BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 1699 (Bloom)
As Amended June 19, 2014
Hearing Date: June 24, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TMW
SUBJECT
Waste Management: Plastic Microbeads
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that, on or after January 1, 2019, a
person shall not sell or offer for promotional purposes in this
state any personal care products containing plastic microbeads.
This bill would provide a content exception to the ban and would
authorize specified public prosecutors to levy civil penalties
of $2,500 per day against persons who fail to adhere to the ban.
BACKGROUND
Microbeads are non-biodegradable pieces of plastic less than one
millimeter in diameter and are frequently found in consumer
personal care products. These microbeads are designed to be
flushed down drains, ultimately ending up in the marine
environment and in marine organisms.
A recent article revealed that microbeads are an emerging
concern among scientists and environmentalists. The article
described the problem as follows:
Scientist Marcus Eriksen stood ankle deep in the murky Los
Angeles River on Friday and dipped a net into the water,
looking for a problem. Eriksen was searching for
"microbeads," bits of plastic no bigger than salt grains that
absorb toxins such as motor oil and insecticides as they
tumble downstream and into the Pacific Ocean. The tiny
polyethylene and polypropylene beads are an emerging concern
among scientists and environmentalists. The beads come mostly
(more)
AB 1699 (Bloom)
Page 2 of ?
from personal care products such as facial exfoliants and body
washes. They are not biodegradable, however, and because they
are not removed easily by wastewater treatment plants, they
flow out to sea and enter the food chain.
. . .
Scientists are only beginning to understand the hazards posed
by microplastic pollution in the world's oceans and inland
waterways. In 2012, Eriksen and a team of researchers
discovered large amounts of microbeads and other microplastic
pollution in the Great Lakes. Those findings prompted a
coalition of majors of Great Lakes cities to ask the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to determine the possible
health risks to lake ecosystems and humans." (L. Sahagun,
Microbeads a major problem in L.A. River (Jan. 25, 2014) Los
Angeles Times [as of June
21, 2014].)
This bill seeks to address the growing concern over microplastic
water pollution by enacting a ban on selling products containing
plastic microbeads in California.
This bill was heard by the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee on June 18, 2014, and passed out on a vote of 5-2.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law , the Clean Water Act, generally prohibits
the release of any pollutant into waters of the United States
from a point source, unless that release is authorized by a
permit. (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.)
Existing federal law , the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act of 1987, prohibits all ships from disposing of
plastic and other solid materials in navigable waters within the
United States. (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.)
Existing federal law requires the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Coast Guard, Navy, and other agencies to
identify, determine sources of, assess, prevent, reduce, and
remove marine debris. (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1951 et seq.)
Existing state law , the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control
Act, regulates the discharge of pollutants in storm water and
urban runoff. (Wat. Code Sec. 13000 et seq.)
AB 1699 (Bloom)
Page 3 of ?
Existing law prohibits the release of preproduction plastic
pellets to the environment that could enter state waters. (Wat.
Code Sec. 13367.)
Existing law prohibits the sale of expanded polystyrene
loosefill packaging material by a wholesaler or manufacturer.
(Pub. Resources Code Sec. 42390.)
This bill would prohibit, on or after January 1, 2019, a person
from selling or offering for promotional purposes any personal
care products containing plastic microbeads, except for personal
care products containing plastic microbeads in less than one
part per million (ppm) by weight.
This bill would provide that a person in violation of the above
prohibition may be enjoined in any court of competent
jurisdiction and is liable for a civil penalty, which may be
assessed and recovered in a civil action, not to exceed $2,500
per day for each violation in addition to any other penalty
established by law.
This bill would require a court, in assessing the amount of a
civil penalty, to consider all of the following:
the nature and extent of the violation;
the number of, and severity of, the violations;
the economic effect of the penalty on the person;
whether the person took good faith measures to comply with the
law and the time these measures were taken;
the deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would
have on both the person and the regulated community as a
whole; and
any other factor that justice may require.
This bill would authorize these actions to be brought by the
Attorney General in the name of the people of the state, by a
district attorney, by a city attorney of a city having a
population in excess of 750,000 persons, or, with the consent of
the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in a city or city
and county having a full-time city prosecutor.
This bill would provide that civil penalties collected in a
civil action shall be retained by the office of the city
attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney
General, whichever office brought the action.
AB 1699 (Bloom)
Page 4 of ?
