Rigid Plastic Packaging Container(RPPC) Recycling Rates Workshop February 5, :00 am – 1:00 pm Cal/EPA 1001 “I” Street Sacramento, CA Sierra Hearing Room Contact: Sue Ingle or

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

All-Container Recycling Rate All-Container Recycling Rate = Tons of RPPCs Recycled Tons of RPPCs Generated (Recycling tons sources: CIWMB’s 2001 Processor Survey, and DOC’s recycled tons of CRV + Non-CRV)

2001 Adjustment for Yield Loss, using factors developed by Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.

2001 All-Container Recycling Rate Tons of RPPCs Generated in 2001 = (X  Y  Z)  100 where: X = Y = Z = (1999 Recycled Disposed) 2001 Nat’l Sales 1999 Nat’l Sales (2001 CA Pop / 2001 US Pop) (1999 CA Pop / 1999 US Pop)

Recycling Data Source: 1. CIWMB Annual Processors Survey 2. Department of Conservation’s Annual Report Disposal Data Source: 1. CIWMB’s Annual Disposal Report 2. Waste Characterization Study (95, 99, 03/04) X = (Recycled + Disposed)

Population Ratio Data Source: 1. The U.S. Census Bureau and the 2. California Department of Finance Data used 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001 Data available in April (2001 CA Pop / 2001 US Pop) (1999 CA Pop / 1999 US Pop) Y =

National Resin Sales Data Source: 1. Society of Plastics Industry (Data used for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999) 2. American Plastics Council (Data available annually in April) (Data used for 2000 and 2001: *Includes Canada + US) PET Resin Sales Data Source: 1. Department of Conservation (Data used for 1995, 1996 and 1997) 2001 Nat’l Sales 1999 Nat’l Sales Z =

PET Resin Sales Data Source (continued): 2. Modern Plastics Publication (Data used for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 2000) 3. Society of Plastics Industry (Data used for 1998 and 1999) 4. American Plastics Council (Data used for 2000: *Canada + US) 5. Nat’l Assoc.of PET Cont. Resources (NAPCOR) (Data used for 2001 and *Data Available in September) 2001 Nat’l Sales 1999 Nat’l Sales Z = continued

Background Data for Calculations: National Resin Sales-EXAMPLE Resin Application2002 Pounds PVC Bottles119,062,000 PVC Film and Sheet Packaging Includes: Food wrap Bubble wrap Clam Shell Packaging 497,629,000 Source: American Plastics Council

Year Total All Container Recycling Rates Processor Survey Response Rates ,000 tons 24.6% Best Rate,23.3% low, 25.9% high 84.3% ,745 tons 23.2% Best Rate (no ranges) 99.6% ,702 tons 21.9% Best Rate,20.4% low, 23.5% high 100.0% ,683 tons 19.0% Best Rate,18.1% low, 20.0% high 99.6% ,046 tons 17.9% Best Rate,17.1% low, 18.8% high 99.6% ,024 tons 23.8% Best Rate,22.7% low, 25.1% high 100.0% ,962 tons 26.1% Best Rate,24.9% low, 27.5% high 100.0%

2001 Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Recycling Rate 2001 PET RPPC Tons Recycled 2001 PET RPPC Tons Sold (Recycling tons sources: CIWMB’s 2001 Processor Survey, and DOC’s recycled tons of CRV + Non-CRV)

2001 PET RPPCs Sold = (Tons of 2001 National PET bottle grade resin sales) x (California’s share of U.S. Population) x (0.99) (to account for 1% resin loss during manufacturing) (Source: National Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), US Census Bureau, California Department of Finance )

PET Recycling Trends: Year PET Total Tons Recycling Rates Processor Survey Response Rates ,550 tons 38.8 %84.3% ,750 tons 35.9 %99.6% ,694 tons 33.2 %100.0% ,124 tons 28.5 %99.6% ,799 tons 24.8 %99.6% ,313 tons 36.1 %100.0% ,418 tons 31.8 %100.0%

Recycling Rates

CONCLUSION “All Container” and PET Recycling rates are dependent on non-regulated RPPCs Rates based on regulated RPPC containers would be very low Data problem has been ongoing Staff can not calculate accurate and timely rates under the current methodology March 2004 Board Meeting, Workshop Feedback

Recycling Rate Criteria Develop a rate calculation methodology that meets the following criteria: Develop a rate calculation methodology that meets the following criteria: 1. Based on independent sources of California specific data California specific data 2. Accurate, precise and independently verifiable, transparent verifiable, transparent 3. Reflects recycling of regulated containers containers 4. Cost effective

Oregon’s Recycling Rate Based on tons of Oregon’s RPPC disposed and recycled each year. Based on tons of Oregon’s RPPC disposed and recycled each year. Waste Characterization Study every two years with outside funding Waste Characterization Study every two years with outside funding Survey of recyclers and processors for all materials, including RPPCs Survey of recyclers and processors for all materials, including RPPCs Oregon’s RPPC definition differs from California’s. Example: floral pots Oregon’s RPPC definition differs from California’s. Example: floral pots

Oregon’s Recycling Rate Calculation Recycling Rate = _____Tons Recycled____ Tons Recycled + Tons Disposed (Sources: Staff Survey of Recyclers, WC Study every 2 years, and Oregon’s disposal tons).

Wisconsin’s RPPC Program Require 10% Post or pre-consumer, post industrial scrap Require 10% Post or pre-consumer, post industrial scrap No Recycling rates calculated No Recycling rates calculated No annual Certifications No annual Certifications No real ability to enforce RPPC law No real ability to enforce RPPC law