HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061989 - T.1 `r ,1 . PMI Batchelor
The,J card of Supervisors Contra �� Clerk of the Board
Costa and
County Administration Building County Administrator
(415)372-2371
651 Pine St., Room 106 \ County
Martinez, California 94553
Tom Powen, tat District
Nancy C.Fanden,2nd District R-8J
floAen 1.Schroder,3rd District
Srmrre Wright McPeak,4th District
Tom TorlYcwn,5th District
August 21,1989
Mr. Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 9 4109
Dear Mr. Feldste
The Board of Supervisors would like to inquire about the steps being taken by
the Air Quality Management District to monitor cloroflorocarbons (CFCs) in the
atmosphere. We are in the process of determining action to be undertaken to
reduce the quantity of ozone-depleting cloroflorocarbons in our County. These
matters have been reported on by the County's Solid Waste Commission in their
recent study on Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream, and have been referred for
further study by the Hazardous Materials Commission. We will receive their
recommendations on these issues .on December 1, 1989.
We would like to urge you to undertake appropriate monitoring to .identify the
source of CFCs being released into the atmosphere and to take appropriate steps
to enforce a ban on the release of the chemicals within our jurisdiction.
Please apprise us of actions being taken or planned in this regard. We look
forward to your response on this matter.
Sincerely,
T
Tom Torlakson, Chair
Board of Supervisors
TT:SC:jal
jl25:fel.ltr
cc: Hazardous Materials Commission
Solid Waste Commission
T.1 10:30 L
T'O: " t Board of Supervisors
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 0. gip^
DATE: May 22, 1989 ;q� ....
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE SOLID WASTE COMMISSION'S REPORT ENTITLED
"REDUCING PLASTICS IN THE WASTESTREAM"
Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Acknowledge receipt of the subject report and express the Board's appreciation to the Commission and
Community Development Department staff for the dedication,careful thought and research which went into the
preparation of this report.
2. Direct County Counsel to prepare and return to the Board of Supervisors an ordinance prohibiting the use,sale
orproduction of polystyrene foam containers and packaging materials which use ozone-depleting chlorofluoro-
carbon (CFC)chemicals in their manufacture or fabrication and recommend that each city in the County enact
a similar ordinance.
3. Refer to the Hazardous Materials Commission for a report back to the Internal Operations Committee by
December 1, 1989 the following items:
A. Determine the feasibility of establishing recycling centers for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)reclamation.
B. Determine the feasibility of requiring the recovery of CFC's when refrigerators and automobiles are disposed
of.
C. Identify ways in which the Board of Supervisors can promote better air conditioning and refrigerator
servicing standards, safer recharging of air conditioning and refrigeration units and leak prevention.
D. Determine the feasibility of requiring or encouraging the use of alternative home insulation materials
produced without CFC's.
CONTINUED ON ATTAC YES SIGNATURE:
Rec men ion of count ministrator Recommendation of Board Committee
Ap rove Other:
Signature s.TTOM POWERS SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
Action of oard on: _lune 6. 1989 Approved as Recommended X and Other X
Also, REQUESTED Community Development staff to explore with the City of E1 Cerrito the
possibility of working with industry on the recycling of plastics; REFERRED letters from
:.-' .,Proctor and Gamble and Assemblyman Tom Bates to Community Development staff; and DIRECTED
Community Development staff to confer with industry representatives.
Vote of Supervisors
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
X Unanimous(Absent — ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
Ayes: Noes: ENTERED ON HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
Absent Abstain: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED
cnnmy cwnael (Distribution via CAO) PHIL KATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD
Conchrun�rUeveel etcr
ne SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ry opment Director
David Oldts,Assistant Director,Corranunity Deselopment
Sheila Cogan.Resource Recovcry Specialist
Roy Hawes.0minnan,Solid Waste Comtnissi®
Marini A.$e,Staff,Hamdous Material Cormnisaicm 9�� � ,Deputy Clerk
Paul a Falco,Jr.,Clma,Hazardous Materials Cormnission BY:
Sart Gilbeft Purchasing Agern(Director of General Services) A
Cliff Baunsn,Purchasing Services Manager elvm:eh(lo1.bo)T.1
Cc Admin 0990 legislative program)
Richard Rainey.Sheriff-Coroner
•T t
E. Determine the feasibility of requiring or encouraging the use of alternative testing agents in fire
extinguishers.
F. Determine the feasibility of prohibiting the sale in the County of aerosol products and sterilants propelled
by CFC's.
4. Request the Health Services Director to advise our Committee on July 10, 1989 at 8:30 A.M. on the potential
and actual public health hazards from improperly disposing of soiled single-use diapers and determine what type
of public education program is needed coupled with an active enforcement program to prohibit the disposal of
human excrement in soiled single-use diapers in garbage and disposal facilities. In connection with this
recommendation, request County Counsel to advise our Committee on July 10, 1989 at 8:30 A.M. on what
authority the Board of Supervisors or the County Health Officer have to prohibit the disposal of human excrement
in soiled single-use diapers in garbage and disposal facilities.
5. Request the Purchasing Agent toevaluate the cost and availability of cloth diapers for use at Merrithew Memorial
Hospital as an alternative to plastic-coated disposal diapers and report to the Internal Operations Committee on
this matter on July 10, 1989 at 8:30 A.M.
6. Request the Purchasing Agent to meet with the Internal Operations Committee on July 10, 1989 at 8:30 A.M.
to review with the Committee again the previously reported information on the cost differential involved in
purchasing papercups for all cold drinks rather than polystyrene cups,primarily because of the difficulty in either
recycling or disposing of polystyrene cups.
7. Request the Community Development Director to outline a possible plastics recycling program for the County
government which would allow County government to lead the way in demonstrating the feasibility of
implementing a plastics recycling program and report to the Internal Operations Committee on July 10, 1989
at 8:30 A.M. on how such a program might work.
8. Request the Community Development Director to prepare a letter for the Chairman's signature to the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District asking what steps the District currently takes to monitor
CFC's in the atmosphere and urging the District to undertake additional monitoring to identify the source of
CFC's which may be being released into the atmosphere and to take appropriate steps to enforce a ban on the
release of CFC's into the atmosphere within their jurisdiction.
9. Direct the County Administrator to add to the County's 1990 Legislative Program consideration of issues
involved in the use of single-use diapers and steps the Legislature might take to make their use and disposal safer.
10. Direct the Community Development Director to conduct an in-depth study as outlined by the Solid Waste
Commission to determine methods and actions that the County can use to stimulate the development and
expansion of manufacturing plants that use waste plastics and other secondary materials in their products and
forward his report to the Solid Waste Commission by September 30, 1989.
11. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare the outline for a public education and community
awareness program to be an integral part of the waste plastics recycling program which includes support for
activities in the areas of waste reduction,excessive packaging and market development and forward the outline
of the proposed program and budget to the Solid Waste Commission by September 30, 1989 for the Commission
to evaluate and report their comments and recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee.
12. Request the County Administrator and Director of Community Development to report to the Internal Operations
Committee on July 10, 1989 at 8:30 A.M. on all legislation at the state or federal level that are designed to
facilitate or promote reduction of plastic packaging and facilitate promotion of plastics recycling or which place
restrictions on the use of non-recyclable and excessive packaging for consumer goods along with their
recommendations for bills the Board of Supervisors should support.
13. Request the Sheriff to intensify his enforcement of litter control laws on the land and marine waterways.
14. Direct the Community Development Director to conduct a solid waste characterization and analysis to determine
the type and quantity of waste plastics which are being disposed of in the residential and commercial
wastestreams in the County.
-c
15. Remove as referrals to our Committee the following items,leaving on referral to our Committee the Report of
the Solid Waste Commission entitled"Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream":
* November 1, 1988 referral suggesting the outlawing of styrofoam.
* February 28, 1989 referral of a letter from the James River Corporation.
* February 28, 1989 referral on the extent to which polystyrene products are biodegradeable.
16. Approve the following proposed recommendations in concept but ask the Solid Waste Commission's Plastics
Subcommittee and Community Development Department staff to meet further with industry representatives in
an effort to determine the acceptability and feasibility of these recommendations and return to our Committee
on July 10, 1989 at 8:30 A.M. with any modifications the Commission or staff consider appropriate based on
their further discussions with industry representatives.
A. Direct the Community Development Director to establish, in cooperation with the local plastics manufac-
turing industry-and recyclers, a waste plastics recycling program for the entire County, composed of the
following elements:
(1) A pilot plastics recycling program for residential curbside collection and processing of mixed plastics
as outlined on pages 24-27 of the Solid Waste Commission's report which is to be in place by July 1,
1989.
(2) A pilot polystyrene plastics recovery and recycling program for restaurants,businesses and residential
customers in the entire County which is to be in place by October 1, 1989.
(3) A full-scale waste plastics recovery and recycling program for all curbside recycling programs and all
commercial and private recycling programs operating in the entire County which is to be in place by
December 31, 1990.
The waste plastics recycling activities shall include at a minimum all containers and packaging products
made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high and low density polyethylene (HDPE, LDPE),
polystyrene(PS),polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polypropylene(PP)as they are described in the Solid
Waste Commission's report.
B. Direct the Community Development Director to work with the franchising cities and sanitary districts in the
County in an effort to encourage each of those jurisdictions to assist in making the waste plastics recycling
program a reality countywide by enacting a similar program in their jurisdictions.
C. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare an amendment to the County's Solid Waste
Management Plan to incorporate the waste plastics recycling program into the County's Solid Waste
Management Plan.
D. Direct the Community Development Director to require the operators of all refuse transfer stations in the
County to extract waste plastic materials,as defined in the Solid Waste Commission's report,from all solid
wastes processed in their facilities.
E. Indicate that itis the Board of Supervisors'intent to impose a ban,and recommend that each city in the County
impose a similar ban,on the continued use of plastic containers or packaging materials if the waste plastics
recycling program has not been fully implemented by December 31, 1990.
F. Indicate that it is the Board of Supervisors intent to impose a ban,and recommend that each city in the County
impose a similar ban,on the manufacture of plastic containers and packaging materials if the waste plastics
recycling program has not been fully implemented by December 31, 1990.
G. Direct the County Administrator to include in the County's 1990 Legislative Program arequest that counties
and cities be given the authority to place a product disposal charge on all plastic containers and packaging
materials at the point of sale, to include at a minimum plastic grocery bags, single-use plastic diapers and
plastic soft drink, milk and water containers as well as other multi-material, multi-layered and aseptic
packages. The proceeds of the product disposal charge fees levied by the County and cities would generate
a fund to facilitate and promote plastic recycling activities in the County.
• H. Direct the Community Development Director to determine the appropriate product disposal charge for each
type of packaging and recommend a fee schedule to the Board of Supervisors and each city in the County
once it is clear that the County and cities will have the authority to impose such a fee.
I. Direct the Community Development Director to identify any difficult-to-recycle plastic containers and
packaging that are unable to meet the waste plastic recycling program goals and standards by December 31,
1990 and report to the Board of Supervisors by January 31, 1991 recommending those plastics which have
been unable to meet the goals and recommending a deadline by which the use and sale of these products shall
be phased out unless and until such plastic products meet the established goals and standards.
J. Request the County Purchasing Agent(Director of General Services)to consider an addendum on purchase
order that requests vendors to use the minimum amount of packing material which will transport and deliver
the product safely and consider imposing a penalty of 2% on the use of loose expanded polystyrene pellets
as a packing material and report his recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee by September
1, 1989.
K. Direct the Community Development Director and Purchasing Agent to develop guidelines for the purchase
of products made with recycled plastic and other secondary materials. These guidelines may include price
incentives or set-aside allotments. The Community Development Director and Purchasing Agent shall report
their findings and recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee by September 1, 1989.
L. Direct the County Purchasing Agent to consider the feasibility of preparing annual reports to the Board of
Supervisors and Solid Waste Commission on the extent to which the County has been able to increase its
purchase of products made with plastic and other secondary materials and report to the Internal Operations
Committee by September 1, 1989 on the extent to which such reports are feasible and if not feasible what
would be required in order to make such reports feasible.
M.Direct the Community Development Director to forward copies of the report of the Solid Waste Commission
on"Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream"to each city and sanitary district in the County, urging them to
enact similar programs to those recommended to the County by the Solid Waste Commission.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several months, beginning last November, a number of separate referrals have been made to our
Committee and the Solid Waste Commission relating in general to the difficulty of recycling waste plastics and
specifically with the use of polystyrene in food containers. The Solid Waste Commission has undertaken a major
study of the various kinds of plastics that are prevalent in our environment and has described what they are used for,
what specific problems there are with reusing each,with recycling each,and have described research efforts which
are underway to improve the ability of industry to reuse or recycle each type of plastic. This report is well worth
reading to provide a full background on the extent of the plastics problem we face in our modern society.
On May 22, 1989 our Committee received the attached report from the Solid Waste Commission. Jim Hulshof, a
member of the Plastics Subcommittee which prepared this report,and Susan McNulty-Rainey,another member of
the Plastics Subcommittee jointly presented the report to our Committee and reviewed the findings and recommen-
dations with us in some detail. Mr.Hulshof emphasized the need for reduction and recycling to address the plastics
problem. The Subcommittee concluded that the most viable immediate goal is recycling since reduction requires
far more time to put in place.
Ms.McNulty-Rainey emphasized the need for legislation which would create a market forrecycled plastic materials.
Only if there is a profitable market for recycled plastic materials will industry go to the expense of finding ways to
recycle plastics.
Roy Hawes, Chairman of the Solid Waste Commission cautioned, however, that we should not rush to seek
legislative solutions until we are clear on what we want to accomplish. In the meantime we need flexibility to seek
out a variety of solutions to the problems presented by plastic wastes.
Representatives from Dow Chemical noted that there are problems with separating plastics and that they may be
two years away from a workable solution. In addition,they noted that there is currently a shortage of recyclers and
an inadequate market for the waste plastic.
Representatives from the Junes River Company filed written comments with our Committee which are attached to
this report.
Concerns were expressed about whether the December 1990 deadline for having in place a full plastics recycling
program were realistic. There was also the feeling that a plastics product disposal fee was discriminatory.
In reviewing the portion of the Plastics Subcommittee's report dealing with the problems with disposal diapers we
were immediately impressed with the potential for creating a public health problem,quite apart from the issue of
the plastic liner on such diapers. It is clear that our Committee needs further information from the manufacturers
of disposal diapers on what steps they are taking to make their product more biodegradeable and to address the
potential public health hazard which is presented when such diapers are disposed of without being rinsed first. We
have asked that County Counsel advise us on what authority the County has to address the disposal issues involving
plastic-lined disposal diapers.
Our Committee believes that we need a process for refining some of the recommendations which are before us.
Clearly some can be endorsed and sent to the Board of Supervisors immediately. Others should be referred back
to the Solid Waste Commission with the request that their Plastics Subcommittee meet further with industry
representatives in an effort to evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of some of the recommendations. We will
present all of the recommendations to the Board of Supervisors but will note which we are endorsing at this point
and those on which we are recommending conceptual support only until we have had the opportunity for further
input from county staff and industry representatives.
In addition to the specific recommendations which are set forth by the Solid Waste Commission's report we believe
that the County government should take the lead in implementing a plastics recycling program. We are therefore
asking that such a program be outlined for us. We also believe that we should explore the possibility of doing away
with the use of disposal diapers at Merrithew Memorial Hospital and instead use cloth diapers. We also want to
explore the feasibility and cost of doing away with the use of polystyrene cups for cold drinks in County facilities
and instead use paper cups for this purpose. We also were advised that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality
Management District does not routinely monitor for the emission of CFC's from industrial plants and have also,
therefore, asked that a letter to the District be prepared asking for their position on this issue.
The above recommendations have a variety of reporting dates to a variety of entities. Our Committee plans to meet
again on June 26 to address many of these issues and will report again to the Board of Supervisors following that
meeting.
'..:V
f
•., 1
Comments to Internal Operations Committee
Contra Cost County Board of Supervisors, regarding
Report on Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream by
The Solid Waste Commission
My name is Joe Schlobohm and I am Plant Manager of James River
Corporation' s Handi-Kup plant in Corte Madera. We produce
polystyrene foam cups and containers; we operate a
warehouse/distribution center in Richmond; and we currently employ
300 people in Corte Madera, of which 100 live in Contra Costa
County.
I want to congratulate the Plastics Committee on their very
diligent effort and long hours in developing a very comprehensive
approach to dealing with this one component of our solid waste
problem. We endorse their position that plastics recycling is not
only possible, but can be a reality here in Contra Costa County.
We at James River Handi-Kup will work with the County towards
implementation of plastics recycling, just as we are already
working with other plastics manufacturers to develop reprocessing
technology and facilities, and to develop new markets.
However, I must point out a few concerns with the report as it
stands:
1 . The timetable to implement county-wide recycling for all
plastics from all sources by December 30, 1990 is
unrealistic. Aggressive action is necessary, but
achievable targets must be developed.
2 . The potential ban of any plastic products that are not
recycled throughout the county by December 30, 1990 is
unrealistic and unfair. Only a small portion of the
county ' s waste stream is recycled today. Will the same
penalties be placed on other products that are not widely
recycled by the end of 1990? Remember there are many
types of paper, metal, glass, etc. , even yard wastes,
that are not easy to recycle, for which collection and
processing facilities must be developed. We support an
aggressive approach to implementation of all recycling,
and will support plastics recycling in particular. But
recommendations A5 and C3 specifically provide for
product bans against plastic packaging that are not
proposed for any other "difficult-to-recycle" product or
material .
3 . We do not support "product disposal fees" to be
determined and levied by the county solely against
plastic products. These - "fees" would be unfair and
discriminatory, difficult to establish, cumbersome to
enforce, and would impact consumers much as a sales tax.
If such fees are not levied against all components of the
waste stream fairly, they will not have an effect on
solving our overall solid waste problem, but merely
encourage substituting one type of waste for another.
4 . The recommendations incorrectly imply that manufacturers
intentionally use "excessive packaging" that is not
related to ensuring the quality of the product that is
delivered to the end user. Manufacturers have every
incentive to do just the opposite - for packaging costs
money.
5. hoose-fill polystyrene foam packaging material
(referred to as "peanuts") are singled-out based on the
incorrect notions that they are excessive and non-
recyclable. In fact one Bay Area manufacturer has
technology to produce this product from of recycled foam.
6. Lastly, let me emphasize that CFCs have been removed from
polystyrene foam foodservice packaging already, and the
manufacturers of non-foodservice packaging should be
finished with their phase-out by year-end.
Again, James River and many other members of the plastics industry
are working very hard right now to make plastics recycling wide-
spread in the near future. We will support your efforts. But we
can achieve more together in cooperation than we can with
discriminatory bans and taxes facing us.
i
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
TO: Internal Operations Committee DATE: May 18, 1989
Supervisor Tom Powers and FILE: R-8J
Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak
FROM: Roy Hawes, Chair
Solid Waste Commission
SUBJECT: Report on Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream
Attached for your review at the May 22, 1989 Internal Operations Committee is a
report entitled "Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream." This report was
unanimously approved for transmittal to your Committee at the May 17, 1989
meeting of the Commission. The report was developed for the Solid Waste
Commission by a committee of the Commission, chaired by Avon Wilson. June
Bulman, Jim Hulshof, and Sue Rainey were the other members of the Committee.
The Committee was assisted by Sheila Cogan of the Community Development
Department and Charles Papke of Resource Management Associates (the County's
recycling consultant) .
The report contains a thorough analysis of issues regarding plastics recycling
and specific recommendations. The Commission would be happy to further refine
the report or to provide any additional information necessary for your committee
to recommend approval of the report to the Board of Supervisors.
Members of the Commission and the Committee will be at the May 22, 1989 Internal
Operations Committee meeting to present the report to you and to answer any
questions.
Any technical questions concerning the report should be referred to Sheila Cogan
at 646-4196.
RH:DO:jal
jll5:bos.mem
Attachment
o .
REDUCING PLASTICS IN THE WASTESTREAM
Submitted by
THE PLASTICS COMMITTEE OF
THE SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
to the
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
May 1989
June Bulman
James Hulshof
Susan McNulty-Rainey
Avon M. Wilson, Chair
Sheila Cogan, Community Development Department
Charles Papke, Resource Management Associates
REDUCING
PLASTICS IN THE WASTE STREAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . INTRODUCTION
Summary of Board Orders
Committee Actions
Actions of Other Cities in the County
Orinda/E1 Cerrito/Richmond/San Ramon/Concord
Committee Formulation of Issues
II . BACKGROUND
Plastic in the Wastestream
Chemistry and Properties
Polystyrene Foam Products
Plastics
State and Federal Regulations
Plastics Recycling
III . ISSUES AND FINDINGS
Introduction
Issues
IU. RECOMMENDATIONS
U. REFERENCES
UI . APPENDICES
Board Orders
Applicable Legislation
Other City Ordinances
A Partial Listing of Processors and Consumers of
Post-Consumer Plastic
Contact List
Meeting Agendas
Glossary
SC2:plasout.doc
r
I. INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF BOARD ORDERS
The Board of Supervisors asked the Solid Waste Commission to examine several
issues related to pollution and landfill problems caused by plastic in Contra
Costa County's wastestream. The Board Orders and memoranda made the following
requests:
1. Explore the current use of styrofoam (sic) beverage cups and food
containers and recommend alternative materials which are either recyclable
or biodegradable.
2. Provide further information on' the extent to which styrofoam (sic)
materials are biodegradable.
3. Review the use of recycled plastics in products purchased by the County.
4. Review the feasibility of developing a product disposal fee for stores that
use plastic bags.
5. Review current plastics recycling programs, including those that collect,
sort and recycle waste plastics for use in products such as toys and other
durable goods.
6. Provide more information about new plastics recycling programs that are
being developed by Dow Chemical and James River corporations.
7. Provide information about how County departments and agencies can begin to
collect and store styrofoam (sic) materials for recycling when a program is
in place.
Concurrent with these requests Avon Wilson, former chair of the County Solid
Waste Commission, asked the Commission to consider a plastic waste reduction
ordinance that would be based on the policies stated in the County Solid Waste
Management Plan. The Commission formed a Plastics Committee to respond to the
Board of Supervisors' requests and to prepare a written report for Commission
review. The members of the committee include Mayor Avon Wilson of Lafayette,
Chair, representing Central County cities; June Bulman, Councilmember from
Concord representing the City of Concord; Sue McNulty-Rainey, President of the
Board, of Directors representing the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; and
James Hulshof, public member of the Commission.
Committee Actions. The committee met bi-weekly, beginning in January, to plan
sufficient time to meet with representatives from environmental organizations,
local business and industry and concerned public. The committee was assisted by
staff and the County' s recycling consultant. In addition, information was
received from trade associations, professional and environmental groups con-
cerned with these issues.
Because of the complexity of the issues raised by the Board of Supervisors, the
committee formulated four topic areas that guide the discussion and development
of recommendations in this report. These topics are:
° Establish collection recycling programs for waste plastics in the County;
° Use and production of polystyrene foam containers and packaging;
° Limit the use of plastics in consumer products such as disposable diapers,
plastic bags; and
° The role of the County in developing new markets for secondary plastic
materials recovered in County recycling programs.
Actions of Other Cities in the County
Several cities within the County are also considering plastics policies includ-
ing El Cerrito, Richmond, Orinda, Concord and San Ramon. On January 17, 1989,
the E1 Cerrito City Council discussed the possibility of banning chlorofluoro-
carbon-processed plastic foam food containers within its limits. The Council
referred the subject to its Director of Community Services, and instructed his
office to prepare a comprehensive report on the issue.
