AB 1628: Microfiber filtration.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2023-09-18
Current Status:
Failed
(2024-01-29: Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill requires all new washing machines sold in California for home or state use to include a microfiber filter (built in or packaged with the machine) with a mesh no larger than 100 micrometers and to display a visible label telling users to check and empty the filter. Companies that fail to meet the rule can face fines up to $10,000 for a first violation and up to $30,000 for each later violation, enforced by state or local prosecutors.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, that all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California for residential or state use contain a microfiber filtration system, as defined, with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers, and bear a label with a specified consumer notice, as provided. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is punishable by a specified civil penalty, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, that all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California for residential or state use contain a microfiber filtration system, as defined, with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers, and bear a label with a specified consumer notice, as provided. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is punishable by a specified civil penalty, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board, by January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature that describes the best available control technologies to remove microfibers generated during commercial laundry operations, as provided. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, that all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California for residential, commercial, residential or state use contain a microfiber filtration system, as defined, with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers, and bear a label with a specified consumer notice, as provided. The bill would require the washing machine manufacturer to provide a certificate of compliance with these provisions to persons that sell or distribute the washing machines in the state, as specified. The bill would prohibit a distributor or retailer that relies in good faith on that certificate from being held in violation of these requirements. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is punishable by a specified civil penalty, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board, by January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature that describes the best available control technologies to remove microfibers generated during commercial laundry operations, as provided. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, that all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California for residential, commercial, or state use contain a microfiber filtration system, as defined, with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers, and bear a label with a specified consumer notice, as provided. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $30,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. require the washing machine manufacturer to provide a certificate of compliance with these provisions to persons that sell or distribute the washing machines in the state, as specified. The bill would prohibit a distributor or retailer that relies in good faith on that certificate from being held in violation of these requirements. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, that all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California for residential, commercial, or state use contain a microfiber filtration system, as defined, with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers. micrometers, and bear a label with a specified consumer notice, as provided. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $30,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, that all new washing machines offered for sale in California for residential, commercial, or state use contain a microfiber filtration system, as defined, with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, that all new washing machines sold offered for sale in California for residential, commercial, and or state use in California contain a microfiber filtration system with an unspecified filtration rate or an unspecified mesh size. system, as defined, with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, to protect public health and water quality, regulates a broad range of consumer products and processes, including water softeners, water treatment devices, and backflow prevention devices, among others.
This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2029, all new washing machines sold for residential, commercial, and state use in California contain a microfiber filtration system with an unspecified filtration rate or an unspecified mesh size. The bill would also include legislative findings and declarations.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizes, from milk jugs to nylon fibers, increasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than five millimeters in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods, including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibers, shed or fragmented from polyester, nylon, or rayon clothing and textiles, are one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention. Microfibers and other microplastics can also have negative impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and soil health.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve as a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)Wastewater treatment facilities are passive receivers of microfibers and do not create them. In California, a significant portion of synthetic microfibers are effectively removed by wastewater treatment plants and retained in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, can then be released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When impacted biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can be incorporated and accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Wastewater agencies seek to maximize use of biosolids for land application or for composting rather than disposing of them in landfills. Biosolids are a nutrient-rich material that sequesters carbon, saves water, and improves soil health. Microfibers have the potential to be released into the natural environment when biosolids are used on agricultural lands. The best way to protect biosolids quality is to keep microfibers from entering wastewater in the first place.
(i)Preventing microfibers from entering wastewater and biosolids will help avoid harm to rural communities from microfibers.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfiber pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)Washing machine filtration systems are an effective strategy for capturing microfibers, with research showing microfiber filtration rates ranging from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy-efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
SEC. 2.Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 119425) is added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:11.Microfiber Filtration119425.(a)On and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine shall not be sold or offered for sale in the state for residential or state use unless the washing machine meets both of the following:
(1)Contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.
(2)Bears a conspicuous label that is visible to the consumer, in the form of a sticker or any other label type, that includes the following statement: Notice: This washing machine contains a filter to capture microfibers. Check filter regularly and dispose of captured lint in a waste bin.
(b)Upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates subdivision (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for each subsequent violation.
(c)This section does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
(d)For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1)Microfiber filtration system means a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following:
(A)The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter.
(B)The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
(2)Washing machine means a machine designed and used for washing clothes and linen.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizes, from milk jugs to nylon fibers, increasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than five millimeters in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods, including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibers, shed or fragmented from polyester, nylon, or rayon clothing and textiles, are one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention. Microfibers and other microplastics can also have negative impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and soil health.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve as a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)Wastewater treatment facilities are passive receivers of microfibers and do not create them. In California, a significant portion of synthetic microfibers are effectively removed by wastewater treatment plants and retained in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, can then be released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When impacted biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can be incorporated and accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Wastewater agencies seek to maximize use of biosolids for land application or for composting rather than disposing of them in landfills. Biosolids are a nutrient-rich material that sequesters carbon, saves water, and improves soil health. Microfibers have the potential to be released into the natural environment when biosolids are used on agricultural lands. The best way to protect biosolids quality is to keep microfibers from entering wastewater in the first place.
(i)Preventing microfibers from entering wastewater and biosolids will help avoid harm to rural communities from microfibers.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfiber pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)Washing machine filtration systems are an effective strategy for capturing microfibers, with research showing microfiber filtration rates ranging from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy-efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
SEC. 2.Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 119425) is added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:11.Microfiber Filtration119425.(a)On and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine shall not be sold or offered for sale in the state for residential or state use unless the washing machine meets both of the following:
(1)Contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.
(2)Bears a conspicuous label that is visible to the consumer, in the form of a sticker or any other label type, that includes the following statement: Notice: This washing machine contains a filter to capture microfibers. Check filter regularly and dispose of captured lint in a waste bin.
(b)(1)On or before January 1, 2026, the State Water Resources Control Board shall prepare and submit a report to the Legislature that describes the best available control technologies to remove microfibers generated during commercial laundry operations. The report shall consider different commercial applications, including, but not limited to, in-house hotel laundry services, third-party commercial laundry operations that serve restaurants and other commercial establishments, and vended laundromats open to the public.(2)The requirement for submitting a report imposed under this subdivision is inoperative on January 1, 2028, pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.(3)A report to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(c)(b)Upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates subdivision (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for each subsequent violation.
(d)(c)This section does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
(e)(d)For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1)Microfiber filtration system means a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following:
(A)The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter.
(B)The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
(2)Washing machine means a machine designed and used for washing clothes and linen.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizes, from milk jugs to nylon fibers, increasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than five millimeters in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods, including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibers, shed or fragmented from polyester, nylon, or rayon clothing and textiles, are one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention. Microfibers and other microplastics can also have negative impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and soil health.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve as a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)Wastewater treatment facilities are passive receivers of microfibers and do not create them. In California, a significant portion of synthetic microfibers are effectively removed by wastewater treatment plants and retained in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, can then be released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When impacted biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can be incorporated and accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Wastewater agencies seek to maximize use of biosolids for land application or for composting rather than disposing of them in landfills. Biosolids are a nutrient-rich material that sequesters carbon, saves water, and improves soil health. Microfibers have the potential to be released into the natural environment when biosolids are used on agricultural lands. The best way to protect biosolids quality is to keep microfibers from entering wastewater in the first place.
(i)Preventing microfibers from entering wastewater and biosolids will help avoid harm to rural communities from microfibers.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfiber pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)Washing machine filtration systems are an effective strategy for capturing microfibers, with research showing microfiber filtration rates ranging from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy-efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
SEC. 2.Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 119425) is added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:11.Microfiber Filtration119425.(a)On and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine shall not be sold or offered for sale in the state for residential, commercial, residential or state use unless the washing machine meets both of the following:
(1)Contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.
(2)Bears a conspicuous label that is visible to the consumer, in the form of a sticker or any other label type, that includes the following statement: Notice: This washing machine contains a filter to capture microfibers. Check filter regularly and dispose of captured lint in a waste bin.
(b)(1)A manufacturer of a washing machine that is subject to the requirements of subdivision (a) shall provide each person that offers the washing machine for sale or distribution in the state with a certificate of compliance stating that the washing machine is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and contains a microfiber filtration system. A certificate of compliance provided pursuant to this subdivision shall be signed by an authorized official of the manufacturer. The certificate of compliance may be provided electronically.(2)A distributor or retailer of a washing machine that is subject to the requirements of subdivision (a) shall not be held in violation of this chapter if the distributor or retailer is not also the manufacturer of the washing machine and relied in good faith on the certificate of compliance provided by the manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (1).(b)(1)On or before January 1, 2026, the State Water Resources Control Board shall prepare and submit a report to the Legislature that describes the best available control technologies to remove microfibers generated during commercial laundry operations. The report shall consider different commercial applications, including, but not limited to, in-house hotel laundry services, third-party commercial laundry operations that serve restaurants and other commercial establishments, and vended laundromats open to the public.
(2)The requirement for submitting a report imposed under this subdivision is inoperative on January 1, 2028, pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.
(3)A report to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
(c)Upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates subdivision (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for each subsequent violation.
(d)This section does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
(c)(e)For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1)Microfiber filtration system means a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following:
(A)The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter.
(B)The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
(2)Washing machine means a machine designed and used for washing clothes and linen.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizes, from milk jugs to nylon fibers, increasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than five millimeters in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods, including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibers, shed or fragmented from polyester, nylon, or rayon clothing and textiles, are one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention. Microfibers and other microplastics can also have negative impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and soil health.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve as a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)Wastewater treatment facilities are passive receivers of microfibers and do not create them. In California, a significant portion of synthetic microfibers are effectively removed by wastewater treatment plants and retained in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, can then be released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When impacted biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can be incorporated and accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Wastewater agencies seek to maximize use of biosolids for land application or for composting rather than disposing of them in landfills. Biosolids are a nutrient-rich material that sequesters carbon, saves water, and improves soil health. Microfibers have the potential to be released into the natural environment when biosolids are used on agricultural lands. The best way to protect biosolids quality is to keep microfibers from entering wastewater in the first place.
(i)Preventing microfibers from entering wastewater and biosolids will help avoid harm to rural communities from microfibers.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfiber pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)Washing machine filtration systems are an effective strategy for capturing microfibers, with research showing microfiber filtration rates ranging from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy-efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
SEC. 2.Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 119425) is added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:11.Microfiber Filtration119425.(a)On and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine shall not be sold or offered for sale in the state for residential, commercial, or state use unless the washing machine meets both of the following:
(1)Contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.
(2)Bears a conspicuous label that is visible to the consumer, in the form of a sticker or any other label type, that includes the following statement: Notice: This washing machine contains a filter to capture microfibers. Check filter regularly and dispose of captured lint in a waste bin.
(b)(1)Upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates subdivision (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for each subsequent violation.(2)This section does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.(b)(1)A manufacturer of a washing machine that is subject to the requirements of subdivision (a) shall provide each person that offers the washing machine for sale or distribution in the state with a certificate of compliance stating that the washing machine is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and contains a microfiber filtration system. A certificate of compliance provided pursuant to this subdivision shall be signed by an authorized official of the manufacturer. The certificate of compliance may be provided electronically.
(2)A distributor or retailer of a washing machine that is subject to the requirements of subdivision (a) shall not be held in violation of this chapter if the distributor or retailer is not also the manufacturer of the washing machine and relied in good faith on the certificate of compliance provided by the manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (1).
(c)For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1)Microfiber filtration system means a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following:
(A)The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter.
(B)The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
(2)Washing machine means a machine designed and used for washing clothes and linen.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizes, from milk jugs to nylon fibers, increasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than five millimeters in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods, including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibers, shed or fragmented from polyester, nylon, or rayon clothing and textiles, are one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention. Microfibers and other microplastics can also have negative impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and soil health.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve as a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)Wastewater treatment facilities are passive receivers of microfibers and do not create them. In California, a significant portion of synthetic microfibers are effectively removed by wastewater treatment plants and retained in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, can then be released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When impacted biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can be incorporated and accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Wastewater agencies seek to maximize use of biosolids for land application or for composting rather than disposing of them in landfills. Biosolids are a nutrient-rich material that sequesters carbon, saves water, and improves soil health. Microfibers have the potential to be released into the natural environment when biosolids are used on agricultural lands. The best way to protect biosolids quality is to keep microfibers from entering wastewater in the first place.
(i)Preventing microfibers from entering wastewater and biosolids will help avoid harm to rural communities from microfibers.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfiber pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)Washing machine filtration systems are an effective strategy for capturing microfibers, with research showing microfiber filtration rates ranging from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy-efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
SEC. 2.Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 119425) is added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:11.Microfiber Filtration119425.(a)On and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine shall not be sold or offered for sale in the state for residential, commercial, or state use shall contain unless the washing machine meets both of the following:
(1)Contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.
(2)Bears a conspicuous label that is visible to the consumer, in the form of a sticker or any other label type, that includes the following statement: Notice: This washing machine contains a filter to capture microfibers. Check filter regularly and dispose of captured lint in a waste bin.
(b)(1)Upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates subdivision (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a first violation, and not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for each subsequent violation.
(2)This section does not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
(b)(c)For purposes of this chapter, microfiber the following definitions apply:
(1)Microfiber filtration system means a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following:
(1)(A)The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter.
(2)(B)The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
(2)Washing machine means a machine designed and used for washing clothes and linen.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizes, from milk jugs to nylon fibers, increasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than five millimeters in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods, including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibers, shed or fragmented from polyester, nylon, or rayon clothing and textiles, are one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention. Microfibers and other microplastics can also have negative impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and soil health.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve as a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)Wastewater treatment facilities are passive receivers of microfibers and do not create them. In California, the majority, estimated at 94 percent, a significant portion of synthetic microfibers are fairly effectively captured effectively removed by wastewater treatment plants and retained in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, are can then be released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When impacted biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can be incorporated and accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Microfibers can be taken up by plants, resulting in decreased growth rates and nutrient uptake, diminished food production yields, and irreversible damage to terrestrial ecosystems and soil health. The presence of microfibers can increase the uptake of toxic chemicals by plants, posing further concerns about food safety and human health impacts. Wastewater agencies seek to maximize use of biosolids for land application or for composting rather than disposing of them in landfills. Biosolids are a nutrient-rich material that sequesters carbon, saves water, and improves soil health. Microfibers have the potential to be released into the natural environment when biosolids are used on agricultural lands. The best way to protect biosolids quality is to keep microfibers from entering wastewater in the first place.
(i)The pattern of spreading microfiber-laced biosolids onto Californias agricultural fields, primarily fields for livestock feed, has significant environmental justice implications. Notably, this current practice directs the flow of microfibers from high-population and higher income urban counties to lower income rural communities residing near agricultural lands, potentially exposing agricultural workers and adjacent communities.(i)Preventing microfibers from entering wastewater and biosolids will help avoid harm to rural communities from microfibers.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfiber pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)Washing machine filtration systems are an effective strategy for capturing microfibers, with research showing microfiber filtration rates ranging from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy-efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
SEC. 2.Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 119425) is added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:11.Microfiber Filtration119425.(a)On and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine offered for sale in the state for residential, commercial, or state use shall contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.
(b)For purposes of this chapter, microfiber filtration system means a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following:
(1)The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter.
