HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-25 EMC Agenda item 5-b(1) - Final-PSRWG-Report-to-Leg
Report to the Thirty-First Legislature
1
Plastic Source Reduction
Working Group
Pursuant to Act 254 (19), Relating to Plastic
Creates the plastic source reduction working group to make
recommendations to reuse, reduce, recycle, and recover plastic
waste
Prepared by the Hawaii State Department of Health
Office of Solid Waste Management
December 2020
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. Source Reduction vs. Recycling 1
III. Impact of Plastics in the Environment 1
IV. Summary of Act 254 2
V. Working Group Members 3
VI. Methodology 5
VII. Recommendations 5
VIII. Potential Lifecycle and Environmental Implications of Alternative Products 10
IX. Personal Statements 12
Appendices
Appendix A: Act 254 22
Appendix B: Summary of Meetings 34
Appendix C: Charter of Commitments 35
Appendix D: County Plastic Bag Bans Comparison Chart 44
Appendix E: County Food Ware Bans Comparison Chart 49
Appendix F: Life Cycle and Environmental Implications for Plastic Alternative Studies 55
I. Introduction
The Hawaii Legislature passed Act 254 (Appendix A) and reads as follows:
unsustainable and detrimental to the future of Hawaieconomy and people. There has been an
exponential rise in single-use foodware items over the past few decades globally, with particularly
high increases in plastics derived from fossil fuels. Single-use disposable foodware and
packagingincluding plastic bottles, caps, lids, straws, cups, and polystyrene and plastic
containersare major contributors to street and beach litter, ocean pollution, marine and other
II. Source Reduction vs. Recycling
Until recent years, recycling was the buzzword solution that was promoted to address the plastic waste
issue. Although beneficial in many ways, recycling is a post-consumer solution to handle plastic waste. In
order to reduce the overall generation of plastic waste, more municipalities are stressing the feasibility of
source reduction, which aims to mitigate the issue at the beginning of the plastic lifecycle.
Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G-1 defines source reduction as the design, manufacture, and use
of materials to (1) minimize the quantity or toxicity, or both, of the waste produced; and (2) reduce the
creation of waste either by redesigning products or by otherwise changing societal patterns of consumption,
use or waste generation. By contrast, recycling, as defined in the same section, means the collection,
separation, recovery, and sale or reuse of secondary resources that would otherwise be disposed of as
municipal solid waste, and is an integral part of a manufacturing process aimed at producing a marketable
product made of postconsumer material.
III. Impact of Plastics in the Environment
Act 254 cites the following information regarding the impact of plastics in the environment:
almost every other material. Much of the plastic produced is designed to be thrown away after being
used only once. As a result, plastic packaging accounts for about half of the plastic waste in the
world. Most of this waste is generated in Asia, while America, Japan, and the European Union are
t of the
9,000,000,000 tons of plastic produced has been recycled. Most plastic ends up in landfills, dumps,
Additionally, plastic pollution has become increasingly prevalent around the world. More than 500 local
municipalities in the US have banned plastic bags, and nine states, including Hawaii, have statewide plastic
bag bans. Many are also banning the use of expanded polystyrene foam takeout containers (that includes,
but is not limited to, products commonly known as Styrofoam) as well as plastic service ware (i.e. cups,
straws, forks, knives, etc.) in order to address other types of single-use plastic pollution.
1
IV. Summary of Act 254
In 2019, the Hawaii State Legislature passed Act 254. This act was intended to address the plastic
waste issue through source reduction and established the Plastic Source Reduction Working Group
(Working Group). The act also identified seven tasks for the Working Group to address:
1. Formulate a plan for reducing and recovering plastic from the Hawaii waste stream;
2. Develop strategies to encourage plastic reduction and reuse in the food service industry, such as
reusable container incentive programs for customers;
3. Provide recommendations to encourage reuse, reduction, recycling, and recovery of waste and
create value added products to innovate and responsibly manage the life cycle of existing resources;
4. Consult with each county that has already enacted ordinances related to single-use plastics such as
plastic bags and polystyrene foam containers and develop recommendations for the implementation
of a uniform, statewide policy for these items that can replace existing county ordinances and
provide businesses with laws that are consistent throughout the State;
5. Consult with stakeholders to develop appropriate exemptions to address concerns of health and
safety, lack of suitable alternative products on the market, and lack of infrastructure;
6. Evaluate potential lifecycle and environmental implications of replacing plastic packaging with
alternative products; and
7. Shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations, including recommendations for pilot
projects for Hawaii businesses to phase out single-use plastic packaging, promote reuse, and find
sustainable alternatives for packaging, as well as any proposed legislation, to the legislature no later
than twenty days prior to the convening of the regular session of 2021.
2
V. Working Group Members
The Working Group sought to help Hawaii to mitigate the damaging effects of plastic waste by including
community stakeholders from various industries, organizations, and agencies. The membership of the group
is described as follows:
Act 254 Membership Member Name and Title Member Organization
Requirements
(1) The director of health or Lene Ichinotsubo Department of Health
Acting Chief Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
(2) The chairperson of the Clifford Inn Department of Land and Natural Resources
board of land and Program Specialist Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation
natural resources or the
Catherine Gewecke Department of Land and Natural Resources
Aquatic Biologist Division of Aquatic Resources
(3) The president and chief Chris Tatum Hawaii Tourism Authority
executive officer of the President & CEO
Hawaii tourism
authority or the
president and chief
designee;
(4) Four members, one to be Justin Gruenstein City & County of Honolulu
appointed by each of the Deputy Director Office of Climate Change, Sustainability
respective mayors of the and Resiliency
city and county of
Honolulu and the Sanne Berrig County of Hawaii
counties of Hawaii, Recycling Specialist Department of Environmental
Kauai, and Maui; Management
Allison Fraley County of Kauai
Solid Waste Program Department of Public Works
Coordinator
Tamara Farnsworth County of Maui
Division Manager Environmental Protection & Sustainability
Division
(5) The State sustainability Danielle Bass State of Hawaii Office of Planning
coordinator; State Sustainability
Coordinator
(6) A representative of the Doorae Shin Surfrider Foundation
Surfrider Foundation; Oahu Chapter Coordinator
3
Act 254 Membership Member Name and Title Member Organization
Requirements
(7) A representative of Zero Nicole Chatterson Zero Waste Oahu
Waste Oahu; Director
(8) A representative of Rafael Bergstrom Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii
Sustainable Coastlines Executive Director
Hawaii;
(9) A representative of the Lauren Zirbel Hawaii Food Industry Association
Hawaii Food Industry Executive Director
Association
Alexis Chapman (alternate)
(10) A representative of the Victor Lim Hawaii Restaurant Association
Hawaii Restaurant Legislative Lead
Association;
(11) A representative of the Sherry Menor-McNamara Chamber of Commerce Hawaii
Chamber of Commerce President & CEO
Hawaii;
Dan Kouchi (alternate)
(12) A representative of the David Thorp American Beverage Association
beverage industry; Senior Director of
Governmental Affairs
(13) A representative from Adrian Hong Island Plastic Bags
the plastic President
manufacturing industry;
and
(14) A representative of the Bruce Iverson Reynolds Recycling
recycling industry. Director of Marketing and
Development
4
VI. Methodology
Peter Adler, Ph.D. facilitated seven meetings over the course of ten months (see Appendix B). Group
members attended meetings both in person and virtually due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The group
charter (Appendix C) describes the goals of the group as well as ways each member should contribute their
ideas and opinions. Members participated in group exercises that exposed them to different perspectives
and allowed them to share their own perspectives. Members participated in permitted interaction groups
(PIGs) that provided discussion for deeper insight and expertise required for formulating proposed
recommendations for the State to address plastic source reduction. These PIGs looked at how to reduce,
reuse and recycle plastic in different facets of our community and explored and compared county legislation
that promotes single-use plastic reduction in order to gain a better understanding of the current sentiments
of the four counties (see Appendix D and Appendix E). Members of these PIGs drafted initial
recommendations for the larger Working G, and all group members had the opportunity
to provide comments and edits in subsequent meetings. The public also participated: all meetings were open
to the public and public comments were solicited at every meeting.
VII. Recommendations
Per the legislative mandate, the Working Group has identified multiple ways for government, consumers,
and local businesses to achieve greater statewide impacts and help accelerate the transformation to a more
plastics-free Hawaii.
The Working Group recognizes the complexity of social and economic challenges brought on by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Several of the recommendations in this plan serve to diversify the economy while
minimizing negative socio-environmental consequences. Some plastic source reduction measures have the
opportunity to reduce costs and create new local businesses and jobs. The Working Group also recognizes
that some of the included plastic source reduction recommendations can increase consumer costs and/or
create new public expenses in the short term.
While the strategy for recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are beyond the
scope of the Act 254 Working Group tasks, this report offers a range of actions that can be incorporated at
the appropriate scale and time to both achieve the long-term goal of plastics reduction andsupport
economic recovery toward a sustainable and resilient future.
The Working Group recommends the following in response to the seven specified tasks, andisin no
particular order:
1. Create a uniform statewide plastic source reduction standard.
Discussion
A uniform state standard that embodies the most stringent standards of the four counties has
both advantages and disadvantages but must be implemented with care and precision.
