Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 158-08City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 17, 2008 CMR:158:08 UPDATE ON POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS ON SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAGS AND EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINERS This is an informational report and no Council action is required. The purpose for the report is to provide background to the Council which will be the basis for Council’s upcoming discussion of restrictions on plastic bags and containers. BACKGROUND Plastic bag and expanded polystyrene food container (EPSFC) litter escapes to natural ecosystems contributing to a build-up of polyethylene, polystyrene and related compounds in ecosystems, ingestion by marine organisms, and aesthetic degradation of the natural environment. It has not been possible to ensure that a significant fraction of plastic bags and EPSFCs are recycled, and that situation is not expected to change in the foreseeable furore. The City Council discussed the possibility of imposing restrictions on plastics as part of its adoption of the Zero Waste Operational Plan. Several Council Members indicated a desire to see a specific proposal to restrict certain plastics in the near future. At the same time, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board has been moving toward more substantial requirements to prevent trash and associated plastic from entering creeks and other natural water bodies. Staff is developing recommendations for the Council to consider concerning single use plastic bags and EPSFCs. DISCUSSION Details of proposals on plastics are being researched by staffand discussed with affected businesses. Proposals will then be brought to Council for action. The first proposal will be with respect to plastic bags and is anticipated to be ready on April 21, 2008. A proposal on EPSFCs is anticipated to be ready in approximately 6 months. Staff has prepared background information on plastic bags (Attachment A). Also attached (Attachment B) is a letter from the American Chemistry Council containing their position on a number of the relevant issues. A summary of key findings from Attachment A follows: Single-use plastic carryout bags contribute substantially to litter ofwaterways both in the Bay Area and worldwide. Federal, State and Local government’s efforts to address the problem over several decades have failed to reduce the build-up of plastic debris in the marine environment. CMR:158:08 Page 1 of 2 Single-use plastic carryout bags do not degrade in the marine environment for many years and have been found to substantially affect marine life. Even with the emphasis on recycling of plastics in the last several decades, the plastic carryout bag recycling rate remains at approximately 5%. Reusable carryout bags are considered worldwide to be the best option to reduce waste and litter, protect wildlife and conserve resources. Reusable bags have lower associated greenhouse gas emissions. They are readily available and are affordable for the consumer. Plastic bag bans and per bag fee assessments have been enacted by a number of communities around the world. Bans and fee assessments have dramatically reduced the use of plastic bags. Staff’s goal is to reduce the use of plastic bags and EPSFCs, encouraging the use of multi-use containers where practical. RESOURCE IMPACT There are no substantial resource impacts associated with continuing the development of recommendations.Staff will return to Council with a resource analysis of the final recommendations. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Continuing the development of recommendations is consistent with the City’s Zero Waste Policy, Climate Action Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, Clean Bay Plan, and Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRONM]gNTAL REVIEW A discussion of the need for environmental review- will be forwarded to Council as part of the recommendations. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Analysis of the Issues Regarding Single-Use Retail Carryout Bags Attachment B: American Chemis~3~ Com-~cil Letter PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: PHIL BOBEL, Manager Environmental Compliance Division GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY ~SON ..... Assistant City Manager CMR:158:08 Page 2 of 2 CiTY ©~ PAL© ALTO This report presents the issues of single-use carryout bags. The City of Pa!o Alto’s Zero Waste Operationa! Plan and Climate Protection Plan both cal! for actions to reduce waste, and to prevent pollution and greenhouse gas emissions with upstream solutions. Council concern about the proliferation of plastic retail carryout bags and their impact on the environment dates back 20 years. In 1988, the City Council directed a task force to look into this problem. The task force concluded that paper was the better environmental choice for retail carryout bags due to its compostable and recyclable nature, and found that plastic bags were an "umnecessary use of non-renewable resources". 1 As a result, an ordinance was enacted requiring all retailers in Palo Alto to offer paper carryout bags, while allowing plastic bags as an alternative. Unfortunately, Palo Alto’s ordinance was not effective in ste_rrtming the increased use of plastic retai! carryout bags. The California Integrated Waste Management Board determined in 2006 that plastic retai! carryout bag use in California has increased to 20 billion bags per year_. Large grocery chains have provided recycling containers for plastic bags since the early 1990’s, yet the current rate of recycling is less than 5 percent.°- An exact comparison was not available, but the paper industry estimates that at least 50 percent of all paper is recycled.3 According to the 2006 Pa!o Alto Waste Composition Study, 442 tons of Kraft paper (the type of paper used to make paper bags) and 345 tons of plastic bags were landfilled in 2006.4 While Kraft paper and plastic bags represent less than 1 percent of the total tonnage landfilled, both are recyclable. Single-use caroTout bags are a source of litter impacting Palo Alto and the wider environment. According to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, 60 percent of the li~er found in Bay Area creeks is plastic. While paper has been noted in land-based litter studies such as San Francisco’s recent report of 2007, "biodegradable" materia!, which would include paper, only comprises !2% of the litter found in Bay Area creeks. One Los Angeles River clean up found that plastic film and bags constituted 45 percent of the litter collected by volume. Litter collection for beaches, state highways, cities and counties costs the state $303.2 million each year.s The collective problem of plastics in the marine environment affects the world beyond Palo Alto. Palo Alto land-based debris, including litter (mostly bags, packaging and single-use disposable products) is conveyed through storm drains to local creeks, into San Francisco Bay and into the Pacific Ocean.6 The North Pacific Gyre, an area in the ocean approximately 1,000 miles off of the California Coast, harbors an enormous accumulation of plastic debris. Studies conducted by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation indicate that plastic does not completely biodegrade in the marine environment as paper does, instead breaking down into smaller and smaller pieces, accumulating toxins and harming marine animals when it is mistaken for food. Due to the global impact of plastic bags, AB 2449 was signed into law in 2007. This legislation cites the following as reasons for the law: the use of over 12 million barrels of oil to produce plastic bags, the deaths of thousands of marine animals through ingestion and entanglement, the billions of bags that end up as litter each year and the fact that plastic breaks into toxic