COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:35 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DANIEL SAVAGE BILL 070671 - An ordinance enacting a new Chapter 9-3200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Shipping and Packaging Waste Reduction Ordinance"... BILL 070672 - An ordinance enacting a new Chapter 9-3100 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance"... BILL 070691 - An ordinance amending Chapter 9-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Electric Vehicle Parking"... BILL 070788 - An ordinance enacting a new Section 12-1131 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Electric Vehicle Parking"... V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Committee on the Environment has a quorum, with members Rizzo, Blondell Reynolds Brown and Chairman Kenney. The first bill we will be considering today is 070788, an ordinance 9 enacting a new Section 12-1131 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Electric Vehicle Parking," to provide for the designation of electric vehicle on-street parking spaces where only electric vehicles may be parked and amending Section 12-2809 of The Philadelphia Code to provide for penalties for illegally parking in a designated electric vehicle parking space; all under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Dickson, please. Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I have written testimony. I'm Richard Dickson, Senior Director of Strategic 3 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Planning and Administration for the Parking Authority. Under this bill, the Parking Authority is tasked with providing certain functions for the implementation of the legislation. It requires that after the Streets Department has granted a permit for the installation of electrical connection at the curb, the Authority would then review the application for the ability to have the zone installed for traffic conditions and other considerations. This is exactly the function that we do in terms of processing applications for reserved spaces for people with disabilities. We've done that for the last 20-some years without any problem. I think this bill addresses a significant problem in terms of people in cities being able to have electric cars, which are different than those people in the suburbs. The suburbs, you can drive 4 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. into a driveway, connect to your home and have the vehicle charged. In the City, most people don't have those opportunities. So this provides an opportunity for people who wish to have electric vehicles to do them in an environment where there are not direct access to garages and driveways. So the Authority has no problem with the assignments that were given it under this legislation and would recommend favorable consideration of the bill.
Mr. Dickson, how will you and who will set the rates for the energy that you charge for people to charge their electric vehicles?
We have no 22 control over that. The electricity, I would assume, would be under a permit issued by the Streets Department to connect -- to have a connection at the 5 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. curb that would connect to their home electricity.
And the installation and maintenance of that would be at the cost of the homeowner.
Right. That's not part of our responsibility there. That's a Streets Department function that would grant the permit to do that.
I think that's a significant obstacle, because that could be very, very expensive, that type of an installation. So I think we need to address that during this hearing today.
I guess if you compare it to the money you save in gas, I would expect that the people making the purchase of the electric vehicle are interested themselves in installing it, similar to what you do in a newsstand when you get permission to electrify a newsstand, the Streets 6 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Department gives that permission and it's installed and inspected, and then the Parking Authority's function would be to simply enforce the parking regulation.
Well, under the bill, we would also process applications for the installation of the zone, and that would be done consistent with traffic regulations that would permit it there, whether or not the person had other options such as a driveway or a garage where they could have a more efficient connection, but those issues that you raise would not be under our area as outlined in this bill.
Thank you, but we will need to address that part of the process. Thanks.
Thank you very much. Good morning. 7 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Essentially you're saying that the Philadelphia Parking Authority will not be principally responsible for the installation of the equipment to accommodate the vehicle, correct?
We would not be involved in that at all. Our responsibility would be only for reviewing the applications and determining that it's appropriate under traffic regulations and whether it is the most efficient place to put it; for example, if they have a garage or a driveway that would be more appropriate.
And the support by the Parking Authority is done so because? Complete the sentence for me.
Because this is consistent with what we do in other situations, such as reviewing applications for reserved parking for 8 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. people with disabilities, loading zone applications. In terms of the operational requirements of having a zone installed, we can fulfill that function under this legislation consistent with what we do in other areas.
Thank you very much. Tim McDonald, John McDonald, Linda Smith and Ted Singer, please. Please, whoever is going to start, identify yourself for the record and proceed. MR. DiRUSSO: My name is Gavin DiRusso.
Please proceed. MR. DiRUSSO: We're here obviously to represent the electric car parking. I just feel that it will be really beneficial for carbon footprints 9 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. for the Philadelphia residents. As you know, gas vehicles put up a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So for an electric car to hit Philadelphia, I feel that it will be very beneficial. It will reduce carbon footprint, be very beneficial in that way.
Okay. Thank you. Whoever is next, identify yourself for the record.
My name is Linda Montanile. I am here to support the electric car, mainly because I think it's going to be a stepping stone for Philadelphia to turn even more green. I think it's going to really put Philadelphia on the map as far as an energy-efficient and earth-friendly city.
My name is Ted Singer. I'm here to support the electric car parking ordinance. I just feel that 10 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. it's a great opportunity for the City to reduce pollution by encouraging people to get electric cars who might otherwise think, I have no place to charge my car because I don't have a garage. So I think it's a great step.
Thank you. MR. TIM McDONALD: My name is Tim McDonald and I'm here to support the legislation as well, for all the same reasons that have just been stated, but the other thing is that I'm a big cheerleader for Philadelphia, and so the idea that Philadelphia -- I actually don't know of another city that has this legislation. So the idea simply when it gets out to the rest of the country that Philadelphia is supporting electric cars, that will bring an attention to Philadelphia, and Philadelphia is already trying to become kind of a green center, even more so than Chicago. So I think it will be bring a lot of attention and a lot of interest to the City. 11 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
And it is true that LEED certification does give points to private parking garages who install designated spots for plug-in cars. So the developer who does that gets points towards LEED certification, either silver or gold. MR. TIM McDONALD: That's a very, very good point. And along those lines, we're architects, developers and builders, and we intend to -- we're excited to have this legislation tomorrow, because we intend to include an electric car with the home that we're currently building for somebody. So we intend to really get the press out there on this legislation.
Thank you. MR. JOHN McDONALD: My name is John McDonald, brother with Tim, partner, and I'm a resident of Old City where parking is maybe at the most premium in the City. I'm also someone that's spent the last several months going to the 12 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. meetings for the GreenPlan Philly. This is very important to me to have Philadelphia become the epicenter of green living and green development in the country. Like my brother said, I think the fact that Philadelphia will become the first city with a legislation providing parking for electric vehicles will really set us apart and give us an opportunity for recognition on the sustainable path that GreenPlan Philly is taking. I think it's an opportunity not to be missed.
Could any of you or all of you, if you want, comment on the issue relative to the installation cost and maintenance cost? Do you think that that cost borne by the homeowner is something that is outweighed by the savings on the fuel? MR. TIM McDONALD: I think that there are two ways to look at that. One is new construction and the other is retrofitting an existing home. I think 13 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. it's a little bit more expensive to do that when it comes to an existing row home, but with every new development, you dig up the sidewalk and you bring in services and you bring in -- so it takes nothing to run a conduit out and have electric come out from your building. I think it's fairly insignificant on a 4-to-12-foot-wide sidewalk to cut a line. It's electric. It doesn't have to be very far below the ground, below the surface to run a conduit in. So I think it's minimal. I think those who buy an electric guitar -- those who play electric guitars out on the street through this -- no. 19
Plug into your sidewalk and play on the sidewalk. MR. TIM McDONALD: Right. Exactly. No. Those who buy an electric car will see this as an insignificant cost. 14 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
And it is cheaper on new construction? MR. TIM McDONALD: It's part of the process.
And you believe that the overall savings on the lifetime of the car and the fuel costs would outweigh the cost of installation and maintenance? MR. TIM McDONALD: Immensely. Especially when -- and I say "when," not if -- when codes, building codes, start requiring us to generate our own electricity rather than take it from PECO. And when we start generating our own electricity on our development sites, then we're not using any coal, anything to power our cars at that point, and that's very near in the future.
Please. MR. JOHN McDONALD: Additionally, I'd like to make the point that designation for electric car parking throughout the City, this idea of where 15 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the charging ports are going to happen and the expense at which they'll be and who is going to pay for it, frankly, I envision an electric car user to have to power themselves, just like a gasoline car user would have to fill up their own car. So if I'm pulling up to Rittenhouse Square in my electric car, I don't expect to have a power station available to me, and I certainly don't expect to have it available to me for free. I do, however, if I have a designated space in front of my home, because of all the right reasons, it makes sense to designate electric car parking, I would as a homeowner either buy a home with a charging port already there or install one. So, therefore, I would be feeding my vehicle from my own meter. That's how I envision this really being successful.
I appreciate your testimony. Since we're talking 16 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. about electric fuel -- and one of the obstacles of natural gas vehicles is the fact that compressors are needed to charge the vehicle. Do you think we should look at expanding this beyond just electric vehicles, that natural gas vehicles also be included? Or I'm not even sure if that would be a practical expansion, but should we consider other than electric that need to be charged, like natural gas vehicles? MR. JOHN McDONALD: Should we consider vehicles in the City of Philadelphia other than -- with alternative fuels?
Right. MR. JOHN McDONALD: Absolutely. And I think this electric vehicle ordinance in legislation is the first step to that.
But, similarly, to be able to install in new construction a service to charge a natural gas vehicle would be maybe 17 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. approximately the same costs because -- I'm thinking that if we're going to head in this direction, that we shouldn't leave another facet of alternative energy out of the scenario. MR. JOHN McDONALD: I don't disagree with that, and I don't have an extraordinary amount of information on natural gas vehicles, for instance. However, you have your -- so I don't necessarily understand what the compressor situation is, but what I do understand is with electric, there is nothing other than a home run back to the electrical panel that could be directly run to a charging port at your residents' curb.
With a disconnect switch for the electric. But what I meant by the compressor, that years ago one of the drawbacks of natural gas or LNG was the fact that you had to compress the gas to get it into the storage tank. From what I understand, 18 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. that obstacle has been overcome where there is a way to slow-charge a natural gas vehicle overnight without having to have all the sophisticated equipment. All you need is the gas source and the rest of it happens. At least that's from what I understand. And I think that possibly we ought to look at that, too. But thank you very much. MR. JOHN McDONALD: Thank you.
Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I want to report that Bill No. 22 070671 will be held, and I'm also going to read 070672 and 070691 together, and I would appreciate that whoever is going to testify give their testimony on both 19 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. bills. Bill No. 070672, an ordinance 4 enacting a new Chapter 9-3100 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance," to prohibit the use of disposable food service ware that contains polystyrene foam and to require the use of biodegradable/compostable or recyclable disposable food service ware by food vendors, City facility providers, City departments and City contractors and lessees unless there is no affordable alternative; all under certain terms and conditions. And 070691 is an ordinance 18 amending Chapter 9-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Service and Other Businesses," by adding a new Section 9-614, entitled "Mandatory Use of Recyclable and Compostable Checkout Bags," all under certain terms and conditions. Is there a representative from 20 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the Administration here? Loree, thanks. Denise Earley could come to the table also. Good morning. Thank you for coming. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Chairman?
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Councilman. I just have a few brief opening remarks to set the record straight on what caused me to introduce this bill, which you also co-sponsored. So before we begin, I just want to make a concession to the opponents of this bill, of Bill 070691, and better explain what the goals of the legislation are. No matter what type of material is used as a checkout bag, paper or plastic, there will be an environmental impact, and I understand that. Energy 21 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. for production, delivery and impact after initial use is part of that concern. To use one or the other is a choice that will have some consequences, and I certainly understand that as well. I'll say now that I'm not convinced that either product is better per se. Different studies point to different benefits. The best thing to happen would be for the consumer to use reusable cloth bags, and I would encourage to work to change that behavior and encourage that behavior. Having said all that, while this legislation partly deals with the environment, benefit to the environment was not my primary goal, although it's extremely important. Philadelphia is a dirty city. We've had the reputation and some people have called us Philthadelphia, and that's been around for a very long time and something that I take personal. Some people say it kind of like tongue and cheek or with a smile 22 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. on their face, but it certainly -- not too long ago, if you remember, the Mayor of New Orleans visited our city, and although I didn't think it was appropriate for him to make that those comments, the truth of the matter is that he was right. This city is a dirty city. Thousands of dollars are spent privately and publicly to pick up plastic bags that never decompose. How often have we seen bags stuck in trees or tangled in fences for months, maybe even years? Likewise, thousands of dollars are spent in flushing our sewer system because plastic bags clog those pipes. Those are my two primary targets with this legislation, and I am hoping our witnesses will keep that in mind when they testify. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record, Ms. Jones, and proceed. 23 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
I'm Loree Jones, Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia. Good morning, Chairman and members of the Committee on the Environment and other City Council members. I'm Loree Jones, Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia. Thank you for inviting me here to testify on three environmental bills being heard here today. Bills 070672, 070691 and 070788 address environmental stewardship and urban sustainability. These bills clearly recognize that the private sector, as well as local government, play a leading role in transforming Philadelphia into a more environmentally responsible and sustainable city. The legislation presented here today is consistent with furthering the City's sustainability objectives. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize this 24 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Administration's commitment to these concerns and values. This Administration has demonstrated leadership in protecting our air quality, health and environment, and most recently taking measures to mitigate the causes and impacts of climate change. S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement in 2005 and joined the Clinton Climate Initiative for Large Cities in 2006. These initiatives have supported such actions as our municipal energy management program through best practices and procurement, construction and facility management. Between Fiscal Years '03 and '06, electricity use for the General Fund accounts was reduced by 18,000 watts and natural gas use decreased by 63,000. As a result, annual greenhouse gas emissions fell by 12,400 tons of carbon dioxide. In 1999, Philadelphia became 25 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. S. to replace traffic signal lamps with light-emitting diodes, or LEDs. LEDs can consume about 80 percent less energy than standard incandescent bulbs. The City replaced 28,000 red lamps resulting in annual energy savings of 8,300 watts and emission savings of 4,100 tons. The longevity of LEDs also reduces waste and the number of manhours needed for replacement. We intend to double these benefits by changing to three-color LEDs. In light of global warming impacts and other pressing environmental challenges, this Administration continues to pursue the adoption of sustainable practices, planning and policies as demonstrated by reducing and greening our fleets, our anti-idling regulations and, more comprehensively, through the Local Action Plan for Climate Change and GreenPlan Philadelphia. This commitment is also illustrated through the Mayor's Climate 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Protection and Environmental Stewardship Executive Order presented on Earth Day, April 23, 2007, which includes the purchase of wind energy to meet the electricity needs of this building, City Hall. The Order requires all new construction and major renovation projects affecting over 10,000 square feet to be designed to meet, at a minimum, the LEED's silver rating category or, alternatively, to achieve a percent reduction in energy use. 14 These actions we realize, 15 however, are not enough. We need to make 16 continuous advances in greening our 17 municipal operations and creating 18 meaningful and sustainable environmental 19 legislation that will achieve maximum 20 impact. We believe that local government can and should act and lead by example in preventing further archeological harm and implementing, where feasible, greening policies and legislations. We're very much a green city 27 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. and probably one of the greenest cities in this country. I commend this Committee on the introduction of all the bills being heard today and support the intent of each. In their present form, however, there are a number of issues that need further deliberation and examination, and this Administration pledges to work with City Council to work through these concerns.
The proposed bills could increase operating expenses for several City departments due to procurement requirements, the cost of meals, necessary increases in staffing and additional regulatory enforcement. We have just begun to evaluate the impact of the bills on the City's operating departments. Acting on our commitment to advance the objectives of these bills, we would like to work closely with Council's Committee on the Environment to fashion amendments that create legislation that meet its environmental objectives without 28 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. creating unintended burdens or inequities in the future. In brief, I'd like to mention some of those concerns. Related to Bills 070672 and 070691, regarding the mandatory use of recyclable bags and the use of recyclable food service ware by the City and its vendors, many departments raised a concern regarding the lack of a citywide composting program with capacity to handle biodegradable materials. One of the greatest benefits of biodegradable products is that they decompose or biodegrade. Biodegradable and compostable materials do not biodegrade in landfills because landfills are designed to keep water out and minimize anaerobic activity in order to reduce landfill gas production. If biodegradable materials decompose in a landfill, the amount of landfill gas, methane or a greenhouse gas, generated would increase. 29 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. If these products are put in a landfill, the greatest benefit is, therefore, defeated. Without access to an appropriate disposal site, the intent of the ordinance would not be realized. This aspect is a market that could be cultivated here, and we'd like to recommend that our operating departments work closely with Council and the Commerce Department to ensure that we move to these products and ensure that we could then dispose of them in an appropriate manner. Additionally, the Procurement Commissioner has expressed concern about the potential difficulty in finding a competitive pool of suppliers that could provide the necessary material and food service ware. Without adequate competition, we run the risk of increased costs in program areas using these materials. We also want to be cognizant of the potential burden on our vendors. In both these areas, time for us to 30 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. assess the marketplace would benefit all affected parties. With respect to Bill 070788, the electric vehicle parking, the installation of an electrical outlet at the curb line has the potential to be a life-safety hazard due to electrical shocks, tripping hazards and sidewalk obstruction. There's potential for the abuse of electric outlets at curb lines through non-licensed business activity. On-street parking is scarce, as folks know, and a much valued public resource. Reserving on-street parking spaces for private use should be done in exceptional, limited cases. Currently, on-street parking is reserved for people with disabilities and for PhillyCarShare. Enforcement of these reserved spaces has been problematic. Reserving additional on-street parking spaces for electric cars has the potential to increase enforcement problems. Before passage, additional time 31 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. should be allotted to consider these issues, as well as the issues of utilization, adequate safety features and regulation. In summary, the Administration supports the goals and spirit of each bill, as we are committed to working toward making Philadelphia the next great green city. For these and other future green initiatives, the Administration looks forward to working with Council's Committee on the Environment to create legislation that conserves and enhances our natural resources.
