A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-58, regarding a report on drafting an ordinance banning single use plastic items

City of Cambridge Department of Public Works Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner 147 Hampshire Street Cambridge, MA 02139 theworks@cambridgema.gov Voice: [phone removed] TDD: [phone removed] To: Louis DePasquale, City Manager From: Owen O’ Riordan, Commissioner, DPW Re: AR 19-58 Working with the Recycling Advisory Committee as well as other stakeholders to draft an ordinance banning single use plastic items in Cambridge. DATE: March 23, 2021 In response to the above referenced Council Order, please be advised of the following: The Department of Public Works (DPW) has worked closely with Recycling Advisory Committee (RAC), other city entities, as well as business owners and residents to evaluate a ban on single use plastics similar to what other communities have implemented. Building on the experience of the Polystyrene Ordinance, DPW has taken a similar approach to evaluating a single-use plastic ban. DPW conducted a business survey, studied plastics recyclability, and examined environmental lifecycle analyses. The process began in 2019 with the Council Order requesting DPW provide feedback on a single-use plastics ordinance, such as that in Brookline, MA or Berkeley, CA. Both consumers and businesses want to reduce plastics, reduce waste and protect the environment. DPW has concluded that, at this time, a blanketed single-use plastics ban is not necessarily in the city’s best interest. Rather, DPW suggests that the paradigm should remain reduce & reuse and not necessarily paper vs plastic and that our ordinances should be further refined to reflect additional measures to achieve such. Survey to Cambridge Businesses Cambridge DPW sought feedback from food-service businesses on a proposed ban on single- use plastics such as utensils, clamshell containers, cups, lids and straws. Conducted in Fall 2019, approximately 25% of food-service businesses in Cambridge responded to the survey. Most acknowledged the concerns associated with the environmental impact of single-use products. However, it should also be noted that many were opposed to an ordinance banning single use plastic items without a clear path for businesses to continue providing high-quality food/beverages services in a financially sustainable way.

One business stated, “after the Styrofoam ban, my costs [increased from $0.01 to $0.18-0.26 per container]. Meanwhile a customer will complain if their meal goes up a quarter. Please consider small businesses … we operate on a small enough margin without adding more restrictions.” Additionally, many expressed concerns, that alternative products don’t perform as well as plastics. For example, one business owner stated, “paper doesn't hold the hot items we mainly sell. We have tried paper and customers complain of leakage, thus requesting refunds.” Indeed, it was also pointed out to us that many of the alternative products typically identified as reasonable alternatives were also challenging in terms of natural degradation and recyclability. Finally, many businesses indicated that they have implemented changes to reduce single-use consumption. One business stated, “We use sip-through lids for iced beverages but keep straws for folks who request them. We offer discounts to customers who bring their own reusable containers, but many customers still don't and want single-use cups” The environmental impact of takeout containers In trying to provide a broader context for this discussion and in further reflecting on the axiom: reduce & reuse, we recognize that the environmental impact of a product is more complex than its recyclability; it includes upstream impacts (i.e. extraction, manufacturing, transportation) as well as downstream impacts (i.e. disposal, recycling, landfill, or digestion) and therefore, not consuming a single-use item in the first place, is the best policy of all. The United Nations’ Lifecycle Institute conducted a meta-analysis of lifecycle assessments for various takeout materials. Their conclusions are that there are not clear winners between plastics, paper, or aluminum packaging. Rather, they suggested taking a more thorough systems thinking approach to determining how to reduce the environmental impact. According to Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality using compostable materials (and composting them) was found to result in higher environmental impacts than either using non- compostable materials. Furthermore, compostable containers are not desired by our current food waste processor, Waste Management’s CORe. Increasingly, other composting facilities are finding it difficult to manage compostable service ware too. About plastic recycling: Currently, Casella’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Charlestown accepts rigid plastic containers such as jugs, tubs, bottles, cups, and other food-service containers. All these plastics are recycled in North America after they’re sorted and baled in Charlestown. The market for recyclable plastics is presently strong, contrary to some news reports. Since 2017, more than $5.3 billion has been invested in plastics recovery in the US. On average, plastics are among the most Commodity Value (per ton) Metals $620 Plastics $508 Papers $63 Glass -$53 Trash -$105

“financially” valuable part of the City’s recycling program, not that finance, in and of itself should be the determining factor. Finally, it should be acknowledged that while the City of Cambridge has a very successful recycling program, based on our waste sorts, there remains a 15% portion of our waste that could be recycled and a not insignificant portion of that is plastic. What are Cambridge’s options? Although, DPW does not recommend a single-use plastics ban, there are pieces of the Berkeley and Brookline ordinances that may be adopted and incorporated into our municipal code and practices to improve recycling and promote reduce & reuse. DPW recommends the following: 1. Require that consumers opt-in to a single-use item rather than having to opt- out of consuming a product. Many Cambridge businesses have implemented this change in their online ordering. The following items would be offered at a self-serve station or by request: straws, stirrers, utensils, condiments, cup sleeves, tops/lids, or other disposable foodware item used as part of food/beverage service or packaging. 2. Amend the Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance to remove the exemption for produce bags. Requiring that produce bags be compostable or recyclable will not only reduce plastic consumption but supports the City’s curbside organics program. 3. Require that businesses provide color-coded and labeled receptacles for separating waste into recycling and trash (and compost, if the business has the service). 4. Require that food-service retailers provide reusable dishware for on-site consumption. Furthermore, DPW is committed to developing a reduce/reuse webpage on the City’s website to educate businesses and consumers on how they may take action to reduce & reuse. Not recommending a single-use plastics ban is not a promotion of plastics, rather, DPW believes that an outright ban on single-use plastics may not be as impactful as the changes we propose above, which may ultimately lead to more significant changes in consumption habits. Finally, DPW wants to constructively work with businesses to increase recycling/composting, while reducing single-use items and wants to do so with strategies that are not financially impactful, most particularly as businesses try to stay in operating during COVID and try to recover as a result of the pandemic.