The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, operating on or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a list that the bill would require the department to publish and maintain on its Internet Web site that contains types of approved food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would exempt packaging acquired before its inclusion on the list, as specified. The bill would require the department to regularly, but no less than once every 5 years, evaluate the list of approved types of food service packaging and would authorize the department to add or remove types of food service packaging to or from the list based on whether the packaging is recyclable, reusable, or compostable. The bill would require, on or before January 1, 2021, the department to adopt, in consultation with specified state and local agencies, regulations for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable, and would prescribe specified criteria for the Director of the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to consider in determining whether a type of food service packaging is reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would require local governments, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and composting facilities to provide information requested by the department for purposes of developing those regulations. By imposing additional duties on local governments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require a food service facility to provide to the department reasonable and timely access to contracts, invoices, and purchase orders that include information demonstrating whether the food service packaging material acquired by the food service facility is in compliance with the bill. The bill would require the Department of General Services or any state agency that is entering into a contract or agreement or amending an existing contract or agreement with a food service facility to ensure that the relevant contract or agreement conforms to any applicable provisions of the bill and would impose specified additional duties on the Department of General Services in relation to those contracts or agreements.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, operating on or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a list that the bill would require the department to publish and maintain on its Internet Web site that contains types of approved food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would exempt packaging acquired before its inclusion on the list, as specified. The bill would require the department to regularly, but no less than once every 5 years, evaluate the list of approved types of food service packaging and would authorize the department to add or remove types of food service packaging to or from the list based on whether the packaging is recyclable, reusable, or compostable. The bill would require, on or before January 1, 2021, the department to adopt, in consultation with specified state and local agencies, regulations for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable, and would prescribe specified criteria for the Director of the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to consider in determining whether a type of food service packaging is reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would require local governments, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and composting facilities to provide information requested by the department for purposes of developing those regulations. By imposing additional duties on local governments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require a food service facility to provide to the department reasonable and timely access to contracts, invoices, and purchase orders that include information demonstrating whether the food service packaging material acquired by the food service facility is in compliance with the bill. The bill would require the Department of General Services or any state agency that is entering into a contract or agreement or amending an existing contract or agreement with a food service facility to ensure that the relevant contract or agreement conforms to any applicable provisions of the bill and would impose specified additional duties on the Department of General Services in relation to those contracts or agreements.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, operating on or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency, on and after January 1, 2021, agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a list that the bill would require the department to publish and maintain on its Internet Web site that contains types of approved food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would exempt packaging acquired before its inclusion on the list, as specified. The bill would require the department to regularly, but no less than once every 5 years, evaluate the list of approved types of food service packaging and would authorize the department to add or remove types of food service packaging to or from the list based on whether the packaging is, among other factors, recyclable is recyclable, reusable, or compostable. The bill would authorize require, on or before January 1, 2021, the department to require a manufacturer of a type of food service packaging or material to submit data for purposes of this evaluation, as specified. adopt, in consultation with specified state and local agencies, regulations for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable, and would prescribe specified criteria for the Director of the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to consider in determining whether a type of food service packaging is reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would require local governments, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and composting facilities to provide information requested by the department for purposes of developing those regulations. By imposing additional duties on local governments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, operating on or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency, on and after January 1, 2021, from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a list that the bill would require the department to publish and maintain on its Internet Web site that contains types of approved food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would exempt packaging acquired before its inclusion on the list, as specified. The bill would require the department to regularly, but no less than once every 5 years, evaluate the list of approved types of food service packaging and would authorize the department to add or remove types of food service packaging to or from the list based on whether the packaging is, among other factors, recyclable or compostable. The bill would authorize the department to require a manufacturer of a type of food service packaging or material to submit data for purposes of this evaluation, as specified.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency, on and after January 1, 2021, from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a list that the bill would require the department to publish and maintain on its Internet Web Site site that contains types of approved food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would exempt packaging acquired before its inclusion on the list, as specified. The bill would require the department to regularly, but no less than once every 5 years, evaluate the list of approved types of food service packaging and would authorize the department to add or remove types of food service packaging to or from the list based on whether the packaging is, among other factors, recyclable or compostable. The bill would authorize the department to require a manufacturer of a type of food service packaging or material to submit data for purposes of this evaluation, as specified.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility located in a state agency or large state facility, state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency, on and after January 1, 2021, from dispensing prepared food using disposable a type of food service packaging unless the type of disposable food service packaging is accepted for recovery by the recycling or composting program serving the state agency or large state facility and it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the department that the type of disposable food service packaging is recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 75% or more. on a list that the bill would require the department to publish and maintain on its Internet Web Site that contains types of approved food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would exempt packaging acquired before its inclusion on the list, as specified. The bill would require the department to regularly, but no less than once every 5 years, evaluate the list of approved types of food service packaging and would authorize the department to add or remove types of food service packaging to or from the list based on whether the packaging is, among other factors, recyclable or compostable. The bill would authorize the department to require a manufacturer of a type of food service packaging or material to submit data for purposes of this evaluation, as specified.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility in a state agency or large state facility, on and after January 1, 2021, from dispensing prepared food to a customer using disposable food service packaging unless the type of disposable food service packaging is accepted for recovery by the recycling or composting program serving the state agency or large state facility and it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the department that the type of disposable food service packaging is recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 75% or more.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally requires rigid plastic packaging containers, as defined, sold or offered for sale in this state to meet one of specified criteria.

This bill would enact the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018, which would prohibit a food service facility in a state agency or large state facility, on and after January 1, 2021, from dispensing prepared food to a customer using disposable food service packaging unless the type of disposable food service packaging is accepted for recovery by the recycling or composting program serving the state agency or large state facility and it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the department that the type of disposable food service packaging is recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 75% or more.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 1335

SUBJECT: Solid waste: disposable food service packaging: state agencies and large state facilities

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1) Under the federal Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, prohibits the at-sea disposal of plastic and other solid materials for all navigable waters within the United States (Public Law 100-220, Title II, 1987, 101 Stat. 1460).

2) Requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a National Marine Debris Monitoring Program designed to assess the effectiveness of the current national marine debris legislation. Monitoring under this program takes place at designated beaches every 28 days (33 U.S.C. §1951 et seq.).

3) Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), requires the state to identify a list of impaired water bodies and develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). 


Existing law:

1. Under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986, provides funding for beverage container recycling, litter prevention, and cleanup (PRC §14500 et seq.).
2. Under the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), establishes a state recycling goal of 75% of solid waste generated to be diverted from
landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. Requires each state agency and each large state facility to divert at least 50% of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. IWMA also requires a state agency and large stage facility, for each office building of the state agency or large state facility, to provide adequate receptacles, signage, education, and staffing, and arrange for recycling services, as specified (PRC §§41780.01, 42921, 42924.5).
3. Prohibits a person from selling a plastic bag or a plastic food or beverage container that is labeled as “compostable” or “marine degradable” unless that plastic bag or container meets American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards or a standard adopted by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (PRC §§42357, 42359.6).
4. 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 (Water Code §13000 et seq.).

This bill enacts the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018:

1. Prohibits a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), on and after the publication of the list.
   
2. Requires, on or before June 1, 2021, CalRecycle to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The regulations shall be used to determine the types of food service packaging that may be distributed in state facilities.
   
3. Requires CalRecycle to develop the regulations in consultation with the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Rehabilitation, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Ocean Protection Council, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and any other appropriate state and local agencies and to seek input from stakeholders, as specified.
   
4. Requires CalRecycle to publish a list of approved types of food service packaging on its website and requires the department to regularly, but not less than every five years, evaluate that list.
   
5. Defines “food service packaging” as a product used for serving or transporting prepared ready-to-consume food or beverages, as specified.
   
6. Defines “prepared food” as a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility's premises. Prepared food does not include prepackaged, sealed food that is mass produced by a third party off the premises of the food service facility.
   
7. Does not preempt the authority of a city, county, or city and county to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the bill.

Background

1. Ocean pollution. According to the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), ocean litter, also commonly referred to as “marine debris,” is a persistent and growing problem worldwide that significantly impacts the health and beauty of our oceans and beaches. It poses serious threats to marine wildlife, including sea birds, turtles, and mammals such as dolphins and whales, as well as human health and welfare. Scientific research demonstrates that debris in oceans is increasing at an alarming rate. Researchers estimate that 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources, particularly trash and plastic litter in urban runoff, and the generation of trash and waste is increasing.
   
   In 2007, OPC adopted a resolution that called for a plan of action to reduce and prevent marine debris, including specific actions to reduce single-use plastics. In 2008, OPC in response to that resolution, further adopted and finalized its initiative, “Implementation Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter,” which offered 16 recommendations aimed to prompt a change in how California generates, handles, and disposes items that frequently land in our ocean. The main focus of the initiative was the goal of reducing the amount of litter that accumulates in the ocean, particularly the 60-80% that is lightweight and buoyant plastic material. This type of litter kills marine life, including endangered species, transports invasive species and toxic pollutants, and damages the aesthetics of our beaches and the sea. The strategy also included three “priority actions for measurable success:” 1) Implement a take-back program for convenience food packaging, 2) Prohibit single-use products that pose significant ocean litter impacts where a feasible alternative is available, and 3) Assess fees on commonly littered items.
   

