2021-06-22 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
2021-06-22 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
(Part 1 of 2)
[SEN CHANDLER:] [SB436] These programs collect them and some manufacturers do as well. Often with a limit to the number of consumer can send back and it costs to the consumer. This bill requires that manufacturers establish smoke detectors disposal23 and recycling programs, including providing disposal locations to interested retail, wholesale and municipal government locations. I believe this would be a measured but impactful first step in reducing the amount of hazardous radioactive material and smoke detectors contribute to air streams. In turn, This reduces the amount of radioactive materials that find their way into air, water and soil throughout the Commonwealth. For all these reasons, I encourage the committee to give a favorable report to Senate bill 436 an act requiring the establishment of recycling programs for ionization of smoke detectors. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I'm sorry about my voice. You all right? If you have questions, I'll be happy to ask them. Thank you very much. Senator. Any questions for the senator? Mm seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. Uh huh.
Uh, and I hope your cough resolves. Uh Senator Pacheco, are you with us?
Senator Pacheco?
Okay. Moving along. Uh Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy.
Okay. Uh Senator Aldridge,
[SEN ELDRIGRE:] [SB525] [HB902] Thank you so much. Chairwoman Rausch, Chairman Dykema and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resource and Agriculture. Um and thank you so much for taking out a turn um and and having these categories of bills today. Obviously a really growing interest around recycling and banning plastic products. So I'm here to support149 my testify in support of my bill, Senate 525, House 902 an act reducing plastic bag pollution that I filed with Representative Laurie Ehrlich for many for many sessions. Um first160 filed this back in 2009 and was very appreciative for the ENRA Committee167 for reporting a version of this out of committee last session and in passing171 in the Senate.
And what this bill does, which is very similar to what passed in the Senate is it bans retail establishments statewide from providing single use plastic carry out bags at point of sale, um recycled paper bags will be an alternative. Um And of course we're trying to encourage people to use reusable bags to bring in the reusable bags. There would be a fee, a 10 cent fee per per paper bag. Five of those cents would stay with the retail store um to address the cost of providing that alternative, And the other five cents would go207 to the Department of Revenue for grants for recycling programs, for cities and towns. Um you know, I don't think I have to tell any of the committee members here the damage that plastic bags are placing on our streets on our neighborhoods in um most visibly in our in our oceans and rivers and streams.
And um, you know, anyone that has seen a picture of a whale or other sea life washing up on the shores with upwards of 50 pounds of plastic refuse, um, knows the problem we have in the world, including in Massachusetts. And so I think it's important that the goal of this is really to eliminate a product. You know, there is not the need for plastic bags anymore. Plenty of people use reusable bags and the impact it has um, thinking about the fact that obviously plastic bags come from oil so further contributing to carbon emissions. I'm proud of the leadership the Legislature has shown on combating climate change and tackling environmental pollution.
And so I see this as a really key part of taking that next step this session and really hoping we can get this bill to the finish line and on the governor's desk. Um, I would just highlight that over 140 communities now have passed plastic bag bans. So we're really gaining momentum similar to the smoking ban in the early 2000s. And so I do think we're at a tipping point293 where we can ban this state statewide. So thank you again for taking out of turn and urge the committee to report developed favorably. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Senator, just under the three minute mark. Well done. Um any questions for Senator Eldridge from the committee?
Seeing then thank you for your testimony. Thank you rep ehrlich, because this is a your pair bill, are you with us?
Representative ehrlich?
Okay, reps. Tikolo,
[REP CICCOLO:] [HB869] [SB579] [HB70] [HB879] Thank you, Madam. Chair. Um and members, fellow members of the ENRA committee. I want to say first that I'm really grateful that you chose to schedule this slate of bills so early in the session. Um, as you know, I'm deeply concerned about waste and recycling in the commonwealth for a variety of reasons. I do um, chair the Zero Waste Caucus on the House side with my partner, Senator Lewis on the Senate side, and by my count, this bipartisan bicameral caucus now has about 47 members, which is pretty great for a relatively new caucus. I'm here to testify on a few bills, House 869 and the Senate version of that bill, Senator, Lewis version is 579 an act to reduce single use plastics from the environment.
Um, and I want to make some remarks about two other bills as well. You will be hearing from a variety of environmental organizations but I do want to say that we carefully constructed the what we're calling the Single use plastics omnibus bill with language from a variety of local by laws and ordinances and the best of the language we could find that is being used in other states. So, looking to try to pull something very comprehensive together, being mindful of the compromises that need to be made to develop good legislation. So this legislation would ban plastic416 grocery bags, as Senator Eldridge just spoke of.
We, uh, we included a version of the bag ban in our bil polystyrene, uh, for anything produced in state. If it's packaging for food that's coming from out of state, it would be allowed to be shipped into Massachusetts. Blast black plastics, which many people do not know is actually not recyclable. Uh, the, the separating facilities can't identify the black effectively, and it tends to jam up the equipment and actually not get recycled. Single service plastic water bottles, hotel toiletries, nips, plastic wipes and there are uh, compostable alternatives to plastic wipes and balloon releases. For some perspective I think it's important to note that single use plastic packaging represents nearly half of all the plastic in circulation.
Uh, and by the year 2050 experts estimate that um, there'll be more plastics in our oceans, um, than fish. So what this leads to is it gets into the food chain, it contaminates our water and ultimately ends up in our bodies as microplastics. Um, our gut and lungs are being filled with these very small particles and it enflames, your body and can493 contribute to cancer, heart and bowel disease, arthritis, diabetes, stroke and other ailments. Um, it's a very serious issue for public health and in particular, one of the reasons why I'm so passionate about the need to reduce waste overall is because six out of seven of our incinerators in Massachusetts are located in or near environmental justice communities.
So what's happening right now, because the market has fallen out of the recycle recycling industry is that most of our products that we used to recycle are now being burned um in those incinerators. So I will get, I will try to527 wrap up as quickly as I can. I want to just mention that it used to be that recycling was a profit center for533 cities and towns so cities and towns guarded the opportunity to recycle very carefully. Now it is a cost burden because these items are being incinerated and put into our landfill which our landfills which contributes to trash build up and um water degradation and soil degradation as well.
So very briefly, um one of the things uh H 70 which is an act to support restaurants and reduce single use plastics. That is just a pull out of the exact language in the omnibus bill for restaurants. And that actually just requires564 that restaurants charge for silverware and condiments. So it's really so that we can have a separate conversation on that specific bill with the restaurants themselves. And then finally H 879 uh an act to strengthen reuse repurpose and recycle which Rep linda Dean Campbell filed and I joint filed with her which helps us establish a commission to look at how we can actually create a market for recycled goods. So there will be many people testifying today and I just want to say thank you again especially also to the staff that did an amazing job in summarizing these bills. So thanks. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you very much. Representative. Any questions for reps, Tikolo
seeing none. Thank you for your testimony.
Uh wrap Owens please.
All right here I am. I can hear me okay. We sure can. Great. Uh so great.
[REP OWENS:] [HB979] So thank you chair and members of the committee. Thank you so much for your time. I'm here to speak in favour of H 979 which I filed with Rep Dave Rogers. It's an act to require producer responsibility for the collection reuse and recycling of discarded electronic products. And I respectfully ah ask for the committee's favorable report on that. The purpose of this bill is to shift the burden for the collection and recycling of computer products from local governments to electronics manufacturers themselves. This cost shifting will incentivize manufacturers to redesign their products to be less toxic and more durable and easier to recycle. You're going hear a lot about producer responsibility today. So I'm happy to be the first one on that.
But E-waste itself is a growing worldwide problem. 2019 a record 53 million metric tons of E-waste was generated which was up 20% in five years. We in the US were the second largest contributor to that. Uh And the UN predicts that global e-waste will double over the next 16 years. That makes it the fastest growing domestic waste stream. And it's fueled mainly by the higher consumption rates of693 electronic and electronic equipment with their shorter life cycles and fewer options for repairing them. As we all have seen to facilitate the switch to remote working during the pandemic a lot of places uh purchased additional IT equipment. Many workers like like myself invested in our own home offices.
And if we do nothing we're really sitting on an e-waste time bomb as those computers, printers and other equipment they'll reach their natural end of well natural end of life are in around five years. So using the 2019 rate, only 17.4% of that e-waste will be collected and recycled. So that huge portion of e-waste is sent to landfills or informal processing, which is just extremely dangerous. For context Um e-waste is less than 2% of the world's waste stream by volume, but causes over 70% of the waste streams' harmful743 and toxic environmental effects. Um informal processing of e-waste happens through open burning heating acid, leaching using cyanide salts, nitric acid, mercury. Uh it extracts the the precious metals like gold uh and aluminum and silver from the e-waste, but it exposes Children to mercury and lead.
Melting away the plastic in766 those devices releases carcinogens like cadmium oxide, chromium and arsenic uh all carcinogens. So this bill would require the producers have covered electronics to bear that financial responsibility for the collection transportation, reuse recycling of all those covered electronic products received by processors. And producers would reimburse the collectors of covered e-waste such as televisions, computers, notebooks, monitors etcetera etcetera. Um The bill would also require e-waste collectors and processors to register with the DEP Every three years just to prevent illegal e-waste trafficking because and I will finish up.
But I just want to uh I want to emphasize really the um the dangerousness of some of these toxins in uh e-waste. I believe that the proper management of e-waste is a human rights issue that the UN just released a report sorry. The World Health Organization last week issued a report on the impact of e-waste on Children's health. Most of the work done overseas is done by Children or women and it really has very deleterious effects. So thanks again for your time. I will submit additional written testimony and I hope you'll uh report this bill out favorably. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you rob Owens. I see a question from Vice Chair Dom.
[REP DOMB:] Good morning. Thank you, madam. Chair. Good morning rep Owens. Good afternoon. I'm sorry. Um I just wanted to make sure to give you a fuller opportunity if you'd like to talk about what happens currently when consumers in Massachusetts purchase electronic equipment and they've outlasted their time in addition to the hazardous sort of process that you just described. If you could talk a little for the record, just what happens currently um since we know what your bill would do eventually. Um just to have it on the record as what consumers need to do right now. Thanks.
[OWENS:] Sure. My my understanding is that you, a lot of the waste goes right into the landfills and uh and uh and is treated just like you would throw away um Anything else Most of the consumers don't bother to take their e-waste to a uh to a to a center. You can take it back to uh to Best Buy at this time. The computer monitors. A lot of municipalities908 have a909 program to collect those, but that is um you know municipality by municipality. Um So we really don't know what happens to a lot of this e-waste which is really the problem. It used to be that China would buy it um And there was, you can read about there's one particular province where most of e-waste went um before they stopped they stopped buying it. And it's just a a toxic field over there of health problems, bad water. Um and so right now um some of it938 just gets sent to our regular landfill, some of940 it gets um you know hidden away. And some of it we don't really know how much gets exported at this point. I don't have those figures on hand, but I can find out.
[DOMB:] Thank you so much. I also know that in some communities in Western Mass where I am, municipalities have banned them from coming into the landfill. And so consumers are sometimes left sort of high and dry because they don't know what to do with their coming equipment.
[OWENS:] So some some have been, yeah there's definitely landfill bans but there's also a big black trash bags and middle of the night illegal dumping. So that does happen unfortunately as well. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much. Thank you madam. Chair.
[REP RAUSCH:] Thank you. Um rep I actually have a question. Um Do you happen to know what the current cost is for municipalities in terms of managing e-waste? Your bill would shift the um shift the responsibility for municipalities to e-waste producers. So I'm wondering if the current cost is to all of our towns and cities, If you know.
[OWENS:] I don't have the that number off at my fingertips, but I can get that for you and and put it in the the additional testimony.
