Existing law establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which covers certain single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware, as provided. As part of its comprehensive statutory scheme, the act requires the producers, as defined, of these covered materials to source reduce plastic covered material, to ensure that covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state on or after January 1, 2032, is recyclable or eligible to be labeled compostable, and to ensure that plastic covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state meets specified recycling rates.

Existing law vests the California Environmental Protection Agency with authority over various environmental matters and various state agencies, including the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Existing law establishes the Ocean Protection Council to, among other things, coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to the protection and conservation of coastal waters and ocean ecosystems. Existing law requires CalRecycle to consult with the council regarding its adoption of regulations to establish a process, and develop criteria, for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. Existing law establishes the Department of Food and Agriculture to promote and protect the agricultural industry of the state.

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of the above-referenced state entities that would establish a framework, by July 1, 2026, for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed, in order to inform state policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy, as provided. The bill would require the working group to, among other things, develop recommendations related to novel material types, including the appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, the handling of the material at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2029.

Existing law establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which covers certain single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware, as provided. As part of its comprehensive statutory scheme, the act requires the producers, as defined, of these covered materials to source reduced reduce plastic covered material, to ensure that covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state on or after January 1, 2032, is recyclable or compostable, eligible to be labeled compostable, and to ensure that plastic covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state meets specified recycling rates.

Existing law vests the California Environmental Protection Agency with authority over various environmental matters and various state agencies, including the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Existing law establishes the Ocean Protection Council to to, among other things, coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to, among other things, assisting CalRecycles to the protection and conservation of coastal waters and ocean ecosystems. Existing law requires CalRecycle to consult with the council regarding its adoption of regulations to establish a process, and develop criteria, for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. Existing law establishes the Department of Food and Agriculture to promote and protect the agricultural industry of the state.

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of the above-referenced state agencies entities that would establish a framework framework, by July 1, 2026, for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed, in order to inform state policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy, as provided. The bill would require the working group to, among other things, develop recommendations related to novel material types, including the appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, the handling of the material at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2029.

Existing law establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which covers certain single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware, as provided. As part of its comprehensive statutory scheme, the act requires the producers, as defined, of these covered materials to source reduce reduced plastic covered material, to ensure that covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state on or after January 1, 2032, is recyclable or compostable, and to ensure that plastic covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state meets specified recycling rates.

Existing law vests the California Environmental Protection Agency with authority over various environmental matters and various state agencies, including the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Existing law establishes the Ocean Protection Council to coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to, among other things, assisting CalRecycles adoption of regulations to establish a process, and develop criteria, for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. Existing law establishes the Department of Food and Agriculture to promote and protect the agricultural industry of the state.

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of the above-referenced state agencies that would establish a framework for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed, in order to inform state policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy, as provided. The bill would require the working group to, among other things, develop recommendations related to novel material types, including the appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, the handling of the material at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

Existing law establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which covers certain single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware, as provided. As part of its comprehensive statutory scheme, the act requires the producers, as defined, of these covered materials to source reduce plastic covered material, to ensure that covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state on or after January 1, 2032, is recyclable or compostable, and to ensure that plastic covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state meets specified recycling rates.

Existing law vests the California Environmental Protection Agency with authority over various environmental matters and various state agencies, including the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Existing law establishes the Ocean Protection Council to coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to, among other things, assisting CalRecycles adoption of regulations to establish a process, and develop criteria, for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of the above-referenced state agencies to that would establish a framework for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed, in order to inform state policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy, as provided. The bill would require the working group to, among other things, develop recommendations related to novel material types, including the appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, the handling of the material at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

Existing law establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which covers certain single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware, as provided. As part of its comprehensive statutory scheme, the act requires the producers, as defined, of these covered materials to source reduce plastic covered material, to ensure that covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state on or after January 1, 2032, is recyclable or compostable, and to ensure that plastic covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state meets specified recycling rates.

Existing law vests the California Environmental Protection Agency with authority over various environmental matters and various state agencies, including the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Existing law establishes the Ocean Protection Council to coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to, among other things, assisting CalRecycles adoption of regulations to establish a process, and develop criteria, for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of the above-referenced state agencies to establish a framework for evaluating novel material types as they are developed developed, in order to inform state policy decisions, decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy, as provided. The bill would require the working group to, among other things, develop recommendations related to novel material types, including the appropriate marketing of the material, the handling of the material at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

Existing law establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which covers certain single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware, as provided. As part of its comprehensive statutory scheme, the act requires the producers, as defined, of these covered materials to source reduce plastic covered material, to ensure that covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state on or after January 1, 2032, is recyclable or compostable, and to ensure that plastic covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state meets specified recycling rates.

Existing law vests the California Environmental Protection Agency with authority over various environmental matters and various state agencies, including the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Existing law establishes the Ocean Protection Council to coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to, among other things, assisting CalRecycles adoption of regulations to establish a process, and develop criteria, for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of the above-referenced state agencies to establish a framework for evaluating novel material types as they are developed to inform state policy decisions, as provided. The bill would require the working group to, among other things, develop recommendations related to novel material types, including the appropriate marketing of the material, the handling of the material at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

 VETO  

Bill No: SB 665

Author: Allen (D)

Amended: 9/7/23

Vote: 27

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/29/23

AYES: Allen, Dahle, Gonzalez, Menjivar, Skinner

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Seyarto

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/24/23

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 9/14/23

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bradford

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 9/13/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Plastic waste: single-use plastics alternatives: working group

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) establish, by January 1, 2025, a working group comprised of state entities to establish a policy framework for evaluating novel materials that are alternatives to plastics for single-use products.  

ANALYSIS:

Existing law: 

1. Defines “Plastic” to mean a synthetic or semisynthetic material chemically synthesized by the polymerization of organic substances that can be shaped into various rigid and flexible forms, and includes coatings and adhesives. 
   1. “Plastic” includes traditional plastics like HDPE and PET.
   2. “Plastic” includes aliphatic biopolyesters, such as polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB).
   3. “Plastic” does not include natural rubber or naturally occurring polymers such as proteins or starches. (PRC § 42041) 
2. Defines “plastic product” as a product made of plastic, alone or in combination with other material. (PRC §42356)
3. Prohibits the sale of a plastic product that is labeled as “biodegradable,” “degradable,” “decomposable,” or implies that the plastic product will break down, fragment, biodegrade, or decompose in a landfill or other environment unless it meets certain standards. (PRC §42357) 
4. Requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable. (PRC §42005.5)

This bill:

1. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group comprised of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), CalRecycle, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Ocean Protection Council, staffed by a board, department, or office within CalEPA, at the direction of CalEPA.
2. Requires the working group to establish a framework, for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed to inform policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy.
3. Requires the working group to develop a set of recommendations, including potential scientific testing standards that could be used for certifying novel materials. Requires these recommendations to inform state policy related to novel material types, including appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, how the material is handled at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

Background

1. The problem with plastic. Plastics pose a threat to the environment from origin to end-of-life. Plastics are petroleum based and have a large carbon footprint—with global plastic production contributing an estimated three and a half percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, a higher carbon footprint than the entire aviation sector. 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. A further 12% has been incinerated, and the remaining 79% has accumulated in landfills or in natural environments, including the oceans. Once plastics enter the environment, they remain there for hundreds to thousands of years. As these plastics degrade slowly over time, they continue to jeopardize the environment and human health. Plastics do not break down into their constituent parts, but instead break down into very small particles of plastic, or microplastics (plastics under five millimeters). These microplastics have been found in the most pristine natural environments on earth, including in national parks and in Antarctic sea ice. Microplastics are so small that they are easily absorbed into biological organisms, where they bioaccumulate up the food chain: microplastics have been found in human lungs, brains, and placentas. Microplastics are shown to increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats. 
2. The problem with plastic-alternatives: pollution and confusion. The plastic pollution that inevitably results from plastic consumption poses a major threat to the environment, ecosystems, and human health. “Bioplastics” have been posited as an eco-friendly alternative to these traditional plastics. Bioplastics are biobased, biodegradable, or compostable products that can replace traditional, fossil-fuel-based plastics for some applications (e.g. bioplastics cups as an alternative to plastic cups). However, bioplastics are not a perfect solution to the plastic problem. Moreover, not all bioplastics are created equal, and some bioplastics can be persistent pollutants in the waste stream and the environment. 
   1. Pollution: Bioplastics as pollutants. Bioplastics are generally grouped into three categories: biodegradable, biobased, and bioplastics that are both biobased and biodegradable. Biodegradable plastic. Biodegradable plastics can break down into their organic constituents with the assistance of organisms, like microbes or fungi. Because these conditions don’t exist everywhere, biodegradable plastics can persist in their environments for a long time: one study on a range of biodegradable plastics found that many types of biodegradable plastics will never spontaneously degrade in natural settings. A subset of biodegradable plastics are compostable plastics. Unlike other biodegradable plastics, compostable products don’t need living organisms to decompose: they can break down under certain environmental conditions, like wetness, heat, or pressure. That doesn’t mean they break down as easily as food waste--often, compostable plastics require the intense conditions created by industrial composting to break down. 

Biobased plastics. Biobased alternatives to traditional petroleum-based plastics are made from plant products. However, “biobased plastics” are defined by what they are made of, not how they degrade--and many bioplastics are not compostable or biodegradable. In fact, in 2021, approximately half of the bioplastics sold on the market were not biodegradable.

Biobased and biodegradable plastics. Some biobased and biodegradable products do, as the name implies, biodegrade…eventually. An example of biodegradable and biobased plastic is polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). PHAs have traditionally been classified as “marine biodegradable plastics.” However, at least one recent study from 2019 found that it took between 1.5-3.5 years for PHA to degrade in marine environments. From the perspective of wildlife in marine environments, PHA plastic waste can still present a health risk. Notably, PHA was recently classified as plastic under SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022).

• 1. Confusion: bioplastics have a history of greenwashing. Given that definitions for bioplastics are based on some mix of their source (biobased) or end of life (biodegradable, compostable), and that these categories overlap, it’s no wonder that bioplastics have been poorly understood by consumers. That lack of clarity has been exploited by companies that “greenwash” products--making them seem more environmentally-friendly than they actually are. Greenwashing not only exploits consumers, it can lead to harmful environmental impacts when products are improperly disposed of (e.g., when a biobased cup is thrown into a backyard composter, it may persist in that environment for years, breaking into smaller and smaller pieces rather than returning to organic material).

