commitment to public health and the environment. And I would like to give Commissioner Shipman the opportunity to offer further testimony on Bill No. 250768, and we'll respond to any more questions after she delivers her testimony.

Thank you. Commissioner, thank you so much for being here today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER JACOBS SHIPMAN: I'm Crystal Jacobs Shipman, Sanitation Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. Good afternoon, members of the Committee on the Environment. And thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to share a bit about sanitation obligations to ensure solid waste and recycling are collected and processed efficiently and responsibly. The Department of Sanitation supports the City of Philadelphia's efforts for a cleaner, greener, safer city through the management and disposal of waste and the provision of cleaning, beautification, educational programming and enforcement of the sanitation code. The Department of Sanitation is responsible for a number of programs and direct services, including recycling, education, a robust, mechanical street cleaning program, bulk collection services, operation of six sanitation convenience centers, illegal dumping surveillance camera monitoring and remediation, management of the Big Belly Solar Trash Can system, the Sweep Unit, Philadelphia More Beautiful Block Captain Network, 10 Council District residential base cleaning teams and direct support of the 13-week citywide cleaning, PHL TCB and Future Track programs. One of our greatest charges is the management of the city's waste disposal contracts. The City of Philadelphia is required to have a municipal waste management plan that is developed and approved under Pennsylvania State Act 101. Act 101 requires that we use a fair, open and competitive process for selecting among alternative waste management programs or facilities. Act 101 requirements apply to our basic planning decisions, including the types of programs and facilities used to promote waste reduction and recycling. We are required to assure the Department of Environmental Protection that we follow the law when selecting among alternatives presented during our request for a proposal process. As a part of this procurement process, respondents to the RFP may submit proposals for alternative processing technologies. We are interested in technology that offers the opportunity to recover organics, textiles and other potentially recyclable materials from the waste stream to be managed for recovery, energy recovery or reuse. We are also responsible for ensuring that disposal capacity is available for private and municipal collections for a 10-year period. Pennsylvania has 46 active landfills and six resource recovery or waste to energy facilities that manage over million tons per 14 year of municipal waste. 15 The challenge for us is 16 the city has limited options for 17 disposal. And although we are 18 exploring a variety of future 19 disposal options, what we currently 20 do have at our disposal as alternatives to WTE is expected to reach capacity in less than 10 years. 7 million for solid waste and million for recycling. Due to variable pricing, we paid roughly $77 per ton in FY25 and $80 per ton in FY26 for solid waste and $100 per ton for recycling, down from $110 this past summer. Eliminating a disposal option would have adverse effects in several ways, potentially yielding an estimated 12% increase in cost. It would also present additional challenges for collecting trash on time, adding to the carbon footprint by placing more trucks on roadways for longer periods of time, plus the effects of increased methane gas and groundwater pollutants for any additional material placed in the landfill. An objective study is being conducted by a private consulting firm to measure the environmental impacts and other considerations and respondents to the RFP for waste to energy and landfill disposal facilities with current solid municipal waste contracts with the city. At present, the city sends roughly 60% of trash to landfills and 40% is processed via waste to energy.

Two of the four landfills available to us at present have limited capacity to handle any significant quantities from the city. The primary competition for city tonnage in this market is the WM Fairless Hills landfill and the Reworld WTE facility in terms of having a significant amount of capacity. Both have transfer stations in the city. Republic, which operates the Conestoga landfill, also has a transfer facility in the city. The city currently uses about 30% of WM capacity that was accepted in 2025. If all city tonnage was sent to Fairless Hills, this would increase to 56%. To mitigate the issue, WM would need to move tonnage from New York and New Jersey to other landfills or utilize more design capacity. The challenge for WM is New York and New Jersey pay a significant premium for the capacity at $110 to $150 per ton. If more design capacity is used, the life of the landfill is reduced. Fairless Hills landfill has an expected 7 to 10 years of capacity remaining. Sending all of the city's tonnage would have an impact on pricing. As the options for disposal become limited, pricing is expected to increase. Less competition or alternative options equals higher premiums. The Grays Ferry Transfer Station does not have the capacity to handle added city tonnage due to the truck count associated with their permit for the facility. Any additional tonnage will either need to be delivered to the WM site or to use the Northwest transfer station. Limiting tonnage to one company would be very difficult and potentially costly. Our hope is that this RFP will encourage multiple waste reduction companies to offer sound solutions that provide environmentally sustainable and fiscally responsible proposals for the city to consider. Having a multitude of options allows the city to negotiate rates and get the best value or bang for our buck. Therefore, we respectfully request that Bill No. 250768 be held in committee while the city undergoes the RFP process and until additional data is available for options to manage and dispose of the city's municipal waste. We are happy to respond to questions at this time.

Thank you so much. I have a couple questions and then I'll pass it off to committee members. First, I want to talk about the timing of the objective sort of study that you asked for. Mayor Roots stated that he sent a letter to the administration asking Philadelphia to stop sending our trash to the incinerator in Chester a year ago. And then, Director Williams, during a budget hearing you told this body on the record that the city was interested in phasing out incineration. And so, I want to understand more about when we officially contracted with the firm that's looking into alternatives to incineration. Was it a year ago when we received the letter from Chester leadership and Mayor Roots and when you first expressed support on record or was it after the Stop Trashing our Air Act was introduced?

So, Councilwoman, thank you for your question. We contract with MSW Consultants on a number of issues related to waste issues in the city of Philadelphia. More specifically, we look at waste composition studies. We certainly look at volumes of material and we're always looking for ways to improve our current system. For this specific recommendation for the Stop Trashing Our Air Act, as per our meetings together we discussed having them a part of this RFP process to make this a new provision so that we can consider environmental impacts as a real reason for where we send our trash and waste and not a side item. So specifically, it was a result of a constant means previous to the announcement of the bill and most recently reaffirmed in the RFP when we are releasing it this fall.

So we asked them to do this objective study prior to the introduction of the legislation, just so I'm correct?

Yes, that is what we discussed together in terms of making that a part of this RFP. That is correct.

Thank you. We just heard from Chester City and County's leadership basically begging us to stop incinerating trash in Chester, talking at great length about the disparate health impacts that Chester experiences because of the incinerator and other toxic uses. Can you please let me know if you think they're being subjective in their data or is that not enough data to help us make this decision?

No, I think they're very passionate and very serious about the impacts that it has. As from the City of Philadelphia's perspective, I think that we need to look at all options where we're making this very critical decision about how we manage our waste in the future. And I agree that there is some health concerns. There's health concerns with landfills as well. We should be looking at all options and using this process as a way to be able to direct our waste accordingly. There's ways for us to benefit if we manage our trash correctly. And I mentioned, I know you were with me in the city of Chicago at the GPLEX Summit this year. I was very impressed to see an anaerobic digestive system, something that I've been pushing for the past 10 years. We put a provision in our previous contract that allows us to actually pilot that material. We want to do the same things here. So I think it's important that we look at all options. We certainly need to consider the health effects on Chester, but we also need to look at what the total amount of our waste stream is doing to all impacts of our environment.

This is a pretty long term contract, correct? So if we enter into this contract again at the end of the fiscal year, we would not have an opportunity to take this up again until after the Parker administration; is that correct?

So the previous contracts are four years plus three 1-year renewable options. To say that we can do a one year and then evaluate it again may be very challenging. Not to say it can't be done, but administratively it may be challenging and very costly, because waste companies look for fixed rates for long-term stability. Ultimately, the longer the term of the contract, the more stable and the more valuable -- lower the rate is. If we do a one year, ultimately we would have to repeat that entire process again. So traditionally, Councilmember, to answer your question I was just trying to explain kind of the background. It could be a longer term, it could be a shorter term, but there are costs that go into each.

The likely scenario based on what we've kind of done for some time, is that this would be a long-term contract that would not come up again until after the Parker administration; am I correct in that?

We could revisit it after four years if we do the traditional in our current term. So four years are guaranteed. Then you have three 1-year renewable option years. And at that point, you could open it up again for review, which will be within the Parker's administration.

I'm not sure how we're counting, but thank you for that answer. Do you push back on the data that came out of the Delaware County Health Study that not only talked about the environmental impacts, which you discuss in your testimony, but it talked about the health impacts, which are pretty severe. And it said that if you isolate incineration just in terms of health impacts, that it's actually times worse, 17 particularly for people living 18 near, to and around the 19 incinerator. Do you debate that 20 data? 21

No, I 22 don't debate it. But when you have 23 conflicting information, when you hear the United States Environmental Protection Agency say that waste to energy is preferred more than landfills, then you have a conflict between what is being reported versus what you're reading in other areas. And then you hear from where our data that we have, we have to go on the emissions report from the EPA that says Chester's waste to energy facility Reworld violating these emission standards, are they above or exceeded, do they put controls in place to ensure. So we have a conflict of information. I think that we all deserve to be able to look at and evaluate and it needs to take time to say this is where we are, this is the best decision for both residents of the city of Philadelphia, the environment and so forth and give us the viable options we need to make those decisions.

Thank you. I understand and definitely heard in your testimony the conflicting arguments about the environmental impacts of landfilling and incineration, even though I also understand that the EPA is revisiting that guidance. I'm asking about the health impacts. Do you have information that disputes what we've heard about the health impacts between incineration and landfill?

I do not, Councilmember. I do not have any information or data that disputes that. I do know that again it is an environmental health issue why we agree that we need to be looking at this practice as well as other practices as well. So we do agree with that situation as well.

Thank you. Councilmember Ahmad.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of you for being here and for your testimony. I wanted to find out -- I saw somewhere and I can't remember where -- 10% off our waste is handled through recycling. Was that a number somebody gave in testimony?

It's about 14%. But that's very close, Councilmember.

So there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that recycling does not happen in Philadelphia, I am told. And so, I faithfully separate my trash every Thursday when I put it out. And I want to know, because people keep asking me this, do we actually recycle?

Yes, Philadelphia recycles. And that is not just a comment. That is our focus, our campaign. We want people to know that recycling is definitely a practice that we support 100%. We need to do more of it. And I'm going to turn it over to the Commissioner to talk about what she has done to help promote it. When you talk about the hierarchy of waste and what practices are more preferable, we need to reduce, reuse and recycle more. And that's how we get to zero waste as opposed to either of the practices that we're talking about. But I'm going to let Commissioner Shipman also comment on the programs that we run here in the city. COMMISSIONER JACOBS SHIPMAN: So, Dr. Ahmad, your question is spot on in that nationally that is the thinking that the municipalities just are not recycling. In the city of Philadelphia, we are trying to dispel those myths and that thinking. A lot of that branched out or expanded over COVID where you had municipalities that completely stopped recycling because they just didn't have the capacity to do so. Philadelphia, we kept going, even though we were struggling to get things up on time, but we never shut down our recycling program. And so, what we're doing is rebuilding that. We did launch a new campaign that starts, you know, it's getting us back to the basics. It was just answering that question of, yes, Philadelphia recycles. And then the next phase of that is getting the messaging back into homes of what we do to recycle your plastics 215, your newspapers, your cardboard, your aluminum cans. We just had a presentation by some students at Shawmont School when we opened our North -- we did the ribbon-cutting by Northwest Transfer Station that talked about the significance of just recycling one aluminum can and what that does in terms of energy at a home. And so, yes, we are on pace and I encourage you to keep on recycling and those of you up there keep recycling.

Well, thank you for that because I can definitely message that out. I do think that we do need a campaign, along with all that has been mentioned of ways to dispose our waste. One is to reduce our waste, to reduce packaged products. And just the way that the country actually has adopted recycling, it has dipped a little, but it can come back up, we know we can change hearts and minds in terms of doing that. So I would love our city to actually start the campaign about making us look at our habits and what we are doing and have projections as to if we really are doing a good job there, how much can we reduce off our solid waste, which would alleviate all the problems we're talking about. I know that's not going to be 100%, but we need to -- (Applause.)

We need to make that a priority and make our city, our residents in Philadelphia, be aware of it, right. The second question I have is, in terms of how you're looking at putting -- how we're going to get rid of our solid waste, with what the data, the conflicting data that you saw, the question I have for the human health risk and mobile source quality assessment that was given to us by Reworld, is the question did they do longitudinal studies -- and I'll ask them this as well but you've been looking at these conflicting reports -- longitudinal studies, because they've been there a while now, they've been doing this for a while, to look at the health outcomes based on the variables we're looking at that give us a poor outcome? I just wondered if you guys are looking specifically at that when you said they're conflicting reports. That doesn't mean one is right. Just conflict --

That is correct.