On the advantage side, businesses must comply with one regulatory regime rather than four
potentially different ordinances. Most enterprises and their business-to-business suppliers are
accustomed to complying with various state ordinances. A uniform, statewide message (aimed at
consumers) is more efficient to create and communicate, and more likely to achieve traction. The
State must also have a uniform enforcement protocol, presumably lodged within a state agency. If
it is to be enforced by the counties, the counties must receive a substantial portion of theirfunding
from the State of Hawaii to accomplish this.
5
On the disadvantage side, counties are the unit of government closest to people. A statewide
standard may inhibit the flexibilities that accompany home rule. More importantly, the four
counties have very different demographics and tax bases. Having different recycling capabilities
and waste management systems makes complete uniformity difficult for counties to achieve.
a. The new standard must be evolutionary and grown slowly.
Discussion
All the counties have laws and initiatives to reduce plastics but are proceeding somewhat
differently. This means implementation of a state standard must proceed slowlyand
carefully with the Legislatures help. This would allow the counties to slowly harmonize
their influence on consumer behavior and achieve greater waste reduction, reuse, and
recycling implementation. This has two implications: First, the State must workclosely
with all four counties to coordinate efforts and slowly raise everyones capacityina
networked manner. Second, as part of the passage of a state standard, the State must be
prepared to make financial investments in the ability of all four counties to meet a new
standard.
b. The new standard should start as a policy and evolve to law or provide adequate time
for affected entities to implement the new standard.
Discussion
Commencing a statewide standard has advantages and disadvantages. As law, it creates
real uniformity, binds future leadership, and capitalizes and perhaps accelerates the
statutory target law. Statutory
target laws lack implementation plans and only have due dates. They require baselines and
can motivate implementation (e.g., By 2030, plastic disposal shall be reduced by 50%
based on 2020 disposal rates). Laws can also provide a framework with clear direction
on how to achieve said goals (e.g., By 2025, the law shall prohibit retailers from
distributing plastic carryout bags. Plastic carryout bags are ). These laws will
likely require further refinement through the development of rules, in which case, the
implementing agency will require the authority to develop rules.
Policies are more flexible, may have shorter lifespans, and demand less commitment. They
may be more vulnerable to the whims and tides of politics but may better accommodate
important county differences. For example, each county has its own integrated solid waste
management plan but manages waste very differently (e.g., County of Hawaii does not
have curbside collection). Given the varying demographics, full uniformity is unlikely.
With a state policy, counties may develop their programs with said guidance. Issuance of
policies are not legally enforceable, but also will not require financial support by the
legislature to provide or implement.
Finally, if a new standard is made into law, uniformity and enforcement will be required.
The implementing agency will also require authority to enforce and issue penalties. As with
any new program, positions and appropriations will be required for State implementation.
6
c. The new state plastics source reduction standard should not be weaker than
standards among the four counties.
Discussion
This will require a careful and coordinated balancing act and need the full participationand
decision-making of all four counties and the implementing state agency. On the one hand,
a new standard must build off the existing laws and practices of all four counties and must
not be weaker than the strongest of the four county ordinances. Collaterally, it then needs
to create incentives that help the weaker counties become more capable and forthe State
and counties to grow together.
d. Maintain a public list of each Countys regulations and their differences.
Discussion
To enable a steady evolution towards a state standard and county harmonization, andas
a starting point, this Working Group recommends that the legislature assign a state agency
to maintain, regularly update, and publicize an accurate record of the evolving differences
between the ordinances.
The document serves two purposes. First, it provides direct guidance to businesses.
Second, it becomes a sentinel reference for the State and the counties to work toward
progressively better synchronization. The Working Group has compiled and attached
some initial tables (see Appendix D and Appendix E), which compare the evolving
requirements of the four counties. This provides a good start and can be updatedas
implementation work emerges. Counties shall work with the assigned state agencyto
periodically update and publish the tables.
2. Update the Department of Health (DOH) Health Code as needed to increase the use of
reusables in food service.
Discussion
Propose a specific plan and/or changes to the law that allows consumers to bring and use theirown
containers, business-provided reusable containers, and/or third-party reusable containers when
picking up takeout orders from restaurants and when making bulk purchases. There shouldbe a
public-facing messaging component to inform the public about any relevant changes tothe DOH
Health Code. This will help to prevent the misconception that changes to the health code are
decisions made by proprietors. Any future statute must create legal liability protectionsfor
businesses serving consumers who bring their own containers in cases of food-borne illnessesor
other communicable diseases.
The Working Group recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed restaurant and
supermarket practices under federal and state guidance, and that these new long-term practices are
not likely to be fully developed by the time this Working Group submits it recommendations.
Therefore, any proposed statutory changes should also follow appropriate public health guidelines.
3. Create a single, inclusive, across-the-board 15-30 cent user fee on all single-use service ware items
and a separate 15-30 cent user fee on all carryout bags (but not cups, lids, and containers).
Discussion
Create a 15-30 cent fee to apply to single-use service ware items, including straws, utensils,and
stirrers. This fee would be inclusive of service ware, so if a customer requests a fork, orboth a
7
fork and a straw, the fee would be the same. The fee would apply to any single-use serviceware
whether it is plastic, paper, compostable, or otherwise. The fee should be applied to eachset of
service ware (i.e., if the order includes four forks and four straws, the fee would be applied four
times). This fee would not be applied to cups, lids, containers, or bags.
Another 15-30 cent fee would apply to each single-use carryout bag. A 15-cent fee per bagis
currently enacted for the City and County of Honolulu.
The Working Group recommends that the fee collection process be modeled after the City and
County of Honolulu bag fee. These fees would be paid by the consumers to the businesses.
Businesses will retain all the fees collected but must treat those as income and pay general income
tax.
4. Enact a tax credit for businesses that invest in modern commercial reuse and washing
equipment that reduce the use of plastics in the waste stream.
Discussion
Create a 10-year window and sunset provision of tax incentives for businesses that startoffering
consumers the option to use their own, to use business-provided reusable, or third-partyreusable
containers when making take-out orders from restaurants and when making bulk purchases; for
existing businesses that invest in new sanitizing equipment to promote reuse over disposal;and for
startup businesses that provide water and energy-efficient sanitizing services to other businesses.
The State and the counties will reduce costs in the long run by minimizing the amount of waste
they have to deal with, but businesses need to be incentivized to make changes. Those changes
will help drive consumer behavior.
5. Organize, finance, and conduct a pilot project that tests the efficacy and expense of making
UV-C or other sanitizing technology available.
Discussion
UV-C and other new sterilization technologies may provide opportunities for businesses tosterilize
reusable containers and bags. This Working Group recommends the exploration of the functionality
of these technologies with a pilot project.
6. Establish a 5-year State-facilitated education campaign about waste reduction.
Discussion
In order to effectively promote changed consumer behavior, the campaign must explain in simple
terms the web of connectivity and the relationship between supply and demand. The focus is to
change the whole awareness rather than only individual consumer behavior. The
State of Hawaii might also set up a website that serves as a resource. The campaign should make
the non-use of plastics engaging and achievable and be able to communicate effectively to a broad
spectrum of public audiences (for residents and visitors). Regardless of whether the State contracts
a third-party firm to develop and run the campaign or decides to run the campaign in-house,
language must be added to require the State to add a funding source. Current resources are not
adequate for a state agency to run this type of proposed campaign.
8
7. Accelerate composting.
Composting offers opportunities to create a value-added product that can increase food production,
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and treat organic materials as resources. In relation to plastic
source reduction, the use of compost leads to healthier soils, which can expand opportunities for
local food production and reduce the necessity for packaged imports to our state. As plastics are
phased out of waste streams, compostable alternatives will likely increase, and will require further
study.
Discussion
Composting can exist across scale. The Working Group recommends that the State take action to
not only promote composting but prioritize its growth. There are 20 permitted composting facilities
in the state, with three additional applications currently with the DOH. More can be done to
accelerate composting in Hawaii. Regionalized and community-based composting has an
opportunity to build healthier food systems, reduce transportation burden, pilot compostable
container decomposition, reduce large infrastructure costs, and be phased in over time. The
following non-comprehensive list of actions is recommended to advance composting and create
more resilient systems:
Create small composting pilot projects with schools, farms, non-profits, and businesses to
install in-vessel systems that will serve their specific communities;
Fund pilot projects on all islands through grants;
Provide tax incentives to residents and businesses who set up community compost systems;
Revise composting permit applications to encourage greater small-scale participation;
Recognize that there are differing health and environmental concerns and controls
associated with differing solid waste management facilities, therefore solid waste
management facilities should not be treated in the same manner. Act 73, Session Laws of
Hawaii 2020, which modifies HRS 183C-4 and HRS 342H-52, exemplifies the
consequences of composting being on the same level of concern as landfilling;
Review and update composting regulations to more clearly identify varying types of
operations while ensuring public health and the environment remains protected; and/or
Further study the life cycle of compostable products and better understand their ability to
properly breakdown and their chemical composition.
8. Undertake a fair and careful study of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
Discussion
EPR is a policy approach to waste reduction that encourages manufacturers to design
environmentally friendly products by holding them responsible for the costs of managing their
products at the end of life. EPR shifts the economic burden of the cost of disposal, recycling, and
cleanup from the government to the producer of the product. According to the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, assigning such responsibility could in principle provide
incentives to prevent wastes at the source, promote product redesign for environmental protection,
and support public recycling and materials management goals.