California recognizes that greenwashing is a problem, and has instituted several laws to prevent the practice, including prohibiting any untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim and establishing specific requirements for “compostable” and “biodegradable.” Further, CalRecycle has been tasked to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

In summary, some of the current alternatives to plastics, in this case bioplastics, may be a step away from fossil fuel dependency, but are certainly not a golden ticket to a pollution-free future. A 2014 CalRecycle report: “Biobased and Degradable Plastics Understanding New Packaging Materials and Their Management in California” concluded that “While producing bioplastics in the state may offer some environmental benefits, currently the potential value is overshadowed by end-of-life concerns.” These alternatives and emerging novel materials should be viewed with optimism, but also with caution. 

1. Bioplastics are on the rise. Love them or hate them (or more likely, love some and hate others), bioplastics are on the rise. Approximately ​​2.11 million tons of bioplastics were produced in 2018. While that is just one percent of all plastics produced, the global market for bioplastics is expected to increase in volume by 40% in the next five years. This rapid increase in bioplastics is driven in part by policy shifts as the global community, including and oftentimes led by California, seeks to reduce traditional plastic consumption. 

As the amount of plastics declines and more alternatives to plastic enter the market, it will become even more important to understand how each of these new materials should be treated. This includes developing a framework for how will these novel materials will be evaluated, marketed, shepherded through their end-of-life, and how will they be folded into existing policies around plastic.

Comments

• 1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 665 ensures that California policy supports the strategic integration of the nascent novel materials industry through the creation of a robust State-led working group comprised of the CalRecycle, the Water Board, DTSC, OEEHA, and the OPC. The group will be tasked with establishing a framework for effectively evaluating and comparing these new materials and for recommending policy approaches to ensure proper regulatory oversight. This approach will allow for the coordination of research, policy, regulation, and enforcement to a degree that is unprecedented for this type of industry transition.”
  2. What Makes a Good (Working) Group? This bill does not specify who will be representing the various State entities in the working group. This distinction is important. If the desired output of the working group is technical, then having program staff lead the working group will be invaluable. On the other hand, if the primary goal is to build consensus between the various state entities involved, directors and top leadership at the department, board, and council may be more strategic. 

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022) prohibited producers of single-use, disposable packaging or single-use, disposal food service ware producers from offering for sale, selling, distributing, or importing in or into the state those products manufactured after January 1, 2032, unless it is recyclable or compostable. Defined “plastic.”

AB 1201 (Ting, Chapter 504, Statutes of 2021) prohibited a person from selling a plastic product labeled with the term “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “soil biodegradable” unless the product meets specified standards and satisfies specified criteria and authorized CalRecycle to adopt regulations for plastic product labeling.

AB 1583 (Eggman, Chapter 690, Statutes of 2019) required CalRecycle to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable.

SB 567 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2011) created the Plastic Products Law under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, to prohibit a plastic product from being sold that is labeled “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “marine biodegradable” unless the plastic meets certain standards that are subject to CalRecycle requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

• CalEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board jointly estimate ongoing annual costs of at least $500,000 (General Fund or special fund) for a minimum of two positions, one to serve as a leader or executive sponsor of the working group and the other to compile data and collaborate on deliverables, and for contracting costs to assist with market research on novel materials.
• CalRecycle estimates ongoing annual costs of $265,000 for two positions to participate in and support CalEPA.
• The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for one position to support development of the framework.
• If DTSC is required to staff the working group, either in its entirety or partially, as well as act in an advisory role, DTSC estimates it would require between one and two positions, costing between $143,000 and $329,000 on an ongoing basis (General Fund or special fund). In the event DTSC acts only in an advisory role in the working group, its costs would be minor and absorbable.
• The California Department of Food and Agriculture estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $156,000 for one new environmental scientists (General Fund) to implement this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 10/13/23)

California State Association of Counties

Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter

Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley

League of California Cities

National Stewardship Action Council

Republic Services - Western Region

Rural County Representatives of California

South Bayside Waste Management Authority dba RethinkWaste

OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/13/23)

None received

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency to establish a working group of state entities to develop a policy framework by July l , 2026, for evaluating plastic alternatives in order to inform policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy.

I thank the author for the commitment to reduce plastic pollution and support California's transition to a circular economy. However, the creation of a new working group is unnecessary and duplicative of existing efforts within my Administration.

Last year, I signed the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022), which established a comprehensive regulatory framework and aggressive goals to reduce single-use plastic in this state. To implement this framework and meet its statutory requirements, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery is in the process of conducting needs assessments, source reduction studies, end market studies, industry surveys, and waste characterization studies. This work, coupled with other Administration efforts, will provide insight for the same policy objectives this bill seeks to achieve.

.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 9/13/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bauer-Kahan, Chen, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Luz Rivas, Sanchez

Prepared by: Brynn Cook / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

10/25/23 10:56:05

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 665

Author: Allen (D)

Amended: 9/7/23

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/29/23

AYES: Allen, Dahle, Gonzalez, Menjivar, Skinner

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Seyarto

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/24/23

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 9/13/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Plastic waste: single-use plastics alternatives: working group

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) establish, by January 1, 2025, a working group comprised of state entities to establish a policy framework for evaluating novel materials that are alternatives to plastics for single-use products.  

Assembly Amendments

take specifying amendments to the bill including that the framework will evaluate novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products, and make structural changes to the working group including removing specification on which entity will staff the working group and adding the Department of Food and Agriculture to the working group.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law: 

1. Defines “Plastic” to mean a synthetic or semisynthetic material chemically synthesized by the polymerization of organic substances that can be shaped into various rigid and flexible forms, and includes coatings and adhesives. 
   1. “Plastic” includes traditional plastics like HDPE and PET.
   2. “Plastic” includes aliphatic biopolyesters, such as polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB).
   3. “Plastic” does not include natural rubber or naturally occurring polymers such as proteins or starches. (PRC § 42041) 
2. Defines “plastic product” as a product made of plastic, alone or in combination with other material. (PRC §42356)
3. Prohibits the sale of a plastic product that is labeled as “biodegradable,” “degradable,” “decomposable,” or implies that the plastic product will break down, fragment, biodegrade, or decompose in a landfill or other environment unless it meets certain standards. (PRC §42357) 
4. Requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable. (PRC §42005.5)

This bill:

1. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group comprised of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), CalRecycle, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Ocean Protection Council, staffed by a board, department, or office within CalEPA, at the direction of CalEPA.
2. Requires the working group to establish a framework, for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed to inform policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy.
3. Requires the working group to develop a set of recommendations, including potential scientific testing standards that could be used for certifying novel materials. Requires these recommendations to inform state policy related to novel material types, including appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, how the material is handled at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

Background

1. The problem with plastic. Plastics pose a threat to the environment from origin to end-of-life. Plastics are petroleum based and have a large carbon footprint—with global plastic production contributing an estimated three and a half percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, a higher carbon footprint than the entire aviation sector. 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. A further 12% has been incinerated, and the remaining 79% has accumulated in landfills or in natural environments, including the oceans. Once plastics enter the environment, they remain there for hundreds to thousands of years. As these plastics degrade slowly over time, they continue to jeopardize the environment and human health. Plastics do not break down into their constituent parts, but instead break down into very small particles of plastic, or microplastics (plastics under five millimeters). These microplastics have been found in the most pristine natural environments on earth, including in national parks and in Antarctic sea ice. Microplastics are so small that they are easily absorbed into biological organisms, where they bioaccumulate up the food chain: microplastics have been found in human lungs, brains, and placentas. Microplastics are shown to increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats. 
2. The problem with plastic-alternatives: pollution and confusion. The plastic pollution that inevitably results from plastic consumption poses a major threat to the environment, ecosystems, and human health. “Bioplastics” have been posited as an eco-friendly alternative to these traditional plastics. Bioplastics are biobased, biodegradable, or compostable products that can replace traditional, fossil-fuel-based plastics for some applications (e.g. bioplastics cups as an alternative to plastic cups). However, bioplastics are not a perfect solution to the plastic problem. Moreover, not all bioplastics are created equal, and some bioplastics can be persistent pollutants in the waste stream and the environment. 
   1. Pollution: Bioplastics as pollutants. Bioplastics are generally grouped into three categories: biodegradable, biobased, and bioplastics that are both biobased and biodegradable. Biodegradable plastic. Biodegradable plastics can break down into their organic constituents with the assistance of organisms, like microbes or fungi. Because these conditions don’t exist everywhere, biodegradable plastics can persist in their environments for a long time: one study on a range of biodegradable plastics found that many types of biodegradable plastics will never spontaneously degrade in natural settings. A subset of biodegradable plastics are compostable plastics. Unlike other biodegradable plastics, compostable products don’t need living organisms to decompose: they can break down under certain environmental conditions, like wetness, heat, or pressure. That doesn’t mean they break down as easily as food waste--often, compostable plastics require the intense conditions created by industrial composting to break down. 

Biobased plastics. Biobased alternatives to traditional petroleum-based plastics are made from plant products. However, “biobased plastics” are defined by what they are made of, not how they degrade--and many bioplastics are not compostable or biodegradable. In fact, in 2021, approximately half of the bioplastics sold on the market were not biodegradable. 

Biobased and biodegradable plastics. Some biobased and biodegradable products do, as the name implies, biodegrade…eventually. An example of biodegradable and biobased plastic is polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). PHAs have traditionally been classified as “marine biodegradable plastics.” However, at least one recent study from 2019 found that it took between 1.5-3.5 years for PHA to degrade in marine environments. From the perspective of wildlife in marine environments, PHA plastic waste can still present a health risk. Notably, PHA was recently classified as plastic under SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022).

• 1. Confusion: bioplastics have a history of greenwashing. Given that definitions for bioplastics are based on some mix of their source (biobased) or end of life (biodegradable, compostable), and that these categories overlap, it’s no wonder that bioplastics have been poorly understood by consumers. That lack of clarity has been exploited by companies that “greenwash” products--making them seem more environmentally-friendly than they actually are. Greenwashing not only exploits consumers, it can lead to harmful environmental impacts when products are improperly disposed of (e.g., when a biobased cup is thrown into a backyard composter, it may persist in that environment for years, breaking into smaller and smaller pieces rather than returning to organic material).

