sign in sign up
<<
Home , Basel Action Network, Compost, Waste hierarchy

Statewide Commission on Markets and Curbside Recycling Draft Meeting Notes

Date: October 21, 2020 Time: 8:30 AM – 12:30 PM Present: 17 – Commissioners Bouchard, Cadena, Davis, Dell, Donlevy, Ferrante, Kalpakoff, Lapis, Medrano, Oseguera, Potashner, Sanborn, Schneider, Skye, Toyoda, Valle, and Ward. Absent: None Agenda: Agenda Item 1: Call to Order, Roll Call, and Establishment of Quorum Chair Sanborn called to order the Commission meeting and called roll. A quorum was established. Public Comment: None Agenda Item 2: Review and Potential Approval of Meeting Notes Commissioner Valle requested updates to the meeting notes under Agenda Item 11 to reflect the discussion of contacting local governments, such as the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. Commissioner Skye requested an update regarding Agenda Item 7 to reflect that the Commissioners discussed and shared The proposal and will give the public an opportunity to comment prior to voting for approval. Commissioner Ward made a motion to approve the meeting notes, Commissioner Skye seconded. The meeting notes were approved unanimously. Public Comment: None Agenda Item 3: Public Comment Review - Items Not on the Agenda Public Comments (for complete text of comments, see Appendix I): • Monica Wilson Chair Sanborn requested a presentation from CalRecycle regarding chemical recycling and conversion technologies where CalRecycle will provide an update on what “chemical recycling” on Nov. 4th so we can have a back and forth discussion with this stakeholder group sometime after that presentation for an hour discussion in front of the full commission Chair Sanborn led a discussion regarding transparency and the rules the commission must follow. Agenda Item 4: Discussion of Report Recommendations and Process (taken up after Agenda Item 5) This Agenda Item was moved to after Agenda Item 5. Chair Sanborn gave an overview of the recommendations to ensure we have committees draft written policies that will be heard and adopted and have a second reading and be adopted at a second Commission meeting. Commissioner Ward commented on the revisions to the Report Recommendations and Process and adding language explaining the legal limits of our communication we must follow. Chair Sanborn recommended submitting a preliminary policy recommendations report on January 1 which is the same report titled Preliminary Policy Recommendations and the final report will be built on it and the Preliminary report we include language that there are other important recommendations or discussions we did not have time to have in the first six months of the Commission meetings. Agenda Item 5: Presentation and Discussion Vice Chair Valle introduced Jim Puckett from the Basel Action Network who presented on the background of the from focusing on household hazardous , and its most recent amendments on plastics and recycling. Trading recycling now requires that importers and exporters be a party to the Basel Convention and prior informed consent of the country that is receiving the items. Puckett recommended that California create a law that honors the Basel Convention and sets the contamination level for recycling exports at 0.5 percent. Commissioner Potashner and Dell discussed the benefits and limits of AB 901 which set up mandatory recycling and disposal reporting to CalRecycle. The commissioners discussed what type of committee should look further into the Basel Convention for the Commission. Chair Sanborn moved to place the discussion on the agenda of the Commission’s next meeting on November 4 and there was agreement that the Chair and V. Chair will propose a structured outline of items that were discussed today as a starting place for discussion on possible policy recommendations. Public Comment: • Martin Bourque 1 • Martin Bourque 2 Break Agenda Item 6: Chair and Vice Chair Recommendations on External Communications Chair Sanborn presented recommendations for communication with external stakeholders. The commission could ask specific commissioners to meet with external stakeholder on the issue requested and a short memo formalizing the conversation be posted on the google doc quickly after the meeting. If someone Chair Sanborn reminded commissioners that while they can speak on anything that has previously occurred in meetings, they cannot speak on behalf of the whole Commission projecting future outcomes. Agenda Item 7: Committee Reports on Policy Recommendations for Commission Discussion and Possible Approval Commissioner Davis presented the Market Development Committee’s Preliminary Recommendations Narrative. This included a recommendation to use consolidated permitting to simplify the permitting process for recycling, composting, and related facilities. Commissioners Dell, Ward, Schneider, and Lapis requested more information and voiced opposition to specific aspects of the report. Commissioner Sanborn moved for approval of Recommendations number 22-32, with the exception of Recommendation number 23. Commissioner Skye seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Contingent on a second reading and vote at the next Commission meeting, these recommendations will be added to the Market Development portion of the Commission’s report. Commissioner Potashner presented the Organics Committee’s recommendations in two documents. The first document recommended banning PFAS in packaging and instituting Precautionary Principle policies. The second document contained recommendations on and waste prevention. Chair Sanborn motioned for a vote on the recommendation for banning PFAS in , and the vote passed unanimously. Contingent on a second reading and vote at the next Commission meeting, these recommendations will be added to the Organics portion of the Commission’s report. Commissioner Potashner made a motion to vote on the precautionary principle recommendations. Commissioner Dell updated the Commission on the Labeling and Media Committee noting there are a lot of unknowns on the labeling process that require input from other