ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

Dallas repeals its plastic-bag ordinance

 

                The Dallas City Council passed the ordinance in 2014, in an effort to move shoppers away from the bags by requiring stores to charge 5 cents for each bag requested by the shopper.  As we know here in California, the intent of the ordinance was to reduce plastic-bag trash's effect on the environment (the bags don't degrade).

 

                But the bags were a miss, not a hit, with shoppers, who apparently want the bags for convenience and do not like paying to get them.  Additionally, as was the case here in the LA area, bag manufacturers complained that the ordinance's attempt to cut down the use of plastic bags threatened the employment of workers in the bag-manufacturing industry and had gone so far as to sue the City.

 

                Opponents also argue in these situations that if the problem is trash, deal directly with the problem.  In this regard, some opponents argue, government could increase the fines and penalties for improperly discarding plastic bans as opposed to banning the consumer's choice to use them.

 

                In any event, the Council voted 10-1 for repeal.  The repeal goes into effect on June 8.

This column originally appeared in the June 4, 2015 editions of the Valley News Group of papers (west San Fernando Valley, California).

Recycling grocery bags may recycle unwanted bugs

Recently, a number of municipalities have enacted ordinances to prohibit or to make more expensive the use of plastic and paper shopping bags.  The ordinances are based on the bags' lack of environmental friendliness-- plastic bags, for instance, are difficult to recycle.

 As shoppers have been driven to reusable bags, however, a new problem has developed.  Unless the reusable bags are carefully cleaned between uses, the bags can become contaminated and cause disease.

 For example, the Associated Press reports the story of seven teenage girls on a soccer team which travelled from Oregon to Seattle for a match.  While in Seattle, the girls ate cookies from a reusable bag and contracted "norovirus", a germ often spread from leafy greens, fresh fruits or shellfish. In this case, one or more of these foods had contaminated the bag, which had not been cleaned before reuse.

 The virus can cause diarrhea, vomiting and cramps. In severe cases, the virus can cause death.  Fortunately, it appears that the 7 girls who got sick recovered.

 Government entities that have enacted ordinances eliminating or restricting the use of paper and plastic bags may need to evaluate whether the government can run an effective campaign to educate people about the dangers of unclean, or improperly cleaned, reusable bags.

From my column, "Legal News You Can Use", published inm the Valley News Group (San Fernando Valley California) newspapers.

NEW REYCYLING RULES PENDING-ISRAEL

FYI-from Haaretz.com

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149819.html

"The Environmental Protection Ministry has put the finishing touches on a recycling bill designed to provide a real breakthrough in the scope of waste recycling in Israel. According to the proposed law, to be presented for cabinet approval shortly, importers and manufacturers of packaging materials will be required to recycle 60 percent of their packaging output by 2014; by 2020, they will be barred from sending packaging waste to dump sites."

THIS BILL MADE TOO MUCH SENSE TO BE ENACTED IN CALIFORNIA

     Even though the federal government has not seen fit to regulate the disposal of used alkaline batteries, in its infinite wisdom the California Legislature has since February 2006 made it illegal to dispose of these batteries in the common trash and has required these items to be recycled-- at an estimated annual cost of $152 million. Here’s the “slight” problem, however: according to Assemb. George Plescia (R.-75th Dist., San Diego), no recycling disposal points for the used batteries yet exist. Nor has any study been done to determine if landfill disposal of these items actually causes any problems (such as increasing the chances of the landfill eventually leaking).

     Accordingly, in the just-concluded California Legislative regular session, Assemb. Plescia introduced AB 656, which would have required that “[b]efore the state imposes a deposit, fee, or any form of costs on consumers to fund or subsidize an infrastructure to collect used alkaline batteries from consumers as a …hazardous waste, a study should be conducted regarding” the question of whether regular trash-to-landfill disposal of the batteries actually causes any environmental harm. With a State budget already in a $1 billion+ deficit, and with it not being clear that mandated recycling of the batteries at $152 million annually does any good, the Assemblyman’s bill made sense.

      Too much sense for a Legislature somewhat to the Left of even Nancy Pelosi-that’s why it languished in Committee and never had a chance of passage.

AB 2449-PLASTIC BAG RECYCLING

     Assemblyman Loyd Levine (D) has shepherded AB 2449 through the California Legislature to the Governor's desk.  I've checked the California Legislature Website and the press and do not yet see a report as to whether or not the Governor signed the bill.

     The bill, if enacted, would require California supermarkets with over 10,000 square feet of retail space to provide an in-store recycling bin designed to promote interest in the recycling of plastic carryout bags.  Consumers would be able to return their used bags to the bin.