California recognizes that greenwashing is a problem, and has instituted several laws to prevent the practice, including prohibiting any untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim and establishing specific requirements for “compostable” and “biodegradable.” Further, CalRecycle has been tasked to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

In summary, some of the current alternatives to plastics, in this case bioplastics, may be a step away from fossil fuel dependency, but are certainly not a golden ticket to a pollution-free future. A 2014 CalRecycle report: “Biobased and Degradable Plastics Understanding New Packaging Materials and Their Management in California” concluded that “While producing bioplastics in the state may offer some environmental benefits, currently the potential value is overshadowed by end-of-life concerns.” These alternatives and emerging novel materials should be viewed with optimism, but also with caution. 

1. Bioplastics are on the rise. Love them or hate them (or more likely, love some and hate others), bioplastics are on the rise. Approximately ​​2.11 million tons of bioplastics were produced in 2018. While that is just one percent of all plastics produced, the global market for bioplastics is expected to increase in volume by 40% in the next five years. This rapid increase in bioplastics is driven in part by policy shifts as the global community, including and oftentimes led by California, seeks to reduce traditional plastic consumption. 

As the amount of plastics declines and more alternatives to plastic enter the market, it will become even more important to understand how each of these new materials should be treated. This includes developing a framework for how will these novel materials will be evaluated, marketed, shepherded through their end-of-life, and how will they be folded into existing policies around plastic.

Comments

• 1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 665 ensures that California policy supports the strategic integration of the nascent novel materials industry through the creation of a robust State-led working group comprised of the CalRecycle, the Water Board, DTSC, OEEHA, and the OPC. The group will be tasked with establishing a framework for effectively evaluating and comparing these new materials and for recommending policy approaches to ensure proper regulatory oversight. This approach will allow for the coordination of research, policy, regulation, and enforcement to a degree that is unprecedented for this type of industry transition.”
  2. What Makes a Good (Working) Group? This bill does not specify who will be representing the various State entities in the working group. This distinction is important. If the desired output of the working group is technical, then having program staff lead the working group will be invaluable. On the other hand, if the primary goal is to build consensus between the various state entities involved, directors and top leadership at the department, board, and council may be more strategic. 

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022) prohibited producers of single-use, disposable packaging or single-use, disposal food service ware producers from offering for sale, selling, distributing, or importing in or into the state those products manufactured after January 1, 2032, unless it is recyclable or compostable. Defined “plastic.”

AB 1201 (Ting, Chapter 504, Statutes of 2021) prohibited a person from selling a plastic product labeled with the term “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “soil biodegradable” unless the product meets specified standards and satisfies specified criteria and authorized CalRecycle to adopt regulations for plastic product labeling.

AB 1583 (Eggman, Chapter 690, Statutes of 2019) required CalRecycle to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable.

SB 567 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2011) created the Plastic Products Law under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, to prohibit a plastic product from being sold that is labeled “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “marine biodegradable” unless the plastic meets certain standards that are subject to CalRecycle requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

• CalEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board jointly estimate ongoing annual costs of at least $500,000 (General Fund or special fund) for a minimum of two positions, one to serve as a leader or executive sponsor of the working group and the other to compile data and collaborate on deliverables, and for contracting costs to assist with market research on novel materials.
• CalRecycle estimates ongoing annual costs of $265,000 for two positions to participate in and support CalEPA.
• The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for one position to support development of the framework.
• If DTSC is required to staff the working group, either in its entirety or partially, as well as act in an advisory role, DTSC estimates it would require between one and two positions, costing between $143,000 and $329,000 on an ongoing basis (General Fund or special fund). In the event DTSC acts only in an advisory role in the working group, its costs would be minor and absorbable.
• The California Department of Food and Agriculture estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $156,000 for one new environmental scientists (General Fund) to implement this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/13/23)

California State Association of Counties

Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter

Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley

League of California Cities

National Stewardship Action Council

Republic Services - Western Region

Rural County Representatives of California

South Bayside Waste Management Authority dba. RethinkWaste

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/7/23)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 9/13/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bauer-Kahan, Chen, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Luz Rivas, Sanchez

Prepared by: Brynn Cook / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

9/14/23 9:49:50

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 665

Author:(Allen)

As Amended Ver:September 7, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group to establish a framework for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products.

Major Provisions

1. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of specified state agencies and staffed by a board, department, or office within CalEPA, at the direction of CalEPA.
2. Requires the working group to establish a framework, by July 1, 2026, for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed to inform policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy.
3. Requires the working group to develop a set of recommendations, including potential scientific testing standards that could be used for certifying novel materials. Requires these recommendations to inform state policy related to novel material types, including appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, how the material is handled at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.
4. Sunsets the bill’s provisions on January 1, 2029.

COMMENTS

The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act created by SB 54 (Allen), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022, established, among other things, minimum recycling requirements for single-use plastic packaging and food service ware (covered material) and source reduction requirements for plastic covered material. As noted in the bill's findings, one pathway to accomplishing SB 54's mandate on producers to reduce the amount of single-use plastic they use by 25% by 2032 is to shift from single-use plastic material to alternatives that are reusable and to non-plastic alternatives that are recyclable or compostable. Companies are already researching and developing alternative materials that can provide the same functionality as single-use plastics without some or all of the harms traditional plastics have on human health and the environment.

Alternative plastics, generally, are either biobased, compostable, or biodegradable. Biobased plastics refer to conventional resin types, like polyethylene terephthalate (PET), made from biomass or other non-fossil fuel sources. In most cases, they share the same end-of-life management options as fossil fuel-based conventional plastic. Compostable plastics are plastics that are designed to decompose under certain conditions, and are not defined by their feedstock. Compostable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant in the recycling stream. Biodegradable plastics are plastics that claim to degrade in the environment into their organic constituents. Some plastics that are marketed as biodegradable are designed to disintegrate into plastic fragments quickly, becoming microplastics that persist in the environment. Biodegradable plastics have a history of greenwashing in the state by making false claims about the environmental benefits of the materials. These claims have resulted in statutory changes that prohibit labeling products biodegradable or degradable. Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant if they enter the plastics recycling stream. Many biodegradable plastics are compostable but face many of the same challenges associated with other compostable plastics.

This bill establishes a working group to develop a science-based framework to evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts as well as the sustainability of a plastic or plastic-alternative material along its entire life cycle. In developing the framework, the working group must consider the ease with which material types can be readily recycled, composted, or reused, as well as the tradeoffs between sustainability objectives and risks, including greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy usage, natural resources depletion, impacts to public health, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities, pollution, and impacts to the environment and wildlife.

According to the Author

Seizing on consumer demand for environmentally friendly options, pioneering companies are creating novel materials for use in products ranging from single-use cutlery to surgical equipment…While each new material has the potential to reduce single-use plastic waste, some are more sustainable or more deployable than others. State regulators need a science-based standard for evaluating these novel materials…SB 665 will convene a working group of the relevant state agencies to develop a framework to evaluate plastic alternatives as they are introduced onto the market and inform efforts to ensure the material is properly managed.

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters state:

California has no vetting process to ensure new materials and their claims regarding compostability, recyclability, etc. are valid. Our current system of allowing any product on the market without vetting them first, and then finding problems with their claims, creates "contamination" in the recycling system which leads to cost and garbage rate increases. This bill will address that problem. SB 665 would create the essential process through which we can evaluate these novel material types and move to a precautionary principle approach to materials coming to market.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. CalEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board jointly estimate ongoing annual costs of at least $500,000 (General Fund or special fund) for a minimum of two positions, one to serve as a leader or executive sponsor of the working group and the other to compile data and collaborate on deliverables, and for contracting costs to assist with market research on novel materials.
2. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery estimates ongoing annual costs of $265,000 for two positions to participate in and support CalEPA with the working group (General Fund or special fund).
3. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for one position to support development of the framework, including staffing the working group, reviewing the relevant scientific literature, and carrying out assessments of both potential health risks posed by the use, reuse, and disposal of new materials as well as potential ecotoxicological effects of the materials on the environment, among other things.
4. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notes this bill does not specify which board, department, or office within CalEPA is expected to staff the working group. Therefore, DTSC has determined two possible scenarios to implement the bill. In the event DTSC is required to staff the working group, either in its entirety or partially, as well as act in an advisory role, DTSC estimates it would require between one and two positions, costing between $143,000 and $329,000 on an ongoing basis (General Fund or special fund), to assist with meeting coordination, discussions, and deliverables, along with technical work such as outlining the framework, identifying and assessing the comparative tool, identifying experts to consult, evaluating and compiling data and test methods, and presenting recommendations. In the event DTSC acts only in an advisory role in the working group, its costs would be minor and absorbable.
5. Minor and absorbable costs to the Ocean Protection Council.
6. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $156,000 for one new environmental scientists housed in CDFA's Office of Environmental Farming and Innovation and other expenses (General Fund) to implement the bill.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Seyarto

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 11-0-0

YES: Luz Rivas, Flora, Addis, Friedman, Hoover, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Ward, Wood, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-5

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez, Soria

UPDATED

VERSION: September 7, 2023

CONSULTANT: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0002084

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 665

Author:(Allen)

As Amended Ver:September 1, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group to establish a framework for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products.

Major Provisions

1. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of specified state agencies and staffed by a board, department, or office within CalEPA, at the direction of CalEPA.
2. Requires the working group to establish a framework, for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed to inform policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy.
3. Requires the working group to develop a set of recommendations, including potential scientific testing standards that could be used for certifying novel materials. Requires these recommendations to inform state policy related to novel material types, including appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, how the material is handled at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

COMMENTS

The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act created by SB 54 (Allen), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022, established, among other things, minimum recycling requirements for single-use plastic packaging and food service ware (covered material) and source reduction requirements for plastic covered material. As noted in the bill's findings, one pathway to accomplishing SB 54's mandate on producers to reduce the amount of single-use plastic they use by 25% by 2032 is to shift from single-use plastic material to alternatives that are reusable and to non-plastic alternatives that are recyclable or compostable. Companies are already researching and developing alternative materials that can provide the same functionality as single-use plastics without some or all of the harms traditional plastics have on human health and the environment.

