BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
SB 47 (Hill) - Environmental health: synthetic turf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: March 25, 2015 |Policy Vote: E.Q. 5 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 13, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 47 would require the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to conduct a study by July 1, 2017
analyzing potential adverse health impacts from synthetic turf
made from waste tires. This bill would also prohibit the
awarding of grants or other funding assistance for the
manufacturing or installation of synthetic turf made from waste
tires.
Fiscal
Impact:
One-time minimum costs of $6.092 million from the Tire
Recycling Management Fund (special/General Fund) OEHHA for the
required study.
One-time costs of $81,000 from the fund in FY 2016-17 to DTSC
for collaborating with OEHHA for the required study.
Background: The California Tire Recycling Act requires the Department of
SB 47 (Hill) Page 1 of
?
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to manage and
regulate waste tires within the state and requires the
collection of $1.75 for each new tire purchased in the state.
Pursuant to PRC §42889, of the $1.75 per tire collected, $1 is
deposited into the Tire Recycling Management Fund for oversight,
enforcement, and market development grants related to waste tire
management and recycling. One of the grant programs is for
Tire-Derived Products (TDP), which provides funding to certain
entities for tire-derived products made from 100 percent
California generated waste tires. According to CalRecycle's
webpage, the categories generally fall into one of three
categories: agricultural/landscape, recreational, or
transportation. The recreational category includes fields,
playgrounds, and running tracks. CalRecycle is required to have
a five-year plan for spending of the fund, which is updated
every two years, that establishes goals and priorities for the
waste tire program.
On January 1, 2024, the per-tire charge will be reduced to $0.75
and the fund and its uses sunset.
Proposed Law:
This bill would require OEHHA, in consultation with
CalRecycle, the state Department of Public Health (DPH), and the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to provide to the
Legislature by July 1, 2017 an analysis of the potential adverse
health impacts from synthetic turf. Specifically the study is
required to have the following elements:
1.A hazard analysis of exposure to specific chemicals that may
be found in synthetic turf.
2.An analysis of whether chemicals found in tires have negative
human health impacts when used in indoor and outdoor fields
and parks, considering varying exposure pathways and under
various weather conditions.
3.Biomonitoring of children or adults exposed to synthetic turf
to determine potential human health impacts.
SB 47 (Hill) Page 2 of
?
4.An examination of the potential for synthetic turf to cause
adverse health impacts including non-Hodgkin lymphoma,
testicular cancer, prostate cancer, sarcoma cancer, and
leukemia.
5.An examination of the health impacts associated with synthetic
turf fields and playgrounds of varying age.
6.An evaluation of the differences in the manufacturing of
synthetic turf and different turf, field, and playground
products, including those that don't use recycled tires and
how those differences may affect health impacts.
7.An evaluation of the different health impacts between fields
and playground covered with synthetic turf and non-synthetic
turf.
8.A review of current research on the health impacts of
synthetic turf.
9.Research to fill any data gaps.
10.An examination of the health impacts of exposures to many low
level volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons found in synthetic turf.
11.An analysis that compares the temperatures on synthetic turf,
non-waste tire turf, and grass turf during high-temperature
periods and the impact that those differences may have on
health.
This bill would prohibit any public or private school or local
government from installing or contracting for the installation
of a new field or playground surface made from synthetic turf
unless: (1) the bid specifications include at least one option
that does not use crumb rubber from waste tires, (2) the entity
SB 47 (Hill) Page 3 of
?
receives at least one estimate from a company that does not use
crumb rubber from waste tires in its synthetic turf, and (3) the
entity holds at least one public meeting regarding the
installation of synthetic turf to receive public comment.
This bill would prohibit the state from awarding financial
assistance to private entities, schools, or local governments
that would offset the cost of manufacturing or installing
synthetic turf.
This bill would explicitly expand the existing tire recycling
program to include grants to businesses that produce crumb
rubber from waste tires in order to find alternative markets
other than fields and playgrounds for their products.