bits that foul soil, waterways and the food web. The law requires supermarkets and retail pharmacies meeting certain criteria to offer reusable bags, to make a plastic bag recycling bin available and to track collection of the plastic bags. Also in 2007, the governors of Washington, Oregon and California collectively passed a resolution calling for source reduction of plastic marine debris] Cities and entire countries have taken various actions to reduce paper and plastic carryout bag usage through consumer education, voluntary store actions, plastic bag bans and charging a fee on plastic bags. Germany levies fees on all single-use bags, regardless of type. Ireland’s implementation of a fee in 2002 resulted in an approximate 90% reduction in plastic bags in the first year of the fee.8 Eleven cities in Alaska, San Francisco and Oakland have banned plastic bags and more cities, such as Santa Monica, Berkeley, San Jose and Fremont are considering taking action. California jurisdictions cannot levy fees on certain plastic bags, however, because AB 2449 precludes this action. Oaldand, a city that has banned plastic bags, was sued by the Alliance for Plastic Bags on the basis that the ban was subject to review under the California Envh-onmental Quality- Act, contrary to the opinion of the City of Oakland Attorney’s Office. A court decision is expected in March or April 2008. Some jurisdictions are considering instituting fees on any single- use carryout bag a store distributes, except for plastic. The recently introduced AB 20589 attempts to move beyond AB 2449 by requiring retail stores meeting specified criteria to reduce plastic bag use with phased reduction benchmarks, increased recycling requirements and the al!owance of stores to charge a $0.15 per bag fee. Paper and bio-plastic (compostable) carryout bags have been supported as alternatives by some jurisdictions because of their recyclability and compostability, respectively. Paper bags are universally accepted in curbside recycling programs. Recycled content paper bags made from 40 percent post-consumer and 60 percent post-industrial paper are readily available for stores to stock as carryout bags, which supports the curbside collection of paper. Jurisdictions with food scrap collection programs, such as San Francisco and Oakland, have included compostable bio-plastic bags as alternatives to plastic bags. However, the common goal for all jurisdictions that have instituted regulations sm’rounding single-use carryout bags, regardless of type, is to support reusable bags as the preferred carryout bag choice. Reusable carryout bags conserve resources while reducing litter, waste to landfills and greenhouse gas emissions. One reusable bag replaces hundreds of single-use bags, requires only slightly more energy to produce and is unlikely to become litter and contribute to the problem of marine debris~° A survey of shoppers’ carryout bag patterns at seven Palo Alto grocery stores and five pharmacies was conducted in early 2008. The grocery store survey indicated that 9.6 percent of shoppers used reusable bags, 47.4 percent used plastic single-use bags, 34.7 percent used paper single-use bags and 8.4 percent opted for no bag. The pharmacy survey indicated that 2.2 percent of shoppers used reusable bags, 72.6 percent used plastic single-use bags, 0.4 percent used paper single-use bags and 24.8% opted for no bag. Staff at Palo Alto grocery stores Country Sun Natural Foods, Piazza’s and Whole Foods have advised Palo Alto staff that they have discontinued the purchase of plastic carryout bags for their stores. All Palo Alto grocery stores and major pharmacies (e.g. Walgreens, Longs) offer reusable carryout bags for sale. The City of Palo Alto Public Works Recycling Program has conducted education campaigns, including the distribution of reusable bags, since the 1990’s. A local BYOBag campaign is currently being coordinated with retailers to take place from April-December 2008, and the Recycling Program will be collaborating in a Bay Area regional education campaign in April. Plastic carryout bags were first introduced by retail stores in the United States in !975 and began to be distributed to customers at the point of sale in supermarkets in 1977. Today these bags are ubiquitous in the marketplace because they are light-weight, strong, inexpensive and convenient. They became so prolific in our environment so quickly that ten years after they first were introduced in grocery stores, the City of Palo Alto considered banning them. In 1988, the City Council directed a task force, Vfar on Viaste, to analyze this problem. The task force concluded that paper was the better environmenta! choice for retai! carryout bags due to its compostable and recyclabte nature, and found that plastic bags were an "unnecessary use of non-renewable resources".11 As a result, an ordinance (PAMC 5.35) was enacted requiring all retailers in Palo Alto to offer paper carryout bags while allowing plastic bags as an alternative. Unfortunately, Palo Alto’s ordinance was not effective in stemming the increased use of plastic retail carryout bags, not all retail stores complied with the ordinance and there was no enforcement of the ordinance. There are four primary types of retail carry-out bags distributed at grocery, pharmacy, food service and other retail stores; o Plastic- derived from petroleum o Paper- derived from wood o Bio-plastic- derived from corn starch or corn starch/petroleum mix o Reusable bags- made from thick plastic (at least 2.25 mils thickness), plastic woven to resemble cloth, or cloth (e.g., cotton, jute, recycled #! plastic bottles) To assess current usage patterns of carryout bags Jan the City of Palo Alto, a survey of Pa!o Alto grocery- stores and pharmacies was conducted. !n January and February 2008, shoppers were observed upon their exit from the store and the type of carryout bag noted: plastic bag, paper bag, reusable bag or no bag. Grocery store surveys were conducted during weekday lunch, weekday after work and Saturday morning at Andronico’s, Country Sun Natural Foods, JJ&F Market, Mollie Stone’s, Piazza’s, Safeway, and Whole Foods. Pharmacy surveys were conducted late weekday mornings at Longs and Wal~eens. Table-1 and Table-2 summarize the surveys. Table-1 Survey of Carryout Bag Use at t?alo Alto Grocery Stores* January *Piazza’s, Whole Foods, Country Sun Natural Foods, Mollie Stone’s, Andronico’ s, Safeway, JJ&F Carryout Bag Type Nu~aber of Bags Observed Perce~atage of Total Reusable Bags 352 9.6% Plastic Bags 1,747 47.4% Kraft Paper Bags 1,277 34.7% No Bags 308 8.36% Table-2 Survey of Carryout Bag Use at Palo Alto Retail Pharmacies* January 2008 *Longs, Walgreens Carryout Bag Type Reusable Bags Plastic Bags Paper Bags No Bags Number of Bags Observed 6 196 1 67 Percentage of Total 2.2% 72.6% 0.4% 24.8% All Palo Alto grocers and retail pharmacies offer reusable carryout bags for sale. Palo Alto grocers offer an incentive for each use. The most common type of reusable bag offered is an inexpensive polypropylene bag ("green bag") that is made of plastic but looks like cloth. The size of the polypropylene bags is similar to that of a paper carryout bag. All Palo Alto grocers and retail pharmacies offer a reusable bag branded with the store logo and/or name. Table-3 summaries the types of reusable bag(s) offered and the incentive provided. Table-3 Reusable Carryout Bags Available Palo Alto Grocers and Retail Pharmacies January 2008 Store Andronico’s Country Sun Natural Foods JJ&F Mollie Stone’s Piazza’ s Safeway Whole Foods Longs Walgreens Type polypropylene polypropylene, jute, nylon polypropylene polypropylene polypropylene polypropylene polypropylene, plastic #1 polypropylene polypropylene Cost (ca.) $0.99 $1.00 and up $1.49 $1.00 $1.99 wine bag $2.19 $0.99 $0.99- $1.19 $0.99 $0.99 Incentive $0.05 rebate per bag for any reusable bag, $0.10 for each Andronico’s bag $0.05 rebate for any reusable bag, including produce bags. $0.05 rebate $0.05 rebate, vane bag ($1.99) is free with purchase of six bottles of vane $0.05 rebate $0.03 rebate $0.05 rebate or donation to charity None None issues Associated with Plastic I ags Plastic carryout bags are made in a number of different sizes and thicknesses and are typically manufactured from either high density polyethylene (HDPE - plastic #2) or from low density polyethylene (LDPE - plastic #4). The LDPE bags are thicker and are generally used by department stores and other commercial retail outlets. The HDPE bags are typically thinner, cheaper and are used much more widely by supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores and restaurants. These bags are termed "single-use" bags because they are designed and intended for one-time use for customers to carry their purchases from the store, followed by disposal or recycling.Due to their thin construction they are not durable enough for repeated carryout use. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (C1WMB), in 2006, estimated that Californians’ plastic retail carryout bag use has increased to 20 billion per year_ Large grocery chains have provided recycling containers for~plastic bags since the early 1990’s, yet the current rate of recycling is less than 5 percent.1 According to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), 60 percent of the fitter found in Bay Area creeks is plastic. Plastic bottles, bags and Styrofoam pellets were the single most common and abundant types of trash surveyed and removed. While paper has been noted in land-based litter studies, "biodegradable" material, which would include paper, only comprises 12% of the litter found in Bay Area creeks. Litter collection for beaches, state highways, cities and counties costs the state $303.2 million each year.!3 Figure 1, compiled by SCVURPPP, illustrates the problem with plastics in Santa Clara County creeks. FIGURE 1 Trash Characterization Santa Clara Count,] Creeks Glass Fabr’~/Cloth7%2%Blodegradabl~ Guadalupe River, 2007 (photo courtesy of L.M. Johmann) Single-use carryout bags are a component of litter impacting the San Francisco Bay. A recent survey of 26 creeks around the Bay collected 25,000 pieces of trash during 93 site visits. The worst sites tended to be located at the bottoms of watersheds that receive runoff from an entire water or pipe shed, indicating that streams are the likely main pathway of floatable plastic to the marine waters, and that trash levels are increasing.14 Palo Alto must comply with Federal clean water laws to eliminate toxic substances from flowing into waterways, including storm water runoff and individual water bodies, such as rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands. Planning documents designed to ensure adequate water quality are known as "Total Maximum Daily Loads" or TDMLs. Trash has been found at high levels at some sites within San Francisco Bay Area watersheds, creeks and the Bay and it is anticipated that new, more stringent requirements will be instituted. These new requirements could substantially increase the City of Palo Alto’s costs for compliance with its storm water discharge permit. TMDLs for Wash have already been adopted in Southern California, and may well be prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area, requiring further action to control trash. The collective problem of plastics in the marine environment affects the world beyond Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay. According to estimates, plastic bags take 10 to 20¯¯15years to break down into tiny plastic particles. Palo Alto land-based debris, including litter, (mostly bags, packaging and single-use disposable products) is conveyed through storm drains to local creeks, into San Francisco Bay and into the Pacific Ocean.16 The North Pacific Gyre, an area in the ocean approximately 1,000 miles off the California Coast, harbors an enormous accumulation of plastic debris. Studies conducted by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation indicate that plastic does not completely biodegrade in the marine environment as paper does, instead breaking down into smaller and smaller pieces. Their research found that plastic pieces outnumber plankton six to one in the North Pacific Gyre and found an alarming number of plastic bags in the center of the Gyre. In one instance, they observed and recovered floating semi-submerged plastic bags over more than 10 miles of the sea’s surface before the concentration of floating plastic bags decreased.17 Whether plastic bags photo degrade on land or in the ocean, the remaining plastic particles are not digestible by animals. In the ocean, the small plastic pieces accumulate bacteria, pesticides and other toxins which may be Wansferred to the marine animals that mistakenly ingest them as food. This bioaccumulation of toxins travels up the food chain to reach dangerous levels,is In addition, marine wildlife such as sea turtles and whales mistake plastic in the water for jelly fish or other food. It has been documented that plastic bags can choke animals or restrict food absorption, leading to injury or death. Despite millions of dollars spent on mandated cleanup, plastic debris in the ocean is actually increasing.19 Plastic bags are recyclable; however, very few are actually recycled. Large grocery chains have provided recycling containers for plastic bags since the early 1990’s, yet the current rate of recycling is less than 5 percent.2° The local recycling infrastructure for plastic bags is weak or nonexistent. This is largely due to the lack of manufacturer responsibility for the plastic bag product, including 1) logistics of collection, 2) sorting difficulties, 3) high contamination rates (e.g., materials other than plastic bags being mixed with the bags) that reduce the quality of the recycled plastic resin produced, 4) the low quality of plastic used in the bags, and 5) the lack of markets to make new products from the plastic bags. Film plastics, of which plastic bags are a subset, are collected at the City of Palo Alto Recycling Center and Stanford Recycling Center drop-offs; however, the specific quantity of plastic bags is unknown because film plastics also include plastics such as clothes packaging bags, pallet wrap, shrink wrap, bubble wrap and more. Plastic bags are not accepted in curbside collection in Palo Alto because: The bags are soiled by the time they reach the sorting facility which makes them undesirable to recyclers. These bags must then be landfilled. The bags jam sorting equipment, causing mechanical breakdowns which increase the cost of processing for all reeyclables. There is a lack of markets for the collected film plastic to be made into new products. The primary alternatives to PE plastic carryout bags in Palo Alto are single-use paper carryout bags and reusable carryout bags made from cloth or durable plastic. All three of these options are available in Palo Alto stores. Currently no Palo Alto retailers are distributing compostable (starch-based or starch/petroleum-based) carryout bags. The costs of plastic bags and the alternatives vary and are listed below in Table-1. Table-4 Bags Distributed in Palo Alto (Costs provided by Palo Alto Grocers) Type of Carryout Bag Polyethylene Plastic Paper (6 of 7 grocers use paper bags w/handles) Reusable (cloth or plastic) Compostable Plastic Approximate cost per bag 1 to 5 cents 5 to 15 cents 99 cents to $1.49 No Palo Alto stores currently distribute for carryout tssu÷s As$ooiat÷d with the lt®Fnat v®s to Plastic Oakums/out Bags The primary environmental impacts of carryout bags are related to: Extraction/processing or growing/harvesting of resources; Manufacturing process; Transport from the manufacturer to the wholesaler/retailer; Patterns of use by consumers; End-of-life: landfill, recycling or litter; and Impacts on natural