I have with me today representatives from a number of our operating departments and the Commerce Department, Licenses and Inspections, Streets, the Water Department, Health, as well as representatives from the Planning Department. We would all be willing to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. 32 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Thank you for your testimony. I would comment that when it comes to issues relative to environmental changes, you always find a wealth of reasons why we shouldn't do it, and it usually comes down to cost and it comes down to impracticality. I mean, it's easy to find reasons not to do something, and we're going to hear from a whole slew of industry folks who are going to tell us why this is all bad. I would rather approach it from another angle as opposed to trying to write the absolutely perfect bill that will conclude all of the issues that we could possibly raise, is to try to work it out as we go along. I mean, if we say basically we're not going to require biodegradable bags and Styrofoam until we have a compost operation, we probably aren't going to have it within the next four, five years, I guess. If we're going to say that 33 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. somebody could trip over the electric plug-in, we're better off finding a way to keep it from being above the surface of the curb as opposed to trying to worry about that. If we're worried about the available on-street parking operations, we ought to take a real review of all the people who have handicapped signs in the City, and I'm wondering how many actually really deserve them, and also those handicapped placards that people use as if it's their private parking spot themselves and are not disabled. So I appreciate your testimony and I would love to work with the Administration on these things, but I think that if we're going to wait until we have the perfect situation, we're probably never going to have the perfect situation. And one other comment relative to the Styrofoam. The cost for the operating departments should not be an 34 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. issue, because if the cost of the replacement biodegradable product is more than ten percent, you don't have to use it anyway. So I would suspect that if we had this bill in place or had this law in place now, that there would be an industry movement on the biodegradable material to get the price down below ten percent of the styrene product. Therefore, we would be creating an incentive to make that happen. In the mean time, if it's ten percent or more, they don't have to use it anyway. So I appreciate the testimony, but I really would like to try to get some things in place and then tweak them as we go along as opposed to tweaking it to death before we do it. So that's just my comment. Councilman DiCicco, did you have your light on? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 24
Would you please identify yourself for the record. 35 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Good morning, Chairman Kenney and members of the Committee on the Environment. For the record, I am Denise Earley, Director of Public Policy for the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. First, I would like to thank the sponsors of the bills. The Chamber recognizes the intent of the bills before you is to reduce litter and to clean up the environment. The Chamber also recognizes Councilmen Kenney and DiCicco, sponsors of the bill, as staunch supporters of the business community. However, on behalf of the many affected Chamber members who have contacted me directly, the Chamber cannot support Bills 070671, 070672 and 070691 in their current form. The primary concern is the increase in costs associated with the use of alternative materials. This increase in cost would undoubtedly affect the businesses' bottom line or would have to 36 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. be passed on to the consumer. I talked to a Chamber member who was not in the food business and asked for some comparison numbers on plastic bag versus paper bags without handles, and this is what I was told: Plastic bags, 11-1/2 by 6 by 21 are 14.25 per thousand; 18 by 8 by 30 are 24.95 per 500; and 8 by 5 by 16 are 21.93 per 2,000. In comparison, paper, 17 by 4 by 24 is 47.68 per 500, and 8-1/2 by 16 is 38 per 1,000. In every case, plastic is substantially cheaper. You will hear from experts in the field today on biodegradable products, fossil fuel usage, landfill capacity and that cigarette butts, chewing gum and candy wrappers account for 90 percent of all litter. I am not an expert in that field. I am merely relaying a message on behalf of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce membership. 37 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. These bills, in concert with other bills recently introduced, seem to target the same businesses: supermarkets, convenience stores and chain restaurants. The Chamber would prefer to see a recycling policy put in place rather than a total ban on plastic bags and polystyrene foam materials. We also believe that the use of recyclable canvas bags is a good idea, but it does not work in all instances. Personally speaking, if I do a big food order, I would need 10 or 12 bags, and that could be very expensive, and if it's anything like store coupons, I never remember to bring them with me. So, again, the Chamber thinks the intent of the bills is good, but firmly believes that recycling and education programs is a more business-friendly and practical route to take. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you 38 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. very much. I recognize the issue of cost, and I don't think it's insignificant, but there are certain issues where cost should not be the determinative factor. For example, if lead-based paint was cheaper than acrylic paint, which probably it was before lead-based paint was banned, would you be arguing that we should keep it because it's cheaper than the acrylic paint? I don't think so. So there are certain areas that we need to kind of give a little bit on. I mean, we recognize that some of those costs are going to be passed on to the consumer, but in the end, if their environment is cleaner and their storm water treatment plants are not having to deal with all this stuff, why would we not want to take on that a little bit? I mean, we have to take a little bit to help the bigger picture. I'm sure that refining fuel to the national standards of emissions costs 39 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. more money than it is if we just pumped it the way we did years ago. But those things get changed and it is a cost that gets passed on. But I do think in the end, the entire effort is worth it just beyond the paper bags versus the cost of the plastic bags. And the other issue, frankly, for the stores is, not until these bills were introduced did anybody talk about recycling, did anyone talk about educating their employees not to give me a plastic bag when I buy a pack of gum. I mean, people take those plastic bags in the stores and act like they just give them away no matter what you buy. So there's no education effort on the part of the retailers. There's no 20 recycling effort on the plastic bags on the part of the retailers until like today. I assume it's going to start. So where's the environmental concern on their part, not just the cost?
Well, in my 40 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. supermarket, which is outside of Philadelphia anyway, but they've had recycling for years.
Occasionally. Not always. My Genuardi's has recycling and they've had that for a while. But I just want to say that the Chamber is very willing to be any part of a task force to address this issue and work very closely with the Committee on some alternate language or see what we can do to address all parties.
Plastic. 41 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. It's not clear to me on what we're trying to accomplish here. If you're trying to accomplish -- you referred to our dirty city. If you go to the drugstore and you buy an item and you throw the plastic bag away, that's not a good thing. Many people put their trash out in plastic bags. Many people go to the store and buy 13-gallon trash bags to line their trash container that they put their trash out in. So why would we be concerned about plastic bags in a drugstore or plastic bags that we get at the supermarket if many people are going to the supermarket and buying 30-gallon, 50-gallon trash bags that are made of the same material? You're not going to correct anything. You still have the trash bags you put at the curb that are going to the landfill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're absolutely right, and I agree that we should do away even with trash bags. There was a time I can remember 42 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. before there were trash bags that people put their trash in a trash can without a liner. But it's all about marketing. The chemical industry, the oil industry decide to come up with a product that would make people believe that it was more convenient for them to put their trash in a plastic-linered trash can, take the bag out of the trash can and take to the curb. I remember the day when you just picked up the can that was the same weight as the bag and moved it to the curb. It's all about marketing and it's all driven by the chemical industry, which is the oil industry. It's just market management or product being sold to the consumer. Denise Earley says she sometimes has 12 bags of groceries. I remember before we had plastic bags that people used a paper shopping bag, or my mother had a bag that I think must have been a hundred years old that was 43 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. something like a canvas bag with a leather exterior that was used time and time and time again, year in and year out. There were nine people who lived in my household, nine people, not counting the people who would show up every night, because my father was a number writer and everybody came to pay off their debts.
And my father would be there a few hours later. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My point I'm making is, there were a lot of people. And your dad may rest and my father -- we understand that. There were a lot of people who were eating the food. There was a lot of food. How did they get that product, their food, from the grocery store to the home? Well, it was much more inconvenient in those days because you had to either go in my neighborhood to 9th Street or to one of the local stores. 44 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Now with the big chain stores that provide parking, people put their groceries in a shopping cart, wheel it up to the back of their car, pop the trunk, throw the stuff in the trunk and drive it home. They have to use their car again, because the chains killed all the small grocery stores off mostly in urban America and the suburbs, who never had neighborhood grocery stores. We go back to the same issue again. It's all about oil. I mean, we're going to hear about the cost, and I think that Councilman Kenney eloquently talked about the cost. What about the cost to our environment? What about the cost to the City, our city and other cities, in removing, disposing of this trash? And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the Water Department, our Water Department, has a boat that skims the Delaware River somewhere around where the Schuylkill and the Delaware meet just to take plastic 45 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. products and plastic bags off our waterway so it doesn't get into our drinking water system or our filtration system at the water treatment plant. So there are other ways of doing it, but we've all been programmed to believe it is easier to put your trash in a bag and carry it to the curb. I would ask the consumer to calculate how much it costs that consumer every year to buy those plastic trash bags. No one tells you about that cost that the consumer is fronting. Up front they're paying that. Because we watch television and we're told every night, We're going to make your life easier. And I don't know if anyone has watched Anderson Cooper this week -- I've caught it late because I've been getting home late at night -- about this planet being in peril. And I opened my remarks and said it wasn't all about the environment, but it certainly is, and I think I qualified that by saying that that's just as 46 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. important. We're going to hear from the industry, the chemical industry, about the cost. It's going to cost more to produce this, because plastic -- you can do a greater volume of plastic in a tractor-trailer than you can paper. Well, maybe we have to convince people not to use either, start using reusable bags. And the industry may not like that because it's going to cut into their profits.
Councilman, when I was a kid, I had the job at the Penn Fruit putting the groceries in boxes for the customer. So I know what you're talking about. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman, there were people who sold in Center City when you went to the department stores, they offered you a bag, and if you needed an extra bag, there were people who sold you a bag for two cents or a nickel. I mean, they're 47 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. making it sound like if plastic goes away, we're not going to be able to carry our products home from a store any longer, that everything is just going to fall apart. It's an argument that they're going to continue to make, and I understand it, because they represent the chemical companies, which are really owned by the oil industry, and that's what they have to do. But no one is going to tell me that --
Councilman -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We can start protecting our communities by removing this blight, these trash issues, that we'll be a better place in the long run.
Councilman, you referred to the City and its cleanliness. One of my observations throughout my years is the fact that when people put their trash out in plastic 48 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. bags, that as a result of that, dogs, animals, raccoons get into that trash and it gets spread all over. I asked the Streets Department for many years to look at other communities that have a requirement for a rigid container with a lid to be put at the curb, and I was told by the Streets Department that they don't want to do that, they encourage the plastic bags because the sanitation workers can move quickly and just throw them in the back of the truck, that people have no place to store a trash can and they don't want to be bothered bringing them back in, it's convenient for them to put it out. I would love us to move and have a requirement to have a rigid container requirement, because in Center City -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman --
-- when I see the trash out -- 49 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could I interrupt you?
Sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have an ordinance. I think it was Councilman Mariano, if I'm not mistaken, that introduced it, and that bill was passed. Technically, in the City of Philadelphia, you're not allowed to leave your trash out in a bag. It has to be in a container with a lid. We're just not enforcing that.
Well, if that's in there, then the Streets Department should start to move forward in that area, because -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have been delinquent in enforcing that.
I'm convinced that part of the cleanliness issue is what I described, a dog going in to get garbage that's now commingled with the trash, all other animals, and it's all over the street. A rainy day trash 50 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. is put out early. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I agree.
So if that's the law, then I think the Managing Director should comment on that.
I'd like her to answer the question, please, about there's allegedly a law that requires a trash container rather than just putting trash out in a bag.
The City of Philadelphia is very flexible in what it allows people to put out in trash, in the way that we allow people to put their trash out, and we've historically been that way. Part of, though, the issue really to -- I appreciate both of your points, Councilmen. I think we have a number of issues that are leading to litter. Part of it is how people put 51 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. their trash out. We've made efforts through using SWEEP officers, enforcement, working through block captains, notifying people of ways to put out trash that make it easier in fact for sanitation workers to pick it up, but also make it easier so that it's less dirty, less likely for bags to rip and all of that. The other issue, frankly, related to the City and its conditions is that we do have a number of people who either live or visit the City that think it's okay to litter, and that's a challenge that we're addressing around the City. I was just here yesterday talking about short dumping, and there's a proposal to have an incentive program, really a reward program, to encourage folks to turn in people that are illegally dumping in our City. So there are a number of issues that we're trying to address in a variety of ways. As I mentioned yesterday, we're 52 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. in the midst of a citywide clean-up where we're doing hand cleaning block by block on folks' trash days to address some of the litter. But we definitely have an issue that may be as much related to people's behavior as it is to the types of materials people are using.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, it may not necessarily be a question, but I guess it will end up being a question. This whole issue with respect to the environmental concerns of trash bags, plastic bags and all, they're valid points on both ends, and I hear Councilman Rizzo brought up a valid point about the trash bags, and Councilman DiCicco parried and thrust, but at the end of the day, from my perspective, in a significant portion of my district the issue centers around trash, the little plastic bags coming out 53 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of the corner stores and the Rite Aids and all of the other stores in the neighborhood. And I understand that this is really conduct that is unbecoming of the individuals who do it, but the bottom line is, they come out, they take out their product and throw the trash bag, and it flies all over the neighborhood and gets caught in the fence, along the edge of the fence and it just gets captured everywhere. And that's the biggest concern as it relates to these little trash bags -- I'm sorry; these little bags as it relates to the conditions in a lot of these communities. What would the Chamber or the City suggest in lieu of eliminating those bags to get rid of those bags and that refuse in our communities?
I mean, and please don't tell me education, because we've been trying to educate people for a 54 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. while. People are just not getting it. You know what I mean? I heard it earlier today, the education thing.
First of all, let me ask the sponsor. Does it affect the small mop-and-pop corner stores, or, no, it doesn't?
Well, they're not affected by the bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It does not, but I would like for it to -- this is a start. This would be a start. And I'll get into the cost factor a little bit more as this testimony goes. If people want to save money, they should be encouraging their customers to use reusable bags. And if people started 55 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. using them, we wouldn't be having this issue and there would be no cost to the businesses of having to purchase bags.
You were going to say? Oh, you were just going to say that it didn't --
I didn't think it applied to the small stores that you were referring to, Councilman.
The original version. But one of the bigger issues I have is really those small stores throughout the neighborhood. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm more than happy to --
Again, I think I mentioned earlier in my testimony the Chamber is very willing to work with the Committee on any task force or any type of education or recycling program that would help the issue along.
Well, let 56 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. me ask you this, and I have to be careful how I phrase this: There's a cost associated with the removal of trash refuse. I know the City right now is working on a citywide program. I actually saw some people out with the blowers blowing trash off the sidewalks, and it looks nice for now, but that's probably something that should be ongoing, but at the end of the day, the City can't afford to do that. Is there a way -- and I know you're not going to be able to answer the question today -- that the Chamber and its members and its non-members could support initiatives that would help clean up, at a minimum, the commercial corridors? Because that's the biggest part in my district where you have these trash bags all over the place. Right now we wanted to introduce some special services districts in parts of --
That's what I was going to say. 57 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
-- parts of North Philadelphia, but when you do the assessments, the numbers just aren't there to support a tax-driven special service district.
Would the Chamber be supportive of a project that created an environment where we could, through its members and other entities, raise the necessary resources to have these types of special services districts throughout the City of Philadelphia --
Well, I can't commit for the Chamber at this moment. We'd be very happy to consider it and work with your office.
Okay. All right. Councilman, I'm probably going 58 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. to want to introduce an amendment to incorporate the smaller stores, because that is really a problem. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kenney, if I may. I know the panel has their lights on. I just want to cite one example. When you talk about cost, that the big chains are complaining that this is going to cost them, the day I did an interview with the South Philadelphia Review about this issue a couple of weeks ago, I pulled off to the side. I was parked next to the curb doing the interview from my car, and there was a gentleman who was coming out of the -- came out of the Acme Market at 10th and Reed in South Philadelphia. In each hand he had a plastic bag with groceries. The groceries were in a paper bag that was then placed in the plastic bag. So as Councilman Kenney said, I guess the educational process is beginning now, but you talk about cost? They could have very easily had given 59 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. that gentleman a paper bag with handles, but there's no reason for that to happen because they choose this is more convenient, allegedly more convenient, for people to have plastic. There are other alternatives. But I thought it was quite ridiculous when you make the argument about cost. And that happens in most supermarkets where the paper gets put in a plastic bag.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reality is, going green is the future, and I can assure you that more and more bills are going to come out of this Council, a number of which have been introduced already, that deal with sustainability on a number of different fronts. So I need to underscore Councilman Frank DiCicco's comment in that we need to start somewhere, and if starting somewhere means getting rid of 60 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the small trash -- you can't even call them trash bags. The small plastic bags that we get from Wawa and other establishments, we have to start somewhere. So that is to Councilman Rizzo's question. We do have the large trash bags that we have to deal with, but we have to get to that, and starting with the smaller bags at least addresses this issue of trash in our neighborhoods. That's number one. Number two, education costs. So talking about being a part of a steering committee that comes up with whatever the goals are is one thing. Ultimately to carry out any kind of education, information, anything, it costs money. So then the bigger question is -- and something I'm broaching the Chamber with now for you to get back to us later -- is what is the level of commitment that the Chamber is willing to make with regards to whatever education 61 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. initiative comes out of this Council. You should be advised that I've introduced a resolution calling on the Energy Conservation Office to work with us in having some broad discussion about a very formal education campaign around this whole issue of recycling and all that that means. So you say you're willing to work with the sponsor of the bill to come up with language. That's one clarification, correct, Ms. Earley?
And then the subsequent question becomes -- and it's a rhetorical question for now -- how do we translate real commitment and partnership in wanting to get the education message out, that ultimately it's going to cost money and that too will require shared financial resources.
Several of our 62 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. members already have education programs in place, and I think -- at least I was told by Wal-Mart that they sent a letter to all Council offices describing their recycling plans and their education plans already in place. There are several other members that already have education programs in place, and I'd be happy to share that with you.
I would certainly welcome that. What I am suggesting, however, is a comprehensive strategic plan by the Chamber on what it wants to do or plans to do or has an interest in Philadelphia going green from a commerce standpoint. So I again put that on the table, because individual spot kind of conscientious business retailers doing that is a good thing. It's a great thing when there's a comprehensive strategic effort towards Philadelphia going green.