[RAUSCH:] That'd be great.
[OWENS:] There are there are also experts on this call who are testifying on other bills if they know they I would be happy if they would supply that information. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Fair enough. Any additional questions for the representative
seeing them. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Have a great rest of the day. Thank you, rep Michael Day, please
rep day.
Okay, uh, represented phillips.
REP PHILLIPS - HB 988 - Good afternoon everybody. Uh Chair Rausch Chair Dykema. Thank you members of the committee. Thank you so much for having me to testify on in support of House 988 which is an act to establish a mattress recycling program in the commonwealth. In an effort to replicate the success of current programs in California, Connecticut and Rhode Island, This bill creates a statewide mattress stewardship program that provides convenient and accessible opportunities to properly recycle discarded mattresses rather than their common destiny of unfortunately, a landfill or even worse, the side of a road.
Um, under the provisions of the bill, each manufacturer, renovator, retailer or distributor that operates in the state would register with a state mattress recycling council and entities that sell mattresses to a consumer or ultimate end user in Massachusetts would add a mattress stewardship fee to the purchase price that would then fund the recycling of that mattress. The fee would apply to any entity that sells a mattress in or into the state, including both brick and mortar retail locations and online purchases. Like a number of other bills under consideration today uh this bill is part of the broader movement towards extended producer responsibility. I hope that you will agree that it is a good idea and uh an issue a favorable report and I'm happy to take any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Fantastic. Any questions for rep phillips
seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony sir. Thank you so much, madam. Chair. Absolutely. Representative Rogers please.
Representative Dave Rogers.
Okay. Yeah. Um Senator Pacheco.
Senator, you're on mute.
How about are you speaking to me madam? Chair. No. Senator Pacheco. Okay but we'll take you next. Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Mhm. Mhm.
Yeah
Senator Pacheco. Maybe we'll circle back to you. Um Senator Kennedy. Please go ahead.
SEN KENNEDY - SB 569 - SB 566 - Thank you very much. Uh huh. Chair Rausch and chair Dykema um Members of the committee good afternoon. I join you today in order1189 to testify on behalf of my legislation Senate Bill 569. An act establishing a mattress stewardship plan. Most everything inside a mattress from the springs to the padding is recyclable but many people are unaware of this. And as a result, Massachusetts misses a tremendous opportunity to reduce its carbon footprint and save1214 municipalities money each time a mattress is discarded through simple yet effective methods that have proven to be successful at the local level.
By recycling the components of mattresses and box springs that would otherwise become trash UTEC, who I believe is also testifying today was able to uh, salvage approximately 195 tons of steel, 47 tons of foam and 87 tons of wood for repurposing in a single year. To put this into perspective,1248 UTEC has recycled more than 20,000 mattresses enough if they were lined up to approximate the length of the Boston marathon. This is a program that could be expanded through across the commonwealth and communities through Massachusetts could redirect and indirect rewards from mattress recycling. The bill creates a stewardship model similar to other states, including Connecticut, Rhode Island and California, where manufacturers assume responsibility for the entire life cycle of a mattress.
Connecticut passed the nation's first mattress stewardship law in 2013. The law in part driven by the high costs associated with managing discarded mattresses and the desire to keep them out of landfills and waste1299 to energy facilities. In Connecticut manufacturers are required to establish a stewardship program for discarded mattresses from defined generators. This program is financed by a nominal fee assessed on each mattress and box spring at the point of sale. The money is held in escrow and pays for the collection, transportation and processing of mattresses managed under the program. Mattress recycling programs have been a great benefit to the municipalities and the environment in the states that have adopted it.
Mattresses are expensive to manage as a bulky waste but have value1342 when recycled. The challenge to make mattress recycling profitable has been the cost of collection, transportation and processing. A mattress recycling council would work with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and an advisory committee of key stakeholders to create and implement a mattress stewart stewardship plan and a program. Senate 569 also has a unique characteristic as the bill explicitly calls for the preservation of a social enterprise component to remain as part of the mattress recycling ecosystems. This would ensure that the nonprofit organizations that have helped introduce mattress recycling in Massachusetts remain viable under a new system. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Senator, please please wrap up for it over time. I will.
[KENNEDY:]This bill is especially timely given a recent given recent proposals from the Department of Environmental Protection to ban the proposal of mattresses in landfills later this year. I1403 filed similar legislation in the last session calling for a commission to study the, the uh, the expansion of mattress recycling. And that legislation was also reviled the Senate Bill 570 during this term as an alternative approach to this issue. But Senate 569 represents the work of several months of compromise and negotiations between several interested stakeholders. In closing I would also like to mention that I have also supplied written testimony in support of Senate 560. Senate Bill 566 a resolve providing for an investigation and study of enhancing statewide recycling programs. Thank you very much for1441 your time and for your patience. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you Senator. Any questions for senator Kennedy
seeing them? Thank you for your testimony. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Uh Senator Pacheco. Yes, Can you hear me now? We can. Fantastic hallelujah.
SEN PACHECO - SB 602 - Uh thank you very much, Madam Chair and to your co-chair and all the members of the committee. I'm ah testifying on Senate 602, the recycling cycling bill.1477 And it's an act relative to recycling. As you know, we have a crisis right now with municipal solid waste all across the commonwealth of Massachusetts and many cases there's absolutely no room in some of the landfills. And I think the Department of Environmental Protection really needs to establish performance standards for the reduction of municipal solid waste. Uh and the legislation right now I originally, when we filed this called on the date of July 1st 2021, obviously that's going to be too soon for them to do that. Ah And we'll have to change that date.
But uh for the purposes of developing a commonwealth of Massachusetts solid waste Master plan and greenhouse gas reduction plan which they should be doing. Uh set standards shall reduce solid waste to not more than1549 600 pounds per capita by July One 2022 That's a year from now, and not more than 450 pounds per capita by July One 2022. This legislation also requires the secretary to develop municipal solid Waste action plan to assist municipalities and achieving the standards set forth uh in the bill for cities1579 and towns to report to DEP each year the total weight of solid uh waste disposal uh for each community.
Uh that's my total summary. Uh My total testimony, I will send you a summary of additional remarks that go into a lot more technical areas in writing. The bottom line is a lot of communities already meet these1609 standards but there are a whole range of communities majority do not. And it's because we need to have1618 the standards set forth to try to help municipalities give them some technical assistance uh to help them get there. Uh there's a lot of things that just shouldn't be going into the waste stream at all. And so I hope that the committee will give a favorable to Senate 602. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Senator. Just under the1641 three minute mark. Well done. Um Senator when you submit that written material, would you be able to include please the number of communities that already actually comply with the standards set forth in the bill? Um Thank you. Yes, I'll do that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions for Senator Pacheco.
Seeing then. Thank you very much sir. Thank you. Okay, Representative Giovannino, please.
[REP GIANNINO:] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Chairman Rausch, Chairman Dykema and members of this honourable committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today on three bills that I have before the committee. 930 931 and 932. So as many of you may know, the constituents in my district have a variety of different industrial pollutants in our area but most notably is the nearly 50 year old trash incinerator and unlined landfill that are both contained within an area of critical environmental concern. And about uh two rivers flow through that area as well as America's first public beach. And even more horrifying this facility uh is unlined and it's less than a half mile from people's homes, which is totally un buffered.
So I'm going to touch briefly on these three bills, but I really want to highlight uh 931 for your consideration. So this received a favorable report from the joint committee um last session and what it really does, it seeks to give boards of health from abutting communities, decision making power over sitting and the expansion of solid waste facilities. So this includes boards of health on the municipality uh where the facility is actually located, but also municipalities within a half mile from the nearest edge of the proposed site. So over 150,000 people live within three miles of this facility in my district. Um Yet only those in the town of Saugus actually have the ability to say anything about its operation.
And um although the incinerator and the landfill are physically located in Saugus, my constituents and Revere tend to be just as impacted if not more by the operations, the noises, the smells, and also people living on the marsh that this facilities' unlined landfill are actually in. So the facility is directly across from the point of Pine River in the city Revere and less than a half a mile from thousands of my constituents in the riverside neighborhood. But beyond these, there are also people that live across the marsh on the Revere street neighborhood who are all directly impacted by the operation of this facility. So in summary, um, these these three bills are1805 just carry overs from my predecessor, but they're very, very important to the district in terms of uh, not only protecting an area of environmental justice, but also continuing to hold the feet to the fire of the facility to meet regulations.
Um briefly, I'll touch on 930.1822 Uh This bill was filed to prevent the expansion of landfills in or near areas of critical environmental concern. So again, when you think about this, putting an online ash landfill in a marsh, sounds surreal, but unfortunately we have them in my district in a very highly populated area. And1840 it's one of those things that you know, if it ever happened would never happen today, But this was over 50 years ago and we're still dealing with the ramifications of it. This legislation would allow a mandate that would allow no landfills, monofills or ash landfills to be built in or adjacent to areas of critical environmental concern. And last 932 just sets up a closure plan. So basically want to have a plan to close the landfill eventually. So um three very important bills to my district. I really appreciate the support. Thank you,1873 Madam chairs. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much. RepresentativeI see a question from Vice Chair Tom.
[DOMB:] Thank you again and I hope to make it quick and thank you so much rep for your leadership and you know, being such a newbie in the building, but really taking on this champion championing environmental1892 justice and environmental protection in your community. I really appreciate it. I have a question regarding the bill that has uh extends the board of health decision making on what happens to towns that may not be within the municipality of the facility but within a certain distance. Um and I understand if you don't have the response, but I'm curious to know how that decision making would then work with the let's say there were three towns involved, the one where the facility was cited and two maybe that border that um facility. Do you envision sort of a meeting of all boards that they each would have equal say or I'm just curious as to how that would eventually result in decision making and thank you again for your leadership. I'm looking forward to working with you.
[GIANNINO:] Thank you so much. Uh yes, so that would be ideal. So in this case it would be Revere. Saugus and Lynn are the three communities that directly abbut. And you know, each community is impacted in different ways. Uh, Lynn is more commercial, but there is a residential neighborhood on the other1956 side of the marsh. Revere is all residential and Saugus has kind of the front end and everything that blows over to their neighborhood. So basically I do envision something where these three boards could work in coordination with each other to um make important decisions. Not, not just Saugus, Saugus is important there, the host community. But I argue that Rever and Lynn are just as impacted by the effects of the facility. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. And thank you madam, Chair for the opportunity. Of course. Any additional questions for Representative Gene, you know,
seeing them. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you Brett Connolly please.
You're on mute. Yeah. Common still common problem. Can you hear me now? You sure can?
[REP CONNOLLY:] [HB871] Thank you and good afternoon and thank you chair Rausch and chair Dykema for, for taking me out of turn. I'll be very brief. I know we have some votes lined up in the House in a little bit. I'm here to testify in support of House bill 871 an act to reduce packaging waste. Uh, it's legislation I co filed with Rep Dave Rogers along with Senator Creem and I'm thankful to the Massachusetts Sierra Club for partnering with us on this bill and also thankful to this committee for twice having reported this bill out favorably. And we're certainly hoping the third time will be a charm on this issue and on several of the other issues we have heard that really get at important sustainability concerns.
And this particular bill would simply set a minimum sustainability standard for foodservice ware products that they be biodegradable, compostable recyclable or reusable. And we know the legislature has done so much in recent years to address areas of sustainability. Um, but I think hopefully we can all agree that we can do more um in preventing uh, the exposure to toxic toxic pollutants. Many people assume that foodservice ware already meets2094 common sense criteria. Um, but we know that there is a worsening problem with the advent of single stream recycling, which allows more material to be accepted, but doesn't always mean that food containers are put in their proper recycling bins.