Alternative plastics, generally, are either biobased, compostable, or biodegradable. Biobased plastics refer to conventional resin types, like polyethylene terephthalate (PET), made from biomass or other non-fossil fuel sources. In most cases, they share the same end-of-life management options as fossil fuel-based conventional plastic. Compostable plastics are plastics that are designed to decompose under certain conditions, and are not defined by their feedstock. Compostable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant in the recycling stream. Biodegradable plastics are plastics that claim to degrade in the environment into their organic constituents. Some plastics that are marketed as biodegradable are designed to disintegrate into plastic fragments quickly, becoming microplastics that persist in the environment. Biodegradable plastics have a history of greenwashing in the state by making false claims about the environmental benefits of the materials. These claims have resulted in statutory changes that prohibit labeling products biodegradable or degradable. Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant if they enter the plastics recycling stream. Many biodegradable plastics are compostable but face many of the same challenges associated with other compostable plastics.

This bill establishes a working group to develop a science-based framework to evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts as well as the sustainability of a plastic or plastic-alternative material along its entire life cycle. In developing the framework, the working group must consider the ease with which material types can be readily recycled, composted, or reused, as well as the tradeoffs between sustainability objectives and risks, including greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy usage, natural resources depletion, impacts to public health, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities, pollution, and impacts to the environment and wildlife.

According to the Author

Seizing on consumer demand for environmentally friendly options, pioneering companies are creating novel materials for use in products ranging from single-use cutlery to surgical equipment…While each new material has the potential to reduce single-use plastic waste, some are more sustainable or more deployable than others. State regulators need a science-based standard for evaluating these novel materials…SB 665 will convene a working group of the relevant state agencies to develop a framework to evaluate plastic alternatives as they are introduced onto the market and inform efforts to ensure the material is properly managed.

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters state:

California has no vetting process to ensure new materials and their claims regarding

compostability, recyclability, etc. are valid. Our current system of allowing any product on the market without vetting them first, and then finding problems with their claims, creates "contamination" in the recycling system which leads to cost and garbage rate increases. This bill will address that problem. SB 665 would create the essential process through which we can evaluate these novel material types and move to a precautionary principle approach to materials coming to market.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. CalEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board jointly estimate ongoing annual costs of at least $500,000 (General Fund or special fund) for a minimum of two positions, one to serve as a leader or executive sponsor of the working group and the other to compile data and collaborate on deliverables, and for contracting costs to assist with market research on novel materials.
2. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery estimates ongoing annual costs of $265,000 for two positions to participate in and support CalEPA with the working group (General Fund or special fund).
3. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for one position to support development of the framework, including staffing the working group, reviewing the relevant scientific literature, and carrying out assessments of both potential health risks posed by the use, reuse, and disposal of new materials as well as potential ecotoxicological effects of the materials on the environment, among other things.
4. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notes this bill does not specify which board, department, or office within CalEPA is expected to staff the working group. Therefore, DTSC has determined two possible scenarios to implement the bill. In the event DTSC is required to staff the working group, either in its entirety or partially, as well as act in an advisory role, DTSC estimates it would require between one and two positions, costing between $143,000 and $329,000 on an ongoing basis (General Fund or special fund), to assist with meeting coordination, discussions, and deliverables, along with technical work such as outlining the framework, identifying and assessing the comparative tool, identifying experts to consult, evaluating and compiling data and test methods, and presenting recommendations. In the event DTSC acts only in an advisory role in the working group, its costs would be minor and absorbable.
5. Minor and absorbable costs to the Ocean Protection Council.
6. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $156,000 for one new environmental scientists housed in CDFA's Office of Environmental Farming and Innovation and other expenses (General Fund) to implement the bill.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Seyarto

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 11-0-0

YES: Luz Rivas, Flora, Addis, Friedman, Hoover, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Ward, Wood, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-5

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez, Soria

UPDATED

VERSION: September 1, 2023

CONSULTANT: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0001693

Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 665

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group to establish a framework for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group of specified state agencies and staffed by a board, department, or office within CalEPA, at the direction of CalEPA.
2. Requires the working group to establish a framework, for evaluating novel plastic and plastic-alternative material types used to produce single-use products as they are developed to inform policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy.
3. Requires the working group to develop a set of recommendations, including potential scientific testing standards that could be used for certifying novel materials. Requires these recommendations to inform state policy related to novel material types, including appropriate marketing and labeling of the material, how the material is handled at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. CalEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board jointly estimate ongoing annual costs of at least $500,000 (General Fund or special fund) for a minimum of two positions, one to serve as a leader or executive sponsor of the working group and the other to compile data and collaborate on deliverables, and for contracting costs to assist with market research on novel materials.
2. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates ongoing annual costs of $265,000 for two positions to participate in and support CalEPA with the working group (General Fund or special fund).
3. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for one position to support development of the framework, including staffing the working group, reviewing the relevant scientific literature, and carrying out assessments of both potential health risks posed by the use, reuse, and disposal of new materials as well as potential ecotoxicological effects of the materials on the environment, among other things.
4. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notes this bill does not specify which board, department, or office (BDO) within CalEPA is expected to staff the working group. Therefore, DTSC has determined two possible scenarios to implement the bill. In the event DTSC is required to staff the working group, either in its entirety or partially, as well as act in an advisory role, DTSC estimates it would require between one and two positions, costing between $143,000 and $329,000 on an ongoing basis (General Fund or special fund), to assist with meeting coordination, discussions, and deliverables, along with technical work such as outlining the framework, identifying and assessing the comparative tool, identifying experts to consult, evaluating and compiling data and test methods, and presenting recommendations. In the event DTSC acts only in an advisory role in the working group, its costs would be minor and absorbable.
5. Minor and absorbable costs to the Ocean Protection Council.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

Seizing on consumer demand for environmentally friendly options, pioneering companies are creating novel materials for use in products ranging from single-use cutlery to surgical equipment…While each new material has the potential to reduce single-use plastic waste, some are more sustainable or more deployable than others. State regulators need a science-based standard for evaluating these novel materials…SB 665 will convene a working group of the relevant state agencies to develop a framework to evaluate plastic alternatives as they are introduced onto the market and inform efforts to ensure the material is properly managed.

2) Background. The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act created by SB 54 (Allen), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022, established, among other things, minimum recycling requirements for single-use plastic packaging and food service ware (covered material) and source reduction requirements for plastic covered material. As noted in the bill’s findings, one pathway to accomplishing SB 54’s mandate on producers to reduce the amount of single-use plastic they use by 25% by 2032 is to shift from single-use plastic material to alternatives that are reusable and to non-plastic alternatives that are recyclable or compostable. Companies are already researching and developing alternative materials that can provide the same functionality as single-use plastics without some or all of the harms traditional plastics have on human health and the environment.

As detailed in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee analysis of this bill, alternative plastics, generally, are either biobased, compostable, or biodegradable. Biobased plastics refer to conventional resin types, like polyethylene terephthalate (PET), made from biomass or other non-fossil fuel sources. In most cases, they share the same end-of-life management options as fossil fuel-based conventional plastic. Compostable plastics are plastics that are designed to decompose under certain conditions, and are not defined by their feedstock. Compostable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant in the recycling stream. Biodegradable plastics are plastics that claim to degrade in the environment into their organic constituents. Some plastics that are marketed as biodegradable are designed to disintegrate into plastic fragments quickly, becoming microplastics that persist in the environment. Biodegradable plastics have a history of greenwashing in the state by making false claims about the environmental benefits of the materials. These claims have resulted in statutory changes that prohibit labeling products biodegradable or degradable. Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant if they enter the plastics recycling stream. Many biodegradable plastics are compostable but face many of the same challenges associated with other compostable plastics.

This bill establishes a working group to develop a science-based framework to evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts as well as the sustainability of a plastic or plastic-alternative material along its entire life cycle. In developing the framework, the working group must consider the ease with which material types can be readily recycled, composted, or reused, as well as the tradeoffs between sustainability objectives and risks, including greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy usage, natural resources depletion, impacts to public health, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities, pollution, and impacts to the environment and wildlife.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 19, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Luz Rivas, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 665

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:May 18, 2023

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Plastic waste: single-use plastics alternatives: working group

SUMMARY: Requires, by January 1, 2025, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to establish a working group to establish a framework to evaluate novel material types.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Act), enacted by SB 54 (Allen), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022, which:
   1. Requires, by January 1, 2024, producers of covered material to form and join a producer responsibility organization (PRO), subject to specified requirements and Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) approval, to carry out the requirements of the Act. Prohibits a producer of covered material from selling, offering for sale, importing, or distributing covered materials in the state unless the producer is approved to participate in the PRO.
      
   2. Requires that all covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported into the state on and after January 1, 2032, is recyclable in the state or eligible to be labeled "compostable," as specified.
      
   3. Requires that all plastic covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported into the state to meet the following recycling rates:
      1. Not less than 30% of covered material on and after January 1, 2028;
      2. Not less than 40% of covered material on and after January 1, 2030; and,
      3. Not less than 65% of covered material on and after January 1, 2032.
         
   4. By January 1, 2032, requires the PRO to develop and implement a plan to achieve 25% reduction by weight and 25% reduction by plastic component for covered material sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state, as prescribed, including interim targets of 10% by January 1, 2027, and 20% by January 1, 2030. (Public Resources Code (PRC) 42040 et seq.)
      