In Richmond, Councilmember Rosemary Corbin has directed city staff to report on
polystyrene foam products manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons, including
information on all of the California communities which have legislated in this
area. She stated a particular interest in reviewing the ordinance adopted by
the City of Berkeley last year and directed the City Attorney' s Office to assess
the possibility of "adapting the provisions of the Berkeley ordinance" to the
legislation she would like drafted for the City of Richmond. The entire request
has now been referred to the City Attorney's Office. The Council has delayed
action pending this report. The Concord City Council has also delayed action
until receiving this report.
In March, the Orinda City Council adopted a resolution to send a letter to local
businesses seeking voluntary compliance with a request to decrease using "styro-
foam" food containers. The City's Chamber of Commerce was asked to publish the
letter, under the Mayor' s signature, in a future issue of its newsletter.
In San Ramon, staff has been directed by the City Council to draft an ordinance
banning the use of containers made with CFCs. This order has been amended to
ban rigid foam containers in food establishments and the procurement of the same
by the city. The draft ordinance will be brought before the City Council in
.May.
This report presents background information related to these topics, discusses
the issues related to each topic and concludes with a discussion of findings and
recommendations for action by the Board of Supervisors.
2 -
I
1
II. BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This report focuses on plastic containers and packaging that are used once and
then thrown away. According to figures prepared in 1985 by Franklin Associates
for the Environmental Protection Agency, waste plastics make up about 7.2
percent (Ref. 1) of municipal solid wastes and are the fastest growing segment
of the wastestream. In 1987, the plastics industry produced a total of 55
billion pounds of plastics, 40 percent of which were discarded by the public.
By the year 2000, plastics production is projected to reach 75 billion pounds,
accounting for 10 percent of solid municipal wastes that year. While this is a
significant proportion by weight, plastics have also been targeted as a waste
problem since, by volume, they are a very visible "30 percent of municipal solid
wastes." (Ref'. 2) From the data, diagrammed in Figures 1 and 2, approximately
8 percent of the national municipal solid waste in 1989 is plastic. The County
Solid Waste Management Plan estimates the total wastestream to be 1.2 million
tons in 1989. Assuming a national average of 8 percent, then approximately
95,000 tons of plastic waste are being disposed of annually in County landfills.
TABLE 1
PLASTIC RESINS COMMONLY USED
IN PACKAGING MATERIALS
PERCENT OF
ABBREVIATION RESIN TYPE TYPICAL PRODUCTS TOTAL PACKAGING
EPS Expanded Fast food cups; trays; packing 3
polystyrene "peanuts"
PS Polystyrene Clear, rigid trays; clamshells 8
HDPE High density Milk & water jugs; grocery bags; 31
polyethylene bottles
LOPE Low-density Garbage bags, grocery & dry cleaner 31
polyethylene bags
PVC Polyvinyl Water bottles 6
chloride
PET Polyethylene Soft drink bottles 7
PP Polypropylene Food bottles & tubs, lids 12
Source: Modern Plastics, January 1989 (Ref. 5)
3 -
r r
FIGURE 1
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED
TOTAL U.S. RESIN PRODUCTION
70
0 60 • °
v •'
C •'
a 50 • °,•
o �• °•
• • %0 4 0
o °
Z 30 �•• •
O
20 �•••.•
o
o .•.-
•
a 10 ,• •-
0
1982 1985 1988 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1988 1989 1992 1995
TIME
Source: Curle Randall The Economic Feasibility of Recycling, 1986.
(Ref.3)
t FIGURE 2
ESTIMATED GROWTH OF PLASTIC DISCARDS TO 2000
16 10
o... %
14--
r-= million tons 8
12--
10 --
6
2 10 6
8
6--
4-
2 42
. tons %1970 1980 2000
Source: Franklin Associates, 19863.
Source: Plastics Recycling Action Plan for Massachusetts, 1988. (Ref. 4)
- 4 -
The rapidly rising cost of landfilling makes it prohibitively expensive to deal
with large amounts of waste. When coupled with the desire to conserve resources
and to promote an environmentally acceptable means of reducing solid waste,
source reduction and recycling are considered as the most viable waste
management alternatives. Waste reduction and recycling are ranked highest in
the County Solid Waste Management Plan. In the County, aluminum cans and paper
are the materials recycled most with about 65 percent of the aluminum cans and
20 percent of the paper reprocessed. It is estimated that less than a tenth of
a percent of the plastics are recovered.
In the past decade, use of plastics in both packaging and durable goods are
growing because of their light weight, versatility in the range of applications
and convenience. As shown in "Volumes of Selected Plastic Products in the San
Francisco Bay Area" (Table 2) , the volumes of selected plastic products, milk
bottles, soft drink bottles and household chemical bottles alone totalled
21,100,000 containers per month in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1981. This
figure is estimated to have more than doubled in the past eight years.
TABLE 2
VOLUMES OF SELECTED PLASTIC
PRODUCTS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
RECOVERABLE
RESIN PRODUCTION AVAILABLE VOLUME AT 8.0%
PRODUCT COMPOSITION _(UNITS/MO) VOLUME (LBS/MO) (LBS/MO)
Milk Bottle HDPE 7,080,000 1,090,000 98,100
Soft Drink
Bottle
(2 Liter) PET 8,650,000 1,235,000 105,200
Household Only the
Chemical HDPE 5,370,000 960,000 76,800
Bottle type
TOTALS FOR ALL PRODUCTS: 21,100,000 3,285,000 280,100
Source: "Waste Plastic Management in California" prepared by Resource Management
Associates, 1981.
Many plastic consumer items have short life spans and quickly make their way
into the wastestream. More than half of the discarded plastics are found in the
form of product packaging. Plastic' s low density makes it more voluminous than
other types of garbage. Several consulting firms report that compacted plastic
packaging waste has a density of about seven pounds per cubic foot. So plas-
tic's 7.2 percent by weight translates to 25 percent to 30 percent by volume of
the municipal solid waste stream. (Ref. 2) The burden of safe disposal and
recycling of these products mainly falls on individual communities, entrepre-
neurs and concerned officials.
- 5 -
r r r r 1 1
Plastic Litter
A characteristic of plastic is its persistence. A plastic motor oil container
tossed on to a roadside, dumped in the Bay, or trucked to a landfill will remain
essentially unchanged for hundreds of years. It is difficult to compress and
does not decay. Plastic litter is a growing problem in that it does not go
away.
The low density of plastic allows it to float. In fact, the most publicized
concerns about plastic trash are its effect on marine environments. Although no
one knows exactly how much garbage is water-bound, environmentalists estimate
that the amount of plastic dumped overboard reaches over one million tons per
year worldwide. More than five million plastic containers reportedly are dumped
every day from the 50,000 merchant, naval , fishing and pleasure ships. Water
dumping, particularly of plastics, is a concern in Contra Costa County which is
surrounded and contains over 200 square miles of water in the San Francisco Bay,
the San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Straits, and inland waterways. Recent beach
cleanup/surveys show that debris consists of six different types of plastic
products (Table 3) .
TABLE 3
PLASTICS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
PERCENTAGES OF PLASTIC MATERIALS IN BEACH DEBRIS
Bottles & Six-Pack
Styrofoam Bags/Sheets Gear Containers Carriers
Location (EPS) (PE/PP/PVC) (PE/PP) (PET/PUC) (PE)
Alaska (1982) 8.8 67. 1
Maine (1986) 27.4 10.4 11.4 13.0
Mass•. (1986) 5.7 36.5 13.2
N.J. (1986) 6.2 38.6 5.2
Texas (1986) 8.3 13.9 15.2 9.2
Oregon (1986) 59.2 9.2 3.5
California 5.6* 3.3*
*percentage by weight
Source: Andrady, L. PhD. Proceedings of the Symposium on Degradable Plastics.
June 10, 1987 .
In 1987 the United States ratified Annex Five of the United Nations 1973 "In-
ternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships," that
prohibits ocean disposal of plastics, limits ocean dumping of trash and requires
ports to provide trash facilities for ships. The Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act of 1987, which took affect January 1, 1989, banned all dumping of
plastic materials into the ocean. Locally, the Marine Safety Detachment of the
Coast Guard, in Concord, and the Sheriff' s Marine Patrol enforce federal and
state regulations on the disposal of material in the waters of Contra Costa
County.
6 -
A 1988 study of litter accumulated along California highways notes that
plastics, although only 6.3 percent of the total litter by weight, constitutes
30.5 percent by count. The report states that 162 items per person are littered
each year; about one-third are plastic. Among the containers found along the
road, those made of material types which may be redeemed under the Beverage
Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, have declined considerably since
the law became effective. But an off-setting increase in HDPE plastic juice
cartons, as well as paperboard juice cartons diminish the net impact (Ref. 6) .
Chemistry and Properties
According to the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. , a trade association of
some 2,000 members representing all segments of the plastics industry in the
United States, the simple word plastics actually is a collective reference to a
wide-range of materials, and this can cause some confusion. The types of
plastics described in this report have long chemical names which are more easily
discussed using their common abbreviations:
PLASTIC RESIN ABBREVIATION TYPICAL PRODUCTS
High-density Polyethylene HDPE Milk and water jugs
Low-density Polyethylene LDPE Thin bags and sacks
Polyethylene Terephthalate PET Soft drink bottles
Polypropylene PP Food bottles and lids
Polystyrene PS Clear trays and clamshells
Polyvinyl Chloride PVC Water bottles
Expanded Polystyrene EPS Foam cups; peanuts
There are about 45 basic families of plastics, and each of these can be made
with hundreds of variations. An example is the polyethylene family. Among its
many uses, polyethylene is the material from which most plastic household
packaging is made. This versatile plastic comes in nearly 1,000 different
grades, based on difference in melt indices, molecular weights, molecular
configurations, densities, etc. By controlling these factors, polyethylenes are
created with specific properties, each designed for a special use. For in-
stance, polyethylene can be used to produce: plastic film that stretches (and
film that doesn' t stretch) , plastic film that degrades under sunlight (and film
that does not photodegrade) , plastic film that is transparent (and film that is
opaque) , pipes that carry drinking water and tanks that hold gasoline, bottles
that hold liquids ranging from milk to motor oil , juices to shampoos.
Plastics are made from materials found in nature - petroleum, natural gas and
coal . Basic compounds - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, for example, are
extracted from these materials and then combined in an almost infinite number of
ways to produce the many" kinds of plastics used today. The transformation
process from raw materials works like this: small molecules (monomers) found in
the basic compounds are linked together using heat, pressure and the addition of
reactive agents to form longer, giant molecules known as polymers or plastics.
These moldable materials are sold in the form of granules, powder pellets,
flakes or liquids for eventual processing. The raw materials used to manufac-
ture plastics come from hydrocarbon sources - oil and natural gas. These same
sources are primarily used as fuel for automobiles, electrical power plants and
home furnaces and air conditioners.
- 7 -
FIGURE 3
TYPICAL CONTAINER, hIATERIALS
Aerosol Caps (P/P) Coffee Can Lids (LDPE)
Bottles: Cookie Trays (P/S)
Bleach (HDPE)
Ketchup (P/P)' Cottage Cheese Tubs (P/S)
Laundry Detergent (HDPE)
Liquid Dish Detergent
(PVC) & (HDPE) Deli Tubs (P/P) & (P/S)
Milk (HDPE)
Mini Liquor (PET)
Mustard (LDPE) Foam Cups (P/S)
Oil (HDPE)
Salad Dressing (PVC)
Foam Meat Trays (P/S)
Soft Drink (PET)
Water (PVC)
Aspirin (P/S) Food Storage
Containers (LDPE)
Bottle Caps: Margarine Tubs (HDPE)
Flexible (LDPE)
Rigid (P/P) Microwave Freezer
Containers (PET)
Key:HDPE:high density polyethylene:PET: polyethylene ierennthaiale, PVC nolvvinvi cnlonce.
P/P:polypropylene.LDPE:low density polyethylene: P/S: polystyrene.
'Multi-layer or multi-component
Source: The Dow Corporation
- 8 -
t
i
1 F
Plastics are broadly categorized as' thermoplastic or thermoset. A thermoplastic
polymer (polystyrene, polyethylene, polycarbonate) can be reheated and reformed
without the polymer losing its identity. A thermoset, on the other hand, (poly-
urethane, epoxy resins) undergoes a chemical reaction when the original product
is formed, which cannot be physically altered and reused. When reheated the
integrity of the polymer is lost. Thermoplastics make up about 80 percent of
all plastic resin production and virtually 100 percent of plastic packaging
production, and can be recycled into other similar plastic products. Thermosets
can be recycled, but usually are not due to the expense, by first converting
them to a monomer building unit to be used in remanufacturing or by using them
as a filler.
Six classes of resins listed earlier are commonly used to make nearly all
container packaging materials. Five of these are briefly described next and the
sixth, polystyrene (PS) , is discussed in the following section.
Polyethelene (PE) . The single largest resin used in packaging and durable goods
is polyethylene (PE) . There are two slightly different forms used to produce a
high and low density polymer. Production of each type is about the same, but
they are used to make different products. These make up about 62 percent of all
packaging materials. HDPE is a more rigid durable resin used to make bottles
for milk, detergents, household chemicals and motor oil "cans" . LDPE is used
mostly for sheet and films for trash bags, grocery sacks and dry-cleaning bags.
It is also used for most of the industrial shrink and pallet wrap.
Both polyethlene resins are also used in more durable items such as toys, buck-
ets and boxes (such as those used for curbside collection of recyclables) ,
pallets, automotive and machinery parts. There are various grades of each resin
such as linear, low-density type used in manufacturing trash bags because of the
extra strength it adds to the film. This use in bags has made it more difficult
to use recycled LDPE in bags and plastic sheet.
Polypropylene (PP) . This resin has previously been used in more durable items
such as auto battery cases, fiber for rope and pipe, ' but it is now seen more in
rigid containers and snack food wrappers. The squeezable ketchup bottle uses
polypropylene plus several other laminated resins that prevent air exchange with
a "barrier-type" construction. Also, PP makes up the plastic linings of most
disposable diapers.
Newer grades of PP are now being used for products commonly made with other
resins. One example is the use of PP for plastic utensils often made of high-
impact polystyrene. As the two types of utensils are difficult to distinguish
by sight or touch, it makes their sorting for recycling nearly impossible.
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) . PET is used almost exclusively to make the
popular one-and two-liter soft drink bottle. For this reason it is the most
easily identified resin and partially accounts for its high recycling record by
the public. The PET bottle and the HDPE milk bottle are currently the most
targeted plastic containers for curbside recycling programs. In 1988, over 160
million pounds of PET bottles were recycled, according to industry sources.
- 9 -
Most reclaimed PET -is made into polyester fiber which is used as fiberfill for
parkas and pillows or can be rewoven into textiles. Post-consumer PET cannot be
recycled into new food containers, but recently Proctor and Gamble has been
test-marketing a new household chemical PET bottle for a household cleaner. It
is also being tested for reuse in various car parts such as bumpers and dash
covers. These potential uses could create new markets for recycled PET, as it
currently faces difficult marketing problems in California.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) . PVC finds most of its use in the non-packaging cate-
gories of durable goods such as pipe and conduit construction materials such as
"vinyl " flooring and paneling, and as a rubber or leather substitute in luggage,
upholstery, clothing and beach rafts. A grade of PUC is used for labeling on
PET and other plastic containers.
About a quarter of PVC is used in disposable food and non-food packaging in-
cluding wrapping for food trays, salad and vegetable oils, and other containers.
Its presence in solid waste that is incinerated has raised concerns about health
risks and equipment damage from the release of the chloride portion into air
emissions (Ref. 7) . PVC recycling however, is not occurring to any significant
extent compared to that for PE and PET products.
Polystyrene (PS)
The various forms of polystyrenes can be grouped into four categories depending
upon their relative densities and hardness.
° Impact PS. Used in hard products such as cutlery, disposable razors, light
fixtures and toys.
° Semi-Rigid PS. Used in more pliable products such as single-serve con-
tainers, dairy tubs and lids.
° Oriented PS. Makes a clear, nearly brittle container used in clam-shells,
and cookie-package trays.
° Expanded PS. Used mostly for packing and insulation materials. Also, used
for egg carton,. food trays and single serving cups, trays and insulated
clam-shells for hamburgers, etc.
Styrene plastics include a whole family of resin types which may contain various
additives to provide an even wider array of properties and capabilities. The
form most well know today is the foamed or Expanded Polystyrene, misidentified
as styrofoam, a particular brand of extruded not expanded polystyrene foam, EPS
is used in fast food single-serve cups and trays. EPS is also used for other
non-food packaging in both rigid form and loose form sometimes known as
"peanuts" .
All of the PS resins are made from ethylene (from petroleum products) and
benzene to form ethylbenzene which is reduced to styrene. The styrene molecule,
which is also used in the manufacture of other . non-plastic products, is then
polymerized under various conditions to form one of the above resin types.
- 10 -
1
1
Polystyrene comprises about 11 percent of all 'packaging materials and containers
with a quarter of that being foamed PS used in food containers and packing
materials.
Of particular importance in this report is the process used to manufacture both
the EPS resin and the extruded or molded foamed products made with EPS. The
foam is caused by the release of gases or volatile liquids which have been
introduced into the softened PS resin. The resulting EPS beads have the foaming
agent impregnated in the resin which can then be shipped to a fabricator and
expanded on site.
There are two basic processes for preparing expanded foam. Most rigid foam
products are of the closed-cell type of material that increases its strength and
insulation properties. Finally the foamed PS resins are extruded through
various sized openings or heated in molds to form the type and shape of product
needed. The significant difference in these processes is that the kind of
foaming or blowing agent used tends to differ in the different processes.
The molded foam single-serve cup (without a seam) , for example, is made from PS
foam which, according to industry sources (Ref. 27) , uses a process which has
not used chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) agents for years. On the other hand, food
trays and hinged-lid container "clam-shells" are made in a molding process from
EPS beads which have traditionally used impregnated CFC 'as a foaming agent.
The second process, which is a molding process for manufacture of containers,
employs primarily pentane or other hydrocarbons where emission standards for air
pollution allow their use. The process is a two-step expansion of EPS beads
that are impregnated with the blowing agent. The pre-expansion stage uses steam
to heat the beads in a continuously rotating drum. The partially expanded beads
are dried and inserted into molds where they are re-heated to continue the
expansion process. The second stage forms a rigid, closed-cell material that
conforms to the shape of the mold. Products made in this process may have a
visible seam. The industry claims that seamless EPS cups do not contain CFCs,
but allow that the remaining 5 to 10 percent may contain CFCs (Ref. 28) .
It is estimated that 25 billion extruded polystyrene containers are used each
year in the United States (Ref. 8) . Both types of polystyrene foam are produced
by an extrusion process in which polystyrene resin is melted in an extruder and
CFC-12 or an alternative "blowing agent" is injected under high pressure into
the extruder, where it is dispersed in the melted polystyrene. As the mixture
leaves the extruder, the blowing agent volatilizes, causing the plastic to foam.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, CFC blown foams comprise about
10 to 30 percent of the market and the remainder of the market . is held
predominately by hydrocarbon blown foams (Ref. 9) .
In response to concerns over stratospheric ozone depletion, the Foodservice and
Packaging Institute, in conjunction with several of the nation ' s leading
environmental groups, announced a program to eliminate use of CFCs in foam
products used in food service.
Other chemical substitutes include HCFC-142b and hydrocarbon blowing agents
(e.g. , pentane and butane) . Hydrocarbon foam is virtually identical to
CFC-blown foam. Hydrocarbons may be considered local air pollutants, however,
and may come under stringent emissions controls in many states.
- 11 -
Polystyrene foam sheet competes with many other disposable packaging and single
service products, including paper, cardboard, solid plastic and metal foils.
Any of these substitutes could eliminate CFC use in food packaging applications
(Ref. 10) .
Chlorofluorocarbons have been implicated in the "greenhouse effect, " i .e. :
global warming. In addition, a 1987 report issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on this issue (Ref. 11) states that stratospheric ozone
acts as a shield against harmful solar ultraviolet radiation. A significant
reduction in ozone in the upper atmosphere could result in long-term increases
in skin cancer and cataracts and probably damage the human immune system.
Evidence also supports the conclusion that reduction in the total abundance of
stratospheric ozone could reduce crop yields and terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. A consensus has emerged worldwide that chlorine from synthetic
chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons and bromine from chemical groups called
halons will decrease ozone in the stratosphere. CFCs are used as blowing agents
in some polystyrene foam products (cushioning, insulation and packaging) and as
refrigerants, as solvents, as sterilants and in aerosol containers.
The United States, 23 other nations and the European Economic Community signed a
protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, "The Montreal Protocol ," on
September 19, 1987 in Montreal , Canada. This landmark international agreement
is designed to control the production and consumption of chlorofluorcarbons and
halon compounds. The treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1988 and became
effective on January 1, 1989. Action may soon be taken to strengthen the
agreement to phase-out certain CFCs at an earlier date.
On September 27, 1988 the California State Senate Special Committee on Solid and
Hazardous Waste held a hearing on the discharge of hazardous waste in the atmo-
sphere and the potential greenhouse effect (Ref. 12) . The Special Committee's
report states "It is apparent no one is immune to long-term exposure. Reduction
of emissions vented into the atmosphere is beyond local concern . Global
implications are eminent. Understanding valley concentration of airborne
substances in California and evaluating solutions will go far in furthering
world air improvements for long-term benefit. " A number of bills relating to
chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere have been introduced into the State Senate
and Assembly this year.
A voluntary phase-out of CFCs by the food packaging industry was acknowledged by
the Environmental Protection Agency at a press conference on February 16, 1989
(Ref. 13) . In February 1989, the Board of Supervisors temporarily banned the
purchase of polystyrene foam cups. The ban remained in effect until the County
could determine if other products were available that posed less danger to the
atmosphere. In a statement issued on March 2, 1989 the Board concurred with the
Environmental Protection Agency' s recognition of industry' s initiative to ban
the use of CFCs in the manufacture of single-serving food containers. They
recognized that this voluntary phase out can serve as an example to other
industry groups that wish to do their part to protect the ozone layer. The
Board supported the Environmental Protection Agency' s "commitment to total phase
out of the use of CFCs in the United States by the end of the century and to
accelerate that phase out where is feasible. " However, a personal memo from EPA
staff member Carol Brighton of the Division of Global Concerns, states "EPA will
only monitor controlled chemical production and imports. EPA does not plan to
monitor compliance with voluntary phase-out agreements. " (Ref. 14) . The March
- 12 -
I .
1989 Local Government Commission Reports notes that plastic foam containers
account for about 7 percent of total CFC emissions and that more comprehensive
ordinances to alleviate the atmospheric effects may be warranted (Ref. 15) .
Federal and State Regulations
Some believe that plastics cannot be recycled or safely incinerated, and that
plastics are a major cause of the County' s landfill crisis. However they are
perceived, plastics are generally seen to pose a significant disposal problem
nationwide. The result has been the rapid introduction of an array of local ,
State and Federal legislation that attempts to deal one way or another with the
problem of plastic pollution and disposal .
On the Federal level , former President Reagan signed the Plastic Pollution
Control Act on October 28, 1988, requiring that all six-pack ring carriers be
made of biodegradable materials. The Act will go into effect in the next two
years unless the Environmental Protection Agency determines that it is either
not feasible or that the bi-products of the biodegradable materials are not
environmentally safe. Efforts to deal with solid waste issues are also expected
to continue with the re-authorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act which supports recycling through government procurement guidelines.
The most comprehensive Federal legislation proposed to date was re-introduced
this month by Representative George J. Hochbrueckner (D-New York) . The Bill ,
HR500, entitled the "Recyclable Materials Science and Technology Development
Act" has been described as the first measure introduced to authorize a compre-
hensive consumer product recycling program on a national level .