(2)The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizes, from milk jugs to nylon fibers, increasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than five millimeters in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods, including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibers, shed or fragmented from polyester, nylon, or rayon clothing and textiles, are one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve as a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)In California, the majority, estimated at 94 percent, of synthetic microfibers are fairly effectively captured by wastewater treatment plants in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, are then released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Microfibers can be taken up by plants, resulting in decreased growth rates and nutrient uptake, diminished food production yields, and irreversible damage to terrestrial ecosystems and soil health. The presence of microfibers can increase the uptake of toxic chemicals by plants, posing further concerns about food safety and human health impacts.
(i)The pattern of spreading microfiber-laced biosolids onto Californias agricultural fields, primarily fields for livestock feed, has significant environmental justice implications. Notably, this current practice directs the flow of microfibers from high-population and higher income urban counties to lower income rural communities residing near agricultural lands, potentially exposing agricultural workers and adjacent communities.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfiber pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)Washing machine filtration systems are an effective strategy for capturing microfibers, with research showing microfiber filtration rates ranging from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy-efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
SECTION 1.SEC. 2.Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 119425) is added to Part 15 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:11.Microfiber Filtration119425.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizesfrom milk jugs to nylon fibersincreasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than 5 mm in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.(c)Synthetic microfibersshed or fragmented from polyester, nylon or rayon clothing and textilesare one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces. (e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention.(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.(g)In California, the majority, estimated at 94 percent, of synthetic microfibers are fairly effectively captured by wastewater treatment plants in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, are then released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.(h)When biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Microfibers can be taken up by plants, resulting in decreased growth rates and nutrient uptake, diminished food production yields, and irreversible damage to terrestrial ecosystems and soil health. The presence of microfibers can increase the uptake of toxic chemicals by plants, posing further concerns about food safety and human health impacts.(i)The pattern of spreading microfiber-laced biosolids onto Californias agricultural fieldsprimarily fields for livestock feedhas significant environmental justice implications. Notably, this current practice directs the flow of microfibers from high-population and higher income urban counties to lower income rural communities residing near agricultural lands, potentially exposing agricultural works and adjacent communities.(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfibers pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent. (l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025. (m)A variety of filtration technologies, which could be used in-washer, installed on the out, or built directly into washing machines, already exist that are capable of effectively capturing microfibers before they can enter the environment. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States. (n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.119426.119425.(a)On and after January 1, 2029, all new washing machines sold a new washing machine offered for sale in the state for residential, commercial, and or state use in this state shall contain a microfiber filtration system with a filtration rate of ____ or mesh size of not greater than ____ 100 micrometers.
(b)For purposes of this chapter, microfiber filtration system means a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following:
(1)The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter.
(2)The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
REVISIONS: HeadingLine 2.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all sizesfrom milk jugs to nylon fibersincreasingly accumulating in our natural environment. New scientific research estimates that under the current trajectory, plastic production will double by 2030. While all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution and waste are problematic, microplastics, which are small plastic pieces that are less than 5 mm in size, are a largely invisible and particularly challenging form of plastic pollution to address. Microplastics are highly mobile, distribute easily and widely, and are nearly impossible to capture once released into the environment.
(b)Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Researchers have estimated that Americans ingest tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person each year through foods including fruits, vegetables, meats, table salt, honey, and beverages like beer and water. Microplastics have been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines, and even placentas. While the long-term health impacts of human ingestion of microplastics are still an area of active research, the ubiquity of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about plastic ingestion.
(c)Synthetic microfibersshed or fragmented from polyester, nylon or rayon clothing and textilesare one of the most abundant and ubiquitous types of microplastic. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, microfiber pollution in California is expected to continue to grow. Additionally, there are approximately 11,000,000 residential and 600,000 commercial washing machines operating in California. Without intervention, it is estimated that annual microfiber emissions to Californias natural environments from machine washing of synthetic textiles will continue to increase.
(d)Microfibers may be the most prevalent type of microplastic found in oceans. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay, microfiber concentrations in surface waters reached 580,000 particles per square kilometer compared to 520,000 particles per square kilometer for all nonfiber particles combined, including tire wear fragments, films, spheres, and foam pieces.
(e)Microfibers, given their shape, may be the most readily absorbable of the types of microplastics. In marine and freshwater systems, synthetic fibers, relative to other forms of microplastics, appear to have higher potential for entering the food chain because their size and form allow them to be readily consumed by aquatic animals and to be more prone to entanglement and gut retention.
(f)In addition, like all microplastics, microfibers can serve as a vector for the dyes, flame retardants, and waterproof chemicals associated with them, and also for additional harmful chemicals. With a high surface-to-volume ratio, microfibers in particular can absorb a wide range of toxins, and therefore serve a vehicle for introducing additional waterborne toxins into the food chain.
(g)In California, the majority, estimated at 94 percent, of synthetic microfibers are fairly effectively captured by wastewater treatment plants in sewage sludge, known as biosolids. Many of these microfibers, however, are then released into the natural environment through the spreading of biosolids on agricultural lands, and to a lesser degree through the use of recycled wastewater on agricultural fields.
(h)When biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, microfibers can accumulate in the soil where they are nearly impossible to eliminate. Microfibers can be taken up by plants, resulting in decreased growth rates and nutrient uptake, diminished food production yields, and irreversible damage to terrestrial ecosystems and soil health. The presence of microfibers can increase the uptake of toxic chemicals by plants, posing further concerns about food safety and human health impacts.
(i)The pattern of spreading microfiber-laced biosolids onto Californias agricultural fieldsprimarily fields for livestock feedhas significant environmental justice implications. Notably, this current practice directs the flow of microfibers from high-population and higher income urban counties to lower income rural communities residing near agricultural lands, potentially exposing agricultural works and adjacent communities.
(j)California has proven to be a national leader on controlling plastic pollution. Among other important actions, the state has passed a ban on microbeads in wash-off products like face scrubs and toothpaste, and on the distribution of single-use plastic bags, as well as comprehensive extended producer responsibility and source reduction legislation. In addition, as part of ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians, the State Water Resources Control Board is creating the first standardized methods for testing microplastics in drinking water, and leveraging the latest research to better monitor and identify the sources of microplastics in drinking water. The Ocean Protection Council has also prioritized the need to address microfibers pollution through requiring use of filters in washing machines in their Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
(k)Research suggests microfiber capture filters added to clothes washers can dramatically reduce the number of microfibers that enter wastewater treatment plants and surface waters. A study suggested that full adoption of filters across washing machines in California decreased annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments by almost 80 percent.
(l)Policies are being considered and adopted around the globe to address the use of microfiber capture. France recently passed a law requiring all new clothes washers sold in France to be equipped with built-in filters by 2025.
(m)A variety of filtration technologies, which could be used in-washer, installed on the out, or built directly into washing machines, already exist that are capable of effectively capturing microfibers before they can enter the environment. Washing machines with built-in filters are already widely available in Japan among manufacturers like Hitachi, Panasonic, and Toshiba. Energy efficient clothes washers with built-in microfiber filters are also commercially available in Europe, and some washers with built-in microfiber filters are also available at a smaller scale in the United States.
(n)While interventions to address microfiber pollution are needed across the full life cycle of synthetic textiles, filtration technologies provide a critical and near-term solution to reduce the amount of microfibers released into Californias lands and waters.
119426.On and after January 1, 2029, all new washing machines sold for residential, commercial, and state use in this state shall contain a microfiber filtration system with a filtration rate of ____ or mesh size of not greater than ____ micrometers.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2024 | Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file. |
| Jan 3, 2024 | Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| Oct 8, 2023 | Vetoed by Governor. |
| Sep 21, 2023 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. |
| Sep 13, 2023 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 63. Noes 15. Page 3413.). |
| Sep 12, 2023 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Sep 12, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 28. Noes 8. Page 2646.). |
| Sep 11, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 8, 2023 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Sep 6, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 5, 2023 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (September 1). |
| Aug 28, 2023 | In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file. |
| Aug 2, 2023 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Jul 13, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 12, 2023 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 12). |
| Jun 28, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E.Q. |
| Jun 26, 2023 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Jun 14, 2023 | Referred to Com. on E.Q. |
| Jun 1, 2023 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 31, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 63. Noes 14. Page 2037.) |
| May 25, 2023 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 1753.) |
| May 18, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 18, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 18). |
| Apr 19, 2023 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Mar 29, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (March 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Mar 29, 2023 | Coauthors revised. |
| Mar 23, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on E.S. & T.M. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 9, 2023 | Referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M. |
| Feb 18, 2023 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 20. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2023 | AB 1628 McKinnor Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 12, 2023 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB1628 McKinnor et al. By Allen | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 1, 2023 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 28, 2023 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 12, 2023 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality |
Passed |
|
| May 31, 2023 | AB 1628 McKinnor Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 18, 2023 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Mar 28, 2023 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| 5 Gyres Institute | ** Support | |
| Active San Gabriel Valley | ** Support | |
| American Circular Textiles Group | ** Support | |
| Association Of Home Appliance Manufacturers | ** Against | |
| Audubon California | ** Support | |
| Azul | ** Support | |
| Blue Ocean Warriors | ** Support | |
| Breast Cancer Prevention Partners | ** Support | |
| California Association Of Sanitation Agencies | ** Support | |
| California Coastkeeper Alliance | ** Support | |
| California Environmental Voters | ** Support | |
| California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| California Product Stewardship Council | ** Support | |
| Californians Against Waste | ** Support | |
| CalPerk | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| CALPIRG | ** Support | |
| Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education | ** Support | |
| Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| Clean Water Action | ** Support | |
| cleanearth4kids.org | ** Support | |
| Climate Action Santa Monica | ** Support | |
| Coin Laundry Association | ** Against | |
| Elders Climate Action, Norcal and Socal Chapters | ** Support | |
| Environmental Working Group | ** Support | |
| Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Saftey | ** Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network | ** Support | |
| Friends Committee On Legislation Of California | ** Support | |
| Friends Of The Earth | ** Support | |
| Grandparents in Action | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| Habits of Waste | ** Support | |
| Heal The Bay | ** Support | |
| Human Rights Watch Student Task Force | ** Support | |
| LA Waterkeeper | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts | ** Support | |
| Mikearens.com | ** Support | |
| Monterey Bay Aquarium | ** Support | |
| National Stewardship Action Council | ** Support | |
| Nature Concervancy | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| Non Toxic Neighborhoods | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| North Country Equity and Justice Coalition | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| Northern California Recycling Association | ** Support | |
| Numerous scientists | ** Support | |
| Ocean Conservancy | ** Support | |
| Oceana | ** Support | |
| Pacific Marine Mammal Center | ** Support | |
| Paddle Out Plastic | ** Support | |
| Patagonia | ** Support | |
| Plastic Free Future | ** Support | |
| Plastic Free Restaurants | ** Support | |
| Plastic Oceans International | ** Support | |
| Plastic Pollution Coalition A Project Of Earth Island Institute | ** Support | |
| Protect Wild Petaluma | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County | ** Support | |
| San Diego Audubon Society | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility | ** Support | |
| Save Our Shores | ** Support | |
| Seangle Indonesia | ** Support | |
| Seventh Generation Advisors | ** Support | |
| Shark Stewards | ** Support | |
| Sierra Club California | ** Support | |
| Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter | ** Support | |
| Social Compassion In Legislation | ** Support | |
| Solano County Democratic Central Committee | ** Support | |
| Supercircle | ** Support | |
| Surfrider Foundation | ** Support | |
| Surfrider Foundation Los Angeles Chapter | ** Support | |
| Sustainable Ocean Alliance | ** Support | |
| Sustainable Ocean Alliance Tanzania | ** Support | |
| Team Marine | ** Support | |
| Team Marine, Climate Action Santa Monica, Human Rights Watch Student Task Force | ** Support | |
| The Nature Conservancy | ** Support | |
| Turtle Island Restoration Network | ** Support | |
| Wildcoast | ** Support | |
| Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation | ** Support | |
| Zero Waste USA | ** Support |
GOVERNOR'S VETO
GV Bill Id:AB 1628
Author:(McKinnor)
As Enrolled Ver:September 18, 2023
2/3 vote
SUMMARY
Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in the state for residential or state use unless the washing machine contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm).
Senate Amendments
- Change the types of washing machines subject to the requirements of this bill, so that the prohibition on selling or offering for sale new machines, unless they meet microfiber filtration and labeling requirements, applies to machines intended for residential or state, but not commercial use.
- Prohibit a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in the state unless it bears a conspicuous label that includes the following statement: "Notice: This washing machine contains a filter to capture microfibers. Check filter regularly and dispose of captured lint in a waste bin."
- Provide that a person or entity that violates the prohibition on selling or offering for sale new washing machines unless they meet microfiber filtration and labeling requirements will be—upon an action brought by the Attorney General, city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney—liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $30,000 for each subsequent violation.
- Provide that the provisions in this bill do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law, and that the remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
- Define "washing machine" to mean a machine designed and used for washing clothes and linen.
Governor's Veto Message
My Administration takes seriously the need to reduce the presence of microfibers in our wastewater system. The [State Water Resources Control Board] is currently assessing the potential impacts of microplastic pollution to aquatic ecosystems in coastal and estuarine environments, as well as humans through exposure in drinking water. However, I am concerned that this bill will increase costs to consumers in advance of further research being completed and establishing the publc policy rationale and details for new residential requirements.
In the interim, I encourage the author to consider alternative approaches to incentivize, rather than mandate, the use of filters or other technologies that could remove microfibers in wastewater.
COMMENTS
Microplastic pollution and the Statewide Microplastics Strategy: In 2018, the Legislature recognized the need for a comprehensive plan to address microplastics pollution and passed SB 1263 (Portantino, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018), which requires the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy (Strategy). Released in February 2022, the Strategy provides a multi-year roadmap designed to help California take on a national and global leadership role in managing microplastics pollution.
According to research reviewed in the Strategy, plastics are ubiquitous in Californians' daily lives and in the environment. Worldwide, an estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, and without any intervention, this amount may triple by 2040. Plastics are recognized globally as the most harmful and persistent fraction of marine litter, accounting for at least 85% of total marine waste. Over time, plastics break down in aquatic environments into pieces of ever-decreasing size, with those less than 5 mm in size known as microplastics.
Microplastics have been found nearly everywhere scientists have looked, from pristine mountain streams to agricultural soil, and within human placenta, stool samples, and lung tissue. Microplastics can enter the food web, where plastic particles can transfer into tissue and expose humans to plastic-associated and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In California, microplastics have been observed in Monterey Bay, San Francisco Bay, the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Lake Tahoe, and in Southern California waterways. In toxicity studies, microplastic exposures have been shown to cause adverse effects, including tissue inflammation, impaired growth, developmental anomalies, and reproductive difficulties.
The OPC collaborated with partner agencies and research institutions to develop the Strategy's scientific foundation and recommended actions. The approach taken by this bill is substantially similar to a recommendation in the Strategy, which suggests that California "promote, or otherwise require, the sale and use of ENERGY STAR condenser dryers and washing machines with filtration rates of 100 microns or smaller and develop a program to incentivize post-market retrofits or purchases through rebates and other mechanisms by 2024."