2. Defines “plastic” to mean a synthetic or semisynthetic material chemically synthesized by the polymerization of organic substances that can be shaped into various rigid and flexible forms, and includes coatings and adhesives. Specifies that plastic includes traditional plastics like HDPE and PET and aliphatic biopolyesters, such as polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB). Specifies that plastic does not include natural rubber or naturally occurring polymers such as proteins or starches. (PRC 42041)
3. Prohibits the sale of plastic products that are labeled as “biodegradable,” “degradable,” “decomposable,” or implies that the plastic product will break down, fragment, biodegrade, or decompose in a landfill or other environment unless it meets specified standards. (PRC 42357)
4. Requires CalRecycle to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable. (PRC 42005.5)
5. Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to adopt a definition of microplastics in drinking water, adopt a standard methodology to be used to test drinking water for microplastics, adopt requirements for four years of testing and reporting of microplastics in drinking water, consider issuing a notification level or other guidance to aid consumer interpretations of the results, and accredit qualified laboratories to analyze microplastics. (Health and Safety Code 116376)

THS BILL:

1. States legislative findings and declarations, including:
   1. The Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 54 (Allen), which, among other things, requires producers to reduce the amount of single-use plastic material that they use by 25% by 2032. One pathway to achieve this goal is to shift from plastic material to “alternatives that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.” Innovative companies are already researching and developing alternative materials that can provide the same functionality as single-use plastics without some or all of the negative impacts traditional plastics have had on human health and the environment.
   2. Jurisdictions outside of California have also put in place policies to reduce single-use plastics, including policies to “promote or require” the use of biodegradable or biobased materials as a replacement for nonbiodegradable, petroleum-based single-use plastic.
   3. As companies innovate to meet these requirements, the alternatives they produce will have different benefits, impacts, and costs.
   4. To prevent regrettable substitutions as California strives to reduce the use of single-use plastics and phases out the use of fossil fuels, and to provide incentives to companies to innovate and produce environmentally beneficial products, states the intent of the Legislature to develop a science-based framework to assess the sustainability of plastic or plastic-alternative material along its whole life-cycle, including the formation and risks of microplastics.
2. Requires, by January 1, 2025, CalEPA to establish a working group made up of SWRCB, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), CalRecycle, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to establish a framework for evaluating novel material types as they are developed in order to inform policy decisions designed to create a more sustainable and circular economy. Specifies that the working group be staffed by SWRCB.
3. Requires the working group to:
   1. Ensure the framework can be used as a comparative tool to assess novel material types to determine potential impacts to human health and the environment, and assess the ease with which those material types can be readily recycled, composted, or reused. Requires that the framework enable an assessment and categorization based on the full life-cycle of representative finished products made from those novel material types, including, but not limited to, the material’s source, production, distribution, and end-of-life properties. Requires that the framework enable a comparative analysis of material life-cycles, as specified.
   2. Consider trade-offs between sustainability objectives and risks, including, but not limited to, greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater and energy usage, natural resources depletion, impacts to public health, and pollution.
   3. Consult with scientists, academic experts in this sector, industry innovators, environmental advocacy organizations, environmental justice advocates, and local agencies responsible for solid waste management, recycling, and composting.
   4. Review existing scientific data, research, and testing methodologies.
4. Requires the working group to develop recommendations, including, but not limited to, potential scientific testing standards that could be used for certifying new materials to inform state policy related to novel material types, including but not limited to, appropriate marketing of the material, how the material is handled at the end of its useful life, and how the material needs to be treated in relation to existing state policies, rules, and regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. CalEPA estimates ongoing costs of at least $500,000 for two positions.
   
2. CalRecycle estimates ongoing costs of $818,000 annually (special fund) beginning in 2024-25 for six positions. CalRecycle also notes that there may be additional costs for contracted work in the next few years in order to research different technologies as part of the review and approval process.
   
3. OEHHA estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually for one position.
   
4. SWRCB stated that its costs are unknown and would depend on the number and frequency of meetings to be organized, and what meetings, if any, would be publicly held and noticed, among other factors.
5. DTSC estimates that its costs would likely be minor and absorbable to perform an advisory role in the working group to establish the framework.
6. OPC estimates that any costs would be minor and absorbable.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement:

The passage of SB 54 last year, combined with efforts throughout the state to address pervasive environmental and public health risks posed by the ubiquity of plastics, there is fertile ground for the growth of alternative materials. Seizing on consumer demand for environmentally friendly options, pioneering companies are creating novel materials for use in products ranging from single-use cutlery to surgical equipment. These innovations have the potential to support a circular economy and drastically reduce pollution and each offers particular benefits related to their production or end-of-life characteristics. Some of these new materials are created from biological sources and are compostable or biodegradable in different types of environments; others break down with catalysts. While each new material has the potential to reduce single-use plastic waste, some are more sustainable or more deployable than others. State regulators need a science-based standard for evaluating these novel materials. The systems in place – those used to determine what is environmentally friendly, or how packaging and products should be labeled to ensure proper end-of-life management – do not reflect either the distinction between newer materials and conventional plastics, or the diversity of materials coming onto the market.

SB 665 will convene a working group of the relevant state agencies to develop a framework to evaluate plastic alternatives as they are introduced onto the market and inform efforts to ensure the material is properly managed.

1. Plastic pollution. Plastics pose a threat to the environment from origin to end-of-life. Plastic production is responsible for three and a half percent of all greenhouse gas emissions—more than the entire aviation sector. In 2021, global plastics production was estimated at 390.7 million metric tons, a 4% increase from the previous year. The United Nations Environment Programme reports that only 9%of all plastic ever made has been recycled, 12% has been incinerated, and the remaining 79% has accumulated in landfills or the environment.
   
   Once plastics enter the environment, they remain there for hundreds to thousands of years. Plastics do not break down into their constituent parts, but instead break down into smaller and smaller particles, or microplastics. Because they are so small, microplastics can travel in the air and water, and can be easily absorbed by living things and accumulate up the food chain. Microplastics have been found in the most pristine natural environments on earth, including in the deep ocean, Antarctic sea ice, and in the sand of remote deserts. Laboratory studies have found that microplastics increase the risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats.
   
   Recycling plastic into new products is one way to reduce plastic pollution, as it keeps the recycled plastic out of the environment and reduces our dependence on virgin resin. However, recycling is currently only feasible for some of the more common, and least toxic, forms of plastic. The most effective way to tackle the plastic pollution crisis is to use less of it.
   
2. Unconventional plastics. Companies have developed various novel materials that are intended to replace conventional plastics. Approximately 2.11 million tons of bioplastics were produced in 2018. While that is just 1% of all plastics produced, the Bio-Based and Biodegradable Industries Association predicts that compostable materials could substitute up to 5-8% of current plastic packaging in the coming years. This rapid increase in bioplastics is driven in part by policy shifts as the global community seeks to reduce traditional plastic consumption. Some of these materials are recyclable, some are compostable, and some may degrade when littered.

Alternative plastics, generally, are either biobased, compostable, or biodegradable. Biobased plastics refer to conventional resin types, like polyethylene terephthalate (PET), made from biomass or other non-fossil fuel sources. In most cases, they share the same end-of-life management options as fossil fuel-based conventional plastic.

Compostable plastics are plastics that are designed to decompose under certain conditions, and are not defined by their feedstock. There are various standards in place to determine if a plastic product is compostable or not. Generally, the state has relied upon ASTM International standards, which include specifications for industrially compostable (D6400-19) and home compostable (D6868-19). However, the standard for industrially compostable runs between 90 to180 days, and California’s industrial compost operations process material more quickly than those timelines, resulting in incomplete degradation of the materials composted. The home compost standard requires degradation within 180 days. In recognition of the issues with the current ASTM standards, SB 1335 (Allen), Chapter 610, Statutes of 2018, which establishes reuse, recycling, and compost requirements for food packaging used in state facilities, required CalRecycle to adopt regulations to create standards for reusable, recyclable, an compostable food packaging. For composability, CalRecycle regulations require that the packaging must meet the ASTM standards D6400-19 or D6868-19, demonstrate 90% biodegradation within 60 days, and comply with related statutory requirements to be labeled “compostable” in the state. Compostable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant in the recycling stream. Given the challenges associated with composting these types of plastic, and the difficulty differentiating compostable plastics from conventional plastics in the waste steam, many compost facilities screen out all plastic materials from the compost feedstock and send them to landfill disposal.

Biodegradable plastics are plastics that claim to degrade in the environment into their organic constituents. In order to biodegrade, these plastics generally require very specific environmental conditions, such as the presence of specific microbes, humidity levels, exposure to sunlight, etc. Some plastics that are marketed as biodegradable are designed to disintegrate into plastic fragments quickly, becoming microplastics that persist in the environment. Because of the specific environmental conditions necessary for degradation, these plastics may persist in the environment indefinitely. PHA plastic seems to show the most promise for degradation; one recent study found that PHA takes between 1.5 and 3.5 years to degrade in marine environments. While this is dramatically faster than conventional plastic, it is still more than enough time to pose risks to marine organisms. Biodegradable plastics have a history of greenwashing in the state by making false claims about the environmental benefits of the materials. These claims have resulted in statutory changes that prohibit labeling products biodegradable or degradable. Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable and act as a contaminant if they enter the plastics recycling stream. Many biodegradable plastics are compostable, but face the challenges associated with other compostable plastics.

1. This bill. This bill establishes a working group to evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts of novel materials and to assess their recyclability, compostability, and potential for reuse. Given the increase in the production and the continuing development of new polymers, this bill is intended to ensure that the state understand the impacts of novel materials, how they will fit into the state’s policies relating to plastic, and how they will be managed at the end-of-life.

This bill applies to all novel materials. While the title of the bill refers to the “single-use plastic alternatives working group,” the code section established by the bill is extremely broad and may result in confusion about the scope of the working group’s efforts and unnecessary time and costs to define the parameters of the working group’s jurisdiction. The committee may wish to amend the bill to clarify that the bill applies to novel plastic and plastic-alternative materials used for the production of single-use products.

It is unclear why this bill directs SWRCB to provide staffing for the working group. According to SWRCB, it and its nine regional water quality control boards protect water quality and allocate surface water rights. While SWRCB has expertise over the impacts of plastic and microplastic on water quality, it does not have expertise or authority over the life-cycle of novel materials, including the management and end-of-life impacts of solid wastes, including plastic and plastic-alternatives. The committee may wish to amend the bill to direct CalEPA to assign staffing duties to the appropriate board, department, or office to ensure that those duties are carried out by the appropriate entity.

