Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTYROFOAM BAN*NEW FILE* A A - - ! - - -- - !, - __ THE LAST WORD Students set example Think globally, act locally. $hat time -worn saying is apropos in Newport Beach today as the City Council will this week consider a ban on Styrofoam food containemto clean up local beaches and waterways, The Idea started with a bunch of surfers from Newport Harbor High. The kids, part of longtime surf coach Scott Mori team, pushed for the Styrofoam ban after years of watching the floatingplastic infest the surf following winter rainstorms. Usually, such a pipe dream Is difficult to see'through fruition; but this time, something happened. The . localrestaurants gave abig thumbs up to the idea of weaning themselves off of Stymfoamproducts, Restaurateurs, who.are usually cautious about making changes that could lose customers, seem to be in agreement that ridding their eateries of Styrofoam is the responsible thing to do for the environment and'the future, Tb those Newport Harbor teens and the local restaurant . owners we raise a non -Styrofoam toast to you for your efforts to make our beaches and oceans that much cleaner. Butkeeping that old saying in mind, the true problem of Styrofoam pollution won't go away until those cities and businesses upstream and alto an fo11o�4 suit In other words, the locals Just got their act together. It's time for the globe to do the same. Council to vote on Styrofoam Newport Harborstudents have promoted ban of polystyrene products. Laguna Beach has already approved a similar plan. By Brianna Bailey Daiiy Pilot The Newport Beach City Council on Tuesday will consider passing a citywide ban on polystyrene products at restaurants. The council is considering the ordinance after students from New- port Harbor High School lobbied city Officials to ban polystyrene, com- monly known as Styrofoam, because it pollutes local beaches. Many local restaurants use Styrofoam cups and take-out containers for to -go orders. Several Southern California cities have already adopted similar ordi- nances,including Laguna Beach and Santa Monica. "What went into this is thousands of hours, five or six different City Councils, lots of press conferences, getting petitions signed and working with the Newport Beach Restaurant Assn.," said Stephanie Barger, execu- tive director of the environmental group Earth Resource Foundation, which has worked with the Newport Harbor students on the proposed ban. "We're really excited, but the point is not to get more laws passed. It's to LEOPOLDO PENA/ DAILY PILOT CONTAINERS IN QUESTION Styrofoam containers may be banned at Newport restaurants if the City Council approves the plan on Tuesday. " It's to get people truly educated and take more actions. This isn't just an environmental issue but a quality -of -life issue." STEPHANIE BARGER EXECUTE DIRECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP EARTH RESOURCE FOUNDATION get people truly educated and take more actions," Barger said. "This isn't just an environmental issue but a quality -of -life issue." The ban includes a hardship clause that exempts restaurants if eliminat- STYROFOAM Continued from Al Local restaurants seem to be OK with the ban, said Sheri Drewry, president of the New- port Beach Restaurant Assn. Drewry's family owns the Balboa Island restaurant Wilma's Patio. "The few that I have talked to, nobody has had a problem at all," Drewry said. 'It's just a matter of finding a suitable replacement for Styrofoam." Councilman Keith Curry said he will probably vote in favor of the ban. "You have to start some- place, and I commend the students at Newport Harbor ing Styrofoam products from their businesses would cause owners undue economic hardship and no reasonable alternative can be found. See STYROFOAM, page A10 High who have been dogged on this issue for several years' Curry said. "While ies not going to solve all of the pollution problems, it's a start,' he said. Councilman Steve Rosan- sky, who also owns a restau- rant in Orange, said he thought the ban was a good idea. .41 think we need to set an example," Rosansky said. "How can we ask upper water- shed cities to stop sending junk' down the river without setting an example?" If Passed, the ordinance would go into effect April 29. BRIANNA BAILEY may be reached at (714) 966-4625 or at briannpa.bailey@latfimes..com. Cis'. I;?-7 - r ObS NO MORE: A Styrofoam cup floats in the Newport Harbor. Styrofoam is note the material in restaurants. Newport Harbor High School students had lobbied , Newport"Harbor High School's surfing and yI ' environmental class w lobbied the City Council for the ban. By Brianna Bailey Daily Pilot The Newport Beach city Council voted unanimously'Daesday to ban h polystyrene products at restaurants in the city after Newport Harbor rl High School students lobbied city ? officials for several years to toss Styrofoam cups and to -go boxes out of city eateries. "I'm ecstatic," said Newport Har- bor High sophomore Ariel Kusby. "We worked so hard, and ifs amaz- ing to see the fruit of our efforts in a world thars mostly controlled by adults." Students from teacher Scott Mor- laws surfing and environmental class at Newport Harbor High School have been asking the city to ban expanded polystyrene products, commonly known as Styrofoam, for about, six years, Morlan said. The students say Styrofoam products pollute local beaches. It's so great to see these kids em- powered, Moran said. "What a great learning experience and away to learn about the power of one, the difference one person can make." About 30 students from Modans class last year spoke with local res- taurant owners, researched biode- gradable alternatives to expanded - polystyrene and collected signa- tures. The class isn't in session this semester, Morlan said, but ahandful of the students from last year's class showed up Tuesday night to show their support of the ban. "We've been working on it for such a long time; it feels good that Ws finally done," said sophomore'ls- DON LEACH/DAILY PILOT Idable, and the City Council voted Tuesday to approve a ban on change for the. Past severaJyllars. abella Holmes, who began working on the banas a freshman. Newport Beach Councilman Keith Cuny commended the stu- dents for pursuing the ban, while a national trade group representing polystyrene had asked the council to , keep the substance legal. you should feel very proud," Curry said. "Its not very often that a national trade organization lobbies this council on something, and you should know thatyou beat them." Councilwoman Nancy Gardner commended the Newport Beach Restaurant Assn. for supporting the proposedban. Many local restaurants use Styro- foam containers for to -go. orders. Several Southern California cities have already adopted similar ordi- nances, including Laguna Beach and Santa Monica The ordinance would be phased in over a six-month period. The ban also includes a hardship clause that [i "We worked so hard, and it's amazing to seethe fruit of our efforts in a world that's mostly controlled by adults." ARIEL KU`9814 NE1yER )jI,RBOR HIGH sOP(iomoRE ex4npts restaurants ff plim hating Styrofoamproductsfrotheir busi- nesses would cause owners undue economic hardship and no reason- able alternative canbe found. The council is expected to give fi- nal approval to the ordinance at its meeting Oct 28. 1 B' passed, the ordinanr{e would go into effect April29. BRIANNA BAILEY maybe reached at (714) 966-0625 or at brianna.baileyMatimes.col- ' ' Response to Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed ... Page 1 of 5 Attachment 2 Staff Response to Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed Ordinance Banning Non -Recyclable Plastic Disposable Food Service Containers PSPC's comments suggest that "significant adverse environmental impacts" will result from City Council's adoption of this ordinance. This conclusion is based on the erroneous assumption that implementation of the ordinance will result in a significant increase in the use of one material - biodegradable plastic - and a related increase in the amount of biodegradable plastics in the litter stream. This is addressed in the response to Comment 3 below and it makes all of PSPC's other arguments irrelevant, since they are premised on this erroneous assumption. However, for the sake of completeness, staff has addressed all of the PSPC's comments. As detailed herein these arguments are demonstrably false with respect to Santa Monica, the local environment and this ordinance, or are too vague or misleading for any meaningful environmental assessment. The ordinance specifically prohibits the use of non -recyclable plastic by food providers in Santa Monica because those products currently cause significant adverse environmental impacts to Santa Monica beaches, the marine environment and wildlife. The ordinance will replace these environmentally harmful products with alternatives that minimize harm to the environment. All of the alternatives are currently available. Since the total amount of food service packaging will not be affected by this ordinance, replacing a non -recyclable product (EPS and rigid polystyrene) with products which can be recycled or composted will likely result in a reduction in the total amount of food packaging that ultimately reaches the beach, because it can be expected that a substantial percentage•of these materials will be recycled or composted. PSPC's Comments 4 through 12 claim that increasing the amount of biodegradable plastic in the litter stream will have adverse environmental consequences. These comments are based on several flawed arguments which are discussed in detail below. It should be noted that biodegradable plastics have been strongly advocated as a replacement for expanded polystyrene and non -recyclable plastic food packaging by the Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment and the non-profit environmental group Heal the Bay because of the environmental benefits they provide with respect to the products they would replace. Members of the Task Force on the Environment include experts in the areas of environmental science, toxicology, air quality, ocean water quality,.and greenhouse gas emissions. Heal the Bay's staff includes several scientists with significant expertise in environmental science, coastal ecosystems and ocean water quality. For the reasons detailed in the staff report and herein the City has determined that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15308 (Class 8) of the CEQA guidelines. Comment 3 • Reasonably Foreseeable Increase in Use of Bio-Plastics The assumption expressed by the PSPC in this comment - that the use of biodegradable plastic will significantly increase in Santa Monica following adoption of the ordinance - is erroneous. The ordinance specifically prohibits the use of non -recyclable plastic, defined as expanded polystyrene (EPS) or rigid polystyrene (recycling symbol #6), by food providers in Santa Monica, because those products currently cause significant adverse environmental impacts to Santa Monica beaches, the marine environment and wildlife. The ordinance will replace these environmentally harmful products with alternatives that minimize harm to the environment. As the PSPC notes in their comment, the ordinance will not likely "affect the total amount offood service packaging used" in the City, and so will not likely lead to an increase in the amount of food service packaging in the litter stream. http://wwwOl.smgov.netleityelprklcouncil/agendas/2OO6l2006l205ls2006l20507-D-2.htm 08/26/2008 V' Response to Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed ... Page 2 of 5 The ordinance does not specify what alternative product(s) a food provider must use. Under the requirements of the ordinance a food provider in Santa Monica may use food containers made from anything other than EPS and non -recyclable plastic, including paper, cardboard, recyclable plastics #1 through #5, biodegradable plastics, aluminum, and other biodegradable products including those made from plant -based starches and fibers, sugar cane, limestone, bamboo, and tapioca. Biodegradable plastics currently make up a very small share of the overall food container market, and it is highly unlikely that the adoption of this ordinance in Santa Monica will alter their use in any significant way. Since biodegradable plastic containers are more expensive than other plastic and non -plastic alternatives it is likely that few, if any, vendors will switch to these products given the cost differential, particularly in light of the wide availability of other less expensive alternative products. The increased cost of biodegradable plastic products was the primary complaint expressed in written communication that the City received in April and May 2006 from the California Restaurant Association. This complaint was also voiced by various local restaurant owners at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2006, and has been expressed to city staff by restaurant owners and representatives of grocery stores in many previous and subsequent meetings. Furthermore, in a letter sent to the City on April 19, 2006 from the PSPC, the American Chemical Council (ACC) and the Food Service and Packaging Institute (FSPI), these groups state that "Bio-based alternatives are perceived as being commonly available, but the experience of business owners who have been forced to switch materials has been contrary to this. In addition, because these products are degradable and prone to break down when exposed to heat and moisture, stockpiling large quantities for prolonged periods can result in inventory being ruined. " This statement seems to directly contradict the assumption by the PSPC that the ban would increase the use of bio-plastics among food service providers. The other assumption expressed by PSPC in this comment - that "the ban can be expected to increase the amount ofPLA and other bio plastics in the litter stream, on beaches and the marine environment" - is also erroneous because 1) as noted above it is not likely that the usage of these type of products will increase by a significant amount; and 2) due to the physical properties of bio-plastics it is less likely that they will enter the litter stream or the environment. This is because a) biodegradable plastics can be composted or recycled, so it is expected that a portion of the products that are used will be composted or recycledLU and b) due to the higher weight of these products (compared to EPS) and their ability to biodegrade in the environment, it is less likely that those products that are disposed of, either properly or improperly, will be transmitted to the beach and marine environment by wind or water, as compared to EPS or other non -recyclable plastic. The percentage of solid waste diverted from the landfill through reuse, recycling or composting in Santa Monica currently stands at almost 70%, one of the highest diversion rates in the state of California. As this record makes clear, the city of Santa Monica and its residents are very committed to keeping waste out of landfills through recycling and composting. It can be expected in the future that any increase in the amount of recyclable and compostable products used in Santa Monica will result in a corresponding increase in the total amount of these products being recycled and composted. In short, based on the factors described above, the City anticipates a very minimal increase in the use of PLA's and other bio-plastics. Moreover, to the extent that these products are used, given the City's substantial track record in recycling and composting, and the physical composition of these products, they will not find their way to beaches and the marine environment in any appreciable amount. PSPC's entire premise is faulty and is wholly divorced from the Santa Monica context. http://wwwOl.smgov.neticityclerklcouncillagendas/2OO6l2OO6l2O5ls2OO6l2O5O7-D-2.htm 08/26/2008 Response to Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed ... Page 3 of 5 Comment 4: Air Quality Impacts The arguments presented in this comment are erroneous for a number of reasons, foremost of which is because they are predicated upon an increase in the use of biodegradable plastic products in Santa Monica as a result of the adoption of the ordinance, which was shown to be incorrect in the response to the comment above. Many of the arguments presented in this comment are also either factually incorrect or are directly contradicted by other statements made by PSPC. In this comment PSPC states that "Evidence suggests that bio plastics such as PLA, when introduced into the litter stream in Santa Monica, would result in potentially significant adverse air quality impacts. " However, they also include a quote from one of their referenced reports that states: "To summarize, all organic materials, including plastics, can be biodegraded to a greater or lesser extent, but the rate of degradation is controlled by many factors, and we do not have numerical models to allow predictions of the environmental impact of biodegradation(emphasis added)." PSPC's own report calls into question, and in fact directly contradicts PSPC's claims. PSPC's Comment 4 also alleges significant impacts from the degradation of biodegradable plastics in landfills. This directly contradicts statements made in the April 19, 2006 letter from the PSPC, ACC and FSPI referenced above, which states "In most cases, food service packaging products thought to be or marketed as biodegradable only degrade under very limited and specific conditions found in industrial compostingfacilities. These are not the same conditions found in landfills (emphasis added) ". However, even if it were the case that biodegradable plastics were to increase in landfills by a significant amount as a result of this ordinance, and if they were able to degrade once in the landfills, this argument would still be incorrect because 1) the majority of landfills in the Southern California region, including those that receive waste from Santa Monica, are covered and the methane generated by the decomposition of waste in the landfills is collected for reuse in electricity generation, which negates any environmental impact that the PSPC is claiming will occur; and, more importantly 2) biodegradable plastics are plant based materials made from corn starch. The greenhouse gas emissions given off by these products as they degrade are equivalent to the amount of emissions removed from the atmosphere by the corn plants as they grow, so the net balance in emissions is zero. For this reason alone it is not credible to claim that the degradation of biodegradable plastics used in Santa Monica as a result of this ordinance, either in landfills or in the environment, would result in any significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In this comment the PSPC also notes that "life cycle analyses suggest that replacing polystyrene food packaging with bio plastics will increase GHG and other pollutants required to produce an equivalent amount of bio plastic food packaging". While this point is not relevant for the reasons expressed in the 14 response to Comment 3, it must also be pointed out that life cycle assessments are far from conclusive on the overall environmental impacts of the manufacture and use of both bio-based plastics and non -recyclable plastics like polystyrene. The lack of conclusiveness of lifecycle assessments of packaging products is discussed in Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California: A Report to the California Legislature. dated December 2004 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. In addition, one of the references cited by the PSPC (Comstock et al. 2004) in support of their comments also notes this lack of conclusiveness. That report also includes a comparison of life cycle assessments from different sources in which petroleum based plastics (like polystyrene) are compared to bio-plastics on the basis of cost, non-renewable energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. The report notes that "it can be seen in almost every case that bio-based plastics require less fossil fuel than the petrochemical polymers. " Thus PSPC's own report directly contradicts PSPC's assertion. http://wwwOl.smgov.neticityclerklcouncillagendas/2OO6l2OO6l2O5ls2OO6l2O5O7-D-2.htm 08/26/2008 ' Response to Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed ... Page 4 of 5 Comment 5: Water Quality Impacts The claims in this comment are based on an anticipated increase in the use of bio-plastics in Santa Monica as a result of the ordinance. As discussed in the response to Comment 3 this is not expected to occur. The use of biodegradable plastic containers will not have foreseeable negative environmental impacts on water quality or the marine environment in Santa Monica. Comment 6: Plant Life Impacts The claims in this comment are based on an anticipated increase in the use of bio-plastics in Santa Monica as a result of the ordinance. As discussed in the response to Comment 3 this is not expected to occur. The use of biodegradable plastic containers will not have foreseeable negative environmental impacts on aquatic plant life in Santa Monica. Comment 7• Impacts to Fish and Wildlife from Bio-plastics The claims in this comment are based on an anticipated increase in the use of bio-plastics in Santa Monica as a result of the ordinance. As discussed in the response to Comment 3 this is not expected to occur. The use of biodegradable plastic containers will not have foreseeable negative environmental impacts on fish and wildlife in Santa Monica Bay. This comment also asserts that a ' foreseeable adverse consequence to animal life stems from the risk that increasing the amount of bio plastics in the local environment could lead certain species to adopt these bio plastics as a food source. " This is a curious statement because it is well documented that EPS and non -recyclable plastic (which would be banned by Santa Monica's ordinance) are already a food source and have been found in the digestive systems of nearly all tested ocean feeding bird species, marine mammals and fish, and are in fact a significant source of death in these species. If anything, a switch to bio-plastics would provide an environmental benefit because 1) where marine mammals feed there would be less of this material available as food (because, as noted in the response to Comment 3, it would be less likely to reach the animals than EPS) and 2) because it is biodegradable it is potentially digestible, unlike EPS and other non -biodegradable plastics. Comment 8: Enema Impacts The claims in this comment are based on an anticipated increase in the use of bio-plastics in Santa Monica as a result of the ordinance. As discussed in the response to Comment 3 this is not expected to occur. With regard to the comment about life cycle assessments please refer to the response to Comment 4, paragraph 5 on page 4 of this document. Comment 9: Impacts to Recycling Systems The claims in this comment are based on an anticipated increase in the use of bio-plastics in Santa Monica as a result of the ordinance. As discussed in the response to Comment 3 this is not expected to occur. Comment 10• Impacts from Increased Composting The City of Santa Monica has an established food waste and green waste composting program. The compostable material collected by the City is regularly transported in alternative fueled vehicles to industrial composting facilities. The adoption of this ordinance would in no way result in "increased fuel consumption and air quality impacts from truck trips to these locations" because no additional trips would be generated as a result of the ordinance. Comment 11: Impacts to Composting Services The City has been composting bio-plastics through its Zero Waste Farmers Market program since April 2006 and has not encountered any concern from industrial composting facilities with regard to "contamination' of the compost. Based on the references cited by PSPC, the argument made in this http://WwwOl.smgov.neticityclerklcouncil/agendas/2OO6l2OO6l2O5ls2OO6l2O5O7-D-2.htm 08/26/2008 ' Response to Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed ... Page 5 of 5 comment seems to stem from commercial conditions in Australia that are not relevant to Santa Monica. Comment 12• Impacts to Human Health The ordinance does not require food providers to conduct in-store collection and separation of food service containers, so this point has no relevance to the adoption of the ordinance. Comment 13: Impacts of Increased Litter As noted above, this ordinance will not lead to an increase in the use of bio-plastics in the community and therefore will not increase the amount of bio-plastics in the litter stream (See response to Comment 3, paragraph 5 on page 2-3 of this document). Also, with regard to the statement that "A significant potential impact of biodegradable plastics is simply the physical increase in litter, resultingfrom the behavior of the public which perceives biodegradables to be products that 'go away' quickly in the environment" the PSPC has not presented any scientific evidence that supports this opinion. Although the statement is drawn from an "expert" report prepared by a toxicologist (as opposed to a sociologist or other researcher who studies human behavior), it is entirely based on conjecture and speculation. Comment 14: Cumulative Impacts The draft ordinance applies to all food providers within Santa Monica but has no application outside the City's boundaries. The potential actions of other jurisdictions is speculative, beyond the control of the City, and too vague and imprecise for any meaningful environmental assessment. U In fact, there is an effective program in Santa Monica which demonstrates this. All of the bio-based plastic products used at the Zero Waste Farmers Market on Main Street, which requires all food vendors at the market to use recyclable or compostable food service items, including utensils are currently being composted or recycled. The program has been successfully implemented on a weekly basis since April 2006, achieving a near 100% diversion from the landfill of solid waste generated at the market. The compostable food service items are transported for composting along with food waste and other compostable material to an industrial composting facility. 121 A life cycle assessment is the evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the manufacture, distribution, use and disposal of a product, process or activity. http://wwwOl.smgov.neticityclerklcouncil/agendas/2006l2006l2O5ls2006l2O5O7-D-2.htm 08/26/2008 ri Polystyrene Packaging Council 04 PSPC 1300 Wilson Boulevard •.Arlington, VA 22209 703.741.5647 • Fax 703.741.5661 http:/Iwww.polystyrene.org November 13, 2006 Lamont Ewell, City Manager Craig Perkins, Director, Environmental and Public Works Management City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed Ordinance Banning Non -recyclable Plastic Disposable Food Service Containers Dear Mr. Ewell and Mr. Perkins: On behalf of the Polystyrene Packaging Council ("PSPC"), a business unit of the American Chemistry Council, I am writing to express our concerns regarding the failure of the Santa Monica City Council ("Council") to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in connection with the proposed ordinance banning non -recyclable plastic disposable food containers, Agenda Item 7-A for the November 14, 2006 City Council meeting (the "Ordinance"). The PSPC is a trade association representing the nation's major resin suppliers of polystyrene and the fabricator and converter companies that use the resin to manufacture polystyrene products. Comment 1: The Proposed Ordinance Is Subject to CEQA. The Staff Report for Agenda Item 7-A contains no mention of compliance with CEQA and we understand that the City Council has been advised, that the Ordinance is not subject to CEQA. However, it is well -settled that a regulatory ordinance intended for environmental protection is a "project" subject to CEQA and that, where there is evidence that such an ordinance may have unintended adverse environmental impacts, those impacts must be analyzed and, if feasible, mitigated in accordance with CEQA before the ordinance may be adopted. Municipalities and agencies that have taken the position that CEQA review is unnecessary for their environmental protection ordinances and regulatory programs have consistently lost in the courts. See, e.g., Dunn Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Ouality Management District 9 Cal. App. 4th 644 (1992); County Sanitation District v. County of Kern, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544 (2005); City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board, 135 Cal. App. 4" 1392 (2006). In County Sanitation District, the court held that the county violated CEQA when adopting an ordinance to prohibit application of treated sewage sludge to land as fertilizer. The claimed environmental benefits of the sludge ban ordinance did not override the CEQA requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("BIR') addressing significant adverse environmental impacts, including increased disposal of sewage sludge in landfills; air quality and transportation impacts from trucking sludge to the landfills; increased energy use to process substitute products that were allowable under the ordinance; and adverse impacts from the use of increased amounts iIt Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 2 of manure as a substitute fertilizer. As discussed below, analogous impacts must be addressed in the case of this proposed Ordinance. Given that adoption of environmental protection ordinances is subject to CEQA, the City could avoid proper CEQA compliance only if it is certain that this Ordinance could not cause reasonably foreseeable, potentially significant adverse environmental Impacts. We assume that a belief that no such impacts exist must underlie the City's decision to forego CEQA review in this case. In other words, the City appears to believe the Ordinance to be exempt from CEQA, either because "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environmenf' (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so- called "common sense" exemption) or under some other exemption. To the contrary, as described below and in the attachments to this letter, there is in fact substantial evidence — that is, "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts" (CEQA Guidelines section 15064(0(5)) — of such potentially significant impacts. Therefore, Council can adopt the Ordinance only in compliance with the mandatory review process under CEQA. Comment 2: _Trash TMD s. A particularly pertinent case is the recent Cily of Arcadia decision, in which the court held that the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") had failed to comply with CEQA when adopting a Total Maximum Daily Load for trash discharges to the Los Angeles River watershed (the "LA River Trash TMDL"). In fact, after the court remanded the TMDL to the Regional Board to conduct the requisite CEQA compliance, some of the cities in the watershed that were subject to allocations under the LA River Trash TMDL proposed that the Regional Board should single out plastic packaging ban ordinances as a means of compliance with those allocations. In response to PSPC's comments objecting to these proposals on CEQA grounds, the Regional Board expressly stated that: "Should any [polystyrene] ban be proposed as a [TMDL] compliance measure or for other reasons, the municipality would he the lead agency for CEQA compliance and evaluation of environmental impacts, if necessary."z Responsiveness Summary - CEQA Scoping Meeting for the Los Angeles River Trash TMDL held on June 28, 2006 (September 8, 2006), page 2 (emphasis added). Thus, while the Ordinance is not currently The Staff Report for Agenda Item 7-A is silent as to the basis for any claim of exemption from CEQA. None of the statutory or categorical exemptions applies on its face, moreover, the categorical exemptions cannot be applied if there is a "reasonable possibility" that, due to "unusual circumstances," the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c). 2 The only reason that evaluation of environmental impacts might not be "necessary," as noted above, would be if "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment" (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), emphasis added) or if a categorical exemption applies and there is no "reasonable possibility" of impacts (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c)). Based upon the evidence discussed in the remainder of this letter, that Is not the case. Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 3 proposed as a TMDL compliance measure, the Regional Board's reasoning explicitly applies to such an ordinance adopted "for other reasons" as well. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the City of Santa Monica will soon itself become subject to trash allocations under a TMDL for Pico Kenter Drain, an outfall which drains into Santa Monica's urban runoff filtering facility. The Regional Board recently commenced the CEQA scoping process for the Pico Kenter Drain TMDL and has announced that it intends to impose zero trash allocations on subject municipalities, just as it did in the LA River Trash TMDL. As it did with the latter TMDL, for this and future TMDLs the LA Regional Board is certain to continue its practice of imposing CEQA review obligations on the affected cities which may consider polystyrene ban ordinances. It is also worth noting that the Ordinance will not go into effect for a year for food providers (six months as applied to city events and city property). By that time, the LA Regional Board will have completed its TMDL development process and the Ordinance clearly will function as a means of TMDL compliance. Comment 3: Reasonably Foreseeable Increase in Use of Bio-plastics. Should the Council pass the proposed Ordinance and ban all polystyrene and non -recyclable plastic disposable food service containers in Santa Monica, including polystyrene food packaging, this action may be unlikely to affect the total amount of food service packaging used. However, of necessity, it will require the substitution of alternate food packaging materials. In fact, that is the intent of the Ordinance: to require food service providers to use recyclable or biodegradable food service packaging. A common alternative material for polystyrene food packaging is plastic made from biodegradable materials, such as corn -based polymers, polylactic acid ("PLA") and polyhydroxyalkanoate ("PHA"). Since the Ordinance will change the mix of materials used by food service providers in Santa Monica and during City of Santa Monica permitted events, without also requiring any actions that can be relied on to effectively reduce the volume of litter, the ban can be expected to increase the amount of PLA and other "bio-plastics" in the litter stream, on beaches and in the marine environment. As described below in Comments 4 -12, there is a significant body of scientific evidence indicating that increasing the amount of biodegradable food packaging in the litter stream could have foreseeable adverse environmental consequences. This evidence must be evaluated and considered by the Council pursuant to the CEQA process before it acts to approve the Ordinance. Comment 4: Air Oualt Impacts. Evidence suggests that bio-plastics such as PLA, when introduced into the litter stream in Santa Monica, would result in potentially significant adverse See Notice of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Scoping Meeting for Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) to Establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Trash for Waterbodies in Los Angeles County (November 1, 2006); Addendum to Notice of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Scoping Meeting for Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) to Establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Trash for Waterbodies in Los Angeles County (November 7, 2006) [attached as Exhibit 1]. Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 4 air quality impacts (Krause 2006 [Exhibit 2]; Institute for Environmental Research and Education 2006 [Exhibit 3]). biodegradable material is defined as that which is "capable of undergoing decomposition into carbon dioxide, methane, water, inorganic compounds, or biomass in which the predominant mechanism is the enzymatic action of microorganisms that can be measured by standardized tests, in a specified period of time, reflecting available disposal conditions" (American Society of Testing Materials 1994). As the definition implies, the biodegradation of materials is primarily though the enzymatic action of microorganisms. Among the principal by-products of the microbial degradation of organic products, including biodegradable plastics, are the greenhouse gases ("GHG"), carbon dioxide and methane. While these are natural products of microbial degradation, the generation of significant quantities of GHG are expected from the loading of biodegradable plastics upon their degradation in landfills, waterways and as trash (Kurdikar et al. 2001 [Exhibit 4]; Nolan-ITU 2002 [Exhibit 5]; Patel et al. 2001 [Exhibit 6]). Estimates from these literature sources show that between 90 and 420 kilogram -equivalents of carbon dioxide are produced from each kilogram of material through the degradation process. This increase in carbon dioxide release can significantly affect the GHG production in sensitive areas such as southern California (Krause 2006). A report by the Institute for Environmental Research and Education ("IERE") (2006) Indicates that a substantial portion of bio-plastic litter in freshwater and marine locations can be expected to undergo anaerobic degradation. Two of the key conditions for degradation of organic materials are heat and moisture, both of which are readily available in various parts of Santa Monica, including the beaches. If bio-plastic litter is exposed to heat and moisture in low oxygen conditions, anaerobic degradation of the materials will occur. According to IERE, anaerobic degradation of organic material, such as bio-plastics, generates carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrogen sulfide and volatile organic compounds. IERE's report states: Under anaerobic conditions, the climate change impacts can be quite substantial, since methane is about 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and Nitrous,oxide is about 300 times as potent as CO2. The ammonia released is free in the atmosphere and can migrate to cause eutrophication in marine ecosystems. Although it is unlikely to reach concentrations high enough to cause toxic effects, the H2S released has a most unpleasant rotten egg odor. Many of the VOCs are also odorants, with such evocative names as "putrescence." In addition to impacts from biodegradation itself, life cycle analyses suggest that replacing polystyrene food packaging with bio-plastics will increase the amount of GHG emissions and other pollutants required to produce an equivalent amount of bio-plastic food packaging (Gerngross 1999 [Exhibit 71; Gerngross and Slater 2000 [Exhibit 8]; Kurdikar et al. 2001; 13xcelPlas Australia 2003 [Exhibit 9]; ,lames and Grant 2005 [Exhibit 101; Gonzalez 2006 [Exhibit 11)). For example, in the case of PLA and PHA, more fossil fuels must be burned to fertilize and harvest the corn and then to convert it into bio-plastic than is required to make an equivalent amount of petroleum -based plastics such as polyethylene ("PE") and polyethylene terephthalate ("PET"). Accordingly, the production of PLA results in greater greenhouse gas emissions. Further, cam farming and processing are generally powered by coal and natural gas, Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 5 which tend to emit higher levels of sulfur oxides, a precursor to acid rain, than the fuel used to produce petroleum -based plastics (Gerngross and Slater 2000). As the IERE (2006) report concludes: To summarize, all organic materials, including plastics, can be biodegraded to a greater or lesser extent, but the rate of degradation is controlled by many factors, and we do, not have numerical models to allow predictions of the environmental impact of biodegradation. The key issue is whether degradation is aerobic or anaerobic, for this single parameter has great impact on the greenhouse gas emissions, the emissions causing eutrophication, and the emissions of unpleasant odors. Studies examining the environmental impacts of composting have provided wide ranges of emissions estimates and mixed conclusions as to the desirability of this waste management method. Qualitatively, biodegradation processes are well understood. Quantitatively, they are not. Nevertheless, our qualitative knowledge is sufficient to state that there are real environmental issues related to biodegradation, and that composting may not always be the preferred method for organic material disposal. Accordingly, these potential environmental impacts must be considered by the Council during its deliberations on the Ordinance. Comment 5: Water Ouality Impacts. Evidence suggests that bio-plastics such as PLA, when introduced into the litter stream in Santa Monica, will result in adverse water quality impacts due to the release of nutrients and nitrogenous compounds (Nolan-ITU 2002; ExcelPlas Australia 2003; IERE 2006; Stein 2006a [Exhibit 12]; Gonzalez, 2006). Because the breakdown of biodegradable plastics is through the action of microorganisms, a corresponding increase in the biological oxygen demand (BOD) would be observed during the breakdown process (Nolan-ITU 2002; ExcelPlas Australia 2003). When this process occurs in a water body such as a river, drainage canal, estuary or bay, large scale impacts to the aquatic resources such as fish are probable (Krause 2006). For example, as discussed in Comment 4 above, IERE (2006) indicate that these adverse impacts could occur whether the bio-plastic litter undergoes aerobic or anaerobic degradation. Aerobic degradation would produce nitrate, whereas anaerobic degradation would produce ammonia. According to IERE, the nitrate migrates easily in groundwater and surface water. Ammonia, however, is released to the atmosphere, but can still disperse into surface water. Both nitrate and ammonia can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters. In addition, bio-plastics contain manufacturing residues, such as dyes, inks, plasticizers, fillers and metallic catalysts added to help promote degradation could adversely impact water quality (Krause 2006). Available information suggests that these materials can pose potentially significant impacts to aquatic resources (Nolan-ITU 2002; ExcelPlas Australia 2003). For example, these residues tend to be released into the environment as small particles during degradation of bio-plastics, whereas they tend to remain inert in petroleum -based plastics. Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 6 Aerobic or anaerobic degradation could cause these residues to migrate into groundwater and surface water, posing a potential impact to the beneficial uses of those water bodies (Nolan-ITU 2002). Life -cycle analysis also indicates that replacing polystyrene packaging with blo-plastics could increase the water quality impacts associated with producing an equivalent amount of food packaging (ExcelPlas Australia 2003; James and Grant 2005). For example, the production of corn for the raw material of PLA has substantial water quality impacts (Royte 2006 [Exhibit 13]). In particular, commercial corn agriculture requires the use of extremely high levels of nitrogen -based fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. These chemicals enter surface waters during runoff. In addition, Royte (2006) notes that high levels of erosion are associated with commercial corn agriculture. Comment 6: Plant Life Impacts. Scientific evidence indicates that there are a number of foreseeable adverse consequences to aquatic plant life that could result from an increased use of bio-plastic food packaging. As discussed in Comment 5 above, ME (2006) reports that nitrogenous compounds released during the aerobic and anaerobic degradation of bio-plastics can cause eutrophication of surface waters. This can result in explosive increased growth of certain types of plants in the water body, typically algae, periphyton attached algae, and nuisance plants weeds. This increased plant growth, often called an "algal bloom," can crowd out other plant species and reduce their population. In addition, such an algal bloom will ultimately reduce the dissolved oxygen in the water as a result of an increase in the mass of decomposing dead plant material. The resulting oxygen depletion can further reduce the populations of aquatic plant species in the area. In addition, phototoxicity (i.e., toxicity to plants) due to the buildup of inorganic materials in the soil can lead to a reduction in soil productivity (Krause 2006, Nolan-ITU 2002). Similarly, soil organisms such as earthworms can be affected leading to a less productive soil environment. Comment 7: Impacts to Fish and Wildlife from Dio-plastics. Scientific evidence indicates that there are a number of foreseeable adverse consequences to fish and wildlife that could result from an increased use of blo-plastic food packaging. First, as discussed in Comments 5 and 6 above, that nitrogenous compounds released during the aerobic and anaerobic degradation of bio-plastics can cause eutrophication of surface waters, leading to dangerous algal blooms. An algal bloom reduces dissolved oxygen in the water when dead plant material decomposes. Low dissolved oxygen content can kill fish (IERE 2006, Krause 2006). Another foreseeable adverse consequence to animal life stems from the risk that increasing the amount of bin -plastics in the local environment could lead certain species to adopt these bio- plastics as a food source. The direct exposure from partially degraded material to both aquatic and terrestrial organisms is significantly damaging. Organisms may experience trauma or death from ingesting the partially degraded materials. For example, aquatic predatory birds such as herons, egrets, and gulls may ingest material that would be found in waterways and estuaries (Krause 2006). In addition, populations of those species that use bio-plastics as a food source could increase. An increase in predatory species in turn can negatively impact the population levels of their prey species. Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 7 Comment 8: Energy Impacts. Life cycle analyses suggest that replacing the polystyrene food packaging with bio-plastics will increase the amount of energy required to produce an equivalent amount of bio-plastic food packaging (Gerngross and Slater 2000; ExcelPlas Australia 2003; James and Grant 2005). For example, in the case of PLA, more fossil fuels must be burned to fertilize and harvest the corn and then to convert it into bio-plastic than is required to make an equivalent amount of petroleum -based plastics. Comment 9: Impacts to Recycling Systems. It is also foreseeable that increasing the quantity of bio-plastics in the waste stream could impair the efficiency of existing recycling services. Royte (2006) notes that plastics recyclers consider PLA to be a contaminant that must be removed from recyclable plastics, at considerable cost. The mixing of biodegradable plastic into the plastic recycling stream could negatively impact the properties of the recycled plastic end product, potentially causing failure of the recycled plastic product, which is especially serious in the case of construction materials (ExcelPlas Australia 2003). If buyers of recycled plastic lose confidence in the quality of a particular source of recycled plastic, they will stop buying. A contraction in the market for recycled plastic would mean that less recyclable plastic would be purchased by recyclers. The unpurchased recyclable plastic would then have to be disposed of as solid waste. Aside from creating additional solid waste, the transport of the recyclable plastic to a disposal facility will also result in adverse air quality impacts as a result of increased fuel consumption. Therefore, unless end users of food service packaging are educated to ensure that PLA and other biodegradable plastics are not mixed with PET and other recyclable plastics, or unless the City intends to install very expensive sorting machinery to identify and separate PLA, the increased use of bio-plastic food service packaging could result in reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts. Comment 10: Impacts from Increased Composting. Another reasonably foreseeable consequence of increased use of bio-plastics is that cities would seek to compost as much bio- plastic food packaging as possible. In fact, the bio-based packaging industry recommends that its products be disposed of in a municipal or industrial composting facility in order to realize the packaging's maximum environmental efficiency (Royte 2006). While there may be adequate composting capacity available to receive biodegradable plastics collected by Santa Monica, the compositing facilities are distant, such as the facilities in Kern County or San Bernardino County. The need to transport material to more distant composting facilities would result in increased fuel consumption and air quality impacts from truck trips to these locations. Comment 11: Impacts to Composting Services. The increased use of bio-plastic food service packaging could -lead to contamination of "green" waste collected for composting in commercial and municipal composting facilities (Stevens 2002 [Exhibit 141; ExcelPlas Australia 2003). As has been observed regarding the impact of plastic bags on commercial composting, "The quality of the end compost product is critical to market success, so any contamination with plastics is a potential problem." ExcelPlas Australia (2003). The same is true where the result is contamination of the compost end -product by non -biodegradable (although otherwise recyclable) plastics. This could cause batches of compost material to be unmarketable, and therefore, have to be disposed of as solid waste. Aside from creating additional solid waste, the transport of the Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 8 contaminated compost -to a disposal facility will also result in adverse air quality impacts as a result of increased fuel consumption. Unless consumers properly segregate non -biodegradable plastics from the compost stream, the contamination of municipal and commercial composting processes is, therefore, a reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impact. Comment 12: Impacts to Human, Health. To the extent that the Ordinance leads food service providers to use recyclable food service packaging, this may result in increased health concerns and potential contamination (Foodservice & Packaging Institute 2003 [Exhibit 15]). Single -use foodservice packaging products are an important part of our nation's food safety and sanitation system. These products are a vital, yet often overlooked, way to prevent food -borne disease. Nearly half of the outbreaks of food -borne disease occur in restaurants, cafeterias, schools, delicatessens and other foodservice operations, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For good reason, foodservice managers rank overall sanitation as their number one issue of concern. Contamination and health concerns associated with in-store separation of contaminated foodservice items is one of the primary reasons there is little recycling of any foodservice packaging regardless of the material type — coated bleached paperboard products, composite paper/plastic products, expanded polystyrene CEPS"), or bio-based plastics. For the relatively small amount of post -consumer foodservice packaging that could be recycled, weighted against the risk of increase bacteria and unsanitary conditions in and around foodservice' establishments to collect this relatively small amount of foodservice material, the risk of recycling does not often outweigh the sanitation and public health concerns for foodservice establishments. Comment 13: Impacts of Increased Litter. A significant potential impact of biodegradable plastics is simply the physical increase in litter, resulting from the behavior of the public which perceives biodegradables to be products that "go away" quickly in the environment (Krause 2006). On the contrary, life -cycle assessment studies have shown that biodegradable plastics may take weeks or months to degrade completely depending on the environmental conditions in which they are found (ExcelPlas Australia 2003; James and Grant 2005). It is foreseeable that the public response to a switch to bio-plastics or other biodegradable materials following a ban on polystyrene food packaging could lead to increased litter. Experts indicate that, without proper education, consumers have a tendency to think that there are no adverse environmental impacts from throwing trash items labeled "biodegradable" or "compostable" onto the ground (Lingle 1990 [Exhibit 16]; Comstock et al. 2004 [Exhibit 17]; Stein 2006b [Exhibit 18]), Consequently, the use of such materials would likely increase the amount of trash on streets, in storm drains, on beaches and in Santa Monica Bay. Not only would this be an adverse environmental impact in itself, but increased levels of bio-plastics and other biodegradable materials in the litter stream would exacerbate other impacts described in the comments above. Within the Santa Monica City limits, the Ordinance is unlikely to reduce litter. Since there is no evidence that the Ordinance will reduce the amount of prepared food sold and consumed within Santa Monica, a similar number of food packaging items —albeit made from recyclable or biodegradable plastic —will enter the waste stream. Unless measures directed at people's behavior towards littering is addressed concurrently with the implementation of the Ordinance, Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 9 the result will be that the same amount of litter exists, although it will be comprised of different materials. Polystyrene food packaging currently left on the beach by beachgoers will simply be replaced by recyclable or biodegradable food packaging. Further, the portion of the "new" litter stream that is made of biodegradable plastic will cause the potentially significant environmental impacts discussed in the comments above. Moreover, the Ordinance will not reduce the amount of trash on Santa Monica beaches. An analysis by Stein (2006b) demonstrates that most of the trash on Santa Monica's beaches does not originate in Santa Monica. Rather, the source of most of the trash is storm drains that carry trash that enters the watershed from municipalities upstream of Santa Monica. Further, polystyrene food service packaging left on the beach by beachgoers is a relatively small percentage of the total amount of trash found on the beach. Accordingly, the Ordinance will not have any litter reduction benefit and the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts discussed above would be incurred with no offsetting benefit in terms of litter reduction. Comment 14: Cumulative Impacts. Finally, we understand that Santa Monica staff intend for the Ordinance to serve as a model for other communities looking to establish sustainable packaging policies. In addition, the cities subject to the LA Trash TMDL and other forthcoming trash TMDLs, besides Santa Monica, will be seeking means of compliance with the Regional Board's zero trash allocations (see Exhibit 1). For these reasons, the Ordinance is not an action that can be viewed in isolation. Instead, it is likely to contribute to cumulative impacts in each of the impact areas discussed above, together with ordinances of other cities in southern California. Given the proximity of the cities in the same and adjacent watersheds, such impacts are likely to be cumulatively considerable and must be considered in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, 4 Mike Levy, Director Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) cc: Mayor Robert Holbrook Mayor Pro Tempore Bobby Shriver Council Member Richard Bloom Council Member Ken Genser Council Member Herb Katz Council Member Kevin McKeown Council Member Pam O'Connor Marsha Jones Moutrie Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 10 American Society of Testing Standards (1994). Standard D-5488-84d. Comstock, K. et at (2004). From hydrocarbons to carbohydrates: food packaging of the future. University of Washington, Graduate Student Research Paper, June 2004. ExeelPlas Australia et al. (2003). The impacts of degradable plastic bags in Australia. Final Report to the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Foodservices & Packaging Institute, Inc. (2003). Sensible for our health. www.fpi.org. Gerngross, T.U. and S.C. Slater (2000). How green are green plastics? Scientific American, Aug. 2000: pp. 37-41. Gerngross, T.U. (1999). Can biotechnology move us toward a sustainable society? Nature Biotechnology, Vol.17, June 1999: pp. 541-544. Gonzalez, A., 2006. Letter from the President of the William C. Velisquez Institute to the Honorable Ed Reyes, Councilmember, Los Angeles City Council (dated Nov. 9, 2006). Institute for Environmental Research and Education (2006). Memorandum from R. Schenck, Ph.D., Executive Director, to M. Levy, Executive Director, Polystyrene Packaging Council (dated Aug.18, 2006). James, K. and T. Grant (2005). "LCA [Life -cycle assessment] of degradable plastic bags. Centre for Design at RMIT University, Australia. Krause, P.R. (2006), Memorandum from P.R. Krause, Ph.D., Senior Ecologist, Blasland, Bouck and Lee, Inc., to M. Levy, Executive Director, Polystyrene Packaging Council (dated Nov. 12, 2006). Kurdikar, D., et al. (2001). Greenhouse gas profile of a plastic material derived from a genetically modified plant. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 4, No. 3: pp. 107-122. Lingle, R. (1990). Degradable plastics: all sizzle and no steak? Prepared Foods, Jan. 1,1990. Nolan-ITU (2002). Environment Australia: Biodegradable plastics — developments and environmental impacts. Victoria, Australia. Lamont Ewell Craig Perkins November 13, 2006 Page 11 Patel, M. et al. (2001). Environmental assessment of bio-based polymers and natural fibres. Utrecht University, Department of Science, Technology and Society. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (2006). Notice of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Scoping Meeting for Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) to Establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Trash for Waterbodies in Los Angeles County (dated Nov. 1, 2006) Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (2006). Addendum to Notice of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Scoping Meeting for Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) to Establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Trash for Waterbodies in Los Angeles County (dated Nov. 7, 2006) Royte, E. (2006). Corn plastics to the rescue. Smithsonian Magazine, Aug. 2006. Stein, S. (2006a). Memorandum on biodegradable plastics. Senior Consultant, R.W. Beck, Inc. (dated Aug. 18, 2006). Stein, S. (2006b). Memorandum on Santa Monica & Malibu litter. Senior Consultant, R.W. Beck, Inc. (dated Nov. 9, 2006). Stevens, E.S. (2002). Why do composters care? How green are green plastics. BioCycle, Dec. 2002: pp. 42-45. .j Court Puts Bag Ban on Hold in Oakland, Calif. OAKLAND, CALIF. (April 25, 4:10 p.m. EDT) -- Communities in California will have a far more difficult time banning plastic bags— and possibly expanded polystyrene takeout food packaging — because of a court decision that threw out a bag ban in Oakland. Alameda County Superior Judge Frank Roesch -said there was "sufficient evidence" that Oakland's ban could have a significant environmental effect. He also found "substantial evidence" to support an argument that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than plastic bags. Because of that, "the city must conduct further environmental review even if other conclusions" than the ones originally found "might also be reached," Roesch wrote in his April 17 ruling. Oakland city officials overlooked the unintended consequences of a bag ban, said Keith Christman, senior director of the plastics division of the American Chemistry Council in Arlington, Va. "The court essentially said that the city didn't go far enough to examine all the potential consequences," said Michael Mills, the Sacramento, Calif., lawyer who fled the lawsuit in August on behalf of the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling. "The decision has implications for any type of product a local community wants to ban," he said. "If the purported reason of a ban is to protect the environment, the court said that you have to make sure that you are not substituting one problem for another problem." Mike Levy, director of the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group of ACC, agreed. "A ban on one product can have outright negative environmental consequences," Levy said. "The reason this decision is so helpful to the plastics industry is that it helps to make sure that before bans are considered that could have environmental consequences, all those potential consequences are carefully reviewed and considered." Councilwoman Nancy Nadel, a co-author of the ban, told the San Francisco Chronicle that she hoped the council would order up a full environmental report so the ban can still be enacted. "Of course I'm disappointed, but we'll proceed ... and get it done," Nadel said. "I think we can prove that it will be an improvement to the environment to ban plastic bags." Jim Lammers, vice president of environment affairs and general counsel for Dart Container Corp., which manufactures PS food packaging, said it was hard to say whether the decision will deter cities considering bans. It does, however, remind cities to determine the economic consequences of a ban. Unless Oakland appeals, the ban — which went into effect Jan. 18, but was never enforced — cannot be put into place unless the city conducts an environmental impact review at an estimated cost of $125,000 and the review's conclusion supports a ban. "If they want to pursue the ban, they need to do their homework and prepare a full environmental investigation and review," Mills said. San Francisco is the only U.S. city with a ban on plastic carryout bags. It went into effect Nov. 20 at grocery stores and pharmacies with more than $1 million in sales. "It is going to force the city [Oakland] to prove its point about the environmental benefits of banning plastic bags — which we don't think they can do," said Kevin Kelly, chief executive officer of produce bag manufacturer Emerald Packaging Inc. of Union City, Calif. Kelly was a party to the lawsuit. The ruling may also effectively prevent many smaller California communities from imposing plastic bag bans because of the financial cost of conducting a full environmental review. Nearby Fairfax made its recent planned ban voluntary after the threat of a similar lawsuit, and Bakersfield pulled back from one because "they were concerned about being sued," Mills said. "Local jurisdictions are going to have to carefully examine their priorities. I would think that they would think long and hard about whether that is how they want to spend their money," Mills said. Kelly was part of the coalition, along with plastic bag manufacturers Superbag Operating Ltd., Advanced Polybag Inc., Grand Packaging Inc. and Hilex Poly Co. LLC; plastics produce bag manufacturers Emerald Packaging and Crown Poly Inc.; plastic bag distributor Elkay Plastics Co. Inc. and recycler Fresh Pak Corp. Among other things, the coalition argued that paper bags take more energy to produce, create more greenhouse emissions and generate 50 times more water pollutants than the manufacturing of plastic bags. The coalition challenged the ban on the grounds that Oakland did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires public entities to document and consider the environmental impact of their decisions. The city said it was exempt from CEQA because its ban would have "positive environmental effects and no possibility of significant adverse effects." The court disagreed. "The city cannot meet the [CEQA exemption]standard that there is no possibility that the ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect," Roesch wrote. "Substantial evidence in the record supports at least a fair argument that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging that single -use plastic bags." Kelly said the decision is important even if Oakland decides to go forward with its ban — which he suspects the city might do. "It gives us more time to make the case for plastic bags and explain how some of the myths came to be," Kelly said. "It gives you the time to make the arguments you need to make to help the industry survive." Kelly added it gives the industry time to look at ways to increase plastic bag recycling. ACC, through its Progressive Bag Affiliates group, is taking steps in the direction, introducing a new plastic bag recycling logo, signs and a toolkit for grocery stores aimed at providing a more uniform, consistent message to consumers. PBA members API Corp., Inteplast, Hilex Poly and Superbag — which together represent more than 90 percent of domestic plastic bag production — have agreed to use the new logo and message. "We are hoping that it will be a more consistent image and identify and make it easier for consumers to recycle," Christman said. In addition, ACC has developed window posters that point out that the amount of film and bags recycled in 2006 was enough to manufacture nearly 1.5 million composite lumber decks. "We have to get the word out about in-store recycling," Kelly said. "We have to look at the benefits of curbside recycling. We have to get the message out about the carbon footprint of plastic bags vs. other alternatives. We have to push on to the next step — looking at ways to increase post -consumer recycling." Source: Plastics News, April 25, 2008 Density of Plastic Particles found in zooplankton trawls from Coastal Waters of California to the North Pacific Central Gyre C.J. Moore, G.L. Lattin, A.F. Zellers Algalita Marine Research Foundation, 148 N. Marina Drive, Long Beach, CA 90803, USA Introduction Neuston (surface) trawls for plastic particles and debris in the North Atlantic Ocean were conducted in the 1970's' and in the North Pacific Ocean in the 1980's19. Although significant levels of plastic particulates were found, these studies failed to generate any regular monitoring program to assess plastic particulate levels in the marine environment. In response to the fact that plastic debris is increasing in the marine environment3, Algalita Marine Research Foundation (AMRF), developed and tested protocols for monitoring this "major threat to marine life."3 Although many studies have been done documenting quantities of plastic debris on beaches, floating on the ocean surface and found on the seafloor, the methods for conducting these studies have not been assessed to determine comparability 3 Furthermore, plastic debris in smaller size classes is often ignored in beach cleanup° and ship board sighting surveys2,5. Since plastic debris that is not removed from the marine environment, eventually degrades and breaks into small bits that take many years, decades or centuries to disappear,8 i.e., mineralize, or biodegrade 8, monitoring the accumulation of this particulate matter can provide an indication of total plastic debris trends. The question: How much plastic debris is in the marine environment?, merits an answer for several reasons. Entanglement of marine mammals in derelict fishing gear and ingestion of plastics by seabirds are well documented and may contribute to the decline of these species.3 The effects of small plastic particulates on the marine ecosystem is less well known, but plastic bits have been found to accumulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated and legacy pesticides and other Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), and to contain hormonally active additives9. Furthermore, fish and marine invertebrates as well as seabirds have been found to ingest them.3 This suggests that plastic particles may be considered a mimic of natural food, such as zooplankton, in marine habitats. in order to assess the potential for this to occur, AMRF, in collaboration with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)t0, began assessing plastic particulate pollution by comparing it to the available food of a similar size class in neuston trawls. The size class sampled was greater than 333 microns in diameter, the size associated with most zooplankton. During elaboration of this methodology, it was determined that surface trawls alone were inadequate to assess the ocean's plastic particulate load". According to the EPA, over half (54%) of plastic resins sold sink in seawater, 46% float, and the majority are almost neutrally buoyant (within 0.1g1mL of seawater density)". When these resins are processed into products, fillers are often used which may increase (e.g., calcium carbonate, silica) or decrease (e.g., wood flour) their density12. In an AMRF study off Baliona Creek, which drains much of Los Angeles, CA, an epibenthic sled was used to obtain samples 20 cm above the ocean floor, and paired bongo nets were used to assess debris quantities in the water column down to 30 meters, areas of the water column which had not previously been assessed." To investigate plastic particulate distribution over a wide area of the Eastern North Pacific down to a depth of 30 meters, AMRF conducted zooplankton trawls in nearshore and offshore waters totaling over 12,000 miles aboard its chartered Oceanographic Research Vessel (ORV) Alguita from 1999-2004. The study area included an accumulation center for debris known as the "Eastern Garbage Patch" (roughly located in an area bounded by 135 to 155 W Lo and 35 to 42 N Lat), and most of the Hawaiian Archipelago. (Fig. 1) `° '"� Overview Map of Study Area o a»,■..,.rnM. G pn Mww ynq;Mrrtew IMUSNMIN = on.[aM.4ynanw s ifs :eo nm ry Coro Oda 9dJtH AyMY MMM pnMe�nfouEl� EMS rxl ETapp Figure 1 Methods Surface samples were collected using a 0.9 x 0.15 m2 rectangular opening manta trawl with a 3.5 m long, 333 micron not and a 30 x 10 cm2 collecting bag. Mid -depth samples were collected using paired 61 cm diameter bongo nets with 3 m long, 333 micron nets and 30 x 10 cm2 collecting bags. Bottom samples were collected using a 31 cm2 rectangular opening epibenthic sled with a 1 m long, 333 micron het and a 30 x 10 cm collecting bag (Ballona study only). Al nets were fitted with GO flowmeters. Samples were preserved with formalin, then rinsed and stored in Isopropyl alcohol. In the laboratory, samples were placed In fresh water and floating plastic removed. A dissecting microscope was used to remove remaining debris and plankton. Debris was sorted by category (plastics, tar, rust, paint chips, carbon fragments, and feathers) and plastics were further categorized (fragments, Styrofoam, pellets, polypropylene/monofllament line, thin plastic films, and resin). Each category was sorted through Tyler sieves of 4.75, 2.80, 1.00, 0.70, 0.50 and 0.35 mm and counted. Plastic, plankton and plant material then oven dried at 660 C for 24 h and weighed. Date of Sample Publication Study Location Depths Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 1999 Offshore Surface 2000 Offshore Surface Marine Pollution Bulletin 41 2000 Nearshore Surface Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 2001 Nearshore Surface Water Column Epibenthic 2002 Offshore Surface Water Column Results The results are presented for each study. Offshore, the 1999 survey was designed to survey an area suspected to accumulate debris, which has become known as the "Eastern Garbage Patch."