The Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act generally prohibits a manufacturer or supplier from offering for sale or for promotional purposes in this state a package or packaging component that includes intentionally introduced lead, mercury, cadmium, or hexavalent chromium in the package or in a packaging component. The act defines the term package as meaning any container that provides a means of marketing, protecting, or handling a product and specifies that a package does not include a reusable bag. exempted from this prohibition, until January 1, 2010, a package or a packaging component if the manufacturer or supplier complied with specific documentation requirements and the package or packaging component did not contain any intentionally introduced lead, mercury, cadmium, or hexavalent chromium, but exceeded a specific maximum concentration level because of the addition of a recycled material.

This bill would also exclude a glass beverage container and a glass food or drink container from the definition of package. provide a similar exemption, until January 1, 2019, for a glass beverage, food, or drink container. The bill would require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate the packaging of glass beverage, food, and drink containers, as specified, to determine if lead, mercury, cadmium, or hexavalent chromium is present in glass beverage, food, or drink containers sold in California. If the department determines that these metals are present, the bill would require the department to also evaluate whether and under what circumstances those metals can leach from the glass containers into the food or beverage and whether the presence of the metals in the glass containers presents a risk to human health and the environment. The bill would authorize the department to request any information and collect any samples necessary for the evaluations from glass manufacturers or feedstock or raw material suppliers in the state that are subject to the act, and would require the department to provide the results of the evaluations to the Legislature by January 1, 2018. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations, pursuant to existing authority, based on these evaluations. The bill would authorize the department to seek reimbursement from the glass manufacturers and feedstock and raw material suppliers to cover the reasonable costs directly related to collecting glass samples, reviewing and processing those samples, analyzing the samples, disseminating certain information, and implementing any regulations that are developed as a result of the evaluations.

The Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act generally prohibits a manufacturer or supplier from offering for sale or for promotional purposes in this state a package or packaging component that includes intentionally introduced lead, mercury, cadmium, or hexavalent chromium in the package or in a packaging component. The act defines the term package as meaning any container that provides a means of marketing, protecting, or handling a product and specifies that a package does not include a reusable bag.

This bill would also exclude a glass beverage container and a glass food or drink container from the definition of package.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1435

SUBJECT: Hazardous waste: toxics: packaging.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:  

1. Under the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act (TPPA),

1. Prohibits a manufacturer, supplier or person from offering for sale or for promotional purposes a package that includes an intentionally introduced regulated metal (lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium) or in which the sum of the incidental total concentration levels of the regulated metals exceeds 100 parts per million by weight. 

2. Exempts, until January 1, 2010, packaging from having to comply with the prohibition, if the packaging contains no intentionally introduced regulated metals but exceeds the maximum concentration level because of the addition of a recycled material if specified conditions are met by the manufacturer:

1. The manufacturer or supplier must prepare, retain, and biennially update documentation containing all of the following information for that package or packaging component:

1. A statement that the documentation applies to an exemption from TPPA requirements;

2. The name, position, and contact information for the person who is the manufacturer’s or supplier’s contact person on all matters concerning the exemption.

3. An identification of the exemption and a reference to the applicable subdivision of TPPA setting forth the conditions for the exemption.

4. A description of the type of package or packaging component to which the exemption applies.

5. Identification of the type and concentration of the regulated metal or metals present in the package or packaging component, and a description of the testing methods used to determine the concentration.

6. An explanation of the reason for the exemption.

7. Supporting documentation that fully and clearly demonstrates that the package or packaging component is eligible for the exemption.

AND

2. The manufacturer or supplier shall prepare, retain, and biennially update documentation containing all of the following information for the package or packaging component to which the exemption applies:

1. The type and percentage of recycled material or materials added to the package or packaging component.

2. The type and concentration of each regulated metal contained in each recycled material added to the package or packaging components.

3. Efforts to minimize or eliminate the regulated metals in the package or packaging component.

4. A description of past, current, and planned future efforts to seek or develop alternatives to minimize or eliminate the use of the regulated metal in the package or packaging component.

3. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to enforce TPPA.

2. Under Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, protects the state's drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals.  Leaded crystal glass is required to have a Proposition 65 warning in California.

2. Regulates the content of various heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium, in consumer products (e.g. jewelry and candy).

This bill:  Provides a permanent exemption from TPPA for glass beverage, food or drink containers. In doing so, the bill allows lead, cadmium, mercury or hexavalent chromium at any level in glass food containers and also exempts manufacturers and suppliers from preparing, retaining and updating the documentation required under TPPA.

Background

Toxics in Packaging Model Legislation.  The Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation was jointly developed by representatives for the Governors of the nine (9) Northeast States, major national product producers, major national retailers and national and regional environmental organizations in 1989 working under the auspices of the Coalition of Northeast Governors (CONEG) Policy Research Center. The intent was for individual Northeast states to adopt the Model Legislation, and thereby, create consistent requirements for the reduction/elimination of four (4) specific toxics in packaging: lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium sold or distributed in the Northeast.  Most of the Northeast states passed and implemented laws based on the Model and in the subsequent years additional states outside of the region as well as other countries adopted similar laws based on the Model.  Legislation based on this Model has been adopted by nineteen states.