The bill stipulates that after a four-year joint review by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Commerce Department, all consumer items deemed
recyclable would be identified and listed. Items determined to be recyclable
must then be recycled and all remaining items must be made biodegradable or not
used at all . After an additional year the sale of certain non-recyclable or
non-biodegradable consumer goods would be prohibited. The Bill would establish
an Office of Recycling Research and Information to distribute information and
funds for research. Commerce would be directed to look into ensuring technology
development expanding the end-use market for recycled materials and encouraging
the development of biodegradable products. In addition, legislation to tax and
or ban plastic packaging has been proposed by at least nine State legislators,
including those of California and Connecticut. Already New York' s Suffolk
County has a law effective July 1, 1989 requiring the use of degradable plastic
grocery bags. Similarly, Berkeley, California banned all polystyrene packages
made with chlorfluorocarbons (CFC) blowing agents. The Berkeley law requires
that all fast food restaurant containers be biodegradable by 1990.
In California, bills have been introduced in the Assembly to regulate plastic
packaging in a variety of ways. Among them are:
AB 1041 (LaFollette) - Plastic Waste Recycling
This bill would require the California Waste Management Board to conduct a
study on plastics collection, separation and recycling and report the
results by July 1990.
13 -
AB 1796 (Moore) - Problem Plastics Elimination Act
The bill would impose a fee on each ton of problem plastics products sold
or distributed to consumers. The fund would be used to aid state and local
agencies in recycling and removing problem plastics waste, for research and
education.
AB 2199 (Bates) and AB 1332 (Peace) - Plastic Waste
AB 2199 requires that county solid waste management plans include a plastic
reduction and recycling element. AB 1332 would prohibit the use of any
non-biodegradable plastic by January 1, 1992.
Plastics Recycling
In the beverage industry aluminum containers were recognized as being a valuable
material which should not be discarded. About 20 years ago the aluminum can
manufacturing companies initiated recycling programs. Aluminum cans are well
known as being recyclable. Glass bottles have been mass produced since the turn
of the century and are being recycled into new containers. Some plastics can be
recycled to satisfy several consumer and industry needs. While plant scrap
materials from manufacturing processes have been recycled for many years by the
plastics industry, the recycling of plastics products after they have been used
by consumers, "post-consumer" waste plastics, is- a relatively new process.
With proper quality controls recycled postconsumer plastics perform as well as
virgin plastics. In 1987 an estimated 130 million pounds of polyethelene
teraphthalate (PET) and smaller quantities of high-density polyethelene (HDPE)
were recycled from post consumer plastic bottles (Ref. 16) . Currently PET
bottles and HDPE base cups and milk jugs are being recycled into bath tubs, car
bumpers, fiberfill , lumber, strapping and storage containers.
Recycling plastics is not as simple as it is for other commonly recycled mater-
ials. Hundreds of different types of plastics are used in packaging and each
type of plastic must be separated into like categories before they can be
recycled. As different plastics are used to make many of the same products, it
is often difficult to identify each plastic type; but some products, such as
soda bottles and milk jugs, are each made from a single type of plastic resin
and can be visually separated for recycling. To assist in separating plastic
bottles by resin type, thereby creating a higher value recycled material , the
Society of the Plastics Industry established a coding system (Figure 4) to mark
milk bottles, jars and other rigid containers over 16 ounces by six most-widely
used resin materials. Beginning July 1988 the molded marks will be applied by
bottle producers to designated plastic containers. In California, legislation
to require the industry marks to be used on containers sold throughout the State
will become effective on January 1, 1992.
To increase research into plastics recycling, the Plastics Recycling Foundation,
largely funded by the plastics resin producers and packaging industries, is
currently sponsoring research at a number of universities to improve technology
for plastics recycling. Rutgers, Michigan State University, and the University
of Toledo, have received some $2.5 million in foundation grants and matching
grants from states, At the Center of Plastics Recycling Research (CPRR) at
Rutgers, new processes are being developed to recycle plastics materials.
- 14 -
FIGURE.4,
PLASTIC CONTAINEP, CODES
CODE MATERIAL
O �
L` 14m) — — — — Poly-Ethylene Terephthalate (PET)*
PETE
%�2X ———— High Density Polyethylene
HDPE
J3 — — — — Vinyl / Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)*
V
C44+� ——— — Low Density Polyethylene
LDPE
P5\ —— — — Polypropylene
PP
P6\ — —— —Polystyrene
PS
L7+� — — — — All Other Resins and Layered Multi-Material
OTHER
'Stand alone bottle code is different from standard industry identification to avoid confusion with regist<
Source: Society of the Plastics Industry
Most plastics reclamation systems are designed to work with rigid containers
such as PET beverage bottles, and HDPE milk or household product containers
because they are currently the easiest post-consumer items to collect and sort.
PET beverage bottles are actually not one, but several materials: a PET bottle
(clear or green) , a pigmented high-density polyethylene (HDPE) base cup, alumi-
num cap, label and adhesives.
In order to establish a successful plastics recycling system three components
have to be in place: 1) a system for collection, 2) a system to reclaim the
collected containers, and 3) end uses for the reclaimed material . After the
containers are collected, they are sorted and packaged for resale to reclaimers
of each material . This sorting and packaging is done at a processing center, or
materials recovery facility. In the case of plastic containers, the reclaimer
or plastics recycler grinds the containers, washes the regrind, separates the
shredded components (PET, base cups, labels, caps, etc. ) and then sells the
sorted and processed plastics to various manufacturers for recycling.
Developing Markets for Waste Plastics
Recycling waste plastics requires finding markets for the various types of
plastics to be collected. There is concern about the availability of markets
that will accept the processed materials, and questions about the required
specifications and prices offered by the markets. This section reviews some of
the existing markets and describes efforts by other government agencies to
develop new and stronger markets for waste plastics.
There is a steadily growing industry of processors of industrial scrap, but this
industry has been reluctant to accept post-consumer scrap of any quantity.
Currently, there is a growing willingness to handle post-consumer plastics, but
strict specifications limit widespread use. As states and local agencies begin
to apply pressures on the industry, the plastics resin producers have responded
by sponsoring research and development in areas of collecting processing and
developing new uses for secondary resins. The main examples are the Plastics
Recycling Foundation and Center for Plastics Recycling Research, funded by most
of the largest resin producers in the United States. Universities such as
Rutgers in New Jersey, Michigan State in East Lansing and University of Toledo
in Ohio, have received over $2.5 million in grants in the past three years.
Some products made from recycled HDPE plastics, shown in Tables 5 and 6, used
over 52 million pounds in 1986. Low density polyethylene scrap is routinely
used to make construction-grade sheeting, trash bags and other products. Most
of the products made from recycled materials are usually heavier, lower-grade
products with greater thicknesses that can tolerate slight resin imperfections
without loss of product integrity. The products usually appear in darker colors
blended of the mixed colors of post-consumer scrap.
16 -
TABLE-75" ,
PRODUCTS MADE FROM RECYCLED HDPE SCRAP
AGRICULTURE RECREATIONAL
Drain Pipes Toys
Pig and Calf Pens
MARINE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL
Boat Piers (lumber) Drums/Pails
Kitchen Drain Boards
CIVIL ENGINEERING Matting
Milk Bottle Carriers
Building Products Pallets
Curb Stops Soft Drink Basecups
Pipe Trash Cans
Signs
Traffic-Barrier Cones
m
GARDENING
Flower Pots
Garden Furniture
Golf Bag Liners
Lumber
TOTAL VOLUME
52.3 Million lbs. recycled in 1986
Source: Bennett, R.A. , University of Toledo (Ref. 16)
17 -
The major user of PET bottles is Wellman Industries, who last year used over 110
million pounds of PET for making a synthetic fiber for clothing and sleeping
bags as well as textile carpet backing. They buy most of the PET in California,
and the West Coast that is not exported. Some of the other types of post-
consumer scrap plastics purchased last year are shown below.
TABLE 6
TOTAL POUNDS OF POST-CONSUMER PLASTIC TYPES PURCHASED IN 1987
COLLECTORS INTERMEDIATE RECYCLERS
Amount of PET from 118,340,000 2,587,666
Amount of HDPE from 72,460,200 18,996,000
Amount of Mixed plastics from 3,000,000 0
Source: Bennett, R.A.
University of Joledo, Ohio (1988) (Ref. 17)
While many of the efforts at collecting waste plastics require source separation
of particular types of plastics such as PET bottles or milk jugs, there are
others that are collecting mixed plastics, usually removed from mixed solid
wastes. Most of the mixed plastics collection effort started in Europe and
Japan, while specialized equipment was developed for molding or extruding
various mixtures of thermoplastic scrap. Perhaps the most common product made
in these processes is plastic "lumber. " About a half dozen of these plants have
now been set-up in this country, all in the mid-western and north-eastern United
States.
Most of the products made from these materials, shown in Table 7, are not
commercially available, but have been made or can be ordered. Some of the
listed products are also made from single resin types and are more readily
available. Of the products listed the most common are fence and timber
replacement for specialized uses, park benches, car stops, and flower pots.
18 -
i Y
TABLE 7'
PRODUCTS MADE FROM MIXED-RESIN WASTE PLASTICS
AGRICULTURAL AND GARDENING
Fence posts
Barrier retainers
Tree supports
Cattle pens and gates
Compost; enclosures
Flower pots and tree boxes
INDUSTRIAL
Marine docks and walks
Pier protectors
Pallets
Flooring and matting
COMMERCIAL
Car stops
Sign posts
Pallets and shipping containers
Traffic: barriers
Park Benches and tables
Source: Resource Management Associates, Napa (1989)
19 -
While there are many markets buying scrap plastics, the specifications and
prices paid for .the post-consumer grades hinder recycling efforts. Often the
prices paid for the materials are not high enough to cover the costs of
collection, processing and transportation. Many markets are not as stable or
reliable as they are for other recyclables and rejected or down-graded loads are
more common. For all of these reasons, development of new and stronger markets
for waste plastics are needed to insure long-term success of a countywide
recycling program. (See Table 8)
Several states and counties have taken steps to reduce the marketing problems
facing plastics recycling. Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania
have conducted studies specifically focusing on plastics. Other states such as
Illinois, Missouri , New York, California and others have conducted studies
examining barriers and incentives for increased recycling that can be applied to
plastics.
On a more local level , many counties have conducted studies that recommend
actions that can be taken to stimulate new markets and expand existing market
opportunities. Nearby, the City of San Francisco recently completed a plastics
recycling plan that presented two scenarios for citywide plastics recycling
programs (Ref. 18) .
In Contra Costa County, at least three plastics industry firms are studying ways
to develop and promote post-consumer plastics recycling programs. While their
plans are not well known, there is indication that local government support will
be required to encourage their development and to insure success. The companies
are testing new technologies for collection and processing.
New methods to process plastic for recycling are being developed by The Dow
Corporation in cooperation with WTE' s wholly-owned subsidiary, Certified Polymer
Processors, in Benicia. The company has constructed and tested several
separation processes for recovering plastics. Last March, WTE began
experimenting with recovering polystyrene foam from quick service restaurant
waste. In cooperation with Amoco, the company initiated laboratory studies to
devise a mechanical scheme to recover foam trays and clamshell containers from
McDonald's trash. A pilot plant was constructed last Spring. The equipment was
transferred to Brookland, New York, where a demonstration plant has been
established. The plant is a test to see whether it is technically . and
economically feasible to recycle PS foam from mixed waste (Ref. 19) .
The Dow Corporation has established a Plastics Recycling Application Center at
its Western Applied Science and Technology Laboratory in Walnut Creek. In a
recently completed study, mixed household plastics were collected from about 160
employees at the laboratory. These mixed plastics were sorted by type and
processed using new processing techniques under development by WTE. This
program will be expanded in cooperation with Pacific Rim Recycling to 540 homes
in Walnut Creek for 12 weeks this Summer. All plastic containers will be
collected as part of Walnut Creek's curbside collection program. Residents will
-be provided with special yellow bags tied with red ribbons in which to place the
discarded containers.
- 20 -
TABLE 8
CALIFORNIA MARKETS FOR POST-CONSUMER PLASTIC SCRAP
MAIN
PLASTIC SCRAP POST-CONSUMER PRICE
MARKETS TYPES SPECIFICATIONS (cents/lb.)
Acri-Tech PET, HDPE, Clean, color-sort 2-7
Ontario LOPE, others
Ameri-plastics PET, LOPE Clean, color-sort 1-5
Riverbank
Bay Polymers PET, PE Very clean, 1-8
Fremont Color-sorted
Bay Recycling* All sorted and Fairly clean **
Oakland
Coast Polymers PET, HDPE, Very clean 2-10
Santa Fe Springs
First Metal & Chemicals All except PET Clean, color-sort Various
San Francisco
Fresno Production Center HDPE, PET Clean **
Fresno
Golden Pacific, Inc. PS foam Clean **
Antioch
Joe's Plastics All , incl . Very clean 2-10
Vernon PS foam
Oakland Plastic Sales PET, others Clean 1-8
Oakland
Plastics Recycling Corp. PET Baled, color-mix 12-15
of California (CA Red. only) or sorted
Los Angeles
Recycled Plastics - I1 HDPE, others Clean 1-4
Scotts Valley
Tai Shun Plastics Acrylics Color-sorted 6-8
San Francisco
West Flex Plastics HDPE, LDPE Very clean 10-12
Richmond
*Now called, County Recycling
**Accepts materials only; does not buy
Source: Resource Management Associates, Napa (1989)
- 21 -
The City of Burbank has now begun collecting foam scrap from local businesses.
In a survey, all respondents that used polystyrene said they would be willing to
recycle it. Tempo Plastics in Burbank volunteered to collect it from Burbank
Recycle Center bins and transport it to a firm for reprocessing. The program
began May 1, 1989.
To spur a market for PET plastic containers, the Plastic Recycling Corporation
of California (PRCC) , a non-profit corporation, was formed in 1987 in response
to AB 2020, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction
Act. According to the law, all applicable beverage containers have a minimum
redemption value of one-cent and a sufficient scrap value which insures that
materials are recycled. PRCC guarantees to buy all PET containers from
collectors.
- 22 -
III. ISSUES AND FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
The Plastics Committee discussed many issues and concerns related to the Board
Orders and memoranda with industry representatives, recyclers and experts from
the University of California and various State and local agencies. In addition,
reports, publications, legislation and other documents were gathered and in-
cluded in the committee's review and analysis. They are listed in the attached
references.
A work plan was developed in the first meeting to guide discussion and assist in
focusing on many issues and recommendation of the committee. The 20 concerns
and possible actions outlined in the work plan were condensed into eight groups
of issues for discussion in this report. This forms the basis for the
committee' s recommendations presented in the next section. The approach of
these recommendations is to convey as much as possible, the purpose and goals
which reflect the Committee's concerns. There. are a number of definitions and
details of implementation yet to be decided. Briefly, these issues are:
° Implementation of a county-wide .Waste Plastics Recycling Program for all
plastic waste materials.
° Prohibiting the manufacture of plastic foam materials that use ozone-
depleting CFCs.
° The impact of enhanced degradability of plastic products on recycling and
the environment.
° Health impact of improperly disposed plastic single-use diapers.
° The use of plastic versus paper grocery sacks.
° The effect of product disposal charges and restrictions on reducing the
quantities of waste plastics.
° Role of the county in education and support of plastic waste reduction and
recycling programs.
After discussion of these issues, the committee' s findings and general
conclusions are described.
1. Plastics Recycling
Why focus on plastics recycling if they comprise only 7 to 10 percent of
solid wastes? Some don' t realize that old newspaper is about the same
percentage; glass is only slightly less at 6 to 8 percent, while tin cans
are only 2 to 3 percent. Aluminum cans, the most popularly recycled
commodity, are less than half of one percent of wastes disposed of in
County landfills.
23 -
Next to yard wastes and old corrugated boxes, waste plastics could possibly
be the third largest component in Contra Costa County' s wastestream. One
of the reasons that the relative concentration of plastics is not known is
that an accurate solid waste analysis has not been conducted for over a
decade and that one was for only one area of the County. Several small
samplings have shown wide variations, such as that glass comprised nearly
15 percent of the wastestream in a study of West Contra Costa County
wastes. Production of plastic resins has more than doubled in the past
decade, having the effect of lowering relative concentrations of competing
glass, paper and metal containers and packaging in municipal wastes.
Another advantage of a more accurate wastestream analysis is that it helps
in the design of appropriate methods for collection and processing of
plastics as well as in monitoring the impacts and success of the recycling
program in achieving its goals. For example, knowledge of the relative
concentrations of film, foam, and rigid container plastics could help set
priorities for targeting the type of plastics that could be most easily
collected and recycled, and at the same time have the greatest impact on
waste reduction. Thus with . a limited budget, it may prove more effective
to focus on polyethylene film scrap recovery rather than a system for
collecting and processing mixed plastic containers.
Waste Plastics Recycling Program
The Committee felt that even with various waste source reduction actions
pending or in effect, a large portion of plastics would still remain in the
wastestream. For this reason, an aggressive waste plastics recycling pro-
gram needs to be implemented. The details of design and implementation
of the program have not been decided for this report, but examples of
plastics recycling programs in other parts of the country indicate the
initial direction of this proposed program (Table 10) . As a pilot program
will begin in June 1989, details of an expansion will be developed within
the first quarter.
Plastic materials targeted for the program include the following
thermoplastic polymers used in packaging:
° Polyethylene (HDPE; LDPE)
° Polypropylene (PP) '
° Polystyrene (PS and EPS)
° Polyvi•nyl chloride (PVC)
° Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Initially, only products and packaging made predominately of these mater-
ials would be collected for recycling. Later, as processing technologies
and markets develop, other multi-layer, laminated, and barrier type con-
tainers and sheet materials would be included. Durable plastic products
are also included that were made of these initial targeted resins. Other
thermoplastic resins such as acrylics, related styrenes, and more special
ized polymers would be added.
24 -
FIGURE 5
COMPARISON OF CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
Annual plastic
Locale/ Collected Program recovery,
Population materials type #/household T-„rk tvpe
Charlotte,NC news,glass, weekly curb- 4 dedicated
(27,000) cans,PET side,15 cu.ft. 3-compart-
set-outcontainers, mens,1-man
voluntary crew
E.Greenwich,RI news,glass, weekly curbside 23 dedicated
(5,821) UBC,ferrous, 15 cu.ft.containers, 3-compart-
PET,HDPE, mandatory ment,2-man
ICleve,FRG paper,glass, curbside,alternate 13 standard
(11,000) metals,textiles, weeks,green bins auto-load
all plastics voluntary packer,1-man
Burbach,FFG paper,corrug., rotating curbside 12 standard
(14,000) glass,metal, modified green bin, auto-load
all plastics voluntary packer,1-man
Naperville,IL multi-material bi-monthly 2.3 recycling
(45,000) &HDPE dairy curbside trailers,sort/
voluntary load,2-man
Bronx,NY multi-material buy-back& NA NA
(pop.NA) &LDPE,HDPE, intermediate
PS,PVC,PET processor for
&other plastics other programs
Columbia Cty., multi-material, curbside& 4 rebuilt beer
M(27,000) PET&HDPE drop-off,voluntary truck,3-man
LaSalle,Quebec multi-material, weekly 115 dedicated
(50,000) all film&rigid curbside,15 cu.ft. 7-compartment
packaging . container,voluntary truck
Source: Plastics Recycling Action Plan for Massachusetts, July 1988.
25 -
Pilot collection programs would be initiated to focus on both residential
and commercial wastestreams. These programs would collect at least several
types of products made from different resins to test both collection
techniques, costs and efficiencies and processing technologies.
Markets for these plastic materials already exist for non-post-consumer
resins. Thus the challenge of the processing techniques will be to prepare
the materials in a sufficiently pure form that they can be used inter-
changeably with virgin resins. WTE Corporation in Benicia is carrying out
research and development of these processes.
To increase collected volumes, all existing curbside recycling programs
will be encouraged to include PET soft drink and HDPE milk jug containers
in their collected materials mix. Many dozens of curbside programs already
collect these materials, so their inclusion in Contra Costa County programs
is not expected to cause any difficulty. Also, all operators of garbage
transfer stations in the County would be required to remove all targeted
waste plastic materials from wastes processed through their facilities.
Operators could have the choice of not accepting wastes that contained
plastics in order to reduce on-site removal costs. There are at least two
waste processing recycling operations in the San Francisco Bay. Area that
already remove waste plastics, Marin Recycling in San Rafael and County
Recycling in Oakland, producing models for collecting techniques and
established markets.
The schedule and implementation goals recommended for this program are as
follows:
Activity Goal Date
° Adopt Waste Plastics Recycling Program June 1989
° Implement a pilot plastics recycling August 1, 1989
program for residential curbside collection
and processing of mixed plastics as defined
in this report
° Provide first quarterly report with program October 1989
details
° Implement a pilot polystyrene plastics November 1, 1989
recovery and recycling program for
restaurants, businesses and residents
in the County
° Provide an annual written report July 1990
° Full -scale waste plastics recovery and December 31, 1990
recycling programs serving all municipal
curbside recycling programs, and all
commercial and private recycling programs
operating in the County
- 26 -
t
To improve the effectiveness of the program and check its progress, the
County will monitor its various activities, recovery rates in the sub-
programs for each plastic type and prepare quarterly program status reports
to the County Solid Waste Commission for their review and evaluation.
As described in the previous section, the local plastics industry has
already indicated interest in working with the County in meeting its
proposed recycling goals. While these early efforts are commendable, its
is felt that the County needs to clarify its commitment to plastics recy-
cling by pledging to take more aggressive steps should its adopted recy-
cling plan not meet expectations. Therefore it is recommended that the
County should allow the continued operation of plastics manufacturers,
fabricators, and other producers of plastic container and packaging
material_ only if a full-scale recycling program is in place by December
31, 1990.
Recyclability of EPS products was another issue reviewed by the Committee.
While the industry claims EPS cups, trays and packing materials are easily
recycled, the Committee could not find a single buyer of post-consumer EPS
that could handle the potential quantities available in the County. In
fact, the Committee could not find an example, other than a few test
programs, of an on-going recycling of post-consumer EPS in the country.
However, since the local industry has indicated plans to provide capacity
to collect and recycle all waste plastics, including all EPS food and
packing materials, the Committee felt that an opportunity to develop these
plans should be encouraged. Thus, the recommendations allows industry a
period of approximately 18 months to get a countywide program on-line.
Should a program (WPRP) not be developed, then the Committee recommends
that the County Board of Supervisors prohibit all production and use of EPS
products within the County.
The industry claims that banning the use of EPS packing materials will
cause higher damage to products shipped in non-EPS packing materials and a
resulting increase in shipping insurance rates. However, these claims were
not documented and the issue of increased disposal costs caused by use of
EPS materials was not included in their claims.
One industry in the County, the Ford Motor Distribution Center in Richmond,
sets an example for other companies to follow. The company once used EPS
packing materials, but recently switched to recyclable shredded newspaper -
an environmentally-sound process that not only uses renewable and easily
recyclable material , but also helps create a new market for recycled
newsprint. .
2. PolystyrEane Foam (EPS) Products
The issues relating to -the use and disposal of polystyrene foam products
varied from use of ozone-depleting blowing agents to health effects to
possible County roles in regulating various aspects of the production and
use of these materials. Other issues of major concern are the use of a
non-renewable resource, petroleum, for packaging materials and the degree
of recylability of EPS products.
- 27 -
In the Bay Area the Handi-cup Division of the James River Corporation
manufactures foam cups at four locations: one being in Corte Madera,
California. Handi-cup is seeking to move its manufacturing facility to the
North Richmond area in 1990, and co-locate it with its distribution center.
