Latest news with #CalRecycle
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers ask Newsom and waste agency to follow the law on plastic legislation
California lawmakers are taking aim at proposed rules to implement a state law aimed at curbing plastic waste, saying the draft regulations proposed by CalRecycle undermine the letter and intent of the legislation. In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and two of his top administrators, the lawmakers said CalRecycle exceeded its authority by drafting regulations that don't abide by the terms set out by the law, Senate Bill 54. "While we support many changes in the current draft regulations, we have identified several provisions that are inconsistent with the governing statute ... and where CalRecycle has exceeded its authority under the law," the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Newsom, California Environmental Protection agency chief Yana Garcia, and Zoe Heller, director of the state's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle. The letter, which was written by Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) and Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), was signed by 21 other lawmakers, including Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) and Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) and Monique Limón (D-Goleta). CalRecycle submitted informal draft regulations two weeks ago that are designed to implement the law, which was authored by Allen, and signed into law by Newsom in 2022. The lawmakers' concerns are directed at the draft regulations' potential approval of polluting recycling technologies — which the language of the law expressly prohibits — as well as the document's expansive exemption for products and packaging that fall under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The inclusion of such blanket exemptions is "not only contrary to the statute but also risks significantly increasing the program's costs," the lawmakers wrote. They said the new regulations allow "producers to unilaterally determine which products are subject to the law, without a requirement or process to back up such a claim." Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email that Newsom "was clear when he asked CalRecycle to restart these regulations that they should work to minimize costs for small businesses and families, and these rules are a step in the right direction ..." At a workshop held at the agency's headquarters in Sacramento this week, CalRecycle staff responded to similar criticisms, and underscored that these are informal draft regulations, which means they can be changed. "I know from comments we've already been receiving that some of the provisions, as we have written them ... don't quite come across in the way that we intended," said Karen Kayfetz, chief of CalRecycle's Product Stewardship branch, adding that she was hopeful "a robust conversation" could help highlight areas where interpretations of the regulations' language differs from the agency's intent. "It was not our intent, of course, to ever go outside of the statute, and so to the extent that it may be interpreted in the language that we've provided, that there are provisions that extend beyond ... it's our wish to narrow that back down," she said. These new draft regulations are the expedited result of the agency's attempt to satisfy Newsom's concerns about the law, which he said could increase costs to California households if not properly implemented. Newsom rejected the agency's first attempt at drafting regulations — the result of nearly three years of negotiations by scores of stakeholders, including plastic producers, package developers, agricultural interests, environmental groups, municipalities, recycling companies and waste haulers — and ordered the waste agency to start the process over. Critics say the new draft regulations cater to industry and could result in even higher costs to both California households, which have seen large increases in their residential waste hauling fees, as well as to the state's various jurisdictions, which are taxed with cleaning up plastic waste and debris clogging the state's rivers, highways, beaches and parks. The law is molded on a series of legislative efforts described as Extended Producer Responsibility laws, which are designed to shift the cost of waste removal and disposal from the state's jurisdictions and taxpayers to the industries that produce the waste — theoretically incentivizing a circular economy, in which product and packaging producers develop materials that can be reused, recycled or composted. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Lawmakers ask Newsom and waste agency to follow the law on plastic legislation
California lawmakers are taking aim at proposed rules to implement a state law aimed at curbing plastic waste, saying the draft regulations proposed by CalRecycle undermine the letter and intent of the legislation. In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and two of his top administrators, the lawmakers said CalRecycle exceeded its authority by drafting regulations that don't abide by the terms set out by the law, Senate Bill 54. 