The influence of the Model Legislation extends beyond United States borders. The European Union, for example, uses the Model as the basis of its packaging requirements (94/62/EC). No intentional introduction of any amount of the four metals is allowed.  The sum of the concentration levels of incidentally introduced lead, mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium present in any package or individual packaging component shall not exceed 100 parts per million by weight.

There are currently no other jurisdictions, with TPPA model laws, that contemplate a full exemption for glass packaging from the law.

California TPPA.  AB 455 (Chu, Chapter 679, Statutes of 2003) prohibits, on and after January 1, 2006, a manufacturer, importer, agent, or supplier from offering for sale in California a package or packaging component that includes a regulated metal, defined as lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium, if that regulated metal has been intentionally introduced into the package or packaging component during manufacturing or distribution.  Exemptions were provided in the statute under specified conditions until January 1, 2010 if specific conditions were met.

Although there have been several discussions since 2010 with the glass manufacturing industry representatives about extending this exemption, there currently is not an exemption provision in statute allowing for packaging to exceed the levels specified in TPPA. It is unknown as to whether or not this industry is currently operating in compliance with this law.

The intent of this law is to reduce the toxicity in packaging without discouraging the use of recycled materials in packaging production.  According to then Assembly Member Chu “Consumer goods packaging makes up a significant portion of waste going to the nation’s municipal solid waste landfills.  Packaging containing toxic substances, especially heavy metals, can release those poisonous or dangerous substances, contaminating the soil and groundwater surrounding the landfill.”

While the intent of the 2003 enacted TPPA was to limit heavy metal contamination in landfills, California’s TPPA has been amended several times in the last 12 years acknowledging the need to control heavy metal contamination throughout the life cycle of packaging products in order to prevent human health and environmental exposures.  

Health Risks Associated with Heavy Metal Exposure.  Lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium are heavy metals that accumulate in the body and can present acute and chronic toxicity leading to serious health risks. 

Exposure to heavy metals, such as these listed, accumulate in the body over time and are suspected of triggering dangerous conditions like heart disease, cancer, thyroid problems, dementia, neurological conditions, autism, infertility and birth defects. Vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women are at particular risk to heavy metal toxicity. In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated it recommendations on children’s blood lead levels, stating that no safe blood lead level in children has been identified. Lead exposure can affect nearly every system in the body.

Do Heavy Metals Leach from Glass?

European Container Glass Federation (FEVE) Study.  A recent study, conducted by FEVE, the European Container Glass Federation, examined the likelihood that glass with a relatively high level of lead would experience leaching of the heavy metals into the contents of the package or the environment.  The study found that glass has, under accelerated migration testing conditions, been found to be a material of high chemical inertness. This study was carried out under the direction of the European glass production industry and has not been published or reviewed in scientific literature.  The proponents of this legislation point to this study as evidence that the molecular structure of glass makes it unlikely that metals contained within the glass could leach and therefore should not be regulated under TPPA. The study found that generally glass is an inert food contact material with limited potential for migration of elements of toxic significance in the compositions commonly used. 

Crystal leaches - what is the difference between glass and crystal? Ordinary glass has been made for thousands of years from silica-sand, potash and limestone.  Crystal is leaded glass: Lead oxide is added to the molten glass before it is blown (stemware, tumblers, barware, decanters, pitchers and other hollowware) or molded (figurines, objects d’art, jewelry and other objects). Crystal can consist of up to 33% lead.  Lead crystal typically contains 24% to 32% lead oxide.

Tests have shown that, over time, significant amounts of lead can migrate from lead crystal containers into liquids stored in them.

Because of the potential exposure to lead from crystal, the State of California requires that crystal products sold in the State of California be sold with a Proposition 65 warning.

Lead in Bottled Waters: Contamination from Glass and Comparison with Pristine Groundwater.  A study published in 2007 by Drs. William Shotyk and Michael Krachler with the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry at the University of Heidelburg found that the presence of lead in glass bottles can result in exposures to lead.  The study found that lead did leach into bottled water from glass containers:  glass containers had 26-57 times as much lead contamination as water from polyethylene terephthalate (PET (E-plastic)) bottles.  The study also found that lead concentrations in glass bottles increased over time.  The authors concluded: “Lead concentrations in bottled waters stored in glass are primarily a reflection of the duration of storage in those containers.”

Recycled Glass into Glass Packaging.  Recycling glass into viable reuses has long been an important solid waste management goal for the state of California. However, laws and policies on this subject have also acknowledged that all recycled glass is not appropriate for all uses because of heavy metal contaminants like lead and mercury. 

The presence of heavy metals in recycled glass and the potential uses of that glass is a concern: a study of feedstock for glass recycling found that 1 of 29 sources had lead contamination at a level exceeding the EPA regulatory threshold.

An example of high content leaded glass is the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) glass.  CRT glass contains high levels of lead and should not be used in food packaging.  There is currently a great deal of CRT glass awaiting recycling in California because of the difficulty to control for lead exposure and recovery of the lead in the recycling process.

