California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB232

Introduced
2/7/19  
Introduced
2/7/19  
Refer
2/21/19  
Refer
2/21/19  
Report Pass
3/21/19  
Report Pass
3/21/19  
Engrossed
4/4/19  
Engrossed
4/4/19  
Refer
5/2/19  
Refer
5/2/19  
Refer
5/30/19  
Report Pass
6/4/19  
Report Pass
6/4/19  
Enrolled
9/4/19  
Enrolled
9/4/19  

Caption

Hazardous substances: regulated metals: packaging materials.

Impact

The bill amends Section 25214.13 of the Health and Safety Code, which currently restricts the allowable concentration of regulated metals in packaging to a maximum of 100 parts per million by weight. SB232 would allow glass packaging containing recycled content to have up to 200 parts per million of these metals if the glass itself would not exceed the standard. This exemption, however, is temporary and set to expire on January 1, 2024. The changes aim to facilitate the use of recycled materials in packaging without compromising public health.

Summary

Senate Bill 232, introduced by Senator Dodd, aims to amend existing California legislation pertaining to hazardous substances and regulated metals in packaging materials. Specifically, the bill seeks to provide an exemption for glass packages containing recycled materials from the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act, which otherwise prohibits packaging that exceeds certain concentrations of regulated metals, like lead and mercury. This endeavor reflects a dual goal of promoting recycling while ensuring public health and safety regarding hazardous substances in consumer products.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB232 appears cautious but supportive among its legislative proponents, who argue it encourages recycling without significantly impacting environmental safety regulations. However, there are concerns regarding the potential increase of regulated metals in packaging, especially in products aimed at vulnerable populations. The bill must navigate the balance between facilitating recycling initiatives and maintaining stringent safety standards for public health.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding the bill include the temporary nature of the exemption and its potential implications for environmental health. Critics worry about possible loopholes that could lead to higher levels of hazardous substances in products, undermining public trust. Supporters, on the other hand, assert that the bill does not significantly alter the intent of the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act but rather provides a necessary flexibility to incentivize recycling in the packaging industry.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB931

Local boards and commissions: representation: appointments.

CA AB588

Animal shelters: disclosure: dog bites.

CA SB534

Insurers: minority, women, LGBT, veteran, and disabled veteran business enterprises.

CA AB143

Shelter crisis: homeless shelters: Counties of Alameda and Orange: City of San Jose.

CA AB1373

Adoption.

CA SB740

Insurance: unclaimed life insurance.

CA AB971

Public contracts: information technology services: contractor evaluations.

CA AB1544

Community Paramedicine or Triage to Alternate Destination Act.

Similar Bills

CA AB2901

Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017.

CA SB258

Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017.

CT SB00837

An Act Concerning The Use Of Perfluoroalkyl Or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances In Class B Firefighting Foam.

MI HB5968

Trade: consumer goods and services; use of certain chemicals in cosmetics products; prohibit. Creates new act.

CT SB00926

An Act Concerning The Presence Of Pfas In Certain Consumer Packaging.

FL S0196

Chemicals in Consumer Products

CA AB1989

Menstrual Products Right to Know Act of 2020.