Synthetic microfibers, a type of microplastic: According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), clothes made from synthetic material constitute a major source of plastic pollution. The US EPA maintains that the majority of clothing on the planet is made from plastic-based materials like polyester, rayon, nylon, and acrylic and that, when washed, synthetic clothing sheds tiny plastic fragments known as microfibers. The US EPA states, as do multiple peer-reviewed research studies, that microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastic found in the environment.
One study of microfiber emissions by Geyer et al. (2022), published in Environmental Pollution, estimates that in 2019, as much as 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers were generated from apparel washing in California, a 26% increase since 2008. Based on their modeling, Geyer et al. conclude that without intervention, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026.
Microfiber filtration in washing machines as a strategy for reducing microfiber pollution: The Geyer et al. (2022) study concludes that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments." The OPC and US EPA also both recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. In addition, multiple peer-reviewed studies have examined the efficacy of washing machine filtration systems, with one study indicating that filters can remove up to 90% of microfibers.
This bill: AB 1628 prohibits, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in California unless it contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 µm. This requirement is consistent with recommended action in the Strategy produced by the OPC, pursuant to SB 1263 (Portantino, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018).
According to the Author
"AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
Arguments in Support
According to this bill's co-sponsors (the Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and 5 Gyres):
"Microfiber pollution is a pressing concern for the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in California. The scale of the problem is staggering, with an estimated 7.7 quadrillion microfibers shed into state lands and waters each year from washing machines. To put that into perspective, that's more than the number of stars in our galaxy.
The solution that AB 1628 proposes is based on California's Ocean Protection Council
Statewide Microplastics Strategy, a statutorily required comprehensive plan to address this
growing threat…The requirement for microfiber filters on new washing machines is recommended as a sector-specific solution for textiles to reduce microfiber pollution from a specific source into California's waters and lands. The microfiber filtration systems required by AB 1628 would help to significantly reduce this pollution, with far-reaching and substantial economic benefits with minimal costs to the state."
Arguments in Opposition
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) states, among several concerns, that:
"AHAM commissioned a study by [NSF International (formerly the National Sanitation Foundation)], an independent and globally recognized technical and certifying organization, on filtration products for clothes washers. The study found that filters can cause the washing machine to use more energy and water use. Some models in the NSF test used almost twice the energy and water when washing with the filter installed. That equates to running the clothes washer twice for a load, which completely and utterly undercuts the gains made over the years in clothes washer minimum energy efficiency standards. Of note, this additional operational time also creates more shedding—the very problem that is trying to be reduced. Today's clothes washers are 70% more efficient than decades ago and this bill would virtually eliminate all those gains."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, to the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, enactment of this bill may increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aggregate.
VOTES
ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 7-2-0
YES: Lee, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, McKinnor, Pacheco, Zbur
NO: Hoover, Ta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-14-3
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NO: Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Dixon, Lackey
SENATE FLOOR: 28-8-4
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Durazo, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NO: Dahle, Dodd, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Caballero, Eggman, Grove
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-15-2
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Dixon, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NO: Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Lackey
UPDATED
VERSION: September 18, 2023
CONSULTANT: Naomi Ondrasek / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0002526
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1628
Author:(McKinnor)
As Amended Ver:September 8, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in the state for residential or state use unless the washing machine contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm).
Senate Amendments
- Change the types of washing machines subject to the requirements of this bill, so that the prohibition on selling or offering for sale new machines, unless they meet microfiber filtration and labeling requirements, applies to machines intended for residential or state, but not commercial use.
- Prohibit a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in the state unless it bears a conspicuous label that includes the following statement: "Notice: This washing machine contains a filter to capture microfibers. Check filter regularly and dispose of captured lint in a waste bin."
- Provide that a person or entity that violates the prohibition on selling or offering for sale new washing machines unless they meet microfiber filtration and labeling requirements will be – upon an action brought by the Attorney General, city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney – liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $30,000 for each subsequent violation.
- Provide that the provisions in this bill do not impair or impede any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law, and that the remedies provided in this section are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
- Define "washing machine" to mean a machine designed and used for washing clothes and linen.
COMMENTS
Microplastic pollution and the Statewide Microplastics Strategy: In 2018, the Legislature recognized the need for a comprehensive plan to address microplastics pollution and passed SB 1263 ((Portantino), Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018, which requires the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy (Strategy). Released in February 2022, the Strategy provides a multi-year roadmap designed to help California take on a national and global leadership role in managing microplastics pollution.
According to research reviewed in the Strategy, plastics are ubiquitous in both Californians' daily lives and in the environment. Worldwide, an estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, and without any intervention, this amount is anticipated to triple by 2040. Plastics are recognized globally as the most harmful and persistent fraction of marine litter, accounting for at least 85% of total marine waste. Over time, plastics break down in aquatic environments into pieces of ever-decreasing size, with those less than 5 mm in size known as microplastics.
Microplastics have been found nearly everywhere scientists have looked, from pristine mountain streams to agricultural soil, and within human placenta, stool samples, and lung tissue. Microplastics can enter the food web, where plastic particles can transfer into tissue and expose humans to plastic-associated and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In California, microplastics have been observed in Monterey Bay, San Francisco Bay, the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Lake Tahoe, and in Southern California waterways. In toxicity studies, microplastic exposures have been shown to cause adverse effects, including tissue inflammation, impaired growth, developmental anomalies, and reproductive difficulties.
The OPC collaborated with partner agencies and research institutions to develop the Strategy's scientific foundation and recommended actions. The approach taken by this bill is substantially similar to a recommendation in the Strategy, which suggests that California "promote, or otherwise require, the sale and use of ENERGY STAR condenser dryers and washing machines with filtration rates of 100 microns or smaller and develop a program to incentivize post-market retrofits or purchases through rebates and other mechanisms by 2024."
Synthetic microfibers, a type of microplastic: According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), clothes made from synthetic material constitute a major source of plastic pollution. The US EPA maintains that the majority of clothing on the planet is made from plastic-based materials like polyester, rayon, nylon, and acrylic and that, when washed, synthetic clothing sheds tiny plastic fragments known as microfibers. The US EPA states, as do multiple peer-reviewed research studies, that microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastic found in the environment.
One study of microfiber emissions by Geyer et al. (2022), published in Environmental Pollution, estimates that in 2019, as much as 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers were generated from apparel washing in California, a 26% increase since 2008. Based on their modeling, Geyer et al. conclude that without intervention, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026.
Microfiber filtration in washing machines as a strategy for reducing microfiber pollution: The Geyer et al. (2022) study concludes that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments." The OPC and US EPA also both recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. In addition, multiple peer-reviewed studies have examined the efficacy of washing machine filtration systems, with one study indicating that filters can remove up to 90% of microfibers.
This bill: AB 1628 prohibits, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in California unless it contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 µm. This requirement is consistent with recommended action in the Strategy produced by the OPC, pursuant to SB 1263 ((Portantino), Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018).
According to the Author
"AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
Arguments in Support
According to this bill's co-sponsors (the Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and 5 Gyres):
"Microfiber pollution is a pressing concern for the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in California. The scale of the problem is staggering, with an estimated 7.7 quadrillion microfibers shed into state lands and waters each year from washing machines. To put that into perspective, that's more than the number of stars in our galaxy.
The solution that AB 1628 proposes is based on California’s Ocean Protection Council Statewide Microplastics Strategy, a statutorily required comprehensive plan to address this growing threat…The requirement for microfiber filters on new washing machines is recommended as a sector-specific solution for textiles to reduce microfiber pollution from a specific source into California’s waters and lands. The microfiber filtration systems required by AB 1628 would help to significantly reduce this pollution, with far-reaching and substantial economic benefits with minimal costs to the state."
Arguments in Opposition
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) states, among several concerns, that:
"AHAM commissioned a study by [NSF International (formerly the National Sanitation Foundation)], an independent and globally recognized technical and certifying organization, on filtration products for clothes washers. The study found that filters can cause the washing machine to use more energy and water use. Some models in the NSF test used almost twice the energy and water when washing with the filter installed. That equates to running the clothes washer twice for a load, which completely and utterly undercuts the gains made over the years in clothes washer minimum energy efficiency standards. Of note, this additional operational time also creates more shedding—the very problem that is trying to be reduced. Today’s clothes washers are 70% more efficient than decades ago and this bill would virtually eliminate all those gains."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, to the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, enactment of this bill may increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aggregate.
VOTES:
ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 7-2-0
YES: Lee, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, McKinnor, Pacheco, Zbur
NO: Hoover, Ta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-14-3
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones‑Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NO: Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Dixon, Lackey
UPDATED
VERSION: September 8, 2023
CONSULTANT: Naomi Ondrasek / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0002381
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 1628 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1628
Author: McKinnor (D), et al.
Amended: 9/8/23 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 7/12/23
AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Skinner
NOES: Dahle, Nguyen
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/1/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-14, 5/31/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Microfiber filtration
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires that new washing machines sold in California for residential or state use contain a microfiber filtration system and informational label by January 1, 2029. This provision will be enforced with a civil penalty up to $10,000 for a first violation and $30,000 for each subsequent violation.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/23 remove the provision requiring the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct and submit a report to the Legislature that describes the best available control technologies to remove microfibers generated during commercial laundry operations by January 1, 2026.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to regulate the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. Establishes under the IWMA a state policy goal that at least 75% of solid waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 40000 et. seq.)
- Requires, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, that State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards implement a program to control discharges of preproduction plastic (i.e. resins and colors for plastics). Directs the State Water Board to address the discharges of this plastic from these point and nonpoint sources. (WC § 1336)
- Enacts the Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law and which, among other things:
- Prohibits the sale of personal care products that contain plastic microbeads on and after January 1, 2020. (PRC § 42360 et seq.)
- Requires, on or before December 31, 2024, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy related to microplastic materials that pose an emerging concern for ocean health; specifies that the goal of the Statewide Microplastics Strategy is to increase understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics on the marine environment and to identify proposed solutions to address the impacts of microplastics. (PRC § 35635(b))
- Requires the State Water Board to adopt a definition of microplastics in drinking water by July 1, 2020, adopt a standard methodology to test drinking water for microplastics, and adopt testing and reporting requirements. (Health & Safety Code § 116376)
This bill:
- Requires that new washing machines sold in California for retail and state use contain a microfiber filtration
- Defines a microfiber filtration system to mean a system that is embedded in or sold with the washing machine and has a mesh size 100 micrometers or smaller.
- Requires that washing machines with microfiber filtration systems have a conspicuous label announcing that fact.
- Establishes enforcement for these provisions authorizing the Attorney General, city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney to enforce a civil penalty up to $10,000 for a first violation and $30,000 for each subsequent violation.
- Makes related findings and declarations.
Background
- Prevalence and Impacts of Microplastics. Microplastics, defined as small plastic particles with a diameter less than 5mm, have become a subject of increasing environmental concern. Because microplastics are so small, they can travel in water, air, and in the bodies of living organisms. As a result, microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are found in some of the most remote areas on earth, including arctic sea ice, the deep ocean, mountain peaks in national parks, and human embryos. Of particular concern for living organisms, microplastic’s small size allows them to bioaccumulate up the food chain. Plastics in water, for instance, can be consumed by fish and shellfish and become part of their tissue. The fish and shellfish can in turn be eaten by humans or other animals: with each step up the food web, the concentration of microplastics accumulates.
Microplastics can also act as vectors for pollutants such as pesticides and heavy metals, effectively “piggybacking” these harmful pollutants wherever the microplastics go, including into the living tissues of plants, animals, and humans.
Current studies have found microplastics in human lungs, brains, and placentas. The effect of these microplastics on human health are still being studied, but numerous studies have shown that microplastics increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats.
- Textiles as Sources of Microplastics. Microplastics can be either manufactured (e.g., microbeads in personal care products) or can result when plastics deteriorate into small pieces. In 2021, global plastics production was estimated at 390.7 million metric tons, a four percent increase from the previous year. The United Nations Environment Programme reports that only nine percent of all plastic ever made has been recycled. Any plastic that is not reused or recycled will eventually break down into microplastics: given the high volume of plastic, there is a huge amount of microplastics in the environment that originate from a vast array of sources.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastics. Numerous studies demonstrate that microfibers are the most commonly encountered microplastics in a range of different ecosystems including wastewater, storm water runoff, rivers, lakes, estuaries, marine waters, and wildlife.
One major source of microfibers is textiles. About 60 percent of clothing is made entirely or in part of plastic, which includes polyester, acrylic and nylon textiles. These synthetic textiles shed microfibers in their daily wear and tear. Washing machines in particular are a major contributing source of microfibers. One study found that a single garment can produce more than 1,900 fibers per wash. A recent modeling study estimated that in 2019, washing clothing generated up to 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers in California. The study concluded that without interventions, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026, but that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments."
Another California-based study conducted in 2021 found that microfibers were the predominant type of microplastics in wastewater in San Francisco Bay.
- The Flow of Microfibers. Microfibers can be introduced into wastewater through washing machine effluent. However, they can be removed at wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater agencies estimate that approximately 95% of microfibers from the state's water are removed at processing plants. While at first glance this may seem like a “problem-solved” situation, this is not the end of the road for microfibers. According to a recent study by the Nature Conservancy, biosolids captured during water treatment may be spread on agricultural land as fertilizer. These biosolids contain rich nutrients for agricultural areas, but also contain the microfibers and microplastics that had been removed at the treatment facility. As a result, microfibers from washing machines effluent and other sources in the waste water stream, still end up back in the environment.
- Filters for Fibers. The OPC and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), supported by evidence in the scientific literature, recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. There are three different types of filters that can be used during laundering to capture microfibers:
- In-drum filters: these filters are separate devices that consumers can use in the wash drum with each load of laundry. For example, some garment manufacturers, such as Patagonia and Reformation, have sold their products with a washing bag developed to capture microfiber fragments when they are put through the wash.
- In-line filters: these filters are separate devices from the machine, typically sold after-market and affixed to the drain line. Several in-line filtration systems are currently available for purchase, including the Filtrol and LUV-R.
- Built-in filters: these filters are built into the washing machine during manufacturing. These are not yet widely available in the United States.
Numerous peer-reviewed studies have tested the efficacy of microfiber filters and found that they can capture up to 78% of microfibers. One study deployed Filtrol in-line filters with a mesh size of 100 µm mesh—the same mesh size required by AB 1628— into 10% of households in a small town. The researchers found that after installation of this filter, there was a significant decrease in the amount of microfibers at the one local wastewater treatment plant in town.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)—which represents manufacturers of major, portable, and floor care home appliances, as well as suppliers to the industry—conducted its own study on in-line microfiber filtration systems. AHAM hired the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) International (an independent, not-for-profit organization that develops consensus national standards, and provides product inspection, testing, and certification) to test the efficacy of a Filtrol system with a 200 µm mesh, as well as a pool filter with a 100 µm mesh. The test design involved installation of the filtration system on to a washing machine drain line, with an additional, much smaller-mesh filter (5 µm) installed downstream from the filtration system. The smaller filter was used to assess the filtration system's efficacy, by catching material that passed through the filtration system. NSF International found that fabric softener collected on the inside of the filtration system, which AHAM states contributed to clogging and dripping issues. NSF International also reported that the Filtrol only caught an average of 26 percent of the total material captured, which AHAM states is a sign of the system's ineffectiveness. However, it is important to note that NSF International did not measure the actual microfiber content of material captured by the filters, so it is unknown how much of the material that passed through the filtration system was made up of microfibers, versus other materials such as fabric softener.