For example, we know polystyrene number six is never recycled and yet people think that they can place all sorts of plastic2120 items into those recycling bins. Um wrapping up here real briefly, I'll mention that there are many businesses in my own district who already adhere to this standard. If you go to a place like Clover, any sort of foodservice ware that they hand you can be composted. And so we think we can2140 build upon those who are already setting a great example. Um and final point I'd make is that2146 in addition to the environmental benefits, there is an economic benefit to our municipalities since trash is more expensive to dispose of than compostables or recycling. So once again, thank you to chair Rausch. Thank you to chair Dykema and members of the committee and hoping that we can continue working to advance the concept in this bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much.2171 Representative. Any questions for Representative Connolly
seeing none. Thank you sir.
Okay. Um, Mayor Ruth Ann fuller please.
[RUTHANNE FULLER (CITY OF NEWTON):] [HB938] [SB569] [SB517] [HB878] Uh, madam chairs and committee members good to be here. Um, I'm the mayor of the city of Newton and I'm so glad to have the opportunity to testify. And what I really must to say is I'm so glad that you're looking seriously at extended producer responsibility laws. We have the mantra many cities and towns do of reduce reuse and recycle. And it will really help and please know we're facing huge increased costs um to manage solid waste and recycling. So therefore our residents, your residents do as well. In Newton, we signed our latest um, contract last year for solid waste and recycling. Uh, it's a five year contract Up 26% or $9.5 million.
I'm asking you to vote yes or move forward. Um, three bills first, um, managing unwanted paint. It's been solved by 10 other states. Um, I think Massachusetts can follow their best practices. I'm asking you to vote yes on Bill H 938 an act relative to paint recycling. It creates a paint steward ish Stewart dish stewardship program here in the commonwealth. And I'd say by the way, it's close to a no brainer because the paint manufacturers are supporting it. Um, basically latex paint, which is non toxic and is currently managed This trash would be re collected2296 and recycled into paint.
Second one that I want you to vote for an echoing both representative Phillips and Senator Kennedy managing old mattresses and box springs. It's cumbersome because they're so bulky and it's expensive. Please vote to forward bill uh Senate 569 and an act establishing a mattress stewardship plan. Um One senator wanted to know about cost, maybe that was you Senator Rausch. Uh Newton spends $55,000 annually for mattresses disposed of as trash. These items can and should be recycled as some other states are doing. Third one between hauling and processing Newton's annual costs for single stream recycling Has increased 30% in the last three years. I'm asking you to vote yes on S 517 which is the same as H 878 an act to save recycling costs in the commonwealth. It establishes stewardship program for manufacturers of packaging and paper products. Vote yes. Thank you guys for2381 hearing this. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much, madam. Mayor. Any questions2386 for mayor? Fuller
seeing them. Thank you. Mayor for your testimony,
Cambridge counselor Quinton sanderman, please?
Councilor
Okay. Uh, moving on. Uh, Janet dominates from Mass PIRG.
Can you SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
hear me? We can great success. Victory.
[JANET DOMENITZ (MASSPIRG):] [HB869] [SB579] [HB878] [SB610] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] Good afternoon. Thank you to chair Rausch and Chair Dykema and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify. I'm Janet Domenitz director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, MassPIRG2441 and we are here to support several bills. First the Single use plastics. Bill H 869 S 579 sponsored by Rep Ciccolo and Senator Lewis. My grandmother who was born in 1901 may her memory be a blessing was the most loving and generous grandmother ever. She used to say to us quote enough is too much. As a child I don't think I really understood that sensibility, but she would be glad to know I do now. When it comes to single use plastics, enough is entirely too much.
Plastic is made from fossil fuels and only2477 9% of it has ever been recycled. Plastics really only came on the scene about 70 years ago. Since then, 8.5 billion tons of it have been made half of it in the last 15 years. This bill, which reduces the use of plastic bags, black plastic straws, food wear and other items, will start to turn this sinking ship around. Second the producer responsibility bill H 878 S 610 sponsored by Rep Day and Senator Rausch. Let's say I'm at home, I make myself a sandwich, wrap it in paper. I go to the park, eat the sandwich, toss the paper on the ground thinking that's someone else's problem. I'd be widely condemned as a litterbug. But companies sell millions of wrapped sandwiches and don't have to consider what happens to the packaging afterwards. That's someone else's problem.
The concept of2530 producer responsibility changes that. Let's get companies that need. The goal is let's reduce waste right where it starts. If companies are deemed responsible for their packaging, they will think about how to reduce it and or how to make the packaging more recyclable. And it's just common sense that if you make a product and package it, you should be responsible for all of it. Third, we support rep Giannino's bills. H 930, 931 and 932. These bills give tools to the community of Saugus and others that are currently bearing the brunt of pollution from waste disposal to protect the health of families and the surrounding environment. We must move away from landfills and incinerators and towards zero waste in Massachusetts. Thank you for your time and consideration. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee.
Seeing none. Thank you2590 very much for your testimony.
Uh Miss Deborah Panetta, please.
Hi there you are. Good afternoon. How are you? Fine, thank you. How are you? Good. Thank you.
[DEBRA PANETTA (SAUGUS RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL):] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today and give testimony. My2617 name is Debra Panetta. I'm here to testify and support of bills H 930 931 and 932 all addressing the Wheelabrator Saugus site. And I would like to thank representative Jessica Giannino for bringing these three bills forward. I'm a Saugus selectman. I'm finishing up my 10th year. I'm the president of the Saugus River Watershed Council. It's important that state legislators take action to support these bills as the Department of Environmental Protection is not protecting us. The US residents such as myself have repeatedly requested various testings of water quality, noise monitoring2652 and air quality to have an updated health study and most importantly a study assignment.
I also believe it's important to give other boards of health within the area a say on what's going on with this facility, especially since it's right on the border. It's on 107 bordering Revere2669 Lynn as well. Of course it's in Saugus. Wheelabrator in Saugus is located within, as it was mentioned an area of critical environmental concern which that's a designation to highlight areas where special management attention is needed to protect important historical cultural scenic values, fish and wildlife or other natural resources. I don't believe that would ever be allowed today to put both the landfill with an adjacent incinerator within an ACEC. The landfill has a slurry wall, not a double lined wall which would be required today.
There is no groundwater monitoring the wheelabrator. Saugus has isometers and these just measure groundwater level and the groundwater is compared to the groundwater level outside of the landfill. The main takeaway is that2719 there's no measuring of what that groundwater as far as contaminants are there. Our town Saugus along with Revere and Lynn have been planked with the ill effects of wheelabrator for almost five decades. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that wheelabrator Saugus cannot meet the 150 parts per million standards set by the DEP for nitrogen oxide standards without purchasing emission credits.
Just because Wheelabrator in Saugus is the oldest incinerator in the United States, should not preclude them from not adhering to the common emission standards that the DEP has deemed safe. I am concerned about the health and the well being of the people in Saugus in our surrounding communities. Saugus Revere and Lynn deserve to breathe clean air. We have endured living with Wheelabrator Saugus in our backyard almost five decades and I would ask that you please block future permits for expansion and encourage capping enclosure. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you for your testimony. Uh, question from vice chair dumb. It's not a question madam chair but I just want to thank you very much um to the witness for bringing this matter to our attention and for speaking so passionately and eloquently about the need for action. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I will echo the vice chairs. Thanks um any other comments or questions from the committee
seeing none. Thank you2810 very much man for your testimony. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I see a comment in the chat from Jill how well asking if I can announce people who are on deck to speak next? Um I will endeavor to2822 do that. And in fact Miss Howell you are next to speak um with an Devlin to follow
so Miss holly on the floor. Can you hear me? We can. Yes. Great.
[JILLIAN HOWELL (SAUGUS RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL):] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] Thank you so much. My name's Jillian Howell.2839 I'm here as a representative of the Saugus River Watershed Council in supportive bills. H 930 931 and 932. Saugus River Watershed Council was founded in 1991 to protect and restore the natural resources2851 of the watershed. Wheelabrator Saugus, which includes the oldest and only operational online landfill in the state is located within the southern part of the watershed and is part of the Romney Marshes area of critical environmental concerns. The ACEC designation is given by the state to places of significant natural and cultural resources. Ash landfills is right in the middle of it.
The site originally operated as an open air dump from 1960 to 1975. It was ordered closed by the town due to pollution complaints, but the governor declared an emergency order to keep it open. Litigation ended when the ended with the dump remaining open under the condition that a solid waste incineration facility be constructed to replace it.2888 This became Practice at time incinerator, Saugus the dump and the ash was temporarily stored in the marsh for future use and testing for things like road bed construction was ever. Since 1989 the landfill has operated under a MassDEP consent order. Permanent closure was slated for 1996. However DEP has granted nine amendments allowing landfill2909 expansions in both footprint and height for more than 25 years beyond the state. Today Wheelabrator company involved in in the largest environmental settlement in the state's history operates the facility.
In 2011, Wheelabrator paid $7.5 million to settle a state suit alleging violation of the Clean Water Act, Wetlands Protection Act and Hazards Management Act for improper disposal of contaminated sludge and wastewater and improper treatment of disposal of ash. These allegations were brought forth by whistleblowers not removed, routine monitoring. There is no regular sampling of groundwater inside the landfill or adjacent surface waters to determine if ash is leaching. Continued landfill operation is especially worrisome given its vulnerability to climate impact. Commonwealth has a2956 website page dedicated to climate change preparations. This should include closure and capping of an unlined ash landfill built on top of wetlands within a floodplain surrounded by water on free sides.
Those opposed to these bills will say trash needs to go somewhere and they're right. Many of the other bills proposed here today address this so much of what ends up in this landfill and2978 others food waste recyclables and materials that contain harmful toxic like PFAS shouldn't end up here in the first place. On a personal note, I grew up in east Saugus quarter mile from this facility. My back my back bad. I lived there for 22 years on a block with aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, great aunts and uncles. I watched too many fall ill with cancer, always wondering how much it was due to proximity of the incinerator and landfill. I'm no longer a Saugus resident, but I've stayed involved because this place will always be home and for many of my friends and family, it still is. This community has had to bear the burden of waste incineration in that landfill for decades. And it needs to stop3016 in time and time again. Those charges protecting the environment, our communities fail us. We need legislation to ensure closure and that a facility like this will never be built in this area or any others like it ever again. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony and I'm I'm sorry to hear about your family. Um and I deeply appreciate your testimony. Questions for Miss Howell.
Seeing none. Thank you again for your testimony. Absolutely. We are going to pause in the testimony on the trio of bills concerning Saugus as we are joined by rep day and there's some activity going on in the house chambers. We want to make sure to get him uh an opportunity to testify while while we can representive day if you like. Thanks so much uh for the opportunity to testify here and the accommodation given that we've got formal sessions starting.
[REP DAY:] [HB876] [HB878] So, good afternoon, Chair Chair Dykema and honourable members of this committee. I want to thank you sincerely for the opportunity to testify briefly before you on3081 H 876 and H 878 Congratulations to Chair Dykema on taking over the helm on this committee on the House side. Looking forward to working with you and the great things you're gonna do uh and appreciate the pollinators hanging out over your shoulders right now. Um, H 876 is hopefully pretty straightforward. It's an act to increase access to recycling in the Commonwealth. It requires basically any municipality offering curbside waste removal or municipally owned waste transfer stations to also provide recycling services. We saw that this gap existed during the debate over the bottle bill referendum a few years ago.
