California Integrated Waste Management Board 1 Rigid Plastic Packaging Container (RPPC) Informal Rulemaking Jerry Berumen Permitting and Compliance Committee Meeting November 5, 2007

California Integrated Waste Management Board 2 RPPC 2007 Informal Rulemaking Process  March 2007 Board direction  Convene an Advisory Group  Develop revised regulations  June Workshop  August / Sept review of revised draft  October 30th Interested Parties Meeting Summarized proposed changes

California Integrated Waste Management Board 3 Need for Changes Regulatory changes are needed to: 1. Incorporate recent statutory changes 2. Clarify key definitions 3. Improve certification processes 4. Improve overall readability and organization

California Integrated Waste Management Board 4 RPPC Law – Intent  Conserve resources  Divert plastic packaging from disposal  Support markets for Postconsumer material (PCM)  Support plastic collection and processing infrastructure

California Integrated Waste Management Board 5 RPPC Law – Implementation  Certifications first conducted in 1997  Enforcement actions began in 1999  Processes highlighted the need for changes to the regulations:  Organization  Key definitions  Inconsistencies  Inequities  Certification Process

California Integrated Waste Management Board 6 Key Issues  Proposed Definitions  Postconsumer Material Section 17943(l)  Product Manufacturer Section 17943(n)  Reusable Container Section 17943(r)  RPPC Section 17943(s)  Source Reduced Container Section 17943(v)  Alternative Container Compliance Methods Section  Pre-Certification Process Section  Advisory Opinions Section

California Integrated Waste Management Board 7 Proposed Definitions - Postconsumer Material Section 17943(l)  Postindustrial material can no longer be credited to PCM use requirements

California Integrated Waste Management Board 8 Proposed Definitions – Product Manufacturer Section 17943(n)  Producer or generator of the product offered for sale in CA  Factors for identifying the Product Manufacturer (PM)  Ownership of the brand name  Primary control over product design  Primary control over container design  Not a hierarchical list of factors

California Integrated Waste Management Board 9 Proposed Definitions – Reusable Container Section 17943(r)  Replacement Product  A reusable RPPC stores a replacement product sold by the same manufacturer  Replenishes the contents of the original RPPC  A reusable RPPC does not permanently store the original product

California Integrated Waste Management Board 10 Proposed Definitions – RPPC Section 17943(s)  Includes metal or plastic handles and other non-plastic, incidental packaging elements  Capable of at least one closure  Including manufacturing process  Includes “relatively inflexible containers,” but not film packaging  May be capable of being folded or collapsed

California Integrated Waste Management Board 11 Relatively Inflexible Finite Shape Not Regulated Maintains its shape while holding other products “Relatively Flexible” Regulated “Relatively Inflexible” Maintains its shape while holding other products Does not maintain its shape while holding other products

California Integrated Waste Management Board 12 Proposed Definitions – Source Reduced Container Section 17943(v)  Deleted obsolete language  Comparison of containers based on def. of Particular Type RPPC  Clarified that “similar RPPCs” are alike in shape, volume, and concentration

California Integrated Waste Management Board 13 Proposed Definitions – Source Reduced Container Section 17943(v)  Factors for approving source reduction through resin switching:  Comparison of recycling rate data for both resin types  Availability of PCM for the resin types of appropriate quality for use in RPPCs  Information supplied by the manufacturer  Any other relevant sources of information

California Integrated Waste Management Board 14 Alternative Container Compliance Methods - Section  Proposed regulations copy the statutory provision verbatim  More clarity may be needed in the regulations  CaPCM used in other products or packaging may be credited toward the RPPC PCM content option:  Consumed directly by manufacturer  By contractual agreement for the purchase and consumption of PCM generated in the state and exported to another state for products or packaging  Actions must be taken during the same period for which the manufacturer is subject to the chapter

California Integrated Waste Management Board 15 Proposed Pre-Certification Process Section  Product Manufacturers will be notified almost 2 years in advance of possible certification  Allows companies time to achieve compliance without threat of immediate penalties  Newly identified companies will be notified that they have been added to the pool of regulated companies  Company submits contact information  May also submit documentation that it is not regulated

California Integrated Waste Management Board 16 Proposed Pre-Certification Process Section (Continued)  Selection hierarchy for companies in the pool for certification  Non-compliant from previous certification  Random selection  companies not previously required to certify  companies that have previously certified compliance  Selected companies shall be notified by March 1 st of the measurement period

California Integrated Waste Management Board 17 Proposed Certification Timeline Section

California Integrated Waste Management Board 18 Proposed Advisory Opinions Section  Establishes new process for a manufacturer to request advisory opinions from the Executive Director regarding its compliance status  Requests can only be submitted after receiving a notice from the CIWMB (March 1 st ) that the company may be required to demonstrate compliance for that measurement period  Requests must be submitted in writing within 60 days of receiving the CIWMB notice  Executive Director must issue an opinion within 45 working days of receiving the request

California Integrated Waste Management Board 19 Conclusion Proposed changes will:  Align RPPC regulations with new and existing statute and Board Strategic Directives  Key definitions  CaPCM compliance options  “Levels the playing field” by eliminating inconsistencies in the existing regulations

California Integrated Waste Management Board 20 Conclusion Proposed changes will help to:  Divert RPPCs from disposal  Support collection infrastructure and markets for postconsumer material  Promote producer responsibility

California Integrated Waste Management Board 21 CIWMB Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Board approve Option 1 and direct staff to notice a 45- day comment period for proposed revisions to the RPPC regulations.

California Integrated Waste Management Board 22

California Integrated Waste Management Board 23

California Integrated Waste Management Board 24

California Integrated Waste Management Board 25 Inequities in the Law “Name of the entity on the container label” This language led to what is known as the “Manufactured for...by....” statement. Companies began labeling their products this way, and by doing so the company effectively transfers compliance responsibility away from themselves.

California Integrated Waste Management Board 26 Inequities in the Law “Name of the entity on the container label” This is becoming standard practice amongst many of the larger companies.

California Integrated Waste Management Board 27 Proposed Rulemaking Timeline  Scope of Work  Economic and Fiscal Analysis  Projected completion – March 31, 2008  Rulemaking Process  Noticed with OAL April 2008  Complete December 2008

California Integrated Waste Management Board 28 Inequities in the Existing Law “Made Entirely of Plastic” Companies began attaching metal handles to their pails to avoid regulation by the law.

California Integrated Waste Management Board 29 Inequities in the Existing Law “Capable of Multiple Reclosure” Almost identical containers are treated unequally. One is regulated and one is not.

California Integrated Waste Management Board 30 Inequities in the Existing Law “Capable of Multiple Reclosure” Companies began sealing containers, not to comply with the law, but to avoid regulation by the law.