1. Additional amendments. In addition to the amendments recommended above, the committee may wish to make technical, clarifying, and correction amendments to the bill, including:
   
   1. Making clarifying and correction amendments the findings;
      
   2. Clarify that the bill is intended to encourage, rather than provide incentives for, companies to innovate and produce environmentally-beneficial products;
      
   3. Replace the term “freshwater” with “water” on page 4, line 22;
      
   4. Require the working group to consider impacts to the environment and wildlife when evaluating novel materials; and,
      
   5. Clarify that the working group’s recommendations include proper labeling of novel materials.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter

Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley

National Stewardship Action Council

Republic Services, Western Region

Opposition

None on file

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 665

Author: Allen (D)

Amended: 5/18/23

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 3/29/23

AYES: Allen, Dahle, Gonzalez, Menjivar, Skinner

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/18/23

AYES: Ashby, Bradford, Jones, Portantino, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Seyarto

SUBJECT: Plastic waste: single-use plastics alternatives: working group

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to establish, by January 1, 2025, a working group comprised of state entities to establish a framework for evaluating, with regards to policy, novel materials that are alternatives to plastics. 

ANALYSIS:

Existing law: 

1. Defines “Plastic” to mean a synthetic or semisynthetic material chemically synthesized by the polymerization of organic substances that can be shaped into various rigid and flexible forms, and includes coatings and adhesives. 
   • 1. “Plastic” includes traditional plastics like HDPE and PET
     2. “Plastic” includes aliphatic biopolyesters, such as polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB).
     3.  “Plastic” does not include natural rubber or naturally occurring polymers such as proteins or starches. (PRC § 42041) 
2. Defines “plastic product” as a product made of plastic, alone or in combination with other material. (PRC §42356)
3. Prohibits the sale of a plastic product that is labeled as “biodegradable,” “degradable,” “decomposable,” or implies that the plastic product will break down, fragment, biodegrade, or decompose in a landfill or other environment unless it meets certain standards. (PRC §42357) 
4. Requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable. (PRC §42005.5)

This bill:

• 1. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group made up of the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Resources Board), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), CalRecycle, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEEHA), and the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to establish a framework for evaluating novel material types that could replace traditional plastics. 
  2. Requires the working group to review existing scientific literature and develop recommendations related to novel material types that seek to replace traditional plastics. Specifically, the working group will develop recommendations on the impact of these materials on human health and the environment over their lifecycle, and how these novel materials should be marketed, properly disposed of, and folded into existing state policy.

Background

1. The problem with plastic. Plastics pose a threat to the environment from origin to end-of-life. Plastics are petroleum based and have a large carbon footprint—with global plastic production contributing an estimated three and a half percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, a higher carbon footprint than the entire aviation sector. 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. A further 12% has been incinerated, and the remaining 79% has accumulated in landfills or in natural environments, including the oceans. Once plastics enter the environment, they remain there for hundreds to thousands of years. As these plastics degrade slowly over time, they continue to jeopardize the environment and human health. Plastics do not break down into their constituent parts, but instead break down into very small particles of plastic, or microplastics (plastics under 5 millimeters). These microplastics have been found in the most pristine natural environments on earth, including in national parks and in Antarctic sea ice. Microplastics are so small that they are easily absorbed into biological organisms, where they bioaccumulate up the food chain: microplastics have been found in human lungs, brains, and placentas. Microplastics are shown to increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats. 
2. The problem with plastic-alternatives: pollution and confusion. The plastic pollution that inevitably results from plastic consumption poses a major threat to the environment, ecosystems, and human health. “Bioplastics” have been posited as an eco-friendly alternative to these traditional plastics. Bioplastics are biobased, biodegradable, or compostable products that can replace traditional, fossil-fuel-based plastics for some applications (e.g. bioplastics cups as an alternative to plastic cups). However, bioplastics are not a perfect solution to the plastic problem. Moreover, not all bioplastics are created equal, and some bioplastics can be persistent pollutants in the waste stream and the environment. 
   1. Pollution: Bioplastics as pollutants. Bioplastics are generally grouped into three categories: biodegradable, biobased, and bioplastics that are both biobased and biodegradable. Biodegradable plastic. Biodegradable plastics can break down into their organic constituents with the assistance of organisms, like microbes or fungi. Because these conditions don’t exist everywhere, biodegradable plastics can persist in their environments for a long time: one study on a range of biodegradable plastics found that many types of biodegradable plastics will never spontaneously degrade in natural settings. A subset of biodegradable plastics are compostable plastics. Unlike other biodegradable plastics, compostable products don’t need living organisms to decompose: they can break down under certain environmental conditions, like wetness, heat, or pressure. That doesn’t mean they break down as easily as food waste--often, compostable plastics require the intense conditions created by industrial composting to break down. 

Biobased plastics. Biobased alternatives to traditional petroleum-based plastics are made from plant products. However, “biobased plastics” are defined by what they are made of, not how they degrade--and many bioplastics are not compostable or biodegradable. In fact, in 2021, approximately half of the bioplastics sold on the market were not biodegradable. 

Biobased and biodegradable plastics. Some biobased and biodegradable products do, as the name implies, biodegrade…eventually. An example of biodegradable and biobased plastic is polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). PHAs have traditionally been classified as “marine biodegradable plastics.” However, at least one recent study from 2019 found that it took between 1.5-3.5 years for PHA to degrade in marine environments. From the perspective of wildlife in marine environments, PHA plastic waste can still present a health risk. Notably, PHA was recently classified as plastic under SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022).

• 1. Confusion: bioplastics have a history of greenwashing. Given that definitions for bioplastics are based on some mix of their source (biobased) or end of life (biodegradable, compostable), and that these categories overlap, it’s no wonder that bioplastics have been poorly understood by consumers. That lack of clarity has been exploited by companies that “greenwash” products--making them seem more environmentally-friendly than they actually are. Greenwashing not only exploits consumers, it can lead to harmful environmental impacts when products are improperly disposed of (e.g., when a biobased cup is thrown into a backyard composter, it may persist in that environment for years, breaking into smaller and smaller pieces rather than returning to organic material).

California recognizes that greenwashing is a problem, and has instituted several laws to prevent the practice, including prohibiting any untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim and establishing specific requirements for “compostable” and “biodegradable.” Further, CalRecycle has been tasked to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

In summary, some of the current alternatives to plastics, in this case bioplastics, may be a step away from fossil fuel dependency, but are certainly not a golden ticket to a pollution-free future. A 2014 CalRecycle report: “Biobased and Degradable Plastics Understanding New Packaging Materials and Their Management in California” concluded that “While producing bioplastics in the state may offer some environmental benefits, currently the potential value is overshadowed by end-of-life concerns.” These alternatives and emerging novel materials should be viewed with optimism, but also with caution. 

1. Bioplastics are on the rise. Love them or hate them (or more likely, love some and hate others), bioplastics are on the rise. Approximately ​​2.11 million tons of bioplastics were produced in 2018. While that is just 1 percent of all plastics produced, the global market for bioplastics is expected to increase in volume by 40% in the next five years. This rapid increase in bioplastics is driven in part by policy shifts as the global community, including and oftentimes led by California, seeks to reduce traditional plastic consumption. 

As the amount of plastics declines and more alternatives to plastic enter the market, it will become even more important to understand how each of these new materials should be treated. This includes developing a framework for how will these novel materials will be evaluated, marketed, shepherded through their end-of-life, and how will they be folded into existing policies around plastic.

Comments

• 1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 665 ensures that California policy supports the strategic integration of the nascent novel materials industry through the creation of a robust State-led working group comprised of the CalRecycle, the Water Board, DTSC, OEEHA, and the OPC. The group will be tasked with establishing a framework for effectively evaluating and comparing these new materials and for recommending policy approaches to ensure proper regulatory oversight. This approach will allow for the coordination of research, policy, regulation, and enforcement to a degree that is unprecedented for this type of industry transition.”
     
  2. Clean Streams of Plastic: If it quacks like a (plastic) duck…If materials are made to fill the same niche that plastic occupies, it is fair to assume they may be similar in appearance and function. If plastic alternatives are hard to discern from plastics, then consumers could toss them into existing plastic receptacles. That is a problem for existing recycling infrastructure: if plastic alternatives get mixed in with traditional plastics, it will pollute those streams of plastic material that, if uniform enough, can be used for post-consumer recycled content.

SB 651 requires the working group to consider “how the material is handled at the end of its useful life.” Moving forward, the author may wish to additionally task the working group to look at how existing recycling and waste infrastructure would be impacted by plastic alternative materials. 

• 1. What Makes a Good (Working) Group? The bill specifies that the working group will be made up of DTSC, CalRecycle, OEEHA, the Water Board, and the OPC, and will be staffed by the Water Board. The bill does not specify who will be representing the various State entities in the working group. This distinction is important. If the desired output of the working group is technical, then having program staff lead the working group will be invaluable. On the other hand, if the primary goal is to build consensus between the various state entities involved, directors and top leadership at the department, board, and council may be more strategic. 
  2. CARB at the table? SB 665 currently includes representation from DTSC, OEEHA, OPC, the Water Board, and CalRecycle. This covers the jurisdictions of plastics as they may appear in our lands, oceans, terrestrial waters, and human bodies. However, it does not encompass plastics in the air. Emerging scientific literature is seeking to understand if small microplastics should be classified as particulate matter. While microplastics are defined as any plastic less than five millimeters in size, they can be much smaller, and fall within the range of 10-2.5 micrometers. In this size range, microplastics would fall under the definition of particulate matter 2.5 and 10, air pollutants that are regulated by the California Air and Resources Board (CARB) when they come from mobile sources. One study found that tire wear particles represent up to 8.5% of PM10 mass 1–10% of PM2.5 in the air in urban environments. 

If microplastics are air pollutants, then it may make sense to give CARB a spot at the table, either as a consulting body or as part of the working group, to weigh in on how alternative materials could be regulated.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022) prohibited producers of single-use, disposable packaging or single-use, disposal food service ware producers from offering for sale, selling, distributing, or importing in or into the state those products manufactured after January 1, 2032, unless it is recyclable or compostable. Defines “plastic.”

AB 1201 (Ting, Chapter 504, Statutes of 2021) prohibited a person from selling a plastic product labeled with the term “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “soil biodegradable” unless the product meets specified standards and satisfies specified criteria and would authorize CalRecycle to adopt regulations for plastic product labeling.

AB 1583 (Chapter 690, Statutes of 2019) required CalRecycle to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable.