(EGB) The 2000 survey sampled debris outside this area except for approximately 20 stations, which were within the EGB. The 2002 survey included trawls within the Northwest Hawaiian Islands archipelago and the EGB. This was the only offshore survey to use paired bongo nets to sample subsurface waters. (see map) The 2000 offshore survey had the lowest average surface density of plastic particles over the entire study area at 0.43 pieces/m3. This is consistent with the trawls failing mostly outside the EGB. The 2002 survey found an average of 1.52 pieces/m3 at the surface. The 1999 survey had the highest surface density offshore at 2.23 pieces/m3. Both nearshore surveys, conducted in 2001, were designed to assess land based sources of debris by sampling before and after rain events. The first was located near the mouth of the San Gabriel River, which drains southern Los Angeles and northern Orange Counties, and had the highest average density of 7.25 pieces/m3. The second nearshore survey was conducted off Ballona Creek, which drains the west side of Los Angeles. On the surface the average density was 5.0 pieces/m3. The Ballona survey was the only nearshore survey to obtain subsurface samples. Midwater bongo net samples off Ballona Creek averaged 3.05 pieces/m3. The epibenthic average density was slightly higher at 3.8 pieces/m3. All the nearshore average densities include the pre and post rain event trawl data. Offshore subsurface average densities were much less. Paired Bongo nets found plastic particulates in every trawl sample taken at 10 and 30 meters depth in the North Pacific. Both the 10 meter and 30 meter bongo net trawls yielded an average density of 0.017 pieces/m3. This result is approximately a factor of 102 less than densities found at the surface. The lowest average ratio of plastic to plankton dry weight at the surface was 5.44:1 for the 2000 survey. The 2002 survey surface ratio was 6.90:1 and the 1999 surface ratio was 6.1:1. The average ratio over all depths from the Ballona Creek study was 1.40:1 and for the San Gabriel River study was 2.5:1 plastic to plankton at the surface. The highest ratio of plastic to plankton dry weight at any one station, 128:1, was found in the nearshore during the 2000 dry season off the mouth of the San Gabriel River. The highest ratio of plastic to plankton offshore, 112:1, was found in calm conditions northeast of Hawaii (wind 7kn) during AMRF's 2000 Gyre voyage (station 44 located 1700 nautical miles to the west northwest of Los Angeles at 40 degrees N. Latitude and 153 degrees W. Longitude). The highest count of plastic particulates in the nearshore, 60 pieces/m3, was found at the mouth of the San Gabriel River (SGR) after a rain event in 2000. The highest count of plastic particulates offshore, 11 places/m3, was found during AMRF's 2002 Gyre voyage (station 7, located 1300 nautical miles to the west of the SGR at 37 degrees N. Latitude and 144 degrees W. Longitude). A plastic to Plankton mass ratio greater than 6.9:1(the highest offshore surface average) was found near French Frigate Shoals in 2002 (20.04:1) at station 25, 23 degrees N. Lat., 166 degrees W. Long. 1800 nautical miles northeast, at station 1, 39 degrees N. Lat., 137 degrees W. Long., a plastic to plankton ratio of 16.96:1 was found. These two stations represent high plastic/plankton ratio stations with the greatest distance between them. For the three studies, ratios greater than 5.44:1 (the lowest offshore surface average) were found at 34 stations widely dispersed around and within the central gyre. AMRF's three offshore voyages between 1999.2002 found an average of 191,457 plastic pieces per square kilometer on the surface. Date of amp • Average ens ieceslm, Plastic:Plankton Mass Ratio Study Surface Weter Eplben►hic surface Wets Ep►benthic 2.23 .. 6.1:1 l3GB E GB 2000 Offshore 0.43 .. _ 5.44:1 .. _ Gym 7.25 _ 2.5:15.00 J 3.05 3,60 1.4:11.52 1.52 _ 6.90 Discussion Whether in the deep ocean or close to shore near an urban center, and whether at the surface or In the water column down to 30 meters, plastic particulates greater than 333 microns are present. All of the samples taken during the study contained particles of plastic, and during calm conditions in the nearshore, more plastic particles were found suspended above the seafloor than near the surface.13 Overall, the surface had about a hundred times more particles than the depths surveyed, but the 20 meters of separation between water column samples made no difference in the densities found. Nearshore, plastic pieces suspended 20 cm above the ocean floor at 3.8 pieces/m3 were comparable to levels found at the surface offshore. Several factors contribute to the wide distribution of plastic particulates In the marine environment In the nearshore environment, where suspended sediments are prevalent, plastic bags and objects may accumulate sediments, making plastics that would otherwise float, sink. As soon as a plastic object enters the marine environment, it begins a fouling process which includes the creation of surface films, followed by the attachment of diatoms, algae, bryozoans, crustaceans and other organisms! The exact fouling sequence and Its timing varies, and is still subject to debate.►" At different stages of fouling, the associated organisms may make the plastic object more likely to sink or float. Floating plastics that become fouled and sink below the photic zone may lose their fouling organisms when they are deprived of sunlight. The organisms may be consumed or slough off and the object may then float back to the surface. Should this fouling cycle repeat Itself, a sort of'yoyo" effect could take place, with plastics sinking and rising indefinitely". Adding to the uncertainty of where to sample for plastic particulates is the fact that significant mixing can occur due to wave activity at the surface. Thompson, at al. found the same types of plastic particles and fibers to be present in both the water column and in marine sediments (benthos), which suggested that "polymer density was not a major factor Influencing distributions." According to a study of vertical mixing of oil droplets by breaking waves, droplets smaller than a typical 50pm threshold radius "will permanently remain in the water column's." Since many types of petroleum at typical SSTs for our study area are within 0.14 of the specific gravity of seawater16, it may be that many plastic particles undergo a similar fate. Ocean currents disperse and concentrate plastic particulates in ways that need further study, especially since there is no simple dispersion model for plastic debris. Both mainland and island coasts appear to serve as sieves, sources and sinks for ocean borne plastic debris. AMRF has taken more than 200 samples from over 15,000 miles of the North Pacific Ocean to quantify neuston plastics, however, a greater number and variety of studies is needed to assess the threat posed by ocean borne plastic particulate debris, which we show exists in all trawls down to 30 meters. No studies have been done on fish or other pelagic marine life in the deep ocean, which in many areas are now exposed to more plastic particulates by weight than available zooplankton food. Many salps and even some Valeila in our trawls had plastic particles firmly embedded in their tissues, and we also found them to have ingested plastic. Further research needs to be done on microplastics in zooplankton tissue In the offshore, calm conditions appear to allow debris to surface and increase amounts per sample, especially of the smaller size class particles, but further studies focusing on the sea state at the time of sampling need to be done.in order to confirm this result. Sampling at 50 and 100 meters needs to be done to determine if greater depths continue to produce similar densities as those found at 10 and 30 meters in this study. The great depths encountered offshore in the Eastern Pacific make it difficult to quantify plastics on the ocean floor, but studies ,on sediments nearshore have found plastics 8 The issue of uniformity among methods for sampling marine debris is of increasing importance as levels of marine debris and its impacts increase. Some issues that need to be resolved are: 1) sea state and its relation to mixing of debris 2) how to sample for the presence of debris at different depths in the water column 3) how to sample for different size classes of plastic debris, from the very large to the very small, since there appears to be no lower limit, and individual molecules of plastic polymers may be present 7 So far, no work on POPS accumulation on plastics found in the water column, or in sediments has been done. Determining the effects of ingestion of plastics both from an ecological and toxicological perspective was identified as a top research priority at a recent conference of researchers in this field.17 Acknowledgements AMRF would like to acknowledge the work of many volunteers in field collection and the analysis of samples at our S.E.A. Lab Facility in Redondo Beach, Giancarlo Cetrulo, Director. l References: 'Colton, John B Jr., Knapp, F.D., Burns, B.R., 1974. Plastic Particles in Surface Waters of the Northwestern Atlantic. } Science, 9 Aug., 1974, 491-497. 'Day, R.H., 1988. Quantitative distribution and characteristics of neustonic plastic in the North Pacific Ocean. Final Report to US Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Auks Bay Laboratory. Auke Bay, AK, 73 pp. 'Derralk, J.G.B., The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. 2002, Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:842.852 'Assessing and Monitoring Floalable Debris, EPA-842-8-02-002, August 2002 Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (4504T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460 'Dahlberg, M.L, and Day, R.H., Observations of Man -Made Objects on the Surface of the North Pacific Ocean,1984, In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, Shomurs, R.S. and Yoshka, H.O. ads. NOAA- TM-NMFS-SWFC-54 pp 198.212 'Earle, Sylvia, sea Chanoe.1995, pp 264.269. G.P Putnam's Sans. Nov York, NY 10016 'Andrady, T.L., Plastics in Marine Environment. 2005 In: Proceedings of the Plastic Debris Rivers Id Sea Conference, 2005 'Thompson, Richard C., at al. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?, Science, Vol. 304. 2004, 843 'Moore, Charles J., at al, A Brief Analysis of Organic Pollutants Sorbed to Pro and Post -Production Plastic Panicles from the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Watersheds, In Proceedings of the Plastic Debris Rivers to See Conference, 2005 "Moore, C.J., S.L. Moore, M. K. Leecaster, and S.B. Weisberg. 2001. A comparison of plastic and plankton In the North Pacific central gyre. Marine PoNution BuNefln 42:1297.1300. "USEPA,1992. Plastic pellets In the aquatic environment: Sources and recommendations EPA Oceans and Coastal Protection Division Report 842-8-92.010. Washington, DC. "Carraher, Charles E , Giant Mdecuiss, 2003. pp 426.428, John Wiley 6 Sons, Inc., Hoboken. Now Jersey "Laltin, 0. L., C.J. Moore, S.L. Moore, S.B. Weisberg, and A. Zellers. 20D4. A comparison of neuslonic plastic and zooptsnkton at different depths near the southern California shore. Marine Pollution BuNatin 49:291.294. "Gragory. M.R. and Ryan, P.G., In Marine Debris, J.M. Coe and D.B. Rogers. Eda. (Springer, Berlin, 1996), pp. 48.70 "Tkulich, Pavlo and Chen, Eng Soon. Venkal mixing of oil droplets by breaking waves, 2002. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:1219-1229 "Yuan, W. eLal., The Specific Gravity Of Blodlesel Fuels And Their Blends With Diesel Fuel, Agricultural ErVinsoring international, • the CIGR Journal of ScienlNk Research and Development. Manuscript EE 04 004. Vol. VI 2004 "Four Simultaneous Dialogues. 2005. In Proceedings of the Plastic Debris Rivers to Sea Conference, 2005 "Moore, C.J., S.L Moore, S.B. Weisberg, G. Loftin and A. Zellers. 2002, A comparison of neustonk plastic and zooplankion abundance in southern California's coastal walers. Madno Pollution Bulletin 44:1035.1038. "Day, R.H., Shaw, D.G., and Ignell, S,E.,1989. The Quantitative Distribution and Characteristics of Neuslon Plastic In the North Pacific Ocean,1985.1988. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris.1989, U.S. bap. Commer., NOAA Tech. Mena. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-164. 1990. MARR CIE I�I4,II�Y°Il°II®ICY BILIiMI( PERGAMON Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (2002) 842452 w m.elsevieecomltocatelmarpolbul Review The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review Jose G.B. Derraik * Ecology and Health Research Centre, Department of Public Health, Wellington School of hfedmme and Health Sciences, University of Otago, P.O. Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand Abstract The deleterious effects of plastic debris on the marine environment were reviewed by bringing together most of the literature published so far on the topic. A large number of marine species is known to be harmed and/or killed by plastic debris, which could jeopardize their survival, especially since many are already endangered by other forms of anthropogenic activities. Marine animals are mostly affected through entanglement in and ingestion of plastic litter. Other less known threats include the use of plastic debris by "invader" species and the absorption of polychlorinated biphenyls from ingested plastics. Less conspicuous forms, such as plastic pellets and "scrubbers" are also hazardous. To address the problem of plastic debris in the oceans is a difficult task, and a variety of approaches are urgently required. Some of the ways to mitigate the problem are discussed. ® 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Plastic debris; Pollution; Marine environment 1. Introduction Human activities are responsible for a major decline of the world's biological diversity, and the problem is so critical that combined human impacts could have ac- celerated present extinction rates to 1000-10,000 times the natural rate (Lovejoy, 1997). In the oceans, the threat to marine life comes in various forms, such as overexploitation and harvesting, dumping of waste, pollution, alien species, land reclamation, dredging and global climate change (Beatley, 1991; National Research Council, 1995; Irish and Norse, 1996; Ormond et al., 1997; Tickel, 1997; Snelgrove, 1999). One particular form of human impact constitutes a major threat to marine life: the pollution by plastic debris. LL Plastic debris Plastics are synthetic organic polymers, and though they have only existed for just over a century (Gorman, 1993), by 1988 in the United States alone, 30 million tons of plastic were produced annually (O'Hara et al., 1988). The versatility of these materials has lead to a great increase in their use over the past three decades, -Fax: +644-389.5319. E-mail address: jdetraik@wnmeds.ac.nz (J.G.B. Derraik). and they have rapidly moved into all aspects of everyday life (Hansen, 1990; Laist, 1987). Plastics are lightweight, strong, durable and cheap (Laist, 1987), characteristics that make them suitable for the manufacture of a very wide range of products. These same properties happen to be the reasons why plastics are a serious hazard,to the environment (Pruter, 1987; Laist, 1987). Since they are also buoyant, an increasing load of plastic debris is be- ing dispersed over long distances, and when they finally settle in sediments they may persist for centuries (Han- sen, 1990; Ryan, 1987b; Goldberg, 1995, 1997). The threat of plastics to the marine environment has been ignored for a long time, and its seriousness has been only recently recognised (Stefatos et al., 1999). Fergusson (1974) for instance, then a member of the Council of the British Plastics Federation and a Fellow of the Plastics Institute, stated that "plastics litter is a very small proportion of all litter and causes no harm to the environment except as an eyesore". His comments not only illustrates how the deleterious environmental effects of plastics were entirely overlooked, but also that, apparently, even the plastics industry failed to predict the great boom in the production and use of plastics of the past 30 years. In the marine environment, the perceived abundance of marine life and the vastness of the oceans have lead to the dismissal of the prolife- ration of plastic debris as a potential hazard (Laist, 1987). 0025-326X/02IS - see front matter m 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII:S0025-326X(02)00220-5 6% J.G.B Derrask l hfarine Pollution Bulletin 44 OW21.e41-R51 The literature on marine debris leaves no doubt that plastics make-up most of the marine litter worldwide (Table 1). Though the methods were not assessed to ensure that the results were comparable, Table 1 clearly indicates the predominance of plastics amongst the marine litter, and its proportion consistently varies be- tween 60e/u and 80% of the total marine debris (Gregory and Ryan, 1997). It is not possible to obtain reliable estimates of the amount of plastic debris that reaches the marine envi- ronment, but the quantities are nevertheless quite sub- stantial. In 1975 the world's fishing fleet alone dumped into the sea approximately 135,400 tons of plastic fishing gear and 23,600 tons of synthetic packaging material (Cawthorn, 1989; DOC, 1990). Horsman (1982) esti- mated that merchant ships dump 639,000 plastic con- 843 tainers each day around the world, and ships are therefore, a major source of plastic debris (Shaw, 1977; Shaw and Mapes, 1979). Recreational fishing and boats are also responsible for dumping a considerable amount of marine debris, and according to the US Coast Guard they dispose approximately 52e/a of all rubbish dumped in US waters (UNESCO, 1994). Plastic materials also end up in the marine environ- ment when accidentally lost, carelessly handled (Wilber, 1987) or left behind by beachgoers (Pruter, 1987). They also reach the sea as litter carried by rivers and munic- ipal drainage systems (Pruter, 1987; Williams and Sim- mons, 1997). There are major inputs of plastic litter from land -based sources in densely populated or in- dustrialized areas (Pruter, 1987; Gregory, 1991), most in the form of packaging. A study on Halifax Harbour Table 1 Proportion of plastics among marine debris worldwide (per number of Items) Locality Litter type percentage or debris items Source represented by plastics 1992International Coastal Cleanups Shoreline 59 Anon (IM) St. Lucia, Caribbean Beach 51 Corbin and Singh (1993) Dominica, Caribbean Beach 36 Corbin and Singh (1993) Curagao, Caribbean Beach 40164 Debrot at al. (19") Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic Seabed 92 Gaillard et ai. (19952) NW Mediterranean Seabed 77 Galgani et al. (1995b) French Mediterranean Coast Deep sea near >70 Gaillard et ai. (1996) European coasts Sea floor >70 Gaillard et a). (two) Caribbean coast of Panama Shoreline 82 Garrity and LeWtigs (1993) Georgia, USA Beach 57 Gilligan et al. (1992) 5 Mediterranean beaches Beach 6040 Golik 0997) 50 South African beaches Beach >90 Gregory and Ryan (1997) 88 sites in Tasmania Beach 65 Gregory and Ryan (1997) Argentina Beach 37-72 Gregory and Ryan (1997) 9 Sub-Antarctto Islands Beach $148 Gregory and Ryan (1997) South Australia Beach 62 Gregory and Ryan (1997) Kodiak Is, Alaska Seabed 47-56 Hess et al. (1"9) Tokyo Bay, Japan Seabed 8045 Kanehtro at aL (1995) North Pacific Ocean Surface waters 86 Laist (1987) Mexico Beach 60 Lora -Dominguez et al. (1994) Transkei, South Africa Beach 83 Madmoa and Lasiak (1997) National Parks In USA Beach 88 Mansk) et al. (1991) Mediterranean Sea Surface waters 60-70 Morris (1980) Cape Cod, USA Beachlharbour 90 Ribic et al (1997) 4 North Atlantic harbors, USA Harbour 73-92 Ribic et ai.11"7) Is. Beach State Park, New Jersey, USA Beach 73 Ribic (149R) Halifax Harbour, Canada Beach 54 Ross et al. (1991) Price Edward Is., Southern Ocean Beach 88 Ryan (1987b) Gough Is., Southern Ocean Beach 84 R)an (1987b) Heard Is., Southern Ocean Beach 51 Slip and Button (1991) Macquite N., Southern Ocean Beach 71 Shp and Burton (1991) New Zealand Beach 75 Smith and Tooker (1990) Two gulfa In W. Greece Seabed 794.1 Stefinos et al. (19") South German Bight Beach 75 Vauk and Schroy (1987) Bird Is., South Georgia, Southern Ocean Beach 8R. Walker et al. (1997) Fog Bay, N. Australia Beach 32 Whiting (1998) South Wales, UK Beach 63 Williams and Tudor (2001) Results are arranged In alphabetical order by author. s 76% of total consisted of synthetic line for long -line fisheries. W J. C.B. Derrmk / Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (2002) 842-852 in Canada, for instance, showed that 62a/o of the total litter in the harbour originated from recreation and land -based sources (Ross et al., 1991). In contrast, in beaches away from urban areas (e.g. Alaska) most of the litter is made up of fishing debris. Not only the aesthetically distasteful plastic litter, but also less conspicuous small plastic pellets and granules are a threat to marine biota. The latter are found in large quantities on beaches (Gregory, 1978, 1989; Shi- ber, 1979, 1982, 1987; Redford et al., 1997), and are the raw material for the manufacture of plastic products that end up in the marine environment through acci- dental spillage during transport and handling, not as litter or waste as other forms of plastics (Gregory, 1978; Shiber, 1979; Redford et al., 1997). Their sizes usually vary from 2-6 mm, though occasionally much larger ones can be found (Gregory, 1977, 1978). Plastic pellets can be found across the Southwest Pacific in surprisingly high quantities for remote and non -industrialised places such as Tonga, Rarotonga and Fiji (Gregory, 1999). In New Zealand beaches they are found in quite considerable amounts, in counts of over 100,000 raw plastic granules per meter of coast (Greg- ory, 1989), with greatest concentration near important industrial centres (Gregory, 1977). Their durability in the marine environment is still uncertain but they seem to last from 3 to 10 years, and additives can probably extend this period to 30-50 years (Gregory, 1978). Unfortunately, the dumping of plastic debris into the ocean is an increasing problem. For instance, surveys carried out in South African beaches 5 years apart, showed that the densities of all plastic debris have in- creased substantially (Ryan and Moloney, 1990). In Panama, experimentally cleared beaches regained about 50% of their original debris load after just 3 months (Garrity and Levings, 1993). Even subantarctic islands are becoming increasingly affected by plastic debris, es- pecially fishing lines (Walker et al., 1997). Benton (1995) surveyed islands in the South Pacific and got to the alarming conclusion that beaches in remote areas had a comparable amount of garbage to a beach in the industrialized western world. 2. The threats from plastics pollution to marine biota There is still relatively little information on the impact of plastics pollution on the ocean's ecosystems (Quayle, 1992; Wilber, 1987). There is however an increasing knowledge about their deleterious impacts on marine biota (Goldberg, 1995). The threats to marine life are primarily mechanical due to ingestion of plastic debris and entanglement in packaging bands, synthetic ropes and lines, or drift nets (Laist, 1987, 1997; Quayle, 1992). Since the use of plastics continues to increase, so does the amount of plastics polluting the marine environ- ment. Robards et al. (1995) examined the gut content of thousands of birds in two separate studies and found that the ingestion of plastics by seabirds had signifi- cantly increased during the 10-15 years interval between studies. A study done in the North Pacific (Blight and Burger, 1997) found plastic particles in the stomachs of 8 of the 11 seabird species caught as bycatch. The list of affected species indicates that marine debris are affecting a significant number of species (Laist, 1997). It affects at least 267 species worldwide, including 86% of all sea turtle species, 44a/o of all seabird species, and 43% of all marine mammal species (Laist, 1997). The problem may be highly underestimated as most victim are likely to go undiscovered over vast ocean areas, as they either sink or are eaten by predators (Wolfe, 1987). There is also potential danger to marine ecosystems from the accumulation of plastic debris on the sea floor. According to Kanehiro et al. (1995) plastics made up 80-85% of the seabed debris in Tokyo Bay, an impressive figure considering that most plastic debris are buoyant. The accumulation of such debris can in- hibit the gas exchange between the overlying waters and the pore waters of the sediments, and the resulting hypoxia or anoxia in the benthos can interfere with the normal ecosystem functioning, and alter the make-up of life on the sea floor (Goldberg, 1994). Moreover, as for pelagic organisms, benthic biota is likewise sub- jected to entanglement and ingestion hazards (Hess et al., 1999). 2.1. Ingestion of plastics A study done on 1033 birds collected off the coast of North Carolina in the USA found that individuals from 55% of the species recorded had plastic particles in their guts (Moser and Lee, 1992). The authors obtained evi- dence that some seabirds select specific plastic shapes and colors, mistaking them for potential prey items. Shaw and Day (1994) came to the same conclusions, as they studied the presence of floating plastic particles of different forms, colors and sizes in the North Pacific, finding that many are significantly under -represented. Carpenter et al. (1972) examined various species of fish with plastic debris in their guts and found that only white plastic spherules had been ingested, indicating that they feed selectively. A similar pattern of selective in- gestion of white plastic debris was found for loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta carctta) in the Central Mediterra- nean (Gramentz, 1988). Among seabirds, the ingestion of plastics is directly correlated to foraging strategies and technique, and diet (Azzarello and Van-Vleet, 1987; Ryan, 1987a; Moser and Lee, 1992; Laist, 1987, 1997). For instance, planktivores are more likely to confuse plastic pellets with their prey than do piscivores, there- fore the former have a higher incidence of ingested plastics (Azzarello and Van-Vleet, 1987). t, I G./t Derralk l Marine Pollution AdIran 44 (2002) k42-.Y52 Ryan (1988) performed an experiment with domestic chickens (Gallus domcsticus) to establish the potential effects of Ingested plastic particles on seabirds. They were fed with polyethylene pellets and the results indi- cated that ingested plastics reduce meal size by reducing the storage volume of the stomach and the feeding stimulus. He concluded that seabirds with large plastic loads have reduced food consumption, which limits their ability to lay down fat deposits, thus reducing fitness. Connors and Smith (1982) had previously reached the same conclusion, as their study indicated that the in- gestion of plastic particles hindered formation of fat deposits in migrating red phalaropes (Phalaropes fuit- cariuc), adversely affecting long-distance migration and possibly their reproductive effort on breeding grounds. Spear et al. (1995) however, provided probably the first solid evidence for a negative relationship between number of plastic particles ingested and physical con- dition (body weight) in seabirds from the tropical Pacific. Other harmful effects from the ingestion of plastics include blockage of gastric enzyme secretion, diminished feeding stimulus, lowered steroid hormone levels, de- layed ovulation and reproductive failure (Azzarcllo and Van-Vleet, 1987). The ingestion of plastic debris by small fish and seabirds for instance, can reduce food uptake, cause internal injury and death following blockage of intestinal tract (Carpenter ct al., 1972; Rothstein, 1973; Ryan, 1988; Zitko and Hanlon, 1991). The extent of the harm, however, will vary among spe- cies, Procellarfiformes for example, are more vulnerable due to their inability to regurgitate ingested plastics (Furness, 1985; Azzarcllo and Van-Vleet, 1987). Laist (1987) and Fry et al. (1987) observed that adults that manage to regurgitate plastic particles could pass them onto the chicks during feeding. The chicks of Laysan albatrosses (Diomedca intmurabilis) in the Ha- waiian Islands for instance, arc unable to regurgitate such materials which accumulate in their stomachs, be- coming a significant source of mortality, as 90"h of the chicks surveyed had some sort of plastic debris in their upper GI tract (Fry et al., 1987). Even Antarctic and sub -Antarctic seabirds are subjected to this hazard (Slip et al., 1990). Wilson's storm -petrels (Oceanites occani- cus) for instance, pick up plastic debris while wintering in other areas (Van Franeker and Bell, 1988). A white- faced storm -petrel (Pelogodronta marina) found dead at the isolated Chatham Islands (New Zealand) at a breeding site, had no food in its stomach while Its giz- zard was packed with plastic pellets (Bourne and Imber, 1982). The harm from ingestion of plastics is nevertheless not restricted to seabirds. Polythene bags drifting in ocean currents look much like the prey items targeted by turtles (Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986; Gramentz, 1988; Bugoni et al., 2001). There is evidence that their survival 945 is being hindered by plastic debris (Duguy et al., 1998), with young sea turtles being particularly vulnerable (Carr, 1987). Balazs (1985) listed 79 cases of turtles whose guts were full of various sorts of plastic debris, and O'Hara et al. (1988) cited a turtle found in New York that had swallowed 540 m of fishing line. Oesophagus and stomach contents were examined from 38 specimens of the endangered green sea turtle (Che- Ionia mydas) on the south of Brazil, 23 of which (60.5%) had ingested anthropogenic debris, mainly plastics (BugonI et al., 2001). Among other C. mvdas washed ashore in Florida. 561% had anthropogenic debris in their digestive tracts (Bjorndal et al., 1994). Tomds et al. (2002) found that 75.91/6 of 54 loggerhead sea turtles (C. caretta) captured by fishermen had plastic debris in their digestive tracts. At least 26 species of cetaceans have been docu- mented to ingest plastic debris (Baird and Hooker, 2000). A young male pygmy sperm whale (Kogia brevi- ceps) stranded alive in Texas, USA, died in a holding tank 11 days later (Tarpley and Marwitz, 1993). The necropsy showed that the first two stomach compart- ments were completely occluded by plastic debris (gar- bage can liner, a bread wrapper, a corn chip bag and two other pieces of plastic sheeting). The death of an endangered West Indian manatee (Trtchechus manatus) in 1985 in Florida was apparently caused by a large piece of plastic that blocked its digestive tract (Laist, 1987). Deaths of the also endangered Florida manatee (Trtchechus manatus latirostris) have too been blamed on plastic debris in their guts (Beek and Barros, 1991). Secchi and Zarcur (1999) blamed the fate of a dead Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) wa- shed ashore in Brazil to a bundle of plastic threads found in the animals' stomach. Coleman and Wehle (1984) and Baird and Hooker (2000) cited other ceta- ceans that have been reported with ingested plastics, such as the killer whale (Orcinus orca). Some species of fish off the British coast were found to contain plastic cups within their guts that would eventually lead to their death (Anon, 1975). In the Bristol Channel in the summer of 1973, 21% of the flounders (Platichthyes jlesus) were found to contain polystyrene spherules (Kartar et al., 1976). The same study found, that in some areas, 25% of sea snails (Liparts liparis) (a fish, despite its common name) were heavily contaminated by such debris, In the New En- gland coast, USA, the same type of spherules were found in 8 out of 14 fish species examined, and in some species 33% of individuals were contaminated (Carpen- ter et al., 1972). 2.Z Plastics ingestion and polychlorinated biphenyls Over the past 20 years polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have increasingly polluted marine food webs, 846 J.G.B. Derraik / Marine Pollatan Bulletin 44 (2002) 842-852 and are prevalent in seabirds (Ryan et al., 1988). Though their adverse effects may not always be appar- ent, PCBs lead to reproductive disorders or death, they increase risk of diseases and alter hormone levels (Ryan et al., 1988; Lee et al., 2001). These chemicals have a detrimental effect on marine organisms even at very low levels and plastic pellets could be a route for PCBs into marine food chains (Carpenter and Smith, 1972; Car- penter et al., 1972; Rothstein, 1973; Zitko and Hanlon, 1991; Mato et al., 2001). Ryan et al. (1988) studying great shearwaters (Puffi- nus graois), obtained evidence that PCBs in the birds' tissues were derived from ingested plastic particles. Their study presented the first indication that seabirds can assimilate chemicals from plastic particles in their stomachs, indicating a dangerous pathway for poten- tially harmful pollutants. Bjorndal et al. (1994) worked with sea turtles and came to a similar conclusion, that the absorption of toxins as sublethal effects of debris ingestion has an unknown, but potentially great nega- tive effect on their demography. Plastic debris can be a source of other contaminants besides PCBs. According to Zitko (1993) low molecular weight compounds from polystyrene particles are lea- ched by seawater, and the fate and effects of such compounds on aquatic biota are not known. 2.3. Entanglement in plastic debris Entanglement in plastic debris, especially in dis- carded fishing gear, is a very serious threat to marine animals. According to Schrey and Vauk (1987) entan- glement accounts for 13-29% of the observed mortality of gannets (Sula bassana) at Helgoland, German Bight. Entanglement also affects the survival of the endan- gered sea turtles (Carr, 1987), but it is a particular problem for marine mammals, such as fur seals, which are both curious and playful (Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986). Young fur seals are attracted to floating debris and dive and roll about in it (Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986). They will approach objects in the water and often poke their heads into loops and holes (Fowler, 1987; Laist, 1987). Though the plastic loops can easily slip onto their necks, the lie of the long guard hairs prevents the strapping from slipping off (Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986). Many seal pups grow into the plastic collars, and in time as it tightens, the plastic severs the seal's arteries or strangles it (Weisskopf, 1988). Ironically, once the entangled seal dies and decomposes, the plastic band is free to be picked up by another victim (DOC, 1990; Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986), as some plastic articles may take 500 years to decompose (Gorman, 1993; UNESCO, 1994). Once an animal is entangled, it may drown, have its ability to catch food or to avoid predators impaired, or incur wounds from abrasive or cutting action of at- tached debris (Laist, 1987, 1997; Jones, 1995). Accord- ing to Feldkamp et al. (1989) entanglement can greatly reduce fitness, as it leads to a significant increase in energetic costs of travel. For the northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), for instance, they stated that net fragments over 200 g could result in 4-fold increase in the demand of food consumption to maintain body condition. The decline in the populations of the northern sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Manchus schauinslandi) (Henderson, 1990, 2001) and northern fur seal (Fowler, 1987) seems at least ag- gravated by entanglement of young animals in lost or discarded nets and packing bands. In the Pribiloff Islands alone, in the Bering Sea west of Alaska, the percentage of northern fur seals returning to rookeries entangled in plastic bands rose from nil in 1969 to 38% in 1973 (Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986). The population in 1976 was declining at a rate of 4-6"/o a year, and scientists estimated that up to 40,000 fur seals a year were being killed by plastic entanglement (Weisskopf, 1988). A decline due to entanglement also seems to be occurring with Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gaz- ella) (Croxall et al., 1990). Pemberton et al. (1992) and Jones (1995) both reported similar concern for Austra- lian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). At South-east Farallon Island, Northern California, a sur- vey from 1976-1988 observed 914 pinnipeds entangled in or with body constrictions from synthetic materials (Hanni and Pyle, 2000). Lost or abandoned fishing nets pose a particular great risk (Jones, 1995). These "ghost nets" continue to catch animals even if they sink or are lost on the seabed (Laist, 1987). In 1978, 99 dead seabirds and over 200 dead salmon were counted during the retrieval of a 1500 in ghost net south of the Aleutian Islands (DeGange and Newby, 1980). In a survey done in 1983/84 off the coast of Japan, it was estimated that 533 fur seals were en- tangled and drowned in nets lost in the area (Laist, 1987). Whales are also victims, as "they sometimes lunge for schools of fish and surface with netting caught in their mouths or wrapped around their heads and tails" (Weisskopf, 1988). 2.4. Plastic "scrubbers" Studies (Gregory, 1996; Zitko and Hanlon, 1991) have drawn attention to an inconspicuous and previ- ously overlooked form of plastics pollution: small fragments of plastic (usually up to 0.5 turn across) de- rived from hand cleaners, cosmetic preparations and airblast cleaning media. The environmental impact of these particles, as well as similar sized flakes from de- gradation of larger plastic litter, has not been properly established yet. J. G.B. Perm& I Marine Polhtllon Bulletin 44 (ann2) 842-02 In New Zealand and Canada, polyethylene and polystyrene scrubber grains respectively were identified in the cleansing preparations available in those markets, sometimes in substantial quantities (Gregory, 1996). In airblasting technology, polyethylene particles are used for stripping paint from metallic surfaces and cleaning engine parts, and can be recycled up to 10 times before they have to be discarded, sometimes significantly con- taminated by heavy metals (Gregory, 1996). Once dis- carded they enter into foul water or reticulate sanitary systems, and though some may be trapped during sew- age treatment, most will be discharged into marine waters; and as they float, they concentrate on surface waters and are dispersed by currents (Gregory, 1996). There are many possible impacts of these persistent particles on the environment (Zitko and Hanlon, 1991). For instance, heavy metals or other contaminants could be transferred to filter feeding organisms and other in- vertebrates, ultimately reaching higher trophic levels (Gregory, 1996). Z5. Drift plastic debris: possible patluvav for the invasion of alien species The introduction of alien species can have major consequences for marine ecosystems (Grassle et al., 1991). This biotic mixing is becoming a widespread problem due to human activities, and it is a potential threat to native marine biodiversity (McKinney, 1998). According to some estimates, global marine species di- versity may decrease by as much as 581/6 if worldwide biotic mixing occurs (McKinney, 1998). Plastics floating at sea may acquire a fauna of various encrusting organisms such as bacteria, diatoms, algae, barnacles, hydrolds and tunicates (Carpenter et al., 1972; Carpenter and Smith, 1972; Minchin,1996; Clark, 1997). The bryozoan Membrantpora tuherculata, for in- stance, is believed to have crossed the Tasman Sea, from Australia to New Zealand, encrusted on plastic pellets (Gregory,1978). The same species together with another bryozoan (Electra tenella) were found on plastics wa- shed ashore on the Florida coast, USA, and they seem to be increasing their abundance in the region by drift- ing on plastic debris from the Caribbean area (Winston, 1982; Winston et al., 1997). Minchin (1996) also de- scribes barnacles that crossed the North Atlantic Ocean attached to plastic debris. Drift plastics can therefore increase the range of certain marine organisms or introduce species into an environment where they were previously absent (Win- ston, 1982). Gregory (1991, 1999) pointed out that the arrival of unwanted and aggressive alien taxa could be detrimental to littoral, intertidal and shoreline ecosys- tems. He emphasised the risk to the flora and fauna of conservation islands, for instance, as alien species could arrive rafted on drifting plastics. 3. Discussion and recommendations 847 Though the seas cover the majority of our planet's surface, far less is known about the biodiversity of marine environments then that of terrestrial systems (Ormond et al., 1997). Irish and Norse (1996) examined all 742 papers published in the journal Conservation Biology and found that only 5% focused on marine ecosystems and species, compared with 67% on terres- trial and 6% on freshwater. As a result of this dispar- ity, marine conservation biology severely lags behind the terrestrial counterpart (Murphy and Duffus, 1996), and this gap of knowledge poses major problems for conservation of marine biodiversity and must be ad- dressed. This study shows that there is overwhelming evidence that plastic pollution is a threat to marine biodiversity, already at risk from overlishing, climate change and other forms of anthropogenic disturbance, So far how- ever, that evidence is basically anecdotal. There is a need for more research (especially long terns monitoring) to assess the actual threat posed by plastic debris to marine species. The research information would provide input for conservation management, strengthen the basis for educational campaigns, and also provide marine scien- tists with better evidence that could be used to demand from the authorities more effort to mitigate the problem. Due to the long life of plastics an marine ecosystems, it is imperative that severe measures are taken to address the problem at both international and national levels, since even if the production and disposal of plastics suddenly stopped, the existing debris would continue to harm marine life for many decades. 3.1. Plastics pollution and legislation There have been nevertheless some attempts to pro- mote the conservation of the world's oceans through international legislation, such as the establishment of the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter (the London Dumping Convention or LDC). The most important legislation addressing the increasing problem of marine pollution is probably the 1978 Protocol to the Interna- tional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which recognised that vessels present a significant and controllable source of pollution into the marine environment (Lentz, 1987). The Annex V of MARPOL is the key international authority for controlling ship sources of marine debris (Ninaber, 1997), and came Into effect in 1988 (Clark, 1997). It "restricts at sea discharge of garbage and bans at sea disposal of plastics and other synthetic materials such as ropes, fishing nets, and plastic garbage bags with limited exceptions" (Pearce, 1992). More importantly, the Annex V applies to all watercraft, including small 848 ✓C.B. Derraik / Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (2002) 842-852 recreational vessels (Nee, 1990). Seventy-nine countries have so far ratified the Annex V (CMC, 2002), and the signatory countries are required to take steps to fully implement it. Annex V also refers to "special areas", including the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Red Sea and the "Gulfs" areas, where discharge regulations are far more strict (Lentz, 1987). Nevertheless, the legislation is still widely ignored, and ships are estimated to discard 6.5 million tons per year of plastics (Clark, 1997). Observers on board foreign fishing vessels within Australian waters, for instance, found that at least one-third of the vessels did not comply with the MARPOL regulations on the disposal of plastics (Jones, 1995). As Kirkley and McConnell (1997) pointed out, the compliance of indi- viduals with laws is partly a question of economics. They believe most people (or companies) would not change their attitude if stopping the dumping of plastics into the ocean were economically costly. Henderson (2001) assessed the impact of Annex V and found re- duction neither in the accumulation of marine debris nor in the entanglement rate of Hawaiian monk seals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Amos (1993) and Johnson (1994) however, found that it has been of some effect in reducing plastic litter in the oceans. Legislation at the national level also plays an im- portant role. Individual countries can be effective through their own legislation, such as laws that require degradability standards or that encourage recycling (Bean, 1987). In the USA, for instance, the Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 not only adopted Annex V, but also extended its application to US Navy vessels (Nee, 1990; Bentley, 1994). Ports and ocean carriers have to adapt to these regulations prohibiting the disposal of plastics at sea (Nee, 1990). The biggest difficulty however when it comes to legis- lation, is to actually enforce it in an area as vast as the world's oceans. It is therefore essential that neighbour- ing countries work together in order to ensure that all vessels comply with Annex V. 3.2. Other issues and ways to prevent marine pollution Education is also a very powerful tool to address the issue, especially if it is discussed in schools. Youngsters not only can change habits with relative ease, but also be able to take their awareness into their families and the wider community, working as catalysts for change. Since land -based sources provide major inputs of plastic de- bris into the oceans, if a community becomes aware of the problem, and obviously willing to act upon it, it can actually make a significant difference. The power of education should not be underestimated, and it can be more effective than strict laws, such as the Suffolk County Plastics Law (in New York, USA) that banned some retail food packaging and was unsuccessful in re- ducing beach and roadside litter (Ross and Swanson, 1995). There may also be a need for financial incentives as Ray and Grassle (1991) stressed "no effort to con- serve biological diversity is realistic outside the eco- nomics and public policies that drive the modern world". There are also more complicated aspects of the problem of plastic pollution. As it could be seen as a "side -effect" of progress, those countries undergoing economic development will seek their share of growth, putting an increasing pressure on the environment. It is unlikely that such nations would take any steps to re- duce the use of plastics or their disposal into the oceans, if that would compromise any short-term economic gain. Especially when nations from the developed world are being careless themselves, and still failing to comply with the requirements of Annex V. One possibility to mitigate the problem is the devel- opment and use of biodegradable and photodegradable plastics (Wolf and Feldman, 1991; Gorman, 1993). The US Navy, for instance, was working on a promising biopolymer (regenerated cellulose) for the fabrication of marine -disposable trash bags (Andrady et al., 1992). Unfortunately, the effects of the final degradation prod- ucts of those materials are not yet known, and there is the danger of substituting one problem for another (Horsman, 1985; Wolf and Feldman, 1991; Quayle, 1992). Therefore studies were being done, for example, to monitor the degradation of polymers in natural wa- ters under real -life conditions (Mergaert et al., 1995) and assess the impact of degradation products on estuarine benthos (Doering et al., 1994). 3.3. Final remarks Ultimately, all sectors of the community should take their individual steps. Thinking globally and acting lo- cally is a fundamental attitude to reduce such an envi- ronmental threat. A combination of legislation and the enhancement of ecological consciousness through edu- cation is likely to be the best way to solve such envi- ronmental problems. The general public and the scientific community have also the responsibility of en- suring that governments and businesses change their attitudes towards the problem. It is nevertheless certain that the environmental hazards that threaten the oceans' biodiversity, such as the pollution by plastic debris, must be urgently addressed. "The last fallen mahogany would lie perceptibly on the landscape, and the last black rhino would be obvious in its loneliness, but a marine species may disappear beneath the waves unobserved and the sea would seem to roll on the same as always" (Ray, 1988, p. 45). J.O.B. Derralk 1 Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (2001) 842-RS2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Jenny Smith for her thorough proof reading. Special thanks must go to Eduardo See - chi (Department of Zoology, University of Otago, New Zealand) and Gilberto Fillmann (CCMS-Plymouth Marine Laboratory, United Kingdom) for their valuable input. References Anon, 1975. Plastic cups found in fish. Marine Pollution Bulletin 6, 148. Anon, 1990. Garbage. Center for Marine Conwrnttion, Washington DC. Amos, A.F., 1993. Solid waste pollution on Texas beaches: a post MARPOL annex V study, vol. 1. OCS Study MMS 93.0013. United States Department of Interior, New Orleans. Andrady, A.L., Pegram, J.E., Olson, T.M., 1992. Research and development of two marine -degradable blopolymers. Report, David -Taylor Research Centre. Research Triangle Park, Northern Carolina, USA. Azzarello, M.Y., Van•Vlmt, B.S., 1987. Marino birds and plastic pollution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 37, 295-301, Baird, R.W., Hooker, S.K., 2000. Ingestion of plastic and unusual prey by a juvenile Harbour Porpoise. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, 719- 720. Balazs, G.. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entangle. meat and Ingestion. In: Shomura, R.S., Yoshida, H.O. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu. US Department of Commerce, pp. 387429. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS SWFC•54. Bean, MJ., 1987. Legal strategies for reducing persistent plastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 357- 360. Beatley, T.. 1991. Protecting biodiversity in coastal environments: introduction and overview. Coastal Management 19,149. Beek, C.A., Barros, N.B.,1991. The impact of debris on the Florida manatee. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22, 508-510, Bentley, R., 1994, Evaluation of environmentally acceptable packaging for Navy use. In: Marine Technology Society: Challenges and Opportunities in the Marine Environment -Conference Proceed. ings, pp. 656-662. Benton, T.G., 1995. From castaways to throwaways: marine litter in the Pitcairn Islands. Biological Journal of the Linuean Society 56, 415-422. Hjomdal, lLA., Bolien, A.B., Lagueux, CJ.,1994. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles In coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2% 154-158. Blight, L.K., Burger, A.B., 1997. Occurrence of plastic particles In seabirds from the eastern North Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34, 323-325. Bourne, W.R.P., Imber, M.L,1982. Plastic pellets collected by a prion an Gough island, Contra] South Atlantic Ocean, Marino Pollution Bulletin 13, 20-21. Hugonl, L., Krause, L., Petry, M.V., 2001. Marine debris and human impacts on sea turtles in Southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, 1330-1334. Carpenter, EJ., Anderson. S.J., Harvey, G.R., Miklas, H.P., Peck, 1972. Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 178, 749-750. Carpenter, E.J., Smith, K.L., 1972 Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science 175. 124(W241. 849 Carr, A.. 1987, Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 352-3$6. Cawthorn, M., 1989. Impacts of marine debris on wildlife In New Zealand coastal waters. In; Proceedings of Marine Debris in New Zealand's Coastal Waters Workshop, 9 March 1989, Wellington. New Zealand. Department or Conservation. Wellington, New Zealand, pp 546. Clark, R.B., 1997. Marine Pollution. Clarendon Press, Oxford. CMC-Center for Marine Conservation, 2002. MARPOL/MPPRCA Available online on hitp,llwww.cincvxean,orglmdiolmarpol,php3, Coleman, F.C„ Wehle, D.H.S., 1984. Plastic pollution: a worldwide problem. Parks 9, 9-12. Connors, P.O., Smith, K.G., 1982. Oceanic plastic particle pollution: suspected effect an fat deposition in red phalaropes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13, 18-20. Corbin, C.J., Singh, JG, 1993, Marine debris contamination of teaches in St. Lucia and Dominica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 32.9128. Croxall, J.P.. Rodwell, S., Boyd, I.L. 1990. Entanglement in man• made debris of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Mammal Science 6, 221-115. Debrot, A.O., Tid, AB., Bradshaw, I.E. 19". Beach debris in CunKso. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38, 795401. DeGange, A.R., Newby, T.C., 1980. Mortality of seabirds and fish in a lost salon driRnet. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1, 322-323. DOC-Department of Conservation, 1990. Marine Debris. Welling. ton, New Zealand. Doering, P.H., Sullivan, H.K , Jeon, H., 1994. Effects of biodegradable plastic components on metabolism of an estuarine benthos. Journal of Environmental Polymer Degradation 2, 271-275. Duguy, R., Moriniere, P.. Letmlinsire. C., 199S. Factors or mortality of marine turtles In the Hay of Biscay. Oceanologia Ada 21. 383- 388. Feldkamp, S., Costa, D , DeKrey, O.K., 1989. Energetics and behavioural effects of net entanglement an juvenile northern fur seals Callarkimss urtinim Fisheries Bulletin 87, 85-94. Fergusson, W.C.,1974. Summary. In: Staudinger, J.J.P. (Ed.), Plastics and the Environment. Hutchinson and Co, London, p. 2. Fowler, C.W., 1987. Marine debris and northern fur seals: a case study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 326-335. Fry, D.M., Pefer, S.I., Sllea. L., 1997. Ingestion or plastic debris by Laysao albatross and wedge-tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 339-343. Furness, R.W.. N85. Plastic particle pollution. accumulation by Procellaridorm seabirds at Scottish colonies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 16, 103-106. Galgani, F., Burgeot, T., Bocquene, G„ Vincent, F.. Leaulq J.P., Labasde, J., Forest, A. Gulchet, R., 1995a. Distribution and abundance of debris on the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay and In Seine Bay. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, 58-62. Galganl, F., Jaunet, S., Campillo, A., Guenegen, X . His, E., 1995b. Distribution and abundance of debris on the continental shelf of the north•westem Mediterranean Sea, Marine Pollution Bulletin A 713-7I7. Galgani, F., Souplet, A., Cadiou, Y., 1996. Accumulation of debris on the deep sea floor of the French Mediterranean Coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series 142, 225-234. Galgani, F.. Lcaute, J.P., Mogucdet, P., Souplets. A., Verin, Y„ Carpenter, A., Goraguer, H , Latrouite. D., Andral, B.. Cadiou, Y , Mahe, J.C., Poniard, J.C.. Nerisson. P., 2000. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40. 516-527. Garrity, S.D.. Levings, S.0 , 1993. Marine debris along the Caribbean coast of Panama. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 317-324. Gilligan, M.R., Randal, S P., Richardson, J.P.. Kozel, T.R., 1992. Rates or accmnubioon or marine debris in Chatham County, Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24, 416-441. 850 J.G.B. Derraik / Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (2002) 842-852 Goldberg, E.D., 1994. Diamonds and plastics are forever? Marine Pollution Bulletin 28, 466. Goldberg, E.D., 1995. The health of the oceans -a 1994 update. Chemical Ecology 10, 3-8. Goldberg, E.D., 1997. Plasticizing the seafioor: an overview. Environ- mental Technology 18, 195-202. Gohk, A., 1997. Debris in the Mediterranean Sea: types, quantities, and behavior. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds), Marine Debris - Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 7-14. Gorman, M., 1993. Environmental Hazards -Mantic Pollution. ABC- CLIO Inc, Santa Barbara. Gmmentz, D., 1988. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic, metal, and hydrocarbon pollution in the Central Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19, 11-13. Gmssle, J.F., Lasserc, P, McIntyre, A.D., Ray, G.C., 1991. Marine biodiversity and mosystem function. Biology International Special Issue 23, 1-19. Gregory, M.R., 1977. Plastic pellets on New Zealand beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin8, 8244. Gregory, M.R., 1978. Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic granules on New Zealand beaches. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 12, 399-414. Gregory, M.R., 1989. Aceumulation of plastic debris in New Zealand's coastal waters and exclusive economic zone. In: Proceedings of Marine Debris in New Zealand's Coastal Waters Workshop, 9 March 1989, Wellington, New Zealand. Department of Conserva- tion, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 3-4. Gregory, M.R., 1991. The hazards of persistent marine pollution: drift plastics and conservation islands. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 21, 83-100. Gregory, M.R., 1996. Plastic "scrubbers" in hand cleansers: a further (and minor) source for marine pollution identified. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32, 867-871. Gregory, M.R., 1999. Plastics and South Pacific Island shores: environmental implications. Ocean and Coastal Management 42, 603-615. Gregory, M.R., Ryan, P.G., 1997. Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic debris: a review of Southern Hemisphere perspectives. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine De- bri"ources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 49-66. Hanni, K.D., Pyle, P., 2000. Entanglement of pinnipeds in synthetic materials at South-east Farallon Island, California, 1976-1998. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, 1076-1081. Hansen, J., 1990. Draft position statement on plastic debris in marine environments. Fisheries 15, 16-17. Henderson, J.R., 1990. A review of Hawaiian monk seal entanglement in marine debris. In: Shomura, R.S., Yoshida, H.O. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu. US Department of Commerce, pp. 326-336. Henderson, J.R., 2001. A pre- and post-MARPOL Annex V summary of Hawaiian monk seal entanglements and marine debris aceumu- lation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1982-1988. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, 584-589. Hess, N.A., Riblc, C.A., Vining, 1., 1999. Benthic marine debris, with an emphasis on fishery -related items, surrounding Kodiak Island, Alaska, 1994-1996. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38, 895-890. Horsman, P.V., 1982. The amount of garbage pollution from merchant ships. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13, 167-169. Horsman, P.V., 1985. Garbage kills. BBC Wildlife 3, 391-393. Irish, K.E., Norse, E.A., 1996. Scant emphasis on marine biodiversity. Conservation Biology 10, 680. Johnson, S.W., 1994. Deposition of trawl web on an Alaska beach after implementation of MARPOL Annex V Legislation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28, 477481. Jones, M.M., 1995. Fishing debris in the Australian marine environ- ment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, 25-33. Kanehiro, H., Tokai, T., Matuda, K., 1995. Marine litter composition and distribution on the seabed of Tokyo Bay. Fisheries Engineering 31, 195-199. Kartar, S, Abou-Seedo, F., Sainsbury, M., 1976. Polystyrene spher- ules in the Severn Estuary -a progress report. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7, 52. Kirklcy, J., McConnell, K.E., 1997. Marine debris: benefits, costs and choices. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris - Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 171-185. Laist, D.W., 1987. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 319-326. Laist, D.W., 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion recoids. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris -Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer- Verlag, New York, pp. 99-139. Lara-Dominguez, A.L., Villalobos-Zapata, G.J., Rivera-Arriaga, E., Vera-Herrem, F., Alvarez-Guillen, H., 1994. Source of solid garbage in Campeche beaches, Mexico. Revista de la Sociedad Mexicans de Historia Natural 45, 133-142. Lee, K., Tanabe, S, Koh, C, 2001. Contamination of polychlorinated biplienyls (PCBs) in sediments from Kyeonggi Bay and nearby areas, Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, 273-279. Lentz, S.A., 1987. Plastics in the marine environment: legal approaches for international action. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 361-365. Lovejoy, T.E., 1997. Biodiversity: what is it? In: Reaka-Kudla, M.K., Wilson, D.E., Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting our Biological Resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington DC, pp. 7-14. Madzena, A, Lasiak, T, 1997. Spatial and temporal variations in beach litter on the Transkei coast of South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34, 900-907. Manski, D.A., Gregg, W.P., Cole, C.A., Richards, D.V,1991. Annual Report of the National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1990 Marine Debris Surveys. National Park Services, Washington DC. Mattlin, R.H., Cawthorn, M.W., 1986. Marine debris --an interna- tional problem. New Zealand Environment 51, 3-6. Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kanehiro, H., Ohtake, C., Kami- numa, T, 2001. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science Technology 35, 318-324. McKinney, R.L., 1998. On predicting biotic homogenization -species - area patterns in marine biota. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7, 297-301. Mergaert, J., Wouters, A., Anderson, C., Swings, J., 1995. In situ biodegradation of poty(3-hydroxybutyrate) and poly(341ydroxy- butyratc-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) in natural waters. Canadian Jour- nal of Microbiology 41, 154-159. Minchin, D, 1996. Tar pellets and plastics as attachment surfaces for Lepadid cirripedes in the North Atlantic Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32, 855-859. Morris, R.J., 1980. Floating plastic debris in the Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 11, 125. Moser, M.L., Lee, D.S., 1992. A fourteen -year survey of plastic ingestion by western North Atlantic seabirds. Colonial Waterbirds 15, 83-94. Murphy, D.D., Dallas, D.A., 1996. Conservation biology and marine biodiversity. Conservation Biology 10, 311-312. National Research Council, 1995. Understanding marine biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC. Nee, J, 1990. What do you do when the nearest trashcan is 2000 miles away? Seafarer 39, 8-9. J.0 B Derralk f Marine Pollution Bul)elin 44 jj)02) 842-852 Masher, E., 1997. MARPOL Annex V. commercial ships, and port reception fac0ites: making it work. In: Ca. J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris -Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer- Verlag, New York, pp. 239-243. O'Hara, K., tudicello, S., I ietce. R.. 1488. A Citizen's Guide to Plastics In the Ocean: More than a Litter Problem. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington DC. Ormond, R.F.G., Gage, J.D., Angel. M.V.,1997. Marine bicdiverslty: patterns and processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pearce, J.B., 1"2. Marine venal debris: a North American perspec. live. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24, 586-592. Pemberton, D„ Brothers, N.P., Kirkwood, R., 1"2. Entanglement of Austra0an fur seals In man-made debris in Tasmanian waters. Wildlife Research 19. 151-159. Prefer, A.T., 1987. Sources, quantities and distribution of persistent plastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19. 3U5 310. Quayle, D.V., 1992. Plastics in the marine environment: problems and solutions. Chemical Ecology 6, 69-78. Ray, G.C., 1988. Ecological diversity in coastal zones and oceans. In: Wilson, E.G., Peter, F.M. (Eds.), Biudiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 36-50. Ray, G.C., Grassle, J.F.,1991. Marine biological diversity. BioScience 41, 453-457. Redford, D.P., Trulli, H.K., Trulli, W.R., 1997. Sources of plastic pellets in the aquatic environment. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eris.), Marine Debris -Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer. Verlag, New York, pp. 335-343. Ribic, C.A., 1998. Use of indicator items to monitor marine debris an a New Jersey Beach from 1991 to 19%. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36, $87-891. Bible, C.A., Scott, W.J., Cole, C.A., 1997. Distribution, type, accumulation, and source of marine debris In the United States, 1989-1993. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. Vs.), Marine De. bris-Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp, 35r17. Robards, M.D., Platt, J.F., Wahl, K.D.,1995. Increasing frequency of plastic particles ingested by seabirds in the subarctic North Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, 151-157. Row, S.S., Parker, R., Strickland, M..1991. A survey of shoreline titter in Halifax Harbour 1989. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22, 245-248. Ross, S.S., Swanson, R.L., 1995. The impact of the Sufrolk County, New York, plastics ban an beach and roadside litter. Journal of Environmental Systems 23, 337-351. Rothstein, S,I„ 1973. Plastic particle pollution of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean: evidence from a seabird. Condor 75, 344-345. Ryan, P.O.,1987a. The incidence and characteristics of plastic particles ingested by seabirds. Marine Environment Research 23, 175-206, Ryan, P.G.,1987b. The origin and fate of artefacts stranded on islands In the African sector of the Southern Ocean, Environmental Conservation 14, 341-346. Ryan, P.O., 1988. Effects of Ingested plastic on seabird feeding: evidence from chickens, Marine Pollution Bulletin 19,125-128. Ryan, P.O., Connell, A.D., Gardner. B.D.,1988. Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: is there a relationship? Marine Pollution Bulletin 19. 174-176. Ryan, P.G., Moloney, C.L. 1990. Plastic and other artefacts on South African beaches: temporal trends in abundance and composition. South African Journal of Science 86, 450452. Schrcy, E., Vauk, G.J.M., 1987. Records of entangled gannets (Sula )wrrona) at Helgoland, German Bight. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18. 350452. Secchi, E.. Zarzur. S.. 1999, Plastic debris ingested by a Blainville's beaked whale, 31aropludon denslrusirk, washed ashore in Brazil. Aquatic Mammals 25, 21 24. Shaw, D.G., 1977. Pelagic tar and plastic in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea: 1975, Scituce of the Total Environment 8, 13-20. 851 Shaw, D.G., Mapes, G.A., 1979. Surface circulation and the distribu. tion of pelagic tar and plastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10, 160- 162. Shaw, D.G.. Day, R.H., 1"4. Calour- and formd"ralcnt loss of plastic micro-debrN from the North Pacific skean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28, 39-43. Slither, J.G., 1979. Plastic pellets on the coast of Lebanon. Marina Pollution Bulletin 10.28-30. Shiber, J.G., 1982. Plastic pellets on Spain's 'Costa del Sal' beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13, 409412. Slither, J.G., 1987. Plastic pellets and tar on Spain a Mediterranean beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 8446. Slip, D.L. Burton, H.R.. 1991. Accumulation offishing debris, plastic litter, and other artefacts, on Heard and Macquarie Islands In the Southern Ocean. Environmental Conservation 18.249-254. Slip, D.J., Green, K.. Woehler, EJ., 19% Ingestion of anthropogenic articles by seabirds at Macquarie Island. Marine Ornithology 18. 74-77. Smith. P., Tooker, 1., 1991). Marine debris on New Zealand coastal beaches. Greenpeace, Auckland. Snelgruve, P.V.R., 1999. Getting to the bottom of marine bludiversity: sedimentary habitats. Bloscience 49, 129-138. Spear, L.B., Ainley, D.G., Bible, C.A„ 1995. Incidence of plastic in seabirds from the Tropical Pacific, 1984-91: relation with distri. bution of species, sex, age, season, year and body weight. Marine Environmental Research 40, 12t-146 Stefatos. A., Charalampakis, M.. Papatheodorou, G., Ferentinas, G., 1999. Marine debris on the seafionr of the Mediterranean Sea: examples from two enclosed gulfs to Western Greece. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36, 389-393. Tarpley, R.J., MarwiM S., 1993. Plastic debris ingestion by celsoeam along the Texas coast: two ease reports. Aquatic Mammals 19, 93- 98. Ticket, C., 1997. The value of blodiversity. In: Ormond. R.F.G.. Gage. J.D., Angel, M.V. (Edo.), Marine Bloitversity: Patterns and Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. xid-xxll. Tamils, J„ Guitart, R., Mateo, R., Rage, J.A., 2002. Marine debris Ingestion in loggerhead sea turtles, Contra caretra, from the Western Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 211-216. UNESCO, 1"4. Marine Debris: Solid Waste Management Action Plan for the Wider Caribbean. IOC Technical Series 41, Paris. Van Franker, J.A., Bell, P.J., 1989. Plastic ingestion by petrels breeding in Antarctica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19, 672-674. Vauk, G.J.M.. Schrey, E., 1987. Litter pollution from ships it the German Bight. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 316-319. Walker, T.R., Reid, K., Arnould, J.P.Y.. Conseil, J.P., 1997. Marine debris surveys at Bird Island, South Georgia 1990-1995. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34, 61-65. Wefxskopf, M.,1988. Plastic reaps a grim harvest in the oceans of the world (plastic trash kills and mains marine life). Smithsonian 18. $8. Whiting, S.D., I998. Types and sources of marine debris In Fag Bay, Northern Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin.16. "4-910. Wilber, R.J., 1987. Plastic in the North Atlantic. Oceanus 30. 