Green Packaging Working Group — Portland, ME
Date: 2013-05-06

CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE
 Agenda

 Green Packaging Working Group Task Force

DATE: 5/6/2013
TIME: 5:00 PM
LOCATION: Portland City Hall
 Room 24
 AGENDA
1. Approval of the minutes of the April 8 meeting
2. Review and final discussion of draft Polystyrene Ordinance
3. Vote on draft ordinance
4. Begin discussion of plastic bags
5. Meeting schedule
6. Adjourn
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/editorials/ci_23092973/our-opinion-plastic-bags-must-go

  Our Opinion: Plastic bags must go
  Berkshire Eagle
  Posted: BerkshireEagle.com

 Given their many environmental drawbacks, plastic bags are on the way out in America. Massachusetts can hasten
 that day by becoming the first state to ban the use of plastic bags at large retail stores.

 Lawmakers on the joint Environmental, Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee on Monday advanced
 legislation banning the bags at retail stores larger than 4,000 square feet. Plastic bags are essentially forever, and they
 pack landfills, clutter streets and defile waterways. They are a legitimate danger to coastlines, as washed up plastic
 bags can kill seals, turtles and other marine creatures that consume them or are caught in them.

 Senator James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, made reference Tuesday to the Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch, a
 floating dump created by manmade products, many of them plastic bags. Not surprisingly, Manchester-by-the-Sea is
 one of two Massachusetts communities to ban plastic bags (Brookline is the other), and Nantucket Island also has
 banned them.

 According to Roxanne Zak of the Sierra Club, speaking to State House News Service, only 5 percent of the more
 than 1 billion plastic bags thrown away by Americans are recycled annually. Removing the resin in plastic bags
 makes it expensive to recycle them, as does the food waste that tends to cling to them. While paper bags are
 preferable, their use should be reduced and can be if shoppers bring their reusable shopping bags with them.

 The legislation exempts small retailers and the bags grocery stores and bakeries use to avoid creating a hardship for
 businesses competing with massive chains, but ideally they will discontinue the use of the bags before it becomes
 necessary at some future date to expand the legislation. Like too many products created for the sake of convenience,
 plastic bags are useful for a few moments before becoming eyesores and threats to marine life for centuries. The
 Legislature should approve their ban this session and Governor Patrick should sign the ban into law.




Page 1 of 1 May 02, 2013 07:29:37AM MDT
Hot air over plastic http://bostonherald.com/print/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2013/04/h...




 Printed from: Boston Herald (http://bostonherald.com)




 Friday, April 26, 2013 -- Anonymous (not verified)

 Editorials
 Saturday, April 27, 2013
 Author(s):
 herald.staff

 There is something delightfully, charmingly trivial about the current effort by
 environmental zealots to ban ... plastic grocery bags.

 Yes, in times of trial and of crisis there’s nothing like those who remain caught up in
 their own little worlds — making the world a safer place one plastic bag at a time.
 Kind of like those precious people of Concord who succeeded in banning single
 serving water bottles.

 Now fresh from successes in Brookline and Manchester-by-the-Sea, the bag
 banners want to make Massachusetts the first state in the nation to ban the pesky
 things statewide. And they are kind of pesky — they’re always too small, not strong
 enough (and thus require double-bagging) and so given a choice we’ll take paper
 every time.

 Still, isn’t that a choice consumers can make for themselves? Many stores do offer a
 choice. Many consumers have opted for reusable bags — which nearly all grocery
 stores are now offering for purchase at the check-out.

 Ah, but this is Massachusetts. So why should people or merchants be able to make
 a choice when governmentalways knows best.

 Roxanne Zak of the Sierra Club told a legislative committee this past week, that the
 bags “are creating an environmental crisis for us here and in the whole world, not
 just the United States.”

 Well, not sure how Massachusetts will tackle the “whole world” problem but in the
 Massachusetts Legislature there’s always someone willing to try.

 “I think there is a growing movement across society,” Sen. Marc Pacheco
 (D-Taunton) told State House News Service.




1 of 2 5/2/2013 9:31 AM
Hot air over plastic http://bostonherald.com/print/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2013/04/h...


 Yes, we can see the ban-the-bag troops marching on Beacon Hill, pleading for
 action. Or maybe those who feel strongly about the issue will simply pick up their
 sturdy reusable totes and march off to the grocery content in the knowledge that
 they are walking the walk rather than blowing hot air.


 Source URL: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2013/04
 /hot_air_over_plastic




2 of 2 5/2/2013 9:31 AM
Motivated by a Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?_r=1&e...




 February 2, 2008




 By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

 DUBLIN — There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and
 buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no
 plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.

 In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at
 the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger
 than the sum of these parts.

 Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth
 bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them
 became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.

 “When my roommate brings one in the flat it annoys the hell out of me,” said Edel Egan, a photographer,
 carrying groceries last week in a red backpack.

 Drowning in a sea of plastic bags, countries from China to Australia, cities from San Francisco to New York
 have in the past year adopted a flurry of laws and regulations to address the problem, so far with mixed
 success. The New York City Council, for example, in the face of stiff resistance from business interests,
 passed a measure requiring only that stores that hand out plastic bags take them back for recycling.

 But in the parking lot of a Superquinn Market, Ireland’s largest grocery chain, it is clear that the country is
 well into the post-plastic-bag era. “I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,”
 said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green
 Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the
 car, rather than buy a bag.”

