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.)