SB6213

SB6213 – Bans manufacturing and distributing styrofoam containers, packing material and coolers.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Das (D; 47th District; Kent)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the Senate – (Passed)
Amended and passed by the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 30th. Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 10th. A second substitute passed out of Ways and Means and was referred to Rules on February 11th. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy; had a hearing February 25th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2429 is the companion bill in the House.

Comments –
There are other reasons for banning styrofoam, but really comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of using these items with those of the alternatives requires a complicated full life-cycle analysis. (HFCs have been often been used in the production of styrofoam, and they have a global warming potential between 12,000 and 14,800 times that of CO2; their use as propellants in Washington was banned by HB1112, and it banned some styrofoam board, but not containers.)

The only lifecycle comparison I found in a casual Google search was done as a project by a group of seniors in a UBC environmental studies projects class; for what it’s worth they concluded that the global warming effects of styrofoam takeout containers were a lot lower than those of ones made from plastic, corn-based biodegradeable plastic, and aluminum. If everything went to the landfill, paper containers were slightly better than styrofoam ones.

Summary –
The bill bans the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene containers, packing material and coolers made from petroleum, starting July 1st, 2021. After two notifications of violations, food service operators and food packagers are subject to fines of up to $250/day for their third and subsequent violations.

The amendments in the Committee on Environment include an intent section expecting that the new recycling development center and the current study of plastic packaging will provide better options for dealing with it, and declaring that the state intends to ban all styrofoam by 2025. They allowed the manufacture of the covered products (but continued to restrict their distribution and sale within the state.) They now also exempt coolers for shipping perishable commodities from a retail establishment; egg cartons for more than 12 eggs; and packaging for raw meats, seafood, and vegetables. They remove all the requirements for food service establishments, food packagers, and local health jurisdictions, presumably because banning the sale and distribution of these items means they won’t be available in the first place. They clarify that packing peanuts, but not other loose packing materials, have to be compostable after June 1, 2022. After January 1, 2021 the bill would preempt any local ordinances restricting the products it covers.

The amendments in Ways and Means expanded the exemptions to include fruit trays, coolers used for biological materials, and all egg cartons; expanded the definition of “manufacturer” to include importers and distributors, making them subject to the same penalties for violations, and raised the level of second and subsequent fines to up to $1,000; it would now preempt any local ordinances that had not been passed by June 1st of this year. The floor amendment  moves the date for banning covered products and packing peanuts back a year, to 2023.

Details –
There are some exceptions, including styrofoam containers for drugs and medical devices, and containers in which food’s been packaged and sealed before they’re delivered to a service establishment. The bill doesn’t apply to packaging in containers from out of state. It provides for outreach and education about the ban by the Department of Ecology, and for an appeals process.