Um and this act would basically just patch that hole to ensure that we continue to make recycling waste accessible to everyone in the commonwealth, if you're living in a city should be able to offer that recycling3126 if there if there are hauling waste for you. The second bill um is H 878 that addresses what I'm seeing is a critical problem facing all of us and in particularly municipalities in our stewardship of our environment as the demand of the, as we all know, the demand of the foreign markets, the US Recyclables has dried up and our municipalities, pardon me, are facing astronomical increases in costs um in proportion that from cities like Boston and Springfield all the way to towns like Stow and Winchester that I represent.
Our partners in local government are looking at multi, multimillion dollar increases in waste disposal and recycling contracts. And I think compounding this problem is that we would get a perfect storm of a combination of increased delivery consumerism as I3173 call it, resulting from changing purchasing habits, as well as the distancing3178 necessities of the pandemic with the proliferation of non recyclable packaging. I Open a box3183 that arrives at my3184 door, I find a Russian nesting doll maze of packaging to get to whatever I got3189 being delivered there. I just want to be clear to be clear. This is an epidemic pandemic only phenomenon, right? This, the EPA Reported that more than 10% increase occurred in non recyclable plastics found in our landfills between 2010 and 2018, and that's obviously only gone up since the pandemic occurred.
H 878 uh is one of the few pieces of legislation that I've seen in my time here. That's been endorsed both by the Mass Municipal Association and leading environmental groups. And it employs an approach to this problem that addresses I think both the supply chain role in packaging production as well as the municipal responsibilities on the back end. And it does that two ways and I'll wrap up with this. First, it establishes the Sustainable Advisory packaging board or sustainable packaging advisory board, which is independent but sheltered under the Department of Environmental Protection Here in Massachusetts. That's going to be comprised of packaging industry leaders, municipal officials and state environmental regulators. Uh and it's gonna establish a protocol to calculate the tonnage of non recyclable packaging materials either imported or produced in Massachusetts by packaging corporations.
It then tasks the DEP with establishing a per tonnage fee structure for producers of non recyclable packaging packaging um Here in the commonwealth. It's essentially a sliding scale right, bringing a stick and a carrot to the party here by imposing higher fees unless recyclable materials and lower fees on more recyclable materials. And that's designed to encourage the packaging industry to adopt more sustainable practices. The board then takes those fees collected and reimburses municipalities for up to 80% of their recycling collection and processing costs for packaging waste also requires municipalities to do their part by filing a approved zero waste plan with the DEP.
So just to finish off if enacted, the bill is going to save recycling costs and taxpayer money will ease the burden on our municipalities and encourage responsible packaging practices from our manufacturers that are currently flooding the market with this type of material. So I asked that the committee once again report this bill out favorably as it did last term. Look forward to working with you all to that end and appreciate the time.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Chair Taekema, SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you, Madam. Chair appreciate it. And I just want to thank Chairman Day for filing these bills again. Uh we all know that this is a tremendous challenge for all of us, including our municipalities and I personally, your visual of the Russian nesting dolls of uh of cardboard in some of this packaging really resonated and we'll be taking a careful look at this bill and you provided a lot of sort of ideas for consideration and a lot of really practical ways forward. So appreciate that. I also, Madam Chair just wanted to take this opportunity to note that3361 the House is expected to go into session for votes At. 2:00 at any point I just want to ask or or say, appreciate everyone's patience in advance if we have to jump off on the House side to to vote today. So I appreciate your time. Never a dull moment in the Legislature. Thank you, madam. Chair uh3380 and thank you chair day for your testimony.
Okay. Oh, sorry, please. Hello. Thank you appreciate it. Fantastic. Thank you. Um All right, moving back to the trio of Saugus bills, um and Devlin please with Lester someone from these august action. Excuse me, It's august river watershed council, first name Lester last name unknown. Um On deck, Miss Devlin, please.
[ANN DEVLIN (SAVE):] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] [SB500] Hi, my name is Ann Devlin. I'm speaking today as the President of SAVE Saugus Action Volunteers for the Environment.3419 And I thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. I'm very, very excited about the list of bills being presenting which focused on a solid waste reduction because I think that without that reduction in solid waste, we can never solve the problems of incineration, ash dumping and the space limits of solid waste landfills. I moved to Saugus in 1979 shortly after the Wheelabrator incinerator was built. And at that time I was pretty excited about the idea of waste to energy3456 but learned over the years that the town did not benefit from the energy and all we got was the waste and toxic emissions.
Um the ash doesn't go away and 3 pounds of3469 trash becomes 1 pound of ash which is dumped on our precious marshland in an area of critical environmental concern. Over the years, I watched the DEP extend uh the date of the closure of the landfill over and over again in an area where the ash landfill should never have been situated. And and uh and and this landfill is not properly lined, has no ground water quality testing. Um and it's now up to 50 ft with no end in sight. Um for these reasons I support H 930 which would be in the expansion of landfills adjacent or in ACEs. H 931 which gives neighboring Board of Health a little more input some input that they don't have now H 932. Um which concerns Maybe a more definite date for closure of the Ash Landfill. And also S 500 which is very important to me, which would allow recycling of ionization of smoke detectors because it terrifies me to think of that collection of smoke detectors routinely being dumped um at the incinerator burned up. And then that that that ash ending up in the in the ash landfill as well. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you Miss Devlin. Any questions from the committee
Seeing none. Thank you again for your testimony.
Uh Lester unfortunately no last name from the Saugus River watershed council with Miss Jackie Mercury. Oh on deck
Lester are you with us?
Okay? Moving on. Miss Mercuria with matt Hughes on deck. Yeah, thanks.
[JACKIE MERCURIO (CONCERNED CITIZEN):] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] My name is Jackie Harris Mercurio and I'm here today to testify in support of Bill's H 930 931 and 932 all addressing the future of Wheelabrator Saugus site. I'm a Saugus resident that resides in the shadows of Wheelabrator, living less than a mile away for over 35 years. My entire family has lived in3624 this neighborhood for over 100 years. I3626 have grown watching3627 my family and neighbors suffer from different cancers, including five different cancers in my household of three. It is important that the state legislators take action to support these bills as the local boards in Saugus are just not using their power to protect us. Over the years, many residents, including myself have unsuccessfully asked local boards for various testing of water quality, noise monitoring and air quality to have an updated health study and most important a site assignment. I often have been scolded for asking questions locally and ignored by the SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay pete. Sorry, hold on. Sorry, don't worry, I'm a mom too.
Sorry, let me3676 just grab this.
[MERCURIO:] But I have often been scolded3678 for asking questions locally and ignored by the MassDEP. The last public health study released in 2016 was as public health study released in 2016 was incomplete and lacked data from surrounding communities yet despite the deficiencies that found that statistically sufficient elevations occurred in brain and other nervous system cancers among females and in testicular cancer among males. The data collected for this study was from 2011 through 15. Today, we still have no further investigation nor updated studies have occurred.
My mom stood in person at the statehouse giving testimony just a few short years ago supporting bills similar to the these, begging state legislators to take action and start protecting human life rather than protecting the largest corporate polluter in the state to date. One month after her last plea, she was diagnosed with brain cancer specifically connected to an environment environmental pollutants and lost her battle within 153744 months of diagnosis. 15 months is the average survival rate of this rare brain cancer that less than 1% of the population will endure. That same year, three3755 neighbors just yards away from also lost their lives to this rare disease.
Mom's physical therapist cared for nine patients in less than three mile radius in the month she was recovering from her brain surgery. These numbers are scary to neighbors like myself are local town government has not taken the time to investigate nor, protect us. I stand before you just like my mom Pam Harris asking for protection support and simply help. Please choose to protect our neighbors and vote to support change. Even if you question health impacts Saugus Revere and Lynn deserve to breathe clean air. We have endured over 45 years of everyone's burning trash in3797 our backyards. Please block future permits for expansion and encourage capping enclosure. This needs3804 to end so that my two year old daughter does not have to stand in front of legislators demanding the same protections her mom and grandmother have. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much ma'am for your testimony. I'm so very sorry for your loss. Um Vice Chair dom Yeah. Can you hear me okay? Yes we can.
Oh well we could, but now you seem to be on mute. Mhm.3837 Is that better? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I love teams.
[DOMB:] I just want to say thank you for your testimony and I'm very sorry for your family and your community's loss when you started to describe and identify the people in your neighborhood, including your own family who have contracted similar um cancer illnesses um it sparked a question in me. And I'm wondering if you have um and if there has been I'm sorry that I don't know um hotspots sort of assessment study by3872 the Department of Public Health at the state level regarding your neighborhood. And thank you for any information you could share about this.
[MERCURIO:] So unfortunately we have not had any additional studies since the um incomplete Public study that was done in 2016. And that information3891 was collected um just on Saugus and it was from the information in the data of public health from 2011 to 2015. Um We've never had any studies expand, you3908 know the Lynn and Revere neighborhoods. So it would be awesome if we could find some some way to get some information on all people affected.
[DOMB:] And was that 2,016 report conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Public Health?
[MERCURIO:] Department of Public Health.
3929 [DOMB:]3929 Thank3929 you and thank you again for your testimony. I really appreciate you being here and I also appreciate hearing your child in the background as a reminder of what's at stake. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So thank you. Thank you and I apologize for the back. Please don't apologize. Thank you know. No apologies. We welcome Children at these hearings. Any additional questions from the committee?
Yeah, seeing none. Thank you ma'am for your testimony.
Okay. Mr matt Hughes please, followed by Jeff Wilson.
[MATT HUGHES (WIN WASTE INNOVATION):] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] Good afternoon Chair Rausch and Dykema. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and also thank you Members of the committee. I'm the senior environmental Manager for WIN Waste Innovations and responsible, among other things, for managing environmental compliance at our massachusetts waste to energy facility. I'm speaking in opposition to proposed bills, the house bills 930 931 and 932. WIN Waste Innovations' waste to energy facility residue landfill in Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary in Saugus Massachusetts played a vital role in sustainable3997 waste management, producing renewable energy, reducing greenhouse gases, supporting recycling and expanding wildlife conservation.
Every day we process post recycled household waste and offset the methane and greenhouse gases from thousands of tractor trailer trips to distant landfills in the need for fossil fuels to create energy. We also recycle tens of thousands of tons of metals that would otherwise go to a landfill. In addition, we create millions of dollars of local jobs, taxes and economic investment in local businesses and are an active member of the civic community. Our Saugus operation is responsible for generating approximately $28 million worth of economic activity on the north shore, including $8 million dollars in jobs and purchases of goods and services.
We also share revenue from the sale of renewable energy credits to support state sponsored recycling programs. WIN Waste Innovation4048 Saugus and its adjacent ash landfill are, and have been a vital part of the Massachusetts solid waste management infrastructure since 1975. Our Saugus operation provides a local solution repulsed recycled solid waste management, converting 1500 tons per day of household waste in the 37 MW of clean renewable energy enough to power approximately 38,000 homes. Municipal contracts with North Shore communities including Saugus Lynn and Revere, demonstrate the importance of the Saugus facility as a component of the local infrastructure. In Massachusetts WIN Waste Innovation operates similar plants in North Andover, in Milbury and an ash landfill in Shrewsbury. The USPA recognizes the benefit of waste energy and recycling over land filling waste and it's published management hierarchy and as a greenhouse gas reducer.
In a recent United Nations report, the reduction of methane was recognized as an essential way to mitigate climate change. The report also noted that two of the largest producers of methane from human activity, are energy from fossil fuels and landfill methane. In the waste to energy process we reduce methane by avoiding the need for energy from fossil fuels in land.4114 A recent independent review of waste to energy by City College of New York found that waste to energy4120 facilities offer significant environmental protection, reduce greenhouse gas emissions can play an important complementary role in recycling efforts.
