Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071989 - 2.1 Tc; V BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor C tra County Administrator C )sta DATE: March 2 , 1989 Co^ SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF STYROFOAM CUPS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND Alm JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION; Cancel the suspension of the purchase of styrofoam cups and other food containers, consistent with the Internal Operations Committee report on this subject. BACKGROUND: Currently, the County has a contract with the Ray Hammons Company to purchase styrofoam cups. The County purchases these cups in two sizes: 6 ounce for either hot or cold beverages and 14 ounce for only cold beverages. The 6 ounce cups come 1000 to the case. These cups cost $9. 10 per case, or . 91 cents per cup. Replacing these cups in the 6 ounce size would require the use of 5 ounce translucent plastic cups for cold beverages and 6 ounce treated paper cups for hot beverages. The plastic cups cannot be used for hot beverages .because they transmit heat too easily and become too hot to hold. The plastic cups cost $26. 59 per case, but are packed 2500 per case, or a cost of 1. 064 cents per cup. The 6 ounce paper cups have to be treated to hold hot beverages. They come 1000 per case and cost $30. 50 per case, or 3 . 05 cents per cup. The 14 ounce styrofoam cups come 1000 per case at a cost of $21 . 31 per case or 2 . 131 cents per cup. To replace these larger cups, 14 ounce plastic cups are available at $25. 91 per case or 2 . 591 cents per cup. As an alternative, the 6 ounce paper cups could be used in lieu of the 14 ounce styrofoam cups, at a cost of 3 . 05 cents per cup, as could the 5 ounce plastic cups at a cost of 1 . 064 cents per cup. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE; _X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUREISI: ACTION OF BOARD ON March 7, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X & OTHER X Also, ADOPTED Statement of Support for the Environmental Protection Agency's position that the Montreal Protocol be renegotiated to accelerate total phase-out of the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) , (copy , attached) . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT — AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISOOR�S, ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED Director, Community Development Health Services Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Director, General Services SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Chair & Members, Solid Waste Commission David Okita, CDD BY M382/7-83 Sheila Cogan, CDD ,DEPUTY Page 2 During the nine month period from April 1988 through December 1988, the County ordered 314 cases of the 6 ounce styrofoam cups (a total of 314,000 cups) and 291 cases of the 14 ounce styrofoam cups (a total of 291, 000 cups) . Since the 6 ounce styrofoam cups can be used for either hot or cold beverages, it is difficult to estimate how many were actually for hot versus cold beverages. For this analysis, we have assumed that 500 of the 6 ounce styrofoam cups were used for hot beverages and would have to be replaced with the 6 ounce paper cups and that 500 of the 6 ounce styrofoam cups were used for cold beverages where the 5 ounce plastic cup could be substituted. In the examples below we have used these assumptions with the substitution of either 14 ounce plastic, 6 ounce paper, or 5 ounce plastic cups for the 14 ounce styrofoam cups. It is not clear which assumption is the most accurate as a substitution for the 14 ounce styrofoam cup. QUANTITY STYROFOAM PLASTIC/PAPER SUBSTITUTING 14 OUNCE PLASTIC CUPS FOR 14 OUNCE STYROFOAM CUPS 314,000 6 ounce $ 2, 857. 40 ( 314 cases X $9. 10) 291, 000 14 ounce $ 6,201. 21 ( 219 cases X $21 . 31) TOTAL $ 9,058. 61 157,000 5 ounce (Plastic) $ 1, 669 . 85 ( 62 . 80 cases X $26. 59) 157, 000 6 ounce (Paper) $ 4,788 . 50 ( 157 cases X $30. 50) 291,000 14 ounce (Plastic) $ 7,539. 81 ( 291 CASES x $25. 91) TOTAL $13 , 998 . 16 This option results in a net- increase in cost of $4, 93.9. 55 for the nine months. Annualized this would be approximately $6,586. 08. SUBSTITUTING 6 OUNCE PAPER CUPS FOR 14' OUNCE STYROFOAM CUPS 314, 000 6 ounce $ 2,857. 40 ( 314 cases X $9. 10) 291,000 14 ounce $ 6, 201 . 21 ( 219 cases X $21. 31) TOTAL $ 9,058 . 61 157,000 5 ounce (Plastic) $ 1,669 . 85 ( 62 . 80 cases X $26 . 59) 157,000 6 ounce (Paper) $ 4,788. 50 ( 157 cases X $30 . 50) 291,000 6 ounce (Paper) $ 8_ , 875 . 50 ( 291 cases X $30 . 50) TOTAL $15, 333 . 85 This option results in a net increase in cost of $6,275 . 24 for the nine months. Annualized this would be approximately $8,367. 00. Page 3 SUBSTITUTING 5 OUNCE PLASTIC CUPS FOR 14 OUNCE STYROFOAM CUPS 314,000 6 ounce $ 2,857. 40 ( 314 cases X $9. 10) 291,000 14 ounce $ 6, 201 . 21 ( 219 cases X $21. 31 ) TOTAL $ 9,058. 61 157, 000 5 .ounce (Plastic) $ 1,669. 85 ( 62. 80 cases X $26. 59 ) 157,000 6 ounce (Paper) $ 4,788 . 50 ( 157 cases X $30. 50) 291,000 5 ounce (Plastic) $ 3 ,095. 08 ( 116 . 40 cases X $26. 59) TOTAL $ 9, 553 . 43 This option results in a net increase in cost of $494 . 82 for the nine months. Annualized this would be approximately $659. 76 . This analysis indicates that, without regard to any other factor, styrofoam cups are less expensive than the available alternatives. The report of the Internal Operations Committee, which should be reviewed in conjunction with this report, concludes that the use of CFC' s in the manufacturing process should not be a barrier to the purchase of styrofoam cups or other food containers since the industry has announced, and the EPA has concurred, that CFC' s are no longer used in the manufacture of styrofoam cups and food containers. Additional documentation of this conclusion is attached to this report. The remaining issue, then, is the fact that most styrofoam is not biodegradeable. This is a fact, although work is in progress to test alternative ways to treat styrofoam , to make it biodegradeable. In addition, the Internal Operations Committee report notes that pilot projects are underway to determine the best way to recycle styrofoam since recycling is a viable alternative to the land disposal of styrofoam. The problem is that plastic cups are no more biodegradeable than is styrofoam and most paper cups intended to be. used for hot beverages are also treated with a plastic liner which inhibits their biodegradeability. It is our understanding that these issues remain on referral to the Internal Operations Committee until the Solid Waste Commission' s Plastics Subcommittee completes their work and the Commission reports to the Internal Operations Committee on this subject on May 8, 1989. In the meantime, we are inclined to join the Internal Operations Committee in recommending that neither the use of CFC' s in the manufacture. of styrofoam, nor the higher cost of alternatives to styrofoam, nor the relative biodegradeability of alternative products appear to provide adequate justification to ban the purchase of styrofoam cups and other food containers by the County. STATEMENT REGARDING CFC'S We concur with the Environmental Protection Agency' s recognition of industries ' initiative to ban the use of CFC' s in the manufacture of single-serving food containers. We recognize that this voluntary phase-out has become an example to other industry groups that wish to do their part to protect the ozone layer. The food packaging industries' announcement comes within days of new announcements by the flexible foam industry and auto industry to reduce CFC use. We support the Environmental Protection Agency' s commitment to total phase-out of use of CFC' s in the United States by the end of the century and to accelerate that phase-out where it is feasible.