You say something. I say something else. That doesn't mean -- I can be talking out of my behind when I say that, right. So I just want to be understood clearly that actual data gathering of real people in Chester city over a period of time to look at before and after or over a time period, has that been done in order to be able to say that there are negligible health outcomes?

That's a great question. And not to my knowledge, Councilmember. I have not seen that data or report or information presented to me in the City of Philadelphia in our capacity in overseeing sanitation and operations. I did not.

I just wanted to put that on the record in case I have to step out.

Absolutely.

I want to thank both of you. You're doing a yeoman's job to do what you're doing in Philadelphia. You're up against a lot, and this includes the illegal dumpers and all of them who are all contributing to this solid waste. And we need to make sure every perpetrator of illegal dumping is held accountable because that is causing problems in our total solid waste process. (Applause.)

But I do urge you to take this seriously, not just because my colleague has put out this bill, but because it's the right thing to do, and she did the right thing also, that we deeply look at alternatives. We actually take it seriously, including we use things like goats to clear up, you know, places of overvegetation so we don't have to use electric or other methods to clean certain places. So that can be minus there and the plus that goes into the actual solid waste and we can even out better. So I want you to use every available method that you have at your disposal to make it a cleaner environment and give our communities environmental justice. Thank you very much.

You have our commitment, Councilmember. Thank you for your kind words. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. Councilmember Driscoll and then Councilmember Nicolas O'Rourke. And I want to acknowledge the presence of Councilmember Mark Squilla. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Director Williams. Thank you, Commissioner. This is a very important topic that really needs to be heard by everybody, the administration Council, our citizens, but I do have concerns about time frames and contracting and impacts. Commissioner, you said 12%. What's that in real dollars? COMMISSIONER JACOBS SHIPMAN: 6.5 million a year.

6.5. And what is the impact of Act 101, our procurement process, in general and specifically? COMMISSIONER JACOBS SHIPMAN: So Act 101 lays out what we're required to do as a municipality with regards to those waste contracts. And the parts that's specific to the contracts are just making sure that the process that we lay out is both fair, is open and it's competitive, so that's the primary portion of it. But then also guaranteeing that both the municipality and then the other entities around the city that utilize the different disposal mechanisms that we can guarantee there's a 10-year period for those uses.

And last question, Madam Chair, is weighing the environmental issues, in your opinion, either of you can answer this or both if you'd like, is the RFP timeline delay prudent?

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that, Councilmember? I apologize. I didn't hear --

Weighing the environmental impacts and issues, in your opinion, is the delay in the procurement is it prudent?

I think there is significant time for us to capture the data and provide a recommendation. I think the proposals that we submit have to be reviewed by City Council in the end. So I do think that there is enough time in this contract for us to gather critical data and information to come up with a proposal that we can present to have a contract in place by July 1, 2026. That is our goal. If it extends beyond that, then we would have to try to extend the existing contract if we're looking for more data and information, and that will come at a cost and a premium like the Commissioner just mentioned as well.

You feel the same way, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER JACOBS SHIPMAN: Exactly. The Director stated it very well.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember. Minority Whip Nicolas O'Rourke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Director, Commissioner, blessings to y'all. Thank y'all for being here. I was listening to my colleague Dr. Ahmad get us together about how much trash we're putting out. I'm feeling kind of convicted about how much trash my little household puts out every single week. We got a new baby though, so we got some, you know, an upkick in it. But it really does have me thinking about what we need to be doing, not just as a government but as a city as it relates to this matter and trying to resolve this issue. There's a little gospel song that says, Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around mine. And I know there's a lot that could be said about what other cities, municipalities are doing, but I do think it matters about what we're doing. I'm going to be quick. I did have a couple of questions, but I want to be tight in the interest of time. Commissioner Shipman, you shared that -- and I want to acknowledge that you mentioned what the actual challenge for you was and the city has limited -- the challenge for us is the city has limited options for disposal. And although we're exploring a variety of future disposal options, what we currently do have at our disposal as alternatives to WTE is expected to reach its capacity in less than 10 years. So I just want to acknowledge that I hear that and that it sounds like a genuine concern. You shared that eliminating a disposable option would potentially yield an estimated 12% increase in costs, right. Do you have an estimated total cost increase per year or per ton? COMMISSIONER JACOBS SHIPMAN: No, we would not be able to tell you per ton because that would be a part of the process that is offered during the RFP where they would, you know, tell it -- we go back and forth. We negotiate the tonnage. But that 6.5 million is based off of what the cost would be to put additional trucks out, factors in a bit of also the additional cost if we were utilizing one process over the other as well. So it's an estimate, and we estimate that to be about 12% higher than what we're currently paying.

Okay. Let me get this other one and I'll give up my time, Madam Chair. You said that also -- this stuck out to me -- that eliminating incineration would add to the carbon footprint by placing more trucks on roadways for longer periods of time. Another thing that stood out to me, because I think that's something certainly to be considered, I know I'm concerned about just cars on the road in general and adding more to that, which is the reason why we fight so hard for SEPTA and transit, but my understanding, as verified by the Delaware County's Lifecycle Assessment and other studies, is that incineration itself is far more harmful for health and climate than trucking actually would be. Could you further explain or clarify or just speak more to that statement?

Yeah. I'm going to ask, Councilmember, Scott McGrath is our Director of Environmental Services. He supports the evaluation effort of the amount of trucks that we use to take it from transfer stations to location and distance travel. I think that's where it goes in comparison. But Scott has more details as it relates to how longer it takes us to collect trash from a given area in the city of Philadelphia to its final destination. MR. McGRATH: Scott McGrath, Environmental Planning Director of Sanitation Department. What we would be doing is evaluating both equally in terms of the options, looking at the transportation and operational costs associated with all the alternatives as well as the impacts at the disposal sites. So we would be adding both pieces together to see what the cumulative impact of both would be. So we're not saying that transportation costs are greater impact than, say, waste energy costs, but we're looking at the cumulative effect of both options on both landfill disposal options as well as the waste disposal options. So we'd be looking at the whole system as a whole.

Well, thank you for that clarification. I don't want to eat up all the time. I would engage with you a little bit more around that point if we did have the time. But I do think it's important that we consider exactly what you said, exactly the whole total impact. And I know that we are, you know, the idea that we need to be shifting over this to try to figure out what's the best balance, but I think we do need to take seriously what Delaware County authorities are telling us as it relates to the actual impact that we will be having by making certain shifts. That having been said, again thank you all for your time. Appreciate your service to the city. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you so much. Thank you to all of you for being here today, for your testimony and for your work.

Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you for an opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Councilmember Squilla.

Thank you so much. And I just have a quick question, because a lot of it has been said but I wanted to piggyback off of Councilmember Ahmad. And what we do -- as we look at this challenge as an opportunity, nobody supports polluting our air, poisoning our air or poisoning our land, right. It's like choosing which one you want to do more than the other. We know that it's a challenge, right, incinerating. We're never going to incinerate our way out of waste. Landfills, we know are getting fully met, with Conrail looking at transfer stations because we might have to transfer this trash further and further away. And yes, there's cost associated. But the opportunity comes in as what do we do and look at what other municipalities are doing around the country in recycling waste, not only plastic bottles, cardboards, but food, right. We talk about food insecurities and how -- (Applause.)

Thank you. How do we look at that? We have businesses and I think it's California, somewhere in California has SB, I forget the number of it, 1383 or whatever, where restaurants and places that get rid of food are not allowed to dump it, right. They have to then reuse the food, send it to a processing plant, use it for cooked materials, whether it's for animals or for shelters or for school children. These are good quality foods that we end up throwing out. So by reducing the waste, we can then eliminate the need for these incineration stations for our landfills. Chicago has a plan of using waste for energy, right. This opportunity I think that's here today brings us a different opportunity on reducing those levels, looking outside the box at other ways to send our waste or to reuse our waste in a way so it doesn't go to a landfill, it doesn't go to an incinerator. And I want to thank Councilmember Gauthier for bringing this up, because I think we need to really look at all these things. And right now we don't have a good solution. And what solution is best, land or air. But I think it'll help us and guide us to bring us to those alternatives that we could do as far as recycling, reuses of food, and we're talking about the food insecurities out there. We need to be able to look at things that we have where we really waste a lot of stuff that can be reused. And I think just look at other municipalities and using our city government to have -- and I know you do some of these things, but how do we then project this into the future to become bigger and therefore having this conversation say, well, we're not going to send our materials to be incinerated in Chester, we're not going to send it to a landfill that's being filled and then we would have to worry about five years from now, we're going to send it out to another state and another area to pollute that area. So are there ways that you're looking at now and what we can do in the future --

Yeah. In my testimony, I stated one of the ways that we are looking very seriously at is anaerobic digestion. I think that is the key for us to talk exactly what you just mentioned, Councilmember, and thank you for bringing that up. 30% of our waste stream right now is material that we can compost and turn into that energy in a safe manner that doesn't impact our surrounding communities. And we need to look at ways in which we can continue to invest in that. That is the only true way to get to zero waste. We can increase recycling and we can look at repackaging and how material is ultimately produced and how products and the life expectancy getting rid of single-use plastics, so many other ways in which we can here in the city of Philadelphia eliminate the need to rely on either wasted energy facilities or landfills for a safer environment.

Well, I think some of that may have to be legislated. I mean, there's ways to do it through a carrot to incentivize it, maybe it's a tax incentive for businesses who participate, right. There's a cost associated with -- people pay to get trash disposed of, right. Really they could reduce their trash, their disposing and pay for us to reuse their food and other things. So I think legislation- wise, whether it's a carrot or a stick or both, I think we need to look at whatever those recommendations are. And I know we have plenty of colleagues on Council to be able to do that. And sometimes carrots don't always work and you may need a stick to say, you can no longer get rid of your food waste, you can't throw your food waste out, right, we can reuse this, what you're considering food waste, not stuff people eat on a platter, but stuff that's left over that we just dispose of. So I'd be happy to work with you, and I know we have colleagues who will be happy to work with you to do that. And I think the true opportunity here is to really look at how do we get the zero waste in a way that's meaningful, but also that we could then have data showing the reduction of our waste and not spending money on just sending it different places. (Applause.)

Agree. Thank you, sir. And thank you, Councilmember Gauthier. Really appreciate it. Look forward to working with you.

Thank you. Likewise. Will the Clerk please call the next panel of witnesses.

Third panel includes Kim Bradford, Reworld Environmental Affairs; and Brian Stormwind, AECOM, AVP of Environmental Affairs. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon. My name is Kim Bradford. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman Gauthier and the Environmental Committee. My name is Kim Bradford and I'm a proud resident of the City of Philadelphia, District 4 for eight years, residing in the Wynnewood neighborhood. I am a Pennsylvania environmental manager for Reworld. The Chester facility is a sustainable waste solution facility that helps a wide range of municipal, commercial and industrial clients recover, recycle and reimagine waste. Reworld also operates sustainable waste management facilities throughout the United States and Canada, co-located in urban, suburban and rural areas, converting waste into renewable energy. In fact, countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have enacted legislation to minimize the use of landfills as a waste management option. These countries, the United Nations and the US EPA all recognize waste to energy as a superior to landfills, which is the third largest source of methane, the climate-damaging greenhouse gas. Like nearly all waste management processes, the Chester facility does have air emissions. I work with them on a daily basis. Unlike landfills, these emissions are strictly regulated in accordance with permits issued by PADEP. It is my job to work closely with the facility to ensure that the facility complies with these requirements. Our emissions are up to 99% below permitted levels and we're proud of that. Our share of emissions within the County's air shed is very small. We represent just 1% of the fine particulate emissions in the county and one-tenth of 1% of the VOC emissions. The primary sources of pollutions are mobile, such as cars and trucks. A human risk assessment completed by an independent study this year in accordance with EPA protocols demonstrate that the operations of our facility is protective of human health. Consistent with our environmental justice policy, Reworld seeks to engage in meaningful, two-way communication with the communities in which we operate. As a result of this commitment, we embarked on four major projects to enhance our operations. We have provided access to our realtime emissions monitoring data. I'm pleased to share with you that the emission data for the Chester facility is available online as we speak. In 2021, we launched a voluntary testing program to reduce our NOx emissions. During this testing period, the project transitioned from voluntary to required in order to comply with the PADEP RACT III rule. The permanent system has been operational since December 30, 2024 and has achieved a 21% NOx reduction in our emissions. In 2024, Reworld began replacing our steam vent mufflers with advanced noise silencers designed to significantly reduce noise impact beyond the facility's fence line. This project is scheduled for completion in 2026. This year, we conducted a carbon injection trial test to explore the potential for further reducing our mercury emissions. The testing program was very successful, demonstrating that the facility could achieve a 99% reduction in mercury emissions. Next year we will initiate regulatory permitting process for this project, with construction and system commissioning scheduled to begin in 2027. And I'm proud to say that I've worked on three of these projects and I'm very proud of the accomplishments of these projects. We continue to welcome constructive two-way communication with community stakeholders. We use this feedback to improve our outreach efforts and environmental performance. This is not just a commitment for today. It is a commitment for the future. Thank you for scheduling this hearing on today and for giving us an opportunity to present our accomplishments to the committee.