- Filters in France. In 2020, France, as part of its sweeping Circular Economy Law, mandated that all new washing machines sold in the country from Jan 1, 2025 onward, include a mesh filter to capture microfibers. The law covers both household and professional washing machines. Manufacturers which implement a filter before the intended due date are eligible to receive a bonus. This new legislation makes France the first country to address the growing issue of microfiber pollution.
Comments
- Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
- What do I do with this? If microfibers are collected via mesh filters at washing machines at homes and laundromats, then consumers and businesses play an important role in removing these microfibers from the ecosystem. However, many consumers may not be aware that their clothing results in microfibers, what the implications of those microfibers in the environment may be, or how to properly dispose of microfiber waste. Because AB 1628 relies on consumers to be active participants in getting microfibers out of the wastewater system by cleaning the filters and properly disposing of the microfiber waste, the measure should also consider how to educate consumers on this role.
Currently, this bill requires that washing machines with microfiber filters also use a conspicuous label noting the presence of the microfiber filter, that the filter needs to be cleaned out, and that the material should be disposed of in the waste bin. While this label captures the operational essentials, it does not communicate the environmental impacts of the microfibers if they are not cleared out of the wastewater system, or warn users about what might happen to the washing machine and system if they do not clean out the filter. In addition, businesses like laundromats that would need to incorporate filter cleaning into their daily operations might benefit from more formal information or training materials, like a manual, factsheet, or training video.
- Filters: Relatively Easy to Enforce. AB 1628 relies on a specific technology solution (100micrometer filters) to solve a big policy problem –microfiber pollution from textiles in wastewater. Some argue that it is not the role of the state to prescribe specific technology solutions to policy problems. However, there are considerations that make washing machine filters a strong candidate to address microfibers in wastewater. Firstly, as described in the background section, mesh microfiber filters have been shown to be effective. In addition, requiring that washing machines sold in the state have filters is a relatively straightforward requirement for manufacturers to follow and a relatively simple requirement to enforce.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- To the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, this bill could increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aggregate.
- To the extent that the microfiber filtration systems require additional staff time to change or remove filters and dispose of waste, potential ongoing costs of an unknown but likely minor amount due to increased workload.
- To the extent that this bill results in the assessment of civil penalties, unknown potential increases in revenues resulting from civil penalty collections.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/23)
5 Gyres Institute
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Circular Textiles Group
Audubon California
Azul
Blue Ocean Warriors
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
Californians Against Waste
CALPIRG
Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action Santa Monica
Elders Climate Action, NorCal and SoCal Chapters
Environmental Working Group
Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Earth
Habits of Waste
Heal the Bay
Human Rights Watch Student Task Force
LA Waterkeeper
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Mikearens.com
Monterey Bay Aquarium
National Stewardship Action Council
Northern California Recycling Association
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Pacific Marine Mammal Center
Paddle Out Plastic
Patagonia
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Free Restaurants
Plastic Oceans International
Plastic Pollution Coalition, a Project of Earth Island Institute
Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County
San Diego Audubon Society
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Save Our Shores
Seangle Indonesia
Seventh Generation Advisors
Shark Stewards
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Social Compassion in Legislation
Solano County Democratic Central Committee
Supercircle
Surfrider Foundation
Surfrider Foundation Los Angeles Chapter
Sustainable Ocean Alliance Tanzania
Team Marine
The Nature Conservancy
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Wildcoast
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Zero Waste USA
Numerous scientists
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/23)
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Nature Conservancy, California Product Stewardship Coalition, and a broad coalition of environmental organizations write in support of the bill: “Washing clothing is one of the primary pathways by which these microfibers are generated and enter the environment - a single load of laundry can release up to 18 million microfibers! A recent study also estimated that up to 4.85 million pounds of microfibers enter California’s lands and waters each year from washing machines, which is only projected to increase.
“Interventions are needed to address microfiber pollution across the full lifecycle of textiles. In addition to exploring upstream textile redesign and infrastructure solutions to reduce the generation of microfibers, we need near-term solutions to effectively capture microfibers before they enter the environment. Fortunately, washing machine filter technology has already proven to be an effective solution. These filters are affordable and have demonstrated their efficacy to capture up to 90 percent of microfibers in laboratory and field trials. There are no significant technical or financial barriers to applying these filters to new washing machines, in fact, microfiber filtration technology is already built into washing machines from major brands like Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) writes in opposition to this bill, including arguments that:
The bill should allow more solutions than a “filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.” This requires a mesh filter, which restricts the technological solutions that manufacturers may pursue. No law should prejudge what a solution is and should give engineers the freedom to innovate and be creative to overcome this very challenging engineering problem. Performance, not design, requirements should be used.
The bill should designate a regulatory agency to oversee the implementation of this law to provide guidance and regulations based on a public and technical record before and during the implementation phase. Enacting an essentially one sentence requirement into law with no guidance, no oversight, and no regulatory agency to address the complications that will arise is inappropriate.
Commercial clothes washers are used and maintained much differently than a residential washer. These washers are usually in large building or laundromats so requiring a filter at the machine level is inefficient and ineffective since they are used by people who do not own the appliance and there would be more efficient methods to address this matter at the building than product by product.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-14, 5/31/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NOES: Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Dixon, Lackey
Prepared by: Brynn Cook / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
9/11/23 12:50:03
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 1628 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1628
Author: McKinnor (D), et al.
Amended: 7/13/23 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 7/12/23
AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Skinner
NOES: Dahle, Nguyen
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/1/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-14, 5/31/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Microfiber filtration
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires that new washing machines sold in California for residential or state use contain a microfiber filtration system and informational label by January 1, 2029. This provision will be enforced with a civil penalty up to $10,000 for a first violation and $30,000 for each subsequent violation. This bill further requires the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) to create a report to the Legislature on best available microfiber control strategies for commercial laundry operators.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to regulate the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. Establishes under the IWMA a state policy goal that at least 75% of solid waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 40000 et. seq.)
- Requires, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, that State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards implement a program to control discharges of preproduction plastic (i.e. resins and colors for plastics). Directs the State Water Board to address the discharges of this plastic from these point and nonpoint sources. (WC § 1336)
- Enacts the Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law and which, among other things:
- Prohibits the sale of personal care products that contain plastic microbeads on and after January 1, 2020. (PRC § 42360 et seq.)
- Requires, on or before December 31, 2024, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy related to microplastic materials that pose an emerging concern for ocean health; specifies that the goal of the Statewide Microplastics Strategy is to increase understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics on the marine environment and to identify proposed solutions to address the impacts of microplastics. (PRC § 35635(b))
- Requires the State Water Board to adopt a definition of microplastics in drinking water by July 1, 2020, adopt a standard methodology to test drinking water for microplastics, and adopt testing and reporting requirements. (Health & Safety Code § 116376)
This bill:
- Requires that new washing machines sold in California for retail and state use contain a microfiber filtration
- Defines a microfiber filtration system to mean a system that is embedded in or sold with the washing machine and has a mesh size 100 micrometers or smaller.
- Requires that washing machines with microfiber filtration systems have a conspicuous label announcing that fact.
- Establishes enforcement for these provisions authorizing the Attorney General, city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney to enforce a civil penalty up to $10,000 for a first violation and $30,000 for each subsequent violation.
- Requires the State Water Board to create a report to the Legislature on best available microfiber control strategies for commercial laundry operators.
- Makes related findings and declarations.
Background
- Prevalence and Impacts of Microplastics. Microplastics, defined as small plastic particles with a diameter less than 5mm, have become a subject of increasing environmental concern. Because microplastics are so small, they can travel in water, air, and in the bodies of living organisms. As a result, microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are found in some of the most remote areas on earth, including arctic sea ice, the deep ocean, mountain peaks in national parks, and human embryos. Of particular concern for living organisms, microplastic’s small size allows them to bioaccumulate up the food chain. Plastics in water, for instance, can be consumed by fish and shellfish and become part of their tissue. The fish and shellfish can in turn be eaten by humans or other animals: with each step up the food web, the concentration of microplastics accumulates.
Microplastics can also act as vectors for pollutants such as pesticides and heavy metals, effectively “piggybacking” these harmful pollutants wherever the microplastics go, including into the living tissues of plants, animals, and humans.
Current studies have found microplastics in human lungs, brains, and placentas. The effect of these microplastics on human health are still being studied, but numerous studies have shown that microplastics increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats.
- Textiles as Sources of Microplastics. Microplastics can be either manufactured (e.g., microbeads in personal care products) or can result when plastics deteriorate into small pieces. In 2021, global plastics production was estimated at 390.7 million metric tons, a four percent increase from the previous year. The United Nations Environment Programme reports that only nine percent of all plastic ever made has been recycled. Any plastic that is not reused or recycled will eventually break down into microplastics: given the high volume of plastic, there is a huge amount of microplastics in the environment that originate from a vast array of sources.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastics. Numerous studies demonstrate that microfibers are the most commonly encountered microplastics in a range of different ecosystems including wastewater, storm water runoff, rivers, lakes, estuaries, marine waters, and wildlife.
One major source of microfibers is textiles. About 60 percent of clothing is made entirely or in part of plastic, which includes polyester, acrylic and nylon textiles. These synthetic textiles shed microfibers in their daily wear and tear. Washing machines in particular are a major contributing source of microfibers. One study found that a single garment can produce more than 1,900 fibers per wash. A recent modeling study estimated that in 2019, washing clothing generated up to 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers in California. The study concluded that without interventions, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026, but that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments."
Another California-based study conducted in 2021 found that microfibers were the predominant type of microplastics in wastewater in San Francisco Bay.
- The Flow of Microfibers. Microfibers can be introduced into wastewater through washing machine effluent. However, they can be removed at wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater agencies estimate that approximately 95% of microfibers from the state's water are removed at processing plants. While at first glance this may seem like a “problem-solved” situation, this is not the end of the road for microfibers. According to a recent study by the Nature Conservancy, biosolids captured during water treatment may be spread on agricultural land as fertilizer. These biosolids contain rich nutrients for agricultural areas, but also contain the microfibers and microplastics that had been removed at the treatment facility. As a result, microfibers from washing machines effluent and other sources in the waste water stream, still end up back in the environment.
- Filters for Fibers. The OPC and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), supported by evidence in the scientific literature, recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. There are three different types of filters that can be used during laundering to capture microfibers:
- In-drum filters: these filters are separate devices that consumers can use in the wash drum with each load of laundry. For example, some garment manufacturers, such as Patagonia and Reformation, have sold their products with a washing bag developed to capture microfiber fragments when they are put through the wash.
- In-line filters: these filters are separate devices from the machine, typically sold after-market and affixed to the drain line. Several in-line filtration systems are currently available for purchase, including the Filtrol and LUV-R.
- Built-in filters: these filters are built into the washing machine during manufacturing. These are not yet widely available in the United States.
Numerous peer-reviewed studies have tested the efficacy of microfiber filters and found that they can capture up to 78% of microfibers. One study deployed Filtrol in-line filters with a mesh size of 100 µm mesh—the same mesh size required by AB 1628— into 10% of households in a small town. The researchers found that after installation of this filter, there was a significant decrease in the amount of microfibers at the one local wastewater treatment plant in town.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)—which represents manufacturers of major, portable, and floor care home appliances, as well as suppliers to the industry—conducted its own study on in-line microfiber filtration systems. AHAM hired the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) International (an independent, not-for-profit organization that develops consensus national standards, and provides product inspection, testing, and certification) to test the efficacy of a Filtrol system with a 200 µm mesh, as well as a pool filter with a 100 µm mesh. The test design involved installation of the filtration system on to a washing machine drain line, with an additional, much smaller-mesh filter (5 µm) installed downstream from the filtration system. The smaller filter was used to assess the filtration system's efficacy, by catching material that passed through the filtration system. NSF International found that fabric softener collected on the inside of the filtration system, which AHAM states contributed to clogging and dripping issues. NSF International also reported that the Filtrol only caught an average of 26 percent of the total material captured, which AHAM states is a sign of the system's ineffectiveness. However, it is important to note that NSF International did not measure the actual microfiber content of material captured by the filters, so it is unknown how much of the material that passed through the filtration system was made up of microfibers, versus other materials such as fabric softener.
- Filters in France. In 2020, France, as part of its sweeping Circular Economy Law, mandated that all new washing machines sold in the country from Jan 1, 2025 onward, include a mesh filter to capture microfibers. The law covers both household and professional washing machines. Manufacturers which implement a filter before the intended due date are eligible to receive a bonus. This new legislation makes France the first country to address the growing issue of microfiber pollution.
Comments
- Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
- What do I do with this? If microfibers are collected via mesh filters at washing machines at homes and laundromats, then consumers and businesses play an important role in removing these microfibers from the ecosystem. However, many consumers may not be aware that their clothing results in microfibers, what the implications of those microfibers in the environment may be, or how to properly dispose of microfiber waste. Because AB 1628 relies on consumers to be active participants in getting microfibers out of the wastewater system by cleaning the filters and properly disposing of the microfiber waste, the measure should also consider how to educate consumers on this role.
- Currently, this bill requires that washing machines with microfiber filters also use a conspicuous label noting the presence of the microfiber filter, that the filter needs to be cleaned out, and that the material should be disposed of in the waste bin. While this label captures the operational essentials, it does not communicate the environmental impacts of the microfibers if they are not cleared out of the wastewater system, or warn users about what might happen to the washing machine and system if they do not clean out the filter. In addition, businesses like laundromats that would need to incorporate filter cleaning into their daily operations might benefit from more formal information or training materials, like a manual, factsheet, or training video.
- Filters: Relatively Easy to Enforce. AB 1628 relies on a specific technology solution (100micrometer filters) to solve a big policy problem –microfiber pollution from textiles in wastewater. Some argue that it is not the role of the state to prescribe specific technology solutions to policy problems. However, there are considerations that make washing machine filters a strong candidate to address microfibers in wastewater. Firstly, as described in the background section, mesh microfiber filters have been shown to be effective. In addition, requiring that washing machines sold in the state have filters is a relatively straightforward requirement for manufacturers to follow and a relatively simple requirement to enforce.
- Studying Commercial Washing Machines. Commercial washing machines differ from residential washing machines. Commercial washing machines are more “heavy-duty” than residential ones: a typical residential washing machine operates for thousands of hours (on average, they are made to last for 5 years, delivering an average of 270 washes hours per year for a total of 1,350 washes per lifetime), while commercial washing machines can run for 30,000 or more operating hours. Commercial washing machines may also be larger than residential ones, ranging in size from approximately the same as residential washing machines to four times as large. These differences may impact the use of microfiber filters. Currently, however, at least one company (Xeros) produces a microfiber filter device available for commercial machines (the XF2 filter). In addition, according to information provided by the author, Wexco Environmental is currently adapting a residential filter device for commercial applications.
Operators of laundromats argue that applying individual filters in each washing machine may not be as efficient for laundromat operators as applying a filter at the facility level. This could apply to other commercial laundry applications. Requiring the State Water Board to develop a report that considers the best approaches to remove microfibers from different commercial laundry applications will elucidate whether or not individual microfiber filters are a good and viable technology option to remove these pollutants from the waste stream.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown but likely significant one-time costs (General Fund or special fund) for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the microfiber removal in commercial laundry operations report.