Thank you, 63 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Mr. Chairman.
I think the business community has been pretty good about this. I was recently shopping in a supermarket and the paper bags were there, and the woman ahead of me said, I'd like to have a paper bag, and the person bagging provided a paper bag. I would like to see -- maybe the Chamber can help with this. I recently went to a fast-food place to pick up a cup of coffee and the container for the four coffees was cardboard. It was appropriate. When the people were receiving their orders, they were put in paper bags. I think McDonald's uses a white paper bag. So I'd like to see us ask for cooperation and try to get as many people to offer an alternative. And I think many people that have been in a supermarket know if you ask for a paper 64 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. bag, I think they provide it, because they're sensitive to the people that are concerned about this particular issue. So I think the Chamber could be very helpful in encouraging the major chains to provide as an alternative a paper bag or possibly even switch without the need for a law. It just seems as though --
-- there's a first step here, to see if we can get some voluntary cooperation. And my own personal observation is that paper is generally used. Again, I saw -- the paper bag with the McDonald logo was paper, not plastic.
Well, thank you for your observation. There are members of the community here from supermarkets and different things that will be testifying.
Thank you. 65 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Thank you very much. Ms. Jones has to leave. Are there any questions for her? (No response.)
I did want to just reiterate that the Administration is supportive of these efforts and we're looking forward to having the opportunity to work with folks on it, and I think that we can do that simultaneously, working through some of those concerns that we have in how we administer it, how we would implement this, how we identified the areas for the materials. And so, again, we're supportive of this and appreciate your leadership on this.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any other questions for 66 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Ms. Earley? (No response.)
Mr. Rich Savner, Rich McMenamin, Rocco D'Antonio and Andrew Wilson, please. Also, I want to explain the format of the hearing panels. The next three panels -- or four panels will probably all be against the bill in some form or another, the two bills, and I'm waiting for the last panel, which is the people who are supporting the bill, to hear all of the issues that are being raised by the opponents so they can have discussion surrounding what the opponents have put forth. So thank you for coming. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Good morning. My name is Rich Savner from 67 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Pathmark Stores. I'm the Director of Public Affairs. We're headquartered in Carteret, New Jersey. Good morning to Mr. Committee Chairman, as well as other members of the Committee, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of Pathmark regarding Bill No. 070691. As a company that considers itself part of the community where we operate supermarkets, Pathmark, we do recognize our responsibility to support common sense environmental issues that help sustain neighborhoods. For over 15 years, we've offered a two-cent rebate program to customers in all our stores throughout the four states we operate in who bring back bags or any other form of a receptacle to bag their groceries in. Last November, we did introduce in our company the sale of reusable canvas bags, and as of to date, we've sold probably about a hundred thousand of those bags. Just for the record also, we do have 68 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. eight stores within the City limits of Philadelphia, as well as several others just outside of the City limits. We do these recycling efforts because we recognize it is our responsibility to help the environment and we want to be green, as the common term is nowadays, but also because it makes good business sense. And in an industry that operates on the slim profit margins that we do, we're always looking for ways to improve efficiencies. In a moment, I'll introduce a new business partner that Pathmark has collaborated with from Penn Jersey Paper on a new program that we are instituting. And it is commendable that the City wants to improve recycling and the environment. We don't believe that this bill, in its current form, is practical, and it is expensive regardless of everybody's issue on it. It would potentially be an expensive cost to the supermarket companies. 69 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. I'm sure that the goal of the Committee, though, is to work towards a viable and cost-effective method for reducing plastic waste in Philadelphia, and I believe that many members in the business community do support that effort, as well as Pathmark does. So we would be looking to cooperate and work with the City on a practical solution. While Mr. D'Antonio will spell out the specifics of the program that we've partnered with him -- it's called Bag Smart -- I'd like to say that Pathmark is introducing a program, piloting it in its stores in Philadelphia and five sister stores just outside of the City, because we believe it is a way towards recycling plastics. And our expectation is that we will roll out this program to all 140 of our stores throughout the four states we do operate in. One detail of the program that I'd like to share with you, as I've 70 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. listened to everyone testify so far and comments that have been made, is that the effort to recycling goes beyond just putting the barrels at our stores to take back plastics and to put in-store signwork and let people know what our programs are, but I also think that it's important that we do market the program to the consumer, as well as to our own associates. We can do better. Pathmark can do better, and I think that's evidenced by what I have just announced to you folks, that we will pilot this program. We can do better. We challenge ourselves to do better. But it's a partnership that we need to have with not only the City government but with our customers and challenge ourselves to do better. We have to change people's attitudes about recycling and make them more aware of the benefits, but mandating the use, we don't believe, of compostable bags is going to achieve the goal of 71 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. reducing plastic waste. But we do believe that the program that we're initiating with Penn Jersey Paper is practical and a workable solution at achieving that goal.
And so without further adieu, I'd like to introduce my colleague now, Rocco D'Antonio, from Penn Jersey Paper.
Good morning. My name is Rocco D'Antonio. I'm the Business Development Manager for Penn Jersey Paper. Thank you to the Councilmembers for letting me give my testimony today. As a distributor of packaging products to the supermarket industry in Philadelphia for over 43 years, we are always looking for ways to reduce packaging and offer greener alternatives wherever practical for our customers. As I have personal responsibility for 72 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. checkout bags in the supermarket, I can tell you that the focus is and always has been on the reduction in both units and cost and product quality. And although we agree with the environmental issues raised by the City Council, we have concerns that passing this bill may cause many unintended side-effects as follows: Paper bags, for example, there are cost duplications both to the retailer and both to the distribution portion of supplying paper bags. Paper bags cost approximately three to five times more than plastic bags. This results in a substantial increase in operating costs for our supermarket customers. Also, I should tell you that promoting paper bags today will create a substantial supply and demand imbalance, resulting in even higher costs not only for the supermarkets but for every retail establishment using paper bags, no matter what it may be. As a distributor, freight and 73 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. warehousing issues are paramount to us. As you alluded to earlier, it does take substantial more quantity of trucks to handle paper bags. In fact, it will take seven to ten times more trucks of paper bags to distribute the same quantity as one trailer of plastic bags. In essence, that means it will require us to have a tenfold increase in trucking, fuel, exhaust emissions, labor, warehousing, storage, insurance, utilities and other associated costs. You also alluded to convenience of the City traffic. Convenience with paper bags is issue. Most traffic in the City of Philadelphia is walking traffic. Many people want a bag with handles, and although there are paper handle bags that you had mentioned, paper handle bags are not as relatively available as conventional paper bags or plastic bags, and they can cost five to eight times more than a standard plastic bag. When looking at the compostable 74 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. bag options, I thought it was prudent to reach out to our manufacturers to find out exactly where they stand on compostable bags. I contacted several of the manufacturers that we deal with who are some of the most highly respected manufacturers in the country and the major suppliers to the supermarket industry in the Philadelphia area. What I found was, number one, regarding availability, I was told that compostable bags may be available. And the reason why they may be available is they are still in the test phase and are unproven in any long-term studies. I was also advised that raw materials aren't available in any large volume and their availability may be uncertain. And to give you a perfect example, we supply compostable packaging to some of our customers. Many of our vendors who were promoting compostable packaging withdrew or delayed their product offerings because they were 75 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. unable to get raw materials. I was advised that there are manufacturing issues. Number one, it takes two to three times more material to produce a compostable bag than a regular plastic bag to achieve the same strength. This gets back into the same issue of freight, transportation, warehousing and all the additional costs. One of the most important issues to me were liability issues.
I was told that since compostable bags are still in the test phase and there is uncertainty relating to their performance and quality, that we were advised that if we were to request these for our customers or if our customers were to request compostable bags, they would come with disclaimers and possible hold harmless agreements to shield the manufacturers from liability since the products are too new and still unproven. I was also told that there are shelf life issues. I specifically asked 76 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. what assurances can they give us on the product stability in warehousing. I was told that they just didn't know, that if we had this in our warehouse, we don't know what's going to happen. So as a distributor holding millions of dollars in inventory in our warehouse and having a product that can be potentially unsalable, that is a major liability for a Philadelphia-based distributor of supermarket packaging. I'm also very concerned about offering compostable bags when there is no composting infrastructure available, and I'm concerned that compostable bags not being recyclable can contaminate existing recycling programs. And we are a recycler of plastic bags today, Penn Jersey Paper is. Cost, again, more expensive than paper bags. The cost duplications are huge for the distributors. They're huge for the supermarket industry in general. 77 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Given all this, we believe there is a far better way of addressing the issues. We are in favor of a comprehensive plastic bag reduction and recycling initiative. Penn Jersey Paper is in the process of rolling out this initiative. It's called our Bag Smart program, and it's designed to do several things. Number one is to reduce the number of bags used in the supermarket industry. And I can tell you every supermarket operator wants to do that and has been trying to do that and will continue to try to do that. In addition to that, we want to encourage the use of reusable bags, not just in selling them in the stores but in encouraging the consumers to actually reuse them more and more. And, again, that goes back to education. I think the timing is right for that. We are also aggressively getting involved in recycling. We are in the process of deploying recycling bins 78 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. to all Philadelphia area supermarkets that are participating with us. We will be collecting the bags on a weekly basis, and in addition, while we're at the store, we're going to be grabbing a lot of other plastic waste from the back room. All the pallets that come in stretch wrapped, we will be grabbing that plastic waste. All the case goods that come in with shrink wrap, the clear plastic wrap that holds the product together, we'll be taking that material as well. That's product that's generally destined for the trash, for the landfill. We'll be grabbing all of that product. And we're doing it in a way that I think is very creative. We're not just collecting it with our trucks, which we think is a problem. We've employed Goodwill Industries to go to the stores and pick up all this plastic waste. It creates jobs in the community and it's very newsworthy and it's a feel-good thing for the consumer to get involved 79 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. in. We're taking that plastic and we're selling it off to Trex Lumber to make composite plastic lumber. Again, it's something that the consumers can go buy in their local Home Depot or Lowe's. Again, it's a feel-good thing. People know what's going to happen with the product. We feel that these initiatives will ultimately reduce the bags used in the supermarket industry significantly. We're pulling plastic out of the waste stream from the back end of the store. We're going to recycle a specific number of plastic bags coming back to the supermarket industry. And when we're said and done, we're going to save money and we're going to have a cleaner Philadelphia.
We're involved with the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association and their members, the New Jersey Food Council and their members. Many 80 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. retailers in Philadelphia have already signed up on our program. Pathmark was one of the first ones to step forward and said, This makes sense, we should do this. In fact, just recently, yesterday afternoon, for example, the Reading Terminal Market told us they are very interested in getting involved in this program as part of their overall recycling efforts. So we think it's good for the City of Philadelphia and we think it makes more sense than just starting to ban products and impose new products on our supermarket customers that aren't commercially viable at this time. I appreciate the opportunity to talk before you and I hope that some of these alternatives will make sense and you'll consider them as possible alternatives to your current bill.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco, your light is on. 81 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you. D'Antonio?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know if you're qualified to answer this question. You talk about recycling. Tell me about recycling. How does that happen? What is the process for recycling plastic?
Well, if we're talking about plastic bags, number one, it's about having the bins and the infrastructure to handle receiving plastic bags at the store. That's number one. Number two, it's the store's commitment to manage those bins and store the product in the back room for us. Three, it's about our ability to go to every store every week with Goodwill Industries that we're funding and pick up those bags and bring them back to a processing facility that Penn 82 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Jersey Paper has set up. We go through all the plastic. We remove any contaminants. We have a special bailor that we purchased to bail up the plastic, and we store all this and we ship it off to Trex to make plastic lumber. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Tell me about the recycling process. You said you go through it, you remove the contaminants. What is it? Is it burned off? What's recycling? How do you recycle it?
Well, number one, our bins in our program were designed based on research from other recycling programs, and we feel that our bin design and our signage is, number one, going to reduce contaminants in that bin. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand, because I recycle plastic bags. Supermarkets have a bin when you go in or at the exit, whatever. When you 83 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. get that product back to your factory or whatever, what happens to that plastic bag?
We go through the plastic to remove -- maybe there's a bottle in there, maybe there's some paper waste in there. That product is removed. The balance of the product is bailed in 1,200 pound bails roughly and it's shipped to Trex's facility in Winchester, Virginia. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And what happens when it gets to that facility?
That's a question for Trex. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Pardon me?
Trex is here. Trex is going to testify. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, okay. So you spoke earlier in your testimony, if I recall correctly, about the cost involved. Paper costs more than 84 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. plastic. The volume, you have to do more shipping, the larger volume of the truck for paper as opposed to plastic. But now you want to do a recycling program that says when the plastic is delivered via truck in most cases, I would assume, to the stores that are using these bags, you're going to now send a truck out to pick up the recycled material and bring it to your facility. It will be then cleaned up of any contaminants, put in a 12-ton or something bail, now put in a truck and shipped to another state. Isn't the fuel that we're using to move this recyclable product from one location to another -- I mean, I don't have the numbers, but it sounds almost as you're probably using as much fuel to move this product, continually move the same product around, as you would if you had originally used the paper, which takes them maybe two trucks as opposed to one truck. I mean, you got -- no matter what you do, it's going to cost you a lot 85 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of money in fuel and more energy. I mean, there's more energy being used. And I'm being told -- I've been told that the plastic bag, the process for recycling is to burn it off.
Well, Trex will answer that part, but regarding your freight issues, the first thing I said is, our primary goal is reduction. We want to sell our customers less bags. We want to reduce the number of bags used in supermarkets, number one. Number two, regarding the freight, the freight issue, it probably takes the same amount of freight to ship it to a landfill and it probably is significantly less trucks to move the recycled plastic than the tenfold increase in trucks to move paper. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To a landfill?
Well, even if we're shipping ten trailers of paper bags, it's going to be less 86 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. transportation on recycling than it is to ship paper bags. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know. I think it's close, but...
This is to the supermarket industry. Another material that I see a lot of blown around the street when the plastic bags break open on trash day, when you display your merchandise, apples or fish or meat, you use these little plastic Styrofoam trays, I believe. Is there an alternative to those? Because aren't they a disposal problem when the consumer brings them home? You know what I'm talking about? The little trays where then the plastic is shrunk wrap around the dozen or eight apples or six apples.
I think I know what you're talking about, but I don't know that we do that in our stores any longer, Councilman, I mean, actually 87 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. there's a plastic bag that people put their apples or oranges in.
I think he's talking about if you're going to buy sirloin steak out of the butcher section, the meat section, it's going to be in a Styrofoam crate covered with --
Right. But actually there are alternatives that are degradable to the Styrofoam. But that's a Styrofoam issue, not a plastic bag issue. That's the other bill.
I would just make the general statement that if there's a more efficient way to do it, we're interested, obviously.
More 88 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. efficient or cheaper?
I think you guys have gone that direction because it's probably cheap.
Well, in New York City, they used to have that clear tray for the meats that you're describing, because the thought was that the consumer needed to see the other side of the package, and finally they rescinded that ordinance, but it was very much so costly and was not an issue to the consumer that there was much benefit, which I think was in the mind set of the Council in New York City.
But my point again, there is an issue that you hear today here that possibly you could come up with an alternative to reduce the number of those Styrofoam and plastic trays or plastic wrappings. And I don't know how you're going to get around that. 89 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. People need to see what they're buying, but...
I do agree with you. If there's a better way of doing it, we're certainly interested, as we are doing with Rocco's Bag Smart program. Absolutely, Councilman. Yes, sir.
Thank you. Whoever is next, please identify yourself for the record. MR. McMENAMIN: Good morning, Chairman Kenney and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Rich McMenamin. I'm the owner/operator of the ShopRite at Roosevelt Boulevard. It's on Boulevard Plaza across from the IRS. Most people recognize it as being in the parking lot behind Chickie and Pete's. I was born, raised, educated and a current resident of the City of Philadelphia, and I'm here to discuss the Bill 070691, use of plastic bags. 90 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Just on the way of background, I'd just like to -- ShopRite of Roosevelt Boulevard is part of the Wakefern Food Corporation. That's the nation's largest retailer-owned supermarket cooperative, with more than 230 stores under the ShopRite/PriceRite banners at about nine billion in annual retail sales. Wakefern provides marketing, distribution, procurement, warehousing and various administrative services to member companies. The cooperative's 44 members, of which I am one, own and operate the 200 ShopRite supermarkets in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Pennsylvania. We also operate 30 PriceRite stores in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and Wakefern and its subsidiaries together employ more than 45,000 associates. Ten years ago there were six ShopRite supermarkets in the City of Philadelphia. Today there are ten, and 91 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. by the end of 2008, there will be 12. And I believe this is an example of our firm continuing commitment to the City of Philadelphia. Wakefern/ShopRite's dedication to environmental stewardship is multi-faceted and includes Wakefern's Elizabeth, New Jersey recycling plant, which operates hours a day and six 11 days a week. In 2006, ShopRite recycled 12 more than 71,000 tons of cardboard and 13 1,668 tons of plastic shopping bags and 14 clear stretch film. 15 In 1991, ShopRite launched a 16 bag reuse program, which rewards shoppers who reuse shopping bags with a two-cent discount per bag. In 2005, customers saved more than $100,000 off their grocery bills while helping ShopRite use five million fewer bags. 6 million bags were reused. ShopRite continues to raise customer awareness of this program by posting window signs, register cards and printing information 92 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. about the programs on shopping bags. We have window signs similar to this. It's in the package. And this one just says "Want our two cents? " ShopRite provides training for associates in how to best pack a bag to ensure optimal capacity is being reached, with the goal of fewer bags being used. And I can tell you it's a continuous training effort that we have to do at our stores. Additionally, ShopRite encourages customers to use fewer plastic and paper shopping bags by offering reusable bags, such as this one, which we sell for a nominal fee of 99 cents that would do that. It is programs such as these that we feel help better our environment. Banning plastic shopping bags and replacing them with recyclable paper or compostable plastic bags will produce unintended consequences. Combining 93 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. compostable bags with the bags currently being recycled by Wakefern will contaminate the entire load, which could result in diminished recycling capabilities at our recycling plant. Plastic bags can now be recycled into plastic lumber, planters for gardening, new plastic bags and other product. However, if you combine compostables with the regular plastic bags, they cannot be recycled. The experts in the plastic industry can better address the technical questions. Our concern is the impact compostable bags will have on our own recycling program. We believe that all retailers should be responsible for improvement of the environment and not just supermarkets with gross annual sales of $2 million, or pharmacies.