As indicated previously, most molded foam cup manufacturers do not use
CFCs in the production of their products. A letter addressed to key County
officials, dated February 13, 1989, from Dennis Nemura, Vice President and
General Manager of the Handi-Cup Division states, "We don't use
chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, in our cups .or in the manufacturing process and
never have. The small number of manufacturers in our industry that did use
CFCs to make products such as hamburger clam shells, voluntarily phased
them out during 1988." He also claimed, "There are no polystyrene foam
food service products made today in the- United States that use halogenated
CFCs. " However, other sources have claimed that some industries may still
be using CFCs in some applications or when non-CFC impregnated beads are
not available (Ref. 20) . At this point, the remaining uncertainty
convinced the .Committee to support a ban on the production and use of
CFC-polystyrene foam products and to require the industry to prove they are
not using CFCs. (See Appendix)
The blowing agent used at Handi-cup, pentane, is not a CFC, and does not
impact the upper atmosphere. Pentane emissions are regulated by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District. Environmentalists have expressed
concern that pentane emissions from expanded polystyrene foam production,
use and disposal create smog in the lower atmosphere. It has been
demonstrated that CFCs from extruded foams and other sources erode the
protective ozone shield in the upper atmosphere, with the affect of a
higher incidence of lung and skin cancer due to ultraviolet radiation.
Two important issues formed the basis for the conclusion that EPS should
not be used as a packaging material unless these concerns are adequately
addressed. The first is the relative recyclability of plastic packaging
compared with other packaging materials such as paper, glass and metals.
The current difficulty in recycling plastics make them a less desirable
packaging material . A second concern relates to the fact that plastics are
derived from petroleum products, which are a non-renewable resource. The
question raised by the Committee was whether packaging materials, which are
used once and discarded, are the highest and best use of a limited and
dwindling resource which may be substantially depleted within our lifetime.
They assert . that durable and resuable rather than disposable plastics
extract greater value from our dwindling, non-renewable petroleum reserves.
The Committee acknowledged that issues relating to chlorofluorocarbons and
halons were outside the scope of their report. However, because these
issues are tied with waste reduction and litter abatement, they recommend
that the Board of Supervisors refer these matters to the Hazardous
Materials Commission for further review.
3. Disposable Diapers
The single-use plastic diaper is emerging as a symbol of the nation' s
garbage crisis, according to diaper service industry opinion. Sales of the
products are growing for both infants and toddlers and for incontinence
care in older adults. Disposable diapers are manufactured from
polyproplyene, wood pulp fiber and absorbant chemicals.
- 28 -
t
.In 1988, approximately '18 billion disposable (single use) diapers were
purchased in the United States. . Once discarded, they and over 99 percent
of their contents made their way to the solid wastestream along with house-
hold and commercial trash. The overwhelming majority of single use diapers
(92 percent) were ultimately buried in landfills; the balance incinerated
in resource recovery plants.
The impact of single use diapers on the nation's solid waste disposal
system is staggering:
° On a national average, single use diaper waste represents 2 percent of
municipal solid waste and 3.5 to 4.5 percent of household solid waste
(by weight) . No other single consumerproduct--with the exception of
newspapers and beverage and food containers--contributes so much to
our solid wastes.
° In 1988 it is estimated that 3,622,500 tons of single use diaper waste
will end up in landfills. There, the co-mingling of untreated sewage
and solid waste will create a potentially unhealthy situation as well
as pose a health concern for sanitation workers.
There are approximately 11,000 babies born each year in Contra Costa
County. The average child is in diapers until about age two-and-a-half.
Therefore, there are approximately 28,000 diaper-age children in Contra
Costa County at any time.
Single-use diaper mann vers estimate that a child uses an average of
2,100 diapers each year (cotton users would tend to use more) : By multi-
plying the diaper-age population by the number of diapers used by each
child annually (28,000 x 2,100) about 58,800,000 diapers are used per year
in the County.
According to Carl Lehrberger in his report on Diapers in the Waste Stream,
(Ref. 21) , about 4,500 single-use diapers equal one ton; therefore,
58,800,000 divided by 4,500 equals 13,666 tons of diapers entering the
County's wastestream each year, if all diaper changes were "disposables. "
Currently, there are approximately 3,000 cotton diaper users in the County,
indicating that about 27 tons of waste are diverted from the total , which
potentially adds 251 tons per week of plastic wastes to the landfill . (Ref.
22) .
The human waste contained is disposable diapers has been found to be
dangerous, carrying live polio and hepatitis vaccine residues. It is
defined as a hazardous waste (Ref. 23) .
How to dispose of disposable diapers is a confusing issue for most consum-
ers, since few labels instruct consumers to flush the waste contents. The
plastic is in most instances non-biodegradable.
- 29 -
Current regulations in the County require that all raw, untreated sewage
must be disposed in the sewer system. Placing human excrement in
residential garbage is prohibited. Improper disposal in household garbage
is potentially hazardous to sanitation workers and may contaminate ground-
water when landfilled, or may be carried by insects.
According to the Lehrburger study, reusable diapers have a clear economic
advantage over their life cycle of use. Single-use diapers, cotton diapers
washed at home, and cotton diapers washed by a diaper service were compared
with respect to out-of-pocket expenses to consumers including costs for
home labor, air pollution control and water resulting from disposal . In
early 1988 prices, per-unit costs were as follows:
Single-use diapers: $0.22/use
Cotton diapers washed at home
(with home labor included) $0.15/use
Cotton diapers washed by diaper service $0.13/use
Diapers become a public policy issue as they interface with areas of waste
reduction and public health. The Plastic Committee recommendations focus
on waste minimization strategies, including promoting the use of cotton
diapers.
The public health impacts of disposing of single-use diaper wastes in
landfills should be evaluated. Measures discouraging single-use diaper
waste going to landfills should be developed and adopted by the County.
mo
a
4. Degradability
Durability, one of the key properties of plastics that led to its explosive
growth, now causes some problems in the minds of many associated with
solving Contra Costa County's growing solid waste and litter problems. At
a time when one of the County's landfills is closing, a common belief is
that if plastics were degradable they would simply disappear and minimize
solid waste problems. There is "debate" about the role of degradable
plastics (or any packaging material ) in the litter stream or in landfills.
Independent studies conducted for the EPA show that over 60 percent of
material currently entering landfills is "degradable." This includes food
wastes, yard wastes, inorganic wastes, paper and cardboard.
Degradation is in fact a complex and slow process. For a material to
degrade, it must be exposed to light, heat, air, water and/or bacteria.
Under landfill conditions, many materials generally regarded as degradable,
paper products for instance, deteriorate either slowly or not at all in
short periods of time.
Plastics can be made to degrade faster in two ways. Degradable grocery
bags, or example, may be either photo- or biodegradable.
° Photodegradation requires ultraviolet light (from the sun) to break
the chemical structure of plastics. Ultraviolet light from some
fluorescent bulbs can produce the same effect.
- 30 -
° Biodegradation. involves the breaking down and consumption of addi-
tives, generally corn starch, in the plastic by living organisms.
Biodegradable plastic in most cases is a mixture of starch and plastic
blended together. The starch is digested by bacteria in the soil ,
causing the plastic to fall apart into microscopic pieces. In a sense
biogradable plastics are not really so since the plastic pieces still
remain after degradation, although they may not be. visible. There is a
growing concern among environmentalists that by giving a false sense
of security, biodegradable products may remove part of the incentive
to recycle.
An issue paper prepared for the California Waste Management Board indicates
that the growth of biodegradable plastics has primarily been a response by
the plastic packaging industry to a wave of legislation aimed at
restricting plastic packaging. Biodegradable plastics are being marketed
as trash bags and grocery sacks. The report concludes that biodegradable
compounds are not appropriate for all plastic products, especially durable
goods, nor are they appropriate for certain disposable but recyclable
plastic containers because the biodegradable compound interferes with the
recyclability of these products. Manufacturing products with biodegradable
compounds increases the likelihood that such products would be collected in
recycling programs. When the mixed materials were processed for recycling,
the biodegradable compounds would compromise the integrity of the processed
material by damaging the consistency of the resins, according to industry
sources, therefore limiting the recyclability of those plastics (Ref. 24) .
To date, 16 states have passed legislation requiring the use of degradable
plastics in six-pack rings: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
In response to the Board of Supervisors' request to provide further infor-
mation on the extent to which styrofoam (sic) materials are biodegradable,
Mobil Chemical Company, a manufacturer of polystyrene foam resins, states
that "Within the definition of biodegradability, to break down through
biological action, foam is not biodegradable."
In 1988, a Canadian company announced plans to manufacture a concentrate
that makes polystyrene products degrade when they are exposed to outdoor
light, but the product may not yet be available.
5. Grocery Sacks
In the last few years, there has been a change at Contra Costa County' s
supermarket checkouts. Plastic grocery sacks, new to the marketplace in
the mid-70s, today represent 50 percent of the 23 billion grocery sack
market nationwide. If this pattern of growth continues, plastic will
account for 75 percent of the sacks packed at the checkout counter by 1990,
echoing the situation elsewhere in the world where plastic accounts for
more than 90 percent of the grocery sack business, according to industry
sources (Ref. 25) .
31 -
After labor costs, grocery sacks are a supermarket's single largest oper-
ating expense. In 1988 heavyweight craft paper grocery sacks sold for
between $35 and $37 per 1,000 compared to plastic sack prices of $22 to $24
per 1,000 (and even lower prices on some imports) . For large supermarket
chains, which can use from 2 million to 3.5 million bags a week, the change
to plastic, has. meant savings of $20,000 to $35,000 per week. Central to
the cost savings for the grocery retailer is that plastic sacks take up
only one-sixth of the storage space that paper bags require. This frees up
space in warehouses, storerooms and checkout locations.
Consumers have many questions about the use of plastic or paper bags on the
environment. The lack of standards for photodegradable and biodegradable
plastics or paper products has added to the confusion.
In Contra Costa County, the major grocers have introduced a photo- or
biodegradable plastic sack. They include Safeway, which uses a photo-
degradable sack manufactured by Mobil Chemical Company, and Frys and Lucky
Stores which offer photodegradable sacks manufactured by Sunoco. Nob Hill
and Alpha Beta use biodegradable products manufactured by Hilex Poly Inc.
Arguments presented to grocery and other retail store executives at a
series of symposia on biodegradable plastics questioned whether the addi-
tional costs of the materials could be justified by the environmental
benefits. "To significantly enhance the plastic bag' s ability to photo-
degrade, costs must be raised by about 5 percent. Providing a meaningful
biodegradation will increase costs by 20-25 percent," claimed Dr. Woo Young
Lee of Mobil Chemical 's Solid Waste Management Solutions Group (Ref. 25) .
Because more information was needed regarding the use of degradable
plastics, the Committee decided no specific recommendation would be made at
this time. The Board of Supervisors or the Solid Waste Commission may wish
to explore this issue in later meetings.
6. Product Charges and Restrictions
County restrictions on the manufacture and use of certain plastic products
were discussed in regard to polystyrene foams, disposable diapers, plastic
grocery bags and other plastic products. These issues have been discussed
in the appropriate sections of this report.
In the mid-1970s the United States Environmental Protection Agency
conducted a number of studies on the design and implementation of a federal
"product change" on packaging materials to encourage waste reduction
practices (Ref. 26) . Section 205 of the 1970 Resource Recovery Act
directed the EPA to investigate:
"incentives. . .and disincentives to accelerate the reclamation or
recycling of materials from solid wastes, and the necessity and method
of imposing disposal or other charges on packaging, containers,
vehicles, and other manufactured goods, which would reflect the cost
of final disposal , the value of recoverable components of the item,
and any social costs associated with the uncontrolled disposal of such
items. "
- 32 -
The concept ofr a product disposal charge is setting of a fee or charge on
products at their point of manufacture or sale, equal in amount to the
product's prospective waste collection and disposal costs. This charge
would be levied on a product-by-product basis. The purpose •of the product
charge is to encourage manufacturers and consumers to make a choice based
on the disposability of the product or its package. The manufacturer is
encouraged to design the product and package to reduce the product change,
thereby making it more attractive to the consumer. Consumers can choose to
buy lower cost products. This internalization of disposal costs would in
essence, establish a framework of economic incentives to stimulate waste
reduction and recycling efforts by both the producers and the consumers of
the product.
On the federal level , some practical design issues arose about the way the
charged fees would be collected and distributed to local entities to
off-set collection and disposal costs. Other issues about which products
should be charged, at what level , and how the revenues should be utilized
also complicated the decision process.
After years. of study, neither the EPA nor Congress took action that
resulted in implementation of a federal law or excise tax on products.
Local agencies were left to develop their own ways of setting product
charges. The Committee found one case related to this method which was
adopted by the state of Minnesota. It is an interesting variation which is
currently in place, but not actively enforced.
-- Minnesota has a packaging review and control law that the state supreme
court upheld after six years of concerted challenges. That same court,
however, concluded that the regulations were merely advisory and did not
have the force or effect of law. In 1979, the Minnesota Supreme Court
concluded that the Act did not violate interstate commerce protections, and
upheld the authority of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to
review and ban new packaging. But the Court denied that the regulations
themselves had the force of law or amounted to anything more than
guidelines. The basis for this finding was that the statute did not say
MPCA could write the rules. Instead, judging that the law and its
guidelines would be too impractical to carry out -- being, among other
things, too costly, broad, confusing, controversial and burdensome --
Minnesota is pursuing a recycling strategy.
In a related decision, the Minnesota court struck down the 1977 Minnesota
Legislature's attempted ban of non-refillable plastic milk bottles. The
ban was sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981, but it has not been
enforced.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court on the plastic
bottle ban, holding that the law was not arbitrary or irrational , did not
discriminate against interstate commerce, did not violate Equal Protection ,
and did not impose an excessive burden "in relation to putative local
benefits." In essence, the U.S. Supreme Court said that no better approach
was available to the state.
- 33 -
Justice Brennan wrote the decision, which stated in part that, "It is no
requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be
eradicated or none at all . " It was not acceptable, he wrote, that the
state should be prevented from piecemeal efforts at reform. The opinion
added that a state, in prohibiting deleterious conduct, "is not compelled
by the Constitution to demonstrate that such conduct is, in all respects,
the most deleterious of all alternative courses of action."
The opinion also criticized sternly the conduct of the state supreme court
in usurping the state legislature's role of judging the "wisdom and
perceived effect of a .legislative act." Brennan held that the Minnesota
court exceeded its judicial scope, in that it was merely disagreeing with
the state legislature's value ,judgment about the benefits of an economic
regulation. This kind of inappropriate second-guessing, in combination
with the Minnesota court's erroneous version of constitutional law, could
"stalemate," "abort," and "have a chilling effect" on contemplated
legislative action throughout the country. Justice Stevens dissented on
this point, arguing that such review was certainly the province of a state
supreme court.
In Contra Costa County, the product charge would be instituted as a user
fee which would generate revenues to reduce waste disposal costs and
support education activities for the same purpose. Reducing waste disposal
costs would include financial support for recycling and reuse activities
that would divert waste materials from landfill disposal , thereby reducing
the disposal cost for that product.
The Committee feels that a legal framework could be devised that would
establish the direct correlation of the product charge fee placed at the
point of sale with the use of that fee to reduce disposal costs. On a
county level many of the complex issues faced on a federal level could be
avoided and the direct correlation framework could make the charge fee
comply with existing California "Gann limitations" that limit the
imposition of taxes for non-related funding allocations. The determination
of the amount of the fee per product would be set by a County staff
committee that would examine the true disposal costs for targeted products
and set up a fee structure to be imposed at the point of sale.
7. Market Development for Waste Plastics
In the planning and design of any recycling program, markets are needed.
One of the major criticisms of government initiatives to increase recycling
and reduce wastes is that these recycling efforts are not matched by
similar incentives to improve the markets for the newly recovered
recyclables. In order for the recycling process to be complete, materials
must not only be collected but also be reused in the manufacture of new
products.
34 -
The recent glut of some recyclables, notably newsprint, on the East Coast
is partially due to the rapid increase of mandatory recycling programs that
dumped large tonnages of materials into the market when demand was at one
of its lowest points. Reportedly, some recycling programs had to pay the
market to take their newspaper, while others had to give it away. And
today, the situation has still not improved significantly.
In California the markets for waste plastics collected from post-consumer
sources are available, but generally poor and unreliable. With the
exception of PET soft drink containers, markets have not yet developed into
viable businesses with sufficient capacity to absorb all of the County' s
waste plastics described in this report.
To help alleviate this potential problem, steps must be taken as soon as
possible to decide what types of activities would be most effective for
inducing industry to build new plants in Contra Costa County and what the
County role should be. For example, industries should be surveyed to
determine what type of incentives would be most attractive and ways these
could be provided by the County. Would tax credit incentives suffice, or
would various kinds of infrastructure improvements provide greater
encouragement? Questions about feedstock specifications, shipping and
handling and promotion of the use of the final product must be answered.
In addition, an economic analysis needs to be made to demonstrate relative
costs of developing one type of industry, say plastic insulation, over
another type that has higher start-up costs, but better returns over a
longer period of time.
One action that the County can take in the short-term is the• development of
procurement guidelines that promote and give preference for products that
are made from recycled materials. While its not . likely that County pur-
chases could create a large enough demand for all the County' s waste
plastics , active procurement policies encourage others, both local and
private agencies, to follow suit. Thus, the County can take the lead by
setting an example that others can follow. 'Procurement guidelines have
been developed by the State Purchasing Office that provide a 10 percent
price preference for paper and certain other products that use recycled
materials. New legislation has been introduced to expand these guidelines
to include more products and recycled materials such. as waste plastics.
Currently there are a wide range of products that the County might pur-
chase. For example, a mixed waste plastic extruded material can be made
into plastic "lumber" that is used to construct park benches, fence posts,
and parking lot car stops. Building and insulation materials are also
available. Some of these products have been developed locally by Golden
Pacific Company located in Antioch.
The County could also examine its equipment purchases to insure that they
can serv=ice or use products made from recycled materials. Also, the County
can specify in the bids and contracts that contractors use products made
with recycled contents. Contractors can also be required to sort any waste
materials that are generated for recycling. In this way the County pur-
chasing dollar can impact recycling throughout the area.
- 35 -
Cooperative purchasing arrangements with cities and districts within the
County and with other counties as well can build the purchase dollar and
obtain lower prices on supplies and services for all the agencies.
Aggressive development of new markets can place the County in the forefront
and demonstrate to others that strong markets will make collection programs
easier to implement and more successful in recovering greater volumes of
waste materials.
8. The Role of the County in Promoting Plastics Recycling, Waste Reduction and
Litter Abatement
In general , the County can promote plastics recycling in two ways: by
providing incentives and disincentives for consumers and businesses to
recycle rather than dispose of their waste plastic and by encouraging
haulers to include waste products in curbside collection programs. At a
more basic level , the County must promote recycling by providing the
incentives and reducing the barriers to recycling as perceived by those
involved.
These actions include:
° Provide information to potential recyclers about available recycling
processes and quantities of future plastic wastes;
Provide information to potential consumers of recycled products about
qualities. of those products;
° County procurement of recycled products; and
° Provide information to consumers about the ways plastic can be recy-
cled.
In addition, the County should support current State and federal legisla-
tion to encourage plastics recycling and market development for waste
plastics.
To finance .the cost of implementing waste reduction actions, a product
disposal charge can be placed on plastics-containing products at the manu-
facturing, wholesale, or retail levels equal to the cost of disposing of
that product.
Regulations governing plastics littering exist in federal and local codes,
including a new federal law based on a recently signed international
treaty, which allows gross, willful pollution to be penalized by a fine of
up to $50,000 and imprisonment not to exceed five years. Civil penalties
may range up to a maximum of $25,000 for each violation. The law requires
that adequate facilities for receiving garbage from ships be available at
U.S. ports and terminals, including recreational marinas. Regulations to
this effect are presently being written by the Coast Guard.
- 36 -
State legislation, AB 2766 (Hauser) , enacted last September, prohibits the
discard of nonbiodegradable materials, including plastic, in state waters.
AB 2766 has also allowed for the funding of a pilot project at a California
marina for marine debris recycling and waste handling. These are
regulations in the attached Table 9.
Enforcement of these regulations, however, is hampered by lack of enforce-
ment personnel .
A countywide public awareness campaign, similar to the Keep America Beauti-
ful program, focused on changing littering habits of residents has proven
effective in 450 cities and counties nationwide. The City of Los Angeles
and Santa Barbara County have recently been certified as Keep America
Beautiful communities through this program.
37 -
l
N N �
0 p GIA
f L? C
to
mpg
C Oco
prj r
M 'tJ o O
b N c
_ ygy�.N
Q ^ So e �p �o L` C G O
T3
o ✓� 5 fCO „ m
y w
f150o
mm13 h
'R7 c 3
8 w C? v
Q to5-
07
C z?C 06 m
N -
t•r 'm �, � E m m
6 S m m 7
CL Cw
1t efiq e� E � m a p 8 °, Nom
G • � O 6 G � �
5zz
� f m
sa o
A C
IV: RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Plastics Recycling
Al. Contra Costa County recognizes that plastics waste reduction is a primary
priority, with recycling next. Therefore the County shall establish in
cooperation with the local plastics manufacturing industry and recyclers, a
waste plastics recycling program to serve all residents. The Waste
Plastics Recycling Program described in this report' establishes the
following schedule and goals:
Activity Goal Date
° A pilot plastics recycling program for July 1, 1989
residential curbside collection and processing
of mixed plastics as defined in this report.
° A pilot polystyrene plastics recovery and October 1, 1989
recycling program for restaurants, businesses,
and residents in the County.
° Full-scale waste plastics recovery and recycling December 30, 1990
program for all municipal curbside recycling
programs, and all commercial and private
recycling programs operating in the County.
The waste plastics recycling activities shall include at a minimum all
containers and packaging products made from polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) , high and low density polyethylene (HDPE, LDPE) , polystyrene (PS) ,
polyvinyl chloride (PUC) and polypropylene (PP) as they are described in
the report.
Once this recommendation is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, it
shall be incorporated into the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management
Plan.
A2. To assist implementation of the Waste Plastics Recycling Program (WPRP) ,
Contra Costa County shall conduct a solid waste characterization and analy-
sis to determine the type and quantity of waste plastics disposed of in the
residential and commercial wastestreams. In addition, the County shall
monitor the progress of the WPRP and prepare quarterly written reports to
the Solid Waste Commission as defined in this report.
A3. Contra Costa County shall recommend that all franchising agencies include
all waste plastic as defined in this report in their curbside recycling
programs so that they will be in compliance with the County Solid Waste
Management Plan.
A4. Contra Costa County shall direct the operator(s) of all refuse transfer
station(s) in the County to extract waste plastic materials, as defined in
this report, from all solid wastes processed in their facilities.
- 39 -
A5. Contra Costa County shall allow the continued use of plastic containers or
packaging materials, as defined in Recommendation A this report, only if
the Waste Plastics Recycling Program has met the full -scale recycling goal
by December 30, 1990.
A6. Contra Costa County shall establish a deadline by which the manufacture of
plastic containers and packaging materials, as defined in Recommendation A
of this report, shall be phased out only if the Waste Plastics Recycling
Program has not met the full-scale recycling goals. .
B. Polystyrene Foam Products and CFCs
B1. The County Counsel shall develop an ordinance prohibiting the use, sale or
production of polystyrene foam containers and packaging materials that use
ozone-depleting chlorofluorcarbon (CFC) chemicals in their manufacture or
fabrication.
B2. The Board of Supervisors shall refer the following items to the Hazardous
Materials Commission for study and recommendation:
a. Establish recycling centers for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) reclamation.
b. Require recovery of CFCs when refrigerators and automobiles are
disposed.
