Update the Massachusetts Bottle BillA working group of environmental organizations and municipal/state agencies |
|
|
|
Press
Expand the bottle bill
Bottle bill bottled up
America's Hometown supports updating Massachusetts Bottle Bill
Greensense: board supports bottle bill
Redemption Centers Feeling The Economic Pinch
Commentary: Updating the bottle bill is common sense
More money for less litter
Ayer supports updating Mass. bottle bill Rep Jason Lewis: By Rep. Jason Lewis/View from the Hill Stoneham - This week on Wednesday, April 22, we are celebrating the 39th anniversary of Earth Day. Let’s use this opportunity to rally support for something relatively simple and easy that we can do right here in Massachusetts to help our environment. It’s time to update the Bottle Bill. The Bottle Bill is the state’s most successful recycling and litter prevention program. Originally passed in 1982, it has been extraordinarily effective at preventing beer and soda cans and glass bottles from being thrown along roadsides, beaches, forest trails and everywhere else people drink beverages away from home. More than 30 billion containers have been redeemed and recycled. But times have changed, and our laws should change as well. Changes in consumer preferences in the last 25 years mean that many beverages purchased today are not covered by the Bottle Bill. When the law was passed, just about the only other drinks available were small cans of pineapple and tomato juice which needed to be opened at home with a can opener. No one could have imagined the future popularity of bottled water, juices, sports drinks and similar new products. Such beverages now account for 28 percent of individual-use bottles sold. Of the containers covered by the Bottle Bill, 80 percent are redeemed or recycled. Conversely, only 20 percent of the containers not covered by the Bottle Bill are recycled. Most end up clogging landfills and discarded in our environment each year. A bill has been filed in the Massachusetts Legislature to update and expand the Bottle Bill. Known as “An Act to Improve Recycling Rates in the Commonwealth” this bill would update the definition of covered beverages to include bottled water, sports drinks, iced tea, juice drinks and other “new age” beverages. It would also increase the handling fee that redemption centers receive since they have not had a rate increase in over 16 years, and it would reestablish the Clean Environment Fund to help our communities increase their recycling rates. I have co-sponsored this bill. If passed, this bill would yield a number of significant benefits, including:
Why shouldn’t we just expand curbside and other recycling efforts? Because it has been proven that bottle bills across the country result in dramatically higher rates of beverage container recycling than curbside recycling alone. Many beverages are consumed away from home, and few people are dedicated enough to recycling to carry their used containers home with them. Most people just throw them away. The financial incentive ensures that most of these containers will get redeemed and recycled. Although there are many good reasons to update the Bottle Bill, there are determined opponents who have successfully blocked similar attempts in past years. The opponents consist primarily of beverage manufacturers, distributors and retailers who are concerned about reduced profits and the inconvenience of processing returned containers. Public support, however, is overwhelming with 83 percent in favor of expanding the Bottle Bill according to a 2003 study by the Center for Policy Alternatives. Let’s celebrate Earth Day this year by committing ourselves to finally updating the Bottle Bill. I welcome your feedback on the Bottle Bill or any other issues. Please visit our Web site at www.RepJasonLewis.com You can also reach me at 617-722-2060 or by e-mail at Jason.Lewis@state.ma.us Author’s Note: This column was co-authored with Ken Pruitt, managing director of the Environmental League of Massachusetts and a Stoneham resident. Dylan Cohn provided research assistance. Rep. Jason Lewis represents the town of Winchester and precincts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Stoneham.
Nickel's Worth Editorial, Cape Cod Times, March 30, 2004 Expanding the Massachusetts bottle-deposit law beyond carbonated drinks makes sense for the environment and for jobs in the expanding recyclables market. The impetus for a change? Bottled water. Noncarbonated bottled water is the fastest growing segment of the U.S. beverage market, and a new source of valuable recycled polyethylene plastic, called PETE or PET in the trade. There are other voluntary recycling schemes being promoted, but the Environmental Protection Agency and recycling activists agree the deposit system has proven itself as the most effective way of putting used bottles back into a recovery stream. When the product was just soft drink and beer bottles, bottle-bill states achieved up to an 80 percent recovery rate (our Massachusetts rate on eligible containers is about 70 percent). The reason should be obvious: When people have an economic incentive (even a nickel or dime), the "invisible hand" that 19th-century economist Adam Smith described guides their actions toward a public good. The good is less litter, some energy savings from using old plastic instead of cooking up new, and a consistent flow of clean recyclable material to help fuel an expanding market for new products. The coming of the ubiquitous spring water bottle has lowered the plastic-recycling percentages. Only California, Hawaii and Maine now include them in deposit programs. And because they are often consumed on the run, fewer water bottles wind up at home to be delivered to the voluntary recycling bins at the local landfill (buyers prefer those Dumpsters full of clean, sorted plastic, as opposed to what might be plucked off the conveyor belt at the SEMASS incinerator). The result has been a seven-year drop in the PET recycling rate, from 22.1 percent in 2001 to 19.9 percent in 2002. In 1995, before most of the bottled-water boom, the PET recycling rate was almost 40 percent. The actual poundage has dropped, too, which may be because of market jitters. Expanding the program to water or juice bottles makes particular sense