The study also cited peer4129 reviewed scientific studies that show waste to energy facilities do not adversely affect human health and the highly regulated conversion process has a negligible impact on air quality compared to emissions from trucking and other4142 project related airport. Regarding proposed House Bill 930 which prohibits the landfill or expansion of a landfill in an area of critical environmental concern or ACEC. The Saugus landfill and the facility were fully permitted and operating when the ACEC was established in 1989. WIN Waste Innovation subsequently constructed the environmental controls that isolate approximately 150 acres of previously placed waste trash placed from 1950 to 1975 from the environment, as well as isolating ash from the ongoing operations. By installing approximately two mile long barrier wall and groundwater protection system around the land. Thank you. I will submit the written testimony for the balance of what I was gonna say. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Mr Hughes question from rep gentile
representive. You're on mute.
[REP GENTILE:] Thank you madam. Chair uh Mr Hughes could you could you could you inform the committee how many how many tons of particular matter uhdoes your facility discharge into the atmosphere each month?
[HUGHES:] I don't I don't have that information in front of me but we file annual reports with the DEP that would summarize all the emissions from the facility.
[GENTILE:] And can you tell me if the uh the the waste that is burned uh between midnight and 2:00 AM is different in quality and kind than what what's burned during daylight hours?
[HUGHES:] There is no difference, sir. It's the trash is is the same. There's not there's not nothing. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
[GENTILE:] Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Rob gentile. Uh Vice tracked down, please.
[DOMB:] Thank you, madam Chair. Um Good afternoon Mr Hughes and thank you for being here. I have two questions that I'm hoping that you can answer. One is um you referenced a environmental report by City College. But I think um in the conclusion, you said it was talking about4261 facilities and I'm wondering if you have a report specifically for the facility that we're looking at in Massachusetts?
[HUGHES:] Well, this report was like, like as you correctly pointed out, is for waste energy facilities which we are one.
[DOMB:] So that's a general report but not specific to the facility in Saugus, is that correct?
[HUGHES:] Again, it's a report of overall waste energy4283 facilities. Yes.
[DOMB:] So do you know of a report that's been done by the company or an independent entity about this particular facility?
[HUGHES:] I am not.
[DOMB:] Okay my second4294 question. If I may, could you explain? And I really don't um know the um the ins and outs of solid waste facilities that well. So could you explain why this particular facility is not lined? We've heard some concerns from neighbors about it not being lined. And I'm wondering if you could shed some light on a why it wouldn't be lined and b why a new facility would be lined?
[HUGHES:] So this facility started as we discussed, you know, in 19 early 1950s. And you know, at that time it was just that's how the business was run uh and not just in Saugus but other parts of the country. So it has to be noted that in addition to the slurry barrier wall that surrounds the facility, uh there is a layer of Boston blue clay that underlines that site. The slurry wall is not only surrounds the waste but it actually is placed inside of the the clay so essentially walks in it's effectively the same as a as a lined landfill. Different technology that is recognized by4357 the DEP
[DOMB:] So I'm sorry, did I miss that? So would a new facility moving forward have that particular technology or that would be lined?
[HUGHES:] No standards have changed.
[DOMB:] Um And why have those standards changed?
[HUGHES:] Uh Well I mean evolution of technology and knowledge of environment, uh you know things evolve and change over time over.
[DOMB:] So if our knowledge now says that we should use a4386 different standard than the one that was done, would there be a willingness on the part of the company to review that and sort of make accommodation for that? And could they in fact line it retroactively?
[HUGHES:] The technology that we have in place right now with the slurry wall and the clay liner underneath is equivalent to a lined landfill.
[DOMB:] But currently if you were creating a new landfill, you would use a liner. Yes.4409
[HUGHES:] Yes.
[DOMB:] Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, madam. Vice chair. Any additional questions from the committee?
Mr Hughes. If you uh would uh submit some evidence in writing as to the equivalence, umm I can this is mindy dom on present. Uh huh. Uh Madam Vice Chair. You're you're not on mute.
Thank you. Mr Hughes. I welcome you to submit materials and evidence as to the equivalence between the slurry and clay that is currently used at the landfill uh4454 with as compared to the new technology. Absolutely, thank you very much for your testimony. Uh Mr Jeff Wilson to be followed by steve uh, Congress. I apologize if I'm mispronouncing your name.
[JEFF WILSON (BEAR CREEK WILDLIFE SANCTUARY):] [HB930] [HB931] [HB932] Good afternoon and thank you Chairman Rausch and Chairman Dykema for the4476 opportunity to be here today. My name is Jeff Wilson and I'm the founder of a small environmental firm that specializes in the restoration of sensitive ecosystems and a longtime co manager at the Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary in Saugus. In my position, I frequently serve4490 in an advisory capacity to many federal state and local natural resource managers, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration and the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Since 1994 have been intimately involved in the design, construction and management of the WIN Waste Innovations. Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, a 340 acre migratory wildlife sanctuary integrated into the active ash landfill at the WIN Waste Innovations Saugus monofill.4524 I am writing to you today to voice my concern over House Bill 930 House Bill 931 and House Bill 932. The sanctuary is a unique opportunity to exemplify a well documented sustainable living model because all of the upland habitats are man made and integrated into an active industrial site cohabitating by three land uses. The example of how these commercial entities are coexisting with some of the rarest habitats in Massachusetts is being used by environmentalists throughout the gulf of Maine and will someday be adapted for future environmental planners for use at other industrial facilities.
The Bear Creek4563 Wildlife Sanctuary is located adjacent to a 2,274 acre portion of the Romney Marshes estuary in Saugus and Revere. Since its inception, the sanctuary was designed to complement the salt marsh habitats in the4579 Romney Marshes by providing habitats of The nine coastal ecosystems lost in the perimeter of the estuary. Due to development. To date our birding community has documented 204 species at the sanctuary, including regularly observed 18 state listed4593 species and an extremely rare long spur that has been documented at the sanctuary two out of the four times it's ever been seen in the state. This documented success has established the Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary as one of the largest migratory birds staging areas on the north shore and resulted in certification of the sanctuary by the Wildlife Habitat Council as both a wildlife at work and corporate lands for learning location.
Each season, our wildlife team actively manages nine coastal ecosystems that provide habitat and migratory food sources4629 for the 200 birds, migratory bird species that visit the sanctuary. Because the sanctuary is an upland island in the heart of a large estuary to maintain the highest productivity rates possible it is necessary for our team to balance the succession trajectories of all nine ecosystems, including the management of native plant communities that provide while food sources for the migratory songbirds, maximize native and domestic pollinator populations that fertilize the plant communities and control certain herbivorous insect populations, maintain winter raptor populations to control mammalian herbivores and manage invasive species without the use of herbicides and pesticides to maintain a pollinator friendly environment. We also provide several public outreach programs including SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Dimon er overtime. Thank you. Um I will submit4679 the rest remainder of my um testimony. Thank you very much. Questions from the committee,
seeing none. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
Uh Mr Cheng Grease, please uh followed by Maureen Doyle. And again, I apologize if I have mispronounced your name. Very fine.
[STEVEN CHANGARIS (NWRA):] Thank you. Uh Madam Chairwoman, Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name's Steve Changaris. I'm the Massachusetts chapter director for the National Waste and Recycling Association. The member companies that operate the waste energy plants to landfills. The recycling centers the transfer stations, the Organics management facilities, collection routes, the whole um fleet of environmental services offered under the solid waste and management umbrella. Um we've reported to the committee over the years and pleasure to report to you.
You know, last year we reported that we had a labour shortage with wage inflation, that we face critical safety issues for our workforce, that we had increasing costs and inflation on our fuel trucks and parts that we had depressed recyclable commodity values and that we were dealing with the significant loss of in state disposal capacity, which affects our daily operations tremendously. Unfortunately of these five issues, the only one that we've seen improvement on the last year is the recycled for some of the recyclable commodities we manage. Markets are coming back. We're turning the corner on the down cycle that we had.
Um, there4775 are some 404777 bills on the agenda today. We're reducing today's oral testimony to three general topics and we're going to submit more specific testimony on each bill. We've identified extended producer responsibility as a topic. We've identified based standards per capita targets and4793 waste minimization as another. And then the third category special legislation. We could sink our teeth into almost any one of the bills on the agenda today, uh, and go hours with you about how they work and can work well. Um But we'll just leave it on the three big 30,000 ft views. Um You know, generally um uh we see again uh one off recycle EPR Issues for mattresses, paint smoke detectors, those kind of programs and then a more general one for4824 producer responsibility for things like what we consider traditional recyclables a broad array of packaging.
Um but with our industry, we generally have one concern or another with the various EPR proposals and a lot of it has to do with that you're overlaying a new system on an existing system. My group has no uh you know, problem with getting manufacturers and product consumer brand companies, you know, involved in the process and contributing and helping with the design or packaging and reducing the packaging amounts. We that's all important appropriately think that's great. The and we also will offer up the fact that we know our municipal colleagues, our customers, you know, believe that they should be have more of a financial role. Uh, and there's, I've heard it already in the committee, there's this image that you're going to displace the cost from the towns uh to the manufacturers.
Um, again, I might be playing the role of the emperor has no clothes here. The broad who says the emperor has no clothes, but at the end of the day, the citizens of Massachusetts pay for this, whether we pay for it in a property tax,4892 whether we pay for it, especially at a special fee at the point of sale, or whether the manufacturers have to put it into their uh purchase price of products. So, um, and we've seen few of these programs that are4904 able to really um, mesh all of those various issues well so that we can have a good EPR program. We want to be involved in the discussion. I know in a matter of time we'll get to the other issues4916 in the written testimony4917 and appreciate the committee's uh review of these matters. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Mr Cheng, generous questions from the committee.
Seeing then thank you for your testimony.
Um Miss Maureen Doyle to be followed by Diane Brown.
Mhm.
Miss Doyle.
Okay, moving on. Uh Miss Diane Brown, co4954 chair of the women working for oceans.
Uh There you are. Here I am.
[DIANNE BROWN (W2O):] [HB869] [SB579] [HB3829] [SB2149] [HB878] [SB610] Hello, my name is Dianne Mutakaitis Brown. I am a longtime resident of Massachusetts, currently residing in Boston's Southend neighborhood. I'm also co chair of Women Working for Oceans an independent, all volunteer environmental organizations seeking to promote and maintain the health of our global oceans which make up 70% of the earth's surface. Um, I'm here today to ask for your support and4985 vote on three pieces of pending legislation. Um, H 869 S. 579 H. 3289 S 2149 H. 878 S 610 Um All three bills promote cleaner communities through the reduction of litter, water and air pollution.
All three bills will be economically positive for cities and towns across the commonwealth and the commonwealth itself, and all three bills will help address climate change by increasing the sustainability and promoting a circular economy in the packaging and consumer products industries. All three bills will also help to elevate the commonwealth nationally and globally from an aspirational participant to one of a growing number of leaders in fighting plastic pollution. Although I am an environmental advocate, this is personal too from the air I breathe in my Southend neighborhood to the pollution on the street, which we, which when we experienced heavy downpours washes into the harbor for our street storm drain system.
Um, just yesterday, um, it's everywhere and the current bills aren't working and just yesterday shores delivered plastic bags to my house that were so thick, I5050 could use them as rain boots and now I'm stuck looking for a way to reuse and recycle them. In the past few months I spent time in Maine and Vermont on some early post-Covid vacations and our neighbors to the north are ahead of us on this issue. And it shows when you walk the streets, beaches and shorelines. There is less litter. The air and water are clean and not full of debris, fish and wildlife are thriving, not wading in a sea of plastic. Please support the three above named bills and I thank you for your time today and for allowing me to testify. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony and your advocacy. Any questions from the committee5084
seeing then? Thank you Miss Brown,
Mr Neel Ryan. Followed by jennifer Peterson,
Mr Ryan,
Mr Ryan. Last call.
