Two months after Gov. Gavin Newsom put his initial proposal on the groundbreaking Plastic Waste Law, state waste officials gave another stabbing to the rules for implementing the landmark Plastic Waste Law.
Calrecycle, a national agency that oversees waste management, recently proposed a new set of draft regulations to implement SB 54, a 2022 law aimed at reducing single-use plastic waste in California. The law aims to shift financial responsibility for reducing waste reduction from the people, towns and cities of the state to companies and companies that manufacture polluted products. It also aims to reduce single-use plastics that end up appearing in California waste streams.
The draft regulations proposed last week largely reflect the regulations proposed earlier this year that have laid out rules, guidelines and parameters for the plan, but have made some minor and significant adjustments.
Organizations representing packaging and plastics companies, such as the Circular Action Alliance and the California Chamber of Commerce, articulate producer obligations and reporting schedules.
However, they also include extensive exemptions for a variety of singular plastics, including any products that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have jurisdiction, including all packaging related to meat, meat, dairy, dog food, dog food, toothpaste, toothpaste, condoms, shampoo and cereal boxes.
People representing the environment, recycling and waste transport companies and organizations say the rule can also open up the possibility of using chemical or alternative recycling as a way to deal with plastics that cannot be recycled by mechanical means.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against Exxonmobil last year, which partially accused the oil giant of deceptive claims about the company's chemical recycling, which the company questioned.
Critics say the introduction of these exemptions and the opening of pollution recycling technology will undermine and affirm a law that was described only three years ago as “nationally leading” and “the most important plastic and packaging policy in history”.
Heidi Sanborn, director of the National Steward Action Committee, said the “new exemption has blown away loopholes” in the bill made it impossible to work properly, was actually unfunded and contrary to the original purpose of reducing plastic waste.
Last March, after nearly three years of negotiations between corporate, environmental, waste, recycling and health stakeholders, Calrecycle drafted a series of final regulations aimed at implementing a single-use plastic production responsibility plan under SB 54.
But as the implementation deadline approaches, industries affected by regulations, including plastic producers and packaging companies (represented by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition of Circular Action) have begun lobbying for the governor to complain about the poor development of regulations and could ultimately increase the costs for California taxpayers.
Newsom allows the statute to expire and tells Calrecycle that the process needs to be started.
The governor's spokesman Daniel Villaseñor said Newsom was concerned about the potential costs of the program for small businesses and families, and the state's analysis estimated an additional $300 a year a year.
He said the new regulations “a step in the right direction” and ensured that “California’s bold recycling laws can achieve the goal of reducing plastic pollution,” Villaseñor said in a statement.
Members of the California Chamber of Commerce spokesman John Myers include the American Chemical Commission, the Western Plastics Association. The Flexible Packaging Association said the conference hall is still reviewing the changes.
Calrecycle will hold a workshop next Tuesday to discuss draft regulations. Once Carrecycle decides to complete the regulations, experts say this could happen at any time and it will enter a 45-day formal rulemaking period during which the regulations are reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. If it is considered legally reasonable and the governor is happy, it will become formal.
Written by Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) and signed by Newsom in 2022, the law requires that by 2032, 100% of single-use packaging and plastic food produced or sold in the state must be recyclable or compostable, with 65% of the total volumes being restored and a 25% reduction in total.
The law was written to address the increasing problems of plastic pollution in the environment, and a growing number of studies have shown that the human body's microplastic pollution is everywhere, such as in the brain, blood, heart tissue, testicles, lungs, lungs and various other organs.
according to A country analysissold in California in 2023, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold or distributed.
Most of these single-use plastic packaging products are not recyclable, and because they break in the environment (never completely complex) they cause a growing burden of microplastics in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil that nourishes our crops.
The law falls under a category of extended producer liability laws that now regulate the handling of paint, carpet, batteries and textiles in California – requiring producers to see their products throughout their life cycle and assume financial responsibility for the life of their products.
In theory, such programs have been adopted in other states, including Washington, Oregon and Colorado, spurred technological innovation and possibly created circular economies in which products are designed to be reused, recycled or composted.
Thunburn said the new exemption not only potentially “joking” the law, but it will also dry up the program’s funding, but instead puts the financial burden on consumers and a handful of packaging and single-use plastic manufacturers that are not included in the exemption.
“If you want to reduce costs, you have to have a level, level playing field where all businesses are paying and running the program. The more exemptions, the less money you have, and the fairer it is, the more fair it is.”
Additionally, due to the way to collect waste of residential and commercial packaging, “it’s all going to be thrown away, so now you have less money to deal with the same amount of waste, but only a few companies are responsible for organizing their materials and making sure they’re handled correctly.
Allen, the author of other bills, said in a statement that despite some improvements to the new regulations, “it seems to have several provisions with the law, including extensive exemptions and pollution-contaminated recycling technologies that allow.
“The purpose of the law is to reduce single-use plastic pollution,” said Anja Braden of the Marine Reserve, who wouldn’t do that—they “are inconsistent with the law and completely undermine their purpose and objectives.”
She also said the exemption excludes technological innovation and mitigates incentives for companies to explore new incentives for recyclable and compostable packaging materials.
Nick Lapis, who is with Californians against waste, said his organization “is really disappointed to see some core parts of the program fall into the industry,” his readings suggest that many changes are not in line with the law.
Next Tuesday, the public will have the opportunity to express their concerns at a rulemaking workshop in Sacramento.
However, Sanborn is concerned that the agency or the governor's office has little time or appetite and can make a major change to the new regulations.
“They've basically been cooked,” Sanborn said, noting that Carrecycle has accepted public opinion in the last round and iteration.
“California should be the leader in holding bars in this space,” she said. “I'm afraid that makes bars very low.”