The study should include a comprehensive legislation and literature review on the impacts of a
possible EPR is study should incorporate lessons learned and
discussions from other states and the federal government that have been pursuing parallel efforts
to implement EPR.
9
The study should analyze the following two specific scenarios:
(1) packaging EPR initiatives; and
(2)
initiatives.
The study should evaluate:
the best science available;
costs and benefits to all stakeholders (i.e. environment, consumers, taxpayers, government,
and businesses, etc.);
the pros and cons; as well as
feasibility.
VIII. Potential Lifecycle and Environmental Implications of Alternative
Products
The lifecycle of plastic packaging has been known to have damaging effects on the environment. Hawais
geographic location makes it especially vulnerable to the impacts of plastic consumption and use around
the Pacific Rim (Hawaii Ocean Resource Management Plan, 2020). A recent study found that windward
beaches collect a greater abundance of marine debris, with concentrations that were 1-2 orders of magnitude
more plastic pollution than leeward beaches. Leeward beaches were found to collect debris, which more
commonly included whole items (i.e. sunglasses or dive masks (45%) on the sea floor, and cigarette
filters (48%) on beaches), from local inputs and maritime activities, which are more readily controllable by
local residents and visitors. Windward beaches, however, included debris that was highly weathered and
buoyant, indicating longer residence time in the ocean and foreign debris origin (Brignac, et al 2019).
One damaging environmental effect is ingestion of plastics by organisms in various stages of their life
(including fish species integral to recreational and commercial fisheries, and turtles), which is well
documented in Hawaii (Clukey et. al., 2017 and Gove et. al., 2019). Ingestion can reduce survivorship
and
exposure to persistent organic pollutants that attach onto marine plastic pollution.
In order to make intermediary steps towards a more plastics-free society, the lifecycle and environmental
implications of alternative materials and products must be assessed. The State should consider existing
lifecycle assessment studies that have made such evaluations (or any new/updated lifecycle analysis as they
become available), create policies that discourage the use of the most harmful options, and encourage the
use of least harmful options (see Appendix F). The Working Group recommends the legislature take the
following actions:
Refer to existing lifecycle analysis (LCA) studies (or any new/updated LCA as they become
available) for plastic alternatives:
o Prioritize products and options that have the least negative environmental andsocio-
economic impacts. Variables to consider should include:
- The total greenhouse gas emissions (Carbon Dioxide equivalent \[COe\]) generated
2
(e.g., Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous
Oxide (N2O), Fluorinated Gases, etc.)
10
- Ecotoxity - Impact on marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms via the
ingestion process (impacts to marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms when
ingested) and via the manufacturing process (impacts to marine, freshwater, and
terrestrial organisms via production of alternative material). Consider accidental
escapement of packaging into the environment during the disposal process into the
analysis;
- Fresh water consumption; and
- Feasibility for producers to integrate into their products or processes.
o Refer to LCA studies that have been conducted by academic institutions, government
agencies, or environmental consulting firms for feasibility and best available science
purposes.
o Integrate the concept that the best plastic packaging alternatives should be coupled with
innovative ways of thinking about reducing consumption of disposable products, especially
ones that require plastic (circular economies, composting, etc.).
Analyze options for home-Accelerate
o Identify which packaging is home compostable (in addition to identifying and omitting
which home-compostable packaging may contain per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), as this may be harmful to use for food-growing compost);
o Test the compostability of these packaging alternatives within the pilot compost projects;
o Communicate the results to local companies that package their products within the State,
in order to incentivize companies to potentially switch over to home-compostable
packaging and participate in these local composting programs; and
o Integrate the participation of local companies that are already utilizing compostable
packaging or products.
11
IX. Personal Statements
Lene Ichinotsubo, Acting Chief
Department of Health Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
The Department of Health would like to thank the group members for all of their hard work and their ability
to work together effectively to provide recommendations to the Legislature specific to the tasks required of
the group. We appreciate group members for meeting over the past 10 months to discuss and assemble a
list of recommendations that will further reduce plastic waste and create positive change in our
environment. We would also like to thank our support staff and our facilitator for coordinating meetings
and working with group members to create this report. Lastly, The Department of Health thanks the
Legislature for the opportunity to explore potential opportunities to further reduce plastic waste.
Despite varying experiences and perspectives, the Working Group was able to reach compromises to find
a balance among all members through these recommendations. The Department of Health recognizes the
The final recommendations in this report reflect the ideas that were shaped by these members to create a
Although all the recommendations are considered to be crucial in creating positive changes in our
community and environment, the recommendations that the Department of Health believes will have the
greatest impact on the reduction of overall waste generation are the ones that specifically promote reuse or
source reduction, such as the use of reusable containers over disposable containers for takeout meals at
restaurants. By using reusable containers, consumers will directly reduce the demand for disposable
containers and will further reduce overall waste generation instead of substituting one type of disposable
container material for another.
The Department of Health recognizes the positive impact that these recommendations could have on the
environment. The Department of Health also recognizes the state of our economy due to the COVID-19
pandemic. When our State economic situation allows, the Legislature must take into consideration the
manpower and funding required to implement these recommendations effectively and completely when
possible.
12
Catherine Gewecke, Aquatic Biologist
Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources
Due to the problems caused by ingestion of plastics by various organisms, and the reliance of humans on
immediately digestible or break-down quickly into digestible material; ultimately a material that is plant-
based and is able to be home-composted within normal composting periods (e.g. 12 to 24 weeks).
Ingestion of plastics by organisms in various stages of their life (larval through adult) can reduce their
ability to survive, affecting future populations and other marine or terrestrial organisms that feed upon them
directly at various life-stages and trophic levels, causing gastrointestinal blockages and perforations,
diluting food and nutrient absorption, and exposing organisms to persistent organic pollutants (e.g. PCBs
and DDT), which attach to floating pieces of plastic and travel globally through marine ecosystems.
According to two studies conducted by local research institutions in Hawaii, researchers discovered
ingested plastic - mostly plastic fragments - in 50 of 55, or 90.9%, of turtles collected as bycatch in the
pelagic (open sea) Pacific longline fisheries (Clukey et al., Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2017). The plastic
polymers that w-density
2018). Among other polymers, LDPE and PP are used to make single-use drink bottles, food packaging and
bags, in addition to being used heavily in the fishing, aquaculture and shipping industry for nets, and other
fish gear.
In another recent study conducted by researchers in West Hawaii, ocean surface slicks (which are important
gathering areas for larval pelagic and reef fish due to their high densities of marine phytoplankton and
ting plastics (Gove et al., Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 2019). Nearly 9% of larval fish species, including important food-fish
(swordfish and mahi mahi) and other pelagic and reef fish (flying fish, trigger fish and damsel fish), were
found to have ingested plastics (Gove et al., PNAS, 2019).
In order to provide effective options for alternative packaging materials in Hawaii, it would be beneficial
to research the impacts of these home-compostable alternative packaging on aquatic organisms before they
are able to microbially decompose (e.g. before 12 weeks).
Such research could include a pilot project which researches the ingestibility or potential ecotoxicity of
home-compostable cellulose packaging films (e.g. packaging films produced by NatureFlex or other
manufacturers) on aquatic organisms. NatureFlex films are approved for vermicomposting (Australian
standard AS 5810 takes worm toxicity into account), however testing with aquatic life has not been done.
Verifying that these home-compostable materials can be digested if they were to enter the ecosystem before
they are able to microbially decompose (from escapement during disposal process), or collecting data on
the effect of the marine environment (salt water) on decomposition rates, would be beneficial in terms of
Hawaii recommending effective packaging alternatives.
13
Kalani , Director of Hawaiian Cultural Affairs and Natural Resources
Hawaii Tourism Authority
helping the state mitigate the damaging effects of
plastic waste. HTA supports the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals and promotes visitor
industry alignment with the Aloha+ Challenge.
Regenerative marketing efforts, with destination management
as a major focus. HTA is guided by a natural resources pillar and is committed to supporting programs that
programs that have impactful and meaningful
milestones in this pillar as indicated in its Strategic Plan 2020-
sustainable efforts of the visitor industr
HTA continues to encourage hotels to go green in an effort to be sustainable. One of the initiatives includes
challenging hotels to do away with small single-use plastic bottles that are often filled with shampoo,
conditioner and body lotion. In addition, HTA encouraged hotels to do away with single-use plastic water
bottles. However, the COVID-19 pandemic created some challenges in this initiative, with many of the
hotels across the state shut down or only partially operating, with tourism at a near halt since the start of
the 14-day mandatory quarantine at the end of March 2020.
HTA realizes the goal of a more plastics--term one. It is also part of creating a
number one industry needs to be the leader in the efforts to protect the land and invest in the future.
14
Danielle Bass, State Sustainability Coordinator
State of Hawaii, Office of Planning
I want to thank the Department of Health for bringing in an experienced facilitator and conflict resolution
expert. This Plastic Source Reduction Working Group included representatives from government,
businesses, and environmental organizations to discuss the future planning and implementation of
ves, concerns, and hopes with mutual
respectespecially during this global pandemic and very turbulent, challenging, and stressful economic
conditions.