Thank you for being here today and for your testimony. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is Brian Stormwind and I work with AECOM. So I'm here to speak about the studies that have been mentioned. AECOM conducted a health risk assessment, a multi- pathway health risk assessment and air quality modeling studies to assess the potential health impacts to the residents of Chester and surrounding areas. The studies were conducted with EPA Environmental Protection Agency models and methods. The health risk assessment is a comprehensive analysis designed to evaluate facilities, air emissions and exposure to residents. The studies are based on actual emissions of metals like arsenic, mercury, chromium and organic compounds like dioxins and PAHs, based on recent years of stack-testing data. The health risk assessment is a multi-pathway assessment, which means that there are various exposure routes. We have direct through inhalation and also -- by the way, the inhalation is based on the maximum modeled air concentrations. We also assess ingestion, which is an indirect pathway of the compounds that enter the food chain through deposition onto soils, plant, water bodies and associated watersheds. The deposition comes from a model and the metals and the contaminants on the surface of particles get into the soil, onto water bodies, and water shed is kind of funneled into water bodies. Then the analysis also includes the ingestion of fish and residential backyard gardens where you have some produce, but we also -- so that's for residential exposure. We also looked at a subsistence farm, which turns out to be kind of like a hypothetical location because there's no real close beef and dairy farm, but the farm was assumed to have produce, beef and dairy. And all of these analyses focused where the maximum air concentrations and deposition rates were modeled. There was a number of conservative assumptions that were incorporated, as required by EPA in these analyses, including assumed ingestion rates of locally-caught fish and consumption of produce and animal products. And that aspect of the model is meant to be comprehensive. We're not just looking at the air that you breathe. But what if you had a backyard garden or what if you did a lot of fishing and you ate a lot of fish. And the ingestion rates of those things are prescribed by EPA. Ultimately, the results of the analysis were evaluated relative to EPA thresholds that they deem acceptable for facilities such as this, the air emissions associated with facilities like these for cancer and noncancer effects. We also did an additional analysis for fine particulate matter, where we looked at the air emissions from trucks associated with the operation of the facility as well as the facility stack. So the cancer and the noncancer thresholds, they're a little bit different than what we did with the particulate emissions. The EPA also provides national ambient air quality standards. The particulate standards are -- well, the NACS were developed by EPA to be protective of the most sensitive populations, including children, the elderly and individuals with respiratory conditions like asthma. So the results of the health risk assessment show that the facility, as you can see in the report, were below the thresholds for cancer, acceptable cancer rate, as well as noncancer. And the truck emissions analysis, and again the focus was particulate matter, and the stack results were well below the national ambient air quality standards, which were again designed to be protective of public health. And that concludes my testimony.

Thank you so much. I have a couple questions and then I'll pass it off to the Committee members. The Department of Environmental Protection issued Reworld a violation for not monitoring radioactive waste at your incinerator. Why were you not monitoring? And what assurances do we have that you will operate in good faith moving forward since you've proven in the past that you would ignore important safety measures like this one? And then as a follow-up, the EPA reports that your incinerator operates in violation of the Clean Air Act. Please explain specifically why you received this violation and what steps you're taking to correct it.

Okay. So first, as it pertains to the radioactive waste, that was associated with -- actually we monitor every single truck across our scales. They go through our radiation detectors. The radiation detector will alarm and it will then activate our radiation protocol. The truck was put into isolation where we were in the process of identifying the isotope and also to get -- to get a permit for it to go off site. The truck calling company trespassed on the premises in the middle of the night and they obtained the truck without -- without our prior authorization, because we would never, one, process radioactive waste above our thresholds and, two, we would never allow for someone to then active -- once the truck is -- once our protocol is activated, it's our duty to then, you know, figure out the correct deposition for it. So they came onto the facility in the middle of the night, apprehended the truck without our knowledge. We actually self-reported it in accordance with our plan. Our plan requires that in the event, if such thing happens, that we have to selfreport and that is what we did. And as a result of self-reporting, the truck driver coming -- trespassing our facility in the middle of the night, we were issued the notice of violation for that event. So the waste was not -- the waste was identi -- the truck was identified as having radioactive waste in it. We were in the process of identifying what it was and they apprehended their truck without it. That's what happened.

I understand that you self- reported. But what are you doing -- I mean, it's your job to monitor what's happening on your property. What are you doing to ensure that that doesn't happen again?

Basically, our security guard has been notified that he needs to make sure that they're letting us know when activities like that happens, ensuring that all of our security policies and procedures are in place to ensure that no one can trespass on our facility after hours as well.

I see. Can you talk about the Clean Air Act violation from the EPA? What did you receive the violation for? And what steps are you taking to correct it?

Well, the EPA ECHO facts database is renewed every single quarter. So even when we submit our quarterly emissions report -- for example, if we miss one hour of monitoring for CO or opacity, a downtime hour because of doing a calibration on the instruments, that will give us an HPV status. So sometimes the database is a little misleading in terms of the way that it reports out our statuses, but then that is also seen as a violation because we are held to a higher standard than most industries for emissions requiring. But at times, unfortunately with an opacity monitor or with our carbon monoxide monitors, you may result in losing one hour of data in a quarter, and then that toggles you into HPV status. We did have a situation where we did have a loss of power even at the facility, where we once again self-reported and we received a notice of violation for that. Any time we have an event like that, we will do corrective action. We do RCA or root cause analysis, where we then develop corrective actions. One of the corrective actions that we have for that is to review our logic for our electrical distribution systems to ensure that those types of events would never happen again.

Thank you. And then lastly, do you know what materials are burned in your incinerator? Do you, for example, sort out toxic materials like heavy metals, plastic and rubber? What percentage of trucks do you inspect given sort of the earlier violation we talked about? Do you do open bag inspections? And do you monitor in realtime for heavy metals like lead, mercury and cadmium?

Okay. So a couple of questions there. So we do have inspectors on our floor that are inspecting our waste. So we do, do about roughly 5% to 10% of inspections on a daily basis. We also have floor attendants that are reviewing and looking at the waste and seeing if there's anything that should not be processed. They are trained on what type of waste should be processed versus not pulling out what we call nonprocessables. And that's their job and responsibility, to pull those things out, heavy tree stumps, white goods, etc, that could make their way, electronic goods that can make it into the waste stream. So we do have floor attendants who are visually surveilling. We have people in front-end loaders who are pushing the waste that can visually surveil the waste as well. We only burn municipal solid waste and also a few nonhazardous residual waste codes per the Pennsylvania solid waste regulations. So we do not burn any hazardous waste. We are not permitted to burn hazardous waste. We would never burn -- we would never even want to permit to burn hazardous waste.

One last question for clarity. So I was at the incinerator. They're literally mounds and heaps of garbage there. Are you saying that it's an eyeball inspection and that you inspect between 5 to 10% of what's come in or are you saying something different?

Well, we write down approximately 5 to 10% of the loads coming through the day. But then you also have people who, like I said, are floor attendants who are working the floor that they can also visually see and detect. We do not tear open bags because we also have an anti-scavenging policy and then we don't want people to come in contact with the waste in that manner. But if they do, they have been trained to see if there is something that should not be, that we should be processing, that they are trained to pull those things out.

Thank you. Councilmember Ahmad.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick question about the radioactive waste that was found. Was that part of your solid waste, you're collecting radioactive waste?

No, ma'am. Most radioactive waste that we -- the isotopes that we get hit for our medical isotopes, lutetium 177, iodine, iodine 131 and technetium. It is a medical isotope that is used to treat thyroid cancer. So people are -- it is communicated to people when they're going through treatment that you need to isolate your ways. But as someone who also gets involved in the radiation isolate, I tend to empathize with them in the fact that sometimes even though they may get those instructions at the hospital or at the point of treatment, maybe they don't -- it's just like I'm concerned about my cancer, you know, I'm throwing this away.

Yes, I hear you.

So we do have detectors at our scale house to detect for that. And then we isolate those trucks and we have personnel who will then, you know, go out there, confirm what the isotope is and we will then get, you know, we have to contact the DEP to get a request to ship to then ship that truck to the landfill.

So you don't decontaminate on your premises. You just ship out any radioisotopic waste to someplace else, right?

Yes -- we can also pull it out. So if we need to -- because maybe we have a customer that does not have a contract to go to the landfill, then we'll bring in our health physicist to then, you know, basically it's a very meticulous process. I've been out there and I've seen it. And you follow the isotope and then you pilfer through it, identify it, and then we put it in our radiation holding area until it drops to the appropriate threshold where it can be processed.

So, you know, those half lives are very long. It takes a long time for these isotopes to decay. So I just wondered how much safety is used to make sure these are segregated, these are properly protected so personnel who work there are not exposed to this? And it was very worrisome to hear that a truck came. You were not able to fully decontaminate and they left. And it seems to me very lax procedures, even if you're getting a tiny amount of radioisotopes coming in with regular waste. I think you need to have much better protocol for this to happen. This cannot happen. This cannot happen. (Applause.)

Second question is for you, sir. You mentioned the health impacts. Help me understand, is this done on actual data from real people or is this a modeling done based on the EPA report of what is acceptable or not?

This is a modeling study using actual facility operational data. The assessment itself is a hypothetical conservative screening analysis that is based on the results of the model that tells us what the air concentrations are at the maximum location within the residential area, and the deposition rates that again contribute to compounds in produce. And so, it's that aspect of it. It's hypothetical and there are ingestion rates that are assumed. For example --

Let me stop you. I understand what you're going to tell me. I just wanted you to say it, this is hypothetical and we actually don't have real data from real people around us because the EPA takes data from all over. I am really concerned because you've been in this facility, has had this contract for a long time and over all these years, we have not been able to do an actual assessment of a health impact on actual people living in Chester city who have been exposed to this. So this hypothetical model, the data you give to me is not very useful because it is not on actual people -- (Applause.)

Yes, this study was following EPA guidelines to determine what is the potential impacts to the residents in the area.

I understand what you're saying.

I mean, it's designed to be very conservative.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I'm saying it's not acceptable because you have perfect opportunity with all the profits you're making to have a really detailed study of a real impact on the real people in the real city of Chester, so that we don't have to depend on simulations. So, yeah, I mean what you're doing, but to me these numbers mean nothing. It just means that you were able to get a model that did this and said that. And yet we don't know what's happening in realtime with real people. So whether you get a contract here or not, you're going to have contracts elsewhere. I behoove you to use all these profits you're making to actually invest in longitudinal studies of real human beings who are around your facilities so that we can have real data and you can present that. Hopefully, it will show what you're showing. But I am highly suspicious it would match this data.

Well, I do want to add that this assessment is meant to be very conservative. It assumes some is exposed to the air concentrations and deposition rates for a lifetime of 70 years, whether they live in Chester their whole lifetime or not. There's a lot of conservative assumptions. But no, it's not an epidemiological analysis.

And that's exactly what we need to do, for Reworld to do a real epidemiological study, a longitudinal one to be able to then say without any doubt that you are not impacting negatively the health of people surrounding your facility.