ecosystems and the marine environment The end of life impacts of paper bags are much lower than for plastic bags because they degrade faster in the environment and have less impact as litter both on land and in the marine environment Paper bags are also easily recyclable in Palo Alto’s curbside recycling program. The end of life impacts for compostable plastic bags is mixed. These bags can be composted in jurisdictions with food scrap collection programs; however, Palo Alto:s programs currently do not accept compostable plastic. Additionally, compostable plastic bags are a problem for recyclers when they contaminate film plastic (e.g., plastic bags, pallet wrap, shrink wrap) recycling programs because they are easily mistaken for plastic bags. Compostable plastics and film plastics are incompatible in the recycling process. And like polyethylene plastic bags, compostable plastic bags are designed for single use and have properties similar to polyethylene plastic bags that contribute to their likelihood to become litter, ultimately ending up in the marine environment. While they degrade more rapidly than polyethylene plastic in natural ecosystems, they still negatively impact marine life. A study, published in 2002 by the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage, evaluated the life cycle environmental impacts of plastic carryout bags and alternatives. They assessed the life cycle of eleven carryout bags including two types of HDPE single-use bags, two types of LDPE single-use bags, a cotton bag, a reusable woven HDPE bag, a reusable woven Polypropylene (PP) bag, a Kraft paper bag, a solid PP basket, and two types of compostable plastic bags (starch-based, starch+synthetic polymer). The study did not assess cloth bags made from Eco-Spun (100% post- consumer #1 plastic bottles), and the cotton bag was not made from organic cotton. The study concluded that reusable bags cause the least impacts, from greenhouse gas emissions to litter. Additionally, the study found that compostable plastic bags and polyethylene plastic bags produced similar greenhouse gas emissions. The study determined that paper bags consumed more energy and resources to manufacture initially; however, bags containing higher amounts of recycled materials substantially reduce the impacts of these bags.a~ AB 2449 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 845) was enacted to encourage the use of reusable bags by consumers and retailers and to reduce the consumption of single use bags. The law became effective July 1, 2007. The law applies to al! supermarkets~-~- and those retai! establishments with over 10,000 square feet of space which include pharmacies. The requirements for compliance with the law include: The operator of a store, as defined, must have at least one recycling bin that is clearly marked, visible, and accessible to customers Plastic carryout bags provided by the store must be marked in a manner visible to the consumer: "Please Return to a Participating Store for Recycling." The applicable store must maintain records describing collections, transport and recycling of plastic bags collected for a minimum of three years The operator of the store must make reusable bags available for purchase within the store. Manufacturers of plastic carryout bags shall develop educational materials to encourage reducing, reusing and recycling plastic bags and make those available to the applicable stores. Local jurisdictions are specifically precluded from adopting any of the following additional regulations upon an applicable store: Imposing a plastic carryout bag fee Additional reporting requirements and Requiring a store to collect, transport or recycle plastic bags if the store is in compliance with this law-. Along with AB 2449, AB 258 became law in 2007. _~_B 258 added to Division 7 of the Water Code provisions that seek to stop plastic pellets (from which plastic carryout bags " are made) called ’~Nurdles" from entering the waters of the state as well as the oceans by requiring the State and Regional Water Quality Contro! Boards to implement a program_ for contro! of the discharge of these pellets by January !, 2009. Additional legislation has also been introduced. AB 2058 would build upon the provisions of AB 2449 by creating recycling benchmarks and allowing stores to charge a fee of up to 15 cents per plastic bag given to consumers. Stores would be prohibited from dispensing single-use plastic carry-out bags to their customers unless they could demonstrate that they have reduced!recycled at least 35 percent of plastic bags by the end of 2010, and 70 percent by the end of 2012. San Francisco banned certain single-use plastic carry-out bags in Apri! 2007. San Francisco’s Ordinance, in effect since November 2007, requires that certain stores offer only compostable bags, 100% recyclable paper bags (must include 40% post consumer paper), or reusable bags. Compostable bags offered must meet American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards for compostability, and must include specific labeling to identify the bag as compostable. The ordinance findings included the following reasons in support of the ban: Duty to protect environment Citywide goals of 75% landfill diversion by 2010 and zero waste by 2020 Expansive use of plastic bags and diversion into landfill Plastic bags are difficult to recycle and comaminate compost Plastic bags create significant litter problems Plastic bags have significant environmental impacts each year: felling of over 14 million trees, use of over 12 million barrels of oil for bags in U.S., as well as death of over 100,000 marine mammals Governments of several countries have imposed bans The ordinance follows the lead of State Law (AB 2449), applying only to supermarkets with $2M or greater in sales and pharmacy chains with five or more locations within San Francisco. The ordinance applies to approximately 50 grocery stores and as of January 2008, 95% of these stores were in compliance. A recent phone interview- with San Francisco’s staff found they have conducted a survey following the effective date of the Ordinance. The following was occurring: 30% of patrons were using reusable bags. Only 3 of the 50 San Francisco stores covered by the Ordinance were offering compostable plastic bags. The City of Oaldand adopted an ordinance similar to San Francisco’s. Oaldand’s ordinance, applies to al! retail businesses grossing $1M or more in sales (about 300 businesses). The Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling filed a lawsuit on August 3, 2007 against Oakland. The lawsnit, A Verified Petition for Writ.of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), seeks to preclude the enforcement of the Ordinance or to invalidate the ordinance, alleging that the ordinance wil! result in adverse envh’onmentat impacts. The lawsuit argues the following: Restricting plastic bags while allowing compostable plastic bags will result in contamination of the existing process for recycling plastic bags. The ordinance will cause an increase in the use of paper bags, which will increase greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution because paper bags generate more pollutants and require more energy to produce and recycle than plastic bags. Respondents have abused their discretion by ignoring CEQA’s mandate to evaluate environmental impacts. The County of Los Angeles prepared a study entitled, "An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County", dated August 2007. The Board decided to allow plastic manufacturers one year to: 1) work on increasing the recycling rates at supermarkets, 2) educational campaigns on reduction of plastic bag use, and 3) increase use of reusable bags. If supermarkets do not achieve a 35% reduction and a 70% reduction in consumption by 2010 and 2013 respectively, the Board would then draft an ordinance banning the use of plastic