OPC is currently updating its 2008 initiative, in partnership with the NOAA Marine Debris Program, to address new forms of ocean litter that have been identified since 2008 and to expand the initiative to include projects of various scales and scopes so that entities including governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and industry stakeholders can make meaningful contributions towards reducing ocean litter in California. The final strategy is expected to be released in early April.

According to NOAA, approximately 80% of marine debris comes from land based sources, with food and beverage packaging making up the largest component of that debris. These food and beverage containers can enter the marine environment in a number of ways: through inefficient or improper waste management, intentional or accidental littering, and through stormwater runoff. Once in the marine environment, litter is not just an eyesore, but can damage habitats, harm wildlife through entanglement and ingestion, and have negative economic impacts on coastal communities.

1. Solid waste diversion efforts. An estimated 35 million tons of waste are disposed of in California's landfills annually. CalRecycle is tasked with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011, requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep the material out of the landfill.
   

Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 (SB 1383, Lara) required the ARB to approve and implement the comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill specified that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level.

1. Water Quality/ Total Daily Maximum Load. Under §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters. This is the amount of a particular material that a waterbody can assimilate on a regular basis and still remain at levels that protect beneficial uses designated for that waterbody. 
A TMDL is approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved, it establishes: a) an allowable amount of a pollutant to a waterbody; b) proportional responsibility for controlling the pollutant; c) numeric indicators of water quality; and d) implementation to achieve the allowable amount of pollutant loading.
   
2. Plastic Bag Ban. In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 67, the statewide Single-Use Carryout Bag Ban (SB 270, Padilla, de Leon, Lara, Chapter 850, Statutes of 2014). As a result, most grocery stores, retail stores with a pharmacy, convenience stores, food marts, and liquor stores are no longer able to provide single-use plastic carry-out bags to their customers. Instead, these stores may provide a reusable grocery bag or recycled paper bag to a customer at the point of sale for a charge of at least 10 cents.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, CalRecycle identifies costs of $369,000 in 2018-19 and $369,000 ongoing for activities related to recycling rate verification. In addition, the bill creates unknown fiscal pressures on other state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author,
   

“Non-recycled, single-use food packaging contributes to the nearly $500 million communities must spend annually to combat litter and prevent it from entering the state’s waterways. The City of Los Angeles estimates that compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads for its impaired waterways, including those for litter pollution, will cost more than $1 billion. According to a study conducted by the California Department of Transportation, polystyrene alone made up 15 percent of the total volume of litter recovered from the storm drains.

114 jurisdictions have already taken action to limit Styrofoam and other forms of non-recyclable packaging. Recent actions at the national level, our unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels, and the growing plastic pollution crisis tell us that we can no longer afford to wait on this issue. SB 1335 calls on the state to take the much needed step to phase out single-use food packaging at state facilities. This will reduce the amount of this litter-prone material spoiling our beaches and parks and will set an example for how to reduce the use of this material statewide.”

1. Plastic bags. SB 1335 excludes “plastic bags” from the definition of “food service packing.” However, if the intent of the bill is to lead by example in the reduction of urban litter and pollution in our waterways, the Legislature shall also strive to eliminate the use of plastic bags by food service facilities of the state.
   
2. Referral to the Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. SB 1335, as heard by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, would have prohibited food service facilities in state agencies and large state facilities from dispensing prepared food to a customer using disposal food service packaging unless the packaging is of the type accepted for recovery by the recycling or composting program serving the state agency or large state facility and it is demonstrated to CalRecycle that the type of disposable food service packaging is recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 75% or more.
   
   In the Assembly, SB 1335 was amended to instead prohibit a state food service facility from dispensing prepared food using food service packaging unless the packaging is on an approved list developed by the department. The Assembly amendments require CalRecycle, on or before January 1, 2021, to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable, to be included on the list.

Consistent with Senate Rule 29.10(b) the Senate Rules Committee has referred the amended bill to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee for a hearing of the amendments.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2921 (Low, 2017) would enact the Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Packaging Recovery and Recycling Act, which would create an extended producer responsibility program for expanded polystyrene food service packaging manufacturers and polystyrene resin producers. AB 2921 is currently referred to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

SB 705 (Dodd, 2017) would have banned certain food providers, by January 1, 2020, and all food vendors by January 1, 2022, from dispensing prepared food in expanded polystyrene food service containers. SB 705 proposed to authorize a city or county to grant exemptions to this prohibition due to economic hardship and to authorize a city or county to impose civil liability if an entity knowingly violated the prohibition. SB 705 failed on the Senate floor.

AB 2812 (Gordon, 2015) required CalRecycle, on or before July 1, 2017, to develop guidelines for adequate receptacles and staffing for collecting and recycling recyclable materials in state office buildings. AB 2812 also requires state agencies to provide and maintain recycling receptacles in state buildings and large state facilities based on standards adopted by CalRecycle. AB 2812 was enacted as Chapter 530 of Statutes of 2016.

SB 529 (Leno, 2013) would have required fast food facilities to only distribute food in recyclable or compostable packaging. SB 529 was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2138 (Chesbro, 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 the Department of Resources Recycling and Recover determines the disposable food service packaging is recovered for composting or recycling at a rate of 25% or more. This bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1358 (Hill, 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.

AB 904 (Feuer, 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. AB 904 failed in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

Californians Against Waste (Sponsor)
The 5 Gyres Institute

7th Generation Advisors

Algalita Marine Research and Education
American Chemistry Council
California Alliance for Retired Americans

California Association of Local Conservation Corps

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters
California Product Steward Council

California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA)
California Restaurant Association

California State Park Rangers Association
California Teamsters

Chico Bag

City of Arcata
City of Imperial Beach

City of Long Beach
City of San Diego

Clean Water Action
DART Container Corporation

Defenders of Wildlife

East Bay Regional Park District
Earth Day Network

Ecology Action

Endangered Habitat League

Environment California

Elders Climate Action

Gaia

Georgetta Gomez, San Diego City Council, 9th District

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Heal the Bay
Hobie Sports

The Last Plastic Straw

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

Paul Koretz Council Member, 5th District

Los Angeles City Council

Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee

Monterey Bay Aquarium

Mi Familia Vota

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

The Nature Conservancy

The Northcoast Environmental Center

Northern California Recycling Association

Ocean Collectiv

Oceana
Plastic Industry Association

Plastic Pollution Coalition
Republic Services, Inc.

Rethink Waste

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility
Robert Garcia, Mayor of the City of Long Beach
San Francisco Baykeeper

Save The Bay

Save Our Shores

Sierra Club California

The Story of Stuff Project

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

California Chapters of Solid Waste Association of North America

Stop Waste

Surfrider Foundation

Tri-CED Community Recycling

The Trust for Public Land

UPSTREAM Policy
Western Plastics Association

WILDCOAST

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION:

American Forestry and Paper Association

Americas Styrenics

Building Owners and Managers Association

Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce

California Building Owners and Managers Association

California Business Properties Association

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Genpac

Los Angeles County Business Federation

National Federation of Independent Business

NOVA Chemicals

NOVIPAX

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Styrene Information Research Center

StyroChem

-- END --

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1335

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone, Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 22-13, 5/30/18

AYES: Allen, Atkins, Beall, De León, Dodd, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Newman, Portantino, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bradford, Galgiani, Pan, Roth

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL. COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/31/18 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NOES: Stone, Gaines

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not available

SUBJECT: Solid waste: food service packaging: state agencies, facilities, and property

SOURCE: Californians Against Waste

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits a state food service facility from dispensing prepared food using type of food service packaging unless the packaging is on a specified list maintained by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery and has been determined to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

Assembly Amendments prohibit a state food service facility from dispensing prepared food using food service packaging unless the packaging is on an approved list developed by the department. The Assembly amendments require CalRecycle, on or before January 1, 2021, to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable, to be included on the list.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1) Prohibits, under the federal Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, the at-sea disposal of plastic and other solid materials for all navigable waters within the United States (Public Law 100-220, Title II, 1987, 101 Stat. 1460).

2) Requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a National Marine Debris Monitoring Program designed to assess the effectiveness of the current national marine debris legislation. Monitoring under this program takes place at designated beaches every 28 days (33 U.S.C. §1951 et seq.).

3) Requires the state, under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), to identify a list of impaired water bodies and develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). 


Existing law:

1. Provides funding, under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986, for beverage container recycling, litter prevention, and cleanup (PRC §14500 et seq.).
2. Establishes, under the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), a state recycling goal of 75% of solid waste generated to be diverted from
landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. Requires each state agency and each large state facility to divert at least 50% of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. IWMA also requires a state agency and large stage facility, for each office building of the state agency or large state facility, to provide adequate receptacles, signage, education, and staffing, and arrange for recycling services, as specified (PRC §§41780.01, 42921, 42924.5).
3. Prohibits a person from selling a plastic bag or a plastic food or beverage container that is labeled as “compostable” or “marine degradable” unless that plastic bag or container meets American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards or a standard adopted by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (PRC §§42357, 42359.6).
4. Regulates, under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges of pollutants in storm water and urban runoff by regulating, through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, industrial discharges and discharges through the municipal storm drain systems (Water Code §13000 et seq.).

This bill enacts the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), on and after the publication of the list.
   
2. Requires, on or before June 1, 2021, CalRecycle to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The regulations shall be used to determine the types of food service packaging that may be distributed in state facilities.
   