committees on defining compostable and recyclable. Agenda Item 8: Agenda Items for Future Meetings For the November 4 meeting, CalRecycle will present on chemical recycling and conversion technologies, and there will be a second discussion regarding the Basel Convention. There was a request to focus on at the next meeting. It was requested that David Allaway speak on recycling recommendations in Oregon. On December 16, Secretary Blumenfeld will return to speak with the Commission. Agenda Item 9: Meeting Summary and Closing Chair Sanborn commended the Commission for passing their first recommendations. Appendix I: Public Comments Richard Abramowitz Jim, have you looked at block chain technology as a method of auditing/transparency of the data flow? Monica Wilson On behalf of the GAIA network, we submit the following comments on the definitions of recyclable and recycling in California. GAIA has extensive experience in many regions of the world with the shortcomings of , waste burned in cement kilns, plastic to fuel, and other approaches. Please see the references section for links to recent publications by a university, scientists, and issue experts related to incineration and chemical recycling. We recognize that recycling definitions must ensure that recycling actually achieves the goals of resource conservation. Recycling and recyclable should never be confused with incineration or other combustion approaches. Furthermore, waste reduction and should receive even stronger emphasis than recycling in recognition of the higher placement of waste reduction and recycling in the . Incineration is recognized as ‘transformation’ under California’s Public Resources Code 40201. The state already excludes incineration from counting toward the 75% recycling goal, and should maintain the clear distinction between incineration and diversion: California must not count transformation/incineration/waste to energy, plastic to fuel, or “chemical recycling” toward the state’s waste diversion goals due to the following problems: 1) and impacts on EJ communities: Eight out of every ten incinerators in the U.S. are located in the communities (lower-income communities and/or communities of color). Incinerators burden these communities with mercury, dioxins and particulate matter while undermining investments for local economic resilience and job creation. Even if some toxic substances can be captured, they remain present in the product or byproducts such as fly ash, char, slag, and wastewater, which pose danger to people and the environment. California’s two existing conventional incinerators in Stanislaus County and Long Beach continue to burden the Environmental Justice communities in which they are located. 2) Climate polluter: Incinerators emit more gases than coal-fired power , per unit of energy generated. Every metric ton of plastic burned in an incinerator results in about 2.7 tons of CO2 emissions, as incineration immediately releases all embedded in plastic to the air As such, incineration should never be classified as a renewable energy source, not only because it produces greenhouse gases, but also because it requires burning a steady supply of non-renewable materials. Moreover, the application of renewable energy subsidies towards incineration facilities diverts funding away from real renewable projects. 3) Expensive source of energy: Incineration is also comparatively more expensive, and contributes very little to the energy grid overall, adding only 0.4% in 2015. Adding to the cost for governments, incinerators compete against for tipping fees - the dollars paid per ton of waste delivered to a or incinerator - from municipalities, counties, and businesses, their largest source of revenue. For example, Covanta Corporation collects 71% of revenue from tipping fees and 18% from electricity sales. 4) Industry in decline: In addition, the majority of MSW incinerators, at an average age of 30, are reaching end-of-life and need significant upgrades. Contracts with incinerators in need of capital investments can leave local governments and taxpayers with the costly burden of subsidizing upgrades at a time when local governments face financial challenges for and recycling operations. Over the last 20 years, 31 MSW incinerators have closed, primarily because of their inability to afford upgrades necessary to meet health protective emissions standards. New incinerators also cost more to build and maintain than other forms of waste disposal. High capital and operating costs are a major reason why only one incinerator has been built in the U.S. since 1997 and why a proposal for a $400 million incinerator in Frederick, Maryland, was canceled. 5) Risks of lock-in effect: In many cases, incinerators require governments to produce waste to burn through “put or pay” contracts. This arrangement can obligate governments and taxpayers into a system that requires constantly feeding incinerators and could open them up to penalties and litigation where investments could be made in efforts to reduce waste, recycle, and . For example, in 2019, incineration company Wheelabrator sued Baltimore County for $32 million after the county delivered 30% less waste to the Baltimore incinerator than was required through a 2011 contract agreement. Indianapolis paid Covanta half a million dollars per year in penalties for sending less waste to the local incinerator after failing to meet a contract waste quota that led to Indianapolis being named “one of the most wasteful big cities in America”. So-called “chemical recycling” technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis, are proposed for various incentives and subsidies to the California legislature every few years. Gasification facilities are regulated as waste incinerators under USA 40 CFR §60.51a, as they involve both of waste and the combustion of the resulting gases. Californian communities have consistently opposed these false solutions for the following reasons: 1) Pollution and health impacts: “Chemical recycling” releases toxic chemicals into the environment. Plastic contains a wide range of toxicants, and treating plastic with high temperature creates even more. The toxicants remain in both the products and byproducts, and end up released into the environment as air emissions and toxic residues, especially if outputs are burned. As EJ communities are more prone to be exposed to these health risks, the low-income, Spanish-speaking Latino communities of Watsonville and Gonzales, and the working-class community of Red Bluff have defeated proposals to site gasification incineration facilities in their communities. 