Once in the recycled glass cullet stream it is difficult to differentiate this glass from other sources of glass. Additionally, should a complete TPPA exemption be provided by this legislation, CRT glass could be used as a recycled glass source for food packaging.

Hazardous Waste Enforcement Action against the Gallo Glass Company.  In March, 2015, on behalf of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against Gallo Glass Company, alleging the company used hazardous waste in the manufacturing of glass wine bottles made at its Modesto plant. 

The complaint, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges the company illegally introduced dust containing lead, arsenic, cadmium and selenium into the manufacture of its wine bottles. The contaminated dust is generated by air pollution equipment used to capture regulated pollutants that would otherwise be released into the air from its furnaces. The dust is considered a hazardous waste and must be properly managed and disposed of under California law. 

Gallo asserted it was recycling the waste by putting it into materials fed into the furnaces and heated to form molten glass used to make bottles. The complaint alleges that Gallo failed to demonstrate that its practices qualify as recycling under California law; that it also did not comply with requirements for legitimate recycling; and it improperly stored a large volume of hazardous waste dust in a manner that presented a potential risk to public health. Gallo’s operations generate hundreds of pounds of hazardous dust a day. 

While this was not a violation of TPPA, it does call into question what practices glass manufacturers are utilizing to make glass and whether those practices may be leading to unnecessarily higher levels of heavy metal contamination.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill.  According to the author, “AB 1435 will remove an inconsistency in our environmental laws and will preserve the state’s recycling program, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect manufacturing jobs by appropriately exempting glass containers from the California Toxics in Packaging Law. Glass containers do not belong in the statute because studies show that glass is safe and does not leach heavy metals.”

Do heavy metals leach from glass and is it a risk that should be addressed under TPPA?  The proponents have produced a report commissioned by the glass industry in Europe that tested glass leachability under various conditions.  The FEVE study concludes that the molecular structure of glass is inert and therefore heavy metals contained within the glass matrix do not leach or leach at such de minimis levels that they do not pose any risk to health or the environment. The proponents believe that this report provides the necessary justification for a complete exemption from TPPA for all glass food packaging.

The 2007 study by Drs. Shotyk and Krachler found that lead does leach from glass and raises question as to whether there is potential exposure. The proponents assert that this is an imperfect study and the FEVE study is more reliable science and that the levels of lead found to leach in the study to not pose a threat to human health and the environment.

However, the discrepancy between the results of these 2 studies calls into question whether exempting glass packaging from TPPA is prudent at this time. There are a series of questions/issues that should be addressed before an exemption should be granted:

1. Is all glass the same?  Clearly this is not the case.  Glass where lead oxide is intentionally added becomes crystal.  Studies done by many authoritative government and academic institutions have found that lead (and presumably other molecularly similar heavy metals) leaches from leaded crystal.  The Shotyk/Krachler study found similarly that lead leaches from standard glass bottles. What made the outcome of the FEVE study different? What made the glass tested in the FEVE study impermeable?  Was the feedstock or processing of the glass different?  Was it the level of heavy metal contained in the glass?  Are there other conditions to be considered when looking at leachability?

If different types of glass have different leachability capabilities, is it appropriate or safe to use this one singular study as justification for all glass packaging to be exempt from TPPA? 

Given that the CDC recommendation states that there is no safe level of lead exposure for children, what is the appropriate leachability standard for glass food and beverage containers?

2. Why a complete exemption now?  When AB 455 was originally considered by the Legislature, testimony was made in Senate policy committees that resulted in the exemption language in AB 455 for products containing recycled content.  That exemption was agreed to for a period of seven years and had numerous requirements for the manufacturers using recycled content to produce and provide documentation as to why the exemption was needed in the first place and what the manufacturers were doing at present and in the future to limit the introduction of contaminants into their products.  

That language was intended to give those industries using recycled content feedstock an opportunity to improve their technologies in order to reduce and eliminate heavy metals from their products.  The language was also intended to require the manufacturers collect and disclose information about the contaminants contained in their products.  What has happened with these requirements in the last 12 years?  It does not appear that the glass manufacturing industry complied with the conditions of the exemption granted in 2003.  Additionally, this exemption sunsetted in 2010.  What has the manufacturing industry done in the last 5 years since the sunset to come into compliance with TPPA limits and reduce the presence of heavy metals in their products?  

3. Further information is needed. It appears that there is not clear data concerning several points:

1. Is there an acceptable level of heavy metals in glass packaging used for food products meant for human consumption?  Should the 2003 levels be re-evaluated taking into consideration current information about risks to high risk populations like children and pregnant women associated with exposure to heavy metals?

2. What are the current manufacturing processes used for recycled content glass packaging?  What feedstock is used?  Are there controls preventing highly contaminated recycled glass cullet, like CRT glass, from being used? Are there things that the industry can/should be doing differently to control the introduction of heavy metal contaminants into their products?