3. Requires CalRecycle to develop the regulations in consultation with the Department of General Services, the Department of Rehabilitation, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Ocean Protection Council, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and any other appropriate state and local agencies and to seek input from stakeholders, as specified.
   
4. Requires CalRecycle to publish a list of approved types of food service packaging on its website and requires the department to regularly, but not less than every five years, evaluate that list.
   
5. Defines “food service packaging” as a product used for serving or transporting prepared ready-to-consume food or beverages, as specified.
   
6. Defines “prepared food” as a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility's premises. Prepared food does not include prepackaged, sealed food that is mass produced by a third party off the premises of the food service facility.
   
7. Does not preempt the authority of a city, county, or city and county to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the bill.

Background

1. Ocean pollution. According to the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), ocean litter, also commonly referred to as “marine debris,” is a persistent and growing problem worldwide that significantly impacts the health and beauty of our oceans and beaches. It poses serious threats to marine wildlife, including sea birds, turtles, and mammals such as dolphins and whales, as well as human health and welfare. Scientific research demonstrates that debris in oceans is increasing at an alarming rate. Researchers estimate that 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources, particularly trash and plastic litter in urban runoff, and the generation of trash and waste is increasing.
   
   In 2007, OPC adopted a resolution that called for a plan of action to reduce and prevent marine debris, including specific actions to reduce single-use plastics. In 2008, OPC in response to that resolution, further adopted and finalized its initiative, “Implementation Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter,” which offered 16 recommendations aimed to prompt a change in how California generates, handles, and disposes items that frequently land in our ocean. The main focus of the initiative was the goal of reducing the amount of litter that accumulates in the ocean, particularly the 60-80% that is lightweight and buoyant plastic material. This type of litter kills marine life, including endangered species, transports invasive species and toxic pollutants, and damages the aesthetics of our beaches and the sea. The strategy also included three “priority actions for measurable success:” 1) Implement a take-back program for convenience food packaging, 2) Prohibit single-use products that pose significant ocean litter impacts where a feasible alternative is available, and 3) Assess fees on commonly littered items.
   

OPC is currently updating its 2008 initiative, in partnership with the NOAA Marine Debris Program, to address new forms of ocean litter that have been identified since 2008 and to expand the initiative to include projects of various scales and scopes so that entities including governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and industry stakeholders can make meaningful contributions towards reducing ocean litter in California. The final strategy is expected to be released in early April.

According to NOAA, approximately 80% of marine debris comes from land based sources, with food and beverage packaging making up the largest component of that debris. These food and beverage containers can enter the marine environment in a number of ways: through inefficient or improper waste management, intentional or accidental littering, and through stormwater runoff. Once in the marine environment, litter is not just an eyesore, but can damage habitats, harm wildlife through entanglement and ingestion, and have negative economic impacts on coastal communities.

1. Solid waste diversion efforts. An estimated 35 million tons of waste are disposed of in California's landfills annually. CalRecycle is tasked with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro, Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) requires generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep the material out of the landfill.
   

Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 (SB 1383, Lara) required the ARB to approve and implement the comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill specified that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level.

1. Water Quality/ Total Daily Maximum Load. Under §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters. This is the amount of a particular material that a waterbody can assimilate on a regular basis and still remain at levels that protect beneficial uses designated for that waterbody. A TMDL is approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved, it establishes: a) an allowable amount of a pollutant to a waterbody; b) proportional responsibility for controlling the pollutant; c) numeric indicators of water quality; and d) implementation to achieve the allowable amount of pollutant loading.
2. Plastic Bag Ban. In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 67, the statewide Single-Use Carryout Bag Ban (SB 270, Padilla, de Leon, Lara, Chapter 850, Statutes of 2014). As a result, most grocery stores, retail stores with a pharmacy, convenience stores, food marts, and liquor stores are no longer able to provide single-use plastic carry-out bags to their customers. Instead, these stores may provide a reusable grocery bag or recycled paper bag to a customer at the point of sale for a charge of at least 10 cents.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author,

“Non-recycled, single-use food packaging contributes to the nearly $500 million communities must spend annually to combat litter and prevent it from entering the state’s waterways. The City of Los Angeles estimates that compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads for its impaired waterways, including those for litter pollution, will cost more than $1 billion. According to a study conducted by the California Department of Transportation, polystyrene alone made up 15 percent of the total volume of litter recovered from the storm drains.

“114 jurisdictions have already taken action to limit Styrofoam and other forms of non-recyclable packaging. Recent actions at the national level, our unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels, and the growing plastic pollution crisis tell us that we can no longer afford to wait on this issue. SB 1335 calls on the state to take the much needed step to phase out single-use food packaging at state facilities. This will reduce the amount of this litter-prone material spoiling our beaches and parks and will set an example for how to reduce the use of this material statewide.”

1. Plastic bags. SB 1335 excludes “plastic bags” from the definition of “food service packing.” However, if the intent of the bill is to lead by example in the reduction of urban litter and pollution in our waterways, the Legislature shall also strive to eliminate the use of plastic bags by food service facilities of the state.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, CalRecycle identifies costs of $369,000 in 2018-19 and $369,000 ongoing for activities related to recycling rate verification. This bill creates unknown fiscal pressures on other state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use. Additionally, unknown costs to CalRecycle to develop the regulations and unknown state mandated local costs.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/30/18)

Californians Against Waste (source)
7th Generation Advisors

Algalita Marine Research and Education
American Chemistry Council
California Alliance for Retired Americans

California Association of Local Conservation Corps

California Chapters of Solid Waste Association of North America

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters
California Product Steward Council

California Resource Recovery Association
California Restaurant Association

California State Park Rangers Association
California Teamsters

The 5 Gyres Institute

Chico Bag

City of Arcata
City of Imperial Beach

City of Long Beach
City of San Diego

Clean Water Action
DART Container Corporation

Defenders of Wildlife

East Bay Regional Park District
Earth Day Network

Ecology Action

Elders Climate Action

Endangered Habitat League

Environment California

Gaia

Georgetta Gomez, San Diego City Council, 9th District

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Heal the Bay
Hobie Sports

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee

Mi Familia Vota

Monterey Bay Aquarium

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northern California Recycling Association

Ocean Collectiv

Oceana
Plastic Industry Association

Paul Koretz Council Member, 5th District, Los Angeles City Council

Plastic Pollution Coalition
Republic Services, Inc.

Rethink Waste

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility
Mayor Robert Garcia, City of Long Beach
San Francisco Baykeeper

Save Our Shores

Save The Bay

Sierra Club California

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

Stop Waste

Surfrider Foundation

The Last Plastic Straw

The Nature Conservancy

The Northcoast Environmental Center

The Story of Stuff Project

The Trust for Public Land

Tri-CED Community Recycling

UPSTREAM Policy
Western Plastics Association

WILDCOAST

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/18)

American Forestry and Paper Association

Americas Styrenics

Building Owners and Managers Association

Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce

California Building Owners and Managers Association

California Business Properties Association

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Genpac

Los Angeles County Business Federation

National Federation of Independent Business

NOVA Chemicals

NOVIPAX

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Styrene Information Research Center

StyroChem

Prepared by:

8/31/18 21:07:56

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1335

Author:(Allen)

As Amended Ver:August 24, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 22-13

SUMMARY: Enacts the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), on and after the publication of the list.
2. Requires, on or before June 1, 2021, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The regulations shall be used to determine the types of food service packaging that may be distributed in state facilities.
3. Requires CalRecycle to develop the regulations in consultation with the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Rehabilitation, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Ocean Protection Council, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and any other appropriate state and local agencies and to seek input from stakeholders, as specified. Authorize CalRecycle to consult with local governments and representatives of the solid waste industry, recycling industry, the compost industry, and food service packaging manufacturers.
4. CalRecycle to publish a list of certain approved types of food service packaging on its website and requires the department to regularly, but not less than every five years, evaluate that list.
5. Defines "food service facility" as an operation or business that is located in a state-owned facility, operating or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency, as specified.
6. Defines "food service packaging" as a product used for serving or transporting prepared ready-to-consume food or beverages and includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers. Specifies that food service packaging does not include other single-use disposable items, such as straws, cup lids, and utensils, or single-use disposable packaging for unprepared foods.
7. Defines "prepared food" as a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility's premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. Prepared food does not include prepackaged, sealed food that is mass produced by a third party off the premises of the food service facility.
8. Does not preempt the authority of a city, county, or city and county to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the bill.
9. Specifies that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, CalRecycle identifies costs of $369,000 in 2018-19 and $369,000 ongoing for activities related to recycling rate verification. This bill creates unknown fiscal pressures on other state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use. Additionally, unknown costs to CalRecycle to develop the regulations and unknown state mandated local costs.

COMMENTS: An estimated 35 million tons of waste are disposed of in California's landfills annually. CalRecycle is tasked with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011, requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep the material out of the landfill.

Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 (SB 1383, Lara) required the ARB to approve and implement the comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill specified that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level.

Under the federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. This is the amount of a particular material that a waterbody can contain on a regular basis and still remain at levels that protect beneficial uses designated for that waterbody.

A TMDL must be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWRCB, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved, it establishes: a) an allowable amount of a pollutant to a waterbody; b) proportional responsibility for controlling the pollutant; c) numeric indicators of water quality; and, d) implementation to achieve the allowable amount of pollutant loading.