For the purposes of the grant and study provisions in this bill,
synthetic turf is defined to include any material that contains
recycled crumb rubber from waste tires and is used to cover or
surface a field or playground.
This bill would explicitly specify that a study to analyze the
potential health impacts of using waste tires in crumb rubber is
an allowable use of the fund.
Related
Legislation: AB 1179 (Bocanegra) Chapter 589, Statutes of 2014
gave CalRecycle specific authority to award grants to public
works projects that used tire-derived products, including
recycled tire lumber, to create parklets and greenways. AB 1179
required that priority be given to projects in disadvantaged
communities.
Staff
Comments: This bill would require a detailed report regarding potential
health impacts associated with using crumb rubber from waste
tires in fields and playgrounds. This report is estimated to
SB 47 (Hill) Page 4 of
?
cost at least $6.173 million with $6.092 million needed by
OEHHA, the lead of the study, and $81,000 by DTSC. CalRecycle
anticipates that any costs to collaborate on the study would be
minor and absorbable. There would also be only minor costs to
DPH, assuming DPH just acts as a reviewing body (discussed
further below).
This cost is for all aspects of the report. However, OEHHA notes
that of the 11 required study tasks, only seven could be
finished in time for July 1, 2017 report due date. Specifically,
the biomonitoring, epidemiological studies, and additional
research necessitated by requirements 3, 4, and 9 (as enumerated
in the "Proposed Law" of this analysis) would require at least
three years to complete. These longer term elements of the
report attribute for $4.852 million of the study costs. Thus
should this bill be passed, $1.321 million of the costs ($1.24
million to OEHHA and $81,000 to DTSC) would likely be incurred
in FY 2016-17. The remaining $4.852 million of the study cost
would start to be incurred in FY 2016-17, but would be spread
out over at least three years.
Staff notes that the costs of biomonitoring study may vary
significantly based on design study, and thus the estimated
report costs should be considered a minimum. For just the
biomonitoring requirement, OEHHA estimates that a "minimum
limited" study would cost $1.155 million over three years if
they led the study. However, the state has an existing
biomonitoring program, named Biomonitoring California, which is
a tri-governmental program led by DPH in collaboration with
OEHHA and DTSC. If the required biomonitoring study in this bill
was conducted similar to other "minimum effort" studies
conducted under Biomonitoring California, the estimated cost
would be $3.15 million. It is unclear what are the drivers for
this large difference in minimum cost estimates, but it may be
in part to different assumptions about access to equipment and
other lab resources. For example, in order to conduct the study
in three years, DPH estimates $780,000 in equipment and
equipment maintenance costs. These costs could potentially be
avoided by using existing resources, though it would
significantly extend the study's timeline.
The costs of the study would be borne by the fund, which
currently has a projected balance of $51 million. Additionally,
in FY 2017-18, the fund is anticipated to receive $27 million
SB 47 (Hill) Page 5 of
?
from the General Fund as the final repayment for a General Fund
loan. Staff notes that while there is a large reserve in this
fund, the expenditures from this fund are outpacing revenues by
about $11 million per year. The additional costs as a result of
this bill would somewhat accelerate the date at which this fund
would drop below its prudent reserve.
This bill would prohibit the tire recycling program from issuing
grants that would financially assist with the manufacturing and
installation of synthetic turf made from waste tires for fields
and playgrounds. This prohibition would likely cause a
significant change the demand for CalRecycle's existing TDP
grant program as 13 of the 17 grants issued in the 2013-14 grant
year included the use of waste tires for a playground or field
for at least part of the grant project. However, should demand
drop for the TDP grant program, CalRecycle has administrative
authority to redirect the unused funds to its other tire
recycling grant programs. Thus, the grant prohibition provision
of the bill should not have any impact on state costs.
This bill would establish bid requirements for any public or
private school or local government seeking to install a new
field or playground surface made from synthetic turf from waste
tires. As this requirement does not apply to the state nor is it
a mandate on local agencies, there are no state costs from this
provision of the bill.
-- END --