2. Conclusion. Should this legislation move forward, amendments are needed to extend the exemption for a limited period of three years in order for DTSC to evaluate the questions listed above concerning feedstock, recycling and manufacturing processes, leachability and an analysis of the appropriate levels for each of the heavy metals. Because it appears that the manufacturers had not previously produced the documentation regarding their products required under TPPA as a condition of the exemption, an amendment is needed to require the manufacturers to provide DTSC the information needed to do this evaluation. Additionally, because under Proposition 26 limits, DTSC does not have discretion to use fees collected from other regulated industries to pay for this evaluation, an amendment is needed to give DTSC fee authority to collect the needed revenue from the glass manufacturers in order to do this evaluation.

SOURCE: Glass Packaging Institute

SUPPORT: 

Beer Institute

California Labor Federation

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

Strategic Materials

West Coast Protective League

Wine Institute

OPPOSITION:    

Californians Against Waste

Clean Water Action

Environmental Working Group

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:    According to the California Wine Institute, " The FDA has categorized glass as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for food and beverage packaging. Glass is essentially inert in that it does not deteriorate, corrode, stain or fade and is therefore one of the safest packaging materials. In addition, a peer-reviewed extensive study conducted last year by Stazione Sperimentale del Vetro (SSV) in Italy found that lead migration from glass was essentially non-detectable, even in extreme conditions…. The exemption proposed by AB 1435 is justified by the fact that the Lead contained therein does not propose a health risk.  This is because of the intrinsic properties of glass; primarily, that a regulated metal which contaminates a recycling cullet stream will be encapsulated within the glass and never pose a threat of leaching from the container."

According to the Glass Packaging Institute, “Glass containers may contain trace amounts of lead that is encapsulated in the matrix of a glass bottle or container. This lead exists due to contamination of the recycled glass supply stream by cathode ray tubes, light bulbs, lead crystal and other contaminants. Glass containers can be endlessly recycled, so once contaminated, the heavy metal in a glass container is most likely below the 100 parts per million threshold of the existing law. However, glass container manufacturers cannot certify with certainty that any given bottle coming off a manufacturing line is in compliance. The only way to be certain is to reduce the amount of cullet that is used in the manufacturing process. However that solution conflicts with the following important public policies, including the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Law, the Beverage Container Recycling Program, the Minimum Recycled Content Standard and the Toxics in Packaging Statute itself.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:   Californians Against Waste raised an objection to the proposed legislation, “We have reviewed the scientific research and can find no evidence of a public health or environmental threat posed by the levels of lead and other heavy metals normally and historically found in recycled glass used in the manufacture of glass food and drink containers.  While there is no known public health threat from recycled glass containing the levels of lead typically and historically found in and derived from container glass, there may be a potential risk to public health and/or the environment from the inclusion of some sources of ‘non-container glass’ which do contain hazardous levels of heavy metals and other toxins, including: CRT glass; Fluorescent tube glass; Solar Panel glass.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1435

SUBJECT: Hazardous waste: toxics: packaging.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:  

1. Under the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act (TPPA),

1. Prohibits a manufacturer, supplier or person from offering for sale or for promotional purposes a package that includes an intentionally introduced regulated metal (lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium) or in which the sum of the incidental total concentration levels of the regulated metals exceeds 100 parts per million by weight. 

2. Exempts, until January 1, 2010, packaging from having to comply with the prohibition, if the packaging contains no intentionally introduced regulated metals but exceeds the maximum concentration level because of the addition of a recycled material if specified conditions are met by the manufacturer:

1. The manufacturer or supplier must prepare, retain, and biennially update documentation containing all of the following information for that package or packaging component:

1. A statement that the documentation applies to an exemption from TPPA requirements;

2. The name, position, and contact information for the person who is the manufacturer’s or supplier’s contact person on all matters concerning the exemption.

3. An identification of the exemption and a reference to the applicable subdivision of TPPA setting forth the conditions for the exemption.

4. A description of the type of package or packaging component to which the exemption applies.

5. Identification of the type and concentration of the regulated metal or metals present in the package or packaging component, and a description of the testing methods used to determine the concentration.

6. An explanation of the reason for the exemption.

7. Supporting documentation that fully and clearly demonstrates that the package or packaging component is eligible for the exemption.

AND

2. The manufacturer or supplier shall prepare, retain, and biennially update documentation containing all of the following information for the package or packaging component to which the exemption applies:

1. The type and percentage of recycled material or materials added to the package or packaging component.

2. The type and concentration of each regulated metal contained in each recycled material added to the package or packaging components.

3. Efforts to minimize or eliminate the regulated metals in the package or packaging component.

4. A description of past, current, and planned future efforts to seek or develop alternatives to minimize or eliminate the use of the regulated metal in the package or packaging component.

2. Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to enforce TPPA.

2. Under Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, protects the state's drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals.  Leaded crystal glass is required to have a Proposition 65 warning in California.

2. Regulates the content of various heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium, in consumer products (e.g. jewelry and candy).

This bill:  Provides a permanent exemption from TPPA for glass beverage, food or drink containers. In doing so, the bill allows lead, cadmium, mercury or hexavalent chromium at any level in glass food containers and also exempts manufacturers and suppliers from preparing, retaining and updating the documentation required under TPPA.

