BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 568| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 568 Author: Lowenthal (D) et al. Amended: 4/14/11 Vote: 21 SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/4/11 AYES: Simitian, Hancock, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley NOES: Strickland, Blakeslee SUBJECT : Recycling: polystyrene food containers SOURCE : Clean Water Action California DIGEST : This bill prohibits a food vendor, on and after January 1, 2013, from dispensing prepared food to a customer in a polystyrene foam food container and would define related terms. Senate Floor Amendments of 4/14/11 move the implementation date from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and establish an implementation date for school districts to comply beginning January 1, 2015. ANALYSIS : Existing law requires all rigid plastic bottles and rigid plastic containers sold in the state to be labeled with a code that indicates the resin used to produce the rigid plastic bottle or rigid plastic container. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, requires every rigid plastic CONTINUED SB 568 Page 2 packaging container, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to generally meet one of specified criteria. This bill: 1. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2014, a food vendor from dispensing prepared food to a customer in a polystyrene foam food container, however school districts will not have to comply until January 1, 2015. 2. Defines "polystyrene foam food container" to mean a container made of thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing the styrene monomer, that is used or intended to be used to hold prepared food, and meets all of the following conditions: A. Polystyrene is the sole resin used to produce the rigid plastic packaging container. B. The container is required to be labeled with a "6" pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 18015(a). C. Includes, but is not limited to, a cup, bowl, plate, tray, or clamshell container that is intended for single use. 3. Defines "food vendor" to mean a food facility, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113789, including, but not limited to, a restaurant or retail food and beverage vendor located or operating within the state. A food vendor also includes, but is not limited to, an itinerant restaurant, pushcart, vehicular food vendors, a caterer, a cafeteria, a store, a shop, a sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen. 4. Excludes from the definition of "food vendor" correctional facilities, including, but not limited to, a state prison, county jail, facility of the Division of Juvenile Justice, county- or city-operated juvenile facility, including juvenile halls, camps, or schools, or other state or local correctional institution. CONTINUED SB 568 Page 3 5. Defines "prepared food" to mean food as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 109935, including a beverage that is served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed, or otherwise prepared for consumption that may be eaten on or off the premises. Prepared food includes "ready-to-eat food," as defined in Section 113881. 6. Excludes from the definition of "prepared food" raw, butchered meats, fish, or poultry that is sold from a butcher case or a similar retail appliance. 7. Does not preempt the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce additional single-use food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than those in this bill. Comments According to the author, expanded polystyrene (EPS) poses significant problems in our waterways, storm drains and marine environment. It breaks down into small pieces, is lightweight and easily dispersible. It constitutes 15 percent of litter and is a problem in many areas. Forty-seven jurisdictions in California have banned EPS food containers. According to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis, almost 90 percent of floating marine debris is plastic. Due to its durability, buoyancy, and ability to accumulate and concentrate toxins present in the ocean, plastic is especially harmful to marine life. EPS is a large portion of ocean and waterway debris for the same reason it is used as packaging; it is light weight, durable and water resistant. EPS, like other plastics, does not biodegrade, but will break into smaller pieces. Pending/Previous Legislation SB 567 (DeSaulnier) replaces existing definitions and provisions relating to plastic bags and containers and replaces those with definitions and provisions related to plastic products labeled as "compostable" or "marine degradable." The product cannot use those terms unless it CONTINUED SB 568 Page 4 meets those ASTM standard specifications or an adopted standards, or unless the plastic product is labeled with a qualified claim, and the plastic product meets that standard. The bill prohibits the sale of a plastic product that is labeled as "biodegradable," "degradable," "decomposable," or any form of those terms. This bill passed the Environmental Quality Committee with a 5-2 vote on April 4, 2011 and is now in Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 904 (Feuer) of 2008 would have prohibited a takeout food provider from distributing single-use food service packaging to a consumer after July 1, 2012, unless the single-use food service packaging is either compostable or recyclable packaging as defined. This bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 1329 (Brownley) of 2009 would have prohibited the sale and distribution of rigid polyvinyl chlorine packaging containers. This bill was amended on the Senate Floor to address another policy matter. AB 1358 (Hill) of 2009 would have prohibited a food vendor from dispensing prepared food to a customer in a disposable polystyrene food container, a disposable nonrecyclable plastic food container, or a disposable nonrecycled content paper container. It would have allowed a food vendor to distribute prepared food in a compostable plastic container in a jurisdiction where organic waste is collected curbside for composting. This bill was amended on the Assembly Floor to address another policy matter. AB 2138 (Chesbro) of 2010 would have prohibited a food provider from distributing disposable food service packaging, including bags, to a consumer unless it is either compostable or recyclable, as defined. AB 2138 would have also prohibited a food provider from distributing disposable food service packaging, including bags, to a consumer, unless the Department of Resources Recycling and Recover determines the disposable food service packaging is recovered for composting or recycling at a rate of 25 percent or more. This bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. CONTINUED SB 568 Page 5 FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 4/26/11) Clean Water Action California (source) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Be Green Packaging, LLC Biosphere Industries Breast Cancer Fund California Coastal Commission California Resource Recovery Association Californians Against Waste Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority City and County of San Francisco City of Encinitas City of Monterey City of Richmond Defenders of Wildlife Endangered Habitats League Environment California Greenleaf Project Management Heal the Bay Institute for Local Self-Reliance Kennon B. Raines (individual) Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee / Integrated Waste Management Task Force Malibu Surfing Association Marin Sanitary Service Napa Recycling and Waste Services Orange County Interfaith Coalition for the Environment Sacramento Unified School District, Superintendent Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Save Our Shores Seventh Generation Advisors Sierra Club California The Plastic Pollution Coalition The Valley Women's Club The Watershed Project World Centric OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/26/11) CONTINUED SB 568 Page 6 American Chemistry Council California Chamber of Commerce California Film Extruders and Converters Association California Grocers Association California Manufacturers & Technology Association California Restaurant Association Dart Container Corporation Food Service Packaging Institute Industrial Environmental Association Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Practiv Corporation Society of the Plastics Industry The Dardanelle Group ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters generally contend that due to its ubiquitous nature and inherent properties, EPS poses a host of environmental and public health problems including marine pollution, human health impacts of styrene during production and lack of sustainable recovery and recycling opportunities. They also cite the high cost to local governments to meet the various trash Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's), of which many are currently required to implement with more likely to be imposed in the future. Many of the 47 jurisdictions who have implemented ESP food container bans are in the areas with existing trash TMDLs or those that may be facing one in the future. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Groups in opposition generally content that banning EPS food containers will not reduce litter and that while EPS litter might decline, it could also be replaced with litter from the alternative packaging materials. They also contend the EPS is the best material for food packaging as it is light weight, manages heat/cold well and is inexpensive. They also point to the recyclability of EPS and the new products such building supplies (e.g. baseboards, moldings) that are using recycled EPS. DLW:do 4/26/2011 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE CONTINUED SB 568 Page 7 **** END **** CONTINUED