because the type of polyethylene is the same as soft drink bottles and has the most utility and value in recycled materials, from new bottles to polyester carpeting, "fiberfill" clothing and luggage. The former Romney administration had an expanded bottle bill in its fiscal 2005 budget. When it comes before the Legislature, expect the beverage and grocery industries to oppose it, as they have every other deposit law. Coca Cola and Pepsi own the bottled water brands Dasani and Aquafina, respectively. They would prefer that the job of recycling their growing mound of discarded product be paid for through taxes on everyone, and accomplished by town employees and good-hearted volunteers. The irony is that a basic free market tool - the lowly nickel - has already proven to be the most effective way to move empty bottles along the line to re-use. A need for redemption By Jeffrey S. Hyer, Cape Cod Times. Friday, July 23, 2004 Many nonprofit organizations that depend on the redemption of bottles as part of their fund-raising efforts each stand to lose thousands of dollars because of restrictions imposed by a redemption center. On July 10, Parker's Redemption Center Inc. on Route 132 in Hyannis, one of the last over-the-counter redemption centers on the Cape that took bottles, stopped accepting unsorted bottles. The effort is "necessary for us to reduce our labor, supply, and transportation costs," said Maureen Burns Norton, general manager. Bottles are still accepted but only if they are sorted by brand, packed in cases of 24 and placed on pallets of 50 cases of the same brand, then shrink-wrapped for shipping. Unable to meet the requirements, the Scouting organizations in Brewster will lose about $6,000 annually. "These are little kids," said Barbara Chipman, recycling coordinator for the Brewster Brownie troops. "How long can we continue to recycle by meeting their criteria?" Before July 10, bottles simply had to be sorted by color and thrown in a sturdy tub. When asked Monday if Parker's had heard complaints about the new sorting rules, Norton said, "They're too lazy to sort it. They don't want to do the work involved to get paid for the glass. It's not me that sets the rules, it's the distributors." However, by Tuesday, Parker's and Norton reversed course. Bottles still have to be sorted by brand, but now only have to be placed in eight separate tubs. "It's a compromise," said Norton. "I'm trying to work with them." The processing costs of sorting cans and bottles has caused many retailers and redemption centers to convert to automatic machines rather than accept bags and boxes of cans and bottles. Because Parker's is the last place on Cape Cod that can handle a high volume of unsorted cans and bottles, many organizations that collect them use the company. Parker's still accepts unsorted cans because they are safer and easier to process. For each can and bottle returned to distributors, Parker's earns 2.25 cents. "We barely make money on it," said Norton. "When you subtract the mileage, labor, gas, wear and tear on the trucks, we barely make a profit." While under no obligation to accept the glass bottles, James Norton, Parker's owner, said he does so, "because there's money in cans and plastic." According to Norton, he loses up to 75 cents for every case of glass that leaves his center. But, he added, he hesitates to stop accepting glass because the charitable organizations depend on him. Of the $100,000 paid out to charitable organizations last year, he said, he lost $20,000 in processing costs. Those costs include sending a truck to pick up the cans and glass from the collection sites around the Cape, transport them back to the Hyannis store, sort, box, place on pallets, and store them until picked up by the various distributors. "It's a massive process," he said. "We process 90,000 cans and bottles a day. I have nine people on the payroll for redemption. "I am under no obligation to pick up from anybody," he said. "If I decide I don't want to be aggravated by this, I just won't do it anymore. The bottom line: If we stopped going to the Harwich Food Pantry, they would be out of business. And believe me, I do it as a courtesy." Paul Kelley, executive director of the Harwich-based Family Pantry, sympathizes with Norton's situation. "I understand it is a very big labor issue. It makes sense." He said the easing of the rules this week is a "minor concession." "The reality is they have to be broken down by supplier," he said. During the Pantry's Tuesday collection, seven volunteers were still laboring at noon sorting the bottles by brand. Normally, said Kelley, they are done by 9:30 a.m. "It puts a lot of effort on our guys," he said. "A lot of them are older guys and it is a pain in the neck for them." However, the collections must continue. Last year the pantry made $41,000, with at least a quarter of it derived from bottle redemption. "That will buy a lot of food," he said. Crystal Knop, vice president of the Eastham Elementary Parents Group, said if the organization decides to stop collecting bottles in the fall, it stands to lose $4,500 annually. "The extra expenses we have to incur by meeting the new regulations doesn't make sense for us," said Knop. "It's defeating the purpose." The Eastham Recreation Committee voted last week to immediately stop collecting bottles. The annual loss of income is about $2,400. Even under the compromised sorting rules, the requirements are expensive for organizations that operate on shoestring budgets. The three Brewster Scouting organizations that work together on their collection center at the town transfer station spent $2,125 last month on eight tubs, which are required equipment by Parker's. Each tub holds 40 cases of bottles. The tubs are purchased from a private supplier. In Truro, John Monahan helps in the collection of cans and bottles for the Friends on the Truro Council on Aging. He is encouraged by the sorting compromise. "We are back in the bottle business," he said Wednesday. "We can handle it this way." The collection is important to the community center, he said. "We have given them $120,000 over the years and a lot of that came from the bottles and cans." Beverage distributors establish the rules of how they accept returns of their bottles and cans, according