2) Climate polluter: “Chemical recycling” has a large . The processes are energy intensive and rely on external energy. In addition to the direct GHG emissions from the process and burning the outputs, chemical recycling further aggravates by perpetuating continued extraction of fossil fuel for plastic production. 3) Low viability: “Chemical recycling” has not yet been proven to work at scale. Chemical recycling is not equipped for commercial scale-up, nor is it able to take a leading role in tackling the rapidly growing global plastic waste problem. Commercial operations are rare, and the plants face technological hurdles in each phase of the process, from feedstock processing to cleaning and upgrading the resulting gas and oil. Solvent-based technologies are even less mature compared to pyrolysis and gasification. Of the 37 plastic “chemical recycling'' facilities proposed since the early 2000’s, based on publicly available information, none are successfully recovering plastic to produce new plastic. 4) Low financial feasibility: “Chemical recycling” cannot compete in the market. The industry has a track record of major failures, and both plastic-to-plastic repolymerization and plastic-to-fuel require costly energy inputs. The final outputs are unable to compete with virgin polymers. A 2017 report documented a track record of over $2 billion loss from facility closure/project withdrawal cases caused by low viability of the technology and challenges in securing investments and a sustainable revenue model. No cities in California need such an excessive and unnecessary financial burden. Turning towards toxic, cost-prohibitive, and climate-polluting combustion technologies would undermine the state’s effort in advancing sustainable energy and waste policies and climate mitigation. Moreover, it would put vulnerable communities at further risk. We must pursue our recycling goals through upstream waste reduction strategies in order to protect every community’s equal right to clean air, public health, and economic resilience. References: Baptista, A. & Perovich, A. (2019). U.S. Solid Waste Incinerators: An Industry in Decline. The New School Tishman Environment and Design Center. Retrieved from: https://www.no-burn.org/industryindecline/ Rollinson, A. & Oladejo, J. (2020). Chemical Recycling: Status, , and Environmental Impacts. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. doi:10.46556/ONLS4535. Retrieved from: https://www.no-burn.org/cr-technical-assessment Patel, D., Moon, D., Tangri, N. & Wilson, M. (2020). All Talk and No Recycling: An Investigation of the U.S. “Chemical Recycling” Industry. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. doi:10.46556/WMSM7198. Retrieved from: https://www.no-burn.org/chemical-recycling- us/ Tangri, N. & Wilson, M. Waste Gasification & Pyrolysis: High Risk, Low Yield Processes for . Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. Retrieved from: https://www.no-burn.org/gasification-pyrolysis-risk-analysis/ Tangri, N. (2013). Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. Retrieved from: https://www.no-burn.org/waste-incineration-a-dying- technology Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. (2013). Waste Incinerators: Bad News for Recycling and Waste Reduction. Retrieved from: https://www.no-burn.org/wp- content/uploads/Bad-News-for-Recycling-Final.pdf Martin Bourque 1 The Ecology Center supports: A stringent and clear recyclability labeling requirement for all packing based on this standard A mandatory standards-based certification program for California recyclables that includes transparency, chain of custody, and environmentally sound management practices at all levels of the post-consumer committee stream Municipalities and ratepayers also have a right to know where their recycling goes so we support a California Recycling Right to Know Law that makes end destinations and uses visible to ratepayers, recyclers, municipalities, and state agencies. Martin Bourque 2 The Ecology Center, as the residential curbside recycling collector in the City of Berkeley, is deeply concerned about the state of recycling in California. The long term trends towards collecting as many types of packaging as possible and exporting low grade mixed materials has proven a deeply flawed industry approach which has not served consumers, ratepayers, municipalities, or haulers and has caused great harm to the environment and to the wellbeing communities across the globe. We believe California should be a national leader in a furthering true recycling system, yet though its legislated focus on diverting waste from landfills, California has become a leader on exporting harm to other countries. This needs to change. We strongly support the following legislative solutions: 1) A stringent statewide standard for what can be included in recycling programs based on actual processing and market conditions. We support the 15 item list under consideration. 2) A stringent and clear recyclability labeling requirement for all packing based on this standard 3) A mandatory standards- based certification program for California recyclables that includes transparency, a chain of custody, and environmentally sound management practices at all levels of the post-consumer scrap committee stream 4) Municipalities and ratepayers also have a right to know where their recycling goes so we support a California Recycling Right to Know Law that makes end destinations and uses visible to ratepayers, recyclers, municipalities and state agencies 5) A broad and all-encompassing minimum recycled content requirement for packaging