BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1699
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AB 1699 (Bloom) - As Amended: April 22, 2014
SUBJECT : Waste management: microplastics.
SUMMARY : Prohibits, on or after January 1, 2016, the sale or
promotion of personal care products containing microplastic.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings about microplastic particles and
their effects on the environment.
2)Defines "microplastic" as any plastic size 5 millimeters or
less in all dimensions.
3)Defines "personal care products" as mixtures and solutions
used for bathing and facial or body cleaning, including, but
not limited to, hand and body soap, exfoliates, shampoos,
toothpastes, and scrubs.
4)Defines "person in the course of doing business" as not
including any person employing fewer than 10 employees; any
city, county, or district, or the federal government; or any
entity in its operation of a public water system.
5)Defines "plastic" as a synthetic material made from linking
monomers through a chemical reaction to create a polymer chain
that can be molded or extruded at high heat into various
forms. Provides that plastics can be made from many organic
substances, including petroleum and natural gas.
6)Prohibits, on or after January 1, 2016, a person in the course
of doing business from selling or offering for promotional
purposes any personal care products containing microplastic.
Specifies that the prohibition does not apply to products
containing microplastic in an amount of less than 1 part per
million (ppm) by weight.
7)Provides that a person who violates or threatens to violate
the provisions of the bill may be enjoined in any court of
competent jurisdiction and is liable for a civil penalty not
to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation, as specified.
AB 1699
Page 2
8)Authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, a city
attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000
persons, or a city prosecutor to enforce the provisions of the
bill.
9)Requires the civil penalties collected to be retained by the
office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district
attorney, or Attorney General, whichever office brought the
action.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits, under the federal Marine Plastic Pollution Research
and Control Act of 1987, the at-sea disposal of plastic and
other solid materials for all navigable waters within the
United States. (33 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)
2)Regulates, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
discharges of pollutants in storm water and urban runoff by
regulating, through the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), industrial discharges and
discharges through the municipal storm drain systems. (Water
Code § 13000 et seq.)
a) Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
and the regional water boards to implement a program to
control discharges of preproduction plastic (nurdles) from
point and nonpoint sources. Requires the SWRCB to
determine the appropriate regulatory methods to address the
discharges from these point and nonpoint sources. (Water
Code § 13367)
3)Declares that littered plastic products have caused and
continue to cause significant environmental harm and have
burdened local governments with significant environmental
cleanup costs. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 42355)
4)Prohibits a wholesaler or manufacturer from selling or
offering for sale expanded polystyrene loosefill packaging
material. (PRC § 42390)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
AB 1699
Page 3
Need for the bill : According to the author, "Microplastic beads
are sold in consumer products as abrasives and exfoliants (such
as in soaps, facial scrubs, etc.) In some products there are
over 350,000 microbeads in one tube alone. They are directly
washed down the drain and too small to be captured by water
treatment facilities. Recent studies have shown microbeads to
be a pervasive marine pollutant, and have been found in alarming
quantities everywhere from the garbage gyres in the Pacific
Ocean to the Great Lakes to the LA River. Research has also
shown that these beads absorb toxins and are being ingested by
marine life, posing a threat to our marine ecosystems.
Currently there is no law banning their use in consumer
products. While some larger companies such as Unilever, Proctor
& Gamble and Johnson & Johnson have pledged to phase microbeads
out of their products and replace them with natural
alternatives, the proposed phase out dates range all over the
place and in some cases are only 50% by a certain date, etc.
Our bill would provide a hard phase out date to ensure that
plastic microbeads from personal care products are no longer
entering our waters."
Microplastics in the marine environment : According to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), marine
debris is a serious problem that impacts the environment,
economy, and human health and safety. Plastic pollution is the
predominant type of anthropogenic debris found in the marine
environment.
Microplastics enter the marine environment as larger plastic
objects that eventually degrade into smaller components, as shed
synthetic fibers from textiles during clothes washing, or as
microbeads that originate in personal care products. According
to The 5 Gyres Institute, microplastic particles and microbeads,
which are typically made of polyethylene, polypropylene,
polyethylene terephthalate, polymethyl methacrylate or nylon,
can be found in facial and body scrubs, shampoos, soaps,
toothpaste, eyeliners, lip gloss, deodorant, and sunblock
sticks. Some of these products, most of which are designed to
be flushed down the sink or bath drain, contain more than
350,000 beads per bottle.
A number of studies have shown that microplastics pass through
wastewater treatment facilities and into waterways, eventually
flowing to the ocean. Additional microplastics reach rivers and
AB 1699
Page 4
oceans as a result of wastewater overflow during heavy rainfall
events.