We encourage other retailers to follow our example by recycling and offering programs such as the sale of reusable bags and a two-cent discount for reusing bags. If all retailers offered 94 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the same type of programs such as those undertaken by Wakefern/ShopRite, we believe there would be a significant reduction in plastic shopping bag use at a steady progression towards environmental protection and sustainability. In conclusion, we would ask that you reconsider the legislative approach banning plastic shopping bags and instead consider promoting recycling and reusable shopping bag programs. We are committed to working with the City of Philadelphia to find better ways to effectively address this issue. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McMenamin, is that two cents a bag per bag you offer? How do you get the two cents? Per bag? 95 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. MR. McMENAMIN: Two cents a bag. If you come in with ten bags, we'll take ten cents off your order -- or 5 cents off your order. 6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Tell me 7 how that goes. Does someone bring them 8 up to the cashier as they're checking 9 out? What's the process? 10 MR. McMENAMIN: While they're 11 checking out. You bring them back in. 12 We encourage you to reuse them, bring 13 them back in. So they'll go shopping. 14 When they come up to the front of the 15 checkout, they'll just put their bags up 16 and then we have a code there and we 17 immediately deduct the two cents per bag 18 that they have on there. 19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. 20 Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record. 96 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. Actually, good morning. My name is Andy Wilson. I'm CEO of S Walter Packaging. We're headquartered here in Philadelphia. We've been selling retail packaging for over a hundred years now. Different than the gentleman to my left -- and, by the way, I agree with everything and support what you say -- we sell retailers non-market, from the smallest variety store to a Wet Seal or a Talbots have multiple stores throughout the country. As a matter of saving time, I'm not going to repeat what these gentlemen say. I support it. But I do want to tell you that education is working. I would tell you 50 percent of our day our clients are calling, they're asking about recycling, they're asking about how do we become eco friendly. We have for the last two years been selling plastics, both high density and low density, with recycled content. 97 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. If we could get more of it, we could recycle more and sell more recycled plastic bags. We have people -- because we sell paper and plastic, so we're non-biased -- asking for paper with recycled content. So in short, the recycling is really the way to go. As far as plastic bags go, I'm not a recycling professional, but I will tell you that I've seen a paper recycling plant and I've seen a plastic recycling plant. And plastic recycles much more friendly with less energy. There's, from what I know, very few emissions, no water pollution, and we can make plastic bags over and over and over again. So we support recycling. We support education. It is working. And interestingly enough, we do offer degradable additives and it is not selling. People are smart, knowing that in a landfill there's no water, there's no light, this might not work. 98 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. We have also seen and introduced these reusable bags, which in the market atmosphere work very, very well. You could imagine if I got up and went across the street right now to Macy's with a reusable bag and loaded it up, I probably wouldn't make it out of the store. So there's a security issue with the reusable bags on the retail level. Overall, the plastic, it's much, much less weight, much less delivery charges, things like that. So in short, not to be repetitive, I would support a hundred percent recycling. S Walter would like to work with the City. We can take back the paper and the plastic and make paper and plastic bags over and over again.
Since you, I'm sure, sell product to various groups -- and I understand the intent. 99 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. We're getting started here, but it seems like we're -- and I don't want to use the word "pick," but we're pointing towards the supermarket industry. But you go to Home Depot, you get a plastic bag. You go to Lowe's, you get a plastic bag. You go to Macy's, you get a plastic bag. Plastic is used. And I know some of the high-end department stores have the paper shopping bag, Lord & Taylor's and some of those types. The supermarket industry is obvious that they use a lot of them, but there's still a lot of this material used in other industries or other retail. I think if we're going to look at this, you just can't look at the supermarket industry and say you have to comply, when the Lowe's and the Home Depot's and the Target's don't.
I'm sorry. Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Rizzo's line of questioning or comment is that it doesn't apply to anyone but the 100 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. supermarket industry, your bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman raised that earlier about the smaller mom and pop --
No, no. 7 He's talking about retail outlets like Home Depot, Lowe's. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It would apply to them.
It would? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. Any company whose gross sales exceed, I think, $2 million annually and/or has five or more stores in a certain locale. Give me a minute, I can read it.
Well, if that's the case -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But it would apply to them.
Within the County of Philadelphia? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right.
That's the answer. 101 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
The answer would be to recycle it. And we come home, we take our paper bags, provided that they're all paper, and we put them out with our newspaper recycling, that we should take our low- and high-density plastic and it should go in the recycling container with our bottles, because the bottles recycle well with this. And it should all be recycled and reused whether it's, hopefully in my case, made back into bags, but if Trex wants to make it into something else, that's fabulous as well.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Please forgive me for not remembering your name. Do you have a written copy of your testimony? MR. McMENAMIN: Yes.
I also should have been more attentive, but the effort you have underway, the initiative 102 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. you have underway is how old? MR. McMENAMIN: We started in 1991.
Oh, okay. So can you brief us on what the level of success has been? Is the awareness and the understanding that you sort of have to get with the new program increasing given where we're headed around going green? MR. McMENAMIN: I hate to use the word "education," but it's a constant thing that we need to do. We need to kind of reinvigorate the program every so often, and we're committed to do that. We can use -- we have weekly circulars that go out, and we can use those in order to kind of encourage people to bring the bags in and reuse the bags and get their two cents. But currently if you go into the stores, you'll see window signs up there and you'll see placards at the register that say "reuse the bags." And also to comment even on 103 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the -- because we have our own recycling facility in Elizabeth, we're able to -- we transport the cardboard and the plastic back on the same truck that we would send our empty pallets with. So it's a step that's kind of eliminated, and it's pretty efficient.
And you do have copies of your testimony? MR. McMENAMIN: Yes, I do.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. McMENAMIN: You're welcome.
We're going to double-check that fact that super stores would be included in that. At the moment it's not 100 percent clear, so Councilman DiCicco is going to take a look at that and get an interpretation that it does in fact cover what I 104 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. suggested earlier.
Thank you very much. Donna Dempsey, Bernard Yaros, David Dunning, Samara Norman and Steve Rosario. Please identify yourself for the record, but I would also ask that if -- because you're kind of testifying on the same stuff, that if you have written testimony that is a replication of the prior written testimony, you could say that you agree with that and then give us some other issues as opposed to 105 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. just simply reading -- because all of the written testimony we put into the record, but as far as the discussion goes, if you're reading the same testimony, it gets a little redundant and you could pick up -- just use your own sense to figure out what's been said already and what needs to be said. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, before we start, if I may, I would be -- Steve Rosario with the American Chemistry Council. I'll be joining the next panel.
Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Donna Dempsey. I'm with the Progressive Bag Alliance. Honorable Chairman Kenney, Committee members on the Environment and others, thanks very much for the opportunity. As you could tell, as the last panel, we will only be commenting on the issue for plastic bags because therein 106 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. lies our expertise and we would prefer that, if that's okay.
I agree with all the testimony that I sent in, if that's what you said, and would just like to add some other things as well. Number one, I really feel that we are all starting -- we all have the same goal in common here, to work together to make Philadelphia more green, more sustainable. So I think honestly we have the same goal in common. We just have some different approaches that we'd like to discuss. First, a couple of information that may be new. Number one, plastic bags are mostly derived from natural gas, over 85 percent, and not oil. Ninety to 95 percent of people, I know from some very large stores in Maryland, ask for plastic bags. Interestingly enough, plastic bags were the environmental answer to paper bags 20, 30 years ago. 107 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. So we're really coming full circle. Also, well over 80 percent of people reuse their bags. I know when I'm making my son's lunch, I certainly put it in a plastic bag. When I traveled here, I put in all of my shampoo bottles and any kind of lotions that could explode. So 80 to 90 percent of people do reuse their bags. The Progressive Bag Alliance was formally formed in 2005. They are just formalizing programs that they've been doing, you know, not collectively but on an individual basis, especially with recycling and bagger training. I guess I'm not here only to point out some concerns with this bill -- and I will be brief, because it's in my testimony and you will hear from other experts, because I'm not a scientist. But what we'd like to do is, we'd like to see a collaborative approach. Other cities -- and we are working with other cities around the country who are at the 108 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. very same point that you are at and have taken a look at what I'll call a San Francisco-like type of mandate, and they've actually taken a step back and said, You know what, I think we need to be a little bit more collaborative and work together with our community, with the retailers and with the industry to come up with some more workable solutions. What we have been doing, especially with the new law, which I'm sure you're familiar with, in California, the AB 2449, the recycling mandate, we've been working with them in promoting and providing education materials, and what we have been working with and other cities and would like to offer up here as a different way or different path forward to reach the same goals that you have would be using less bags in the first place. And I think Mr. DiCicco said why would the plastic bag industry want to do that. But it's a better way. There 109 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. should be no double bagging. There should be the appropriate amount of items put in each bag. So we think using less bags in the first place. Offering reusable bags at the point of sale is a good opportunity for people who want to do that. Certainly increasing at-store recycling. If there's more at-store recycling, I know that it was a concern -- Mr. Chairman, I can't remember if it was yourself or Mr. DiCicco, but there was a concern about the trash and the amount of money that that takes. This would divert somewhat from that cost, because we think at-store recycling is a much better way to go about it. And as you'll hear again from some real professionals what a very big secondary market there is that was not in place several years ago. So that's where we could do a much better job. And we have been working with grocery stores in collecting data, and it's very, very encouraging with the 110 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. amount of tonnage of plastic bags that they're recycling. And as you probably do know, they make money for this, and I will leave that up to Trex and AERT, who will be testifying as well. So we have been supporting and doing education materials. And, again, we are looking today for a collaborative approach. I know cost has been something that has been discussed.
Something that has not been discussed is the cost of the infrastructure that Philadelphia would have to apply to make a proper composting facility if the mandate moves forward as is. Compostable bags, there's a lot of misinformation out there. First of all, there are some truly biodegradable/compostable additives in products that are compliant with the laws from the FTC. There are others that are not. So that really, as far as a liability issue, really needs to be looked at. However, again, Philadelphia 111 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. doesn't have a composting facility and these biodegradable or compostable bags will not disappear or degrade when you throw them in the street. If you put them in the Chesapeake or Delaware Bay, if you put them in your backyard composting and even if you put them into a landfill, they do not degrade really much more than anything in the landfill. Nothing in the landfill degrades much, and it's meant to do that. And, again, there are other experts who can testify to that a little bit more. So basically just in closing is, I would urge you to consider taking a private and public partnership in collaborating a better, more workable solution than an outright product ban, because, in closing, when you ban one product, you have to really take a look at the risks and benefits and economic and environmental unintended consequences of those products. You really need to think through that process. 112 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. I thank you very much.
Thank you. Just two comments. Just for the record, there are two composting facilities, one in Pennsylvania and one in New Jersey, one in Wrightstown, which isn't that far away, and Tremont, which is, according to the map, not that far away. So even though Philadelphia doesn't have one -- and maybe we should -- there are two facilities that are available. There's been a lot of talk about relative to the secondary market for plastic bags and plastic products. Hypothetically, if these plastic bags were banned, why wouldn't there be just an initial market for the same product that would make the decking, would make the planters? You don't need to recycle the plastic bags to make that product, correct?
The plastic 113 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. material that makes the decking and the planters and other stuff doesn't have to come from a plastic bag.
I understand, but it doesn't have to come from a plastic bag.
Also, the bags that come with the newspaper, dry-cleaned bags -- it's called clean plastic film -- can be included in that.
I understand that, and I'm not disputing that you can reuse it for that, but the initial material that make the plastic bag could simply be used to make the decking. I mean, I don't necessarily think -- while I encourage recycling and I'm glad there's a secondary market, because I do want to clean it up, I don't have to have a plastic bag to make a plastic decking. 114 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
That's not my point. My point is, we're touting the secondary market as a reason why we shouldn't ban the plastic bags. Well, the initial market for the decking still would exist without the plastic bags having to be recycled at all if we didn't use them.
If I may request that you hold that question. We do have two people testifying here, and I don't want to speak for them, Trex and AERT. Perhaps they could address the tonnage that goes into it.
My point is, it's a good thing to recycle the plastic bags into other materials, but you don't need to recycle -- if we didn't have plastic bags at all, they still would make plastic decking and planters.
That I can't answer. Honestly, it's just not my area 115 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of expertise. I wouldn't want to make something up. We can ask Trex and AERT that.
Bernard Jaros. Dear Honorable Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Since I only have a few minutes, I would choose the points that I want you to understand and remember. My approach is a technical one, and the facts and scientific data are clear and undisputable. Paper and compostable plastic bags have significantly higher environmental impacts than plastic bags. They impact global warming, use of fossil fuels, use of potable water, acid rain, water pollution, solid waste and the landfill problem. Legislation that bans the use 116 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of plastic bags and promotes the use of paper bags and compostable plastic bags will, without a doubt, add to the creation of greater environmental burdens and consequences for future generations. I have 30 years' experience at Scott Paper Company. I have visited and led on-site projects in all in Scott's pulp and paper mills in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the international facilities in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brazil. I was also a member of Scott Paper Company's pioneering team that in 1990 contributed to the initial life cycle assessment work of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, known as SETAC. I subsequently conducted a number of life cycle assessments for Scott Paper Company in terms of environmental product improvements. Now, what is life cycle assessment? Life cycle assessment is a 117 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. systems approach in order to understand and examine the environment. It's cradle to grave, which means taking things from the air, the water and the ground, such as fuels, water and raw materials, processing them, transporting them and using them and returning them to the air, water and ground as emissions and solid waste. A systems approach is able to discriminate between local effects, environmental effects, regional environmental effects and global environmental effects, as there are trade-offs in a local effect to a global and a regional effect. The purpose of a study of the system I studied is the way consumers carry their purchases using either plastic, paper or compostable plastic bags. From this information, we can obtain and compare environmental impacts. The concept of life cycle assessment has been practiced and 118 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. standardized for almost years worldwide through several organizations, including SETAC and the International Standards Organization. Now, what is the life cycle story on plastics and paper? I have just completed a life cycle study of three grocery bags: the paper, the plastic and the compostable. The findings of this study were peer reviewed by an independent third party with significant inexperience in life cycle assessments to ensure the results were reliable and repeatable. The following are the quotes from the reviewer, Professor Michael Overcash of North Carolina State University. He states, The conclusions regarding the relative environmental impact when using a life cycle view are consistent with previous studies and need to be reinforced in the policy arena. The policies to discourage plastic bags may have more to do with litter than the overall environment. Whatever the goals 119 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of the policymakers, these need to be far more explicit than general environmental improvement, since the life cycle story is consistent in favor of recyclable plastic bags. Three other life cycle studies have been conducted in the past years, 9 all with consistent environmental results 10 concluding that plastic bags are more 11 environmentally friendly than paper bags, 12 one by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the 13 hypermarket, Carrefour; two by Franklin 14 Associates.
One was for the Council of 15 Solid Waste Solutions and another for the 16 Oregon Department of Environmental 17 Quality and the US EPA Environmentally 18 Preferable Packaging program. 19 In summary, the key 20 environmental impacts that are significantly higher when using paper or compostable plastic instead of plastic bags are global warming, use of fossil fuels, use of potable water, acid rain, water pollution, solid waste and the 120 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. landfill problem. Global warming and lack of water are two of the most critical environmental concerns of our time. The studies show that paper grocery bags use approximately one gallon of water for every bag; whereas, plastic bags use less than one one-hundredth of a gallon of water. Currently, the media, news, Internet and Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday report a regional crisis in and around Atlanta, and the Governor has declared a water emergency and asked for federal assistance. How responsible can it be to ban plastic bags? Thank you.
Thank you. Is it your contention we should ban the paper bags?
I'm just saying the better approach if you're banning paper or you're banning plastic or banning compostable, your better alternative is ban all of them, if that's your point of 121 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. view.
My study has just been completed. The EPA, the one for the US EPA is 2004. The Carrefour study was 2004 and the other was 1990.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: On those same lines, are you aware of a life cycle study that basically contradicts everything that you just reported?
If you want to compare a type of bag that is 55 -- that carries 55 pounds to 2,000 pounds, and the authors of that study said that the study should not be compared to the carryout bags that we're talking about. So the actual study stated that it wasn't comparable to the carryout bags. It's 122 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. stated right in their goal. And I can't see how the carryout bag we're talking about can relate to a thousand kilogram. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know about kilogram and stuff.
Well, I'm just giving you the response. And the authors of that Swedish study stated that there's no comparison to the kind of bags that we're talking about. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You mentioned the EPA report?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you know any reason why they removed that from their web page in the spring of '07?
If you can enlighten us. You have to use a microphone. Just re-identify yourself for the stenographer. 123 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
I'm sorry. Donna Dempsey, Progressive Bag Alliance. I talked with the EPA Northeast Office, which is the page where we're referring to. They took it down to update it. There have been other people said they took it down because it was inaccurate, and that was Alderman Shropshire in Annapolis. That's incorrect. And he in an e-mail told me, yes, they just took it down to update the information. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They took it down in the spring of this year, several months ago.