Okay. Moving on. Miss jennifer Peterson please followed by mary Sapolsky.
Jennifer Peterson of the Mass Waterworks Association.
Okay, mary Sibyl Sibyl see. Excuse me.
Okay. Moving on. Claire Gronkowski.
Hello? Yes, I'm here. I'm just, I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. He's here to do you want her to go first? You too can choose. Hey, All right. Um, mary, why don't you go and then I'll go. Um, sorry, I've never, I've never done this before and I'll be quite frank. I do not know what I'm doing. Um, but um, I'm going to give it a try.
[MARY ??? (MOT):] [HB87] [HB69] Um, my name is Mary ???. Um, I am a member of a completely volunteer group called Mothers out Front. I'm here to speak in favour in5194 particular of H87 and H5197 69. But I have to say, I think all of these bills sound pretty fantastic and I really5204 think that those people in Saugus need help. That sounds like a disaster. I'm an MD and I have a Master's in public health and that kind of a cancer cluster could only be caused by an environmental toxin. I don't even think you really need to investigate it. It's just perfectly clear. I've lived in Massachusetts for almost four years, but I grew up in eastern Kentucky so I can tell you what it is like to live in an environmental sacrifice zone.
My home was about 20 miles from the coal mines. My uncle was permanently blinded in a mining accident at the age of 29. Plastic is made of two things fossil fuel and toxic additives. Many of these additives are known carcinogens like benzene and. Some of the others are not known But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to surmise breathing, drinking and even plastic is not good for you. Recycling plastic reminds me of smoking when I was a kid a total of eight packs of cigarettes per day was smoked by the adults in my household. I remember the stir that the surgeon general caused when putting the cancer warnings on the packages. The tobacco companies knew they were selling a product that was addictive and carcinogenic as did the government.
The cost5275 of smoking to the government, the taxpayers and the health care system is estimated by the CDC to be $300 billion a year. Currently that is a lot of money for society and taxpayers to pay so the tobacco companies can continue5290 can continue to sell a product that kills people. The surgeon general put a sticker on it, but we are still paying the price and the blame was shifted to the addicted consumers rather than the producers who have continued to make money. Almost $800 million in 2020. The EPA reported that less than 9% of plastic was recycled in 2018. Many plastics cannot be recycled and no plastic can be recycled more than once. As with Tobaccos, as with tobacco our municipalities and taxpayers are paying to allow poisonous industry to push their products.
Like the sticker on the cigarettes, responsibility is shifted from the industry to the consumer. They make the money and we we pay to clean up the mess often with our own lives, not just our tax dollars. The only way to prevent our current current climate crisis from becoming an overwhelming disaster is to stop using fossil fuel, which includes plastics as demand for fossil fuel for heating and transportation is slowly decreasing the petrochemical industry is increasingly shifting its production to plastic.
This type of economic abuse and environmental destruction cannot be stopped by individual action alone. People expect government to protect them primary and they are tired of government using our taxes to support industries that causes harm. Please support these bills. I would name them, but I'm just going to get mixed up to protect your families, your constituents and the planet. We need to start to bring an end to the petrochemical industries plastic backup plan. Thank you very much. And I did it. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Congratulations on your first testimony. 1st. My first, my first thing. I'm very excited. Thank5399 you lady. Thank you. Not just ladies, but everyone for listening. I appreciate it. Thank you. Dr civil see any questions from the committee
seeing then thank you again for your testimony. And we will5413 move to a claire Dalkowski with Vincent Lawrence Dickson on deck.
[CLAIRE GALKOWSKI (SSRC):] [HB878] [HB938] [HB988] [HB995] Hi, thank you for taking my testimony. My name's Claire Dalkowski. I'm the director of the South Shore Recycling Cooperative. I work for the solid waste managers of 17 towns on the South Shore and I'm here to ask that the committee report out an act to save recycling costs in the commonwealth H 878 plus a couple of Senate versions. This bill shifts the cost of recycling printed paper and packaging from towns, taxpayers and ratepayers to the brand owners that sells them sell them. My board also unanimously supports producer responsibility bills for paint and mattresses, H 938 and H 988 as well as H 995 which requires transparency and disclosure by material recovery facilities.
And that's a whole another testimony. I hope you'll just read the, read the written testimony. Today. I'm going to focus on H 878. In the early 20th century cities established public health programs to collect ashes, food scraps and carcasses from the streets. Most other things were recycled. Since that time, brand owners have persuaded consumers to use more and more personal care, convenience and single use products. Direct mail and other paper intense advertising continues to this day. Since municipalities weren't providing disposal service the producers didn't concern themselves with what happened to their stuff after they advertised and sold it. Consumers are now hooked on unnecessary products, frustrated by excessive packaging and confused by misleading labelling about recyclability.
Today our nearly seven million Massachusetts residents discard about 10 times our collective body weights in consumer products every year. Nearly half of that consists of the materials that are covered in this bill, H 878. In the 80s we started recycling. How lovely brand owners pointed to recycling to pretend their products and packaging or benign. But this imposed big challenges and costs on municipal governments, schools and other entities that had to deal with this stuff. And believe me, paper and glass and metal are not benign products either any more than plastic is. Many items that are technically recyclable are not practically economically or even environmentally feasible to do so. This is an example. We can't recycle milk cartons because they're multi layer mm hmm.
Um number 3, 6 and 7 plastics are5570 another example. Thus about 20% of our recycling stream is trash which makes it hard for our processors to sort it and sell it, sell the good5579 stuff. It's time the producers that profit from the future trash they sell take responsibility for the cost and environmental consequences of their products. H 878 bridges the disconnect between packaging design and its ultimate5592 destiny. It gives producers incentive to use more efficient packaging, less paper, more recycled content. And it helps municipalities and processors to build a recycling system. Okay I'm out of time. Uh I hope you'll read my written testimony which goes into detail about how H 878 can put things right and forestall a looming disposal crisis And also on H 995 which5619 would provide relief to municipal governments in negotiating contracts for their recycling. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the committee
to see uh seeing none. Thank you again for your testimony. And I do look forward to reading your written submission as well. Mhm. Uh Mr Vincent Dixon to be followed by robert. Goguen. Mhm. Yes. Good afternoon. How are you able to hear me? Okay? We can hear you5651 sir. Please go for it.
[VINCENT DICKSON (CONCERNED CITIZEN):] [SB578] Great, thank you very much. My name is Vincent Lawrence Dickson 60 Lake Street Unit and Winchester Mass 01890. I'm appearing to support a proposed piece of legislation authored by myself based on recent discoveries regarding recycling issues and a particular approach that is known in Germany and has been to some extent been copied elsewhere called the green, the German Green Dot Waste Reduction Standard. Within the day I following up on this testimony, I will forward some additional reference material regarding these concepts. Recycling has various aspects of complexity that intersect as we in Massachusetts and more broadly across the United States analyze and approach various environmental matters.
Recycling itself is not by itself likely the goal rather our ultimate goals must include waste reduction, not just re processing and disposal of materials. While respecting5713 the needs of the millions of individual smaller businesses and individual entrepreneurs I have been and I'm one myself we need to, in the terms of a popular and appropriate word of our time, hybridize our approaches. The German Green Dot Program now been in place for perhaps 15 to 20 years, focuses on waste reduction by encouraging manufacturers to design packaging that is more efficient and less in amount. Less is more a valuable description of this set of ideals. After all, we want to have safely and unbroken delivery of goods, but not unnecessarily be contributors to the waste stream processing of recyclable materials can be significantly improved.
The German Green Dot Program rewards corporate participation in important packaging standards by allowing companies to display a recognizable green dot on their packaging. A 21 member5771 of Massachusetts Climate Action Advisory Council, MCAAC was established by this legislation to enable the development of appropriate standards and incentives for corporations, businesses, services and other groups and individuals. As I've been careful to do in the writing of legislation, the text of S 578 is quite straightforward and should help further defining the appropriate actions that can help further improve our environment.
I look forward to appropriate intersection with your committee, your staff and such other individuals5805 who are interested in accomplishing these needed goals. It's my belief that we should simply look at the German program, transform it into a program in Massachusetts and move forward since they have 15 to 20 years of valuable experience in this and perhaps bring our own wisdom to it. Thank you. And I look forward to any further contact as a useful SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you sir for your testimony. Any questions from the committee,
seeing none will move on to mr robert. Goguen followed by Michael.
Yeah, Mr Hogan.
Okay. Mr Michael or followed by one eta Trabert, please?
[MICHAEL ORR (CITY OF CAMBRIDGE):] [HB938] [HB988] [HB878] [HB979] Good afternoon and thank you, madam Chair, I'm Michael Orr recycling director for the city of Cambridge. As program costs continue to rise and disposal capacity in Massachusetts continue to shrink Cambridge seeking action from the legislature to shift costs away from municipalities and to reduce our impact on the environment. There are four extended producer responsibility bills or EPR5881 bills that the city of Cambridge urges the joint committee to move favorably on. The city of Cambridge Ask that the joint committee moved favorably on the House bill 938 988 878 and 979 passing EPR legislation on paint, mattresses, paper and packaging, and electronic waste.
5899 On5899 paint we know that there5902 are 10 states and the Washington and Washington, D. C. That have passed identical bills. The American Codings Association who represents the paint manufacturers support this law, and current pain EPR laws have shown that there is the net savings to consumers and taxpayers. Furthermore, EPR legislation would help curtail improper paint disposal, which leads to pollution in our watersheds On mattresses we have programs in place in Connecticut, Rhode Island and California that5927 have a proven record of managing mattresses. This bill is important because it has demonstrated cost savings Connecticut has reported at $1.6 million saved annually through a mattress recycling program.
We know these5940 programs can create new jobs, and with MassDEP intending to ban mattresses from trash disposal by fall of 2021, a mattress EPR law would reduce costs to municipalities. Currently without EPR cities like Cambridge across Massachusetts will have to pay $16 per mattress for disposal, but in the state with an EPR Law like Connecticut, they would only have to pay $9 per mattress. This is a 40% reduction in costs for municipalities. On recycling costs there is little incentive for producers that make recycling. Um there's little incentive for producers to make recycling their products easy, clear or accessible. They like to keep it complicated and let the municipalities and states have to figure it all out on their own.
So EPR for packaging and paper would assist municipalities in the financial burden. It would incentivize producers to design products and packaging that would help municipalities and waste management professionals. And we have seen examples in the EU Canadian provinces, Brazil, Japan, South Africa and other countries have enacted EPR for packaging, and several states are actively pursuing that this year as well. Um and following up on a question to Rep Owens about e-waste costs. I can tell you that Cambridge spends approximately $100,000 per year to manage epwaste. Um these are not insignificant numbers6017 for managing e-waste, paint mattresses and recycling.
Um So in summary, we we urge and and really support EPR legislation because they're the best and longest lasting impact to make waste management more sustainable financially and environmentally. And it brings all the actors in the marketplace, consumers for producers to government and waste management to work collaboratively create a more just and efficient waste management system. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. And actually, if6045 you have the costs, um Cambridge is spending on kind of each piece of the waste management work that you've described and you can submit that to the committee in writing. I would appreciate those figures. Thank you Mr. Or additional questions from the committee.
Seeing none. Thank you sir for your testimony. Moving to Juanita Trabert, followed by Stephanie aquarium.
[WANETA TRABERT (MASSPSC):] [HB938] [SB569] [SB517] [HB878] Hi, thank you, madam Chairs and the joint committee for the hearing Today. I'm Waneta Trabert, the chair of the Massachusetts Product Stewardship Council. Our mission is to shift the6090 costs of materials management away from municipalities onto product manufacturers by advocating for product stewardship, and extended producer responsibility policies and programs. Massachusetts faces a looming disposal capacity crisis that will significantly increase the cost of managing our trash in the next five to 10 years. Bold action is needed from our state's leadership to develop sustainably funded collection networks to make doing the right thing easier for everyone. Extended producer6122 responsibility laws are that proven solution.
