SR-510-003-02
. .-
J City of
Santa Moniea@
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: June 13, 2006
Agenda Item:.i..S
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Craig Perkins, Director - Environmental and Public Works Management
Subject:
Recommendation to Ban the Use of Food-Related Expanded Polystyrene
within Santa Monica and Provide Direction to Staff on Possible Actions
Related to Plastic Grocery Bags and Other Non-Recyclable Plastic Food
Packaging
Recommended Action
It is recommended that Council:
1. direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that would ban the use of food-
related expanded polystyrene (EPS) food packaging within Santa Monica;
2. direct that EPS food packaging be discontinued from use at all City facilities, City
managed concessions and City sponsored events; and
3. provide staff with direction on possible additional City actions related to plastic
grocery bags and other Non-Recyclable Plastic Food Packaging as is discussed
below.
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a staff investigation, requested by City Council on
March 22, 2005, into the potential costs and benefits of banning expanded polystyrene
food service packaging in Santa Monica. The results of that investigation indicate that
such a ban would provide environmental benefits to the community and would not likely
1
have significant negative economic impacts to the city or to local food service
businesses. It is recommended that the ban should apply to all public, private and non-
profit entities within the City and have an effective date one year from the final
ordinance adoption date so as to allow extensive information and outreach to impacted
businesses. Budgetary impacts from the adoption of a ban would include additional
costs to City operations to buy alternative food packaging, costs to prepare and
distribute outreach materials to businesses, and staffing costs for implementation and
enforcement. Staff estimates the total annual budgetary impact related to the
implementation of a ban to be approximately $31,000 for supplies and materials and
staff resources equivalent to approximately .25 FTE Administrative Analyst position on
an as-needed basis.
Backqround
On January 22, 2001, the City's Task Force on the Environment (TFOE) unanimously
approved a motion recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance prohibiting the
use of "food-related" expanded polystyrene (EPS) plastic foam packaging in Santa
Monica. This motion was intended to address the extensive negative impacts to the
beach and marine environment from EPS food packaging. On June 14, 2004, the TFOE
unanimously approved a motion requesting that City Council adopt an ordinance "that
bans the purchase, sale and distribution of single-use non-CRV (California Refund
Value) plastic food containers on City-owned or managed property". This motion was
2
made in response to recent data 1 regarding the continuing and increasing negative
environmental impacts of plastic products as well as recent regulatory programs
targeting single-use non-recyclable plastic food packaging products adopted by other
local coastal communities. On March 22, 2005, City Council directed staff to
"investigate a ban on foam plastic products, as recommended by the Environmental
Task Force and recently passed by the City of Malibu, consult with the local business
community on economic impacts and return to Council with information,
recommendations, and suggestions for an implementing ordinance if appropriate."
In response, staff researched:
1) the environmental impacts of EPS, other plastic containers, and various
alternative products;
2) policy initiatives and actions other communities and government agencies have
taken to regulate or ban specific plastic food packaging products; and
3) potential costs and other impacts to the City and to local businesses and
organizations from the actions proposed to be taken in Santa Monica.
This report presents the results and recommendations of the staff analysis. For the
purpose of this report, "food packaging products" and "food service products" are
synonymous and refer to cups, plates, trays, bowls, take-out food containers and other
single-use disposable products used in the restaurant and food service industry for
prepared, ready to consume food products that are packaged in the City of Santa
I Including: Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, April 2003 (Draft), California Integrated Waste
Management Board; and Composition and Distribution of Beach Debris in Orange County, CA, Marine
Pollution Bulletin, March 2001
3
Monica. This would not include such items as egg cartons and meat trays used in
grocery stores. For the purpose of this report, "other non-recyclable plastic food
packaging" refers to clear polystyrene food packaging (plastic with the recycling symbol
and the number 6). This material is technically recyclable but it is not practical or cost
effective to recycle.
When considering management options for plastic products and their resulting
contribution to the waste stream, it is important to be aware of the individual
characteristics of the many different types of plastics, including their common uses,
disposal options and environmental impacts, as well as to understand the
characteristics and availability of alternative products. For example, the impacts of
polystyrene food packaging on marine ecosystems differ depending on whether the
polystyrene is expanded (such as a "foam" coffee cup) or is a clear solid.