Plastics, including expanded polystyrene (EPS), are estimated to comprise 60-80% of all marine debris and 90% of all floating debris, which includes expanded polystyrene (EPS). According to the California Coastal Commission (Commission), the primary source of marine debris is urban runoff (i.e., litter). By 2050, by weight there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean if we keep producing (and failing to properly manage) plastics at predicted rates, according to The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics, a January 2016 report by the World Economic Forum.

Due to the interplay of ocean currents, marine debris preferentially accumulates in certain areas throughout the ocean. According to Eriksen et al. (2014), 24 expeditions from 2007-2013 estimated that there are approximately 96,400 metric tons of floating plastic in the Northern Pacific 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. EPS breaks down more rapidly into these smaller particles than rigid plastics. These plastic pieces are confused with small fish, plankton, or krill and ingested by birds and marine animals. Over 600 marine animal species have been negatively affected by ingesting plastic worldwide. Last year, scientists at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University found that corals are also ingesting small plastic particles, which remain in their small stomach cavities and impede their ability to consume and digest normal food.

In addition to the physical impacts of plastic pollution, 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 where they enter and accumulate in the food chain.

In 2007, the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) adopted a resolution on "reducing and preventing marine debris." A year later, OPC released the Implementation Strategy for the [OPC] Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter, which established four broad objectives to reduce marine debris: 1) Reduce single-use packaging and promote sustainable alternatives; 2) Prevent and control litter and plastic debris; 3) Clean up and remove ocean litter; and, 4) Coordinate with other jurisdictions in the Pacific region.

A United Nations resolution was drafted in 2017 to create legally binding marine plastic pollution targets. Opposition to the targets, primarily from the United States and China, forced a deal that replaced the targets with non-binding language urging all actors to "step up actions by 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds" and "encourages member states to prioritize policies [that] avoid marine litter and microplastic entering the marine environment." Resolution 72/72, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, was signed by all 193 members of the United Nations in December 2017.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program published an economic study in 2014 that examined the costs of marine debris to Californians. The study focused on Orange County, and found that residents lose millions of dollars each year avoiding littered, local beaches in favor of choosing cleaner beaches that are father away and more costly to reach. In one scenario, the study found that reducing marine debris by just 25% would save Orange County residents $32 million in June-August; eliminating marine debris entirely would save an estimated $148 million.

A 2013 report produced for the Natural Resources Defense Council by Keir Associates estimates that Californians are shouldering $428 million annually to try to prevent litter from becoming marine debris that damages the environment, tourism, and other economic activities.

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0004864

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1335

Author:(Allen)

As Amended Ver:August 20, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 22-13

SUMMARY: Enacts the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by CalRecycle, except as specified.
2. Requires, on or before June 1, 2020, CalRecycle to publish a list of certain approved types of food service packaging on its Internet Web site and requires the department to regularly evaluate that list.
3. Requires CalRecycle to evaluate whether each type of approved food service packaging is recyclable or compostable and authorizes CalRecycle to remove a type of food service packaging from the list if it is determined that the type of food service packaging is not recyclable or compostable.
4. Requires CalRecycle to evaluate whether there are types of food service packaging that are recyclable or compostable that are not on the list and authorizes CalRecycle to add them to the list.
5. Defines "food service packaging" as a product used for serving or transporting prepared ready-to-consume food or beverages and includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers. Specifies that food service packaging does not include other single-use disposable items, such as straws, cup lids, and utensils, or single-use disposable packaging for unprepared foods.
6. Defines "prepared food" as a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility’s premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. Prepared food does not include prepackaged, sealed food that is mass produced by a third party off the premises of the food service facility.
7. Does not preempt the authority of a city, county, or city and county to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, CalRecycle identifies costs of $369,000 in 2018-19 and $369,000 ongoing for activities related to recycling rate verification. In addition, the bill creates unknown fiscal pressures on other state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use.

COMMENTS: An estimated 35 million tons of waste are disposed of in California’s landfills annually. CalRecycle is tasked with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011, requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep the material out of the landfill.

SB 1383 (Lara) Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 required the ARB to approve and implement the comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill specified that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level.

Under the federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. This is the amount of a particular material that a waterbody can contain on a regular basis and still remain at levels that protect beneficial uses designated for that waterbody.

A TMDL must be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWRCB, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved, it establishes: a) an allowable amount of a pollutant to a waterbody; b) proportional responsibility for controlling the pollutant; c) numeric indicators of water quality; and, d) implementation to achieve the allowable amount of pollutant loading.

Plastics, including expanded polystyrene (EPS), are estimated to comprise 60-80% of all marine debris and 90% of all floating debris, which includes expanded polystyrene (EPS). According to the California Coastal Commission (Commission), the primary source of marine debris is urban runoff (i.e., litter). By 2050, by weight there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean if we keep producing (and failing to properly manage) plastics at predicted rates, according to The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics, a January 2016 report by the World Economic Forum.

Due to the interplay of ocean currents, marine debris preferentially accumulates in certain areas throughout the ocean. According to Eriksen et al. (2014), 24 expeditions from 2007-2013 estimated that there are approximately 96,400 metric tons of floating plastic in the Northern Pacific 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. EPS breaks down more rapidly into these smaller particles than rigid plastics. These plastic pieces are confused with small fish, plankton, or krill and ingested by birds and marine animals. Over 600 marine animal species have been negatively affected by ingesting plastic worldwide. Last year, scientists at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University found that corals are also ingesting small plastic particles, which remain in their small stomach cavities and impede their ability to consume and digest normal food.

In addition to the physical impacts of plastic pollution, 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 where they enter and accumulate in the food chain.

In 2007, the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) adopted a resolution on "reducing and preventing marine debris." A year later, OPC released the Implementation Strategy for the [OPC] Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter, which established four broad objectives to reduce marine debris: 1) Reduce single-use packaging and promote sustainable alternatives; 2) Prevent and control litter and plastic debris; 3) Clean up and remove ocean litter; and, 4) Coordinate with other jurisdictions in the Pacific region.

A United Nations resolution was drafted in 2017 to create legally binding marine plastic pollution targets. Opposition to the targets, primarily from the United States and China, forced a deal that replaced the targets with non-binding language urging all actors to "step up actions by 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds" and "encourages member states to prioritize policies [that] avoid marine litter and microplastic entering the marine environment." Resolution 72/72, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, was signed by all 193 members of the United Nations in December 2017.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program published an economic study in 2014 that examined the costs of marine debris to Californians. The study focused on Orange County, and found that residents lose millions of dollars each year avoiding littered, local beaches in favor of choosing cleaner beaches that are father away and more costly to reach. In one scenario, the study found that reducing marine debris by just 25% would save Orange County residents $32 million in June-August; eliminating marine debris entirely would save an estimated $148 million.

A 2013 report produced for the Natural Resources Defense Council by Keir Associates estimates that Californians are shouldering $428 million annually to try to prevent litter from becoming marine debris that damages the environment, tourism, and other economic activities.

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0004427

Date of Hearing: August 8, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1335

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2018

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

SUMMARY:

This bill enacts the Sustainable Package for the State of California Act of 2018 to limit the type of food service packaging dispensed in state-owned facilities to those on an approved list developed and maintained by CalRecyle. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless it is on a list maintained and updated by CalRecycle, except as specified.
2. Requires CalRecycle, on or before June 1, 2020, to publish a list of certain approved types of food service packaging on its internet website and regularly, but no less than once every five years, evaluate the list.
3. Does not preempt the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. CalRecycle identifies costs of $369,000 in the first year (3 PY) and $363,000 in subsequent years (Integrated Waste Management Account).
2. Unknown, likely significant costs for state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use (GF and various special funds).

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

SB 1335 calls on the state to take the much needed step to phase out single-use food packaging at state facilities. This will reduce the amount of this litter-prone material spoiling our beaches and parks and will set an example for how to reduce the use of this material statewide.

1. Background. According to the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), ocean litter, also commonly referred to as “marine debris,” is a persistent and growing problem worldwide that significantly impacts the health and beauty of our oceans and beaches. It poses serious threats to marine wildlife, including sea birds, turtles, and mammals such as dolphins and whales, as well as human health and welfare. Scientific research demonstrates that debris in oceans is increasing at an alarming rate.

According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), approximately 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources, with food and beverage packaging making up the largest component of that debris. These food and beverage containers can enter the marine environment in a number of ways: through inefficient or improper waste management, intentional or accidental littering, and through stormwater runoff. Once in the marine environment, litter is not just an eyesore, but can damage habitats, harm wildlife through entanglement and ingestion, and have negative economic impacts on coastal communities.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by a coalition of environmental groups who contend there are eco-friendly alternatives to products that can be just as cost-effective. This bill is opposed by a coalition of business groups that estimate for every $1.00 the state now spends on polystyrene foam disposable food service packaging, replacement products on average would cost $1.76, but actual replacement could range up to $3.00.
2. Proposed Amendment. To clarify this bill applies to food trucks parked on state property, the author is proposing the following amendment:

42370.2. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), on and after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, operating on or acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency shall not dispense prepared food using food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on the list maintained and updated by the department pursuant to Section 42370.3.

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

Date of Hearing: June 25, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Al Muratsuchi, Acting Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1335

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:May 7, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 22-13

SUBJECT: Solid waste: food service packaging: state agencies, facilities, and property

SUMMARY: Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Under the federal Clean Water Act requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to identify a list of impaired water-bodies and develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies.
2. 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.
3. Under the Integrated Waste Management Act, requires each city or county to divert 50% of solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation on and after January 1, 2000. Establishes a statewide policy goal that not less than 75% of solid waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted on and after January 1, 2020.
   
