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?