61-69. Williams, A.T., Simmons. S1.,1997. Estuarine litter at the riveribeach interface in the Bristol Channel, Vnited Kingdom. Journal of Coastal Research 13, 1159-1165. Williams, A.T., Tudor, D.T., 2001. Litter burial and exhumation: spatial and temporal distribution tin a cobble pocket beach, Marine Pollution Bulletin 42,1031-1039. Winston, J.E., 1992. Drill plastic-sn expanding niche for a marine Invertebrate? Marine Pollution Bulletin 13, 348-357. Winston, J.E.. Gregory, M.R., Stevens, L.M., l"T Encrusters, epibionts, and other blots associated with pelage plastics: a review of biogeographical, environmental, sod conservation issues. In: Coe, ) M„ Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris -Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 81-97. 852 J.G.B. Derraik / Martne Pollution Bulletin 44 (2002) 842-852 Wolf, N., Feldman, E, 1991. Plastics —America's packaging dilemma. Zitko, V., 1993. Expanded polystyrene as a source of contaminants. Environmental Action Coalition. Island Press, Washington DC. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 584-585. Wolfe, D.A., 1987. Persistent plastics and debris in the ocean: an Zitko, V, Hanlon, M., 1991. Another source of pollution by plastics: international problem of ocean disposal. Marine Pollution Bulletin skin cleaners with plastic scrubbers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22, 18, 303-305. 41-42. I I J THE SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION TO THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA FORMAL OBJECTIONS BY THE SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION TO PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2115 TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRY -OUT BAGS, AND TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE The Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (the "Coalition") is an unincorporated association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors. The members include (but are not limited to) Grand Packaging, Inc. and Crown Poly, Inc. which are manufacturers and Elkay Plastics Co., Inc. which is a manufacturer and distributor. Members of the Coalition supply plastic carry -out bags to businesses covered by the proposed ordinance and would be adversely affected by its adoption. The Coalition hereby responds to the June 12, 2008 Notice Of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration and asserts the objections herein. GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION CITED BY THE CITY 14 CCR §15061(b)(3) and §15308 are cited by the city in the proposed ordinance as the bases for exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the requirement that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. 14 CCR § 15061(b)(3) is known as the "common sense exemption." It states as follows: The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. [Emphasis added] Citing 14 CCR §15061(b)(3), the proposed ordinance states that the activity will not result in direct or indirect or reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect physical change to the environment. 14 CCR §15308 is a "categorical exemption." It states that the following category of actions is exempt from CEQA: [A]ctions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. 14 CCR §15300.2(c) states an exception to all categorical exemptions, as follows. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Citing 14 CCR §15308, the proposed ordinance states that the ordinance is exempt as it is a regulatory program designed to protect the environment. THE SCOTTISH REPORT In 2005, the Scottish Government issued a full environment impact assessment on the effects of a proposed plastic bag levy (the "Scottish Report"). A copy of the Scottish Report is provided herewith. The Scottish report states: If only plastic bags were to be levied (scenarios IA and 113), then studies and experience elsewhere suggest that there would be some shift in bag usage to paper bags (which have worse environmental impacts.) The Scottish Report compared plastic and paper bags and made the following findings: [A] paper bag has a more adverse impact than a plastic bag for most of the environmental issues considered. Areas where paper bags score particularly badly include water consumption, atmospheric acidification (which can have effects on human health, sensitive ecosystems, forest decline and acidification of lakes) and cutrophication of water bodies (which can lead to growth of algae and depletion of oxygen). [Note: Eutrophication means the process by which a body of water becomes rich in dissolved nutrients, thereby encouraging the growth and decomposition of oxygen -depleting plant life and resulting in harm to other organisms.] 01 Paper bags are anywhere between six to ten times heavier than lightweight plastic carrier bags and, as such, require more transport and its associated costs. They would also take up more room in a landfill if they were not recycled. The Scottish Report contains the following comparison of the environmental metrics of plastic bags and paper bags which is taken from the study done by the French company Groupe Carrefour. The lightweight plastic bag has been given a score of 1 in all categories as a reference point. The report states: A score greater than 1 indicates that another bag ('bag for life' or paper) makes more contribution to the environmental problem than a lightweight plastic bag when normalised against the volume of shopping carried. A score of less than 1 indicates that it makes less of a contribution, i.e. it has less environmental impact than a lightweight plastic bag." [Emphasis added] The indicators take account of emissions which occur over the whole lifecycle. They can therefore occur in different locations depending on where different parts of the lifecycle are located. For global environmental problems such as climate change, the location of the emission is not important in assessing the potential environmental impact.... Indicator of environmental impact HDPE bag lightweight Paper bag single use Consumption of non-renewable primary energy 1.0 1.1 Consumption of water 1.0 4.0 Climate change (emission of greenhouse gases) 1.0 3.3 Acid rain (atmospheric acidification) 1.0 1.9 Air quality (ground level ozone formation) 1.0 1.3 Eutrophication of water bodies 1.0 14.0 Solid waste production 1.0 2.7 Risk of litter 1.0 0.2 Scottish Report at page 22-23. 3 THE ULS REPORT In March 2008, use-less-stuff.com ("ULS") issued an updated "Review Of Life Cycle Data Relating To Disposable, Compostable, Biodegradable, And Reusable Grocery Bags" (the "ULS Report"). A copy of the ULS Report and the one -page ULS media release announcing the report are provided herewith. ULS made the following findings which are contained in the report: Plastic bags generate 39% less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted paper bags, and 68% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags. The plastic bags generate 4,645 tons of CO2 equivalents per 150 million bags; while uncomposted paper bags generate 7,621 tons, and composted paper bags generate 14,558 tons, per 100 million bags produced. 2. Plastic bags consume less than 6% of the water needed to make paper bags. It takes 1004 gallons of water to produce 1000 paper bags and 58 gallons of water to produce 1500 plastic bags. 3. Plastic grocery bags consume 71% less energy during production than paper bags. Significantly, even though traditional disposable plastic bags are produced from fossil fuels, the total non-renewable energy consumed during their lifecycle is up to 36% less than the non-renewable energy consumed during the lifecycle of paper bags and up to 64% less than that consumed by biodegradable plastic bags. 4. Using paper sacks generates almost five times more solid waste than using plastic bags. 5. After four or more uses, reusable plastic bags are superior to all types of disposable bags -- paper, polyethylene and compostable plastic -- across all significant environmental indicators. ULS Report at pages 3-4. The ULS report concludes as follows: Legislation designed to reduce environmental impacts and litter by outlawing grocery bags based on the material from which they are produced will not deliver the intended results. While some litter 12 reduction might take place, it would be outweighed by the disadvantages that would subsequently occur (increased solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions). Ironically, reducing the use of traditional plastic bags would not even reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, as paper and biodegradable plastic bags consume at least as much non-renewable energy during their full lifecycle. ULS Report at pages 5. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As stated in my letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008, there are other environmental impacts of a shift to paper bags. It takes approximately ten times more diesel fuel to transport paper bags than plastic bags, because they are heavier and bulkier. It takes as much as eighty-five times more energy to recycle a paper bag than a plastic bag. The manufacture of paper bags generates approximately 70 percent more air pollutants than plastic bags. Approximately 13 to 17 million trees are chopped down each year to make paper bags, which will multiply if plastic bags are banned. Logging has an impact on climate change. Trees absorb and store CO2. Logging releases stored CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is increasing the acidification of the oceans and threatening the ecosystem and entire species of marine life. A comprehensive review of the impact of the paper industry on the environment is contained in a report entitled "The State of the Paper Industry" by the Environmental Paper Network the "Paper Report"). It can be downloaded at: www.environmentalnaner.ora/stateoftheDanerindustrv/confirm.htm. The following findings are stated in the Paper Report: [T]he paper industry's activities - and our individual use and disposal of paper in our daily lives - have enormous impacts. These include loss and degradation of forests that moderate climate change, destruction of habitat for countless plant and animal species, pollution of air and water with toxic chemicals such as mercury and dioxin, and production of methane - a potent 5 greenhouse gas - as paper decomposes in landfills, to name just a few. (Page iv) One of the most significant, and perhaps least understood, impacts of the paper industry is climate change. Every phase of paper's lifecycle contributes to global warming, from harvesting trees to production of pulp and paper to eventual disposal. (Page v) The climate change effects of paper carry all the way through to disposal. If paper is landfilled rather than recycled, it decomposes and produces methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times the heat - trapping power of carbon dioxide. More than one-third of municipal solid waste is paper, and municipal landfills account for 34 percent of human related methane emissions to the atmosphere, making landfills the single largest source of such emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the decomposition of paper as among the most significant sources of landfill methane. (Page v) Plastic bags are often criticized on the ground that they do not decompose in landfills. In fact, as we can see from the Paper Report, that is a positive attribute of plastic bags, not a negative one. THE OAELAND CASE The issue of the applicability of CEQA to the banning of plastic bags has already been litigated. Coalition To Support Plastic Bag Recycling v. City of Oakland et al., Alameda Superior Court, Case No. RG07-339097 (hereinafter the "Oakland Case"). The City of Oakland passed an ordinance banning plastic bags, citing 14 CCR §15061(b)(3) and §15308 as reasons for not preparing an EIR. The court ruled that the ordinance was invalid as the city could not make the findings required under either section. A copy of the court's ruling is provided herewith. In the Oakland Case, the court referred to the Scottish Report and an earlier version of the ULS Report. The court ruled as follows regarding 14 CCR §15061(b)(3): The findings of the Scottish report raise a reasonable inference that an outright ban on single -use 100% petroleum plastic bags may result in increased use of paper bags. This evidence is sufficient to defeat the assertion of the "common sense exemption" because, with such evidence as part of the the Citv cannot meet the standard that there is no the Ordinance will cause a It is because of this evidence in the record and unanimity of the uncertainty whether paper bags are less (or more) environmentally friendly than plastic bags that the City cannot assert that there is "no possibility" of any significant environmental effect caused by the ban of the 100% petroleum plastic bags. Having found evidence to support a fair argument regarding the significant adverse effects of the Ordinance claimed by Petitioner, and no evidence that would permit the City to conclude to a certainty that Petitioner's concerns are unfounded, City's reliance on the common sense exemption was an abuse of discretion. Ruling at 9-10. The court ruled as follows regarding 14 CCR §15308: [T]here are exceptions to the categorical exemptions. The City cannot rely on a categorical exemption for a project where there is a "reasonable possibility" that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances." (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).) The City's determination whether the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment is reviewed under the fair argument standard. [Citation] The question is whether "on the basis of the whole record, there was no substantial evidence that there would be a significant [environmental] effect." [Citation] [Emphasis in original] ` A shift in consumer use from one environmentally damaging l product to another constitutes an "unusual circumstance" of an activity that would otherwise be exempt from review under CEQA as activity undertaken to protect t e environment. [Citation] The court also finds that substantial evidence in the record supports at least a fair argument that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags. [Referring to the Scottish Report, the ULS Report, and other documents.].... 7 Although City points to evidence in the record that contradicts evidence cited by Petitioner, the court does not address it except to note that none of this evidence negates the evidence cited by petitioner. "If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary." [Citation] Ruling at 11-12. CEOA OBJECTIONS Based on the foregoing and the documents provided herewith, the Coalition objects to the proposed negative declaration and the proposed ordinance on the following grounds: A. Based on the Scottish and ULS Reports and common sense, it is clear that the prohibition on the distribution of plastic carry -out bags in Manhattan Beach would result in an increase in the number of paper carry -out bags that would have significant adverse environmental effects. Consequently, the City of Manhattan Beach cannot meet the standard that there 1s no possibility that the proposed ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect. B. The IES addresses paper bags. The city concedes in the IES that the banning of plastic bags in Manhattan Beach "may result in an increase in paper bag usage." (Page 15) The city also concedes in the IES that "it is well documented that the manufacture and recycling of paper generates more wastewater than plastic bags. The increased use of ever could have an impact on the environment by increasing emissions from paper mills and recycling plants." (Page 15) The city is thereby conceding that there is a fair argument and a possibility that the proposed ordinance will have a significant environmental effect. C. The City Attorney admitted at the June 3, 2008 Council hearing that the Coalition had made a "fair argument" in its June 3, 2008 letter. He stated: "They have raised in their [June 3, 2008] letter what's called in CEQA terminology a fair argument that in fact there could be a negative impact from adopting this ordinance." D. The city states in the IES that Manhattan Beach is a small city with only 217 licensed retail establishments that might use plastic bags. (Page 15) The city concludes as follows: "It appears that any increase in the total use of paper bags resulting from the proposed ban on plastic bags... would be relatively small with a minimal or nonexistent increase in pollutants generated from production and recycling." (Page 16) (Emphasis added) This is a bare assertion that is not supported by any facts or evidence in the IES. In any case, the word "appears" is a concession by the city that it is possible that the ordinance will have significant environmental effect. E. The size of the city and the number of retail outlets have nothing to do with whether the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. If it were otherwise, then each small city could avoid the preparation of an EIR, but the cumulative effect of many small cities doing the same thing would be large. The Coalition hereby makes a fair argument that it is possible that banning plastic bags in a city with 217 retail outlets would have a significant negative effect on the environment caused by a shift to paper bags. F. The IES does not satisfy the requirements of 14 CCR §15063 for an Initial Study as it does not state all of the possible negative environmental effects of an increase in the number of paper carry -out bags, including those identified herein and in the Scottish and ULS Reports (which are incorporated in these objections by reference) and the Coalition's letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008. G. There is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument and a reasonable possibility that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags, including this document and the Scottish and ULS Reports. Therefore, it cannot be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. This obiection cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. 14 CCR §15061(b)(3); Oakland Case at 12; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CalApp.3d 1337, 1348 ("If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence tothecontrary."). H. There is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument and a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances." A shift in consumer use from one environmentally damaging product to another constitutes an "unusual circumstance." This obiection cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. 14 CCR §15308, §15300.2(c); Oakland Case at 12; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CalApp.3d 1337, 1348 ("If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant_ environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the cone Each of the above objections is a separate and independent ground. FURTHER OBJECTIONS The Coalition further objects to the proposed ordinance on the following grounds: 1. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code §§42250-42257 (also known as "AB 2449"), stores (as defined in §42250(e)) are required to install special recycling bins for plastic bags. AB 2449 was intended to address and constitute the state's solution to the perceived problems of plastic carry -out bags, including but not limited to recycling, litter, marine debris, and environmental sustainability issues. It occupies the field and preempts any potential city or county action to address those issues by enacting a plastic bag ban. AB 2449 contains no provision permitting a city or county to ban plastic bags. AB 2449 only reserves the right of cities and counties to adopt, implement, and enforce laws governing curbside or drop off recycling programs for plastic bags. §42250(c). 2. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a it is not recycled to a degree deemed satisfactory by the city or county. 3. California cities and counties have no the product sometimes becomes litter. to ban a 4. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because the product sometimes becomes marine debris. 5. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because they believe that it would be the best option for the sustama i i o e 6. A California city or county has no right or authority to ban plastic bags on environmental grounds. Other cities and counties may decide to pass laws banning paper bags rather than plastic bags. This would result in a patchwork of competing and conflicting environmental schemes that would cancel each other out and defeat the purposes of such laws. Assuming that it is not exclusively a federal matter under the Commerce Clause, only the California Legislature can enact such a ban. Each of the above objections is a separate and independent ground. 10 REQUESTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD It is requested that the following documents be made part of the record and the Staff Report: 1. This document. 2. The Oakland Case ruling provided herewith. 3. The Scottish Report provided herewith. 4. The ULS Report provided herewith. 5. The ULS media release provided herewith. 6. The London Times report provided herewith. 7. My letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008 on behalf of the Coalition provided herewith. CONCLUSION In the event that the city adopts the proposed ordinance, the Coalition and/or some or all of its members intend to file a lawsuit challenging its validity. The grounds will include (but may not be limited to) the points and objections stated herein and in my June 3 and 10, 2008 letters. No arguments or objections are waived. All rights are reserved. We request an opportunity for the Coalition to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. Dated: June 18, 2008 STEPHEN L. JOSEPH Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph P.O. Box 221 Tiburon, CA 94920-0221 Telephone: (415) 577-6660 Facsimile: (415) 869-5380 E-mail: slioseph.lawgearthlink.net Attorney for the Save The Plastic Bag Coalition 11 Page i of 2 Bowden, Katie From: Bowden, Katie Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:37 PM To: Wood, Sharon; Harmon, Mark; Riles, Andrea; De Santis, Leigh Subject: SUMMARY: Other cities' enforcement of Styrofoam Ban I have had the opportunity to speak with representatives of each of the following cities regarding their exemptions and enforcement procedures. Below you will find a summary of those conversations. Laguna Beach: Determination of an exemption is made by the Director of the Water Quality Dept. The applicant writes a letter to the Director including all the information the Director would need to make a decision. There is no list of findings that have to be made to determine whether a "severe economic hardship" exists. Rather, the Director makes a "judgment call". An applicant may provide information related to what they currently pay for the styrofoam containers, what they would have to pay for compliant containers, and whether or not an alternate container exists for that item. Though the ban has only been in effect since July 1, the City has not issued an exemption for severe economic hardship. They have granted an exemption for one restaurant to give its vendor enough time to create an alternative container as one did not already exist. They also granted a time extension to a franchisee who was working with corporate headquarters to find an appropriate container. The ordinance not only covers take-out containers, but also styrofoam items (cups, plates) sold in grocery and convenience stores. Enforcement is performed through the City's fats, oils and grease (FOG) inspectors and citizen generated complaints. Though other cities have provided alternative vendor lists, Laguna Beach felt that such an aggressively marketed list would be considered a "recommendation" of a vendor, stating that it was not the role of government to provide an a list. Rather, they have stated that all non-styrofoam plastics are acceptable and anything made from paper. Santa Monica: Determination of an exemption is made by the Director of the Environmental and Public Works Management Dept. The applicant writes a letter to the Director with all the information necessary for the Director to make a decision. Again, the determination appears to be a judgment call on behalf of the Director. Though the ordinance has been in place for over a year, the City has received NO letters asking for an exemption to the ordinance. The City believes this is largely due to the education effort and "hands on" approach of the program administrator. She stated that anytime she has received a phone call asking about the exemption process, she has been able to successfully show them that an affordable alternative exists. She admitted, however, to turning a "blind eye" to a group that administers a Seniors' Meals program. The ordinance only covers disposable food service ware used in the restaurant and food service industry, and does not cover items sold in the grocery store. Enforcement typically begins with citizen generated complaints. Santa Monica's website gives a great deal of information on the ban, and includes a list of alternative vendors. (http://www.smqov.net(epd/business/container reps htm) Oakland: Determination of an exemption is made by the Recycling Services Specialist. Though the ordinance has been in effect over two years, NO applications have been received for an exemption. (An application would likely consist of a letter, though this is not spelled out in the ordinance.) The City felt that this was largely due to an extensive educational effort. The ordinance only covers disposable food service ware (take-out containers) used in the restaurant and food service industry, and does not cover items sold in the grocery store. The ordinance encourages alternatives that are biodegradable or compostable product, requiring their use IF it is "affordable". ("Affordable" if the product can be purchased at the same cost as a non -biodegradable, recyclable plastic.) Enforcement is entirely through citizen generated complaints. The enforcement agency provides education and a warning during their first visit. No citations/ fines have been given to date. 07/31/2008 Non -Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 9, 2008 Page 2 materials." More specifically, EQAC recommended an ordinance that would take effect within one year. At their June 10, 2008 meeting, staff presented City Council with a report requesting direction to staff regarding EQAC's recommendations. Council directed staff to draft an ordinance banning the use of disposable polystyrene foam food service ware as recommended by EQAC. Analysis Staff brought the draft ordinance before the Board of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association at their July 23, 2008 meeting in order to hear their comments and answer questions. Board members raised concerns related to the enforcement of the ordinance, stating that enforcement should be evenly distributed among both large and small, franchise chains and "mom-and-pop" restaurants alike. It was suggested that a blanket standard condition be placed against all incoming restaurants on their use permits, stating that Styrofoam shall not be used for take-out containers. It was commented that the year "phase -in" period was more than adequate, and that a strong educational effort must be undergone before the ordinance takes effect. It was decided that the Restaurant Association's participation in the educational process would be essential, especially in areas where the City has little to no expertise (alternative and affordable products, vendor contacts, etc.) Various Board members voiced concerns over the fact that the ordinance, as proposed, does not address Styrofoam food ware which is packaged and sold at local grocery, convenience, and discount stores. This would include Styrofoam cups and plates, which are bought by beach visitors and inevitably wind up strewn about the City's beaches. Members of the Restaurant Association felt that the ordinance as proposed only addresses one portion of the Styrofoam problem, and it was suggested that the City install signage along its beaches informing visitors of the Styrofoam ban. Staff received comment from an industry lobbyist, the American Chemistry Council. The Council presented information which demonstrated the relative lack of improvement in various City's composting facilities before and after a ban is in effect. The Council expressed that bans do not successfully change the root of the problem, which is human behavior. As the problem associated with Styrofoam is its improper disposal (litter) as opposed to the substance itself. In addition, the Council cited the California Restaurant Association's stance on polystyrene foam bans as a de facto tax. Staff concerns Concerns remain regarding which department will assume responsibility for determining a hardship, and how that hardship will be determined. Limited effectiveness of banning disposable food service ware made of polystyrene only lNb s�i/, W � 0 OL w i ( P—ooA [ae sic eo Pagel of 3 Bowden, Katie From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:34 AM To: De Santis, Leigh; Bowden, Katie Subject: FW: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Another alternative to a ban. This sounds like a new venture, so maybe it would still make sense to ban, and then rescind the ordinance sometime in the future. From: Harmon, Mark Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:43 AM To: Riles, Andrea Cc: Wood, Sharon; Kiff, Dave Subject: RE: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Very interesting, thanks Andrea. Please see what you can find out about Darts work with the City of Roseville. Maybe recycling used foam is a better, more friendly approach to an outright ban of the material. Mark From. Riles, Andrea Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:23 AM To: Harmon, Mark Subject: FW: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Given our recent discussions on banning styrofoam, I thought this email forwarded to me yesterday is quite interesting. Thanks, Andrea From: Knapp, Christine [OCWR][mailto:Christine.Knapp@iwmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:07 PM To: Aaiders, Mark, Allen, Heather; AULT, DAVE; Avila, Liz; Bailiet, Mike; Beckman, Chris; Belmer, Rae; Boeiter, Pearl [HCA]; BRODOWSKI, DOUG; BYRNE, MIKE; Cao, Ann; Carson, Jason; Castro, Antonia; Chay, Julie [OCWR]; Corbin, Chet; Crumby, Sean; Delgadillo, Dora; Denning, Chrystal; Domer, Ken; Eustice, Melanie; Farnsworth, Nate; FAUTH, TOM; Gauthier, Terra; Gonzales, Mary, Gordon, Sue; Hauenaaas, Steve; Henderson, Jeff, Howard, A.J.; Importuna, Patrick; Jay Ware; Jubinsky, Deborah; Kakutani, Maria; Kha, Irene; Lane, Christine [HCA]; Lazzaro, James; Leticia Mercado; Maria Lazaruk; Matson, Denise; Mattert, Lisa; May, Stephen; Mazboudi, Ziad; MCGEE, MARK; McIntosh, Danna; Meyers, Joe; Monaco, Chip [CEO]; Montgomery, Ken; Moon, Rita; Morris, Rosalie; Nic Castro; Noce, Jan; Ooten, Bob; Palmer, Nancy; Reilly, Doug; Reynolds, David; Riles, Andrea; Rios, Isabel; Ruffridge, Dean; Shubin, Don; Stubbler, Traci; Trevor, Blythe; Valenzuela, Daniel; Wager, Jake; Ware, Jay; Ware, Judy; Warren, Gregory, Wolf, Shanna; Yee, Kristin; 2505 (DART Nic Morrell), 9043 (L.A. CSD/DART), 9044 (L.A. CSD/DART) - L.Mendoza; 5012, 5024,5030,9005 (Taomina.LLC Import), 97003, & 97053 REPUBLIC - D. Ault; 5016, 97002, 97052 CR&R - B. Scottini; 5019, 5070, 5091 WM - L.Patino; 5032 CR&R, 9040 (Solag) - R.Pantoja; 5035 EDCO - Park Disposal; 5087, 5402 - RAINBOW - Jacobs; 5141, 5716 - SOCWA - Rosales; 5332 WM of Orange - (Sunset Environ.), 5336 (Transfer), 9048 & 9049 WM - K.Feeney; 5354, 5408 - FEDERAL DISPOSAL - Shubin; 5400, 90054, 97004, 97054 - TIERRA VERDE, 9053 (Burrtec/EDCO, Paramount) - K. Kazarian; 5403 - CR&R - D.Otting; 5416 - JOSE ARVIZU - IPA Assoc.; 5635 - NEWPORT BCH (Gen.Svs.), 5637 (Utilities)- M. Eldridge; 9025 - ESCONDIDO DISPOSAL - V. Tobiason; 9026 - EDCO Efrain Ramirez; 9026 - EDCO 08/27/2008 Page 2 of 3 Steve South; 9029 (West Valley), 9030 (Agua Mansa MRF, SanBernadino) - BURRTEC/EDCO - C. Rutter; 9031 (Burrtec/EDCO, Signal Hill Disposal) - CR&R - M.Planck; 9038 - Burrtec/EDCO (Allied/BFI) - J.O'Neal; 9046 - WM - D.Becker; 9050 - WM, 9052 (WM of Southgate) - B.Grimm; 9051 - Burrtec/EDCO (Potential, Ind.) - D. Domonoske; 9054 - Burrtec/EDCO (Innovative Waste Control) - T. Griffiths; 9055 - Universal Waste - M. Blackburn; 97005 - GREENCYCLE - G.Jones; 97007 - HARVEST LANDSCAPING (formerly SS&K); WARE, JAY Cc: Mlchael.Westerfield-GAED@dart.biz; Brajdic, Marlene [OCWR]; auitd@repsrv.com Subject: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Dear Recycling Coordinators and Haulers: For your information and consideration, this company makes interior mouldings out of Styrofoam. Please note the name, Dart, is not related to Downey Area Recycling and Transfer. As you know, the County does not endorse any companies. But I do try to get as much information out to all of you regarding new recycling opportunities. Thanks, Manager of Recycling Programs Government and Community Relations OC Waste & Recycling 320 North Flower Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA 92703 work: (714) 834-4165 From: Michael.Westerrield-GAED@dart.biz [mailto:Michael.WesterField-GAED@dart.biz] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:09 PM To: Information [OCWR] Subject: Fw: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Christine, Thank you for your interest in recycling foam. My company, Dart Container Corporation, is a leading producer of plastic food service products including foam cups, foam hinged trays, and foam plates (These items have also been referred to as "Styrofoam"). As you are probably aware, there are a lot of misperceptions about our products relative to alternative food service disposables. In reality, our products compare favorably from an environmental standpoint to many of the alternatives when the whole life cycle of products is considered. For example, most people do not realize that our products are recyclable unlike most of the paper alternatives (The plastic/wax lining on paper cups makes it cost prohibitive to recycle them). With this in mind, my company feels we need to do a better job of making the recycling of foam cups and containers a viable option for the public. To advance our recycling efforts, we are interested in partnering with large end -users municipalities and material recoverfacilities to make EPS recycling a reality. Two challenges with recycling foam are the collection of foam in a recyclable condition and the transportation of the foam. Since it is not feasible for us to go to each house to collect foam, one option would be to let residents co -mingle the foam in their current recycling bin and then to sort it at local Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). Another option would be to offer a bin on city property where the public can drop-off their foam (In a recyclable condition). Once the product is at the MRF or drop-off site (Or both locations), we could provide a densifier that would compact the foam so that it can be transported by Dart to be recycled. While we only make food service containers, we would be willing to accept "Shape" or "Molded" foam as part of the program. The benefit to you is that you would be able to maximize your Landfill Diversion Rate. If we can agree to a mutually beneficial 08/27/2008 Page 3 of 3 program, we would provide the densifier on a "$0.00 lease basis." Fyi, the City of Roseville is currently recycling their foam and the product is being made into various types of wood and sold to the Home Depot by a company in Stockton named Timbron. Below, I have attached a copy of the Environmental Facts on Foam, a Life Cycle Study on foam, a picture of the Dart densifier, and an article about Timbron. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this program further. Regards, Michael Michael Westerfield West Coast Director of Recycling & Sustainability Dart Container Corporation Government Affairs and the Environment Phone (909) 793-2729 Fax (909) 793-2739 www.dart.biz 08/27/2008 !' Meeting Date: June 3, 2008 61 Prepared by: Rich Guillen City Council Agenda Item Summary Name: Consideration of an Ordinance of the City Council of Carmel -by -the -Sea amending Section 8.68 of the Municipal Code regarding Chlorofluorocarbon and Similar Packaging Material Restrictions Description: On March 21, 2008, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) Board of Directors unanimously approved a model ordinance directed at eliminating the use of polystyrene (Styrofoam) fast-food take-out packaging. The intent of the policy is to reduce the volume of polystyrene litter found on area roadways, waterways and beaches. The MRWMD has asked that all area cities adopt policies to address this problem. Overall Cost: The City of Carmel -by -the -Sea was much in the vanguard of the movement to reduce food packaging litter, becoming the second California city (after Berkeley) to adopt an ordinance aimed at reducing take-out waste materials, back in 1989. Since then, the problem of food packaging waste litter has not improved, but there has been a new array of alternative, recyclable and compostable materials available to food service providers. Although Section 8.68 of the Carmel -by -the -Sea Municipal Code is 19 years old, the basic premises remain solid. The suggested amendments to the original ordinance merely strengthen and modernize it by adding more information about polystyrene (Styrofoam) packaging and adding specific penalties for noncompliance. City Funds: None Grant Funds: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council, approve the amendments to Chapter 8.68 of the Municipal Code. Important Considerations: As written, there would be a six-month grace period after adoption of the ordinance for food service providers to use up their stock of noncompliant materials. Decision Record: Ord. 89-14, 1989 Reviewed by: Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date E1 62 ATTACHMENT "A" LOCAL STYROFOAM-FREE LIST Among the known local restaurants, lodging establishments, and businesses that have adopted Styrofoam -free policies are: Doubletree/Portola Carmel Valley Coffee Roasting Pebble Beach Company East Village Coffee Lounge - Monterey Brew Bar Acme Coffee Roasting Sardine Factory Chris' Classic Confections Billy Lee restaurants Cafd Lumiere Country Club Catering Parker-Lusseau Volcano Grill The Works Coffee Shop Crazy Horse Marriott Estaban Old Fisherman's Grotto Casa Munras Fish Hopper Wills Cafd Fina Bemardus Randy's Fishing Michaels' Catering Community Hospital -Monterey Peninsula Laguna Seca CSU-Monterey Bay Poppy Hills Defense Language Institute Wild Thyme Whole Foods Passionfish Monterey Bay Aquarium Hyatt Chartwell School McDonald's (all) Carmel Mission Basilica Taco Bell (all) Monterey institute of Intl. Studies Jack in the Box (all) Monterey Regional Waste Management Enza's Pizza Monterey Farmer's Market Baldemiro's Taco Shop PG Farmer's Market Cuppers Coffee House York School Patch's Sandwich Shop Big Brothers Big Sisters EI Guadalajara Deli KRXA Radio Mom's Home Cooking Delaware North Parks and Resorts Hula's Asilomar State Beach/Conference Grounds Red House Cafe Martella Printing Tartly Is Forest Hill Auto Rio Grill Pacific Motor Services Willy's BBQ Hans Auto Repair Montrio Light and Motion Office Cibo Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Bird on a Wire Renovations Al CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.2008- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING SECTION 8.68 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CHLOROFLUOROCARBON AND SIMILAR PACKAGING MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, the City has taken a leadership role among California cities in enacting legislation to protect the environment from the deleterious effects of food and consumer packaging litter caused by harmful materials such as chlorofluorocarbons and polystyrene; and WHEREAS, industrial technology has advanced to include an array of alternative, recyclable, and compostable materials available to food service; and WHEREAS, the City joins with other neighboring cities in further strengthening environmental protection of area roadways, fields, waterways and beaches. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE- SEA DOES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 8.68 CHLOROFLUOROCARBON, POLYSTYRENE AND SIMILAR PACKAGING MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS Sections: 8.68.010 Findings and Purposes. 8.68.020 Definitions. 8.68.030 Prohibited Food Packaging. 8.68.040 Degradable and Recyclable Food Packaging. 8.68.050 Regulation of Suppliers and Food Vendors. 8.68.060 Inspection of Records —Proof of Compliance. 8.68.070 Exemptions. 8.68.080 Existing Contracts. 8.68.090 City Purchases Prohibited. 8.68.100 Separate Food Packaging Waste Receptacles. 8.68.110 City Administrator's Power. 8.68.120 Liability and Enforcement. 64 8,68.010 Findings and Purposes. A. Solid waste that is nondegradable or nonrecyclable poses an acute problem for any environmentally and financially responsible solid waste management program. Such waste covers the City's streets, parks, public places and open spaces and results in environmental damage and disruption of the ecological balance. B.Products which are degradable or recyclable offer environmentally sound alternatives to nondegradable and nonrecyclable products currently used. By decaying into their constituent substances, degradable products, compared to their nondegradable equivalents, are less of a danger to the natural environment and less of a permanent blight on the City's landscape. C. The release of chlorofluorocarbons ("CFCs") into the environment may endanger public health and welfare by causing or contributing to significant depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. CFCs are manufactured chemicals that remain in the atmosphere for decades, slowing migrating upwards without reacting with any other chemicals. D. Stratospheric ozone shields the Earth's surface from dangerous ultraviolet radiation. When CFC molecules react with ultraviolet light in the atmosphere they break down, freeing chlorine atoms which catalyze the destruction of ozone. A national and international consensus has developed that unabated use of CFCs is resulting in depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that as stratospheric ozone levels drop, penetration of ultraviolet radiation will increase resulting in potential health and environmental harm. Direct effects are likely to include increased incidence of skin cancer and cataracts, suppression of the immune response system and damage to crops and aquatic organisms. E.In the troposphere (the lower atmosphere), CFCs, along with other chemicals, absorb infrared radiation, warming the Earth. Scientists predict that global warming may melt polar ice, raise sea levels and flood low-lying coasts. It may also disrupt agriculture due to shifts in global temperature and rainfall patterns. F. CFCs are widely used in blowing agents in the manufacture of plastic food packaging. Moreover, while other foam products store or bank much of the CFCs within them, food service products emit most of the CFC used in their manufacture during the manufacture, use and disposal of the products. G. The widespread use of CFC-processed food packaging poses a threat by the introduction of toxic by-products into the atmosphere and environment of the City. Restricting the sale of CFC-processed food packaging in retail food establishments in the City would contribute to slowing ozone loss and greenhouse gas buildup, thereby protecting the public health. H. In addition to emitting CFCs, plastic food service items take hundreds of years to decompose and cannot be recycled. However, these food packaging items can be and are made from other materials, such as recycled or virgin paper, and other biodegradable products which are not made using CFCs. 1. Polystyrene foam is a petroleum processing by-product. Oil is a nonrenewable resource obtained by increasingly hazardous methods including off -shore drilling, which poses significant dangers to the environment. Alternative products which are degradable or recyclable pose less overall hazards than continued and expanded reliance on oil -based products. 65 J. Evidence indicates that all blowing agents currently used or proposed in connection with the manufacture of polystyrene foam pose dangers to the environment. Beyond the acknowledged dangers of CFCs, other blowing agents also create dangers. K. Take-out food packaging constitutes the single greatest source of litter in the City and is a significant contributor to the total amount of waste entering the City's waste stream. Reducing the amount of litter will further the health, safety and welfare of the City. L. Reduction of the amount of nondegradable and nonrecyclable waste that enters the waste stream and encouraging the use of recyclable containers further this goal. M. The City borders the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, a federal preserve that supports one of the most diverse and delicate ecosystems in the world. Eliminating the use of chlorofluorocarbons, polystyrene and other harmful materials from all establishments with the City will help protect this Sanctuary. MN. This chapter is consistent with the California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (Government Code Section 66700 et seq.). (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.020 Definitions. Except as otherwise defined or where the context otherwise indicates, the following defined words shall have the following meaning: C. `Biodegradable" means the abilfty of organic matter to break down from a complex to a more simple form. A D. "CFC-processed food packaging" means food packaging which uses chlorofluorocarbons as blowing agents in its manufacture. .R. E"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)" means the family of substances containing carbon, fluorine and chlorine and having no hydrogen atoms and no double bonds. F. "City Facility" means any building, structure or vehicle owned and operated city for work or improvement to be performed, for a franchise, concession, for grant monies goods and services, or supplies to be donated or to be purchased at the expense of the city. 66 H. "Compostable" means all the materials in the product or package will break plastic -like product must be clearly labeled. preferably with a color symbol, to compostable plastic. F. L "Customer" means any person purchasing food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. R "Degradable food packaging" means food packaging which substantially reduces to its constituent substances through degradation processes initiated by natural organisms whose end products are substantially, but not necessarily entirely, carbon dioxide and water; and plastic items designed to degrade when exposed to ultraviolet light. Degradable food packaging does not include cellulose -based items which have a synthetic or plastic coating comprising more than five percent of the total volume of the item. R. L. `Food packaging" means all food -related wrappings, bags, boxes, containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws or drinking utensils, on which or in which food is placed or packaged on the retail food establishment's premises, and which are not intended for refuse. Food packaging does not include forks, knives or single -service condiment packages. includes without limitation any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocerystore, F: N_."Person" means an individual, a group of individuals, or an association, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity, public or private. G. Q "Polystyrene loam" means is blown We - c ant like .„ater:-h_ and_includcs_exnanded-Dolymme t at 's a I P. "Prepared Food" means afty _ fiele intended fee use s fed, beverage, w;mF ..4i�« .... i,ir.n...nh ....4i..I....r,.in,. _ nuri_�r»4�......4..l, F r e...... o ..andiment, . an .-._._ ....____ __ u___. __ ___ _ae_a__ ___ ____ as eempenent of feed er . , _..:..e affeeting the eenVeneM c the _feed. food or cooking or food preparation technique This does not include any raw uncooked meat poultry, fish or eggs unless provided for consumption without further food preparation It is a policy goal of this city to encourage supermarkets and other vendors to eliminate the use of polystyrene foam for packaging unprepared food. -: Q "Recyclable food packaging" means any food packaging including glass, cans, cardboard, paper, mixed paper or other items which can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed or marketed by any means other than landfilling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise, so that they are returned to use by society It includes any material that is accepted by the special district recycling program including but not limited to taper, glass aluminum cardboard and plastic bottles, jars and tubs. Recyclable plastics comprise those plastics coded with recycling symbols #1 through #5. K-. R. "Restaurant' means any establishment located within the City selling prepared food to be consumed on or about its premises by customers. IT S. "Retail Food veade' Establishmentineans aff stere, shep sales autle d within the Gity, .:high sell. take fed shall include but is icy.»».»..y .»�».�» ....... . .� .J, .. . ... .. ... not limited to anyplace where food is prepared to include any fixed or mobile elsewhere. special event. M-. U. "Supplier" means any person selling or otherwise supplying food packaging to a restaurant or retail food vendor. N_. V. "Take-out Food" means prepared foods or beverages requiring no further preparation to be consumed and which are generally purchased for consumption off the retail food vendor's premises. O. "Wholesaler" means any person who acts as a wholesale merchant, broker, jobber or agent, who sells for resale. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.030 Prohibited Food Packaging. A. Restaurants. 1. Except as provided on CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080no restaurant shall provide prepared food to its customers in CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any restaurant purchase, obtain, keep, sell, distribute, provide to customers or otherwise use in its business any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 2. As to any food packaging obtained after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each restaurant shall obtain from each of its suppliers a written statement executed by the supplier, or by a responsible agent of the supplier, stating that the supplier will not supply any CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that restaurant, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging FT 68 supplied to that restaurant that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, and the identity of the packaging's manufacturer. 3. All contracts between a restaurant and a supplier entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall include provisions that the supplier will not supply any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that restaurant, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging supplied to that restaurant that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, the identity of the packaging's manufacturer; and that failure to comply with such provisions shall constitute a material breach of the contract. 4. Restaurants shall retain each supplier's written statement for 12 months from the date of receipt of any food packaging from that supplier. H. Retail Food Vendors. 1. Except as provided in CMC 8.68.070 and 9.68.080, no retail food vendor shall sell take-out food in CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any retail food vendor purchase, obtain, keep, sell, distribute or provide to customers or otherwise use in its business any CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 2. All retail food vendors shall segregate, in their warehouses or other storage areas located within the City, food packaging used in their take-out food operations from other food packaging. Take-out food packaging containers or boxes shall be labeled as such and shall indicate that they contain food packaging which is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 3. As to take-out food packaging obtained or purchased after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each retail food vendor shall comply with the requirements of subsection (A)(2) and (A)(4) of this section. 4. All contracts for the purchase of take-out food packaging entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall comply with the provisions of subsection (A)(3) of this section. C. Wholesalers. 1. No wholesaler located and doing business within the City shall sell, distribute or provide to customers or keep within the City any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, except as provided in CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080, 2. As to any food packaging sold, distributed or provided to customers after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each wholesaler shall obtain from each of its suppliers a written statement executed by the supplier, or by a responsible agent of the supplier, stating that the supplier will not supply any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that wholesaler, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging supplied to that wholesaler that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, and the identify of the packaging's manufacturer. 3. As to food packaging obtained or purchased after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each wholesaler shall comply with the requirements of subsections (A)(2) and (A)(4) of this section. 4. All contracts for the purchase of take-out food packaging entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall comply with provisions of subsection (A)(3) of this section. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.040 Degradable and Recyclable Food Packaging. A. Restaurants. 1. At least 50 percent by volume of each restaurant's food packaging, in which prepared food is provided to customers, or which is kept, purchased or obtained for this purpose, shall be degradable and recyclable or reusable. 2. Each restaurant shall maintain written records evidencing its compliance with this section. B. Retail Food Vendors. 1. At least 50 percent by volume of each retail food vendor's packaging, in which take-out food is provided to customers, or which is kept, purchased or obtained for this purpose, shall be degradable, recyclable or reusable. 2. Each retail food vendor shall maintain written records evidencing its compliance with this section. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.050 Regulation of Suppliers and Food Vendors. A. It shall be unlawful for any supplier to make any misstatement of material fact to any food vendor or to the City Administrator, or her/his agents, regarding the degradable or recyclable nature of, or the use of or nonuse of, CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging supplied to any food vendor or to the City. B. Food vendors shall state that they are in compliance with this chapter on their annual business license renewal forms. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.060 Inspection of Records — Proof of Compliance. All statements and documents required by this chapter shall be made available for inspection and copying by the City Administrator, or her/his designated representative. It shall be unlawful for any person having custody of such documents to fail or refuse to produce such documents upon request by the City Administrator, or her/his designated representative. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.070 Exemptions. The City Administrator, or her/his designated representative, may exempt an item or type of food packaging from the requirements of this chapter, upon a showing that the item or type has no acceptable non-CFC-processed food packaging er-polystyrexe Team equivalent and that imposing the requirements of this chapter on that item or type would cause undue hardship. No exceptions shall be approved for the use of polystyrene. Said documentation shall include a list of suppliers contacted to determine the nonavailability of such alternative packaging. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.080 Existing Contracts. 70 Food packaging required to be purchased under a contract entered into prior to December 31, 1989, is exempt from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68,090 City Purchases Prohibited. The City shall not purchase any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any City -sponsored event utilize such packaging. At least 50 percent by volume of food packaging which the City, or any City - sponsored event, utilizes shall be degradable or recyclable. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.100 Separate Food Packaging Waste Receptacles. Each food vendor shall establish separate waste receptacles for each type of recyclable food packaging waste generated on -premises, including, but not limited to, glass, cans, cardboard, newspapers and mixed paper. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.110 City Administrator's Power. The City Administrator is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any food vendor's premises to verify compliance With this chapter and any regulations adopted thereunder. (Ord. 89-14,1989). 8.68.120 Liability and Enforcement. A. Violations of this Ordinance may be enforced with Chapter 8.68.120 of this Code B. The City officer shall he responsible for enforcina this Chanter and shall C. D. E. F. the provisions of this Chapter. The remedies and penalties provided in this Chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. G. Food vendors shall state that they are in compliance with the ordinance on their annual business license renewal forms. Violations of this ordinance shall be enforced as follows: 1. 71 annrooriate penalties to be assessed in the _e_v_ent of future violations. The food vendor will have 30 days to comely. 2. The following penalties will apply for subsequent violations of the ordinance: a. A fine not exceeding $100 for the first violation 30 days after the first warning. The City Administrator or designee may allow the appropriate as an alternative disposable food service ware for the items which led to the violation. b. A fine not exceeding $200 for the second violation 60 days after the first warning. C. A fine not exceeding $500 for the third violation 90 days after the first warning and for each additional 30-day period in which the food provider in not in compliance. 3. Food providers who violate this ordinance in connection with commercial or non-commercial special events shall be assessed fines as follows: a. A fine not to exceed $200 for an event of one to 200 persons. b. A fine not to exceed $400 for an event of 201 to 400 persons. c. A fine not to exceed $600 for an event of 401 to 600 persons. d. A fine not to exceed $1,000 for an event of 600 or more persons. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect with a six-month, voluntay period to allow vendors to use up any remaining stock of prohibited product The first month following the six- month voluntary period this ordinance shall be mandatory. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE- SEA this 3rd day of June 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: SIGNED: SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR ATTEST: Heidi Burch, City Clerk 72 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DATE: March 11, 2008 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Environmental Services Division, Finance Department SUBJECT: Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene RECOMMENDATION. That Council receive a report from staff detailing the results of a recent study evaluating the merits of banning expanded polystyrene, commonly referred to as "Styrofoam;' in the food service sector In the City of Santa Barbara. DISCUSSION: Expanded polystyrene (EPS), commonly known as "Styrofoam," is used by restaurants, grocery stores and other food -serving establishments because it is inexpensive, strong and durable, and has excellent insulation properties. However, due to its fly -away tendencies, EPS often winds up on City streets- and beaches as litter. In addition, a large amount of this material makes its way to the ocean and is Ingested by sea life, which is having significant impacts to the marine environment worldwide. For these reasons, EPS has been banned in a number of communities, and is being considered by many others. In April 2007, staff provided Council with an update on Its Solid Waste Strategic Plan. The plan included a proposed ban of EPS applicable only to take-out food service businesses in the City. Staff Indicated that more analysis was needed to evaluate the logistics, practicality and feasibility of imposing a ban in the City of Santa Barbara. The City Council directed staff to move forward with the analysis, present the results of staffs analysis to the Council's Solid Waste Committee for review and consideration, and provide a final report to the City Council. REVIEWED BY: Finance Atlamey _Name of Additional Department(e) That Need to RaVlow CAR Agenda Item No. Council Agenda Report Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene March 11, 2008 Page 2 In November 2007, staff presented a report to the Solid Waste Committee based on our analysis. The report discussed staffs evaluation of alternative food service ware that could be used to replace EPS, including food service ware made from paper, plastic, aluminum and compostable products. In addition, staff presented the results of several outreach meetings conducted with community stakeholders, which included owners and managers of local restaurants, individuals representing the food packaging industry, and local environmental organizations, Based on the analysis, staff concluded that alternatives to EPS likely to be used had comparable environmental impacts. For example, the use of service ware made from plastic, aluminum or virgin paper has different, but equally significant, impacts when considering the resources required for extracting and manufacturing them. In addition, due to contamination, many of these materials would not be recyclable and therefore would have to be disposed of In the local landfill. However, food service ware made from compostable materials has a much less overall impact to the environment. Specifically, it is often made from organic material, such as potato or corn starch; requires significantly less resources to produce than plastic or virgin paper; is not petroleum -based; and can be easily be recycled into compost. The use of food service ware made from compostable materials has other benefits: It would significantly reduce the volume of material being landfilled (i.e., more diversion); 2. It reduces the organic fraction of the waste stream disposed of in a landfill, which is the leading man-made source of methane gas production, a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change; and 3. Compost is a product used by farmers to enrich and provide nutrients to the soil, helping to conserve water, and preventing soil erosion. Based on the above findings, staff concluded that a ban on EPS would only be effective and have a net benefit to the environment if it either required, or otherwise strongly encouraged, the use of food service ware made from compostable material. However, these benefits could only be realized with a citywide organics collection and composting program already in place. Without this program in place, the use of compostable food service ware would only result in those materials winding up in the landfill; and in the same way food does, compostable material would also breakdown quickly and result in the production of methane gas. .Av Council Agenda Report Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene March 11, 2008 Page 3 Staffs proposal, therefore, is to first implement an organics collection and composting program sector by sector, starting with the business sector, where the largest volume of foodscraps are generated, followed by the single-family and multi -family residential sectors. Once the program was implemented citywide, the City could then implement a ban on EPS, requiring or strongly encouraging the use of food service ware made from compostable material. This would establish a collection system, Including containers designated for organic materials, to support the use of compostable products. Staff estimates that an ordinance banning EPS in the City would be implemented in late 2010. On January 29, 2008, staff presented a newly updated action plan to the Solid Waste Committee, including proposed staff changes, to advance the various projects and initiatives. The action plan incorporated the recommended approach and timing for implementing a ban on EPS as discussed in this report. The Solid Waste Committee was supportive of the recommended approach, and expressed an overall desire to implement all elements of the action plan in an expeditious manner. Note that staffs proposed work plan and staff changes will be presented to the City Council on the same day as a companion agenda item. PREPARED BY: Robert Samario, Assistant Finance Director SUBMITTED BY: Robert D. Peirson, Finance Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office 14 , Polystyrene Products and Recycling Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) Page i of 3 Polystyrene Products and Recycling Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) source: ht4n://www.polmiyrene.org23ju[Ol Recycling of Polystyrene Please note that due to present economic conditions, polystyrene food service packaging is generally not recycled. Polystyrene protective packaging and non -packaging non -durables (i.e., video/audio cassettes, agriculture trays, etc.) are the primary forms of polystyrene collected for recycling. There has been a decrease in the amount of polystyrene food service packaging recycled during this period. Non-food service packaging is not contaminated with food and other wastes as is food service polystyrene packaging, and therefore is more cost-effective to recycle. Presently, food service polystyrene packaging is not recycled because it is not economically sustainable. It is important to note that because of unfavorable economics, no other post -consumer foodservice disposable material, including paper and paperboard, is recycled in a measurable way. Products Polystyrene is found in your home, office, local grocery and in the cafeteria. It comes in many shapes and forms, from foam egg cartons and meat trays, to soup bowls and salad boxes, from coffee cups and utensils to CD "jewel boxes," and from produce trays to "peanuts" used in packing and the lightweight foam pieces that cushion new appliances. Nothing else offers the combination of strength, lightness and durability to protect valuable objects from crystal to computers, from morning coffee to salad at lunch, from your children to you! 4;rf When polystyrene foam packaging is produced, a blowing agent is used in the process. Most polystyrene foam products never were made using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as a blowing agent. The few polystyrene _.✓ products that were made with CFCs comprised a very small portion of the nation's CFC use. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only two to three percent of CFCs used in the United States in the 1980s went toward production of polystyrene packaging products. [Polystyrene] contains substances that can "migrate," or transfer, to foods or beverages. The FDA regulates residual levels of these components in food packaging to ensure that packaging is safe to use. Styrene, a petroleum by-product, is the primary raw material from which polystyrene is made. Styrene, first commercially produced in the 1930s, played an important role during World War http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Polystyrene-Products-Recycling-PSPC.htm 07/21/2008 n.A , Polystyrene Products and Recycling Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) Page 2 of 3 II in the production of synthetic rubber. After the war, much of the use of styrene shifted to the manufacture of commercial polystyrene products. Synthetic styrene is also used in the manufacture of products such as automobile parts, electronic components, boats, recreational vehicles, and synthetic rubbers. Today, you or a member of your family will probably use a product derived from styrene. Blah, blah, blah.. . Solid polystyrene is used in products such as cutlery, yogurt and cottage cheese containers, cups, clear salad bar containers and video and audiocassette housings. Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, supermarkets, restaurants and sports stadiums are among the many institutions and businesses that rely on polystyrene packaging. Grocery stores use polystyrene in virtually all meat and poultry trays. In addition, polystyrene packaging can be found in egg cartons and a variety of produce packages, such as apple trays, mushroom tills, tomato containers, and strawberry and grape crates. Polystyrene foam contributes to the success of programs such as "Meals on Wheels," which serve millions of senior Americans. Today's busy lifestyles require the convenience of affordable and quick take-out meals. Polystyrene packaging meets the demands of today's modern lifestyles by offering an economical and high quality food service product. Polystyrene food service products are generally more economical to use than disposable paperboard products and reusable food service items. The wholesale price of polystyrene disposable food service products is often approximately two to three times less than an equivalent disposable paper container, and four to five times less than a comparable reusable food service item when the costs of equipment, labor, water, electricity, and detergent costs are included. This allows schools, hospitals and other institutions to make better use of their limited budgets. Its light weight helps reduce shipping costs. Its cushioning ability reduces breakage, resulting in fewer damaged goods. Between 1974 and 1997, the amount of polystyrene packaging diverted from landfills steadily increased due to continued source reduction, eliminating the need for more than 2,900 billion pounds of polystyrene over the 24-year period. ("Waste Management and Reduction Trends in the Polystyrene Industry, 1974-1997," Franklin Associates, August 1999.) Resources provided by polystyrene.org (1) "Disposables versus Reusables: A Study of Comparative Sanitary Quality," Dairy Food and Sanitation, Jan, 1985; "Utensil Sanitation: A Microbiological Study of Disposables and Reusables," Charles W. Felix, et al, Sept./Oct. 1990. (2) "Single Service and Solid Waste" Resolution, National Environmental Health Assn. Board of Directors, June 1991. (3) "Waste Management and Reduction Trends in the Polystyrene Industry, 1974-1997," Franklin Associates, Aug. 1999. (4) "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States -- 1998. Update," prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Polystyrene-Products-Recycling-PSPC.htm 07/21/2008 Polystyrene Products and Recycling Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) Page 3 of 3 Franklin Associates, August 1999. (5) "Rubbish! The Archeology of Garbage," William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, 1989. (6) "Petroleum Supply Annual -- 1997," U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, June 1998 and "Annual Energy Review - - 1997," U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, July 1998. (7) See: FDA's Food Additive Regulation at 21 CFR 172.515 (8) "Disposables versus Reusables: A Study of Comparative Sanitary Quality," Dairy Food and Sanitation, Jan. 1985. (9) "Statement of Support for The Foodservice Packaging Institute's Fully Halogenated Chlorofluorocarbon Voluntary Phaseout Program," Natural Resources Defense Council/Environmental Defense Fund/Friends of the Earth, April 1988. If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Polystyrene-Products-Recycling-PSPC.htm 07/21/2008 C1AIw DOG l - 2Ms L-Ir" 3�2.. L3 CITY of CALABASAS $ " ----- ------GI-TY-C-OUNBIL-AGENDA REPORT - - DATE: MAY 30, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: ROBERT YALDA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR EX FARASSATI, PH.D., ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON EXPANDED POLYSTERENE BAN MEETING JUNE 7, 2006 DATE: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council receive this report and direct staff on whether to research and prepare an ordinance to ban the use of Styrofoam (polystyrene) containers by take-out restaurants in Calabasas. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Polystyrene (PS) is estimated at 0.8 percent (by weight) of material landfilled, according to the U.S. EPA. However, because of its light weight, the volume of PS disposed in landfills is much higher'than the weight amount would tend to indicate. For example weight/volume estimates range from 9.6 pounds/yard' for expanded polystyrene (EPS) packaging to 22.2 pounds/yard' for other forms of PS. This compares to 100 pounds/yard' for cardboard and 2,160 pounds/yard' for broken glass. Attachment A provides detailed information on this issue. Several cities throughout the U.S. (particularly, beach cities) have adopted ordinances and policies on expanded polystyrene ban, such as: 1. The City of Portland, Oregon, adopted an ordinance in 1989, which was amended in 2002, prohibiting restaurants or retail food vendors from preparing food in any polystyrene foam (PSF) products. I AGENDA ITEM #3 CAL D0G v On April 19, 2004, the City of Huntington Beach adopted Resolution No. 2004-21 prohibiting the use of expandable polystyrene (commonly referred to by the trade name Styrofoam ) food service products within Cltv facilities and at City -sponsored events. 3. The City of San Clement adopted dopted a the use of food service items (commonly referred to by the trade and at City -sponsored events. resolution on April 20, 2004, prohibiting comprised of expandable polystyrene name "Styrofoam) within City facilities 4. On June 2, 2004 , the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use of expanded polystyrene food service projects within City facilities and at special events. 5. The cities of Laguna Hills and San Juan Cap si trano have also adopted resolutions prohibiting the use of expandable polystyrene (commonly referred to by the trade name Styrofoam ) food service products within City facilities and at City -sponsored events. 6. City of Malibu adopted Ordinance No. 286 banning the use of Styrofoam in all take-out restaurants throughout the City. (Exhibit B) Through a powerpoint presentation, Ms. Jennifer Voccola, City of Malibu Environmental Programs Analyst, will provide council members with experiences gained and results of recent survey on compliance with the City of Malibu expanded polystyrene ban ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT/SOURCE OF FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational report. REQUESTED ACTION: Recommend that the City Council receive this report and direct staff on whether to research and prepare an ordinance to ban the use of Styrofoam (polystyrene) containers by take-out restaurants in Calabasas. ATTACHMENT., A. Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California — A Report to the California Legislature B. City of Malibu Ordinance No. 286 ent,Doc. t Use and Disposal of Polystyrene - --in--Ca-l-ifor-n a-- -- — - -- - - - A Report to the California Legislature 9,.RON .... : uu.■ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD December 2004 Zero Waste —You Make It Happen! CAL.Doc. 2 Y fY STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarcenegger Governor Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Rosario Marin Linda Moulton -Patterson Rosalie Mutt Board Chair Board Member Board Member Mike Paparlan Cheryl Peace Carl Washington Board Member Board Member Board Member Mark Leary Executive Director For additional Copies of this publication, contact: Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS-6) 10011 Street P.O. Box 4026 Sacramento, CA 95812-4026 MM. ciwipkSa cov/Publications/ 1-800-CA-WASTE (CelNomla only) or (916) 341-6306 Publication #432-04.003 ® Printed on recycled paper containing a minimum of 30 percent postoonsumer content. The statements and concluslons of this report are those of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The State makes no warranty, expressed or implied, and assumes no liability for the Information contained In the succeeding text Any mention of commercial products orprocesses shall not be construed as an endorsement of such products orprocesses. Prepared as part of contract number IWM-00077 ($75, 000) and Department of Conservation contract number 5d00.012 ($35,000). The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) 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 CIWMB through the California Relay Service, 1-800-735-2929. Jain Governor Schwarzenaggor to Keep California Rolling. Every Californian can help to reduce energy and fuel consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy and fuel costs, Flex Your Power and visit www.Noowee.com/. c'At.f)otr Z 216 A Table of Contents Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................................3 ExecutiveSummary...............................................................................................................................................3 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................4 _Legislative.Requirement......................................................................—........-.-.,......:.::...::.........-.— :::.:.-.::.—:.5 Approaches to Managing Plastics.........................................................................................................................5 Should Certain Plastic Products or Packaging Be Banned?............................................................................5 Should Plastic Manufacturers Be Assessed Additional Plastic Payments?....................................................6 PlasticsWhite Paper.......................................................................................................................................6 NationalPackaging Covenant.........................................................................................................................7 Ratesand Dates...............................................................................................................................................7 California Bag and Film Alliance...................................................................................................................8 ZeroWaste......................................................................................................................................................8 Typesand Amount Produced................................................................................................................................8 Markets for Recycled Polystyrene.......................................................................................................................I I SourceReduction.................................................................................................................................................12 Biodegradable and Compostable Products...................................................................................................13 Reuse...................................................................................................................................................................13 Recycling and Reuse of Loose -Fill Packaging and Other Recycling..........................................................A3 Recycling.............................................................................................................................................................14 EPS Protective Packaging Recycling..................................................................................................................15 National Polystyrene Recycling Company...................................................................................................16 Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association...............................................................................................17 ConversionTechnology................................................................................................................................18 Disposal...............................................................................................................................................................18 Environmentaland Health Impacts...............................................................................................................19 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................................22 Source References and Comments......................................................................................................................23 I CALL OG Z 3/6 Exhibits, Tables and Sidebar Exhibit 1. Polystyrene Types and Production Methods........................................................................................9 Exhibit2. Major Markets for Polystyrene.............................................................................................................9 Exhibit 3. U.S. Polystyrene Production Over Time............................................................................................ Is Exhibit 4. National EPS Post -Consumer Recycling Rates and Quantities..........................................................16 Table 1. Polystyrene Types and Typical Products .................................... 10 Table 2. Estimated California Share of PS Production ................................................... ......................... ............ I i Table 3. National PS Post -Consumer Recycled..................................................................................................13 Table 4. California PS Production and Recycling Estimates, 2001....................................................................14 Table S. Typical PS Recycling Costs and Resin Prices.......................................................................................14 Table 6. EPS Packaging Collection Sites in California......................................................................................15 Table 7. U.S. Coastal Cleanup Results — Foam, 1999.........................................................................................20 Table 8. Estimated Total Abundance and Weight of Trash on Orange County Beaches, Augustto September,1999.................................................................................................................................21 Sidebar: Holiday PPS Collection Project............................................................................................................17 LVI 1w Acknowledgements The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) contracted with NewPoint Group Management Consultants to conduct a research The authors of this report, Jim Gibson and Wendy Pratt of NewPoint Group Management Consultants, wish to thank staff from the CIWMB and the DOC for their assistance on this project. They especially thank Calvin Young from the CIWMB for his input and edits to the report. They also thank all of the many stakeholders that invested their time and energy providing valuable information and comments to this report. Executive Summary In 1999, California disposed of over 3.3 million tons of plastic in landfills, and that amount may well be increasing. (Source 25) That is roughly equivalent to the weight of the nearly 36 million Californians (averaging 185 pounds) being buried in California landfills every year. Plastics represent 8.9 percent (by weight) and perhaps twice as much (by volume) of the material disposed of in California landfills. Polystyrene (PS) is estimated at 0.8 percent (by weight) of the materials landfilled. However, due to its lightweight nature, its volume is much greater. In general, plastics rank behind paper as the second- largest category (by volume) of material being landfilled in California. The two main types of PS are "general-purpose" (also known as `crystal") PS and "high -impact" (also known as "rubber -modified') PS. When a blowing agent is added to general purpose PS, it is referred to as "expandable (or "expanded") polystyrene" (EPS). Approximately 57 percent of the PS'consumed in the U.S. in 1999 was general- purpose. The total California share of PS production and sales in 2001 is estimated at 377,579 tons. Of this amount, approximately 77,006 tons were for packaging and 156,829 tons were for consumer/institutional applications. The total amount of PS for packaging and food service for California is estimated at 166,135 tons. Due to changes in PS formulation and improved .production processes, PS has achieved significant source reduction benefits. Unfortunately, industry officials claim there are limited opportunities for increased source reduction, especially in transportation packaging and food service. However, the CIWMB believes replacing single -use food service PS, that cannot be effectively recycled, with compostable alternatives may provide additional source reduction potential. The Plastic Loose Fill Council (PLFC) coordinates reuse of PS loose fill, or "peanuts." Reuse of PS in California is estimated at between 20 and 30 percent, a total of 500 tons. (Source 14) There are reportedly sufficient end markets available for all the clean EPS collected. PS recycling/reuse consists primarily of the reuse effort by the PLFC, some limited recycling of non -foam PS products (such as CD cases, videocassettes, and agricultural trays), and recycling of transportation packaging. There is no meaningful recycling of food service PS. Recycling of transportation packaging is estimated at 12 percent nationally, with California recycling 19-23 percent (2,500 tons). In 1999, an estimated 300,000 tons of PS (0.8 percent oftotal waste) was landfilled, with a total disposal cost of $30 million. However, not all PS is disposed of legally. The primary environmental impact of PS relates to litter and improperly disposed PS. According to a California Department of Transportation study during 1998-2000, PS represented 15 percent of the total volume of litter recovered from the storm drains. Other significant items include: plastic moldable, (16 percent), plastic film (12 percent), and paper (14 percent). The CIWMB does not believe that a separate PS initiative is warranted. However, in an effort to minimize some of the side effects of PS, the CIWMB does recommend: Increasing litter education efforts through more effective coordination between all State entities cA,D�G?�- llo that spend money on anti -litter education and/or cleanup. 2. That the State conduct a statewide litter study to Identify the types and respective amounts (volume and weight) of litter and to quantify the environmental and societal impacts of liner. 3. That the Legislature consider making litter a civil offense, to facilitate issuing liner tickets. 4. That the State perform appropriate studies and testing (including demonstration projects) to determine the effectiveness of compostable and biodegradable plastics as alternatives to nondegradable polystyrene. 5. That the State continue to work with manufacturers and other stakeholders to promote additional manufacturer responsibility and product stewardship of polystyrene. Introduction California is faced with the significant challenge of safely and effectively managing the solid waste generated by nearly 36 million people in one of the largest economies in the world. Plastics are a major part of the California economy. In 2001, the California plastics industry employed more workers (152,335) than any other state and was ranked second In the nation in the value of shipments ($27.8 billion). California also leads the nation in the number of people employed and the value of polystyrene products produced. (Source: 1) Ironically, one of the most difficult materials in the state to manage is plastic, especially certain types of PS. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) transportation packaging represents approximately 3 percent of PS produced nationally and it can be, and to some degree is, recycled. EPS transportation packaging is currently being recycled at 13.1 percent nationally and an estimated 19 percent in California. (Source: 2, p. 3) That is much better than the 6 percent national recycling rate for all plastics. However, additional opportunities exist to work with the EPS transportation packaging industry to voluntarily increase recycling to a much higher level. Commercial and institutional PS products (including food service PS) represent 42 percent of PS production. Unfortunately, food service PS presents unique challenges in its management due in part to contamination from food residue. Because of these challenges and economic factors, no meaningfid recycling of food service PS occurs currently. Food service PS, by its nature, has a useful life that can be measured in minutes or hours. Yet, it takes several decades to hundreds of years to deteriorate in the environment or landfill. Food service PS also represents a significant challenge as litter. Not only does the food service PS break Into smaller pieces that may he ingested by wildlife, but materials may also be contaminated with food that decays, creating a health hazard. PS that is illegally released through various means, including human behavior, as litter may also find its way through the storm drain system and into the marine environment. As an example, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a trash total maximum daily load (TMI)L) order for the Los Angeles River requiring zero measurable trash in the storm drain system within 10 years. The County of Los Angeles and the cities affected by the TMDL estimate having to spend $373 million or more, over a 10-year period, to reduce the amount of trash in the storm drains in an effort to partially comply with the order. (Comment: 3) An estimated 0.8 percent (by weight) of the material disposed of in California's landfills is PS. However, because of its light weight, the volume of PS disposed of in landfills is much higher than the weight amount would tend to indicate. For example, weight/volume estimates range from 9.6 pounds per cubic yard for expanded polystyrene (EPS) packaging to 22.2 pounds per cubic yard for other forms of PS. This compares to I G 0 pounds per cubic yard for cardboard and 2,160 pounds per cubic yard for broken glass. (Source: 4) However, because of the minimal amount of PS disposed of, additional management efforts may have only a minimal impact on the available space at California's landfills. %.s 24 *A&c AAsrs oR AMAt asl$ A'r WWW, c-Wmb.ti., •v/publ,r ,•►u�Plaskta xo4w>t.� CAt.Dot2�/b CITY of CALABASAS Expanded Polystyrene and — --- --------- - ------High-Density-P-olyethylene-Use Sur-vey----- What is -Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)?. Polystyrene's most common use Is as expanded polystyrene (EPS). Expandable polystyrene is the lightweight material of which coffee cups and take-home food containers are made. What is High Density -Polyethylene (HDPE)? High Density Polyethylene's most common use Is as grocery bags. HOPE is typically translucent, but not fully see -through and crackles. Business Name: Property Owner: Business Address: Phone Number(s): Primary Contact: Alternative Contact: Business Type: Type of Service: Restaurant p Juice Bar ❑ Super Market ❑ Coffee Bar ❑ Full Service/Sit Down ❑ Mostly Sit Down/Some Take -Out ❑ Ice Cream Shop ❑ Other: Mostly Take -Out El Only Take -Out ❑ If you offer take-out what type of packaging do you use for: (Check all that apply) Take -Out Food: EPS p Plastic • ❑ Reusable Container Aluminum ❑ Cardboard ❑ ' Other: Take -Out Liquids:' EPS ❑ Plastic ❑ Reusable Container Aluminum . p Cardboard ❑ Other: Take -Out Bagging: Paper Bag ❑ HOPE Bag ❑ Other: Are your'take-out containers provided by a main branch or are they bought by you exclusively for this business? Bought by branch ❑ Bought by me ❑ Does Not Apply ❑ Are your take-out containers provided by a packaging contract? Yes ❑ No ❑ CA1. r)©c. �z How would you quantify your use of EPS? Never ❑ Sometimes C7 How would you quantify your use of HOPE? Never ❑ Sometimes ❑ Please read the following statement: Often ❑ Regularly ❑ Often ❑ Regularly ❑ The use of EPS and HOPE Is a challenging Issue for all levels of government, bug to the light -weight nature of EPS and HOPE, those materials are easily blown, float in water, get caught on tree branches and fences, and are.often Ingested by birds and marine animals. Moreover, EPS and HOPE are not readily recyclable materials and contribute to more than 64% of the trash found at our local beaches and persist for hundreds of years in landfills. Given this Information, the City of Calabasas Is considering a ban on EPS and HOPE materials, However, the City wants to assess the ability of,its businesses to comply with such an ordinance beforehand. Please answer the following questions regarding your business' willingness to ban EPS and HOPE, ' Are you aware of more environmentally friendly patkaging that your business co41d substitute for EPS? Yes ❑ No ❑ Are you aware of more environmentally friendly packaging that your business could substitute for HOPE? Yes ❑ No ❑ Would your business bawlliing to substitute EPS packaging with more environmentally friendly materials? . Yes ❑ No ❑ Would your business be willing to substitute HOPE packaging with more environmentally friendly materials? Yes ❑ No ❑ If you answered no to the last two questions Please- state why: Addltlbnal Comments; 26135 Mureau Road Calabasas, CA 91302-3172 (818)$78.4225 Fox (R18)878-4215 Gt,DOL- 3 7/z 1 �UIUVUJNO VL\LLILNLLVV L\V. LVV /-LJJ 1"r,V L V14 COUNCIL COMMISSIONS AGENDAS CALENDAR DEPARTMENTS INFORMATION SERVICES CALABASAS A-Z LINKS FAQ's PARKS N' REC. LIBRARY WHAT'S NEW CTV JOBS SCHOOL DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Calabasas_Qrdinance_N.o.2O- 7-233 Calabasas Retail Food Establishments Need to Certify Their Awareness of the City's Ordinance Banning the Use of Expanded Polystyrene for Food Packaging PRESS RELEASE Issued March 21, 2007 Calabasas retail food establishments need to certify their awareness of the City's ordinance banning the use of expanded polystyrene for Food Packaging By March 31, 2007, the owners of each retail food establishment within the City of Calabasas should report to the City their awareness and compliance of this newly adopted ban on the use of expanded polystyrene for food packaging. On February 21, 2007, Calabasas City Council members adopted Ordinance 2007- 233 banning retail food establishments, nonprofit food providers and City facilities from using food packaging materials made of expanded polystyrene, known popularly by the trademark name Styrofoam. The ordinance requires food service establishments in Calabasas to start using environmentally acceptable packaging (i.e. returnable, recyclable, biodegradable, degradable) by March 31, 2008, and report on -going compliance with this ordinance on the first business day of each calendar year. The purpose of this ordinance Is to protect the natural environment from non - biodegradable litter, reduce solid wastes, and promote public health. Most polystyrene food packaging products consist of disposable food and beverage take- out containers. They make up a majority of visible wastes littering public places and natural environments, and are known to persist in the environment for many years before breaking down Into non -biodegradable components, posing potential environmental and public health risks. The ordinance therefore requires food service providers to purchase packaging that Is: (1) Returnable - food or beverage containers are capable of being returned to the distributor for reuse (2) Recyclable - material that can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed, or marketed by any means other than land -filling or burning. Recyclable materials Include plastic which can be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program In California. Such plastics have recycling symbols #1 through #5 and Include PET or PETE, HDPE, LOPE, and PP plastics. Polystyrene bears the recycling symbol #6, but Is not feasibly recyclable in Calabasas. (3) Biodegradable - capable of being broken down by micro-organisms In the environment into non -toxic components within a reasonably short time after disposal http://www.cityofcalabasas.comlenvironmental/Calabasas_Ordinance_2007-233.ht nl 3/17/2008 CAI. Doe- lva�_ w.w.-..�rwu ��Y.YJYVV �.V• YVV I YJJA {{e, Y Vl4 (4) Degradable — capable of being broken down through natural processes via natural organisms or ultraviolet light. Restaurants and other food service providers have the choice of many food packaging products made of environmentally friendly alternatives, such as bio- plastics made of corn, paper, and bagasse -ware made of plant pulp, all of which meet the requirements of the ordinance. Several other California cities, such as Berkeley, Oakland, Malibu, Santa Monica, and San Francisco, have already passed similar bans, paving -the way for others, like Calabasas, to follow: Food service providers in Calabasas will be seeing the availability of helpful resources posted on the City website in the near future to help make the switch from polystyrene use to environmentally acceptable packaging a smoother transition. No.2007-233 EPS Ban Brochure (PDF) Gty of CahbxAs (n )Drip http://wwN�,.cityofcalabasas.com/enviro=entallCalabasas_Ordinance_2007-233.htm1 3/17/2008 CALJ:)" . YL • _, tip �• I ^ CITY OF OAKLAND ONE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA . 2ND FLOOR . OAKLANO�_ CALiF01?JIIA_.__9-4612__ Jean Quan City Council Member, District 4 jquan@oaklandnet.com wwwjeanquan.org June 13, 2006 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL Oakland, California (510) 238-7004 FAX:(510) 238-6129 TTY/T'DD.(510) 839-6451 Re: AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD VENDORS AND CITY FACILITIES Members of the Public Works Committee: I am proposing an ordinance that will institute two distinct practices by all Oakland food vendors and City facilities. The fast is that the use of all polystyrene foam disposable food service ware will be prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware will be required to be biodegradable or compostable when it is cost -neutral to the Food Vendor to use these products (meaning the cost is the same or less than the non - polystyrene foam, non-biodegradable/compostable alternative). This ordinance will further the goal of the Mayor and City Council to develop a sustainable city and create a zero waste community and further efforts to align the disposable products used in our community with the waste systems in place. This ordinance will address solid waste, environmental and toxicity impacts of disposable food service ware in Oakland. This ordinance was developed in collaboration with many experts in the field of solid waste and greening of business. Legislation banning polystyrene foam food packaging has been adopted in nearly 100 American cities including Berkeley and Portland. Furthermore, other Bay Area communities including San Francisco, Palo Alto, Berkeley and Marin County are now considering legislation similar to this proposed ordinance. OAt' Svc- I 12 Polystyrene foam, a plastics product, is designed for a useful life of minutes or hours but continues to exist in our environment for hundreds or thousands of years. There continues to he no meaningful recycling of polystyrene foam in California. Biodegradable food service ware can be an affordable, safe, ecologically sound alternative to polystyrene foam and other disposable food service ware. Some Oakland businesses have voluntarily stopped using polystyrene foam products and some utilize biodegradable food service ware as their way of contributing to community health and the environment. Many of these businesses are also realizing waste disposal cost savings because food scrap (biodegradable) waste collection can cost loss than garbage collection. Over 155 businesses in Oakland are now recycling organics and this number is growing every year due to overall cost savings. Non -biodegradable food service ware, especially polystyrene foam, constitutes a large portion of the litter in Oakland and the cost ofmanaging this litter is high and rising. While there are no conclusive medical opinions, there is evidence suggesting that the component styrene, suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin and ]mown hazardous substance, may leach from polystyrene containers into fatty food or drink, posing a potential health risk to people. The EPA National Human Adipose Tissue Survey for 1986 identified styrene residues in 100"% of all samples of human fat tissue taken in 1982 In the U.S. Recently, a number of studies and news articles have detailed increased concerns about the cumulative effects of trace chemicals and suspected carcinogens on the human body, especially among children. FISCAL IMPACT The City will absorb any increased costs associated with purchasing non -polystyrene foam products for use in City Facilities. There will also be some cost associated with the complaint -based enforcement of the ordinance by the City Administrator. BACKGROUND Polystyrene foam, also known by the name "Styrofoam", is formal by adding a blowing agent to polystyrene, a petroleum -based plastic material. Polystyrene foam is light -weight (about 95% air), with good insulation properties and is used in all types of products from cups that keep beverages hot or cold to materials that keeps items ado during shipping. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) estimates that Californians use 165,000 tons of polystyrene each year for packaging and food service purposes alone.' In the past, polystyrene foam was banned by cities due in part to the ozone -depleting gases used as blowing agents; most polystyrene foam is now made with less damaging gases. More recent bans have been enacted because of the litter and marine debris impacts of polystyrene foam food packaging as well as overall environmental health, Nearly 100 cities nationwide including other California coastal cities such as Malibu, Aliso Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, Huntington Beach and San Clemente have banned ' Use and Disposal ofPolystyrena In California, California Integrated Waste Management Board, December2004. ©AKDoc.l z/1 polystyrene foam food service ware. Polystyrene foam food service ware is also banned across China, Taiwan and India and other types of plastics are being banned all over the world. This proposed ordinance is consistent with several bills at the state level that seek to _ move towards zero waste and managLog_pjastkc- B-M.6- Kam Lr,)3vould.prohibitan.y state facility from selling, possessing or distributing polystyrene foam food containers; AB 1940 (Koretz) would convene a multi -agency task force to make progress in reducing marine debris statewide; AB 2147 (Harman) would clarify the definition of "compostable", "biodegradable" and "degradable" compostable plastic food and beverage containers in order to promote compatibility with waste management systems; AB 319 (Chan) bans some plastic products containing Phthalates and Bisphenol-A; SB 1379 (Perata) establishes a biomonitoring program to determine, assess and monitor the presence and concentration of chemicals in the tissue and blood of Californians. On May 101h, 2006, a public meeting was convened at City Hall to inform food vendors and the community about this proposed ordinance and get feedback on how to make the ordinance more effective. The meeting was attended by community members, several members of the waste disposal community, and at least two Chambers of Commerce. In addition, all major Chambers of Commerce and several franchise owners and food service ware vendors have been consulted about the proposed ordinance. While using biodegradable disposable food ware is preferable, the use of disposable food service ware in general will continue to have significant impacts on solid waste disposal and consumption of natural resources, local waterways, and litter. All food vendors should evaluate how they can reduce the use of all disposable food service Ware and maximize the portion of their food service ware that is reused. KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS Solid Waste and Recycling The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that all California jurisdictions achieve and maintain a landfill diversion rate of 50%, beginning in 2000. In 2002, the City adopted a goal of 75% reduction of waste going to landfills by 2010 in alliance with a countywide 75% waste reduction goal. In March 2006, Oakland City Council joined cities, counties and states worldwide in adopting a goal of zero waste by the year 2020. Zero waste principals, as applied to municipal solid waste, include improving "downstream" reuse/recycling of end -of -life -products, pursuing "upstream" re -design strategies to reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded products and materials, and promoting low -impact or reduced consumption lifestyles. , Oakland achieved a landfill diversion rate of 55% in 20042. The greatest opportunity for additional solid waste diversion is related to targeting waste reduction and recycling in the commercial sector,3 Collection of commercial organics, primarily food scraps, is a a Result not yet certified by California Integrated Waste Management Board. ' City of Oakland Public Works Agency/Environmental Services Division Strategic Plan for 76% Reduction and Recycling of Solid Waste, February 28, 2006, Od KDoC_ I `3/O key program targeted in the Strategic Plan for 15% Solid Wade Diversion, adopted by Council in March 2006. There is currently no meaningful recycling of post -consumer polystyrene foam food service ware, due in part to contamination from food residue and in part to the economic unfeasibility of such a service. Polystyrene foam is also non biodegradable, and a common contaminant in food scraps collection programs. Unlike polystyrene foam food service ware, biodegradable food service ware can be included in commercial and residential food scraps collection programs, and processed at composting facilities rather than landfiiled. The natural compost products made from these biodegradable materials arc used as soil amendments on farms, commercial nurseries and gardens. Oakland is already a leader in residential organics recycling. Since the February 2005 rollout of weekly residential recycling services that accepted food scraps along with yard trimmings, yard trimmings tonnage in 2005 increased over 46% compared to 2004, to 33,500 tons. An estimated 15% of households participated in the food setapa collection service in 2005. It is expected that participation will grow as food scraps recycling becomes a mainstream behavior, just as can, bottle and paper recycling did during the 1990s. This ordinance will support and complement the Public Works Agency's Business Recycling Technical Assistance Project, a targeted program described in the strategic Plan for 75% Solid Waste Diversion, which commences in July 2006. This project will enroll businesses in organics recycling programs, as well as the new Small Business Recycling Service that is part of the Franchise Agreement with Waste Management of Alameda County, and the Agreement For Residential Recycling with California Waste Solutions. Businesses can realize cost savings by shining their discards from the garbage service to lower -cost food scrap recycling services. Commercial food scraps collection services are currently provided in Oakland's competitive, open market for source - separated, commercial recyclable materials, by two service providers, Waste Management of Alameda County and Norval Waste Systems of Alameda County. As noted, over 150 Oakland businesses already are recycling their food scraps and organic discards with these providers. Litter and Marine Pollution Y Polystyrene foam, though inexpensive and effective as a food service ware product, has many drawbacks and hidden costa which are later passed on to the public. Polystyrene foam presents unique management issues because of its lightweight nature, floatability, and prevalence to be blown from disposal sites even when disposed of property. it is estimated polystymne foam comprises 15% of the litter collected in storm drains.' Pollution of our waterways and waterfront negatively affects tourism and quality of lift in Oakland. ' Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board, December 2004. Dwt) .1 aA Polystyrene foam breaks down into smaller, non -biodegradable pieces that are ingested by, marine life and other wildlife. At least 162 marine species including most seabirds have been reported to have eaten plastics and other litter. Studies measuring plastics found up to five kilometers off the California Coast have found high levels of small plastic pieces from land -based sources, especially after storm events.5 The small pieces are similar in size and sometimes more abundant than plankton, and represent a large risk to filter feeders (marine animals that eat suspended in water). Toxicity and Health There are potential health impacts from polystyrene foam disposable food service ware associated with the production of polystyrene and with the leaching of some of its chemical components into food and drink. The general public is not typically warned of these public hazards, particularly in the immigrant and non -English-speaking community. The process of manufacturing polystyrene pollutes the air and creates large amounts of liquid and solid waste. In the categories of energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, polystyrene's environmental impacts were found to be second highest, behind aluminum. Additionally, the National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research identified 57 chemical byproducts released during the combustion of polystyrene foam. Benzene, a chemical component of polystyrene foam, is a known carcinogen and enters the human body either though the skin or respiratory system a Styrene, another component of polystyrene, is a,suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin and known hazardous substance. The EPA and FDA state that chemical components of polystyrene may leach from food containers into food and drink; the FDA recommends that plastic takeout containers never be microwavedfor this reason.9 There have been increasing calls for legislators to protect the public from the cumulative effects chemicals we are exposed to every day in our environment.10 The cumulative effects of chemicals on the human body, also known as "body burden", are mostly unknown. Body burden studies show that we are exposed to complex mixtures of chemicals that are linked to health harms.' 1 It is our responsibility as elected officials to take precautionary steps to protect our citizens from these risks. 5 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board, December 2004, ° Use and Disposal of Polystyrene In California, California Integrated Waste Management Board, December 2004. r Earth Resource Foundation http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp•styrofoam.htmi Accessed April 25, 2006. 5 US Occupational and Health Administration http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/benzene/index.htmi Accessed May 23, 2006. 9 Environmental Protection Agency http:/iwww.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw contamfs/styrene.html Accessed May 23, 2006, Food and Drug Administration, http://www.fda.govlfdac/features/2002l6D2_plastic.html Accessed May 23, 2006. 0 "Getting Serious About Chemicals", Oakland Tribune, January 31, 2006. " Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/bodyburden/results.php Accessed May 23, 2006 Oq,k, boc.l 51e Environmental Obligation The City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment and natural resources for future generations. The City may exercise environmental stewardship by reducing the amount of polystyrene foam and non -biodegradable food service ware that enters out waste stream, our storm drain, watershed and waterfront. A common argument Against polystyrene foam food service ware bans is that food service litter is not caused by a particular product or material but is instead caused by human behavior and further suggest that the use of biodegradable food service ware may actually increase litter because of the perception that it does not need to be disposed of in a trash receptacles. Some food service litter is unintended and actually a result of drifts from waste receptacles, waste haulers or events. Public education and existing litter laws have not to date eliminated food service litter from our community. Whatever the cause, the high costs of litter cleanup and collection are borne by the City and its residents and several different strategies must be utilized to address the problem. The intent of this ordinance is to deal with one specific and significant issue in Oakland (polystyrene foam) and simultaneously propose an evolution in disposable food service ware in Oakland. Oakland has steadily moved forward with environmental initiatives and has become the 6s` greenest city in the U.S.12 and is currently positioning itself to become a leader in the emerging green economy. POLICY DESCRIPTION This ordinance applies to all food vendors in the City of Oakland, including restaurants, itinerant restaurants or retail food vendors and applies to all disposable food service ware products used by them, including: containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items designed for one-time use both on and off the food vendors' premises. The ordinance also applies to the City of Oakland and its facilities, departments and franchisees. There are two parts to this ordinance: A. Polystyrene Foam Ban This ordinance prohibits the use of all polystyrene foam disposable food service ware. Alternatives to Polystyrene Foam and Their Costs Alternative products to polystyrene foam are widely available and used widely in other cities with polystyrene foam bans. These alternative materials include • Uncoated Paper • Coated paper • Cardboard • Aluminum • Other plastics • Bio-products (discussed below). "Green Guide Institute, 2006. In general, alternatives to polystyrene foam cost a few cents more per item and vary in price with the product type, weight and durability. The actual cost to a food vendor to switch to an alternative product will be largely dependant on the amount and types of disposable food service ware that it currently uses. Overlooking unquantifred costs passed on the public such as litter, blight, environmental and possible health costs, polystyrene foam is currently_the least expensive food service ware material, although_prices-continue___ to rise due to increasing crude oil prices". B. Required Transition to Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware This ordinance would require the use of biodegradable and compostable disposable food service ware by all food vendors (not only those transitioning from polystyrene foam), as long as it is cost -neutral. For the purposes of this ordinance, biodegradable means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal and compostable means all the materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil -conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Biodegradable and, Compostable Products and Their Costs Biodegradable and compostable food service ware includes the following: • Uncoated paper products • Coated paper products • Some bio-products (discussed below). Because of the affordability provision, compliance with this part of the ordinance will be cost -neutral to food vendors. Depending on the product, biodegradable or compostable alternatives often cost the same as their plastic counterparts. Other specific compostable products which are new to the market can cost up to twice as much before prices come down. Some biodegradable or compostable food products already cost the same or less as their counterparts, and therefore food vendors should start to use these products now. For example, compostable plastic cups (for cold drinks) and clamshells (for salads) are generally the same price as plastic cups and plastic clam shells, depending on the distributor. Many restaurants and cafes already use paper cups and plates because they are affordable and effective. For some products such as hot food containers, biodegradable or compostable options are not always as inexpensive as coated paper or plastic containers, so while their use is encouraged, it will only be required when it becomes affordable. As the demand for biodegradable and compostable products increases, we expect to see a larger variety of t3 KPMG htip://www.kpmginsiders.com/display_analysis.esp?cs_id=140493 Accessed May 23, 2006 ©AK.I)oC biodegradable and compostable products at lower prices become available to Food Vendors. We are working with the Public Works Department, CEDA, the Chambers of Commerce and others to understand and meet the education needs of Oakland food vendors and food packaging vendors so that Food Vendors will know which products are appropriate for use in Oakland and packaging vendors will understand which products to supply. It is my intent that Oakland Food vendors will be able to buy all the biodegradable and compostable products that they need from their existing vendors. We are also working with vendors of bio-products to make those products more widely available and affordable in Oakland. The Oakland Alameda County Coliseum and Arena are transitioning to using compostable food service ware products for their food sales and Oakland restaurants such as the Nomad Caf6 are successfully using compostable products as well. Blo-products Bio-products are manufactured from renewable resources such as corn starch, sugar cane, or a combination of bamboo, tapioca and water. "Bio-plastics", a subset ofbio-products, are relatively new products with performance and physical characteristics of plastics but made from plant products and byproducts instead of petroleum. Like plastic and paper products, many bin -plastics can be customized with business logos. Bio-plastic products used to meet the requirements of this ordinance must: 1. meet ASTM Standards. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International has established standards for the eompostability of bio-products (standards D6400 and D6868). Bio-plastics that meet the ASTM compostability standard demonstrate and ability to break down in a municipal compost system within a certain amount of time. 2. be clearly labeled: preferably with a color symbol, such that any compost collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM-standard compostable plastic from non-ASTM-standard compostable plastic. It is important to note that all types of disposable food packaging products cause environmental impacts. Most paper products, especially those for hot foods and beverages, are lined with it petroleum-basod polyethylene coating. These products are not designed for composting programs but are currently generally accepted in Oakland. The majority of non -polystyrene foam disposable food service ware, with the exception of beverage containers, are made of clear polystyrene rigid plastic containers, Rigid plastic containers are made of petroleum -base polymers and many of these products have poor insulating value and are some are not intended for hot foods or drinks. Exemptions and Enforcement Enforcement of the ordinance will be on a complaint basis only. The City Administrator will be authorized to enforce the ordinance and issue fines for violations if a citizen complaint is not remedied. Food Vendors will be exempted for specific items or types of Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or his/her designee finds that a _suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist and/or that i-m—p—o—si—n—g—diie requirements of tlus Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food Service Ware would cause undue hardship. The City Administrator or his/her designee will determine if a violation of this chapter occurred and will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has occurred. If a Food Vendor has subsequent violations, the following penalties will apply: a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the warning notice is given. b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the warning notice is given. c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any future violations after the warning notice is given. Effective Date This ordinance would become effective January 1, 2007. Fellow Councilmembers, I urge you to support this proposed ordinance. Restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware in Oakland will conserve natural resources, reduce the use of non-renewable resources, protect the City of Oakland's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, and protect the public health of the residents of Oakland. This action would fulfill Article 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby Oakland parhrered with cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year. Sincerely, T- =,l JEAN QUAN Vice -Mayor and Councilmember, District 4 N ICDC& q/ :7FI,ICE rIF, ':IT'- CUD. App vftd N to Form and LOO My 2001A•126 All 9t32 g Introduced by Coundlmw*or_4UAN AND D� LA FUENTL (USE IFAMICAKE) Oakland CMyAftoffWs Off" OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL Ordinance No, 12747 C.M.s. AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOSTABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD VENDORS AND CITY FACILitMS This ordinance will institute two distinct practices by all food vendors and City Facilities in Oakland. The first is that the use ofpolystyme foam disposable food service ware will be prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware will be required to be biodegradable or cotnpostabie, as long as it is af%rdable. WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of throw- away food service ware include reusing food service ware and using compostable and biodegradable take-out materials made from renewable resources such as paper, corn starch and sugarcane; and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is a common environmental pollutant as well as a non - biodegradable substance that is commonly used as food service ware by food vendors operating in the City of Oakland; and WHEREAS, there continues to be no mesnin& recycling of polystyrene foam food service ware and biodegradable or compostable food service ware is an affordable, safe, more ecologically sound altemstive; and WHEREAS, affordable biodegradable or compostable food service ware products are increasingly available for several food service applications such as cold cups, plates and hinge containers and these products are more em)ogically sound than polystyrene foam materials and can be turned into a compost product; and WHEREAS, the Oakland Coliseum has successfully replaced its cups with biodegradable corn starch cups and has shown an overall cost savings due to organics recycling; and Cox tDoc, -L. yc WHEREAS, over 155 businesses in Oakland engage in organics recycling and it has been demonstrated that the use of biodegradable or compostable food service ware can reduce waste disposal costs when the products are taken'to composting facilities as part of an organics recycling program rather than disposed in a landfill; and WHEREAS, the natural compost product from these biodegradable or compostable materials is used as fertilizer for farms and gardens, thereby moving towards a healthier zero waste §ystern md_ WHEREAS, disposable food service ware constitutes a large portion.of the litter in Oakland's estuary, streets, parks and public places and the cost of managing this litter is high and rising; and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is notorious as a pollutant that breaks down into smaller, non biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife thus harming or killing them; and WHEREAS, due to the physical properties of polystyrene, the EPA states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy." and WHEREAS, a 1986 EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process as the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste in the United States; and WHEREAS, in the product manufacturing process as well as the use and disposal of the products, the energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, polystyrene's environmental impacts were second highest, behind aluminum, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board; and WHEREAS, styrene, a component of polystyrene, is a known hazardous substance that medical evidence and the Food and Drug Administration suggests leaches from polystyrene containers into food and drink; and WHEREAS, styrene is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin which potentially threatens human health; and WHEREAS, styrene has been detected in the fat tissue of every man, woman and child tested by the EPA in a 1986 study; and WHEREAS, the general public is not typically warned of any potential hazard, particularly in the immigrant and non -English-speaking community; and WHEREAS, due to these concerns nearly 100 cities have banned polystyrene foam food service ware including several California cities, and many local businesses and several national corporations have successfully replaced polystyrene foam and other non - biodegradable food service ware with affordable, safe, biodegradable products; and WHEREAS, restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware products and replacing non -biodegradable food service ware with biodegradable food service ware Oq v-Dnc, L Z/(l products in Oakland will Ruther protect the public health and safety of the residents of Oakland, the City of Oakland's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, would advance the City's goal of Developing a Sumakabio City, advance the City's goal of Zero Waste by 2020 and fulfil Article 10 of the lrnvitonmonGtl Accords, whereby Oakland partnered with other cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND DOER ORDAIN CHAPTER 8.07 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SHALL BE: Section 8.07.010 Definitions "Affordable" means purchasable by the Food Vendor for same or less purchase cost than the non -Biodegradable, non -Polystyrene Foam alternative. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standards 1)6w or D6s68 for biodegradable and compostable plastics. "Biodegradable" means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in :nature within a reasonably short period of time aiier customary disposal. "Compostable" means all materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil -conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware includes ASTM-Standard Bio- Plastics (plastic -like products) that are clearly labeled, preferably with a color symbol, such that any compost collector mid processor can easily distinguish the ASTM Standard Compostable plastic from non-ASTM Standard Compostable plastic. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the, City of Oakland, its agent, agencies, departments and franchisees. "Customer" means any person obtaining Prepared Food from a Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor. "Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor directly places or packages Prepared Foods or which are used to consume foods. This inetudes, but is not limited to, service ware for Takeout Foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prop" at Restaurants or Retail Food Vendors, "Food Vendor" means any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor located or operating within the City of Oakland. 3 "Polystyrene Foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Polystyrene Foam is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays and egg cartons. "Prepared Food" means Food or Beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the Food Vendor's premises or within the City of Oakland. For the purposes of this ordinance, Prepared Food does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. Prepared Food maybe eaten either on or off the premises, also known as "takeout food". "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Oakland that sells Prepared Food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by Customers. Restaurant for purposes of this Chapter includes Itinerant Restaurants, Pushcarts and Vehicular Food Vendors as those terms are defined in sections 5.49, 8.08, 8.09 of the City of Oakland Municipal Code. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, located within the City of Oakland that sells Prepared Food. Section 8.07.040 Prohibited Food Service Ware A. Except as provided in Section 8.07.042, Food Vendors are prohibited from providing Prepared Food to Customers in Disposable Food Service Ware that uses Polystyrene Foam. B. All City Facilities are prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware and all City Departments and Agencies will not purchase or acquire Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware for use at City Facilities. C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware in City facilities or on city projects within the City of Oakland. Section 8.07.041 Required Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware A. All Food Vendors using any DisposAble Food Service Ware will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. Food Vendors are strongly encouraged to reuse Food Service Ware in place of using Disposable Food Service Ware. In instances that Food Vendors wish to use a Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware Product that is not Affordable, aFood Vendor may charge a "take out fee" to customers to cover the cost difference. OR l; aQr, 2 `-A B. All City Facilities will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a spociflc application. Section 8.07.042 Exemptions A. Prepared Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Oakland are exempt from the provisions of Us Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Oakland are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter. B. Food Vendors will be exempted from the provisions of this Chapter for specific Items or types of Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or his/her designee (Inds that it suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist and/or that imposing the requirements of this Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food Service Ware would cause undue hardship. C. Polystyrene Foam coolers and ice cheats that are intended for rouse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. D. Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. E. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: in a situation deemed by the City Administrator to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the pubic peace, health or safety, City Facilities, Food Vendors, City f whises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Section 8.07.043 Liability and Enforcement A. The City Administrator or hia/her designee will have primary responsibility for enforcement of this Chapter. Tho City Administrator or his/her designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this Chapter, including, but not limited to, entering the -premises of any Foal Vendor to verify compliance. B. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter will be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Chapter 1.28 O.M.C. C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. _Y4 Section 8.07.044 Violations - Penalties 1. If the City Administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation of this Chapter occurred, he/she will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has occurred — 2.- Ifthe-Foo-tVen-dot<lias-sabsequent vioTatibns ofWs ChapTer,lhe fo]lowing penalties wilt apply. a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the warning notice is given. b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the warning notice is given. c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any .future violations after the warning notice is given. 3. Food Vendors may request an administrative hearing to adjudicate any penalties issued under this Chapter by filing a written request with the City Administrator, or his or her designee. The City Administrator, or his or her designee, will promulgate standards and procedures for requesting and conducting an administrative hearing under this Chapter. Any determination from the administrative hearing on penalties issued under this Chapter will be final and conclusive. Section 8.07.045 Study Section 8.07.0456 Effective Date This Chapter will become effective'January 1, 2007. IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, am u 200B 2006 PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES - BRUNNER, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN,j, REID, CHANG, AND --y PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE — NOES — j lj rood 5 ABSENT—,r ABSTENTION — ,e-' w'. ATTEST: LA O A SIMMONS City Clerk and Clerk o the Council of the City of Oakland or�•K,'�aG• 2 10/6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 1, 2008 Dear Food Service Operator: There is important news affecting how you operate your Newport Beach business. On October 28, 2008, the City of Newport Beach enacted a new law eliminating the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS, often called Styrofoam®) food service ware and take out containers within Newport Beach. Your business must comply with the new law not later than June 1, 2009. The law prohibits the use of expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware by all restaurants and all retail food vendors, including groceries, delis, mini -marts etc. operating within Newport Beach. EPS may not be used for in-house food or drink service, takeout foods and/or leftover food packaging of partially consumed meals. The City of Newport Beach has prohibited the use of expanded polystyrene at its facilities since 2007. This new law is an extension of the City's efforts to keep expanded polystyrene out of the ocean and off the beaches. The purpose of this letter is to make you aware of the new law eliminating the use of expanded polystyrene and to provide you with the longest possible lead time both: • to find alternative food service products, and • to use up any existing inventory of expanded polystyrene prior to June 1, 2009. Earth Resource Foundation and the Newport Beach Restaurant Association participated with the City in developing the new law. Both are available to assist you as you look for alternative products. Your own current suppliers may also be good sources. The Newport Beach Restaurant Association is professionally managed by California Marketing Concepts and may be reached at 949-675-0501. The NBRA also will be putting information on their web site www.newporibeachdining.com The Earth Resource Foundation may be reached at 949-645-5163 or www.earthresource.org A copy of Ordinance 2008-17 (the law) may be obtained either on-line at www.citv.newport-beach.ca.us under Minutes & Agendas/ Council Ordinances (1906-present)/ 2008, or by calling the City Clerk at 949-644-3005. Questions regarding enforcement, including extreme hardship appeals, may be directed to the City at 949-644- 3225, request Leigh DeSantis or Katie Bowden. Thank you for supporting the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, �p Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Ma ger 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3200 • Fax: (949) 644-3229 • www.city.newport-beach.ca.us May 1, 2009 Dear Food Service Operator: This is your second notice of a law affecting how you operate your Newport Beach business. On October 28, 2008 the City of Newport Beach enacted a law eliminating the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS, often called Styrofoam®) food service ware and take out containers within Newport Beach. A letter was sent to you December 1, 2008 advising you that your business must comply with the law not later than June 1, 2009. The law prohibits the use of expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware by all restaurants and all retail food vendors, including groceries, delis, mini -marts etc. operating within Newport Beach. EPS may not be used for in-house food or drink service, takeout foods and/or leftover food packaging of partially consumed meals. Your business has had seven months lead time to: • to find alternative food service products, and • to use up any existing inventory of expanded polystyrene prior to June 1, 2009. Starting on June 1, 2009 your business needs be in compliance with the new law or it will be subject to code enforcement action. Earth Resource Foundation and the Newport Beach Restaurant Association continue to be available to assist you as you look for alternative products. Your own current suppliers may also be good sources. The Newport Beach Restaurant Association is professionally managed by California Marketing Concepts and may be reached at 949-675-0501. The NBRA also will be putting information on their web site www.newportbeachdining.com The Earth Resource Foundation may be reached at 949- 645-5163 or www.earthresource.ora A copy of Ordinance 2008-17 (the law) may be obtained either on-line at www.city.newport- beach.ca.us under Minutes & Agendas/ Council Ordinances (1906-present)/ 2008, or by calling the City Clerk at 949-644-3005. Questions regarding enforcement, including extreme hardship appeals, may be directed to the City at 949-644-3225, request Leigh DeSantis or Katie Bowden. Thank you for supporting the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 29, 2009 Mr. Richard Greene, Director Nutrition Services Department Newport -Mesa Unified School District 2985 Bear Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Greene: Thank you for your e-mail of July 8, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS). Thank you also for the School District's switch to biodegradable paper trays and other non-EPS materials. I understand that, for certain meals at elementary schools that include sauces or gravies, you have not been able to find a reasonably feasible alternative to EPS five - compartment trays, and eliminating their use for certain meals would constitute an undue hardship for the School District. Therefore, I am granting an exemption to allow you to continue to use EPS five -compartment trays for meals that include sauces or gravies at elementary schools until June 1, 2010. You may not be aware of this, but the impetus for the City's ordinance banning the use of EPS products was a group of students from Corona del Mar High School. Therefore I believe it is important that the School District do everything it can to implement the ordinance. I thank you for the progress you have made, and I hope that you will be able to find a feasible alternative to the EPS five -compartment trays within the year. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 • www.city.newport-beach.ca.us Wood, Sharon From: Bowden, Katie Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:53 AM To: Wood, Sharon Subject: RE: Newport -Mesa Ordinance EPS Exemption Request Hi Sharon. I just wanted to follow up on the status of this exemption, in case you've heard from Aaron about this. The applicant has Inquired as to how long the exemption process takes. Thanks, Kathlyn Bowden, AICP Economic Development Coordinator City of Newport Beach From, Bowden, Katie Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:16 AM To: Wood, Sharon Cc: De Santis, Leigh Subject: RE: Newport -Mesa Ordinance EPS Exemption Request I'm sure whatever the next level of tray is would be slightly more expensive, but he did not say for sure. I can call him to ask. Did we decide the school district is subject to the City's ordinance? Thanks, Kathlyn Bowden, AICP Economic Development Coordinator City of Newport Beach From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:20 PM To: Bowden, Katie Cc: De Santis, Leigh Subject: RE: Newport -Mesa Ordinance EPS Exemption Request Did he give you any reason why they can't use a 5 compartment tray made out of something other than EPS when they're serving meals with a sauce? I understand the need to keep the sauce in the container, but it doesn't follow that the container has to be made of EPS. It doesn't sound like they've explored and found no reasonable alternatives. From: Bowden, Katie Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:17 PM To: Wood, Sharon Cc: De Santis, Leigh Subject: FW: Newport -Mesa Ordinance EPS Exemption Request Sharon- FYI I spoke with Mr. Greene this afternoon and told him that, based on the definition of"Retail Food Vendor" in the ordinance, I did not think that the schools selling lunches in Newport Beach are exempted from the ordinance. I explained the undue hardship exemption process, but that it did not allow an exemption for longer than a year without again applying for another exemption. I told him I thought you would grant the School District an exemption for this year and that we may need to look at amending the ordinance to keep them from having to apply for continual exemptions. If we did decide to bring an amendment forward, we could look at exempting OASIS as well (though Celeste tells me they stopped using EPS). Thanks, Kathlyn Bowden, AICP Economic Development Coordinator City of Newport Beach 949.644.3230 From: Richard Greene [mailto:rgreene@nmusd.us1 Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:02 PM To: Bowden, Katie Subject: Newport -Mesa Ordinance Exemption Request Ms. Katie Bowden Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Bowden: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the use of EPS (expanded polystyrene) serving trays at Newport -Mesa Unified School District elementary schools located in Newport Beach. The District wishes to request a continuous exemption from Ordinance No. 2008-17 regulating the use of expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware. The school district would be forced to endure undue financial hardship during these times of extreme budgetary constraints in order to eliminate the occasional use in elementary schools of small, five compartment serving trays composed of EPS. The Nutrition Services department has employed a number of measures over the past 18 months to significantly reduce the use of EPS food service ware throughout all schools in the District. We utilize biodegradable paper trays on most occasions to serve food that is wrapped or otherwise packaged in non-EPS materials and we have eliminated the use of EPS cups and plates completely. We currently utilize EPS 5 compartment serving trays at elementary schools on some occasions when our menu offering dictates their use to serve certain food items accompanied by tomato sauce or gravy. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you might have. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Richard Greene — Director Nutrition Services Department Newport -Mesa Unified School District 714-424-5094 Dick Greene Director- Nutrition Services 714-424-5094 June 10, 2009 Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manager 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms Wood, Thank you for approving our request for an extension to continue to use Styrofoam cups for six months, until December 1, 2009. We appreciate your consideration for our economic hardship and hope for a turn -around soon. When our financial conditions permit, we will comply with Ordinance 2008-17 as soon as fiscally possible. Sincerely, dr������-ems Calvin Nguyen Manager Westcliff Plaza 1 1124 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 515-3685 1 www.boosterjuice.com 1 (949) 515-3703 (fax) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 8, 2009 Mr. Michael Ring, COO Jay's Catering 10581 Garden Grove Blvd. Garden Grove, CA 92843 Dear Mr. Ring: Thank you for your email of May 26, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS). Thank you also for making the switch to biodegradable disposable products! I understand from the information in the email and attachments that your business uses a proprietary EPS product called a "Chef Caddy" to keep your catered foot hot or cold for a period of 4 hours. I also understand that your business picks up this caddy from the customer the following business day so that the caddy may be reused in subsequent catering jobs. Therefore, the Chef Caddy does not constitute disposable EPS food service ware and is not subject to the City's ban on EPS. I have copied our Code Enforcement Department in this letter so that they are aware of your use of conforming products. Thank you for your serious and prompt attention to this City ordinance. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Cc: John Kappeler, Code and Water Quality Enforcement Kathlyn Bowden, Economic Development City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 • www.citynewport-beach.ca.us CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 5, 2009 Mr. Luke Martin; General Manager The Original Mama D's Italian Kitchen 3012 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your e-mail of June 3, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS). Thank you also for making the switch to paper products! I understand that you still have a small supply of Styrofoam containers, and the loss of that product would cause economic hardship for your business. Therefore, I am granting an exemption to allow you to continue to use EPS cups until June 26, 2009. Thank you for your serious and prompt attention to this City ordinance. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • 0 0 6/3/09 Dear Sharon, My name is Luke, and I am the GM of The Original Mama D's Italian Kitchen at 3012 Newport Blvd., just up the street from City Hall in Newport Beach. I am writing today to request,a brief extension on the use of Styrofoam containers in order to exhaust our supply, and minimize loss and waste. We have made the switch to paper products and are eager to reduce our impact on the environment and comply with city regulations. However, we still have roughly two weeks supply of Styrofoam cups on, our shelves. If you would be so kind as to grant us a two -three week extension, and allow us to use the remainder of our stock, we would be most grateful. That period of time should be more than sufficient, especially since our busy summer season; begins on Monday- I look forward -to your response. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide. Sincerely, The digiAl Mama D's Italian Kitchen Work: 949-675-6262 Mobile: 949-695 2040 COPY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 2, 2009 Mr. Douglas Bishop My Galley 500 W. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Mr. Bishop: Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS). I understand that, as a new owner of the business, you received late notice of the ordinance; and I am sorry that our Code Enforcement staff was unable to give you information about the ordinance when you contacted them. I believe that your late notice and your recent purchase of supplies constitute a unique situation for your business, and that requiring your business to cease use of EPS cups immediately would cause significant economic hardship. Therefore, I am granting an exemption to allow you to continue to use EPS cups until August 1, 2009. Thank you for your serious and prompt attention to this City ordinance. Sincerely, w �L�A�J�/ Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 • www.citv.newnnrt-beach ca nc Ms. Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manager Newport Beach, CA. Dear Ms. Wood: �vty& GaCCeEa y RECEIVE 'l MAY 2 8 2009 Vince of u,ce City Manager May 28, 2009 This is regarding your letter dated May 1, 2009 about the law prohibiting the use of expanded polystyrene, effective Tune 1, 2009, I would just like to start by informing you that I took over this business on February 12, 2009 the previous owner did not mention anything at all about this law, however at the end of March, a customer mentioned something about this being brought before the city council for a possible law. This person was not sure if the law had passed or not, nor exactly what the law was about, "he" only heard rumors, so I went to the Code Enforcement Office four times, the first time they told me to look on the internet and they were not sure either if the law was approved or when and if it would be in effect. I searched the city website and could not find anything so I went back to Code Enforcement and talked to another two persons. They told me they would find out and call or send me an email; I left all my contact information, since I never received anything, I went another couple of times trying to find information with the same results, but this time they told not to worry about since I will receive an official notification if this law existed and I will have time to use whatever inventory I had at that moment. I was really surprise when I received your letter on May 22, 2009 (holiday weekend) saying that this was my second notice, and I have only nine days left before this law will be in effect. I am more than willing to comply with the law, however I am asking you to help me and grant me some time to use the inventory that I already have, since everybody was telling me that I would be very busy, I just bought more cups (that by the way, is the only type of product that I use made with foam in my establishment), according to my records and if the sales are the same as the previous months since I took over, it will take me almost until the end of June to use up my current inventory. I hope that you understand my situation and help me out with this matter, as a new owner there is a lot of things that I am learning the hard way. I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you in advance for your attention to this issue. Respectfully ours Dougl Amshop My Galley 500 WBalboa Bfvd— Newport Beach, CA — 92661— (Phone # 949 375 4355 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 2, 2009 Mr. Calvin Nguyen. Manager Booster Juice 1124 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your follow-up letter of May 2, 2009. 1 understand from the information in the letter and attachments that you have received a 50% rental reduction to help your business stay at its present location, that the Booster Juice parent corporation will not assist you with conversion to another product and you would have to pay the full cost of a minimum order of non-EPS cups ($15,000), and that you have sought assistance from the resources suggested by the City. This information demonstrates that your business has a unique situation, and there are no reasonable alternatives that would not cause your business significant economic hardship. Therefore, I am approving an extension to allow you to continue using Styrofoam cups for six months, until December 1, 2009. Thank you for your serious and prompt attention to this City ordinance, and I hope this extension helps you to keep your business in Newport Beach. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall - 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 • www.city.newport-beach.ca.us 14 �oosfer �Jr/ite May 26, 2009 Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manager 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms Wood, Thank you for your letter of May 19, 2009, requesting additional information for your consideration regarding our request for an extension in compliance with Ordinance 2008-17, the new law that prohibits the use of EPS (Styrofoam) by June 1, 2009. Most of our communication was made via phone or email. Copies of documents and emails are attached when possible; names of people and their contact information are provided should you need additional follow-ups with them. • Attached is a copy of the Irvine Company's letter, giving us a 50% reduction in rent, from 1/2009 through 6/2009. I met with the general manager last week and she's agreed to continue the rent relief for an additional 6 months. If you need more information, please contact Julie Garcia, General Manager, Irvine Company Retail Properties, 100 Innovation Dr, Irvine, CA 92617, (949) 720-3121,jugarcia@irvinecompany.com. • Attached is a copy of emails from Todd, District Sales Manager, Dart Cup Ltd. and Jon Amack, Co -Founder, Booster Juice LLC, explaining the cost of switching to a new cup for which we alone would have to pay. Please excuse the informality of the emails. If you need more information, please contact Jon Amack, Co -Founder, Booster Juice LLC, 14511 Westlake Dr, #200, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, (503) 675-7511, jamack@boosterjuice.com. • I searched for alternative cups online as well as at local stores Smart & Final and Restaurant Depot, where they mainly carry plastic cups, which are not only more expensive but also not endorsed by the Earth Resources Foundation. I also talked with Peggy from the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, who said she would bring up my request to their next meeting. We hope the above information would help in your decision to grant us an exemption for one year. Please call me at 949-515-3685 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your consideration. Si�ly> Calvin Nguyen Manager Westcliff Plaza 1 1124 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 515-3685 1 www.boosterjuice.com I (949) 515-3703 (fax) IRVINE COMPANY Since 1864 VIA MESSENGER John Fernando Leonila Fernando Diversified Group LLC2 1124Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 RETAIL PROPERTIES February 10, 2009 RE: SECOND AMENDMENT to that certain Lease dated May25, 2006 (as amended) ("Lease") between The Irvine Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as Landlord, and Diversified Group LLC, a California limited liability company, dba Booster Juice, as Tenant, for Premisessituated in Westcliff Plaza Shopping Center, Newport Beach, California ("Premises") Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fernando: This letter ("Amendment"), when executed by authorized representatives of Landlord and Tenant will amend the subject lease as follows: A. Deferral of Base Rent. Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that for the period commencing on January 1, 2009 and continuing until June 30, 2009 ("Base Rent Deferral Period"), in lieu of the Base Rent required under Section 1.8 of the Lease, Tenant will pay the greater of: (i) ten percent (10%) of all Gross Sales earned during the Base Rent Deferral Period, or (ii) 50% of the monthly Base Rent set forth in Section 1.8 of the Lease ("Reduced Rent"). In no event shall the granting of this Base Rent Deferral Period modify the Term of the Lease; accordingly, the expiration date of the Term of the Lease remains October 31, 2013 ("Lease Expiration Date"). In addition to paying Reduced Rent during the Base Rent Deferral Period, Tenant shall continue to pay (1) Percentage Rent (except that (a) for purposes of computing Percentage Rent, it shall be assumed that the Tenant has paid the amount of Base Rent set forth in Section 1.8 of the Lease without giving effect to this Amendment and (b) the "Breakpoint" as defined in Section 3.2 of the Lease shall remain unchanged and calculated based on the Percentage Rate set forth in Section 1.9 and the Base Rent set forth in Section 1.8), and (2) Additional Rent due under the Lease, Including, but not limited to Tenant's share of Common Area Expenses, Taxes, and insurance premiums, and the Promotional Charge. All charges due from Tenant during the Base Rent Deferral Period, otherthan Reduced Rent under this Paragraph A(i) above, shall continue to be paid by Tenant to Landlord by the 18, day of each month therein. Any Additional Reduced Rent required underA(i) above (in excess of the Reduced Rent described under A(ii) above) shall be due and payable one month in arrears with the submittal of Tenant's monthly statement of Gross Sales required under Section 3.2 of the Lease. From and after July 1, 2009, Tenant shall pay Base Rent in accordance with Section 1.8 of the Lease. 100 Innovation Drive, Irvine, CA 92617 949.720.3100 John Fernando Leonila Fernando February 10, 2009 Page 2 B. Application of Refunds or Reconciliations. The difference between (i) the Base Rent payable by Tenant under the Lease without reduction, deduction or offset during the Term (including the Base Rent Deferral Period) and (11) amount received by Landlord for the Reduced Rent under this Amendment is. referred to as the "Deferral Amount". During the Term, any amounts due and owing from Landlord to Tenant, including, but not limited to, any refunds or reconciliations of Common Area Expenses, Taxes, insurance premiums, Percentage Rent or otherwise, shall be applied to the (a) Deferral Amount, and/or (b) any outstanding balance under the Lease and shall not be payable to Tenant. Once the Deferral Amount has been recaptured in full and there are no other charges due and owing under the Lease, any further refunds or reconciliations shall be payable to Tenant in accordance with the terms of the Lease. C. Forgiveness of Deferral Amount. Provided Tenant remains open and operating in the Premises during the entire Term, Landlord shall forgive the Deferral Amount or any remaining balance thereof on the Lease Expiration Date. In the event of a termination of the Lease prior to the Lease Expiration Date (except in the event Landlord recaptures the Premises as provided in Paragraph D below), the Deferral Amount or any balance thereof shall be immediately due and payable to Landlord. D. Landlord's Right to Recapture the Premises. Landlord shall have the right, for any reason, to terminate the Lease upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party ("Termination Notice"). Following delivery of the Termination Notice, Tenant agrees to (1) vacate the Premises within 30 days after the date of the Termination Notice ("Termination Date"); (ii) pay all charges due under the Lease through the Termination Date; and (III) leave the Premises in a broom clean condition with all movable furniture; trade fixtures and equipment removed from the Premises. Tenant's failure to vacate the Premises on or before the Termination Date shall be deemed a default under the Lease and in such event Landlord may seek all remedies available at law or in equity including, but not limited to, a suit for damages or an action for specific performance or injunction. All remedies provided within the Lease or by law or in equity shall be cumulative and nonexclusive. Subject to the timely and full performance of all of its obligations contained herein, Tenant shall be released from its obligations under the Lease from and after the Termination Date; provided, however, it is specifically agreed that Tenant shall not be released from its obligation to Indemnify Landlord, as set forth in Section 12.2 of the Lease, with respect to any matter arising out of any event occurring prior to the Termination Date or any act or omission of Tenant. E. Effect of Amendments. Except to the extent the Lease is modified by this Amendment, the remaining terms and provisions of the Lease shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. In the event of conflict between the terms of the Lease and the terms of this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail. All other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain the same. John Fernando Leonila Fernando February 10, 2009 Page 3 F. Defined Terms. All words commencing with initial capital letters in this Amendment and not defined In this Amendment, but defined in the Lease, shall have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the Lease. G. Representation. Tenant represents that as of the date of this Amendment Landlord has not failed to perform and is not in any respect in default in the performance of any of its obligations under the Lease, nor are there any conditions which, with notice, the passage of time, or both, could be declared a default on the part of Landlord. H. Rights Personal to Tenant. The provisions of this Amendment shall be personal to Tenant and the rights contained therein shall automatically cease and terminate in the event of any Assignment of the Lease (as defined in Article 10 of the Lease). I. Defaults. The provisions of this Amendment shall be deemed canceled in the event of any default by Tenant (as provided in Article 15 of the Lease) under the Lease or this Amendment beyond any applicable cure period. In such event, all modifications to Tenants monetary obligations as set forth in this Amendment shall be immediately null and void, and Tenant shall promptly pay to Landlord all amounts which would have:been payable had this Amendment not been entered into. J. Confidentiality. Tenant hereby acknowledges that a material consideration for Landlord entering into this Amendment is Tenants agreement that the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall be kept strictly confidential. In the event Tenant breaches this covenant, all modifications to Tenants monetary obligations as set forth in this Amendment shall be immediately null and void, and Tenant shall promptly pay to Landlord all amounts which would have been payable by Tenant as if this Amendment had not been entered into. Please indicate Tenant's agreement to the foregoing by causing all four (4) copies of this letter to be executed on behalf of Tenant and returning them to the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Upon your return of Tenant- signed counterparts, I will have them executed by Landlord, and thereafter one (1) fully executed counterpart of the letter will be returned to you. The modifications to the Lease set forth in this letter shall be effective only upon return to you of a counterpart of this letter executed by authorized representative of both parties. John Fernando Leonila Fernando February 10, 2009 Page 4 Please call me at (949) 720-3121 if you have any questions. Very truly yours IRVINE COMPANY W �� Julie Garcia General Manager, Retail Properties Agreed and accepted this 1�16e2 day of %%a t rLr , 200 }. TENANT: LANDLORD: DIVERSIFIED GROUP LLC, THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC, a California limited liability company a Delaware limited liability companyGP By: Q By: e4—� Name. fir' Name: Janice A. Fuchs Title: n --ice— Title: V.P. Operations, Retail Properties By: Name: Title: CONSENT OF GUARANTORS: By: Name: Lee Burckle Title: Assistant Secretary We, the undersign siCv�t@cantors of the Lease, consent to the modifications herein and agree to remain bound by he arms the Lease, as amended. John Fernando dd Leonila Fernando YA E-100t SMALL BUSINESS Email RE: Newport rule on Polystyrene - From: "Jon Amack" <Jamack@boosterJuice.com> To: "cnguyen@boosterJuice.com" <cnguyen@boosterJulce.com> Cc: "BeJan Hendlfar" <bhendifar@boosterJuice.com> You bet. Friday, March 6, 2009 5:10 PM Increased Cost, you would be the only store to need it, so the distributor won't order it without you buying the minimum which is 50,000 cups of each size. Rough estimate, that's about 15,000 dollars worth of cups you would have to order and pay for. If everyone required it at the same time, this would not be an issue, but we spread this cost over all the markets split up among distributors. I assume you don't have that cash hanging around? O Paper will be roughly 30% more on average. We are working on this. but the issue with minimum order to run is the big hardship. Reduced Profit, 3c roughly per drink. That's about 1 % higher food cost? Review this with Bejan, and he can double check with Richard on pricing estimate for the paper. Lower performing: Grab a paper cup, make yourself a smoothie. You'll get the picture. Cold hand, melt faster. Todd won't have the answers to this, he's foam only Dart rep. Jon Amack 503.715.9840 (Direct) jamack@boosterjuice.com www.booster*uice.com "You are what you eat .... drink smoothies!" From: Booster Juice Newport Beach [mailto:cnguyen@boosteduice.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 4:02 PM To: Jon Amack Cc: Bejan Hendifar Subject: Re: Newport rule on Polystyrene - Jon, I contacted the City of NB and they said I have to submit a written request explaining the extreme hardship, with as much supporting info as possible. I think it would help to have some estimated numbers like Todd suggested: * increased costs = how much? * reduced profits = how much? * fewer customers = I got this * lower performing cup not meeting the standards of Booster Juice = how so? If you have any of the above, that would help. Or if it's more convenient, let me have Todd's email/phone and I'll talk with him directly. Thanks. Calvin From: Jon Amack <jamack@boosterjuice.com> Subject: Newport rule on Polystyrene - To: "Nguyen, My-Trang" <forgetmynot@landam.com>, "cnguyen@boosterjuice.com" <cnguyen@boosterjuice.com> Cc: "Bejan at Yahoo" <bejanhendifar@yahoo.com>, "tatdat@datnguyen.com" <tatdat@datnguyen.com> Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 10:52 AM Hi My-Trang and Calvin, please see attached order by the city of Newport. Additionally, read the note below from our cup provider. We have been working in the background at a few possible solutions. Given the state of the economy and businesses in general, as well as yours, I think Todd's suggestion is a very good one. Please review the new law and put in a request for exemption based on hardship. Let me know if you haveanyquestions. Jon -----Original Message ----- From: Todd from Dart Cup Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 7:47 AM To: Jon Amack Subject: RE: paper Hi Jon, It is clear that the city of Newport Beach wants to ban polystyrene foam. However, there is a section in the letter that says your franchisee can claim hardship. I think this is the way to go on this. In today economy with business slowing down the city is forcing them to move to a higher cost cup - either paper or biodegradable - which will increase their costs and further reduce profits. The city of Los Angeles is recycling polystyrene foam in their blue boxes, why isn't the City of Newport Beach. Also making them switch to another cup will not reduce the litter on the beach or in the ocean. Therefore, I suggest your franchisee request an exception to the law based on hardship of making a switch due to increased costs and reduced profits due to higher costs, fewer customers due to the economy and a lower performing cup not meeting the standards of Booster Juice. let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything else I can do to help. Todd District Sales Manager Dart Cup Ltd. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 19, 2009 Mr. Calvin Nguy6h. Manager Booster Juice 1124 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your letter of May 8, 2009, discussing your difficulty in complying with the City's ordinance eliminating the use of expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware. The ordinance does provide that an exemption for up to one year may be granted if it is found that the ordinance would create an undue hardship for a business. In order for me to make such a determination, I need some additional factual information from you, as follows. 1. Evidence of financial relief granted by your landlord and business partners; 2. Documentation of cost estimate of $15,000 to switch to a different kind of cups; 3. Documentation of corporate's inability or unwillingness to assist with switching to a different kind of cups; and 4. Evidence that you have sought assistance from the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, Earth Resources Foundation or another organization in finding replacement cups that would be affordable to your business. In addition, you need to be more specific about the length of the time extension you are requesting. When I receive this information from you, I will render a decision on your request promptly. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 2,00MVP VrJulee May 8, 2009 Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manager 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms Wood, We are writing to request an extension in compliance with Ordinance 2008-17, the new law that prohibits the use of EPS (Styrofoam) by June 1, 2009. We own a smoothie store, Booster Juice, a franchise based out of Canada. Three years ago, the franchiser had an ambitious plan to expand to the US, with several stores opening in California and Arizona. Unfortunately, this happened to coincide with the slowdown in the US economy and many stores have since closed. Even our US corporate in Oregon had to file for bankruptcy recently. Since opening in February 2007, we've been struggling to survive and have asked for financial relief from our landlord and business partners. We are grateful for their understanding and hope to be able to ride out this recession and turn profitable. The only Styrofoam item we use in our store are the smoothie cups, imprinted with the Booster Juice logo. We contacted our US corporate for guidance, as well as the current supplier, and were told it would cost about $15,000 to switch to a different kind of cups and obviously, corporate is in no position to help. With the tough economy, the recent corporate's bankruptcy filing, and the uncertainty overall, we are doing what we can to keep our store open. We are not sure what will happen in the next few months, and we cannot afford to invest in a new cup. We hope that based on our extreme hardship, you'll grant us an extension beyond the June 1, 2009 deadline. Please call me at 949-515-3685 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your consideration. Sinceyely, Calvin Nguyen Manager Westcliff Plaza 11241rvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 515-3685 www.boostequice.com 1 (949) 515-3703 (fax) ORDINANCE NO.2008-17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ELIMINATING THE USE OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH'S CORPORATE LIMITS WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Is not biodegradable and as a result persists In the environment for hundreds and possibly thousands of years; and WHEREAS, EPS material easily breaks down into smaller pieces and is so light that it floats in water and is easily carried by the wind, even when it has been disposed of properly; and WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of EPS debris in the environment, including In storm drains and on beaches; and WHEREAS, marine animals and birds often confuse EPS for a source of food and the ingestion of EPS often results in reduced appetite and nutrient absorption and possible death by starvation of birds and marine animals; and WHEREAS, due to the physical properties of polystyrene, the EPA states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy." and WHEREAS, there are several alternatives to EPS disposable food service ware available in Newport Beach from existing packaging suppliers; and WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to reduce the amount of marine pollution and to protect local wildlife, both of which increase the quality of life to Newport Beach residents and visitors, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 6.05 is hereby added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 6.05.010. Definitions. A. Biodegradable refers to the ability of a material to decompose into elements normally found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal. B. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Newport Beach, Its agent, agencies, departments and franchisees. C. "Customer" means any person obtaining prepared food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. D. "Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any restaurant or retail food vendor directly places or packages prepared foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for takeout foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at restaurants or retail food vendors. E. Expanded Polystyrene" (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or "blown" using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam. EPS is sometimes called "Styrofoam"; a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation. F. "Food Vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor located or operating within the City of Newport Beach. G. "Polystyrene" means and includes expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). H. "Prepared Food" means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the food vendor' s premises and within the City of Newport Beach with the intent of consumption on or off the premises, as the balance of an unfinished meal or as "takeout food". For the purposes of this ordinance, "prepared food" does not include raw, butchered, ground, chopped, or sliced meats, fish- and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retailrappliancefor subsequent preparation. I. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by customers. "Restaurant," for purposes of this Chapter, includes mobile food preparation units as defined in chapters 6.08.120 and 6.08.130 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. J. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a restaurant, located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food. Chapter 6.05.020. Prohibited food service ware. A. Except as provided in section 6.05.030 of this Chapter, food vendors are prohibited from providing prepared food to customers in disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene. B. All City Facilities, City -managed concessions, City sponsored events, and City permitted events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene. Chapter 6.05.030. Exemptions. A. Prepared foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Newport Beach are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. B. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: In a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City facilities, food vendors, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Chapter 6.06.040. Undue Hardship. A. The City Manager or his/her designee may exempt a food provider from the requirements of this ordinance for up to a one year period, based upon a written request from the applicant containing sufficient Information to determine that the conditions of this ordinance would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship' shall be found in the following situations: 1. Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware and compliance with this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to that food provider, 2. Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene food service ware. A food vendor granted an exemption by the City must reapply prior to the end of the exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, If it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. B. An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the Assistant City Manager or his/her designee to make his/her decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Assistant City Manager or his/her designee may require the applicant to provide additional Information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. C. The Assistant City Manager or his/her designee may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. D. Exemption decisions are effective within thirty (30) days, unless appealed to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days. The City Manager's decision shall be final. Chapter 6.05.060. Enforcement. A. Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Section 1.04.010, and shall be subject to citation and fines pursuant to Chapter 1.05, Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. SECTION 2. if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 180 days from Its adoption. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on October 14, 2008, and adopted on October 28, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Rosansky, Daigle, Webb, Curry, Gardner, Mayor Selich. NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS None ABSENT, COUNCLI ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harklese, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2008-17 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 28th day of October 2008, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Rosansky, Daigle, Webb, Curry, Gardner, Mayor Selich Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 29�b day of October 2008. City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California (Seal) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } 1, LAVONNE M. HAR.KLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. 2008.16 has been duly and regularly published according to law and the order of the City Council of said City and that same was so published in The Daily Pilot, a daily newspaper of general circulation on the following date, to wit: November 1, 2008. 04 In witness whereof; I have hereunto subscribed my name this day of City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 8, 2009 Mr. Michael Ring, COO Jay's Catering 10581 Garden Grove Blvd. Garden Grove, CA 92843 Dear Mr. Ring: Thank you for your email of May 26, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS). Thank you also for making the switch to biodegradable disposable products! I understand from the information in the email and attachments that your business uses a proprietary EPS product called a "Chef Caddy" to keep your catered foot hot or cold for a period of 4 hours. I also understand that your business picks up this caddy from the customer the following business day so that the caddy may be reused in subsequent catering jobs. Therefore, the Chef Caddy does not constitute disposable EPS food service ware and is not subject to the City's ban on EPS. copiedI have t they are awre of your use of conforming Enforcement 'n this letter ng products. you for your serous and aprompt attention to this City ordinance. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Cc: John Kappeler, Code and Water Quality Enforcement Kathlyn Bowden, Economic Development City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 • www.city.newport-beach.ca.us CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 2, 2009 Mr. Calvin Nguyen. Manager Booster Juice 1124 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your follow-up letter of May 2, 2009. 1 understand from the information in the letter and attachments that you have received a 50% rental reduction to help your business stay at its present location, that the Booster Juice parent corporation will not assist you with conversion to another product and you would have to pay the full cost of a minimum order of non-EPS cups ($15,000), and that you have sought assistance from the resources suggested by the City. This information demonstrates that your business has a unique situation, and there are no reasonable alternatives that would not cause your business significant economic hardship. Therefore, I am approving an extension to allow you to continue using Styrofoam cups for six months, until December 1, 2009. Thank you for your serious and prompt attention to this City ordinance, and I hope this extension helps you to keep your business in Newport Beach. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard ^ Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 ^ www.city.newuort-beach.ca.us CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 2, 2009 Mr. Douglas Bishop My Galley 500 W. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Mr. Bishop: Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS), I understand that, as a new owner of the business, you received late notice of the ordinance; and I am sorry that our Code Enforcement staff was unable to give you information about the ordinance when you contacted them. I believe that your late notice and your recent purchase of supplies constitute a unique situation for your business, and that requiring your business to cease use of EPS cups immediately would cause significant economic hardship. Therefore, I am granting an exemption to allow you to continue to use EPS cups until August 1, 2009. Thank you for your serious and prompt attention to this City ordinance. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard a Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92659-R915 • www.ritv.nevmnrt-I)Pnn1l rs na CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 5, 2009 Mr. Luke Martin; General Manager The Original Mama D's Italian Kitchen 3012 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your e-mail of June 3, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS). Thank you also for making the switch to paper productsl I understand that you still have a small supply of Styrofoam containers, and the loss of that product would cause economic hardship for your business. Therefore, I am granting an exemption to allow you to continue to use EPS cups until June 26, 2009. Thank you for your serious and prompt attention to this City ordinance. Sincerely, 44 Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 29, 2009 Mr. Richard Greene, Director Nutrition Services Department Newport -Mesa Unified School District 2985 Bear Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Greene: Thank you for your e-mail of July 8, 2009, regarding the City's ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS). Thank you also for the School District's switch to biodegradable paper trays and other non-EPS materials. I understand that, for certain meals at elementary schools that include sauces or gravies, you have not been able to find a reasonably feasible alternative to EPS five - compartment trays, and eliminating their use for certain meals would constitute an undue hardship for the School District. Therefore, I am granting an exemption to allow you to continue to use EPS five -compartment trays for meals that include sauces or gravies at elementary schools until June 1, 2010. You may not be aware of this, but the impetus for the City's ordinance banning the use of EPS products was a group of students from Corona del Mar High School. Therefore I believe it is important that the School District do everything it can to implement the ordinance. I thank you for the progress you have made, and I hope that you will be able to find a feasible alternative to the EPS five -compartment trays within the year. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 • www.city.newport-beach.ca.us 6/3/09 Dear Sharon, My name is Luke, and I am the GM of The Original Matra D's Italian Kitchen at 3012 Newport Blvd., just up the street from City Hall in Newport Beach. I am writing today to request a brief extension on the use of Styrofoam containers in order to exhaust our supply, and ininimi ze loss and waste. We have made the switch to paper products and are eager to reduce our impact on the environment and comply with city regulations. However, we still have roughly two weeks supply of Styrofoam cups on our shelves. If you would be so kind as to grant us a two -three week, extension, and allow us to use the remainder of our stock, we would be most grateful. That period of time should be more than su£1•-tcient, especially since our busy summer season begins on Monday. I look forward to your response. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide. Sincerely, Luke The O l Mama D's Italian Kitchen Work:949-675-6262 Mobile: 949-698-2040 Dear Newport Beach Restaurant Owner, We have been working with the Surf & Environmental Class at Newport Harbor High School for the last several years on environmental stewardship. Polystyrene (Styrofoam) is one of the most numerous items the students have found on our beaches. Because of their efforts, they have eliminated polystyrene at their schools and initiated the City of Newport Beach to eliminate it in their facilities and from the city. Now, they are requesting your help in helping keep our beaches, marine wildlife and bodies free of polystyrene and more Importantly have a more environmentally responsible city. We hope that you will take the time to evaluate your food service products. We understand the challenge of providing food in convenient, affordable and appealing containers which are not damaging to our environment, health and economies. We truly appreciate the time you are taking to meet with us and your interest in being part of the solution. This is a process and we are here to help guide, provide resources and work through the challenges together so we can all live in a world that is harmonious with the natural environment, our communities and future generations. Our goal at Earth Resource Foundation is to provide you with the resources you need. Through our "Zero in on Zero Waste" business program, we are able to help reduce your waste to landfill, incineration and the environment by becoming more efficient with your processes and therefore saving lots of moneyl The goal for food service products is to: Reduce the amount purchased and used (does everyone need a straw, do plastic utensils need to be wrapped in plastic) Reusable products (the cost of transportation, purchasing disposables, trash hauling outweighs the use of water and staff costs for reusables) Recycle and compost— close the loop by buying products made from recycled paper or plastic and which can then be recycled into the same product or composted to renew our soils. In order for us to truly understand and find solutions to food service products, here are a few facts and ground rules to start the decision making process: 1) Polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam) food service products are the CHEAPEST product available. We can NOT find a product that competes with polystyrene and this is the biggest challenge for the environment, government and businesses. 2) Polystyrene is one of the top three items found on our beaches according to the California Coastal Commission (cigarette butts are number one). There is six times more plastic than plankton by weight in the Pacific Gyre (www.algailta.org) and 86% of ocean trash is plastic. 3) Polystyrene is made from natural gas and oil, which are nonrenewable resources. It also contains the toxic chemical styrene (see attached health report). If you ingest things out of Styrofoam cups and containers four times a day for about three years, you'll also have eaten the equivalent of an entire take- out cup. Styrene builds up in the tissues of the brain and affects the nervous system. Styrene molecules travel into your food faster when the food is hot and high in fat. 4) Polystyrene is very difficult to recycle (especially when contaminated with food). 25,000,000,000 styrofoam cups are thrown away each year! It is light weight which makes it hard to transport and contain. It breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, takes 100s of years to biodegrade and very hard to pick up on our beaches. Less than 3% of all plastic is recycled. 5) Over 1,000,000 birds and sea mammals die every year from plastic ingestion or..entanglement. There are enough chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) embedded In a single styrofoam cooler to destroy all the ozone over an area the size of 20 football fields. The styrofoam cups Americans use each year could form a chain that would circle the Earth 436 times. 6) As for health effeots, styrene can mimic estrogen In the human body. This means that it could possibly contribute to hormone problems, thyroid problems, breast cancer and prostate cancer. The World Health Organization considers styrene to be a carcinogen. 7) THIS IS A MORAL QUESTION[ We cannot find a product that is cheaper than polystyrene but we can find lots of products and Zero Waste processes that will save you money in purchasing, waste hauling and good public relations. Polystyrene has many hidden cost to our environment, health and communities future generations are already paying the costs of our decisions we are making today. THE NEXT STEPS The key to saving our environment by banning Styrofoam is to take action at the city level and the place to begin Is your businesses in the City of Newport Beach. We must begin using sensible alternatives to polystyrene products. Ridding businesses of polystyrene products will save the environment, save our good health, and save you money, but most importantly save our planet for the good of our children. I am available at 949-645.5163 or Stephanie barceroearthresource orp to answer any questions and provide assistance. Yours in Zero Wasting, Stephanie Barger Executive Director TOM DALY ORANGE COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER ORANGE COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER'S OFFICE 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 106, P.O. BOX 238, Santa Ana, CA 92702 web: www.oc.ca.gov/recorder/ PHONE (714) 834-5284 FAX (714) 834-2500 RECEIVED BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92685 DEC 16 2008 Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH Memorandum SUBJECT: NOTICE OF EXEMPTION The attached notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 10/29/2008 It remained posted for 30 (thirty) days. TOM DALY ORANGE COUNTY CLERK - RECORDER In and for the County of Orange By: ADRIENNE GARCIA Public Resource Code 21092.3 Deputy The notice required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section required by law to be posted for 30 days The County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hors of receipt. Public Resource Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. *** Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency *** within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY 'o DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Lead Agency: l F I CountylState Agency of /Filing: Project Title: orchY\G Project Applicant Name: Project Applicant Address: G City Dale: Doco ument No.: 365863 I Zip Cade Project Applicant (check appropriate pox): *Local Public Agency ❑ School District ❑ Other Special District ❑ State Agency ❑ Private Entity Check Aoolicable Fees: Environmental Impact Report NegahveDeclaration Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs I ounty,•tdministrative Fee am& \'ter C roject That Is exempt from fees-� �' e (Ot 3 Notice of Exemption DFG No Effect Determination (Form A the ) Signature and title of person receiving WHITE-PROJECTAPPLICANT $2606.75 $ $1876.75 $ $886.25 $ $886.25 $ $50.00 $ I r // TOTAL RECEIVED GOLDENROD -COUNTY CLERK FG753,5a(Rev,11/07) • � y Aq j k ORANGE CUTY RECORDER TOM DALY J. finalization 20080000276000 1.0/29/2008 OM4am l j 90 150 s - Item Title Count f v 1 Z01 --- --i ,.. EIR Adrollrustr-ative fee f !ocument_D Amount J_C* 2:200 001500: iJJ 0.00 is Recardei! 09:34 am Total - - 50.00 Payment Type Amount No Fee 50.00 Amount Due 0.00 Thank You Please Retain This Receipt For Your 'Records POSTED h OCT 2 9 2008 TOM FILED OCT 2 9 2008 TOh ALY,CLERK•RECORDER By DEPUTY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 a`Foar Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Torn Daly, Clerk -Recorder LIIIIII!II!!I111111lil!lil!NIIIIII1111111111I1HE111111111111111111NO FEE 200885001133 09:34am 10/29/08 90 160 Z01 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: From: of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Department ❑Office P.O. BOX 3044 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 County Clerk, County of Orange Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Public Services Division Santa Ana, CA 92702 Project Title: Ordinance banning the use of disposable expanded polystyrene food service ware Project Location — Specific Newport Beach corporate limits Project Location - City: Newport Beach I Project Location — County Orange Project Description: At their October 28, 2008 meeting, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2008-17 banning the use of disposable expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam ® food service ware within Newport Beach's corporate limits. Exempt Status: (check one) ❑ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1);15268);��l� ❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); ❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c); p( Categorical Exemption. State type and section number Existing Class 7, §15307 & Class 8, §15308 ❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number - General Rule (Sec. 15061(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: The ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because the ordinance will maintain, restore or enhance a natural resource (Class 7 Exemption -14 California Code of Regulations Section 15307); ensure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment (Class 8 Exemption - 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15308); and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment (Common Sense Exemption). Specifically, among other things, the attached ordinance will reduce the amount of litter that does not decompose and Is not readily recyclable from ending up in landfills as well as the City's storm drains, rivers, streams, bay, ocean and beaches, protecting wildlife and the environment. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Newport Beach Date of Approval: October 28, 2008 Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Newport Beach Contact Person: K thlyn Bowden Title: Ec omit Development Coordinator Signature: "«� Tel. No. (949)644-3230 Date: October 28, 2008 / I Updated 9/11/2007 I:\Users\PLN\Shared\ECONDEVT\Styrofoam Ban\Final Reports\Notice of Exemption.doc Authorized to Publish Advertisements or all kinds including public notices by RECEIVED Decree of the Superior Court of orange County, California. Number A-6214, September 29, 1961.and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 5S. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA 'MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: November 1, 2008 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 3, 2008 at Costa Mesa,California. � '1,UdF L/.ice �— Signatu e IMS t1DV -S 01 9- 01 (�mrYv r�F V�rr'N lr w CITY OF BEAC RT CITY COUNCIL STOAFFF REPORT FILE COPY Agenda Item No. 27 _ October 14, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Kathlyn Bowden, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator 949/644-3230 or kbowdenO-citv.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ELIMINATING THE USE OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH'S CORPORATE LIMITS ISSUE: Should the City Council adopt an ordinance eliminating the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) commonly known as Styrofoam ® disposable food service ware? RECOMMENDATION: Introduce the proposed ordinance banning expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam ®) food service ware within Newport Beach's corporate limits, and pass to second reading on October 28, 2008. DISCUSSION: Background: The issue of restricting or eliminating polystyrene food containers was first presented to the City Council in June 2007. After further research and recommendations from the community, staff presented City Council with a draft ordinance and report analyzing arguments both for and against the adoption of an ordinance banning disposable polystyrene food service ware at their September 23, 2008 study session. In addition, staff asked for specific direction related to the scope of the proposed ordinance. Council directed staff to limit the ordinance to disposable food service ware associated with the retail sale of food prepared for immediate consumption (e.g. "take out" containers) and eliminate language regulating the sale of raw or butchered meats, fish, or poultry utilizing polystyrene containers. Council also directed staff to pursue talks with Dart Container Corporation, a company specializing in the recycling of polystyrene, Ordinance Eliminating Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Ware October 14, 2008 Page 2 for the recycling of other disposable polystyrene materials, such as packaging materials, within the City of Newport Beach. Proposed Ordinance The attached ordinance includes the provisions directed by the City Council on September 23, 2008. In addition, the ordinance provides an exemption clause in the case of an undue hardship. As proposed, an "undue hardship" shall be found in situations where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene (EPS) disposable food service ware and compliance with the ordinance would cause significant economic hardship; or no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary EPS food service ware item. A food vendor granted an exemption by the City must reapply prior to the end of the exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. If the ordinance is adopted with a second reading on October 28, 2008, the ordinance will be effective on April 26, 2009. Environmental Review: Based on the documents and information received by the City Council, EPS causes a significant impact on the environment because the improper disposal of EPS (which does not decompose and readily breaks up into small particles) ends up in storm drains, rivers, streams, bay, ocean, and beaches causing a major threat to wildlife. Furthermore, because EPS does not decompose and there is no meaningful recycling of food service EPS, it either accumulates in landfills or pollutes the environment due to improper disposal. The attached ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because the ordinance will maintain, restore or enhance a natural resource (Class 7 Exemption - 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15307); ensure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment (Class 8 Exemption - 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15308); and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment (Common Sense Exemption). Specifically, among other things, the attached ordinance will reduce the amount of litter that does not decompose and is not readily recyclable from ending up in landfills as well as the City's storm drains, rivers, streams, bay, ocean and beaches, protecting wildlife and the environment. Public Notice: No notice other than posting of the agenda is required for this action. 2 Ordinance Eliminating Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Ware October 14, 2008 Page 3 Prepared by: THLYN BOWDEN Economic Development Lrdinator Submitted by: HARON Z. . OOD Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. City Council Staff Report and Attachments, September 23, 2008 THIS PANE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Attachment 1 T THIS PAGE LEFT BLAND INTENTIONALLY If ORDINANCE No. 2008- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ELIMINATING THE USE OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH'S CORPORATE LIMITS WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is not biodegradable and as a result persists in the environment for hundreds and possibly thousands of years; and WHEREAS, EPS material easily breaks down into smaller pieces and is so light that it floats in water and is easily carried by the wind, even when it has been disposed of properly; and WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of EPS debris in the environment, including in storm drains and on beaches; and WHEREAS, marine animals and birds often confuse EPS for a source of food and the ingestion of EPS often results in reduced appetite and nutrient absorption and possible death by starvation of birds and marine animals; and WHEREAS, due to the physical properties of polystyrene, the EPA states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy." and WHEREAS, there are several alternatives to EPS disposable food service ware available in Newport Beach from existing packaging suppliers; and WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to reduce the amount of marine pollution and to protect local wildlife, both of which increase the quality of life to Newport Beach residents and visitors, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 6.05 is hereby added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 6.05.010. Definitions. A. "Biodegradable" refers to the ability of a material to decompose into elements normally found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal. B. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Newport Beach, its agent, agencies, departments and franchisees. C. "Customer" means any person obtaining prepared food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. D. "Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any restaurant or retail food vendor directly places or packages prepared foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for takeout foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at restaurants or retail food vendors. E. Expanded Polystyrene" (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or "blown" using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam. EPS is sometimes called "Styrofoam"; a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation. F. "Food Vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor located or operating within the City of Newport Beach. G. "Polystyrene" means and includes expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). H. "Prepared Food" means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the food vendor' s premises and within the City of Newport Beach with the intent of consumption on or off the premises, as the balance of an unfinished meal or as "takeout food". For the purposes of this ordinance, "prepared food" does not include raw, butchered, ground, chopped, or sliced meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance for subsequent preparation. I. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by customers. "Restaurant," for purposes of this Chapter, includes mobile food preparation units as defined in chapters 6.08.120 and 6.08.130 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. J. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a restaurant, located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food. Chapter 6.06.020. Prohibited food service ware. A. Except as provided in section 6.05.030 of this Chapter, food vendors are prohibited from providing prepared food to customers in disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene. B. All City Facilities, City -managed concessions, City sponsored events, and City permitted events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene. 2 Chapter 6.05.030. Exemptions. A. Prepared foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Newport Beach are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. B. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: In a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City facilities, food vendors, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Chapter 6.05.040. Undue Hardship. A. The City Manager or his/her designee may exempt a food provider from the requirements of this ordinance for up to a one year period, based upon a written request from the applicant containing sufficient information to determine that the conditions of this ordinance would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" shall be found in the following situations: 1. Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware and compliance with this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to that food provider; 2. Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene food service ware. A food vendor granted an exemption by the City must reapply prior to the end of the exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. B. An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the Assistant City Manager or his/her designee to make his/her decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Assistant City Manager or his/her designee may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. C. The Assistant City Manager or his/her designee may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. D. Exemption decisions are effective within thirty (30) days, unless appealed to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days. The City Manager's decision shall be final. I Chapter 6.05.060. Enforcement. A. Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Section 1.04.010, and shall be subject to citation and fines pursuant to Chapter 1.05, Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 180 days from its adoption. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on October 14, 2008, and adopted on October 28, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: CITY CLERK in Attachment 2 ��-. 2�i, 2trv� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE COPY CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. ss3 September 23, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Kathlyn Bowden, AICP; Economic Development Coordinator 949/644-3230 or kbowden(a)city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ELIMINATING THE USE OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH'S CORPORATE LIMITS ISSUE: Should the City Council pursue an ordinance eliminating the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) commonly known as Styrofoam ® disposable food service ware? RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION: Background Over the last couple of years, the issue of restricting or eliminating polystyrene food containers has been raised several times. The issue was presented to the City Council in June 2007 with a request for policy direction (see Attachment 1). In response, the City Council approved increased enforcement of and penalties for littering and increased City actions to keep trash out of the storm drain system. In addition, Council prohibited City use of polystyrene at all City facilities, City -sponsored events and events needing a Special Event Permit. In April 2008, the City Council received presentations from students at Mariners' Elementary School and Newport Harbor High School regarding the environmental effects of polystyrene (Styrofoam 0), and a request for the City Council to ban its use. Non -Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 2 The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) also conducted its own research into the effects of polystyrene and actions taken by other cities to ban its use. At its meeting of May 19, 2008, EQAC unanimously approved a memorandum (see Attachment 2) to the Mayor and Council, recommending that "the City of Newport Beach take action to limit, and eventually ban, the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials." More specifically, EQAC recommended an ordinance that would take effect within one year. At their June 10, 2008 meeting, staff presented City Council with a report requesting direction to staff regarding EQAC's recommendations, and informed the Council that preparation of an ordinance would require staff time for additional research, coordination with the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, and analysis of economic impacts and means of enforcement. Council directed staff to draft an ordinance banning the use of disposable polystyrene food service ware. Analysis In preparing a draft ordinance, staff researched similar ordinances in various California cities. Specifically, staff contacted the City of Laguna Beach, the City of Santa Monica, and the City of Oakland regarding the success of their ordinances, their exemptions policy and process, and enforcement procedures. Staff was pleased to learn that all three communities have had little resistance to the ban of polystyrene food containers in their communities and have found it necessary to grant only a few limited exemptions to the ordinance. We also learned that staff in the cities of Santa Monica and Oakland undertook a significant educational effort prior to the implementation of their ordinances. This educational effort was believed responsible for smoothing the transition and significantly reducing the number of exemptions requested. Based on information gathered, staff prepared a draft ordinance (see Attachment 3). The draft ordinance eliminates polystyrene food ware use by food vendors and prohibits its use for locally packaged grocery products such as meat, fruit or vegetables. It originally contained a one-year educational period prior to enforcement. The delay in the effective date was to allow food vendors sufficient time to learn about the ordinance and locate alternative products, and deplete current inventories of material rather than having to dispose of them at a loss. Staff provided the preliminary draft ordinance to the Newport Beach Restaurant Association (NBRA) prior to their Board meeting of July 23, 2008. Staff attended the Board meeting to hear their comments on the proposed draft ordinance and answer questions. NBRA Board members raised concerns related to the enforcement of the ordinance, stating that enforcement measures should be evenly distributed among both large and small, franchised chains and "mom-and-pop" restaurants alike. It was Non -Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 3 suggested that a blanket standard condition be placed against all incoming restaurant use permits, stating that polystyrene shall not be used for the restaurant's take-out containers. The Board commented that the year "phase -in" period was more than adequate, and suggested a lesser period of six months. All agreed that a strong educational effort must be undergone before the ordinance takes effect and that the Restaurant Association should take the lead in the educational process, as staff has little to no industry expertise regarding appropriate take-out alternatives, vendor relationships, etc. The draft before you (Attachment 3) has only a six month delay of the effective date. Various NBRA Board members voiced concerns over the fact that the ordinance, as proposed, does not address all polystyrene food ware and allows local grocery, convenience, and discount stores to sell Styrofoam cups and plates. The City of Laguna Beach ordinance stops the sale of Styrofoam cups and plates but allows groceries to use Styrofoam for raw meat packaging. Members of the Restaurant Association felt that the ordinance as proposed targets one particular user of polystyrene (e.g. the restaurant industry), and therefore only addresses one portion of the polystyrene problem. They would support the City Council banning the sale of polystyrene food ware within the city limits. It was also suggested by the NBRA that the City install signage along its beaches requesting visitors not to bring polystyrene to Newport Beach. Administration of the Ordinance Staff has yet to finalize the implementation measures for exemption provisions of the proposed ordinance. As proposed, the City Manager or his designee may assume that responsibility with support from General Services. However, uncertainty remains as to what conditions constitute an undue hardship for a restaurant or retail food vendor. In addition, staff has yet to determine what department will be responsible for enforcement of the ordinance. The City of Laguna Beach uses its fats, oil, and gas (FOG) inspectors as their main enforcement mechanism. Staff has yet to determine whether enforcement of the ordinance would be better left to the City's business license inspectors or Code and Water Quality Enforcement (C&WQE) officers. Likely, staff will depend heavily on the public reporting violations. Arguments in Favor of Eliminating Polystyrene Both the students and EQAC made a good case for the elimination of Styrofoam based on its environmental impacts. EQAC's research highlighted a study by the California Integrated Waste Management Board that states; "There is no meaningful recycling of food service polystyrene". In addition, since EPS does not naturally decompose, it has been postulated that the majority of EPS builds up in our landfills or pollutes the ocean. EQAC's research also cites a 2002 scientific review in the Marine Pollution Bulletin that documents the impact of plastic debris in the ocean and describes the effect as a "major threat to marine life". Scientists continue to assess plastic particulate levels in the J Non -Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 4 marine environment. If the City were to adopt an ordinance banning the use of polystyrene containers, it would join 28 California communities with some measure of EPS bans. Arauments in Favor of Allowina Polvstvrene Shortly after the City Council directed staff to develop a draft ordinance, staff was contacted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The ACC by phone and the attached e-mail(s) (see Attachment 4) submitted information suggesting that banning EPS was not likely to produce the positive environmental impacts desired. The ACC information focused on four points. First, plastic -coated paperboard containers and plastic -coated paper cups with sleeves for hot beverages require 50% more energy to produce, create nearly twice as much solid waste by volume, nearly five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly 50% more greenhouse gas emissions. According to the ACC, Chlorofluorocarbons are no longer an environmental concern as CFCs were eliminated from the EPS process in the early 1990's. Second, EPS food service ware is starting to be recycled. Thus, banning EPS could kill this emerging industry. Third, only food service ware made from compostable materials have much less overall impact on the environment and then only if communities have the capacity to compost these materials rather than landfill them. Lastly, the problem associated with polystyrene is its improper disposal (litter), a human behavior problem, as opposed to the substance itself. In addition, the ACC cited the California Restaurant Association's opposition to polystyrene foam bans, considering them nothing more than a de facto tax. Has a method of Recycling Polystyrene Emerged? Since embarking on this effort, the City has also learned of a company, Dart Container Corporation (Dart), whose polystyrene foam products are recyclable (Attachment 6). In an effort to expand foam container recycling as a viable option for the public, Dart has expressed an interest in partnering with various Orange County municipalities to make EPS recycling a reality. In its outreach effort, Dart has explained that most of the paper food container alternatives have a plastic/ wax lining which often makes their recycling cost prohibitive. As such, Dart claims that their polystyrene foam products compare favorably to many of the alternative food container products when the whole life cycle of the product is considered. Determining the feasibility of Dart's recycling program offer will take additional time. Their information on the recyclability of foam food service containers may lead to an alternative to the outright ban of EPS containers. However, the City of Roseville has recently launched an EPS recycling program with Dart. Roseville's program does not accept dirty food containers, and requires that all EPS recycling be "clean, dry, and uncontaminated with other materials". Such a program may be more appropriate for other types of EPS waste that the proposed ordinance does not restrict, such as polystyrene foam packing materials. Non -Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September23, 2008 Page 5 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS Does CEQA require an EIR before adopting an Ordinance? In November 2006, the City of Santa Monica met opposition from the plastics industry prior to enacting its non -recyclable plastic disposable food service ware ban. The Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC), a trade organization representing the nation's resin suppliers, formally objected to the ban, stating that the City failed to conduct an environmental analysis they believe is mandated under CEQA. The study would have determined how other products used to replace Styrofoam and non -recyclable plastic could impact the environment. The City Attorney dismissed the charge, stating that the charges were misleading and erroneous. The City determined that an analysis would not be required under the general rule that CEQA does not apply to projects that do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment exemption, and no litigation ensued. However, the industry has since become more assertive in filing lawsuits and the courts have been more receptive to their arguments. In April 2008, an Alameda County Superior Court Judge overturned Oakland's ban on plastic bags, finding that the City did not meet the CEQA standard that there is no possibility that the ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect (see Attachment 5). The challenger, the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling, produced substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags. The Coalition challenged the ban on the grounds that Oakland did not comply with CEQA, which required public entities to document and consider the environmental impact of their decisions. The Coalition argued that neither the general rule nor the "categorical" exemption were grounds for exemption from CEQA review. The Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the Coalition, stating that Oakland's ordinance was invalid as the City could not make the findings required for either exemption. In August 2008, the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of a plastic bag ban in Manhattan Beach. The City of Manhattan Beach plans to move forward with its ban, stating that their initial study provided sufficient grounds to claim exemption from CEQA. Staff believes that the industry will continue to threaten litigation against cities that do not perform an independent CEQA analysis on similar prohibitions. Staff therefore suggests that, based on the current case law and information provided by the ACC and Dart Corp., the City should conduct further environmental review prior to the adoption of the proposed ordinance so as to avoid exposure to legal action. 