The time has come from massachusetts to adopt extended producer responsibility laws. This is a policy mechanism that more fairly distributes the costs to manage materials at the end of their useful life. The cost is distributed among producers and individual consumers who choose to purchase hard to manage products. This6146 way, the cost to manage these products is not the burden of all taxpayers through municipal operations. I ask that the committee vote favourably on Bill H 938 to establish a paint stewardship program in the commonwealth. I asked that the committee vote favourably on Bill S 569 to create a sustainably funded mattress recycling program. Implementing this program is the logical next step for Massachusetts following the successful mattress recycling incentive grant program from MassDEP to build mattress recycling infrastructure in the state.
I ask that the committee vote favourably on Bill S. 517, same as H 878 to establish a packaging and paper product uh stewardship program. In a survey that the6198 Product Stewardship Council has been Performing in the past couple of months um we've received 27 responses representing 12% of the total population in Massachusetts. The annual recycling costs from these communities totaled nearly $16 million. Um this law would require manufacturers to reimburse municipalities for recycling costs while preserving and improving existing infrastructure. Dozens of countries around the world and several Canadian provinces have enacted extended producer responsibility for packaging, an effort to divide the costs of managing packaging waste more equitably. Thank you for your service and leadership and for your consideration of my testimony today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, Mr robert and I apologize for mispronouncing your name. Uh Any questions from the committee?
Seeing none. Thank you again for your advocacy. Uh Miss Stephanie aquarium, followed by scott cassell
Madam chair. My apologies.6267 I don't think I hit my my hand raised in time. Could I ask a quick question of the previous presenter?
[REP DYKEMA:] Thank you. I very much appreciate your testimony and it um got me thinking about a question I've had for a while and I'm hoping I'm hoping I can ask it clearly, first of all, um and and I would appreciate the benefits of your insights. So a couple of these previous presenters had noted the benefit of um producer responsibility and because manufacturers would be paying more essentially for um less efficient packaging. This producer responsibility would encourage manufacturers to look at how they're producing these products and hopefully produce them in a way that is um less waste intensive and more um more environmentally friendly.
And so my question is if you are taking the costs6324 and instead of putting those costs6326 on manufacturers and you're putting them instead on the public as a fee, I'm wondering where is the incentive since the manufacturer isn't themselves bearing the responsibility for the recycling and instead passing that on to the consumer, where is the incentive for the manufacturer to kind of redesign and redevelop and be creative about how they manufacture their products in a more environmentally sustainable way?
[TRABERT:] That's a great question. So the establishment of the fee can be based on the characteristics of the material. So in certain EPR bills there is eco modulated fees. What that means is that if something if a product that's put on the market say a mattress. If a mattress is easier to break down and disassemble and recycle the fee on that mattress6379 would be less. And so that's more advantageous to producers. They don't want to have their products have a higher fee on them.6387 And so that would just need to be built into the system. Um it's a little bit less for paint, but I would say for paint EPR um the incentive is built6399 in also to the legislation or the regulation where manufacturers would be accountable for a certain amount of education.
Um and a lot of states that have this existing programs have asked for a lot of education on reducing the amount of unwanted paint that's generated. And so that's just a requirement of the stewardship plan in the overall EPR system. Packaging is a lot more complicated. But I would say looking at those eco modulated fees if something is more recyclable or if it has uh low amount of material put6438 into it then it would have a lower fee. And those fees are very, so the fees for packaging are not a point of sale fee which is different than paint and mattresses. Um same with electronics, electronics and packaging, the cost is actually internalized at the producer6458 level. And so that's why the cost would be put into the retail price of the item. But it would be, you know, pennies uh for packaging would be less than a penny on each individual item that would be purchased. I hope that was helpful.
[DYKEMA:] Okay, it is helpful. It's it's definitely an issue I like to think about and talk about a little bit more, but I appreciate the6487 clarification. Thank you, madam Chair. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Um Any additional questions for MS. Trabert.
Okay, seeing them again, we will move forward. Thank you again for your testimony. Um And your response to church Dogmas question uh Miss Stephanie aquarium is next followed by scott cassell.
Thank you so much. Can you hear me? All right? We can. Yes, thank you. Perfect.
[STEPHANIE AQUARIO (CLF):] [HB979] [HB988] Good afternoon. My6523 name is Stephanie Aquario. Oh I'm a legal intern for the Conservation Law Foundation and I'm testifying in support6529 of producer responsibility for electronic products and6532 mattresses. In addition I'm testifying in opposition to additional studies to explore management of mattresses. First, the Conservation Law Foundation strongly supports producer responsibility programs for electronic products. We encourage the committee to consider the adoption of such a program because it would generate important cost savings from municipalities while keeping hazardous materials out of our landfills and incinerators. Many persistent pollutants and heavy metals such as lead mercury and more are present in electronic waste.
When that electronic waste is buried or burned these hazardous chemicals and metals at extreme toxicity to landfill leachate and incinerator ash. There are 25 US States which have already passed producer responsibility programs in6577 place for electronics. Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine all have had electronic waste recycling programs since 2011, which has brought substantial benefits to their respective states. Connecticut's municipalities have saved over $6 million and avoided disposal fees. Massachusetts should join their6595 fellow New Englanders in adopting an electronics producer responsibility program.6598
Additionally, the Conservation Law Foundation supports producer responsibility program for mattresses, mattresses are bulky, they don't compact, they create flammable air pockets and landfills and they damage processing equipment because of this, the disposal of mattresses is increasingly expensive, straining already, tight municipal budgets. Mattresses are also part of the waste ban regulations implemented by the MassDEP so without stewardship legislation, there will be no mechanism to fund the recycling of or disposal of mattresses in accordance with the waste ban. We want to make sure there is a system in place that reinforces what DEP is doing. The Conservation Law Foundation supports a producer responsibility system for mattresses that results in the most recycling and the most green job creation.
One that is safe, sustainable and equitable. That system is possible right now without additional studies that waste taxpayer dollars exploring programs that we already know will work. That system is also possible with state6657 agencies and municipalities in control. Mattress companies should have their voice heard by the state and municipalities but should not be the final decision maker or implementer of any produced responsibility regarding mattresses. Producer responsibility bills lift the burden of recycling and disposal costs from the state and municipalities and relieve our tired and overfilled landfills while keeping our citizens safe from harmful pollution and create green jobs. Thank you for your attention and for your consideration. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the committee.
Seeing none. Thank you again. Uh moving forward to mr scott cassell followed by terrence Mcdonald.
[SCOTT CASSEL (PSI):] [HB878] [HB938] [SB569] Yes good afternoon madam chairs and Representative Gentile. My name is Scott Cassel I'm the CEO and founder of the Product Stewardship Institute PSI. I'm here to express support for H 878 and H 938 as introduced and S 569 with recommendations. PSI is a 20 year old national nonprofit organization based right here in Boston. Before starting PSI I was the director of waste policy for Massachusetts in the Environmental Secretariat for seven years. Our organization PSI works extensively to develop policies that hold producers responsible for reducing waste from the products and packaging that they put on the market and all three bills I'm testifying on today are producer responsibility bills.
There are 122 such laws already passed on 14 products in 33 states. Regarding H 878 packaging this bill is based on our policy model and was developed with a broad coalition of Massachusetts, municipalities and environmental NGOs. The same model was used to directly um6773 develop or inform packaging producer responsibility bills introduced this year in Vermont New York Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Washington and other states. The bill is similar to successful packaging recycling systems operating around the world for over 35 years. The6792 bill will save Massachusetts local governments tens of millions of dollars reduce waste, increase recycling, reduce greenhouse gases and create recycling jobs.
Regarding H 938 paint this bill is based on a model bill that I actually personally mediated in 2007 with the paint industry, the US Environmental Protection Agency, state and local government agencies, and paint recyclers. That model is the basis for laws already enacted in Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and six other states. And we know this bill really works very well. It will save6829 Massachusetts up to $12 million in paint management costs recovering more than 1.6 million gallons of leftover paint and create recycling jobs right here in Massachusetts with an existing paint recycler called RECOLOR.
This program is extremely popular with retailers all over the country that volunteer to collect leftover paint in their stores because6851 this program brings increased foot traffic for zero cost to them. Regarding S 569 mattresses I personally helped develop the agreement with the mattress recycling council seven years ago that led to producer responsibility laws first in Connecticut, then California and Rhode Island. I support S 569 um that bill, but not the industry's house bill because it needs to be upgraded based on our knowledge about problematic issues with the6882 original bill in the three states and how they've been fixed. And our recommendations are part of a joint support letter that will be sent to the committee following this hearing. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you for your testimony. And I do look forward to reading your written submission uh questions for Mr Castle. I apologize also for having mispronounced your name
questions from the committee.
Seeing then, thank you again sir for your testimony.
Uh Mr Terence Mcdonald, followed by Marie clark
[TERRY MCDONALD (SVDP):] [SB569] Madam Chair and senators and representatives this is Terry McDonald I'm the director of St Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County. Uh and in 1999 St Vincent de Paul set up the first commercially viable mattress recycling operation in the United States. Over the last 20 years, we've expanded that operation into Oregon and California and now we're trying to move into Washington some of it with product stewardship bills, some of it independent of that. And we felt cooperate with the folks in Connecticut, uh, and in Florida to set up mattress recycling operations specifically for nonprofits. And we are very much in support of Senate 569 because we believe that this data type stewardship bill will do a great deal to help the nonprofit community as well as the environment for the state of Massachusetts.
Uh, this kind of work is very much an appropriate type of work for people that have multiple barriers to employment. Uh and so we find it to be an excellent place for immigrant populations or populations that are coming out of incarceration to work as a build of a resume that they can then take out to The private sector. It's also commercially viable and for a nonprofit to try to try and create a good social enterprise this is one of the excellent ways to do that. It benefits the environment and it creates a triple bottom line, it's socially responsible and it's something that we believe very strongly in the state of Massachusetts should look forward to implementing. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Questions from the committee.
Seeing none. Thank you again for your testimony sir.
Uh Next up we have uh Miss Marie Clark followed by Greg Croteau. I'm7041 probably mispronouncing your name and I apologize for that. Uh Miss Clark,
[MARIE CLARK (ISPA):] [HB988] Good afternoon Madam chairs and members of the committee. My name is Marie7050 Clark and I serve as the vice president for policy and government affairs for the International Sleep Products Association or ISPA. ISPA represents mattress manufacturers as well as those that provide components and services to the mattress industry and on behalf of our members I'm here testifying in support for H 988 an act to establish a mattress recycling program in the commonwealth. It's the supports product stewardship product stewardship efforts and has taken steps to improve the long term environmental sustainability of the mattress industries' operations and products.
These efforts include creating a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity called the Mattress Recycling Council, or MRC. MRC has operated successful mattress recycling programs in California, Connecticut and Rhode Island for the past six years. And we've worked with representative Phillips and interested stakeholders to craft legislation to create a mattress recycling program in Massachusetts based on the successful programs. By way of background the existing mattress recycling programs, administered and developed by MRC are subject to states oversight. So in7116 this case it would be MassDEP.
MRC contracts with third parties to collect transport and process mattresses discarded in the state and to fund the very critical education and outreach to consumers. This provides for no cost and accessible statewide opportunities for residents and businesses to discard their used mattresses. Through this model, MRC recycles over 1.5 million mattresses and box springs annually and has recycled over eight million mattresses and box springs total during its six years of operation. The mattress industry7146 designed MRC so that its activities can be expanded relatively easily to additional states that enact legislation consistent with the existing programs.