Expanded polystyrene is currently used throughout the economy including use in
building and construction and for many kinds of packaging from foam block packaging
for fragile equipment, to coffee cups and other food containers. Expanded polystyrene
is a petroleum-based product made from plastic that has been "blown" or expanded
using a gas. In the past, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) were used as blowing agents to expand the plastic. The CFCs, the most
environmentally destructive of the chemicals used as blowing agents, were voluntarily
phased out of the manufacture of EPS food-service products around 1988 because of
the significant threat they pose to the protective stratospheric ozone layer. Federal law
4
mandated the elimination of HCFCs after 1993. Most EPS food-service products and
other EPS products are now made with pentane, a legal alternative to CFCs and
HCFCs which is not known to pose a threat to the ozone layer (per the U.S. Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990), but contributes to ground level smog as well as global
climate change. In the late 1980s and early 1990s several communities, including
Berkeley, CA, Portland OR, and Santa Monica, instituted bans on EPS food service
products manufactured with CFCs and HCFCs, primarily in response to concerns about
the ozone-depleting potential of these chemicals.
Although the technology exists to recycle EPS, very little is actually recycled due to
economic and logistical constraints. In 2002, the polystyrene industry reported that of
the 869 million pounds of EPS produced in the U.S. only 26.2 million pounds of post
consumer EPS packaging (3% of the total) was recycled. Of that 3%, almost none of
the material recycled was EPS food packaging. Most of the EPS that is recycled
consists of foam block packaging material that is reground and remolded into similar
products at a small scale by individual polystyrene manufacturing companies. There
are currently no municipalities in the U.S. that offer curbside collection and recycling
programs for EPS because recycling is not currently economically viable, as
acknowledged by the polystyrene industry. The only EPS recycling plant in California
capable of recycling EPS food packaging was taken out of service in January 2001,
thereby effectively eliminating the ability to recycle EPS food packaging in the state.
5
Impacts of EPS to the Beach and Marine Environment
The EPS food packaging is designed for a useful life that can be measured in minutes
or hours, yet because it is a non-biodegradable product (i.e. it is unable to decay into
constituent substances) it persists in the environment for hundreds and possibly
thousands of years. Numerous studies have documented the prevalence of EPS debris
in the environment. A litter management pilot study conducted by the California
Department of Transportation from 1998 - 2000 found that EPS represented 15% of the
total volume of litter recovered from stormdrains. A 1998 study that quantified beach
debris at 43 sites along the Orange County coast found that EPS was the second most
abundant form of debris, following pre-production plastic pellets. A detailed breakdown
of beach debris collected nationwide in 1999 on Coastal Cleanup Day indicates that
approximately 75% of all EPS debris was from food packaging including cups, fast-food
containers, plates and miscellaneous foam pieces. A much smaller percentage (<3%)
was from egg cartons and meat trays, and the remainder was from non-food packaging
materials. Data from the 1997 California Coastal Clean-up Day list foamed plastic as
the second most commonly found beach litter, after cigarette butts. Data from Heal the
Bay's Adopt-A-Beach program for 2005 indicate that EPS and non-recyclable plastic
comprised over 64% of all trash collected from Santa Monica beaches during the year
(Figure 1).
6
Figure 1. Santa Monica Adopt-A-Beach Trash Totals 2005
Material
Pieces collected
% of total
Non-recyclable plastic
EPS
Cigarette butts and lighters
Paper and cardboard
Recyclable bottles and cans
Metal caps, lids and batteries
Other
Total
26,298
19,124
17, 182
3987
2437
1099
358
70,485
37.3%
27.1%
24.4%
5.7%
3.5%
1.5%
0.5%
100%
The relationship between EPS disposable food packaging and beach litter/marine
debris is a main reason cited by communities that have recently banned or restricted the
use of EPS food packaging in their jurisdictions. Since EPS material is so light, it floats
in water and is easily carried by the wind, even when disposed of properly. It also
readily breaks down into small pieces (although it cannot ultimately biodegrade).
Marine biologists have concluded that degraded EPS in the marine environment mimics
certain natural food sources and therefore increases the chance of ingestion by wildlife.
Recent studies have found plastics to be in the digestive systems of nearly all tested
ocean-feeding bird species. Ingestion of EPS by birds and marine animals often results
in reduced appetite, reduced nutrient absorption and possible death by starvation.
