California Integrated Waste Management Board Meeting, January 13, 2004. Rigid Plastic Packaging Container (RPPC) Plastic Recycling Rates.

California Integrated Waste California Integrated Waste Management Board Meeting, Management Board Meeting,

January 13, 2004. Rigid Plastic January 13, 2004. Rigid Plastic Packaging Container (RPPC)Packaging Container (RPPC)

Plastic Recycling RatesPlastic Recycling Rates

ALL of the following:ALL of the following:

made entirely of plastic;

• relatively inflexible, capable of maintaining its shape;

• Between eight ounces and five gallons

Definition of an RPPCDefinition of an RPPC

Rigid Plastic Packaging Rigid Plastic Packaging ContainersContainers

Regulated: Non-Regulated:- soap, detergent - soda, beer, water

- clamshell packaging - food, drugs,

(non-food) cosmetics- oil, gas additives - hazardous

materials,

pesticides

Compliance MethodsCompliance Methods

1. 25% All Container Recycling Rate2. 55% PET Container Recycling Rate3. 25% Post Consumer Resins (PCR) used in

manufacture of container4. 10% Source Reduction (SR) of resins in

manufacture of container5. Container meets criteria for Reuse or

Refill [Title 14 CCR 17946.5(3)]

Why we’re hereWhy we’re here

• Make rates consistent with exemption of food/cosmetic containers- Transparent and related to regulated RPPCs

• Meet commitment to provide adequate notice of certifications

• Complete certifications on a one year cycle

All-Container Recycling RateAll-Container Recycling Rate

All-Container Recycling Rate =

Tons of RPPCs RecycledTons of RPPCs Generated

2001 All-Container2001 All-ContainerRecycling RateRecycling Rate

Tons of RPPCs Generated in 2001 = (XY Z) 100

where:X =

Y =

Z =

(1999 Recycled + 1999 Disposed)

2001 Nat’l Sales1999 Nat’l Sales

(2001 CA Pop / 2001 US Pop)(1999 CA Pop / 1999 US Pop)

Recycling Data Source:

1. CIWMB Annual Processors Survey

2. Department of Conservation’s Annual Report

Disposal Data Source:

1. CIWMB’s Annual Disposal Report

2. Waste Characterization Study (95, 99, 03/04)

X = (Recycled + Disposed)X = (Recycled + Disposed)

Population Ratio Data Source:1. The U.S. Census Bureau and the2. California Department of Finance

Data used 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001Data available in April

(2001 CA Pop / 2001 US Pop)(2001 CA Pop / 2001 US Pop)(1999 CA Pop / 1999 US Pop)(1999 CA Pop / 1999 US Pop)

Y =Y =

National Resin Sales Data Source:

1. Society of Plastics Industry(Data used for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999)

2. American Plastics Council (Data available annually in April)(Data used for 2000 and 2001: *Includes Canada + US)

PET Resin Sales Data Source:1. Department of Conservation

(Data used for 1995, 1996 and 1997)

2001 Nat’l Sales2001 Nat’l Sales1999 Nat’l Sales1999 Nat’l SalesZ =Z =

PET Resin Sales Data Source (continued):2. Modern Plastics Publication

(Data used for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 2000)

3. Society of Plastics Industry (Data used for 1998 and 1999)

4. American Plastics Council(Data used for 2000: *Canada + US)

5. Nat’l Assoc.of PET Cont. Resources (NAPCOR) (Data used for 2001 and *Data Available in September)

2001 Nat’l Sales2001 Nat’l Sales1999 Nat’l Sales1999 Nat’l SalesZ =Z =

continued

Use of Existing Methodology Use of Existing Methodology No Longer FeasibleNo Longer Feasible

Adjustment for Population:– Data sources now include Canada and Mexico– Differences in use of RPPCs by region

Data not published in format or timeframe needed by Board

– Can not accurately disaggregate for RPPCs– No import data– Not published in time to meet commitment to

provide advance notice

Background Data for Calculations:Background Data for Calculations:National Resin Sales-EXAMPLENational Resin Sales-EXAMPLE

Resin Application 2002 Pounds

PVC Bottles 119,062,000

PVC Film and Sheet Packaging

Includes: Food wrap

Bubble wrap

Clam Shell Packaging

497,629,000

Source: American Plastics Council

Recycling RatesRecycling Rates

32%36%

25%29%

33%

17.9%21.9%

19.0%

26.1%23.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

PET All Container

Spring 2003 – Industry feedbackSpring 2003 – Industry feedback May 2003 Board Meeting May 2003 Board Meeting November 20, 2003 Interested Parties November 20, 2003 Interested Parties

(IP) Meeting(IP) Meeting December 18, 2003 – Staff e-mailDecember 18, 2003 – Staff e-mail December 30, 2003 – Follow up e-mailDecember 30, 2003 – Follow up e-mail

Notice Given To StakeholdersNotice Given To Stakeholders

Stakeholder FeedbackStakeholder Feedback

No chance to review APC, SPI, “Rush to judgment” RPPI, Soap Expense to industry and Detergent Use IP process Association

Support Process Talco, CAW

Option 1Option 1

Eliminate the Recycling Rate as a Compliance Method.

– Do not calculate the 2003 All Container and PET Recycling Rates

– Do not conduct a 2004 RPPC Certification– Pursue statutory changes to eliminate the

Recycling Rates as Compliance Methods

Option 2Option 2

Allow Recycling Rates as Compliance Option, but need accurate, timely, and relevant data provided by Industry.

– Do not calculate the 2003 All Container and PET Recycling Rates

– Do not conduct a 2004 RPPC Certification– Pursue statutory changes for Industry to

provide California specific data annually by April

Option 3Option 3

Develop a simpler methodology for calculating the Recycling Rates, and publish them every four years

– Do not calculate the 2003 All Container and PET Recycling Rates

– Do not conduct a 2004 RPPC Certification– Pursue statutory changes to calculate the

Recycling Rates every four years using new Waste Characterization Data

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION

“All Container” and PET Recycling rates are dependent on non-regulated RPPCs

Rates based on regulated RPPC containers would be very low

Data problem has been ongoing Staff can not calculate accurate and timely rates

under the current methodology Therefore staff recommends Option 1

Recycling Infrastructure Recycling Infrastructure InvestmentInvestment

Local Jurisdictions and haulers have invested a significant amount of dollars into collection and processing of recovered materials

Implementation of RPPC program is necessary to support collection infrastructure and markets for processed plastic materials

Is Recycling Good For Is Recycling Good For California’s Economy?California’s Economy?

Creates almost five jobs for every 1,000 tons of waste recycled again and again,

Recycling now accounts for 85,000 jobs, generates $4 billion in salaries and wages, and produces $10 billion worth of goods and services annually,

Generates $100 million per year in sales tax revenue.