This bill would provide the following definitions:
"person" means an individual, business, or other entity;
"personal care product" means an article intended to be
rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced to, or
otherwise applied to, the human body or any part thereof for
cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering
the appearance, and an article intended for use as a component
of such an article;
"personal care product" does not include a prescription drug;
and
"plastic microbead" means an intentionally added plastic
particle measuring five millimeters or less in size in every
dimension.
This bill would make various related legislative findings and
declarations.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
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
[Los Angeles] 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. AB 1699 would provide a hard
phase out date to ensure that plastic microbeads from personal
care products are no longer entering our waters.
2. Civil penalties
This bill would ban the sale of personal care products
AB 1699 (Bloom)
Page 5 of ?
containing plastic microbeads measuring five millimeters or less
in diameter. This bill would authorize a civil action to enjoin
or assess civil penalties not to exceed $2,500 per day for each
violation. This bill would authorize those actions to be
brought only by the Attorney General, district attorney, city
attorney of a city of 750,000 in population, or a city
prosecutor, as specified.
Proponents of this bill assert that it is necessary to establish
a conclusive ban on harmful microbeads. Proponents contend that
"[a]lready, through a coordinated effort by many of the
undersigned, we have had some success through a market campaign
aimed at Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, L'Oreal, The Body
Shop, Unilever, and Colgate/Palmolive to encourage producers to
phase these beads out of their products. However, the phase-out
timeline has become a moving target for these producers. Some
have changed their timeline for phase-out, some have not given
dates at all. We believe that AB 1699 will ensure that these
companies phase-out use of the micro-beads in a timely manner
before more damage is done and hold the producers to their
public word. AB 1699 will also ensure that our shared
watersheds are protected from the hundreds of other products
commonly found in the market, the producers of which have made
no public statements to discontinue the use of these plastic
micro-beads."
To achieve these goals, this bill would require a court to
consider various factors when assessing the civil penalty,
including:
the nature and extent of the violation;
the number of, and severity of, the violations;
the economic effect of the penalty on the person;
whether the person took good faith measures to comply with the
law and the time these measures were taken;
the deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would
have on both the person and the regulated community as a
whole; and
any other factor that justice may require.
With these provisions, the court's ability to assess civil
penalties against a business selling personal care products will
take into account the subjective facts for each violation and
the business's attempts to comply with the bill. In this way,
this bill seeks to strike a balance that would protect
California's ecosystem, waterways, and public health, while
allowing businesses time to reformulate their products to meet
AB 1699 (Bloom)
Page 6 of ?
the new standards created in this bill.
3. Oppositions' concerns
A coalition of business groups, in opposition, has been working
with the author to address concerns with this bill as it has
moved through the legislative process. The coalition has
expressed concern over this bill's conflicting provisions with
similar legislation recently signed in Illinois. Generally, the
coalition asserts that this bill would create inconsistent laws
making it difficult for manufacturers to alter their products to
satisfy each new piece of legislation. This bill was recently
amended in the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, and,
it is unknown if recent amendments have addressed the
oppositions' concerns.
Support : All One Ocean; Breast Cancer Fund; California
Association of Sanitation Agencies; California Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General; California League of
Conservation Voters; Californians Against Waste; Campaign for
Safe Cosmetics; Center for Biological Diversity; City of Los
Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti; Clean Water Action; County of Los
Angeles Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky; East
Bay Municipal Utility District; Environment California;
Environmental Working Group; Heal the Bay; Los Angeles
Waterkeeper; Natural Resources Defense Council; Ocean
Conservancy; Ocean Voyage Institute/Project Kaisei; Plastic
Pollution Coalition; Physicians for Social Responsibility, San
Francisco Bay Area Chapter; San Luis Obispo Waterkeeper; Save
Our Shores; Seventh Generation Advisors; Sierra Club California;
Surfrider Foundation; Team Marine; Turtle Island Restoration
Network
Opposition : AdvaMed; American Chemistry Council; American
Cleaning Institute; Bay Bio; Biocom; California Chamber of
Commerce; California Healthcare Institute; California
Manufacturers & Technology Association; California Retailers
Association; Chemical Industry Council of California; Consumer
Healthcare Products Association; Grocery Manufacturers
Association; International Fragrance Association of North
America; Personal Care Products Council; Western Plastics
Association
HISTORY
AB 1699 (Bloom)
Page 7 of ?
Source : 5 Gyres Institute
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (Ayes 5, Noes 2)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 47, Noes 13)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
(Ayes 5, Noes 2)
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources (Ayes 6, Noes 3)
**************