Information provided by plastic industry groups to staff suggests that litter is not caused
by the discarded product, but instead by illegal human behavior. It is also suggested
that biodegradable food service packaging may actually increase the amount of litter
generated because well-meaning individuals will no longer feel compelled to dispose of
trash by appropriate means. While it is generally agreed that much of the food service
7
EPS litter is the result of thoughtless human actions, some food service EPS litter is
actually a result of wind or water drift from waste bins, waste haulers, and other litter
sources. Furthermore, public education and enforcement of existing litter laws to date
have had little effect in eliminating littering2. Nevertheless, improved litter education and
outreach programs, particularly on a regional basis, may help to reduce some of the
litter reaching the beach and marine environment. The California Restaurant
Association and the American Chemistry Council have indicated a willingness to work
with the City to develop and assist with funding a comprehensive anti litter program
focused on litter in Santa Monica. A copy of their anti litter proposal can be found with
the online version of this staff report.
Alternatives to EPS Food Packaqinq
There are several alternatives to EPS currently available for food packaging. These
include paper, aluminum, rigid plastic, and bio-products manufactured from corn starch,
sugar cane, or a combination of bamboo, tapioca and water. Cost and availability of
these products differs based on the type of material and the type of product (i.e. cups,
plates, trays, take-out containers, etc.); however, the more commonly used container
types are readily available in Santa Monica from existing food packaging suppliers.
From a beach litter and marine pollution perspective, all of these alternatives are
believed to be superior to EPS because 1) they are less likely to be blown out of waste
,
receptacles; 2) in the case of paper, plastic and aluminum products they are less likely
to break apart into smaller pieces; and 3) in the case of the bio-products, they will
2 Municipal Best Management Practices for Controlling Trash and Debris in Stormwater and Urban
Runoff, May 2006, California Coastal Commission
8
eventually biodegrade in the environment if they are improperly disposed of, which will
minimize the negative impacts on wildlife.
When considering only purchase costs, EPS is currently the least expensive food
packaging available followed by paper products and then other types of rigid plastic
containers. The price of biodegradable and compostable food packaging now on the
market can be comparable to the cost of paper and non-EPS plastic for some types of
containers and can be significantly more expensive for others. Although EPS is
currently the least expensive option from an initial cost perspective, prices for EPS rise
in parallel with increasing crude oil prices. The price of both paper and rigid plastic
packaging or containers varies considerably depending on the product type, weight and
thickness.
It is important to note that all types of single-use disposable food packaging products
cause environmental impacts. Most paper products, particularly those intended for hot
foods or drinks, are lined with a petroleum-based polyethylene coating - this coating
gives the product rigidity and insulation. Although these products present less of a
marine debris problem than EPS, they cannot be effectively recycled or composted.
Like EPS containers, rigid plastic containers are made of petroleum based polymers.
However, these products have poor insulating value and some are not intended for hot
foods or drinks. The majority of non-EPS, single-use disposable containers currently
used for food service, with the exception of beverage containers, are made of clear
polystyrene. Clear polystyrene containers cannot currently be recycled.
9
The most popular type of biodegradable and compostable container is made from corn
starch. These containers are used by companies such as Wild Oats and more recently
Wal-Mart. These containers look like clear plastic and perform very well for many food
products, but have poor insulating properties and are not intended for hot foods or
drinks (above 115 degrees F). There are a variety of other biodegradable and
compostable food packaging and containers manufactured for both hot and cold foods.
These products have good insulating properties, are rigid, and some are microwavable.
These containers are manufactured with renewable resources, including plant-based
starches and fibers, sugar cane fiber, corn starch and limestone.
ReQulation of EPS and Other Plastics in other Jurisdictions
In 2004, in response to growing concern about the environmental and economic
impacts of EPS debris to beach and marine environments, several coastal communities
in California including the Cities of Huntington Beach, Laguna Hills, San Clemente, San
Juan Capistrano and Aliso Viejo and the County of Ventura, instituted restrictions or
bans on EPS, primarily within their own public facilities and at city-sponsored events. In
2005, the City of Malibu also instituted a city-wide ban on EPS food service products.
Data is not currently available regarding the effects of the recent bans on reducing
debris at local beaches. The cities of Portland and Berkeley both report that their bans
(instituted in the early 1990s) remain in effect and that, after an initial adjustment period
on the part of regulated businesses, they have been very successful. They further state
that compliance by local businesses has not been a significant issue, and that the
10
alternative products In predominant use are clear polystyrene, coated paper and
aluminum.