Background

Toxics in Packaging Model Legislation.  The Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation was jointly developed by representatives for the Governors of the nine (9) Northeast States, major national product producers, major national retailers and national and regional environmental organizations in 1989 working under the auspices of the Coalition of Northeast Governors (CONEG) Policy Research Center. The intent was for individual Northeast states to adopt the Model Legislation, and thereby, create consistent requirements for the reduction/elimination of four (4) specific toxics in packaging: lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium sold or distributed in the Northeast.  Most of the Northeast states passed and implemented laws based on the Model and in the subsequent years additional states outside of the region as well as other countries adopted similar laws based on the Model.  Legislation based on this Model has been adopted by nineteen states.

The influence of the Model Legislation extends beyond United States borders. The European Union, for example, uses the Model as the basis of its packaging requirements (94/62/EC). No intentional introduction of any amount of the four metals is allowed.  The sum of the concentration levels of incidentally introduced lead, mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium present in any package or individual packaging component shall not exceed 100 parts per million by weight.

California TPPA.  AB 455 (Chu, Chapter 679, Statutes of 2003) prohibits, on and after January 1, 2006, a manufacturer, importer, agent, or supplier from offering for sale in California a package or packaging component that includes a regulated metal, defined as lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium, if that regulated metal has been intentionally introduced into the package or packaging component during manufacturing or distribution.  Exemptions were provided in the statute under specified conditions until January 1, 2010 if specific conditions were met.

Although there have been several discussions since 2010 with the glass manufacturing industry representatives about extending this exemption, there currently is not an exemption provision in statute allowing for packaging to exceed the levels specified in TPPA. It is unknown as to whether or not this industry is currently operating in compliance with this law.

The intent of this law is to reduce the toxicity in packaging without discouraging the use of recycled materials in packaging production.  According to then Assembly Member Chu “Consumer goods packaging makes up a significant portion of waste going to the nation’s municipal solid waste landfills.  Packaging containing toxic substances, especially heavy metals, can release those poisonous or dangerous substances, contaminating the soil and groundwater surrounding the landfill.”

While the intent of the 2003 enacted TPPA was to limit heavy metal contamination in landfills, California’s TPPA has been amended several times in the last 12 years acknowledging the need to control heavy metal contamination throughout the life cycle of packaging products in order to prevent human health and environmental exposures.  

Health Risks Associated with Heavy Metal Exposure.  Lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium are heavy metals that accumulate in the body and can present acute and chronic toxicity leading to serious health risks. 

Exposure to heavy metals, such as these listed, accumulate in the body over time and are suspected of triggering dangerous conditions like heart disease, cancer, thyroid problems, dementia, neurological conditions, autism, infertility and birth defects. Vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women are at particular risk to heavy metal toxicity.

Do Heavy Metals Leach from Glass?

European Container Glass Federation (FEVE) Study.  A recent study, conducted by FEVE, the European Container Glass Federation, examined the likelihood that glass with a relatively high level of lead would experience leaching of the heavy metals into the contents of the package or the environment.  The study found that glass has, under accelerated migration testing conditions, been found to be a material of high chemical inertness. This study was carried out under the direction of the European glass production industry and has not been published or reviewed in scientific literature.  The proponents of this legislation point to this study as evidence that the molecular structure of glass makes it unlikely that metals contained within the glass could leach and therefore should not be regulated under TPPA. The study found that generally glass is an inert food contact material with limited potential for migration of elements of toxic significance in the compositions commonly used. 

Crystal leaches - what is the difference between glass and crystal? Ordinary glass has been made for thousands of years from silica-sand, potash and limestone.  Crystal is leaded glass: Lead oxide is added to the molten glass before it is blown (stemware, tumblers, barware, decanters, pitchers and other hollowware) or molded (figurines, objects d’art, jewelry and other objects). Crystal can consist of up to 33% lead.  Lead crystal typically contains 24% to 32% lead oxide.

Tests have shown that, over time, significant amounts of lead can migrate from lead crystal containers into liquids stored in them.

One research team measured the amount of lead migration in wine that was stored in lead crystal decanters. After two days, lead levels were 89 micrograms; after four months, lead levels were between 2,000 and 5,000 micrograms. White wine doubled its lead content within an hour of storage, and tripled it within four hours.

Brandy stored in lead crystal for five years had lead levels around 20,000 micrograms. Any liquid can leach lead from crystal just as effectively as wine and other alcoholic beverages.

(To put these numbers into perspective, the EPA’s lead standard for drinking water is 50 micrograms per liter.)

Because of the potential exposure to lead from crystal, the State of California requires that crystal products sold in the State of California be sold with a Proposition 65 warning.

Lead in Bottled Waters: Contamination from Glass and Comparison with Pristine Groundwater.  A study published in 2007 by Drs. William Shotyk and Michael Krachler with the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry at the University of Heidelburg found that the presence of lead in glass bottles can result in exposures to lead.  The study found that lead did leach into bottled water from glass containers:  glass containers had 26-57 times as much lead contamination as water from polyethylene terephthalate (PET (E-plastic)) bottles.  The study also found that lead concentrations in glass bottles increased over time.  The authors concluded: “Lead concentrations in bottled waters stored in glass are primarily a reflection of the duration of storage in those containers.”