C. Promote better air conditioner and refrigerator servicing standards,
--- recharge units and leak prevention.
d. Use alternative home insulation made from recycled materials such as
cellulose insulation.
e. Promote use of alternative testing agents in fire extinguishers.
f. Prohibit the sale of aerosol products and sterilants propelled by
CFCs in the County.
C. Waste Reduction and Excessive Packaging
C1. To off-set the additional costs for disposal and recycling of plastics
packaging, the Board of Supervisors shall initiate and support legislation
to give the County and the cities authority for placing a product disposal
charge at the point of sale on all plastic containers and packaging
materials that would include at a minimum plastic grocery bags, single-use
plastic diapers, and plastic soft drink, milk, water containers and other
multi-material , multi-layered and aseptic packages. The product disposal
charge fees levied by the County would generate a fund to facilitate and
promote plastic recycling activities in the County.
C2. Using the legal framework established above, the Board of Supervisors shall
determine the appropriate amount of the product disposal charge for each
type of packaging and levy the charges beginning January 1, 1990. The
County shall monitor and evaluate true recycling and disposal costs for the
targeted plastic materials and, if necessary, adjust the disposal charge
fee annually.
- 40 -
C3. For difficult-to-recycle plastic containers and packaging that do not meet
the WPRP goals and standards by December 31, 1990, the County Board of
Supervisors shall establish a deadline by which the use and sale of these
products shall be phased out until such plastic products meet the
established goals and standards.
C4. The Board of Supervisors shall develop a plan for supporting consumer
education programs designed to inform the public of the hazards of improper
disposal of soiled single-use diapers, and determine the costs of an active
enforcement program prohibiting the disposal of human excrement in garbage
and disposal facilities.
C5. The Board of Supervisors shall add issues on single-use diapers to the
County Legislative Agenda.
C6. The Country Purchasing Department shall place an addendum to their purchase
orders that reflects the. County' s position on use of excessive and
non-recyclable packing materials. The language on the purchase order
requests and forms shall read as follows:
a. "Vendors are encouraged to use the minimum amount of packing material
to deliver the product safely. Preference will be given to vendors
who work with the County to solve this problem. "
b. "Small polystyrene pieces, commonly called peanuts, shall not be used
as packing materials for products delivered to the County. Recycled
newspaper is the packing material of choice. Any delivery received
with loose expanded polystyrene pellets packing material shall have
the invoice for the delivered material reduced by 2%. "
D. Market Development
D1. The Board of Supervisors shall conduct an in-depth study to determine
methods and actions that the County can use to stimulate the development
and expansion of manufacturing plants that use waste plastics and other
secondary materials in their products. The County Solid Waste Commission
shall set guidelines for the study and accept a written report by September
30, 1989.
D2. To promote the development of new markets, the County shall develop guide-
lines for the purchase of products made with waste plastics and other
secondary materials. The guidelines shall include price incentives and
set-aside allotments in their purchasing strategy. In addition, the County
Purchasing Department shall prepare written annual reports to the County
Solid Waste Commission beginning on September 30, 1989.
- 41 -
E. Support Activities
E1. The Board of Supervisors shall establish and implement an education and
community awareness program that will be an integral part of the Waste
Plastics Recycling Program and support the activities in the areas of waste
reduction, excessive packaging and market development. The County shall
prepare a program activities plan and budget and submit a written report to
the County Solid Waste Commission by September 30, 1989.
E2. The County shall analyze existing State and federal legislation and active-
ly support those bills that facilitate and promote reduction of plastic
packaging and facilitate promotion of plastics recycling, and place
restrictions on the use of non-recyclable and excessive packaging for
consumer goods.
E3. The County shall direct the Sheriff' s Department to increase its enforce-
ment of litter control laws on the land and marine waterways.
E4. The County shall encourage all cities and special districts in the County
to adopt and implement the provisions contained in this document.
SC/jal -
C:plas.mem) (j115:plas.mem)
42 -
V. REFERENCES.
1. Franklin Associates, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 1960 to 2000 Environmental Protection Agency, July 11, 1986.
2. Thayer , Ann M. , "Solid Waste Concerns Spur Plastic Recycling Efforts,"
Chemical and Engineering News, January 30, 1989.
3. Curlee, T. Randall , The Economic Feasibility of Recycling A Case Study of
Plastic Wastes, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986.
4. Plastic Recycling Action Plan for Massachusetts, State of . Massachusetts,
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, July 1988.
5. Modern Plastics, January 1989.
6. Syrek, Daniel B. , _California Litter: One Year After: The Impact of the
Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act on Street and Highway
Litter -in California, Sacramento: State of California, Department of
Conservation, February 1989.
7. Rankin, Sidney Environmental Impact of Plastics Disposal on Municipal Solid
Wastes, New Jersey: Rutgers University, Plastics Recycling Institute,
January 1987.
8. Californians Against Waste, "Polystyrene Overview," Sacramento, California.
(no date)
9. Environmental Protection Agency, CFCs and Stratospheric Ozone, Washington,
D.C. , 1987. _
10. Environmental Protection Agency, How Industry is Reducing Dependance on
Ozone Depleting Chemicals, Washington, D.C. : June 1988.
11. Ibid.
12. Schieber, Mark R. , et. al . , "Out of Balance" : A Report on Airborne
Hazardous Particles and the Green House Effect, Sacramento State of
California, Senate Special Committee on Solid and Hazardous Waste, March 1,
1989.
13. "EPA Commends the Prompt Phase-Out of CFCs in Food Packaging," Office of
Air and Radiation, EPA press release, February 16, 1989.
14. Brighton, Carol , personal correspondence, Office of Global Concerns, EPA,
March 2, 1989.
15. "Local Government CFC Control Ordinances on the Front Burner," Local
Government Commission Reports, Sacramento: Local Government Commission,
March 1989.
16. Bennett, R.A. , personal correspondence, University of Toledo, Ohio, 1988.
17. Ibid.
18. Resource Management Associates/Resource Conservation Consultants, Plastics
Recycling Opportunities in San Francisco, Portland, Oregon: 1987 .
19. Stanczyk; Martin, WTE Corporation, Speech before Society of Plastics
Engineers, Burbank, California, April 27, 1989.
20. Ibid, Reference 8.
21. Lehrberger, Carl , Diapers in the Wastestream: A Review of Waste Management
and Public Policy Issues, Massachusetts: 1989.
22. Aagard, Judy, Tiny Tots Diaper Service, personal correspondence, March 13,
1989.
23. Greenstreet, Patricia K. , J.D. , R.N. , Health Issue: Hazards Imposed by
Improper Disposal of Disposable Diapers, Seattle, Washington: King County
Nurses Association, (no date) .
24. Foran, Brian, Issue Paper: Biodegradable Plastics, Sacramento, State of
California: Waste Management Board, January 1989.
25. Waste Recovery Report, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: September 1988.
26. Ibid.
27. Environmental Protection Agency, Fourth Report to Congress, Washington
D.C. , 1977.
28. Society of the Plastics Industry, "Molded Foam Cups, " Washington, D.C. ,
1987.
sc3:ref.doc
VI. APPENDICES
A. Board Orders
B. Applicable Legislation
C. Other City Ordinances on
Polystyrene foam
U. A Partial Listing of Processors and
Consumers of Post-Consumer Plastic
E. Survey of Foamed Plastic Manufacturers
F. Contact List
G. Plastics Research, Trade Groups
and Associations
H. Meeting Agendas
I. Glossary
TD BOARD OF SUPER\ CORS I. 0. 9 �''+,.,,.,}
rRCM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE t('/o I}lira
July 25, 1988 """"^
DATE: co (l y
SUBJECT: Report on Litter Control Activities "� �J
SPECIFIC REC?UESTIS) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) A BACK ROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Request the County Administrator to write to the major tow
truck operators in the County reminding them of the
requirements of Vehicle Code Section 27700 which requires
F that each tow truck be equipped with one or more brooms, and
that the driver of the tow truck must remove all glass and
debris deposited on the roadway by the disabled vehicle
which is to be towed.
2. Request the County Administrator to write to the State
Department of Motor .Vehicles asking that they remind tow
truck owners of the requirement of Vehicle Code Section
27700 when the owner registers or re-registers his or her
-vehicle.
3. Request the Health Services Director to advise the Solid
waste Commission in writing of the County Ordinance Code
requirement that anyone wishing to transport garbage or
refuse over County roads must obtain a permit from the
County and, further„ request the Solid waste Commission to
encourage each ' city in the County to impose similar
permitting requirements on garbage haulers who operate
within the city.
4. Request the County Administrator to prepare a Letter to the
Editor to be signed by the Chairman informing the public of
the permit requirements and encouraging members, of the
public who may hire someone to transport garbage or refuse
to ask to see the company's permit to do so.
5. Request the Health Services Director to check newspaper want
ads and telephone yellow pages and compare those listings
with the permitted garbage haulers in an effort to identify
any individuals or companies who may be advertising that
they haul garbage or refuse who are not permitted. In any
ease where such an unpermitted firm is identified, request
that the Health Services Director contact the firm and
remind them of the permitting requirements if they use
County roads.
CONTINUCO ON ATTACHMENT; X YES SIGNATURE•
X
RCCOMNCNOATT ON OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RCCOMMCHA /
^TION OF OARO CONMITTCC
�y A•/ROVE // �•�ER �/)y�H�,
SIONATUREISI: Sunne W. McPeak -YYY Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON Aij9nSt 9 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II 1 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: HOES: AND EM'ERED ON TFE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON TWE DATE SHDWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED
County Counsel
SU
Health Services Director PE RAT LOR. CCOF THE BOARD OF
Community Development Director SUPERVISO�7RSp AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M38217-83 By_,Q& DEPUTY
Page 2
6. Request the County Administrator to prepare a letter from
the Chairman to the Municipal Court Judges Association
transmitting the attached proposal for an intensified litter
enforcement. program, and requesting that the Judges consider
the Board's proposal and respond to it at their earliest
convenience. Once a response is received from the Municipal
Court Judges Association, request the County Administrator
to forward the response to our Committee for review and any
additional action which may be required.
7. Request the Health Services Director to write to the Solid
Waste Commission indicating that the Health Services
Department would be happy to meet with any city to discuss
arrangements for the County to enforce the city's mandatory
solid waste subscription ordinance as it is doing with the
County's ordinance, and requesting that the Solid waste
Commission transmit this offer to each city as well as
urging any city which does not have a mandatory solid waste
subscription ordinance to adopt the County's ordinance.
8. Request the Health Services Director to write to each solid
waste franchising agency in the County urging that the
agency include in its franchise agreement a requirement that
the collector share information with the franchising agency
on non-subscribers, and that the franchising agency develop
a timetable for achieving full subscription on the part of
all residents of the franchising agency.
9. Request the Health Services Director to write to all
franchised garbage collectors in the County calling to their
attention problems caused by refuse--which falls off garbage
trucks, and urging that they remind their employees that
they ' should check regularly to ensure that all refuse is
securely contained within the truck at all times in such a
way that it will not blow or fall off the truck.
10. Request the Health Services Director to prepare a letter
from the Chairman to all franchised solid waste collection
companies in the County urging that they cooperate with the
County and their franchising agency in supplying information
on residen-.s who do not subscribe to collection service so
that every effort can be made to achieve 100% subscription
where an exemption to such subscription is not appropriate.
11. Request the Director of Community Development in setting up
the press conference ordered by the Board on May 17, 1968 on
the littering problem to schedule it for a Thursday or
Friday during September, 1988, and to include among the
participants the District Attorney, Sheriff-Coroner,
Chairman of the Municipal Court Judges Association, Police
Chiefs, Mayors, the Chairman of the Mayors Conference,
the Chairs of the County Planning Commission, the East
County Regional Planning Commission, the San Ramon valley
Regional Planning Commission, a representative from the
State Solid Waste Management Board, the Contra Costa
Cattlemen's Association, and such environmental groups as
Keep America Beautiful, People for Open Space, and
Californians Against Waste.
12. Request the Director of Community Development to ask the
Solid Waste Commission to explore the current use of
styrofoam in beverage cups and other food containers;
explore possible alternative materials which can either be
recycled or are bio-degradable, and prepare a report to the
Board of Supervisors on the feasibility, desirability, and
realistic timetable for a phase-out and eventual ban on the
use of styrofoam in food containers in Contra Costa County.
Page 3
13. Request County Counsel and the Director of Community
Development to prepare a report for our Committee on the
feasibility of requiring fast-food restaurants, convenience
markets, and other "take out" establishments to patrol their
premises and the area at least 300 feet beyond the external
boundaries of their property for litter to pick up and
properly dispose of such litter, and to post a bond to cover
the cost of litter cleanup in case the business fails to
comply. Request that this report be presented to our
Committee on October 24, 1988.
14. Request the Health Services Director to report to our
Committee October 24, 1988 on the status of recommendations
3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 above as well as on the status of
enforcement of the County's mandatory solid waste
subscription ordinance.
15. Request the Director of Community Development to report to
our Committee October 24, 1988 on the status of
recommendation No. 12 above.
16. Remove as a referral to our Committee the March 8, 1988
referral on the subject of stronger litter control
:Legislation, leaving on referral the reports requested in
recommendations 13, 14, and 15 above.
BACKGROUND:
On May 17, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved a number of
recommendations from our Committee on the subject of litter
control. In addition, on July 19, 1988, the Board referred to
our Committee a recommendation from Supervisor Torlakson
regarding the need to require commercial businesses to clean up
litter within 200 feet of their establishment. On July 25, 1988,
our Committee received -the five attached reports addressing the
referrals that were made by the Board on May 17.
We have carefully reviewed each of the attached reports and have
formulated the above recommendations in an effort to continue
addressing the problem of litter control in the County.
�£ `.E^c p BOARD O1 SUI'I:I2VISOI2;
` ` �• CONTizA COSTA COUNT!
' TOM POWER
0
7 y`4
SUPERVISOR.FIRST DISTR
October 20 , 1988
To: Dave O Kita, Community Development
From: Tom Powers, First District Supervisor
Subject: Recyling of Plastic Bottles
Please refer to attached article. Does this make sense?
Is someone in Northern California doing this type of
recycling?
TP:hf
100- 371h STREET. ROOM 270 • RICHMOND. CALIFORNIA 94805 • TELEPHONE (415) 374-3231
BER 4. 1988 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR '
e's new wood in old b®ftles
Nf
k jugs are recycled
;istant boards that
r waterfront decks
By.Veler Tin�_3 `
Sian lc of 1,c_Cansi an Socncc
Chicago
g
VS a starting thong n , o
e say the least - luxury
■A yachts,with names like Si-
esta
i esta Time,Sweet Sue and J .�
Flying Saucer, rm,ored along-
.side
long side 64,000 plastic milk ,lugs
pulled from nearbv Napex elle s _ f �.y 4 •: r,,,, '+
waste stream a few months t' ,7* z(t3 - 'I ' IT "' L
r
Not that the garbage is recog-
nizable
ecog nizable as such. It has been " r u, 4
changed into lumber: tonguer
and-groove-style boards that ,r " GG � �.. ,$'�^' � .✓
. (,
form the impressive new deck it,
on the Southern Shore Yacht
Club's reconditioned dock here `kyl f. r �a 2 ptt rDfi j�
Jeff Chancy makes the milk-
jug
ilk jug connection when showing i, � - 'k'i L`',���. � f j"ra°�k toiY„r• r n, , `' ` � ,�.' ; ,� yy
oil the dock to visitors to dram-
atize
ram atize what can happen to the c r
nation's garbage when it gets
into the right hands
a d
In this instance the "right
hands"are the Faglcbrook Pro-
_
J
plC9 antic waste, milk bottles for
t n ni6i f par�into Ttini eb-r ilial.'. can push my leather-soled needed, as in docks for rot re- lumber - could develop into a
tvlli no[rrot w•arpyshrink,splint shoes more readily across the sistance or- parks and play- combined billion-potmd market
cr,lw lu growid wxler,or al;:, dry boards than the wet ones. grounds where splinters can be for reclaimed I IUPF.."
mal fo Cc m(tes TTor will it The new lumber currently a public liability. This potential demand for
c rfi rbc^21 comes in 1-b -6-nch planks, 1- Some backyard decks in Lite salvaged HDPFcould spark a
en workmen on a passing by-2 and 1-by-lSi-inch slats for Chicago area have been made more concerted effort by com-
harbor-repair vessel expressed park benches,etc., and rods or with the product, not least be- munities to reclaim the plastic
interest in the new dock, they dowels of varying diameters in cause spilled barbecue sauce from the �te stream,a ord-
asked for a piece of the can be wiped up without leav- ing tot retcFFri B ewer re-
plastic lumber and ing a stain, cycling coordinator for the state
Promptly applied art ppp Prices ere expected to come of Massachusetts.IIDPE bottles
oxyacetylene torch to it. `gECYCLI N down eventually.That will hap- itre "easy for citizens to recug-
As long as the flane .00 wax. pen when much more of the raw mz--e d 1urY m
rumanllics to c"ol-
was applied to the material (Wgh-density tiolyc[h- Ie-cT'"sfie poTnts-cu6.
bond, it burned; when lene) is reclaimed from the __`TFie city of Naperville, near
the torch was removed, the brown,beige,opaque white,"or waste stream. Such plastic, Chicago, is a case in point.
flames flickered out. whatever color the customer known as post-consumer IIDPE, When the town added HDPF,
Another plus for the plastic wants," says Chaney, who is is found in milk jugs for the milk bottles to its curbside
lumber:It frustrates the would- director of sales for the com- most part,but also in detergent pickup of recyclable materials
be graffiti artist by providing a pany. Several red boards were and shampoo bottles,antifreeze in 1.087, residents responded
Poor surface for paint. µ'inn extruded to highlight the gaso- containers, and motor oil "eery favorably," says Anne
spray paint dries, it nubs off line pumps at the Southern "cans." Aitchison of the Naperville
rR^['fiT'—• - Yacht Club dock. The color is 2.2 billion pounds Arca Recycling Center. "They
n 'md nlavgrounds mainte- solid throughout, not merely a of HDPE house o otter need plastic,but they recognize
nancn MCsQ ej` surface application, so it will war-re n 8 - mos that it doesn't biodegrade, so
lWhaps its best selling point, never wear o2 pounds for every person in the they feel a little guilty about it."
for docks or decks,is itz.02rishpThere is a drawback to plan- lJititL'dSf3LM=M¢[uly_ ran; she explains. When the op r-
7
when wet. Mr. Chaney tic lumber, however: It costs ton o tt(less than 2 percent)_ [unity to recycle comes along,
sLll''__. .._...... -
pours water onto the duck to twice as much as the conven- w�alvaged. "They grab it."
prove the point. He says it al- tional pressure-treated variety. "I'araa oxtcaily, while plastics Nano people who entered
ways comes as a surprise to So current sales are only for recycling legislation is aimed at the voluntary program simply
people who are convinced that Dose purposes where the pias- recovering polyethylene tere- to recycle the milk bottles began
it will become slippery. I find I tic's special qualities are phthalate (PFT) soda bottle, sortingotherrecyclables(news-
four times as many IIDPE bot- paper,glass,aluminum)as well.
• � r.f l' f#•' a lies are destined for landfills.In "They the milk bottlesl drew a
• 1 `�+ ;' o addition, the market for lot more people into recycling,"
{'` a salvaged PET is much smaller 61s.Aitchison says. —
' �2 than for IIDPE, because far Currently Naperville is sal-
_ r t, fewer products can be made vaging a ton of plastic milk bot-
•• fro tles a week, which earns the
st-consumer IIDPE is use city $360 as well -is saving it
!1 - j -T�•; L �' to make a wide range of prod- $27.00 in tipping fees at the
1. E i P OO�ii .lt ucts,including toys,flowerpots, landfill.
drainage pipe,draining boards, flow do Naperville's re-
* mud flaps, pallets, and garbage cyclers react to the fact that
`+1 : ` ;•., bins,as well as[timber.Accord- some of the Iown's garbage now
?,n •,.;. ing to a r lin the Au ust graces the dock of a prestigious
issue of t, em P ast a trio yacht club?
Ttl p oems erging em�uses- pile, "We're tickled," Aitchison
iI
HHill m,rvnry m,nnline nnrl nlve,in e�..e '•n .l..lin6,a„cl'•
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,!;OF CONTRA:,COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this order on November 1, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Mc Peak, Torlakson, Schroder
NOES: None .
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Recycling Programs
The Board received the attached report dated October 19,
1988 from Harvey E. Bragdon, Community Development Director,
relative to recycling activities and efforts.
Chuck Papke, of Resource Management Associates, who
serves as the County's recycling consultant, spoke of his work with
various cities in the County to establish curbside recycling
programs. He noted that one of the problems encountered in the
recycling area is the lack of adequate information on the
composition of the wastestream and the inability to determine
accurate percentages for recycling programs. Mr. Papke also
commented on the need to develop new markets for the materials
which are being recycled.
Sheila Cogan, the County's Resource Recovery Specialist,
commented on efforts to expand the recycling programs in County
facilities and to provide assistance and information to the private
sector.
Supervisor Nancy Fanden commented on the need to develop
programs to recycle plastics. She noted that there are programs in
other areas whereby supermarket customers are charged for plastic
sacks and encouraged to bring their own sacks, and recommended that
the Solid waste Commission look into the possibility of developing
a promotional program with local supermarkets.
Supervisor Fanden referred to a recent report from the
Solid Waste Commission relative to the feasibility of a surcharge
on used motor oil. She recommended that the Commission pursue
legislatl.on which would provide such a surcharge.
Supervisor Tom Torlakson commented on the need for
further analysis of the wastestream and requested that staff report
to the Internal Operations Committee on such an analysis.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the
following actions are APPROVED:
1. ACCEPTED the attached report from the Community
Development Director and Recycling Coordinator on status
of recycling programs;
2. REQUESTED the Solid Waste Commission to review the
feasibility of requesting local supermarkets to develop
programs whereby customers are charged for plastic sacks
and/or encouraged to bring their own;
3. REQUESTED the Solid Waste Commission to .further pursue
legislation calling for a surcharge on used motor oil;
and
1
4. REQUESTED Community Development staff to report to the
Internal Operations Committee on an analysis of the
composition of the wastestream in order to better
determine recycling percentages.
1'--rrb;'Cir' that th!s Is n trt:e and cocro!Cep?e1
.:(.u;13;<en Cnd cnfo:cd on the ml:;utes of the
D.:rd c!Supervisors on Rcc d--:c.hoem.
1S -� cr; �L�UGyn /. /98F
C..TCHELCn,Clark of the Board
of Lupervisors and County Administrator
By �.�i*'z�l-o�./ Deputy
CC: Community Development
Solid Waste. Commission
County Administrator
2
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
co
Administration Building r•;
Martinez, California
o
J David Okita
To: Assistant Director Date: November 15 , 1988 c?-
Community Development `;u� `D
From: Subject: Prohibiting Use of
Claude L. Van Marter Polystyrene Packaging
Assistant Administrat Materials
As you are well aware, the Internal Operations Committee has
undertaken a study of the feasibility of outlawing the use of
polystyrene packaging materials in Contra Costa County. Attached
are materials sent to Mr. Batchelor by the Polystyrene Packaging
Council and by Amoco Foam Products Company. You may want to
share these materials with the Solid Waste Commission members who
are studying this subject. -
CLVM:clg
Attachments
cc: Supervisor. Sunne W. McPeak
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
5.3
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _February 7, 1989,, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Styrofoam Products
Supervisor Fanden commenting on environmental concerns
associated with the manufacture and disposal of styrofoam products,
recommended that the Board direct the County Administrator to
instruct the County's Purchasing Agent to discontinue purchasing
styrofoam products for County use. She noted that the County's
Solid waste Management Commission is also reviewing this matter.
