BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1219
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1219
AUTHOR: Wolk
AMENDED: As Introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 16, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rebecca
Newhouse
SUBJECT : AT-STORE PLASTIC BAG RECYCLING
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the At-Store Recycling Program (Public
Resources Code �42250 et seq.) (part of the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989):
1) Requires operators of stores, defined as supermarkets and
stores over 10,000 square feet that includes a pharmacy, to
establish an at-store recycling program. Under the
program:
a) Plastic bags provided by the store must include a
label encouraging customers to return the bag to the
store for recycling;
b) Clearly labeled and easily accessible recycling bins
for plastic bags must be provided;
c) All plastic bags collected must be recycled in a
manner consistent with the local jurisdiction's
recycling plan;
d) The store must maintain records relating to the
program for at least three years and must make the
records available to the local jurisdiction or the
Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (DRRR or
CalRecycle) upon request; and,
e) The operator of the store must make reusable bags
available to customers.
SB 1219
Page 2
2) Requires plastic carryout bag manufacturers to develop
educational materials to encourage reducing and recycling
of plastic carryout bags and make those materials available
to stores.
3) Preempts local governments from requiring stores that meet
these provisions from implementing separate plastic
carryout bag recycling programs, additional auditing or
reporting requirements, or from imposing plastic carryout
bag fees upon a store.
4) Authorizes a city, county or the state to levy fines for
stores in violation of this law.
5) Sunsets the above provisions on January 1, 2013.
This bill :
1) Strikes the preemption provision prohibiting local
governments from implementing separate plastic carryout
recycling programs, additional auditing or reporting
requirements or from imposing a fee on plastic carryout
bags for stores that meet these provisions.
2) Extends the sunset of the at-store recycling program for
plastic carryout bags from January 1, 2013, to January 1,
2020.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . AB 2449 (Levine) Chapter 845, Statutes of
2006, enacted the At-Store Recycling Program. According to
the author, "At the end of this year, the plastic bag
recycling program will sunset. This program has enjoyed
moderate success in taking back single-use plastic bags.
However, because of this program, recycling of plastic film
(such as bread, dry cleaning and newspaper bags, the wrap
around toilet paper, and the plastic used at grocery stores
for packaging) has increased far more dramatically. This
is particularly important since in California plastic film
makes up almost half of the plastic waste stream.
Recycling rates for film will undoubtedly drop drastically
SB 1219
Page 3
if the opportunity provided by in-store recycling programs
is lost." The author also notes that, "Other states (and
notably Washington DC) have seen a substantial reduction in
bag use by placing small fees or taxes on these bags.
Programs in DC and Maryland use the revenue generated for
environmental programs. As SB 1219 extends the recycling
program, it does so without extending the prohibition on
local jurisdictions placing a fee or tax on plastic bags."
2) Background : Plastic bags and plastic film together
represent 2.2% of the waste stream and every year,
California taxpayers spend $25 million disposing of the 19
billion plastic bags used annually. Although plastic
represents a relatively small fraction of the overall waste
stream in California, plastic waste is the predominate form
of marine debris. Plastics are estimated to compose 60-80
% of all marine debris and 90% of all floating debris.
According to the California Coastal Commission, the primary
source of marine debris is urban runoff, of which
lightweight plastic bags and plastic film are particularly
susceptible. Due to the interplay of ocean currents,
marine debris preferentially accumulates in certain areas
throughout the ocean. The North Pacific Central Gyre is
the ultimate destination for much of the marine debris
originating from the California coast. A study by the
Algalita Marine Research Foundation found an average of
more than 300,000 plastic pieces per square mile of the
Gyre and that the mass of plastic was six times greater
than zooplankton floating on the water's surface.
Most plastic marine debris exists as small plastic
particles due to excessive UV radiation exposure and
subsequent photo-degradation. These plastic pieces are
ingested by aquatic organisms and have already negatively
affected over 250 animal species worldwide. In addition,
hydrophobic chemicals present in the ocean in trace amounts
(e.g., from contaminated runoff and oil and chemical
spills) have an affinity for and can bind to plastic
particles and may also enter and accumulate in the food
chain through the same mechanism.