Recycled Glass into Glass Packaging.  Recycling glass into viable reuses has long been an important solid waste management goal for the state of California. However, laws and policies on this subject have also acknowledged that all recycled glass is not appropriate for all uses because of heavy metal contaminants like lead and mercury. 

The presence of heavy metals in recycled glass and the potential uses of that glass is a concern: a study of feedstock for glass recycling found that 1 of 29 sources had lead contamination at a level exceeding the EPA regulatory threshold.

An example of high content leaded glass is the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) glass.  CRT glass contains high levels of lead and should not be used in food packaging.  There is currently a great deal of CRT glass awaiting recycling in California because of the difficulty to control for lead exposure and recovery of the lead in the recycling process.

Once in the recycled glass cullet stream it is difficult to differentiate this glass from other sources of glass. Additionally, should a complete TPPA exemption be provided by this legislation, CRT glass could be used as a recycled glass source for food packaging.

Hazardous Waste Enforcement Action against the Gallo Glass Company.  In March, 2015, on behalf of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against Gallo Glass Company, alleging the company used hazardous waste in the manufacturing of glass wine bottles made at its Modesto plant. 

The complaint, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges the company illegally introduced dust containing lead, arsenic, cadmium and selenium into the manufacture of its wine bottles. The contaminated dust is generated by air pollution equipment used to capture regulated pollutants that would otherwise be released into the air from its furnaces. The dust is considered a hazardous waste and must be properly managed and disposed of under California law. 

Gallo asserted it was recycling the waste by putting it into materials fed into the furnaces and heated to form molten glass used to make bottles. The complaint alleges that Gallo failed to demonstrate that its practices qualify as recycling under California law; that it also did not comply with requirements for legitimate recycling; and it improperly stored a large volume of hazardous waste dust in a manner that presented a potential risk to public health. Gallo’s operations generate hundreds of pounds of hazardous dust a day. 

While this was not a violation of TPPA, it does call into question what practices glass manufacturers are utilizing to make glass and whether those practices may be leading to unnecessarily higher levels of heavy metal contamination.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill.  According to the author, “AB 1435 will remove an inconsistency in our environmental laws and will preserve the state’s recycling program, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect manufacturing jobs by appropriately exempting glass containers from the California Toxics in Packaging Law. Glass containers do not belong in the statute because studies show that glass is safe and does not leach heavy metals.”

2. Do heavy metals leach from glass and is it a risk that should be addressed under TPPA?  The proponents have produced a report commissioned by the glass industry in Europe that tested glass leachability under various conditions.  The FEVE study concludes that the molecular structure of glass is inert and therefore heavy metals contained within the glass matrix do not leach.  The proponents believe that this report provides the necessary justification for a complete exemption from TPPA for all glass food packaging.  However, the 2007 study by Drs. Shotyk and Krachler found that lead does leach from glass. The discrepancy between the results of these 2 studies calls into question whether exempting glass packaging from TPPA is prudent at this time. There are a series of questions/issues that should be addressed before an exemption should be granted:

1. Is all glass the same?  Clearly this is not the case.  Glass where lead oxide is intentionally added becomes crystal.  Studies done by many authoritative government and academic institutions have found that lead (and presumably other molecularly similar heavy metals) leaches from leaded crystal.  The Shotyk/Krachler study found similarly that lead leaches from lead in standard glass bottles. What made the outcome of the FEVE study different? What made the glass tested in the FEVE study impermeable?  Was the feedstock or processing of the glass different?  Was it the level of heavy metal contained in the glass?  Are there other conditions to be considered when looking at leachability?

If different types of glass have different leachability capabilities, is it appropriate or safe to use this one singular study as justification for all glass packaging to be exempt from TPPA? 

2. Why a complete exemption now?  When AB 455 was originally considered by the Legislature, testimony was made in Senate policy committees that resulted in the exemption language in AB 455 for products containing recycled content.  That exemption was agreed to for a period of seven years and had numerous requirements for the manufacturers using recycled content to produce and provide documentation as to why the exemption was needed in the first place and what the manufacturers were doing at present and in the future to limit the introduction of contaminants into their products.  

That language was intended to give those industries using recycled content feedstock an opportunity to improve their technologies in order to reduce and eliminate heavy metals from their products.  The language was also intended to require the manufacturers collect and disclose information about the contaminants contained in their products.  What has happened with these requirements in the last 12 years?  It does not appear that the glass manufacturing industry complied with the conditions of the exemption granted in 2003.  Additionally, this exemption sunsetted in 2010.  What has the manufacturing industry done in the last 5 years since the sunset to come into compliance with TPPA limits and reduce the presence of heavy metals in their products?  

3. Further information is needed. It appears that there is not clear data concerning several points:

1. Is there an acceptable level of heavy metals in glass packaging used for food products meant for human consumption?  Should the 2003 levels be re-evaluated taking into consideration current information about risks to high risk populations like children and pregnant women associated with exposure to heavy metals?

