BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular SB 47 (Hill) - Environmental health: synthetic turf ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: March 25, 2015 |Policy Vote: E.Q. 5 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: No | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: April 13, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: SB 47 would require the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to conduct a study by July 1, 2017 analyzing potential adverse health impacts from synthetic turf made from waste tires. This bill would also prohibit the awarding of grants or other funding assistance for the manufacturing or installation of synthetic turf made from waste tires. Fiscal Impact: One-time minimum costs of $6.092 million from the Tire Recycling Management Fund (special/General Fund) OEHHA for the required study. One-time costs of $81,000 from the fund in FY 2016-17 to DTSC for collaborating with OEHHA for the required study. Background: The California Tire Recycling Act requires the Department of SB 47 (Hill) Page 1 of ? Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to manage and regulate waste tires within the state and requires the collection of $1.75 for each new tire purchased in the state. Pursuant to PRC §42889, of the $1.75 per tire collected, $1 is deposited into the Tire Recycling Management Fund for oversight, enforcement, and market development grants related to waste tire management and recycling. One of the grant programs is for Tire-Derived Products (TDP), which provides funding to certain entities for tire-derived products made from 100 percent California generated waste tires. According to CalRecycle's webpage, the categories generally fall into one of three categories: agricultural/landscape, recreational, or transportation. The recreational category includes fields, playgrounds, and running tracks. CalRecycle is required to have a five-year plan for spending of the fund, which is updated every two years, that establishes goals and priorities for the waste tire program. On January 1, 2024, the per-tire charge will be reduced to $0.75 and the fund and its uses sunset. Proposed Law: This bill would require OEHHA, in consultation with CalRecycle, the state Department of Public Health (DPH), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to provide to the Legislature by July 1, 2017 an analysis of the potential adverse health impacts from synthetic turf. Specifically the study is required to have the following elements: 1.A hazard analysis of exposure to specific chemicals that may be found in synthetic turf. 2.An analysis of whether chemicals found in tires have negative human health impacts when used in indoor and outdoor fields and parks, considering varying exposure pathways and under various weather conditions. 3.Biomonitoring of children or adults exposed to synthetic turf to determine potential human health impacts. SB 47 (Hill) Page 2 of ? 4.An examination of the potential for synthetic turf to cause adverse health impacts including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, testicular cancer, prostate cancer, sarcoma cancer, and leukemia. 5.An examination of the health impacts associated with synthetic turf fields and playgrounds of varying age. 6.An evaluation of the differences in the manufacturing of synthetic turf and different turf, field, and playground products, including those that don't use recycled tires and how those differences may affect health impacts. 7.An evaluation of the different health impacts between fields and playground covered with synthetic turf and non-synthetic turf. 8.A review of current research on the health impacts of synthetic turf. 9.Research to fill any data gaps. 10.An examination of the health impacts of exposures to many low level volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in synthetic turf. 11.An analysis that compares the temperatures on synthetic turf, non-waste tire turf, and grass turf during high-temperature periods and the impact that those differences may have on health. This bill would prohibit any public or private school or local government from installing or contracting for the installation of a new field or playground surface made from synthetic turf unless: (1) the bid specifications include at least one option that does not use crumb rubber from waste tires, (2) the entity SB 47 (Hill) Page 3 of ? receives at least one estimate from a company that does not use crumb rubber from waste tires in its synthetic turf, and (3) the entity holds at least one public meeting regarding the installation of synthetic turf to receive public comment. This bill would prohibit the state from awarding financial assistance to private entities, schools, or local governments that would offset the cost of manufacturing or installing synthetic turf. This bill would explicitly expand the existing tire recycling program to include grants to businesses that produce crumb rubber from waste tires in order to find alternative markets other than fields and playgrounds for their products. For the purposes of the grant and study provisions in this bill, synthetic turf is defined to include any material that contains recycled crumb rubber from waste tires and is used to cover or surface a field or playground. This bill would explicitly specify that a study to analyze the potential health impacts of using waste tires in crumb rubber is an allowable use of the fund. Related Legislation: AB 1179 (Bocanegra) Chapter 589, Statutes of 2014 gave CalRecycle specific authority to award grants to public works projects that used tire-derived products, including recycled tire lumber, to create parklets and greenways. AB 1179 required that priority be given to projects in disadvantaged communities. Staff Comments: This bill would require a detailed report regarding potential health impacts associated with using crumb rubber from waste tires in fields and playgrounds. This report is estimated to SB 47 (Hill) Page 4 of ? cost at least $6.173 million with $6.092 million needed by OEHHA, the lead of the study, and $81,000 by DTSC. CalRecycle anticipates that any costs to collaborate on the study would be minor and absorbable. There would also be only minor costs to DPH, assuming DPH just acts as a reviewing body (discussed further below). This cost is for all aspects of the report. However, OEHHA notes that of the 11 required study tasks, only seven could be finished in time for July 1, 2017 report due date. Specifically, the biomonitoring, epidemiological studies, and additional research necessitated by requirements 3, 4, and 9 (as enumerated in the "Proposed Law" of this analysis) would require at least three years to complete. These longer term elements of the report attribute for $4.852 million of the study costs. Thus should this bill be passed, $1.321 million of the costs ($1.24 million to OEHHA and $81,000 to DTSC) would likely be incurred in FY 2016-17. The remaining $4.852 million of the study cost would start to be incurred in FY 2016-17, but would be spread out over at least three years. Staff notes that the costs of biomonitoring study may vary significantly based on design study, and thus the estimated report costs should be considered a minimum. For just the biomonitoring requirement, OEHHA estimates that a "minimum limited" study would cost $1.155 million over three years if they led the study. However, the state has an existing biomonitoring program, named Biomonitoring California, which is a tri-governmental program led by DPH in collaboration with OEHHA and DTSC. If the required biomonitoring study in this bill was conducted similar to other "minimum effort" studies conducted under Biomonitoring California, the estimated cost would be $3.15 million. It is unclear what are the drivers for this large difference in minimum cost estimates, but it may be in part to different assumptions about access to equipment and other lab resources. For example, in order to conduct the study in three years, DPH estimates $780,000 in equipment and equipment maintenance costs. These costs could potentially be avoided by using existing resources, though it would significantly extend the study's timeline. The costs of the study would be borne by the fund, which currently has a projected balance of $51 million. Additionally, in FY 2017-18, the fund is anticipated to receive $27 million SB 47 (Hill) Page 5 of ? from the General Fund as the final repayment for a General Fund loan. Staff notes that while there is a large reserve in this fund, the expenditures from this fund are outpacing revenues by about $11 million per year. The additional costs as a result of this bill would somewhat accelerate the date at which this fund would drop below its prudent reserve. This bill would prohibit the tire recycling program from issuing grants that would financially assist with the manufacturing and installation of synthetic turf made from waste tires for fields and playgrounds. This prohibition would likely cause a significant change the demand for CalRecycle's existing TDP grant program as 13 of the 17 grants issued in the 2013-14 grant year included the use of waste tires for a playground or field for at least part of the grant project. However, should demand drop for the TDP grant program, CalRecycle has administrative authority to redirect the unused funds to its other tire recycling grant programs. Thus, the grant prohibition provision of the bill should not have any impact on state costs. This bill would establish bid requirements for any public or private school or local government seeking to install a new field or playground surface made from synthetic turf from waste tires. As this requirement does not apply to the state nor is it a mandate on local agencies, there are no state costs from this provision of the bill. -- END --