to James Norton. And by requiring their customers to sort the bottles, it helps cut Parker's labor costs so it can continue accepting bottles. Bill Demartin, owner of Mid-Cape Redemption Center in West Yarmouth, stopped accepting bottles in 2002. "It's ridiculous," he said of the rules required by the distributors. "There needs to be a streamlined process so we should be able to handle recyclables efficiently so we can make money." After he stopped accepting glass, he had a "bad year," and was forced to let go several employees who were mentally handicapped. "My customers weren't happy, but they have adjusted for it," said Demartin. He used to work with the Brewster Scouting troops and their recycling efforts, but when he stopped taking glass, they went to Parker's. "Now the problem has come back to roost," he said. "I told them this problem isn't going away. They were just buying time." Changes to the bottle bill By Ryan Peterson, Capital News 9, Pittsfield MA 1/10/2005 For over 20 years now, Massachusetts residents have been charged a five-cent deposit on all beer and soda containers. State legislators felt it would compel more people to recycle, and it did. Jenny Gitlitz from the Container Recycling Institute said, "In Massachusetts between 75 percent and 85 percent of beverage containers are recycled. By contrast, nationally, only 36 percent are recycled." However, with single-serve bottles of iced-tea, water and juices now taking up substantial shelve space some legislators, like Senator Andrea Nuciforo of Pittsfield, are looking to expand the bottle bill. Nuciforo issued a statement saying that Massachusetts has a substantially higher recycling rate than other states thanks to the bill and that including the other containers will only provide additional incentive. John Kelly from Kelly's Package said, "Expanding the bottle bill, I think, makes sense. The bottles you see on the side of the road [are] the juice bottles, the iced-teas bottles. If they can do it through deposits, than so be it. Derek Garofano from George's Liquors said, "Will it mean revenue dollars for the state, absolutely. There is now and it's helping. I don't know if expanding it is the answer, but I would definitely not get rid of it." Both Garofano and Kelly run two of the largest redemption centers in the county and they don't agree with eliminating the law entirely. They said it works, but if the state is going to expand the bill, space will become a premium and be tougher for some of the smaller operations. Kelly said, "Just throwing money at it and increasing the fee they get from redemption fees is not going to help with backroom space. So I do see smaller stores having a problem." Some state lawmakers have suggested eliminating the deposit all together and, instead, charging distributors a fee based on their gross production. Plastic bottles pile up as mountains of waste By Miguel Llanos, Reporter, MSNBC. March 3, 2005 The biggest growth in bottled beverages isn't beer or soft drinks or juices. It's tasteless, colorless and sugarless water. And while that can mean fewer cavities and slimmer waistlines, it irritates Patricia Franklin to no end. The director of a nonprofit group that promotes recycling, she spends her workday thinking about the bottles, cans and other container waste that most Americans take for granted. The boom in plastic water bottles has her especially frazzled because while the recycling rate is extremely low, the demand from recyclers is actually quite high. Franklin, who runs the Container Recycling Institute, doesn't blame individuals as much as what she feels is a recycling system that hasn't kept up with consumption patterns — especially when it comes to water. Bottled water is the single largest growth area among all beverages, that includes alcohol, juices and soft drinks. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over the last decade, from 10.5 gallons in 1993 to 22.6 in 2003, according to the Beverage Marketing Corporation. The growth has been even more impressive in terms of water bottles sold: from 3.3 billion in 1997 to 15 billion in 2002. But most bottled water is consumed away from home, usually at a park, in an office or even while driving — areas where there's usually no recycling. "The opportunities for recycling outside the home are minimal," Franklin says, "and therein lies the problem." Bottles by the numbers Only about 12 percent of "custom" plastic bottles, a category dominated by water, were recycled in 2003, according to industry consultant R.W. Beck, Inc. That's 40 million bottles a day that went into the trash or became litter. In contrast, the recycling rate for plastic soft drink bottles is around 30 percent. The low water bottle recycling rate also impacts the overall recycling rate of all recyclable plastic containers. That's fallen from 53 percent in 1994 to 19 percent in 2003. Plastics should be recycled so that less petroleum — a finite commodity — is consumed, Franklin says. "The environmental impacts are in the drilling of the oil," she adds, noting that burning fossil fuel also releases gases that many scientists tie to global warming. A second reason for recycling, Franklin says, is the litter factor. While plastic water bottles are not a significant percentage of overall waste, the empties are certainly all around us visually. Thirdly, she says, is the fact that the domestic plastics recycling industry faces a shortage because so much is being exported to China for recycling there. That shortage has also led to fears that some companies will go bankrupt. "There is a means to reclaim these bottles and use them to make new bottles and other products at home," Franklin says, "but they (recyclers) simply can't get enough of the containers to do it." Strategies The Container Recycling Institute thinks a nationwide bottle deposit law would create the incentive to recycle, especially when it comes to plastic bottles, and ease the burden on taxpayers, who pay for cleaning up litter. "A national bottle bill, or producer responsibility bill, could turn it around and shift the costs from government and taxpayers to producers and consumers," Franklin says. States with deposit laws already recycle four out of five bottles, Franklin notes, thanks in part to an army of recyclers — from Boy Scout Troops to office cleaning crews — that turns one person's trash into their income. Eleven states have bottle bills but they are a patchwork with no two alike, she adds, and only three states, California, Hawaii and Maine, include plastic water bottles in their laws. A national law, she says, should cover new containers that didn't exist 20 years ago, e.g. plastic water bottles, and enforce a dime-per-bottle deposit "as it is in Michigan, where deposit containers are recovered at a rate of 95 percent." But while deposit legislation has had varying degrees of bipartisan support in Congress over the years, it has never become law. Franklin blames opposition from the beverage industry, saying its campaign contributions have given it "incredible political clout in Congress and actually in every state legislature in the country." Beverage industry opposition That opposition certainly exists, but the beverage industry says it just doesn't make sense to force a deposit law on consumers. "This cost burden placed on businesses is also passed along to consumers — levying a 'hidden tax' on both," the American Beverage Association said in an issue statement on the topic. Curbside recycling at homes and businesses, as well as educating consumers, are the best methods for dealing with container waste, the group adds. Tom Kinnaman, an economics professor at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Penn., believes that while recycling is expensive the debate needs to reflect what he calls the "happiness" value of seeing litter cleaned up. Factor that in and a deposit law can make sense, says Kinnaman, whose research includes household recycling trends. "It turns out recycling also provides utility," he says. "It benefits society because it provides happiness for people in excess of what it costs to provide the happiness." High tech, low tech A Colorado company called Biota says it might have a way around the deposit controversy: a biodegradable bottle. All of Biota's water bottles are made out of the biodegradable plastic, which comes from corn starch in a process developed by the seed company Cargill and Dow Chemical. Biota says that while traditional plastic bottles can take 1,000 years to degrade in a landfill, its bottles can biodegrade within 80 days in a commercial composting operation. Won't the bottles dissolve on store shelves? Biota says they'll only degrade if they've been emptied and placed in composting conditions — high heat and humidity as well as microorganisms to eat away. Biota is just getting off the ground, selling to a few health food stores in California, Colorado and Nevada. But it plans to expand, and even sell via the Internet. Franklin sees hope in the biodegradable plastic, but adds that a big, unanswered question is whether mixing those bottles with PET bottles might contaminate the latter in the recycling process, making them useless. "The concern is if we are going to be able to transition to that type of plastic what will be some of the impacts on companies that are trying to recycle PET bottles out there," she says. And what about a low-tech approach of just educating the public to assume more responsibility, taking those plastic bottles home to a recycling bin instead of leaving them in a trash bin at a park? "It's unrealistic to think people are going to do that," Franklin says. "In this culture it just doesn't seem to happen." Expanding deposit to non-carbonated beverages could help recycling MetroWest Daily News, March 30, 2008 By Peter Reuell/Daily News staff Walk around any one of the handful of sports fields in Milford, town health officer Paul Mazzuchelli said this week, and what's most interesting is what you won't see. Coke cans, Pepsi bottles, even the occasional discarded beer can or bottle - most are likely absent. You'll still find trash cans overflowing with empties, though, but these are empty water bottles, discarded bottles of Gatorade and other sports drinks, iced tea, lemonade and other non-carbonated beverages. Under the state's bottling law, which went into effect in 1983, bottles and cans of carbonated beverages like soft drinks, beer and mineral water can be redeemed for a nickel a piece. Non-carbonated drinks, which now account for nearly a third of all beverages sold in the state, were left out of the law, meaning billions of lemonade, iced tea, Gatorade and water bottles wind up in the trash or in recycling bins. It's a paradox that's getting attention on Beacon Hill. Legislation introduced this year would expand the bottle bill to include water and other non-carbonated drinks, and raise the redemption on bottles and cans to 10 cents to adjust for inflation since the law was passed. The proposal was referred to the Legislature's Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, where it was tabled last week for further study, effectively killing it. Among local officials, though, the measure found widespread support, though not for purely altruistic reasons. Including water and other beverages in the bottle bill, they said, would almost certainly drive consumers to keep millions of bottles out of the trash, easing the burden on local trash collection programs. "I would say it's a very high number that get thrown in the rubbish and do not get recycled," Mazzuchelli said of water bottles. "I think it does add up. I think it would be a significant amount, not only in tonnage, but also in bulk." With the town paying nearly $68 for every ton of garbage it hauls to an incinerator in Millbury, he said, getting those bottles out of the waste stream will save the town money. How much money? Though it's tough to say how many water, juice and other unredeemable bottles are thrown away by residents in any single town, the volume statewide is staggering. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, more than 1.3 billion non-redeemable beverage containers were sold, according to research by the Connecticut-based Container Recycling Institute. Getting even a fraction of those bottles and cans out of the waste stream, Executive Director Betty McLaughlin said, would save cities and towns thousands. "Nobody is saying let's have a deposit on everything, and bring it all back to the grocery store," she said. "But the sheer volume" is considerable. Adding water, juice and non-carbonated drinks to the bottle bill, she said, will keep a huge volume of plastic, glass and aluminum out of landfills and incinerators, while allowing towns to run smaller curbside recycling programs for other items, including paper and non-beverage containers. "You would get a higher participation rate," she said. "You get a higher quality material (to recycle) and it's not funded by the taxpayers." Though opponents of expanding the bottle bill point to increased costs for consumers, McLaughlin believes deposits are akin to a user fee. Unlike community-wide recycling programs, which are paid for by all taxpayers, deposits on redeemable beverages are factored into the sale price, hitting only those customers who buy a product. What's more, she said, customers who want to get their money back can, simply be redeeming bottles and cans for their deposit. "You're going to get your nickel back," she said. "If you don't get it back, it's because you choose not to. "It may raise the price of production, but somebody has to pay to recycle this material. The question becomes do you want the general taxpayer to foot the bill, or do you want the people who use it to foot the bill? Maybe little old ladies who live in town don't want to pay for your beer-drinking habit." But Chris Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, a lobbying group representing grocery stores and supermarkets, believes the bottle bill, even in its present form, is an impediment to the simplest way to get the bottles and cans out of the trash: recycling. "When the law went into effect, we didn't have a comprehensive recycling program," he said. "(Today) 85 percent of communities have a recycling program. We're asking the question, 'Why does that carbonated beverage have to be dragged back to the food store for three times the cost?' "The bottle law is an archaic approach, it is a costly approach and it is diverting attention from comprehensive recycling." Rather than trying to expand the law, Flynn said, the association believes the law should be scrapped and residents should be encouraged to recycle through other means such as pay-to-throw trash programs. "Stop talking about bribing and taxing our citizen into doing the right thing," he said. "Curbside (recycling) is much cheaper." Despite Flynn's arguments to the contrary, local officials this week said they would welcome efforts to expand the bill to include water and other non-carbonated drinks. "It's long overdue," Framingham Public Works Director Peter Sellers said. "I don't think anyone anticipated the proliferation of bottled water, which has kind of outstripped the use of carbonated beverages and fruit juices. I think we all think it's a good idea, both for environmental reasons and also because it's a sound practice for solid waste disposal." Though the change won't likely save towns much money in the short term, the long-term benefits could be great. "The problem is...the bottles are so thin now, you have to create a (large) volume of it," Franklin Public Works Director Brutus Cantoreggi said. "You can fill up one of those large bags, and it probably weighs three pounds." While there may not be much to be had in terms of savings, there are still benefits to getting more bottles out of the trash and off the street. "We constantly fight the battle over here," Cantoreggi said. "Anytime we go out and clean up a ball field, they're just all sports bottles and water bottles. "Anything we can do to encourage recycling, I'm 100 percent behind. I couldn't be more tickled if that happens." Some fear budget cuts are harming the environment By Erik Arvidson, Sentinel & Enterprise Statehouse Bureau, Sunday, June 27, 2004 - BOSTON -- Three successive years of crippling budget cuts have taken their toll on the state Department of Environmental Protection, say environmentalists, who fear the agency's umbrella of protection is shrinking. As the DEP has absorbed a 20 percent reduction in state funding since fiscal 2002, environmentalists worry the cuts are beginning to translate into policy changes at the agency that could be harmful to the environment and the public. "We have definitely seen, unfortunately, the funding cuts rippling in terms of policy changes," said Christopher Hardy, legislative liaison for the Massachusetts Audubon Society. "Right now, we're seeing substantial rollbacks in wetlands protection that are the direct result of the budget cuts to DEP." Environmentalists were angered after DEP officials announced proposed new changes in the process by which developers can appeal a decision of a local conservation commission for a project near wetlands to the agency. DEP Commissioner Robert W. Golledge Jr. said the DEP had been "overburdened" with frivolous requests for review of potential wetlands violations, and that the process for reviewing work within 50 to 100 feet of wetlands areas should be simplified. Golledge said the regulatory changes would allow the DEP to focus on potential violations within 50 feet of wetlands, which state officials said have a much higher likelihood of causing damage to swamps and marshes. However, environmentalists see it as a potential step backward on a critical environmental policy to allow for a streamlined permitting process anywhere within 100 feet of wetlands. They said the regulatory changes would allow for the construction of sheds, decks, pools and home additions within that 50 to 100 foot zone. "We're troubled by these policy changes and find them shortsighted," Hardy said. "(DEP) wants to shift resources away from the day to day permitting and look toward a higher level of enforcement of illegal wetlands filling. Enforcement is something that's definitely needed, but DEP shouldn't lose sight of the day to day permitting." Ed Coletta, a spokesman for the DEP, said wetlands protection is one area where the agency is focusing more of its staff time and resources on enforcement and compliance. "These changes are going to result in more protection. The most critical area is the first 50 feet next to the wetlands. That will be the area that is most protected under these rules," Coletta said. "We feel that by concentrating on the first 50 feet, we are better utilizing our staff time to go after the big picture