2. What are the current manufacturing processes used for recycled content glass packaging?  What feedstock is used?  Are there controls preventing highly contaminated recycled glass cullet, like CRT glass, from being used? Are there things that the industry can/should be doing differently to control the introduction of heavy metal contaminants into their products?

3. Conclusion. Should this legislation move forward, amendments are needed to extend the exemption for a limited period of three years in order for DTSC to evaluate the questions listed above concerning feedstock, recycling and manufacturing processes, leachability and an analysis of the appropriate levels for each of the heavy metals. Because it appears that the manufacturers had not previously produced the documentation regarding their products required under TPPA as a condition of the exemption, an amendment is needed to require the manufacturers to provide DTSC the information needed to do this evaluation. Additionally, because under Proposition 26 limits, DTSC does not have discretion to use fees collected from other regulated industries to pay for this evaluation, an amendment is needed to give DTSC fee authority to collect the needed revenue from the glass manufacturers in order to do this evaluation.

SOURCE: Glass Packaging Institute

SUPPORT: 

Beer Institute

California Labor Federation

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

Strategic Materials

West Coast Protective League

Wine Institute

OPPOSITION:    

Californians Against Waste

Clean Water Action

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:    According to the California Wine Institute, " The FDA has categorized glass as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for food and beverage packaging. Glass is essentially inert in that it does not deteriorate, corrode, stain or fade and is therefore one of the safest packaging materials. In addition, a peer-reviewed extensive study conducted last year by Stazione Sperimentale del Vetro (SSV) in Italy found that lead migration from glass was essentially non-detectable, even in extreme conditions…. The exemption proposed by AB 1435 is justified by the fact that the Lead contained therein does not propose a health risk.  This is because of the intrinsic properties of glass; primarily, that a regulated metal which contaminates a recycling cullet stream will be encapsulated within the glass and never pose a threat of leaching from the container."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:   Californians Against Waste raised an objection to the proposed legislation, “We have reviewed the scientific research and can find no evidence of a public health or environmental threat posed by the levels of lead and other heavy metals normally and historically found in recycled glass used in the manufacture of glass food and drink containers.  While there is no known public health threat from recycled glass containing the levels of lead typically and historically found in and derived from container glass, there may be a potential risk to public health and/or the environment from the inclusion of some sources of ‘non-container glass’ which do contain hazardous levels of heavy metals and other toxins, including: CRT glass; Fluorescent tube glass; Solar Panel glass.”

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1435

Author:(Alejo)

As Introduced Ver:February 27, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Provides an exemption from the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act (TPPA) for glass beverage, food or drink containers.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a manufacturer, supplier or person from offering for sale or for promotional purposes a package that includes an intentionally introduced regulated metal or in which the sum of the incidental total concentration levels of the regulated metals exceeds 100 parts per million by weight.

2. Exempts, until January 1, 2010, packaging from having to comply with the prohibition, if the packaging contains no intentionally introduced regulated metals but exceeds the maximum concentration level because of the addition of a recycled material.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would result in minor, absorbable costs.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to the author, "AB 1435 will remove an inconsistency in our environmental laws and will preserve the state’s recycling program, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect manufacturing jobs by appropriately exempting glass containers from the California Toxics in Packaging Law. Glass containers do not belong in the statute because studies show that glass is safe and does not leach heavy metals."

California enacted the TPPA, AB 455 (Chu), Chapter 679, Statutes of 2003, prohibiting, on and after January 1, 2006, a manufacturer, importer, agent, or supplier from offering for sale in California a package or packaging component that includes a regulated metal, defined as lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium, if that regulated metal has been intentionally introduced into the package or packaging component during manufacturing or distribution.

The intent of this law is to reduce the toxicity in packaging without discouraging the use of recycled materials in packaging production. Consumer goods packaging makes up a significant portion of waste going to the nation's municipal solid waste landfills. Packaging containing toxic substances, especially heavy metals, can release those poisonous or dangerous substances, contaminating the soil and groundwater surrounding the landfill.

The original TPPA provided special consideration for trace concentration of lead and other heavy metal that resulted from the use of recycled content. In the case of glass contamination, the residual lead resulted from historic glass production techniques.

Since the expiration of the special recycled content provisions, there has been concern about the presence of trace amount of heavy metals in glass cullet used for producing glass. A recent study, conducted under the guise of the FEVE, the European Container Glass Federation, examined the likelihood that glass with a relatively high level of lead would experience leaching of the heavy metals into the contents of the package or the environment. Glass has, under accelerated migration testing conditions, been found to be a material of high chemical inertness. The study found that generally glass is an inert food contact material with limited potential for migration of elements of toxic significance in the compositions commonly used. While this study was carried out under the direction of the European glass production industry and has not been published or reviewed in the scientific literature, it has raised the question of whether significant heavy metals, including lead, are likely to leach from these products as assumed when the original TPPA was passed.

Analysis Prepared by: Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0000506

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1435

Author:(Alejo) – As Introduced Ver:February 27, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill provides an exemption from the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act (TPPA) for glass beverage, food or drink containers.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor, absorbable costs.