Yes, to update it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we don't know what their final conclusions are.
I'm sorry? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We don't know what their final conclusions are, because they're updating it. 124 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
They didn't take it down because it was incorrect. The data was correct, she told me, but they only took it down to update it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But updating it may find they come up with a different conclusion than was previously on that page, couldn't they? Maybe it doesn't. We don't know. We don't have any information to go by.
Again, the only information that I had was they took it down to update it, but the information that they had up there was correct when it was up there.
I just recently talked to the people at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and they didn't give me any indication that the results had changed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No further questions.
Thank you. Whoever is next, please 125 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. identify yourself.
Samara Norman with the Trex Company. Thank you, Council, for having our time today. Trex Company is the manufacturer of Trex decking and railing, the leading brand of alternative decking lumber in North America. A former division of Mobile Oil, the company was formed by four Mobile executives in 1996 and went public in April 1999. Our headquarters and production plant are in Winchester, Virginia and a second plant in Fernley, Nevada July 1999. Trex Company turns millions of pounds of recycled and reclaimed plastic and waste wood each year into Trex composite lumber. Most of these raw materials come from recycled plastic grocery bags, reclaimed pallet wrap and waste wood. Trex Company purchases approximately 300 million pounds of used polyethylene and an equal amount of hardwood sawdust each year, materials 126 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. that would normally end up in a landfill. The company estimates that it receives about 50 percent of the recycled grocery bags available on the market. In 2006, we recycled more grocery bags out of the State of Pennsylvania than any other state in the country. Here are some figures: In 2006, the Trex at-store recycling program results for the State of Pennsylvania, we collected over three million pounds of bags. That's equivalent to over 200 million bags. Two thousand bags equals 30 pounds. Over 37,000 miles of bags if you assume each bag is one foot laid end to end. And this collection process allowed us to collect an additional three million pounds of other film plastic from these in-store collection programs. Nationwide, over 19 million pounds of bags were collected, over 1.3 billion bags, over 210,000 miles of bags, and an additional 22 million of other film plastic as well. 127 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Pennsylvania accounts for nearly percent of all bags Trex 4 collected domestically. 5 This is how our program works. 6 The grocery bags originate at their 7 manufacturer. These bags are shipped to 8 grocery or retail locations. Bags are 9 distributed to consumers at such 10 locations during point of sale. There 11 are collection bins in grocery vestibules 12 to collect the consumers' used bags. 13 These are then backhauled to the grocery 14 distribution centers for bailing and 15 storage. Bailed bags are purchased from 16 the distribution centers and used in our manufacturing process. The advantages of the at-store recycling programs are many. They utilize existing resources. They're relatively inexpensive to implement. The expense is converted revenue for the grocer or the retailer. They're self-sustaining. The yield is a high value recycled product, and it supports 128 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. collection of other recyclable film plastics. Trex is the largest domestic recycler of grocery bags. We promote in-store and at-school recycling, education and collection programs. We believe that by better educating consumers on where and how to recycle their grocery bags, we can increase the percentage of bags to be recycled and further reduce the number of bags that go to landfill. Our position: The Trex product consists of approximately 50 percent recycled polyethylene and 50 percent reclaimed wood. The viability of our product is dependent on the physical and chemical characteristics of polyethylene and the fact that it does not degrade. The use of degradable or compostable polyethylene in our product would severely compromise its physical attributes and render our lumber unusable as a decking or a railing material. 129 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Our manufacturing processes are dependent on recyclable polyethylene, and we support those programs that support the recycling of polyethylene. Any raw materials that contain the feature of degradation is viewed as a contaminant and reduces the reliability and value of the entire recycle stream. Thank you.
Thank you. There's no doubt that you're recycling a very good product, and the product you produce as a result of recyclable material is a very good thing. My original question was, hypothetically, if there were no polyethylene store bags, would you still be able to make your product?
There are other composite lumber manufacturers that do not use recycled materials.
No, no, no. 24 That's not my question. Can you get polyethylene somewhere else other than a 130 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. store bag?
We can. We do not use virgin materials as the core portion of our product.
Right. I understand that, and I understand the service that you provide for the recycled material. But, again, you can still make decking and planters and other things with a virgin product, polyethylene.
I understand. Again, I don't want to beat this dead horse, but the existence of your decking product is not totally reliant on plastic bags from supermarkets.
It's not a hundred percent reliant on plastic bags. 131 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Somebody can make it without a plastic bag. Even though your proprietary process requires the plastic bags, it can be made without it; is that fair?
Great. Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Has Trex product always been produced with the recycled material or were you manufacturing prior to that?
It's been recycled material since day one. It was originally bread bags and waste pallets. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's a good product, by the way. I have a deck that's the Trex deck.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: See, you got to come out with some positive stuff somewhere along the way.
I appreciate that. 132 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I would recommend it to everyone, especially someone who doesn't like painting a deck every year. You talk about 1.3 billion pounds, was that, or bags?
That's bags nationally. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you know how many bags the American public uses annually?
I don't know that figure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I admire what you're doing and I applaud you for the product you make and using recycled materials, as Councilman Kenney said, but there's somewhere between 80 and 100 billion bags that are used in this country a year. So no disrespect, it's a very insignificant number, although it's important. It's 1.3 billion that we don't have out there. I just thought I'd put that in some 133 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. perspective for the Committee.
There are obviously still opportunities for us to drive deeper with the recycling programs. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Thank you. Sir, please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Dave Dunning, Senior VP for AERT. That's Advanced Environmental Recycling Technology. We've been operating since 1989. We make composite fencing, decking, railing for the Lowe's Corporation and other retailers under the brand names of Choice Deck and MoistureShield. Let me be conscious of duplicating Samara's testimony and just net out what we do for grocery chains and have for some time. Mr. Chairman, those are good questions pertaining to could we make a deck board from non-recoverable materials. It was four years ago in 134 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Baltimore the first wood plastic composite manufacturers meeting was held, and there were four to five hundred people there representing over 63 companies, and when the Chairman asked how many of you use post-consumer materials, there was only two companies. And we're not here to get any -- we've gotten enough EPA awards, but there's only two companies that use post-consumer materials. Now, since we're in Pennsylvania, one of our big vendors is in Pittsburgh and it's Giant Eagle, and well before you all introduced this, they've been recycling plastic. I think they're up to 60 or 70 percent of their stores. They make the bins out of our recycled siding we sell through a warehouser. They have returnable bags they sell for 99 cents at every store I've been into, and they have -- and then two years ago from the US EPA waste-wise, they got an award for all the bags they 135 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. recycle. It's all commendable. But to your point, could we make it from virgin materials. We could order a railcar of materials in our plants in Springdale, Arkansas and Texas and Louisiana, but we're in the recycling business. We make decking that replaces pressure-treated lumber, because it is no 10 maintenance, it's got a lifetime warranty and it's better than anything that's ever been made before. And between our two companies, we recycle materials all over the country. In the State of Maryland, Giant Food gets from several counties a waste diversion tax credit for the amount of materials that goes in -- diverted from their landfill. And did I mention we buy it for the average price is probably 21 cents a pound for polyethylene grocery bags? We use on the order of -- we recycle about 600,000 pounds a day at our three plants. That's equivalent to a small town compared to Philadelphia of 136 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. 140,000 people. And I'll conclude by saying into the future, there's a new thing in the waste business. It's single-stream recycling. We're starting a new plant, a washline in Oklahoma, which is near northwest Arkansas, where we're going to wash material we're going to get from MRFs, material recovery facilities. So we're not just looking at grocery stores, but the future is to look at all plastics. We use it as -- it is not a low-cost raw material, but we use millions and millions of pounds a year. And everybody asks us since we're so close northwest to Arkansas, both our companies get material from Wal-Mart, and they've been score-carding packaging and they've been looking at plastic bags, but even Wal-Mart hasn't figured out how to get rid of a bag, and I don't think they want to because the consumers like them, they use them and they're going to be 137 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. around for a long time. I'll take any questions.
I guess my question would be, if we banned the use of polyethylene bags in Philadelphia, neither of your firms would go out of business.
Well, we get some hypo pulp from several parts of Pennsylvania.
I'm saying if in Philadelphia County we did not allow the use of polyethylene bags in retail outlets, you guys would still be making your decking and on your merry way. So us banning it here is not -- 138 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
You might force us to use virgin materials, and then we'd hear from the environmental groups.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. Along that same line of questioning, let's assume we all agree that the answer to this is strictly recycling, and everybody agreed and we did a total recycling program. What happens to the other 99 billion bags that are now being recycled? I mean, you have your company and it's 1.3 billion bags. What happens to all this recycled material? Is there a market out there? Is there something that some other folks or companies are going to be using this product? And it's a question, I guess, for anybody out there at some point to answer.
I think one of 139 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the best -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I do have a question. Maybe you can answer it, Trex. How do you get that recycled material to become part of the final product? What is the process?
Well, ours is called cold-flow extrusion, and it all has to do with melt index. We prefer plastic grocery bags and stretch film, and we use Clorox bottles and colored bottles and a lot of things, but we have to even out the melt index of our extruders. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Talk to me about the melting process. Is that by heat? Is it fire driven? How do you melt it?
I have a great video I'll show you, because I don't know -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just tell me. Does it run through a furnace?
Not a furnace. 140 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. We use cold flow. We don't use as much heat as brand X, but you still have to melt plastic. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How do you melt it?
Extrusion. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm a layman. Tell me what that means.
It goes through a dye. We have a hopper that we comingle the wood fiber, which is a juniper cedar from Texas, and we incapsulate the wood particle with plastic. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What form of energy is needed to get the product that ultimately turns that recycled bag into the Trex or whatever your product is? Does it take fuel to get to that product that produces -- to get to the point where you produce your product?
On one plant we have a waste-to-energy conversion plant where we are using -- we pump steam back into the plant, but two of our older 141 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. plants we got to use electricity to turn on the extruders. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the electricity is generated by fossil fuel? I see the astute gentleman here.
Yeah; 65 percent coal -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm going to go back to one of the original arguments about the transportation of paper, and we can get into what's more biodegradable or not. The cost of freight being transferred is less expensive to do plastic, because you can put more plastic bags in a truck and transport them than you could paper. And it's all about fuel, but fuel, we never get away from that.
Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It takes fuel to do all this stuff. It takes fuel to pick up the recycled containers in a perfect world if everyone recycled, took 142 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. their shopping bags back to the supermarket or whatever and they put it in the back room, as Mr. DiGenero -- I can't remember his last name -- spoke about and it has to be picked up. A truck comes to pick that up. A truck runs on fuel. That truck transports that material to a facility where it then gets retransported down south for the recycling process. So we're talking about energy consumption here. We're talking about how to protect the environment in addition to the trash, which is our biggest problem here, is trash. So my point is that none of this stuff -- and with all due respect and it's a great product, as I said earlier, we never get away from the energy dependence, and that is one aspect of what this hearing is all about. How do we get to be less -- and I know my good friend Ed from Sunoco is over there probably saying, What are you doing over 143 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. here? There will always be a need for fuel. I mean, we're never going to get away from it entirely. So I just -- on one hand we're saying, Well, plastic bags are better than paper because of all this stuff, it takes less energy to produce, but even if you recycle it, doesn't the fuel that's being used on the back end make up for the savings, if there is any saving, on the front end?
Sir, excuse me. Could you pull the microphone closer to you.
Yeah. We're trying to recycle paper also, and the weight of the paper is eight times more than a plastic bag. So, therefore, the recycling to carry, pick up, transport and then also ending up in landfill is significant just because of the weight difference. Now, if a paper 144 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. bag was the same weight as a plastic bag, the issue would be different. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What about a product that decomposes?
It's the same issue. From the experience that I have with that, the compostable plastic is three times the weight of the plastic bag. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What about decomposable paper?
Paper is degradable under its normal terms. It will go to carbon dioxide and water, then it will go to -- or methane, depending upon the conditions. But it's not going to decompose, depending upon the conditions. A classic study by Rathje showed after 20 years of digging up a landfill, he could 21 read the newspaper. 22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How many 23 years will a plastic bag survive in that 24 same landfill? 25
Probably 2,000, 145 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. 3,000 years, but the point is that it will not degrade to carbon dioxide, which is a global warming gas, and it will not degrade to methane, which is even a more significant global warming gas for climate change. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I respect and I appreciate that, because we're talking about landfills, but we didn't get into the oceans and our rivers and our streams where would you agree that plastic will never decompose or paper would decompose more quickly in an ocean and a river and/or stream as compared to plastic?
That's correct, but if you see the degradation that's happening in the Arctic and the global warming and the rising issues, the global warming would be far greater than -- and to be concerned about the polar bears that may not be existing in that program that you're watching for Anderson Cooper.
See what 146 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. you started. You're going to ban plastic bags and you're going to kill the polar bears. What's wrong with you? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This is like deja vu on the spray paint ban.
But for the record, though, I believe the methane issue for the landfills is a '92 study, and in last or so years, the 11 management of methane gas is certainly 12 different than it was back then, and that 13 methane gas is more used now for energy 14 purposes and not just dissipate into the 15 atmosphere.
Yes. They collect methane from landfills, but there's a great deal of methane that's produced in landfills that is not collected.
And goes into the environment. And at this time, there are very few statistics and it's frightening to know that this could be a major 147 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. environmental impact.
But, I mean, as we move forward, technology improves and years ago we were 6 handling the methane out of the landfill 7 differently than we handle it now, and I 8 assume as time goes on, we'll also manage 9 that even better and then figure out a 10 way to deal with the factory farms that 11 are really causing all the methane gas. 12
Yes. There's 13 significant progress, but a lot more 14 needs to be taken. 15
I appreciate that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could I just finish up here?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You burn the bag or you cold -- what was that?
Cold-flow extrusion. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But there's heat involved. There's a certain 148 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. amount of the bag or the bag does get -- you burn the bag, you melt the bag.
You melt it. You melt it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You melt it. What happens to the by-product of melting it? Doesn't something wind up in the air?
Every state we operate has bag houses, and you have to contain any particulates or anything. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And how much of the bag that you burn is actually reused in the product?
A hundred percent. Why don't you jump in here? A hundred percent.
Right. We don't use an additive as like a glue. The plastic as it melts adheres to itself with the wood particles. So the plastic bags are used in the board itself. It's not burned as a by-product. They're 149 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. melted into the lumber.
There's 2,250 bags in every 16-foot three-quarter deck board, like you have on your deck. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Any other questions? Councilwoman Brown.
I don't need to sound like a broken record. There's a publication up here called "The Wave of the Future." Going green is the wave of the future, and it hopefully has been made clear during these hearings that Philadelphia wants to be on the cutting edge of what is coming. An inconvenient truth, in my view, is here. So with that said, I'm curious to know the think tank of your operations. What are you doing to respond to this impending reality with regards to how you manufacture and do 150 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. what you do?
We recycle these bags. We will buy these bags. We're promoters of in-school and at-store recycling programs, and we will take these bags and use it in our final product.
If we have a waste, if we have a barrel that purges when we start a machine up, every waste that comes out of our extrusion operation, we put it back through the system. And I would add that we -- the 7th and 8th in Chicago is the U.S. Green Building Council. We've been involved in that for a long time. So is Trex. There is -- to building a green house and getting a deck, you get points on LEED 151 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. certification. So our product -- one of our logos on our shirts is called Building for the Future. Our products have been made for quite a while, but it is a very accepted standard LEED certification credit to using a recycled decking that's got all components that are recovered post-consumer material, which we are.
Okay. Different question. Is it more costly than those decks that are not made of recycled products?
But it also lasts longer and doesn't have to be painted.
It's good stuff. 152 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Ray Ehrlich, Angie Chaplin, Tom Preston, Elizabeth Steiner and Steve Rosario. Good afternoon.
I said good afternoon. I wasn't sure if it was morning or afternoon, so I had to check my phone.
Whoever would like to start, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
I will start. My name is Ray Ehrlich. I'm a Manager of 153 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Government and Environmental Affairs for Dart Container Corporation. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I will say one thing before I begin, as I will cover several points, but I'd like to let you know that I do hear what you say about discussing and debating why we can't do things and talk about some solutions that -- real solutions that we can put in place, and, again, I'll probably emphasize recycling. I'd like to tell you a little bit about Dart. Dart is a leading manufacturer of a broad range of quality food service products for the food service retail and packaging industries. Now, again, if anyone is not clear, we've kind of shifted gears here. We're leaving the discussion of plastic bags to the discussion of polystyrene food -- single-use polystyrene foam food service containers. Dart strives to produce 154 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. high-quality, cost-effective products in a manner sensitive to environmental concerns, and Dart is nationally recognized as a leader in understanding and informing the public and government about the facts about polystyrene products and associated environmental burdens. As a responsible corporation, Dart has much experience in this area. We work with communities across the country that are committed to the same overall goals as the City of Philadelphia. While we applaud your efforts to preserve our environment in general and decrease litter and the amount of solid waste that's generated and disposed of specifically, we wish to respectfully convey our opposition to Council Bill 070-672. We oppose efforts to achieve litter and waste reduction goals by banning single-use polystyrene foam in food service products. Kind of to frame my overall 155 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. comments is that we talk about being green and being sustainable. The one comment I would like to make, that being green or sustainability really is a much larger issue than what happens to products at the end of their life. A lot of discussion here today is about recycling and composting. There was some discussion about the life cycle of products, and that's really the way we look at things. We tend not to look at things in a vacuum and look at the whole life cycle of products and any unintended consequences that may arise. We contend that legislative initiatives which ban or severely limit the use of products in the marketplace, especially bans on polystyrene foam food service products, are misguided attempts to address these concerns. As the data show, the reality is that banning polystyrene food service products will not contribute to achieving your goals of reducing litter and reducing solid waste 156 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. that's generated and disposed of. Unfortunately, a primary factor in this issue is one of misinformation. There's a lot of misinformation about solid waste and environmental issues. But factual information supports this conclusion that banning products will not achieve the goals of litter reduction and solid waste reduction. For example, banning only single-use polystyrene foam food service containers will not significantly reduce litter. I hear comments and I hear discussion about the reduction of disposable or single-use products. To me one question that comes to my mind is why are we singling out polystyrene in this case.