Internationally there have been many bans on EPS and other plastic products, primarily
in response to trash and litter issues. China banned the use and production of EPS
food containers in 2000. In 2003, Taiwan banned disposable plastic tableware as well
as plastic shopping bags. Kenya, Rwanda, Germany and Sweden, and thirty towns in
Alaska, have all banned the use of plastic shopping bags. Ireland, Denmark and
Switzerland have all instituted a "tax" on plastic shopping bags to encourage the use of
alternatives. The program in Ireland reportedly contributed to a 90% reduction in the
use of the plastic bags since the fee was imposed in March 2002. In January 2005 the
San Francisco Commission on the Environment unanimously approved a proposal
asking the City to impose a 17 cent fee on plastic and paper grocery bags. In
November 2005 that proposal was put on hold when the City of San Francisco entered
into an agreement with supermarkets in the area to voluntarily reduce bag use and
recycling, targeting a reduction of 10 million bags by December 2006.
EPS Food Service PackaQinQ Use in Santa Monica
In Santa Monica, there are approximately 300 individual restaurants and food service
businesses currently holding business licenses. The Santa Monica Chamber of
Commerce recently conducted an on-line survey of its member businesses in the food
service industry. Of the 14 responses it received, 11 businesses noted that they
currently use some type of EPS food packaging in their operations. Respondents listed
11
paper, plastic and corn-based biodegradable containers in response to the question
"What alternative products work for you?" In response to the question "What difficulties
have you encountered in finding alternatives to styrofoam?" four respondents listed
"price" or "cost" and one respondent noted the lack of availability of a particular
container type in an alternative material. Responding businesses indicated a wide
range in the amount they currently spend on EPS packaging, between $0 and $25,000
per year. A copy of this survey can be found with the online version of this staff report.
City staff, with the assistance of Santa Monica College students, conducted a survey of
122 Santa Monica food service businesses in January 2006 to assess the type and
quantity of food service and packaging materials used. Forty seven percent of the 122
businesses surveyed use no EPS food packaging at all. Fifty three percent of the
businesses surveyed use some type of EPS food packaging, primarily cups and
clamshell to-go containers. Additionally, about 30% of the restaurants use some type of
clear polystyrene containers, including clamshell to-go containers, cup lids and
condiment cups. Nearly half of the restaurants use paper food service products
including to-go boxes, cups and plates, and twelve restaurants use aluminum to-go
containers and aluminum foil. Many of the restaurants surveyed used more than one
type of food packaging materials.
Extrapolation of the data from the staff survey suggests that a ban on EPS food
packaging in Santa Monica could possibly impact up to 150 or more businesses. It is
difficult to obtain accurate estimates of the different types and amounts of food
12
packaging purchased and used by each business. For this reason, an accurate
estimate of potential costs for switching to alternatives is difficult to calculate. This is
also complicated by the variety in the number, types and sizes of food packaging
purchased and used by restaurants.
The California Restaurant Association (CRA) and the American Chemistry Council
(ACC) recently conducted a telephone survey of Santa Monica restaurants regarding
the use of EPS. A copy of this survey, along with letters and other communications
from the CRA, the ACC and their public relations consultants, and information regarding
CRA member restaurants in Malibu regarding increased costs for the purchase of
alternative packaging materials, are available with the online version of this staff report.
The CRA/ACC survey indicates that 60% of respondents use some form of EPS
products and that 43% or respondents indicate that they would be "negatively impacted"
by a ban on EPS.
The best estimates that staff can arrive at are that costs for replacing EPS disposable
food packaging with non-EPS plastic, paper or biodegradable alternatives may increase
container costs from 0% to 300%. The wide range depends upon the types and
amounts of products required and the product uses. The estimates were obtained
through interviews with restaurant owners, by reviewing actual usage data of food
service packaging obtained from restaurants in Santa Monica and from cost data
obtained from various local food service packaging wholesalers. Actual costs for
individual restaurants to switch to an alternative product will be largely dependant on the
13
amount of EPS food packaging that they use. For a typical high volume restaurant
serving primarily take-out food (the type of restaurant likely to experience the greatest
economic impact from a ban), estimated additional costs for switching to alternatives
range from no additional cost to $180 per month depending on the product type and
material and if the product is ordered in bulk or purchased periodically in small amounts.
