The Sierra Club DC Chapter is pleased to submit these written comments on the Zero Waste DC Framework published online by the Department of Public Works (DPW) on November 16, 2022. We also refer to our previous written comments on the first draft of the Zero Waste DC Framework submitted as a package of comments by the DC Environmental Network. We use “Framework” to refer to the November 16th Zero Waste DC Framework – organized into a series of Actions under related Goals – and “Plan” to refer to the Zero Waste DC Plan. We thank DPW for organizing the December 14th Environmental Stakeholders meeting on the Zero Waste DC Plan in which key information about next steps were shared by Mr. Blake Adams, Manager, Office of Waste Diversion. The updates, as we understood them, include that the Plan is expected to be published in April 2023, following vetting early in the new year by the Mayor’s office; it will include a cost/benefit analysis documenting the waste diversion potential or sustainability impact of its different Actions; and it will be modeled on the Sustainable DC 2.0 Plan. These comments refer both to the published Framework and DPW’s updates shared on December 14th.
Additional opportunities for the environmental community and the public to comment should be provided as the Framework is developed into a Plan
As we have previously noted, we sincerely regret that there was no opportunity for the consultants charged with developing the District’s Zero Waste plan to meet explicitly with DC’s environmental community until the December 14, 2022 environmental stakeholders meeting. This late-hour interaction may only have occurred because of the specific requests made by Councilmember Cheh by letter and in the Waste Diversion Roundtable she organized on November 7, 2022. Furthermore, we understand from the December 14th Environmental Stakeholders meeting that there will be no additional opportunities after December 30, 2022 for the environmental community or the public to comment on the cost/benefit analysis or any other developments made in finalizing the Plan. Mr. Adams explained that the public will have an opportunity to comment as various measures recommended in the Plan undergo a legislative or regulatory process.
The legislative and regulatory process, however, does not provide an opportunity to comment on developments such as the never seen cost/benefit analysis. This is likely only one of many developments underway, given that DPW and its Zero Waste DC Plan consultants, Ruth Abbe Associates, told the December 14th meeting they hold weekly meetings as they expand the Framework into a Plan. While we are pleased to hear of the rigor being applied in the development of the Plan and appreciate the various community outreach events organized by DPW to gather input on the kinds of measures to be included in the Plan, it’s not clear why the contents must remain confidential until they are finalized in April. We request that a public comment period be provided for the cost/benefit analysis for each Action and any other significant developments made to the Framework.
Critical measures such as single-use bans have not been fully explained
There are critical actions in the Framework that have not been fully explained. Among them, Actions 11 and 12 call for policies to phase-out by 2025 and then ban by 2030 “single-use plastics commonly found to pollute District waterways and contaminate District recycling streams. Action 13 calls for policies to phase-out all single-use items by 2035 and ban these by 2040. It is difficult to comment on measures like these which have not been fully detailed. While in a perfect world, we applaud the idea of banning all single-use materials, we question the feasibility of this goal. We also question the logistics of such a regulation. There is no list of covered materials provided, nor a roadmap for how such phase-outs and bans would be implemented. We do appreciate that Mr. Adams confirmed that single-use plastic bottles and bags would be among the covered materials in the single-use plastic ban. Not knowing what other materials would be banned or how the bans would be achieved leaves us unable to fully comment on these Actions. We can however note that the Framework lacks any details on how the District plans to create an enabling environment to develop substitutes, subsidies, and systems for reusable packaging/food ware, how the bans would be enforced, and who would be responsible for enforcement. Without thought being given to all of these issues, the District risks establishing a Plan built on bans that are designed to fail.
Convenient substitutes, subsidies, and systems for reusables must be in place for any bans to be successful. We would like to better understand DPW’s plans in this regard. Reusable grocery bags are already widely available, but low-income residents may require subsidies for their purchase and all customers would benefit from a borrow a bag system when they inadvertently forget their reusable bag. The Framework provides no details on how the refill beverage system noted in Action 7, designed to replace vending machines, will work. Likewise, the District needs to grow investments in reusable food ware, including providing restaurants subsidies both for the purchase of reusable food ware and the services of third-party providers of reusable food ware as called for in the 2020 Zero Waste Omnibus Amendment Act. Sadly, these were only minimally funded in the Fiscal Year 2023 budget after intervention by the environmental community and the Council. In addition, government funding to grow a local reusable food ware market, including funds for municipal wash facilities, public kiosks for return by customers and redistribution vehicles are fundamental. We have raised this concern in the past, but have not seen any indication of a response. The Plan should include these measures in the cost/benefit analysis.