bags within County jurisdictions. The Board also passed a Motion to seek to repeal AB 2449, in order to allow a fee to be imposed on plastic bag use. ireland: in 2002, instituted the "PlasTax" or a fee for every plastic carryout bag due to visible litter throughout Ireland. The fee applies to al! plastic carryout bags distributed by retailers, including bin-plastic bags as they were not seen as an environmentally preferred alternative. Plastic carryout bag usage was reduced by 90%, or over 1 billion bags in one year. The tax proceeds are put into waste recycling and litter programs.23 Bangladesh: Banned plastic bags in 2003 when they found that the bags had blocked drainage into a river exacerbating flooding during monsoons in that region. They rely almost exclusively on reusable jute bags. Coles Bay, Tasmania: Banned plastic bags in 2003, stopping the use of 350,000 plastic bags in the first twelve months. Host to whale migration along its eastern seaboard, the community determined to reduce their waste and protect the whales when a Bryde’s whale died on Cairns beach after ingesting 6 square meters of plastic, including plastic bags. France: Corsica banned plastic bags in 2003. Plastic bags were replaced with reusable and paper bags. London, England: 33 Councils in London proposed a plastic bag ban in 2007, with a potential fee, citing marine endangerment, litter, decreasing petrochemica! reliance/waste and the need to encourage reuse. The bil! was submitted to Parliament and a vote is expected in 2008. China: A measure effective 6/1/08 will effectively ban ultra-thin plastic bags and pose a.compulsory charge on all other plastic carrier bags. Single-use plastic caro, out bags contribute substantially to litter of waterways both in the Bay Area and worldwide. Federal, State and Local government’s efforts to address the problem over several decades have failed to reduce the build-up of plastic debris in the marine environment. Single-use plastic carryout bags do not degrade in the marine environment for many years and have been found to substantially affect marine life. Even with the emphasis on recycling of plastics in the last several decades, the plastic carryout bag recycling rate remains at approximately 5%. Reusable carryout bags are considered worldwide to be the best option to reduce waste and litter, protect wildlife and conserve resources. Reusable bags have lower associated greenhouse gas emissions. They are readily available and are affordable for the consumer. Plastic bag bans and per bag fee assessments have been enacted by a number of communities around the world. Bans and fee assessments have dramatically reduced the use of plastic bags. City Manager Report 243:9 - Staff Report "War on Waste Conmaittee Report on Plastics" 4/20/892www.zerowaste.ca.gov/plasticbags 3 http://stats.paperrecycles.org/4 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study, May 2006, Table 4-1, p. 115http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/press/20080116AD40PR0!.htm6"Estuary", Volume 16, No. 6, December 2007, p. 77http://resources.ca.gov/copc/8 Environmental Group Research Report - Proposed Plastic Levy, Scotland Executive Environmental Group, 2005 9 http://ww-w.cawrecycles.org/issues/current_legislation/ab2058_08 10 http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaigrdplastic_bags 11 City Manager Report 243:9 - Staff Report "War on Waste Committee Report on Plastics" 4/20/89 12 w~v~T.zerowaste.ca, gov/plasticbags13 http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/press/20080116AD40PR01 .htm 14 Estuary, December 2007, Volume !6, No. 6 is http ://sacoast.uwc.ac.za/education!resources/marinedebris/index.htm ~6 "Estuary-", Volume 16, No. 6, December 2007, p. 7 17 http ://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plastic-Plastic-Evers~-here-Algalita.htm 18 The Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act: A Policy Analysis, Columbia University, Summer 200519 http://w~.unep.org/regionalseas/marine!itter/publications/docs/plastic_ocean report.pdf 20 ww-w.zerowaste.ca, gov/plasticbags Plastic Shopping Bags - Analysis of Levies and Enviromnental Impacts - Final Report (12/200222 Definition of Supermarket as defined by Section 14526.5 of the California Public Resources Code23 Environmental Group Research Report - Proposed Plastic Levy, Scotland Executive Environmental Group, 2005 e rico n ° Chemistry The Honorable Lany Klein Mayor, City of Polo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pa!o Alto, CA 94301 March 5, 2008 RE: Policy Recommendations Regarding Polystyrene Food Se~wice Products and Plastic Bags Dear Mayor Klein: Thank you for providing the American Chemistry Council (ACC)t with the oppol~tunity to submit comments relative to the recently proposed policies concerning polystyrene food setwice products and plastic bags. ACC and its meinber companies share the City. of Pato Alto’s desh’e to reduce litter, increase recycling and improve the environment. However, ~,,e are opposed to policies that would ban the use of safe attd environmentally sustabmble products like plastic bags and expanded foodservice polystyrene cups and contabters. Based on out’ experiences with specific product bans or restrictions, such bans do not help reduce litter or marine debris in any signijqcant or sustainable way. Simply substituting one material for another does not address the root cause of the problem: litter. Plastic bags and polystyrene foam, along with bleached coated paperboard, aluminum, glass, plastics or multi-layered materials also used in food set-vice ware in the City of Polo Alto are not a pollutant if they are used and disposed of properly, h~ our view, there is no environmentally acceptable form of litter and focusing on one specific packaging ~pe falls short of a comprehensive policy that is needed to address litter and marine debris. The most environmentally responsible solution is a comprehensive program aimed at recycling. For example, successgd recycling programs undertaken by large retailers around the nation illustrate a willingness on the part of consumers to pm’ticipate in a~-store recycling progTams for plastic bags. In many cases the demand EXCEEDS the available supply, as the recycled materia! may be used as feedstock in the production of other products like new bags, pallets, containers, crates, and pipe. Since it is more cost-effective to use recycled product than raw material, bag manufacturers and private recyclers are seeking recycled plastic in greater numbers. In fact, an at-store recycling prod’am has recently been adopted by the state of California and the City of New York. The America~ Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry and is committed ~o improving environmental, health and safety performance through Responsible Care@; common sense advocacy; environmental research and product testing. amerlcanchemlstry.oom 1121 L Strceq Suir.e 50R Sacramen[o CA 958~4 I (916) 448.258! How We Can Work To,ether ACC is committed to working with the City of Pa!o Alto to identify and implement solutions that will reduce litter regardless of material type, increase recycling, and improve the overall environmental landscape. Though we oppose a ban on expanded polystyrene containers and plastic bags, }~,e do believe that all stakeholders, including industry, government, non-profit groups and consumers can and shouM play an active rote 9~ reducb~g litter and marine debris. Specific activities that can be undertaken include: Continue and expand watershed-based cleanups organized by organizations like Keep America Beautiful, Keep Califoruia Beautiful and Keep Los Angeles Beautiful. ACC is an active suppot-ter of these organizations, yet more can and should be done. o Increase the availability of trash, recycling and cigarette butt receptacles at public places, schools, and commercial establishments. As we are doing in other communkies in California, ACC would be p!eased to work with the City of Palo Alto to examine plastics recycling opportunities. Promote environmental education and outreach on the impacts of ,narine debris and litter prevention. Please find attached to this letter ACC fact sheets on plastic bags and potysb’rene food service containers, and a fact sheet prepared by the CIWMB which was included with their agenda on November 13, 2007. Attachment 2 on Agenda Item 16 discusses the use of compostable plastics and can be accessed at http://www.ciwmb.ca.