I do want to add also that it is the objective following -- EPA designed these studies to evaluate facilities that have not been built yet, right, so that they can determine whether or not the air pollution control design on the facility is enough to protect the public health. We applied that here, and it shows very --

I think EPA is correct in prospective when something has not been built. But you've been built and you've been operating for many years so there is no -- (Applause.)

-- excuse not to have real data. I'll just tell you that.

I'm just saying that the analysis and the methodologies were designed so that facilities would be built protective of human health and we applied that model to a facility that's an actual operation. We have actual data that we put into that analysis and it does indeed show that the cancer risk associated with this facility is below the acceptable range that EPA has said.

I'm sorry. All based on a simulation, not on real data. So I don't think you can give us this data and tell us definitively that this is what is actually happening in the community, because you did not do that study. So that's what I would recommend, you actually do longitudinal studies which you have the time and the resources to do and not tell us to swallow this, because this is something done by EPA prospectively overall taking averages. That doesn't work here. This is not real data for us to consider. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Did use actual operational data for the facility. Did use that -- we did do actual emissions from the facility for this analysis too.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Councilmember Nina Ahmad. And we thank you all for your testimony today. Thanks for being here. Will the Clerk please call -- well, first I'd like to make an announcement. We're going to have to, for the sake of time so that we don't lose quorum, we're going to have to make up some time. So I'm going to switch up the last panel and then we're going to recess for a bit and then we'll come back to public comment.

The fourth and final panel will consist of Ms. Zulene Mayfield, Founder of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living; Dr. Cheryl Bettigole, Professor of Clinical of Family Medicine and Community Health; and Mike Ewall, Founder of Energy Justice Network. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chair Gauthier, Vice- Chair Bass, who is not here at the moment, and members of the Committee. My name is Mike Ewall, and I'm the founder and executive director of a national organization called Energy Justice Network based here in Philadelphia. I've been working on waste and energy issues for 35 years now, and I've put more years in working for environmental justice in Chester than anyone out there and counting over 30 years at this point. Communities across the country seek me out to stop dirty energy and waste facilities planned for their communities and to transition away from such facilities toward clean energy and zero waste solutions. I've developed the zero waste hierarchy, which is used as an international standard, and am a resident of Northeast Philadelphia and have been leading the work on this bill since four years ago. This is an initiative that's been entirely generated by Philadelphia residents. I'm going to skip over most of my testimony because I know you're running tight on time and just jump to some other key points. One of them is that alternatives already exist. We are not in the situation that Delaware County is in where they have financial and infrastructure barriers to moving away as quickly as they would like to. We can do this in the time that we have, which is about seven months. We already have a major waste company with adequate transfer station capacity and landfill capacity with two transfer stations in the city already and enough capacity at them as well as two landfills with enough capacity to take that one-third of the waste that is currently going to an incinerator contract. We're talking about 37% of our trash going to incineration, so that's not everything. It's not even half. And we know that longer term, not even just a few years even and we could do this if we wanted to, that adopting two of the main building blocks of the zero waste system can quickly and easily reduce the city's waste stream by more than that 37%, enabling us to dial back the waste that we do have to landfill by more than we currently burn and saving money in the process. Now, we're sympathetic to the administration's concerns about timing and cost. We understand their desire to have this bill held in committee. However, we would suggest that this committee move the bill forward to show its sincerity on this issue, but that the bill doesn't necessarily have to be voted on by the full Council until all the bids come in for the RFP. So you understand how that could be challenging, if it happens that way. And finally, while we support these concerns, I must say I'm disappointed to see some of the same arguments put forward by Carlton Williams today as he did in this chamber in 2019, when this was last a controversy before you, citing EPA waste hierarchy to justify placing incineration above landfilling, even though the science-based zero waste hierarchy does the opposite. Having written the most extensive response to the Sanitation Department's waste management request for information this past summer, among my 54 pages of comments, I pointed out to this department that EPA admitted to us almost four years ago that the agency has zero documentation to back up the placement of incineration above landfilling in its hierarchy. They told us this high level staff at EPA who work in this field, who are the waste division told us they have zero documentation. So for the city to be resting on that and saying, oh, well, EPA says so because they know best when they can't back it up, and that's why since July 2022, because I asked them, the EPA, the federal agency, put a disclaimer under the hierarchy everywhere it shows up saying they are revisiting it, and it's a slow process, and maybe on hiatus for four years, but this is something that they're working to revise because they recognize that is not backed up by science as it should be. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. Dr. Bettigole, thank you for all of your service to the city. Thank you for being here today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

So my name is Dr. Cheryl Bettigole. Good afternoon, Chair Gauthier and members of the Committee on the Environment, and thank you for the opportunity to give testimony on Bill 250768. As you know, I'm Dr. Cheryl Bettigole, Professor of Clinical Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine. The opinions that I express in this testimony are my own and don't necessarily represent those of Penn. As we've heard today, more than 1 child in 5 in the city of Philadelphia has been diagnosed with asthma. That's nearly three times the national rate. Asthma is one of the top reasons for missed days of school in our city and that makes it harder for our kids to learn and for parents to go to work and support their families. So as we're thinking about the economics of this, that really has to play a part. The burden of asthma falls unequally on our children, with the hospitalization rate for Black children in the city nearly six times as high as that for White children, and the last available data that high rate of asthma, along with the other impacts that we've heard about today on the health of city residents from air pollution, it's not the result of any single source children who grow up in our city, particularly those whose families do not make a living wage, which is more than half of our city, face the combined impact of multiple exposures. Many live in lower- quality housing or indoor air pollutants may trigger their asthma as well as impacting the breathing of older adults. Tobacco use tends to be higher in these same neighborhoods, although the city has made welcome strides in decreasing its use in recent years thanks to the actions of this City Council. And sadly, too many of our children face barriers increasing in the current environment to accessing the health care and medications they need to control their asthma and to prevent exacerbations. As City Council considers this bill, it may seem like a decision to support its passage is solely a vote to protect the residents, especially the children of Chester city and county, which we absolutely should do. But when we send our trash to Chester for incineration, we are also putting our own residents at risk in the warmer months of the year. In the warmer months of the year, winds in Philadelphia generally shift to blow from the southwest rather than from the northwest, bringing toxins from trash incinerated in Chester to the air we breathe in Philadelphia. And I think we saw over the last few years just how far air pollution can go when the wildfires in Canada made our air orange in 2022. At a public meeting of the Air Pollution Control Board, members of the public pointed out that in Philadelphia facilities that emit large amounts of toxic pollution tend to be built in the same neighborhoods. They asked why the board could not require consideration of the air pollution and cancer risk in the specific neighborhood of a facility applying for a permit. Rather than just considering the facility's risk on its own, the board agreed, ultimately passing a regulation that requires consideration of cumulative cancer and noncancer risk in the neighborhoods of proposed facilities for large emitters before their permits can be approved. They made that decision because they recognized the need to address the disproportionate health risks in some city neighborhoods created by a historical legacy of injustice. Council has an opportunity to take another step down that road today, passing this bill and saying no to the incineration of Philadelphia's trash in the largest incineration facility in the country that is more than 30 years old and to the toxic air pollutants it produces. Council has the chance to move our city and our neighbors in Chester toward environmental justice and the healthier future we all want for our city's residents and our neighbors. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. Thank you to both of you for your work and for being here today. Thank you.

Ms. Zulene Mayfield, Founder of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living.

Last, but certainly not least, thank you so much for being here, Ms. Zulene. Thank you for all of --

It's a long day.

-- your work. It really is.

It's a long day. Hello, my neighbors. I am going to -- 0I provided written testimony. I just want to get through this and we're going to go over a couple of things.

Sorry. Can you state your name for the record and speak into the mic.

My name is Zulene Mayfield. I'm the Chairperson and a Founding member of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living or CRCQL. CRCQL was formed in 1992. We were formed after the incinerator went live and began burning. Initially, we formed on everything that you could see, hear and smell. We were not knowledgeable about the pollution and/or the disruption and disease and cancers that they would bring to our community. You've heard from other panelists on their perspective about Covanta Reworld Incinerator. We have experienced firsthand the immediate impact of this incinerator that it has had on our community. As people that live in Chester, we are environmentally assaulted every day, from the thousands of pounds of pollutants being emitted by Covanta Reworld. We've had to become scientists, engineers, enforcers, health advocates and regulatory agents, all while trying to live. Only we can tell our story. Only us. Covanta recently commissioned a report on the health of residents of Chester. They have referenced that so-called report today. AECOM authored this report, and it should be noted that this company has a dubious history. They've been a source of fraudulent billing, racial discrimination, hiring discrimination, lawsuits and settlements resulting in millions of dollars being paid out. Covanta Reworld should be ashamed to even tout that as a report. In 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency at the behest of this organization, commissioned an environmental risk assessment study. They have all of the data. They showed the cancer rates for our community. They gave us the projections. It was a trailblazing report that had never been done before. Every report after that has mirrored their conclusions at that time. Basically, our community is sick, our children have asthma and we are burying members of our community, burying them every day, as Dr. Motley said. We are getting that phone call that somebody else is sick or they need transportation, they need food. Covanta Reworld emits cadmium, chromium, mercury, dioxins, arsenic, all known cancercausing carcinogens. Yet Covanta Reworld wants this committee to believe that the cancer rates in Chester are not significant, although data shows Chester residents suffer from rates of liver and bio cancer, 91% more than the national average. Laryngeal cancer, 84% the national rate. Hodgkin's lymphoma, 78%, greater than the national rate. Pancreatic cancer, 50% greater than the national rate. The list goes on and on and on. Asthma rates for our children are alarming, as are the rates for the children of Philadelphia. For some reason, people think that when the pollution hits the fence line, it stops. It don't stop there. What is done to us in Chester, what is contributing to environmental genocide, what is allowed to happen to us, you do also unto yourself. It don't stop there. There's no Wakanda shield. The city of Chester also falls within the 90 percentile for ozone. Meaning, it is in the top 10% for the state of Pennsylvania for ground level ozone exposures known to cause respiratory distress, among other health issues. Delaware County Solid Waste and Delaware County Council just approved the Zero Waste Plan. If you are looking for a model on how to do the financial assessment, a lifecycle analysis and a comparative study, that is a great start, an absolute fantastic start. I think it is a trailblazing study. And what they have determined, incineration is far more polluting than landfilling. It's apples and oranges. And I would pose a question to the people in this committee today, everybody's looking financially and what does this do and how do you do that. I would just say the logic is, if Delaware County hasn't done anything, why should we do the right thing. There's never -- well, I'm not going to do it because they haven't done it. There's always a time to do the right thing. (Applause.)

Always. And it should not be dependent upon somebody else. You are Philadelphia, Philadelphia. We are the oldest city in Pennsylvania, but you are the oldest government. And what can Philadelphia not do? Come on now. Y'all home of the Eagles. Come on. You know, that alarmed me a little bit. So Covanta Reworld will tell this committee that they're good community partners. They gave out food to 250 families. Well, we have 12,000 households in Chester, so it's minimal, a crumb of a crumb of a crumb. They give out $25,000 in scholarships. They give $2,000 to this organization, blah, blah, blah. They gave an AED to a church, blah, blah, blah. They will not talk about the poisoning of an entire community. They don't want to talk about that. They do not want to talk about the people in our community that we are losing. They won't say who pays the cost when a child has an asthma attack and the parent is at work and has to leave work to get their child medical attention for that child. Covanta will also tell you that their burning of trash falls within the allowable limits of their permit. The facility is 33 years old. Old technology, outdated. There's no way to make it safe. By their very nature, they will never be safe. That's why they have to be issued a permit to pollute all of us. They are issued a permit to pollute, not to be good neighbors. WTE, I'm so glad that everybody today has called them the incinerator because that's what they are. It's nothing magical about what they do. As a byproduct of what they do, which is burn, they generate electricity. Now, the logic would be since you have a city that's in a poor community, well, hell, let's give the electricity to the community. That might actually lift people out of poverty. That would be a good community partner. No. When they initially started -- I don't know where the electricity goes at now because I don't have time to track it, but they used to send it over to grid Atlantic City and it serviced the casinos there. So you see everybody profits off of the suffering of the community of Chester. You talked about finances. I heard a person up here say that you all pay $78 a ton to have trash disposed. Well, the city of Chester receives $2 per ton, $2. 50 to $2. Nobody knows why, but the deal was done in secrecy and away from the residents. That's primarily and particularly one of the reasons why he's no longer the mayor. You've heard about, you know, we have 35,000 people. We don't have one doctor in our city, but people are telling us that we should be grateful to have Reworld in our community pumping out poison because they have jobs. Well, I don't know if it's 6, or now, 8 but those are the number of people 9 from Chester that work in Reworld 10 Covanta in the city of Chester. 11 They have 115 or so employees. So 12 it's not a good point. 13 All right. So I'm going 14 to hurry up so we can get out of 15 here. In July of this year, we 16 lost a member of CRCQL. His name 17 was Joshua Shockley. He was newly 18 married, had a pregnant wife. He 19 called me up and he told me he had 20 cancer. The day that his son was born was the first day of his chemo treatment. He died two weeks before his one-year anniversary and when his son was 5 months old. Josh was 38 years of age. We are not statistics. We will not live in a kill zone for other people's comfort. We matter to us. Our children matter. Our community matters. Because of Josh's son and all the children, Chester, Philadelphia, CRCQL will continue to fight. Okay. When Philly went through the trash strike, one side of me I felt very sad, but the dark side of me is like, yes, now they can see the crap that they send to my city every single day. It manifested itself in the smells, the odors, the stinkiness that just ugh. But that's what they send to us every day. It was a real representation of what we have to do, you know, people make garbage, it goes out and nobody thinks anything else about it.

