Response to Comments from the Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC) on the Proposed Ordinance Banning Non-Recyclable Plastic Disposable Food Service Containers

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.

Comments 1 and 2: Proposed Ordinance Is Subject to CEQA and Trash TMDL

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 of food 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.

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 of PLA 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 recycled[1] 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.

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 composting facilities. 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 response to Comment 3, it must also be pointed out that life cycle assessments[2] 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.

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

Comment 7: Impacts to Fish and Wildlife from Bio-plastics

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: Energy 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

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 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, resulting from 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.

[1] 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.

[2] 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.