17 - Laserfiche WebLink

30% less energy to manufacture, have 46% lower atmospheric emissions, contribute 42% less waterborne waste, and require less chemical use (through not specifically quantified).' RECYCLING. While foam food containers are recyclable, the actual recycling rate is only 0.2 mainly attributed to food contamination as well as difficulty in competing with the price and quality of virgin polystyrene. Compostable and biodegradable food service packaging could be an alternative for consideration. Compostable materials are most effective when there is a food -waste composting program (such as the Pleasanton Garbage Service's Green Waste Food Scrap Recycling Program). And, even when a compostable or biodegradable food container becomes litter due to improper disposal or being blown out of a trash can, the negative environmental effect may be minimized when the material biodegrades. HEALTH. When public agencies have considered bans on foam food containers, there is sometimes a discussion about health concerns arising from styrene leaching from a foam food container into the food, and then being ingested. The National Institutes of Health notes that foods have naturally occurring styrene levels, and concluded that "the NTP [National Toxicology Program] reached its conclusion of negligible concern for adverse developmental and reproductive effects resulting from styrene exposures in humans "12 Therefore, absent a more thorough epidemiological review of published studies of the health effects of styrene, any City consideration of a ban on foam food containers should focus on the documented public interest regarding litter reduction and protection of the environment. ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR A BAN. As noted in the May 26, 2010 report, if Pleasanton does decide to pursue a ban on foam food containers, consideration should include the following issues: 1. What foam food containers to ban 2. What to allow as substitutes biodegradable, compostable, recyclable, etc. 3. Where to apply ban restaurants, food vendors, City facilities, etc. 4. What type of community outreach input from stakeholders 5. Whether to allow any exemptions, and on what basis (no substitutes available, cost), etc. 6. When to impose ban (e.g. timing, gradual roll -out, deplete existing stocks) etc. 7. How to monitor compliance 8. Penalties for non compliance STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION The May 26, 2010 report contained no information regarding bills being considered by the State legislature regarding single use plastic bags or foam food containers. This was due, in part, on the focus Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, pg. 19. Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, pgs. 13 -14, with the 0.2% a national and California postconsumer recycling rate for food service packaging. City of Millbrae report, pg. 2; City of Richmond report, pg. 4 -5. Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, pg. 13; City of Richmond report, pg. 5. 11 City of Millbrae report, pg. 3, discussing benzene as a chemical component of polystyrene foam and styrene, a component of polystyrene, as suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins; City of Richmond report, pgs. 3 -4. NTP -CERHR Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Styrene, pg. vii. Page 3 of 6