I am pleased with the work of this group and our ability to collaborate to find sustainable solutions. I highly
recommend following this process and using an experienced facilitator and conflict resolution expert to
discuss and negotiate future and potentially divisive matters that relate to the planning and coordination of
.
15
Nicole Chatterson, Director
Zero Waste Oahu
We have an important task in front of us reassessing, redesigning, and rejecting the systems, policies and
mindsets that have created a plastic pollution crisis. Plastic is a powerful and important material. And, we
have misused this material by overproducing short-lived, single-use plastic products. The impacts of this
misuse have caught up with us.
Our coastlines, waterways, and seafloors are inundated
with visible and invisible pieces of deteriorating plastic. These plastics suffocate ecosystems and pollute
food chainsthreatening the well-being of many, including marine life, seabirds, and humans.
--y marketed to the
public. Today, plastic is the fastest growing sector of the oil industry, generating $400 billion annually. The
quantified.
An ever-growing chorus of scientists, business owners, parents, students, and folks from every walk of life
is calling for change. We now know that recycling, once promised as cure-all for the negative impacts of
excessive plastic use, is not our best tool. Under 10% of the plastic ever made has been recycled. Recycling
can no longer be an excuse to not reduce. So how do we start?
We stop the over-production and consumption of unnecessary single-use plastic. We judiciously keep
plastic in applications where it is necessary. We innovate better materials and we check our consumption.
Today, brave leaders are reminding us of what we once knewthat there are limits. That we can do more
iousincluding
plasticso we should use them with care.
When I advocated for SB522, the bill that created this working group, it was with the hope that the State
Legislature would enact laws based on the abundance of science that has demonstrated why things must
change. The public voice has loudly requested our leadership to keep all stakeholdersproducers and
consumers alikeaccountable to reduce our collective plastic footprint. We need changefor the sake of
This w
have been in conversation about this issue for decadesit is now time to act. This report offers our
legislators many ways in which that can be done. Extending the responsibility to producers to manage
product
reminds us, nothing is out of our reach if we do it together.
16
Rafael Bergstrom, Executive Director
Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii
My name is Rafael Bergstrom, the Executive Director of Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii (SCH) and a
collaborating and navigating differences in opinions and the unstable situation of COVID-19. Please share
in appreciation for everyone who gave their time to this.
Over the past 9 years SCH has removed 550,000 lbs. of debris from our coastlines, united 40,000 volunteers,
educated 42,000 students, and waded through a destructive mess of plastic pollution. We are experts on
plastic pollution, the consequences of inaction, and the solutions we have at our fingertips. Our citizens
produce more than double per capita plastic waste of China and five times that of Indonesia, while (with
Europe), housing 95% of the companies, lobbyists, and industries in the plastic economy (WEF 2016).
While this working group is offering you some important steps, the recommendations are nowhere near
enough. As our ocean fills with more plastic by weight than fish (Washington Post 2016) by 2050, as we
have seen a 610% increase in raw plastic production since 1975 (Jambeck 2015), and as 95% of plastic
packaging globally (resulting in $80-120 billion annual cost) is lost after a single-first use (WEF 2016),
the solutions must be more geared towards a shift away from the fossil fuel based, greenhouse gas creating
industry of plastics. The proliferation of plastic production will account for 20% of the global fossil fuel
are also releasing methane as they degrade in water and sunlight.
Please read the comprehensive PEW research paper and accompanying article in the prestigious Journal of
Science released just a month ago the message: action to stop plastic production and the companies
responsible for it is needed now from every form of government from local to global. Despite an
overwhelming majority on the working group who wanted stronger action on extended producer
responsibility (requiring accountability to full product life cycles and major shifts in supply chains), we
were undermined by the few whose direct financial ties to the industry are very clear. Today an article was
released by NPR exposing the lies and deceit in the plastic industry and their lobbying groups for more than
50 years that still proliferate today. Our State has an opportunity to decouple from this fraudulent industry
and require, at minimum, a 50% reduction in plastic packaging imports. We can create new jobs in reusable
containers, refilling, compost, local agriculture, and lower costs for business by getting rid of all single-use
items by asking consumers to do their part and bring their own. As the PEW article suggests, this
comprehensive action must start now to protect our future. Please use PSRWG recommendations as a
beginning to far more comprehensive action.
Mahalo for your time,
17
Alexis Chapman
Hawaii Food Industry Association
The world and our state are very different than they were when this group was created. As we all work to
stay physically safe many of our residents and businesses are also struggling with overwhelming financial
hardships, and food insecurity has increased exponentially in our state in the last 6 months. Since the
COVID-19 pandemic began we have seen dozens of businesses closures and thousands of job losses. With
no end in sight, we are faced with both the challenge of finding new ways to function right now, and the
difficulty of trying to plan for a completely uncertain future.
The Hawaii Food Industry Association (HFIA) is comprised of two hundred member companies
representing retailers, suppliers, producers, and distributors of food and beverage related products in the
State of Hawaii. Many of our members are Essential Businesses, and all our members are job creators,
economic drivers, and important parts of our communities. Our member businesses have risen to the
challenges of COVID-19 in remarkable ways and we are proud to support them. Our members work hard
to feed our state and have shown time and again how much they care about their customers, their
communities, our islands, and our future. Many of our members are recognized as leaders in creating
sustainable practices.
As we continue the work of determining the best, most responsible ways to manage waste, we encourage
the state to adopt an inclusive approach. We support collaborative efforts that use scientific data and enable
a range of stakeholders, including our business community to work together to find ways to improve
sustainability in our state.
Hawaii focused solutions to environmental challenges. As the voice of Hawaii's food and beverage industry
we are proud to represent and support those that feed our state, and we will continue to work to make sure
that food is safe, healthy, accessible, and affordable for all Hawaii residents, now and in the future.
18
Dan Kouchi
Chamber of Commerce Hawaii
Thank you for the opportunity to participate as a member of the Plastic Source Reduction Working Group.
Like many other aspects of our day to day lives, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way that
businesses rely on single-use plastic. With current stay-at-home orders in place, and socially distancing
guidelines to abide by, every industry has been affected. For example, restaurants across the state are now
relying heavily on take-out sales to keep their doors open and employees hired. To add to this already
challenging time, mandates prohibiting certain plastic service ware and food containers are set to go into
effect over the next two years in counties that previously did not have these in place, adding additional
burdens at a time when there are heightened hygiene and health safety guidelines.
As we enter the sixth month of the pandemic, our local businesses across the state continue to face enormous
financial burdens. Back in July, UHERO released a report forecasting that total employment in Hawaii
would not return to pre-pandemic levels until 2029. In August, the Chamber, in partnership with UHERO
and other organizations, released findings to a follow-up survey about the ongoing impacts of this
remained significantly depressed with nearly 20% of businesses reported having no revenue and another
20% reported earning less than half of their baseline monthly revenue in July. The survey also found that
nearly 51% of businesses surveyed indicated that either additional cuts would be needed, or their business
st
would not survive if the current quarantine orders remain in place until October 1. Yet another delay on
the reopening of trans-Pacific travel, paired with the second and then extended stay-at-home order for Oahu,
aily occurrence
While this report does provide recommendations to our legislators related to policy to address plastic waste
reduction, given the reasons above, we hope that these recommendations are carefully considered. We need
to ensure that any proposed policy changes are realistic for businesses to implement in a post-COVID
environment.
19
Adrian Hong, President
Island Plastic Bags
As the representative for the plastic industry in Hawaii, we are grateful for the opportunity to have
participated in the Plastic Source Reduction Working Group. We agree broadly with the recommendations
made by the working group with an important caveat. We believe that all future legislation regarding
packaging and plastics should remain material neutral. This means that one material versus another is not
maligned unless there is evidence to support such a position in a particular application.
Plastics are often maligned because of its detrimental impact when it is not disposed of properly. The truth
of the matter is that plastics are a vital material that provides incredible benefits for everyone. The COVID-
19 pandemic proved that through the use of plastics in plexiglass barriers, masks, and other vital equipment
--- it keeps us all healthy and safe. Plastics are used in transportation, construction, health, waste disposal,
food manufacturing, and myriad other applications to make us more prosperous, healthier, and safer.
Another truth is there is no alternative material that is better than plastics for the environment in every
lifecycle assessment category (ex. greenhouse gases, water consumption, toxicity, land occupation, etc.).
The lifecycle assessments at
analyses should be used to determine which materials are used in which applications.
No one argues the detrimental impact of improperly disposed plastic on our environment. The plastic
industry in Hawaii humbly asks legislators when considering future environmental legislation to assess
whether it solves the proposed issue and does the benefits of such legislation outweigh the costs,
economically and environmentally. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this endeavor.
20
Bruce Iverson, Director of Marketing and Development
Reynolds Recycling
Aloha,
It has been an honor to work with the Act 254, Plastic Source Reduction Working Group, and join with
other members passionate efforts to combat the proliferation of plastic waste in our island community.
While we are from various groups: environmental, governmental, business, and recycling, we were able to
come together on common ground and make recommendations that will move Hawaii forward in reducing
various forms of plastic waste, and encourage other technologies, such as composting at home and regional
levels, throughout the islands. I hope that the legislature will use the common sense results that were
produced to assist in creating laws that will help the different stakeholders to bond together in their efforts
to deal with plastic waste in the most environmentally sound and fiscally responsible ways possible.