Just let me correct the conversation. We're not banning polystyrene. We are requiring an alternative be used if the cost of the alternative is not more than ten percent of the cost of the polystyrene. So 157 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Councilman DiCicco's bill is an outright ban. My bill is not a ban. It's a requirement to use an alternative within a price range. So I want to make sure, because you're speaking about banning the product. We're not banning the product.
Well, then everything I've said, change the word "ban" to "discourage the use of."
Okay. And I'll try to catch that as I go on. The reality is that improper disposable food containers, regardless of their composition, contributes to the problem of litter in our environment. And I think to what Councilman DiCicco was saying just in the discussion prior, it really doesn't matter what material you talk about recycling or going to the landfill or doing this or doing that with. I mean, those factors, energy use and transportation, they're there for 158 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. every material. Eliminating all food-related polystyrene will simply change the composition of litter. You get rid of one product, another product will take its place. It's really very simple. Dart agrees and we strongly believe that addressing the problem of litter must begin by addressing irresponsible human behavior that is the root cause of the problem. I personally have never seen any package, be it a can, a bottle or plastic bag or polystyrene cup, throw itself out the window or throw itself on the street corner. It is not a product issue. It is a human behavior issue. Really, the solution lies in changing human behavior of the population. Additionally, I'll touch on the concept of biodegradation. It's really not a practical or functional answer, I guess, or technique to alleviate litter problems, in that it actually kind of 159 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. encourages -- it may contribute to the problem, in that it would encourage people if they mistakenly or whatever believe that a material is biodegradable, just to go ahead and throw it out in the environment, which we think would be an unintended consequence. And also as we talked about, biodegradation in and of itself is not a panacea. Biodegradation produces methane gases and other products that have to be managed. So there are unintended consequences of biodegradation. Another point I'd like to make is, banning single-use polystyrene foam food service containers will not significantly reduce solid waste. S. is actually very small. In fact, the US EPA does data every two years on the waste 160 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. that's generated and used and recycled and disposed of in this country, and less than one percent of all municipal waste that's disposed of in our country is polystyrene. So you're talking a very small fraction. The reality is that these products in this area are going to go to the landfill. They're going to be disposed of. And I know that you pointed out earlier that there are two compost facilities, and, again, I just would like to make sure that we talk about kind of factual data and not anecdotal information, in that, yes, there are many compost facilities that accept organic materials. However -- and they have the capability to accept biodegradable containers that are made from renewable resources. Whether they do or not is the $64,000 question. And I just have a few more points. Also, polystyrene foam food 161 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. service products are technically very easy to recycle and can be recycled as part of an integrated solid waste management strategy. And this is where I'm going to get into what I think is kind of the solution, what we can do now, what's real and we can do now. While it's important to point out that no food service disposable products are recycled in a significant way -- and we can debate the meaning of the word "significant" -- currently post-consumer polystyrene foam food service products are being recycled in select locations in the United States and Canada. For instance, the City of Los Angeles this past July 1st added all plastics, which includes polystyrene foam food service containers, to their citywide residential recycling program. In addition, polystyrene foam lunch trays are currently being recycled from the San Diego school system. Actually, the firm that does that is also going to testify 162 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. in this panel.
This firm, Packaging Development Resources, is also currently in negotiations with school systems in Long Beach, California; Los Angeles, California; New York City; and Baltimore, Maryland. Compare that to the reality of what would happen if people -- if you didn't make -- I'm not going to say ban, but if people chose the most popular alternative material, which is a paper-based food service product. The reality is that paper products are usually coated with a plastic polyethylene that allows them to hold liquids and maintain their rigidity. What that does is, it renders plastic -- I'm sorry; it renders paper-based food service products no more degradable than polystyrene, and, in fact, it prevents them really from being recycled in this country, because they're multi material and they are not recycled by any stretch in the mainstream in this country. 163 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. And the last thing I would like to bring up is that biopolymer-based food service products, those products made from renewable resources, the ones we commonly refer to as biodegradable or compostable products, are really generating a lot of interest. Dart is a global company and we are actively involved in the research and development activities concerning these products. " At this time, products made from biopolymers are capable of displacing less than one percent of the total annual pounds of polystyrene produced in North America for food service applications. I'm not saying that five years from now or in the future these products 164 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. won't be viable, but as we sit today, in reality, they are not -- they would not be able to replace the current food service products that are used. Moreover, they're not priced competitive with traditional plastic food service products, and, again, their design is to be composted, and without the infrastructure as we sit today, we would be making -- or we would not be making -- in a lot of cases, businesses would be paying more, people would be paying more for these products without actually having them composted, which is what is intended. I guess in summary what I'd like to say is, a ban on single-use polystyrene foam food service products -- again, not a ban, but discouraging the use of polystyrene foam food service products will not accomplish the goals of reduction of litter and reduction of solid waste. If all the polystyrene foam in America were not used tomorrow, there 165 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. would be no appreciable difference in solid waste and litter. Obviously fast food, food drinks, et cetera, must be packaged in something. Dart appreciates the opportunity to be part of this process and we hope that we can work cooperatively toward finding reasonable, achievable, fair, balanced solutions to overcoming the City of Philadelphia's litter and waste reduction challenges. Also, we strongly believe it's very important that any efforts regarding these or any issues be formulated by collecting and basing recommendations on comprehensive, accurate and factual information rather than anecdotal information. We respectfully request that our industry be provided an opportunity to work with you to address the real issues facing Philadelphia, which is litter of all materials, rather than targeting a safe and useful, 166 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. cost-effective product. I have submitted written comments that are much more lengthy and detailed than I present here, but, again, I thank you for your consideration of my comments in this matter.
Just a couple questions relative to recycling. Los Angeles has a recycling of polystyrene program.
Does it accept used polystyrene that has food product on it?
Yes. And I say that, that's a -- let me clarify that. It accepts food service polystyrene. Naturally, any food service material, whether it be polystyrene or paper, has the potential to have and will have food and liquid residue. Just like any other recyclable that is collected in a blue bin or a program, any material and any 167 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. product, whether it be the aluminum fraction of the glass or whatever or the paper that has contamination on it, will be removed from the process. So it's no 6 different really than any other.
So that polystyrene container with the remnants of the cheese fries that lays in the curb, that's recyclable in that condition?
If it's overly contaminated, no, and that's the decision of the recycler.
But Los Angeles decides they're not going to accept that; is that accurate?
The processor does, yes, the processor that processes the material for the city. Now, the big push in Los Angeles and really the efforts that are key to the program and efforts that our industry is involved in with the city -- and, again, this is where I talk about working 168 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. collaboratively -- is that it's the education that you have to rinse these materials. They have to be clean. If they're not clean, don't put them in in the first place. We're not saying we're going to capture every piece of food service polystyrene out there, but you'd be surprised. There's a lot of clean material. And I think Mr. Preston, who is going to testify next, who handles the school lunch tray program, which obviously has the potential to be very contaminated, can address these issues.
In fairness, though, the school lunch tray is a captive audience. It's not taken out of a convenience store and eaten as you walk. It's probably recollected at the end of the line or at the end of the day by workers who aren't prone to be throwing it out the window. So, I mean, in a controlled environment, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think what Councilman DiCicco and I get frustrated 169 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. with and other members of Council is the uncontrolled environment wherein the material winds up, again through human error, in the street because it's just disposed of. So I want to -- and I'll let you guys testify in a minute. I just want to get some basic information about the Styrofoam or about the polystyrene. Do you know how much Styrofoam is produced in a year nationally?
I had a feeling you were going to ask that question. Off the top of my head, I do not. I could find that out for you.
And do we know how it relates to each individual year prior? That would be interesting to know.
How much is produced this year, but how does that relate to what was produced last year. 170 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Again, I don't know off the top of my head. I could find it out for you, but I generally think the amount of polystyrene that's manufactured or produced and used I think increases slightly each year, and that's primarily because the population is increasing. Again, it's the thing with solid waste. The amount of solid waste per capita is really going down. It has been going down.
But it also indicates that there's not a lot of recycling going on.
Well, compared to other materials, if you put it in relative terms, a lot of recycling, you're right, but we are addressing the issue. We're starting these programs, and you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately, Rome was not built in a day. Our products have only really been around for 40, 45 years; whereas, the tin and the metal and the glass have been 171 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. around much longer and have had more of an opportunity to develop the infrastructure.
What did we do -- I'm 49. So what did we do prior to the existence of polystyrene food containers?
Way, way back ago -- I mean, way, way long ago, we used, I guess, reusables. We used common drinking fountains, if you're talking in the 19th, 18th century.
I've only been in the industry for 16 years. I would guess it would be --
Councilman DiCicco, you're a little bit older than me. Do you recall what you got your hamburger in or your -- I guess they didn't have cheese fries then -- your french fries? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Some sort 172 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of a cardboard --
Paper based. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which is not unlike what is used today for french fries, I guess.
Why do you think the paper-based product was replaced by this polystyrene?
I can tell you why. Again, if we -- you're trying not to look at this in a vacuum and we look at the big picture. Polystyrene packaging, really why it came to be is that it performs, it does the job. It's great at what it does. It's lightweight and it protects the product that you use and you consume. It reduces the waste. The coffee that's gone cold, the soda that's gone warm, the hamburger that's gone cold and you wind up not eating. So really packaging, a big function of packaging is reducing the overall waste that's created. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe if 173 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. people would eat less.
If they would eat less, that would be a different story. If we would stop super sizing.
So we really don't know right now what the percentage of polystyrene food containers are being recycled today?
Well, I can tell you that the EPA waste characterization study would classify it less than one percent.
There is a growing market. For instance, I can tell you briefly that in the City of LA there is a company that takes their polystyrene that makes interior moulding. Similar to Trex takes plastic bags and makes lumber, 174 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. this company makes interior mouldings that are sold at Home Depot. My counterpart, Mr. Preston, will testify what he does with the material. But there are markets. They're not, I would say, as prevalent as some other products, but there are markets.
Okay. Just a few more background questions. When Styrofoam is heated either in a microwave or by very hot food, is there a leaching effect that can occur? If my hamburger got cold and I put it in the microwave for a minute, minute and a half, would the heated polystyrene leach onto the food?
I'll answer that by saying of course there's leaching of all materials, paper cup, polystyrene cup. Any container, tin, metal, will leach some molecules of material. But the scientific studies have shown that the amount of material that's leached through food contact products is so 175 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. minuscule as not to be a health concern or health and safety concern.
Styrene and hair. Polystyrene essentially is polystyrene -- styrene is a monomer. It has to do with the number of molecules that make up the chemical. Polystyrene just means a chain of those styrene molecules.
And what are those chemicals that are chained together to make --
Well, it's ultimately from natural gas and petroleum. 176 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
So the leaching, the potential leaching, even though it's minuscule by your testimony, is a petroleum leach.
What is leaching potentially in a microwaved polystyrene container is a petroleum product.
Well, I don't know if we can actually say that, and I'm going to say that I'm not --
I understand. A petroleum by-product. But you're talking very technical and very scientific information, and I can't answer that.
Put it this way: Is there any -- 177 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Is there any compound, whatever the poly is, whatever the elements of the poly is, is any of it ingestible?
If you want me to, I would. No, sir, I would -- basically it would pass through my system, just like gum or anything else. We don't encourage people to eat polystyrene, but the bottom line is, these products have been used safely for 40-some years -- and I think I sent this 178 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. information to Sarah and some others -- have been used safely for 40-some years, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in food contact, and the safety of these products is not an issue.
Is there a US EPA study of fat biopsies from human subjects that found styrene residues in a hundred percent of the samples tested?
Styrene is a naturally occurring chemical. It's in strawberries. It's what gives cinnamon its taste. It's in the air we breathe. All of us will have styrene in our tissue.
That's made from petroleum? 179 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
No. There is styrene that is a naturally occurring substance. There's also styrene that is produced --
-- through the by-products of the petroleum distillation. That is why you will find styrene in human tissue.
We had another witness that was in a car accident. The person is fine, but can't make it here today, which is representing a company called Green Wave, and I just want to in your testimony if you can comment as you're testifying on this particular statement and whether it's true, not true or what your opinion of it is. Green Wave biodegradable products are made of health conscious natural fiber such as sugarcane, grass and reed plasma. Given that raw materials are available in China, we are 180 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. able to remain competitive without exploiting the natural environment or disturbing the ecological system. Therefore, the product is a total green product and is the best substitute for non-environmental friendly products such as Styrofoam and plastic. And I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but that's what the statement is. The biodegradable container packaging material consists of three major contents of ingredients: 96 percent natural fibers, 2.3 percent water, and a biodegradable mixture. It can withstand hot and cold food unlike traditional rigid packaging. Our Green Wave products are biodegradable in water, soil and compostable materials. One of the potential alternatives is a product like this. Any comment you'd want to make about what was read?
Well, there's a 181 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. lot of things I can comment in that short passage, but essentially there are a lot of companies out there that are promoting biopolymers and biodegradable packaging, and I can tell you from our research as a global company looking to produce these products, as we sit today, they may have a product that does all that. Do they produce it at the level that could supply the City of Philadelphia or any other major city? Is the cost realistic and compared to existing food service products? I'm just saying that -- in my testimony I stated that as we sit today, if you got rid of all the polystyrene food service products and you went to fill the void with biodegradable products, you wouldn't be able to do it.
Does it make economic sense or, I guess, free market sense that if we did something like requiring an alternative use, an alternative product and set a window 182 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. wherein you could not exceed the cost, like ten percent, would that not propel companies like this and maybe even companies like your own towards trying to get both the price down and the availability up?
Yes, it's an incentive. I mean, those activities are going on as we speak. So we're trying to produce a product made from renewable resources that can do the job that polystyrene does, is cost effective and has the same or less environmental impacts.
But right now there's no competition and there's no 21 incentive for competition. If this particular bill were a law, there would be an incentive for this type of development and competition and production and availability and price, 183 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. and until they reach that level, they wouldn't be in the game. So it would seem to me that this would kind of push that in the right environmental direction to replace the polystyrene product with the more naturally occurring.
I understand what you're saying and, yes, it probably would add incentive, but there is plenty of incentive right now. And I'm not saying that there isn't and I'm not saying that these products five years from now may be as common as any other product, but right now discouraging the use of what's existing for those products, if what you said is we're not talking about banning our products, we're here about encouraging use of alternative products, I think that's fair.
Okay. I'm sorry. Please identify yourself, whoever is next.
I'm sorry. Mr. Preston is going to go second. 184 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Tom Preston with Packaging Development Resources, and thank you for your time today, Councilmembers. First, a background on who we are. Packaging Development Resources began reclaiming polystyrene foam from school cafeterias in San Diego city schools and have expanded beyond that in San Diego County, Orange County and Los Angeles County. To date this year, we've eliminated 150,000 pounds of polystyrene foam from -- diverted that from landfill. And looking into 2008, that number will grow from 150,000 pounds to 2.5 million pounds, based upon the numbers that we have from the school districts within the area, expanding beyond schools into other food service cafeterias, including prisons and other government institutions. And the process that we undertake is that we are cleaning the 185 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. material inside our facility and returning it from a food service disposable, be it a plate, a lunch tray, into plastic resin or plastic flake, either of which are usable by the industry. And differing levels of energy and heat go into manufacturing these products, but there's opportunities to reduce the overall environmental impact through which those products are best suited. The process that we are running in our facility has been registered with the FDA, and we have a no objection letter that this recycled content post-consumer material is suitable for reintroduction back for food contact. So we're completing a closed loop. To address a question, Chairman, that you raised earlier, can the other non-captive audience materials be returned into the end markets. They can. The question is can we clean them. And our first step was to address captive 186 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. audiences and then move beyond that. But the answer is is that yes, it can. It's just a question of which application. As I had mentioned, we are working with the cafeterias in California today. Our intention is to expand this program, and as Ray had mentioned earlier, New York City and Baltimore schools are very anxious to proceed with pilots of our program.
I'm sorry. Are there facilities in this part of the country?
And how many facilities are you aware of? How many competitors do you have?
Right now we have a single facility handling southern California, and this process has been around since 1992. The other facility right now is in Boston within the school district.
That's your 187 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. company also?
But are there companies on the East Coast or in this area that would, if the School District theoretically collected it, would they pick it up?
There are at least a half dozen that I've been in direct contact with, and I'm sure there's more.
The availability of material really is the issue for completing or increasing the recyclability of this material. Right 188 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. now we cannot produce enough material to satisfy the need of the scale of producers. To address some of the -- Chairman, some of the things that you brought forward about the material, sugarcane is a polysaccharide, so it's another polymer that is occurring as a naturally occurring polymer, but it is being converted into a lot of the biopolymers or the eco-friendly materials. The source of the material is really what is important, as we learned through our discussion and ultimately approval or no objection from the FDA. It's the source of the material as well as the ability to convert that into a clean and consistently clean material that's safe for humans. One thing that I would raise is that as you look at materials sourced from elsewhere besides North America, the standards are different. So that's something that we're very conscious of. 189 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Our material does not go to Asia because we feel that there's a -- we have a process that's safe and is consistent and can stay right here and help the converters who are producing these products increase their recycled content and thus --
I'm sorry. But the product specification I read to you from Green Wave is not a recycled material.