 Gerry McCartney, 50, a data processor, has also switched to cloth. “The tax is not so much, but it completely
 changed a very bad habit,” he said. “Now you never see plastic.”

 In January almost 42 billion plastic bags were used worldwide, according to reusablebags.com; the figure
 increases by more than half a million bags every minute. A vast majority are not reused, ending up as waste
 — in landfills or as litter. Because plastic bags are light and compressible, they constitute only 2 percent of
 landfill, but since most are not biodegradable, they will remain there.

 In a few countries, including Germany, grocers have long charged a nominal fee for plastic bags, and cloth
 carrier bags are common. But they are the exception.

 In the past few months, several countries have announced plans to eliminate the bags. Bangladesh and


1 of 3 5/2/2013 9:03 AM
Motivated by a Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?_r=1&e...


 some African nations have sought to ban them because they clog fragile sewerage systems, creating a health
 hazard. Starting this summer, China will prohibit sellers from handing out free plastic shopping bags, but
 the price they should charge is not specified, and there is little capacity for enforcement. Australia says it
 wants to end free plastic bags by the end of the year, but has not decided how.

 Efforts to tax plastic bags have failed in many places because of heated opposition from manufacturers as
 well as from merchants, who have said a tax would be bad for business. In Britain, Los Angeles and San
 Francisco, proposed taxes failed to gain political approval, though San Francisco passed a ban last year.
 Some countries, like Italy, have settled for voluntary participation.

 But there were no plastic bag makers in Ireland (most bags here came from China), and a forceful
 environment minister gave reluctant shopkeepers little wiggle room, making it illegal for them to pay for the
 bags on behalf of customers. The government collects the tax, which finances environmental enforcement
 and cleanup programs.

 Furthermore, the environment minister told shopkeepers that if they changed from plastic to paper, he
 would tax those bags, too.

 While paper bags, which degrade, are in some ways better for the environment, studies suggest that more
 greenhouse gases are released in their manufacture and transportation than in the production of plastic
 bags.

 Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this
 tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the
 Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”

 Mr. Quinn is also president of EuroCommerce, a group representing six million European retailers. In that
 capacity, he has encouraged a plastic bag tax in other countries. But members are not buying it. “They say:
 ‘Oh, no, no. It wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t be acceptable in our country,’ ” Mr. Quinn said.

 As nations fail to act decisively, some environmentally conscious chains have moved in with their own
 policies. Whole Foods Market announced in January that its stores would no longer offer disposable plastic
 bags, using recycled paper or cloth instead, and many chains are starting to charge customers for plastic
 bags.

 But such ad hoc efforts are unlikely to have the impact of a national tax. Mr. Quinn said that when his
 Superquinn stores tried a decade ago to charge 1 cent for plastic bags, customers rebelled. He found himself
 standing at the cash register buying bags for customers with change from his own pocket to prevent them
 from going elsewhere.

 After five years of the plastic bag tax, Ireland has changed the image of cloth bags, a feat advocates hope to
 achieve in the United States. Vincent Cobb, the president of reusablebags.com, who founded the company
 four years ago to promote the issue, said: “Using cloth bags has been seen as an extreme act of a crazed
 environmentalist. We want it to be seen as something a smart, progressive person would carry.”

 Some things worked to Ireland’s advantage. Almost all markets are part of chains that are highly



2 of 3 5/2/2013 9:03 AM
Motivated by a Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?_r=1&e...


 computerized, with cash registers that already collect a national sales tax, so adding the bag tax involved a
 minimum of reprogramming, and there was little room for evasion.

 The country also has a young, flexible population that has proved to be a good testing ground for
 innovation, from cellphone services to nonsmoking laws. Despite these favorable conditions, Ireland still
 ended up raising the bag tax 50 percent, after officials noted that consumption was rising slightly.

 Ireland has moved on with the tax concept, proposing similar taxes on customers for A.T.M. receipts and
 chewing gum. (The sidewalks of Dublin are dotted with old wads.) The gum tax has been avoided for the
 time being because the chewing gum giant Wrigley agreed to create a public cleanup fund as an alternative.
 This year, the government plans to ban conventional light bulbs, making only low-energy, long-life
 fluorescent bulbs available.


 Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

 Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map




3 of 3 5/2/2013 9:03 AM
Legislation to ban plastic bags at stores moves forward - Quincy, MA - T... http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1431014198/Legislators-support...




 Legislation to ban plastic bags at stores moves forward
 By Patriot Ledger staff and State House News Service
 The Patriot Ledger
 Posted Apr 23, 2013 @ 01:48 AM
 Last update Apr 23, 2013 @ 04:40 AM

 BOSTON — Massachusetts could become the first state to ban plastic bags at large retail stores, part of
 Business News
 an effort to protect marine life and reduce waste scattered on streets and stuck in tree branches.
 The Digital Skeptic: Big Business
 Big Data Is in Big Trouble Lawmakers on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee moved the legislation
 forward following a hearing Monday.
 'Investing' in Knicks vs. Heat:
 NBA Eastern Conference Finals “We wanted to make a statement on Earth Day,” said state Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, the
 committee’s chairman.
 Home Sales Up, and Prices Set to
 Rise 7.5% The bill would ban single-use plastic bags at stores and restaurants larger than 4,000 square feet. The
 ban would exempt smaller stores and not include plastic produce and bakery bags used in grocery
 Suggested Stories stores.
 Clean Harbors profits decline in
 Pacheco said there has been no economic damage in other communities where the bans have been
 first quarter
 enacted.
 Work continues on assisted-living
 facility in…
 But the state’s largest retail group opposes the ban, saying it is impractical and unfairly singles out
 retailers as a source of litter.
 State awards $342,000 to replace
 Braintree rail… “The bag doesn’t end up on the tree on its own,” said Bill Rennie, vice president of the Retailers
 Association of Massachusetts. “It’s more of a societal problem.”
 From the Web Many stores now offer a choice of paper, plastic or recyclable bags, Rennie said.
 Usher’s 11-Year-Old Stepson Dies
 itsybitsysteps “For retailers, the customer is always right and we like to protect consumer choice,” he said.

