BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 529
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 529
AUTHOR: Leno
AMENDED: April 8, 2013
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 17, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rachel Machi
Wagoner
SUBJECT : RECYCLING: FAST FOOD FACILITIES
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1)Under the federal Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-220, Title II) prohibits
the at-sea disposal of plastic and other solid materials for
all navigable waters within the United States. The law also
requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
US Coast Guard to jointly conduct a public education program
on the marine environment.
2)Requires US EPA to develop a National Marine Debris
Monitoring Program designed to assess the effectiveness of
the current national marine debris legislation.
3)Under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act of 1986, provides funding and education
programs to reduce beverage container litter.
4)Under the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA),
requires cities and counties to divert 50% of their solid
waste by January 1, 2000, and declares that it is the policy
goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste
generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the
year 2020. The IWMA provides various programs to reduce
litter and educate consumers about the importance of
recycling.
SB 529
Page 2
5)Under the federal Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. Section
1313(d)(1)] requires the state to identify a list of
impaired bodies of waters and develop and implement Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired bodies of waters.
6)Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
regulates 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.
This bill :
1) Enacts the Plastic and Marine Pollution Reduction,
Recycling, and Composting Act.
2) Defines terms for the purposes of that act.
3) Prohibits a fast food facility, on and after July 1, 2014,
from distributing disposable food service packaging or a
single-use carryout bag to a consumer, unless the
disposable food service packaging or single-use carryout
bag meets the criteria for either compostable packaging or
recyclable packaging specified in the bill.
4) Prohibits a fast food facility, on and after July 1, 2016,
from distributing disposable food service packaging or a
single-use carryout bag to a consumer, unless the fast food
facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
that the disposable food service packaging or single-use
carryout bag is recovered for composting or recovered for
recycling at a rate of 25% or more, on and after July 1,
2016, at a rate of 50% on and after July 1, 2018, and at a
rate of 75% or more on or after July 1, 2020.
5) Imposes a civil penalty upon a person in violation of the
act and would require CalRecycle to publish annually a list
setting forth any penalties that have been levied against a
violator of this act.
6) Requires CalRecycle to deposit all penalties paid pursuant
to the act into the Marine Pollution Reduction Account,
SB 529
Page 3
which the bill would create in the Integrated Waste
Management Fund in the State Treasury.
7) Authorizes CalRecycle to expend the moneys deposited in the
account, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide
public education and assist local governmental agencies in
efforts to reduce plastic waste and marine pollution, and
for CalRecycle's costs of implementing the act.
8) Makes various findings about the impact of plastic
pollution on the environment, especially the marine
environment.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, fast food
packaging is lightweight, easily airborne, and in the case
of expanded polystyrene, difficult to recycle. This amount
of waste leads to millions in cleanup costs, identified
impacts to our wildlife, and certain harm to our 40 billion
dollar ocean based economy.
The author states that this measure will reduce plastic and
packaging waste by requiring large (chain) fast food
establishments to utilize packaging that is compatible with
the recycling and composting services available in their
community. The author further argues that this measure
embraces the "producer responsibility for recycling"
approach advocated by CalRecycle in 2007 under Strategic
Directive 5: Producer Responsibility, which encouraged
"cradle-to-cradle" producer responsibility and development
of producer-financed and producer-managed systems for
product discards.
According to the author, this measure gives every packaging
material an opportunity to demonstrate its own
recyclability/compostability. In order to meet the
measure's phased in waste reduction milestones, packaging
producers and fast food establishments will need to work
together to support the development of a cost effective
collection and processing infrastructure for recyclable
packaging, and the development of markets for
SB 529
Page 4
recyclable/compostable packaging.
A recent study by the City of Austin, TX demonstrated that
as much as 85% of current fast food packaging and waste has
the potential to be successfully recycled or composted.
2) Background . According to US EPA, marine debris has become
a problem along shorelines, coastal waters, estuaries, and
oceans throughout the world. Marine debris can be life
threatening to marine organisms and can adversely affect
coastal communities and the fishing industry. In general,
there are two types of marine debris that pollute our ocean
and coastline in California. The first is from ocean
sources, and includes waste discharged by ships,
recreational boaters and fishermen, and offshore oil and
gas exploration and production facilities. The second, and
by far more environmentally destructive, type of marine
debris is from the land. This type of debris includes
stormwater runoff, solid waste, floating structures, and
poorly maintained garbage bins, and is transmitted to the
marine environment by waterways. Land-based litter
constitutes nearly 80% of the marine debris found on our
beaches and oceans, and 90% of it is plastic.