No, but it's a natural material, and the standards for any material that's being put into a food contact vessel, whether it's a plate, a cup, whatever, is different when you're manufacturing in China, even when you're manufacturing in Canada relative to North America.
I don't think they're manufacturing in China. It says given that raw materials are available in China. It's manufactured here. 190 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. And then the other product that I'm aware of is made from corn. I think it's a corn-based product also.
If you're talking about PLA, the concern that I would raise to you as just from my understanding in looking at other opportunities for our company, the PLA is made from genetically modified corn. So, yes, it's a natural material, but there has been some change to that versus regular feedstock.
Certainly more attractive than petroleum. Fair. Okay. Corn or petroleum, what should I eat?
But, Councilman, you have to think again the big picture, how much petroleum and resources and fuel and energy does it take to produce that corn.
I 191 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. understand. Please. I'm sorry.
One of the things that has been discussed a number of times through the bill is education. One of the things that our program does is help to educate the children who are coming -- they're the next wave of folks who are consumers, and much different than folks who are out in the world today where there's a blend of those who are conscious to recycling and some who are less adherent to the recycling, either the legislation or the general practice, the kids get it. They understand. And helping to foster that and proliferating more recycling programs where we can catch these young minds and train them into being recycling-minded individuals as they grow older is an important piece of what the schools see and important part of what we do with our program as well. Thank you very much. 192 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Angie Chaplin. I'm from Solo Cup Company. And before I get started, I have been asked to make you aware that our trade group, which is the Plastics Food Service Packaging Group, won't be testifying today, but they have submitted written testimony for you and you should have that dealing with the food service ware waste reduction bill.
I want to take just a few minutes this afternoon to introduce Solo Cup Company and share with you a few points that we believe you'll find valuable as you consider various solutions to the issue of litter in Philadelphia. Single-use products such as those manufactured by Solo play an 193 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. important role in the safe and secure preparation, service and consumption of foods and beverages. As a global supplier of single-use products, Solo uses a variety of materials, both paper and plastic and polystyrene, and that's very important to us and to our customers, because they need to have options. We do use both paper and polystyrene to make the cups and the plates and the bowls that are used in homes that we can all purchase at retail and also to make the food service containers that you get things from at the grocery and deli counters and at take-out restaurants. We work to meet the demand for durable, affordable packaging that is, first of all, safe so that consumers aren't injured while using our product or put at risk by the product that is carried in our container, such as a hot beverage, for example. 194 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. We also need to make sure that our products meet government regulations, FDA regulations, for food contact so that food is not contaminated. And, finally, we do work to address issues of sustainability. In fact, Solo has got a longstanding commitment to innovation driven by consumer needs and desires. We've been researching and testing environmentally friendly products for more than a decade, and that includes biodegradable/compostable products, as well as renewable resource materials and recycled content materials in our products. We also think it's very important that we work with our customers to make sure that they understand the material options that they have and the life cycle analysis of those materials and also looking at what their disposal options are in their communities with any given material so that they can make the 195 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. best choice for their performance requirements for the product, for their consumers' needs and for the disposal options at the end of the product life cycle. So my first point that I'd like to make is that because our products do hold food that is consumed, safety and efficacy is of primary importance to our customers and to us. For health and safety reasons, 100 percent recycled content materials are not always the most appropriate solution for certain food service items. Solo was in fact the first company to gain FDA approval for its ten percent post-consumer fiber hot cup. That took about eight years to get done and it required extensive collaboration and partnering with our customer and our suppliers to develop material that would perform the way it needed to and that would also gain government approval for use of a recycled material in a product that would hold a 196 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. beverage. On the point of renewable resource materials, which is the statement that you read from from that brochure, they certainly are becoming a more and more viable alternative, but they're still very new. They're still very, very new, and they still have many performance issues. The corn product that you mentioned is polylactic acid, or PLA. We are developing products that use PLA. They do have performance issues having to do with the low temperature at which they melt, for example, and those issues are still being worked through. We have not yet -- we're getting close, but we have not yet developed a product that will perform the way our customers and consumers need them to. A second point on that has to do with your question about would legislation like this help incent lower prices. Over the long term, probably so, but there are a lot of trade-offs that go 197 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
along with these issues, and one of them is, as has been mentioned, supply of these new materials is still very limited. That makes them more expensive. A lot of the suppliers are waiting to see what the demand will be before they produce as much as some of us might like to have to continue the research and to start really making things with them. So at least for the time being, it's still very important that there are quite a few options available so that our customers can meet their needs, their consumers' needs, we can meet safety needs and FDA requirements. So there are a lot of trade-offs involved. My second point, then, is that considering all these factors, safety, public health, consumers' desires for convenience and other things, the best strategy for food service items today is to ensure that they're used prudently and disposed of properly rather than banning a particular material or discouraging the 198 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. use of a material or mandating use of one over another. As has been said, most of the food service packaging here in the Philadelphia area does go to landfills, and compostable or biodegradable materials won't decompose in a landfill, which is a misunderstanding, that things decompose there, and they don't. So even if we were able to produce a lot of that kind of product today, which we can't yet, and even if consumers are willing to pay a lot more for it, which is another question, it would not end up in a place where it could compost or biodegrade as they had expected when they paid for it. So that's an issue. So the most important take-away there is that --
Let me ask you a question on that regard. Is it better, worse or the same to have a natural product in the landfill or 199 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. polystyrene?
It's the same, because in most landfills none of them will break down because --
But if it's not in a landfill, if it's in a compost --
-- has the technical capability to degrade it. And really the big issue there today is one of infrastructure, limited numbers of those facilities and an even fewer number of facilities who will accept some of these materials, even though --
The polystyrene -- all of our products are recyclable in the right kind of facility.
Will it 200 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. degrade?
It is not biodegradable. So the most important take-away on that last point is that mandating compostable or biodegradable products without the proper collection or disposal infrastructure means that consumers will pay higher prices, but they won't get the benefit that they thought that they paid for.
But for the record, they won't pay higher than ten percent under this piece of legislation.
Understood. And my third point, finally, is, we agree litter is a bad thing, and we don't want to see litter either, but we know that by working together, programs can encourage behavior changes, and that's really the issue, that litter 201 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. is a behavior issue as opposed to an issue of one type of material or another.
I just want to -- I hate to keep interrupting you, but I want to get the points as you're making them. Hypothetically, if one of these products made from either sugarcane or from corn was side by side in the gutter next to a polystyrene container, would eventually the natural product fade away? So in rain --
So their statement that Green Wave products are biodegradable in water, soil and compostable material is wrong?
Even if it sat at the curb ten years, the natural one would not go away?
Well, that was the question I had asked them when I met with them, and they said absolutely. So I'm sorry the guy had the car accident today, because he could have perhaps enlightened us a little more.
Councilman, the word will it degrade, what time frame are we talking? If it degrades in years, that's still litter, and litter is the issue.
I understand. I'm talking about as far as whether or not the natural product goes back to a natural state, and you're saying no. 18
Sustainable Packaging Coalition is one group that's trying to address that very question, how do you standardize, how do you develop a term for biocompostable, because there is nothing today. Anyone can stamp their product biocompostable/compostable 203 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. without repercussion, because there has been no standard established for packaging or for the specific materials. So it's uncharted territory, so there are folks that are taking license in their claims.
So just to summarize my three main points then, first is that single-use food service products must be safe and they must meet government regulations for food contact. Second, that before biodegradable and compostable products can make a real difference, there must be an infrastructure in place to collect and dispose of them properly. And, finally, that litter is an issue of behavior and not one of material type. So I thank you for listening to our comments, and we hope that we can work with you to help solve these problems. 204 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Good afternoon. I'm Betsy Steiner. I'm the Executive Director of the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon. I wanted to address one of the questions that you brought up earlier that I can answer for our industry. We represent expanded polystyrene transport packaging manufacturers that do manufacture polystyrene-based products but also manufacture and distribute other packaging-based products as well. Our industry in 2006 experienced a severe decline in the amount of material it produced in virgin resin, 166 million pounds down from 222 in 2004. A lot of that, as you can imagine, is due to some displaced manufacturing in the Pacific rim. But of 205 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the 166 million pounds that were produced in the U.S., we recycled 32 million of post-consumer and post-commercial waste, and that's in addition to the post-industrial. So just to give you an idea. And that's up seven million pounds on the post-consumer, post-commercial from million pounds in 2004. 10 There's been a lot of comments 11 today, and I think that there's a hundred 12 different ways to look at a lot of the 13 questions that have been posed. Our job 14 at the Alliance of Foam Packaging 15 Recyclers and a lot of our focus has been 16 to look at what works, because there are 17 a lot of different ways to get at this 18 equation. 19 One of the things that we've 20 been talking about today is biodegradable 21 alternatives. Our industry early on in 22 the loose fill, the peanut product line, 23 developed biodegradable, compostable, 24 whatever term you want to use, peanut 25 alternatives. They cost more to make, 206 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. but were made available and at a matching cost so that -- just to make that available. They don't sell. Nobody wants to buy them. So even in the event that our industry is providing the alternative product, it doesn't sell when offered at the same price. And, again, I want to just emphasize it costs more to manufacture than the virgin product.
Well, so you understand, that bill will not be pursued, because two reasons. Number one, what's produced here is being sent out somewhere else. So let them deal with it. And the other problem is issues of interstate commerce. It was trucking and all other kinds of things that complicated it to the point where it's not going to be pursued.
I understand. I had talked with Sarah. My office had talked with Sarah and we had understood, and we still wanted to provide some comments -- I'll make them very brief -- 207 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. that we think will be valuable in looking at some of the other issues that you're addressing. The one thing that we saw in the mid 1990s was a lot of companies that did substitute alternative products because of product restrictions, product bans, whatever you want to call them, being brought forward in the Legislature, and they didn't actually pass into law, but during the period that they were being proposed, there were several companies that in a reactionary mode moved to alternative paper-based products or non-polystyrene products. We saw a lot of return come back. Borders Books, Electrolux, John Deere, all of these companies, Xerox Corporation, quickly returned to polystyrene because it does the best job for its application. One of the things that we're working on right now is improving our recycling. We've had a hard job of getting participation and collaboration 208 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. from the other groups that we need to step up to the plate if this is going to work. We're concerned that in any way that a government entity projects out there that product restrictions -- again, I don't want to get tripped up on the terminology -- is a solution that we're going to see decrease in our recycling efforts. We're working right now with Dell Computer on a global initiative. We're working with Santa Fe Pastore out of Pennsylvania on a return program. And just to let you know, at our rate right now of percent, we're looking at the 16 possibility of jumping up to 40 and 50 17 percent, matching what you're doing, if 18 we can get these major companies to step 19 up to the plate and participate in the process. We are concerned that if government agencies like the City of Philadelphia are to send out a message that one of the solutions is to label certain products as environmentally good 209 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. or bad, that we remove the critical thinking type of education we've been trying to promote and it would potentially have a reverse impact on our ability to jump our recycling efforts forward based on the years that we've 8 got invested to date. 9
So are you 10 suggesting that in areas of the country 11 where there's been restrictions or 12 legislation, recycling rates have gone 13 down? 14
No. We have not 15 seen legislation for our products actually gone into effect. We've seen it proposed, and typically it has not actually been passed into law.
And has the proposals resulted in a reduction in recycling?
What happened is is that the proposals resulted in a knee-jerk reaction for companies to switch to other products. 210 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
So the discussion of whether it's good, bad for the environment, non-biodegradable, whatever it is, actually, in your view, reduces the desire to recycle?
In my opinion, what happens is that by labeling the products, it just perpetuates the myth that this is a bad product and we shouldn't invest any time or energy in it.
That it's bad just because it's plastic. 211 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. The other comment that I wanted to make is about the -- and I think this gets to some of the discussion we've had in terms of the biodegradable products. There is a lot of what's called green washing, and I think that some of the statements that you read out of the brochure looking at the alternative biodegradable products really would not fall under the Federal Trade Commission Environmental Marketing Guidelines, and what they recommend is a recommended method of promoting the environmental performance of one product over another, especially in a comparative mode. We disagree that a product preference bill would place Philadelphia on the cutting edge, and we think that it makes sense to really look at what works in application. We would appeal to the Committee that you help us in working with companies and with the citizens to help promote the recycling efforts that we've got underway so that we can build 212 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. on that.
Thank you. Your comment relative to raising the issue in a governmental forum to me is proof that we all brought you here today because we introduced legislation, and asking for our cooperation in recycling should probably increase the recycling and not, as you stated earlier, have a chilling effect on the desire for a company to recycle. Because if we hadn't introduced the bills, we wouldn't be having this discussion and we wouldn't be talking about recycling any of this material.
Well, I understand your point, but I don't think that that really applies to the fact that we have been -- we've had a demonstrated recycling record of 12 percent post-consumer since 1995. And we are looking to jump that up higher.
So it's 12 percent now since '95? 213 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Right now it's 19 6 percent based on the post-commercial and 7 post-consumer alone. 8
My name is Steve Rosario. I am the Director of the Northeast Regional Office for the American Chemistry Council. The Committee has been very patient today, and we definitely appreciate the generosity of time that you have given the various panels. We're not used to that. Many times we are often rushed into saying our peace, and 214 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. as you can see, there is certainly passion on this side of the issue and you're going to see passion on the other side of the issue, which is to be commended. We thank the Chair and the members of the Committee for this opportunity. I am not going to read my testimony. I'm not going to repeat what others have said. You've sat here a long time and I know that we're getting to the end of this session. Earlier today, Councilman Kenney, you had made a comment to the effect that in venues like this, you could always come up with reasons not to do something. I think what we have tried to demonstrate today is that we are not doing anything, but as an industry, both on the plastics side and on the business of chemistry side, that we have been engaged in recycling. We have been working with recyclers, and not just yesterday or the day before, but we've 215 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. been at this game for many, many years. And when you look at the business of chemistry and the plastics industry, here in Pennsylvania; for example, just on the business of chemistry side, when most people think of that, they'll think of New Jersey, your neighbor right here, or Louisiana. But when you look at the numbers, based on the value of product that is actually made in this state, you are ranked number five. So you are right up there in terms of a presence. Maybe that will help understand a little bit why the stakes can be so high on such an issue related to plastic bags or polystyrene or any other plastic or chemistry issue. What I'd like to perhaps do is maybe step back a little bit and kind of look at some of the conversation from a couple of feet away. And one of the things that I have noticed over the years and at least from what I've been doing is that I've never been able to understand 216 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. when public policy was being made that you always had to have a win-lose situation where somebody wins and someone loses. As it relates to some of these issues, we have been engaged in other venues, as you've heard, and one of the things that we've noticed as almost a trend is a situation where legislators have been viewing or trying to view what is going on in terms of a win-win situation, where they have gotten stakeholders together, stakeholders that in many instances are very disparate in their views, to try and build common ground and consensus. And granted the caveat is that is a difficult path. That is not easy at all. But it has succeeded and it has succeeded in other jurisdictions and venues. As Councilman DiCicco had mentioned, there are no silver bullets here. There are going to be consequences no matter what you do, but I think the point is that any decision that the City 217 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Council ultimately comes to has to be based on the fullest picture possible of all the information, of all the warts for any product, be it plastic or paper. By acknowledging the benefits and the challenges, not only of plastic products but of paper and other materials, I think the City Council recognizes something that has not been said here. Maybe I will say it. Yes, there is a need for a sustainable environment. No question about that. I think you've heard that we believe in that as well. But there is also a need for a viable economy, and I think you've heard that said in just so many words. And I think what we're also saying is that we want to be part of that solution, and that to be excluded from that solution may not lead to the best public policy.
One of the interesting things that I hear often times -- and I heard it here today -- is, well -- many times 218 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. people think that I just spend my time in city councils and state legislatures and state capitals. I have been quite fortunate to visit many of my facilities, hundreds as a matter of fact. And when I walk through the plant, what I see is anything but the mantra of either big industry or big corporations. What I see are ordinary people, men and women, white, African-American, Latino, Asian, young, senior, who are, in essence, your neighbors. They send their kids to the same schools and have the same struggles. So we would hope that the City Council would keep that in mind when we talk about big oil or big chemistry or big this or big that, that in many ways we're really talking about our neighbors. What we're dealing with here is very complicated stuff, and that's a technical term of art for anyone. It's chemistry and polymer science. And we've heard some of the questions that have been asked, and we would invite this 219 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Committee into one of our facilities to see what we do and how we do it. In essence, to see what I see when I walk through a facility. And it can be one that makes an original virgin product or a recycled one or both, if the Committee has the time to do a tour like that. Because when you're dealing with chemistry and polymer science, what you're dealing with is exact formulations for specific applications. You are talking about moving molecules in things that to this day I still don't understand. So, Councilman, when you use the example of a foam cup in a microwave, that foam cup was not made to be put in a microwave. That is an inappropriate application, and we have warnings. Just like when you buy anything at the store, a lot of times labels will say do not do X, Y, Z. It would be like me buying a hammer to bang in some nails, but then use it to try and take off a bolt on my 220 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. tire rather than a wrench. I think the manufacturer of that hammer would say, You shouldn't be using a hammer to remove the bolt. Use a wrench. And, unfortunately, we always don't use common sense. I know I haven't on any number of occasions. On the issue of recycling -- and maybe I did not mention this, but I have been in this industry for about 12 years. For years we have just gotten 13 beaten up, kicked, you name it, for not 14 recycling, and we have worked very hard. 15 We don't have the history that some of the other materials do, because as you've heard, we've only been around about 40 or 45 years. But we have tried to step up to the table and do in a shorter amount of time what others have been doing much longer. And there is a mature infrastructure. There are markets. And some of the discussion that I heard today, I think, could have a negative impact on recycling. I think that there 221 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. would be some recycling NGOs that could possibly express some concerns of any public policy that could diminish recycling opportunities. I just have two more very quick comments. Councilman, you did ask the panel regarding the statement from the Green Wave organization. And, again, that's very appealing. We certainly don't have any issues with competition from either virgin or bio-based or anything like that. I think when you look at our industry, we are always trying to build a better mousetrap. We are very competitive. Two of my colleagues who spoke earlier right here, they will fight to the death in the market to beat each other out. They kind of kept that out, where they're cooperating here today, but in the marketplace, if one can develop something to get a market advantage, you bet that's going to happen. The 222 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. incentive is competition, and we are always, always trying to build that better mousetrap.
