March 21, 2011
Deposit debate
A PUSH FOR EXPANSION OF BOTTLE BILL
Jerome Sciesniewski holds up an empty water bottle. He is a strong advocate for a bill that would put 5-cent deposits on most beverage containers, not just those for carbonated beverages. (T&G Staff Photos / JIM COLLINS)
With a grocery cart and passion for politics — Jerry C. Sciesniewski walks Southbridge streets in search of empty containers of beer and soda.
“Five cents is not a joke in these difficult economic times,” the 55-year-old disabled man said, talking about the state's 29-year-old redemption law.
Mr. Sciesniewski said that for 15 years, he has advocated amending the law to include noncarbonated-beverage containers.
State Rep. Geraldo Alicea, D-Charlton, has received some 200 letters from Mr. Sciesniewski.
A bottle bill co-sponsor, Mr. Alicea said Mr. Sciesniewski is unrivaled in his knowledge and passion for recycling.
“When you get his letters,” Mr. Alicea said, “it's talking about the environmental impact, as well as obviously expanding on what he and others can collect and bring to the stores.”
But the issue — centered on the environmental responsibility of keeping as much as possible out of the waste stream, and what the commonwealth sees as an opportunity to put more money in its coffers — has grown contentious.
House Bill No. 890 proposes to expand the 5-cent deposit to include containers of beverages such as water, tea and sports drinks, which, according to MassRecycle Interim Executive Director Ann Dorfman, end up cluttering up parks, rivers and other public spaces.
The current law encourages consumers to return empty soda and beer containers through the 5-cent deposit, with a principal objective to reduce litter and encourage recycling of aluminum cans and plastic and glass bottles.
Gov. Deval L. Patrick is projecting that the new bill would bring another $20 million in revenue to the state.
The state takes in close to $40 million annually from unclaimed deposits under the current law, according to the state Department of Revenue. The money goes into the general fund.
The proposed bill, which has critics in both industry and the Legislature, has to be passed again by the Joint Committee of Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. It cleared that committee for the first time in the last session.
The applicability and reasoning behind bringing dirty cans and bottles back to a food store was questioned by Brian M. Houghton, vice president of the Massachusetts Food Association.
“We follow sanitary regulations and such and you're actually bringing garbage back into the place,” he said.
The proposal, he argued, equates to clearing a snow-capped highway with a shovel.
“What you're bringing is like one-half of 1 percent of the waste stream, as comprised of the bottles themselves, and you're creating an expensive system to deal with such a small portion of the waste stream,” he said.
Enacted in 1982, the current program was a good idea back then, Mr. Houghton said, because there wasn't the curbside pickup and drop-off infrastructure that's in place for recycling today.
The association has proposed House Bill No. 1763, an industry-supported plan to fund start-up costs to expand recycling infrastructure, in part by placing receptacles in parks, sports facilities and recreation centers, some of the very places water bottles and sports drinks are found as litter.
But Ken Pruitt, managing director of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said that approximately 80 percent of container types covered by the current bottle bill get recycled, compared with only about 20 percent of containers not covered by the bill.
Also, a survey by the policy think tank MassINC determined that 76 percent of state residents support the current bottle bill and the proposal to update it.
That level of support is seldom seen on almost any public policy issue and cuts across partisan, age and other lines, Mr. Pruitt said.
State Rep. Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer, said she is “not totally sold on the idea,” citing what she said is the impracticality of a dual system of redeeming deposits and curbside recycling, such as that offered by many communities.
Ms. Gobi, chairman of the House's environmental committee, says that from a small-business standpoint, the proposal places more burden to make space in stores for returned bottles. That argument came to light in 2002, when a version of the bill was before the energy committee she sat on.
The latest version, Mr. Alicea points out, allows small businesses to opt out if they can't afford the redemption machines — if a redemption center is nearby. There will be more amendments to help small businesses if the proposal reaches the floor, Mr. Alicea suggested.
Ms. Gobi also expressed uneasiness about the state “betting” people won't take the time to redeem more containers.
She added: “I'm not trying to pick on fast-food places — but I ride my bicycle a lot. I see a heck of a lot more fast-food wrappers and Dunkin' Donuts cups on the side of the road than I do plastic bottles. We're not talking about putting a redemption tax on a McDonald's wrapper.”
The lawmaker said she agreed with House Speaker Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, who asserted the proposal is a form of taxation.
Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, said “user fee” is more accurate.
“A tax is generally something that is applied to all citizens, whereas user fees are a revenue source that is based on individual choices — to drive certain roads, buy certain products or use certain services. Clearly the bottle bill does not reflect a tax by that definition,” said Mr. Kaufman, who chairs the revenue committee and is a bill co-sponsor.
Christopher J. Crowley, executive vice president of Polar Beverages in Worcester, said pay-as-you-throw programs, not bottle bills, make a strong impact on reducing the waste stream.
The average Massachusetts resident throws away 900 pounds to 1,000 pounds per year; but with pay-as-you-throw programs, the waste is reduced to 400 pounds, said Mr. Crowley.
Curbside collection is more efficient, costing about $50 a ton to recover recyclables, whereas with the bottle bill it costs more than $500 per ton, and with expanded costs, as much as $2,000.
“That's the carbon footprint,” Mr. Crowley said. “That money equates to energy and time with all the trucks picking them up.”
Also, with curbside recycling, municipalities profit from the value of aluminum and PET, a bottling plastic.
“Now the state keeps all that money and piddles it away in the general fund,” Mr. Crowley said. “With the cost of food going in the direction we have seen in the past year, consumers need no additional costs in their grocery bills.”
The proposed overhaul of the bottle bill here would also increase the handlers' fee for retailers and redemption centers from 2.25 cents per bottle to 3.25 cents.
While overdue, the penny increase should have little positive impact on retailers, said a man identifying himself only as “Tony” and as the owner of Valu, a state-registered redemption center in Worcester. “We don't get paid enough, No. 1,” he said. “No. 2, if every company has different rules and regulations, then you're going to end up with 10,000 different bags waiting to be filled up and shipped out. It's not worth it anymore. It needs to be sorted by color, by brand, by size. For what? Two cents a piece.”
http://www.telegram.com/article/20110321/NEWS/103210333/-1/NEWS07