When debris from the land reaches the beaches and ocean,
marine life is often threatened because they confuse the
debris for food. Small pieces of preproduction plastic,
plastic cups, bags, and cigarette filters are often found
in the stomachs of fish, birds, whales, and other marine
creatures. Recent studies by the Algalita Marine Research
Foundation and the Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project have found that the average mass of
plastics in the seawater off the coast of Long Beach is two
and a half times greater than the average mass of plankton.
After storms with excessive runoff, the mass of plastics
is even greater. A similar study over seawater 1,000 miles
west of San Francisco found the mass of plastics was six
times the mass of plankton in drifts where marine animals
congregate for feeding on plankton.
3) Arguments in support . Supporters state that roughly one
million tons of fast food packaging waste is generated in
California each year. A 2006 CalRecycle analysis suggested
SB 529
Page 5
that as much as 75% of this waste is readily or potentially
divertible from disposal. Supporters argue that a more
recent study showed that as much as 85% of these materials
are potentially recyclable, compostable, or both.
Supporters argue, however, that packaging manufacturers and
the fast food industry have done virtually nothing to
support or increase the recycling and/or composting of
their products. Today less than 10% is actually being
recycled or composted. Supporters argue that SB 529 builds
on this successful model by creating measurable,
material-neutral, recycling objectives while leaving it up
to the marketplace to support materials that can be cost
effectively recycled or composted.
4) Arguments in opposition. Opposition states that while they
support Senator Leno's objective of reducing the amount of
packaging material that unfortunately winds up as either
litter or marine debris, and to take a comprehensive
approach to addressing this issue, they have considerable
concerns with the bill. The opposition argues the current
patchwork of recycling and composting programs hinders
their ability to comply, the recycling and composting
targets in the bill are unrealistic, and that legislation
in this area should provide uniform statewide standards.
5) Previous Legislation . Previous legislation includes:
a) SB 567 (DeSaulnier), Chapter 594, Statutes of 2011
replaced 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 meets those
ASTM standard specifications or another adopted
standard, or unless the plastic product is labeled with
a qualified claim, and the plastic product meets that
standard. The bill prohibited the sale of a plastic
product that is labeled as "biodegradable,"
"degradable," "decomposable," or any form of those
terms.
b) SB 568 (Lowenthal) of 2011 would have prohibited a
food vendor, on and after January 1, 2016, from
SB 529
Page 6
dispensing prepared food to a customer in a polystyrene
foam food container and would define related terms.
This bill failed on the Assembly Floor.
c) 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 CalRecycle
determines the disposable food service packaging is
recovered for composting or recycling at a rate of 25%
or more. This bill failed in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) 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 failed in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
6) Recovery rates and dates. The bill specifies a series of
recovery rates for recyclability and compostability of
disposable packaging material over 6 years. Is this
timeline too aggressive? The author may wish to explore a
SB 529
Page 7
more extended timeline to allow manufacturers time to
develop the materials.
SOURCE : Californians Against Waste
SUPPORT : 5 Gyres Institute
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal
Employees
Azul
BagIt
California Coastal Coalition
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
City of San Francisco
County of San Francisco
Green Chamber of Commerce
Environment California
Heal the Bay
LMV Productions
Napa Valley CanDo Environment Group
Northern California Recycling Association
NRDC
Pacifica's Environmental Family
Planning and Conservation League
Save Our Shores
Sierra Club California
Seventh Generation Advisors
Surfrider Foundation
Turtle Island Restoration Network
World Centric
1 Individual
OPPOSITION : American Chemistry Council
American Forest and Paper Association
Biodegradable Products Institute
Brea Chamber of Commerce
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology
Association
California Restaurant Association
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
SB 529
Page 8
Chemical Industry Council of California
Foodservice Packaging Institute
National Federation of Independent Businesses
PACTIV
Southwest California Legislative Council
SPI, the Plastics Industry Trade Association
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Western Plastics Association