 Tim Tebow gets job offer from the Lawmakers cited environmental concerns in supporting the ban.
 Lingerie… Sports Illustrated
 “I’m generally not one that likes to intrude upon the affairs of business, but at this point I think that the
 Pictures: Anna Nicole's Daughter, scales have tipped to the point where something has to be done,” Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth,
 Dannielynn… Zimbio said.

 Sponsore d conte nt What's Rep. Lori Ehrlich, D-Marblehead, who sponsored one of the bills given a favorable recommendation,
 this? said 10 percent of the debris that washes up on the shore is plastic bags.

 “Nothing that we use for a few minutes should pollute the oceans for hundreds of years,” Ehrlich said.

 Ehrlich’s bill makes an exception for certain biodegradable plastic bags.

 Hundreds of communities across the country have instituted some type of ban. Mostly recently in Massachusetts, Brookline and
 Manchester-by-the-Sea approved bans. No state has enacted a statewide ban. However, Hawaii does have a de-facto statewide ban,
 with all four counties in the state now banning non-biodegradable plastic bags at checkout.

 Environmentalists said the bags are a danger to the state’s coastlines, and kill sea turtles, whales, seals and other marine wildlife that
 swallow plastic or get strangled by the bags.

 In 2007, major grocery chains in Massachusetts entered an agreement with the state to reduce the total number of paper and plastic
 bags distributed by 33 percent by 2013. The industry met that goal in 2010, said Brian Houghton, vice president of the Boston-based
 Massachusetts Food Association.

 “We just want the program to continue to work and let them give it a chance,” Houghton said. “People still want plastic bags every so
 often if you’re buying something frozen or buying fish or meat.”

 The issue hit close to home for Hedlund when he was participating in the Back River herring run cleanup in Weymouth earlier this
 month. Plastic bags floated down the river and were wedged between rocks.

 “They don’t degrade. They last forever,” Hedlund said. “The environmental impact outweighs all other impacts. We’ll have to go back
 to doing it the way we did before plastic bags proliferated.”

 Patriot Ledger reporters Steve Adams and Dan Schneider and State House News Service contributed to this report.




 Comments (7)
 Thinkingoutloud2
 1 week ago




1 of 3 5/2/2013 9:34 AM
Legislation to ban plastic bags at stores moves forward - Quincy, MA - T... http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1431014198/Legislators-support...


 Report Abuse
 You must be logged in to report abuse.




 We wanted to make a statement on Earth Day, said state Sen. Marc Pacheco

 Yeah, well you're making one alright. We have become a police state. A mamby pamby state that thinks we can BAN and make LAWS about every freaking thing.
 Massachusetts sucks. We've gone over the top into the lunatic liberal stage. What's next? Monitor how much oxygen each and every person is using per day? I
 understand the reasons, but banning everything isn't the answer. Sooner or later, they'll ban something YOU don't want them to. Simply let it be a stores decision.

 Let's rename the state to Bloombergachusetts, the commonwealth of corruption and ridiculous laws. Everyone run out and buy buckle shoes and three point hats
 because they may ban electricity next.
 SuzyYing
 1 week ago
 Report Abuse
 You must be logged in to report abuse.




 Another reason to shop in NH.

 And the stores go back to paper bags which consume millions of trees each year plus the pollution caused by paper production.

 And those bags stuck in trees? They seem to be gone in a few weeks. They don't stay in the trees for ''hundreds of years''.
 chiefbroman
 1 week ago
 Report Abuse
 You must be logged in to report abuse.




 I see more lottery tickets littering the streets then I see plastic bags in trees.

 Would they dare ban lottery tickets?!?!
 DaniZ
 1 week ago
 Report Abuse
 You must be logged in to report abuse.




 . Its more of a societal problem.

 Many stores now offer a choice of paper, plastic or recyclable bags, Rennie (president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts) said.

 I thought the law was they retailers MUST give you that choice. But like the 'Must have a price sticker on each item that was routinely ignored until the law was
 recently changed it hadn't been done in decades.
 And if we forget our reusable bags and resort to ask for paper we get 'oh we don't have any.

 And these bags are made from OIL!!! More dollars going to the countries that supply our terrorists.

 As far as a societal problem. Sure blame the other girl. It's them not us. We only want to save corporate dollars.
 bottomtooth
 1 week ago
 Report Abuse
 You must be logged in to report abuse.




2 of 3 5/2/2013 9:34 AM
Legislation to ban plastic bags at stores moves forward - Quincy, MA - T... http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1431014198/Legislators-support...




 How about the people that recycle their plastic bags into their homes for other uses.

 So I'll now go out and buy more trash bags.
 biff
 1 week ago
 Report Abuse
 You must be logged in to report abuse.