SB 567 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2011) created the Plastic Products Law under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, to prohibit a plastic product from being sold that is labeled “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “marine biodegradable” unless the plastic meets certain standards that are subject to CalRecycle requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• CalEPA estimates ongoing costs of at least $500,000 for two positions
• The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates ongoing costs of $818,000 annually (special fund) beginning in 2024-25 for six. CalRecycle also notes that there may be additional costs for contracted work in the next few years in order to research different technologies as part of the review and approval process.
• The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually for one position.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)

California State Association of Counties
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley
League of California Cities
National Stewardship Action Council
Republic Services - Western Region
Rural County Representatives of California
South Bayside Waste Management Authority

Rethinkwaste

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/18/23)

None Received

Prepared by: Brynn Cook / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

5/23/23 13:10:27

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 665 (Allen) - Plastic waste: single-use plastics alternatives: working group

Bill Summary:

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to establish a working group in order to develop a framework for evaluating, with regards to policy, novel materials that are alternatives to plastics.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 18, 2023

Fiscal Impact:

• CalEPA estimates ongoing costs of at least $500,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for a minimum of two positions, one to serve as a leader or executive sponsor of the working group and the other to compile data and collaborate on deliverables. CalEPA would also provide liaison and oversight work.
• The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates ongoing costs of $818,000 annually (special fund) beginning in 2024-25 for six positions to coordinate with identified CalEPA boards departments and offices, establish best management practices for involved agencies including, but not limited to, creating accessible documents, potentially adhering to Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, providing technical and logistical support, and designing soliciting, and oversight of any contracted data collection. CalRecycle also notes that there may be additional costs for contracted work in the next few years in order to research different technologies as part of the review and approval process. These costs would be dependent on the specific technology or design under review.
• The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for one position to support development of the framework, including staffing the workgroup, reviewing the relevant scientific literature, and carrying out assessments of both potential health risks posed by the use, reuse, and disposal of new materials as well as potential ecotoxicological effects of the materials on flora, fauna and marine life, among other things.
• The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) stated that its costs are unknown and would depend on the number and frequency of meetings to be organized, and what meetings, if any, would be publicly held and noticed, among other factors.
• The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) estimates that its costs would likely be minor and absorbable to perform an advisory role in the working group to establish the framework.
• The Ocean Protection Council estimates that any costs would be minor and absorbable.

Author Amendments:

These amendments would make technical changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 665 (Allen) - Plastic waste: single-use plastics alternatives: working group

Bill Summary:

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to establish a working group in order to develop a framework for evaluating, with regards to policy, novel materials that are alternatives to plastics.

Fiscal Impact:

• CalEPA estimates ongoing costs of at least $500,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for a minimum of two positions, one to serve as a leader or executive sponsor of the working group and the other to compile data and collaborate on deliverables. CalEPA would also provide liaison and oversight work.
• The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates ongoing costs of $818,000 annually (special fund) beginning in 2024-25 for six positions to coordinate with identified CalEPA boards departments and offices, establish best management practices for involved agencies including, but not limited to, creating accessible documents, potentially adhering to Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, providing technical and logistical support, and designing soliciting, and oversight of any contracted data collection. CalRecycle also notes that there may be additional costs for contracted work in the next few years in order to research different technologies as part of the review and approval process. These costs would be dependent on the specific technology or design under review.
• The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) estimates ongoing costs of $176,000 annually (General Fund or special fund) for one position to support development of the framework, including staffing the workgroup, reviewing the relevant scientific literature, and carrying out assessments of both potential health risks posed by the use, reuse, and disposal of new materials as well as potential ecotoxicological effects of the materials on flora, fauna and marine life, among other things.
• The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) stated that its costs are unknown and would depend on the number and frequency of meetings to be organized, and what meetings, if any, would be publicly held and noticed, among other factors.
• The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) estimates that its costs would likely be minor and absorbable to perform an advisory role in the working group to establish the framework.
• The Ocean Protection Council estimates that any costs would be minor and absorbable.

Background:

The problem with plastic. Plastics pose a threat to the environment from origin to end-of-life. Plastics are petroleum based and have a large carbon footprint—with global plastic production contributing an estimated three and a half percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, a higher carbon footprint than the entire aviation sector. 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. A further 12% has been incinerated, and the remaining 79% has accumulated in landfills or in natural environments, including the oceans. Once plastics enter the environment, they remain there for hundreds to thousands of years. As these plastics degrade slowly over time, they continue to jeopardize the environment and human health. Plastics do not break down into their constituent parts, but instead break down into very small particles of plastic, or microplastics (plastics under 5 millimeters). These microplastics have been found in the most pristine natural environments on earth, including in national parks and in Antarctic sea ice. Microplastics are so small that they are easily absorbed into biological organisms, where they bioaccumulate up the food chain: microplastics have been found in human lungs, brains, and placentas. Microplastics are shown to increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats. 

The problem with plastic-alternatives: pollution and confusion. The plastic pollution that inevitably results from plastic consumption poses a major threat to the environment, ecosystems, and human health. “Bioplastics” have been posited as an eco-friendly alternative to these traditional plastics. Bioplastics are biobased, biodegradable, or compostable products that can replace traditional, fossil-fuel-based plastics for some applications (e.g. bioplastics cups as an alternative to plastic cups). However, bioplastics are not a perfect solution to the plastic problem. Moreover, not all bioplastics are created equal, and some bioplastics can be persistent pollutants in the waste stream and the environment. 

Pollution: Bioplastics as pollutants. Bioplastics are generally grouped into three categories: biodegradable, biobased, and bioplastics that are both biobased and biodegradable. Biodegradable plastic. Biodegradable plastics can break down into their organic constituents with the assistance of organisms, like microbes or fungi. Because these conditions don’t exist everywhere, biodegradable plastics can persist in their environments for a long time: one study on a range of biodegradable plastics found that many types of biodegradable plastics will never spontaneously degrade in natural settings. A subset of biodegradable plastics are compostable plastics. Unlike other biodegradable plastics, compostable products don’t need living organisms to decompose: they can break down under certain environmental conditions, like wetness, heat, or pressure. That doesn’t mean they break down as easily as food waste--often, compostable plastics require the intense conditions created by industrial composting to break down. 

Confusion: bioplastics have a history of greenwashing. Given that definitions for bioplastics are based on some mix of their source (biobased) or end of life (biodegradable, compostable), and that these categories overlap, it’s no wonder that bioplastics have been poorly understood by consumers. That lack of clarity has been exploited by companies that “greenwash” products--making them seem more environmentally-friendly than they actually are. Greenwashing not only exploits consumers, it can lead to harmful environmental impacts when products are improperly disposed of (e.g., when a biobased cup is thrown into a backyard composter, it may persist in that environment for years, breaking into smaller and smaller pieces rather than returning to organic material).

California recognizes that greenwashing is a problem, and has instituted several laws to prevent the practice, including prohibiting any untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim and establishing specific requirements for “compostable” and “biodegradable.” Further, CalRecycle has been tasked to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

In summary, some of the current alternatives to plastics, in this case bioplastics, may be a step away from fossil fuel dependency, but are certainly not a golden ticket to a pollution-free future. A 2014 CalRecycle report: “Biobased and Degradable Plastics Understanding New Packaging Materials and Their Management in California” concluded that “While producing bioplastics in the state may offer some environmental benefits, currently the potential value is overshadowed by end-of-life concerns.” These alternatives and emerging novel materials should be viewed with optimism, but also with caution. 

Bioplastics are on the rise. Love them or hate them (or more likely, love some and hate others), bioplastics are on the rise. Approximately ​​2.11 million tons of bioplastics were produced in 2018. While that is just 1 percent of all plastics produced, the global market for bioplastics is expected to increase in volume by 40% in the next five years. This rapid increase in bioplastics is driven in part by policy shifts as the global community, including and oftentimes led by California, seeks to reduce traditional plastic consumption. 

As the amount of plastics declines and more alternatives to plastic enter the market, it will become even more important to understand how each of these new materials should be treated. This includes developing a framework for how will these novel materials will be evaluated, marketed, shepherded through their end-of-life, and how will they be folded into existing policies around plastic.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require CalEPA to establish, by January 1, 2025, a working group comprised of state entities in order to develop a framework for evaluating, with regards to policy, novel materials that are alternatives to plastics. Specifically, this bill would:

• 1. Require CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group made up of the SWRCB, DTSC, CalRecycle, OEEHA, and the OPC to establish a framework for evaluating novel material types that could replace traditional plastics. 
  2. Require the working group to develop recommendations related to novel material types that seek to replace traditional plastics, the impact of these materials on human health and the environment, and how these novel materials should be marketed, properly disposed of, and folded into existing state policy.

Related Legislation:

SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022) prohibits producers of single-use, disposable packaging or single-use, disposal food service ware producers from offering for sale, selling, distributing, or importing in or into the state those products manufactured after January 1, 2032, unless it is recyclable or compostable. Defines “plastic.”

AB 1201 (Ting, Chapter 504, Statutes of 2021) prohibits a person from selling a plastic product labeled with the term “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “soil biodegradable” unless the product meets specified standards and satisfies specified criteria and would authorize CalRecycle to adopt regulations for plastic product labeling.

AB 1583 (Chapter 690, Statutes of 2019) requires CalRecycle to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable.

SB 567 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2011) creates the Plastic Products Law under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, to prohibit a plastic product from being sold that is labeled “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “marine biodegradable” unless the plastic meets certain standards that are subject to CalRecycle requirements.

Staff Comments:

SWRCB stated its costs would depend on the number and frequency of meetings to be organized, and what meetings, if any, would be publicly held and noticed, among other factors. SWRCB noted that if meetings were deemed public, implementation costs would likely include public outreach and participation, development of workgroup guidance and recommendations to be provided, and administrative and information technology support According to SWRCB, additional clarification would help in determining anticipated costs for SB 665 implementation. SWRCB recommended that the role of the workgroup be clarified further in order to better understand its requirements, including identifying roles for agencies currently participating and implementing SB 54.

DTSC noted that if the Legislature were to enact additional bills either this year or in subsequent legislative sessions that also require DTSC to absorb similar minor costs, DTSC may need to request additional resources either this fiscal year or subsequent fiscal years for its primary or support programs to accommodate the accumulated total fiscal impact.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 665

SUBJECT: Emerging Plastic Alternatives Working Group Plastic waste: single-use plastics alternatives: working group.