Setting measurable milestones for reduction over time may be a more realistic approach. The recently introduced Protecting Communities from Plastics Act may provide some guidance. The Senate bill calls for attaining a target by 2032 of no less than 30% reusable packaging/food ware and no less than a 25% reduction of single-use plastic packaging/foodware. Importantly, it calls for government funding for reusable food ware, recognizing the need for government funding to support the welcome transition from single-use to reuse. The transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles and from fossil fuel to solar power are both being driven by government subsidies. Why should this major shift to more sustainable food ware and packaging be any different?
In addition, we all know that current bans and measures designed to reduce single-use items are not being enforced. Our members have reported that bars and restaurants continue to provide customers with single-use plastic straws and unsolicited plastic utensils in their takeout orders in violation of the existing straw and stirrer ban and utensils-on-requests requirements. Meanwhile, while most DC restaurants have moved away from polystyrene (styrofoam) takeout containers, many still use non-recyclable/non compostable containers that are in violation of the law. While enforcement falls under DOEE vs DPW, the lack of enforcement seems to make these regulations all but perfunctory. We are genuinely concerned that many of the regulations outlined in the Framework may follow the same fate. DPW’s Plan should include resources to enforce existing and future bans. Enforcement resources should be reflected in the expected cost/benefit analysis, offset by the savings realized by restaurants purchasing fewer single-use materials and DPW and commercial waste haulers processing less waste.
Concerns about implementation delays caused by additional plan development
The first Action included in the Framework says “Produce a Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan that describes the District's implementation strategies for achieving the actions, targets, and goals of the Zero Waste DC Plan.” The Sierra Club DC Chapter is concerned that developing yet another plan, here a Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan (SSWMP), will delay implementation of the Zero Waste DC Plan. As we have testified previously, a well-designed Zero Waste Plan can obviate the need for a separate SSWMP. We understand from Mr. Adams’ comments on December 14th that DPW is firm in its plan to develop a SSWMP, that its development, began in 2020, was paused to enable work on the Zero Waste DC Plan, and that it should be finalized in April 2024, a year after the Zero Waste DC Plan is published.
We would urge DPW to accelerate this timeline, given that Mr. Adams also explained that it was two-thirds complete when it was paused in favor of the Zero Waste DC Plan. Moreover, we urge that development of the SSWMP not lead to any further delay in implementation of the Zero Waste DC Plan, considering that legislation calling for development of a Zero Waste Plan was passed back in 2014. DPW should ensure that it commence immediate and timely implementation of zero waste measures for which there is already a legal mandate including, but not limited to, launching the curbside compost pickup pilot with funding in the fiscal year 2023 budget, conducting a Pay-as-You-Throw pilot; implementing measures required by the 2020 Zero Waste Omnibus Amendment Act such as glass source separation and recycling, janitorial training on source separation, and food scrap source separation in large retail stores as well as colleges and universities.
Compost measures
On December 1st, the Chapter conducted a zero waste focus group in Ward 8, organized by Anacostia Parks and Community Collaborative (APACC), to which DPW was also invited. Ward 8 residents shared a clear message: their trash and recycling is currently not being picked up on a timely basis and their neighborhoods are inundated with litter and illegally dumped trash. Some buildings have stopped offering recycling. Because there is no food scrap separation, food waste is currently mixed with waste destined for landfills and incinerators. Because they are not picked up on a timely basis, they begin to rot, stink and attract vermin. Ward 8 residents, understandably, have no confidence that their separated food scraps will be removed on a timely basis, exacerbating their concerns about rats and roaches. Ongoing poor quality of service is likely to thwart participation in the Framework’s composting initiatives.
The Plan should therefore spell out how DPW plans to improve its level of service, especially in Wards 5, 7 and 8, and how it will enforce requirements on building managers to provide separate containers for compostables, recyclables and waste. Hauling requirements of source-separated materials to relevant facilities (e.g. food scraps to a composting facility; recyclables to recycling facilities rather than mixed with waste) should also be added to Action 14. We also caution against imposing any mandates on residents requiring them to compost and recycle. This issue can be revisited once compost, recycling and waste hauling services improve and DPW has conducted outreach on how to source-separate and its benefits.
Composting is a behavior change which can be driven by leaders modeling the desired behavior. We recommend that the Plan include leadership modeling, for example social media videos of the Mayor and Council members and other influencers separating food scraps and dropping them in the compost bin – and the contents of those compost bins being taken to a composting facility. We recommend that DPW build modeling into the curbside compost pickup pilot and Framework. This would be a low-cost, high-impact measure.