 Maybe we should enforce the littering laws and increase the fines. The cities and towns could ticket for all littering such as cigarette butts, food wraps and even gum.
 The police seem to like to sit in one place with radar so now they can target litters as well.
 I happen to like the plastic bags as they are much more convenient than paper or the canvas bags.
 jw20000
 1 week ago
 Report Abuse
 You must be logged in to report abuse.




 When I hear the Bag Ban lobby comments about bags that last 1,000's of years, Litter the countryside, and pollute the oceans, I am reminded of the typical TV
 courtroom drama. 'Objection, those facts are not in evidence.' All scientific Environmental Impact Statements report that 6 gram plastic grocery bags have the lowest
 impact to the environment. The latest is from the UK Environment Agency. It is titled 'Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags'. Check it out. at
 environment-agency.gov.uk. IT was blocked from release to the pubic for years by Bag Banners who disagreed with the science that did not support their emotional
 feelings. Paper bags are the worst, even recycled bags contribute to green house gas emissions and deforestation. Reusable bags are made of PLASTIC fiber textiles. If
 you reuse the typical 'free' plastic grocery bag for household trash, or lunch bags, doggy bags, diaper bags, compost, etc, then you would need to use a Reusable bag
 over 300 cycles to break even on Environmental Impact. They don't last that long. They require near slave labor to produce including Child labor according to
 reporters that visit the 'factories'. Should we as a society contribute to crimes against humanity to feel good about our grocery bags? Bags that are largely made from
 WASTE natural gas, not oil as reported by Greenwashing advocates. PS. Bag Producers LOVE bag bans. They sell bags by the lb. When 6 gram bags are banned, a few
 months later, householders run out of their personal stash of bags under the Kitchen counter and have to purchase expensive 18 gram trash bags in cardboard boxes to
 replace them. Sales increase dramatically like they did in Ireland after their bag ban. Landfill Plastic tonnage increases as well. More Environmental Impact. The Law
 of Unintended Consequences.
 Login or register to post a comment:
 Login
 Username:
 Password:
 Forgot password


 Register
 Email:
 First Name:
 Last Name:

 I agree to the terms of use
 I am over 13 years of age

 NOTE: Your inbox must accept emails from "no-reply@gatehousemedia.com"




 Contact us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service |

 The Patriot Ledger | 400 Crown Colony Drive, P.O. 699159, Quincy MA 02269-9159

 Copyright © 2006-2013 GateHouse Media, Inc. Some Rights Reserved.

 Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.

 Advertiser profiles | Cherrp Local | Real Estate | Find your Wicked Local Town | More Content Now | RadarFrog




3 of 3 5/2/2013 9:34 AM
 DRAFT

 AMENDMENT TO PORTLAND CITY CODE
 CHAPTER 12 GARBAGE, WASTES AND JUNK
 ARTICLE V. POLYSTYRENE
 SECTIONS 12-210 THROUGH 12-215

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND,
MAINE IN CITY COUNCIL ASSEMBLED AS FOLLOWS:

That Chapter 12, Sections 12-210 thru 12-215 of the Portland
City Code is hereby enacted as follows:

12-210. Findings; purposes.

WHEREAS, the Council finds thatThe city council hereby finds
as follows:

 (1) Expanded Polystyrene is a petroleum-based,
 lightweight plastic material sometimes used as food
 service ware by retail food vendors operating in the
 City of Portland.; and

 (2) The City of Portland desires to protect the natural
 environment.; and

 (3) There is no economically feasible means of recycling
 expanded polystyrene locally.; and

 (4) Disposable food service ware made from polystyrene
 foam constitutes a portion of the litter in
 Portland’s streets, parks and public places that
 increases City maintenance costs.; and

 (5) Expanded polystyrene is a common pollutant that
 fragments into smaller, non-biodegradable pieces
 that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife
 thus harming or killing them.; and

 (6) The City’s goal is to replace expanded polystyrene
 food service ware with reusable, recyclable or
 compostable alternatives.; and

 (7) Such alternatives are readily available.;

12-211. Definitions.

 As used in this Ordinance the following terms have the
following meanings:

 (a) “Disposable food service ware” means single-use
 disposable products used in the restaurant and food

 1
O:\PWSHARE\Green Packaging Task Force\May 6 materials\draft foam code.doc
 DRAFT

 service industry  for serving  or transporting
 prepared, ready-to-consume food or beverages. This
 includes but is not limited to plates, cups, bowls,
 trays and hinged or lidded containers, also known as
 clamshells. This does not include straws, utensils
 or cup lids nor does it include disposable packaging
 for prepackaged foods.

 (b) “Expanded polystyrene” means and includes blown
 polystyrene and expanded  and extruded foams
 (sometimes incorrectly called Styrofoam®, a Dow
 Chemical Company trademarked form of polystyrene
 foam insulation) which are thermoplastic
 petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer
 and processed by any number of techniques including,
 but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres
 (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding,
 foam molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded
 foam polystyrene). Expanded polystyrene is generally
 used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell
 containers, meat trays and egg cartons. For the
 purposes of this chapter, the term “polystyrene”
 shall not include clear polystyrene known as
 “oriented polystyrene.”

 (c) “Food packager” means any person or entity located
 within the City of Portland who places meat, eggs,
 bakery products, or other  food  in  packaging
 materials for the purpose of retail sale of those
 products.

 (d) “Prepackaged food” means  any properly labeled
 processed food, prepackaged to prevent any direct
 human contact with the food product upon
 distribution from the manufacturer, and prepared at
 an approved source outside the City of Portland.

