WHY BAN THE FOAM? CBP Workshop October 28, Miriam Gordon California Director

Transcription

1 WHY BAN THE FOAM? CBP Workshop October 28, 2009 Miriam Gordon California Director

2 Why should cities care about polystyrene? What problems does it pose to human health and the health of the Bay? Why should cities bother with a ban? How will it help reduce pollution?

3 Why should cities care about EPS? Californians HATE polystyrene* EPS is a bad packaging choice from a litter and marine debris perspective EPS is a bad packaging choice from a public health perspective Litter removal is costly, EPS is 15% of street litter Bans are effective for eliminating PS litter * Mike Levy, Director of Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group and EPS Resin Suppliers Group, Plastics Division of ACC: Polystyrene foam is about as popular in California as President Bush

4 From a litter and marine debris perspective Approximately 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources Litter (pedestrians, motorists, beach visitors) Industrial discharges (pellets and powders) Garbage management (containers, trucks, landfills)

5 PS contributes significantly to trash in urban runoff 15% of street litter is comprised of polystyrene (CA DOT) It s lightweight and gets easily blown into waterways EPS breaks down easily and is quickly dispersed Therefore, it s harder to remove

6 Ballona Creek

7

8 Packaging Waste Take out food packaging is most common form of street litter in California From 1960 to 2006 packaging waste generation in the United States increased from 27,000 to 79,000 tons (US EPA). Food containers and packaging are the largest component of household garbage ( 31.7 %) by volume, 9% by weight (US EPA).

9 Impacts of marine-litter / plastics 267 species (invertebrates, fish, turtles, seabirds, mammals) - entanglement, ingestion Plastic debris transports invasive species and ambient pollutants- PAHs, PCBs, BPA, PBDEs, alkylphenols Recent lab studies suggest ingested plastics transfer contaminants to birds and fish, as well as invertebrates on which they feed- Now we know- we are contaminating our food chain

10 Algalita Marine Research Foundation N. Pacific Central Gyre voyage fish caught, 6 species 35% had ingested micro-plastic fragments Record-holder: 2.5 mictophid had 83 fragments in its stomach Rainbow Runner caught in 2007 N Pacific Gyre

11

12 Styrene dispersed in the ocean by PS litter TSM WKN BOS SEL TKY SFO LAX ORD PVG HCJ DFW IRO IGJ OGW HNL GUM / Ocean current Left / Soil Right / Water : Styrene Monomer : Styrene Dimer : Styrene Trimer Location : PVG/ R.China, SEL/ R.Korea, IRO/ Iriomote Isd., IGJ/ Ishgakijima Isd., TSM/Tsushima Isd., SAD/ Sado Isd.,TKY /Tokyo and environs,hcj/hachijojima Isd., OGW/Ogasawara Isd, GUM/Guam Isd., HNL/Oahu Isd., SFO/San Francisco and environs,lax /Los Angeles and environs Presented at 238th ACS National Meeting, August 22-26,2009, Washington DC Environ.Divn. New contamination derived from marine debris plastics

13 EPS is a bad choice from a public health perspective EPS is made using the monomer, Styrene is a lab animal carcinogen and probable human carcinogen, according to the International Agency Research on Carcinogens. US EPA and the US National Toxicology Program are currently evaluating the listing of styrene as carcinogen (from possible to probable). Styrene can migrate from polystyrene containers into food and beverages when heated, or in contact with fatty or acidic foods. Styrene residues are found in 100% of all samples of human fat tissue.

14 Very costly to remove trash Regulation by L.A. Water Board: In L.A. River and Ballona Creek, municipalities charged with controlling trash in urban runoff 10% reduction required annually over 10 years, to ultimately achieve zero discharge Examples of Costs: So. California jurisdictions spent 1.7 billion in first 3 years of TMDL L.A. County spends $18 million annually on streets and storm drains, $4 million annually on beaches Cal Trans spent $65 million in 2005/2006

15 EPS Bans are Effective at Removing this Source of Litter City of San Francisco litter audit revealed a 36% reduction of PS litter in 1 st year of implementation Industry argues other materials took its place- The point was to reduce PS litter- so it worked 37 CA jurisdictions have enacted bans No other jurisdiction has any measurement tool

16 End Results of EPS / PS Bans You can reduce EPS/ PS litter in the watershed Packaging waste stream shifts heavily to bioplastics You should consider the alternative packaging you want to encourage And make sure that there is local collection for it SF experience businesses in program- two waiver applications for economic hardship

17 Biodegradable vs. compostable ASTM standards exist for both Biodegradable plastics are not a better option- they facilitate increased petroleum plastics in the marine environment- Compostable must meet ASTM standards and must go into compost

18 Typical arguments of opponents Industry Argument Cost of alternatives too highimpact on local small business Our response Not anymore! The prices are coming down. EPS reduces GHG emissions/ global warming They only compared to paperboard- many compostable materials lower GHG emissions EPS can be recycled The plastics industry on its own website and in its briefing materials admits the economics don t make sense-

19

20