Finding ways to encourage the utilization of other more environmentally friendly materials, the reduction
of the total amounts of plastic used, and the elimination of forms and combinations of materials that will
make recycling of plastics more difficult for both the public and business, are all ideas that need to be
addressed. While a small island community, we have lots of great ideas towards making this work here, but
need a legislative push to guarantee that the change is such that the business community can find a set of
on certain materials or combinations of materials are thoughtfully phased in, and allow for adequate
replacements to be made available.
Ultimately plastic is just a material, neither inherently good nor evil, but one that needs to be managed to
ensure that the good it has done is not outstripped by the problems that some aspects of that same material
create in the natural environment.
As a recycling company, Reynolds Recycling is always working to help keep Hawaii beautiful, and hope
that we can continue to do so well into the future.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Meeting DateLink to meeting materials
No.
1November 14, 2019Agenda
Board Packet
Welcome Messages
Written Summary & Audio Recording
2January 9, 2020Agenda
Board Packet
Written Summary & Audio Recording
3May 21, 2020Agenda & Board Packet
Revised Agenda
Written Summary & Audio Recording
4June 18, 2020Agenda & Board Packet
Written Summary & Audio Recording
5August 13, 2020Agenda
Board Packet-Attachment A
Board Packet-Attachment B
Written Summary & Audio Recording
6September 3, 2020Agenda
Board Packet-Attachment A
7September 24, 2020Agenda
Board Packet
Written Summary & Audio Recording
34
FINAL
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
I.Purpose.
produ
II.Mission.
G
1.
2.
3.
4.-use
recomme
35
5.
infrastructure;
6.-cycle
s
7.
-packaging,
III.Membership.
IV.
S
(www.accord3.com
1.
2.
36
3.
sugg
4.
5.
--
6.
-
achieved.
7.
V.
-
37
VI.
1.KNOWLEDGE
2.VOLUNTEERS
expected.
3.COLLABORATION-
at
4.CIVILITY
5.
agree.
6.ALTERNATES
tion
absence.
7.raction
38
8.LOCALE
procuredstaff.
9.
10.DOCUMENTATION may
established.
11.
12.
substance
13.
1
iciary.
14.
Њ
1.https://dprhawaii.com/dpr-rules/
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/services/alternative_dispute/selecting/guidelines/introduction
39
-
15.
publicly
16.MUTABILITY
VII.Making.
-
VIII.Schedule.
40
IX.Inquiries.
padleraccord@gmail.com-888-
41
42
43
x
.ğŭƭ
/ƚƒƦƚƭƷğĬƌĻΉ
.źƚķĻŭƩğķğĬƌĻ
xxx
.ğŭƭ
wĻǒƭğĬƌĻ
---
-
post
No
40% Post40% Post40% Post
consumer
consumer; consumer; consumer;
wĻĭǤĭƌğĬƌĻ
tğƦĻƩ .ğŭƭ
requirement
Must display Must display Must display
Ώ
x
bƚƓ
wĻĭǤĭƌğĬƌĻ
tğƦĻƩ .ğŭƭ
tƌğƭƷźĭ
.ğŭƭ
3 mils3 mils
5ĻŅźƓĻķ
wĻǒƭğĬƌĻ
Yes, by rule, Yes, by rule,
minimum of minimum of
ŷźĭƉ
/ƚƒƦğƩźƭƚƓ /ŷğƩƷ
44
ƭ
No
CĻĻ
$0.15
OptionalOptionalOptional
Mandatory
tƌğƭƷźĭ .ğŭ .ğƓ
ǤƦĻ ƚŅ ŭƚƚķƭ Groceries and MerchandisePrepared Foods, Beverages and Bakery Goods
1
37
-
-
885
12
3587
17
Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance
hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ
ź
ağǒźYğǒğ
ź
/ƚǒƓƷǤ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IğǞğź/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ
r bags
recyclable
-
non
customers: recyclable
their customers.
45
ceries or other merchandise.
tƩƚŷźĬźƷźƚƓƭ
recyclable paper bags to their customers at the point of sale for the purpose of
-
ers for the purpose of transporting groceries or other merchandise provided that
2020, compostable plastic bags shall no longer be provided at the point of sale for the
non
,
Businesses may provide, at the point of sale, reusable bags, compostable plastic bags, or recyclableAfter January 1
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), businesses shall be prohibited from providing plastic
Nothing in this article shall be interpreted as prohibiting businesses from providing
tƩƚŷźĬźƷźƚƓƭ(a)checkout bags and transporting groceries or other merchandise.(b)paper bags to customthey charge the customer a minimum of 15 cents per bag.(c)paper bags, with or without
charge, to protect or transport prepared foods, beverages, or bakery goods.(d)purpose of transporting groUpdated definitions for plastic, plastic checkout bag, and plastic film bag.Businesses
shall not provide plastic checkout bags to (a)Businesses are prohibited from providing plastic bags to their customers at the point of sale for thepurpose of transporting groceries
or other goods.(b)Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a business from making reusable bags or recyclable papeavailable for sale or without charge to customers at the point of sale
for the purpose of transportinggroceries or other goods.(a)All retail establishments shall provide only the following as checkout bags topaper bags, biodegradable bags and/or reusable
bags.(b)Nothing in this ordinance shall preclude any retail establishment from offering checkout bags for saleto customers.
ЌАЌЉЊ
ΏΏΏ
ź
В
ź
/ƚǒƓƷǤ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ЊА/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ Њ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IğǞğźhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ЊЋ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ЌЎБА/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ YğǒğhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ББЎ
s a biodegradable bag.
waste. The Department of Public Works shall
use.
-
derived or petrochemical polymeric compounds and additives that
-
46
s paper, leaves, and food waste. The Department of Public Works shall
5ĻŅźƓźƷźƚƓƭ
::
means a bag that(1)contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; and(2)is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to otherbiodegradable
materials such as paper, leaves, and food promulgate rules identifying bags meeting this definition. These rules shall also set forth an applicationprocess whereby a retail establishment
can obtain determination whether a bag is a biodegradable bag.means a bag that(1)contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; and(2)is intended for single use and will decompose
in a natural setting at a rate comparable to otherbiodegradable materials such apromulgate rules identifying bags meeting this definition. These rules shall also set forth an applicationprocess
whereby a retail establishment can obtain determination whether a bag imeans any material made of fossil fuelcan be shaped by flow.means a bag that is made from noncompostable plastic
or compostable plastic, and is not specifically designed and manufactured for multiple re
ЌЉ
Ώ
В
ź ź
ЌЎБА
/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ YğǒğhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ББЎ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ YğǒğhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ББЎ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ Њ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵
.źƚķĻŭƩğķğĬƌĻ Ĭğŭ/ŷĻĭƉƚǒƷ ĬğŭtƌğƭƷźĭʹtƌğƭƷźĭ Ĭğŭ
per
flowers or potted
as garbage, pet waste, or
pet stores; or
chemicals, or other caustic
cleaning
-
compostable or compostable plastic and not
de a business to package loose items, such as
-
use.
-
provided that this exemption shall be limited to one bag
47
specifically designed and manufactured
provided by a business to a customer for the purpose of transporting
tems to contain dampness;
plastic bags used by customers inside a business to package loose items, such as
lessless plastic bags used to contain or wrap frozen foods, meat or fish, less plastic bags used by customers insiless plastic bags used to contain or wrap frozen foods, meat or fish,
flowers or potted
----
used to contain live animals, such as fish or insects sold in
use;
-
Handlebakery goods, fruits, vegetables, nuts, ground coffee, grains, candies, or small hardwareitems;Handleplants, or other items to contain dampness;Newspaper bags for home newspaper
deliveryLaundry, dry cleaning, or garment bagsBags sold in packages containing multiple bags intended for useyard waste bags;Bags Bags used to transport chemical pesticides, drainchemicals
sold at the retail level;Handlebakery goods, fruits, vegetables, nuts, ground coffee, grains, candies, or small hardwareitems;Handleplants, or other i
term re
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)Means a plastic bag made out of thin flexible sheets of plastic with a thickness of 10 mils or less;This term does not include(H)(I)
-
(1)(2)
Means a carryout bag that is provided by a business to a customer for theThis term does not include:
means a carryout bag that is groceries or other retail goods, and that is made from non specifically designed and manufactured for multiple re (1)purpose of transporting groceries, prepared
food, or other retail goods,and is made from plastic and not for long(2)
ƌǒƌǒ
ЊЌЉЌЉ
ΏΏΏ
ź
ВВ
/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IğǞğźhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ЊЋ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ Њ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ Њ
tƌğƭƷźĭ ĭŷĻĭƉƚǒƷ ĬğŭtƌğƭƷźĭ Ņźƌƒ Ĭğŭ
consumer
term use.