Impacts of discarded microplastic : The US EPA states that
marine animals accidentally eat marine debris while feeding on
natural food. Ingestion can lead to starvation or malnutrition
when the debris collects in the animal's stomach and causes the
animal to stop feeding. Internal injuries and infections may
also result from ingestion.
In addition to causing these types of injuries to wildlife,
microplastics can have toxicological effects. Research suggests
that microplastics attract and absorb persistent organic
pollutants, such as PCBs, DDT, and PBDEs. Studies conducted by
UC Santa Barbara's National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis (NCEAS) show that about 78 percent of the chemicals
recognized by the US EPA are associated with microplastic
pollution. Additional studies at NCEAS show that toxic
concentrations of pollutants and additives enter the tissue of
animals that have eaten microplastic. These pollutants
bioaccumulate and bioamplify, having the potential to impact
ecosystems and human health.
Are microplastic beads necessary in personal care products ?
Alternatives to plastic microbeads are commonly used in personal
care products, such as ground fruit pits and seeds, cocoa beans,
rice, sugar, and salt. While some opponents argue that these
components don't offer the same scrubbing feeling or
hypoallergenic properties as microbeads, many major
manufacturers are already voluntarily phasing out microplastics
and using these or other alternatives. For example,
Colgate-Palmolive's website states, "We recognize that consumers
have questions and are reformulating with alternate ingredients
the small number of our products containing microplastics. Much
of this work has already been accomplished, and the process will
be completed by 2014." Unilever's website states, "Unilever has
decided to phase out plastic scrub beads from personal care
products. This is because we believe we can provide consumers
with products that deliver a similar exfoliating performance
without the need to use plastics. We expect to complete this
phase out globally by 2015." Johnson & Johnson, L'Oreal, and
Proctor & Gamble have also committed to eliminating the use of
microplastics in their products.
Other states' action on microplastics : Several other states are
AB 1699
Page 5
currently considering legislation on microplastics, including
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio.
The New York bills, S07018 and A08744, prohibit the production,
manufacture, sale, or offering for sale of any personal care
product that contains intentionally added microbeads beginning
on December 31, 2015. SB 2727, which is being considered in
Illinois, would prohibit the manufacture for sale of a personal
care product that contains synthetic plastic microbeads
beginning on December 31, 2017, and would prohibit a person from
accepting for sale a personal care product that contains
synthetic plastic microbeads beginning on December 31, 2018.
Arguments in support : Sixteen environmental and public health
groups argue, "In 2012, scientists found more than 450,000
micro-beads per square kilometer in parts of the Great Lakes.
Micro-plastic particles are found in all oceanic gyres, bays,
gulfs and seas worldwide. Plastic micro-beads have been
documented to escape sewage treatment? Micro-beads are
pervasive in the environment, pollutants (long-lasting toxic
chemicals like DDT, PAHs, PCBs [flame-retardants]) and other
industrial chemicals, and are consumed by a variety of marine
life, including the fish we harvest for food? Recently, it has
been demonstrated that those toxins transfer to the fish tissue.
Scientists are concerned with toxins bio-accumulating and
biomagnifying up the food chain, with apex predators such as
whales and humans susceptible to the greatest accumulation of
toxins with potentially severe consequences."
Arguments in opposition : The Personal Care Products Council
argues, "AB 1699 would regulate the use of microbeads used in
personal care and cleaning products by January 2016. This
timeline for implementation is overly aggressive and unrealistic
for total compliance. Environmental Stewardship is something
that our members take very seriously; in fact, companies have
already announced plans to reformulate existing products. The
requirements of both the Federal and State Food Drug and
Cosmetics Act requires companies to insure the safety of each
and every ingredient and finished product before marketing a
product. Accordingly, a complete reformulation by our members
will require sufficient time for research, analysis and product
safety testing. We feel that an expedited timetable could
jeopardize the health and safety of these alternative products
for consumers."
Double referral : This bill was double referred to the Assembly
AB 1699
Page 6
Natural Resources and Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
Committees. It passed out of the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee on April 7, 2014, on a 6-3 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support :
All One Ocean
Attorney General, Department of Justice, State of California
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
Californians Against Waste
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
Center for Biological Diversity
City of Los Angeles
Coachella Valley Water District
Environment California
Heal the Bay
Las Virgenes - Triunfo Joint Powers Authority
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Ocean Voyage Institute/Project Kaisei
Plastic Free Seas
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Plastic Soup Foundation
San Luis Obispo Waterkeeper
Save Our Shores
Seventh Generation Advisors
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
Team Marine
The Five Gyres Institute
Turtle Island Restoration Network
WateReuse
Opposition :
AdvaMed
American Cleaning Institute
BayBio
Biocom
California Chamber of Commerce
California Healthcare Institute
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
AB 1699
Page 7
California Retailers Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Consumer Healthcare Products Association
GMA
Personal Care Products Council
Western Plastics Association
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965