~oviAgendas/agenda.asp?RecID=t 276. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments. We would like to work closely with the City in a collaborative manner on solutions which address the issue of !itter and marine debris in a sustainable and meaningful way. I can be reached at 916-448-258! or via email at Ryan_Kenny@americanchemistry.com, and our Director of the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, Mike Levy, can be reached at 703-74 !-5647 or via e-mail at mike_levy@americanchemist<c.com. Sincerely, Ryan Kenny Manager, Western Region State Affairs and Grassroots American Chemisto, Council Vice Mayor Peter Drekmeier Councihnan John Barton Councihnan Patrick Bu~c Councilman Sid Espinosa Councilwoman Yoriko Kishimoto Councilman Jack Morton Councilman Grog Schmid Councilman Yiaway Yeh Mike Le<, Director Plastics Foodse~wice Packaging Group (PFPG) Plastics Division American Chemisto, Council Board Meeting November 13, 2007 Attachment 2 Proper Use and Benefits of P astics Compostab ÷ Purpose of this Fact Sheet The extensive proliferation and use of plastic packaging and products being marketed as degradable, biodegradable or compostable, presents challenges for policy makers in regard to their proper use for achieving tangible environmental benefits. This fact sheet provides guidance regarding what issues policy makers should take into account when making decisions about policies either promoting or restricting the use of plastic packaging and!or products whose manufacturers claim to be degradable, biodegradable, or compostable Whole Waste System Analysis In developing local and state policy related to the use and management of degradable plastics, decision-makers should consider the implications of any decision on the whole local or regional waste diversion and disposal system and those that use it. This is important because improvement in one area of a system can sometimes adversely affect another part of the waste management system. For example, it is clear that compostable plastic products could significantly increase food scrap and greenwaste diversion because food service ware could be composted along with food scrap, and the bags used to collect greenwaste would not need to be separated before composting, However, degradable plastics could also contaminate the existing plastic recycling stream if they are not properly collected and composted, thus reducing plastic recycling oppo.rtunities. Further, while compostable bags meeting the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards will degrade in a compost environment (based on the experimental conditions of this study), most will not break down if released to the land or marine environment. In summary, it is important to understand that biodegradable or compostable plastics are not a panacea for waste or litter reduction. These products should be used in conjunction with a recycling program that will divert them to compost facility or onsite composting operation to reduce the risk of their entering the recycle stream, or being released into the environment as litter. There is no environmental benefit from simply purchasing these products if they are only going to end up in the iandfill, the environment, or as a contaminant in the recycling stream. What do we mean by "compostable" plastic? The ASTM defines "degradable" plastic as a plastic designed to undergo degradation under specified conditions as measured by standard test methods. If the degradation results from the action of naturally-occurring microorganisms such as fungi, bacteria, and algae, the plastic is called "biodegradable." If the degradation results from the action of natural daylight, the plastic is said to be "photodegradable." A plastic that undergoes degradation by bio!ogical processes during composting to yield carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue is called "compostable." The ASTM has developed specifications for determining whether a product can be certified as degradable or compostable. To order copies of the pertaining specifications, visit www.astm.orq Should I Verify ThatA Product Is Compostable? Yes! Any claim that a product or package is degradable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines "competent and reliable scientific evidence" as "tests, analyses, research, studies or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, that has been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results." In addition, California law (Public Resources Code, Chapter 5.7) prohibits a person from selling a plastic bag or container in California labeled with the term biodegradable, degradable or compostable unless it meets the ASTM specification for compostable plastic. For the purpose of this fact sheet, and to be consistent with the above law, we use the term "compostable" as comprising the terms degradable and biodegradable. What Are the Benefits of Using Compostable Plastic? You may ask, "what are the benefits of using compostable plastics?" The clear answer to that question is that the 5vo key benefits of usinq comDostable D!astics are increasinq food scrao diversion and green waste diversion: Food Scrap Diversion - Compostable food service ware could be used in restaurant and institutional settings. Co- collection of food scraps and compostable service ware in compostable bags could result in significant diversion of food scraps to compost!rig facilities, a difficult part of the waste stream to divert. Green Waste Diversion - Compostable yard waste bags could be used in association with curbs!de pickup of yard trimmings to divert another significant part of the waste stream to composting facilities. Other benefits include conserving resources such as natura! gas and oit, and reducing GHG emissions. Are There Other Environmental issues Associated With the Use of Compostable Plastics? Yes. Compostable plastics pose a potentially significant contamination problem to the recycle stream for plastic containers and bags. Degrades in the Landfill? Landfills are operated in such a way as to prevent air and water from infiltrating the covered waste. This retards the degradation of compostabie plastics, although some degradation will still occur even in the absence of oxygen. In addition, even if the degradable plastic were to fully break down, the only possible benefit would be to conserve some landfill space. De.qrades in the Environment? Many of these products will not fully degrade, or degrade at all, in soil, air or marine environments. They may fragment to some degree, but that may actually have an even greater significant adverse impact on wildlife. For example, pollutants such as pesticides may adhere to the surface of plastic and if ingested by wildlife they may lead to the bioaccumulation of toxins in the food chain. Containers - Compostable containers are virtually indistinguishable from other plastic containers and could significantly increase sorting costs and subsequently drive up the cost of post-consumer resins. If not adequately sorted, leads to contamination of plastics being recycled and less marketability. Given the significant investment in the plastic container collection and processing infrastructure in California, it is not desirabie to use these products except in discrete situations such as institutional food service or possibly large venues where they can be source separated