-
-
in a highly
Recyclable
as garbage, pet waste, or
use and is (1) made of cloth or
pet stores; or
use and is (1) made of cloth or
-
-
in a highly visible manner on
and
chemicals, or other caustic
cleaning
Recyclable
Reusable
-
and
le
s fish or insects sold in
Reusab
provided that this exemption shall be limited to one bag per
48
(1) is one hundred percent recyclable, (2) contains a minimum of forty percent
.
handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is made
Newspaper bags for home newspaper deliveryLaundry, dry cleaning, or garment bagsBags sold in packages containing multiple bags intended for useyard waste bags;Bags used to contain live
animals, such aBags used to transport chemical pesticides, drainchemicals sold at the retail level;
(J)(K)(L)(M)(N)
cloth or other washable fabric; or (2) durable material suitable for reuse, including plastic that is at
consumer recycled content, and (3) displays the words
-
means a paper bag that:postvisible manner on the outside of the bags.means a bag that meets all the following requirements: (1) contains no old growth fiber; (2) is one hundred percent
(100%) recyclable overall and contains a minimum of forty percent (40%) postrecycled content; and (3) displays the words the outside of the bag.means a bag with handles that is specifically
designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is made of: (1) least 2.25 mils thickmeans a bag that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple re other machine washable
fabric or (2) made of paper specifically designed for multiple and longmeans a bag that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reother washable fabric, or (2) made of
durable material suitable for reuse.means a bag with of cloth or other machine washable fabric and/or is made of a durable material at least 2.25 millimeters thick and suitable for
reuse.
ЌАЊ
ΏΏ
Ў
ź
ź ź
ĭĻ bƚ͵ ЌЎБА
/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ЌЎБА/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ YğǒğhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ББ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ЊА/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IğǞğźhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ bƚ͵ ЊЋ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķźƓğƓ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ YğǒğhƩķźƓğƓĭĻ
bƚ͵ ББЎ
wĻĭǤĭƌğĬƌĻ ƦğƦĻƩ ĬğŭwĻǒƭğĬƌĻ Ĭğŭ
opt
the
lastic
p
-
isposable
d
on
n
in
Customer
Yes; for service ware request or affirmative Yes; for utensils request or affirmative
lastics
p
rohibited
p
Disposable
Penalties
$50$500
$1,000
$200
$10$250
$100 to
warning
--
-
-
---
-
d
stnstndrdstndrd
Food vendor or business12$1,000 per dayFood vendor123Civil penalties and enforcement procedures of section 19.530.030Civil penalties and enforcement procedures of section 19.530.030Food
Providers123
Defines
compostable,
biodegradable
NoYesYesYes; CompostableYes
alternatives
Requirements
/ƚƒƦğƩźƭƚƓ /ŷğƩƷ
for
49
NoYes; recyclable or compostableNoNoNo
.ğƓƭ
ğƩĻ
Plastic
straws, stirrers
prohibited
YesNoNoYes; as definedNo
Cƚƚķ
ware
within
sale of plastic
service
County
Prohibits
Yes (b)1/1/2021NoNoYes; not sell, use, provide No
within
plastic
sale of
County
Prohibits
food ware
Yes (c)1/1/2022NoNoYesNo
EPS
of within
County
the sale
Prohibits
Yes (a)1/1/2022NoYesYesYes
Effective date
1/1/2022 (a) and (c)1/1/2021(b)7/1/201912/31/20181/1/20221/1/2021
ЌЉЏЌ
ΏΏ
ź
ź
/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķ͵ ЊВ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IğǞğźhƩķ͵ ЊА/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķ͵ ЍЍЎАΛğƒĻƓķĻķ ĬǤ hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍΜ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ YğǒğΛtƩƚƦƚƭĻķ .źƌƌ ЋААЎΜ
ospice
Plastic utensils (forks, knives, etc.)Not directly addressed
for
allowed
persons with
Plastic straws, stirrers Only medical/physical needs.*Only upon request for disabilities. **Not directly addressed
ng facilities, adult residential care homes, h
iving facilities, adult residential care homes, hospice
PS ice coolers/ice chestsNot directly addressed
Emergency
50
9ǣĻƒƦƷźƚƓƭ
reasonable
No alternatives*1 term: 2years, ext.additional 2years*applicationfor exemption*applicationfor exemption
in general or for the specified situations below.
Undue hardship(application for exemption)*1 term: 2years, ext.additional 2years*180 days
-
Prepackaged food, shelfstable food
Packaging for raw meat, poultry, seafood, unprepared produce, eggs
agencies, hospice homes, home health agencies, home care agencies as defined in HAR.
ЌЉ
Ώ
ź hƩķ͵
= ok to sell, use, provide these items made of plastic
ź
*Entities exempt from compliance with the restriction of disposable plastic straws: hospitals, nursing facilities, assisted lservice **Entities exempt from compliance with the prohibition
on use of plastic straws: hospitals, nursing facilities, assisted liviservice agencies or homes, home health agencies, and home care agencies.
ЏЌ
Ώ
/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķ͵ ЊВ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IğǞğźЊА/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķ͵ ЍЍЎА/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ YğǒğΛtƩƚƦƚƭĻķ .źƌƌ ЋААЎΜ
-
Also
permitted event, or city
-
not be sold or provided, or offered
for use at any County facility, County
permitted event or County program.
-
sponsored or city
-
or offered
,
permitted event, or County program.
suitable recyclable or compostable product for disposable
-
provided
,
sponsored or County
-
27.3, polystyrene foam food ware shall
-
51
sponsored or County
-
Chapter 20.26 amended by Ord. 5084 to include plastic disposable foodware
Code
tƩƚŷźĬźƷźƚƓƭ ŅƚƩ /źƷǤ ƚƩ /ƚǒƓƷǤ
Maui County
Unless exempted under Section 41for sale or use at any city facility, city authorized concession, cityprogram.
As of July 1, 2019, all county facility users shall use a food service ware.Polystyrene foam food service containers shall not be sold used provided or offered for use at any County
facility, County authorized concession Countysee Plastic disposable foodware will not be sold, usedauthorized concession, County
ЏЌ
Ώ
ź hƩķ͵ ЊА
ЌЉ
Ώ
/źƷǤ ƚƩ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭʹ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķ͵ ЊВ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IğǞğź/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķ͵ ЍЍЎА/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ ağǒź hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍ
.
-
liquor
,
term
-
on or in which any
including any
)
,
sealed items
-
or roadside stand
,
.
clamshells
convenience store
(
,
consume food or beverages.
caterer
packaged or pre
-
,
-
to
-
catering vehicle or cart
cafeteria
,
,
d, and prek, catering vehicle or cart, or roadside stand.
inged or lidded containers (clamshells) on or in which any
food truck
,
coffee shop
,
and hinged or lidded containers
,
commonly disposed of after a single use, that are used,
pub
,
bar
cartons
52
,
,
delicatessen
,
5ĻŅźƓźƷźƚƓƭ
bowls
,
restaurant
,
cups
,
supermarket
,
trays
,
sales outlet
entity or person providing prepared food for consumption within the County, including any
,
-
any entity or person providing prepared food for consumption within the Countyall plates, trays, cups, bowls, cartons, and h
shopgrocery store
,,
.
means any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, bar, pub, coffee shop, cafeteria, caterer, convenience store, liquor store, grocery store, supermarket, delicatessen, food trucmeans
storestoremeans all platesfoods or beverages are placed or packaged or intended to be placed or packaged and designed for one time usemeans foods or beverages are placed or packaged
or intended to be placed or packaged
means disposable food containers that are or are intended to be used, to serve or transport prepared, readyThis includes, but is not limited to, cups, bowls, plates, or clamshell containers
that are provided bya food vendor for takeout foods and beverages and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals. For related bags and wrappers, packaging for unprepared foosuch as
bread, cookies, milk, juice, snacks, candy, nuts, fruits, vegetables or other items typically means discarded after a single or limited number of uses and not designed or manufactured
for longmultiple re
ЏЌ
Ώ
ź hƩķ͵ ЊА
hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍhƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍ
ağǒź ağǒź hƩķ͵ ЍЍЎАağǒź hƩķ͵ ЍЍЎАağǒź
IğǞğźağǒź hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍ
/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ
/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ
5źƭƦƚƭğĬƌĻ Ņƚƚķ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ ǞğƩĻʹ Cƚƚķ ƦƩƚǝźķĻƩʹCƚƚķ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ ĭƚƓƷğźƓĻƩʹ
-
including so
,
trays, or other hinged or
compounds
also means all forms of
lastic condiment packets;
Plastic
, knives, napkins, trays, and other items
and polycarbonate, or petrochemical polymeric compounds and
tablishment that sells or provides prepared food for consumption
,
derived or petrochemical polymeric compounds and additives that
-
53
olypropylene
d by flow.
p
in whole or in part, from petroleum or petrochemical
,
,
Honolulu, including any store, shop, sales outlet, pharmacy, restaurant, bar, pub, coffee shop, cafeteria,
includes plates, bowls, cups, lids, straws, stirrers, forks, spoonsprimarily designed for use in consuming food.means any entity or person selling or providing prepared food for consumption
within the City and County of caterer, convenience store, liquor store, grocery store, supermarket, delicatessen, food truck, catering vehicle or cart, roadside stand, or other eswithin
the city.means any retail food establishmentmeans food service containers and utensils.means any material made of fossil fuelcan be shaped by flow.means any material madecalled biodegradable
products, where any portion is not compostable. polystyrene, polyethyleneadditives that can be shapelidded containers that contain plastic. The term does not include disposable p
hƩķ͵
ЏЌ
Ώ
ź hƩķ͵ ЊА
ЏЌ
hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍhƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍ
Ώ
IğǞğźağǒź ağǒź
ź hƩķ͵ ЊА
ʹ
ЌЉЌЉЌЉ
ΏΏΏ
/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķ͵ ЊВIğǞğź/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ ЊВ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ /źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķ͵ ЊВ
Cƚƚķ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ ǞğƩĻʹCƚƚķ ǝĻƓķƚƩʹCƚƚķǞğƩĻʹtƌğƭƷźĭtƌğƭƷźĭ Ņƚƚķ ǞğƩĻʹ
-
food.
