California Plastics Packaging Bill "Unnecessary" - Industry

A California bill that would impose a packaging tax on manufacturers of products sold in rigid plastic containers that fail to meet certain state-mandated recycling criteria is scheduled to be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee May 21.

Under previous legislation - the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 - containers for food and cosmetics were exempted from such criteria.

SB 1069 would require any manufacturer of products offered for sale in a plastic container to pay a "plastic pollution prevention fee" to the state's Integrated Waste Management Board for every container "of a resin type that fails to equal or exceed a recycling rate of 50% or more on or before Jan. 1, 2005."

The legislation was introduced by Sen. Wesley Chesbro (D-District 2) in late February.

"One category of material - plastic packaging - stands out as a recycling failure," the bill states. "While plastic packaging remains one of the fastest growing components of California's waste stream, recycling rates for plastic packaging lag behind those for virtually every other packaging material."

Recycling rates for rigid plastic containers have actually been in decline, the bill continues, dropping from 25% in 1995 to less than 18% in 1999.

Consequently, the legislature intends to pursue a "path of shared responsibility between product producers, container manufacturers, local governments and private recyclers" to ensure that half of all plastic containers are recycled rather than disposed of, the bill reads.

The amount of the fee would be "equal to the difference between the average cost of recycling and the average scrap value for each resin type as determined by the [Integrated Waste Management] Board."

For non-recyclable containers, the fee would be set "in an amount equal to the average cost of collection and disposal of the container as solid waste." If enacted, assessment of fees would begin Jan. 1, 2006.

The bill unanimously passed the Senate Environmental Policy Committee on April 26. If it clears the Appropriations Committee, the bill then would move to the Senate floor and, following California's linear legislative process, would eventually reach the Assembly. The bill must pass from Appropriations June 1 and from the Senate by June 8.

Industry opposition to the measure is mobilizing. "SB 1069 would require a complex and confusing administrative procedure," the California Packaging Alliance states in a May 9 letter to Appropriations Committee Chairman Dede Alpert (D-District 39).

"The unrealistic recycling mandates and imposition of a new tax on business are unnecessary and represent bad public policy," the group continues.

The alliance estimates fees exceeding $100 mil. annually would be collected for subsidizing public and private recycling activities; however, the bill offers no guidelines for such expenditures.

Comprised of consumer product manufacturers, plastic packaging firms and trade groups, including the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, the alliance has commissioned a study of the manufacture and use of plastic "to create and develop innovative solutions to conserve resources," the letter states. Study results are expected by the end of the year.

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, Consumer Specialty Products Association and Soap and Detergent Association also are among the groups that oppose the bill.

The recycling rates proposed by SB 1069 are "neither obtainable, nor measurable," CHPA maintains in an April 23 letter to the Environment Quality Committee.

Existing legislation under the California Rigid Plastic Container law allows for exemption of certain types of plastic containers, including food, drugs and cosmetics, "because of the health and safety concerns associated with the packaging of these products and the extensive FDA requirements" that must be met, the OTC drugs and nutritionals trade group states.

"Subjecting these medicines, vitamins and dietary supplement products to an arbitrary recycling mandate undermines the primary concern for the safety and purity of these products for consumers," CHPA asserts.