 (e) “Prepared food” means food or beverages, which are
 served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed,
 brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared for
 consumption on the food vendor’s premises or within
 the city. Prepared food may be eaten either on or
 off the premises, also known as “takeout food.”
 Prepared food does not include eggs, fish, meat,
 poultry, and foods containing these raw animal foods
 requiring cooking by the consumer as recommended by
 the Food and Drug Administration.

 (f) “Restaurant” means any establishment located within
 the City of Portland selling prepared food to be


 2
O:\PWSHARE\Green Packaging Task Force\May 6 materials\draft foam code.doc
 DRAFT

 eaten by customers. Restaurant includes a sidewalk
 or other outdoor food vendor.

 (g) “Retail Food Vendor, Vendor” means any establishment
 located in the City of Portland,  or any
 establishment which provides prepared foods or
 beverages within the City for public consumption on
 or off its premises and includes, but is not limited
 to, any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, bar,
 pub, coffee shop, cafeteria, caterer, convenience
 store, liquor store, grocery store, supermarket,
 delicatessen, mobile food preparation truck or
 vehicle, roadside stand, or any other person who
 provides prepared food; and any individual, group,
 or organization that regularly provides food as part
 of its services.person, restaurant, store, shop,
 sales outlet or other establishment, including,
 without limitation, a grocery store, convenience or
 variety store or a delicatessen located within the
 City of Portland which sells prepared food.

12-212. Polystyrene prohibitedProhibitions. (Or “Expanded
Polystyrene Prohibited”)

 1. On and after January 1, 2014July 1, 2015, no retail
food vendor shall serve or sell prepared food in expanded
polystyrene disposable food service ware.

 2. On and after January 1, 2014July 1, 2015, no food
packager who offers for retail sale meat, eggs, bakery
products or other food shall package that meat, eggs, bakery
products or other food in packaging material made of expanded
Polystyrene.

 3. On and after January 1, 2014July 1, 2015, no vendor
in the City of Portland who sells tangible personal property
at retail shall sell disposable food service ware made from
expanded polystyrene.

 4. All city facilities, city-sponsored events, and
city permitted events are prohibited from using disposable
food service ware made from expanded polystyrene. All city
departments and agencies shall not purchase or acquire
disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene
for use at city facilities.

 5. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing
business with the city shall be prohibited from using food
service ware made from expanded polystyrene in city facilities
or on city projects within the city.

 3
O:\PWSHARE\Green Packaging Task Force\May 6 materials\draft foam code.doc
 DRAFT


 6. Organizations using city offices or property shall
comply with this chapter (e.g., street closure permits, events
at city facilities, etc.) and while on city premises, shall
not willfully possess, give, receive, lend, offer or expose
for sale, use, deliver, furnish, transfer or dispose of any
disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene.



12-213. Exemptions.

 A. Prepackaged food is exempt from the provisions of
this chapter.

 B. Food vendors that are currently existing or are
established in the City by the effective date of the ordinance
will be exempted from the provisions of this Article
prohibiting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware for
a period of time to be determined by the City ManagerPublic
Services Manager or his/her designee on a case-by-case basis
for undue hardship. Undue hardship includes, but is not
limited to, situations unique to the food vendor not generally
applicable to other persons in similar circumstances.

 C. Food vendors, City departments, City facilities and
contractors shall be exempt from the provisions of this
Article, in a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an
emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health or safety.

12-214. Violations and Enforcement.

 The Director of Public Services and the Director of
Health and Human Services or designees shall have the primary
responsibility for enforcement of this ordinance. If the
Public Services Director or the Director of Health and Human
Services or designees determine that a violation of this
Article has occurred, he/she shall issue a written warning
notice to the food vendor that a violation has occurred.
Subsequent violations of the Ordinance shall be subject to the
penalties set forth below.

 Violations of this Ordinance shall be punishable by fines
as follows:

 i. A fine not exceeding $250 for the first
 violation in a one-year period;




 4
O:\PWSHARE\Green Packaging Task Force\May 6 materials\draft foam code.doc
 DRAFT

 ii. A fine not exceeding $500 for the second and
 each subsequent violation in a one-year period.


12-215. Severability.

 If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or
circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall
continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of
this Ordinance are severable.




 5
O:\PWSHARE\Green Packaging Task Force\May 6 materials\draft foam code.doc
 DRAFT

Green Packaging Working Group
April 8, 2013

In attendance: John Morin, ecomaine; Cathy Ramsdell, Friends of Casco Bay; Matthew
Faulkner, Surfrider Maine; Martin Fischer, Serlin Haley; Danny Bouzianis, Dunkin Donuts;
Richard Grotton, Maine Restaurant Association; Troy Moon, Portland Public Services; Jen
Thompson, Corporation Counsel’s Office; Ted Koffman, Maine Audubon Society; Ed Suslovic,
Portland City Council; Ron Adams, Portland Public Schools; Dan Gore, Amatos; Sally Trice,
Portland citizen; Alexandra Fields, Environment Maine; Avery Day/Stephen Rosario, American
Chemistry Council; Curtis Picard, Retail Association of Maine; Michele Brooks, Portland citizen

 The meeting of the Green Packaging Working Group opened at 5:10 p.m. in Room 24 of
Portland City Hall on April 8, 2013.

1. Approval of minutes

 Michele Brooks of Portland made the motion to approve the minutes of the previous
meeting. Cathy Ramsdell of Friends of Casco Bay seconded the motion. Motion passes 11-0.

