COM 0107.016 2016-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Summary of Testimony on Bill 13 March 7, 2017 Page 2 of 7 compliance can be-generally proved by examining packaging and utensils to determine that they are stamped to show that they are either properly certified as recyclable/compostable or not,the act of finding and verifying their use is daunting. There are also instances where probable polystyrene foam containers are not marked in any way. The legal level required to show compliance is straight forward and easy to verify if the materials are marked as recyclable or compostable. However, in a case where a container/packaging is not marked, a chemical analysis would be required to prove that the article is or is not polystyrene foam.-This adds an additional layer of cost,time and complexity to an already difficult enforcement-scenario. However, even if all containers are properly marked,this simple County-wide enforcement activity requires additional budget and personnel. In addition,the Bill would require Corporation Counsel to defend DEM's decision in civil court if a violation is appealed. Funding is a significant issue and, as stated at the beginning of this testimony, without adequate funding DEM is unable to support the Bill. DEM cannot, in good faith, support the additional burden of creating and enforcing the requirements of Bill 13 without a guarantee of suitable funding. To support any Bill, when enforcement is not viable, is unacceptable to both DEM and the public, however much-we support the goal of reducing our waste stream and maximizing material reuse. Other issues: While Bill 13 allows DEM to fine a seller of food products for using polystyrene foam, it holds no penalty for the use of other non-compostable or recyclable products. Allowing a non-recyclable product that is just NOT POLYSTYRENE, will simply change the composition of the waste in the environment, not help clean our environment. Since recyclable materials require separation and very specific processing to be able to be recycled, changing from polystyrene foam to just another"recyclable" waste does not solve the County's waste. problem. However, replacing a recyclable product with one that is compostable, is a goal to support. The amount of material entering our landfills will probably not change appreciably as a result of Bill 13. Single use food packaging is generally just placed in waste bins that can be transported directly to a landfill. A specific and focused recycling program would be required to collect, prepare and isolate used food packing materials,thereby separating those items from the general waste stream. This might seem relatively easy at a farmer's market type environment, but difficult for other venues such as a restaurant take out. If food packaging wastes have not been isolated and properly prepared for recycle,from a landfill perspective, a change from polystyrene foam to any other material makes no difference in the received volume of waste. This is because non-separated compostable or non-compostable food packaging all would go to a landfill. Exemptions: DEM would be required to formulate a set of administrative rules to manage the issuance of exemptions under Bill 13. It is contemplated that a single use issue rather than a specific user, would be exempted. For example, raw meat or fish packaging could categorically be exempted, rather than store A or vendor B. Categorical exemptions such as those mentioned could be issued with a fair and easily understood set of rules. Such exemptions could be reviewed annually(if the 180 day exemption limitation is changed),to take advantage County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.