on site for diversion to compost facilitities or in-vessel composting operations. Ba.qs - Compostable carry out bags should only be used in combination with collection programs that can keep them separate from the non-compostable plastic bag recycle stream. California stores that offer plastic bags are now required to provide drop-off recycling for their customers (Public Resources Code, Chapter 5.1). However, if local governments enact ordinances that require stores to provide compostable bags instead, the stores are then not required to provide this recycling service to their customers. In addition, if a local government enacts such an ordinance and does not have a collection system for the compostable bags, then the bags may end up contaminating neighboring jurisdictions’ plastic carry out bag collection services. Publication #Month Year The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CtWMB) does not discriminate on the basis of disability in access to its programs. CIWMB publications are available in accessible formats upon request by calling the Public Affairs Office at (916) 341-6300. Persons with hearing impairments can reach the CfWMB through the California Relay Service, 1-800.735-2929. © [year] by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Aft rights reserved. This publication, orpa.,’ts thereof, may not be reproduced without permission, Where Can ~ Find More Information About the Performance of Compostable Plastics? To facilitate purchasing decisions and help prevent consumer deception about degradable plastics, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), contracted the California State University Chico, Research Foundation for a study to evaluate the performance of degradable plastic packaging and disposable food service ware in compost and simulated marine environments. This research resulted in b,,vo reports: "Evaluation of the Performance of Rigid Piastic Packaging Containers, Bags, and Food Service Packaging in Full-Scale Commercial Composting" and "Performance Evaluation of Environmentally Degradable Plastic Packaging and Disposable Food Service Ware." Summary of Report Findings All of the products tested, except those that degrade by oxidation (oxodegradables) or sun radiation (UV degradable), biodegrade satisfactorily in commercial compost operations in 180 days. Similar results were obtained in the laboratory. Only one sample (Mirel) appears to significantly biodegrade after 90 days in the simulated marine environment. The other samples did not appear to degrade in the marine environment. All of the finished compost samples, including the oxodegradable and UV degradable plastics met the plant seed germination requirements and supported the growth of tomato seedlings after 10 days. Prior to making a decision to use degradable plastic products, first analyze your local andtor regional waste management system to evaluate all potential impacts to the diversion and disposal systems. Determine if new or expanded collection and composting programs are needed to divert, the products you are using. Only use compostable plastics certified by the Biodgradable Products institute (BPI), or that are other,vise independently documented as meeting the ASTM compostable plastic specification. To have additional information on how to get certified, visit BPI’s web at http:ilw,~,~.bpiworld.orglBPI-Public Use compostable plastics in combination with collection programs that wili divert them along with other organic materials such as food scraps or green waste to composting facilities. Look for opportunities to use these products at institutional settings such as hospitals or prisons; restaurants; and/or large venue events. Obtaining Copies of the Reports The above reports can be downloaded from v~,vw.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publicationsl or ordered by calling the Publications Clearinghouse at (916) 34t- 6306. All of the compost samples containing the biodegraded materials had lead and cadmium concentrations well below 1% of the maximum allowable ievels. The oxodegradable plastics sampled did not exhibit any cobalt levels and had cadmium and lead concentrations well below the limits. As expected, the presence of degradable plastics in the recycling stream negatively affects the quality of the final products. Summary of Report Recommendations Publication #Month Year The Catifomia Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) does not discriminate on the basis of disability in access to its programs. CfWb1B pubfications are available in accessible formals upon request by calling the Public Affairs Office at (916) 34"!-6300. Persons with hearing impairments can reach the CtWMB through the California Relay Service, t-800-735-2929. © [year] by the California integrated Waste Management Board. All rig,~ts reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced without permission. Co rican .mi tl"7uncil Contact: Jennifer Kil!inger (703) 74i-5833 Emait: jeanife~ki!linger@americanchemistry.oom RE.CYCLABLE PLASTIC BAGS Plastic grocery bags are an extremely resource-efficient disposable bag choice. o Plastic grocery bags require 40 percent less energy to manufacture than paper bagsJ o For evel~¢ seven trucks needed to deliver paper bags, only one truck is needed for the same number of plastic bags, helping to save energy and reduce emissions. o It takes 91% less energy to recyc!e a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. Less material means less waste and fewer emissions. o 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 tbs; 2,000 paper bags weigh 280 lbs. Plastic bags take up a lot less space in a Iandfi!l] o Piastic bags generate 80 percent tess waste than paper bags.t o Plastic grocery bags make up a tiny flaction (less than 0.5 percent) of the U.S. municipal soiid waste stream.- o The manufacture and use of paper bags gene:.’ates 70% more air emissions than piastic.~ *Plastic bags generate 60% less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than non-composted paper bags and 79% !ess OHG emissions than composted paper bags.3 o The production of p!astic bags consumes less than 4 percent of the water needed to make paper bags.3 Plastic grocery bags are fully recyclable4 and the nmnber of recycling programs is increasing daily. Plastic bags can be made into dozens of useful new products, such as building and construction products, low-maintenance fencing and decking, and of course, new bags, o There is high demand for this material, and in most areas, demand exceeds the available supply because many consumers are not aware that collection programs are available at local stores. o [n recent years, many grocers and retailers have introduced plastic bag collection programs. Consumers should look for a collection bin, usually located at the front of the store. The number of municipal drop-off centers and curbside programs "~o recycle plastic bags is increasing also. U.S. Environmental Protcction Agency. Questions about Your Community Shopping.Sags: Paper or }~lastic. See: w~,.epa.gov!reaionl/communities/shopba~s.html. Downloaded from the interact May 2007, GUA - Gesellschaft .,e, tr umfassende ,~aaaiysen, The Contribution of Plastic Products to Resource Efficiency, Vienna, 2005, ~31asticseurope.or~ContcnUDefa’,qt.as,~?PaKelD=517# Boustead Consulting, "Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags - Recyclable Plastic; COml3ostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyctable Paper," 2007 : U.S, Envirolmaental Protection Agency. ~runicipat r/Vaste in the United States. 2005 Facts and Figures. See: htlp://,a-,wv.epa.~;ovignrba~elm~bs/mswchar05.pdf. 3Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests & Landscape (SAEFL). Life Cycle invemoriesfor.Packagmgs. Environmenla! Series 250/!. 