1. Consideration of Plastic Trash Bag Manufacturer Requests for an Exemption from the Plastic Trash Bag Law for the 2002 Reporting Period

2. Basis for An Exemption Demonstrate lack of quality APCM –Meet Board quality standards? Demonstrate reasonable efforts were made –Document efforts to work with suppliers

3. Four Manufacturers Requested An Exemption for 2002 Manufacturers requesting exemptions –Clorox –Trans Western Polymers –Poly-America –Pactiv Corporation Board directed staff to confirm that manufacturers made “reasonable efforts”

4. Reasonable Efforts To Obtain APCM Include: ID each APCM supplier contacted ID mutually agreed upon tests & specs used Document quality testing results: –Independent tests –certification from the APCM supplier Document reasons for rejecting each sample Document actions to resolve quality issues

5. Process for Confirming “Reasonable Efforts” Supplied list of questions –Intent of questions was to document reasonable efforts Adequacy of documentation verified through: –Review of all written materials submitted –Individual and conference calls –In person meetings –Email communication Focus was on confirming that “reasonable efforts” were made

6. Reasons Cited For Lack of Availability of Quality APCM Manufacturers reported the following: –Fewer suppliers in business in 2002 –Out of date Board supplier list –Insufficient collection of LLDPE feedstock –Available LLDPE going to other markets –Suppliers lacked capacity to meet orders –Customer specifications (color & strength) make use of APCM more difficult

7. Phone Survey of Suppliers and Compliant Manufacturers Staff phone several APCM suppliers and compliant trash bag manufacturers –Confirm supplier ability to meet demand; both quality and quantity –Confirm with compliant manufacturers how they were able to meet 10 percent APCM requirement

8. Factors Limiting Purchases As Reported By APCM Suppliers APCM price must be lower than virgin No follow up on: –Phone calls offering APCM, or samples submitted –What quality standards samples failed on –Potential purchase orders not completed No feedback about steps to improve quality

9. How Did Other Manufacturers Achieve Compliance Made compliance with 10 % APCM an important goal: –Purchased PCR from several suppliers –Used the 1.2 credit for using CA PCR –Stayed in regular communication with suppliers Culture was one of achieving compliance

10. Issues Raised At Committee New standard of review Not given adequate notice Suppliers not contacting manufacturers There is no APCM available Outdated Board suppliers list

12. Poly-America, 2002 Summary: Exempted in ‘99, ‘00, ‘01 Used 842 tons of APCM in ‘02 –4.1 % Recycled Content Purchased & processed APCM into pellets Supplied receipts documenting purchases

13. Pactiv Corp., 2002 Summary First exemption request Used 357 tons of APCM –7.5% Recycled content Purchased and processed APCM into pellets Supplied receipts documenting purchases

14. Clorox Co., 2002 Summary Exempted in ’99, ’00, and ’01 Used no APCM in 2002 –0% Recycled Content Tested five samples, from 3 suppliers –None met quality standards Could not document that they established effective communication with suppliers to resolve quality problems

15. Trans Western Polymers Inc., 2002 Summary Exempted in ’01 Used 32.5 tons of APCM –1% Recycled content Did not purchase new APCM in 2002 –Tried to run APCM purchased in 2001 Did not attempt to contact new suppliers to obtain better quality APCM

16. Staff Recommendations: Based on review of submitted documentation, follow up discussion with manufacturers, and industry surveys, staff recommends: –Select Option 1 and approve the exemptions for: PolyAmerica Pactiv Corp –Select Option 2 & disapprove the exemptions for: Clorox Trans Western