Oh, my God, get it out of our house, it smells. There's no cost associated, not real cost. They don't see the suffering. We buried a 38-year-old man and his doctors determined because he had a rare form of cancer -- I can't pronounce it right now -- that it was due to environmental factors. In the year prior to that, a year and three months prior to that, his mother died from cancer. I've lost my mother, my brother, my 15-year-old sister, cousins, and it's a situation of, you know, I've testified at hundreds of hearings like this throughout the years, always with the mindset what facts do I need to cite. What can I say that will stick in their brains and what story will pierce their hearts and make them understand. This is more than a financial decision. It's a health and it's a moral decision that needs to be made. Will you commit and continue to become complicit in environmental racism because it's not environmental justice? There is no justice right now. When we shut it down, that will be justice. And we will shut it down. We will shut it down --

Thank you so much.

-- they asked earlier whether or not there have been any conversations with the trash from New York. Actually, it comes from Queens and Manhattan. We are in monthly conversations with their advisory solid waste advisory boards. I've already given testimony. They have a longer -- every contract is not set in stone forever. You can break a dang contract.

Thank you so much. I'm going to have to recess the hearing for a few minutes. Is there any last comment that you would like to give?

Yes. Just a couple. The city of --

I would ask that you summarize.

Yeah. The City of Philadelphia has the ability to do whatever they want to do. Okay. You have a product that they want. You're not in a position of weakness. You're in a position of strength. I'm good. I'm done. (Applause.)

Thank you so much for everything.

Thank you all for having us. Remember your morality and your heart and to do the right thing. It's not dependent upon money. Money is gonna send a whole lot of people to hell. Okay. Thank you so much.

And to everyone here, we're going to take a brief recess. minutes 10 or so. Don't go anywhere. We'll be back. (Brief recess.)

Thank you so much everyone for your patience. So this is what we're going to do. We're going to vote. We're going to close out -- well, we're going to close out the hearing. We're going to vote and then we're going to go back to public comment, because otherwise I'm not going to be able to keep a quorum. So thank you for your patience and flexibility. Seeing no one else here to testify on this bill, this concludes the public hearing. We will now go into a public meeting to consider the action to be taken on the bill heard today. Can the Clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Ahmad.

Present.

Councilmember Driscoll.

Present.

Councilmember Harrity.

Present.

Councilmember O'Rourke.

Present.

Vice-Chair Bass.

Present.

Chair Gauthier.

Present. All righty. The Chair recognizes Vice-Chair Bass for a motion on Bill No. 250768.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 14 250768 be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 250768 be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. Bill No. 250768 will be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation with the request that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next session of Council. This concludes the business of the Committee on the Environment today. Thank you all very much for your attendance. And remember, we're going back to public comment. All righty. This is how we're going to do public comment. We have a few people that we had to push into public comment. We're going to give those folks two to three minutes to give their testimony. We're going to ask that everyone else because there's a very long list, give their comment in a minute and a half, and we're going to do our best to time it and keep it moving along or we will be here for many, many hours. Okay. Will the Clerk please call the first person for public comment -- the first several people, rather.

B.P. Lyles, Russell Zerbo, Dr. Lloyd Batson. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

State your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

Lloyd Batson. And good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Lloyd Batson and a resident of the Francisville area of Philadelphia and a professor of Chemistry and Sustainability at Widener University in Chester and I am in strong support of the Stop Trashing Our Air bill. So thank you for your support of the bill and moving it on. Reworld Chester is the largest and one of the oldest trash incinerators in the country and operates in high priority violation of the Clean Air Act with frequent citations from the Pennsylvania DEP. Chester is a well-known example of environmental racism that is used as a case study at colleges and universities across the country. This is because Chester is littered with polluting facilities, including a trash incinerator, a sewage incinerator and five chemical facilities along the waterfront. Additionally, Chester suffers from the pollution of nearby oil refineries and power plants. These cumulative and additive impacts create serious air quality issues in Chester. The risk assessment that we heard about and talked about today by AECOM fails to account for these multiple additive, cumulative and synergistic impacts of multiple pollutants from multiple facilities. The study also emits key emissions from a number of pollutants that I won't list here for sake of time. Additionally, the risk assessment utilizes emission data from annual testing under optimal operating conditions, and there are numerous studies indicating that annual emission measurements significantly underestimate chemical exposure to the surrounding community. We've heard from a number of people that air pollution, particularly ozone and nitrogen oxides, are strongly linked to asthma. I want to talk about NOx a little bit. So nitrous oxide, NOx, contributes to lung tissue damage by reacting with water and producing nitric acid, nitrogen dioxide reacts with sunlight to initiate a series of chemical reactions that creates ozone, which has been linked to lung damage and asthma. According to Reworld's own stats, they produce 14% of Delaware County's NOx emissions. That's from one facility. 14% of the total NOx in the county. Chester's asthma rates we have heard about, so I will not restate those. And we've also heard the pollution that is in Chester affects the entire region. Philadelphia is downwind from Chester. So I'm also not going to repeat all of that data. But we must improve the air quality in Chester and the Philadelphia region and reduce the amount of NOx, ozone and other pollutants in our ground level air. Philadelphia can do its part by stopping the incineration of our trash, and I certainly prefer that Philadelphia work and get to zero waste and there are lots of ways to do that. And incineration is not the answer to the problem. Incineration, as we've heard, is much more harmful than landfilling, and that's largely because, as was admitted, they inspect 5% of the trash that goes into the facility. So we do not know what is being burned. And because Reworld lacks continuous monitoring of many of their air pollution of the chemicals of concern, we don't know what's going into Chester's air. Hence, we do not know what is in Philadelphia's air. We just do not know that -- so I am very thankful for you moving the bill on to City Council. And I really hope that City Council will stop sending Philadelphia's trash to Chester. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Will the Clerk call the next several names. And when your name is called, if you could come up and sit at the table and in the chairs adjacent to the table, we can move this along.

Nolan Fontaine, Ms. Margaret Brown and BP Lyles. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon to all of you or evening maybe almost. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Nolan L. Fontaine. Well, first off, I'd like to thank you, Chair Gauthier. I am a lifelong resident of Chester, Pennsylvania. I'm a veteran. And Chester, Pa of course is the traditional land of the Lenape and Okehaake. I serve as the President of Urban Indian Heritage Society, but I am here today as a Chester Resident Concerned for Quality of Living member, a CRCQL member, to advocate on how this pollutant industry and the amount of trash sent to 19013 has an often mortal effect on our lungs and livelihood. I currently serve as the Youth Coordinator for Choices, which is our youth environmental leadership group, and unfortunately working with those students, more than half of my students have either asthma or a COPD-related element. However, our students are resilient. They are academics, artists, athletes, AI designers, and full of alacrity. They also have spearheaded a musical resurgence around the issue of trash and the ability to breathe clean air in Chester. Now, you have probably seen the consultant reports that Reworld has provided today from multiple sources. I can assure you, though, our students along with the amount of Algebra homework, a shoestring budget and Tiktok accounts have single- handedly taken back over the narrative of green washing that has been perpetuated by our nation's largest trash incinerator. Now, I do want to let folks know I am absolutely pro-worker. And I come from a working class family, but let's talk about why the working class in our specific areas always get some kind of weird, toxic roll-up-your- sleeve jobs. I'm tired of our people getting the short end of the stick. Philly, you're a very good neighbor. You can change this with this act. Resolution 250769, in regards to our other neighbor, Covanta Reworld Trash Incinerator, who has went through more name changes than the Kardashians combined in the past myriad of years. But believe me, Covanta Reworld is much more odious in how they exploit employees and our air in our community. 3 milligrams without activated carbon. They plan on putting an active charcoal filter on within the next 12 months. Yet, have they even completed the procurement paperwork. I don't know. Where's the urgency? Where's the empathy? I know where I can find it, but (inaudible), you find it, let me know. Now, ask yourself is that neighborly. Years ago, I could recall when thermometer with mercury could shut down a whole school and prompt the top story slot at 6ABC or Fox29 News. 3 milligrams of over 9 square miles in Chester is okay. Please stop playing in our face. I'm here today to remind Covanta Reworld that this is not a corporatocracy. This is a constitutional republic. You have no power here to the committee, to chair Gauthier, to Vice-Chair Bass, to Council, to your constituents. I applaud you for your efforts in moving the Stop trashing Our Air Act forward, for the livelihood of our families and our next seven generations. In the spirit of American Indian heritage month, I asked the Council to remember the Treaty of Shackamaxon extended by one of my many tribes, the Lenape, where we agreed we would live in peace. But unfortunately, the trash sector from Philly feeds the environmental polluting war machine and aids the lungs of the people of Chester and Delaware County to continue to be polluted. In the words of Ms. Zulene Mayfield, there is no 17 Wakanda shield over Chester that prevents this particulate matter from dissipating to every nook and cranny of our region. We have no 21 (inaudible). We only have vitality. In closing -- I'll shorten it. This is not a Roberta Flack or Fugees (inaudible). Please stop killing us softly. I would like to thank this committee, Vice-chair, Chair Gauthier, Councilman O'Rourke, appreciate you staying and hearing my testimony. I look forward to seeing this resolution come to the floor for first reading. )

Thank you so much. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is Margaret Brown and I'm here on behalf of Chester and the Chester incinerator. This would be a great day for all of us to be alive, breathing clean, healthy, fresh air. Chester residents want to do this, to do just that, be alive, be healthy. I'm skipping so many parts because it was already said you have been to Chester and you viewed our incinerator and the neighborhood that it stands in. The neighborhood did not used to look like that. I lived there all my life. We desperately want Philadelphia not to renew the contract. Chester is a polluted city of 35,000-plus citizens being challenged in a war of economics, fear, crime, greed, power and systemic racism. We don't ask nor do we want it to continue to be this way. We don't merely want the trash to go away. We want the incinerator to go away. Environmental justice for good quality air is at its worst. The atmosphere has caused so many problems to the citizens and those beyond. We deal with cancer, our children, lung and heart disease as adults, they have the poorest asthma in the city and the state of Pennsylvania. It not only causes the health issues, but it causes learning disabilities. I live on a street three blocks from the incinerator. On a daily basis -- I don't watch all the time -- I can come out at 2:00 in the morning and see trucks lined up from the Commodore Barry Bridge all the way down to the incinerator at times when people get up for work and things, they don't let traffic on the side streets out. And this can go on until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. On my block there are only 14 livable homes, and that means there's people in them. People have died and homes stay vacant and they just go away. Of those 14 homes, 12 people have died of cancer within the last seven to eight years. My mother died of cancer. I have an that aunt died of cancer. I just had a cousin. Today is the month that we funeralized her. She went to the doctor in March, find out she had cancer and she's gone already. It took her away. She had multiple cancers with really no signs of it until the end. Chester truly deserves better. Its future partially depends on Philadelphia's decision to say no to renewing your contact. Breathing cancer-causing particles can and does kill. I had my phone -- a sound of the furnace that burns the trash at night. Time you lose sleep, because it's that loud and it blinked off. But you can hear, like I said, I'm just three blocks away, the sound coming through a closed window that I thought for a long time there was airplanes driving over my house. That's how loud it is.