2. Goals & Objectives

 Chairman Suslovic reviewed City Council Order 223-11/12, which mandated the
Transportation, Sustainability and Energy Committee to consider an ordinance or
recommendation banning non-recyclable polystyrene containers. He also reviewed the TSE
minutes which created the present task force. He noted that in the TSE meeting of July 18, 2012,
the review of plastic bags was added.

3. Work Plan

 Chairman Suslovic explained that, per the direction of the TSE minutes, the task group
would review the ordinance that staff had prepared and make any amendments to it during the
meeting. Once the version approved by the task force was passed, it would be handed up to the
TSE committee. After the polystyrene issue was dealt with, the task force would review and
brainstorm ideas for reducing use of plastic grocery bags.

4. Ordinance

 Martin Fischer read the letter sent by Portland Community Chamber of Commerce,
Maine Restaurant Association, Dart Container Corporation, Retail Association of Maine, Maine
Grocers Association and the American Chemistry Council to the TSE Committee. Mr. Fischer
noted there was no response to the letter. He said that several groups around the table were never
consulted by the City Council. Chairman Suslovic noted that there were several further
opportunities for public comment and suggested there could be one or more minority reports if
there were opposing viewpoints. He said that this was the process commonly followed for City
Council committees and subcommittees. Mr. Fischer asked for clarification of the members of
the task force. Troy Moon of the Department of Public Services read the established list.

 1
 DRAFT


 Richard Grotton of the Maine Restaurant Association noted that in the July 18, 2012 TSE
minutes the task force was asked “to evaluate the best methods of decreasing the use” of
polystyrene and plastic bags. Chairman Suslovic noted the City Council order instructing the
TSE committee to consider an ordinance. Mr. Grotton said he was concerned about a
contradiction in direction and noted that the TSE minutes were much more reasonable. Ms.
Brooks said that orders and motions carry more weight than the condensed minutes of a meeting.
Mr. Grotton then asked why the task force was formed to give its input and opinions if the
Council already knew it wanted an ordinance banning polystyrene. Ms. Brooks responded that
the task force was to give positive or negative input on a prospective ordinance. Chairman
Suslovic added that majority report would be presented to the TSE, and a minority report, or
even several minority reports, could also be presented. Ms. Brooks reiterated that individual
input was important in this process.

 Curtis Picard of the Retail Association of Maine agreed with Mr. Grotton regarding the
process of crafting the ordinance. He also felt that the survey wasn’t comprehensive enough for
the number of restaurants in the City.

 Avery Day of the American Chemistry Council asked if the ordinance was to address
litter and environmental concerns. Chairman Suslovic said his motivation as the sponsor of the
order was environmental and the difficulties involved in recycling ppolystyrene. Mr. Fischer
disagreed that polystyrene was difficult to recycle. Sally Trice of Portland reminded everyone to
stand back and look at the bigger picture rather than the bottom line. She noted the sea of plastic
in the Pacific Ocean and the effects polystyrene has on marine animals, regardless of their
location. She asked the task force to accept some accountability for the environment.

 Chairman Suslovic asked if there was anyone who had new information to present to the
task force before entering into the explanation and discussion of the ordinance. Mr. Fischer said
he wanted to talk with the City regarding the possibility of recycling polystyrene. He noted that
San Francisco didn’t have any reduction in litter after it enacted its polystyrene ban. Chairman
Suslovic asked if the task force could obtain a copy of that report, and reminded Mr. Fischer that
the ordinance has several more levels of public input before the City Council takes its final vote.
Mr. Fischer suggested the City attempt recycling polystyrene in conjunction with its hazardous
household waste program at Riverside Recycling Facility, and cited “Refoam It” as a company
that would work with the City to implement such a program. Chairman Suslovic said he didn’t
think that would be effective, as recycling rates are linked to convenience and most households
wouldn’t save their polystyrene to bring it to Riverside once a month. John Morin of ecomaine
agreed with that.

 Stephen Rosario of the American Chemistry Council noted that there had been lots of
inaccuracies in the task force’s conversation as well as in the ordinance. He said that polystyrene
is not the only environmentally damaging substance in use in food service ware.

 Chairman Suslovic asked for clarifying questions, rather than questions for debate, during
the introduction of the ordinance. Jennifer Thompson of the Corporation Counsel’s Office gave
the task force a detailed explanation of the ordinance.

 2
 DRAFT

 Ms. Brooks asked if an exemption for the seafood packaging industry was included. Ms.
Thompson said that was something that needed to be expressly added.

 Danny Bouzianis of Dunkin Donuts noted that an idea of fairness needs to be addressed.

 Mr. Grotton noted that Freeport is a much smaller municipality than Portland. With the
greater number of food processing and packaging factories, the economic impact could be
drastic. Ms. Thompson explained the intent of the ordinance was to address the retail use of
polystyrene, not the wholesale use.

 Ron Adams of Portland Public Schools asked if the ordinance was also targeted at retail
stores that sold polystyrene plates. Chairman Suslovic clarified that if the ordinance passed, one
could not purchase a package of polystyrene plates at a retail store in Portland.

 Mr. Rosario said he remembered when Freeport passed its ordinance 20 years ago, when
the use of polystyrene wasn’t as prevalent. He noted that the impact on Portland would be greater
today. He also noted that the issue driving Freeport’s ordinance was the use of CFCs in
polystyrene manufacturing, which are no longer used.