'While we support many changes in the current draft regulations, we have identified several provisions that are inconsistent with the governing statute ... and where CalRecycle has exceeded its authority under the law,' the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Newsom, California Environmental Protection agency chief Yana Garcia, and Zoe Heller, director of the state's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle. The letter, which was written by Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) and Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), was signed by 21 other lawmakers, including Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) and Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) and Monique Limón (D-Goleta). CalRecycle submitted informal draft regulations two weeks ago that are designed to implement the law, which was authored by Allen, and signed into law by Newsom in 2022. The lawmakers' concerns are directed at the draft regulations' potential approval of polluting recycling technologies — which the language of the law expressly prohibits — as well as the document's expansive exemption for products and packaging that fall under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The inclusion of such blanket exemptions is 'not only contrary to the statute but also risks significantly increasing the program's costs,' the lawmakers wrote. They said the new regulations allow 'producers to unilaterally determine which products are subject to the law, without a requirement or process to back up such a claim.' Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email that Newsom 'was clear when he asked CalRecycle to restart these regulations that they should work to minimize costs for small businesses and families, and these rules are a step in the right direction ...' At a workshop held at the agency's headquarters in Sacramento this week, CalRecycle staff responded to similar criticisms, and underscored that these are informal draft regulations, which means they can be changed. 'I know from comments we've already been receiving that some of the provisions, as we have written them ... don't quite come across in the way that we intended,' said Karen Kayfetz, chief of CalRecycle's Product Stewardship branch, adding that she was hopeful 'a robust conversation' could help highlight areas where interpretations of the regulations' language differs from the agency's intent. 'It was not our intent, of course, to ever go outside of the statute, and so to the extent that it may be interpreted in the language that we've provided, that there are provisions that extend beyond ... it's our wish to narrow that back down,' she said. These new draft regulations are the expedited result of the agency's attempt to satisfy Newsom's concerns about the law, which he said could increase costs to California households if not properly implemented. Newsom rejected the agency's first attempt at drafting regulations — the result of nearly three years of negotiations by scores of stakeholders, including plastic producers, package developers, agricultural interests, environmental groups, municipalities, recycling companies and waste haulers — and ordered the waste agency to start the process over. Critics say the new draft regulations cater to industry and could result in even higher costs to both California households, which have seen large increases in their residential waste hauling fees, as well as to the state's various jurisdictions, which are taxed with cleaning up plastic waste and debris clogging the state's rivers, highways, beaches and parks. The law is molded on a series of legislative efforts described as Extended Producer Responsibility laws, which are designed to shift the cost of waste removal and disposal from the state's jurisdictions and taxpayers to the industries that produce the waste — theoretically incentivizing a circular economy, in which product and packaging producers develop materials that can be reused, recycled or composted.
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Want to understand CalRecycle's chemical recycling rules? You'll need to pay
Sacramento — Want to know what constitutes an acceptable form of recycling in California under CalRecycle's new draft guidelines for the state's landmark plastic waste law? It'll cost you roughly $187, and even then you may not find your answer. The issue arose this week when CalRecycle held a Sacramento workshop on its proposed regulations to implement Senate Bill 54, the 2022 law designed to reduce California's single-use plastic waste. In the regulations' latest iteration, the agency declared that it will only consider recycling technologies that follow standards issued by the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, the Geneva-based group that sets standards for a variety of industries, including healthcare and transportation. According to the draft regulations: 'A facility's use of a technology that is not a mechanical recycling technology ... shall not be considered recycling unless the facility operates in a manner consistent with ISO 59014:2024.' To access ISO 59014:2024, one must purchase the report for about $187. That's not fair, said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. 'Copies of those ISO standards should be publicly available,' he said. Lapis and others also noted that the law, as written, expressly prohibits chemical and nonmechanical forms of recycling. Officials at CalRecycle, also known as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, didn't respond to the criticism or to questions from The Times. ISO 59014:2024 turns out to be a 38-page report titled 'Environmental management and circular economy — Sustainability and traceability of the recovery of secondary materials — Principles, requirements and guidance.' A copy of the report reviewed by The Times offered no specifics on recycling technologies, or information about the operation of a recycling plant. The word 'recycling' is only used five times in the 'Annex,' a 13-page supplementary section of the report. And there it is mentioned only in the context of establishing definitions or examples of 'organizations engaged in the recovery of secondary materials' or 'collection system types.' For instance, 'Commercial waste and recycling companies' are listed as examples of a type of organization that collects waste. Other waste collectors, according to the report, include municipalities, retailers and reuse organizations such as nonprofit reuse operators. 