COMMENTS:

Rationale. California enacted the TPPA, (AB 455 Chapter 679, Statutes of 2003), prohibiting a manufacturer, an importer, an agent, or a supplier from offering for sale in California a package or packaging component that includes a regulated metal, defined as lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium, if that regulated metal has been intentionally introduced into the package or packaging component during manufacturing or distribution.

This law was enacted to reduce the toxicity in packaging, without discouraging the use of recycled materials in packaging production. The packaging of consumer products makes up a significant portion of waste going to the nation’s municipal solid waste landfills. Packaging containing toxic substances, especially heavy metals, can release those poisonous or dangerous substances, contaminating the soil and groundwater surrounding the landfill.

The TPPA provided special consideration for trace concentrations of lead and other heavy metals resulting from the use of recycled content. In the case of glass contamination, the residual lead resulted from historic glass production techniques and is no longer a problem.

According to the author, glass containers do not belong in the statute because studies show that glass is safe and does not leach heavy metals. This bill exempts glass food, drink and beverage containers from the California Toxics in Packaging Law.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Luis Alejo, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1435

Author:(Alejo) – As Introduced Ver:February 27, 2015

SUBJECT: Hazardous waste: toxics: packaging

SUMMARY: Provides an exemption from the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act (TPPA) for glass beverage, food or drink containers.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits a manufacturer, supplier or person from offering for sale or for promotional purposes a package that includes an intentionally introduced regulated metal or in which the sum of the incidental total concentration levels of the regulated metals exceeds 100 parts per million by weight.

2. Exempts, until January 1, 2010, packaging from having to comply with the prohibition, if the packaging contains no intentionally introduced regulated metals but exceeds the maximum concentration level because of the addition of a recycled material.

FISCAL EFFECT: Not Known.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to the author, "AB 1435 will remove an inconsistency in our environmental laws and will preserve the state’s recycling program, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect manufacturing jobs by appropriately exempting glass containers from the California Toxics in Packaging Law. Glass containers do not belong in the statute because studies show that glass is safe and does not leach heavy metals."

California enacted the TPPA, (AB 455 (Chu), Chapter 679, Statutes of 2003), prohibiting, on and after January 1, 2006, a manufacturer, importer, agent, or supplier from offering for sale in California a package or packaging component that includes a regulated metal, defined as lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium, if that regulated metal has been intentionally introduced into the package or packaging component during manufacturing or distribution.

The intent of this law is to reduce the toxicity in packaging without discouraging the use of recycled materials in packaging production. Consumer goods packaging makes up a significant portion of waste going to the nation’s municipal solid waste landfills. Packaging containing toxic substances, especially heavy metals, can release those poisonous or dangerous substances, contaminating the soil and groundwater surrounding the landfill.

The original TPPA provided special consideration for trace concentration of lead and other heavy metal that resulted from the use of recycled content. In the case of glass contamination, the residual lead resulted from historic glass production techniques.

Since the expiration of the special recycled content provisions, there has been concern about the presence of trace amount of heavy metals in glass cullet used for producing glass. A recent study, conducted under the guise of the FEVE, the European Container Glass Federation, examined the likelihood that glass with a relatively high level of lead would experience leaching of the heavy metals into the contents of the package or the environment.¹ Glass has, under accelerated migration testing conditions, been found to be a material of high chemical inertness. The study found that generally glass is an inert food contact material with limited potential for migration of elements of toxic significance in the compositions commonly used. While this study was carried out under the direction of the European glass production industry and has not been published or reviewed in the scientific literature, it has raised the question of whether significant heavy metals, including lead, are likely to leach from these products as assumed when the original TPPA was passed.

Argument in support: According to the California Wine Institute, " The FDA has categorized glass as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for food and beverage packaging. Glass is essentially inert in that it does not deteriorate, corrode, stain or fade and is therefore one of the safest packaging materials. In addition, a peer-reviewed extensive study conducted last year by Stazione Sperimentale del Vetro (SSV) in Italy found that lead migration from glass was essentially non-detectable, even in extreme conditions…. The exemption proposed by AB 1435 is justified by the fact that the Lead contained therein does not propose a health risk. This is because of the intrinsic properties of glass; primarily, that a regulated metal which contaminates a recycling cullet stream will be encapsulated within the glass and never pose a threat of leaching from the container."

Argument in opposition: Californians Against Waste raised an objection to the proposed legislation, "We have reviewed the scientific research and can find no evidence of a public health or environmental threat posed by the levels of lead and other heavy metals normally and historically found in recycled glass used in the manufacture of glass food and drink containers. While there is no known public health threat from recycled glass containing the levels of lead typically and historically found in and derived from container glass, there may be a potential risk to public health and/or the environment from the inclusion of some sources of ‘non-container glass’ which do contain hazardous levels of heavy metals and other toxins, including: CRT glass; Fluorescent tube glass; Solar Panel glass.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Beer Institute

California Labor Federation

California Manufactures & Technology Association

California Wine Institute

Glass Packaging Institute

West Coast Protective League

Opposition

Californians Against Waste

Analysis Prepared by: Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965