Do you want some time to find it and play it for us or was that not what you were suggesting?

I'd have to get it, which one it was.

Once you wrap up your testimony, if you would like to play that for us.

I can come back and play it for you. The asthma with children in school, I worked in the Chester School District for 38 years. We didn't have nurses every day for children. I myself had two children that grew up with asthma. I know what it is. The girl went to girls school and the boy went to the boys school. But I know what it is from elementary school on to get a call from a teacher or the principal saying you have to bring their medicine up. It got to the point that I found another alternative, both schools were next to hospitals, one Sacred Heart and one up in Darby. The hospital up there next to the schools, it was arranged that instead of me running the medicine there twice a week, they were walked by another student with their parents permission to take my boy and my girl to the hospital to get a shot or get a treatment for asthma, because at times they would forget there were inhalers. Two grandchildren attended the school I worked in. They didn't know what it was for a long time to go out to lunch because they had to come and sit by my desk and take nebulizer treatments. My great-niece had a baby last year. It was born. They rushed it to ICU. Wasn't breathing properly. They only did a 24-hour watch to keep the baby. The baby was sent home. She died seven days later, lung problems. So I'm begging, I know the effects, what asthma does to children, does to adults. So if there's any way possible, I am asking as part of a community to stop the trash from coming to Chester. I myself, I speak very low because gradually my esophagus is closing up on me. I have no 16 disease, but I've had all kinds of tests, undetermined diagnosis. But it's closing up and they can't find why. I had surgery last year, abdominals, my hernia is shrinking, while the intestines is shrinking, which caused them to remove four hernias in my body. And during all the tests I had, they only found two, until they opened me up and saw two more. So like I said, it doesn't just hit lungs, liver, pancreas. It will hit every single organ in your body and not have a cause. All right. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you for being here and for sharing your story. And you said that you spoke softly, but I think you spoke very loudly. Thank you. Next, can you please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. And before you go, B.P., I just want to also thank you for being here. Thank you for all of your work and advocacy. We would not be here without you. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

Thank you. P. Lyles. It's a pleasure to be here before you, Chair Gauthier. For those who have left, the Vice-Chair, and especially good to see you as well, Councilmember O'Rourke, we thank you. I am nearly a 50-year resident of the city of Philadelphia. I have six generations, at least, that is either currently or formerly connected to or residing in this city. I'm going to abbreviate my testimony. So since you all have moved this result, this act forward, I just want to highlight a couple of things that I think are important to think about and to understand. One thing is, regardless of the name that's used for an incinerator, it at the end of the day and at the beginning of the day is still an incinerator. So whether the name that is used is energy technology or thermo- mechanical treatment facilities, it's still an incinerator. Waste to energy is still an incinerator. What happens is that it's confusing at times to understand where some of the pro-incinerator testimonies are coming from. In fact, the positions almost always come from entities that take money from the incinerator industry. That's important for the City of Philadelphia to know. Well, this obviously is the case for the industry itself, especially Reworld. It is true for scientists like Dr. Marco Castaldi from the City College of New York. He's long been a leading voice in waste to energy technology. And as a matter of fact, he's been a part of the Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council. This council is a council that involves academics and waste to energy professionals, and their intention is to further advance their own calls. Their interest is in promoting waste to energy processes and technologies to assist governments and industries and universities and colleges in implementing such technologies in their specific environments. What does that mean? What that means is that we need to follow the money and not just think about a name. The other thing that I want to share with you is that AECOM was hired by Reworld to conduct the study. And I am very pleased with Dr. Ahmad and I'm very grateful for her calling a spade a spade and calling them on the fact that what they said was nonsense. I would call it foolishness. There's another term. I am from North Philly. There's another term we would use, but I won't say that here. Calling it what it is. AECOM is an engineering company. It is a construction company. Their focus is building buildings. Their focus is in promoting their company. They are, as you heard earlier, flimsy on scientific research at best. And it is imperative that Philadelphia and that the Councilmembers who will make this large decision moving forward understand that if we rely upon industry that promotes itself and that promotion is about tearing down communities, then the conversation on environmental justice becomes moot. And so, Philadelphia is a city that is one currently, we're a mixed bag. We have some -- we have a lot of good. We have some bad. We have some injustices here, but we have a lot of great things going on in the city. And I believe that what we have an opportunity to do here moving forward is to continue educating the public, letting Philadelphians know and understand how important it is to develop very healthy, very sound, proven ways that are technologically reasonable and ethically sound as it relates to human life and health. So I will never believe that that includes incineration. I will never believe that the toxicity that's emitted from incinerations are ever acceptable. And I will never believe that we, being a big brother or big sister to our neighboring Chester, will have a right or should be involved in the continuation of health disparity. I will also never believe that Philadelphia should continue its really unethical practice of causing other people to suffer harm, along with its own citizens.

We are, as Councilman Gauthier said, we are very high on the list of asthma capital and cancer capital in the country. We're number four right now, and the reality is we need to do something in order for that to change. So I'm grateful for that, that you all have decided to move this forward. But in moving it even further, it is imperative that we know who we're listening to and why they're speaking. And it is also important for us to understand that we have an obligation, not only to this city but to the entire region. Thank you. )

Thank you so much. Thanks to all of you very much. Will the Clerk please call the next several public commenters. Please come up when you hear your name called.

Linnea Bond, Mitch Cannon, Patty Smith. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

I'm Linnea Bond. I had a lot of things to say today. I spent a lot of time crafting it, but I think we all want to go home and I just want to tell you how much I really -- I just want to tell you all how much I really, really appreciate this work, and we're going to stay with you, pushing to move this all the way through and the longer term issues that we have around our single stream and with our energy and combustion as well. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. We appreciate Physicians for Social Responsibility. Thank you very much.

I'll keep it quick too. My name is Mitch Chanin. I am the Chair of the Climate Justice Caucus in Reclaim Philly. I also wanted to speak on behalf of another group that I work with in Northeast Philly where I live, which is 215 People's Alliance. It's doing a lot of organizing and around short-dumping in the Lawncrest neighborhood in the Northeast. As Linnea said, extremely excited that the bill has advanced out of committee. I've been paying attention to these issues around incineration since I was a kid. When Councilmember Bass was reminiscing about the 1980s, I remember really well the very long debate about whether or not to build a so-called trash-to-steam plant, which is an incinerator at the Navy Yard. And really glad that City Council led the way in saying no to that proposal for a polluting facility. I remember that we had incinerators here in Philly. We had I think five or six of them. One of our members at 215 People's Alliance who was here earlier, he had to leave Dallas. Herbert worked as an operating engineer at the incinerator at Spring Garden and Delaware Avenue. So that was an incinerator. The Northwest Transfer Station that was referenced several times in Roxborough was an incinerator. That was an incinerator that led to a notorious international incident when a barge was sailing all over the world trying to find a place to dump thousands of tons of toxic ash from a Philly incinerator, they dumped it on Haiti. Then they had to go back and retrieve it because it was illegal to dump it there. It led to an international convention on the -- (Applause.)

Yeah. Anyway, this is just one more step in a long, long, long, multi-decade process of phasing out an extremely toxic and damaging industry. And one of the things I wanted to say before the bill advanced out of committee was, you know, we decided not to burn trash in Philadelphia because we didn't want the toxic air pollution in our city. So why would it be okay to send it to Chester or somewhere else to be burned when we decided not to do it. We had incinerators here. They're gone. We decided not to build them here. And just the last thing I'll add, you know, really hope this bill will be approved by the full Council. I was really disappointed, underwhelmed, frustrated by the testimony from the administration earlier. I don't understand why another study is being conducted. And I don't have any idea how they expect to be making the decision about what contracts to sign. There was zero clarity about how they would weigh different criteria, how they're evaluating evidence about the health risks, the harm caused by incineration. It just really brought home to me hearing the testimonies why it is so critical for City Council to take leadership in this. I just have no faith that absent Council's leadership, the administration will make the right decision. So I've never seen in the decades I think since the '80s when we decided not to build the incinerator at the Navy Yard, this kind of leadership from City Council on this really critical issue. And I'm just really thrilled, really grateful, really honored to be here today to see this step taking place. So thank you so much. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. Will the Clerk please call the next several public commenters.

David Golic. Alisa Shargorodsky, David Evans. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Thank you. Thank you to this Council for hearing these comments today. I'll also try to keep this very brief. My name is Alisa Shargorodsky, the Director of ECHO Systems. We are a local nonprofit that focuses on waste reduction, specifically reuse and circular economy movements here in Philadelphia. I would like to just bring up the fact that our city here in Philadelphia, there were some comments brought up by Councilmember Harrity about cost and expense. And I just wanted to touch on something, that our city has no line item budgets that contribute towards solid waste, prevention strategies, unlike other cities like San Francisco, New York City that has done its due diligence to ensure that the reuse economy is bolstered so that we can keep the volume out of our waste stream. Philadelphia does not have that focus. So 40% of the waste that we're generating is food packaging. Our food sector is flooded with toxic food packaging that is full of PFAs and chemicals that also cause cancer here amongst our residents. So I would implore the city to focus more on how we can spend our dollars and cents to prevent this waste, to lower the volume of trash that we're generating here in our city. Our organization is specifically focused on doing that. We have an initiative called Philly Unwrapped that is looking to educate our local businesses. So these types of things are really critical, educating our businesses, educating our residents on how we can do solid waste prevention is key. And I also have severe asthma and have suffocated here. Living here, being a Philadelphia native, I depend on my inhalers and my medications. And I can tell you that this is no joke. Not being able to breathe is no 11 joke. So I just hope that we can move our city towards regenerative and accountable, just systems. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much for your testimony, your comment, but also everything you contributed to this project. We appreciate you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

Dave Golic. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I am the coordinator of a diverse Chester-based community group focused on addressing the pollution from a filthy crematory in our neighborhood, which is another pollutant thing besides the incinerator. We are a member group of Delco Environmental Justice and Energy Justice Network, and work closely with B.P. and Mike for those support groups. I also serve as President of the Chester Historical Preservation Committee. When learning about the utterly, unregulated crematories are in our state with no real pollution monitoring requirements or controls, it was eyeopening to find how much large trash incinerators are also poorly regulated. Reworld talks about how they have continuous monitoring of their emissions, but chooses to leave out the fact that this is true only for four of the many pollutants that they release into our air. One of the pollutants they release is large amounts of hydrochloric acid. This is one of the four that they continuously monitor, and their continuous monitoring data shows that the actual emissions are 62% higher than what once per year. Stack testing shows they get their stack tested once a year. So it's like I have a whole thing here, but I'm not going to take the time, but if you know they're going to test your stack, then you're going to make sure the stack, the stuff that comes out, is within the limits, and that's what Reworld does. And they have charts about the emissions, and they include every single thing in Delaware County, you know, the car that drove down the street, the whatever it is. They have all that. So then they can say, well, we only have 14% of the emissions, which --

Thank you so much. Just wanted to give a quick time note if you can. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Thank you to both of you. Will the Clerk please call the next several people for public comment.

Shari Hirsch, Lois Williams, Tia Tynes. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon. It's so good to hear from you today.

Hi.

Good afternoon. Good to see the team. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

I'm Shari Hirsch. I live in Philadelphia. I'm a member of Trash Academy and a participant in the Clean Philadelphia Now Coalition. We have a citywide campaign to end illegal dumping in Philadelphia by 2028. So thank you, everybody. Thanks for staying. We feel that if Philadelphia is serious about becoming the cleanest and greenest big city in America, we must end incineration and ultimately landfilling too and ensure that our sanitation contracts include robust waste diversion requirements. We can't make one community clean by trashing another. The 4000 tires removed from Tacony Creek Park were sent to Covanta. Tires in a landfill is not acceptable either, so we just want to say that our current recycling rate is at 13%. That's far below the 22% we achieved before COVID. Sanitation contracts should include composting to divert food waste, curbside textile collection, programs that recover construction and demolition materials. That's 17% of our solid waste in Philly. It's all being incinerated or landfilled. These measures will help Philadelphia build a sustainable, equitable approach to waste management that makes all communities healthier and stronger. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have waste diversion rates of 53% showing that it's possible. So for clean and green to be enduring, we urge you to actually go beyond this Act which we're thrilled about, and we have 100% support. We think there needs to be an advisory group that develops a policy on solid waste. So those things that someone just so beautifully articulated, Mitch or someone did about what is the quantity, what are they looking for in those contracts. There is Remark Glass, there is Rabbit Recycling, there's Bennett Compost. We have all kinds of amazing waste diversion programs in Philadelphia. We need to have small contracts to not just giant contracts. We need to be more progressive. (Applause.)