- To the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, this bill could increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aggregate.
- To the extent that the microfiber filtration systems require additional staff time to change or remove filters and dispose of waste, potential ongoing costs of an unknown but likely minor amount due to increased workload.
- To the extent that this bill results in the assessment of civil penalties, unknown potential increases in revenues resulting from civil penalty collections.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/23)
28 Scientists in Support
5 Gyres Institute
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Circular Textiles Group
Audubon California
Azul
Blue Ocean Warriors
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
Californians Against Waste
Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group
Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education, the
Clean Water Action
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate Action Santa Monica
Elders Climate Action, Norcal and Socal Chapters
Environmental Working Group
Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of The Earth
Habits of Waste
Heal the Bay
Human Rights Watch Student Task Force
LA Waterkeeper
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Mikearens.com
Monterey Bay Aquarium
National Stewardship Action Council
Northern California Recycling Association
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Pacific Marine Mammal Center
Paddle Out Plastic
Patagonia
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Free Restaurants
Plastic Oceans International
Plastic Pollution Coalition, a Project of Earth Island Institute
Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County
San Diego Audubon Society
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Save Our Shores
Seangle Indonesia
Seventh Generation Advisors
Shark Stewards
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Social Compassion in Legislation
Solano County Democratic Central Committee
Supercircle
Surfrider Foundation
Surfrider Foundation Los Angeles Chapter
Sustainable Ocean Alliance Tanzania
Team Marine
The Nature Conservancy
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Wildcoast
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Zero Waste USA
1 Individual
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/23)
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
Coin Laundry Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Nature Conservancy, the California Product Stewardship Coalition, and a broad coalition of environmental organizations write in support of the bill: “Washing clothing is one of the primary pathways by which these microfibers are generated and enter the environment - a single load of laundry can release up to 18 million microfibers! A recent study also estimated that up to 4.85 million pounds of microfibers enter California’s lands and waters each year from washing machines, which is only projected to increase.
Interventions are needed to address microfiber pollution across the full lifecycle of textiles. In addition to exploring upstream textile redesign and infrastructure solutions to reduce the generation of microfibers, we need near-term solutions to effectively capture microfibers before they enter the environment. Fortunately, washing machine filter technology has already proven to be an effective solution. These filters are affordable and have demonstrated their efficacy to capture up to 90 percent of microfibers in laboratory and field trials. There are no significant technical or financial barriers to applying these filters to new washing machines, in fact, microfiber filtration technology is already built into washing machines from major brands like Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) writes in opposition to the bill, including arguments that:
The bill should allow more solutions than a “filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.” This requires a mesh filter, which restricts the technological solutions that manufacturers may pursue. No law should prejudge what a solution is and should give engineers the freedom to innovate and be creative to overcome this very challenging engineering problem. Performance, not design, requirements should be used.
The bill should designate a regulatory agency to oversee the implementation of this law to provide guidance and regulations based on a public and technical record before and during the implementation phase. Enacting an essentially one sentence requirement into law with no guidance, no oversight, and no regulatory agency to address the complications that will arise is inappropriate.
Commercial clothes washers are used and maintained much differently than a residential washer. These washers are usually in large building or laundromats so requiring a filter at the machine level is inefficient and ineffective since they are used by people who do not own the appliance and there would be more efficient methods to address this matter at the building than product by product.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-14, 5/31/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NOES: Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Dixon, Lackey
Prepared by: Brynn Cook / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108
9/2/23 12:11:11
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1628 (McKinnor) - Microfiber filtration
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
This bill would require all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California to contain a microfiber filtration system and informational label.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on September 1, 2023
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown but likely significant one-time costs (General Fund or special fund) for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to report on the best available control technologies to remove microfibers generated during commercial laundry operations.
- To the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, this bill could increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aggregate (various funds).
- To the extent that the microfiber filtration systems require additional staff time to change or remove filters and dispose of waste, potential ongoing costs of an unknown but likely minor amount (various funds) due to increased workload once existing state washing machines are replaced with new models with microfiber filtration systems.
- To the extent that this bill results in the assessment of civil penalties, unknown potential increases in revenues resulting from civil penalty collections.
Author Amendments:
These amendments would make technical and clarifying changes.
Committee Amendments:
These amendments would establish civil penalties and require a study on commercial laundry microfiber removal in lieu of requiring filters in machines sold for commercial use. Specifically, these amendments would:
- Authorize civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for each subsequent violation.
- Eliminate provisions related to certificates of compliance and their enforcement.
- Exclude washing machines sold or offered for sale for commercial use from the requirements to contain a microfiber filtration system and bear a related label.
- Require the SWRCB to report on the best available control technologies to remove microfibers generated during commercial laundry operations.
- Specify that the report shall consider different commercial applications, including but not limited to, in-house hotel laundry services, third party commercial laundry operations that serve restaurants and other commercial establishments, and vended laundromats open to the public.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1628 (McKinnor) - Microfiber filtration
Version: July 13, 2023 | Policy Vote: E.Q. 5 - 2 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: August 28, 2023 | Consultant: Ashley Ames |
Bill Summary:
This bill would require all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California to contain a microfiber filtration system and informational label.
Fiscal Impact:
- To the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, this bill could increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aggregate (various funds).
- To the extent that the microfiber filtration systems require additional staff time to change or remove filters and dispose of waste, potential ongoing costs of an unknown but likely minor amount (various funds) due to increased workload once existing state washing machines are replaced with new models with microfiber filtration systems.
Background:
Microplastics, defined as small plastic particles with a diameter less than 5mm, have become a subject of increasing environmental concern. Because microplastics are so small, they can travel in water, air, and in the bodies of living organisms. As a result, microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are found in some of the most remote areas on earth, including arctic sea ice, the deep ocean, mountain peaks in national parks, and human embryos. Of particular concern for living organisms, microplastic’s small size allows them to bioaccumulate up the food chain. Plastics in water, for instance, can be consumed by fish and shellfish and become part of their tissue. The fish and shellfish can in turn be eaten by humans or other animals: with each step up the food web, the concentration of microplastics accumulates.
Microplastics can also act as vectors for pollutants such as pesticides and heavy metals, effectively “piggybacking” these harmful pollutants wherever the microplastics go, including into the living tissues of plants, animals, and humans.
Current studies have found microplastics in human lungs, brains, and placentas. The effect of these microplastics on human health are still being studied, but numerous studies have shown that microplastics increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastics. Numerous studies demonstrate that microfibers are the most commonly encountered microplastics in a range of different ecosystems including wastewater, storm water runoff, rivers, lakes, estuaries, marine waters, and wildlife.
One major source of microfibers is textiles. About 60 percent of clothing is made entirely or in part of plastic, which includes polyester, acrylic and nylon textiles. These synthetic textiles shed microfibers in their daily wear and tear. Washing machines in particular are a major contributing source of microfibers. One study found that a single garment can produce more than 1,900 fibers per wash. A recent modeling study estimated that in 2019, washing clothing generated up to 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers in California. The study concluded that without interventions, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026, but that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments."
Proposed Law:
This bill would require all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California to contain a microfiber filtration system and informational label. Specifically, this bill would:
- Require that all new washing machines sold or offered for sale in California contain a microfiber filtration
- Require that washing machines with microfiber filtration systems have a conspicuous label announcing that fact.
- Require washing machine manufacturers to provide a certificate of compliance, as specified.
- Make related findings and declarations.
Related Legislation:
AB 1724 (Stone, 2022) would have required all state-owned washing machines to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller. This bill was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 622 (Friedman, 2021) would have required, on or before January 1, 2024, that all washing machines sold as new in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
AB 802 (Bloom, 2021) would have required the State Water Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
AB 1952 (Stone, 2020) would have required the Department of General Services, in coordination with CalEPA, to implement a one-year pilot program to assess the efficacy of microfiber filtration systems for 10 state-owned laundry facilities and report the results to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2023. This bill was held in the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee.
AB 2297 (Bloom, 2020) would have required the State Water Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
AB 3232 (Friedman, 2020) would have required, on or before January 1, 2023, that all washing machines sold commercially in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a 90% or greater filtration rate. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
AB 129 (Bloom, 2019) would have required the State Water Board to take specified actions relating to microfiber pollution on or before July 1, 2020, and would have required the State Water Board to identify best practices for clothing manufacturers to reduce the amount of microfibers released into the environment. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Staff Comments:
The fiscal impact on the state would be limited to cases where the state needs to buy a new washing machine on and after January 1, 2029. It is possible this bill could result in other state costs once implemented. For example, some stakeholder groups have stated microfiber filters could increase water and energy usage. However, at this time, available evidence does not suggest microfiber filters would have any significant state costs other than those identified above.
Examples of state entities that have washing machines in their facilities include the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (with 150 to 200 standard washing machines), the California Prison Industry Authority (with approximately 65 commercial washing machines), the Department of General Services (with approximately 55 to 60 commercial washing machines), and the University of California and California State University systems (with laundry facilities located in residence halls and other university housing at the 10 UC and 23 CSU campuses across the state).
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Allen, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No. | AB 1628 | Hearing Date: | 7/12/2023 |
Author: | McKinnor | ||
Version: | 6/28/2023 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Brynn Cook | ||
SUBJECT: Microfiber filtration
DIGEST: Requires that all new washing machines sold in California contain a microfiber filtration system and informational label by January 1, 2029. This provision will be enforced with a civil penalty up to $10,000 for a first violation and $30,000 for each subsequent violation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (IWMA), administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to regulate the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. Establishes under the IWMA a state policy goal that at least 75% of solid waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 40000 et. seq.)
- Requires, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, that State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards implement a program to control discharges of preproduction plastic (i.e. resins and colors for plastics). Directs the State Water Board to address the discharges of this plastic from these point and nonpoint sources. (WC § 1336)
- Enacts the Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law and which, among other things:
- Prohibits the sale of personal care products that contain plastic microbeads on and after January 1, 2020. (PRC § 42360 et seq.)
- Requires, on or before December 31, 2024, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy related to microplastic materials that pose an emerging concern for ocean health; specifies that the goal of the Statewide Microplastics Strategy is to increase understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics on the marine environment and to identify proposed solutions to address the impacts of microplastics. (PRC § 35635(b))
- Requires the State Water Board to adopt a definition of microplastics in drinking water by July 1, 2020, adopt a standard methodology to test drinking water for microplastics, andadopt testing and reporting requirements. (Health & Safety Code § 116376)
This bill:
- Requires that all new washing machines sold in California contain a microfiber filtration
- Defines a microfiber filtration system to mean a system that is embedded in or sold with the washing machine and has a mesh size 100 micrometers or smaller.
- Requires that washing machines with microfiber filtration systems have a conspicuous label announcing that fact.
- Establishes an enforcement mechanism where the Attorney General, city attorney, county counsel, or district attorney can enforce a civil penalty up to $10,000 for a first violation and $30,000 for each subsequent violation.
- Makes related findings and declarations.
Background
- Prevalence and Impacts of Microplastics. Microplastics, defined as small plastic particles with a diameter less than 5mm, have become a subject of increasing environmental concern. Because microplastics are so small, they can travel in water, air, and in the bodies of living organisms. As a result, microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are found in some of the most remote areas on earth, including arctic sea ice, the deep ocean, mountain peaks in national parks, and human embryos. Of particular concern for living organisms, microplastic’s small size allows them to bioaccumulate up the food chain. Plastics in water, for instance, can be consumed by fish and shellfish and become part of their tissue. The fish and shellfish can in turn be eaten by humans or other animals: with each step up the food web, the concentration of microplastics accumulates.
Microplastics can also act as vectors for pollutants such as pesticides and heavy metals, effectively “piggybacking” these harmful pollutants wherever the microplastics go, including into the living tissues of plants, animals, and humans.
Current studies have found microplastics in human lungs, brains, and placentas. The effect of these microplastics on human health are still being studied, but numerous studies have shown that microplastics increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats.
- Textiles as Sources of Microplastics. Microplastics can be either manufactured (e.g., microbeads in personal care products) or can result when plastics deteriorate into small pieces. In 2021, global plastics production was estimated at 390.7 million metric tons, a four percent increase from the previous year. The United Nations Environment Programme reports that only nine percent of all plastic ever made has been recycled. Any plastic that is not reused or recycled will eventually break down into microplastics: given the high volume of plastic, there is a huge amount of microplastics in the environment that originate from a vast array of sources.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastics. Numerous studies demonstrate that microfibers are the most commonly encountered microplastics in a range of different ecosystems including wastewater, storm water runoff, rivers, lakes, estuaries, marine waters, and wildlife.
One major source of microfibers is textiles. About 60 percent of clothing is made entirely or in part of plastic, which includes polyester, acrylic and nylon textiles. These synthetic textiles shed microfibers in their daily wear and tear. Washing machines in particular are a major contributing source of microfibers. One study found that a single garment can produce more than 1,900 fibers per wash. A recent modeling study estimated that in 2019, washing clothing generated up to 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers in California. The study concluded that without interventions, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026, but that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments."
Another California-based study conducted in 2021 found that microfibers were the predominant type of microplastics in wastewater in San Francisco Bay.
- The Flow of Microfibers. Microfibers can be introduced into wastewater through washing machine effluent. However, they can be removed at wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater agencies estimate that approximately 95% of microfibers from the state's water are removed at processing plants. While at first glance this may seem like a “problem-solved” situation, this is not the end of the road for microfibers. According to a recent study by the Nature Conservancy, biosolids captured during water treatment may be spread on agricultural land as fertilizer. These biosolids contain rich nutrients for agricultural areas, but also contain the microfibers and microplastics that had been removed at the treatment facility. As a result, microfibers from washing machines effluent and other sources in the waste water stream, still end up back in the environment.
- Filters for Fibers. The OPC and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), supported by evidence in the scientific literature, recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. There are three different types of filters that can be used during laundering to capture microfibers:
- In-drum filters: these filters are separate devices that consumers can use in the wash drum with each load of laundry. For example, some garment manufacturers, such as Patagonia and Reformation, have sold their products with a washing bag developed to capture microfiber fragments when they are put through the wash.
- In-line filters: these filters are separate devices from the machine, typically sold after-market and affixed to the drain line. Several in-line filtration systems are currently available for purchase, including the Filtrol and LUV-R.
- Built-in filters: these filters are built into the washing machine during manufacturing. These are not yet widely available in the United States.
Numerous peer-reviewed studies have tested the efficacy of microfiber filters and found that they can capture up to 78% of microfibers. One study deployed Filtrol in-line filters with a mesh size of 100 µm mesh—the same mesh size required by AB 1628— into 10% of households in a small town. The researchers found that after installation of this filter, there was a significant decrease in the amount of microfibers at the one local wastewater treatment plant in town.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)—which represents manufacturers of major, portable, and floor care home appliances, as well as suppliers to the industry—conducted its own study on in-line microfiber filtration systems. AHAM hired the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) International (an independent, not-for-profit organization that develops consensus national standards, and provides product inspection, testing, and certification) to test the efficacy of a Filtrol system with a 200 µm mesh, as well as a pool filter with a 100 µm mesh. The test design involved installation of the filtration system on to a washing machine drain line, with an additional, much smaller-mesh filter (5 µm) installed downstream from the filtration system. The smaller filter was used to assess the filtration system's efficacy, by catching material that passed through the filtration system. NSF International found that fabric softener collected on the inside of the filtration system, which AHAM states contributed to clogging and dripping issues. NSF International also reported that the Filtrol only caught an average of 26 percent of the total material captured, which AHAM states is a sign of the system's ineffectiveness. However, it is important to note that NSF International did not measure the actual microfiber content of material captured by the filters, so it is unknown how much of the material that passed through the filtration system was made up of microfibers, versus other materials such as fabric softener.