 Mr. Fischer asked why food prepackaged in polystyrene was okay. Ms. Brooks answered
that the city can’t control what packagers outside the city limits use. Chairman Suslovic said any
thing packaged or repackaged in a store in Portland cannot use polystyrene under the proposed
ordinance.

 Chairman Suslovic expressed concern about the seafood packagers who ship seafood
outside the City. Alexandra Fields of Environment Maine asked why he had that specific
concern. Chairman Suslovic said there was no good alternative to the polystyrene lined
cardboard boxes they use. Ms. Thompson noted that there was probably a gray area around any
food packager shipping in less than wholesale quantities. She said if the task force was
concerned they could amend the ordinance to add a specific exemption for seafood packagers.

 Mr. Bouzianis asked about the impact of the ordinance if someone Fedexed a box of
cereal from the shipping store on Marginal Way to another Portland resident. Ms. Thompson
replied that it would have no impact, because the ordinance pertained to cereal makers, not cereal
shippers.

 Mr. Fischer asked why the task force wants to give seafood processors an exemption.
Chairman Suslovic repeated that he had met with representatives from the industry and there’s
no cost effective, approved alternative. For restaurants and retail stores, he noted, there are cost
effective alternatives.

The debate portion

 Mr. Moon gave a brief overview of the survey, explaining that many restaurants use
multiple types of packaging. Chairman Suslovic said he had made an informal survey of



 3
 DRAFT

restaurants and that few in his experience use polystyrene. When he asked managers or servers
why, the answer was that customers are requesting other packaging.

 Ms. Ramsdell noted that there were several exemption possibilities that could be used in
Portland’s proposed ordinance: San Mateo has a written exemption request; San Leandro has an
exemption for emergency situations; San Francisco has a focus on city offices and city situations.
She suggested the task force look at adding shipping and mailing materials in order to avoid the
appearance of "picking on" restaurants and retailers.

 Mr. Faulkner said he had read that no one had applied for the hardship exemption written
into one city’s ordinance. Ms. Brooks said she liked the sensitivity of an exemption clause.

 Mr. Grotton expressed a concern that paper coffee cups were heavier and more difficult
to recycle. Chairman Suslovic clarified that was not the case. Mr. Rosario asked how and where
paper cups were being recycled. Chairman Suslovic replied that ecomaine gives tours of their
recycling facility to interested parties. Mr. Morin said he would be happy to arrange one.

 Ms. Brooks asked what is released when polystyrene is burned. Mr. Bouzianis answered
that it was 94% air. Mr. Faulkner added there were neurotoxins released as well. Chairman
Suslovic explained that the Environmental Protection Agency monitors the incinerator stack
emissions, and if pollutants above a certain level are released, the City is fined. He added that the
City has not been fined in quite a long time. He reiterated that the ordinance is designed to
address the issue of litter. Mr. Rosario noted that nothing degrades, according to EPA standards
from 1976 and the book Rubbish. Mr. Fischer noted that banning polystyrene is not going to
impact street litter. Chairman Suslovic said paper cup litter is less harmful to the environment
and to animals. Mr. Picard asked what the City is doing to address litter aside from the
prospective polystyrene ban. Chairman Suslovic noted the big belly trash compactors that the
City is rolling out this summer. He said a polystyrene ban wouldn’t completely solve the litter
problem, but polystyrene is more damaging than other forms of litter. Ms. Fields said there’s a
difference between what polystyrene does in a landfill and what it does in Casco Bay.

 Mr. Rosario said that in terms of "cradle to grave" environmental impacts, paper products
are comprised of 100% material per weight, whereas polystyrene is 10% material per weight.
90% of its composition is air. Ms. Fields asked Mr. Faulkner to reread the list of pollutants in
polystyrene. Mr. Fischer asked if the list referred to polystyrene or styrene. Mr. Rosario noted
the monomer styrene was different than polystyrene and added that beer and strawberries contain
styrene. Ms. Ramsdell noted a 1986 study stating there were 57 chemical byproducts released
when polystyrene burned or was heated, as in a microwave.

 Chairman Suslovic asked for public comment.

 Mr. Day said that the task force should more fully explore economically feasible
polystyrene recycling. With regard to the ordinance, he asked for expanded economic analysis
regarding paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and asked if paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are boiler plate clauses. Ms.
Thompson responded that they are. Mr. Moon added that the TSE committee had recently voted



 4
 DRAFT

to ban city departments,vendors and contractors working for the City from using polystyrene
containers.

 Mr. Bouzianis referenced public comment from the previous meeting and asked for a
phasein period. Ms. Brooks noted that the City of San Leandro had an exemption for up to a year
and suggested Portland needs a process for exemption. Ted Koffman of the Maine Audubon
Society said it should be based on the date of the invoice. Ms. Brooks suggested instead that it
should be based on the ordinance passage date.

 Mr. Bouzianis asked if there was set definition of undue hardship. Chairman Suslovic
noted that it was important that exemptions were fair and consistent. He also stated he liked the
emergency exemptions promulgated by the city manager, but he prefered a phasein process.

 Ms. Brooks stated she wasn't sure the seafood packagers should get a specific exemption.
Mr. Faulkner suggested allowing them two years to find an alternative. Ms. Brooks cited the San
Leandro exemption as a possibility instead of an explicit exemption for seafood packagers.

 Chairman Suslovic asked for motions for amendments.

 Mr. Koffman moved and Ms. Brooks seconded a motion to put the ordinance on the table
for amendments. Motion passes unanimously.

 Mr. Picard asked if the task force could revisit a number of questions from earlier in the
meeting, saying he felt he needed more information before a vote could be held. Mr. Fischer said
he couldn’t understand how the task force could vote on a full document and then vote on
amendments. Chairman Suslovic said that was common process in the City.

 Mr. Fischer moved to incorporate a two year phasein period from July 1, 2013, allowing
the ordinance to become fully effective on July 1, 2015. Mr. Bouzianis seconded the motion.

 Mr. Rosario made a motion to table discussion of the ordinance to the next meeting, Mr.
Grotton seconded. Motion fails, 4-11.

 Chairman Suslovic asked if a seafood packager selling seafood to ship outside of
Portland is banned from using polystyrene containers. Mr. Moon said if it's for wholesale
shipping, yes, but if an establishment is shipping it to California for home consumption, probably
not. Ms. Thompson noted that most of the ordinances are focused on prepared food. Mr. Adams
supported the longer timeframe phasein because of his similar experiences phasing it out of the
school department. Chairman Suslovic supported the two year phasein, noting that if an
establishment has more than two years of inventory, that's a questionable business practice.
Motion passes 5-3 with 7 abstaining.

 Mr. Rosario asked for a motion to delete the phrase "petroleum based," Mr. Fischer
seconded. Ms. Ramsdell responded that the chemicals that formed polystyrene were in fact
petroleum based. Mr. Picard asked if the task force was finished with all polystyrene discussions
at this meeting. Chairman Suslovic responded that there would be a final vote on the amended

 5
 DRAFT

ordinance at the next meeting. Mr. Fischer clarified that the task force was voting on
amendments to this draft so that staff could add them to the document for the final vote at the
next meeting. Mr. Picard disagreed with the process because he was uncomfortable voting on
items that have not been finalized. Mr. Rosario responded to Ms. Ramsdell that scientists define
oil and petroleum differently. Motion fails, 3-7 with 5 abstaining.

 Ms. Brooks motioned that staff create an exemption process for the city to follow. Ms.
Ramsdell seconded. Motion passes 13-0 with 2 abstentions.

 Mr. Koffman motioned that an emergency situation suspension clause be added to be
used at the discretion of city administration. Mr. Fischer seconded. Motion passes 13-0 with 2
abstentions.

 Chairman Suslovic asked staff to pull information together and prepare the proposed
ordinance banning polystyrene, as well work with any task force members interested in forming
a minority report.

 Mr. Moon reminded the task force that the next meeting is scheduled for May 6 at 5:30 in
Room 24 of City Hall. Chairman Suslovic announced that there would be a vote on a finalized
ordinance to be presented to the TSE committee, and then begin a discussion on grocery bags.

 The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m.




 6
Recycling Program Exemption Language – similar to Freeport, ME

"Recycling Program" - a process whereby used materials are separated from the solid waste
stream and utilized as a raw material in the manufacture of a new product or for new economic
use;

This Ordinance shall be null and void if and as long as there is developed and maintained an
effective city-wide Recycling Program for polystyrene foam food and beverage containers.

Affordable Alternative Exemption Language - similar to San Francisco, CA

Not later than 30 days before the effective date of this ordinance, the director of environment and
sustainability shall adopt a list of available suitable affordable biodegradable/compostable or
recyclable alternatives for each product type. The city administrator shall regularly update the
list.

Exemption From Undue Hardship Request Process Language – similar to San Mateo, CA

Any food establishment may seek an exemption from the requirements of this chapter upon
demonstrating that strict application of the requirements would cause undue hardship.
An undue hardship shall be found in situations unique to the food establishment where a suitable
alternative does not exist for a specific application or situations where no reasonably feasible
available alternative exists to a specific and necessary container prohibited by this chapter.

The application process for exemption shall be as follows: (1) The food establishment seeking
an exemption shall submit a written exemption request to the Department of Public Health. (2) A
written exemption request shall include all information and documentation necessary for the
Director of the Department of Public Health to make a finding that imposition of this chapter
would cause an undue hardship. (3) The Director of the Department of Public Health may require
the applicant to provide additional information in order to make a determination regarding the
exemption application. (4) Exemption decisions are effective immediately and are final and not
subject to appeal. (5) The Director of the Department of Public Health or his/her designee may
grant an exemption for a period of up to one year upon a finding that the food establishment
seeking the exemption has demonstrated that strict application of the specific requirement would
cause undue hardship.

If a food establishment granted an exemption wishes to have the exemption extended, it must re-
apply for the exemption prior to the expiration of the one year exemption period and demonstrate
continued undue hardship. Extensions may be granted for intervals not to exceed one year.


Pre-Emption Language - similar to Santa Cruz, CA

The provisions of this ordinance shall be null and void on the day that statewide legislation or
federal legislation goes into effect, incorporating either the same or substantially similar
provisions as are contained in this chapter, or in the event that a pertinent Massachusetts or
federal administrative agency issues and promulgates regulations, preempting such action.
Emergency Health and Safety Exemption Language – similar to San Leandro, CA

Emergency supplies or services procurement: Food vendors, City departments, City facilities,
and contractors shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, in a situation deemed by
the Mayor to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or
safety.


In-store Recycling Exemption Language – new

This ordinance shall not apply to food establishments that offer in-store collection of expanded
polystyrene foam food service containers to be recycled.