noodles
by the food vendor.
use; and soup or
-
related bottles or cartons; non
-
r multiple re
spoons, sporks, and knives; but the term
contained within or attached to prepackaged
plates, bowls, bowl lids,
luding those
packaged and sold with beverage boxes, or disposable plastic
-
54
are made of polystyrene foam; but the term does not include polystyrene foam
beverage cups, cup lids,
packaged and sold with ice cream or salads.
that contain a polyethylene or plastic coating; packaging for unprepared food; and packaging
-
and ice chests specifically designed and manufactured fo
ils pre
related bags or wrappers, including, but not limited to, musubi wraps, plastic film, poi bags, chip bags,
-
foodcracker and cookie wrappers, bread bags, meal kits, or ice bags; beverageplastic cups for wholesale distribution of prepared food, baked goods or dairy products.means hot and cold
lidded containers, thatcoolerspackaged with polystyrene foam that has been filled and sealed prior to receiptmeans any stirrers, straws, baran, and utensils including forks,does not
include items contained within or attached to packaging of food or beverages, including, but not limited to, disposable plastic straws preutensmeans implements used in the consumption
of food or drink, such as forks, knives, spoons, straws, coffee stirrers, cocktail picks, and chopsticks, exc
hƩķ͵ ЎЉБЍ
ağǒź
ЌЉЌЉ
ΏΏ
/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķ͵ ЊВ/źƷǤ ε /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ IƚƓƚƌǒƌǒ hƩķ͵ ЊВ/ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ
tƚƌǤƭƷǤƩĻƓĻ Ņƚğƒ Ņƚƚķ ǞğƩĻʹ{ĻƩǝźĭĻ ǞğƩĻʹ
ƷĻƓƭźƌƭʹ
s
i
use
-
masked
-
from Hawai
have a higher carrying
geographical locations of where
d their respective
house gas emissions.
) than leeward beaches, despite smaller
2
fication in the marine environment and
e dense sinking polymers (e.g., 41.0 and 44.7% of total
use products
-
is floating in from distant sources rather than
i
constant at 6.1%.
Hawai
-
ted from 11 beaches, three sea surface tows, and three seafloor dives.
s) has fa lower global warming potential impacts than recycling single
re dominated by severely weathered, less dense floating polymers (polyethylene
use bags have been funded by the plastics industry.
regarding
-
55
2 orders of magnitude more plastic pollution (g/m
-
= 4671) were collec
Ɠ
use versus reusable of these items have been less detailed than those for cups and water systems.
ic foodware (like PLA) does not yield greenhouse gas reduction benefits if it is landfilled
-
Energy/GHG footprint of cups is one of the most studied, however, results vary widelyImprovements in dishwashing energy efficiency and the electrical grid suggest that reusable cups
have lowerimpacts than disposable cups in many situationsUsing bioplastReuse is superior to recycling. A detailed study of drinking water delivery options showed that washing reusablewater
containers (glasses and bottlewater bottles.LCAs of singleGenerally, these LCAsoverall greenhouse emissions/energy usage than single
sage.
esidents or tourists.
Polymeric differences of plastic debris were assessed across four compartments of the Main Hawaiian Islands (seasurface, windward beaches, leeward beaches, and seafloor) to better describe
sources and fate.Plastic debris pieces (Windward beaches had 1human populations on windward sides.Sea surface and windward beaches weand polypropylene comprised 92.7 and 93.5% on average,
respectively, of the total debris mass), while leeward beachesand the seafloor debris consisted of less weathered and mormass consisted of the sum of polystyrene, nylon, cellulose acetate,
polyethylene terephthalate, and additivedebris).These results are some of the first to provide evidence of polymeric stratiemphasize that the majority of marine debris in rMany of the
existing LCAs for singleEstimates from the LCAs are often based on different assumptions due to the varyingthey were written.Closer analysis of reports with incorrect assumptions reveals
that paper carryout bags have a reduced impact comparedto plastic carryout bags particularly Paper bags are recycled at higher rates than plastic bags, will eventually biodegrade, and
capacity. These factors would help decrease the amount of solid waste generated despite an increase in paper baguUpdated numbers from the EPA in 2009 showed that the paper bag recycling
rate has increased considerably to nearly50%, while the HDPE plastic bag recycling rate stayed Hot/cold cups:ooo Water bottles:o Clamshells/plate/bowls/flatware oo
Key Findings
;
lastic bags
ter
p
Life Cycle and Environmental Implications for Plastic Alternatives Studies
nalyses of LCAs
Topic Marine litPaper vs. aHot/cold cups, water bottles, and other reusable foodservice items (plates, bowls, clamshells, utensils)
results of each study must be carefully examined due to differences in variables assessed in each study (i.e. demographic
Kayla
: : Clean
rganization
Marine Debris Polymers
: A Brief Analysis of Life : Literature Review and
Source Information Title:on Main Hawaiian Island Beaches, Sea Surface, and SeafloorAuthor/Organization:Brignac, et. al.TitleCycle Analyses (LCAs) and the Impacts of Plastic vs. Paper
BagsAuthor/OCalifornians Against WasteTitleInventory: Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Disposable vs. Reusable Foodservice ProductsAuthor/OrganizationWater Fund
Generally, there is a growing number of studies that compare the life cycle and environmental implications of plastic bags analternatives. However, the information, environmental factors).
and
ss of
density,
-
al impact
polyethylene (PE),
.
size plastics.
-
gs.
accumulation in these larval fish nurseries
diving loggerhead (0.3%) turtles.
-
laden prey
-
rtles.
26% polypropylene (PP), 10% unknown
nutritious, toxin
-
and compared across species, turtle length, body condition, sex,
diving green (1.2%) and shallow
-
maker.
-
ely accumulate non
based longline fisheries.
-
density polyethylene (LDPE),
-
56
and location of ingested plastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of 55 sea turtles from Pacific
,
are 4 to 7.5 times more detrimental to the environment vs. PRBs.
cation, season and year.
density PE collectively).
and American Samoa
-
-
eaten by sea turtles in this region.
i
Reusable LDPE and NWPP bags have lower average impact on the environment than \[plastic retail bags\] PRBs if reused a categories are important to the decisionFor either PRBs or Paper
bags, higher recycle content results, on average, in lower environmental impacts, but these differences are much smaller than the differences among the various types of baThe data in
the present study, in which the entire Life Cycles of both Paper bags and PRBs have been examined, show that Paper bags are more detrimental to the environment in ten of the twelve
environmental impact categories studied and, on average, Ingestion of marine debris is an established threat to sea tuThe amount, type, colorlongline fisheries from 2012 to 2016 were
quantifiedcapture loSix approaches for quantifying amounts of ingested plastic strongly correlated with one another and included: number of pieces, mass, volume and surface area of
plastics, ratio of plastic mass to body mass, and percentage of the magut contents consisting of plastic.All olive ridley (n =37), 90% of green (n =10), 80% of loggerhead (n =5) and
0% of leatherback (n = 3) turtles had ingested plastic; green turtles ingested significantly more than olive ridleys.This study demonstrated that surface slicks, meandering lines of
convergence on the ocean surface, are important larval fish nurseries that disproportionatPlastic pieces were found in numerous larval fish taxa at a time when nutrition is critical
for survival.Surface slicks are a ubiquitous coastal ocean feature, suggesting that plastic could have far reaching ecological and socioeconomic impacts.Pelagic Pacific sea turtles
eat relatively large quantities of plastic (median 5 g in gut).This study identified the polymers ingested by 37 olive ridley, 9 green, and 4 loggerhead turtles caught as bycatch in
HawaiRegardless of species differences in dive depths and foraging strategies, ingested plastics were primarily lowfloating polymers (51% low5% highAlbeit not statistically significant,
deeper diving and deeper captured olive ridley turtles ate proportionally more plasticsexpected to sink (3.9%) than intermediateSpatial, but no sex, size, year, or hook depth differences
were observed in polymer composition.LDPE and PP, some of the most produced and least recycled polymers worldwide, account for the largest percentage of plastic These novel data inform
managers about the threat of plastic ingestion to sea turtles and may motivate development of more environmentally friendly practices for plastic production, use, and waste management
Key Findings
Topic Comparing types of grocery bagsMarine litterMarine litterMarine litter
Katharine Jamison Melissa
: Clemson
lastics are
size p
-
al.