'The draft calls on aligning facilities with this ISO standard,' said Monica Wilson, senior director of global programs at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. 'That ISO standard is not about recycling. It's not about chemical recycling, it's just not an appropriate comparison for us to be referring to.' Lapis also found the report hard to decipher. 'Maybe I should go back and look at it again, but it'd be helpful if you're citing ISO standards ... that you identify what parts' are being cited, he said. Karen Kayfetz, chief of CalRecycle's Product Stewardship branch, didn't respond to questions or concerns about the inclusion of a report that is not freely available to the public to review. During this week's workshop, she said the agency's use of the ISO standard 'is not meant ... to be a measure of whether you are recycling, but rather just one of multiple criteria that an entity needs to be measured against.' She said the SB 54 statute requires that CalRecycle exclude recycling technologies that produce significant amounts of hazardous waste and tasks the agency with considering environmental and public health impacts of these technologies. 'The ISO standard for the operation of facilities does address some of the best practices that would help to ameliorate and measure those impacts. ... It is meant to be one of multiple criteria that can be utilized as a measure and to help set a floor but not a ceiling,' she said. Ana Ferreira, a spokeswoman for the Wine Institute, which represents more than 1,000 wineries and affiliates across the state, was among those with no complaints about the proposed new regulations. 'We believe it incorporates common-sense changes that would reduce costs and ensure that products are appropriately recycled,' Ferreira said. Tina Andolina, the chief of staff for state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), SB 54's author, said the inclusion of the report and other items in the draft regulations suggests that CalRecycle is considering how to manage these polluting technologies — instead of forbidding them, as the law requires. 'The regulations unlawfully shift the standard from the production of hazardous waste as required by the statute to its management,' she said, reading from a letter Allen had written to the staff. Anja Brandon, director of plastic policy at the Ocean Conservancy, added that along with not being freely available, the ISO standard 'does not satisfy SB 54's requirements to exclude the most hazardous technologies and to minimize the generation of hazardous waste and environmental, environmental justice and public health impacts.' SB 54, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022, requires that by 2032, 100% of single-use packaging and plastic food ware produced or sold in the state must be recyclable or compostable, that 65% of it can be recycled, and that the total volume is reduced by 25%. The law was written to address the mounting issue of plastic pollution in the environment and the growing number of studies showing the ubiquity of microplastic pollution in the human body — such as in the brain, blood, heart tissue, testicles, lungs and various other organs. Last March, after nearly three years of negotiations among various corporate, environmental, waste, recycling and health stakeholders, CalRecycle drafted a set of finalized regulations designed to implement the single-use plastic producer responsibility program under SB 54. But as the deadline for implementation approached, industries that would be affected by the regulations including plastic producers and packaging companies — represented by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Circular Action Alliance — began lobbying the governor, complaining that the regulations were poorly developed and might ultimately increase costs for California allowed the regulations to expire and told CalRecycle that it needed to start the process over. These new draft regulations are the agency's latest attempt at issuing guidelines by which the law can be implemented.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
California Revising Plastic Packaging EPR Regulations
California's government is retooling its extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulatory bill surrounding the recycling of plastic packaging. SB 54, also known as the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, is now being revamped by California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. An arm of the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CalRecycle, as it's informally known, released a revised draft of the regulations last week. Now, stakeholders have until June 3 to submit feedback on the proposal. More from Sourcing Journal California Law Enforcement and DAs Take On Retail, Cargo Thieves Will Trump Tariffs Help or Hurt U.S. Garment Workers? Teamsters Ask CA Legislators to Back Bill Requiring Human Operators for Autonomous Delivery Vehicles The EPR bill, which establishes a program to manage packaging and single-use plastic food containers across numerous sectors of California's economy, bestows primary responsibility for the packaging products' end-of-life on their producers. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in 2022, mandating that by 2032, all single-use plastics in the state must be recyclable or compostable, and the overall use of these materials be reduced by 25 percent. By the end of that period, 65 percent of single-use plastic packaging should be recycled, the law states. But the law's facilitators—CalRecycle—failed to meet a March 8 deadline for delivering the regulations tied to the law. Newsom requested that the regulations process for SB 54 be restarted, which is where the process stands today. California officials have said that that the timeline for implementing the law will not be impacted by the delay. SB 54 is not California's first EPR bill—the state has implemented such programs for batteries and mattresses—and its provisions informed much of the text of SB 707, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act, which mandates that producers of apparel, accessories and home textiles deal with the end-of-life impacts of the products they produce through recycling, reuse and repair. SB 707 was signed into law by the governor last year, and faces a similar regulatory process in the months and years ahead. But many in the business community are skeptical about what the EPR bills will mean for California's businesses, many of which are not accustomed to the burden of these responsibilities or equipped to comply with the new laws. The halting progress in the regulation and rollout of SB 54 could be a harbinger of what's to come for the textile-focused EPR, as both programs focus on sectors with broad impacts and seek to regulate a wide range of products made from different materials. California Retailers Association (CRA) president Rachel Michelin said the trade group is still reviewing the updated draft regulations, but reiterated its 'support and appreciation for Governor Gavin Newsom's consideration of the impact on affordability that these regulations will have on everyday consumers, especially given the ongoing uncertainty with the Trump Administration's tariffs.' She also thanked CalRecycle for its collaboration with retail stakeholders, which will continue through upcoming public hearings. An informal rulemaking workshop will take place on May 27 at California EPA headquarters in Sacramento, followed by a May 30 advisory board meeting and a June 23 workshop on covered materials and reporting guidance. Michelin said the CRA is 'committed to ensure California's landmark Packaging EPR program regulations are successfully implemented, achieving California's ambitious recycling objectives while avoiding undue financial burdens on consumers.' 'CRA members are committed to the environmental goals of SB 54 and appreciate the time taken to craft a collaborative and effective regulatory framework,' she added. 'This demonstrates California's leadership in addressing plastic pollution and advancing sustainable recycling practices.' While several states are seeking to tackle plastic and textile waste, especially in the wake of California's landmark legislative progress, tariffs and economic uncertainty are on the minds of many decision-makers. Some sustainability commitments are falling by the wayside as fiscal pressures mount; last week, PepsiCo last week abandoned its commitment to shareholders for 20 percent of all beverage servings to be delivered in reusable or refillable packaging. It also pulled back on commitments to reduce its use of virgin plastic.
Los Angeles Times
22-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
CalRecycle drafts revised plastic recycling rules that are more friendly to industry.
State waste officials have taken another stab at rules implementing a landmark plastic waste law, more than two months after Gov. Gavin Newsom torpedoed their initial proposal. CalRecycle, the state agency that oversees waste management, recently proposed a new set of draft regulations to implement SB 54, the 2022 law designed to reduce California's single-use plastic waste. The law was designed to shift the financial onus of waste reduction from the state's people, towns and cities to the companies and corporations that make the polluting products. It was also intended to reduce the amount of single use plastics that end up in California's waste stream. The draft regulations proposed last week largely mirror the ones introduced earlier this year, which set the rules, guidelines and parameters of the program — but with some minor and major tweaks. The new ones clarify producer obligations and reporting timelines, said organizations representing packaging and plastics companies, such as the Circular Action Alliance and the California Chamber of Commerce. But they also include a broad set of exemptions for a wide variety of single-use plastics — including any product that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over, which includes all packaging related to produce, meat, dairy products, dog food, toothpaste, condoms, shampoo and cereal boxes, among other products. The rules also leave open the possibility of using chemical or alternative recycling as a method for dealing with plastics that can't be recycled via mechanical means, said people representing environmental, recycling and waste hauling companies and organizations. California's Attorney General, Rob Bonta, filed a suit against ExxonMobil last year that, in part, accuses the oil giant of deceptive claims regarding chemical recycling, which the company disputes. Critics say the introduction of these exemptions and the opening for polluting recycling technologies will undermine and kneecap a law that just three years ago Newsom's office described as 'nation-leading' and 'the most significant overhaul of the state's plastic and packaging policy in history.' The 'gaping hole that the new exemptions have blown' into the bill make it unworkable, practically unfundable, and antithetical to its original purpose of reducing plastic waste, said Heidi Sanborn, director of the National Stewardship Action Council. Last March, after nearly three years of negotiations among various corporate, environmental, waste, recycling and health stakeholders, CalRecycle drafted a set of finalized regulations designed to implement the single-use plastic producer responsibility program under SB 54. But as the deadline for implementation approached, industries that would be affected by the regulations including plastic producers and packaging companies — represented by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Circular Action Alliance — began lobbying the governor, complaining the regulations were poorly developed and might ultimately increase costs for California taxpayers. Newsom allowed the regulations to expire and told CalRecycle it needed to start the process over. Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said Newsom was concerned about the program's potential costs for small businesses and families, which a state analysis estimated could run an extra $300 per year per household. He said the new draft regulations 'are a step in the right direction' and they ensure 'California's bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution,' said Villaseñor in a statement. John Myers, a spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce, whose members include the American Chemistry Council, Western Plastics Assn. and the Flexible Packaging Assn., said the chamber was still reviewing the changes. CalRecycle is holding a workshop next Tuesday to discuss the draft regulations. Once CalRecycle decides to finalize the regulations, which experts say could happen at any time, it moves into a 45 day official rule making period during which time the regulations are reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. If it's considered legally sound and the governor is happy, it becomes official. The law, which was authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D- Santa Monica) and signed by Newsom in 2022, requires that by 2032, 100% of single-use packaging and plastic foodware produced or sold in the state must be recyclable or compostable, that 65% of it can be recycled, and that the total volume is reduced by 25%. The law was written to address the mounting issue of plastic pollution in the environment and the growing number of studies showing the ubiquity of microplastic pollution in the human body — such as in the brain, blood, heart tissue, testicles, lungs and various other organs. According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California. Most of these single-use plastic packaging products cannot be recycled, and as they break-down in the environment — never fully-decomposing — they contribute to the growing burden of microplastics in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil that nourishes our crops. The law falls into a category of extended producer responsibility laws that now regulate the handling of paint, carpeting, batteries and textiles in California — requiring producers to see their products throughout their entire life cycle, taking financial responsibility for their products' end of life. Theoretically such programs, which have been adopted in other states, including Washington, Oregon and Colorado, spur technological innovation and potentially create circular economies — where products are designed to be reused, recycled or composted. Sanborn said the new exemptions not only potentially turn the law 'into a joke,' but will also dry up the program's funding and instead put the financial burden on the consumer and the few packaging and single-use plastic manufacturers that aren't included in the exemptions. 'If you want to bring the cost down, you've got to have a fair and level playing field where all the businesses are paying in and running the program. The more exemptions you give, the less funding there is, and the less fair it is,' she said. In addition, because of the way residential and commercial packaging waste is collected, 'it's all going to get thrown away together, so now you have less funding' to deal with the same amount of waste, but for which only a small number of companies will be accountable for sorting out their material and making sure it gets disposed of properly. Others were equally miffed, including Allen, the bill's author, who said in a statement that while there are some improvements in the new regulations, there are 'several provisions that appear to conflict with law,' including the widespread exemptions and the allowance of polluting recycling technologies. 'If the purpose of the law is to reduce single-use plastic ad plastic pollution,' said Anja Braden from the Ocean Conservancy, these new regulations aren't going to do it — they are 'inconsistent with the law and fully undermine its purpose and goal.' She also said the exemptions preclude technological innovation, dampening incentives for companies to explore new recyclable and compostable packaging materials. Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste, said his organization was 'really disappointed to see the administration caving to industry on some core parts of this program,' and also noted his read suggests many of the changes don't comply with the law. Next Tuesday, the public will have an opportunity to express their concerns at a rulemaking workshop in Sacramento. However, Sanborn fears there will be little time or appetite from the agency or the governor's office to make substantial changes to the new regulations. 'They're basically already cooked,' said Sanborn, noting CalRecycle had already accepted public comments during previous rounds and iterations. 'California should be the leader at holding the bar up in this space,' she said. 'I'm afraid this has dropped the bar very low.'