Board members commented on the convenience of styrofoam
products, the need to identify alternative or replacement products
for County use, and potential consequences to the County in
discontinuing utilization of styrofoam products.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation
of Supervisor Fanden is APPROVED and that the County Administrator
is REQUESTED to report on February 28, 1989 on alternatives to
styrofoam products for County use.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is also REFERRED to the
Internal Operations Committee for further review.
1 hereby earllty that tnls is a true end cormct toyr of
an Belton taken and Wired on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors an
the mg
CC,
ATTESTED: FFR L mg
cc: Internal Operations PKII BATCHELOR.Clerk of the Board
Committee of Supervfsom and County Admtnistratar
L,County Administrator
Pr OJiL tl•%CA 1�L Lr .Deputy
TU: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM:
Supervisor Tom Torlakson Cosla .
DATE: February 14, 19139 County
SUBJECT: REFERRAL TO SOLID WASTE COMMISSION AND INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS RECYCLING & CONSERVATION
PROPOSALS
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) IN BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: -
1. Refer to the Solid Waste Commission and the Internal Operations
Committee for consideration the following recycling ideas:
a. Establishing a plastics recycling program wherein
plastics are collected, sorted, melted down and recycled into
other useable forms such items as toys.
b. Establishing a Coat Hangers Recycling Drive in
coordination with local cleaning establishments.
C. Designating a "Brown Paper Bag Day" encouraging
consumers to make the choice for paper bags over plastic
grocery bags.
2. - Refer to the County Administrator and the General Services
Department scheduling part of custodial work hours during the day
office hours to conserve electricity (as suggested by county
employee Frank David Mijares) .
3. Designate monitors among the members of the Board to monitor the
recycling of the "mountain" of paper which our own agenda creates
as well as monitors to turn off the lights in the Board room.
Refer the General issues of reviewing the white paper recycling
programs and conservation of energy to the Internal Operations and
Finance Committee, respectfully.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the CSAC convention in San Diego, I learned of the outstanding
recycling activities that San Diego County has underway. I was
particularly impressed with their program to collect and market
plastic containers such as water jugs, milk jugs and other types of
plastics. I believe the program involves an arrangement with a
business from the People's Republic of China to "sell" and "dispose
of" the plastic waste. This firm ships to China and employs people to
sort the different kinds of plastic which are then melted down by type
and re-made into items such as toys.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTI YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARO COMMITTEE
APPROVE __OTHER
SIGNATURE(SI
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �_ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ASSENT 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN-
CC: ATTESTED
Phil D31600r,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
M382/7-03 BY DEPUTY
Recycling and Conservation
February 14, 1989
Page TWO
I recently met with officials from the Dow Corporation of
Walnut Creek and Pittsburg who are interested in discussing the
possibility of a plastic recycling facility in our county.
During the CSAC workshop on recycling, I also came up with
another idea--small but part of the total picture of reducing our
waste stream--a coat hanger recycling drive in cooperation with our
cleaning establishments. The cleaning establishments in our county
, would be asked to post signs asking their customers to return surplus
coat hangers. I also understand that some cleaners offer a rebate
(e.g. 2 cents) for returned hangers which we should encourage.
To further our discussion regarding paper or plastic, I
suggest that we declare a day this spring during Earth Week or Arbor
Week as "Brown Paper Bag Day." Such a program was launched
successfully in San Francisco including publicity that "Paper Bags
Have "Sacks" Appeal."
I was contacted by a county employee, Frank David Mijares,
suggesting that custodial service be provided partly during the day to
save on electricity at night. I believe this suggestion should be
considered.
It is important we do our share within our own area by
designating on a rotation basis a recycling and light monitor to take
care of our own mountain of paper as well as monitor the lights in the
board room.
Suggestions:
(a) Internal Operations Committee members to take on the
paper recycling "monitor" spots for the rest of 1989 and to sponsor a
meeting and tour of our .white paper recycling monitors in the main
administration building.
(b) Finance Committee members to monitor the board room and
meeting room light switches and to hold a committee hearing on general
issues of conservation of energy in our facilities.
TT:gro
5
1 • 1 •
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: Bart Gilbert, Director Date: February 15 , 1989
General Services Dept.
Claude L. Van Marter Purchase of
From: Assistant. Administrat r Subject: Styrofoam Cups
On February 7, 1989 , at the request of Supervisor Fanden, the
Board directed that the Purchasing Agent temporarily suspend the
purchase of any more styrofoam products.
This suspension is to be in effect until we jointly make a report
to the Board of Supervisors on two issues:
1 . What alternatives are there for the styrofoam
-- products we currently purchase?
2 . Are there some styrofoam products which are
manufactured using chlorofluorcarbons and others
that are manufactured not using chlorofluorcarbons?
If so, is it possible or practical to distinguish
which are which in case the Board wants to implement
a. partial ban on styrofoam products by saying don' t
buy such products that are manufactured using CFCs?
In order to respond promptly to the Board' s questions, we need
your assistance in identifying those styrofoam products which the
County current purchases, what alternatives there are for each
which are more environmentally sensitive , and what information
you have on which styrofoam products use and do not use CFC' s in
the manufacturing process. We have been asked to report this
back to the Board on February 28, 1989.
Is it possible to pull this information together by February 22 ,
1989 so we can place this report on the Board' s agenda for
February 28?
CLVM:clg
cc : David Okita, Community Developmentt,,,�
Deptartment
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order an March 7, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakszff
CD
NOES: None O o
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None _:.A 4 x
�_G 1 T�
SUBJECT: Status Report on Recycling Issues
The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Powers
and McPeak) presented the attached status report on recycling
issues for the Board's consideration.
Supervisor Powers. commented on styrofoam and plastic
recycling programs proposed by Dow Chemical Company and the James
River Corporation Handi-cup Division. He requested that Community
Development Department staff review the status of such programs and
report, to the Internal Operations Committee on these efforts.
Supervisor Torlakson referred to a previous County
program relative to departmental recycling monitors, and recom-
mended that the program be reinstated. He further recommended that
County employees be encouraged to use personal ceramic cups as an
alternative to the styrofoam cups currently being used.
Supervisor Fanden noted that occasionally gifts are
presented to employees, and recommended that personalized ceramic
or collapsible cups be given in such cases.
Supervisor Powers recommended that the Personnel
Department issue ceramic cups to new employees.
Supervisor Torlakson recommended that staff review the
feasibility of using inexpensive durable alternatives to styrofoam
and plastic dishes and utensils in County facilities.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the
following actions are APPROVED:
1. AGREED to terminate suspension on purchase of styrofoam
cups and containers, and DIRECTED staff to review status
of styrofoam and plastic recycling programs and to
. continue to explore alternatives to styrofoam and
plastic materials;
2. APPROVED Recommendations No. 2 through No. 6 as pre-
sented on the attached Internal Operations Committee
report;
3. DIRECTED Community Development staff to reinstitute the
departmental recycling monitor program; and
4. REQUESTED County Administrator to explore the feasibil-
ity of issuing ceramic cups as gifts and to new employ-
ees as an incentive to reduce use of styrofoam cups.
cc: Community Development
County Administrator I hemby O°`Iffy tM tl'h A e"1e MC caroa cOvP of
Solid waste Commission en Wton tek*n end Wftred on I" Mk 1 4 CO CA
Boyd 01 SupwvWws an tlr de"Www
County Counsel ATTESTED /77)
PHIL BATCHELOR.Clem 01 00 00610
01& wvj&M W COUMy AdmhM"W
Dy Owvty
Tc: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ^�,,+
Fes" Phil Batchelor Contra
County Administrator C ,s+„
DATEMarch 2, 1989 `-"-"" "J
SUBJECT:
PURCHASE OF STYROFOAM CUPS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) a BACKGROUND AND 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 ease, 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 li 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 DN ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: /A/ �O Af /& �;Oyl
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_X APPROVE /� nz,OTHER
SJGNATUREISl: ( aL /ZS l
ACTION OF BOARD ON Marrh 7 lg89 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
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES:_ HOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT;- ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator 27j ,� y989
cc: Director, Community Development ATTESTED q
Health Services Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Director, General Services SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Chair 8 Members, Solid Waste Commission � ✓
David Dkita, CDD BY ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83 Sheila Cogan, CDD
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 50% 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 50% 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 $4,939.55 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, not 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.
B. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
City of Berkeley
Prohibition of Chlorofluorocarbon-Processed Food Packaging
Ordinance No. 5867N15
City of Minneapolis
Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging
Chapter 204
City of Portland
Ban on Polystyrene Foam
Ordinance No. 161573 and amendments
Ordinance No. 5988 N.S .
POLYSTYRENE FORM, DEGRADABLE, AND RECYCLABLE
FOOD PACKAGING ORDINANCE
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Berkeley, as
follows::
Section 1 . FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
The Council finds as follows:
A. Solid waste that is non-degradable or non-recyclable poses
an acute problem for any environmentally and financially
responsible program of solid waste management. Such waste
covers the City's streets, parks, public places, and open
spaces. It' enters the marine and natural environment and is
ingested by aquatic wildlife, frequently causing death. There
is resultant damage- to the ecological balance.
B. Products which are degradable or recyclable offer
environmentally sound alternatives to non-degradable and non-
recyclable products currently used. By decaying into their
constituent substances, degradable products , compared to their
non-degradable equivalents, are, less of a danger to the natural
environment, and less of a. permanent blight on the urban
landscape_ Recycling of products . reduces costly waste of
natural resources and energy used in production of new products
as well as costly disposal of waste in landfills.
C. Polystyrene foam is a petroleum processing by-product. Oil
is a non-renewable resource, which can only be obtained by
increasingly hazardous methods such as off-shore drilling, which
poses significant dangers to the environment. Alternative
products which are degradable or recyclable pose far less
overall hazards than continued and expanded reliance on oil-
based products_
D. 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 generally
acknowledged dangers of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to the ozone
layer, which are addressed in another City of Berkeley
ordinance, other blowing agents also create dangers . For
example, the blowing agent pentane creates hazardous earth-level_
smog and has already been retricted ill some regions Lor :
quality reasons .
�:. Takeout food packag.i_ng constituter; the :;ingle greatest
source of litter in Ber}:el_ey and i. , n �; i_gn i L i.cant contri.hutor Cu
t:hc total :amount of waste ertt:(�I:if 1( thr" i'1.ty ' ; wI-,t:(' :,trI o,1(T
the total amount of waste entering the City ' _, waste
F.. It is in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare 01-
all who live, work and do business in the City that the amotin;.
of litter on the public streets, parks, public places , and opt-,11
spaces be reduced.
G. The City of Berkeley has the duty to responsibly dispose of
its solid waste, yet existing landfill sites are rapidly
approaching capacity, and additional sites are increasingly
unavailable.
H. Reduction of the amount of non-degradable waste entering the
waste stream and encouraging the use of recyclable containers
further.-this goal.
I. This Ordinance is . consistent with the City of Berkeley' s
1986 Solid Waste Management Plan, the County of Alameda Solid
Waste .Management Plan, and the. legislative intent and findings
of the State of. California Solid waste Management and Resource
Recovery Act of 1972 (Government Code Section 66700 et seg. ) .
Section 2. DEFINITIONS
A. "Polystyrene Foam" means any styrene or vinyl chloride
polymer which is blown into a foam-like material.
B. "Polystyrene Foam Food Packaging" means any food packaging
which contains any polystyrene foam.
C. "Customer" means anyone purchasing food or beverages from a
restaurant or retail food vendor. .
D. "Person" , "Anyone" means any natural person, firm,
corporation, partnership, or other organization or group however
organized.
E. "Supplier" means anyone selling, or otherwise supplying food
packaging to a restaurant or retail food vendor.
F. "Food vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor.
G. "Prepared Food" means foods or beverages which are prepared
on the vendor's premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing,
freezing or squeezing, and. which require no further preparation
to be consumed. "Prepared Food" does not include any raw
uncooked meat product or fruits or vegetables which are not
chopped , squeezed , or mixed .
H. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City
of Berkeley , selling prepared food to be eaten on or ihout i_ts
premises by customers . Eti�rstaurant includes a '�idewalk food
vendor_ _
I_ "Takeout Food" means prepared foods or beverage:; r.ec�i�i.ring
no further preparation to be consumed and which are generally
purchased in order to be consumed off the retail food votidor.- '
premises.
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 Berkeley, which sells takeout food.
K. "Food Packaging" means all. bags, sacks, wrapping;
containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, straws and lids
which are not intended for reuse, on or in which any foods or
beverages are placed or packaged on a restaurant's or retail
food vendor's premises.
L. "Degradable Food Packaging" means food packaging which
substantially reduces to. its constituent substances through
degradation processes ini-tiated .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 50 of the total volume of
the item.
M. "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..
Section 3. PROHIBITED FOOD PACKAGING (POLYSTYRENE FOAM)
A. Restaurants
1. Except as provided in Sections 7 and 8, no Restaurant
shall provide Prepared Food to its customers in any
Polystyrene Foam Food Packaging, nor shall any Restaurant
purchase, obtain or keep any Polystyrene Foam Food Packaging
for such purpose.
2. As to any Food Packaging obtained after the effective
date: of this Ordinance, each Restaurant shall obtain from
each of its Suppliers a written statement signed by the
Supplier, or by a responsible agent of the Supplier , stating
that the Supplier will supply no Polystyrene Foam rood
Packaging to that vendor, that the :supplier will note ori
each invoice for Food Packaging supplied to that vendor i:tiat
the packaging covered by the invoice is. not Polystyrene i:'oam
and the identity of the packaqing ' _; Eact:ur.i,r.
3 . 1. 11 contract p' -st.111111nl: .irld :. ::u lipl. i � is
r a r a I
shall be Degradable or Recyclable.
2. Each Retail Food vendor shall maintain carni. ,n rocord:-
evidencing its compliance with this section .
Section 5. REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL 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
Manager or his or her agents regarding the Degradable or
Recyclable nature of, or the use or non-use of Polystyrene Foam
in the manufacture of any Food Packaging supplied to any Food
vendor.
B. Food vendors shall state that they are in compliance with
this Ordinance on their annual business license renewal forms.
Section 6. INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
All statements and documents required by this Ordinance shall be
made available for inspection by the City Manager or his or her
designated representative. It shall be unlawful for Anyone
having custody of such documents to fail or refuse to produce
such documents upon request by the City Manager or his or her
designated representative.
Section 7 . EXEMPTIONS
The. City Manager or his or her -authorized representative may
exempt an item or type of .Food Packaging from the requirements
of this Ordinance, upon a .showing that the item or type has no
acceptable non-Polystyrene Foam equivalent and that imposing the
requirements on that item or type would cause undue hardship.
Said documentation shall include a list of Suppliers contacted
to determine if non-Polystyrene Foam substitutes are available.
Section 8. EXISTING CONTRACTS EXEMPTED
Food Packaging required to be purchased under a contract entered
into prior to September 22, 1987 is exempt from the provisions
of this Ordinance.
Section 9 . CITY OF BERKELEY_ PURCHASES PROHIBITED
The City of Berkeley shall not purchase any Polystyrene Foam
Food Packaging, nor shall any City-sponsored event utilize such
packaging. At least 50e by volume of the Food Packaging which
the City, or any City-sponsored event , utilizes e:h,ill he
Recyclable or Degradable.
Section 10 . SEPARATE FOOD PACKAGING WASTH RECI PTACGE'�
Each Restaurant and Retail food vendor. uI�,� Ll
wa:Si.f CCCCpi::C1 L'G i:Or L'a Cil I.Ype
waste , generated on premises', including , but not li;;ii.teci
glass , cans , cardboard , newspapers , and mired paper .
Section 11 . CITY MANAGER'S POWERS
The City Manager is authorized to promulgate regulations and tO
take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to
enforce this Ordinance, including, but not limited to,
inspecting any Vendor' s premises to verify compliance.
Section 12. LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Anyone violating jor failing to comply with any of the
requirements of this Ordinance shall be guilty of an infraction
as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
B. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other
equitable relief to enforce this Ordinance.
C. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are
cumulative and not exclusive.
Section 13. SEVERABILITY
If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application
thereof to any Person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such
part or provision to other Persons or circumstances, shall not
be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.
To -this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
Section 14. ORDINANCE VOIDED BY SUPERSEDING LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The provisions of this Ordinance with respect to Polystyrene
Foam, shall be void upon the enactment or adoption or any law or
regulation restricting the use of plastic foams..
Section 15. EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective on
January 1, 1990.
Section 16 . POSTING
Copies of this Ordinance are hereby ordered published by posting
with the vote thereon for two ( 2) days at ten ( 10 ) prominent
places in the City of Berkeley as designated by Chapter_ 1 . 08 of
the Berkeley Municipal Code.
Approved as to Form:
No. 89-Or- Date
1stRendinq ' q g�J ORDINANCE
AN CE Dara to
Ref. to Comm. MI V dd 1 Goff the`Y f`9 Date Retvrnea
Pvblic Hearing �°�9T�/ ®� Date Resubmitted
CITY 1 to Council
2nd Reading Final ® INNEA�US
Passage f�
Cramer, Coyle, Pliemiec, Johnson, Hilary, Scallon, O'Brien, and Car Ag,,, ,,, following ordinance
Amending Title 10 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to
Food and Food Handlers by adding thereto a new Chapter 204 relating to
Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging.
The City Council of the City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows:
Section 1. That the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be amended by adding
thereto a new Chapter 204 to read as follows:
"Chapter 204. Environmental Preservation:,
Environmentally Acceptable Packaging
204.10. Legislative Purpose. The City Council finds that discarded
packaging from foods and beverages constitutes a significant and growing
portion of the waste in Minneapolis' waste stream. Regulation of food and
beverage packaging, therefore, is` a necessary part of any effort to
encourage a recyclable and compostable waste stream, thereby reducing the
disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs of waste
management for the citizens of Minneapolis and others working or doing
business in Minneapolis.
The. Council further finds that plastic packaging is rapidly replacing .
other packaging material , and that most plastic packaging used for foods
and beverages is nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable.
The Council also finds that the two main processes used to dispose of
discarded nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable plastic foods and
beverage packaging, are land filling and incineration, both of which should
be minimized for environmental reasons.
Chemicals hazardous to human health and to the safety of the
environment are present in the composition of plastic packaging, are
believed to leach into the groundwater when this packaging is placed in
.landfills, have been found to escape into the air when this packaging is
burned in incinerators, and contribute to environmental problems associated
with ash residue resulting from the incineration process.
The Council therefore finds that the minimization of nondegradable,
nonreturnable and nonrecyclable food and beverage packaging originating at
retail food establishments within the .City of Minneapolis is necessary and
desirable in order to reduce the City's waste stream, so as to reduce the
volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by-products of incineration,
to make the waste stream less damaging to the environment, and to make our
City and neighboring communities more environmentally sound places to live.
204.20. Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following terms and
phrases shall have the meanings as defined in this section:
(a) "Packaging" shall mean and include all food-related wrappings,
adhesives, cords, bindings, strings, tapes, ribbons, bags, boxes, coverings
and containers; and shall further include cups, glasses and similar
containers for drinking out of or for holding liquids, and plates and
serving trays, but shall specifically exclude plastic knives', forks and
spoons sold or intended for use as utensils.
(b) "Environmentally.acceptable packaging" shall mean and include any
of the following:
(1) DEGRADABLE PACKAGING: Paper or other cellulose-based packaging
capable of being decomposed by natural biological or biochemical processes;
(2) RETURNABLE PACKAGING: Food or beverage containers or packages,
such as, but not limited to, soft drink bottles and milk containers that
are capable of being returned to the distributor, such as but not limited
to, dairies and Soft drink bottlers, for reuse as the same food or beverage
container use at least once;
(3) RECYCLABLE PACKAGING; Packaging made of materials that are
separable from solid waste by the generator or during collection and are
currently collected for recycling in an organized fashion in a municipally
sponsored program within the City of Minneapolis. Packaging made of either
polyethylene terepthalate (P.E.T. ) or high density polyethylene (H.D.P.E. )
shall be considered to be recyclable if and when it is collected for
recycling in the same -nanner as here stated.
(c) "food establishment" as used in this Chapter means a "food
establishment". as defined in Section 188.10 of the Minneapolis Code of
Ordinances.
(d) ."Commissioner" shall mean the Commissioner of Health of the City of
Minneapolis or the Commissioner's designee.
204.,30. Prohibitions. No person owning, operating or conducting a
food establishment within the City of Minneapolis shall do or allow to be
done any of the following within the City: Sell or convey at retail or
possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food or beverage
that is placed, wrapped or packaged, at any time at or before the time or
point of sale, in or on packaging which is not environmentally acceptable
packaging. The presence on the premises of the food establishment of
packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging shall
constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey at retail ,
or to provide to retail customers packaging which is not environmentally
acceptable packaging; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not
apply to manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who conduct or
transact no retail food or beverage business.
204.40. Enforcement. The Commissioner shall have the duty and the
authority to enforce provisions of this chapter.
204.50. Rules and Regulations. The Commissioner may, upon notice and
hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Chapter and protect the health of the public,
including the development of exemptions under .Section 204.70 for packaging
for which there is no commercially available alternative and for flexible
packaging. In promulgating such rules the Commissioner shall consider the
legislative purposes provided in Section 204.10 of this Chapter and shall
consult with the operators of affected food establishments.
204.60. Advisory Commitee on Environmentally Acceptable Packaging.
The City Council shall , by resolution, establish an Advisory Committee on
Environmentally Acceptable Packaging. The resolution shall provide for the
membership, manner of appointment, the Committee' s charge and its duration.
The membership shall be drawn from affected governmental units, business
and industry, trade associations, general business organizations, consumer
groups, environmental groups and others as determined in the resolution.
The Advisory Committee shall include a member designated by the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners from outside the City of Minneapolis and a
member designated by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. The
charge of the -Committee shall include the following:
(a) monitoring industry and governmental actions relating to
environmentally acceptable packaging;
(b) advising the Commissioner of Health on implementation issues;
(c) advising the City Council on the feasibility of the effective date
of this Ordinance and recommending whether or not the effective date should
be extended;
(d) assisting in efforts to expand the City' s recycling program to
include the collection of potentially recyclable materials not presently
collected, including consideration of financial assistance;
(e) recommending actions-.other levels of government and industry can
take to advance the goals of this Chapter.
(f) assisting in the development and implementation of public education
programs on recycling and packaging.
(g) Encouraging adoption of substantially similar
regulations by surrounding cities, particularly those cities
with a border in common with Minneapolis.
204.70. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provision to the
contrary, this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) any flexiblepackaging of 10 mils or lessin thickness unless
disapproved by the Commissioner pursuant to rules promulgated under Section
204.50 above;
(b) apy packaging used at hospitals or nursing homes;
(c) any paper, cellophane or other cellulose-based packaging that is
coated with plastic;
(d) any packaging which is not environmentally acceptable, but for
which there is no commercially available alternative as determined by .the
Commissioner by rule promulgated pursuant to Section 204.50. In
determining whether there are commercially available alternatives the
Commissioner shall consider the following: (1) the availability of
environmentally acceptable packaging for affected products; (2) the
economic consequences to manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other
vendors of requiring environmentally acceptable packaging when available;
and (3) the competitive effects on manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and
other vendors involved in 'the sale of product brands or labels available
only in packaging that is not environmentally acceptable packaging. Every
rule creating an exemption under this paragraph shall be reviewed annually
by the Commissioner to determine whether current conditions continue to
warrant the exemption.
204.80. Penalties. Each violation of any .provision of this Chapter or
of lawful regulations promulgated under Section 204.50 hereof shall be a
petty misdemeanor, for which the maximum fine shall be $50.00. Each day on
which a violation occurs constitutes a separate violation.