- Filters in France. In 2020, France, as part of its sweeping Circular Economy Law, mandated that all new washing machines sold in the country from Jan 1, 2025 onward, include a mesh filter to capture microfibers. The law covers both household and professional washing machines. Manufacturers which implement a filter before the intended due date are eligible to receive a bonus. This new legislation makes France the first country to address the growing issue of microfiber pollution.
Comments
- Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
- What do I do with this? If microfibers are collected via mesh filters at washing machines at homes and laundromats, then consumers and businesses play an important role in removing these microfibers from the ecosystem. However, many consumers may not be aware that their clothing results in microfibers, what the implications of those microfibers in the environment may be, or how to properly dispose of microfiber waste. Because AB 1628 relies on consumers to be active participants in getting microfibers out of the wastewater system by cleaning the filters and properly disposing of the microfiber waste, the measure should also consider how to educate consumers on this role.
Currently, the bill requires that washing machines with microfiber filters also use a conspicuous label noting the presence of the microfiber filter, that the filter needs to be cleaned out, and that the material should be disposed of in the waste bin. While this label captures the operational essentials, it does not communicate the environmental impacts of the microfibers if they are not cleared out of the wastewater system, or warn users about what might happen to the washing machine and system if they do not clean out the filter. In addition, businesses like laundromats that would need to incorporate filter cleaning into their daily operations might benefit from more formal information or training materials, like a manual, factsheet, or training video. - Filters: Relatively Easy to Enforce. AB 1628 relies on a specific technology solution (100micrometer filters) to solve a big policy problem –microfiber pollution from textiles in wastewater. Some argue that it is not the role of the state to prescribe specific technology solutions to policy problems. However, there are considerations that make washing machine filters a strong candidate to address microfibers in wastewater. Firstly, as described in the background section, mesh microfiber filters have been shown to be effective. In addition, requiring that washing machines sold in the state have filters is a relatively straightforward requirement for manufacturers to follow and a relatively simple requirement to enforce.
Enforcement through certification or civil penalties does not require any special expertise or technical equipment. On the other hand, measuring or tracking microplastics in wastewater, let alone trying to identify what entity is responsible for that effluent once it is in the waste stream, would require significant technical expertise and may not be possible. Given the relative ease and low expense of enforcing the addition of microfiber filters to washing machines, this policy may offer a lot of “bang for the buck.” - Appropriate Enforcement. AB 1628 sets specific amounts for civil penalties to enforce the requirement that washing machines be sold with microfiber filters. However, this approach likely puts the burden of the civil penalty on retailers which are in state, not on manufacturers that may be outside of California. It is also unclear whether the amount of the penalty ($10,000 for a first violation and $30,000 for each subsequent violation) is too high or too low to be effective. While the exact amount is being evaluated, the author has considered an alternative approach to enforcement: requiring that washing machine manufacturers certify that they are in compliance with the law. Under this enforcement scheme, retailers and distributors in turn would be prohibited from selling washing machines without this certification.
Suggested Amendments: Committee staff recommends adopting the author’s amendments to replace the existing civil penalty structure in the bill with a requirement that manufacturers certify that their machines have the required microfiber filters.
- Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee adopt the bolded author amendments contained in comment 4 above.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1724 (Stone, 2022) would have required all state-owned washing machines to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller. This bill was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 622 (Friedman, 2021) would have required, on or before January 1, 2024, that all washing machines sold as new in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
AB 802 (Bloom, 2021) would have required the State Water Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
AB 1952 (Stone, 2020) would have required the Department of General Services, in coordination with CalEPA, to implement a one-year pilot program to assess the efficacy of microfiber filtration systems for 10 state-owned laundry facilities and report the results to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2023. This bill was held in the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee.
AB 2297 (Bloom, 2020) would have required the State Water Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
AB 3232 (Friedman, 2020) would have required, on or before January 1, 2023, that all washing machines sold commercially in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a 90% or greater filtration rate. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
AB 129 (Bloom, 2019) would have required the State Water Board to take specified actions relating to microfiber pollution on or before July 1, 2020, and would have required the State Water Board to identify best practices for clothing manufacturers to reduce the amount of microfibers released into the environment. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
SOURCE:
The Nature Conservancy
SUPPORT:
28 Scientists in Support
5 Gyres Institute
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Circular Textiles Group (ACT)
Audubon California
Azul
Blue Ocean Warriors
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
Californians Against Waste
Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group
Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education, the
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Santa Monica
Elders Climate Action, Norcal and Socal Chapters
Environmental Working Group
Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of The Earth
Habits of Waste
Heal the Bay
Human Rights Watch Student Task Force
LA Waterkeeper
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Mikearens.com
Monterey Bay Aquarium
National Stewardship Action Council
Northern California Recycling Association
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Pacific Marine Mammal Center
Paddle Out Plastic
Patagonia
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Free Restaurants
Plastic Oceans International
Plastic Pollution Coalition, a Project of Earth Island Institute
Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County
San Diego Audubon Society
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Save Our Shores
Seangle Indonesia
Seventh Generation Advisors
Shark Stewards
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Social Compassion in Legislation
Solano County Democratic Central Committee
Supercircle
Surfrider Foundation
Surfrider Foundation Los Angeles Chapter
Sustainable Ocean Alliance Tanzania
Team Marine
The Nature Conservancy
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Wildcoast
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Zero Waste USA
OPPOSITION:
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
Coin Laundry Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The Nature Conservancy, Product Stewardship Coalition, and a broad coalition of environmental organizations write in support of the bill: “Washing clothing is one of the primary pathways by which these microfibers are generated and enter the environment - a single load of laundry can release up to 18 million microfibers! A recent study also estimated that up to 4.85 million pounds of microfibers enter California’s lands and waters each year from washing machines, which is only projected to increase.
Interventions are needed to address microfiber pollution across the full lifecycle of textiles. In addition to exploring upstream textile redesign and infrastructure solutions to reduce the generation of microfibers, we need near-term solutions to effectively capture microfibers before they enter the environment. Fortunately, washing machine filter technology has already proven to be an effective solution. These filters are affordable and have demonstrated their efficacy to capture up to 90 percent of microfibers in laboratory and field trials. There are no significant technical or financial barriers to applying these filters to new washing machines, in fact, microfiber filtration technology is already built into washing machines from major brands like Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) writes in opposition to the bill, including arguments that:
The bill should allow more solutions than a “filtration system with a mesh size of not greater than 100 micrometers.” This requires a mesh filter, which restricts the technological solutions that manufacturers may pursue. No law should prejudge what a solution is and should give engineers the freedom to innovate and be creative to overcome this very challenging engineering problem. Performance, not design, requirements should be used. Any requirement should be based on this objective and the legislature should not engineer the product or solution.
The bill should designate a regulatory agency to oversee the implementation of this law to provide guidance and regulations based on a public and technical record before and during the implementation phase. Enacting an essentially one sentence requirement into law with no guidance, no oversight, and no regulatory agency to address the complications that will arise is inappropriate.
Commercial clothes washers are used and maintained much differently than a residential washer. These washers are usually in large building or laundromats so requiring a filter at the machine level is inefficient and ineffective since they are used by people who do not own the appliance and there would be more efficient methods to address this matter at the building than product by product.”
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 1628
Author:(McKinnor)
As Amended Ver:May 25, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine offered for sale in the state to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm).
Major Provisions
- Defines "microfiber filtration system" to mean a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following criteria:
- The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter; or,
- The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
COMMENTS
Microplastic pollution and the Statewide Microplastics Strategy: In 2018, the Legislature recognized the need for a comprehensive plan to address microplastics pollution and passed SB 1263 (Portantino), Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018, which requires the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy (Strategy) that increases understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics pollution in the marine environment and identifies proposed solutions. Released in February 2022, the Strategy provides a multi-year roadmap designed to help California take on a national and global leadership role in managing microplastics pollution.
According to research reviewed in the Strategy, plastics are ubiquitous in both Californians' daily lives and in the environment. Worldwide, an estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, and without any intervention, this amount is anticipated to triple by 2040. Plastics are recognized globally as the most harmful and persistent fraction of marine litter, accounting for at least 85% of total marine waste. Over time, plastics break down in aquatic environments into pieces of ever-decreasing size, with those less than 5 mm in size known as microplastics.
Microplastics fall into two general categories: primary microplastics manufactured at a small size (e.g., preproduction plastic pellets used in manufacturing or microbeads in personal care products) or secondary microplastics that result from the breakdown of larger plastics. Microplastics have a range of polymer types, sizes, shapes, and associated chemicals, with irregular shapes and fibers found increasingly in marine organisms, including mammals, fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. In toxicity studies, microplastic exposures have been shown to cause adverse effects, including tissue inflammation, impaired growth, developmental anomalies, and reproductive difficulties.
In California, microplastics have been observed in Monterey Bay, San Francisco Bay, the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Lake Tahoe, and in Southern California waterways. Microplastics have been found nearly everywhere scientists have looked, from pristine mountain streams to agricultural soil, and within human placenta, stool samples, and lung tissue. Microplastics can enter the food web, where plastic particles can transfer into tissue, and expose humans to plastic-associated and endocrine-disrupting chemicals from seafood consumption.
The OPC collaborated with partner agencies and research institutions to develop the Strategy's scientific foundation. This collaboration included efforts to characterize the predominant sources and pathways of microplastics in the San Francisco Bay; initiate standardized sampling, detection, characterization, and microplastic monitoring methods; and, create a preliminary risk assessment framework for sampling, monitoring, and evaluating microplastics statewide. The recommended actions outlined in the Strategy are organized into two basic categories: 1) management actions that California can begin implementing immediately; and, 2) research priorities to inform future actions. The OPC maintains that, over the next several years, California can achieve reductions in microplastic pollution and catalyze increased scientific understanding by implementing the 22 recommended early actions and 13 research priorities outlined in the Strategy.
The approach proposed in this bill – using washing machine filtration systems with a mesh size no larger than 100 µm to capture microfibers – is aligned with one of the Strategy's suggested early actions, which recommends that California "promote, or otherwise require, the sale and use of ENERGY STAR condenser dryers and washing machines with filtration rates of 100 microns or smaller and develop a program to incentivize post-market retrofits or purchases through rebates and other mechanisms by 2024."
Synthetic microfibers, a type of microplastic: According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), clothes made from synthetic material constitute a major source of plastic pollution. The US EPA maintains that the majority of clothing on the planet is made from plastic-based materials like polyester, rayon, nylon, and acrylic and that, when washed, synthetic clothing sheds tiny plastic fragments known as microfibers. The US EPA states, as do multiple peer-reviewed research studies, that microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastic found in the environment.
One study of microfiber emissions by Geyer et al. (2022), published in Environmental Pollution, estimates that in 2019, as much as 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers were generated from apparel washing in California, a 26% increase since 2008. California's wastewater treatment agencies are estimated to divert 95% of microfibers from the state's waterbodies, but these microfibers can then end up on land when biosolids, a product of the wastewater treatment process, are applied to land to improve soil structure and nutrient content, as well as water conservation. Based on their modeling, Geyer et al. conclude that without interventions, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026. They also conclude that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments."
Microfiber filtration in washing machines as a strategy for reducing microfiber pollution: The OPC and US EPA both recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. In addition, multiple peer-reviewed studies have examined the efficacy of washing machine filtration systems, with one study indicating that filters can remove up to 90% of microfibers. With a lack of filtration on current washing machines, there have been multiple first-to-market products offered to consumers. There are three different types of filters that can be used during laundering to capture microfibers:
- In-drum filters: these filters are separate devices that consumers can use in the wash drum with each load of laundry. Some garment manufacturers, such as Patagonia and Reformation, have sold their products with a washing bag developed to capture microfiber fragments during each load.
- In-line filters: these filters are separate devices from the machine, typically sold after-market and affixed to the drain line. Several in-line filtration systems are currently available for purchase, including the Filtrol and LUV-R.
- Built-in filters: these filters are built into the washing machine during manufacturing. These are not yet widely available in the United States.
According to the Author
"AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
Arguments in Support
According to this bill's co-sponsors (the Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and 5 Gyres):
"Despite perceptions that the plastic pollution problem is worse outside the U.S., there is a significant and growing body of evidence that microplastics like microfibers pose a serious threat to Californians. Microfibers are the most prevalent microplastic found in the San Francisco Bay. And up to 4.85 million pounds of microfibers enter California's lands and waters each year from washing machines, and the problem is only getting worse (anticipated increase of 17% by 2026)…Filters have already proven to be an effective solution. A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of in-line filter solutions, which vary in effectiveness from nearly 70 to almost 90%...Asia and Europe are already farther ahead of the U.S. in implementing filtration solutions to tackle post-consumer microfiber pollution. Microfiber filtration technology is currently built into washing machines from major brands like Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba. And in 2020, France passed 2020-105- Article 79 to require built-in washing machine filters by 2025. AB 1628 follows a similar approach, providing manufacturers five years to scale already-existing filtration technologies across their new product lines sold into the state."
Arguments in Opposition
According to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM):
"Filters that capture particles of this size (100 microns) will inevitably clog, creating the need for bypass that will render them useless… AHAM commissioned a study by NSF, an independent technical organization, on filtration products for clothes washers…NSF found that the filters captured, at best, less than 25% of all material shed during a wash and microfibers are just a small subset of what was captured…Some models in the NSF test used almost twice the energy and water when washing with the filter installed… [In-line filters] are ineffective and require an unrealistic level of maintenance from the consumer, including regular cleaning and possibly replacement…The NSF tests showed that it would take longer (more than 13 years) than the useful life of the clothes washer to capture more plastic than the plastic in the filter and this does not even take into account the plastic in all the replacement filters needed throughout the 13 years."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, to the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, this bill may increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, but likely in excess of $150,000 in the aggregate.
VOTES
ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 7-2-0
YES: Lee, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, McKinnor, Pacheco, Zbur
NO: Hoover, Ta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas
UPDATED
VERSION: May 25, 2023
CONSULTANT: Naomi Ondrasek / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0001001
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 1628
Author:(McKinnor)
As Amended Ver:March 22, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine offered for sale in the state to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm).
Major Provisions
- Defines "microfiber filtration system" to mean a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following criteria:
- The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter; or,
- The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
COMMENTS
Microplastic pollution and the Statewide Microplastics Strategy: In 2018, the Legislature recognized the need for a comprehensive plan to address microplastics pollution and passed SB 1263 (Portantino, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018), which requires the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy (Strategy) that increases understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics pollution in the marine environment and identifies proposed solutions. Released in February 2022, the Strategy provides a multi-year roadmap designed to help California take on a national and global leadership role in managing microplastics pollution.