items. We really want to go after those folks doing the illegal filling." Coletta noted that budget cuts have forced DEP to re-order its priorities and concentrate on "getting the biggest bang for the buck." That includes using the Internet to allow companies and individuals to download or file permit applications electronically so that ordinary paperwork can be handled using less manpower, Coletta said. Environmentalists are also troubled that staff reductions at DEP are affecting the agency's ability to provide ongoing oversight and monitoring of sites that have been cleaned up. Each year, the DEP's Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup conducts dozens of audits of hazardous waste disposal sites throughout Massachusetts where releases of oil or hazardous waste have occurred. The audits are intended to confirm that the company or individual responsible for the release has continued to monitor the site for any problems. The audits can uncover a host of potential violations ranging from an underground storage tank not being removed properly, to a gasoline leak not being completely cleaned up. Cleanups of hazardous waste sites are conducted by licensed site professionals hired by the responsible party, but it is DEP's mandate to ensure that the cleanups are done completely and up to state standards. James R. Gomes, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said the DEP is required by statute to audit 20 percent of these hazardous waste sites per year. However, in reality, the agency falls far short of that mandate, in some years only completing audits of 10 percent or fewer of the sites, according to environmental groups. Gomes noted that the Romney administration, in its fiscal 2005 budget proposal, inserted language removing the requirement that it audit 20 percent of the sites. The new language stated that the DEP would audit a "statistically significant representative sample of all sites," with no specific required number. That language was not adopted in the final budget, though Gomes said the proposal indicated "that the DEP itself is saying, 'We want to do fewer audits of hazardous waste sites because we don't have the resources.' " Gomes said the budget cuts endured by the DEP have led to a "lessened field presence," with fewer inspectors and scientists to verify that the licensed site professionals are doing a proper job. However, the environmental audits have their detractors. Christopher B. Myhrum, an attorney with the Springfield law office of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, which advises corporations on environmental compliance issues, said the DEP "has never come close" to meeting the 20 percent requirement. Myhrum said that several DEP officials he has spoken to have noted a change in philosophy that reflects more of a focus on pursuing sites that may have an immediate environmental impact. "Part of this process of budget cuts is that the DEP goes into a high-level enforcement mode," Myhrum said. "They want to be able to assure the public they're able to do the job, while making other regulated entities more conscientious." Myhrum said some of the businesses he represents "are extremely frustrated by the picayune amounts of paperwork that are required by DEP. The DEP spends a lot of time, not necessarily by choice, doing a lot of paperwork and review. There's a finite number of resources there and you really want the agency focusing on sites where the responsible parties may disappear." Gomes, of the environmental league, noted that his organization and Clean Water Action proposed a bill that would have prohibited the disposal of mercury-containing waste products as solid waste and recycled waste containing mercury separately. Though high level DEP officials supported the plan conceptually, Gomes said he was told that the DEP "does not have the staff or the resources" to carry out the goals of the bill. Gomes said he saw it as further evidence of the sweeping impact the budget cuts have had in the agency. The fiscal 2005 budget includes $47 million for DEP programs, which is about 20 percent less than the funding it received in fiscal 2002. According to Gomes, the "lion's share" of the DEP's expenses are personnel-related. In fiscal 2001, following a 17 percent cut in funding, the DEP had to eliminate the equivalent of 180 full-time positions, including many people, environmentalists say, with strong institutional knowledge. Subsequent cuts resulted in nearly 100 more full-time positions being eliminated. The cuts affected DEP across the board, from environmental enforcement, to clean water and clean air programs, to recycling, to hazardous waste cleanup. The department also closed its Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington and consolidated its operations to a central office in Boston, a plan environmentalists said made it more difficult for DEP inspectors to respond to a problem. Environmental groups said the cuts were especially perplexing because the DEP is a rare government agency in that it creates substantial revenues to sustain itself. The agency's revenues come from a variety of fees for permits, such as surface water discharge or water supply permits, and fines against companies and individuals for violations of environmental laws. Last year, environmental groups rallied around a proposal that would have provided more revenue for the DEP by expanding the Bottle Bill to cover bottled water and juice and many other drinks. That plan, which the Romney administration agreed to in its budget, would have provided millions of dollars to the state in unclaimed bottle deposits. That proposal was rejected by state lawmakers. Although the final budget approved by the Legislature would give the DEP a modest funding increase of 1 percent, Romney on Friday vetoed $500,000 in spending for DEP programs. Hardy, of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, said environmental advocates often find it difficult to lobby for an agency which is largely administrative and has no direct constituency. "It's difficult to generate public attention. What attracts the public's attention are the violations they see in their own backyard. People don't make a connection between clean air and clean water, and a bureaucrat in Boston," Hardy