HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2014 SS1 Envioronmental Friendly Food ContainerCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINER AND
PRODUCT REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a presentation on expanded polystyrene food container and product regulations
and policy options.
2. Provide direction to staff regarding initiation of an ordinance.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On March 4th, 2014, the City Council directed staff to explore options for establishing
regulations for expanded polystyrene (EPS). This report provides a review of existing relevant
policies, research from other agencies, and implementation and policy choices for the City
Council to consider when providing direction to staff.
In California, over 80 cities and counties (listed in Attachment 1) have introduced regulations
focused on restricting the use of food and drink containers made from EPS, commonly referred
to as Styrofoam™ or plastic foam. Some of those agencies have taken the additional step of
prohibiting the retail sale of most EPS products within the city.
Most agencies cite in their ordinances the environmental and potential health effects of EPS as a
basis for regulation. EPS is made of non-renewable petroleum products and manufactured with a
monomer called Styrene, which may have adverse effects on human health. EPS food and drink
containers have been shown to leach this potentially carcinogenic chemical into food and drinks
when heated or when coming into contact with hot foods.1 Food and drink containers made from
EPS are also uniquely problematic when they become litter as EPS is a durable material that is
not biodegradable. Its foam structure allows it to break easily into small pieces, making it
difficult and expensive to remove from the environment. Additionally, these pieces can be
harmful to fish and wildlife as it is often mistaken as food and ingested.
According to the California Department of Transportation, EPS comprises approximately 15% of
storm drain litter.2 It can be difficult, however, to approximate the exact amount of EPS in storm
drains, waterways and oceans due to the small size of the material when broken down. A study
1 Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 475–481 (1995). Available at: http://ac.els-
cdn.com/027869159500009Q/1-s2.0-027869159500009Q-main.pdf?_tid=1d125fac-2177-11e4-ad09-
00000aacb35d&acdnat=1407775800_19aeb4101043c117eb2842c55b96e237 2 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, 2004.
Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/Plastics/43204003.pdf
9/2/14
SS1
SS1 - 1
Polystyrene Study Session Page 2
published in 2011 found that 71% of all the plastic flowing through the Los Angeles and San
Gabriel Rivers is foam.3 It is the second most common form of beach debris in California,
according to a study conducted in Orange County.4 Also, several studies approximate that plastic
products, including polystyrene, make up 80-90% of floating marine debris. The City does not
currently have data on the amount of EPS present in our storm drains or creeks, but can consider
some methods of documentation during the next Creek Day.
In addition to reducing the amount of harmful litter entering local waterways, cities also typically
cite the improved potential for recycling opportunities and diverting trash from landfills as a
basis for an EPS ordinance. EPS products are challenging to recycle and are not currently
recycled at the Cold Canyon landfill through San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management. There is also a clear, non-expanded form of polystyrene used in food service called
“oriented” or “rigid” polystyrene. These rigid polystyrene containers are recycled in San Luis
Obispo County even after having been in contact with food.
Food service based businesses are often most impacted by these types of ordinances. Frequently
cited concerns are the additional cost of alternatives and performance of alternative products
(e.g. rigidity, insulating properties, etc.).
DEFINITIONS
In order to ensure a common understanding of terms being used in the discussion that follows,
definitions are offered below.
A. “Food container” means a container that is used to hold prepared food or drinks. Food
container includes cups, bowls, plates, trays, cartons or clamshell containers that are
intended for single use.
B. “Food provider” generally means any vendor, business, organization, entity, group, or
individual that offers food or beverages to the public for consumption on or off premises,
regardless of whether there is a charge for the food. “Food provider” typically includes
restaurants, retail food establishments, caterers, cafeterias, stores, shops, sales outlets,
grocery stores, delicatessens, itinerant restaurants and mobile food vendors.
C. “Food service ware” includes cup lids, straws, stirrers, forks, spoons, knives, napkins,
trays, and other items primarily designed for use in consuming food.
D. “Expanded Polystyrene” or “EPS” means a foam material made of blown polystyrene,
and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoam™) which are
thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer which is often used to
hold prepared food (pictured below). EPS is not recycled in San Luis Obispo County.