1998. Based on data from Eco-Yrofiles of the European Plastics ,rt:dttsOy, LDPE Film ~xtrttsiotl: A .l~epos’! by f. Betstead for PlasticsEmope. March 2005. See httr~:Nlca.olasticseurone.or~iindex.htm. Recycling may not be available it’., all areas. Check to see if recycling exists in your community. See ~tt~:l/w-,v~v.plasticba~rec,vclin~.or~J01.0I. amerlcanchemistrv.com 1300 "vVi!san Boulcvard, Aclin~zcol:, VA 22209 I {703) 74!.5000 Consumers can locate p!astic bag recyc[ing programs in their communities by visiting www.PlasticBagRecycling.org. In addition to groce~i bags, other ~lastic retail bag~. dry cleaning bass and newspaper bags can be included wherever ~Iastic bags are collected for recycling. In addition to recycling, a recent national survey shows that over 90% of Americans reuse their plastic bags. o About 65% of Americans reuse their bags for trash disposal. Other common uses include lunch bags and pet pick-up. In this regard, the reuse of a plastic shopping bag prevents a second bag fl’om being purchased to fulfill these necessa~T functions. WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT BAG BANS Banning recyclable plastic bags will not reduce society’s dependence on oil. o In the United States, nearly 80% of po!yethylene, the type of plastic used to make plastic bags, is produced from natm’al gas, not oi!. This includes feedstock, process and transportation energy. Much of the energy used to make plastic bags is embodied in the bag itself, a~:d since plastic bags are fully recyclable, that energy is available for new products. Mandating that recyclable plastic bags be replaced with biodegradable or compostable bags will not reduce litter or the amount of waste in our landfills. o The biodegradable and compostable bags currently on the market will only degrade in a professionally-managed, large-scale composting facility. They will not breakdown in the natural environment, in a home composting device or in a landfi!l. o It is currently estimated that there are fewer than 100 suitable composting facilities in the United States. Where composting facilities are not available, "compostable" bags will be sent to a lan,~fi.:l. Banning recyclable plastic bags or mandating their replace~nent with compostable bags will diminish efforts to recycle these products. o Mandating that grocers and retai!ers replace plastic bags with compostable or paper bags wi!l eliminate many in-store collection programs, which are currently the largest mechanism for recovering post-consumer bags for recycling. o hn addition, the mandated use of compostable bags wi!l cause the accidental commingling of biodegradable and recyclabte bags, which will contaminate the recovered material, rendering it unusable by manufacturers. Last Updated: August 9, 2007 The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC members apply the science of chemistry to ma~ innovative products and sem, ices that ma~ people’s lives bette~; healthier and salt. A CC # committed to improved envb’onmental, health and safe&performance throug,~ ~espo~sible Care~, common sense advocacy designed to address major public policy issues, and health and env#’onmental research and product testi;zg. The business of chemistry is a $635 billion enterprise and a kgv element of the nation’s economy. B is one of the nation’s largest exporters, accounting for ten cents out of eve~ doliar in U,S. ea~orts. Chemisoy companies are among the largest investors in research and development. Safe~ and seeto’iO~ have ahvays been primary concerns of ACC members, and they have intensified their efforts, working closely with government agencies to i,~orove security and to deJ~nd against any threat to the nation ~ critical infi’astructure, americanchernistry.corn~;3oo Wilson ISoul~,,ard, i~!~#on, va 222o# [ (7o3) 74~.5ooo ~"6~, ~66B99 he stry Contact: Ryan Kermy (916) 448-258! Emaih ryan_kermy@americanchemistt}~, corn FACTS ABOUT POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOODSERVICE PACKAGING Polystyrene (PS) and the entire plastics industry are part of the solution. The industry has made significant progress over the past decade in reducing content through manufacturing source reduction, and discouraging litter and improper d;sposal of trash. A Positive Environmental Alternative: Coffee and tea customers who believe they are doing something "good for the environment" by choosing to use a plastic- coated paperboard cup with a sleeve for one hot beverage instead of a single polystyrene foam cup will be surprised to learn what a peer reviewed life cycle study has shown (2006 Franklin Associates report.) According to this data, for the average plastics-coated paperboard cup versus the average polystyrene foam cup, a plastic- coated paperboard cup with a sleeve results in 50% more energy to produce, nearly twice as much soiid waste volume, nearly five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly 50% more greenhouse gas emissions. Bans are likely to hu~ locaily-owned businesses because they limit choice andincrease costs. PS is one of the most cost-effective material for foodsep~ice containers used by small businesses. When the City of Malibu enacted a polystyrene ban, the local yogurt shop was forced to raise prices to counter the higher cost of paper cups - an annual cost increase of over $30,000! In reality, bar~s are really just a hidden tax on shop owners, who must pass the cost on to their customers. It is believed that any restriction - be it a ban or tax - ignores the real concern, which is litter. No CFCs: No chlorofiuorocarbons are used in foodservice polystyrene manufacturing today. CFCs were a very small portion of the polystjrene foodservice industry, and voluntarily phased out in the early i990s. amencanchem~stry.com i300 Wilson 3louh:vard, Ading~on, VA 22209 I (703) 74!.5000 (Polystyrene Foodservice Packaging, continued) Many local businesses are willing to do their part to reduce litter - to work coltaboratively with the city and anti-titter advocates to implement programs developed to address this important issue. PS foodservice ware is being recycied in California and elsewhere - no other foodservice materials (paperboard, composite paper!piastics, or biomateriats) can make that claim. PS recycling is an emerging market and ordinances that ban this material stifle such end-use potential benefits. Paper and paperboard make up the highest percent of municipai solid waste (trash) in the waste stream (33.9%), according to the most recent 2006 EPA report. The percentage of other materials in U.S. municipal landfills include food (I2.4%); plastics (1 1.7%), metals (7.6%); and all polystyrene (0.7%.) Very little of the waste in today’s modern, highly engineered landfills (including paper, plastic, food) actually biodegrades. Since degradation of materials can create potentially harmful liquid and gaseous by-products that could contaminate groundwater and air, today’s landfills are designed to minimize contact with air and water required for degradation to occur, thereby practically eliminating the degradation of waste. The industry recognizes and agrees that any foodservice packaging is a b!ight to the community when it is disposed of improperly. The environmentally beneficial approach to address the issue is to focus on preventing litter in the first place - through implementing anti-litter programs aimed at affecting behavioral changes that result in measurable overall litter reduction, and involving all stakeholders in the community: business, government, schools, and citizen groups. Bans may change the composition of litter, but they do not reduce the amount of litter since litterbugs do not discriminate between materials. Behavioral change - not a ban or any other product restriction - is a key component to any successful litter reduction program. If the goal is to reduce coastal and waterborne waste, then solutions should focus on measurable, replicable, and objective results. a mericanchem~stry.com 1300 \:v’flson Bonlev’acd, Ar!ington, VA 22209 (703) 741.5000