     The bill goes farther, requiring the plastic carryout bags offered by the supermarket to bear the wording 'PLEASE RETURN TO A PARTICIPATING STORE FOR RECYCLING".  The bill requiresthe bag manufacturers to offer the market educational materials to promote bag recycling.

     Don't want to comply?  Under the legislation, government agencies may impose civil penalties of $2,000 (for third and subsequent offenses) on the market or manufacturer.  The legislation provides no funds for the markets and/or manufacturers to carry out this mandated program and so is, in fact, imposing an unfunded State mandate.

     Just another little bit of the nanny State making it such a joy to do business in California.

   

 

CAL DTSC FACT SHEET RE RECYCLING OF CELLULAR PHONES

  The Cell Phone Recycling Act of 2004 became effective at the beginning of this month (July 1 '06).  The California Department of Toxics Substances Control has published a "Fact Sheet" about the law's requirements.  Go here.

BATTERIES, CELL PHONES, ETCETERA-NEW RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL (CALIFORNIA)

     Beginning yesterday, February 9, businesses and even households in California must take special precaution when throwing out batteries, cell phones, etcetera.  Waste Management has issued a press release noting:

California continues to lead the way in ridding its landfills of potentially hazardous materials. On February 9, the Universal Waste Ban takes effect statewide, requiring residents and small businesses to dispose of "universal waste" such as batteries, old cell phones and fluorescent light tubes at designated facilities and collection sites. Products like this, which have low levels of hazardous metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium, can potentially contaminate soil and groundwater, so they cannot be disposed of in the trash and subsequently deposited into landfills.

     The press release lists various waste that is subject to the "Universal Waste Ban" and also provides some useful links for people desiring more information

AB 1341 AS RESURRECTED IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BILL

     As I posted yesterday, AB 1341 has been resurrected; however, the new version of the legislation has nothing to do with its original subject matter.  Rather, the bill was amended in the State Senate on Monday, Aug. 22, and no longer deals with the recycling of major household appliances.  Here is how the amendment is reflected in the Legislative Counsel's Digest:

AB 1341, as amended, Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials  Hazardous waste: major appliance disposal.
California Pollution Control Financing Authority:
grants and loans.
   Existing law, until January 1, 2007, authorizes the California Pollution Control Financing Authority to provide grants and loans, not to exceed $5,000,000, to cities and counties deemed eligible by the authority, to assist in the development of various programs and policies to, among other things, reduce pollution hazards and the degradation of the environment, or promote infill development to revitalize communities. The authority is required, until that date, to annually report to the Legislature regarding the grant and loan program.
   This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2012, and would increase the amount of the grants and loans under the program to $7,500,000. It would also repeal an obsolete provision of law. 
   Existing law prohibits the disposal of materials that require special handling from a major appliance at a solid waste facility, pursuant to the hazardous waste control laws, and requires those materials to be removed from major appliances in which they are contained before the appliance is crushed, baled, shredded, sawed or sheared apart, disposed of, or otherwise processed.
  Existing law requires a person who transports, delivers, or sells discarded major appliances to a scrap recycling facility, after January 1, 2006, to provide evidence that the person is a certified appliance recycler, except as specified, and prohibits a scrap recycling facility from accepting a discarded major appliance, after January 1, 2006, from any person who is not a certified appliance recycler.    This bill would make technical nonsubstantive changes to those provisions. 

     As pointed out in previous Posting re AB 1341 (see "RECYCLING" category to the right), the fate of the legislation does not affect the fact that as of January 1, 2006 the State is imposing more restrictive requirements on the disposition of household major appliances.

AB 1341 RESURRECTED

     As readers of this Blog know, I have been tracking the fortunes of AB 1341, a bill makes some technical amendments to already-existing legislation (AB 2277) requiring that, as of January 1, 2006, commercial recyclers of major household appliances obtain State certification.  See the category "RECYCLING" on the right-hand side of this Blog.

     My last couple of Posts indicated that AB 1341 had been placed in the "inactive" file and that I was unable to get explanations from the pertinent legislators as to why this had occurred.  As of yesterday, however, the bill has been resurrected and now appears on its way to passage.

AB 1341 AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER RUSKIN--NO RESPONSE

     In my Post of July 22, 2005 (category:  "RECYCLING") I advised that I was seeking information from California Assembly member Ira Ruskin as to why he asked that AB 1341 be put on inactive status.  To date, zero, nothing, nada in response to my inquiry.  I'll keep trying.