3) How's the current program working ? Two years after the
regulations were adopted for the at-store recycling
SB 1219
Page 4
program, CalRecycle reported the recycling rate in 2009 for
labeled plastic carryout bags to be approximately three
percent. This recycling rate does not reflect unregulated
bags (bags which do not have the label which encourages
plastic bag recycling) and other plastic film returned for
recycling through this program. According to the CSU
Sacramento characterization study commissioned by
CalRecycle, of the plastic products returned to stores with
bins that allowed "comingled" plastics, over 60% by weight
was plastic shrink wrap and film.
4) The Local Level : At the local level, many cities and
counties throughout California have adopted ordinances
banning plastic bags including San Francisco, San Jose,
Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Alameda
County and others. Most of these localities also require
that stores charge a fee ranging from 10 to 25 cents per
paper carryout bag and a few, including Los Angeles County,
have banned both single-use plastic and paper carryout
bags. Recently, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that
a fee on paper bags is not a tax under the California
Constitution.
Since the passage of AB 2449 in 2006, local governments
have been prohibited from requiring additional recycling
requirements or imposing a plastic bag fee upon a store for
plastic carryout bags. This bill deletes that preemption,
and would give local governments the freedom to impose
regulations and fees on plastic carryout bags in addition
to the at-store recycling program that currently exists.
Local flexibility may be desirable since there is
significant diversity geographically (e.g., coastal versus
inland communities) and in terms of regional attitudes
toward the perceived environmental impacts of plastic bags.
However, with various localities banning plastic carryout
bags, and others charging differing fees on paper carryout
bags, there currently exists a growing patchwork of
requirements throughout the state. With the removal of the
preemption for additional plastic carryout recycling
requirements and fees, the disparity of local plastic
carryout bag requirements throughout the state may grow,
making it more difficult for stores to comply with the laws
SB 1219
Page 5
of each jurisdiction. However, it could be argued that the
preemption for local governments to place fees upon stores
should not have been in place without the existence of a
statewide standard in the first place. The desire for a
statewide uniformity in 2010 led the California Grocers
Association to support AB 1998 (Brownley) which would have
banned plastic carryout bags and placed a fee on paper
bags.
5) Related Legislation . The following bills address bag
issues:
a) AB 2058 (Levine) of 2007 would have prohibited the
free dispensing of carryout plastic bags by a store to
its customers, unless the store can demonstrate to the
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
that 70% of the plastic bags it dispensed had been
diverted from the waste stream. AB 2058 was held in
Senate Appropriations Committee.
b) SB 531 (DeSaulnier) of 2009 would have required
manufacturers of plastic carryout bags to consult with
various entities, including the CIWMB, when developing
specified educational materials to encourage the reduced
use or recycling of those bags and authorized the CIWMB
to modify those materials. SB 531 was held in Assembly
Natural Resources Committee without further action.
c) AB 68 (Brownley) of 2009 and AB 87 (Davis) of 2009
both would have required a 25-cent fee on the
distribution of single-use carry-out bags. Both bills
were held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
d) AB 2138 (Chesbro) of 2010 would have established
recycling and composting requirements for take-out food
packaging, including bags. AB 2138 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
e) AB 1998 (Brownley) of 2010 would have repealed the
at-store recycling program and instead prohibited stores
from providing a single-use plastic carryout bag to a
customer and required stores to provide reusable bags
for purchase or recycled paper bags for a fee. AB 1998
SB 1219
Page 6
failed in the Senate on August 31, 2010 (14-21).
f) SB 915 (Calderon) of 2011 sets plastic bag reduction
and recycled content goals. Hearing in the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee was canceled at the
request of the author.
g) AB 298 (Brownley) of 2011 requires cleaning
instructions to be included on reusable bags and
prohibits them from containing toxic materials, and is
currently with the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee.
h) AB 1834 (Brownley) of 2012 defines reusable bags and
is on the Assembly Floor.
i) SB 1106 (Strickland) of 2012 prohibits the
manufacture, distribution and sale of reusable bags
without a warning label that both specifies the need for
reusable bags to be cleaned and disinfected between uses
and outlines the health risks associated with not
cleaning or disinfecting reusable bags between uses. SB
1106 is currently with the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : 1 Bag at a Time
OPPOSITION : None on file