said. Golledge, who was appointed by Gov. Mitt Romney to head the DEP in June 2003, receives mostly positive marks from environmentalists. Under Golledge, the DEP issued new rules requiring the reduction of mercury pollution from power plants which the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group called "the strongest rules in the nation." The DEP said power plants could cut 90 percent of the mercury emissions from coal-fired plants could be eliminated using existing technology. "I think Golledge has been dealt a tough hand, and the budget cuts present him with a lot of problems," said Frank Gorke, an energy advocate with MASSPIRG. "The bottom line is that the DEP needs a bigger budget, and we're concerned about their ability to do their job." Redemption and recycling Yarmouthport Register, By Nicole Muller, September 22, 2005 "When people redeem their beverage containers, they are making a difference in our environment and helping to provide housing for others who are less fortunate," says Paul Hebert, president and CEO of Champ Homes in Hyannis. A multi-generational group home program of the Housing for All Corporation, Champ Homes provide a safe haven for those with physical, mental and emotional challenges while they work or attend school. More than 1,000 Cape residents have benefited from the dignity, love and respect instilled by Paul and Carolyn Hebert since they opened the doors of the first Champ House in 1985. "It's the best of humanity helping humanity. Our recycling and redemption program provides our residents with a job, a purpose, a way to feel good about giving back and helping keep this earth clean for those who follow," Hebert says. Although each Champ Home resident is expected to pay his or her way in an $80 per week community fee, nobody is refused refuge because of an inability to pay. Residents are also expected to contribute to the Champ Home family. "Everybody has cleaning chores that include their rooms and the common areas, answering phones and going to the Yarmouth recycling center to pick up donated bottles and cans," Hebert says. Residents, who eat together in common dining rooms, also wash dishes, mow the lawns, stock shelves and go to school. Champ Homes are funded by two mailings a year to friends on their donor list, grants and special events like last year's bike ride. Although Hebert says none of his budget is dependent on the $1,500 to $3,000 a year his group takes in by recycling bottles and cans, the effort means a lot to him and his residents. "When you consider that in the last eight months we've taken in and recycled 170,000 pieces, moving from an income of $50 a week to almost $500 a week, you can see the movement of the fulcrum benefits us all," Hebert says. In Massachusetts, the bottle bill that passed in 1983 designated a five-cent deposit on bottles and cans that contain carbonated beverages. In the last five years, the turn to bottled water, non-carbonated fruit drinks, iced tea and flavored milk-based beverages has tilted the scale away from less-healthy soda. As a result, these non-deposit containers have become an environmental problem. Massachusetts legislators have planned hearings in October regarding placing a deposit on water and juice containers. Champ Homes' role Hebert believes his non-profit organization plays an important role. The Barnstable Economic Development Council gave Champ Homes a $20,000 grant to look into glass recycling on Cape Cod. "We used to go to the Yarmouth Transfer Station and pick up glass and plastic bottles and aluminum cans and redeem them. Then, about a year ago, we found that the redemption centers wouldn't take them unless they were in their original form." That meant the containers had to be clean, not crushed or dented and carefully packaged. "We started having to buy a certain size cardboard box that holds four six-packs of beer or soda. We had to collect and sort each type of container to present them in six-packs, and when we turned them in, we were paid $1.20 for each of the boxes. When you subtract 25 cents for the box, that gave us 95 cents for our effort." Still, this did not discourage Hebert, his staff and his residents. They set up a work center where they prepare the thousands of containers they pick up each week to be delivered to the Mid-Cape and Mashpee redemption centers. "This is a social-business venture," Hebert says. "We're working on a system of collecting as many redeemable containers as possible from the Cape and islands. The Yarmouth Transfer Station gives all its donated cans and bottles to Champ Homes. A hotel in Dennis is doing likewise. "Some area churches have put big containers in their parking lots and encourage their parishioners to donate their cans and bottles. Our Lady of Victory's [of Centerville] youth group is looking to partner with us in this effort," Hebert notes. "We have signs all over asking people to donate their beverage containers to us." Area Boy Scout troops have pitched in to help Champ Homes' efforts to clean up the environment. Hebert thinks he may have set an example. "I walk four miles to work at Champ Homes each day. I bring empty plastic bags with me, and I pick up empty beverage containers along the way. One day I picked up six pounds of glass, tin and plastic on my way here. I want people to know they can walk - exercise and take care of themselves - and also pick up trash, save the environment and lend us a hand. "We all have the capability of helping each other," Hebert says. "People go to package stores to redeem their beer cans and use the money they get to buy lottery tickets. That's one way to do it. Another is to help us help others." Litter Control: A View from New Jersey Massachusetts State Senator O'Leary recently wrote in your paper that our "New Jersey Litter Control Fee" would be superior to your bottle bill and suggested abandoning your successful bottle bill and replacing it with our system. Here in NJ, our experience indicates that doing so would not be a wise idea. Here is how a fellow NJ resident responded after reading Senator O'Leary's article:
