1 / 16

ALL of the following: made entirely of plastic; relatively inflexible, capable of maintaining its shape; Between eight o

Rigid Plastic Packaging Container(RPPC) Recycling Rates Board Meeting April 13, 2004 Cal/EPA California Integrated Waste Management Board Waste Prevention & Market Development Plastic Recycling Technologies Contact: Sue Ingle 916-341-6511 or single@ciwmb.ca.gov. Definition of an RPPC.

tod
Download Presentation

ALL of the following: made entirely of plastic; relatively inflexible, capable of maintaining its shape; Between eight o

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rigid Plastic Packaging Container(RPPC) Recycling Rates Board MeetingApril 13, 2004 Cal/EPA California Integrated Waste Management Board Waste Prevention & Market DevelopmentPlastic Recycling TechnologiesContact: Sue Ingle 916-341-6511 or single@ciwmb.ca.gov

  2. Definition of an RPPC • ALL of the following: • made entirely of plastic; • relatively inflexible, capable of maintaining its shape; • Between eight ounces and five gallons

  3. Rigid Plastic Packaging Containers Regulated:Non-Regulated: - soap, detergent - soda, beer, water - clamshell packaging - food, drugs, (non-food) cosmetics oil, gas additives - hazardous materials, pesticides, floral

  4. RPPC Compliance Methods • 25% All Container Recycling Rate • 55% PET Container Recycling Rate • 25% Post Consumer Resins (PCR) used in manufacture of container • 10% Source Reduction (SR) of resins in manufacture of container • Container meets criteria for Reuse or Refill [Title 14 CCR 17946.5(3)]

  5. Use of Existing Methodology No Longer Feasible • Data Adjustment Issues: • Data sources now include Canada and Mexico • Differences in use of RPPCs by region • Data not published in format or timeframe: • Can not accurately disaggregate for RPPCs • No import data • Not published in time to meet commitment to provide advance notice

  6. Board Directed Workshop February 5, 2004 Workshop! Objectives: • Understand Methodology limitations • Forum for discussing solutions • Obtain stakeholder feedback

  7. Methodology Criteria: • Based on independent sources of California specific data, • Accurate, precise and independently verifiable, • Measure effectiveness of the law, • Cost effective

  8. Stakeholder Feedback 1. Remove Recycling Rates: • Support: 5 (Recyclers/Environmental Groups) • Oppose: 7 (Industry, Manufacturing Lobbyist) 2. Oregon’s Methodology • Support: 10 (Industry, Manufacturing Lobbyist) • Oppose: 5 (Recyclers/Environmental Groups) 3. Other Recommendations: • Disposal-Base Calculation • All-Plastic Recycling Rate • Landfill Ban

  9. Rating by Methodology Criteria: Criteria Rating: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 CA Specific Data N/A Yes Yes Yes Accurate, Precise N/A Yes Yes No Measures Law N/A No Yes No Cost Effective Yes No No No Statutory Change Yes No Yes Yes Certifications Yes Maybe Yes Maybe

  10. Pros: Cost and resource effective Supports intent RPPC law Streamlines implementation of RPPC law Doesn’t depend on data collection Supported by recycling community Cons: Requires statutory change Eliminates recycling rates as compliance options Not supported by industry (annual certifications) Option 1: Eliminate the All-container and PET recycling rates as com- pliance options and pursue statutory changes to existing RPPC law.

  11. Pros: No statutory change needed California specific, accurate and precise rates Supported by industry Maintains historical recycling measurement Cons: Very costly Staff intensive Doesn’t measure effectiveness of RPPC law Opposed by recycling community Option 2: Adopt “Oregon’s” Methodology for calculating Recycling Rates.

  12. Pros: Effectively measures RPPC law California specific, accurate and precise rates Maintains historical recycling measurement Cons: Very costly Staff intensive Requires Statutory Changes Opposed by recycling community Option 3: Adopt “Oregon’s” Methodology for calculating the All-container and PET recycling rates for Regulated containers

  13. Pros: Uses Ca. data Cons: Very costly & staff intensive Requires statutory Changesc Requires a base year to measure disposal changes Not precise nor accurate Doesn’t measure effectiveness of RPPC law Option 4: Adopt Methodology using a disposal based methodology, similar to calculation as used by local jurisdictions for AB 939 diversion

  14. Costs and Task Analysis: Annual Costs Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Add. Staff $0 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 PR Survey $0 $40,000 $40,000 $0 RC Study $0 $0 $100,000 $0 WC Study $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $290,000 $400,000 $200,000 TOTAL

  15. CONCLUSION • Staff can not calculate accurate and timely rates under the current methodology. • Data problem has been ongoing • Based on Criteria- staff recommends the Board Adopt Option 1, and support current legislation to eliminate the “all container” and PET recycling rates from the RPPC law.

  16. Recycling Rates

More Related