Phase Sea Turtles in the
-
Investigation of plastic PreyPolymer Identification of
: Life Cycle Assessment of
Source Information TitleGrocery Bags Author/OrganizationUniversityTitle:debris ingestion by four species of sea turtles collected as bycatch in pelagic Pacific longline fisheries Author/Organization:
Clukey, et. al.Title:invading larval fish nurseries Author/Organization:Gove, et. al.Title:Plastic Debris Ingested by PelagicCentral Pacific Author/Organization:Jung, et.
Based
-
rinated
with the lowest life
of packaging and food
compostable materials, or
es such as recycling, is a
-
.
is oftentimes beneficial
resolve coastal problems and
-
.
urement criteria. Rather than using
and burdens
made materials such as packaging.
-
r incineration. One primary reason for this is
62(1) and is a main component of the Coastal Zone
-
of the compost industry
life waste management alternativ
-
of
-
posted waste.life fates to optimize recovery of those materials. Research
-
of
f these comparisons, making and using compostable materials (and
re created and administered by a single entity, the ORMP is unique in
h as landfilling). However, compostable packaging and food service ware
Revised Statutes §205A
nmental benefits
i
determining the environmental benefits
offs, including the raw materials used to make compostable feedstocks and the
-
Hawai
and enviro
57
re from the last 18 years of environmental life cycle assessments that included compostable
compostable packaging fully composts in all compost facilities due to operational variations. Some
at want to advance the use of compostable packaging, the focus needs to shift to using materials that
the act of recovering nutrients from materials such as food and yard debris
20 ORMP highlights three areas of need within the coastal zone: Development and Coastal Hazards, Land
Not all certified compostable packaging may burden compost facility operators with higher costs and generate finished compost product that is contaminated with pieces of uncompollute
compost, soils and waterways.Some paper based compostable food service ware is treated with toxic materials such as perfluocompounds that are known to accumulate in body tissues and
the larger environment.Further, most compostable plastic packaging does not degrade in marine environments
Many businesses, governments and individuals are designing or purchasing packaging and food service ware to be compostable as a means to reduce environmental impacts and conserve resources.
But research suggests that compostability is a poor indicator for service ware items.Composting when compared against its alternatives (sucintroduces a broader set of tradeenvironmental
impacts of those upstream processes.DEQ reviewed literatupackaging and food service ware. Over 1,200 comparisons involving compostable packaging and over 360 comparisons for food service
ware were found. In the majority ocomposting them) was found to result in higher environmental impacts than either using nonusing compostable materials and treating them via recycling,
landfilling othe potential for higher burdens associated with producing the feedstocks used to make different types of compostable packaging. Another is that composting, unlike other
endrelatively poor method of recovering nutrients or value embedded in humanThere are a number of additional concerns with compostable packaging and food service ware, including:oooo
As such, DEQ recommends against using compostability as a blanket design or procthis attribute, producers and purchasers should instead use life cycle assessment as part of a more holistic
evaluation of environmental impacts. Packaging design should be optimized by prioritizing the use of materials cycle impact profile, then considering the viable endsuggests recycling
to be a better outlet for packaging once it is optimized for life cycle impacts.For businesses ththe economic sustainability issues that are not adequately addressed by existing laws
and rules.The plan is a requirement under Management (CZM) Program. Unlike plans that aits collaborative implementation through the CZM Network, which includes Federal, State, County,
and community representation.Since 1985, longstanding partners have jointly addressed thpriorities, as set forth by each plan update. With the help of the public input and agency expertise,
the update process identifies management gaps and focus areas for the next planning horizon.The 20Pollution, and Marine Ecosystems.
Key Findings
coastal
Topic Compostable packagingState management plan
of
State
: Oregon
How well does
Ocean Resources
i
Office of Planning
i
ging and food service
Material Attribute: Hawai
:
Source Information TitleCOMPOSTABLE it predict the life cycle environmental impacts of packaware? Author/OrganizationDepartment of Environmental QualityTitle:Management Plan Author/Organization:Hawai
Coastal Zone Management Program
paper
-
10 times
-
plastics is not
based LDPE, but
-
-
woven PP and cotton, but strictly in
-
cased fibers (Shen et al. 2010). The was
-
and Fry (2011) find that the cotton bag
.
environmental impact and sustainability
use plastic bags, if they are used 5
-
based LDPE is also worse than conventional LDPE in
-
made celluloseuse plastic bags (Edwards and Fry 2011; Kimmel 2014).
--
based bags and textiles, and conventional and
-
ficient integrated mills driven by renewable energy, and if the
f increasing global warming potential (Thomas et al. 2010). This
vironmentally competitive. Mattila et al. (2011) state that a cotton
use bags in terms of eutrophication, and often also on climate and
-
based assessment of textiles concluded that cotton had a greater impact
-
water use and land use.
, Mattila et al. (2011) and Dahlgren & Stripple (2016) find that kraft
and Utrecht University 2018).
based or natural fibre
-
that included factors for human health,
based single
-
58
consumer shopping bags, conventional PE (HDPE) shopping carrier bags were considered to
. The weight of the bags contributes to this difference: making a bag heavier will make it more
y are used on average 14.6 times in the US (Kimmel 2014) which is approximately what is
use rate in the US is 3.1 times.
pects. Kimmel (2014) finds that the paper bag with 100% recycled fibers scores better than the
lso performed an LCCA
use bag (Edwards et al. 2011; Kimmel 2014; CivancukUslu et al. 2019). However, Kimmel (2014)
-
mpact of different processes, materials or products on the environment. For example, LCA could be
om recycled plastics or renewable resources has much less climate impact than fossil
150 times is likely to be better for the climate if the waste management system is dominated by
-
based study of
LDPE or HDPE bags rank worse than other bags in terms of littering potential. However, the ranking order of
-
Uslu et al. 2019)
suggest that the
-
use
management system is dominated by recycling and incineration. They can also be environmentally competitive if
-
-
paper bag in all environmental aspects, but still worse than the SUPBs in all impacts except acidification, and
-
Single
Deciding what constitutes best environmental practice through the choice of different plastics and nonstraightforward. Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) can be used to provide a basis for
decisions about optimal use of resources and the iemployed to assess the use of plasticbiodegradable plastics. In one LCAbe a good environmental option compared with bags made from
paper, LDPE, nonterms of carbon footprints (paper to cotton in order oanalysis did not take account of the social and ecological impact that plastic litter may have.In contrast, an
analysis of textiles placed cotton as having a much smaller footprint that acrylic fibers (Mutha et al. 2012). However, it is important to A Third study which athat fabrics made with
PP or PET, and a much greater that manon the basis of ecotoxicity, eutrophication,In conclusion, clearly the scope of an environmental LCA can determine the outcome.The more recent
LCAs included in this report confirm most of these conclusions, with some additions and modifications. In summary, they indicate that: bags in terms of littering potential is more or
less opposite to the ranking in terms of other environmental indicators (Civancikdifficult for the wind to catch, hence reducing probability to become litter, but it will increase all
other environmental impacts of the bag. LDPE produced frdoes not solve the problem associated to impacts of littering. Bioother environmental aspects (COWI A/SA reusable LDPE bag has
lower climate impacts than conventional singlemore than the singlefinds that the average reDurable PP bags are heavier than reusable LDPE bags, but they are also more durable. In order
for PP bags to be environmentally competitive with LDPE bags, they need to be used more times. The data needed for PP bags to be competitive with conventional, singleA cotton bag must
be used even more times to be enbag reused 50incineration or efficient sorting and recovery of the waste. However, Edwardsmust be reused hundreds of times to be environmentally competitive
to SUPBs. Paper bags score worse than fossilother environmental askraftfreshwater and marine toxicity. In contrastbags score relatively well in climate. Together the studies imply that
a paper bag can be better for the climate than SUPBs, if the latter is heavy, if the paper is produced in efwastethey are reused several times (Edwards and Fry 2011).
Key Findings
itter
l
Topic Marine Plastic bags and alternatives
: United :
use plastic bags and
-
Biodegradable Plastics &
: Single
thor/Organization
Source Information Title:Marine Litter: Misconception, Concerns and Impacts on Marine Environments Author/OrganizationNations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2015Titletheir alternatives
AuUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
biodegradation) to reduce the visual impacts of littering might
-
et al. 2011).
59
environmental issues for the purchasing of paper:
polyesters (COWI A/S and Utrecht University 2018) and because it is assumed to degrade in landfills,
-
pulp
dwards and Fry 2011; Edwards and Parker 2012).
studies, besides reduced impacts of littering. It has a large impact on the climate because the production of
based (biodegradable) bag has no significant environmental benefits compared to conventional SUPBs in the
-
based co
-
Land useHuman health toxicityEnergy useCommercial RCRA Hazardous WasteAcid RainPaperTimber and raw forest productsWoodOther basic inorganic chemicalsElectricity
A starchreviewed fossilforming methane (cf. Mattila Adding a prodegradant to conventional HDPE (oxoincrease other environmental impacts, but only slightly since the degradable plastic
bag is assumed not to degrade in landfills (EMost significant potential ooooo The most significant supply chain sources of these issues for this purchase are:ooooo
Key Findings Paper bags and coated paper*see graph below
Topic Plastic bags and alternativesPaper vs. plastic bags
: : U.S. EPA
(Cont.)
use plastic bags and
-
alternatives
: Single: National Sustainable
Source Information Titletheir Author/OrganizationUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)TitleMaterials Management Prioritization Tool (online tool) Author/Organization