Beginning October One of this year, discarded mattresses in Massachusetts will be banned for disposal in landfills, massachusetts needs a statewide solution for mattress recycling now. H 988 is that solution. It will increase mattress recycling, relieve municipal financial burdens, establish new convenient locations for7175 residents to drop off their mattresses and create recycling sector jobs. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the committee. Mhm. Mhm.
Seeing then, thank you again. No, sorry. Somebody does want to raise a hand. I can hear some some something.
This is Rep Domb and I thought I raised my hand and I'm trying to get my video on7206 and it's not working, but I'm glad you can hear me and we could see you there for a second. Okay? We'll try again.
[DOMB:] Um I want to thank you for coming. I have some questions. Um, Ms. Clark and I'm really grateful for your participation so that we can hear directly from ISPA around7225 some of these concerns. First of all, thank you for supporting mattress recycling. Um but I really would like to hear more about um how you feel about the producer purchase legislation that we're also considering that would levy a fee on mattresses that could then go into a fund that would be used to support recycling. And I'd like to hear more about the um the organization's uh support or lack of support for social enterprises to be involved with mattress recycling. Thank you
[CLARK:] Sure. I'll start with the ladder because I know7261 I have more information on that. So social enterprises Terry McDonald just testified from DR3 are critical to the mattress recycling infrastructure. DR3 is our largest recycler in the state of California. Uh and we are hugely supportive of the societal benefit that they provide, especially for folks like he said with barriers to employment. Our concerns with Senator Kennedy's bill that requires that on top of whatever fee the consumer is going to7292 pay to recycle their mattresses, MRC would also have to pay um, an $18 fee I believe it is to social enterprises to fund their wrap around services.
We understand that these organizations provide great7306 community benefits, including housing, education, mental health services. We just don't feel that the mattress recycling program is the right vehicle to fund all of those wraparound services. We absolutely want to pay the costs to dismantle and process, basically recycle mattresses, but to levy an additional $18 fee would then cost consumers additional $18 a mattress, which I think is uh, just a non, excuse me, a nonstarter for the industry's support.
[DOMB:] So the industry would support a producer fee, but wouldn't want to discuss the amount of that fee?
[CLARK:] The industry supports the externalized fee model. So that's the programs that we're talking about today for both mattresses and paint, um, mattresses specifically in California, Connecticut and Rhode Island do carry that externalized fee. So the consumer is going to pay either way, it's either going to be passed on in the retail purchase price and hidden from the consumer or in an externalized fee. The consumer's aware that there's a cost for recycling and our organization has an excellent opportunity to inform them at that point of sale, here's what you get for that fee.
[DOMB:] So I just want to clarify, I want to also correct something. I don't think it's automatically going to be hidden from the consumer. I think that would be a choice that would be made by manufacturers and stores whether or not they would promote that kind of information and education to consumers. I don't think the legislation um specifies that the fee should be hidden. Um but but you had talked about $18 is a non starter. So my question is is there a number that is a starter?
[CLARK:] Well, I think what the industry supports is paying for the cost of disassembly. So that would be part of this externalized fee. To add7419 on an additional fee for the wraparound services that a nonprofit organization provides is going to be an additional cost on the consumer that the industry doesn't support. It's not something we've seen in any other jurisdiction. So I'm not sure if there's a price7435 point that it would be of interest to the industry.
[DOMB:] Thank you and7440 thank you very much for being here. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you, madam. Vice Chair. Any additional questions from the committee? I do have a quick question, madam. Chair Madam Chair please.
[DYKEMA:] Um Thank you for your testimony, Marie appreciate all the information. Um it's kind of a follow along to Vice chair Domb's question. I'm wondering if um you know clearly who pays for these services you know, is important and has a lot of different implications depending on where that fee is levied and how it's levied. Could you articulate I guess the position from, from the industry's perspective from your organization's perspective on an internal fee. So that would be, you know, the7484 manufacturers themselves being responsible for paying for an infrastructure however, that's established um to do this so that it's not an additional it will be built into the price of the product obviously, but not an additional fee to a consumer which would7500 seem to and some have a sort of incentivize the manufacturer to build a better mousetrap if you will and make a product that's more cost effectively recycled. If you could just kind of explain the thinking on, that I would appreciate it.
[CLARK:] Sure. I think in a perfect world, the components of a product like mattresses when they're disassembled would be sold into a secondary market and would cover the costs of recycling. Unfortunately, the steel, foam, wood and textile material carries very little residual value in the secondary market. So there's a huge cost associated with the labor intensive disassembly of mattresses that just isn't covered by the cost of those constituent components. Um, but you bring up7546 a very good point about incentivizing green design and challenging manufacturers to be more sustainable. And that's certainly something that the mattress industry is interested in. Um We do support these externalized fees over internalized fees, like I said7561 earlier, because it's it's more transparent.
Ultimately, the consumer is going to pay either way. Um, but mattress green design or the echo modulated fees that Waneta was talking about are tricky. And I'll just explain briefly, because mattresses are very durable product, we, we don't, um, manufacture a mattress to easily break down. So to design a mattress that then only has a usable life of one or two years sort of defeats the durable sustainability impact of mattresses themselves. So if it was designing a mattress that had a, a shorter lifespan or um, you know, broke down on its own, I think that would be challenging for the industry to support.
Um, there's also the issue of whether or not a durable product like a mattress, um, can be designed in a way where the industry would have to pick a winner or a loser. So a product today is going to come into our recycling facilities 11 years, 10 or 11 years from now. So what is recyclable today or what is preferable today may not be in 10 or 11 years. So the product we design today and manufacturer, um we're planning a decade now to recycle. So I just7648 share some of these complications just to7651 say that in a perfect world these costs would be covered by the components themselves ut that's just not the case with mattresses.
[DYKEMA:] Thank you and a quick follow up madam chair. So it sounds like the conversation is happening around these eco-modulated fees. It7664 would be really helpful to have more information on that. Who's doing it um You know, are there any states who are implementing these types of eco modulated fees And where is the kind of conversation around that issue? That'd be great.
[CLARK:] Sure. I can say there aren't for mattresses. I know it's something that we're we're hearing but there isn't an example of a state or another jurisdiction with eco modulated fees for for mattresses that I can think of. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay. Uh Thank you. MS Clarke um Madam. Chair. Did you have additional7703 questions? I did not. Thank you, madam. Chair. Okay. Absolutely. Um Any additional questions from members of the committee?
Seeing none. Thank you. Miss Clark for your testimony. Uh Mr Greg Croteau followed by uh mr Felix. Uh Nevaeh's.
[GREGG CROTEAU (UTEC):] [SB569] Thank you. Chair Rausch Chair Dykema and the full committee. I appreciate the time to be able to share a little bit about our support of S 569. And uh I'm in the middle of the woods in Maine uh on my vacation. So I apologize if my internet but I wouldn't miss this for the world. This is7743 like a vacation. Supreme. So uh thank you again. Ah And so we're you know, really appreciative senator Kennedy's leadership in filing this. And folks may know UTEC, we serve young adults in the Merrimack Valley Lowell Lawrence and Haverhill uh young adults who involved uh, whether it be in the criminal justice system, gang involvement.
We have a team of street workers that go out and uh create peace on the streets, bringing the rival gang members together. We do a lot of work behind the walls in the jails and the state prison. Uh and then when we come out, my background is I'm a former street workers, street worker social worker, I did not expect to be talking about mattresses, but when you talk to our street workers in the street, it's what do you have in your back pocket, right. When someone is leaving incarceration and their next step. And that job is a, is a, is a really big step. And for us having social enterprises where we now we have a woodworking program, we have food services, our longest is actually mattress recycling.
Uh, and having the ability to engage young adults and guarantee them a job as part of their, you know, their next journey is a huge component for us. And so we, um, Uh, you know, Senator Kennedy mentioned, we do about 25,000 mattresses a year, one of the largest mattress recyclers on the east coast. We've learned a lot from Terry McDonald in Oregon who is the guru and recycling. And you know, we're here to share our support, particularly of the bill overall with recommendations as well as Scott had mentioned. And we'll be happy to share, you know, those moving forward. But the social enterprise piece is huge.
Without that, uh, an organization like UTEC being very, you know, straight we'd be out of business uh most likely because, you know, our concern is setting the pricing that will support uh, you know, the work that we're doing as well as others. And I say that because I think there is a unique opportunity to look at this as a new industry and really looking at green jobs from the perspective of how do we ensure that this is getting to the the folks that may have had, you know, barriers to employment in the past. Uh and we're we7864 are concerned that we could be uh, you know, put out of business and without those kind of, you know, systems in place. And so the social enterprise program, which is only a small component of it, we think and hopefully could grow over time is one component.
The committee and having that committee is huge. Uh, that would have oversight. We would hope that that would have not only advisory but also approval nature. So that you7887 know, any price setting and I know there are probably concerns from other mattress recycles on the pricing and so we think7894 there's a lot to learn from the other states that have uh, had passed legislation, California Oregon is looking at this as well. And we look forward to working7902 with the committee on this. Uh, and really just appreciate all your time and consideration to date. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions from the committee
christ? You're dumb. Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay? We can. Okay.
[DOMB:] Um, thank you so much for being here. I have a question based on something that was discussed with the prior um, witness and I don't know if you'll have the answer, so please feel free to say you'll get back to us on this. But there was some um, in response to concerns about social enterprise and include incorporating that. There was a reference to, um, like exorbitant wraparound costs that would then be tacked on to a mattress recycling effort. And since you're an organization, that's, that's a leader in social enterprises, I think not only in Massachusetts but7958 in the country. I'm wondering if you could just talk a little bit about that and if not, I understand it's um, it's a money question and I know that sometimes that might need to check that out, but I'm just wondering if you'd like to reflect on7969 that.
[CROTEAU:] Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity. And I think that there is a component that the Senator introduced there that really is, it's not, you know, it wasn't specific to say for every social enterprise. So I think it's really seen as a pilot to, you know, do something in a minute, but actually a cap on it. I believe the cap was no more than 500,000. So we know that there was a limitation, but it was really in the spirit of looking at something that could prioritize social enterprises if it works. We think it could be a, I know there's a lot of interest in this nationally because it is, it hasn't been in the other bills, but we know that that's a big interest.
And so I think for8002 us that would, you know, that type of program would, uh, would definitely support UTEC. You know, our, our cost per unit Is close to $30 a unit. What we're seeing in the other states, Connecticut Rhode Island mattress recyclers are getting no more than $128017 or $13 a unit. And so that's really you know where we see some of that difference. And again with the committee's oversight to be able to provide that type of support and pricing so it's not just unilaterally decided by one or one group that is a big component. I know you know, other organizations that have spoken today have have felt that way as well.
[DOMB:] So thank you. So just to recap it's a pilot program, it has a cap and you're seeing the that putting not just the advisory part into the commission but also the approval as a good way to sort of be a counterbalance to the money part.
[CROTEAU:] Absolutely, yeah. We we heard that loud and clear or so California actually has in essence the same type of advisory committee it's called, it's Calorie Cycle. And they have not only just advisory nature but8065 approval in nature. And as a result of that and again the DEP or what, you know, the D.EP In California is on that commission as well and it provides that I guess,8074 you know, counterbalance to it.
[DOMB:] Thank you so much. Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, representative.
[CROTEAU:] Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you to both of you. Um Additional questions from the committee.
Seeing none. Thank you sir for your testimony.
Okay, moving to mr Felix Nevaeh's nieves. Perhaps I apologize for your for inevitably my mispronouncing your last name followed by Adam Doorly.
© InstaTrac 2025