DIGEST: Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to establish, by January 1, 2025, a working group comprised of state entities to establish a framework for evaluating, with regards to policy, novel materials that are alternatives to plastics. 

ANALYSIS:

Existing Law: 

1. Defines “Plastic” to mean a synthetic or semisynthetic material chemically synthesized by the polymerization of organic substances that can be shaped into various rigid and flexible forms, and includes coatings and adhesives. 
   • 1. “Plastic” includes traditional plastics like HDPE and PET
     2. “Plastic” includes aliphatic biopolyesters, such as polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB).
     3.  “Plastic” does not include natural rubber or naturally occurring polymers such as proteins or starches. (PRC § 42041) 
2.  Defines “plastic product” as a product made of plastic, alone or in combination with other material. (PRC §42356)
3. Prohibits the sale of a plastic product that is labeled as “biodegradable,” “degradable,” “decomposable,” or implies that the plastic product will break down, fragment, biodegrade, or decompose in a landfill or other environment unless it meets certain standards. (PRC §42357) 
4. Requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable. (PRC §42005.5)

This bill:

• 1. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2025, to establish a working group made up of the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Resources Board), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), CalRecycle, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEEHA), and the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to establish a framework for evaluating novel material types that could replace traditional plastics. 
  2. Requires the working group to develop recommendations related to novel material types that seek to replace traditional plastics, the impact of these materials on human health and the environment, and how these novel materials should be marketed, properly disposed of, and folded into existing state policy.

Background

1. The problem with plastic. Plastics pose a threat to the environment from origin to end-of-life. Plastics are petroleum based and have a large carbon footprint—with global plastic production contributing an estimated three and a half percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, a higher carbon footprint than the entire aviation sector. 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. A further 12% has been incinerated, and the remaining 79% has accumulated in landfills or in natural environments, including the oceans. Once plastics enter the environment, they remain there for hundreds to thousands of years. As these plastics degrade slowly over time, they continue to jeopardize the environment and human health. Plastics do not break down into their constituent parts, but instead break down into very small particles of plastic, or microplastics (plastics under 5 millimeters). These microplastics have been found in the most pristine natural environments on earth, including in national parks and in Antarctic sea ice. Microplastics are so small that they are easily absorbed into biological organisms, where they bioaccumulate up the food chain: microplastics have been found in human lungs, brains, and placentas. Microplastics are shown to increase risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats. 
2. The problem with plastic-alternatives: pollution and confusion. The plastic pollution that inevitably results from plastic consumption poses a major threat to the environment, ecosystems, and human health. “Bioplastics” have been posited as an eco-friendly alternative to these traditional plastics. Bioplastics are biobased, biodegradable, or compostable products that can replace traditional, fossil-fuel-based plastics for some applications (e.g. bioplastics cups as an alternative to plastic cups). However, bioplastics are not a perfect solution to the plastic problem. Moreover, not all bioplastics are created equal, and some bioplastics can be persistent pollutants in the waste stream and the environment. 
   1. Pollution: Bioplastics as pollutants. Bioplastics are generally grouped into three categories: biodegradable, biobased, and bioplastics that are both biobased and biodegradable. Biodegradable plastic. Biodegradable plastics can break down into their organic constituents with the assistance of organisms, like microbes or fungi. Because these conditions don’t exist everywhere, biodegradable plastics can persist in their environments for a long time: one study on a range of biodegradable plastics found that many types of biodegradable plastics will never spontaneously degrade in natural settings. A subset of biodegradable plastics are compostable plastics. Unlike other biodegradable plastics, compostable products don’t need living organisms to decompose: they can break down under certain environmental conditions, like wetness, heat, or pressure. That doesn’t mean they break down as easily as food waste--often, compostable plastics require the intense conditions created by industrial composting to break down. 

Biobased plastics. Biobased alternatives to traditional petroleum-based plastics are made from plant products. However, “biobased plastics” are defined by what they are made of, not how they degrade--and many bioplastics are not compostable or biodegradable. In fact, in 2021, approximately half of the bioplastics sold on the market were not biodegradable. 

Biobased and biodegradable plastics. Some biobased and biodegradable products do, as the name implies, biodegrade…eventually. An example of biodegradable and biobased plastic is polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). PHAs have traditionally been classified as “marine biodegradable plastics.” However, at least one recent study from 2019 found that it took between 1.5-3.5 years for PHA to degrade in marine environments. From the perspective of wildlife in marine environments, PHA plastic waste can still present a health risk. Notably, PHA was recently classified as plastic under SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022).

• 1. Confusion: bioplastics have a history of greenwashing. Given that definitions for bioplastics are based on some mix of their source (biobased) or end of life (biodegradable, compostable), and that these categories overlap, it’s no wonder that bioplastics have been poorly understood by consumers. That lack of clarity has been exploited by companies that “greenwash” products--making them seem more environmentally-friendly than they actually are. Greenwashing not only exploits consumers, it can lead to harmful environmental impacts when products are improperly disposed of (e.g., when a biobased cup is thrown into a backyard composter, it may persist in that environment for years, breaking into smaller and smaller pieces rather than returning to organic material).

California recognizes that greenwashing is a problem, and has instituted several laws to prevent the practice, including prohibiting any untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim and establishing specific requirements for “compostable” and “biodegradable.” Further, CalRecycle has been tasked to adopt regulations to establish a process and develop criteria for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

In summary, some of the current alternatives to plastics, in this case bioplastics, may be a step away from fossil fuel dependency, but are certainly not a golden ticket to a pollution-free future. A 2014 CalRecycle report: “Biobased and Degradable Plastics Understanding New Packaging Materials and Their Management in California” concluded that “While producing bioplastics in the state may offer some environmental benefits, currently the potential value is overshadowed by end-of-life concerns.” These alternatives and emerging novel materials should be viewed with optimism, but also with caution. 

1. Bioplastics are on the rise. Love them or hate them (or more likely, love some and hate others), bioplastics are on the rise. Approximately ​​2.11 million tons of bioplastics were produced in 2018. While that is just 1 percent of all plastics produced, the global market for bioplastics is expected to increase in volume by 40% in the next five years. This rapid increase in bioplastics is driven in part by policy shifts as the global community, including and oftentimes led by California, seeks to reduce traditional plastic consumption. 

As the amount of plastics declines and more alternatives to plastic enter the market, it will become even more important to understand how each of these new materials should be treated. This includes developing a framework for how will these novel materials will be evaluated, marketed, shepherded through their end-of-life, and how will they be folded into existing policies around plastic.

Comments

• 1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 665 ensures that California policy supports the strategic integration of the nascent novel materials industry through the creation of a robust State-led working group comprised of the CalRecycle, the Water Board, DTSC, OEEHA, and the OPC. The group will be tasked with establishing a framework for effectively evaluating and comparing these new materials and for recommending policy approaches to ensure proper regulatory oversight. This approach will allow for the coordination of research, policy, regulation, and enforcement to a degree that is unprecedented for this type of industry transition.”
     
  2. Clean Streams of Plastic: If it quacks like a (plastic) duck…If materials are made to fill the same niche that plastic occupies, it is fair to assume they may be similar in appearance and function. If plastic alternatives are hard to discern from plastics, then consumers could toss them into existing plastic receptacles. That is a problem for existing recycling infrastructure: if plastic alternatives get mixed in with traditional plastics, it will pollute those streams of plastic material that, if uniform enough, can be used for post-consumer recycled content.

SB 651 requires the working group to consider “how the material is handled at the end of its useful life.” Moving forward, the author may wish to additionally task the working group to look at how existing recycling and waste infrastructure would be impacted by plastic alternative materials. 

• 1. What Makes a Good (Working) Group? The bill specifies that the working group will be made up of DTSC, CalRecycle, OEEHA, the Water Board, and the OPC, and will be staffed by the Water Board. The bill does not specify who will be representing the various State entities in the working group. This distinction is important. If the desired output of the working group is technical, then having program staff lead the working group will be invaluable. On the other hand, if the primary goal is to build consensus between the various state entities involved, directors and top leadership at the department, board, and council may be more strategic. 

The authors may wish to consider, given the various tradeoffs, what level of staff would best accomplish the goals of the working group, and specify that those members should comprise the working group. 

• 1. CARB at the table? SB 665 currently includes representation from DTSC, OEEHA, OPC, the Water Board, and CalRecycle. This covers the jurisdictions of plastics as they may appear in our lands, oceans, terrestrial waters, and human bodies. However, it does not encompass plastics in the air. Emerging scientific literature is seeking to understand if small microplastics should be classified as particulate matter. While microplastics are defined as any plastic less than five millimeters in size, they can be much smaller, and fall within the range of 10-2.5 micrometers. In this size range, microplastics would fall under the definition of particulate matter 2.5 and 10, air pollutants that are regulated by the California Air and Resources Board (CARB) when they come from mobile sources. One study found that tire wear particles represent up to 8.5% of PM10 mass 1–10% of PM2.5 in the air in urban environments. 

If microplastics are air pollutants, then it may make sense to give CARB a spot at the table, either as a consulting body or as part of the working group, to weigh in on how alternative materials could be regulated.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022) prohibits producers of single-use, disposable packaging or single-use, disposal food service ware producers from offering for sale, selling, distributing, or importing in or into the state those products manufactured after January 1, 2032, unless it is recyclable or compostable. Defines “plastic.”

AB 1201 (Ting, Chapter 504, Statutes of 2021) prohibits a person from selling a plastic product labeled with the term “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “soil biodegradable” unless the product meets specified standards and satisfies specified criteria and would authorize CalRecycle to adopt regulations for plastic product labeling.

AB 1583 (Chapter 690, Statutes of 2019) requires CalRecycle to, by July 1, 2020, convene a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and, by January 1, 2021, to issue policy recommendations to achieve market development goals and identify products that are recyclable or compostable.

SB 567 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 594, Statutes of 2011) creates the Plastic Products Law under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, to prohibit a plastic product from being sold that is labeled “compostable,” “home compostable,” or “marine biodegradable” unless the plastic meets certain standards that are subject to CalRecycle requirements.

SOURCE: Author 

SUPPORT: 

California State Association of Counties (CSAC)

Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter

Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley

League of California Cities

Republic Services - Western Region

Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

South Bayside Waste Management Authority (sbwma ) Dba Rethinkwaste

OPPOSITION: 

None received

--END --