BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1344
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2005-2006 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1344
AUTHOR: Chesbro
AMENDED: As introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 17, 2006
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : PLASTIC PACKAGING
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the Plastic Packaging Containers Law of
1989, requires every rigid plastic packaging container (RPPC)
sold or offered for sale in the state to, on average, meet
certain criteria (including recycling rates), with certain
exceptions. An exception allows a manufacturer to be in
compliance with the Law if either of the following apply:
1) The manufacturer consumed a volume of postconsumer material
generated in California in the manufacture of a RPPC
subject to the Law or a RPPC not subject to the Law, that
resulted in the consumption of an equivalent amount of
postconsumer material that the RPPC is otherwise required
to contain.
2) The manufacturer arranged by a contractual agreement for
the purchase and consumption of postconsumer material
generated in California and exported to another state for
the manufacturer of RPPCs that is equivalent to, or exceeds
the volume of, postconsumer material that the RPPC is
otherwise required to contain.
This bill revises the above two exceptions by also allowing
the postconsumer materials to be used in "other plastic
products or plastic packaging."
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the sponsor, Illinois Tool
Works, SB 1344 is a successor to SB 743 (Chesbro) Chapter
SB 1344
Page 2
666, Statutes of 2005, and notes that legislation "was
intended to promote more use of recycled plastic that was
collected in California for recycling; but due to a
technical drafting error, an important incentive for
increased recycling of California plastics was not
incorporated into the law enacted. SB 1344 would correct
this error by broadening the incentives to recycle more
California waste and compliance options for divisions of
companies like Illinois Tool Works."
The sponsor also notes that SB 1344 "would create new markets
for recycled plastic and create new businesses and jobs
based on the positive economic and environmental impacts of
recycling. The net effect would be increased demand for
recycled plastic."
2) Plastic Packaging Background . According to the CIWMB 1999
California Statewide Waste Disposal Characterization Study,
RPPCs represent 403,812 tons of the state's municipal solid
wastestream (1.08% of 37,500,002 tons). The total amount
of RPPC recycled/reused was 88,046 tons (17.9% of the total
amount in the wastestream), leaving 315,766 tons disposed.
SB 235 (Hart) Chapter 765, Statutes of 1991, enacted the
Plastic Packaging Containers Law in the California Waste
Management Act of 1989. The Law addressed RPPC
manufacturing requirements and provided for penalties,
regulations, reporting, waivers, and exemptions.
Under the SB 235 manufacturing requirements, every RPPC
sold or offered for sale in the state must meet one of the
following five criteria: a) be made from 25% postconsumer
material, b) have a recycling rate of 25%, c) have a
recycling rate of 55% if its primary material is PET (
i.e. , polyethylene terephthalate meeting the labeling
requirements in Public Resources Code 18015), d) be a
reusable or refillable container, or e) be a source reduced
container. SB 951 (Hart) Chapter 1076, Statutes of 1993,
required PETE material to be included in the 25% recycling
rate provision (b) above) and added a sixth allowable
criteria: have a recycling rate of 45% if it is a
product-associated RPPC or is used in conjunction with a
SB 1344
Page 3
particular generic product line. AB 2508 (House) Chapter
511, Statutes of 1996 added a seventh allowable criteria:
a container containing floral preservative that is
subsequently reused by the floral industry for at least two
years.
Under the SB 235 exemption provisions, the following three
exemptions were allowed: a) RPPCs produced in or out of
the state that are destined for shipment to other
destinations out of the state and which remain with the
products upon shipment; b) RPPCs that contain drugs,
medical devices, medical food, or infant formula; and c)
RPPCs that contain toxic or hazardous products. SB 466
(Boatwright) Chapter 1062, Statutes of 1993, added another
exemption to sunset January 1, 1996: RPPCs that are
manufactured for use in the shipment of hazardous materials
and are prohibited from being manufactured with used
material by certain federal packaging material
specifications. The SB 466 sunset was stricken by SB 605
(Mello) Chapter 171, Statutes of 1995. SB 1155 (Maddy)
Chapter 754, Statutes of 1996, revised the second exemption
above by exempting RPPCs that contain cosmetics or food.
SB 1155 also allowed exempt RPPCs to be counted under
certain manufacturing recycled content requirements if
those exempt RPPCs are recycled. SB 1729 (Chesbro) Chapter
561, Statutes of 2004, revised the definition of "recycling
rate" and deleted the requirement for certain containers to
be included in calculating the recycling rate. SB 743
(Chesbro) Chapter 666, Statutes of 2005, defined "container
manufacturer" and revised the definition of "recycling
rate," provided that a manufacturer is in compliance with
the Law if other RPPCs resulted in the consumption of an
equivalent amount of postconsumer material, and added
certain penalties.
3) Technical issues . Under the Plastic Packaging Containers
Law of 1989, a "recycling rate" is the proportion as
measured by weight, volume, or number of RPPC recycled in a
calendar year. The exception amended by SB 1344, however,
uses the term "equivalent amount" in one paragraph (page 2,
line 18) and "volume" in another (page 2, line 27), thereby
enabling proportions of postconsumer waste to be determined
SB 1344
Page 4
by methods that are inconsistent with the definition of
"recycling rate."
The terms in the two paragraphs should reflect the definition
of "recycling rate" in the Law and include consistent
terms.
SOURCE : Illinois Tool Works
SUPPORT : Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : None on file