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.