Thank you. Thank you so much. And I love that recommendation. I would love to be a part of establishing that committee and moving that conversation forward. Thank you for being here.

That's fantastic.

Hi. I'm Lois Williams and I'm a concerned citizen of Philadelphia and I'm also a member of Trash Academy, hence the vest. All of the incinerators are in Black and Brown neighborhoods. The people there are sick with breathing problems and are dying from the same. We need the contractors to divert the waste so we have a lot less waste. And, yes, I have mine right here. So of course, I want this here to end. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Tia Tynes. I'm one of the Co-directors of Trash Academy. Pretty much everyone here has said something that I would have said so I can give you a remix? No, okay. Well, can I still get oop-oop. Well, actually, I'm just going say this, I'm a person with asthma as well and sometimes my triggers are not very big. Okay. It could be something like fresh cut grass, and I love fresh cut grass. I love cayenne pepper. I'm very heavy-handed on it, but sometimes it can give me an issue. Chester is in the soup. They got to deal with this every day and it's not fair. And here in Philly, we have a problem with illegal dumping. Chester has a problem with legal dumping. Okay. Philadelphia is one of those legal dumpers and we need to do something about that. Because it's not fair that a city that wants to be clean and green and is doing all this work on illegal dumping, that we're legally dumping on them and putting them in that soup, so we have to do something about that. As Shari said, it's about waste diversion. As someone else says, cutting our consumption. And yeah, we just need to be mindful of the things that we consume and the after effects of that. So there's my slight remix. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, not just for today but for all of your work. Thank you. Will the Clerk please call the next several public commenters.

Vanessa Zapata, David Gibson, Jada La Fontaine. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good evening. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

Good evening, Chair Gauthier and members of the committee. My name is Vanessa Zapata and I'm a staff attorney at the organization nonprofit Just Zero. Our organization is an environmental advocacy organization and we work nationally to advance equitable and community-centered zero waste solutions. We advocate for the end of climate damaging and toxic waste disposal practices because we believe that all people deserve zero toxic exposures. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today in strong support of Bill 250768, the Stop Trashing Our Air Act. You heard devastating stories as well as clear data on the adverse public health impacts of incineration. So I won't restate, but I do want to add that incineration also releases PFAS, which is increasingly an area of concern. Additionally, the toxics that are emitted not only pollute our air, but they do infiltrate our soils and water as well. This bill 15 is a critical step to real zero waste solutions. It closes the door on costly, toxic and outdated incineration and this bill would push the city to invest in meaningfully, prioritize safe and sustainable opportunities to reduce waste. In fact, nearly half of what the city throws away is compostable and recyclable. For these reasons, Just Zero commends the Committee in giving this bill a favorable report and our organization would like to provide any assistance in achieving the city's zero waste goals through meaningful zero waste policy. So please call me up if you want help with that. And I want to thank you again for your time and for your commitment to protecting Pennsylvania communities. (Applause.)

Thank you so much.

Good evening. My name is Jada La Fontaine. I'm a West Philadelphia native and lifetime resident of District 4. My short career so far has revolved around environmental equity and connecting residents to decision-making processes that shape their quality of life, like the one we're gathered for today. Most recently, I worked in the Office of Environmental Justice at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection or DEP. And there, I learned about the extent of negative health impacts our neighbors in Chester are subject to via industrial pollution, including those stemming from this incinerator. It's worth considering that just in the past five years alone this site has accumulated over 40 environmental health and safety violations according to DEP eFACTS database. A handful of violations within recent months, include an incident in late June when the facility failed to properly operate and maintain a pollution control device. A week earlier, it was cited for incorrectly running one of the pollution-producing sources in its air cleaning system. And two weeks prior to that effect, showed the radiation related violations that Councilwoman Gauthier described earlier. These types of offenses and others are repeated throughout its decades of long inspection history and often translate into real-life events where unpermitted levels of toxic chemicals, sometimes visible and foul-smelling, are released into the local community, sometimes for hours on end. It's also worth noting that Reworld is currently being sued by a former 13-year operations supervisor, Eric Bass, who claimed he was wrongfully fired for refusing to falsify emissions data at the Chester facility in discussion today as the largest incinerator in the United States. It is not hyperbole to say that Reworld is making a killing. Philadelphia routinely makes socially responsible contracting decisions and this bill 10 presents us with an opportunity to apply those same standards here. Chronic noncompliance and disregard for worker and community health should not be rewarded with another taxpayer contract. Beyond all of that, it is time to move away from burning trash. As you've heard today, the science now shows us that it is more detrimental to public health and the climate crisis than its alternatives. For Philadelphia, the financial cost of landfilling versus incineration may be comparable. But when factoring in health and climate impacts, incineration is far costlier. Today, we have moved forward an opportunity to stop trashing our air. Overburdening communities with pollution is a form of violence and Philadelphia does not have to remain complicit. After today the questions remain, will Council use this. The claim that more studies are needed to continue business as usual with a chronic public health offender or ultimately will Council seize this opportunity to be serious about being clean and green. Divest from environmental racism and shift towards upstream waste solutions that protect health, promote circularity and build real economic opportunity. I'm hopeful in Council's ability to chart a new path forward. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony today. Please state your name and proceed with your testimony.

David Gibson. First of all, let me thank you for this opportunity to speak and congratulations on putting this bill out of committee. I'm the Co-coordinator of Peace, Justice, Sustainability Now. It's an associate member group of Peace Action, and we have members and supporters across the state of Pennsylvania, with a particular concentration in the Philly area and the surrounding suburbs. We also coordinate a statewide network of over 30 organizations across Pennsylvania, including many here in the city. I just want you to know I've crossed out this, this and this, so I'll be able to get through this pretty quick.

Thank you very much.

And our name, Peace, Justice Sustainability Now is our purpose. We believe everything is connected. And we stand today to speak in favor of this legislation, because as constituents and consumers, we're dedicated to protecting and restoring our ecosystem. We know that incineration is worse than landfilling when it comes to air quality and climate emissions. Incinerators are the most expensive and polluting way to manage waste or to make energy. They're documented EPA data showing that it's dirtier than burning coal, that's pretty dirty. They're also documented to be worse than using landfills. Reworld likes to boast about how many homes are powered by their trash burning, as if power production is why they exist. We saw earlier that Reworld has got to get in the real world. In fact, they produce very little power to begin with. No power company would ever think of building a trash incinerator to produce electricity since it's the most expensive way to do so. The six trash incinerators in Pennsylvania together produce just .65% of Pennsylvania's electricity in 2024. About 30 organizations have signed on to this bill. I don't have to read them here. That would take up too much time, but I can send you that list. You probably already know it. We recognize that landfilling too has its drawbacks, but it makes no 5 sense to make matters worse. What's really needed is more investment in alternatives. CM Squilla spoke to this a bit. And I want to touch on a few things we can do as a city that could help us move in a better direction. We can start -- and these are, by the way, moral solutions.

Can you start by quickly wrapping those up. Thank you.

We can start by reprioritizing investments in city resources into a robust mitigation, improved recycling and composting programs. And just a word for the workers, my brothers and sisters over here. We also need to include green transition funding in anything we do so that these folks don't get kicked to the curb. So that's it. I'll wrap it up with that. Thank you. (Applause.)

No, thank you very much for your testimony. Very much so heard and noted. Will the Clerk please call the next remaining testifiers to come forward. And as folks are coming forward, as you can see we have moved into the winter months almost and it's getting darker by the second. So please if you don't mind, try to consolidate and summarize your testimonies to about a minute and a half as we want to make sure that we get everybody in as the night draws nigh. Thank you so much. Clerk.

Erica Brown, Kim Quick, Lynn Robinson. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Has your name been called? If your name has been called, please come forward.

Erica Brown, Kim Quick, Lynn Robinson. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Thank you very much, my brother. Please state your name and begin your testimony.

Yes. My name is Bigga Dre, member of CRCQL, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living. I just wanted to, you know, give my experience of living in a city of a five-mile radius that has been adversely impacted by a process that's outdated. Chester's a five-mile radius. Philadelphia is about 100 times larger than Chester, Pennsylvania. This is the City of Brotherly Love. There were some comments that were echoed here at this session of where the trash is going to go. I think we should reasonably reflect and say, well, the trash can go back to where it originated from. According to statistics, the children in Chester's blood lead level is 60% higher than the recommended level of the CDC. Philadelphia's burns about 37% of its trash, and about a third of it is processed in this five-mile radius city of Chester, Pennsylvania. I hear about feasible studies and I'll end on this part right here. How many feasible studies have to take place before we actually take action? (Applause.)

Thank you so much for your testimony. As was reminded to us earlier, the time is always right to do what's right. So we thank you for making emphasizing that particular point. Please state your name and begin with your testimony. And again, just be mindful of trying to summarize about a minute and a half.

Thank you very much. My name is David Kronheim. Philadelphia's landfills are for construction and commercial waste. The rest of Philly's trash goes outside of Philly to landfills, incinerators, including the nation's largest in Chester, which is about seven miles from your airport. Over 40 years ago, my wife and I were living in Northwest Philadelphia, 63rd and Haverford. May 13, '85 a bomb was dropped in West Philly on a rowhouse where the MOVE commune was. We lived a little more than a mile from the MOVE fire. There's a continual, huge black column of smoke we saw rising from the inferno. That fire burned for over six hours. For the last five years, my wife and I have lived in the city of Chester, a little more than a mile from the Covanta Reworld incinerator. Sometimes smoke columns from Covanta Reworld are visible. Sometimes they're not. Regardless, the columns of smoke enter our air hours a day, seven 21 days a week, every day, every week, 22 dwarfing the columns of smoke that 23 came out of the MOVE fire by 24 sending trash to the Chester incinerator. Philly has been collaborating for over 33 years in the poisoning of Philadelphians and in the region, allowing for a generational health and environmental disaster dwarfing the disaster of the MOVE bombing. Make June 30, 2026 the last day of Philadelphia's contract with Covanta Reworld. Make today the day when every member of City Council commits to voting for the Stop Trashing Our Air Act and the Mayor commits to signing it. (Applause.)

Thanks. Thank you very much. Your testimony is very stark and shocking. I was appreciating Dr. Bettigole causing us to remember the fires burning in Canada, and how many of us smelled and that were impacted by that. Despite a couple years now that was up in Canada, right, to say nothing about what is being done just a couple of miles away from our city limits. And I appreciate your calling us to remember even what happened just in six hours with the MOVE bombing. This is very important. And I appreciate your testimony. Please state your name and begin with the testimony.

My name is Lynn Robinson. I'm a Germantown resident and I'm going to scrap what I brought to say. But I just want to point out a couple of things. First of all, I didn't hear Article I, Section 27 mentioned today. But it's our constitutional right to breathe clean air. And it occurred to me as I was preparing this that the right to breathe clean air is to protect our fundamental freedom. You cannot have freedom without your health freedoms. But anyway, I just want to point out that there was a mistake made today by the administration. Reworld does not sell their ash. They pay landfills to take their ash because it's completely toxic. And so, if we stop burning our trash in Chester and we send our trash to landfills, those landfills will be healthier because they will not be receiving the ash that we're burning in Chester. The ash is when it goes to a landfill, it leeches out all kinds of heavy metals and other major toxic materials quickly because it's already been burned down into very small particles and it goes out into the environment. So those landfills may have more volume, but they're going to be less toxic because it won't have our incinerated ash. The other thing -- I think there was something else I wanted to say, but -- oh, yeah. To delay this, saying they're looking into different options is completely immoral and stupid. There's no reason to delay the decision to end the contract with incineration. Even if we send everything to landfills for four more years and it takes four years for them to figure out diversion programs and whatever else, there's really no excuse. That's all. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very, very much for your testimonies. Will the Clerk call the next witnesses to testify.