51 J Non -Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 6 Level of Success Assuming that an environmental review supports restricting Styrofoam and that restrictions are implemented, staff remains concerned that by regulating only polystyrene foam and only that used in food service establishments, the proposed ordinance will not have as much of an effect as proponents would hope. Food service establishments could use other non -recyclable products that have their own environmental effects, and residents could still purchase Styrofoam products within Newport Beach and introduce them to the waste stream. Finally, a portion of litter found on the City's beaches comes from visitors and picnickers who bring disposable food service ware to the beach from home for personal use. These transported products will likely be composed of Styrofoam or some other non -recyclable material. la Non -Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 7 Staff is seeking direction on the following questions: Does the City Council wish to continue the pursuit of an ordinance for the elimination of polystyrene food ware within the City of Newport Beach? 2. If so, is the City Council willing to consider appropriating funds for environmental review, without which the City may expose itself to legal action? 3. Should the proposed ordinance include the elimination of: I. Polystyrene for locally packaged foods for sale (as currently written); and/or ii. The retail or wholesale sale of Styrofoam cups and plates within the City limits? iii. Disposable food service ware composed of other non -recyclable materials (e.g. plastic or wax -coated paper products)? 4. Should staff pursue talks with Dart Corp about recycling polystyrene? Prepared by: THLYN BO EN Economic Development Coordinator Submitted by: Attachments: City Council Staff Report, June 12, 2007 Memorandum from EQAC City Council Staff Report, June 10, 2008 Email and Attachments from the American Chemistry Council Information on Alameda County Superior Court decision Information from Dart Container Corporation Proposed Ordinance 1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Attachment 1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. June 12, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager 949/644-3002 or dkiff@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Policy Direction regarding Polystyrene Use in Newport Beach ISSUE: What should be done to reduce or eliminate the amount of polystyrene that appears on our beaches and in our local waterways? RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to pursue one or more (or none) of the polystyrene reduction options listed in this staff report and to return at a future meeting with implementation language for additional consideration. DISCUSSION: In recent weeks, students at Newport Harbor High School have asked the City to consider a ban on polystyrene (also known as Styrofoam@) in our community, in order to attempt to reduce the amount of polystyrene in our waterways and on our beaches. Polystyrene is a commonly found waste product on our beaches, and does not decompose rapidly. If the Council is concerned about the quantity of polystyrene found in the community, It could do a variety of things to reduce the amount of it that end up as waste: Tier 1-Activities that Do Not Involve a Ban A. Increase penalties for littering. B. Increase enforcement against littering. C. Increase amount of street -sweeping where trash tends to accumulate. D. Expand the Gays catch basin screen program, keeping as much trash out of our waterways by keeping it out of the storm drain system. E. Work within the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and with the Regional Water Board to encourage upstream cities to expand their catch basin screen programs (many cities don t have the programs at all), to better enforce anti-Iilterlaws, It Polystyrene Options June 12, 2007 Page 2 and to add to the number almsh booms in key waterways that and up in Newport Bay or the Santa Ana River. F. Adopt a community recognition program forbustnesses, schools, and otherentlties that follow key trash reduction principles, including on -site recycling, participation In Coastal Clean-up Days, and ending or reducing the amount ofnon-biodegradable packaging products they use (including polystyrene) COMMENTS: Each of these Tier 1 Ideas are relatively simple to enact, but could involve some small additional costs to purchase alternative products. According to General Services Director Mark Harmon, items 1-C and 1-D will Involve significant cost increases, depending on the scope of the program expansion. Tier 2 - Polystyrene Prohibitions Relating to City Activities or Permitted Events A. Adopt a Council Pollcy prohibiting the City govemment from purchasing or using polystyrene. B. Adopt a Council Policyrequiring that any City-sponsoredspecial event (COM 5K, OC Marathon, etc) not use polystyrene. C. Direct staff to include language in all new concession contracts thatprohlbits concessionaires from using polystyrene for food service orpackaging and that requires a recycling program at the concession site. D. Adopt a Counci/Poltcy thatrequires any eventneed/ng a Specia/Event Permil (most activities that involve the rental or use o(cityfacllil/es) to expressly prohibit the use of polystyrene materials for the special event. COMMENTS: These Tier 2 ideas can be enacted without too much difficulty, provided that we are able to find comparable products (especially for food service and food warming) to replace polystyrene. It may be somewhat difficult to proactively enforce the Special Event Permit restrictions, so we may end up doing that on an after -the -fact basis. Holding back a deposit might be a way to make the enforcement aspect of this work. The ideas are generally symbolic in nature, but they could reduce the amount of polystyrene on our beaches to a small extent. In preparing this staff report, I surveyed several departments that may use polystyrene. Celeste Jardine -Haug of the OASIS Senior Center reports that "The daily meals program uses Styrofoam® plates and cups ... they would have to move to paper which might be more money. (As to the) ...Meals on Wheels (program), ...only a couple of things (they use) have Styrofoam®. (OASIS) uses cups only and could move to paper (cardboard). For special events we could use real plates and wash them (lots of time and staff needed) or find a stiffer paper type plate. I believe that would increase cost. All in all, it would be doable." Tier 3 - Outright Bans A. Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the use ofpolystyrene byany food service establishment. B. Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the use ofpolystyrene byanyperson using an ocean or bay beach. C. Amend the Mun/dpal Code to prohibit the use ofpolystyrene byanybus/ness, school, govemment, or non profit in Newport Beach's corporate limits. D. Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the use or sale ofpolystyrene products by any business, school, or non protil in Newport Beach's corporate limits. l2 Polystyrene Options June 12, 2007 Page 3 COMMENTS: These ideas In Tier 3 require greater enforcement resources and will be challenging to maintain over time. They may have some effect In reducing the amount of polystyrene that ends up in our waterways and on our beaches, but likely not as much of an effect as proponents think. Some (if not most) of the waste we see omour beaches and in our harbor comes from upstream sources or drifts onto our beaches from boats, other watersheds (including the Los Angeles River, the San Gabriel River, and more) after being transported by ocean currents . Each of these Tier 3 options should, as a courtesy, be discussed with local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and the restaurant association before further consideration. Council may wish to discuss these various alternatives, offer other alternatives not listed here, and direct staff to return with specific implementation of one or more options at a future Council meeting. Committee Action: This item has not been heard by any Committee. Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not require environmental review. Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted by: Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager t� THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Attachment 1" 1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 23 May 2008 To: Ed Selich, Mayor, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Committee (EQAC) Subject: Limitations on use of polystyrene packaging in Newport Beach CC: Councilmembers: Curry, Daigle, Gardner, Henn, Rosansky, Webb Polystyrene is used in packaging of food, electronics and a wide variety of consumer products commonly available in our community. Styrofoam (an air -blown, expanded form of polystyrene) is commonly used in beverage cups, "peanut" packaging fillers, pre -formed electronics shipping containers and super market food packages, but some form of polystyrene can be found in the packaging of a majority of the products we buy. Hundreds of tons of such material are produced and used in California each year with Newport Beach using its proportionate share. Although some of the material finds its way into landfills and recycling centers, a large portion is used and discarded in such a way as to find its way into our storm drains, rivers, streams, bay and ocean or onto our beaches. Based on our population, Newport Beach alone could be using and disposing of over 300 tons per year of polystyrene in support of our local food service industry (reference 1). Since polystyrene does not naturally decompose, the majority of this builds up in our landfills or pollutes the ocean. This conclusion is supported by a study by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (reference 2, Executive Summary) that states: "There is no meaningful recycling of food service polystyrene". This issue has been studied extensively by the Earth Resources Foundation and Newport Harbor High School Surf and Environmental Class. They have collected a significant inventory of technical articles and studies detailing the extent and severity of the problems. Reference 3 is a marine research technical report showing the extensive impact of plastic debris on the zooplankton in the Pacific Ocean off California, describing it as a "major threat to marine life". Reference 4 is an Orange County Grand Jury Report that addresses effective control of debris in the Orange County �1 watershed and harbors, and suggests in recommendations 7 & 8 (pg. 11) that the County and cities should implement procedures to "prohibit the use of disposable plastics and Styrofoam" and "encourage businesses ....to reduce the use and sale of disposable plastic and Styrofoam". Elimination of these materials will require that some businesses change their packaging approaches. To assist them in this task, Reference 5 is a list of 32 distributors of biodegradable and recyclable food service containers that can be used as substitutes for current containers. Many California municipalities have already recognized the situation and enacted ordinances either banning or severely limiting the local use of polystyrene food packaging (reference 6). In most cases, these ordinances have been limited to "takeout food packaging" with adequate lead-time provisions to allow affected vendors to find alternative, affordable packaging approaches. In most cases the municipalities have preceded the ordinances with self-imposed restrictions on city operations to demonstrate viability and to allow for time to prepare. Over 30 communities are listed in the reference 6 article including Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Laguna Beach (where Municipal Code Section 7.05, "Disposable Food Containers" goes into effect July 1, 2008). Recognizing the significance of this problem, EQAC believes that it is now reasonable for the City of Newport Beach to take action to limit, and eventually ban, the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials. Our stewardship of the local waterways, beaches and ocean demands it, and a large number of other communities have successfully paved the way for us. We recommend that preparation of an appropriate ordinance should proceed with the objective of implementation within one year from now. 116 REFERENCES "Environmental Effects of Polystyrene Production and Disposal", 3/i/07, Californians Against Waste, www.cawrecyclables.or.g/issueL/ens environmental effects 2. "Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California", Dec. 2004, Report to California Legislature by California Integrated Waste Management Board, www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/Plasties/43204003.i)df 3. "Density of Plastic Particles found in Zooplankton Trawls from Coastal Waters of California to the North Pacific Central Gyre", by C.J. Moore, G. L. Lattin, A. F. Zellers, Algalita Marine Research Foundation, 148 N. Marina Drive, Long Beach, CA 90803, USA www al alit to org/pdf/Density%20of%2OParticles%2OsRellchkdl l- 05.pdf 4. "The Rainy Season's `First Flush' Hits the Harbors of Orange County", Orange County 2000 Grand Jury Report and Recommendations, www.ocgrandiM.orgZpdfs/CTJFirstFlush.pdf "Distributors of Biodegradable and Recyclable Food Service Containers", City of Santa Monica, Environmental Programs Division, www.smepd.oriz/contain 6. "List of Local Food Packaging Ordinances", 4/25/08, Californians Against Waste, www.cawrecyclables.oriVissueL/polysWene ordinances list 11 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Attachment 3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY V- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 30 June 10, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949-644-3222, swood@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Recommendation from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee Regarding Limitations on Use of Polystyrene Food Packaging Materials ISSUE: Should Newport Beach prohibit the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials? Provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council has received presentations from students at Mariners' Elementary School and Newport Harbor High School (NHHS) regarding the environmental effects of polystyrene (Styrofoam), and requests for the City Council to ban its use. When this issue was presented to the City Council in June 2007, staff provided the attached report requesting policy direction. The City Council approved Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions, with an exemption for OASIS. Tier 1 includes activities such as increased enforcement of and penalties for littering and increased City actions to keep trash out of the storm drain system. Tier 2 is a prohibition on City use of polystyrene, including purchase, use at City -sponsored events and use at events needing a Special Event Permit. The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) has received presentations similar to those made to the City Council, and EQAC members have conducted their own research into the effects of polystyrene and actions taken by other cities to ban its use. At their meeting of May 19, 2008, EQAC unanimously approved the attached memorandum to the Mayor and Council. It discusses research on the effects of 23 Recommendation from EQAC Regarding Limitations on Use of Polystyrene Food Packaging Materials June 10, 2008 Page 2 polystyrene and actions taken by other cities in California, and recommends that "the City of Newport Beach take action to limit, and eventually ban, the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials." More specifically, EQAC recommends an ordinance that would take effect within one year. This recommendation is consistent with Tier 3 in the June 12, 2007 report. Analysis: Staff views working with local restaurants and food serving establishments to eliminate their use of polystyrene as something that has strong potential to have an effect on the overall impacts from this material. As examples, attached to this report are ordinances adopted by the Cities of Laguna Beach and Oakland, and a draft prepared by the NHHS Surf and Environmental Class. Should the City Council be interested in a ban on such products, while that sounds like a responsible action for the City Council to take, it Is not without its issues. Minimal Reduction in Local Beach Litter The NHHS students talked about the product ending up on our beaches and the environmental damage it can do to sea life, in addition to the beach litter it creates. Staff estimates that more than ninety percent (90%) of our beach visitors live in other cities, and very few stop in Newport Beach to purchase their food and drink prior to going to the beaches. Most start out their trip with food and drink already packed, Therefore, the effect of a local polystyrene ban might not be noticeable in reduced litter on our beaches. The effort to educate these beach users would require a non -ending effort to be effective. Enforcement A ban on polystyrene is not a regulation that would be enforced by the beach lifeguards, nor by the Police. if it were left up to our Park Patrol staff to enforce, that enforcement would be sporadic, given the other responsibilities of the position and the little time our Park Patrol people spend on the beaches. Enforcement by Code and Water Quality Enforcement staff would also be sporadic, unless additional overtime for weekend enforcement was used. Therefore, there is the issue of a regulation being put in place with adequate signage, but with no direct enforcement follow-up. The City did ban smoking on the beach without active enforcement, so there is a precedent for doing so, However, such lack of enforcement can cause frustration on the part of those people who take the ban seriously and want others to respect it, setting up situations for potential conflict among beach users. 94 Recommendation from EQAC Regarding Limitations on Use of Polystyrene Food Packaging Materials June 10, 2008 Page 3 Public Notice The best method to notify people, especially visitors from outside Newport Beach, that a ban on polystyrene products is in force is problematic. This could be handled by incorporating an enforcement message on existing signs. However, signs already contain a list of beach regulations that, unless someone takes the time to read them, may be lost to beach users. Additional signage has the potential to cause beach signage clutter. Restaurant Impacts A representative of the Earth Resources Foundation has met with the Restaurant Association Board of Directors and shared information on alternative materials that could be used in place of polystyrene products. While the Board did not take action on the matter and expressed concerns about costs to their industry, they recognized that a polystyrene ban may be inevitable and expressed willingness to assist in its implementation, if that is the direction taken by the City Council. Staff Time Preparation of an ordinance appropriate for Newport Beach will require staff time for additional research, coordination with the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, and analysis of economic impacts and means of enforcement. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. City Council Staff Report, June 12, 2007 2. Memorandum from EQAC 3. Laguna Beach Ordinance 4.Oakland Ordinance 5. NHHS Draft Ordinance 2S THIS PAGE LEFT B LAN K INTENTIONALLY • 0 Chapter 7.05 DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS Pagel of 3 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Up Previous Mext Main Collapse Search Print No Frames Title 7 HEALTH AND SANITATION Chapter 7`OS DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS 7.05.010 Definitions: "City facilities" means any building, structure or vehicle owned, Ieased or operated by the city, its agents, agencies, departments and franchisees. "Customer" means any person obtaining prepared food or beverages from a restaurant or retail food vendor. "Disposable food service ware" means all single -use disposable products for serving or transporting prepared food or beverages, including without limitation takeout foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared by a restaurant or food vendor, Disposable food service ware includes containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, ice chests, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives, and other items and utensils. "Food vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor located or operating within the city. "Nonrecyclable plastic" refers to any plastic that cannot be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program in the State of California, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene. "Polystyrene foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded forms (sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation), which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques, including without limitation fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding and extrusion -blown molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Polystyrene foam is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays, egg cartons, and ice chests. "Prepared food" means food or beverages served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the food vendor's premises or within the city. Prepared food may be eaten either on or near the premises, also known as "takeout food." "Recyclable food packaging" means any food packaging including glass, cans, cardboard, paper, or other items which can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed, or marketed by means other than land filling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise so that they can be returned to use by society. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the city that sells prepared food for consumption on, near or off its premises by customers. Restaurants for purposes of this chapter includes itinerant restaurants, pushcarts and vehicular food vendors as those terms are defined in Chapters 7.04. "Retail food vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a restaurant, located within the city that sells prepared food. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7.05.020 Food packaging and sales prohibitions for disposable food service ware. (a) Retail food vendors are prohibited from dispensing prepared food or beverages to customers in disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene foam or nonrecyclable plastic. (b) Retail food vendors are prohibited from retail sales of expanded polystyrene foam or nonrecyclable plastic products used as disposable food service ware. (c) All city facilities, city -managed concessions, city -sponsored events, city- permitted events and http://gcode.us/codes/lagunabeach/view.php?topic=7-7_05&showAll=1&frames=on 06/03/2008 91 Chapter 7.05 DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS Page 2 of 3 all franchisees, contractors and vendors doing business with the city are prohibited from using disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene or non -recyclable plastic within the city. (d) The prohibitions set forth in thissection shall not apply to containers, plates or trays for raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7,05.030 Exc@pjL19!1! __ (a) The city manager or his/her designee may exempt a food vendor or retail food vendor from the requirements of this chapter for a one-year period, upon a showing by the applicant that the conditions of this chapter would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" may consist of: (1) Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable plastic food service ware and compliance with this chapter would cause a severe economic hardship to that food provider; (2) Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternative exists to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable plastic. (b) A food provider granted an exemption must reapply prior to the end of the one-year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. (c) An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the making of a decision on the application, including, not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The applicant may be required to provide additional information to permit the determination of facts regarding the exemption application. (d) An exemption application may he approved in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (e) The city manager or his/her designee may also determine to exempt from the requirements of this chapter the procurement of supplies or services in the event of a proclaimed emergency or when otherwise deemed necessary by the city manager for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety or general welfare. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7.05.040 Enforcement and notice of violations. (a) The city manager or his/her designee shall have primary responsibly for enforcement of this chapter and shall have authority to issue citations for violation of this chapter. The city manager or his/her designee is authorized to establish regulations or administrative procedures and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to further the purposes of this chapter or to obtain compliance with this chapter, including, without limitation inspection of any vendor's premises to verify compliance in accordance with applicable law. (b) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter or of any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it shall be guilty of an infraction. (c) The city attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief to enforce this chapter and any regulation or administrative procedure authorized hereby. (d) The remedies and penalties provided in this chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. (e) Administrative Remedies. 0 http://gcode.us/codes/lagunabeach/view.php?topic=7-7 05&showA]1=1&frames=on 06/03/2008 Chapter 7.05 DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS Page 3 of 3 (1) For the first violation, the city manager or his/her designee, upon determination that a violation of this chapter has occurred, shall issue a written warning notice in the form of a courtesy citation to the food provider that will specify the violations and the appropriate penalties in the event of future violation. (2) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for the first violation following the issuance of a warning notice. (3) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for the second violation following the issuance of a warning notice. (4) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for the third and any subsequent violation that occurs following the issuance of a warning notice. (5) Fines are cumulative and each day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7.05.050 Effective date.__ This ordinance will be effective on July 1, 2008. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 9 http://qcode.us/codes/lagunabeach/view.php?topic=7-7_05&showAll=l&frames=on 06/03/2008 t)F1ICE ; F -!IF rIT'd �t F: x Approved as ib Form and LepaAty 2006 JU'I 20 All 9: 32 _ Introduced by Coundmember,QUAN�ND DE LA FUENTE (USE IFAMUCAStF) Oakland City Attomey'a OMw _ OAKLAND CfTY COUNCIL Ordinance No, 747 C.m.s. AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOSTABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD VENDORS AND CITY FACILITIES This ordinance will institute two distinct practices by all food vendors and City Facilities in Oakland The first is that the use ofpolystyrene foam disposable food service ware will be prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware will be required to be biodegradable or compostable, as long as it is affordable. WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of throw- away food service ware include rousing food service ware and using compostable and biodegradable take-out materials made from renewable resources such as paper, corn starch and sugarcane; and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is a common environmental pollutant as wet] as a non - biodegradable substance that is commonly used as food service ware by food vendors operating in the City of Oakland; and WHEREAS, there continues to be no meaningful recycling of polystyrene foam food service ware and biodegradable or compostable food service ware is an affordable, safe, more ecologically sound alternative; and WHEREAS, affordable biodegradable or compostable food service ware products are increasingly available for several food service applications such as cold cups, plates and binge containers and these products are more ecologically sound than polystyrene foam materials and can be turned into a compost product; and WHEREAS, the Oakland Coliseum has successfully replaced its cups with biodegradable com starch cups and has shown an overall cost savings due to organics recycling; and 5ti oc 2 1�4 WHEREAS, over 155 businesses in Oakland engage in organics recycling and it has been demonstrated that the use of biodegradable or compostable food service ware can reduce waste disposal costs when the products are taken to composting facilities as part of an organics recycling program rather than disposed in a landfill; and WHEREAS, the natural compost product from these biodegradable or compostable materials is used as fertilizer for farms and gardens, thereby moving towards a healthier zero waste system; and WHEREAS, disposable food service ware constitutes a large portion of the litter in Oakland's estuary, streets,.parks and public places and the cost of managing this litter is high and rising, and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is notorious as a pollutant that breaks down into smaller, non -biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife thus harming or killing them; and WHEREAS, due to the physical properties ofpolystyrene, the EPA states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy." and WHEREAS, a 1996 EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process as the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste in the United States; and WHEREAS, in the product manufacturing process as well as the use and disposal of the products, the energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, polystyrene's environmental impacts were second highest, behind aluminum, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board; and WHEREAS, styrene, a component of polystyrene, is a known hazardous substance that medical evidence and the Food and Drug Administration suggests leaches from polystyrene containers into food and drink; and WHEREAS, styrene is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin which potentially threatens human health; and WHEREAS, styrene has been detected in the fat tissue of every man, woman and child tested by the EPA in a 1986 study, and WHEREAS, the general public is not typically warned of any potential hazard, particularly in the immigrant and non -English-speaking community; and WHEREAS, due to these concerns nearly 100 cities have banned polystyrene foam food service ware including several California cities, and many local businesses and several national corporations have successfully replaced polystyrene foam and other non - biodegradable food service ware with affordable, safe, biodegradable products; and WHEREAS, restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware products and replacing non -biodegradable food service ware with biodegradable food service ware products in Oakland will further protect the public health and safety of the residents of Oakland, the City of Oakland's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, would advance the City's goal of Developing a Sustainable City, advance the City's goal of Zero Waste by 2020 and fulfill Article 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby Oakland partnered with other cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year, Section 8.07.010 Multions "Affordable" means purchasable by the Food Vendor for same or less purchase cost than the non -Biodegradable, non -Polystyrene Foam alternative. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and compostable plastics. "Biodegradable" means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal. "Compostable" means all materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil -conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware includes ASTM-Standard Bio- Plasties (plastic -like products) that are clearly labeled, preferably with a color symbol, such that any compost collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM Standard Compostable plastic from non-ASTM Standard Compostable plastic. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Oakland, its agent, agencies,.departments and franchisees. "Customer" means any person obtaining Prepared Food from a Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor. "Disposable Food Service Ware" means ail containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, Cups, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor directly places or packages Prepared Foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for Takeout Foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at Restaurants or Retail Food Vendors. 'rood Vendor'means ony Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor located or operatingwithin the City of Oakland. 3�4 "Polystyrene Foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Polystyrene Foam is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays and egg cartons. "Prepared Food" means Food or Beverages, which are served, packagcd, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the Food Vendor's premises or within the City of Oakland. For the purposes of this ordinance, Prepared Food does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. Prepared Food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also known as "takeout food". "Restaurant' means any establishment located within the City of Oakland that sells Prepared Food for consumption on, now, or off its premises by Customers. Restaurant for purposes of this Chapter includes Itinerant Restaurants, Pushcarts and Vehicular Food Vendors as those terms are defined in sections 5.49, U9, 9.09 of the City of Oakland Municipal Code. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, located within the City of Oakland that soils Prepared Food, Section 8.07.040 Prohibited Food Service Ware A. Except as provided in Section 8.07.042, Food Vendors are prohibited from providing Prepared Food to Customers in Disposable Food Service Ware that uses Polystyrene Foam. B. All City Facilities are prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Were and all City Departments and Agencies will not purchase or acquire Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware for use at City Facilities. C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service W am in City facilities or on city projects within the City of Oakland. Section 8.07.041 Required Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware A. All Food Vendors using any Disposable Food Service Ware, will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. Food Vendors are strongly encouraged to reuse Food Service Ware in place of using Disposable Food Service Ware. In instances that Food Vendors wish to use a Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware Product that is not Affordable, a Food Vendor may charge a "take out fee" to customers to cover the cost difference. B. All City Facilities will use, Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. C. City $snchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. Section 8.07.042 Exemptions A. Prepared Foodspropsrod or packaged outside the City of Oakland are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prep" or packaged outside the City of Oakland are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter. B. Food. Vendors will be exempted from the provisions of this Chapter for specific items or types of Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or hieftr designee finds that a suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist and/or that imposing the requirements of this Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food Service Ware would cause undue hardship. C. Polystyrene Foam coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse rare exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. D. Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. E. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement; In a situation deemed by the City Administrator to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the Publicpeaec,,health or safety, City Facilities, Food Vendors, City fi=bises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Section 8.07.043 Liability and Eaforeement A. The City Administrator or his/her designee will have primary responsibility for enforcement of this Chapter. The City Administrator or his/her designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this Chapter, including, but not limited to, entering the premises of any Food Vendor to verify compliance. B. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter will be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Chapter 1.28 O.M.C. C. The City Attomey may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. Section 8.07.044 Violations - Penalties 1. If the City Administrator or hislher designee determines that a violation of this Chapter occurred, he/she will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has occurred. 2. Ifth$Foud-Vendarbas'subsequdnt vidla`tions"oftliis Chaptei; the following penalties will apply: a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the warning notice is given. b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the warning notice is given. c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any future violations after the warning notice is given. 3. Food Vendors may request an administrative hearing to adjudicate any penalties issued under this Chapter by filing a written request with the City Administrator, or his or her designee. The City Administrator, or his or her designee, will promulgate standards and procedures for requesting and conducting an administrative bearing under this Chapter. Any determination from the administrative heating on penalties issued under this Chapter will be final and eonelusive. Section 8.07.045 Study i Section 8.07.0466 Effective Date This Chapter will become effective January 1, 2007. IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, MM 1,7 200 2006 PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES - BRUNNER, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN,jMe$, REID, CHANG, AND PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE % NOES— + , 13roof�--s ABSENT — ,&n, ABSTENTION — ,Y ATTEST: LA O A SIMMONS City Clerk and Clerk the Council of the City of Oakland P?S ,*A DRAFT —PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BYNEWPORT HARBOR HiGH SCHOOL SURFAND ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS City Council Meeting Newport Beach, CA ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BANNING NON -RECYCLABLE PLASTIC DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS WHEREAS, there are currently over 300 individual restaurants and food service businesses in Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, many of these businesses use disposable food containers made from expanded polystyrene (EPS) and other non -recyclable plastics; and WHEREAS, EPS is not biodegradable and as a result persists in the environment for hundreds and possibly thousands of years; and WHEREAS, EPS material easily breaks down into smaller pieces and is so light that It floats in water and is easily carried by the wind, even when it has been disposed of properly; and WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of EPS debris in the environment, including in storm drains and on beaches, causing Newport Beach residents to pay thousands of dollars in clean-up costs; and WHEREAS, marine animals and birds often confuse EPS for a source of food and the ingestion of EPS often results in reduced appetite and nutrient absorption and possible death by starvation of birds and marine animals; and WHEREAS, recycling of EPS products is not currently economically viable; and WHEREAS, there are several alternatives to EPS disposable food service containers available in Newport Beach from existing food packaging suppliers; and WHEREAS, an important goal of any city's sustainable city plan Is to procure and use sustainable products and services; and WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to reduce the amount of beach litter and marine pollution and to protect focal Wildlife, both of which Increase the quality of life to Newport Beach residents and visitors, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.44 is hereby added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code as follows: 5.44.010 Definitions (a) "Biodegradable" refers to the ability of a material to decompose into elements normally found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal. (b) "City Facilities" refers to buildings and structures owned or leased by the City of Newport Beach. (c) "Disposable Food Service Container" means single -use disposable products used in the restaurant and food service industry for serving or transporting prepared, ready -to -consume food or beverages. This includes but is not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays and hinged or lidded containers. This does not include single -use disposable items such as straws, cup lids, or utensils, nor does it include single -use disposable packaging for unprepared foods. (d) "Expanded Polystyrene" (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or "blown" using a gaseous- blowing agent into a solid foam. (a) "Food Provider" means any establishment, located or providing food within the City of Newport Beach, which provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes without limitation any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocery store, super market, delicatessen, catering truck or vehicle, or any other person who provides prepared food; and any organization, group or individual which regularly provides food as a part of its services. (f) "Non-Recyciable Plastic" refers to any plastic which cannot be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program In the State of California, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene. DRAFT— PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL SURFAND ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS (g) "Polystyrene" means and includes expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), Injection molding, form molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term "polystyrene" also includes clear or solid polystyrene which is known as "oriented polystyrene". (h) "Prepared Food" means any food or beverage prepared for consumption on the food provider's, premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. This does not Include any raw uncooked meat, fish or eggs unless provided for consumption without further food preparation. (I) "Recyclable Plastic" means any plastic which can be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program In the State of California. Recyclable plastics comprise those plastics with the recycling symbols #1 through #5 including polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), high density polyethylene (NDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and polypropylene (PP). 5.44.020 Prohibition on the Use of Non -Recyclable Plastic Disposable Food Service Containers A. Except as provided in Section 5.44.030, food providers are prohibited from dispensing prepared food to customers in disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene. B. Except as provided in Section 5.44.030, food providers are prohibited from dispensing prepared food to customers in disposable food service containers made from non -recyclable plastic. C. All City Facilities, Clty-managed concessions, City sponsored events, and City permitted events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene or non -recyclable plastic. 5.44.030 Exemptions (a) The Director of the Environmental and Public Works Management Department (EPWM), or his/her designee, may exempt a food provider from the requirements of this ordinance for a one year period, upon showing by the food provider that the conditions of this ordinance would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" shall be found in; 11. Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene or non -recyclable plastic disposable food service containers and compliance with this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to that food provider; 2. Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene or non -recyclable plastic food container. A food provider granted an exemption by the City must re- apply prior to the end of the one year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. (b) An exemption application shall include all Information necessary for the City to make its decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Director may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. (c) The Director may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (d) Exemption decisions are effective immediately and final and are not subject to appeal. 5.44.040 Enforcement and Notice of Violations A. The Director of EPWM or his/her designee shall have primary responsibility for enforcement of this ordinance and the Director of EPWM or his/her designee shall have authority to Issue citations for violation of this Chapter. The Director of EPWM or his/her designee is authorized to establish regulations or administrative procedures and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to further the purposes of this chapter or to obtain compliance with this chapter, Including, but not limited to, inspecting any vendor's premises to verify compliance in accordance with appllcable law. e. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter or of any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it shall be guilty of an infraction. .271 DRAFT— PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BYNEWPORT HARBOR HiGH SCHOOL SURFAND ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief to enforce this chapter and any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it, D. The remedies and penalties provided in this chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one another, 5.44.050 Penalties and Fines for Violations Violations of this ordinance shall be enforced as follows: A. For the first violation, the Director of EPWM or his/her designee, upon determination that a violation of this chapter has occurred, shall 1�sue a written warning notice to the food provider which will specify the violation and the appropriate penalties in the event of future violations. B. Thereafter, the following penalties shall apply: 1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation following the Issuance of a warning notice. 2. A fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for the second and any other violation that occurs following the issuance of a warning notice. C. Fines are cumulative and each day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. 5.44.60 Effective Dates A. No food provider shall distribute or utilize disposable food service containers containing expanded polystyrene or non -recyclable plastic on or after one year following the adoption of this ordinance by the City Council. B. No City facilities, City managed concessions, City sponsored events or City permitted events shall distribute or utilize disposable food service containers containing expanded polystyrene or non -recyclable plastic on or after the effective date of this ordinance SECTION 2. Any provision of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or appendices thereto Inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalld or unconstitutional by a decision of any court'of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared Invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same ;o be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBIN CLAUSON City Attorney *****77ds is a draft —developed by students �J� Jun 10 08 03;21P Laura 9497218039 P.1 "RECEIVED fT GEND PRINTED:" l D r. To: Newport Beach City Council Date: June 10, 2008 From: Laura Dietz, Corona del Mar t " Subject: Comments from Santa Monica Experience for Review on Considering a Styrofoam Ban in Newport Beach In June 2006, two years ago, the attached article reviewed the Styrofoam issue and provided some data: (a) at the bottom of page two it reads, "City officials note that 92% of foam pollution comes from runoff that streams into the bay through storm drains from around the county"; (b) at that time, Santa Monica City staff was directed to review the ordinance in two years to evaluate its success and its level of compliance (page 3). The latter suggests perhaps a more comprehensive approach involving multiple municipalities in the County relative to runoff. As a former member of the packaging industry (glass), I've learned it is very important to address this issue with sufficient reliable facts and data, and consider the impact on local businesses. Good intentions notwithstanding more data may be needed. Attachment el Jun 10 08 03:21p Laura 9437218039 p.2 ..w.w •.a...uY..I I.........vw.vu u.'.." vL).vaVs"sc, L tW"Y, t[llJ"S{f L{1(ICW W WC UjAwC711 rasgc 1 VA a �ThzlLoakOui:news Council Bans Styrofoam, Plastic, though Impacts are Unclear By Olin Ericksen Staff Writer June 15 -- Uncertain about the impact on pollution and profits, the City Council Tuesday night banned the use of Styrofoam and non -recyclable plastic containers for businesses in Santa Monica. While not a "magic bullet," City officials hope other cities, such as Los Angeles, will follow suit and help reduce beach and ocean pollution. "If we do this tonight, I think the rest of Los Angeles will follow to the tremendous benefit of Santa Monica Bay," said Council member Kevin McKeown, who sponsored a broader motion than staff had recommended to include non -recyclable plastics along with Styrofoam. The impact of these products on the environment is unique, said Dean Kuban, the City's acting environmental program manager, and their long- term effects are dramatic. "This is one of the most prominent forms of pollution on Santa Monica beaches," Kubani said. "It persists in the environment for decades," he said, noting that it harms both the environment and animals, such as fish and birds, which swallow the non-rccyclable foam. Auer listening to arguments by officials from food, packaging, and chemical industry groups who said more public outreach and investments in drainage and containment of the trash may have a greater impact than a product ban, the council sided with staff and environmental groups. "We feel more (than public outreach) needs to be done," Kubani said. Heal the Bay Director Mark Gold noted that Styrofoam and non -recyclable Plastic containers accounted for 37 percent of all trash the non-profit collected during nearly 250 beach clean-ups. But the ban will not come without a price. After a similar ban was enacted in Malibu local businesses reported the switch cost them nearly $30,000. Santa Monica City officials readily admitted they had a hard time gauging the ban's impact on local merchants. Estimates based on surveys of between iso and 200 businesses, found that switching to more recyclable packaging products, such as paper, plastic and http://www.surfsantamomc&oom/ssm sitehhe lookouttnews/News-2006JJune-2006/06_15... 6/10/2008 H Jun 10 08 03:21p Laura 9497218039 tinfoil, would cost businesses anywhere from nothing to nearly 300 percent more each month. The merchants hardest hit by the ban would be mostly fast-food restaurants, which could pay as much as $180 more per month. Those estimates, however, are uncertain. Anecdotal evidence presented by Council member Bobby Shriver indicated that at least one local McDonald's owner suggested the fast food restaurant may have to spend as much as $8,000 a year make the switch. Because businesses and Styrofoam makers were reluctant to release financial information, Kubani said he `would not be in a position to argue with" claims that the ban could have a deeper impact. Indeed, some local business — such as Fritto Misto on Colorado Avenue, which notes that a third of its business is take-out — said the ban could impact sales because hot food may not retain heat during a customer's trip home. "If quality of product is not what they want, we are worried about sales," said Melinda Amaya, Fritto Misto's general manager. At least one eatery owner, who goes by the name Janabai, had a different take in the ban's impact on Euphoria, the restaurant she runs on Main Street. Janabai has always used biodegradable products for take out, which she estimates accounts for nearly 80 percent of Euphoria's business. In fact, she believes the restaurant is more popular because it is environmentally friendly. "We've passed on the value to our consumers," she said. "From a high -dollar tourist prospective, we need to take a lead or someone else will." F n anod to local businesses, the City will provide a hardship exemption for usinessesthatare most heavily impacted, although there was no mention of ow that would work. While the ban's economic impacts are uncertain, it is also unclear what, if any, effect it will have on pollution on Santa Monica beaches. "This will not clean up the beach," said Shriver, who argued greater regional cooperation on the issue is needed. City officials are unclear how much trash would be reduced, because much of the foam waste on Santa Monica beaches comes from Los Angeles and surrounding communities, which are not considering a ban. In fact, City officials note that 92 percent of local foam pollution comes from runoff that streams into the bay through storm drains from around the county. esv httpJ/www.surfsantamonica.com/sstnsite/the lookout/news/News-2006/June 2006/06 15... 6/10/2008 qI Jun 10 08 03:22p Laura 9497218039 p 4 u.w.w �•�vu�rw • ..N vvw�vu arW.0 VLJAVX%PL lX, L ♦tW V, ""Till SLL111aWM =1 UX1 1G CAgYi -7 V1 Due to its uncertain impacts, the council directed staff to review the ordinance in two years to evaluate its success and level of compliance. ,9t-.JLOOKOUr Copyright 1999-2008 m fsantamooica.com. All Rights Reserved hfpJ/www.suifsmt=onica,com/ssa Attachment 4 �3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 1 of 2 Bowden, Katie From: De Santis, Leigh Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:17 PM To: Wood, Sharon; Bowden, Katie, Subject: FW: Styrofoam Ban Attachments: City of Fremont -Polystyrene PP.ppt; Seattle Public Utilities Report.pdf; Santa.Barbara Staff Report.pdf; 060308 Carmel staff report.pdf; CousteauLetter.pdf; Facts About Polystyrene Foam Foodservice Products.doc The opposing view from the industry lobbyist. Economic Development Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Phone (949) 644-3207 FAX (949) 644-3224 LDeSantis@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Kenny, Ryan [malito:Ryan_Kenny@americanchemistry.comj Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:11 PM To: De Santis, Leigh Subject: Per our discussion Hello Leigh, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the proposed polystyrene foodservice ban proposal that will begin winding its way through the process. I know there are competing views, and I appreciate your consideration of the information attached on behalf of our members and those businesses which use the material. I have attached just third -party information that I think would be useful as the process moves forward: 1. City of Fremont PowerPoint presented during a May city council study session 2. Seattle staff report showing that a ban would harm the environment 3. Santa Barbara staff report concluding that a ban wouldn't make a difference without an industrial composting facility 4. City of Carmel staff report stating that after 20 years, their ban didn't make any difference (they replaced their ordinance with a model ordinance from their county waste district, which also won't make a difference because they do not have an industrial composting facility. They would be trading one type of litter for another.) 5. Jean -Michel Cousteau op-ed: Founder of the Oceans Future Society and son of the famed explorer, he simply states, "Bans don't work." 6. Important facts from third -party studies on the environmental trade-offs of other products. Also, fyi, the City of Union City just rejected a ban proposal because they didn't think a ban would make any difference and that it would negatively impact the business community. I understand that the restaurant 09/17/2008 y17 Page 2 of 2 association is supportive, but the California Restaurant Association is against any such ban, as they believe it is a de facto tax. One such cost estimate that we've done at Costco is that for a case of 1,000 foam cups, there was a de facto tax of $50 to choose the next least -expensive alternative. Again, thanks for considering this information. Ryan Kenny Manager, State Affairs and Grassroots American Chemistry Council 1121 L Street, Suite 609 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone (916) 448-2581 Fax (916) 442-2449 Cell (916) 606-5772 www.americanchemistry.com 09/17/2008 lq ( Regulating Polystyrene Containers Presentation to City Council May 6, 2008 .h,W&,. Fr6iii6nt Background ■ Councilmember referral Jan 22, 2008 ■ Staff research ■ Wide range of possible approaches ■ Approaches will impact stakeholder reaction Work Session Goals ■ Report on findings ■ Discuss possible approaches ■ Obtain Council feedback ■ Next steps ❑ Engage stakeholders ❑ Return to Council I:1115�1 Presentation Format ■ Discuss polystyrene containers and plastic bags separately ■ Product information ❑ Lifecycle ❑ Alternatives ■ Approaches o city • State o Fremont options 19 Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) &Polystyrene (PS) There are two types of polystyrene: ■ EPS ❑ Foam commonly known as Styrofoam ■ PS ❑ Solid ID EPS: The Pros and the Cons ■ Pros ❑ Durable ❑ Inexpensive ❑ Takes less resources to produce compared to alternatives ■ Cons ❑ Litter/ Pollution ❑ Harm to wildlife/ marine life ❑ Production creates GHG's ❑ Possible human health issue ❑ Derived from petroleum L EPS Alternatives: Pros and Cons i Plastic Aluminum (other than #6) Compostable Clam Shell Corn Starch Paper to go derived cup container MI IN Paper n Pros ❑ Biodegradable ❑ Recyclable if clean ■ Cons ❑ Resource Intensive ❑ Production results in GHG ■ Consideration ❑ Petroleum derived lining ❑ No benefit unless composted Compostables ■ Pros ■ ■ 0 W Biodegradable L Made from a renewable resource Cons ❑ Resource Intensive ❑ Production results in GHG ❑ May contaminate recycling stream Consideration ❑ No benefit unless composted 99 Plastic ■ Pros o Recyclable ■ Cons ❑ Petroleum derived ❑ Production results in GHG emissions o Non compostable ■ Consideration o Potential contamination if not clean Aluminum ■ Pros o Recyclable ■ Cons o Most resource Intensive o Production results in GHG emissions o Non compostable ■ Consideration ❑ Potential contamination if not clean L 12 10 - En ONE M O 0 -- �t.Q�\ec,I\e �Q G° 0.5 5z ■ Landfill/ Diversion ❑ Human/ Environmental Health ❑ GHG/ Net Energy State Legislation - Pending ■ Prohibits a food provider from distributing disposable food packaging unless the packaging is: ❑ compostable or ❑ recyclable ❑ AB 1972 ■ Tighten standards for items labeled compostable PI California City and County Approaches ■ Approximately 14 California Cities and 4 Counties have bans ❑ Laguna Beach will be the 14t" city with a ban effective July 1, 2008 ■ 5 Cities and 2 Counties are in consideration of a ban ❑ South San Francisco has a voluntary phase out of foamed polystyrene take out packaging ■ 1 City declined to regulate ❑ Focusing on program measures I-1 California City Approaches (continued) ■ Majority of Cities (11) ban Expanded Polystyrene only ■ Recyclability/ compostability requirement ■ Financial impact to businesses ■ Alternative packaging affordability requirements ■ Implementation ■ Majority of enforcement is complaint driven Considerations ■ Desired Goal ❑ Landfill diversion ❑ Green House Gas (GHG) reduction ❑ Pollution prevention ❑ Reduction in product demand ■ Financial impact to businesses ■ City resources required 1� Options for Further Consideration Dive into Approaches Proceed with Caution ■ Ban ■ Ban at City events Polystyrene ■ Voluntary program ■ Ban Expanded ■ Outreach Polystyrene ■ Commercial food scrap expansion R Alternatives to Disposable Bags and Food Ser .Shopping ;rice Items Volume I Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities January 2008 The shaded fields in the Table ES-3 show those strategies with highest reductions in each of the economic cost and environmental burden categories, compared to the status quo. An ARF on all disposable shopping bags provides the most environmental gains (except for litter), and provides for much higher overall economic gains when compared to all strategies. With an ARF on all bags, consumers experience slightly less costs than with a plastic only ARF (due to an anticipated increase in reusable bags), and the region experiences much more economic cost (due to decreased paper production). Again, the City and retailers may both benefit from revenue under either a plastic only or an all -bag ARF Disposable Food Service Items The strategies to address disposable food service items were narrowed to the following five for further life cycle costlbenefit and environmental assessment: Enhanced education: Begin a public outreach, education and promotional campaign specifically focused on owners/managers of restaurants, cafes, and coffee shops to encourage replacement of disposable food service items with recyclable or compostable alternatives managed through recycling and food waste composting programs. This would become part of SPU's ongoing reduce -reuse -recycle messaging. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) products would be especially discouraged. Enhanced education plus ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS) products: Implementation of mandatory ban on EPS food service items only at all food vendors in Seattle. Ban to be phased in plus a later deadline for all food service items to be compostable or recyclable with restaurants enrolled in composting or recycling programs. Enhanced education plus advanced recovery fee (ARP) on expanded polystyrene (EPS) products only. The ARF (likely range, 10 to 25 cents) could be remitted entirely to the City, split by the City and merchants who would use their share to promote reusable alternatives and recycling, or retained entirely by merchants for promotion and administrative costs. Enhanced education plus advanced recovery fee (AM) on all non- compostable and non -recyclable food service ware items. The ARF (likely range, 10 to 25 cents) could be remitted entirely to the City, split by the City and merchants who would use their share to promote reusable alternatives and recycling, or retained entirely by merchants for promotion and administrative costs. Table ES-4 shows a comparison between all environmental categories and the NPV economic costs and benefits calculated earlier. These results were derived from a case study of hot food "clamshell" type containers and may not apply in other cases. (See page 6-23 for the assumptions regarding vendor and consumer behavior when required to switch products.) " unl /0603J00-3t0ahenenlAxam JUYunMe dwYM�B�oo Herrera Environmental Consultants Es-8 January 29, 2008 Gc4 Table ES-4. Economic and.environmental costs and benefits normalized to status quo. Status ARF on ARF on All Units Quo Education Ban EPS EPS Types NPV $ 119% 169% 176% 199% Non -Renewable Energy Megajoules (Mn 6 105% 214% 173% 156% GI•IG Emissions kg CO2 eq. 105% 234% 185% 162% Ozone g ethylene eq. 100% 134% 120% 105% Acidification kg S02 eq. 104% 179% 149% 142% Eutrophication kg PO4 eq. 101% 104% 103% , 108% Waste Generated Tons 1 105% 240% 189% 162% Notes: 1. Environmental category units produced summed over a 30-year time frame 2, (NPV) economic costs and benefits over a 30-year time flame 3, Discount rate: 3 percent aqs°IFandeg�/_i�gnlne�(alil�l�`denwe�tiig�;tiffs;cgiflparec���tlie�'�aiilsgu„p� However, the permauence of plastic in the environment dictates its use be minimized. An AItF on all non - bans and ARFs. This is due primarily to the incentive toward compostables (e.g., polylactic acid, PLA), which results hi lower impacts than paper and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in the environmental categories considered. The exception is in eutt'ophicationpetential, due to nitrogen and phosphorus runoff in agriculture. Higher composting rates for compostable products, and the potential increase in organics composted with compostable food service products, would likely provide additional energy and greenhouse gas benefits, and cost savings. n i /O6 °IJOJJ10oinnurtbrrrod0 wnD1e+M Irr dw January 29, 2008 ES-9 Herrera Environmental Consultants cPs CITY OF SANTA BARBARA 0 COUNCIL, AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DATE: March 11, 2008 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Environmental Services Division, Finance Department SUBJECT: Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive a report from staff detailing the results of a recent study evaluating the merits of banning expanded polystyrene, commonly referred to as "Styrofoam;' in the food service sector in the City of Santa Barbara. DISCUSSION: Expanded polystyrene (EPS), commonly known as "Styrofoam," is used by restaurants, grocery stores and other food -serving establishments because it is inexpensive, strong and durable, and has excellent insulation properties. However, due to its fly -away tendencies, EPS often winds up on City streets- and beaches as litter. In addition, a large amount of this material makes its way to the ocean and is ingested by sea life, which is having significant impacts to the marine environment worldwide. For these reasons, EPS has been banned in a number of communities, and is being considered by many others. In April 2007, staff provided Council with an update on its Solid Waste Strategic Plan. The plan Included a proposed ban of EPS applicable only to take-out food service businesses in the City. Staff indicated that more analysis was needed to evaluate the logistics, practicality and feasibility of imposing a ban in the City of Santa Barbara. The City Council directed staff to move forward with the analysis, present the results of staffs analysis to the Council's Solid Waste Committee for review and consideration, and provide a final report to the City Council. REVIEWED BY: Finance Aaomey _Name of Additional Department(s) That Need to ROAM CAR Agenda Itam No. Council Agenda Report Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene March 11, 2008 Page 2 In November 2007, staff presented a report to the Solid Waste Committee based on our analysis. The report discussed staffs evaluation of alternative food service ware that could be used to replace EPS, including food service ware made from paper, plastic, aluminum and compostable products. In addition, staff presented the results of several outreach meetings conducted with community stakeholders, which included owners and managers of local restaurants, Individuals representing the food packaging industry, and local environmental organizations. Based on the analysis, staff concluded that alternatives to EPS likely to be used had comparable environmental impacts. For example, the use of service ware made from plastic, aluminum or virgin paper has different, but equally significant, impacts when considering the resources required for extracting and manufacturing them. In addition, due to contamination, many of these materials would not be recyclable and therefore would have to be disposed of in the local landfill. However, food service ware made from compostable materials has a much less overall impact to the environment. Specifically, it is often made from organic material, such as potato or corn starch; requires significantly less resources to produce than plastic or virgin paper; is not petroleum -based; and can be easily be recycled into compost. The use of food service ware made from compostable materials has other benefits: 1. It would significantly reduce the volume of material being landfilled (i.e., more diversion); 2. It reduces the organic fraction of the waste stream disposed of in a landfill, which is the leading man-made source of methane gas production, a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change; and 3. Compost is a product used by farmers to enrich and provide nutrients to the soil, helping to conserve water, and preventing soil erosion. Based on the above findings, staff concluded that a ban on EPS would only be effective and have a net benefit to the environment if it either required, or otherwise strongly encouraged, the use of food service ware made from compostable material. However, these benefits could only be realized with a citywide organics collection and composting program already in place. Without this program in place, the use of compostable food service ware would only result in those materials winding up in the landfill; and in the same way food does, compostable material would also breakdown quickly and result in the production of methane gas. VA Council Agenda Report Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene March 11, 2008 Page 3 Staffs proposal, therefore, is to first implement an organics collection and composting program sector by sector, starting with the business sector, where the largest volume of foodscraps are generated, followed by the single-family and multi -family residential sectors. Once the program was implemented citywide, the City could then implement a ban on EPS, requiring or strongly encouraging the use of food service ware made from compostable material. This would establish a collection system, including containers designated for organic materials, to support the use of compostable products. Staff estimates that an ordinance banning EPS in the City would be implemented in late 2010. On January 29, 2008, staff presented a newly updated action plan to the Solid Waste Committee, including proposed staff changes, to advance the various projects and initiatives. The action plan incorporated the recommended approach and timing for implementing a ban on EPS as discussed in this report. The Solid Waste Committee was supportive of the recommended approach, and expressed an overall desire to Implement all elements of the action plan in an expeditious manner. Note that staffs proposed work plan and staff changes will be presented to the City Council on the same day as a companion agenda item. PREPARED BY: Robert Samario, Assistant Finance Director SUBMITTED BY: Robert D. Peirson, Finance Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office Meeting Date: June 3, 2008 61 Prepared by: Rich Guillen City Council Agenda Item Summary Name: Consideration of an Ordinance of the City Council of Carmel -by -the -Sea amending Section 8.68 of the Municipal Code regarding Chlorofluorocarbon and Similar Packaging Material Restrictions Description: On March 21, 2008, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) Board of Directors unanimously approved a model ordinance directed at eliminating the use of polystyrene (Styrofoam) fast-food take-out packaging. The intent of the policy is to reduce the volume of polystyrene litter found on area roadways, waterways and beaches. The MRWMD has asked that all area cities adopt policies to address this problem. Overall Cost: The City of Carmel -by -the -Sea was much in the vanguard of the movement to reduce food packaging litter, becoming the second California city (after Berkeley) to adopt an ordinance aimed at reducing take-out waste materials, back in 1989. Since then, the problem of food packaging waste litter has not improved, but there has been a new array of alternative, recyclable and compostable materials available to food service providers. Although Section 8.68 of the Carmel -by -the -Sea Municipal Code is 19 years old, the basic premises remain solid. The suggested amendments to the original ordinance merely strengthen and modernize it by adding more information about polystyrene (Styrofoam) packaging and adding specific penalties for noncompliance. City Funds: None Grant Funds: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council approve the amendments to Chapter 8.68 of the Municipal Code. Important Considerations: As written, there would be a six-month grace period after adoption of the ordinance for food service providers to use up their stock of noncompliant materials. Decision Record: Ord. 89-14, 1989 Reviewed by: Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date 62 ATTACHMENT "A" LOCAL STYROFOAM-FREE LIST Among the known local restaurants, lodging establishments, and businesses that have adopted Styrofoam -free policies are: Doubletree/Portola Carmel Valley Coffee Roasting Pebble Beach Company East Village Coffee Lounge - Monterey Brew Bar Acme Coffee Roasting Sardine Factory Chris' Classic Confections Billy Lee restaurants Cafe Lumiere Country Club Catering Parker-Lusseau Volcano Grill The Works Coffee Shop Crazy Horse Marriott Estaban Old Fisherman's Grotto Casa Munras Fish Hopper Wills Caf6 Fina Bemardus Randy's Fishing Michaels' Catering Community Hospital -Monterey Peninsula Laguna Seca CSU-Monterey Bay Poppy Hills Defense Language Institute Wild Thyme Whole Foods Passionfish Monterey Bay Aquarium Hyatt Chartwell School McDonald's (all) Carmel Mission Basilica Taco Bell (all) Monterey Institute of Intl. Studies Jack in the Box (all) Monterey Regional Waste Management Enzo's Pizza Monterey Farmer's Market Baldemiro's Taco Shop PG Farmer's Market Cuppers Coffee House York School Patch's Sandwich Shop Big Brothers Big Sisters El Guadalajara Deli KRXA Radio Mom's Home Cooking Delaware North Parks and Resorts Hula's Asilomar State Beach/Conference Grounds Red House Cafe Martella Printing Tarpy's Forest Hill Auto Rio Grill Pacific Motor Services Willy's BBQ Hans Auto Repair Montrio Light and Motion Office Cibo Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Bird on a Wire Renovations �b 63 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.2008- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING SECTION 8.68 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CHLOROFLUOROCARBON AND SIMILAR PACKAGING MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, the City has taken a leadership role among California cities in enacting legislation to protect the environment from the deleterious effects of food and consumer packaging litter caused by harmful materials such as chlorofluorocarbons and polystyrene; and WHEREAS, industrial technology has advanced to include an array of alternative, recyclable, and compostable materials available to food service; and WHEREAS, the City joins with other neighboring cities in further strengthening environmental protection of area roadways, fields, waterways and beaches. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE- SEA DOES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 8.68 CHLOROFLUOROCARBON. POLYSTYRENE AND SIMILAR PACKAGING MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS Sections: 8.68.010 Findings and Purposes. 8.68.020 Definitions. 8.68.030 Prohibited Food Packaging. 8.68.040 Degradable and Recyclable Food Packaging. 8.68.050 Regulation of Suppliers and Food Vendors. 8.68.060 Inspection of Records — Proof of Compliance. 8.68.070 Exemptions. 8.68.080 Existing Contracts. 8.68.090 City Purchases Prohibited. 8.68.100 Separate Food Packaging Waste Receptacles. 8.68.110 City Administrator's Power. 8.68.120 Liability and Enforcement. 64 8.68.010 Findings and Purposes. A. Solid waste that is nondegradable or nonrecyclable poses an acute problem for any environmentally and financially responsible solid waste management program. Such waste covers the City's streets, parks, public places and open spaces and results in environmental damage and disruption of the ecological balance. B. Products which are degradable or recyclable offer environmentally sound alternatives to nondegradable and nonrecyclable products currently used. By decaying into their constituent substances, degradable products, compared to their nondegradable equivalents, are less of a danger to the natural environment and less of a permanent blight on the City's landscape. C. The release of chlorofluorocarbons ("CFCs") into the environment may endanger public health and welfare by causing or contributing to significant depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. CFCs are manufactured chemicals that remain in the atmosphere for decades, slowing migrating upwards without reacting with any other chemicals. D. Stratospheric ozone shields the Earth's surface from dangerous ultraviolet radiation. When CFC molecules react with ultraviolet light in the atmosphere they break down, freeing chlorine atoms which catalyze the destruction of ozone. A national and international consensus has developed that unabated use of CFCs is resulting in depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that as stratospheric ozone levels drop, penetration of ultraviolet radiation will increase resulting in potential health and environmental harm. Direct effects are likely to include increased incidence of skin cancer and cataracts, suppression of the immune response system and damage to crops and aquatic organisms. E.In the troposphere (the lower atmosphere), CFCs, along with other chemicals, absorb infrared radiation, warming the Earth. Scientists predict that global warming may melt polar ice, raise sea levels and flood low-lying coasts. It may also disrupt agriculture due to shifts in global temperature and rainfall patterns. F. CFCs are widely used in blowing agents in the manufacture of plastic food packaging. Moreover, while other foam products store or bank much of the CFCs within them, food service products emit most of the CFC used in their manufacture during the manufacture, use and disposal of the products. G. The widespread use of CFC-processed food packaging poses a threat by the introduction of toxic by-products into the atmosphere and environment of the City. Restricting the sale of CFC-processed food packaging in retail food establishments in the City would contribute to slowing ozone loss and greenhouse gas buildup, thereby protecting the public health. H. In addition to emitting CFCs, plastic food service items take hundreds of years to decompose and cannot be recycled. However, these food packaging items can be and are made from other materials, such as recycled or virgin paper, and other biodegradable products which are not made using CFCs. I. Polystyrene foam is a petroleum processing by-product. Oil is a nonrenewable resource obtained by increasingly hazardous methods including off -shore drilling, which poses significant dangers to the environment. Alternative products which are degradable or recyclable pose less overall hazards than continued and expanded reliance on oil -based products. _12- M J. Evidence indicates that all blowing agents currently used or proposed in connection with the manufacture of polystyrene foam pose dangers to the environment. Beyond the acknowledged dangers of CFCs, other blowing agents also create dangers. K. Take-out food packaging constitutes the single greatest source of litter in the City and is a significant contributor to the total amount of waste entering the City's waste stream. Reducing the amount of litter will further the health, safety and welfare of the City. L. Reduction of the amount of nondegradable and nonrecyclable waste that enters the waste stream and encouraging the use of recyclable containers further this goal. materials from all establishments with the Cily will help protect this Sanctuary. MN. This chapter is consistent with the California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (Government Code Section 66700 et seq.). (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.020 Definitions. Except as otherwise defined or where the context otherwise indicates, the following defined words shall have the following meaning: A. "Affordable" means that a biodegradable, compostable or recyclable B. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials International Standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and compostable plastics, as those standards may be amended. C. `Biodegradable" means the ability of organic matter to break down from a complex to a more simple form. A D. "CFC-processed food packaging" means food packaging which uses chlorofluorocarbons as blowing agents in its manufacture. R. E."Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)" means the family of substances containing carbon, fluorine and chlorine and having no hydrogen atoms and no double bonds. F. "City Facility" means any building structure or vehicle owned and operated grant monies goods and services or supplies to be donated or to be purchased at the expense of the city. 1� H. "Compostable" means all the materials in the product or package will break service must meet ASTM-Standards for compostability and any bio-plastic or plastic -like product must be clearly labeled preferably with a color symbol to allow proper identification such that the collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM standard compostable plastic from non-ASTM standard compostable plastic. G. 1. ,Customer" means any person purchasing food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. D.J. "Degradable food packaging" means food packaging which substantially reduces to its constituent substances through degradation processes initiated by natural organisms whose end products are substantially, but not necessarily entirely, carbon dioxide and water; and plastic items designed to degrade when exposed to ultraviolet light. Degradable food packaging does not include cellulose -based items which have a synthetic or plastic coating comprising more than five percent of the total volume of the item. K. "Disposable Food Service Ware" means single -use disposable products plates cups bowls trays and hinged and lidded containers. This does not include single -use disposable items such as plastic straws cup lids or utensils £, L: `Food packaging" means all food -related wrappings, bags, boxes, containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws or drinking utensils, on which or in which food is placed or packaged on the retail food establishment's premises, and which are not intended for refuse. Food packaging does not include forks, knives or single -service condiment packages. which provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes without limitation any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, rg ocery store, F: N "Person" means an individual, a group of individuals, or an association, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity, public or private. G. O. "Polystyrene Foam" means :- w,AZ °fi•- _ feam "'. material—. and includes expanded polystyrene that is a spheres (expandable bead polystyrene) injection molding form molding and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). 67 P. "Prepared Food" means any ,..« ele :Mended for u"_feed, beyef g food or beverage prepared for consumption on the food preparer's premises using any cooking or food preparation technique This does not include any raw uncooked meat poultry fish or eggs unless provided for consumption without further food preparation It is a lolicy goal of this city to encourage supermarkets and other vendors to eliminate the use of polystyrene foam for packaging unprepared food. 3: Q "Recyclable food packaging" means any food packaging including glass, cans, cardboard, paper, mixed paper or other items which can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed or marketed by any means other than landfilling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise, so that they are returned to use by society. It includes any material that is accepted b the he special district recycling program includingbut not limited to paper, glass, aluminum, cardboard and plastic bottles Jars and tubs Recyclable lastics co cerise those plastics coded with recycling symbols 41 through #5. K-. R. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City selling prepared food to be consumed on or about its premises by customers. h: S. "Retail Food vender" Establishment star, -"e" sale- eutle a withinw City, ...,.:,., sells take eat feed shall include but is restaurant drive-in coffee shop public food market produce stand or similar place which food and drink is prepared for sale or for service on the premises or elsewhere. T. "Special Events Promoter" means an applicant for any special events permit issued by the City or any City employee(s) responsible for a Ci -organized special event. M: U. "Supplier" means any person selling or otherwise supplying food packaging to a restaurant or retail food vendor. N-. V. "Take-out Food" means prepared foods or beverages requiring no further preparation to be consumed and which are generally purchased for consumption off the retail food vendor's premises. O. "Wholesaler" means any person who acts as a wholesale merchant, broker, jobber or agent, who sells for resale. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.030 Prohibited Food Packaging. A. Restaurants. 1. Except as provided on CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080, no restaurant shall provide prepared food to its customers in CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any restaurant purchase, obtain, keep, sell, distribute, provide to customers or otherwise use in its business any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 2. As to any food packaging obtained after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each restaurant shall obtain from each of its suppliers a written statement executed by the supplier, or by a responsible agent of the supplier, stating that the supplier will not supply any CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that restaurant, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging MI. supplied to that restaurant that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, and the identity of the packaging's manufacturer. 3. All contracts between a restaurant and a supplier entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall include provisions that the supplier will not supply any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that restaurant, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging supplied to that restaurant that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, the identity of the packaging's manufacturer; and that failure to comply with such provisions shall constitute a material breach of the contract. 4. Restaurants shall retain each supplier's written statement for 12 months from the date of receipt of any food -packaging from that supplier. B. Retail Food Vendors. 1. Except as provided in CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080, no retail food vendor shall sell take-out food in CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any retail food vendor purchase, obtain, keep, sell, distribute or provide to customers or otherwise use in its business any CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 2. All retail food vendors shall segregate, in their warehouses or other storage areas located within the City, food packaging used in their take-out food operations from other food packaging. Take-out food packaging containers or boxes shall be labeled as such and shall indicate that they contain food packaging which is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 3. As to take-out food packaging obtained or purchased after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each retail food vendor shall comply with the requirements of subsection (A)(2) and (A)(4) of this section. 4. All contracts for the purchase of take-out food packaging entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall comply with the provisions of subsection (A)(3) of this section. C. Wholesalers. 1. No wholesaler located and doing business within the City shall sell, distribute or provide to customers or keep within the City any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, except as provided in CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080. 2. As to any food packaging sold, distributed or provided to customers after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each wholesaler shall obtain from each of its suppliers a written statement executed by the supplier, or by a responsible agent of the supplier, stating that the supplier will not supply any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that wholesaler, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging supplied to that wholesaler that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, and the identify of the packaging's manufacturer. 7 (e 3. As to food packaging obtained or purchased after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each wholesaler shall comply with the requirements of subsections (A)(2) and (A)(4) of this section. 4. All contracts for the purchase of take-out food packaging entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall comply with provisions of subsection (A)(3) of this section. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.040 Degradable and Recyclable Food Packaging. A. Restaurants. 1. At least 50 percent by volume of each restaurant's food packaging, in which prepared food is provided to customers, or which is kept, purchased or obtained for this purpose, shall be degradable and recyclable or reusable. 2. Each restaurant shall maintain written records evidencing its compliance with this section. B. Retail Food Vendors. 1. At least 50 percent by volume of each retail food vendor's packaging, in which take-out food is provided to customers, or which is kept, purchased or obtained for this purpose, shall be degradable, recyclable or reusable. 2. Each retail food vendor shall maintain written records evidencing its compliance with this section. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.050 Regulation of Suppliers and Food Vendors. A. It shall be unlawful for any supplier to make any misstatement of material fact to any food vendor or to the City Administrator, or her/his agents, regarding the degradable or recyclable nature of, or the use of or nonuse of, CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging supplied to any food vendor or to the City. B. Food vendors shall state that they are in compliance with this chapter on their annual business license renewal forms. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.060 Inspection of Records — Proof of Compliance. All statements and documents required by this chapter shall be made available for inspection and copying by the City Administrator, or her/his designated representative. It shall be unlawful for any person having custody of such documents to fail or refuse to produce such documents upon request by the City Administrator, or her/his designated representative. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.070 Exemptions. The City Administrator, or her/his designated representative, may exempt an item or type of food packaging from the requirements of this chapter, upon a showing that the item or type has no acceptable non-CFC-processed food packaging er pelystyrene fearn equivalent and that imposing the requirements of this chapter on that item or type would cause undue hardship. No exceptions shall be approved for the use of polysiyrene. Said documentation shall include a list of suppliers contacted to determine the nonavailability of such alternative packaging. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.080 Existing Contracts. 70 Food packaging required to be purchased under a contract entered into prior to December 31, 1989, is exempt from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.090 City Purchases Prohibited. The City shall not purchase any CFC-processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any City -sponsored event utilize such packaging. At least 50 percent by volume of food packaging which the City, or any City - sponsored event, utilizes shall be degradable or recyclable. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.100 Separate Food Packaging Waste Receptacles. Each food vendor shall establish separate waste receptacles for each type of recyclable food packaging waste generated on -premises, including, but not limited to, glass, cans, cardboard, newspapers and mixed paper. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.110 City Administrator's Power. The City Administrator is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any food vendor's premises to verify compliance with this chapter and any regulations adopted thereunder. (Ord. 89-14, 1989). 8.68.120 Liability and Enforcement. A. Violations of this Ordinance may be enforced with Chapter 8.68.120 of this Code B. The City officer shall be responsible for enforcing this Chapter and shall have authority to issue citations for violations. C. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. D. The City Attorney may seek legal,injunctive, or other relief to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. E. The remedies and penalties provided in this Chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. F. The City in accordance with applicable law, may inspect the vendor or G. Food vendors shall state that the are in compliance with the ordinance on their annual business license renewal forms. Violations of this ordinance shall be enforced as follows: 1. For the first violation City Administrator or designee shall issue a 71 2. The following penalties will apply for subsequent violations of the ordinance: a. A fine not exceeding $100 for the first violation 30 days after the first waming. The Cijy Administrator or designee may allow the violator in lieu of a 1ayment of a fine to submit receipts demonstrating the purchase after the citation date, of at least $100 worth of biodegradable compostable or recyclable products appropriate as an alternative disposable food service ware for the items which led to the violation. b. A fine not exceeding $200 for the second violation 60 days after the first warning. C. A fine not exceeding $500 for the third violation 90 days after the first warning and for each additional 30-day period in which the food provider in not in compliance. 3. Food providers who violate this ordinance in connection with commercial or non-commercial special events shall be assessed fines as follows: a. A fine not to exceed $200 for an event of one to 200 persons. b. A fine not to exceed $400 for an event of 201 to 400 persons. C. A fine not to exceed $600 for an event of 401 to 600 persons. d. A fine not to exceed $1,000 for an event of 600 or more persons. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect with a six-month, voluntary period to allow vendors to PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE- SEA this 3rd day of June 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: SIGNED: SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR ATTEST: Heid 72 Ventura County Star: Opinion Page 1 of 2 Ventura County Star To print this page, select File then Print from your browser URL: http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_l25_4324020,00.htmi Target litterbugs, not products, to clean beaches By 3san-Michel Cousteau December 28, 2005 Efforts are under way In Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange counties to ban various plastic products to reduce litter on beaches. That's like banning food because people are overweight. California's beaches are a natural treasure and we need the public's help to protect them. But history teaches an Important lesson: Bans don't work. If a community bans Styrofoam and plastic carry -out containers, coffee cups, picnic ware and similar Items, we know what will happen: individuals and businesses will switch to other disposable products, such as glass, aluminum, and wax -covered cardboard. The amount of litter will not change, only Its composition. That's why bans are overly simplistic and don't get to the real cause of the problem. I have spent my entire life protecting our oceans and beaches, and trusting education will ultimately produce the best safeguards for our environment. But I'm also a realist. I understand human behavior and realize that good Intentions are not good enough. To solve a problem, we must understand it. The products we use aren't the problem; people who litter are. It's a matter of thoughtless behavior. Research shows that beach litter comes from many sources: local residents, tourists and "day trippers," and people who live, work and commute many miles away, whose litter is picked up by drainage systems, washed out to sea and redeposited on our beaches. Litter is a serious problem. According to the California Coastal Commission, the more than 40,000 volunteers who participated in Coastal Cleanup Day in September picked up nearly 800,000 pounds of trash from the Golden State's 1,100 miles of coastline. We need to do something to reduce this. But approaching the problem by banning certain materials -- as Ventura County and Malibu have done -- won't work and may actually give citizens the false hope that they've "solved" the problem. For example, Malibu's early September decision to adopt a citywide ban on serving food and drinks in Styrofoam containers does not stop visitors from bringing other throw -away products -- including plastics -- to the beach. Ventura County's resolution that no plastics of any kind can be used during county -sponsored events similarly does not stop vendors from using other disposable containers. Public officials who are serious about cleaning up their beaches and protecting the environment are not without options. First, they can enhance and enforce existing anti -litter laws. Littering is Illegal In California. But only law enforcement officers are allowed to give out tickets and they generally have higher priorities. Besides, many judges consider the current $1,000 fine excessive. So the law isn't uniformly enforced and Isn't the deterrent it was Intended to be. The dynamics here have to change. For starters, beach communities should consider "deputizing" public works employees -- such as beach sanitation workers, lifeguards and parking meter attendants -- to cite littering offenders. Lawmakers and judges also have a role. Judges need to understand that littering is a serious problem, and perhaps be less tolerant of offenders by levying the $1,000 fine. Stricter enforcement would send a very real http://www.venturacountystar.comlvcs/cda/article_printlO,1983,VCS_125_4324020 ARTI... 1/5/2006 0 Ventura County Star: Opinion Page 2 of 2 message to would-be offenders: Utter and you will pay the price. Public offlclals also can Increase their support for public education efforts designed to discourage littering and encourage recycling. The focus of these Initiatives should include all types of products found in debris: plastics, aluminum, paper, -glass and other materials. Several private organizations, such as Keep California Beautiful, already are doing this successfully and their efforts should be lauded and expanded. Additionally, some industries are sponsoring a program called "Bring it Back Plus," encouraging people not only to pick up their own trash as they depart the beach, but to pick up some of what was left behind by others who were less responsible. As my father once observed, "People protect what they love." Public education and stricter enforcement of existing litter laws, with appropriate penalties, would help remind both our fellow Californians and the thousands of visitors who come here each year that It is their personal responsibility and civic duty to keep California clean. Unfortunately, there will always be litterbugs among -us. Bans have no effect at all on such people. Irresponsible human behavior cannot be addressed by eliminating products in society. People need to be aware that what they do -- or don't do -- can harm the planet where we all reside. -- lean -Michel Cousteau, son of the famed ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau, Is the founder of the California - based Oceans Future Society. Comment (0) 1 Trackback (0) Copyright 2005, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved. http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/cda/article_print/0,1983,VCS_125_4324020_ARTI... 1/5/2006 American Chemistry Council" Info Sheet Contact: Mike Levy (703) 741-5647 Email: mike_levy@americanchemistry.com 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 disposal 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 solid waste volume, nearly five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly 50% more greenhouse gas emissions. • Bans are likely to hurt locally -owned businesses because they limit choice and increase costs. PS is one of the most cost-effective material for foodservice 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 $30,0001 • In reality, bans 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 chlorofluorocarbons are used in foodservice polystyrene manufacturing today. CFCs were a very small portion of the polystyrene foodservice industry, and voluntarily phased out in the early 1990s. • Many local businesses are willing to do their part to reduce litter — to work collaboratively with the city and anti -litter advocates to implement programs developed to address this important issue. americanchemistry.com 1300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 I (703) 741.5000 0 la� (Polystyrene Foodservice Packaging, continued) PS foodservice ware is being recycled in California and elsewhere — no other foodservice materials (paperboard, composite paper/plastics, or biomaterials) 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 municipal 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 (12.4%); plastics (11.7%), 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 blight 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, replicabie, and objective results. americanchemistry.com Attachment 5 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY rg- cbs5.com - Judge Blocks Oakland Plastic Bag Ban Page 1 of 2 Judge Blocks Oakland Plastic Bag Ban 0 Environment & The Green Beat OAKLAND (BCN) —A judge who reviewed an Oakland ordinance that would have banned plastic shopping bags has told the city to bag it. In an injunction against the ordinance that he issued late Thursday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said that the city failed to conduct a full review of how the ban would affect the environment. The Oakland City Council approved the plastic bag ordinance last July 17 and it was scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 17, but city officials delayed enforcing it pending a hearing and Roesch's ruling on a lawsuit filed by the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling last August. The group includes plastic bag manufacturers and recyclers and,individuals. A similar ban on plastic bags took effect in San Francisco on Nov. 20 and is still in place. Oakland City Attorney spokesman Alex Katz said today that his office will ask the City Council next week whether its members want to contest Roesch's ruling or do a full environmental review of the ordinance. Michael Mills, the attorney for the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling, said he believes that the city's recommended alternatives, such as compostable plastic bags and paper bags are at least equally as harmful to the environment as plastic bags and possibly more harmful. Mills said the manufacturing process for paper bags causes air pollution and water pollution and consumes more fuel to truck because they're bulkier and weigh more than plastic bags. He said they also take up more space in landfills. In his ruling, Roesch said, "It is because of that evidence in the record and the unanimity of the uncertainty whether paper bags are less (or more) environmentally friendly than plastic bags that the city cannot assert that there is'no possibility' of any significant environmental effect caused by the ban." In a statement, Keith Christman, senior director of the American Chemistry Council's plastics division, said, "Like many who have been waiting for this decision, we are pleased with the judge's ruling." Christman said, "Banning plastic bags would dramatically increase energy use, double greenhouse gas emissions and increase waste. Recycling plastic bags is the right approach and makes plastic bags the environmentally responsible choice." He said, "We encourage the city to help Oakland residents improve the recycling of plastic bags consistent with AB 2449, California's state-wide recycling program," said Christman." hq://cbs5.com/environment/oakland.plastic.bags.2.703597.html 09/17/2008 �� cbs5.com - Judge Blocks Oakland Plastic Bag Ban Page 2 of 2 Christman said, "Plastics are a valuable resource - too valuable to waste —and we believe effective implementation of the.state's recycling program is the best and fastest way to steward environmental resources and reduce litter by recycling these bags." Mills said internal a -mails between Oakland officials last year indicate that they admit that compostabie plastic bags aren't any better for the environment than are regular plastic shopping bags. Mills said he believes Oakland officials only approved the ordinance for "feel -good public relations spin." (© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.) http://cbs5.com/environment/oakland.plastic.bags.2.703597.htxnl 09/17/2008 THE SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION TO THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA FORMAL OBJECTIONS BY THE SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION TO PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2115 TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRY -OUT BAGS, AND TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE The Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (the "Coalition") is an unincorporated association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors. The members include (but are not limited to) Grand Packaging, Inc. and Crown Poly, Inc. which are manufacturers and Elkay Plastics Co., Inc. which is a manufacturer and distributor. Members of the Coalition supply plastic carry -out bags to businesses covered by the proposed ordinance and would be adversely affected by its adoption. The Coalition hereby responds to the June 12, 2008 Notice Of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration and asserts the objections herein. GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION CITED BY THE CITY 14 CCR §15061(b)(3) and §15308 are cited by the city in the proposed ordinance as the bases for exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the requirement that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. 14 CCR §15061(b)(3) is known as the "common sense exemption." It states as follows: The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. [Emphasis added] Citing 14 CCR §15061(b)(3), the proposed ordinance states that the activity will not result in direct or indirect or reasonably foreseeable- direct or indirect physical change to the environment. 14 CCR §15308 is a "categorical exemption." It states that the following category of actions is exempt from CEQA: [A]ctions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. 14 CCR § 15300.2(c) states an exception to all categorical exemptions, as follows. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Citing 14 CCR §15308, the proposed ordinance states that the ordinance is exempt as it is a regulatory program designed to protect the environment. In 2005, the Scottish Government issued a full environment impact assessment on the effects of a proposed plastic bag levy (the "Scottish Report"). A copy of the Scottish Report is provided herewith. The Scottish report states: If only plastic bags were to be levied (scenarios lA and 113), then studies and experience elsewhere suggest that there would be some shift in bag usage to paper bags (which have worse environmental impacts.) The Scottish Report compared plastic and paper bags and made the following findings: [A] paper bag has a more adverse impact than a plastic bag for most of the environmental' issues considered. Areas where paper bags score particularly badly include water consumption, atmospheric acidification (which can have effects on human health, sensitive ecosystems, forest decline and acidification of lakes) and eutrophication of water bodies (which can lead to growth of algae and depletion of oxygen). [Note: Eutrophication means the process by which a body of water becomes rich in dissolved nutrients, thereby encouraging the growth and decomposition of oxygen -depleting plant life and resulting in harm to other organisms.] 2 im Paper bags are anywhere between six to ten times heavier than lightweight plastic carrier bags and, as such, require more transport and its associated costs. They would also take up more room in a landfill if they were not recycled. The Scottish Report contains the following comparison of the environmental metrics of plastic bags and paper bags which is taken from the study done by the French company Groupe Carrefour. The lightweight plastic bag has been given a score of 1 in all categories as a reference point. The report states: A score greater than 1 indicates that another bag ('bag for life' or paper) makes more contribution to the environmental problem than a lightweight plastic bag when normalised against the volume of shopping carried. A score of less than 1 indicates that it makes less of a contribution, i.e. it has less environmental impact than a lightweight plastic bag." [Emphasis added] The indicators take account of emissions which occur over the whole lifecycle. They can therefore occur in different locations depending on where different parts of the lifecycle are located. For global environmental problems such as climate change, the location of the emission is not important in assessing the potential environmental impact.... Indicator of environmental impact HDPE bag lightweight Paper bag single use Consumption of non-renewable primary energy 1.0 1.1 Consumption of water 1.0 4.0 Climate change (emission of greenhouse gases) 1.0 3.3 Acid rain (atmospheric acidification) 1.0 1.9 Air quality (ground level ozone formation) 1.0 1.3 Eutrophication of water bodies 1.0 14.0 Solid waste production 1.0 2.7 Risk of litter 1.0 0.2 Scottish Report at page 22-23. 3 THE ULS REPORT In March 2008, use-less-stuffcom ("ULS") issued an updated "Review Of Life Cycle Data Relating To Disposable, Compostable, Biodegradable, And Reusable Grocery Bags" (the "ULS Report"). A copy of the ULS Report and the one -page ULS media release announcing the report are provided herewith. ULS made the following findings which are contained in the report: 1. Plastic bags generate 39% less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted paper bags, and 68% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags. The plastic bags generate 4,645 tons of CO2 equivalents per 150 million bags; while uncomposted paper bags generate 7,621 tons, and composted paper bags generate 14,558 tons, per 100 million bags produced. 2. Plastic bags consume less than 6% of the water needed to make paper bags. It takes 1004 gallons of water to produce 1000 paper bags and 58 gallons of water to produce 1500 plastic bags. 3. Plastic grocery bags consume 71% less energy during production than paper bags. Significantly, even though traditional disposable plastic bags are produced from fossil fuels, the total non-renewable energy consumed during their lifecycle is up to 36% less than the non-renewable energy consumed during the lifecycle of paper bags and up to 64% less than that consumed by biodegradable plastic bags. 4. Using paper sacks generates almost five times more solid waste than using plastic bags. 5. After four or more uses, reusable plastic bags are superior to all types of disposable bags -- paper, polyethylene and compostable plastic -- across all significant environmental indicators. ULS Report at pages 3-4. The ULS report concludes as follows: Legislation designed to reduce environmental impacts and litter by outlawing grocery bags based on the material from which they are produced will not deliver the intended results. While some litter El W reduction might take place, it would be outweighed by the disadvantages that would subsequently occur (increased solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions). Ironically, reducing the use of traditional plastic bags would not even reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, as paper and biodegradable plastic bags consume at least as much non-renewable energy during their full lifecycle. ULS Report at pages 5. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As stated in my letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008, there are other environmental impacts of a shift to paper bags. It takes approximately ten times more diesel fuel to transport paper bags than plastic bags, because they are heavier and bulkier. It takes as much as eighty-five times more energy to recycle a paper bag than a plastic bag. The manufacture of paper bags generates approximately 70 percent more air pollutants than plastic bags. Approximately 13 to 17 million trees are chopped down each year to make paper bags, which will multiply if plastic bags are banned. Logging has an impact on climate change. Trees absorb and store CO2. Logging releases stored CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is increasing the acidification of the oceans and threatening the ecosystem and entire species of marine life. A comprehensive review of the impact of the paper industry on the environment is contained in a report entitled "The State of the Paper Industry" by the Environmental Paper Network the "Paper Report"). It can be downloaded at: www.environmentalpaper.orQ/stateoftheyaperindustry/confirm.htm. The following findings are stated in the Paper Report: [T]he paper industry's activities - and our individual use and disposal of paper in our daily lives - have enormous impacts. These include loss and degradation of forests that moderate climate change, destruction of habitat for countless plant and animal species, pollution of air and water with toxic chemicals such as mercury and dioxin, and production of methane - a potent 5 greenhouse gas - as paper decomposes in landfills, to name just a few. (Page iv) One of the most significant, and perhaps least understood, impacts of the paper industry is climate change. Every phase of paper's lifecycle contributes to global warming, from harvesting trees to production of pulp and paper to eventual disposal. (Page v) The climate change effects of paper carry all the way through to disposal. If paper is landfilled rather than recycled, it decomposes and produces methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times the heat - trapping power of carbon dioxide. More than one-third of municipal solid waste is paper, and municipal landfills account for 34 percent of human related methane emissions to the atmosphere, making landfills the single largest source of such emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the decomposition of paper as among the most significant sources of landfill methane. (Page v) Plastic bags are often criticized on the ground that they do not decompose in landfills. In fact, as we can see from the Paper Report, that is a positive attribute of plastic bags, not a negative one. THE OAKLAND CASE The issue of the applicability of CEQA to the banning of plastic bags has already been litigated. Coalition To Support Plastic Bag Recycling v. City of Oakland et al., Alameda Superior Court, Case No. RG07-339097 (hereinafter the "Oakland Case"). The City of Oakland passed an ordinance banning plastic bags, citing 14 CCR §15061(b)(3) and §15308 as reasons for not preparing an EIR. The court ruled that the ordinance was invalid as the city could not make the findings required under either section. A copy of the court's ruling is provided herewith. In the Oakland Case, the court referred to the Scottish Report and an earlier version of the ULS Report. The court ruled as follows regarding 14 CCR §15061(b)(3): The findings of the Scottish report raise a reasonable inference that an outright ban on single -use 100% petroleum plastic bags may result in increased use of paper bags. �I� This evidence is sufficient to defeat the assertion of the "common sense exemption" because, with such evidence as part of the record, the City cannot meet the standard that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect.... It is because of this evidence in the record and unanimity of the uncertainty whether paper bags are less (or more) environmentally friendly than plastic bags that the City cannot assert that there is "no possibility" of any significant environmental effect caused by the ban of the 100% petroleum plastic bags. Having found evidence to support a fair argument regarding the significant adverse effects of the Ordinance claimed by Petitioner, and no evidence that would permit the City to conclude to a certainty that Petitioner's concerns are unfounded, City's reliance on the common sense exemption was an abuse of discretion. Ruling at 9-10. The court ruled as follows regarding 14 CCR § 15308: [T]here are exceptions to the categorical exemptions. The City cannot rely on a categorical exemption for a project where there is a "reasonable possibility" that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances." (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).) The City's determination whether the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment is reviewed under the fair argument standard. [Citation] The question is whether "on the basis of the whole record, there was no substantial evidence that there would be a significant [environmental] effect." [Citation] [Emphasis in original] A shift in consumer use from one environmentally damaging product to another constitutes an "unusual circumstance" of an activity that would otherwise be exempt from review under CEQA as activity undertaken to protect the environment. [Citation] The court also finds that substantial evidence in the record supports at least a fair argument that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags. [Referring to the Scottish Report, the ULS Report, and other documents.].... 7 Although City points to evidence in the record that contradicts evidence cited by Petitioner, the court does not address it except to note that none of this evidence negates the evidence cited by petitioner. "If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary." [Citation] Ruling at 11-12. CEOA OBJECTIONS Based on the foregoing and the documents provided herewith, the Coalition objects to the proposed negative declaration and the proposed ordinance on the following grounds: A. Based on the Scottish and ULS Reports and common sense, it is clear that the prohibition on the distribution of plastic carry -out bags in Manhattan Beach would result in an increase in the number of paper carry -out bags that would have significant adverse environmental effects. Consequently, the City of Manhattan Beach cannot meet the standard that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect. B. The IES addresses paper bags. The city concedes in the IES that the banning of plastic bags in Manhattan Beach "may result in an increase in paper bag usage" (Page 15) The city also concedes in the IES that "it is well documented that the manufacture and recycling of paper generates more wastewater than plastic bags. The increased use of energy could have an impact on the environment by increasing emissions from paper mills and recycling plants." (Page 15) The city is thereby conceding that there is a fair argument and a possibility that the proposed ordinance will have a significant environmental effect. C. The City Attorney admitted at the June 3, 2008 Council hearing that the Coalition had made a "fair argument" in its June 3, 2008 letter. He stated: "They have raised in their [June 3, 2008] letter what's called in CEQA terminology a fair argument that in fact there could be a negative impact from adopting this ordinance." D. The city states in the IES that Manhattan Beach is a small city with only 217 licensed retail establishments that might use plastic bags. (Page 15) The city concludes as follows: "It appears that any increase in the total use of paper bags resulting from the proposed ban on plastic bags ... would be relatively small with a minimal or nonexistent increase in pollutants generated from production and recycling." (Page 16) (Emphasis added) This is a bare assertion that is not supported by any facts or evidence in the IES. In any case, the 'r3 word "appears" is a concession by the city that it is possible that the ordinance will have significant environmental effect. E. The size of the city and the number of retail outlets have nothing to do with whether the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. If it were otherwise, then each small city could avoid the preparation of an EIR, but the cumulative effect of many small cities doing the same thing would be large. The Coalition hereby makes a fair argument that it is possible that banning plastic bags in a city with 217 retail outlets would have a significant negative effect on the environment caused by a shift to paper bags. F. The IES does not satisfy the requirements of 14 CCR §15063 for an Initial Study as it does not state all of the possible negative environmental effects of an increase in the number of paper carry -out bags, including those identified herein and in the Scottish and ULS Reports (which are incorporated in these objections by reference) and the Coalition's letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008. G. There is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument and a reasonable possibility that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags, including this document and the Scottish and ULS Reports. Therefore, it cannot be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. This objection cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. 14 CCR §15061(b)(3); Oakland Case at 12; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CalApp.3d 1337, 1348 ("If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary."). H. There is substantial evidence in the record that supports a fair argument and a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances." A shift in consumer use from one environmentally damaging product to another constitutes an "unusual circumstance" This obiection cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. 14 CCR §15308, §15300.2(c); Oakland Case at 12; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CalApp.3d 1337, 1348 ("If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary."). Each of the above objections is a separate and independent ground. �1 FURTHER OBJECTIONS The Coalition further objects to the proposed ordinance on the following grounds: 1. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code §§42250-42257 (also known as "AB 2449"), stores (as defined in §42250(e)) are required to install special recycling bins for plastic bags. AB 2449 was intended to address and constitute the state's solution to the perceived problems of plastic carry -out bags, including but not limited to recycling, litter, marine debris, and environmental sustainability issues. It occupies the field and preempts any potential city or county action to address those issues by enacting a plastic bag ban. AB 2449 contains no provision permitting a city or county to ban plastic bags. AB 2449 only reserves the right of cities and counties to adopt, implement, and enforce laws governing curbside or drop off recycling programs for plastic bags. §42250(c). 2. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because it is not recycled to a degree deemed satisfactory by the city or county. 3. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because the product sometimes becomes litter. 4. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because the product sometimes becomes marine debris. 5. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because they believe that it would be the best option for the sustainability of the environment. 6. A California city or county has no right or authority to ban plastic bags on environmental grounds. Other cities and counties may decide to pass laws banning paper bags rather than plastic bags. This would result in a patchwork of competing and conflicting environmental schemes that would canceleach other out and defeat the purposes of such laws. Assuming that it is not exclusively a federal matter under the Commerce Clause, only the California Legislature can enact such a ban. Each of the above objections is a separate and independent ground. 10 REQUESTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD It is requested that the following documents be made part of the record and the Staff Report: 1. This document. 2. The Oakland Case ruling provided herewith. 3. The Scottish Report provided herewith. 4. The ULS Report provided herewith. 5. The ULS media release provided herewith. 6. The London Times report provided herewith. 7. My letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008 on behalf of the Coalition provided herewith. CONCLUSION In the event that the city adopts the proposed ordinance, the Coalition and/or some or all of its members intend to file a lawsuit challenging its validity. The grounds will include (but may not be limited to) the points and objections stated herein and in my June 3 and 10, 2008 letters. No arguments or objections are waived. All rights are reserved. We request an opportunity for the Coalition to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. Dated: June 18, 2008 STEPHEN L. JOSEPH Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph P.O. Box 221 Tiburon, CA 94920-0221 Telephone: (415) 577-6660 Facsimile: (415) 869-5380 E-mail: slioseph.law@earthlink.net Attorney for the Save The Plastic Bag Coalition 11 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0 Attachment 6 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l02 Page 1 of 2 Bowden, Katie From: Riles, Andrea Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:06 PM To: Bowden, Katie Subject: FW Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Expires: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:00 AM Attachments: M-301 EnvFacts.pdf; M-376 Life Cycle.pdf; densifier pc.jpg; Green firm fits into mould.pdf From: Knapp, Christine [OCWR] [mailto:Christine.Knapp@iwmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:07 PM To: Aalders, Mark; Allen, Heather; AULT, DAVE; Avila, Liz; Balliet, Mike; Beckman, Chris; Beimer, Rae; Boelter, Pearl [HCA]; BRODOWSKI, DOUG; BYRNE, MIKE; Cao, Ann; Carson, Jason; Castro, Antonia; Chay, Julie [OCWR]; Corbin, Chet; Crumby, Sean; Delgadiilo, Dora; Denning, Chrystal; Donner, Ken; Eustice, Melanie; Farnsworth, Nate; FAUTH, TOM; Gauthier, Terra; Gonzales, Mary•, Gordon, Sue; Hauerwaas, Steve; Henderson, Jeff; Howard, A.J.; Importuna, Patrick; Jay Ware; Jubinsky, Deborah; Kakutani, Maria; Kha, Irene; Lane, Christine [HCA]; Lazzaro, James; Leticia Mercado; Maria Lazaruk; Matson; Denise; Mattert, Lisa; May, Stephen; Mazboudi, Ziad; MCGEE, MARK; McIntosh, Danna; Meyers, Joe; Monaco, Chip [CEO]; Montgomery, Ken; Moon, Rita; Morris, Rosalie; Nic Castro; Noce, Jan; Ooten, Bob; Palmer, Nancy; Reilly, Doug; Reynolds, David; Riles, Andrea; Rios, Isabel; Ruffridge, Dean; Shubin, Don; Stubbler, Traci; Trevor, Blythe; Valenzuela, Daniel; Wager, Jake; Ware, Jay; Ware, Judy; Warren, Gregory•, Wolf, Shanna; Yee, Kristin; 2505 (DART Nic Morrell), 9043 (L.A. CSD/DART), 9044 (L.A. CSD/DART) - L.Mendoza; 5012, 5024,5030,9005 (Taomina.LLC Import), 97003, & 97053 REPUBLIC - D. Ault; 5016, 97002, 97052 CR&R - B. Scottini; 5019, 5070, 5091 WM - L.Patlno; 5032 CR&R, 9040 (Solag) - R.Pantoja; 5035 EDCO - Park Disposal; 5087, 5402 - RAINBOW - Jacobs; 5141, 5716 - SOCWA - Rosales; 5332 WM of Orange - (Sunset Environ.), 5336 (Transfer), 9048 & 9049 WM - K.Feeney; 5354, 5408 - FEDERAL DISPOSAL - Shubin; 5400, 90054, 97004, 97054 - TIERRA VERDE, 9053 (Burrtec/EDCO, Paramount) - K. Kazarian; 5403 - CR&R - D.Otting; 5416 - JOSE ARVIZU - JPA Assoc.; 5635 - NEWPORT BCH (Gen.Svs.), 5637 (Utilities)- M. Eldridge; 9025 - ESCONDIDO DISPOSAL - V. Tobiason; 9026 - EDCO Efrain Ramirez; 9026 - EDCO Steve South; 9029 (West Valley), 9030 (Agua Mansa MRF, SanBernadino) - BURRTEC/EDCO - C. Rutter; 9031 (Burrtec/EDCO, Signal Hill Disposal) - CR&R - M.Planck; 9038 - Burrtec/EDCO (Allied/BFI) - J.O'Neal; 9046 - WM - D.Becker; 9050 - WM, 9052 (WM of Southgate) - B.Grimm; 9051- Burrtec/EDCO (Potential, Ind.) - D. Domonoske; 9054 - Burrtec/EDCO (Innovative Waste Control) - T. Griffiths; 9055 - Universal Waste - M. Blackburn; 97005 - GREENCYCLE - G.Jones; 97007 - HARVEST LANDSCAPING (formerly SS&K); WARE, JAY Cc: Mlchael.Westerrield-GAED@dart.biz; Brajdic, Marlene [OCWR]; aultd@repsrv.com Subject: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Dear Recycling Coordinators and Haulers: For your information and consideration, this company makes interior mouldings out of Styrofoam. Please note the name, Dart, is not related to Downey Area Recycling and Transfer. As you know, the County does not endorse any companies. But I do try to get as much information out to all of you regarding new recycling opportunities. Thanks, 09/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 Manager of Recycling Programs Government and Community Relations OC Waste & Recycling 320 North Flower Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA 92703 work: (714) 834-4166 From: Michael.Westerfield-GAED@dart.biz [mailto:Michael.Westerfield-GAED@dart.biz] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:09 PM To: Information [OCWR] Subject: Fw: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Christine, Thank you for your interest in recycling foam. My company, Dart Container Corporation, is a leading producer of plastic food service products including foam cups, foam hinged trays, and foam plates (These items have also been referred to as "Styrofoam"). As you are probably aware, there are a lot of misperceptions about our products relative to alternative food service disposables. In reality, our products compare favorably from an environmental standpoint to many of the alternatives when the whole life cycle of products is considered. For example, most people do not realize that our products are recyclable unlike most of the paper alternatives (The plastic/wax lining on paper cups makes it cost prohibitive to recycle them). With this in mind, my company feels we need to do a better job of making the recycling of foam cups and containers a viable option for the public. To advance our recycling efforts, we are interested in partnering with large end -users municipalities and material recovery facilities to make EPS recycling a reality. Two challenges with recycling foam are the collection of foam in a recyclable condition and the transportation of the foam. Since it is not feasible for us to go to each house to collect foam, one option would be to let residents co -mingle the foam in their current recycling bin and then to sort it at local Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). Another option would be to offer a bin on city property where the public can drop-off their foam (In a recyclable condition). Once the product is at the MRF or drop-off site (Or both locations), we could provide a densifier that would compact the foam so that it can be transported by Dart to be recycled. While we only make food service containers, we would be willing to accept "Shape" or "Molded" foam as part of the program. The benefit to you is that you would be able to maximize your Landfill Diversion Rate. If we can agree to a mutually beneficial program, we would provide the densifier on a "$0.00 lease basis." Fyi, the City of Roseville is currently recycling their foam and -the product is being made into various types of wood and sold to the Home Depot by a company in Stockton named Timbron. Below, I have attached a copy of the Environmental Facts on Foam, a Life Cycle Study on foam, a picture of the Dart densifier, and an article about Timbron. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this program further. Regards, Michael Michael Westerfield West Coast Director of Recycling & Sustainability Dart Container Corporation Government Affairs and the Environment Phone (909) 793-2729 Fax (909) 793-2739 www.dart.biz 09/17/2008 104 Most paper foodservice products are coated with wax, polyethylene plastic, or other non -biodegradable materials and are, therefore, essentially no more degradable than foam. Polystyrene foam, like most plastics, does not biodegrade.' The lack of biodegradation may be a positive feature of plastics, according to Dr. William L. Rathje, an archaeologist with the University of Arizona's Garbage Project and one of the nation's foremost authorities on solid waste and landfills. "The fact that plastic does not biodegrade, which is often cited as one of its great defects, may actually be one of its great virtues," Dr. Rathje has written? In fact, biodegradation can lead to the release of harmful methane gas or leachate, which can contaminate groundwater.' The manufacture of polystyrene foam hot beverage cups requires less energy than the manufacture of comparable plastic -coated paperboard hot cups with sleeves, and the manufacturing of polystyrene foam cold beverage cups requires less energy than the manufacture of representative -weight wax - coated paperboard cold cups. An average -weight polystyrene hot beverage cup requires less than half as much energy to produce as an average -weight polyethylene (PE) plastic -coated paperboard hot cup with a corrugated cup sleeve.' An average -weight polystyrene cold beverage cup requires just over one-third as much energy to produce as a representative -weight wax -coated paperboard cup.' Environmental Facts about Dart Foam Products Plastic -coated paperboard cups don't insulate as efficiently as foam cups. Plastic -coated paper cup users frequently use two cups together for hot beverages to protect their hands. This "double cupping" of an average -weight polyethylene (PE) plastic -coated paperboard cup results in over twice as much energy use and solid waste by volume, over five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the use of a single average -weight polystyrene cup.6 The manufacture of Dart polystyrene foam products does not deplete the ozone layer. Dart polystyrene foam products are not manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or any other ozone -depleting chemicals. Moreover, Dart Container Corporation never used CFCs in the manufacture of foam cups. Those foodservice manufacturers of polystyrene foam that employed CFCs in their manufacturing processes ceased using them by 1990.' Polystyrene foam can be recycled as part of an integrated solid waste management strategy.' Paper foodservice disposables, on the other hand, are rarely recycled. To assist in improving polystyrene recycling rates, Dart Container Corporation established several polystyrene foam recycling facilities in the US and one in Canada. For information on any polystyrene recycling programs that may be available in your area, please visit the Environment section of our website at littp://www.dart.biz or call 1-800-288-CARE. Polystyrene foam is composed of carbon and hydrogen. When properly incinerated polystyrene foam leaves only carbon dioxide, water, and trace amounts of ash.' In modem waste -to -energy incinerators, the energy generated by the incineration of polystyrene foam cups and other solid waste can provide heat and light for neighboring communities.10 Polystyrene foam foodservice products do not "clog" landfills. Polystyrene foam foodservice products constitute less than 1 percent, by both weight and volume, of our country's municipal solid waste." I ROM r infor�ation V it isit our •, I ^' ., www.dart.bij Notes ' The Polystyrene Packaging Council, Polystyrene And Its Raw Material, Styrene: Manufacture and Use, November 1993, p. 1. 2 William L. Rathje, "Rubbish!" The Atlantic Monthly, December 1989, p. 103. J William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, "Five Major Myths About Garbage, and Why They're Wrong," Smithsonian, July 1992, p. 5. 4 Franklin Associates, Ltd., Final Peer -Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products (Prepared for The Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), Table 2-2, p. 2-7. 5 Ibid, Table 2-3, p. 2-8. 6Ibid, pp. 2-7, 2-23, 2-43, 2-60. ' Judd H. Alexander, In Defense of Gat bage ( Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1993) p. 55. 8 The rate of recovery for recycling of polystyrene disposables and protective packaging more than doubled from 1989 to 1994. Since 1994, outlets for recycling polystyrene foam have declined for a number reasons, including poor economics and an increasing awareness by many consumers that other methods of solid waste management exist. For example, foam loosefill packing material may be reused and polystyrene and other plastic products can be easily and safely incinerated. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Waste Management and Reduction Trends in the Polystyrene Industry, 1974-1994, June 1996, pp. 17-18; Updated August 1999. 