204.90. License Adverse Action. A violation of Section 204.30 shall
be sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, denial or non-renewal
of any license for the food establishment at which the violation occurs.
204.1.00. Severability. If any part or provision of this Chapter or
the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances shall be
adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent,
jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part,
provision or application which is directly involved in the controversy in
which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or
impajr the validity of the remainder of this Chapter or the application
thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances.
204.1.10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect July 1,
1990. The City Council may, however,. pursuant to the recommendations of
the Advisory Committee created under Section 204.60 hereof and the
Commissioner of Health, delay the effective date of this Chapter for a
period not to exceed six (6) months.
Adopted. Yeas, 12; Nays none.
Absent - Sayles Belton - 1.
Passed March 31, 1989. Alice W. Rainville, President. of
Council.
Approved April 6, 1989. . Alice W. Rainville, Acting Mayor.
Attest: Steven J. Ristuben, Asst. City Clerk.
RECORD OF COUMCJI YOTE
1
C�unca Mem oer •oa. Ovro.. I Sux i Cauncv Mem ee. AV* I vav i n:r +ca. =.ro. t iust
_teaz,c i 1 1 1 € Scanen ( � 1
nBr,en
i ti I C:amer
-••arr f
e 13cawsraa
' I .Onnll7n I i i I i
a son i I I i � I i
Sav,es 8elron i
X INOICATES vOTL —77 Not vonn acs.—Anent �vrp. . rota to Qverrlce ust -'rcta'c pus aln
PASSED. 1`
•.YO,1Of,.aYll<II
APPROVED
NOT APPROVED 19
VETOED NOVO,
ATTEST
ORDINANCE NO.
Bar, certain food providers from the use -f certain
polystyrene foam food containort; Aid ficad pa€ti.-luihq Nith
exceptions and establish a public/private task fc.r•ce f,-Ir-
recommending means to reduce disposable plastic products in
landfills and litter- (Ordinance) .
The City of Portland ordains:
Section 1. The Council finds:
1. The City of Portland values the protection and
preservation of our natural environment, and the benefits of
reducing the amount of litter and municipal solid waste
deposited in landfills.
?. The United Nations Environmental Programme
diplomatic conference in Montreal (Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) acknowledged
the threat of chlorofluorocarbons to the earth' s atmosphere
and established international goals for the phased reduction
of the manufacture and use of specific c�lorofluorocarbcn
compounds. The City of Portland supports international and
federal bans on all non-essential use of chlorafluorocarb:,ns.
Responsible action to reduce chlorofluorocarbon use and alert
the public to the danger posed by these substances should be
undertaken at the local .level.
3. In April 1988, the Foodservice and Packaging
Institute, which represents approximately 90 percent of food
packaging manufacturers, announced a voluntary program to
phase out the use of fully halogenated chlorrofli_iorocar•bons ire
the manufacture of disposable foam plastic products for food
service by the end of 1988.
4. The State of Oregon in 1985 enacted "_-pporturity t,.
recycle laws" (ORS 459. 165 et. seq. ) which are intended to
'encourage recycling of municipal solid wastes. The City is
committed to implementing this law, and has ars active
curbside recycling collection program.
5. The Envirorrnental F'rc tection Agency has issued a
national municipal waste strategy calling for a .25 percent
reduction in solid waste by 1992. The strategy, titled The
Solid Waste Dilemma: Art Agenda for Action, includes the
promotion of recycling.
-1-
G_ City of Portland Ordinance 161061, dated July 21 ,
19881 establishes a ban on City purchases of p:-lystyrene f-am
prod�.rets and Resolution 34448 appointed a task force to
recommend policies, programs and ordinances prohibiting thc_2
use and sale of particular polystyrene foam products in the
City.
7. Readily disposable consU_uner plastic containers and
wrappers (made from polyethylene, polypropylene and
polystyrene foam) used for takeout foods are essentially n---t
biodegradable and as litter do not decompose aver time into
the natural environment.
8. The use of readily disposable consumer plastic
containers and wrappers has increased annually and
projections indicate a significant growth in their use.
9. Plastic litter, including polystyrene foam, poses a
potential threat to the wildlife environment.
10. Recycling of readily disposable consumer plastic
containers and wrappers, ,including polystyrene fc-am products,
has riot been intensively pursued by the plastics industry _.r-
major- retail users of these products.
11. The City cf Portland believes that a public/private
cooperative effort is necessary to increase recycling of
polystyrene foam food containers and wrappers, in order to
enhance both community development and the City' s
environmental quality.
12. The Council- finds that this Ordinance will serve the
public interest by reducing the amount of non-biodegradable
waste littering Portland, as a portion of any substitute
packaging is expected to be composed of biodegradable
material in whole or in part. Polystyrene foam litter is
highly durable, . buoyant, and non-biodegradable and therefore
persists and detracts from the appearance of the area longer
than many other types of litter.
1a. This Ordinance will serve the public interest by
reducing the quantity of non-biodegradable waste ire landfills
serving Portland, as a portion of any substitute packaging
will be composed of products that are biodegradable in whole
or in part. Polystyrene foam packaging takes up more space
in landfills than marry ether packaging materials, because - f
the comparatively low density of polystyrene foam and . its
present popularity as a packaging material . Siting and
developing landfills is an increasingly expensive
under^taking, and these costs place an _conamic burden on the
residents _.f Portland. Maximizing the _1perating life .-,f
landfill facilities therefire promotes the public interest,
and this interest will be served by reducing the ar,roi.tnt of
p lystyrene foam deposited in landfills.
14. The Council recognizes that nether commonly i.ised food
packaging materials are also non-biodegradable and contribute
to litter and landfill problems; nevertheless, the Council
finds that it is appropriate to regulate polystyrene foam
food packaging while not regulating other types of fc:.d
packaging at this time for the following reasons:
A. To minimize disruption in the food services
industry, the Council should avoid banning a wide range
of packaging materials at one time. It might be
appropriate to ban other packaging materials in the
future, but an incremental approach to eliminating
undesirable packaging materials will cause less
disruption and allow the City to handle enforcement
proceedings in more manageable stages.
.B. Polystyrene foam is the least dense commonly used
food packaging material, and therefore is more wasteful
of landfill space than any other category of food
packaging material. It is therefore appropriate to
start with polystyrene foam as the City begins t,---
address the issues of litter- and inappropriate
utilization of landfill space.
C. Ingestion of polystyrene foam particles has beer,
identified as a hazard to wildlife, while this problem
has not been associated with other food packaging
materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:
a. On and after March 1, 1989, no restaurant, retail
food vender or non-profit food provider shall serve
and after- June 330, 1989 no food packager- shall package
meat, eggs, bakery products or other 'f od in pC•lystyrcrnc-
foam (PSF) containers, manr_rfact ured with chi rofl
carbons (CFCs) which do not r^educe the potential f=,r
_zone depletion by more than 95 percent, compared t" the
ozone depletion potential of CFC-12, (dychloradifl .ioro-
thane) . Compounds banned include: CFC-11, CFC-1.= , CFC-
111-9 CFC-114, CFC-115, Halon-1;'11, Halors-1301 and Halor,
Food vendors may be required to� furnish a v+r ,i t t e r,
statement from the manufacturer or supplier- of
Polystyrene foam products used by that food vend,:-r,
indicating that the chemical compounds used in the
manufacture of the vendor' s polystyrene foam products
meet the provisions of this Ordinance.
-3-
b. On and after January 1 , 1990, ro r•estaur,-ant --r
retail food vendor, shall serve preparedfood ire any
polystyrene foam (PSF) products.
c. On or before April 11 1999, the Mayor and Chair, of the
Board of County Commissioners shall appoint cin 11 member
task farce composed of persons representing a broad
range of community interests and persons having special
expertise on issues relevant to the task fc-rce' s
assignments.
1. The task force shall support and monitor recycling
projects, including research and demonstration
�n
projects, in order to increase the percentage of
disposable plastics products which are recycled and
/or- decrease the amount of municipal solid waste
deposited in landfills. The task force shall
recommend to City Council methods and specific
goals, in terms of quality and quantity, f---,r-
reduction of disposable plastic products irs
landfills and in the litter stream.
2. The City recognizes total elimination "f polystyrene
foam and other disposable plastic products as a way
to reduce litter and reduce the amount f solid
wastes deposited in landfills is a long terra
community goal. Total elimination will require
substantial financial commitments and should include
public education. To these ends, the task force is
instructed to consider the following aspects in
their, recommendations:
a. ) Public Education and Promotion
b. ) Alternative Prr_,duct Recycling/Energy
Con:vers i on
c. ) Financial Assistance
d. ) Alternative Products Research (e. g. , ph - to
degradable and biodegradable additives, etc. )
The task farce will prepare t w . ar n�.ta 1 reports with
recommendations to City Council with the first
report due within one year- from the effective date
of this Ordinance. These reports shall assess the
-4-
s,_,ccess of the efforts to reduce litter and
waste and make appropriate reconvaendati_r,s f~r
i mprovenrent and writ i neat ion of such' of fort s.
4. The task force will disband on December 3! ,
d. The Bureau of Environmental Services Administrator,
determination that a violation of this Ordinance has
occurred, shall issue a written notice of the violation
by certified mail to the vendor on food packager which
will specify the violation, and appropriate penalty.
Violations of this Ordinance shall be punishable by
fines as follows:
1. A fine not exceeding $250 for the first violation in
a one year period ;
2. A fine riot exceeding $500 for the second and each
subsequent violation in a one year- period.
The vendor or food packager shall, upon receipt of a
notice of violation, pay to the City the stated penalty
or appeal the finding of a violation to the Code
Hearings Officer for a hearing within 15 days of re--eipt
of the notice.
e. The City Council, or its appointee, may exempt a food
vendor, food packager, or non-profit food provider from
the requirements of this Ordinance for a one year-
period, upon a showing by the applicant that the
conditions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship.
The phrase ' undue hardship, shall be construed to
include, but riot be limited to
1. Situations where there are r,, acceptable
alternatives to PSF packaging for reasons which are
unique to the vendor, packager, or provider ;
Situations where compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would deprive a person of a legally
protected right. If a request for exempt i ,n is based
upon a claim that a legally pr•_.tected right w_-uld be
denied if compliance were required and s,_rch request for
exemption is denied, review of the denial shall only be
by writ of review as provided for- in ORS X4. 010 to
34. 100, and riot otherwise.
-5-
f. Definitions. As used in this ordinance the f ll ing
terms have the following meanings :
1. "Biodegradable" means material capz.ble .f being
bT :,ker+ down by mlcr-c--orgarilsms. int,: Lirsiple subs-tarj=::
or basic elements.
"Chlor fluorocar'b"ns" are the family ..f s_.bstar,ces
containing carbon, fluorine and chi:,rine.
.i. "Customer" means any person purchasing fc-,od or,
beverages from a restaurant or- retail food verd ,r.
4. "Food vendor" means any restaurant or retail f _,d
vendor.
5. "Food packager" means any per-sc-rr, located w i t h i r+ the
City of Portland, who places meat, eggs, bakery
products, or other, food in packaging materials for-
the purpose of retail sale _.f th_,se products.
"Noon-profit food provider" means a recognized tax
exempt organization which provides food as apart of
its services.
7. "Prepared food" means food or beverages which are
served on the vendor' s premises without preparat'ior,,
+ or are prepared on the vendors premises by coking,
chapping, slicing, mixing, brewing, freezing --r
squeezing. "Prepared food" dyes not include any raw
uncooked meat or eggS. Prepared food may be eater,
either- on or, off premises.
8. "Person", means any natural person, firm,
corporation, partnership, or other organization or
group. however organized.
9. "F'SF" means polystyrene foam.
10. "Recycled" describe=: a type f material that is
separated fr,_,m the solid waste stream and I.+t i 1 i zed as
a raw material in the manufact+.rre c,f a new product _r
new economic use.
11. "Rest a+_rrant" means any establishment located withir,
the City of Portland, selling prepared f, =-d to be
eaten by custc-niers. Restaurant includes a sidewalk
foc,d vend_.r.
12. "Retail Food Vendr,r•", "Vend _,r" means any st ,re,
shop, sales outlet or other establishment, includir,q
a grocery store or, a delicatessen, located within the
-6-
ORIDINANCE No.
City of Portland, which sells prepared food.
1_:. "Reuse" means the process by which a prodLtct is
r•eclairned or- reprocessed irto another- useful pr_Iduct.
g. The City Bureau of Environmental Services is
authorized to prornr_tlgate additional regulations and
other, actions reasonable and necessary to enforce
this Ordinance. Prior to the adoption of such
regulations, the Bureau of Environmental Services shall
give public notice of its intent to adept r•eg1_t1ati =Ins,
provide copies of the proposed r•egulat i_-rs to� identified
interested parties and conduct a public hearing or, the
proposed regulations. Public notice shall be giver, when
regulations have been finally adopted. Copies .f
current regulations shall be made available to the
public upon. request. It is a violatic-n ..f this chapter
to violate regr_tlations duly adopted by the Bureau _,f
Environmental Services.
r h. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person Or Cit-Cl_tmstance is
held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including
the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby
and shall continr_ie in full force and effect. To this
end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
Passed by the Council. JAN 251989
BARBARA CLARK
Commissioner :Bob Koch ..Auditor of the City of Portland
J. Lang/Polystyrene Foarn Task Force 13y
November 17, :j1988 � �� }cputy
r .
1 i t
C. OTHER CITY ORDINANCES ON POLYSTYRENE FOAM
Prepared by Commissioner Glumenauet's Office
November MS
POLYSTYRENE FOAM
A growing number of local governments, state governments, and food retailer-
have taken action to reduce the use of polystyrene foam products. Some examples
include:
i. Berkeley. Banned the use of foam products in government buildings and
banned the sale of food packaging made with chloTnfluorocarbons (CFC's).
Nondegradable packaging will be banned unless merchants cut the sale of
plastic containers by 50`x.
LosAngeles:
1 - ayor directed various city departments to halt the purc`,ase cif
polystyrene foam products,and proposed a ban em purchase by vendors %vh(.)
lease space from the city as well as the Coliseum and Sports Arena
3 Santa Arora,CA Banned polystyrene foam containers from rico %;c_ craic's
nearbeaches.
4. California Bills pending include a ban on polystyrene products ano a ban cn
government purchase of polystyrene products.
5. Canada A major grocery store chain will replace foam egg canons w;t;, Puz
basedcartons.
6. Florida Beginning in September 1990, banned food packaging mace r.. , :oam
or plastic coated paper unless degradable within one year.
7 Iowa Frovided sales and use tax incentives for the use of de¢radab!e
packaging products.—
S. Maine Banned the sale of CFC produced foam and prohibited non-
biodegradable food and beverage containers at state government
facilities and functions.
9. Massachusetts:Governor Dukakjs imposed an immediate ban on State
purchase of polystyrene foam cups and plates made rMth CFCs and a total ca^
on nonrecycleable polystyrene foam products by June 1989.
10. Michigan: State Parks Bureau banned non-biodegradable food packacang at
state fair and state parks concessionaires.
ll. Minnesota: Banned state and local government purchase of crccuc s
containing CFC's as of January i, 1990.
12. New Jersey. Pending bills include a ban on polystyrene packaging and a ban
on government purchase of polystyrene products.
13. NewYork. Bills pending include bans on FTC and polystyrene food cacka—,,I
14. Suffolk County,New York Banned the use of polystyrene and FVC containers
as well as certain nonbiodegradable food packaging,meat trays,egg canons.
and plastic grocery bags by retail food establishments.
15. Qty of New Yoric Pending bili would prohibit restaurants from using c:s
pc-,)sable service items for on-site consumption.
16. Oregon Proposed rule supported by the Governor is under review. Rule
would promote the use of recyclable and biodegradable products for flood
service packaging and require the purchase of these products by state
agencies
17. Portland,Oregon Banned the City purchase of foam products and extended
the ban to cover vendors who initially lease or renew a lease for ON space
(effectively immediately) and also activities which require a City permit
(effective January 1, 1990)
is. Metro Service District:Oregon Zoo and administrative offices no ionger
purchase foam and plastic food service containers.
19. Pennsylvania Banned the sale of nondegradable plastic beverage containers
as of September 1988
20. Rhodelsland Prepared foodmust be sold in packaging that is recv_ clabie. bio-
degradable or contains recycled material and contains no CFCs.
21. Vermont Senate cafeteria switched to foam products manufactured %vnthout
CFCs and Governor banned the purchase cups,bowls, and plates for use in
state insbutions. Colleges and businesses have followed the lead.
22_ Washington Rep. Art Sprinkly, of the Commission on Solid Waste
Management, has held hearings on the issue.
23. West Virginia: Pending bill would tax restaurants 5% of the wholesale
value of nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable plastics used.
24. School Districts School Districts in Seattle, Eugene, Salem, N. Clackamas.
and Beaverton, Oregon use permanent ware and biodegradable products.
in their school lunch programs.
U. A PARTIAL LISTING OF PROCESSORS AND
CONSUMERS OF POST-CONSUMER PLASTICS
PARTIAL LISTING OF PROCESSORS AND CONSUMERS
OF POST-CONSUMER PLASTICS
PLASTIC TYPICAL
COMPANYfLOCATION MATERIAL PRODUCTS
Acri-Tech Plasties HDPE, Other Pellet
Ontario, CA
Bay Polymer Corp., PET, HDPE, PS, Regrind, Pellet
Fremont, CA Other
Cleveland Reclaim HDPE, PET Liners, Flooring and
Cleveland, OH PVC Urinal Screens
Coast Polymers PET, HDPE, PS, Pellet
Downey, CA Other
D.J. Reclaimed Polymers ABS, PE, PP Regrind, Pellets
Milwaukee, WI
Eaglebrook Plastics HDPE Pellet
Chicago, IL
FSC Greensboro PET Polyols
Greensboro, NC
Giltex Enterprises ABS, PE, PS Pellet
Minneapolis, MN
Golden Pacific, Inc. EPS Foam Building Material
Antioch, CA
Hancor, Inc. HDPE, PP Pipe
Findlay, OH
Marketing Associates, Inc. LDPE Pellet
Anaheim, CA
N.E.W. Lumber HDPE Lumber, Truck Liners
Luxemburg, WI
Oakland Plastics Sales Regrind
Oakland, CA
Pet Polymers, Inc. PET Pet Copolymer
Roosevelt, NY
Poly Pro Products HDPE, LDPE Reformulated Pellets
Summit, IL
Polymer Profiles Mixed -- mostly Lumber
Iowa City, IA HDPE, PP
Processed Plastics Mixed Lumber, Other Molded
Ionia, MI Products
Pure Tech Industries HDPE, PET, Clean Flake
Pine Brook, NJ PVC, PP
Rastra Building Systems, Inc. EPS Foam
Riverside, CA
Replax Co. PET Strapping
Fountain Inn, SC
St. Jude Polymer PET Pellet
Frackville, PA
Superwood International Mixed Lumber Products
Chicago, IL
Talco Plastics, Inc. HDPE, LDPE Regrind, Pellet
Whittier, CA
Textima PET Carpet Backing
Reading, PA
Valley Recycling LDPE Baled "Ag-plastics"
Santa Maria, CA
Wellman, Inc. PET Fiberfill, Carpet
Johnsonville, SC Backing
Source: Resource Management Associates (1989) .
sc3:pis.lst
E. SURVEY OF FOAMED PLASTICS MANUFAC71URERS
A survey of foamed plastics manufacturers was conducted in an effort to
determine the extent of CFC' s use in the plastics industry. Of the 110 plastic
producers contacted, only five responded, and of those only one described their
process which has never used CFC. The other tour sent copies of standard trade
publications that claimed the industry in general is reducing their use of CFCs.
It is not Known it the remaining 105 producers use CFCs.
This Appendix contains a list of the 110 manutacturers and a copy of the letter
that was sent to them in March, 1989.
PESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES
MATERIALS RECOVERY & RECYCLING SPECIALISTS
P.O. Box 3568 o Napa. CA 94558
March 24, 1989
«Data Data sheet))
Technical Information Manager
«Company»
«Street»
«City»
Dear Sir:
We are conducting research for a background paper for several local
government clients interested in foamed polystyrene and other foamed plastic
products. Would you please send information about your expandable resin
products and how they are made into foam by the user or fabricator.
We are particularly interested in the nature of the foaming agent(s) and
any other chemicals, additives, mold releasing agents, etc. that are, or may be
used, in processing the resin into the final product and how the chemicals are
treated and disposed of.
In addition, we are trying to up-date data on EPS and other foamed
plastic resins for use in fast-food containers, product packing materials,
insulation board and other miscellaneous products. We would appreciate any
help that you can provide in obtaining this information.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the address below.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Sincerely,
Charles Papke
CP/ig
3055 Jefferson Street Napa. CA 94558 (707) 257-8630 FAX (707) 257-797()
Priord im rev.N rlcd paper.