3 Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages 65-73 (2011). Available at:
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/C%20Moore%20et%20al%202%20urban%20rivers.pdf 4 Composition and Distribution of Beach Debris in Orange County, California. Available at:
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/Beach%20Debris%20Orange%20County%20Study.pdf
SS1 - 2
Polystyrene Study Session Page 3
E. "Polystyrene" means a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing styrene monomers.
Polystyrene includes the foam material as well as clear, rigid polystyrene also called
"oriented polystyrene" (pictured below). Rigid polystyrene is recycled in San Luis
Obispo County.
F. “Prepared food” means any food, including beverages, which is served or prepared for
consumption, including ready-to-eat and takeout food.
POLICY REVIEW
General Plan Policies
The General Plan does not contain policies that explicitly address EPS. There are, however, three
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) policies that address reuse and recycling of
materials in and by the City.
SS1 - 3
Polystyrene Study Session Page 4
COSE Policy 5.5.2:
“The City will manage its operations to foster reuse and recycling for:
A. Avoiding using inks, papers, and plastics that inhibit recycling or that produce
pollutants in preparation for recycling.
B. Purchasing products incorporating recycled materials.”
COSE Policy 5.5.3:
“The City will coordinate local, and participate in regional, household and business
waste-reduction and recycling efforts.”
The Conservation and Open Space Element also contains a policy intended to expand public
education regarding conservation and sustainability.
COSE Policy 5.5.6:
“The City will expand its public education outreach efforts to raise public awareness of
energy and material conservation goals, sustainable technology, benefits and incentives.”
These policies recognize the City’s responsibility for efficient use of materials and recycling
while also acknowledging its role in encouraging residents and business to do so as well.
Climate Action Plan
The San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan identifies solid waste strategies to increase the
community’s waste diversion rate, which is the amount of material diverted from the landfill to
be recycled, composted or reused. These strategies help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions associated with transport and organic decomposition. A description of the
Increase Waste Diversion (WST 1) strategy indicates:
“An ordinance that requires biodegradable food packaging in restaurants and other food
vendors can reduce the amount of non-recyclable Styrofoam™ that is sent to the landfill.
Successful examples in other California cities will be explored.”
Implementation of this strategy includes several actions, one of which is WST 1.8 which calls for
the City to:
“Evaluate the effectiveness of a Food Packaging Ordinance that requires biodegradable
containers.”
Implementation of this action would accomplish the objective of the Climate Action Plan to
reduce GHG emissions by decreasing the number of vehicle trips associated with solid waste
disposal at Cold Canyon landfill.
Storm Water Management Plan
The City’s Storm Water Management Plan does not directly address EPS, but does have related
elements that involve public education and outreach for reducing pollutants and increasing
recycling of materials that may enter storm drains. In addition, there are specific strategies aimed
at pollution prevention which would include materials such as EPS.
SS1 - 4
Polystyrene Study Session Page 5
In addition, The State Water Quality Control Board has proposed to adopt amendments to
Statewide Water Quality Control Plans to control trash. These amendments are currently pending
an adoption hearing by the State Board. Dependent on the outcome of that hearing and the final
language of the amendments there may be additional requirements for the City to take action to
prevent trash from entering storm drains and waterways.
San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management
The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) briefly
discussed the policy issue of regulating EPS at their March 2014 Board Meeting. The outcome
of that discussion was a determination that IWMA has no plans to consider regulating EPS at this
time.
ORDINANCES FROM OTHER AGENCIES
A wide range of cities and counties with adopted EPS ordinances were reviewed to study the
scope of their regulations and methods for implementation and enforcement. Information on 11
agencies is presented in this report. Those agencies were selected based on proximity, best
practice ordinances or status as a benchmark city.
Most cities and counties focus on the environmental concerns of EPS food containers as the basis
for an ordinance including:
• EPS is a lightweight material that can be blown out of waste receptacles and into storm
drains and waterways.
• EPS breaks down into small pieces, which allow it to spread easily through aquatic
environments and is mistaken as food by fish and wildlife.
• EPS, in its broken down form, is difficult and expensive to clean up.
• EPS is generally not economically feasible to be recycled.
Most ordinances have several key elements including:
• Language expressly prohibiting the use of EPS food and drink containers provided by
food providers.
• Specific definitions that exclude or include polystyrene food service ware items such as
straws, lids for cups, and utensils from the scope of the ordinance.
• An “undue hardship” clause providing exemptions for cases where alternatives were
either too costly or their container needs could not be met by alternatives.
o 15% was often used as the threshold for determining an undue economic
hardship.
• An exemption for packaging of uncooked food items such as raw fish and meat.
• An exclusion of foods prepared or packaged outside the city and sold inside the city
limits.
• Inclusion of an emergency clause for public health and safety or medical necessity.
• An implementation time frame after adoption, usually ranging from 30 days to one year.
SS1 - 5
Polystyrene Study Session Page 6
Some cities and counties have additional elements which further specify the ordinance’s scope
including:
• A section stating that all non-recyclable containers are to be prohibited in favor of
recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable materials.
• The addition of other products made of EPS. This includes items such as small coolers,
pool toys, and packing “peanuts” for shipping.
• An “in lieu of fine” program, where the proof of purchase of acceptable products is
accepted instead of a fine for the first offense.
Other considerations addressed by individual agencies include:
• Capitola and Santa Cruz amended and expanded initial ordinances to include a wider
range of items including the retail sale of polystyrene products.
• Carpenteria has included that each food provider file a signed certification that they are
aware of the ordinance and will comply with it. This is to be done at the beginning of
each year.
SS1 - 6
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINER AND PRODUCT REGULATIONS Page 7
The chart below compares the key elements of ordinances from the agencies selected for research.
City and Ordinance Adopted EPS Food
and Drink
Containers
All Non-
Sustainable
Containers
Straws,
Cup Lids,
and
Utensils
Other EPS
Products
(coolers,
"peanuts")
Affordability
exclusion of
15%
Purchase
In lieu of
fine
program
Enforcement
Santa Cruz - Environmentally
Acceptable Packaging and
Products
2007/
2012 X X X X X X
Director of Public
Works
Santa Monica - Banning Non-
recyclable Plastic Disposable
Food Service Containers
2007
X X
Environmental and
Public Works
Director
Capitola - EPS and
Biodegradable and Compostable
Food Service Ware
2009/
2011 X X X X
City Manager or
designee
Monterey - Environmentally
Acceptable Food Packaging
2009 X X X X Deputy City
Manager
Carpenteria - Food Container
Regulations
2008 X X City Manager or
designee
Ojai - Environmentally
Acceptable Packaging and
Products
2014
X X X X X X
Code Enforcement
Salinas - Environmentally
Acceptable Food Packaging
Ordinance
2011
X X X X X
City Manager or
designee
Newport Beach - Use of
Expanded Polystyrene
Disposable Food Service Ware
2008
X
City Manager or
designee
Cupertino -
Polystyrene Foam Disposable Fo
od Service Ware
2014
X
City Manager or
designee
County of Monterey - Use of
Polystyrene Foam Food
Packaging by Food Providers
2010
X X
Director of Health
County of Santa Clara -
Expanded Polystyrene Food and
Beverage Containers
2012
X X
Agriculture and
Environmental
Director
SS1 - 7
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINER AND PRODUCT REGULATIONS Page 8
ISSUES & IMPACTS
Business Perspective
Food-based businesses are typically the group most affected by EPS ordinances. City staff
worked with the Chamber of Commerce to contact several local food-based businesses to better
understand their perspective on this issue. Initially, a small group of businesses were contacted
directly to discuss the issues. Based on those conversations, a survey was developed that was
sent to a larger group of businesses in the City. In total, feedback was received by 20 local
businesses.
The businesses were grouped into three categories for analysis.
- Group 1: Businesses that no longer use EPS food containers, but had in the past.
- Group 2: Businesses that have not used EPS food containers since the business began.
- Group 3: Businesses that currently use EPS food containers.
Businesses in Group 1 generally cited owner/management preference as the main reason for
switching away from EPS food containers. Also, those businesses saw an approximate 15-60%
increase in cost associated with switching to another product. Those businesses noted increased
customer satisfaction as well as increased consumer prices as the main effects of switching.
Group 2 businesses chose not to use EPS food containers for a variety of reasons including
owner/management preference, customer preference and environmental and health concerns.
Businesses in Group 3 generally use EPS food containers because it is less expensive than
alternatives. Some businesses also indicated concerns with the performance of alternative
containers. The concerns involve both the rigidity of the containers with hot foods or liquids and
poor insulating properties. Concerns about an EPS ordinance from these businesses included
increased costs and additional regulations on private business.
This outreach effort was intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive of the issues and concerns
of the business community on this issue. If desired, additional, in-depth outreach to the business
community can be included as a part of the City Council direction on this issue. The survey and
results are included as Attachment 2.
SS1 - 8
Polystyrene Study Session Page 9
Cost Comparison
In 2012, the City of San Jose completed a cost comparison of EPS products to alternatives as a
part of a county-wide effort to regulate EPS. The results of that analysis are below:
Material Cups Plates Clamshell Container
EPS $0.035 $0.056 $0.09
Rigid Plastic $0.026 $0.083 $0.25
Paper $0.055 $0.02 $0.28
Molded Natural Fiber n/a $0.064 $0.22
Compostable Plastic $0.07 $0.15 $0.33
Alternatives to EPS cups ranged from 26% less expensive to 50% more expensive. The range for
plates was 35% less expensive to 63% more expensive for EPS alternatives. Alternatives to EPS
clamshell containers ranged from 59% to 73% more expensive. Staff compared the results of the
City of San Jose analysis to some local prices and found general concurrence with the findings.
Outcomes of Regulation
Classification of litter can be very time intensive and expensive. As a result, there is relatively
little data on the outcomes of EPS ordinances. There are, however, some observational studies
that have documented results. Those include:
• The City of Santa Cruz observed a 50% decrease in EPS food and drink containers
picked up during annual beach and river cleanups between 2007-2012.
• One year after implementation of the City of San Francisco ordinance that prohibits
EPS food and drink containers, the City’s litter audit showed a 36% decrease in EPS
litter.
POLICY TYPES
As referenced in the research section, there are several elements that may be included in
ordinances regulating EPS. To facilitate discussion, staff has grouped those various elements into
four policy types. Below is a graphic illustrating those policy types and the associated scope of
the regulations listed in order of increasing level of affected products.
SS1 - 9
Polystyrene Study Session Page 10
• Type 1: The first type of ordinance focuses only on food and drink carrying EPS
containers. This would not include clear, rigid polystyrene containers. This would
also not include any food service ware items such as straws, cup lids, or utensils.
• Type 2: The second type of ordinance is a restriction on EPS food and drink
containers as well as all other food containers that are non-recyclable, non-
compostable or non-reusable. This would not include clear, rigid polystyrene
containers as it recyclable in the County. This would also not include any food
service ware items such as straws, cup lids, or utensils.
• Type 3: The next type of ordinance is one that prohibits EPS food and drink
containers as well as all other food containers that are non-recyclable, non-
compostable or non-reusable. In addition, this type of ordinance includes restrictions
on straws, cup lids, utensils and other similar products.
• Type 4: The last type of ordinance includes all of the previously stated restrictions,
but also prohibits the retail sale of any product that is made with EPS that is not
wholly encapsulated or enclosed. This generally includes foam plates, cups, packing
“peanuts”, smaller foam ice coolers (those not clad in plastic), pool toys and other
products that may not be directly associated with food service.
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
The following implementation and enforcement strategies were common among cities and
counties with EPS ordinances of all types:
Type 1: EPS food and
drink containers
Type 2: EPS and non-sustainable
food and drink containers
Type 3: Above and non-sustainable
food service ware
Type 4: Above and retail sale of EPS
containers and other non-enclosed products
SS1 - 10
Polystyrene Study Session Page 11
• Several cities held initial stakeholder meetings and included current restaurant product
suppliers and waste haulers in addition to neighborhood associations and food vendors.
• Clear definition of items covered by the ordinance is important for effective
implementation. This allows for clarity to vendors affected and makes enforcement
easier.
• Gradual implementation of an ordinance, up to a year in length, increased effectiveness.
This allows for outreach and a phase-in time to provide food vendors and others time to
use up their existing stock of containers.
• Sending mailings to affected vendors to inform them of ordinance’s scope can increase
compliance and reduce the amount of enforcement needed. In addition to the hearing
process, these mailings were sent out between the passing of ordinance and its
implementation, as well as at least one mailing after the implementation date.
• Workshops were held to inform affected businesses and included vendors of alternative
products. This was helpful for educational purposes, but can also help establish
relationships between the affected businesses and the suppliers of the needed
replacements.
• In the case of the ordinance having multiple parts or categories, staggering the
implementation has proved to be effective.
• In some cities, a purchasing co-op was created so that small businesses can take
advantage of having access to bulk suppliers. Smaller local businesses often are more
affected by the increased costs of alternative products, and this can help offset the overall
cost.
• Different strategies for implementation, comprised of the above options, for the different
types of ordinances can range from 40 to 1000 staff hours to complete.
• On-going enforcement is typically complaint based and can account for 10% of the time
for a full time employee for Type 1 ordinances and 50% or more of the time for a full
time employee for Type 4 ordinances.
SS1 - 11
Polystyrene Study Session Page 12
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION
In conclusion, staff has provided the following table with focused questions to facilitate Council
direction:
Questions for Council Direction
Yes No
Pursue an ordinance regulating the use of EPS
Include EPS food containers
Include all non-recyclable, non-compostable, non-reusable food containers
Include all non-recyclable, non-compostable, non-reusable food service ware
(utensils, cup lids, straws, etc.)
Include the retail sale of EPS products (coolers, packing “peanuts,” etc.)
Include exception for undue hardship
Include an “in lieu of fine” program
The staff presentation on September 2, 2014, will include a similar decision matrix to help focus
Council direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is estimated that the work to prepare an Ordinance using the traditional outreach and public
engagement approach would be approximately 250 hours or $10,500 in staff and public outreach
costs which can be absorbed through existing resources. Costs for implementation and on-going
enforcement are dependent on City Council direction and the scope of an adopted ordinance and
may require additional resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the study session if more information is necessary in order to provide direction to
staff on preparing an EPS ordinance.
2. Bring an ordinance back to the City Council as soon as possible and limit public outreach
efforts. This is not recommended as the City’s public outreach efforts bring valuable input
to the Ordinance preparation process and have become an integral and expected component
of any such effort.
ATTACHMENTS
1. California Cities and Counties with Polystyrene Ordinances
2. Business Survey
\\chstore6\team\council agenda reports\2014\2014-09-02\environmentally friendly food container (johnson-hermann)\polystyrene study session
agenda report.docx
SS1 - 12
Attachment 1
California Cities and Counties with Various Polystyrene Ordinances
Alameda (2008)
Albany (2008)
Aliso Viejo (2005)
Belmont (2012)
Berkeley (1988)
Burlingame (2011)
Calabasas (2008)
Capitola (2012)
Carmel (1989)
Carpenteria (2008)
Cupertino (2014)
Dana Point (2012)
Del Ray Oaks (2010)
El Cerrito (2014)
Emeryville (2008)
Fairfax (1993)
Foster City (2012)
Fremont (2011)
Half Moon Bay (2011)
Hayward (2011)
Hercules (2008)
Hermosa Beach (2012)
Huntington Beach (2005)
Laguna Beach (2008)
Laguna Hills (2008)
Laguna Woods (2004)
Livermore (2010)
Los Altos (2014)
Los Altos Hills (2012)
Los Angeles City (2008)
Los Angeles County (2008)
Malibu (2005)
Manhattan Beach (2013)
Marin County (2010)
Marina (2011)
Mendocino County (effective 2015)
Menlo Park (2012)
Millbrae (2008)
Mill Valley (2009)
Monterey City (2009)
Monterey County (2010)
Morgan Hill (2014)
Mountain View (2014)
Newport Beach (2008)
Novato (2013)
Oakland (2007)
Ojai (2014)
Orange County (2006)
Pacific Grove (2008)
Pacifica (2010)
Palo Alto (2010)
Pittsburg (1993)
Portola Valley (2012)
Redwood City (2013)
Richmond (2014)
Salinas (2011)
San Bruno (2010)
San Carlos (2012)
San Clemente (2011)
San Francisco (2007)
San Jose (2014/2015)
San Juan Capistrano (2004)
San Leandro (2012)
San Mateo City (2013)
San Mateo County (2008/2011)
San Rafael (2013)
Santa Clara County (2013)
Santa Cruz City (2012)
Santa Cruz County (2012)
Santa Monica (2007)
Sausalito (2008)
Scotts Valley (2009)
Seaside (2010)
Sonoma City (1989)
Sonoma County (1989)
South San Francisco (2008)
Sunnyvale (2013)
Ventura County (2004)
Walnut Creek (2014)
Watsonville (2009/2014)
West Hollywood (1990)
Yountville (1989)
SS1 - 13
Polystyrene Business Survey
1 / 11
38.46%5
61.54%8
Q1 Has your business ever used or does it
currently use polystyrene or Styrofoam™
for food or drink containers?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 0
Total 13
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
Attachment 2
SS1 - 14
Polystyrene Business Survey
2 / 11
60.00%3
40.00%2
Q2 Do you still use polystyrene or
Styrofoam™ for food or drink containers?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 8
Total 5
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
SS1 - 15
Polystyrene Business Survey
3 / 11
50.00%1
50.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q3 What was your main reason for
switching to another product?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 11
Total 2
Owner/managemen
t preference
Customer
preference
Environmental
concerns
Health concerns
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Owner/management preference
Customer preference
Environmental concerns
Health concerns
SS1 - 16
Polystyrene Business Survey
4 / 11
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
50.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
50.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q4 What was the approximate percentage
increase in costs associated with
switching?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 11
Total 2
No increase
10% or less
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%
More than 100%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
No increase
10% or less
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%
More than 100%
SS1 - 17
Polystyrene Business Survey
1 / 1
Q5 Has the change had any positive or
negative effects on your business?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 11
#Responses Date
1 Pros & cons Attractive to environmental conscience customers but increased costs 8/17/2014 4:29 PM
2 raised prices 8/7/2014 4:41 PM
SS1 - 18
Polystyrene Business Survey
6 / 11
100.00%1
100.00%1
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%1
100.00%1
Q6 Please provide your contact
information if you'd like to stay updated on
the status of the City's research on this
topic.
Answered: 1 Skipped: 12
Answer Choices Responses
Name:
Company:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:
ZIP:
Country:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
SS1 - 19
Polystyrene Business Survey
7 / 11
100.00%5
20.00%1
0.00%0
Q7 What are your main reasons for using
polystyrene or Styrofoam™ for food or
drink containers?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 5
Less expensive
than...
Alternative
products do ...
No interest in
switching
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Less expensive than alternatives
Alternative products do not meet needs
No interest in switching
SS1 - 20
Polystyrene Business Survey
1 / 1
Q8 What concerns would you have should
an ordinance be passed?
Answered: 3 Skipped: 10
#Responses Date
1 Taking away freedom of choice.8/17/2014 4:30 PM
2 Increased Costs 8/6/2014 8:19 PM
3 More regulations on privet business.8/1/2014 9:33 AM
SS1 - 21
Polystyrene Business Survey
9 / 11
100.00%1
100.00%1
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%1
100.00%1
Q9 Please provide your contact
information if you'd like to stay updated on
the status of the City's research on this
topic.
Answered: 1 Skipped: 12
Answer Choices Responses
Name:
Company:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:
ZIP:
Country:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
SS1 - 22
Polystyrene Business Survey
10 / 11
81.82%9
36.36%4
36.36%4
9.09%1
Q10 Do you have any specific reasons for
not using polystyrene or Styrofoam(TM)
food and drink containers?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 2
Total Respondents: 11
Owner/managemen
t preference
Customer
preference
Environmental
concerns
Health concerns
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Owner/management preference
Customer preference
Environmental concerns
Health concerns
SS1 - 23
Polystyrene Business Survey
11 / 11
100.00%2
100.00%2
100.00%2
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%2
100.00%2
Q11 Thank you for taking the time to
complete this survey. Please provide your
contact information if you'd like to stay
updated on the status of the City's
research on this topic.
Answered: 2 Skipped: 11
Answer Choices Responses
Name:
Company:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:
ZIP:
Country:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
SS1 - 24