1. California Integrated Waste Management Board Meeting, January 13, 2004. Rigid Plastic Packaging Container (RPPC) Plastic Recycling Rates

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

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

4. Compliance Methods 1. 25% All Container Recycling Rate 2. 55% PET Container Recycling Rate 3. 25% Post Consumer Resins (PCR) used in manufacture of container 4. 10% Source Reduction (SR) of resins in manufacture of container 5. Container meets criteria for Reuse or Refill [Title 14 CCR 17946.5(3)]

5. Why we’re here Make rates consistent with exemption of food/cosmetic containers - Transparent and related to regulated RPPCs Meet commitment to provide adequate notice of certifications Complete certifications on a one year cycle

6. All-Container Recycling Rate All-Container Recycling Rate = Tons of RPPCs Recycled Tons of RPPCs Generated

7. 2001 All-Container Recycling Rate Tons of RPPCs Generated in 2001 = (X  Y  Z)  100 where: X = Y = Z = (1999 Recycled + 1999 Disposed) 2001 Nat’l Sales 1999 Nat’l Sales (2001 CA Pop / 2001 US Pop) (1999 CA Pop / 1999 US Pop)

8. 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)

9. 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 =

10. 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 =

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Recycling Rates

15. Spring 2003 – Industry feedback Spring 2003 – Industry feedback May 2003 Board Meeting May 2003 Board Meeting November 20, 2003 Interested Parties (IP) Meeting November 20, 2003 Interested Parties (IP) Meeting December 18, 2003 – Staff e-mail December 18, 2003 – Staff e-mail December 30, 2003 – Follow up e-mail December 30, 2003 – Follow up e-mail Notice Given To Stakeholders

16. Stakeholder Feedback No chance to reviewAPC, SPI, “Rush to judgment”RPPI, Soap Expense to industryand Detergent Use IP processAssociation Support ProcessTalco, CAW

17. Option 1 Eliminate the Recycling Rate as a Compliance Method. – Do not calculate the 2003 All Container and PET Recycling Rates – Do not conduct a 2004 RPPC Certification – Pursue statutory changes to eliminate the Recycling Rates as Compliance Methods

18. Option 2 Allow Recycling Rates as Compliance Option, but need accurate, timely, and relevant data provided by Industry. – Do not calculate the 2003 All Container and PET Recycling Rates – Do not conduct a 2004 RPPC Certification – Pursue statutory changes for Industry to provide California specific data annually by April

19. Option 3 Develop a simpler methodology for calculating the Recycling Rates, and publish them every four years – Do not calculate the 2003 All Container and PET Recycling Rates – Do not conduct a 2004 RPPC Certification – Pursue statutory changes to calculate the Recycling Rates every four years using new Waste Characterization Data

20. 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 Therefore staff recommends Option 1

21. Recycling Infrastructure Investment Local Jurisdictions and haulers have invested a significant amount of dollars into collection and processing of recovered materials Implementation of RPPC program is necessary to support collection infrastructure and markets for processed plastic materials

22. Is Recycling Good For California’s Economy? Creates almost five jobs for every 1,000 tons of waste recycled again and again, Recycling now accounts for 85,000 jobs, generates $4 billion in salaries and wages, and produces $10 billion worth of goods and services annually, Generates $100 million per year in sales tax revenue.