9 The Polystyrene Packaging Council, Polystyrene and Its Raw Material, Styrene: Manufacture and Use, November 1993, pp. 27-28. la In past years, waste -to -energy has been viewed negatively by persons concerned about the environmental effects of incinerations. As technology has improved, however, modem incinerators have become a safe and effective method of handling many post -consumer materials. According to Franklin Associates, Ltd., a leading solid waste consulting firm, "At some point after 2000, the use of finite resources, e.g. fossil fuels, may lead to a more welcoming climate for expansion of waste -to -energy as an alternative solid waste management technique." Franklin Associates, Ltd., Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads, December 1997, p. 1-24. " Moreover, according to a 1998 report by Franklin Associates, Ltd., polystyrene and other plastic products do not comprise the largest volume of material within the waste stream. Indeed, the report concludes that paper and yard trimmings together constitute about 51.6 percent of generation. Thus, while it may be preferable to divert all materials from landfills whenever possible, polystyrene foam does not present the paramount problem for municipal solid waste or, for that matter, landfill capacity. In fact, when polystyrene foam products are buried in landfills, they are as stable and harmless as rocks, concrete, and other inert materials. William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, "Five Major Myths About Garbage, and Why They're Wrong," Smithsonian, July 1992, p. 3. See also: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Waste Management and Reduction Trends in the Polystyrene Industry, 1974-1994, June 1996, p. 7; Updated August 1999; and Franklin Associates, Ltd., Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 2003 Facts and Figures (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April, 2005). DART CONTAINER CORPORATION The Industry Standard of Excellence Mason, Michigan 48854 U.S.A. Ph: 800-248.5960 • Fax: 517-676.3883 Email: sales®dan.blz • v .dart.biz M-301 (1112007) Printed on recycled paper woarDmco ti drea muan Foodservice Packaging Life Cycle Inventory (coat.) Report Highlights Comparisons between systems were summarized for four key performance areas: energy. solid waste (by weight), solid waste (by volume), and greenhouse gas emissions. • In the four key areas, the LCI study demonstrates that in most cases the alternative products studied have environmental burdens that are higher than or comparable to polystyrene foam products. Those include plastic -coated paperboard cups for hot beverages (both with and without a corrugated sleeve). plastic -coated and wax -coated cups for cold beverages, and fluted paperboard clamshells (p. ES-16; pp. 2-60 through 2-63). • The report will disappoint gourmet coffee customers who believe they are doing something "good for the environment" by choosing to use two plastic -coated paperboard cups for one hot beverage instead of a single polystyrene foam cup. According to the data (derived froth pp. 2- 7, 2-23. 2-43, and 2-60) for the average plastic - coated paperboard cup and average polystyrene foam cup, this practice of "double -cupping" results in over twice as much energy use and solid waste by volume, over five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the use of a single polystyrene cup. • An average -weight polystyrene hot beverage cup requires less than half as much energy to produce as an average -weight polyethylene (PE) plastic -coated paperboard hot beverage cup with a corrugated cup sleeve (Table 2-2, p. 2-7). • An average -weight polyethylene (PE) plastic - coated paperboard hot beverage cup produces almost three times as much tntal waste by weight as an average -weight polystyrene hot beverage cup (Table 2-10, p. 2.23). • An average -weight polyethylene (PE) plastic - coated paperboard hot beverage cup with a corrugated cup sleeve produces almost five limes as much total waste by weight as an average -weight polystyrene hot beverage cup (Table 2-Ill, p. 2.23). • An average -weight polystyrene cold beverage cup requires just over one third as much energy to produce as a representative -weight wax-coa(cd paperboard cold beverage cup (Table 2.3, P. 2.8). a An average -weight polyethylene (PE) plastic -coated paperboard cold beverage cup produces almost two and one-half times as much total waste by weight as an average - weight polystyrene cold beverage cup (Table 2-11. p. 2-24). • A representative -weight wax -coated paperboard cold beverage cup produces almost five times as much total waste by weight as an average -weight polystyrene cold beverage cup (Table 2-11, p. 2-24). Sources Franklin Associates, Ltd, Final Peer-Reriewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory, of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products. (Prepared for The Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006) DART CON7AINE'R CORPORATION Pw Industry Standard of Excaltence Masun, Wbgan 46854 U.SA. Ph 8W-248-59W - Fax: 517-a7a-3a93 Emal galeaOdan.blz- www.dad.blz M-37Erev.ta/Yaa7 Printed on recycled paper IE Green Care: Foodservice Packaging Life Cycle Inventory This new peer -reviewed study from Franklin Associates Ltd. provides an extensive and comparative look at the energy and environmental performance of foodservice packaging products made with polystyrene foam, bleached paperboard or corrugated paperboard, including hot and cold beverage cups and sandwich "clamshells." Known as a life cycle inventory, or simply LCI, the study offers a cradle -to -grave picture of a product's environmental attributes, from raw material extraction and manufacturing to post -use recovery or disposal. The 2006 Foodservice Packaging LCI evaluated products across the full range of resource and energy use, solid waste generation, atmospheric emissions and waterborne emissions. Comparisons between systems were summarized for four key performance areas: energy, solid waste (weight), solid waste (volume), and greenhouse gas emissions. The full report, Franklin Associates, Ltd., Final Peer -Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products (Prepared for The Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), may be downloaded at www.dart.biz. This LCI meets international standards (ISO 14040) and has been independently peer -reviewed. More information on the peer -review can be found on page PR-3 of the full report. About Life Cycle Studies —What is an LCI? A life cycle approach means we recognize how our choices influence what happens at each of these points so we can balance trade-offs and make informed choices that can help reduce overall burdens on the environment. In this regard, LCI studies are an essential source of information for government, scientists, manufacturers and retailers, and individuals who want to make an educated environmental choice. An LCI is a compilation and quantification of the inputs and outputs of a given product system. In this case, foodservice packaging products, including hot and cold beverage cups, plates and sandwich clamshells, were reviewed. LCI studies conduct a system analysis that begins with extracting raw materials from the ground for use as material feedstocks or fuels. Materials and energy use, as well as releases to the environment, are then assessed throughout product manufacturing, transportation, use, and management at the end of the product's useful life. In Public Policy LCI studies are particularly important in the public arena, where they can help policymakers arrive at well-informed decisions and avoid the shortcomings of focusing on a single environmental performance attribute. The 2006 Franklin LCI provides comparative information on air, water, solid waste and energy as well as a complete range of post -use options, such as recycling, composting, landfilling and waste -to -energy incineration. This enables policymakers to evaluate these factors in the broader context of other important environmental attributes spanning the product life cycle. In the Foodservice Industry Similarly, decision makers in the foodservice industry can assess the study's findings in combination with other important criteria, such as cost, convenience and product performance, to make better -informed choices about the products they use. M THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ,,o /l2lGL'Ldf30 BT Tf-•1E, TY�SS TIMES Ut\J V Date: Location: Circulation (DMA): Type (Frequency), Thursday, February 28, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 23.546(5) Ma9aNne(W) ■~n\7 Pogo: Keyword; 25 Dan Container Corporation Timbron turns used coffee cups into interior mouldings RY HOWA GORILOVSKAYA San Franeisco Business Times Contributor Not all recyclables are created equal. Non - biodegradable polystyrene, used to make packaging for printers and hot beverage cups, is the least desired of the lot. But Timbron International has succeeded turn- Ing what many people still consider garbage into tree - free Interior mouldings. With $10.2 million in revenue last year, the Walnut Creek company is weathering the housing slump by supplying green products for Home Depot and continu- Ing Its ambitious R&D agenda. "My best decision was getting involved in an industry that is in Its infancy, and that Is not only doing some great social good, but that as a business has unlimited upside," said Robert Telles, chairman of the board and majority owner, Timbron's white mouldings are made out of 90 percent -recycled polystyrene, 75 percent of which Is post -consumer. Ten million cubic feet of polysty- rene were recycled by Tlmbron last year and the company boasts to have collected' enough since 2000 to fill the Empire State Building. Comparable in price to Its wood competitors, Tdmbron,mould- Ings are marketed as being the greener, waterproof and bug -resistant choice. Timbron casts the net far and wide for cheap raw ac9Py,pME9990uMauJ9urt iP9W.5 Mt Pk. M1.1 ie N&kherdlac9/ bNrl' u mftg n.e " material. The white stuff arrives from Danish fish- ermen anti their polystyrene fishboxes, Samsung's television facility in Slovakia and even landfills to Timbrons manufacturing plant in Stockton. Recycling of polystyrene requires pricey machin- ery to compress, deliver and upgrade It before pro- cessing. In the early years, Timbron resorted to purchasing virgin polystyrene because It couldn't cope with the demand for Its mouldings using domestic recyclables. So President and CEO Steve Lacy looked abroad, where about half of Timbrons polystyrene comes from today. Mexico Is an important supplier because of the numerous manufacturing plants along the border and Europe is alluring because of manda- tory government recycling schemes in countries like Germany. "Europe; Is 25 years ahead of us in terms of recycling. A big part of our learning curve Is to understand how they are doing it and to begin to try to duplicate it here," Telles said "The United States is our biggest opportunity." Tlmbron plans to collect more California polystyrene by striking deals with municipal governments. Last year, Los Angeles began to accept pol}styrene In its blue bins and Timbron receives part of that, paying,for the freight costs. The company is also talking with San Francisco about a polystyrene drop-ofl center. The Idea, said Telles, is to close the recycling loop by 2 of Account: 2656 (94) .59M Page I of 3 1914-2 cgf�i Date: Thursday, February 28.2008 aw .20.1/ & Location: SAN FRANCISCO. CA BUSINESS TIMES Circulation (DMA): 23,546(5) Uj\J�\1rJ(L\Jh\J T' FJU•{1\) Typo (Frequency): Magazine(W) Keyword: 25 Keyword: Dad Container Corporation using the mouldings produced for building within the city. Packaging from Apple Inc,, Styrofoam cups from D= Container Corp. and grape boxes from Styrotek Inc. already make itdo Stockton from across the state. Timbron's.greencredentials got a.boost.in 2006'when its mouldings were selected among the top 10 green building products by GreenSpec. "It Is a very durable product. It is a very polished product," said Andrea Jones, editor of Raising Spaces, a green building web site based In Alberta, Canada. Polystyrene recycling;has its detractors among envi- ronmentalists. Bryan Early, a policy associate at the Sacramento -based nonprofit Californians Against Waste, said that while Timbron makes "an Interesting product," 'he wants computerand othenmanufacturers to do away with polystyrene and use biodegradable paper packag- ing instead. Early is concerned about the greenhouse emissions resulting from transporting polystyrene to Stockton andargues that.blue bin collections.amount to the taxpayers "subsidizing a problem material" that has "negative scrap value." Timbron was founded in 1996, after a group of U.S. investors purchased the company from Great Britain's Glynwed International PLC. Telles oversaw the deal as lawyer and helped raise the seed capital. Along #lth Lacy, a former sales and marketing manager at- Pabco Gypsum, Telles bought out the founders In 2002. The company was.struggling financially In 2002 and the biggest challenge was keeping the business of Home Depot, Timbron's biggest customer. "We were failing, and we were on the verge of losing Home Depot,' Telles said. Between 2002 and 2003, Timbron's team Inspected hundreds of Home Depot stores, CEO Lacy said. The strategy paid off: the number of Home Depot stores carrying Timbron•more than tripled to almost 2,000 today., At a tough time for the building industry. Timbron enjoyed above -average January sales, rebounding from lower -than -expected revenue In the latter half of 2007. The goal is to hit S15 mil- lion 1n revenue In 2008, Lacysaid, with 10'percent growth within Home Depot and $3 million to 34 million outside of it. Lacy sees Timbron's mission as "harvesting the plastic forest." Timbron plans to recycle plas- tic from waste carpet and manufacture window shutters in the near future. There's even talk of a Timbron skateboard. sanfrancisco.bizjourpafs.com ■ Page 2 of 3 C... oob l toawwwfT0MI5 P,t lolo" Mc VirGomnbol to piprulyrdnotlr fonepiFh. All aIpM16 neSrrvoC r 3 018 Amount 2855 (94) •59G 1914.3 cgao iL(ULLGO.CB BT TI^1'� T1�1SS TIMTS Date: Location: Ctrculatton (DMA); Type (Frequency): Thursday, February 28, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 23,646(5) Magazlna(W) U�\JllV•■Hn\7t\J ■�-•{n\f page: KeyxroM: 28 Dart Contalnar Corporation SKAPMT. MiAnE k IMa: Recycles polystyrene't interiorMold;ngs. t NO N .I.Walnut Creek tn111lwt Mfi.IM'stevbUcy. Clfakow d-lbs t+�i: Robert ?' tee7.nwaMfk �t 0, a tMlr«rwwMjo,a •_ yaw-bwlriuk Igoe, lm"'pw MMw,Mt W $20 64M tram indtYRloii on" dM*M"c40. t(rt jft www.fi *Isom Page 3 of 3 C CWYA 200Y auM.aJa,mN.ILWarm. Y,c M .pubWM. N.u>/b..p,61F Fle..a..NA I M. In.e 4 018 � Axaunc less (94) -ww 1814.4 City of Roseville, California - "EPS Recycling Page 1 of 2 City of Roseville, California EPS Recycling �.Irr Starting November 19, 2007, the City of Roseville's Environmental Utilities Department will launch a pilot program to begin collecting and recycling Expanded Polystyrene (EPS). The pilot program, a first for the region, provides EPS recycling bins at selected recycle drop-off sites throughout the city. The pilot program will also collect EPS at participating retail sites within Roseville. The pilot program's launch is timed to capture the high volume of EPS generated during the holiday season as stores stock their shelves and gifts are i unwrapped. The EPS collected by the city is condensed and transported to companies who pay for the collected EPS to be recycled and made Into items such as baseboards, crown molding, lightweight concrete and packaging. As a resident, where can I take my EPS to be recycled? For residents, EPS recycling bins have been placed at the following locations starting November 19: MaidU Park at 1550 Maldu Dr., Roseville Washington Boulevard (across from All American Raceways) at 800 All American City Blvd., Roseville Mahany Park adjacent to Bear Dog Park at 1575 Pleasant Grove Blvd., Roseville What types of EPS are accepted as part of the pilot program? To make the program viable and to recycle the collected EPS, we need your help In ensuring that only clean EPS is deposited in the recycle bins. Please follow these guidelines when bringing your EPS to one of our recycle drop-off sites: - Bring only EPS that is clean, dry and uncontaminated with other materials - Remove any foreign materials such as tape, stickers, labels, paint and cardboard. - Contain the EPS in a bag, bundle or box for easy loading and unloading. However, please only place EPS in the bin. - Make sure the material is actually EPS — look for the #6 recycling symbol. The city will not accept: - Dirty food containers, meat trays, disposable cups, etc. - Packing peanuts http://www.roseville.ca.usleulsolid_waste_Utility/recyclingleps_recycling.asp 09/17/2008 114 City of Roseville, California - EPS Recycling Page 2 of 2 - Bubble wrap Where can I take packing peanuts to be reused? Although packing peanuts are not accepted as part of this pilot program, they are accepted and reused at most shipping and packing stores in the Sacramento area. The closest store to Roseville that accepts packing peanuts is: Postnet 2230 Sunset Blvd., # 330 Rock Creek Plaza/Next to Safeway Rocklin, CA 95765 (916) 772-7766 Other locations in the Sacramento area that accept packing peanuts for reuse can be found by going to the Plastic Loose Fill Council website. I own a business in Roseville. How can we participate in the EPS collection pilot program? To make the program viable, we highly encourage businesses in Roseville to participate in this pilot program. Placement and hauling of the EPS recycling bin is free and may reduce the amount of waste in your regular trash bin. The city placed its first EPS recycling bin for commercial use at Ashley Furniture located at 384 N. Sunrise Ave. in Roseville. The city is working with other retailers to place EPS recycling bins at other major retail centers in Roseville. Businesses in Roseville interested in participating in the EPS recycling pilot program are encouraged to contact Chris Uhercik, Refuse Supervisor, at (916) 774-5786 for more information. Quick Facts About EPS In 1999, an estimated 300,000 tons of EPS was landfilled in California at an estimated cost of $30 million. Due to Its light weight, EPS is a large source of litter both on land and in waterways. Cities bear the cost of cleaning up this material with clean-up costs for litter estimated at over one dollar per pound. Collecting EPS and directing it towards recycling helps save money and is good for the environment. About Environmental Utilities Environmental Utilities is Roseville's provider of water, wastewater and refuse utility service. Environmental Utilities also provides environmentally friendly programs for Roseville's residents and businesses that help promote recycling, water conservation, stormwater management and proper disposal of household hazardous waste. These programs help our customers become good environmental stewards and continue to foster an amazing lifestyle and place to do business in a manner that is sustainable. http://www.roseville.ca.usleulsolid_waste_utilitylrecyclingleps_recycling.asp 09/17/2008 1I5" THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY W Attachment 7 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ORDINANCE 2008- Chapter 6.05.010. Definitions. A. "Biodegradable" refers to the ability of a material to decompose into elements normally found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal. B. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Newport Beach, its agent, agencies, departments and franchisees. C. "Customer" means any person obtaining prepared food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. D. "Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any restaurant or retail food vendor directly places or packages prepared foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for takeout foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at restaurants or retail food vendors. E. Expanded Polystyrene" (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or "blown" using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam. EPS is sometimes called "Styrofoam"; a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation. F. "Food Vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor located or operating within the City of Newport Beach. G. "Polystyrene" means and includes expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). H. "Prepared Food" means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the food vendor' s premises or within the City of Newport Beach. For the purposes of this ordinance, "prepared food" includes raw, butchered, ground, chopped, or sliced meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. Prepared food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also known as "takeout food", or taken home and cooked. I. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by customers. "Restaurant," for purposes of this Chapter, includes mobile food preparation units as defined in chapters 6.08.120 and 6.08.130 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. J. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a restaurant, located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food. Chapter 6.05.020. Prohibited food service ware. A. Except as provided in section 6.05.030 of this Chapter, food vendors are prohibited from providing prepared food to customers in disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene. B. All City Facilities, City -managed concessions, City sponsored events, and City permitted events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene. Chapter 6.05.030. Exemptions. A. Prepared foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Newport Beach are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. B. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: In a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City facilities, food vendors, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Chapter 6.06.040. Undue Hardship. A. The City Manager or his/her designee may exempt a food provider from the requirements of this ordinance for up to a one year period, based upon a written request from the applicant containing sufficient information to determine that the conditions of this ordinance would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" shall be found in the following situations: 1. Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware and compliance with this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to that food provider; 2. Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene food service ware. A food vendor granted an exemption by the City must reapply prior to the end of the exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. B. An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the Assistant City Manager or his/her designee to make his/her decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Assistant City Manager or his/her designee may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. C. The Assistant City Manager or his/her designee may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. 17..0 D. Exemption decisions are effective within thirty (30) days, unless appealed to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days. The City Manager's decision shall be final. Chapter 6.06.050. Enforcement. A. Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Section 1.04.010, and shall be subject to citation and fines pursuant to Chapter 1.05, Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. American° Chemistry Council September 18, 2008 The Honorable Edward D. Selich Mayor, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Selich: RECEIVED ,IWO SEP 19 AM 7- 58 THE CiTCY CLERK CITY OF 01PORT BEACH Because it is a very complicated public policy issue affecting many people, the Plastics Food Packaging Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) would like to bring the following important key points to your attention as you consider an ordinance to ban polystyrene foodservice products. mcvclino and Improve the environment. However, we are opposed to policies that would ban the use of safe and environmentally sustainable products like expanded foodservice polystyrene cups and containers. Simply substituting one food packaging material for another does not address the root cause of litter or marine debris. As you delve in to this Issue, we would like to offer the following comments and observations relative to polystyrene foodservice packaging: 1. Joan -Michel Cousteau — "Bans Don't Work" In a December 2005 opinion -editorial to the Ventura County Star, the founder of the California -based Oceans Future Society and son of famed ocean explorer, Jacques Cousteau, wrote: California's beaches are a natural treasure and we need the public's help to protect them. But history teaches an important lesson: bans don't work [emphasis added.] If a community bans Styrofoam and plastic carry -out containers, coffee cups, picnic ware and similar items, we know what will happen: Individuals and businesses will switch to other disposable products, such as glass, aluminum, and wax - covered cardboard. The amount of litter will not change, only its composition. That's why bans are overly simplistic and don't get to the real cause of the problem...! have spent my entire life protecting our oceans and beaches, and trusting education will ultimately produce the best safeguards for our environment. 2. City of Carmel -" the problem of food packaging waste litter has not improved..." Staff confirmed in a June 3, 2008 staff report that since the inception of its 1989 ordinance to ban polystyrene foodservice, "...the problem of food packaging waste litter has not improved..." It goes on to state that today a city could take advantage of alternative products perceived to be more environmentally friendly. However, their region will not realize any benefit of compostable products because a local industrial composting facility does not exist. 3. Santa Barbara Staff Report —An EPS Ban Will Not Help the Environment No alternatives to EPS will benefit the environment without a composting infrastructure. americanchemistry.com 1121 LStrcet, Suite 609, Sacramento CA 9581.1I (916)448.2581 Y�� The Santa Barbara City Council directed staff to evaluate the merits of banning EPS foodservice products. Staff found through their research that a ban on EPS would only be effective and have a net benefit to the environment If the foodservice ware was made from compostable material and that any benefits could only ba realized with a citywide organics collection and composting program --which the city does not have. As you are aware, Newport Beach also doesn't have the large-scale composting infrastructure needed to accommodate the increase in compostable material that an EPS ban would create. 4. Seattle, Washinaton City Staff — Seattle Public Utilities, responding to a request by the mayor, conducted empirical research Into disposable foodservice products — analyzing the tradeoffs between plastics like polystyrene foam foodservice, compostables, and degradables, and coated bleached paperboard. Their research shows that a ban on EPS would increase respectively, and a significant amount of waste 5. Solid Waste Association of North America — Don't Ban Without a Plan The most respected and leading professional association in the solid waste management field, Solid Waste Association of North America, advises in their 2008 Work Plan that they will: Advocate for legislation that would prohibit any State agency from promulgating regulations or policies that would ban materials from landfill disposal" without first reviewing scientific studies on the impact to public health or the environment, and that a replacement plan needs to be in place before a ban is implemented. Contrary to what the professional association for solid waste management recommends, some cities have proceeded with a ban even though not one scientific study supporting their position for a ban has been oroduced. In addition, a commercial composting facility must be in place to handle the increase in compostable products that a ban would produce, a fact which many cities have ignored. 6. Nature Works — A commercial producer of compostable products, their web site states: "PIA products are Intended for industrial -based composts which very carefully regulate temperature, moisture and turning. Due to the variability in home composting, NatureWorks LLC does not recommend PLA for use in home composting." We have not found any scientific evidence looking at the environmental properties of various products which suggests that PLA and other compostable products degrade in the "natural environment" A statement to the contrary would Incorrectly suggest that these products will somehow eventually "degrade" if littered. 7. Additional Facts to Consider All foodservice products — regardless of the material from which they are made — require the use of various natural resources (i.e. energy, water, etc.) across their product life cycle in the manufacturing process. A 2006 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) study by Franklin and Associates (http://www.plasticsfoodservicepackaciino.or.q) showed that polystyrene foam foodservice products, when compared to other foodservice containers, are very efficient in terms of minimizing air emissions, energy used in the manufacturing process and in reducing the amount of waterborne waste generated during the manufacturing process. A city policy that would arbitrarily ban one material type without examining or considering the life -cycle impacts of polystyrene manufacturing and falsely assumes that those replacement products are somehow manufactured in a vacuum without the use of any raw materials, energy, or water, fuel to deliver the product, etc. Consider these key facts: • Polystyrene cups have a lighter footprint than alternatives — they weigh anywhere from two to five times less than comparable paper packaging products which means fewer air emissions when transporting products. • Polystyrene foam products are energy savers. A energy usage is considered one way to slow global warming. According to Life Cycle Inventory analysis, in most cases the alternative products studied have environmental burdens that are higher than or comparable to polystyrene foam products. As we advocate and fund partnerships to reduce litter, increase recycling and education without product bans on safe and useful foodservice products like EPS foam foodservice, we appeal to the City of Newport Beach to consider all the Information presented above — and make plastics, including polystyrene foam foodservice, part of the solution and not an isolated problem. We respectfully urge you to look at all available information and take time to learn from the business community, and direct your staff to work with us on further solutions to help Newport Beach with this complex issue. Thank you, and please contact us should you have questions or need additional information. Regards, Mike Levy, Director Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) American Chemistry Council cc: Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Daigle Councilmember Keith D. Curry Councilmember Nancy Gardner Councilmember Michael F. Henn Councilmember Steven Rosansky Councilmember Don Webb Ryan Kenny Manager, Western Region American Chemistry Council QmericanChemistry uncil September 18, 2008 The Honorable Edward D. Selich Mayor, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport peach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Selich: Because it is a very complicated publicpolicy issue affecting -many people, the Plastics Food Packaging Group -of the American Chemistry, Courfcil•(ACC) would like to bring•the following important key, points to your:attention-as you consider an ordinance to ban polystyrene food"seivtce products. ACC and its member companies share the City of Newport Beach's desire to reduce litter, increase recvclfna and improve the environment. However, we are opposed to policies that would ban the use of safe and environmentally sustainable products like expanded foodservice polystyrene cups 'and containers. Simply substituting one ,food packaging material for another does hot address the root cause of litter or marine debris. As you delve In to this issue; we would 'like to offer'the following,,domments and observations relative to polystyrenefoodservice packaging: 1. Jean -Michel Cousteau — "Bans.Don't Work" In a December 2005 opinion -editorial -to the Ventura•County-Star, the founder ofthe California -based Oceans Future Society and somof famed ccean•ekplorer, JacgUes-Cousteau, wrote: California's beaches are a ,natural treasure and we need the, public's help to protect them. But history teaches an important lesson: bans don't work [emphasis added.] If a community bans Styrofoam and plastic darry-out containers, coffee cups, picnic ware and similar items, we, know what will happen: individuals and businesses will switch to other disposable products; such as glass, aluminum, and wax - covered cardboard. .The 'amoun't of litter will not -change, only its composition. That=s why bans are overly simplisilc and don't;get to the real cause of the problem...l.have spent my entire life protecting our, oceans andibeaches, and trusting -education will ultimately produce the bestsafeguards for our environment, 2. City of Carmel —" the problem of food packaging waste -litter, has not.improved...' . Staff confirmed in a June 3, 200,8 staff report that since 'the inception of its 1989 ordinance to ban polystyrene foodservice, "_the problem of food packaging waste litter has -not improved..." It goes. onto, state that today a city could take advantage of alternative products perceived to be more environmentally friendly. However, their region will not realize any benefit of compostable nroducts because a local industrial composting -facility does not exist 3. Santa Barbara Staff Report — An_EPS Ban Will Not Help the Environment No alternatives to EPS will benefitthe environment without a composting -infrastructure. americanchemistry.com i',r ❑71 LSucckSniM609, Sacramento CA 95814 1 (916)448-15811h The Santa Barbara -City Council directed staff to evaluate the merits of bar found through their researcNthat a ban on,EPS-would only, be effective an If the foodservice warewas, made from compostable material and that any Beach also doesn't have the large-sca compostable material that an EPS ban 4. ig EPS foodservice products. Staff a4e a net benefit to the environment nefits could'only be realized with a 'have, As you are aware, Newport accommodate the increase in Seattle Public Utilities, responding to a request by the mayor, conducted empirical research into disposable foodservice products — analyzing.the tradeoffs between plasticsilike polystyrene foam foodservice, compostables, and degradables, .and. coated bleached paperpoard. Their research shows that a ban on, EPS would increase be 5. Solid Waste Association of North America— Don't Ban'Without a Plan The most respected and .leading professional association in the solid waste management field, Solid Waste Association of North America,.advises in their, 2008 Work Plan.that they will: Advocate for legislation that would prohibit any State agency from promulgating regulations or policies that -would ban materials from landfill disposal' without first reviewing scientific studies on the impact to public health or the environment, and that a reblacement plan, needs to be in place before, a ban Is implemented. Contrary to what the professional association for solid waste management recommends, some 'cities have. proceeded with a ban even though not one scfehtiffo study supborfing fheirposition for a ban has-been produced. In addition, a commercial composting facility, must,be in place -to handle the increase in compostable products that a ban would produce, a fact which many cities have ignored. 6. Nature Works — Compostable Products Cannot 'be Composted in a Backyard Composter A commercial producer of compostableproducts, their web site states:' "PLA products are intended for ihdusttial-leased con7posts .which Very carefully regulate temperature; moisture and turning. Due to2the variability in,home composting, NatureWorks LLC does not -recommend. PLA for use in•horhe composting." We have not found any scientific evidence, looking at the environmental properties of various products which suggests that PLA and other compostable,products degrade in the "natural environment" A statement to the contrary would incorrectly suggest that.these products will somehow -eventually "degrade" if littered. 7. Additional Facts to Consider All foodservice products' — regardless of the material from which they are made — require the use of various natural resources (i:e, energy, water, etc,)' across.thelt product life cycle in the manufacturing process. A 2006 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) study 'by Franklin and Associates .(httt !i/www blasticsfoodservicenackaoino,orc) showed that polystyrene foam foodservice products, when compared to dther foodservice containers, are very efficient in terms of minimizing air.emissions,. energy, used in the. manufacturing process and in reducing the, amountW waterbornewaste-generated during the manufacturing' process. A city policy thakwouldarbitrarily ban one:material type without examining or considering,the'llfe-cycle Impacts of polystyrene manufacturing and falsely assumes that those replacement products are somehow manufactured Ina, vacuum without the Use of any raw materials, energy; or water, fuel to deliver the product, etc. Consider these key facts: • Polystyrene cups have a lighter footprint than alternatives —they weigh anywhere from two to five times. less than comparable paper packaging products which means fewer air emissions when transporting products. foam products are energy savers. A global • According to Life Cycle Inventory analysis, .in most cases the alternative products studied have environmental burdens that are higher than or comparable to polystyrene foam products. As we advocate and fund partnership's to reduce litter,'Increase recycling and education without product bans -on, safe and useful food$ervice products "like EPS foam foodservice, we, appeal to the City, of Newport Beach 'to consider all the information presented above — and: make plastics, including, polystyrene ,foam foodservice,.part,oi the solution and hot -an isolated problem. We respectfully urge you'to look at.all available information and take time to learn from the business community, sand direct your staff to Work with us :on further solutions to help Newport Beach with this complex issue. Thank you, and please contact, us should you have questiohs or need additional information. 'Regards, )V/3;k, 4 Mike Levy, Director Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) American ChemistryCouncil cc: Mayor Pro Tern Leslie Daigle Councilmember Keith D. Curry Councilmember Nancy Gardner Councilmember Michael F. Henn Councilmember Steven Rosansky Councilmember Don -Webb Ryan Kenny Manager, Western Region American Chemistry,Council Harkless, LaVonne From: Andrew Casana [andrew@englanderpr.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 5:37 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Polystyrene Ban "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" SS 3 Hello, "This is an opposition letter for agenda item SS3 to be heard on Sept 23, 2008" I am writing you on behalf of my client the California Restaurant Association. The CRA is opposed to bans because the industry is aggressively researching alternative food packaging for to go food or take out. We are aware that the NBRA supports the EPS/Expandable Polystyrene ban and since the NBRA is a CRA member we will not oppose this issue before city council on Sept 23. We respectfully ask the Newport Beach City Council implement a voluntary EPS ban for to go food packaging. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Andrew P. Casana Partner Englander and Associates 310-741-1500 Office 310-800-4734 Cel. :7r�rJ UJ I I V i S � Q lJl 09/23/2008 PRINTED.GEIYEDAFTER AGE AGENDA DART CONTAINER CORPORATION '.AY2J 1110H1GAN4`1�lA-ttLd'NONE•-.t*ilI-16iN13 September 21, 2008 Leigh DeSands, Economic Development Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Leigh: I sent an e-mail to Katie Bowden on Saturday and received an "Out of Office" response that referred me to you. As you know, Katie generated a report for the City of Newport Beach to consider regarding polystyrene foam, In the report, Katie references that my company, Dart Container Corporation, Is offering recycling programs that include post -consumer food service containers and I want you to know that we are eager to work with Newport Beach on such a program. One option would be to let your residents co -mingle the foam in their current recycling bin and then to sort it at a local Material Recovery Facilities (MRF)• Another option would be to offer a bin on city property where the public can drop-off their foam (Ina recyclable condition). Once the product is at the MRF or drop-off site (Or both locations), we would provide a densifier that would compact the foam so that the MRF/Newport Beach can sell it to a third party of your choosing to be recycled. While we only make food service containers, we would be willing to accept "Shape" or "Molded" foam as part of the program. The benefit to you is that you would be able to maximize your Landfill Diversion Rate. If we can agree to a mutually beneficial program, we would provide the densifier on a 10.00lease basis." This is a significant benefit because the vast majority of single use food service containers take the form of landfill waste, not litter. This program would allow you to divert your foam food service containers to your recycling bins along with all of your shape and molded foam. Since the plastic/wax lining on the alternative paper cups makes it cost prohibitive to recycle them, banning polystyrene foam has the unintended consequence of increasing your landfill waste without reducing litter (ihe same people that litter foam will litter paper that is lined with plastic). Thus, our program creates a real solution for Newport Beach. I will be in Canada this week and will have limited access to my e-mails/phone. I will return on September 29. Feel free to respond to me via e-mail or phone and I will respond as soon as possible. Thank you. in advance, for your willingness to partner with us! ti Regards, - - N fV Michael Westerfield West Coast Director of Recycling & Sustainability Dart Container Corporation Government Affairs and the Environment to Phone (909)793.2729 Fax (909) 793-2739 ',',--73-.�:�.r .�',.• i,• 1P:•;�,;. 'I,n.:li_r nor}_ i•• Vl, P!I )I C,' • lt..., . t. J n. cicy • ar •! I •,,I 'r r:crGa'. 1 r . (Ir^ to 0 M •u', + •I. tad Kuuldw,i + Aos'Inim 0 A,-p lilloa A Harkless, LaVonne From: Stephanie [stephanie.barger@earthresource.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:13 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne "RECEIVED AFTER AGEN A PRINTED:" 5 S 3 — c{ �a3%pg Subject: FW: Polystyrene Ban Importance: High Attachments: NBRA Polstyrene Food Service Alternatives.doc; Styrofoam CostAnalysis.xls; Container—Distributors—List.pdf; Cater Green Price List.pdf; ERF Zero Waste Services.doc Please provide for study session today Please provide the below email. I do have to say that we are very disappointed that Earth Resource and the students were not contacted as soon as you knew it would be on the study session. We have been emailing the City Council for months but we are VERY VERY happy they are moving forward. Please tell them thank you for their leadership Stephanie Barger, Executive Director Earth Resource Foundation P.O. Box 12364 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949-645-5163 www.earthresource.org ste hp anie.baroer(a)earthresource.org Sustainability: To move ourselves with elegance andjoy within certain limits. REGISTER TODAY' "No Plastic Left Behind" Saturday, October 11, Plastic Plague (CAPP) www.earthresource.org From: stephanie [mailto:stephanie.barger@earthresource.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:06 PM To: 'lesl!ejdaigle@aol.com'; 'Gardnerncy@aol.com' Cc: Jack Skinner, MD (JSkinnerMD@aol.com) Subject: Polystyrene Ban Importance: High Dear Honorable Mayor Paolo Guarnaccia -Zero Wastealy N w 2008 Costa Mesa, CA - A: i ign Agr rJns c� N ` Cn -o i i w m s N �n Unfortunately, I am out of town and this will be a short reply. We STRONGLY support the recommendation for the staff to draft an ordinance to ban polystyrene TODAY! Our Newport Harbor High School students, community and businesses owners have asked for this ordinance for over a year most recently and have been asking for over three years. Please USE the ordinance that Laguna Beach, Santa Monica, Calabasas, Malibu and many other cities have implemented. This has proven to be very successful for decreasing pollution, increasing REUSABLES at restaurants, decreasing waste disposable (requires all disposables to recyclable or compostable). I am attaching our letter of request and the background information. There are many successful businesses ALREADY in Newport Beach who have eliminated Styrofoam and gone to reusables, recyclable and compostables — namely Gina's Pizza, Quiet Woman and Kean Coffee. I think we can all agree these are the types of restaurants and community leaders we WANT in our city. We strongly encourage you to DO the right thing and take action TODAY!!!! Our beaches, oceans and children cant wait another day. Once again Styrofoam was one of the top threes items found on our beaches this last Saturday for Coastal cleanup and according to Capt Moore's most recent study of the Pacific Gyre there is now 48 times MORE plastic than plankton up from 6 times less than 5 years ago. We have an extensive list of affordable alternative products and encourage you and all businesses to contact us. With the most respect for your leadership and knowing you will do the RIGHT thing, 09/23/2008 Stephanie Barger, Newport Beach resident and Executive Director of Earth Resource Foundation respresenting 100s of studentsf' and voters In Newport Beach! Stephanie Barger, Executive Director Earth Resource Foundation P.O. Box 12364 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949-645-5163 www.earthresource org stephar ie.b8rger@earthresouree.bg Suslainability: To move ourselves with elegance and jny within certain limits. Paolo Guarnaccia - Zero Tfrite Bali RE9I57ER TODAY: "No Plastic Left Behind" Saturday, October 11, 2008 Costa Mesa, CA -A Campaign Against the Plastic Plague (CAPP) www.earthresource.org 09/23/2008 M Dear Newport Beach Restaurant Association We have been working with the Surf & Environmental Class as Newport Harbor High School for the last several yeas on environmental stewardship. Polystyrene (Styrofoam) is one of the most numerous items the students have found on our beaches. Because of their efforts, they have eliminated polystyrene at their schools and initiated the City of Newport Beach to eliminate it in their facilities. Now, they are requesting your help in helping keep our beaches, marine wildlife and bodies free of polystyrene and more importantly have a more environmentally responsible city. We hope that you will take the time to evaluate your food service products. We understand the challenge of providing food in convenient, affordable and appealing containers which are not damaging to our environment, health and economies. We truly appreciate the time you are taking to meet with us and your interest in being part of the solution. This is a process and we are here to help guide, provide resources and work through the challenges together so we can all live in a world that is harmonious with the natural environment, our communities and future generations. Our goal at Earth Resource Foundation is to provide you with the resources you need. Through our "Zero in on Zero Waste" business program, we are able to help reduce your waste to landfill, incineration and the environment by becoming more efficient with your processes and therefore saving lots of money! The goal for food service products is to: Reduce the amount purchased and used (does everyone need a straw, do plastic utensils need to be wrapped in plastic) Reusable products (the cost of transportation, purchasing disposables, trash hauling outweighs the use of water and staff costs for reusables) Recycle and compost — close the loop by buying products made from recycled paper or plastic and which can then be recycled into the same product or composted to renew our soils. In order for us to truly understand and find solutions to food service products, here are a few facts and ground rules to start the decision making process: 1) Polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam) food service products are the CHEAPEST product available. We can NOT find a product that competes with polystyrene and this is the biggest challenge for the environment, government and businesses. 2) Polystyrene is one of the top three items found on our beaches according to the California Coastal Commission (cigarette butts are number one). There is six times more plastic than plankton by weight in the Pacific Gyre (www.algalita.org) and 86% of ocean trash is plastic. 3) Polystyrene is made from natural gas and oil which are nonrenewable resources. It also contains the toxic chemical styrene (see attached health report). If you ingest things out of Styrofoam cups and containers four times a day for about three years, you'll also have eaten the equivalent of an entire take- out cup. Styrene builds up in the tissues of the brain and affects the nervous system. Styrene molecules travel into your food faster when the food is hot and high in fat. 4) Polystyrene is very difficult to recycle (especially when contaminated with food). 25,000,000,000 styrofoam cups are thrown away each year! It is lightweight which makes it hard to transport and contain. It breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, takes 100s of years to biodegrade and very hard to pick up on our beaches. Less than 3% of all plastic is recycled. f-. 5) Over 1,000,000 birds and sea mammals die every year from plastic Ingestion or entanglement. There are enough chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) embedded in a single styrotoam cooler to destroy all the ozone over an area the size of 20 football fields. The styrofoam cups Americans use each year could form a chain that would circle the Earth 436 times. 6) As for health effects, styrene can mimic estrogen in the human body. This means that it could possibly contribute to hormone problems, thyroid problems, breast cancer and prostate cancer. The World Health Organization considers styrene to be a.carcinogen. 7) THIS IS AMORAL QUESTIONI We cannot find a product that is cheaper than polystyrene but we can find lots of products and Zero Waste processes that will save you money in purchasing, waste hauling and good public relations. Polystyrene has many hidden cost to our environment, health and communities — future generations are already paying the costs of our decisions we are making today. THE NEXT STEPS Review the cost of alternatives in the attach spreadsheet. This information is basic and provides you an overview of the different alternatives and pricing. Pricing will vary based on the quantity you are purchasing and your relationship with the manufacturer/distributor. We do know that the pricing for the alternatives are coming down every day as demand grows. THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN BE PART OF THE SOLUTION — be the demand for green products! Contact your current supplier of food service products and explain to them your goals. It is their objective to provide you with the materials you need. Most of the large ones such as Sysco and Smart & Final already carry many of the "good" products. Attached is a list of distributors and manufacturers for you to contact. Companies such as Cater Green and Biopak are more than happy to meet with you to determine the best products and pricing structure. Commit to a Zero Waste goal to obtain a comprehensive and holistic view of your environmental impact and opportunities (i.e., you might be spending more on environmentally friendly food service products but you have eliminated your waste bill and are contributing to renewing soils by composting)! Earth Resource Foundation offers educational training for top management and employees; environmental audit and baseline studies and the development of a comprehensive plan to start the Zero Waste process. All proceeds from our consulting services fund our youth programs. Just like launching any new product or service it is very important to understand the entire system and to get buy -in from all your employees, stakeholders and top management. Earth Resource Foundation is hereto help you save money, protect the environment and engage your employees and community — the Triple Bottom Line. I look forward to meeting with you on March 19th In creating more green for the environment and your company. I am available at 949-645-5163 or Steohanie.barcerCaleerthresource org to answer any questions and provide assistance. Yours in Zero Wasting, Stephanie Barger Executive Director Earth Resource Foundation - Food Service Price Comnarison Shunt Foam Polystyrene Hard Polystyrene Plastic Recycled Plastic Paper: Virgin & Bleached Paper (some recycled) Bio Plastic Biodegradable 8 oz. Cups 42.49 n/a 98.08 70.00 84.00 8 oz. Cup Lids n/a 32.19 63.00 59.00 8 oz Cold Cup 40.00 84.00 9 oz. Cold Cup 40.00 62.901 170.00 74.00 10 oz. Cold Cup 63.00 65.90 80.00 88.00 16 oz. Cold Cup 62.00 56.90 52.90 87.00 108.00 Cold Lids 57.00 20.00 n/a n/a 40.00 40.00 9" Plates 60.00 282.88 11.18 114.00 10" Plates 799.33 132.001 86.32 238.00 133.80 10" Compartmental Plates 74.00 123.96 188.00 133.80 Hinge Containers Small 179.90 77.52 142.00 Hinge Containers Medium 86.90 155.92 337.50 190.00 Hinge Containers Large 89.90 179.92 337.50 240.00 Hinge Containers Jumbo 169.90 8 oz Soup/Dell Container 37.80 142.00 12 oz. SouplDeli Container 66.00 70.41 16 oz Soup/Dell Container 63.60 12 oz. Soup bowls 31.80 58.00 83.00 80.00 3-Piece Cutlery n1al 73.801 53.55 n/a n/a 96.00 138.00 -- Price per i,uuo - click on the red triangle for sourced and detailed information. This is a small sampling of distributors. Better pricing can be obtained on ecofriendly products by contacting the distributors directly - contact us for list. This list has been compiled by Earth Resource Foundation volunteers and students www.earthresource.org 949-645-5163 as of Feb 7, 2007 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT: This list is a rough estimate to -give business, schools and governments an idea of the difference between polystyrene (Styrofoam) products and environmentally friendly products. The purpose of this list to agree that environmentally friendly are more expensive. But we are all paying the price -through our health, environmental damages*, economic sustainability and moral responsibility by buying polystyrene, non recycled plastic and virgin/bleached paper. *over 1,000,000 marine animals die every year from plastic/ 86% of ocean trash is plastic/ there is 6 times more plastic than plankton in the Pacifc Ocean Like any new product, the more people who support the product the more available and economically feasible it will become. For detailed information on these issues, please visit our website or contact us at info@earthresource.org or 949-645-5163. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION NOT THE PROBLEMI Please help support our many youth in their "Youth Against Styrofoam" campaign to ensure a clean, healthy,and thriving environment. What are you leaving behind? } City of Sant Monica I* j t Distributors of Biodegradable and Recyclable �. Food Service Contain m Advisory.AMofthecomWmesbel0waeM bWdaprsdadeandrecyclehfe prodctsaswellasr"Nscydablepmducts, Beale to spedty"bodaWadable and recjd* e.• If you would tine to suggest addkansormreWgts, *m call HmEnwronmental Programs DMADn at310.455 41r15 "Am us atwww.aawpd.orpkonWmr, sKrapas.rackagmg ynwv aroaceraom David Townsend 310-768-8055 Ien Jandariai wwwallmavtonal carte Max Saleh 310,399.5251 ratan Paper and PWsecs. Inc. ~vaoanccom Steven SIKW 310.409.5076 neradne wxxanwradmmen Jeanette Romuakh 714237.9978 ocorp vrww MomroaaCcom Kelly Lehrman 8W.348.8348 odegradable Food Service LLC www Wdearadablefoodservim tom Kewt Duffy 541 593 2121 oPak-GSD Pad6V g vnwvasdoa* ma com J,m Kedges SW 441.1181 Witomu Recycles Inc www raldarrvarecvdes corn ElharrEbaa 310,478.3001 x101 3W Green vwvw ralaareert torn Allan Haskell 323 663.7747 xlhSmart LLC wv earthsmadecccm AnttWny Russo 31D930.2712 m Products vi"Noprodudsmm Onferonlne 303440.1876 roelle t Packs" and Supply www exCOGMVDCkaovw aom Steve Lemne 800 317 2737 ana0la Brdhtm Inc gangg'gg o" rmngbornad comm JmmferGatmla 310450-1464 reen EaM Office Supply htla'+'Stare vahmcormlareemearthofficesupolyl Orderord.ne 8W.327.8449 teen Wave by Westmt PacftAssoe htfcrlaremwave us mnV Joe Batturg 662208.6895 telndvklud Cmup wwwttwmdoroeom Rmdtad Tmts 323.9612800 at-ur Sore wrww rut-unlore com Ekrw Cabe' 310476-5000 Bit lMW Paper wwwoakwest can Chmsmith 714481.3846 War Company wwwt epaoeraonvom net Mdw Madden 714.444.2171 5 R PaperSuppiy www.oroaoar.mm' Dwmw Mane Stewed 951 315,7800 ecydahoYu htlafIrecvdahoica txxrk'laodsanre htm prier or9ne 812.521.5867 enewable Pmduds hlta Inww.w.rawwehle-orodx4s aom Bob Pondo 612521,5887 matand Foal- Vence www snurtarid6nal writ Ennpue Perez 310 3924954 mart and Fatal -W. LosAhgeles wwwsmartamdfmalmen Evan Howell 310.471.03" tak Maket wrwwstalkmaket net OrdMaMne 503.2954977 *ww Papa d Plastic w Suoe�aoe men Matnce B. Mad Penhaseaa 323.691,5655 gem Food Sense wrwrsysm.com Ph4kp Wang WSW 1199 x3039 'ade Supplies vnrw.trd�s499k?s'Com Anon Fnhban 323.591.3250 nrwd Hahvat Foods vnvw unmv C.pm JMrey Lorenzen ODD 6796733XS3954 S Food wvnv_ 1!990_5pm Mman Corver 800.379.5633 x6147 Ole am Sons vrww.weimisms com Ka" HowW SW 454 5728 kxklCent c Store vrww workkenlnc or4 store ntlex htn, Onkronkne 650 253 3797 dsmbutankst final 2 6 08xls a Allan & Herminia �}Caterkeenl www.catergreen.com info@catergreen.com .co 0241ro Waste Solutions tel 323.663.7747 TATERWARE: The first 100% Biodegradable hot -cup Lid - long awaited - this lid is made out of non- GMO potato resin... You won't be drinking petroleum with your coffee anymore! Fits Most Comercial Hot Cups Case Price Unit Price 10, 12, 16, and 20oz. 1000 $59.00 $0.06 ECOTAINER: 100% Biodegradable & Compostable, Chlorine -free, FSC certified paper and coated with a PLA corn -based resin (rather than petroleum). Paper Hot Cup Case Price Unit Price 8oz, 1000 $84.00 $0.08 10oz. 1000 $88.00 $0.09 12oz. 1000 $92.00 $0.09 16oz 1000 $108.00 $0.11 20oz 500 $62.00 $0.12 We also carry hot cup sleeves and cup carriers... Please call to inquire prices for these items. BAGASSE: Made out of Sugarcane fiber is 100% Tree Free, Renewable, Compostable/Biodegradable. Is Oil, Water, & Heat resistant (can handle hot foods up to 190F), freezer safe, Non Toxic! and a great replacement for Expanded Polystyrene products. Bagasse Hinged Boxes Case Price Unit Price Burger Box 6x6x3 500 $66.00 $0.13 Med 1 Compartment 7x8x2.5 200 $38.00 $0.19 Mir Med 3 Compartment 7x8x2.5 200 $38.00 $0.19 Large 1 Compartment 9x9x3.4 200 $48.00 $0.24 Large 3 Compartment 9x9x3.4 200 $48.00 $0.24 Q Bagasse Bowls 12oz. Bowl 500 $40.00 $0.08 Bagasse Plates 6" Round plate 1000 $49.00 $0.05 W4 7" Round Plate 1000 $64.00 $0.06 9" Round Plate 500 $57.00 $0.11 9" Round Plate - 3 Compartment 500 $57.00 $0.11 10" Round Plate 500 $71.90 $0.14 10" Round Plate - 3 Compartment 500 $71.90 $0.14 10"x8.5 Tray - 5 Comparment 500 $69.00 $0.14 CORNTAINERS: Made from corn is 100% Compostable/Biodegradable, Non -Toxic and used as a substitute for its petroleum -based counterparts. It is heat resistant up to 11OF - USE ONLY for cold drinks and cooler foods, if heat exeeds 110F it will warp. Clear Cup Case Price Unit Price 9oz. 1000 $74.00 $0.07 10oz. 1000 $80.00 $0.08 12oz. 1000 $87.00 $0.09 16oz. 1000 $97.00 $0.10 20oz. 1000 $119.00 $0.12 24oz. 600 $84.00 $0.14 Lids Case Price Unit Price Fits 10oz. 2500 $100.00 $0.04 Fits 9/12 and 20oz. 1000 $57.00 $0.06 Fits 16oz and 24oz. 1000 $57.00 $0.06 Dome Lid fits 9/12 and 20oz. 1000 $63.50 $0.06 Dome Lid fits 16oz. and 24oz. 1000 $63.50 $0.06 Straws 8" unwrapped 4000 $52.00 $0.01 8" wrapped 4000 $60.00 $0.02 6,25" unwrapped 4000 $50.00 $0,01 6.25" wrapped 4000 $58.00 $0.01 Versapack 8oz w/Lids 250 $50,00 $0.20 12oz w/Lids 250 $55.00 $0.22 16oz w/Lids 250 $58,00 $0.23 24oz w/Lids 250 $65.00 $0.26 32oz w/Lids 250 $68.00 $0.27 48oz Deli Deep w/Lids 125 $51.00 $0.41 64oz Deli Deep w/Lids 125 $54.00 $0.43 Clamshell-Hinged Burger Box 6"x6"x3" 250 $55.00 $0.22 r Med Shallow 160 $54.00 $0.34 Med Deep 8'W'0' 160 $54.00 $0.34 • Med Deep 8'x8"x3" 3 Compartment 160 $56.00 $0.35 Loaf 9"x5"x3.5" 250 $69.00 $0.28 Lg. Deep 9.5x9.5x3 150 $58.00 $0.39 Deli Corntainers- Please call for sizes and price. COMPOSTABLE UTENSILS: Made from renewable resources such as corn and potatoes. Each material has different heat resistance. The potato utensils are the best choice for "hot" foods. Utensils 140F - PLA Case Price Unit Price Forks 1000 $32.00 $0.03 Spoons 5000 $32.O0 $0.03 Knives 1000 $32.00 $0.03 Utensils 220F - Potato ' Forks Spoons 1000 1000 $4600 $46.,00 $0.O5 $0.05 Knives 1000 $46.00 $0.05 TaterWare - 220F Forks Spoons 1000 1000 $46,00 $46.00 $0.05 $0.05 Knives 1000 $46.00 $0.05 PAPER GOODS 100% Recycled Green Seal R FSC Certified: Please call for Prices Marcal Luncheon, Dinner & Cocktail Napkin Toilet Paper Dispenser Towels Biodegradable Bags and Liners: Please Call for Prices Liners T Shirt Bags Dogie Poop Bags Custom Made Bags THE SOLAR WEB: Host your website on a server that is power by Solar Energy, family owned and In California- Reliable and Affordable. For more Information on hosting plans go to www.thesolorweb.com EARTH REfOU EARTH RESOURCE FOUNDATION'S 1 V V M I T 1 O N ZERO IN ON ZERO WASTE: "Don't Let Your Bottom Line Go to Waste" ERF's "Zero in on Zero Waste" Training and Consulting Services "Is Your Bottom Line Going to Waste?" Introductory Worksho This 2-hour introductory workshop speaks to the hearts and minds of your staff to gain understanding and motivation for achieving zero -waste. Within the workshop, you will not only learn how waste impacts your company, your employees and the planet but you will learn practical methods to apply zero -waste principles. You will learn from the best -practices of zero -waste companies; discover how zero -waste principles apply to your organization; and evaluate and prioritize zero -waste opportunities. At the end of the workshop, your organization will have an actionable plan to move towards zero -waste and reap the benefits for your "triple bottom line." "How Much of Your Waste Are you Wasting?" Audit and Baseline Report "How Much of Your Waste Are you Wasting" provides an initial audit to determine the current waste - state of your business and identify initial zero -waste targets. ERF will evaluate the current waste - production cycle and recommend zero -waste targets. ERF will work with management and staff to recommend improved systems and strategies for realizing zero -waste goals. ERF is confident that there will be proven financial, environmental and employee benefits from undertaking this process "Stopping Waste In It's Tracks" Your business now understands the true costs of waste and has identified areas to enhance your triple - bottom line. ERF will work directly with managers and staff to implement the business process changes necessary. Our team of highly skilled consultants supports businesses throughout the entire process. We will partner with you to implement business process changes, provide employee training and set up systems for continuous improvement and measurement, as well as assist in employee communications. At the end of the implementation phase, we will conduct a final audit to determine the costs and benefits of your zero -waste efforts. Companies achieving a 90% reduction in waste creation will be eligible for Zero - Waste Certification. Eliminating Waste saves dollars, saves resources and saves lives. Zero -Waste companies realize financial benefits as well as improvements in employee morale and community goodwill. Don't Waste Time get started today! SAVE THE DATE: Thursday, June 5, 2008 ZERO IN ON ZERO WASTE: "Don't Let Your Bottom Line Go to Waste" Third Annual Orange County Zero Waste Business Conference In addition to Polystyrene Foam's environmental benefit, it is: functional and versatile; economical; sanitary, sturdy and safe (FDA Accepted); environmentally friendly as well as resource efficient. Aluminum Costs 1.6 times more; weighs 1.6 times more e Molded Fiber Starch PP Costs 2.7 times Costs 2.9 times Costs 2.4 times more; more; more; weighs 2.5 times weighs 2.6 times weighs 3.4 times more more more Estimated Cost Differences PLA Costs 3 times more; weighs 2.4 times more Paper Costs 3.1 times more; weighs 2.5 times more Take another look ... Environmental Facts About Polystyrene Foam ■ Life Cycle Inventory Studies' prove that polystyrene foam foodservice products have a favorable environmental impact compared to common alternatives. ■ Polystyrene foam bans force restaurants to use alternatives that often have a higher environmental burden.' • There is no evidence that polystyrene foam bans reduce litter. A recent study of results from a ban on polystyrene foam in Portland, Oregon, shows that the ban has not been successful and should be repealed.3 ■ The environmental impact of alternatives needs to be studied and carefully considered. ■ Litter is litter, Banning polystyrene foam only Polystyrene foam is recyclable and, thus, has a replaces one material with another. Recycling and favorable environmental impact. reducing all forms of waste are the best solution to litter. Usage Greenhouse Gas Potential Polystyrene foam uses significantly less energy during its life cycle. Replacing polystyrene foam plates with poly coated paper plates in Los Angeles County will increase the energy usage by the equivalent BTU's of 500,000 gallons of gasoline.^ Greenhouse Gas emissions are significantly less with polystyrene foam. By replacing polystyrene foam with paper alternatives in Los Angeles County, GHG emissions will increase by an amount equivalent to adding 1.350 mid -size cars onto California roads each year.5 Polystyrene foam plates are 90% air and use 2.5 times less material. The material in 100 polystyrene foam plates is equal to the weight of 40 paper plates.2 Haste The solid waste impact of polystyrene foam is significantly less. Polystyrene foam foodservice packaging accounts for less than 1 % by weight and volume of land -filled materials. 'Final Peer -Revs ewetl Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleedted Paperboard and Corrugated, Paper Foodservice Products, Franklin Associates. tA1. March 2006 'Final Pear -Reviewed Report. Los Cycle lnvantory of Foam and Coated Paperboard Plates, Franklin Associates, Ltd.. May 200E 3suslainable Failure: Why Portland's Polystyrene Foam Ban should Be Repealed, Cascade Policy Institute, November 2001, www.cascadeeolicv.orc Based on 126,000 BTU equivalenst for a U.S. gallon of gasoline, and -2150 BTU's per altemaliwl plate , and 221.000,ftoo plates replaced in LA County, wvrw eere energy dovlaldc'orogs/fuel compare oho 'Based on average annual automobile mileage of 12.000, and -1380 lbs 002 emissions increase par 10,000 alternative platesi, v Aerraoass. comlcarbon-foolorint-calculator Polystyrene (PS) Foodservice Ban Proposals — Why Bans Do Not Solve the Problem of Reducing Litter and Marine Debris — But What Alternatives Will Work ... THE BENEFITS OF POLYSTYRENE (PS) FOAM • Polystyrene foam containers are among the most efficient for keeping foods fresh and hot or cold. That is why almost all ice cream, frozen yogurt and smoothie shops use polystyrene foam, as do restaurants that serve hot soup, coffee and tea. • Polystyrene food service products are generally two to three times less expensive than disposable paperboard products and reusable foodservice items (due to their very efficient use of material). • Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, nonprofit food programs, delis, and family -owned restaurants are among the many institutions that rely upon polystyrene foam for its excellent insulation at an economical price. • Polystyrene meets stringent U.S. FDA standards for use in food contact packaging and has been proven to be safe for consumers. Health organizations encourage the use of single -use food service products, including polystyrene, because they provide increased food safety. • We recognize and agree that any food service packaging is a blight to the community when it is disposed of improperly. The environmentally beneficial approach to resolve the issue is to implement anti -litter programs aimed at affecting behavioral changes that result in overall litter reduction. IMPACTED USERS • Bans are likely to hurt locally owned businesses because they limit choice and increase costs. Polystyrene is the most cost-effective material for food service containers used by small businesses. When Malibu enacted a polystyrene ban, the local yogurt shop was forced to raise prices to counter the higher cost of paper cups. In reality, bans can be considered hidden tax on shop owners —because of the increased cost of inferior products —and shop owners must pass the cost on to their customers. Any restriction — be it a ban or a tax — ignores the real concern, which is litter. • Local businesses are willing to do their part to reduce litter —to work collaboratively with the city and anti -litter advocates to implement programs developed to address this important issue. THE PRODUCT IS NOT THE PROBLEM __ _ Prepared by the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Croup & Amerman Chemistry Council Page I • Marine debris Is an issue that industry takes seriously. • When litter reduction occurs on city streets, the amount of material that flows through storm drains, rivers and ultimately to the ocean is also reduced. Efforts should be aimed at reducing all composition of litter, not a single product, so that the overall volume of material reaching the marine environment is reduced. • 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. ALTERNATIVES • We recognize and agree that any food service packaging can be a blight to the community when it is disposed of improperly. • The environmentally beneficial approach to resolve the issue is to implement anti -litter programs aimed at affecting behavioral changes that result in overall litter reduction. • Industry —which includes the plastics industry, the chemical industry, the polystyrene industry, the restaurant industry and the grocery industry —is committed to working with the City to develop and assist with funding —both direct and in -kind —a comprehensive anti litter program to address the unique needs of Los Angeles. Components of the program will likely include: o public education a school curriculum o infrastructure assessment and adjustments as needed o increased enforcement o volunteer clean ups o etc • We respectfully request that you allow industry the opportunity to work with city officials to address the REAL issue facing the city —which is litter of all composition — rather than targeting a safe, useful, cost effective product we rely on to do business in today's marketplace. Prepared by the Plostics Foodservice Packaging Group & American Chemistry Council Page 2