What I would ask the Committee to ask when you see a statement like that is, what are the standards that are being used to support that statement? What are the tests that have been used? What has been the experience vis-a-vis the application for which that product was made? And these are the kinds of questions that we have to ask whenever we produce a product. A second issue along those lines is -- and something that I have raised in other venues -- when you talk about biodegradability, shouldn't there be some thought given to the fact that by pursuing certain public policy, does the City of Philadelphia, or any other city, want to reinforce the mind set that it's okay to throw something out my window because it will biodegrade?
Could I ask 223 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. a favor?
If you could conclude, because we've gone really long and I still have three witnesses left and we have a 2 o'clock hearing. So you understand, we have two amendments to each bill -- one amendment for each bill 11 and the bills will be held in Committee today. So there's no action being taken on the bills other than amendments. So there's no crisis yet, because we'll probably have you guys back.
Oh, just one other point. I do have testimony that I will submit to the Committee, but there is one piece of missing information. If I can submit this with the proviso that I have an opportunity to just fill in the 224 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. blanks.
So you understand how the process works, we're going to amend the bills, hold them and we'll have another Committee hearing. So you guys will be back again.
Thank you. And I apologize for you guys waiting all day, but I wanted you to hear what they had to say, so if any points you need to make for the record's benefit countering some of the assertions. Emily Linn, Christine Knapp and Jen Bendik. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Emily Linn and I am a Program Director for Clean Air Council. I'm here today to express the Council's support of the three bills in question, which would ban the use of Styrofoam and -- I guess not ban, but ban the use of plastic bags at 225 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. major retail stores in Philadelphia. The Council is a non-profit, member-supported environmental organization with its main office here in Philadelphia. The Council co-founded the Recycling Alliance of Philadelphia in 1998 and is an active member of the steering committee for the RecycleNOW Philadelphia Campaign. The environmental benefits of reducing the use of Styrofoam and plastic bags could not be more obvious. A Styrofoam container can take up to 500 years to disintegrate in a landfill and, according to the US EPA, a plastic bag made of high-density polyethylene can take up to a thousand years to disintegrate. So that one drink that you purchase in a Styrofoam container or that plastic bag that you use to transport your groceries in will surely outlive you by many hundreds of years. An argument often used in support of plastic bags is that they 226 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. require less energy to recycle and that they take up less landfill space than paper bags. However, on a nationwide basis, various sources report that only between one and five percent of plastic bags are actually recycled, meaning that the remainder of the plastic bags distributed at supermarkets and other retail stores end up in landfills or as litter. Despite current efforts to provide recycling drop-off bins for used plastic bags, which on a side note could be greatly improved, a large percentage of consumers are not opting to or do not have the means to recycle their plastic bags. In an urban setting such as Philadelphia, plastic bags in particular are a nuisance and contribute to the litter and quality-of-life issues facing our City today. Given the low percentage of bags that are being recycled are properly disposed of, the proposed ban would go a long way in contributing to 227 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the success of City and neighborhood-driven anti-litter efforts already underway. The ban would most surely be welcomed by those civic organizations working so hard to keep their neighborhoods clean and litter-free. Styrofoam and plastic bags are also both petroleum-based products. By reducing our reliance on these products, the City is contributing to a reduction in the nation's overall reliance on foreign oil. While compostable bags do currently cost more than regular plastic or paper bags, that price would surely drop as more municipalities jump on the bandwagon and require compostable bags. Another option is for stores to sell reusable bags to consumers to use for their shopping or to give a discount to customers to bring their own bag. Retail chains such as IKEA and Whole Foods Markets have already implemented programs to reduce and in many cases eliminate the 228 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. need for plastic bags. And I'll just say that Whole Foods starting in January is going to get rid of all of their plastic bags. So these programs are working, and they haven't really been met with resistance from the customers. And, in fact, customers, I think, feel that using reusable bags is one simple way that they can help the environment in their daily routine. In closing, Clean Air Council urges City Council to follow in the footsteps of San Francisco and other metropolitan areas and enact legislation to ban plastic bags and reduce the use of Styrofoam at major retail stores in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself.
My name is Christine Knapp. I'm the Eastern 229 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Pennsylvania Outreach Coordinator for Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, known as PennFuture, and I'm also the Coordinator for the Next Great City initiative. PennFuture is a statewide organization working to create a just future where nature, community and the economy thrive. I'm here this morning to urge City Council to support these pieces of legislation, which together would make a vast improvement to Philadelphia's sustainability by reducing our consumption of non-renewable, environmentally unsound materials and would help fight the City's litter problem. Both plastic bags and polystyrene foam are relics of the 20th century. We know better now that the harmful effects that both can have on our environment, our neighborhoods and our health. We also have better, cleaner alternatives that should be embraced. 230 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. First, let's review why the products are harmful. They both use up natural resources. Plastic bags are made from non-renewable natural resources such as oil, gas and coal. To make a hundred billion plastic checkout bags a year, which is how much we use in the United States each year, it takes million 10 barrels of oil. No oil is used to 11 produce recycled paper checkout bags. 12 Polystyrene or Styrofoam is manufactured from petroleum, also a valued non-renewable resource. They both consume energy to manufacture. Just one statistic is that you could make five and a half plastic bags or drive a car for one mile. It's the same amount of energy. Just five and a half bags, one mile driven. They both are known to choke marine and wildlife. Many animals mistake plastic bags or pieces of Styrofoam for food, eating them and causing death. And with plastic bags, 231 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. even after the carcass of the animal has disintegrated, the plastic bag persists. With Styrofoam, we've seen sea turtles that consume them and the buoyancy keeps the turtle from diving for food and then it starves to death. Both fill up landfills. Landfill space may not be filling rapidly as it was decades ago, but it's become more and more expensive to dump in them. Pennsylvania has actually a fairly cheap tipping rate compared to the rest of the country and, therefore, we've become the second largest importer of trash, receiving trash from dozens of other states and even Puerto Rico. Styrofoam is made up of many air pockets, taking up more space at these landfills than it should. And since plastic bags can take up to a thousand years to biodegrade and Styrofoam never biodegrades, it ensures that our wasteful legacy will be around for generations to come. Our precious 232 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. tax dollars could also be much better spent on schools and police rather than on hauling and dumping plastic bags and Styrofoam that fill our landfills. Both are known to create litter. On this matter, I am also on the Board of the Passyunk Square Civic Association in South Philadelphia and I'm in charge of our Trash Committee. While the neighborhood is proud of our Italian Market and other stores, we suffer from the effects of plastic bags used at many of these retail stores. Bags litter our street, hang in our trees and blow through the wind more often than any other item of trash. Our Committee has been working to raise $40,000 to hire a street-cleaning team to sweep our streets of this debris, as well as organize periodic street clean-ups and educate residents about litter. Despite our efforts, plastic bags keep ending up in our neighborhood. Clearly an item that is so persistently 233 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. littered has little value in our society and should hardly be missed if taken away. Another effect that plastic bags have on my neighborhood is that they clog our sewer drains.
Philadelphia's sewer system is old and often overburdened with storm water. When water has no place to flow into the system, it flows into people's homes and businesses, causing untold amounts of property damage and posing a serious health risk. It is vital that our storm drains remain clear of litter in order to function properly, yet a look at any one of our sewer drains will find them filled with plastic bags and other litter. There are many other alternatives to plastic bags. I have to say right now that I have heard a lot of the previous testimony that's focused on paper and focused on biodegradable bags. The first alternative is no bag. I'm sure so many 234 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of us have examples of going into stores and buying one bottle of soda and having it be put in a bag, or my favorite is when I get like a laundry detergent bottle that has a handle and they put it in a bag. A serious reduction in our consumption of bags would simply come from not offering them in the first place. A second alternative is cloth bags or reusable bags. While it may take some time for customers to remember to bring them along, cloth bags are increasing in popularity. We've heard also lots of testimony today saying that all these supermarkets are doing recyclable programs where people can bring their plastic bags back to the store to recycle them. If we can get people to remember to bring their plastic bags back to the store to recycle them, clearly we can get them to remember to bring their reusable 235 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. bag back to the store. Customers love to use them these days. It's become quite trendy in fact, and they're much more comfortable to carry and larger and easier for people to use. Many businesses are now selling them or giving reasonable bags away at a profit, and they also use them for advertising. Whole Foods, which is here today, gives away cloth bags all the time and you see people all over town carrying around a Whole Foods bag, which is free advertising for the store. Last on the list of alternatives should be the biodegradable bags and paper bags. They're not perfect, but they're far superior to using regular plastic bags. As Emily said, a very small percentage of plastic bags get recycled. 2 percent of all plastic bags were recycled, compared with 21 percent of paper bags. And in Philadelphia we have a curbside recycling program that 236 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. collects paper bags along with regular paper, where we don't have the option of plastic bags. We'd have to bring our plastics back to the store. If we're going to remember to bring them to the store, we can remember to bring a reusable bag to the store instead. There's also alternatives to Styrofoam. McDonald's over a decade ago showed how easy it is for restaurants to switch off of Styrofoam. There's other options for packing Styrofoam peanut. Instead of Styrofoam peanuts there's other products that are actually made from recycled products instead of Styrofoam. The last thing I'll mention in my comments, which I'll submit, is that there's environmental costs, but there's also an economic cost of plastic bags. They're four to six cents each. To take that away from the business would save them money, or they could pass that along to the consumer who might be educated 237 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. about the cost once they've been the ones who has to pay it and maybe they won't use it anymore. There's also a large cost that goes into collecting and cleaning up the bags once they've been discarded. I'm sure the City understands the cost of litter and what that does not only for community pride but for tourism when people come to the City and see trash. I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments in reaction to some of the things that were said earlier by testimony.
We heard industry claims that they've been committed to reduction, which would essentially put them out of business. So I have a hard time believing that. Plus, they've also said that they are committed to being here to be at the table, but we've not -- Emily and I both work on the Recycling Alliance. We have not heard from these groups before. Somebody mentioned that they thought that the recycling NGOs 238 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. might be opposed to this bill because of the effect it would have on recycling, and I can speak for the recycling non-profit community and say we don't oppose this. Someone else said they weren't a recycling expert, but they believed that a plastic recycling facility was far cleaner to a paper recycling facility. Well, we are recycling experts, and I disagree with that statement. I think there was too much emphasis on, as I said, paper and biodegradable bags in the previous testimony. No bags and reusable bags are really the efforts. I think that was all of the major points that I wanted to make. So thank you.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is 239 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Jennifer Bendik. I'm the producer of GreenFest Philly, a project of the Urban Green Partnership, whose mission is to empower consumers with the tools to save money and their environment to help make choosing the greenest option one can afford as convenient as possible. I am here today to ask for your support of Bill No. 070671 and 070672 prohibiting the use of disposable food service ware by food vendors that contain polystyrene foam and instead require the use of biodegradable, compostable or recyclable disposable alternatives. Polystyrene foam, most commonly known as Styrofoam, is composed of benzene, styrene and ethylene, which are all listed on the EPA's hazardous substance list. Styrene is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the EPA and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The process of making polystyrene pollutes the air and creates large amounts of liquid and solid 240 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. waste. It is made with petroleum, a non-sustainable and heavily polluting resource. There are health risks to people who are exposed to Styrofoam during production. S. Though manufacturers claim that their products are ozone friendly or free of CFCs, this is only partially true. Some polystyrene is now manufactured with HCFC-22, which though is less destructive, it's still a greenhouse gas and harmful to the ozone layer. In fact, according to a 1992 study by the Institute for the Energy and Environmental Research, HCFCs are three to five times more destructive to the ozone layer than previously believed. Styrofoam for disposable packaging and food service ware is intended for one-time use and mostly used for only a handful of minutes. It is not practical to reuse and not sturdy enough to wash and reuse more than once or 241 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. twice. When we use it to hold our food, it is a potential danger to our health. Studies show that toxic chemicals can leak out of these products into the food they contain, especially when heated in a microwave. These chemicals threaten the human health and our reproductive systems. A study conducted in 1991 by the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station reported that volatile styrene monomers were detected in eggs stored in polystyrene containers in a grocery store. When cooked, these eggs contained seven times more ethyl benzene and styrene than farm-fresh eggs not stored in such containers. So hot or cold, Styrofoam gets into the food we are eating, therefore getting into our bodies. Using a biodegradable alternative to Styrofoam would serve the same purpose of holding our hot or cold food without the threat to our health or our environment. When we are done with our 242 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Chinese take-out, our Styrofoam has one of several destinies, all of which are problematic. Most Styrofoam will end up in one of our overcrowded landfills. Styrofoam can take over 500 years to biodegrade, so it will be there essentially forever. It resists compacting, therefore taking up more space than any other type of material. Styrofoam makes up about 30 percent of our landfills. Lightweight at 1,369 tons. And that's in one year. While in the landfill, Styrofoam causes its own set of problems. It acts as a barrier preventing water from seeping into the ground allowing it to soak the garbage into a soup-like mixture. When heavy rains come, this mixture escapes the barrier and contaminates our soil and groundwater. If not in a landfill, Styrofoam could end up in an incinerator. Most incinerators do not have the financial resource to keep this process safe and 243 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. the chemicals contained. The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research identified 57 chemical by-products released during its combustion. Littering is another common disposal of Styrofoam containers.
It is among the top polluters of our coastlines and beaches. It breaks down into smaller pieces that choke animals and clog their digestive systems. Even if unintentional, Styrofoam, especially packing peanuts, fly right out of garbage trucks, littering anywhere they happen to land. Recycling seems to be on the forefront of potential solutions for this troublesome product. People may think that recycling Styrofoam is the environmentally friendly answer and solution to all of its disposal problems. However, recycling it can be just as dangerous as producing it. These recycling facilities are located in poor 244 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. neighborhoods, because the dangerous chemicals released in the process pollute the air and affect the people who live near them. The transportation to the few recycling plants that do exist and the cleansing process once it gets there is not cost effective. Recycling Styrofoam does not reduce the amount of Styrofoam that is created each year, because when it is recycled, it is not turned into more cups, plates and take-out food containers, but things like cafeteria trays, CD jewel cases and clothing hangers, products that are typically not ever recycled again. So if this product is so dangerous, why are we still allowing it when there are environmentally friendly alternatives available? San Francisco waited so long to make the switch because they wanted to make sure they were not pushing people away from Styrofoam and onto something worse, but the affordable alternatives do exist today and San 245 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Francisco passed the ban a few months ago. People are afraid of the up-front cost difference. However, a quick price comparison will show the difference in cost is as little as three to five cents per piece. 84, a monetary difference you will not notice. One of the companies offers a percent discount to schools and a five 16 to 25 percent discount depending on the 17 size of the order, and with these 18 discounts, the price comparison is fairly 19 close to Styrofoam. 20 The West Coast has discovered 21 the dangers of Styrofoam and bans have 22 been passed since as long as 20 years ago 23 in some cities. Among the cities to 24 currently have a ban on Styrofoam are, on 25 the West Coast, Ashland, Oregon; 246 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. Portland, Oregon; Berkley; Santa Cruz; Malibu; San Clemente; Sonoma County; San Francisco; Santa Monica and Oakland, California and, on the East Coast, Freeport, Maine. Allow Philadelphia to be among the first on the East Coast to prove that we want to do something about the environmental crisis we face today. Let's take the lead and step up to the plate and begin to make a difference. A ban on Styrofoam is only the beginning and a very important beginning to the rest of our future. I am proud to be among the people and organizations who support these bills. Thank you for allowing me to testify today in support of this ordinance. We look forward to working with the City to improve Philadelphia's eco footprint and to make Philadelphia a leader in the solution for environment issues facing our nation today. 247 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC.
Thank you very much for your testimony. And, again, thank you for your patience in waiting. Is there anyone else to testify on these bills? (No response.)
Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you. We'll be back. We'll notify you when we're having the next hearing. That will conclude the public hearing for the Committee on the Environment. We will now convene a public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilmember Brown for a motion to accept the amendments to Bill 070672, which have been circulated to the members of the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept the amendment to Bill No. 070672. 248 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 070672 will be thereby amended and held in Committee to the call of the Chair. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion to approve the amendment to Bill No. 070691.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move for a motion to approve the amendment on 070691. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 070691 will be amended accordingly and held to the call 249 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. of the Chair. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Brown for a motion to approve the amendments to Bill No. 6 070788.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the amendments to Bill No. 070788. (Duly seconded.)
The motion is approved. Bill No. 070788 is thereby amended. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion to report the amended Bill 070788 out of Committee with a rules suspension.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 070788 be reported out of Committee as amended with a favorable recommendation and a request 250 10/24/07 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 070671, ETC. for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 070788 as amended will be reported out of this Committee favorably, with a request for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Thank you all for your attendance today. I hope that the dialogue and conversation we had will get us to a point where we can come to some conclusion, but I appreciate all the information provided today. Thank you. (Committee on the Environment adjourned at 2:00 p.m.) - - - 251 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 24, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)