4. Requires that all rigid plastic bottles and containers sold in California on and after January 1, 1992 have a molded label indicating the plastic resin used to produce the product.
   
5. Requires a state agency and large stage facility, for each office building of the state agency or large state facility, to provide adequate receptacles, signage, education, and staffing, and arrange for recycling services, as specified.
   

THIS BILL enacts the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018 (act):

1. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by CalRecycle, except as specified.
2. Requires, on or before June 1, 2020, CalRecycle to publish a list of certain approved types of food service packaging on its Internet Web site and requires the department to regularly evaluate that list.
3. Requires CalRecycle to evaluate whether each type of approved food service packaging is recyclable or compostable and authorizes CalRecycle to remove a type of food service packaging from the list if it is determined that the type of food service packaging is not recyclable or compostable.
4. Requires CalRecycle to evaluate whether there are types of food service packaging that are recyclable or compostable that are not on the list and authorizes CalRecycle to add them to the list.
5. Defines “food service packaging” as a product used for serving or transporting prepared ready-to-consume food or beverages and includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers. Specifies that food service packaging does not include other single-use disposable items, such as straws, cup lids, and utensils, or single-use disposable packaging for unprepared foods.
6. Defines “prepared food” as a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility’s premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. Prepared food does not include prepackaged, sealed food that is mass produced by a third party off the premises of the food service facility.
7. Does not preempt the authority of a city, county, or city and county to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, CalRecycle identifies costs of $369,000 in 2018-19 and $369,000 ongoing for activities related to recycling rate verification. In addition, the bill creates unknown fiscal pressures on other state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's statement:
   

Non-recycled, single-use food packaging contributes to the nearly $500 million communities must spend annually to combat litter and prevent it from entering the state’s waterways. The City of Los Angeles estimates that compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads for its impaired waterways, including those for litter pollution, will cost more than $1 billion. According to a study conducted by the California Department of Transportation, polystyrene alone made up 15 percent of the total volume of litter recovered from the storm drains.

114 jurisdictions have already taken action to limit Styrofoam and other forms of non-recyclable packaging. Recent actions at the national level, our unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels, and the growing plastic pollution crisis tell us that we can no longer afford to wait on this issue. SB 1335 calls on the state to take the much needed step to phase out single-use food packaging at state facilities. This will reduce the amount of this litter-prone material spoiling our beaches and parks and will set an example for how to reduce the use of this material statewide.

1. Meeting the state’s recycling goals. An estimated 35 million tons of waste are disposed of in California’s landfills annually. CalRecycle is tasked with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011, requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep the material out of the landfill.
   
   Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 (SB 1383, Lara) required the ARB to approve and implement the comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill specified that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level.
   
2. Total Daily Maximum Loads. Under the federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. This is the amount of a particular material that a waterbody can contain on a regular basis and still remain at levels that protect beneficial uses designated for that waterbody.

A TMDL must be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWRCB, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved, it establishes: a) an allowable amount of a pollutant to a waterbody; b) proportional responsibility for controlling the pollutant; c) numeric indicators of water quality; and, d) implementation to achieve the allowable amount of pollutant loading.

1. Plastic seas. Plastics, including expanded polystyrene (EPS), are estimated to comprise 60-80% of all marine debris and 90% of all floating debris, which includes expanded polystyrene (EPS). According to the California Coastal Commission (Commission), the primary source of marine debris is urban runoff (i.e., litter). By 2050, by weight there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean if we keep producing (and failing to properly manage) plastics at predicted rates, according to The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics, a January 2016 report by the World Economic Forum.

Due to the interplay of ocean currents, marine debris preferentially accumulates in certain areas throughout the ocean. According to Eriksen et al. (2014), 24 expeditions from 2007-2013 estimated that there are approximately 96,400 metric tons of floating plastic in the Northern Pacific 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. EPS breaks down more rapidly into these smaller particles than rigid plastics. These plastic pieces are confused with small fish, plankton, or krill and ingested by birds and marine animals. Over 600 marine animal species have been negatively affected by ingesting plastic worldwide. Last year, scientists at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University found that corals are also ingesting small plastic particles, which remain in their small stomach cavities and impede their ability to consume and digest normal food.

In addition to the physical impacts of plastic pollution, 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 where they enter and accumulate in the food chain.

California Coastal Cleanup Day was first organized by the Commission in 1985. The Commission continues to organize the event annually and track the items collected. According to the Commission, the top ten items collected since 1984 are cigarette butts; food wrappers and containers; caps and lids; bags; cups, plates, and utensils; straws; glass bottles; plastic bottles; cans; and, construction material. Food wrappers and containers account for just over 10% of the material cleaned up.

In 2007, the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) adopted a resolution on "reducing and preventing marine debris." A year later, OPC released the Implementation Strategy for the [OPC] Resolution to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter, which established four broad objectives to reduce marine debris: 1) Reduce single-use packaging and promote sustainable alternatives; 2) Prevent and control litter and plastic debris; 3) Clean up and remove ocean litter; and, 4) Coordinate with other jurisdictions in the Pacific region.

1. United Nations Resolution. A United Nations resolution was drafted in 2017 to create legally binding marine plastic pollution targets. Opposition to the targets, primarily from the United States and China, forced a deal that replaced the targets with non-binding language urging all actors to "step up actions by 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds" and "encourages member states to prioritize policies [that] avoid marine litter and microplastic entering the marine environment." Resolution 72/72, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, was signed by all 193 members of the United Nations in December 2017.
   
2. Economic impacts to California. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program economic study published in 2014 examined the costs of marine debris to Californians. The study focused on Orange County, and found that residents lose millions of dollars each year avoiding littered, local beaches in favor of choosing cleaner beaches that are father away and more costly to reach. In one scenario, the study found that reducing marine debris by just 25% would save Orange County residents $32 million in June-August; eliminating marine debris entirely would save an estimated $148 million.
   
   As noted by the author, a 2013 report produced for the Natural Resources Defense Council by Keir Associates estimates that Californians are shouldering $428 million annually to try to prevent litter from becoming marine debris that damages the environment, tourism, and other economic activities. Specific examples include:
   
   1. Los Angeles spends $9.50 per person, for a total of over $36.3 million annually;
      
   2. San Diego spends $10.84 per person, for a total of $14.1 million annually;
      
   3. The community of Commerce in Los Angeles County spends $69 per person, for a total of $890,000 annually; and,
      
   4. Long Beach spends $28 per person, for a total of nearly $13 million annually.
      
3. Suggested amendments. The committee may wish to adopt technical amendments to correct a drafting oversight and delete an unnecessary provision. Additionally, the author is working with the Administration and anticipates adopting additional amendments based on those discussions.
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

5 Gyres Institute

Algalita Marine Research and Education

California Alliance for Retired Americans

California Association of Local Conservation Corps

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Californians Against Waste
The Nature Conservancy

Chico Bag

City of Arcata Environmental Services Department

Clean River Alliance

Clean Water Action

Defenders of Wildlife

Ecology Action

Endangered Habitats League

Environment California

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Heal the Bay

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

Los Angeles City Council

Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force

Mi Familia Vota

Monterey Bay Aquarium

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northcoast Environmental Center

Northern California Recycling Association

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Republic Services

Rethink Waste

San Francisco Baykeeper

Save Our Shores

Save the Bay

Seventh Generation Advisors

Sierra Club California

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

Solid Waste Association of California

StopWaste

Surfrider Foundation

The Last Plastic Straw

The Story of Stuff Project

Tri-CED Community Recycling

Trust for Public Land

UPSTREAM Policy

WILDCOAST

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Zero Waste USA

Opposition

American Chemistry Council

Americas Styrenics

Association of Plastic Recyclers

Building Owners and Managers Association

Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce

California Building Owners and Managers Association

California Business Properties Association

California Business Roundtable

California Chamber of Commerce

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association

Dart Container Corporation

Foodservice Packaging Institute

FluoroCouncil

Genpac

INEOS Styrolution

Los Angeles County Business Federation

National Federation of Independent Business

NOVA Chemicals

NOVIPAX

Pactiv

Plastics Industry Association

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Styrene Information Research Center

StyroChem

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Western Plastics Association

WinCup

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1335

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone, Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NO: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT: , and property

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits, on an after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, except as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Prohibits, under the federal Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, the at-sea disposal of plastic and other solid materials for all navigable waters within the United States (Public Law 100-220, Title II, 1987, 101 Stat. 1460).
   
2. Requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a National Marine Debris Monitoring Program designed to assess the effectiveness of the current national marine debris legislation. Monitoring under this program takes place at designated beaches every 28 days (33 U.S.C. §1951 et seq.).
   
3. Requires, under the federal Clean Water Act, the state to identify a list of impaired water bodies and develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.).
   

Existing state law:

1. Provides funding, under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986, for beverage container recycling, litter prevention, and cleanup (PRC §14500 et seq.).
   
2. Establishes, under the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), a state recycling goal of 75% of solid waste generated to be diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. Requires each state agency and each large state facility to divert at least 50% of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. IWMA also requires a state agency and large stage facility, for each office building of the state agency or large state facility, to provide adequate receptacles, signage, education, and staffing, and arrange for recycling services, as specified (PRC §§ 41780.01, 42921, 42924.5).
   
3. Prohibits a person from selling a plastic bag or a plastic food or beverage container that is labeled as “compostable” or “marine degradable” unless that plastic bag or container meets American Society for Testing and Materials standards or a standard adopted by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (PRC §§42357, 42359.6).
   
4. Regulates, under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges of pollutants in storm water and urban runoff by regulating, through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, industrial discharges and discharges through the municipal storm drain systems (Water Code §13000 et seq.).

This bill:

1. Enacts the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018 (act).
   
2. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency from dispensing prepared food using a type of food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on a specified list maintained and updated by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, except as specified.
   
3. Requires, on or before June 1, 2020, the department to publish a list of certain approved types of food service packaging on its Internet Web site and requires the department to regularly evaluate that list.
   
   1. Requires the department to evaluate whether each type of approved food service packaging is recyclable or compostable and authorizes the department to remove a type of food service packaging from the list if it is determined that the type of food service packaging is not recyclable or compostable.
      
   2. Requires the department to evaluate whether there are types of food service packaging that are recyclable or compostable that are not on the list and authorizes the department to add a type of food service packaging to the list.
      
4. Defines “food service packaging” as a product used for serving or transporting prepared ready-to-consume food or beverages.
   
   1. “Food service packaging” includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers.
      
   2. “Food service packaging” does not include single-use disposable items, such as straws, cup lids, and utensils, or single-use disposable packaging for unprepared foods.
      
5. Defines “prepared food” as a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility’s premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. “Prepared food” does not prepackaged, sealed food that is mass produced by a third party off the premises of the food service facility.
   
6. Does not preempt the authority of a city, county, or city and county to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the applicable standards required by the act.

Background

1. Ocean pollution. According to the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), ocean litter, also commonly referred to as “marine debris,” is a persistent and growing problem worldwide that significantly impacts the health and beauty of our oceans and beaches. It poses serious threats to marine wildlife, including sea birds, turtles, and mammals such as dolphins and whales, as well as human health and welfare. Scientific research demonstrates that debris in oceans is increasing at an alarming rate. Researchers estimate that 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources, particularly trash and plastic litter in urban runoff, and the generation of trash and waste is increasing.
   
   In 2007, OPC adopted a resolution that called for a plan of action to reduce and prevent marine debris, including specific actions to reduce single-use plastics. In 2008, OPC in response to that resolution, further adopted and finalized its initiative, “Implementation Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter,” which offered 16 recommendations aimed to prompt a change in how California generates, handles, and disposes items that frequently land in our ocean. The main focus of the initiative was the goal of reducing the amount of litter that accumulates in the ocean, particularly the 60-80% that is lightweight and buoyant plastic material. This type of litter kills marine life, including endangered species, transports invasive species and toxic pollutants, and damages the aesthetics of our beaches and the sea. The strategy also included three “priority actions for measurable success:” a) implement a take-back program for convenience food packaging, b) prohibit single-use products that pose significant ocean litter impacts where a feasible alternative is available, and c) assess fees on commonly littered items.
   
   OPC is currently updating its 2008 initiative, in partnership with the NOAA Marine Debris Program, to address new forms of ocean litter that have been identified since 2008 and to expand the initiative to include projects of various scales and scopes so that entities including governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and industry stakeholders can make meaningful contributions towards reducing ocean litter in California. The final strategy is expected to be released in early April.
   

According to NOAA, approximately 80% of marine debris comes from land based sources, with food and beverage packaging making up the largest component of that debris. These food and beverage containers can enter the marine environment in a number of ways: through inefficient or improper waste management, intentional or accidental littering, and through stormwater runoff. Once in the marine environment, litter is not just an eyesore, but can damage habitats, harm wildlife through entanglement and ingestion, and have negative economic impacts on coastal communities.

1. Water Quality/ TMDL. Under §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. This is the amount of a particular material that a waterbody can assimilate on a regular basis and still remain at levels that protect beneficial uses designated for that waterbody.
   

A TMDL is approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved, it establishes: a) an allowable amount of a pollutant to a waterbody; b) proportional responsibility for controlling the pollutant; c) numeric indicators of water quality; and d) implementation to achieve the allowable amount of pollutant loading.

1. Plastic Bag Ban. In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 67, the statewide Single-Use Carryout Bag Ban (SB 270, Padilla, de Leon, Lara, Chapter 850, Statutes of 2014). As a result, most grocery stores, retail stores with a pharmacy, convenience stores, food marts, and liquor stores are no longer able to provide single-use plastic carry-out bags to their customers. Instead, these stores may provide a reusable grocery bag or recycled paper bag to a customer at the point of sale for a charge of at least 10 cents.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author,

“Plastic food service containers, which are usually made of polystyrene, expanded polystyrene (EPS), or polystyrene foam (most commonly known as Styrofoam), are a major component of urban litter and often wind up in waterways, bays and eventually the ocean, where the containers leach toxins into the water.  Clean up costs are then born by local cities, counties, and eventually residents.

“The Ocean Protection Council estimates that the current cost of cleaning up marine debris, including take-out food packaging, annually may exceed $1 billion.  Nonrecycled single-use food packaging costs California families hundreds of dollars annually in hidden litter clean-up costs. Local governments are also hard hit by these costs.  The City of Los Angeles estimates that compliance with the Total Maximum Daily Loads for its impaired waterways, including those for litter pollution, will cost more than $1 billion.

“SB 1335 will reduce the amount of toxic waste that pollutes our beaches and oceans, chokes our landfills and litters our communities by phasing out take-out food packaging [in] state facilities if the material cannot be recycled or composted.”

1. Enforcement. Currently, this bill does not give authority to or mandate a state agency to oversee the implementation of this bill. Oversight and enforcement authority is needed for successful implementation of a statewide program such as this one.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery identifies costs of $369,000 in 2018-19 and $369,000 ongoing for activities related to recycling rate verification. In addition, the bill creates unknown fiscal pressures on other state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18)

7th Generation Advisors

Algalita Marine Research and Education

California Alliance for Retired Americans

California Association of Local Conservation Corps

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Californians Against Waste

Center for Biology Diversity

Chico Bag

City of Arcata, Environmental Services Department

Clean River Alliance

Clean Water Action

Defenders of Wildlife

Ecology Action

Endangered Habitats League

Environment California

Gaia

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Heal the Bay

Kevin McKeown, Council Member, Santa Monica

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee

Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority

Mi Familia Vota

Monterey Bay Aquarium

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northern California Recycling Association

Paul Koretz, Los Angeles City Council

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Republic Services, Inc.

Rethink Waste

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility

San Francisco Baykeeper

Save Our Lives

Save Our Shores

Save the Bay

Seventh Generation Advisors

Sierra Club California

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

StopWaste

Surfrider Foundation

The 5 Gyres Institute

The Last Plastic Straw

The Nature Conservancy

The Story of Stuff Project

The Trust for Public Land

Tri-CED Community Recycling

UPSTREAM Policy

WILDCOAST

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18)

Association of Plastic Recyclers

Building Owners and Managers Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Restaurant Association

Dart Container Corporation

Foodservice Packaging Institute

Pactiv

Plastics Industry Association

StyroChem

Western Plastics Association

WinCup

Prepared by:

5/26/18 16:51:36

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 1335 (Allen) - Solid waste: disposable food service packaging: state agencies and large state facilities

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

The bill prohibits, after January 1, 2021, a food service facility located in a state-owned facility from dispensing prepared food using food service packaging unless the packaging is on a specified list, as maintained by CalRecycle.

Fiscal Impact:

CalRecycle identifies costs of $369,000 in 2018-19 and $369,000 ongoing for activities related to recycling rate verification. In addition, the bill creates unknown fiscal pressures on other state agencies to purchase products that are more compostable or recyclable than those current products in use.

Proposed Law:

The bill establishes the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 201 and includes the following provisions.

The bill prohibits, unless otherwise specified, on and after January 1, 2021, a food service facility, located in a state-owned facility, acting as a concessionaire on state property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency, to dispense prepared food using food service packaging unless the type of food service packaging is on the list maintained and updated by CalRecycle.

The bill provides that a food services facility may use food service packaging that is not on the list in any of the following circumstances:

• The facility possessed that packaging before January 1, 2019;
• The facility possessed the packaging before the list was updated to remove it;
• The facility acquired that packaging pursuant to a contract entered into before January 1, 2019; or
• The facility acquired that specific inventory of food service packaging pursuant to a contract entered into before the list maintained pursuant to Section 42370.3 was updated to remove the type of food service packaging and the type of food service packaging was on the list when the food service facility entered into the contract.

Timing. The bill provides that it does not affect any contract in existence as of January 1, 2019. For a contract that is subject to this section and that is entered into, renewed, or updated after January 1, 2019, the bill requires the food service facility to be responsible for ensuring that the food service packaging subject to the contract is in compliance with the bill.

CalRecycle website publishing. The bill requires CalRecycle to publish on its website, no later than June 1, 2020, the the following approved types of food service packaging made of: (1) thermoformed polyethylene terephthalate; (2) paper or paperboard; (3) compostable plastic that meets an ASTM standard specification; or (4) reusable food service packaging that is provided by either the food service facility or the customer.

In addition, the bill requires CalRecycle to regularly, but no less than once every five years, evaluate the list of approved food service packaging published to evaluate whether each of the types of approved food service packaging is recyclable or compostable. The bill authorizes the department to remove a type of food service packaging from the list if the department determines that the type of food service packaging is not recyclable or compostable.

The bill specifies before removing a type of food service packaging from the list pursuant to paragraph, CalRecycle must consider whether there are cost-effective alternatives available for the material of which the food service packaging is composed.

Under the bill, the department must regularly, but no less than once every five years, evaluate whether there are types of food service packaging that are recyclable or compostable that are not on the list published by the department. The department may add a type of food service packaging to the published list, including, but not limited to, upon the request of a manufacturer of a type of food service packaging or material, if the food service packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

The bill authorizes a department to require a manufacturer of a type of food service packaging or material submit data for purposes of the department’s evaluation of whether to add the type of food service packaging or material that the manufacturer seeks to have added to the list.

The bill provides, in deciding whether to remove a type of food service packaging from the list or to add a type of food service packaging to the list, the department may consider: (1) whether the material of which the food service packaging is composed is prone to become litter; or (2) whether the material of which the food service packaging is composed has any chemicals that pose a risk to human health.

The bill does not preempt a city, county, or city and county’s authority to adopt and enforce additional take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the applicable standards provided in the bill.

Definitions. The bill provides the following definitions:

• “Beverage container” as defined in existing law.
• “Food service packaging” means a product used for serving or transporting prepared, ready-to-consume food or beverages, including, but not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers. “Food service packaging” does not include beverage containers or single-use disposable items, such as straws, cup lids, and utensils, or single-use disposable packaging for unprepared foods.
• “Prepared food” is a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility’s premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. “Prepared food” does not include prepackaged, sealed food that is mass produced by a third party off the premises of the food service facility.
• “Recyclable” is that a type of food service packaging is composed of material that meets all of the following criteria:
  • The material is eligible to be labeled as “recyclable” in accordance with the uniform standards contained in the Federal Trade Commission Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
  • The recycling collection of the material is available at a location in at least 60 percent of the cities, counties, and cities and counties in the state.
  • The director determines that the material, in its final form as part of food service packaging, meets both of the following criteria:
  • The material is regularly separated for recycling by recycling service providers that serve a substantial majority of communities in the state.
  • The separated material has readily available recycling markets. The director’s determination of whether a separated material has readily available recycling markets shall be based on consultation with local governments and representatives of the solid waste and recycling industry and on consideration of data that may be presented by a manufacturer of a type of food service packaging or material.

Related Legislation:

• Senate Bill 529 (Leno, 2013) would have required a fast food facility to only distribute food in recyclable or compostable packaging, effective July 1, 2014. The bill was held under submission on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File.
• Assembly Bill 2138 (Chesbro, 2010) would have prohibited a food provider from distributing disposable food packaging (including take-out bags) unless the packaging is compostable or recyclable. The bill was held under submission on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense File.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 1335

SUBJECT: Solid waste: disposable food service packaging: state agencies and large state facilities

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Under the federal Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, prohibits the at-sea disposal of plastic and other solid materials for all navigable waters within the United States (Public Law 100-220, Title II, 1987, 101 Stat. 1460).
   
2. Requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a National Marine Debris Monitoring Program designed to assess the effectiveness of the current national marine debris legislation. Monitoring under this program takes place at designated beaches every 28 days (33 U.S.C. §1951 et seq.).
   
3. Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), requires the state to identify a list of impaired water bodies and develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.).
   

Existing state law:

1. Under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act of 1986, provides funding for beverage container recycling, litter prevention, and cleanup (PRC §14500 et seq.).
   
2. Under the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), establishes a state recycling goal of 75% of solid waste generated to be diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. Requires each state agency and each large state facility to divert at least 50% of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. IWMA also requires a state agency and large stage facility, for each office building of the state agency or large state facility, to provide adequate receptacles, signage, education, and staffing, and arrange for recycling services, as specified (PRC §§ 41780.01, 42921, 42924.5).
   
3. Prohibits a person from selling a plastic bag or a plastic food or beverage container that is labeled as “compostable” or “marine degradable” unless that plastic bag or container meets American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards or a standard adopted by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (PRC §§42357, 42359.6).
   
4. 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 (Water Code §13000 et seq.).

This bill:

1. Enacts the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018 (act).
   
2. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2021, food service facilities in state agencies and large state facilities from dispensing prepared food to a customer using disposable food service packaging unless:
3. The disposable food service packaging is of the type accepted for recovery by the recycling or composting program serving the state agency or large state facility; and

2) It is demonstrated to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) that the type of disposable food service packaging is recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 75 percent or more.

• 1. Specifies that the demonstration may include data comparing the amount of the type of packaging that is recycled or composted in the jurisdiction in which the state agency or large state facility is located during a specified period of time to the amount of that type of packaging that is distributed in that same jurisdiction during the same period of time.
     

1. Defines “disposable food service packaging” as a single-use disposable product used for serving or transporting prepared ready-to-consume food or beverages.
   
   1. “Disposable food service packaging” includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers.
      
   2. “Disposable food service packaging” does not include single-use disposable items, such as straws, cup lids, and utensils, or single-use disposable packaging for unprepared foods.
      
2. Defines “prepared food” as a food or beverage prepared for consumption on or off a food service facility’s premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. “Prepared food” does not include raw or uncooked meat, fish, or eggs provided for consumption without further food preparation.
   
3. Does not include buildings or facilities of community college districts or their campuses, or of state prisons in “state agency” or “large state facility.”
   
4. Does not preempt the authority of a city, county, or city and county to adopt and enforce additional single-use take-out food packaging ordinances, regulations, or policies that are more restrictive than the applicable standards required by the act.
   

Background

1. Ocean pollution. According to the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), ocean litter, also commonly referred to as “marine debris,” is a persistent and growing problem worldwide that significantly impacts the health and beauty of our oceans and beaches. It poses serious threats to marine wildlife, including sea birds, turtles, and mammals such as dolphins and whales, as well as human health and welfare. Scientific research demonstrates that debris in oceans is increasing at an alarming rate. Researchers estimate that 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources, particularly trash and plastic litter in urban runoff, and the generation of trash and waste is increasing.
   
   In 2007, OPC adopted a resolution that called for a plan of action to reduce and prevent marine debris, including specific actions to reduce single-use plastics. In 2008, OPC in response to that resolution, further adopted and finalized its initiative, “Implementation Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter,” which offered 16 recommendations aimed to prompt a change in how California generates, handles, and disposes items that frequently land in our ocean. The main focus of the initiative was the goal of reducing the amount of litter that accumulates in the ocean, particularly the 60-80% that is lightweight and buoyant plastic material. This type of litter kills marine life, including endangered species, transports invasive species and toxic pollutants, and damages the aesthetics of our beaches and the sea. The strategy also included three “priority actions for measurable success:” 1) Implement a take-back program for convenience food packaging, 2) Prohibit single-use products that pose significant ocean litter impacts where a feasible alternative is available, and 3) Assess fees on commonly littered items.
   
   OPC is currently updating its 2008 initiative, in partnership with the NOAA Marine Debris Program, to address new forms of ocean litter that have been identified since 2008 and to expand the initiative to include projects of various scales and scopes so that entities including governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and industry stakeholders can make meaningful contributions towards reducing ocean litter in California. The final strategy is expected to be released in early April.
   

According to NOAA, approximately 80% of marine debris comes from land based sources, with food and beverage packaging making up the largest component of that debris. These food and beverage containers can enter the marine environment in a number of ways: through inefficient or improper waste management, intentional or accidental littering, and through stormwater runoff. Once in the marine environment, litter is not just an eyesore, but can damage habitats, harm wildlife through entanglement and ingestion, and have negative economic impacts on coastal communities.

1. Water Quality/ Total Daily Maximum Load. Under §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters. This is the amount of a particular material that a waterbody can assimilate on a regular basis and still remain at levels that protect beneficial uses designated for that waterbody.
   

A TMDL is approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved, it establishes: a) an allowable amount of a pollutant to a waterbody; b) proportional responsibility for controlling the pollutant; c) numeric indicators of water quality; and d) implementation to achieve the allowable amount of pollutant loading.

1. Plastic Bag Ban. In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 67, the statewide Single-Use Carryout Bag Ban (SB 270, Padilla, de Leon, Lara, Chapter 850, Statutes of 2014). As a result, most grocery stores, retail stores with a pharmacy, convenience stores, food marts, and liquor stores are no longer able to provide single-use plastic carry-out bags to their customers. Instead, these stores may provide a reusable grocery bag or recycled paper bag to a customer at the point of sale for a charge of at least 10 cents.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author,

“Plastic food service containers, which are usually made of polystyrene, expanded polystyrene (EPS), or polystyrene foam (most commonly known as Styrofoam), are a major component of urban litter and often wind up in waterways, bays and eventually the ocean, where the containers leach toxins into the water.  Clean up costs are then born by local cities, counties, and eventually residents.

“The Ocean Protection Council estimates that the current cost of cleaning up marine debris, including take-out food packaging, annually may exceed $1 billion.  Nonrecycled single-use food packaging costs California families hundreds of dollars annually in hidden litter clean-up costs. Local governments are also hard hit by these costs.  The City of Los Angeles estimates that compliance with the Total Maximum Daily Loads for its impaired waterways, including those for litter pollution, will cost more than $1 billion.

“SB 1335 will reduce the amount of toxic waste that pollutes our beaches and oceans, chokes our landfills and litters our communities by phasing out take-out food packaging [in] state facilities if the material cannot be recycled or composted in the communities where it is distributed.  The bill prohibits food providers at most state facilities from dispensing food in a disposable food container that is not recyclable or compostable in the local municipality where that provider is located.”

1. Demonstrating 75% composting or recycling rate. SB 1335 permits a food service facility in a state agency or a large state facility to only use disposable food service packaging 1) that is accepted for recovery in the jurisdiction of the state agency or large state facility and 2) has been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of CalReycle, that the type of food service packaging is recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of at least 75 percent. To demonstrate the 75 percent requirement, data may be used comparing the amount of that type of food service packaging that is recycled or composted in the state, city, or regional agency territory in which the state agency or facility is located during a specified time period to the amount of that same type of food service packaging that is distributed in the same area during the same time period.
   
   1. Availability of accurate data. Even though only an option, the formula provided as a way to demonstrate a 75% recycling or composting requirement, may not be a feasible. An attempt to acknowledge, and provide flexibility to, the fact that different jurisdictions accept different types of food service packaging for recycling or composting or that a state agency or large state facility may have food service vendors and facilities that operate over multiple territories, the formula actually raises some questions as to whether it is a practical way to demonstrate the minimum recycling and composting requirement. Is distribution information available about particular types of food service packaging? Is that information available by area? Is information about the recycling rates of the particular disposable food service packaging available? Is that information available by area? Are there other factors, such as products being bought in one jurisdiction and being recycled in another jurisdiction, which would affect the data? How would this information be accessible?
      

One option may be CalRecycle. Under AB 401 (Gordon, 2015), recycling and composting operations and facilities are required to submit periodic information to the department on the types and quantities of materials that are disposed of, sold, or transferred to other recycling or composting facilities, end users inside of the state or outside of the state, or exporters, brokers, or transporters for sale inside of the state or outside of the state. This information may be helpful for purposes of demonstrating the amount a particular type of food service packaging that is recycled or composted. But this is only half of the equation. To demonstrate the 75% recycling or composting rate, the amount of the food service packaging that is distributed in a specific jurisdiction is also needed. The distributors or manufacturers of the food service packaging, if willing, may be a proper source of this information.

• 1. Who should be responsible? The language, as drafted, does not clearly indicate what party would be responsible for proving that the disposable food service packaging is eligible for use in a particular jurisdiction. On one hand, the distributor of the disposable food service packaging may be best situated to demonstrate the 75% recycling or composting rate as they would have the most knowledge about the amount of material that is distributed and would have a financial interest in their products being used in the state. However, a distributor may not know, or may not have access to, the rate of recycling or composting of the distributor’s particular disposable food service packaging. On the other hand, an argument could also be made that as the entity that wishes to use a particular type of disposable food service packaging, the responsibility would be best handled by the food service facility. As this bill moves through the legislative process, the author may want to consider which entity would be most appropriate for this responsibility.
     
  2. Flexibility in time period. Further, there is discretion as to the time period of the applied data that would be used to demonstrate the 75% rate of recycling or composting. A combination of providing flexibility in the jurisdiction to be used with flexibility of time period leads to a vast number of available matrices. Depending on how the information is collected and where that information is stored, the possibilities of the different scopes of information to utilize may be overwhelming. To create a standard that is easier to apply for all stakeholders involved, the author should consider setting a single time period, such as one year, that would apply the formula to provide more accurate and comparable numbers.
     

An amendment is needed to specify that the time period over which data is compared should be the previous calendar year.

1. Excluded foods and facilities. SB 1335 excludes certain types of foods and facilities from its provisions. More specifically, SB 1335 excludes raw or uncooked meat, fish, and eggs that are provided for consumption without further food preparation. Therefore, a food service facility that is providing foods such as sushi would not be subject to the requirement that the food be dispensed using certain types of food service packaging. According to the exemption, the products excluded can be consumed without further food preparation, yet would not be required to be served in certain disposable food service packaging. Is it appropriate to categorically exempt these types of food from the food service packaging requirements?
   

An amendment is needed to remove this exemption for these categories of food.

Additionally, the bill excludes buildings or facilities of community college districts or their campuses, and state prisons. It is not apparent to committee staff why buildings and facilities of community college districts and their campuses are excluded from these disposable food service packaging requirements when their higher education counterparts, the University of California and California State University, are not. Is it appropriate to exempt one system of higher education from food service packaging requirements and not others? Does it make sense to require a food service vendor to use one type of food service packaging when at one type of higher education campus but not impose that same requirement on a food service vendor selling the same food products but at a different campus?

An amendment is needed to remove this exemption for buildings or facilities of community college districts and their campuses, and state prisons.

1. Beverage containers and food made by third party companies. As drafted, the definitions of “disposable food service packaging” and “prepared food” could be read to apply to beverage containers, such as bottles or cans of soda, juice, and water, and food that has been prepared by a third party, such as prepackaged chips, crackers, and other snack food, at an offsite location. Including these types of beverage containers and foods in the prohibition may place too much of a limitation on a food service facility on the type of product they are able to offer the consumer and would limit the food options that would be available to a consumer. Unlike the excluded foods discussed above, these food products and the packaging they come in, are not under the control of the food service facility and to prohibit a food service facility from selling these items may be considered overly burdensome. Additionally, an inclusion of these types of prepared foods would effectively prohibit the use of vending machines in state agencies and large state facilities, which does not seem to be consistent with the author’s intent.
   

An amendment is needed to exclude beverage containers and prepackaged food that is made by a third party off the premises of the state agency or large state facility from the definition of prepared food.

1. Leased space and offsite temporary events. While most state agencies or large state facilities might occupy and own an entire building or area, this is not always the case. There are some state agencies that lease office space from a private party and some instances where a state agency temporarily leases an offsite space for a temporary. The author may wish to include temporary events and nonstate-owned properties in the bill’s application.
   

This can be done in a number of ways. One option is to require that a contract between a state agency and a food service facility contain a provision that the food service facility only dispenses prepared food in accordance with the act. This option, however, may have Public Contract Code implications, which should be considered. Another option would be to specify that a state agency or large state facility includes any building or area, or portion thereof, within the control of the state agency or large state facility. Further, the Department of General Services, which administers state procurement policies, should also be consulted.

1. Dispensing prepared food. There may be instances were a state agency contracts with a food service facility to provide food services at an event, either on or off the premises of the state agency or large state facility. The prepared food is provided to the consumer-guests of the event. In these cases the consumer is not paying for the food and it can therefore be argued that the consumer is not a “customer” for purposes of the Act.
   

An amendment is needed to apply the bill to prepared food being dispensed to all consumers, not just customers.

1. Enforcement. Currently the bill does not give authority to or mandate a state agency to oversee the implementation of this bill. Oversight and enforcement authority is needed for successful implementation of a statewide program such as this one.
   
2. Pending policy questions. As this bill moves forward, the author will need to work with committee staff to ensure the policy concerns are addressed.
   

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2921 (Low, 2017) would enact the Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Packaging Recovery and Recycling Act, which would create an extended producer responsibility program for expanded polystyrene food service packaging manufacturers and polystyrene resin producers. AB 2921 is currently referred to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

SB 705 (Dodd, 2017) would have banned certain food providers, by January 1, 2020, and all food vendors by January 1, 2022, from dispensing prepared food in expanded polystyrene food service containers. SB 705 proposed to authorize a city or county to grant exemptions to this prohibition due to economic hardship and to authorize a city or county to impose civil liability if an entity knowingly violated the prohibition. SB 705 failed on the Senate floor.

AB 2812 (Gordon, 2015) required CalRecycle, on or before July 1, 2017, to develop guidelines for adequate receptacles and staffing for collecting and recycling recyclable materials in state office buildings. AB 2812 also requires state agencies to provide and maintain recycling receptacles in state buildings and large state facilities based on standards adopted by CalRecycle. AB 2812 was enacted as Chapter 530 of Statutes of 2016.

SB 529 (Leno, 2013) would have required fast food facilities to only distribute food in recyclable or compostable packaging. SB 529 was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
|

AB 2138 (Chesbro, 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 the Department of Resources Recycling and Recover determines the disposable food service packaging is recovered for composting or recycling at a rate of 25% or more. This bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1358 (Hill, 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.

AB 904 (Feuer, 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. AB 904 failed in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

Algalita Marine Research and Education

California Association of Local Conservation Corps

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Californians Against Waste

Chico Bag

City of Arcata, Environmental Services Department

Clean River Alliance

Clean Water Action

Defenders of Wildlife

Ecology Action

Endangered Habitats League

Environment California

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Heal the Bay

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority

Mi Familia Vota

National Parks Conservation Association

Northern California Recycling Association

Paul Koretz, Los Angeles City Council

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Republic Services, Inc.

Rethink Waste

San Francisco Baykeeper

Save the Bay

Save Our Lives

Save Our Shores

Seventh Generation Advisors

Sierra Club California

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

StopWaste

Surfrider Foundation

Tri-CED Community Recycling

The 5 Gyres Institute

The Last Plastic Straw

The Nature Conservancy

The Story of Stuff Project

The Trust for Public Land

UPSTREAM Policy

WILDCOAST

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION:

>None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

none.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

none.

-- END --