According to research reviewed in the Strategy, plastics are ubiquitous in both Californians' daily lives and in the environment. Worldwide, an estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, and without any intervention, this amount is anticipated to triple by 2040. Plastics are recognized globally as the most harmful and persistent fraction of marine litter, accounting for at least 85 percent of total marine waste. Over time, plastics break down in aquatic environments into pieces of ever-decreasing size, with those less than 5 mm in size known as microplastics.
Microplastics fall into two general categories: primary microplastics manufactured at a small size (e.g., preproduction plastic pellets used in manufacturing or microbeads in personal care products) or secondary microplastics that result from the breakdown of larger plastics. Microplastics have a range of polymer types, sizes, shapes, and associated chemicals, with irregular shapes and fibers found increasingly in marine organisms, including mammals, fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. In toxicity studies, microplastic exposures have been shown to cause adverse effects, including tissue inflammation, impaired growth, developmental anomalies, and reproductive difficulties.
In California, microplastics have been observed in Monterey Bay, San Francisco Bay, the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Lake Tahoe, and in Southern California waterways. Microplastics have been found nearly everywhere scientists have looked, from pristine mountain streams to agricultural soil, and within human placenta, stool samples, and lung tissue. Microplastics can enter the food web, where plastic particles can transfer into tissue, and expose humans to plastic-associated and endocrine-disrupting chemicals from seafood consumption.
OPC collaborated with partner agencies and research institutions to develop the Strategy's scientific foundation. This collaboration included efforts to characterize the predominant sources and pathways of microplastics in the San Francisco Bay; initiate standardized sampling, detection, characterization, and microplastic monitoring methods; and, create a preliminary risk assessment framework for sampling, monitoring, and evaluating microplastics statewide. The recommended actions outlined in the Strategy are organized into two basic categories: 1) management actions that California can begin implementing immediately; and, 2) research priorities to inform future actions. The OPC maintains that, over the next several years, California can achieve reductions in microplastic pollution and catalyze increased scientific understanding by implementing the 22 recommended early actions and 13 research priorities outlined in the Strategy.
The approach proposed in AB 1628—using washing machine filtration systems with a mesh size no larger than 100 µm to capture microfibers—is aligned with one of the Strategy's suggested early actions, which recommends that California "promote, or otherwise require, the sale and use of ENERGY STAR condenser dryers and washing machines with filtration rates of 100 microns or smaller and develop a program to incentivize post-market retrofits or purchases through rebates and other mechanisms by 2024."
Synthetic microfibers, a type of microplastic: According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), clothes made from synthetic material constitute a major source of plastic pollution. The US EPA maintains that the majority of clothing on the planet is made from plastic-based materials like polyester, rayon, nylon, and acrylic and that, when washed, synthetic clothing sheds tiny plastic fragments known as microfibers. The US EPA states, as do multiple peer-reviewed research studies, that microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastic found in the environment.
One study of microfiber emissions by Geyer et al. (2022), published in Environmental Pollution, estimates that in 2019, as much as 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers were generated from apparel washing in California, a 26% increase since 2008. California's wastewater treatment agencies are estimated to divert 95% of microfibers from the state's waterbodies, but these microfibers can then end up on land when biosolids, a product of the wastewater treatment process, are applied to land to improve soil structure and nutrient content, as well as water conservation. Based on their modeling, Geyer et al. conclude that without interventions, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026. They also conclude that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments."
Microfiber filtration in washing machines as a strategy for reducing microfiber pollution: The OPC and US EPA both recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. In addition, multiple peer-reviewed studies have examined the efficacy of washing machine filtration systems, with one study indicating that filters can remove up to 90 percent of microfibers. With a lack of filtration on current washing machines, there have been multiple first-to-market products offered to consumers. There are three different types of filters that can be used during laundering to capture microfibers:
In-drum filters: these filters are separate devices that consumers can use in the wash drum with each load of laundry. Some garment manufacturers, such as Patagonia and Reformation, have sold their products with a washing bag developed to capture microfiber fragments during each load.
- In-line filters: these filters are separate devices from the machine, typically sold after-market and affixed to the drain line. Several in-line filtration systems are currently available for purchase, including the Filtrol and LUV-R.
- Built-in filters: these filters are built into the washing machine during manufacturing. These are not yet widely available in the United States.
According to the Author
"AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
Arguments in Support
According to the bill's co-sponsors (the Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and 5 Gyres):
"Despite perceptions that the plastic pollution problem is worse outside the U.S., there is a significant and growing body of evidence that microplastics like microfibers pose a serious threat to Californians. Microfibers are the most prevalent microplastic found in the San Francisco Bay. And up to 4.85 million pounds of microfibers enter California's lands and waters each year from washing machines, and the problem is only getting worse (anticipated increase of 17% by 2026)…Filters have already proven to be an effective solution. A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of in-line filter solutions, which vary in effectiveness from nearly 70 to almost 90%...Asia and Europe are already farther ahead of the U.S. in implementing filtration solutions to tackle post-consumer microfiber pollution. Microfiber filtration technology is currently built into washing machines from major brands like Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba. And in 2020, France passed 2020-105- Article 79 to require built-in washing machine filters by 2025. AB 1628 follows a similar approach, providing manufacturers five years to scale already-existing filtration technologies across their new product lines sold into the state."
Arguments in Opposition
According to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM):
"Filters that capture particles of this size (100 microns) will inevitably clog, creating the need for bypass that will render them useless… AHAM commissioned a study by NSF, an independent technical organization, on filtration products for clothes washers…NSF found that the filters captured, at best, less than 25% of all material shed during a wash and microfibers are just a small subset of what was captured…Some models in the NSF test used almost twice the energy and water when washing with the filter installed… [In-line filters] are ineffective and require an unrealistic level of maintenance from the consumer, including regular cleaning and possibly replacement…The NSF tests showed that it would take longer (more than 13 years) than the useful life of the clothes washer to capture more plastic than the plastic in the filter and this does not even take into account the plastic in all the replacement filters needed throughout the 13 years."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, to the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, this bill may increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, but likely in excess of $150,000 in the aggregate.
VOTES
ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 7-2-0
YES: Lee, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, McKinnor, Pacheco, Zbur
NO: Hoover, Ta
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas
UPDATED
VERSION: March 22, 2023
CONSULTANT: Naomi Ondrasek / E.S. & T.M. / FN: 0000445
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1628
Author:(McKinnor) – As Amended Ver:March 22, 2023
Policy Committee: | Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials | Vote: | 7 - 2 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine offered for sale in the state for residential, commercial, or state use to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm) and that meets specified requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT:
To the extent that washing machines offered for sale in the state after January 1, 2029, cost more than those that state entities would otherwise purchase, this bill may increase state procurement costs by an unknown amount, but likely in excess of $150,000 in the aggregate. Examples of state entities that have washing machines in their facilities include the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (with 150 to 200 standard washing machines), the California Prison Industry Authority (with approximately 65 commercial washing machines), the Department of General Services (with approximately 55 to 60 commercial washing machines), and the University of California and California State University systems (with laundry facilities located in residence halls and other university housing at the 10 UC and 23 CSU campuses across the state).
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author:
AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029.
2) Microfiber Pollution. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), clothes made from synthetic material constitute a major source of plastic pollution. US EPA maintains that the majority of clothing on the planet is made from plastic-based materials like polyester, rayon, nylon, and acrylic and that, when washed, synthetic clothing sheds tiny plastic fragments known as microfibers. US EPA states, as do multiple peer-reviewed research studies, that microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastic found in the environment. According to The Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and 5 Gyres Institute, the co-sponsors of the bill, microfibers are nearly impossible to clean up once they are in the environment and pose significant risks to wildlife. On land, microplastics may provide a vector for toxin uptake in plants and can harm crop growth and production. Microplastics have been found in drinking water, processed foods, meats, produce, and the human body.
2) Statewide Microplastics Strategy (Strategy). The Strategy, released by the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) in February 2022, provides a multi-year roadmap to reduce microplastic pollution in California. The approach proposed in this bill – using washing machine filtration systems, with a mesh size no larger than 100 µm, to capture microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment – is aligned with one of the Strategy's suggested early actions, which recommends that California:
…promote, or otherwise require, the sale and use of ENERGY STAR condenser dryers and washing machines with filtration rates of 100 microns or smaller and develop a program to incentivize post-market retrofits or purchases through rebates and other mechanisms by 2024.
3) Microfibers and Washing Machines. With a lack of filtration on most existing washing machines, there have been multiple first-to-market products offered to consumers. There are three different types of filters that can be used during laundering to capture microfibers:
- In-drum filters: these filters are separate devices that consumers can use in the wash drum with each load of laundry. Some garment manufacturers, such as Patagonia and Reformation, sell their products with a washing bag developed to capture microfiber fragments during each load.
- In-line filters: these filters are separate devices from the machine, typically sold after-market and affixed to the drain line. Several in-line filtration systems are currently available for purchase, including the Filtrol and LUV-R.
- Built-in filters: these filters are built into the washing machine during manufacturing. These are not yet widely available in the U.S.
4) Support and Opposition. According to the co-sponsors of the bill:
Filters have already proven to be an effective solution. A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of in-line filter solutions, which vary in effectiveness from nearly 70 to almost 90%...Asia and Europe are already farther ahead of the U.S. in implementing filtration solutions to tackle post-consumer microfiber pollution. Microfiber filtration technology is currently built into washing machines from major brands like Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba. And in 2020, France passed 2020-105- Article 79 to require built-in washing machine filters by 2025. AB 1628 follows a similar approach, providing manufacturers five years to scale already-existing filtration technologies across their new product lines sold into the state.
According to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, writing in opposition to the bill:
Filters that capture particles of this size (100 microns) will inevitably clog, creating the need for bypass that will render them useless… AHAM commissioned a study by NSF, an independent technical organization, on filtration products for clothes washers…NSF found that the filters captured, at best, less than 25% of all material shed during a wash and microfibers are just a small subset of what was captured…Some models in the NSF test used almost twice the energy and water when washing with the filter installed… [In-line filters] are ineffective and require an unrealistic level of maintenance from the consumer, including regular cleaning and possibly replacement…The NSF tests showed that it would take longer (more than 13 years) than the useful life of the clothes washer to capture more plastic than the plastic in the filter and this does not even take into account the plastic in all the replacement filters needed throughout the 13 years.
5) Prior Legislation. AB 622 (Friedman), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have required, on or before January 1, 2024, all washing machines sold as new in California to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 µm or smaller. AB 622 was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials (ESTM) Committee.
AB 802 (Bloom), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have required the State Water Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility. AB 802 was held in the ESTM Committee.
AB 1724 (Stone), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have required all state-owned washing machines to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 µm or smaller. AB 1724 was held on this committee’s suspense file.
AB 129 (Bloom), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have required the State Water Board to take specified actions relating to microfiber pollution on or before July 1, 2020, and would have required the State Water Board to identify best practices for clothing manufacturers to reduce the amount of microfibers released into the environment. AB 129 was held in the ESTM Committee.
AB 1952 (Stone), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have required the Department of General Services, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency, to implement a one-year pilot program to assess the efficacy of microfiber filtration systems for 10 state-owned laundry facilities and report the results to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2023. AB 1952 was held in the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee.
AB 2297 (Bloom), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to AB 802 of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session. AB 2297 was held in the ESTM Committee.
AB 3232 (Friedman), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have required, on or before January 1, 2023, that all washing machines sold commercially in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a 90% or greater filtration rate. AB 3232 was held in the ESTM Committee.
Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: March 28, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Alex Lee, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1628 (
Author:McKinnor) – As Amended Ver:March 22, 2023
SUBJECT: Microfiber filtration
SUMMARY: Requires, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine offered for sale in the state to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm). Specifically, this bill:
- Makes findings and declarations relating to the health and environmental implications of microplastic pollution; the contributions of microfibers, shed from fabric during washing in clothes washers, to microplastic pollution; and, the utility of washing machine filtration systems for capturing microfibers.
- Requires, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine offered for sale in the state for residential, commercial, or state use to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 µm.
- Defines "microfiber filtration system" to mean a filtration unit that is active across all washing cycles and meets either of the following criteria:
- The unit is integrated into the washing machine design as a built-in filter; or,
- The unit is included as an in-line filter and is packaged, sold, and installed with the washing machine.
EXISTING LAW:
- 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. (33 United States Code (USC) § 1901 et seq.)
- Prohibits—under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015—the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads. (21 USC § 331)
- Requires, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards to implement a program to control discharges of preproduction plastic (including plastic resin pellets and powdered coloring for plastics) from point and nonpoint sources. Requires the State Water Board to determine the appropriate regulatory methods to address the discharges from these point and nonpoint sources. (WC § 13367)
- Declares that littered plastic products have caused and continue to cause significant environmental harm and have burdened local governments with significant environmental cleanup costs. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 42355)
- Enacts the Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law and makes several related findings and declarations, including that (PRC § 42360):
- Plastic does not biodegrade into elements or compounds commonly found in nature, but instead, upon exposure to the elements, photodegrades into smaller pieces of plastic, causing land and water pollution that is virtually impossible to remediate;
- Plastic pollution is the dominant type of anthropogenic debris found throughout the marine environment;
- Plastic pollution is an environmental and human health hazard and a public nuisance; and,
- Microplastics are persistent organic compounds that attract other pollutants commonly present in the environment, many of which are recognized to have serious deleterious impacts on human health or the environment, including DDT, DDE, PCBs, and flame retardants.
- Prohibits the sale of personal care products that contain plastic microbeads on and after January 1, 2020. (PRC § 42360 et seq.)
- Requires, on or before December 31, 2024, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy (Strategy) related to microplastic materials that pose an emerging concern for ocean health; specifies that the goal of the Statewide Microplastics Strategy is to increase understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics on the marine environment and to identify proposed solutions to address the impacts of microplastics. (PRC § 35635(b))
- Requires the State Water Board to adopt a definition of microplastics in drinking water by July 1, 2020; adopt a standard methodology to test drinking water for microplastics; and, adopt testing and reporting requirements. (Health & Safety Code § 116376)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill: According to the author, "AB 1628 is an important step in helping to reduce the amount of microfibers from ending up in our freshwater systems, oceans, and agricultural lands. California has always led in reducing plastic pollution and must continue to lead by requiring microfiber filters on all new washing machines by 2029."
Microplastic pollution and the Statewide Microplastics Strategy: In 2018, the Legislature recognized the need for a comprehensive plan to address microplastics pollution and passed SB 1263 (Portantino, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018), which requires the OPC to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy that increases understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics pollution in the marine environment and identifies proposed solutions. Released in February 2022, the Strategy provides a multi-year roadmap designed to help California take on a national and global leadership role in managing microplastics pollution.
According to research reviewed in the Strategy, plastics are ubiquitous in both Californians’ daily lives and in the environment. Worldwide, an estimated 11 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, and without any intervention, this amount is anticipated to triple by 2040. Plastics are recognized globally as the most harmful and persistent fraction of marine litter, accounting for at least 85 percent of total marine waste. Over time, plastics break down in aquatic environments into pieces of ever-decreasing size, with those less than 5 mm in size known as microplastics.
Microplastics fall into two general categories: primary microplastics manufactured at a small size (e.g., preproduction plastic pellets used in manufacturing or microbeads in personal care products) or secondary microplastics that result from the breakdown of larger plastics. Microplastics have a range of polymer types, sizes, shapes, and associated chemicals, with irregular shapes and fibers found increasingly in marine organisms, including mammals, fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. In toxicity studies, microplastic exposures have been shown to cause adverse effects, including tissue inflammation, impaired growth, developmental anomalies, and reproductive difficulties.