A beverage container deposit-return law should be part of the Plan
We were disappointed to learn that Mr. Adams said (in the December 14th meeting with environmental stakeholders) that despite the call from the environmental community and the public, DPW has decided not to include a beverage container deposit-return law in the Framework and Plan. Mr. Adams explained that DPW believes the proposed phase-outs and bans will achieve the same results as a deposit-return system. We don’t agree.
As noted above, we are concerned that bans won’t be enforced, rendering them meaningless. We have also seen no evidence that the District plans to develop a local reusable and refillable market to provide necessary packaging alternatives to banned materials. This is the only way to make the bans viable.
Moreover, the timeline for these bans is too long. If single-use plastic bottles are to be included in the single-use plastic ban, as Mr. Adams explained on December 14th, they would only be banned in 2030, eight years from now. If single-use glass bottles and cans are included in the other single-use materials ban, they would only be banned in 2040, 18 years from now. By that time, the Anacostia River as we know it will have become a landfill for bottles and cans, and volunteers will be faced with the Sisyphean task of continuously cleaning up the unending onslaught of beverage container litter and illegal dumping.
These efforts would be unnecessary with a deposit-return law. Deposit-return laws are the most effective way of reducing litter and illegal trash dumping. We also understand that a deposit-return law will be introduced in the Maryland Assembly in January. This presents a unique opportunity for the District to adopt a regional approach on a speedier timeline which is far more effective.
Let us be clear. We are not saying the District needs to choose between deposit-return, bans, and reuse. They are all useful tools and we should embrace all of them. But let’s use tools when they are timely and relevant and based on how our local reuse and refill market launches and expands.
There is another fundamental problem with the proposed bans. During the December 1st focus group, Ward 8 residents also shared their deep concerns about DC water quality. Fundamentally, they don’t trust that it’s safe to drink. Their distrust is driving their use of single-use plastic water bottles*, even if they may be unaware of other health threats posed by plastic bottles. The District needs to make investments in lead line replacement, water filters to residents without access to clean water, water quality testing, and outreach to residents on how they can benefit from lead line replacement subsidies, water filters and get their water tested. It will be politically challenging to ban single-use plastic water bottles without improving water quality and generating residents’ confidence in water quality.
A timeline for the Save-as-You-Throw pilot should be included in the Plan
We are pleased to see a save-as-you-throw (SAYT) pilot in action 14. Our suggestions on how to implement SAYT are included in our prior comments. Timelines for a pilot and more widespread development should be specified in the Plan.
Design Extended Producer Responsibility (EPRs) Requirements with Teeth
We welcome the expansion of EPRs to hard to recycle materials and additional materials such as mattresses. We recommend that all EPRs include government oversight so District EPR frameworks have teeth rather than allowing industry self-regulation with no oversight. EPRs should drive waste diversion and prevention. They should make return of products convenient to consumers and drive innovations in redesigning and rethinking the full lifecycle of a range of products.
Conclusion
We were reassured by DPW’s consultants that the Zero Waste DC Plan under development will rival those of more progressive jurisdictions like Austin, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle. This is welcome news. We also appreciate the opportunities DPW provided since July to participate in the Framework’s development. We would, however, appreciate consideration of the points raised here, including allowing additional public comment prior to the Plan’s finalization once the Plan’s cost/benefit analysis is developed and measures recommended here are added to the Plan.
There is much to welcome in the current Framework. There also remains room for improvement, including details on how the District will fund the transition from single-use to reuse, similar to the District’s funding of the transition to solar power and electric appliances; enforcement of new measures such as single-use bans and source-separation requirements on building managers; improvement of current waste separation and hauling to drive compost participation; improvement of water quality and outreach to residents to make them aware of improvements; inclusion of a beverage container deposit-return law; acceleration of development of a Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan if it cannot be integrated into the Zero Waste Plan; launching a SAYT pilot and later SAYT adoption; and EPRs with teeth.
Above all, we look forward to implementation, enabling the District to become a national zero waste leader and demonstrating real progress on our 80% waste diversion goal.
* A U.S. Senate Hearing on December 15, 2022 highlighted the health impacts of plastic packaging, including lower sperm counts and increased rates of breast and testicular cancers and autism. See video of hearing testimony at “Examining the Impact of Plastic Use and Identifying Solutions for Reducing Plastic Waste.”