Steve Simmons, Jasmine Bahamonde, Dr. Marco Castaldi. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Was there anyone who was called that has not come forward? Clerk, was there anyone who was called that did not come forward?

Jasmine. I think that she's making her way towards the --

Okay. Perfect.

Good evening. My name is Steve Simmons. I'm a consultant in the solid waste industry. I'm a resident of Chester County, Pennsylvania, where I serve on the Board of Directors of the Chester County Solid Waste Authority. I've worked on waste issues in and around the city of Philadelphia for 30 years. Thermal waste energy facilities have a long and successful track record as an environmentally safe, reliable and secure option for the management of waste which is not otherwise recycled or composted, which should be our first priority. So we all agree that communities in our region have utilized these facilities as a preferred management option for over 30 years. Three counties in Pennsylvania; Bucks, Delaware and Montgomery, along with two in New Jersey, provide almost 40% of the waste disposal capacity in this region. Also of note is the fact that over the past decade, the region's available landfill capacity has declined and continues to do so. In the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Southeast region, which is comprised of the City of Philadelphia, Berks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties, there's only one remaining commercial landfill. The cost of transporting our waste out of our region, whether by truck or rail, to landfills and communities far away from Philadelphia is ever increasing and the landfills are ever farther away. If the city were to adopt the policy of banning waste energy treatment facilities as a waste management option, in the future it may be left with only one disposal option in the PA Southeast region. Thank you.

Thank you. Please proceed with -I'm sorry. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment. Thank you so much.

Marco Cristaldi. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to broaden my thoughts on Bill 250768. I'm a Professor of Chemical Engineering and Chairman of the Chemical Engineering Department at the City College of City University of New York. I'm a Technical Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. I've been conducting research and engineering assessments on sustainable waste management solutions ranging from reuse to landfill for nearly 20 years. I've received the Fulbright Global Scholar Award in recognition for that work. I hope my comments provide helpful guidance. Managing waste is a problem that requires several technologies as well as appropriate public responsibility. The concept of zero waste or zero waste to landfill is fiction. All waste management processes, except for reduction efforts, will have a residual waste. The average U.S. MSW generation rate is 4 pounds per person per day, which is an enormous rate. Therefore, attempts to manage MSW must match the scale of generation and be reliable and resilient. Currently, there are only two solutions that can completely manage all the MSW generated by society. They are waste to energy and landfilling. All other solutions can only manage a portion and together will not match the generation scale. There are robust air pollution control systems in place that have brought every category of WTE emissions significantly below regulatory limits. Finally, European epidemiological studies have not found the connection between modern, well-run and maintained WT operation to adverse human health effects. Thank you to allow me to provide this perspective to the great City of Philadelphia.

Thank you so much for your comment today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

Good afternoon. And thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jasmine Bahamonde, and I am the HR Manager at Reworld in Chester and also a lifelong resident of Philadelphia. As a proud Latina who grew up in this region, I take true pride in working for a company that is not only committed to sustainability, but also to the people who make our community thrive. Reworld is a sustainable solutions company focused on helping cities and businesses reimagine what their waste can do. But for us, sustainability goes beyond environmental goals. It also is about creating sustainable opportunities for people. When I joined Reworld in February of 2023, only a few employees lived locally in the Chester area. And through intentional hiring practices, community partnerships and a strong commitment to equity and inclusion, we've increased that number to over 20, specifically of Chester employees and growing. These individuals bring invaluable perspective, pride and representation to our workforce. As team members move on or retire, we remain intentional about filling those roles with talent from the Chester community. This focus on local hiring strengthens our local impact. It's about more than filling positions. For me, it's about opening doors to meaningful, long-term careers. One example is Bruce Griffith, a Chester high school student who has been with us for over 33 years. Today he's our training and operations supervisor, mentoring others and showing what's possible when local talent is given the opportunity to grow and lead. We're proud of the progress we've made and we're committed to continuing to expand local career opportunities right here in the Philadelphia and Chester region and we will continue to be inclusive. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and the rest of the committee.

Thank you so much for your comments today. Thanks to all of you. Will the Clerk please call the next several public commenters.

Anne Dixon, Alyssa Wilde, Marvin Gomez. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Anne Dixon with Reclaim. Thank you, Environmental Committee. And thank you for staying for the bitter end. So the results of this past election show that all around our country people are aligned with progressive values. The Mayoral election in New York City brought out the most voters in 50 years and brought a big win for Zohran Mamdani. This was because his policies are clearly very different from what people have been living with. City Council, please pass on this message to your fellow Councilmen that for your own best interest, break with the tired policies of the past and ride this wave of progressiveness. Note that only that -- let's see. We've been inhaling poison from burning our own trash for many decades. Voting for the Stop Trashing Our Air Act will make you more popular with your own electorate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

My name is Bruce Griffith. I'm here for Alisa's spot because she left, if that's okay.

That's fine.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to us on this matter. My name is Bruce Griffith. I'm a lifelong Delaware County resident, seven-year United States Marine Corps veteran, and I was born and raised in the city of Chester. I'm still Training and Operations Supervisor at the Chester Reworld facility. I've been fortunate enough to work at the facility for 34-plus years, starting out as a laborer. I got that and knew nothing. Laborer through the training, went in the maintenance department, the operations department. years in the control room, which you need a federal license of running boilers, so you know what's coming out that stack, and progressed into several management positions. Worked my way up. I was operations manager for a few years. Stepping back and I'm getting ready to retire. We produce sustainable electric generation, which reduces the dependence on burning fossil fuels. We recycle both ferrous and non-ferrous and we reduce the weight of the MSW substantially by 90%, as before mentioned by others. Just as important to our continual commitment to our surrounding communities, though we do city cleanups, provide meals to the service center, clothing drives, food drives throughout the year. I personally take pride in assisting the opportunities for employment with the people of our community, specifically my city of Chester, passing on my knowledge to the new employees, which provides me with a feeling of knowing sustainable solutions for the evergrowing concern that waste management can continue to move forward. I personally conduct numerous tours at the facility and discussions with high schools, elected officials, colleges, professional individuals and personal just seeking for information on our process and what's the result of it. The facility provided me stability for me and my family when Pennsylvania Ship Building was closed down. After I got out of Marine Corps, I worked there. Six years it closed down. I went there as a laborer and I've been there for 34 years. It's afforded me the opportunity to learn and grow my knowledge and the challenge of field of thermo chemical operation that I can provide to the people that still live in my city. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment today and thank you for your service to our country.

It was my pleasure. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Good afternoon. My name is Marvin Gomes. Chairwoman Gauthier and members of the Environmental Committee. I'm the owner and President of Caribbean Operators, a proud, certified minority-owned business and certified local entity. I've been a long-time hauler here in the city of Philadelphia. I started my business in 1999 beginning with just one truck as a subcontractor. And over the years, I've been fortunate to grow my business into a company that provides 50 jobs in Philadelphia region and hauling materials, hauling across the city of Philadelphia. As a local business owner, I seen firsthand how important it is for the city to support companies and invest in our community and create local jobs. My team and I take great pride in being part of the fabric of Philadelphia, hiring local, supporting small businesses and help to keep the city clean and striving. Reworld has played a big role in that journey. When I first met them, I was just starting out. Our partnership and their commitment to local businesses has helped me expand workforce and hire more people who live and work right here in Philadelphia. I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective today and I want to thank the Council for your continued attention to the needs of the local operators like myself.

Thank you so much for your comment, for your work in the city and for being here today. Thank you. Thanks to all of you. Please call the names of the next several commenters.

John Scott, Carol Hagler and Abby Bustraan. And I apologize if I mispronounce any names, if you can come up. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good evening. Thank you so much for joining us today. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your comment.

Sure. Thanks. My name is Abby. I'm a college student in Chester. I go to Widener and I also work as a social worker in Philadelphia, which I'm here today, I skipped my lunch break and my boss let me take the afternoon off to be here today because this is an important issue to the people that I love. I'm not a science person, but I can talk about a story that I have relating to this issue. On one of my first days at Widener during orientation week, I remember walking out of my dorm to a smell that I will never forget. It was a sweet smell, but it wasn't a nice smell. It was sort of like a sickening sweetness. It smelled to me like a rotting -- I asked my friend at the time who was with me that grew up in Chester, what that smell was. And she responded as if it was nothing, that's the incinerator. And I asked why it smelled sweet. And she said, that's the chocolate scent that they used to cover it up. So every couple days you wake up in Chester, you smell a disgusting, chocolaty smell. It's something that they put on the trash before they burn it to cover up the smell of the trash. Of course, that covers up nothing. Now, I have an apartment. I live there full-time. I smell that sickening, rotten smell of trash every few times a week when I remember what it means. I hold my breath on the way to my car. And I talk from a place of privilege. I didn't grow up in Chester. I've only lived there for four years. And I didn't breathe in that trash growing up developmentally the way that most of the residents do. Many are not that lucky. The kids that I see walking to school in my neighborhood have unusually high rates of asthma, and lung cancer ravages the community. My partner grew up in Chester his whole life. His entire family has asthma and his grandfather has terminal lung cancer and is going to probably pass away later this year. I want to appreciate the individual workers of Reworld, but the company as a whole should be embarrassed of itself. The incinerator ruins lives. It represents a total overlooking of the Chester community. It represents environmental racism. I've only lived in Chester for four years, but it's been a wonderful home to me. It's been nothing but kind to me as a guest and it deserves much better than what it has right now. So thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you for being here and thank you for sharing such a personal story. And thanks to your boss for giving you some flexibility. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

Good evening, Chairwoman Gauthier, Councilman O'Rourke and Councilman Harrity. Thank you all so much for having this hearing. My name is John Scott for the record. You know, I'm here representing Reworld. Chairwoman Gauthier, I wish I could say this in front of Councilman Driscoll, Councilwoman Bass, and Councilwoman Ahmad, but I do want to say that tonight we had over workers here 7 from the city of Chester that work 8 at the facility. 9 These are workers that 10 are sons and daughters of Chester. 11 These are folks that have played in 12 biddy basketball. These are folks 13 that are former Chester Panthers. 14 And so, for the record, for folks 15 to paint us out as if we do not 16 care about the city of Chester, 17 it's just not true. 18 I am someone who, you 19 know, I've worked in Chester for 20 over 13 years now. It's adopted me 21 and it's been a pleasure to work 22 there and also have friends that 23 come from there as well. As it 24 relates to this bill, in understanding what the administration said, I do believe that there is a need to look at and evaluate all disposal options. The legislation as it's currently written does not. And I understand that we all want to be great environmental stewards and we want to do what's right, and I think there is a chance to do that by evaluating all of the options. So in terms of the rush or as some other people put it, I'd like to say let's be thoughtful in how we evaluate and how we look at things, understanding that, you know, there's context, and we don't want to set a precedent in which we can't come back from or that signals negativity. So I'm sure that this great body will look into that and they'll do the right thing as well and in lockstep with the administration, which is what they proposed. As it relates to development on the waterfront, Reworld operates in a lot of other communities where development happens. There are multi-million dollar condominiums in several other communities that we operate in. So from the standpoint of saying, hey, development can't happen if Reworld is there is just not true. So I do want to kind of point that out as well. And this is the first time -- I've attended Council before, in which there's been public comment done after a full committee vote. But there's a new time for everything and hopefully, as we look to evaluate our options, we can do so thoughtfully and without rush and in a measured approach. So thank you again, Councilwoman Gauthier.

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate you being here. Just to touch briefly on the topic of negativity, some conversations are hard. Every day we have hard conversations in this chamber. And then as far as the proceedings for the hearing, it's not ideal but it happens quite regularly that if we're running out of quorum, we're going to lose committee members, we will break, we will vote and then go back so that everyone is heard. Thank you for your patience and for being here today. We appreciate it. Before we end for the day, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my Legislative Director, Mary Jones, who just walked into chambers. (Applause.)

Mary worked so hard on this legislation, on this hearing, and this is not the only big or tough topic she has taken on in the year since she's been a part of my Council office. And we appreciate her hard and excellent work. Thank you. (Applause.)

And with that, we are now adjourning this hearing of the Committee of the Environment. I want to remind everybody still watching and here today that the Committee voted Bill 250768 out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Thank you so much for being here today. (Committee on the Environment concluded at 5:40 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL