BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1930
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1930
AUTHOR: De La Torre
AMENDED: April 29, 2010
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 28, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Amber Hartman
SUBJECT : HAZARDOUS WASTE: GLASS BEADS
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Pursuant to several Health and Safety Code statutes, bans
or regulates lead content in a variety of consumer
products, such as candy, toys, tableware, packaging,
children's jewelry, plumbing, and glass beverage bottles.
2) Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65,
prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from
knowingly and intentionally exposing people to a chemical
known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity
without first giving clear and reasonable warning. The
governor must publish a list of chemicals "known to the
State of California" to cause cancer, birth defects or
other reproductive harm. Both lead and arsenic are
included on this list. No person can knowingly discharge
or release those same chemicals into any source of drinking
water. Specified exemptions are allowed, such as when the
exposure or discharge would not pose a significant risk of
cancer, or, for chemicals that cause reproductive toxicity,
would not have observable effect at 1,000 times the level
in question.
3) Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
by January 1, 2011, to adopt regulations to establish a
process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical
ingredients in consumer products that may be considered a
"chemical of concern," in accordance with a review process,
AB 1930
Page 2
as specified. (25251 et seq.).
4) Requires DTSC, on or before January 1, 2011, to adopt
regulations to establish a process to evaluate chemicals of
concern, and their potential alternatives, in consumer
products in order to determine how best to limit exposure
or to reduce the level of hazard posed by a chemical of
concern, as specified.
This bill :
1) Prohibits the manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or
offering for promotional purposes glass beads that contain
more than 75 parts per million (ppm) of arsenic or 100 ppm
of lead by weight if the beads will be used with pressure,
suction, or wet-or-dry-type blasting equipment.
2) Defines the method by which lead and arsenic should be
measured as EPA Method 3052 modified and EPA Method 6010C
or a generally accepted instrumental method with traceable
standards, including X-ray fluorescence.
3) Requires glass beads sold in California that will be used
for surface preparation and with blasting equipment to be
labeled with the following statement: "Glass bead contents
contain less than 75 ppm arsenic and less than 100 ppm
lead, as determined by EPA method 3052 and EPA method 6010c
or a generally accepted instrumental method with traceable
standards."
4) Establishes that the bill does not limit, supersede,
duplicate, or conflict with the authority of DTSC to fully
implement authority under chemicals of concern including
testing and labeling, and also declares that glass beads
will not be considered as a product category already
regulated under current law.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "Some countries,
including China, produce glass sphere with high levels of
arsenic and lead. While it is illegal to use these toxic
spheres in China, they are imported for use in California
AB 1930
Page 3
and other states. Without a standard, these foreign
spheres can continue to be sold in California to businesses
that are completely unaware of the danger." The author
continues, "In order to protect individuals and the
environment, AB 1930 will conform California to the U.S.
military standard, preventing the manufacture and sale of
glass beads containing an excess of 75 ppm arsenic and 100
ppm lead, by weight."
2) Lead & Arsenic Dangers . Exposure to even very small
amounts of lead can be harmful, especially to infants,
young children, and pregnant women. Lead poisoning
permanently damages the brain and nervous system while
causing anemia, kidney damage, and other symptoms. Lead
exposure is most serious for young children because their
growing bodies absorb lead more easily than adults and they
are more susceptible to its effects. Even low level lead
exposure may harm the intellectual development, behavior,
size and hearing of infants. Female workers exposed to
high levels of lead have more miscarriages and stillbirths.
Inorganic arsenic is a known carcinogen and reproductive
toxin. Arsenic binds to DNA and disrupts normal cell
growth. There is some evidence that long-term exposure to
arsenic in children may result in lower IQ scores. There
is also some evidence that exposure to arsenic in the womb
and early childhood may increase mortality in young adults.
Both arsenic and lead also can cause skin and tissue
contact irritation, and are inhalation and ingestion risks.
Both elements, at high exposure levels, can kill humans.
Arsenic and lead released from human activities can also
contaminate and pollute the surrounding environment and,
ultimately, drinking water.
3) Glass-making in the U.S. The origin of the issue of metals
in glass beads stems from how glass is now made in the
United States compared to how it used to be made.
Occupational safety and permissible exposure limits written
during the 1970's and 1980's have altogether eliminated the
use of lead and arsenic in American glass making, which
were used to clarify and remove bubbles from glass. A
AB 1930
Page 4
technological alternative replaced the use of heavy metals,
although that technological replacement was not adopted
universally in the developing world.
Therefore, the two major American manufacturers of glass
beads, Potter Industries Inc. (the bill's sponsor) and
Swarco Industries Inc., historically do not produce beads
containing detectable levels of heavy metals because they
buy recycled glass within the United States, which no
longer contains heavy metals. AB 1930 would impact the
glass bead market by requiring domestic importers of glass
beads to make sure that imported beads comply with heavy
metal limits, or simply lose market share in states that
have heavy metal glass bead limits.
4) Chinese irony . A key policy observation is that, although
Chinese law does not allow the production or use of glass
beads containing heavy metals in China, it does allow the
export of these beads to foreign countries. For observers,
this creates an odd juxtaposition wherein the Chinese
government implicitly says glass beads are not safe enough
for use within their own borders, but they are okay for
others. If the policy question simply revolved around
whether or not the beads were safe, then it would be
reasonable to assume that a country which produced heavy
metal-laced glass beads would not regulate metal levels in
the beads because they believed they were safe for their
own citizens. In fact, this is not the case, which
suggests that countries and states without metal
restrictions are dumping grounds for products that are
potentially unsafe.
5) A variety of standards . The standards proposed in AB 1930
are presently used by the Department of Defense for the
U.S. military. However, both nationally and
internationally, there is a range of limits placed on lead
and arsenic in glass beads and a variety of additional
heavy metals that are regulated. In 12 states, their
Departments of Transportation have set regulatory limits on
glass beads used for highway painting, which this bill does
not specifically address.
AB 1930
Page 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
|Country/state|Lead |Arsenic |Other metals |Mechanism |
| |limit |limit | | |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|E.U. |200 |200 |200 Sb |Regulatory |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|China |Do not |Do not use |Do not use |Regulatory |
| |use | | | |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|Washington |50 |20 |0 Sb, 100 |Regulatory |
| | | |Ba, 1 Cd, 5 | |
| | | |Cr, 1 Se, 5 | |
| | | |Ag, 0.2 Hg | |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|US Congress |N/A |200 |N/A |Statutory |
|HR 5425 | | | |(pending) |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|Louisiana |N/A |75 |N/A |Statutory |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|New Jersey |N/A |75 |N/A |Statutory |
|AB 1448 | | | |(pending) |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|DOTs in CA |200 |200 |200 Sb |Regulatory |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|DOTs ME, |100 |75 |unknown |Regulatory |
|VT, NY, RI | | | | |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|New Zealand |140 |55 |50 Sb, 10 |Regulatory |
| | | |Hg, 12 Cd, | |
| | | |10 Cr | |
|-------------+----------+------------+-------------+-----------|
|Australia |50 |50 |50 Sb |Regulatory |
---------------------------------------------------------------
6) Legislate or regulate ? The variety of limits and types of
metals that have been regulated so far (see table) leads to
the question of whether or not the legislature should set
these limits. The sponsor of the bill, Potter Industries,
has been largely responsible for driving the issue forward
throughout the country and abroad, which has resulted in
many of the limits placed in regulation and the recent
legislation signed into law in Lousiana. Interestingly, the
limits they have lobbied for on heavy metals are variable,
AB 1930
Page 6
sometimes excluding lead, sometimes including antimony
(Sb), mercury (Hg), and other metals. This variability
raises the questions: a) Why exactly are these limits
being chosen for these metals?; and b) What evidence is
this decision based upon?
The sponsor has suggested that the reason lead and arsenic
were chosen is because other heavy metals are never
detected when these two metals are limited, i.e., if lead
and arsenic are limited, then any other heavy metals are
also inherently limited. However, in background material
provided by the sponsor, a study by Potter Industries in
Sweden of highway surface glass beads showed that in six
samples either antimony (Sb), chromium (Cr), or cadmium
(Cd) (or both antimony and cadmium) were detected in glass
beads, but lead and arsenic were not detected. While a
small study of glass beads used on highways, it suggests
that it is possible for other dangerous heavy metals to be
detected in the absence of lead and arsenic.
Should a new, different standard specific to only a small
part of the glass bead industry, namely blasting equipment,
be set? Should it only include lead and arsenic? For
glass beads used for highway painting, Caltrans has already
set a regulatory limit of 200 ppm for three heavy metals:
lead, arsenic and antimony. What impact on the blasting
glass bead market would this intra-state difference in
heavy metal limits create?
This question of varied limits in different markets should
be considered in the context of overwhelming scientific
knowledge about the severe impact of even small amounts of
arsenic and lead on human health and the environment. It
is difficult to imagine a negative environmental or health
impact of setting tighter standards. However, there could
be a significant impact on the existing glass bead market
share if these new limits are put in place for a subset of
the glass bead industry.
It may be appropriate to put in place a temporary limit,
perhaps via a two- year sunset, on heavy metals in
blasting-type glass beads. This would provide a temporary,
but environmentally protective limit. There is a pending,
AB 1930
Page 7
independent scientific study in New Jersey funded by the
New Jersey Department of Transportation that is expected to
produce a final, public report by December 2010. The study
is expected to indicate, at least for glass beads used on
roads (although not specifically for blasting glass beads),
how much heavy metals are leached from glass beads, which
will potentially suggest what levels should be considered
safe and protective to the environment and human health.
AB 1930 could, additionally, authorize DTSC to adopt glass
bead heavy metal levels in regulation based on new
scientific data.
7) The context of blasting glass beads . When glass beads are
employed for blasting purposes they are often used in
conjunction with containment booths or cabinets that
protect workers and the environment from particulate dust.
This is the case, for example, in preparation of metal
prosthetic devices and airplane part stress removal. This
is not always the case in automotive or pool cleaning
settings.
Furthermore, in some cases, glass beads are used to blast
away old lead paint or other toxic materials from buildings
or cars. The resulting debris from the glass beads and the
lead paint is already considered hazardous material, and,
it would seem that heavy metal limits on glass beads in
these situations would be somewhat unnecessary since the
waste is already treated as hazardous.
Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Hazard Authority
(OSHA) and other federal agencies have jurisdiction and
already has set permissible exposure limits (PEL) for the
amount of lead and arsenic that workers can be exposed to.
An additional regulatory tool is to make sure that OSHA and
other agencies monitor glass bead usage so that heavy
metals in glass beads fall within already set PELs.
8) Arguments in Support . According to the sponsor, "Assembly
Bill 1930 sets a standard for the manufacturing and sale of
glass spheres containing high levels of arsenic and lead
based on the standard used by the U.S. military.
Glass beads are pulverized when they are blown out of an
air compressor to treat surfaces or for other industrial
AB 1930
Page 8
purposes. The resulting dust, containing excessive levels
of heavy metals, is inhaled by employees or blown into the
air potentially contaminating soil and/or water. The U.S.
military recognized the danger of glass beads containing
toxic levels of arsenic and lead and established a standard
to ensure that soldiers, civilians, and the environment
were safe from contamination."
The sponsor refers to a briefing written by an internal
scientist, Dr. Ufuk Senturk, who writes, "Despite the
common public perception that glasses are inert, as
typically referenced for their use as toxic waste
containment, scientific literature, as explained above,
shows that glasses do leach and release toxic ingredients,
such as arsenic and lead. This is evidenced for commercial
grade soda-lime-silicate glasses2, where arsenic is shown
to leach up to 75% of its initial content when exposed to
basic pH conditions. Enhanced leaching under acidic
conditions is also known for soda-lime-silicate glasses (as
reported by Clark et al.1)."
9) Arguments in Opposition . The opposition, Fair Glass Bead
Market Access Coalition (FGBMAC) writes, "The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Subcommittee on Materials first examined this
issue in 2006. The corporate sponsor of A.B. 1930 asked
the subcommittee to enact regulations restricting the
source of recycled glass cullet for bead manufacturing to
North American sources. That effort was opposed by the
Subcommittee and other domestic providers/customers of
glass beads. This same manufacturer subsequently changed
tactics away from attempting to limit the source of glass
cullet and instead began proposing to limit the heavy metal
content of glass beads to 200 ppm arsenic, 200 ppm antimony
and 200 ppm lead. In 2007, the Subcommittee decided to
empanel a task force led by Eileen Sheehy of the New Jersey
Department of Transportation to further review the issue.
That research, referenced earlier, is poised to be released
in a presentation to the subcommittee at their annual
meeting in August, 2010.
Members of the FGBMAC have worked with the New Jersey
researchers to provide them with glass bead samples to
AB 1930
Page 9
assist in their work. We are willing to support and see
enacted the heavy metal content levels that would be
proposed as a result of this peer-reviewed research. It is
our expectation that these limits will not be confined to
lead, but may include a number of heavy metals including
arsenic, barium and antimony."
10)Related Legislation . AB 2251 (Cook) of 2008 prohibited the
manufacture, sale and use of reflective glass beads used
for roadway markings, if these beads contain inorganic
arsenic in a concentration greater than 75 parts per
million (ppm). (Died in Assembly Appropriations
Committee).
11)Clarification needed . If the committee believes AB 1930
should be approved, the following need clarification:
On page 2, delete lines 11 to 12 and 20 to 21
and replace with "pressure, suction, wet-or-dry-type
blasting equipment."
On page 2, line 14, define the word "modified"
and on line 15 after "6010C" include the words "as of
January 1, 2010".
On page 3, lines 2-5, the labeling statement is
perhaps too technical and not educational for the
consumer. It also might unintentionally imply the
label meets a federal standard by referring to a
federal government agency's (EPA) method. It should
therefore be stricken and replaced with: "Glass bead
contents contain less than 75 ppm arsenic and less
than 100 ppm lead pursuant to the California Health
and Safety Code Section 25258."
Also, to evaluate the independent study funded by the New
Jersey Department of Transportation, add a two-year
sunset. (See Comment 6).
SOURCE : Potter Industries Inc.
SUPPORT : American Glass Bead Manufacturers' Association,
Chemical Industry Council of California, Swarco
Industries Inc.
AB 1930
Page 10
OPPOSITION : Fair Glass Bead Market Access Coalition