In California, microplastics have been observed in Monterey Bay, San Francisco Bay, the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Lake Tahoe, and in Southern California waterways. Microplastics have been found nearly everywhere scientists have looked, from pristine mountain streams to agricultural soil, and within human placenta, stool samples, and lung tissue. Microplastics can enter the food web, where plastic particles can transfer into tissue, and expose humans to plastic-associated and endocrine-disrupting chemicals from seafood consumption.
OPC collaborated with partner agencies and research institutions to develop the Strategy's scientific foundation. This collaboration included efforts to characterize the predominant sources and pathways of microplastics in the San Francisco Bay; initiate standardized sampling, detecting, characterization, and microplastic monitoring methods; and, create a preliminary risk assessment framework for sampling, monitoring, and evaluating microplastics statewide. The recommended actions outlined in the Strategy are organized into two basic categories: 1) management actions that California can begin implementing immediately; and, 2) research priorities to inform future actions. The OPC maintains that, over the next several years, California can achieve reductions in microplastic pollution and catalyze increased scientific understanding by implementing the 22 recommended early actions and 13 research priorities outlined in the Strategy.
The approach proposed in AB 1628—using washing machine filtration systems, with a mesh size no larger than 100 µm, to capture microfibers—is aligned with one of the Strategy's suggested early actions, which recommends that California "promote, or otherwise require, the sale and use of ENERGY STAR condenser dryers and washing machines with filtration rates of 100 microns or smaller and develop a program to incentivize post-market retrofits or purchases through rebates and other mechanisms by 2024."
Synthetic microfibers, a type of microplastic: According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), clothes made from synthetic material constitute a major source of plastic pollution. The US EPA maintains that the majority of clothing on the planet is made from plastic-based materials like polyester, rayon, nylon, and acrylic and that, when washed, synthetic clothing sheds tiny plastic fragments known as microfibers. The US EPA states, as do multiple peer-reviewed research studies, that microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastic found in the environment. A systematic literature review by Athey and Erdle (2021), published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, examined research on microfibers published from 2011 to 2020. Based on their review, the authors state that:
"The widespread contamination of microfibers in the environment is well documented…Many studies, across environmental compartments, have reported microfibers as the most common anthropogenic microparticles in samples, including wastewater, stormwater runoff, rivers, lakes, estuaries, marine waters, and wildlife…Because of their prevalence in the environment and documented ingestion by a variety of biota, microfibers are a growing concern globally."
One study of microfiber emissions by Geyer et al. (2022), published in Environmental Pollution, estimates that in 2019, as much as 2.2 kilotons of synthetic microfibers were generated from apparel washing in California, a 26% increase since 2008. California's wastewater treatment agencies are estimated to divert 95% of microfibers from the state's waterbodies, but these microfibers can then end up on land when biosolids, a product of the wastewater treatment process, are applied to land to improve soil structure and nutrient content, as well as water conservation. Based on their modeling, Geyer et al. conclude that without interventions, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environments are expected to increase to 2.6 kilotons by 2026. They also conclude that "removing microfibers from washing machine effluent before they enter wastewater systems is crucial for reducing overall emissions to natural environments."
Another study by Zhu et al. (2021), published in Environmental Safety and Technology: Water, compared sources of microplastic pollution in the San Francisco Bay. The authors found that the concentration of microparticles in stormwater runoff was roughly 140 times that of wastewater effluent. However, the authors also found that microfibers comprised a larger percentage of the microparticles in wastewater, when compared to stormwater. In wastewater, microfibers were the predominant type of microplastic, constituting 49% of particles. This suggests that efforts to reduce microplastic pollution in wastewater should include a focus on microfibers; the authors suggest the use of washing machine filters to reduce microfibers in laundry effluent.
In 2011, an international team of scientists published a study of microplastic contamination of shorelines on six continents in the journal Environmental Science and Technology (Browne et al.). Using forensic evaluation of microplastic from sediments, the authors found that the proportions of synthetic microfibers used in clothing resembled those found in habitats receiving sewage discharges. After sampling wastewater from domestic washing machines, the authors also found that a single garment can produce more than 1,900 fibers per wash; in combination, these findings led the authors to conclude that a "large proportion of microplastic fibers found in the marine environment may be derived from sewage as a consequence of washing clothes."
Possible underestimates of microfiber pollution: According to Athey and Erdle (2021), current reports of microfiber contamination levels in the environment may be an underestimate. Most studies have focused on synthetic microfibers, but natural microfibers and semi-synthetic microfibers—which are derived from natural materials, but have undergone chemical processing—are also present in the environment. Even natural microfibers can pose a health risk, since they can contain a suite of chemical additives, dyes, and finishing agents. Chemical additives can include toxic compounds such as bisphenols, azo dyes, polyfluorinated alkyl compounds (PFAS), and formaldehyde.
Research on microfiber filtration in washing machines as a strategy for reducing microfiber pollution: The OPC and US EPA both recommend washing machine filters as an effective strategy for capturing microfibers before they enter wastewater effluent and the environment. With a lack of filtration on current washing machines, there have been multiple first-to-market products offered to consumers. There are three different types of filters that can be used during laundering to capture microfibers:
- In-drum filters: these filters are separate devices that consumers can use in the wash drum with each load of laundry. Some garment manufacturers, such as Patagonia and Reformation, have sold their products with a washing bag developed to capture microfiber fragments during each load.
- In-line filters: these filters are separate devices from the machine, typically sold after-market and affixed to the drain line. Several in-line filtration systems are currently available for purchase, including the Filtrol and LUV-R.
- Built-in filters: these filters are built into the washing machine during manufacturing. These are not yet widely available in the United States.
Peer-reviewed studies have examined the efficacy of washing machine filtration systems. In a study published in Science of the Total Environment, Napper et al. (2020) compared six different devices, ranging from prototypes to commercially available products, that were designed to be placed either inside the drum during the washing cycle or fitted externally to filter laundry effluent (an in-line filter). The XFiltra filter was the most successful device, reducing microfiber release into wastewater by about 78 percent when compared to washing without any device. Another study by McIlwraith et al. (2019), published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin, compared the efficacy of the LUV-R and Cora Ball (an in-drum device). The authors were able to quantify microfibers in laundry effluent by count, weight, and length, and found that the LUV-R captured an average of 87 percent of microfibers, when measured by count.
Researchers have also examined the efficacy of washing machine microfiber filters in the field. In a study published in Frontiers in Marine Science, Erdle et al. (2021) reported the results of a pilot study in Ontario, Canada, in which the researchers installed Filtrol in-line filters in 97 homes in a small town, representing 10% of households connected to the local municipal wastewater treatment plant. Participating households agreed to collect the lint captured in their filter for 2 years and were instructed to collect material from the filter bags every 1-2 weeks. Researchers chose the Filtrol system because "the filter is easy to clean, and…the filter contains a bypass, meaning if the filter is full the water will bypass the filter and prevent flooding." Although the authors acknowledge that activation of the bypass function would stop the system from collecting microfibers, they state that there were no bypasses reported in their experiment. Erdle et al. tested effluent at the wastewater treatment plant both before and after installation of the filtration systems, and found that the filters were associated with a statistically significant reduction in microfibers. Notably, the Filtrol system used in this study contains a 100 µm mesh, the same mesh size required by AB 1628 and recommended by the OPC in the Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)—which represents manufacturers of major, portable, and floor care home appliances, as well as suppliers to the industry—also initiated its own examination of in-line microfiber filtration systems. AHAM hired the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) International (an independent, not-for-profit organization that develops consensus national standards, and provides product inspection, testing, and certification) to test the efficacy of a Filtrol system with a 200 µm mesh, as well as a pool filter with a 100 µm mesh. The test design involved installation of the filtration system on to a washing machine drain line, with an additional, much smaller-mesh filter (5 µm) installed downstream from the filtration system. The smaller filter was used to assess the filtration system's efficacy, by catching material that passed through the filtration system.
NSF International found that fabric softener collected on the inside of the filtration system, which AHAM states contributed to clogging and dripping issues. NSF International also reported that the Filtrol only caught an average of 26 percent of the total material captured, which AHAM states is a sign of the system's ineffectiveness. However, it is important to note that NSF International did not measure the actual microfiber content of material captured by the filters, so it is unknown how much of the material that passed through the filtration system was made up of microfibers, versus other materials such as fabric softener.
Based on the results of NSF International's testing, AHAM states that it could take 13 years to recover, through microfiber capture, the amount of plastic used to make the filter itself. The Committee may wish to weigh possible concerns about using plastic microfiber filters against the public health and water quality costs of inaction, when it comes to reducing the volume of microfibers entering the environment.
This bill: AB 1628 requires, on and after January 1, 2029, new washing machines offered for sale in California to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 µm or smaller. This requirement is consistent with recommended action in the Statewide Microplastics Strategy, produced by the OPC pursuant to SB 1263 (Portantino, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018).
Arguments in support: According to the bill's co-sponsors (the Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and 5 Gyres):
"Despite perceptions that the plastic pollution problem is worse outside the U.S., there is a significant and growing body of evidence that microplastics like microfibers pose a serious threat to Californians. Microfibers are the most prevalent microplastic found in the San Francisco Bay. And up to 4.85 million pounds of microfibers enter California’s lands and waters each year from washing machines, and the problem is only getting worse (anticipated increase of 17% by 2026)…
While we must simultaneously explore textile redesign and infrastructure solutions to reduce the generation and loss of microfibers during production, mandating filtration technology in washing machines provides a near term solution to effectively capture microfibers before they enter the environment.
Filters have already proven to be an effective solution. A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of in-line filter solutions, which vary in effectiveness from nearly 70% to almost 90%. These solutions can also be effective at the community scale. Policy mandating their incorporation in washing machines is also an aligned pollution prevention strategy based on the Ocean Protection Council’s Statewide Microplastics Strategy.
Asia and Europe are already farther ahead of the U.S. in implementing filtration solutions to tackle post-consumer microfiber pollution. Microfiber filtration technology is currently built into washing machines from major brands like Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba. And in 2020, France passed 2020-105-Article 79 to require built-in washing machine filters by 2025. AB 1628 follows a similar approach, providing manufacturers five years to scale already-existing filtration technologies across their new product lines sold into the state.
California has the opportunity with AB 1628 to lead the nation on addressing microfiber pollution and incentivize innovation among washing machine manufacturers. With filtration solutions in hand, we can no longer afford to wait to address the threats of microfiber pollution. California can act now to catalyze both state and national efforts to mitigate the threats that plastics pose to our communities, lands, and waters."
Arguments in opposition: According to AHAM:
"There are a number of technical challenges to placing a filter on a washing machine. Filters that capture particles of this size (100 microns) will inevitably clog, creating the need for bypass that will render them useless. AHAM commissioned a study by NSF, an independent technical organization, on filtration products for clothes washers. The study’s goal was to determine the effectiveness of external filters in capturing microfibers and their impacts on clothes washer performance. NSF found that the filters captured, at best, less than 25% of all material shed during a wash and microfibers are just a small subset of what was captured. The super-majority of microfibers released during the laundry process escape the filters, either because they clog and run in bypass or because they are incapable of capturing such fine particles.
Filters also can have a negative impact in washing machine energy and water efficiency. Some models in the NSF test used almost twice the energy and water when washing with the filter installed. That equates to running the clothes washer twice for a load, which completely and utterly undercuts the gains made over the years in clothes washer minimum energy efficiency standards. Of note, this additional time also creates more shedding – the very problem that is trying to be reduced. Today’s clothes washers are 70% more efficient than decades ago and this bill would virtually eliminate all those gains. Energy and water consumption during consumer use leaves a bigger environmental mark than any other point during a washing machine’s lifecycle.
Another problem this bill would create is that in-line filters are ineffective and require an unrealistic level of maintenance from the consumer, including regular cleaning and possibly replacement. The NSF tests showed that it would take longer (more than 13 years) than the useful life of the clothes washer to capture more plastic than the plastic in the filter and this does not even take into account the plastic in all the replacement filters needed throughout the 13 years. Another problem is that if a filter clogs or leaks, flooding can occur in a laundry room…
Additionally, microfibers shed from textiles represents a very small percentage of microplastics that ultimately end up in waterways. A study by 5 Gyres Institute and the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) shows that storm water runoff carries up to 300 times more microplastics (from tires and other sources) than wastewater, which includes water from all sources, commercial and residential with clothes washers being only a small part of that subset…
Lastly, appliance manufacturers have been researching and trying to develop solutions in this area. In Europe, they have been evaluating how to develop a standardized test procedure as innovative solutions develop across the industry."
Related legislation:
- AB 1724 (Stone, 2022). Would have required all state-owned washing machines to contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller. This bill was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- AB 622 (Friedman, 2021). Would have required, on or before January 1, 2024, that all washing machines sold as new in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size of 100 microns or smaller. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
- AB 802 (Bloom, 2021). Would have required the State Water Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
- AB 1952 (Stone, 2020). Would have required the Department of General Services, in coordination with CalEPA, to implement a one-year pilot program to assess the efficacy of microfiber filtration systems for 10 state-owned laundry facilities and report the results to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2023. This bill was held in the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee.
- AB 2297 (Bloom, 2020). Would have required the State Water Board to identify the best available control technology for filtering microfibers from an industrial, institutional, or commercial laundry facility. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- AB 3232 (Friedman, 2020). Would have required, on or before January 1, 2023, that all washing machines sold commercially in California contain a microfiber filtration system with a 90% or greater filtration rate. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
- AB 129 (Bloom, 2019). Would have required the State Water Board to take specified actions relating to microfiber pollution on or before July 1, 2020, and would have required the State Water Board to identify best practices for clothing manufacturers to reduce the amount of microfibers released into the environment. This bill was held in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- SB 1263 (Portantino, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2018). Requires the Ocean Protection Council to adopt and implement a Statewide Microplastics Strategy that increases understanding of the scale and risks of microplastics pollution in the marine environment and identifies proposed solutions.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
5 Gyres Institute (Co-Sponsor)
Ocean Conservancy (Co-Sponsor)
The Nature Conservancy (Co-Sponsor)
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Circular Textiles Group (ACT)
Audubon California
Azul
Blue Ocean Warriors
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
Californians Against Waste
CALPIRG, California Public Interest Research Group
Environmental Working Group
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of The Earth
Habits of Waste
Heal the Bay
LA Waterkeeper
Mikearens.com
Monterey Bay Aquarium
National Stewardship Action Council
Northern California Recycling Association
Oceana
Pacific Marine Mammal Center
Paddle Out Plastic
Patagonia Inc.
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Free Restaurants
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County
San Diego Audubon Society
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Save Our Shores
Seangle Indonesia
Shark Stewards
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Social Compassion in Legislation
Supercircle
Surfrider Foundation
Sustainable Ocean Alliance
Team Marine, Climate Action Santa Monica, Human Rights Watch Student Task Force
The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Wildcoast
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
27 Scientists
Opposition
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
Analysis Prepared by: Naomi Ondrasek / E.S. & T.M. /
Discussed in Hearing
54SEC
Assembly Floor
13MIN
Senate Floor
4MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
29MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality
1MIN
Assembly Floor
22MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):
