RBOC has updated our position on SB 1066 [Blakespear], legislation that would establish an extended producer responsibility [EPR] requirement for marine flares.
This update is informed by the conversations that have been held among the stakeholders, the amendments having been made to the bill on April 18, and the placement of the measure onto suspense in yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
RBOC notes the good-faith engagement that is being made by Senator Blakespear, Orion Safety Products, National Stewardship Council, Zero Waste Sonoma and other stakeholders to understand the objectives of the legislation, its implementation, impacts and costs.
We are also informed by the recreational boating community’s experiences with state and local efforts to facilitate and encourage boaters to voluntarily turn in their marine flares through the past several years, especially thought the California Boating Clean and Green Campaign that receives the financial support of boater fees and taxes.
Boaters place a high priority on the importance of marine flares as a mandatory and essential public safety feature. Visual distress signals are an essential part of the safety equipment of a recreational vessel and are required by federal regulations. Alternatives to pyrotechnic flares including electronic beacons are not as effective, especially during daytime hours.
It therefore remains critical that legislation not have the unintended impact of causing boaters to decide not to purchase incendiary flares. A significant cost increase could have this effect. The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis identifies a very significant cost:
“Unknown but significant ongoing costs, potentially up to $1 million annually (special fund) for DTSC to develop and administer the marine flare program. DTSC notes that the magnitude of this bill is currently unknown, but the department anticipates it would require additional staff and up to $1 million in permanent and ongoing funding to sufficiently implement this bill as currently written.”
This is in addition to the costs to the producer to comply with the legislation by registering with a product responsibility organization (PRO), which would be required to develop and implement a producer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products. The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis identifies a very significant cost here as well:
“According to the Division, it costs approximately $7 to $50 per flare to be properly disposed of at an out-of-state permitted facility. However, Zero Waste Sonoma, in 2023, states it cost an estimated $185 to properly dispose of one unwanted marine flare, when partnering with nearby jurisdictions to help share the cost of transportation.”
So far as we are aware, Orion is the sole producer of pyrotechnic flares for recreational boaters. The absence of a robust, competitive business environment is likely to lead to the new state and industry costs imposed by SB 1066 being passed on to and borne by the recreational boaters. A significant cost impact on individual boaters could become a disincentive to purchases.
The dialogue to-date has focused on a statewide EPR program as the solution to end-of-life management of marine flares to address the toxic metals and potential pollutants. Consideration has not yet been given to exploring the possibility of effective and affordable alternatives that address the specific nature of marine flares, their components, and their ultimate disposal or destruction. This could be helpful.
RBOC will continue to be engaged on SB 1066. Recreational boaters care both about responsible environmental stewardship of the waterways, as well as boater safety on the water. We look forward to the development of more feasible paths for replacement of chemical flares and being able to support a future version of this initiative.
However, at this time ... with widely varying estimates of disposal cost and impact, no clarity about substitute safety measures, or the disposition of similar but much larger commercial flares, and no phase-in period or plan for support ... RBOC continues to view SB 1066 as premature and in need of further study, development and refinement before it is enacted.