These figures are backed up by data presented to staff from the California Restaurant
Association for a typical fast food restaurant in Malibu whose costs increased $175 per
month when it recently switched from EPS to paper food service containers. Current
usage of EPS and non-recyclable plastic food packaging in City operations is minimal
and is limited to beach concessions and to the senior lunch program. Based upon
current use, the cost impact to the Senior Center programs for using non-plastic
products is estimated to be less than $400 annually and less than $200 for the beach
concessions.
Banning the use of EPS would not eliminate the negative environmental impacts from
the products on Santa Monica beaches. However, it would significantly reduce the
source of such wastes within the City and would contribute to an overall reduction in the
amount of plastic waste entering the Santa Monica Bay environment. An important goal
of Santa Monica's Sustainable City Plan is to procure and use sustainable products and
services, such as those that are durable, recyclable, non-polluting, biodegradable,
and/or derived from renewable resources. None of these attributes are associated with
EPS or other disposable, non-recyclable plastic containers.
14
Policy Alternatives
Alternatives to the recommended action include 1) implement a ban on EPS food
service products for all City facilities and City sponsored events but not for private
businesses; and 2) implement a citywide ban on all types of non-recyclable plastic food
service products. Option 1 would avoid any economic impact to businesses and would
avoid costs to the City for implementation and enforcement of a citywide ban, however
the environmental benefits of such a policy would be largely symbolic due to the
currently minimal use of EPS in City operations. Option 2 would likely not prove
practical due to the current lack of availability of alternatives to some plastic food
service products as discussed below.
Other Plastic Food Service PackaQinQ and Plastic BaQs
The TFOE has strongly recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance that will
1) ban the use of EPS food packaging by 12/31/06; 2) ban the use of non-recyclable
plastic food packaging by 12/31/07 and allow the use of biodegradable plastic
packaging as an alternative; and 3) encourage the use of non-plastic food packaging
and promote the use of biodegradable and compostable alternative products. The
TFOE has also recommended that Council consider either adopting a ban on plastic
grocery bags or institution of a fee or tax to reduce their use.
Staff agrees with the TFOE recommendation that EPS food packaging be banned and
that businesses be encouraged to use non-plastic food packaging and promote the use
15
of biodegradable and compostable alternative products. The TFOE recommends
banning non-recyclable plastic food packaging because like EPS it is a significant
component of beach and marine debris. Staff concurs with this view. However, based
on discussions with local restaurant owners and others in the food service industry, staff
feels that banning non-recyclable plastic food service containers could prove
problematic because certain food packaging products (in particular, the lids for coffee
cups and other drink containers) made of clear/rigid polystyrene don't have readily
available non plastic or recyclable plastic alternatives.
Although staff has not thoroughly researched the problem of plastic grocery bag waste
in Santa Monica, a number of communities in California and elsewhere have recently
focused on plastic grocery bags as a serious litter and ocean pollution problem. In
California, plastic waste comprises 9.5% of total solid waste. Plastic bags comprise
about 1.5% of the total, but are believed to be a much greater percentage of beach and
ocean litter. A survey conducted by EPWM Solid Waste Management staff in
December 2005 solicited plastic bag information from 25 Santa Monica grocery stores
and food markets. The survey concluded that these 25 businesses use approximately
23 million plastic bags each year. Based on this magnitude of use, it is apparent that
plastic grocery and shopping bag waste may be an important area for further research
and possible City actions.
It is requested that Council provide staff with direction on possible additional City
actions related to plastic grocery bags and other Non-Recyclable Plastic Food
16
Packaging, and specifically if Council would like staff to conduct additional research in
these areas.
BudgetlFinanciallmpact
The primary budgetary impacts from adoption of the recommended ordinance would
include additional costs to City operations to buy alternative food packaging, costs to
prepare and distribute outreach materials to the business community, and potential
staffing costs for implementation and enforcement. Staff estimates that approximately
$30,000 in supplies and materials and a .25 FTE temporary Administrative Analyst
position may be needed for a two year period following adoption of the ordinance. If
Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance, a final fiscal impact analysis and
recommendations will be presented to Council for review and action at the meeting for
the first reading of a proposed ordinance. This will include additional detail regarding
the costs and staffing impact of enacting an EPS and non-recyclable plastics ban. All
efforts would be made to combine enforcement activities with existing on-site
inspections currently conducted by City staff.
Prepared by: Dean Kubani, Acting Environmental Programs Division Manager
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
Craig Perkin
Director - nvironmental and Public
Works Management Department
17
'.ll