In a nutshell, The "New Jersey Litter Control Fee" is no substitute for a container deposit system and we would very much like to have a bottle bill here in New Jersey. Our current fee is a miniscule litter-producer-responsibility-TAX which attempts to make those who produce litter responsible for cleaning it up. Unfortunately, the task is far greater than the small amount that's collected. A maximum rate of only 0.03% - generating only $14 million - isn't nearly enough to combat the enormous number of containers and other forms of litter that plague our environment. By the time we split this sum over 400 ways, it averages only $35,000 to each city, town, and county for cleanup and disposal. As you can imagine, this is nowhere near what's needed. An examination of New Jersey's system shows that while a producer responsibility fee does make sense in helping clean up litter, it does nothing to prevent litter from being created. It's like dealing with a leaky roof by buying more buckets. What's needed is an incentive system such as your bottle bill to complement our current program. We believe that the answer to this problem is not with one program, but with many - in close coordination. A producer responsibility fee coupled with a bottle bill, improved curbside recycling, and more recycling collection points are a start. We urge Massachusetts to retain their bottle bill while improving recycling efforts (and then maybe help us get a bottle bill here in New Jersey, too). Sunil Somalwar A better bottle bill will make streets cleaner The Brockton Enterprise Editorial, October 24, 2005 It doesn't make a lot of sense to have a bottle return law if you're going to exempt millions of bottles. So there is no good reason to oppose expanding Massachusetts "bottle bill" to fruit and sports drinks, which hardly existed when the law was first implemented in 1983. There is plenty of opposition to the bottle bill in general, especially from retailers who don't like handling the returns. But no one can deny that our landfills are less stressed and our streets cleaner because billions of bottles have been returned for recycling over two decades. The Legislature, which is considering the bottle bill's expansion, should not be fooled by opponents who claim it is a back-door tax hike or doesn't really help the environment. Yes, the state collects $35 million annually in uncollected nickels when consumers fail to claim their deposits, but the cost of dealing with more trash is high. Retailers also are upset that, long ago, they lost the right to keep all those 5-cent deposits for themselves, so sour grapes is at play in the debate. What difference does it make what each bottle holds? Trash is trash, and sport-drink bottles don't look any prettier by the road side than any other piece of litter. The bottle bill's primary purpose was to change the public's behavior and get it to recycle trash. It has been largely successful, although compliance rates have fallen. In 1995, the return rate on deposits hit a peak of 87 percent. It now stands at around 66 percent. Maybe one solution is to increase the deposit, as other states have done, to 10 cents. But even at a two-thirds return rate, it means 1.4 billion bottles and cans being recycled annually. Without a bottle bill, it is unnerving to think what would happen with all that glass and aluminum. We should be doing more to cut down on our trash, not less. If that means expanding the bottle bill or imposing $10,000 fines on anyone who illegally dumps trash, as Brockton is seeking to do, all reasonable efforts are worthy of support. A Bigger Bottle Bill Boston Globe editorial, 3/11/2003 WHEN THE state enacted the bottle bill 21 years ago to reduce litter, the most popular drinks were soda and beer. Limiting the deposit law to them made sense. Since then, juices, noncarbonated water, and other drinks have become favorites, and it is high time for the state to expand the law to these other containers as well as to wine and liquor bottles, as the Romney administration has proposed. Officials estimate that the measure would produce as much as $15 million in new unclaimed deposits for state use. Since 1982 the bottle bill has worked well to clear the state's roadsides, beaches, and forest trails of most of the soda and beer containers that once blighted them. In the aftermath of the beverage revolution, expanding the law would also end confusion about which drink containers are returnable for deposits and which are not. Expanding the law to include spring water bottles is especially needed because they so commonly become litter. The wine and liquor deposit would be 15 cents; on juice and water containers, 5 cents, as with beer and soda containers. The Retail Association of Massachusetts, which opposes the bottle bill, says the expansion would add to cross-border sales. The association's president, Jon Hurst, also says that pickup of returned wine and liquor bottles from retailers and restaurants would be more complicated than with beer and soda because deliveries are not as frequent. His organization favors mandatory curbside recycling programs as the best way to keep the most items out of the solid waste stream. Pat Franklin, executive director of the Container Recycling Institute in Arlington, Va., counters that a combination of a deposit law with curbside recycling removes the most drink containers. She notes that the 10 states with deposit laws have 29 percent of the US population but recycle fully half of all the beverage containers recycled nationwide. Both Franklin and officials in the state Department of Environmental Protection discount the risk that expanding the bottle bill would hurt the state's curbside recycling programs. In fact, the municipal systems would be happy to lose the glass from their loads, since it is heavy, expensive to process, and has little resale value. The plastic containers are light but expensive to transport because they take up so much space in the pickup trucks. The one beverage container that more than pays for itself in recycling -- the aluminum can -- makes up just a tiny percentage of the containers that would be included in the expansion of the bottle bill. The bottle bill began as an antilitter measure but became a hallmark of the recycling revolution. Expanding it now makes good environmental and fiscal sense. (c) Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
| © Copyright 2009, Massachusetts Sierra Club, All rights reserved. | |