FOAM PLASTICS MANUFACTURERS
Company Street City
American Poly-Therm Co. P. O. Box 38619 Sacramento, CA 95838
Form Industries 212 W. Taft Ave. Orange, CA 92665
Har-Ko Plastics Unlimited 3630 Purdue Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90066
Republic Tool & Manufacturing Corp. 6212 Corte Del Abeto Carlsbad, CA 92009
Stoesser Industries 2440 Leghorn St. Mountain View, CA 94043
Styro-Tek Rt. 2, Box 580 Delano, CA 93215
Analytic Plastics 1756 Winchester Rd. Bensalem, PA 19020
Capsule, Inc. 5100 Fulton Drive Suisun, CA 94585
Cashiers Structural Foam Division P. O. Box 37 Cashiers, NC 28717
Crystal-X Corp. Second& Pine Sts. Darby, PA 19023
Custom Pack Inc. 3 Bacton Hill Road Malvern, PA 19355
Fluorocarbon 3711 S. Hudson St. Seattle, WA 98118
Foam-Lite Plastics, Inc. P. O. Box 5 Knoxville, TN 37901
Hoosier Fiberglass Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 1526 Terre Haute, IN 47808
Leon Plastics Inc. P. O. Box 350 Grand Rapids, MI 49501
Lester Associates, Inc. P. O.Box D W. Nyack, NY 10994
Old Dominion Box Co., Inc. P. O. Box 77 Burlington, NC 27215
Plastic Sales & Manufacturing Co. Inc 3124 Gillham Plaza Kansas City, MO 64109
Pro Plastics, Inc. 1180 Sylvan St. Linden, NJ 07036
Robinson Industries, Inc. 3051 Curtice Rd. Coleman, MI 48618
Wittman, Lawrence & Co. Inc. 1395 Marconi Blvd. Copiague, NY 11726
Carson Industries, Inc. 1925 "A" Street La Verne, CA 91750
Flex-O-Lators, Inc. P. O. Box 2194 High Point, NC 27261
Packaging Industries Group, Inc. 130 North St. Hyannis, MA 02601
Sealed Air Corp. P. O. Box 98 Patterson, NC 28661
Tri-Seal International Inc. 217 Bradley Hill Rd. Ext. Blauvelt, NY 10913
Voltek, Div. of Sekisui America Corp. 100 Shepard St. Lawrence, MA 01843
Industrial Molding Corp. 18601 Susana Rd. Compton, CA 90221
BASF Corp., Chem. Div. 100 Cherry Hill Rd. Parsippany, NJ 07054
Astro-Valcour, Inc. _P. O. Box 71 Glens Falls, NY 12801
Cincinnati Foam Prod. Inc. 3244 McGill Lane Cincinnati, OH 45251
Tuscarora Plastics, Inc. 181 Ida Ave. Antioch, II 60002
Foam Factory Inc. 2301 NW 33 Ct. Pompano Beach, FL 33069
Snow Craft Co. 112 S. Sixth St. New Hyde Park, NY 11040
Groendyk Mfg. Co., Inc. P. O. Box 278 Buchanan, VA 24066
Milcut, Inc. 4837 W. Woolworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53218
Pow-R-Tow, Inc. P. O. Box 396 Hewlett, NY 11557
Sealed Air Corp. 19-01 State Highway 208 Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
Foamade Industries 2550 Auburn Ct., Box 5110 Auburn Hills, MI 48057
Pacific States Felt & Mfg. Co. Inc. P. o. Box 5024 Hayward, CA 94540
Du Pont de Nemours, E. I. & Co. 1007 Market St. Wilmington, DE 19898
Kaneka America Corp. 800 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022
Mitsui & Co. U.S.A. Inc. Plastics Dept 200 Park Ave. New York, NY 10166
Tuscarora Plastics, Inc. P. O. Box 448 New Brighton, PA 15066
Kimball Companies P. O. Box 300 East Longmeadow, MA 01028
United Foam Plastics Corp. 174 C E. Main St. Georgetown, MA 01833
Rogers Foam Corp. 20 Vernon St. Somerville, MA 02145
Stephenson & Lawyer, Inc. 3831 Patterson, SE Grand Rapids, MI 49508
Page 1
FOAM PLASTICS MANUFACTURERS
Arco Chemical Co. 3801 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073
Wilson-Fiberfil International, Akzo P. O. Box 3333 Evansville, IN 47732
CdF Chimie North America, Inc. 1890 Palmer Ave., 203-A Larchmont, NY 10538
Huntsman Chemical Corp. 2000 Eagle Gate Tower Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Polycom/Huntsman Chemical Corp. 2000 Eagle Gate Tower Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Texstyrene 3607 N. Sylvania Ave. Fort Worth, TX 76111
Foam Fabricators, Ltd. 319 S. 15th St. St. Louis, MO 63103
Dow Chemical U.S.AJPlastics Dept. 2040 Willard H. Dow Center Midland, MI 48674
Berner Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 8228 New Castle, PA 16107
Cadillac Plastic & Chemical Co. 530 Stephenson Highway Troy, MI 48007
Construction Technology Div. 1062 Lancaster AVe. Rosemont, PA 19010
EFP Corp. P. O. Box 2368 Elkhart, IN 46515
Genpak Corporation P. O. Box 727 Glens Falls, NY 12801
Gilman Brothers Co. Gilman, CT 06336
Gullfiber International P. O. Box 201 Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
OpoD P. O. Box 101 Latrobe, PA 15650
Plastifoam 66-68 West St. Rockville, CT 06066
Plastronic Packaging Corp. P. O. Box 200 Stevensville, MI 49127
Poly Foam, Inc. 116 Pine St. St. Lester Prairie, MN 55354
Radva Corp. Drawer 2900 Radford, VA 24143
Styro-Molders Corp. P. O. Box 577 Colorado Springs, CO 80901
Dow Chemical Co. 2040 WHDC Midland, MI 48674
Allied Plastics Supply Corp. 895 E. 167th St. Bronx, NY 10459
Donray Co. 500 Som Center Cleveland, OH 44143
Foam Products Corporation P. O. Box 2217 Maryland Heights, MO 6304,
Almac Plastics, Inc. 47-42 37th St. Long Island City, NY 11101
Hydra-Matic Packing Co. 2992 Frank Rd. Bethayres, PA 19006
Insuldyne Corp. P. O. Box 52566 Houston, TX 77052
Foam Molders & Specialties 20004 State Rd. Cerritos, CA 90701
Clark Foam Products 25887 Crown Valley Parkway S. Laguna, CA 92677
Elliot Co. Of Indianapolis, Inc. 9200 Zionsville Rd. Indianapolis, IN 46268
Erskine-Johns Co. 4677 Worth Los Angeles, CA 90063
Franklin Fibre-Lamitex Corp. 901 E. 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19899
General Foam Corp. W. 100 Century Rd. Paramus, NJ 07652
Hastings Plastic Co. 1704 Colorado Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90404
Jarrow Products Inc. 2000 N. Southport Ave. Chicago, IL 60614
Legget & Platt, Inc./Urethane Foam P. O. Box 2024 High Point, NC 27261
Mobay Corp. Mobay Rd. Pittsburgh, PA 15205-974
Muth Associates, Inc. 53 Progress Ave. Springfield, MA 01104
North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 152B Mount Airy, NC 27030
Norton Performance Plastics 150 Dey Rd. Wayne, NJ 07470
Norwood Industries 57 Morehall Rd. Frazer, PA 19355
Plastics Consulting & Mfg. Co. 1431 Ferry Ave. Camden, NJ 08104
Plastomer Corp. 37819 Schoolcraft Livonia, MI 48150
Polymer Building Systems, Inc. 6918/42 Ed Perkic St. Riverside, CA 92504
Recticel Foam Corp./Morristown Div P. O. Box 1197 Morristown, TN 37816-11 S
Richards, Parents & Murray, Inc. 606 Franklin Ave. Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Rogers Corp. One Technology Dr. Rogers, CT 06263
Ross & Roberts, Inc. 1299 W. Broad St. Stratford, CT 06497
Page 2
FOAM PLASTICS MANUFACTURERS
Scottdel Inc. 400 Church St. , Swanton, OH 43558
Sheller-Globe Corp. 1641 Porter St. Detroit, MI 48216
Specialty Composites Corp. Delaware Industrial Park Newark, DE 19713
Twin Rivers Engineering Inc. Route 96 E. Boothbay, ME 04544
Unimica Corp. 75 Varick St. New York, NY 10013
W. H. Porter, Inc. P. O. Box 1138 Holland, MI 49422
W. R. Grace & Co., Organic Chemicals 55 Hayden Ave. Lexington, MA 02173
William T. Burnett & Co. 1500 Bush St. Baltimore, MD 21230
Goldenwest Manufacturing, Inc. P. O. Box 1111 Cedar Ridge, CA 95924
Crest-Foam Corp. 100 Carol Place Moonachie, NJ 07074
Crown Products Corp. 309 N. 17th St. St. Louis, MO 63103
General Electric Co., G. E. Plastics 1 Plastics Ave. Pittsfield, MA 01201
Page 3
R-8J
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
PLASTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
April 19, 1989
Meeting Location:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2nd Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
9:30 AM
AGENDA
1. Decision: Review and vote on Recommendations to Solid Waste Commission
on Plastics in the Wastestream (attached) .
2. Discussion: Review DRAFT outline for Plastics Report to Commission
and Internal Operations Committee.
SC:jal
SC2:swcplas.agn
I. GLOSSARY
scl:app.doc
GLOSSARY
ACRYLIC RESIN - A synthetic resin prepared from acrylic acid or from a
derivative of acrylic acid.
ADDITIVES - Products that are combined with resins and polymers as extenders or
modifiers.
BIODEGRADABLE - Such products will decompose under natural environmental
conditions - usually through exposure to UV light and/or microbial
activity.
CATALYST - A substance which markedly speeds up the cure of a compound when
added in minor quantity as compared to the amounts ,of primary reactants.
CELLULOID - A natural high polymeric carbohydrate found in most plants; the
main constituent of dried woods, jute, flax, hemp, ramie, etc. Cotton is
almost pure cellulose.
CONTAMINANT - A foreign material which adheres or combines with the pr.imary
plastic resin or produce and makes it unsuitable for recycling or re-use.
Typical contaminants are paper or metal labels and closures, adhesives,
other non-compatible plastics, and contents of used containers.
DENSITY - Weight per unit volume of a substance, expressed in grams per cubic
centimeter, pounds per cubic foot, etc.
EPDXY RESINS - Based on ethylene oxide, its derivatives or homologs, epoxy
resins form straight-chain thermoplastics and thermosetting resins; e.g. ,
by the condensation of bisphenol and epichlorohydrin.
EXTRUSION - The compacting of a plastic material and the forcing of it through
an orifice in more or less continuous fashion.
FILM - An optional term for sheeting having a nominal thickness not greater than
0.010 inch.
FLUOROCARBONS - The family of plastics including polytetra-fluoroethylene
(PTFE) ; polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE) ; polyvinylidene and fluorinated
ethylene propylene (FEP) , q.v. They are characterized by properties
including good thermal and chemical resistance and non-adhesiveness, and
possess a low dissipation factor and low dielectric constant. Depending
upon which of the fluorocarbons is used, they are available as molding
materials, extrusion materials, dispersions, film or tape.
FOAM MOLDING -- A molding process whereby heat softened plastics containing a
foaming agent is injection molded into a cavity where it hardens, producing
a product having a solid contiguous skin with a foam core.
GRANULATOR - Grinding or shredding equipment used to produce regrind. Often
placed at different points along a production line to reclaim and granulate
in-house scrap. Compare to pelletizer.
LINEAR MOLECULE - A long chain molecule as contrasted to one having many side
chains or branches.
MOLD (verb) - To shape plastic parts or finished articles by heat and pressure.
(noun) - 1) The cavity of matrix into which the plastics composition is
placed and from which it takes its form; 2) The assembly of all the parts
that function collectively in the molding process.
NYLON - The generic name for all synthetic fiber-forming polyamides; they can be
formed into monofilaments and yarns characterized by great toughness,
strength and elasticity, high melting point, and good resistance to water
and chemicals. The material is widely used for bristles in industry and
domestic brushes and for many textile applications; it is also used in
injection molding gears, bearings, combs, etc.
PELLETIZING - Process of preparing virgin resins, resin mixtures, or reground
materials into uniform size and shape for re-use. Process involves ex-
truding material into strands which are cut into short pellets or granules.
PHOTODEGRADABLE - A surface phenomenon whereby the integrity of the plastic is
weakened by the sun' s ultraviolet rays. Spontaneous splitting occurs
causing the product to be reduced to small pieces.
PLASTIC (adjective) - Pliable and capable of being shaped by pressure.
PLASTICS (noun) - A generic term for the industry and its products which is
properly used only as a plural word. The plastics products include poly-
meric substances, natural or synthetic; exclude the rubbers.
POLYETHYLENE - A thermoplastic material composed by polymers of ethylene. It is
normally a translucent, tough, waxy solid which is unaffected by water and
by a large range of chemicals.
POLYMER - A high-molecular-weight organic compound, natural or synthetic, whose
structure can be represented by a repeated small unit, the mer; e.g. ,
polyethylene, rubber, cellulose. Synthetic polymers are formed by addition
or condensation polymerization of monomers. If two or more monomers are
involved, a copolymer is obtained. Some polymers are eslastomers, some
plastics.
POLYMERIZATION - A chemical reaction in which the molecules of a monomer are
linked together to form large molecules whose molecular weight is a multi-
ple of that of the original substance. When two or more monomers are
involved, the process is called copolymerization or heteropolymerization.
See also Degree of, Condensation and Polymer. '
POLYPROPYLENE - A tough, lightweight rigid plastics made by the polymerization
of high-purity propylene gas in the presence of an organo-metallic catalyst
at relatively low pressures and temperatures.
POLYSTYRENE - A water-white thermoplastic produced by the polymerization of
styrene (vinyl benzene) . The electrical insulating properties of poly-
styrene are outstandingly good and the material is relatively unaffected by
moisture. In par culgr the power loss factor is extremely low over the
frequency range 10 -10 c.p.s.
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) - A thermoplastic material composed of polymers of
vinyl chloride; a colorless solid with outstanding resistance to water,
alcohols, and concentrated acids and alkalies. It is obtainable in the
form of granules, solutions, latices, and pastes. Compounded with plas-
ticizers it yields a flexible material superior to rubber in aging pro-
perties. It is widely used for cable and wire coverings, in chemical
plants, and in the manufacture of protective garments.
RAYON - The generic term for fibers, staple, and continuous filament yarns
composed of regenerated cellulose, q.v. , but also frequently used to
describe fibers obtained from cellulose acetate or cellulose triacetate.
Rayon fibers are similar in chemical structure to natural cellulose fibers
(e.g. , cotton) except that the synthetic fiber contains shorter polymer
units. Most rayon is made by the viscose process.
RECYCLE - Process of reclaiming used materials or scrap for re-processing and
manufacturing into a product similar to original or a different secondary
material . See Scrap, In-House and Post-Consumer.
REGRIND (verb) - To grind or shred scrap plastic for re-use in manufacture of a
product. (noun) - The cleaned and shredded scrap material usually mixed
with virgin resin for remelting and re-use. Applies to thermo plastics
only.
RESIN - Any of a class of solid or semi-solid organic products of natural or
synthetic origin, generally of high molecular weight with no definite
melting point. Most resins are polymers (q.v. ) .
SCRAP, IN-HOUSE - Any product of a molding operation that is not part of the
primary product. In thermsetting molding, this includes flash, culls,
runners, and is not reusable as a molding compound. Injection molding and
extrusion scrap (runners, rejected parts, sprues, etc. ) can usually be
reground and remolded.
SCRAP, POST-CONSUMER - Plastic waste materials or used products which have been
used as an end product or manufactured into a secondary product and dis-
carded. Differs from .in-house scrap in that the plastic material has
usually been exposed to other materials which contaminate the original
plastic resin and must be removed for recycling.
SHRINK WRAPPING - A technique or packaging in which the strains in a plastics
film are released by raising the temperature of the film, thus causing it
to shrink over the package. These shrink characteristics are built into
the film during its manufacture by stretching it under controlled tempera-
tures to produce orientation, q.v. , of the molecules. Upon cooling, the
film retains its stretched condition, but reverts toward its original
dimensions when it is heated. Shrink film gives good protection to the
products packaged and has excellent clarity.
STYROFOAM - A trademark of the Dow Chemical Company which defines a specific
brand of extruded polystyrene products used primarily in construction.
THERMOPLASTICS - Capable of being repeatedly softened by heat and hardened by
cooling. A material that will repeatedly soften when heated and hardened
when cooled. Typical of the thermplastics family are the styrene polymers
and co-polymers, acrylics, cellulosics, polyethylenes vinyls, nylons, and
the various fluorocarbon materials.
WASTE REDUCTION - Practices that reduce the generation of waste materials before
they enter the wastestream. Practices include product re-use as well as
product re-design to use less material and measures that limit production
and use of products deemed environmentally unsound.
SC/jal
sc2:appendix.doc
File R-8J
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
PLASTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
Wednesday, March 15, 1989
Meeting Location:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2nd Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
9:30 AM
AGENDA
1. Presentation: Ms. Judy Aagard,
Tiny Tots Diapers -
Issues and Incentives
re: reusable diapers
Presentation: [Speaker to be arranged. ]
CFCs, Pentane and HCFC's
2.. Discussion: Recommendation to Solid Waste Commission
and Board on Polystyrene Containers
a. Air Pollution
b. Litter Abatement
C. CFC Recycling
d. Source Reduction
3. Discussion: Plastics Packaging
Policy and Implementation Issues
a. Recycling
b. Degradability
c. Market Development
SC:rjs
SC1:swc-pc.agn
File R-8J
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
PLASTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
Wednesday, April 5, 1989
Meeting Location:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2nd Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
7:00 PM
---> PLEASE NOTE: EVENING MEETING <---
AGENDA
1. Presentation: Prof. Gene Petersen
Dept. of Chemical Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Dr. James Collins
Staff Toxicologist
State Department of Health Services
CFCs, Pentane and HCFC' s
2. Discussion: Recommendation to Solid Waste Commission
and Board on Polystyrene Containers and
CFC's
a. Air Pollution
b. Litter Abatement
C. CFC Recycling
d. Source Reduction
3. Discussion: Plastics Packaging
Policy and implementation Cssues
a. Recycling
b. Degradability
C. Market Development
SC:rj--
SC1 : swc-pc.agn
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
PLASTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
February 15, 1989
Meeting Location:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2nd Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
9:30 AM
1. Presentation
John Marshall
Project Manager for Plastics
Dow Chemical
2. Review of Subcommittee Work Plan
3. Consideration of Correspondence
If you have any questions, please contact Sheila Cogan at 646-4196.
SC:rjs
SC:scl002-2.agd
R-8J
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
PLASTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
March 1, 1989
Meeting Location:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2nd Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
9:30 AM
1. Presentation: Martin Stanczyk, Vice President, Plastics Technolocy
Development, WTE Corporation
2. Review of styrofoam container/packaging legislation .(attached)
3. Review list of issues and determine additional information needed
4. Correspondence
If you have any questions, please contact Sheila Cogan at 646-4196.
SC:jal
SC:swc.agn
Attachments
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
PLASTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
January 11, 1989
Meeting Location:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2nd Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
9:30 AM
AGENDA
1. Define issues
a. Biodegradability
b. Excess packaging - plastic vs. paper; diapers
C. Plastic neck rings
d. Other
2. Set priorities and criteria for evaluating options
a. Quantity in wastestream
b. Costs of various solutions
C. :Ease of implementation
3. Regulatory mechanisms
a. Packaging taxes
b. Bans including styrofoam (CFC' s)
C. Other
4. Recycling incentives
a. PET
b. Milk jugs
5. Market development in County
SC:jal
SC:plsc.agn
R-8J
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
PLASTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
February 1, 1989
Meeting Location:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2nd Floor Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
9:30 AM
----> REVISED AGENDA <----
1. Presentations:
a. Charles Papke, President
Resource Management Associates
- Overview of the plastics industry; some general issues
b. Richard Perr, Director
Marketing and Administration
James River Corporation - Dixie Products/Nandi-cup
- Plastics and polystyrene foam, an industry view
c. Terri Lyn Anderson, Recycling Program Administrator
City of Berkeley
- Community action and merchant response
2. Questions and Answers
3. Set Priorities and Criteria for Evaluating Options (Report to Board of
Supervisors, May 17, 1989)
4. Consideration of Correspondence (see attached) .
SC/jn
164:plascom.agn
H. MEETING AGENDAS
u
CONTACT LIST
City of Berkeley Dow Chemical Company
Attention: Terilyn Anderson Attention: John C. Marshall
Recycling Program Administrator P.O.Box 881
2180 Milvia Street City of Industry, CA 91747-0881
Berkeley, CA 94704 (818) 810-8050
(415) 644-6506
State of California Food Service & Packaging Institute
Department of Health Services Attention: Nancy J. Sherman
Hazard Evaluation Section 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW
Attention: Dr. James F. Collins Washington, DC 20036
2151 Berkeley Way, Room 515 (202) 822-6420
Berkeley, CA 94704
(415) 540-2669
State of California James River Corporation
Department of Health Services Dixie Products Business/Handi-Kup
Food and Drug Attention: Rick Derr
Attention: Jack McGurk 240 Tamal Vista Boulevard
714 P Street Corte Madera, CA 94925
Sacramento, CA 95814 (415) 927-0800
Californians Against Waste James River Corporation
Foundation Dixie Products Business/Nandi-Kup
Attention: Sandra E. Jerabek Attention: Dennis J. Nemura
909 Twelfth Street #201 240 Tamal Vista Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95814 Corte Madera, CA 94925
(916) 443-5422 (415) 927-0800
California Fed. of Womens Clubs Joseph R. Mariotti , M.D. Inc.
Attention: Mrs. R. H. Lockey Orthopaedic Surgery
855 Sibert Court 1617 Canyon Drive #103
Lafayette, CA 94549 Pinole, CA 94564
(415) 283-3028 (415) 724-4113
Contra Costa County Newland Building Consultants Inc.
Community Development Department Attention: George Newland
Attention: Gerald R. Raycraft 77 Cloverleaf Circle
651 Pine Street 4th Floor N Wing Brentwood, CA 94513
Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 634-2609
(415) 646-4076
Dow Chemical Company Northern California Grocers Assoc.
Business Development Attention: Frank Moffett
Attention: W. Thomas Matthews Director of Government Relations
P.O. Box 9002 1807 Tribute Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Sacramento, CA 95815
(415) 944-2124 (916) 929-9741
Plastic Recycling Corp. of Calif. Tiny Tots Diaper Service Inc.
Attention: Ronald S. Kemalyan Attenton: Judy Aaaard
Executive Director General Manager
3345 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1105 138 Railroad Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90010 Campbell , CA 95008
(213) 487-1544
Resource Management Associates Councilwoman Nancy Skinner
Attention: Charles Papke Stop Styro
P.O. Box 3568 Clearinghouse for Plastic and
Napa, CA 94558 Packaging Reduction
(707)• 257-8630 2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Sierra Club University of California
San Francisco Bay Chapter Department of Chemical Engr.
Attention: David Tam Attn: Prof. Eugene E. Peterson
6014 College Avenue Berkeley, CA 94720
Oakland, CA 94618 (415) 642-7260
Sonoco Products Company wTe Corporation
Attention: Jerry L. Hayes Attention: Martin H. Stanczyk
Manager of Environmental Affairs Vice President of Tech. Devel .
Hartsville, SC 29550 540 Stone Road
(803) 383-3502 Benicia, CA 94510
(707) 746-8112
Sonoco Products Company
Attention: Mark A. Knorr
Market Manager - Grocery Chains
P.O. Box 160-003
Hartsville, SC 29550
(803) 383-3215
1
1 `[
F. CONTACT LIST
PLASTICS RESEARCH, TRADE GROUPS AND ASSOCIATIONS
1. CENTER FOR PLASTICS RECYCLING RESEARCH, Rutgers, The University of
New Jersey, Busch Campus, Building 3529, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855
2. COPPE-COUNCIL ON PLASTICS, Packaging and the Environment, 1275 K Street NW,
Washington D.C. 20005
3. FOOD SERVICE AND PACKAGING INSTITUTE INC. , 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW,
Washington, D.C. 20036
4. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PLASTICS CONTAINER RECOVERY, 5024 Parkway Plaza
Boulevard, Suite 200, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217, (704) 357-3250
5. PLASTICS RECYCLING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, 3345 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 1105, Los Angeles, CA 90010
6. POLYSTYRENE PACKAGING COUNCIL, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 513,
Washington D.C. 20036
7. THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, 1275 K Street NW, Washington D.C.
2005 •
8. SOCIETY OF PLASTICS ENGINEERS, 14 Fairfield, P.O. Box 0403, Brookfield,
__ CT 06804
f
McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN
COUNSELORS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO 1855 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD,THIRD FLOOR WALNUT CREEK OFFICE
SAN JOSE TELEX 34-0817
POST OFFICE BOX V
WASHINGTON, D.C. FACSIMILE GI, II AND III
SHANGHAI WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-1270 (415)930-2390
TAIPEI TELEPHONE (415) 937-8000 CABLE ADDRESS MACPAG
June 5 , 1989
Honorable Sunne McPeak
Honorable Tom Powers
Members, Internal Operations
Committee of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Martinez, CA.
Tuesday
June 6 , 1989
AGENDA ITEM T . 1 .
Dear Supervisors :
We represent The Proctor & Gamble Company, the maker
of ' Pampers" and ' Luvs" disposable diapers . We have reviewed
the report of your committee dated May 22, 1989 , and entitled
"Report on the Solid Waste Commission' s Report Entitled
' Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream. "" We are particularly
interested in recommendations 4 , 5, 9 and 16 G. which deal , in
whole or in part , with the subject of disposable diapers .
We understand that it is your intent to seek
additional information and input from industry representatives
and from your staff regarding these recommendations .
Representatives of Proctor & Gamble are anxious to
provide additional information to you concerning the issues
raised in your report and in the underlying report prepared by
the Plastics Committee of the Solid Waste Commission. The
information received by you to date is limited and represents
only one point of view and, in our opinion, is erroneous in
several instances .
We request that the referral of these matters to your
staff specifically direct staff to confer with industry
representatives including our client . Mr . Robert Stokes of
Proctor & Gamble is also the current president of the industry