SB 54 May Public Workshop Recap

CalRecycle held their May informal public workshop today (link to public notice) to consult with the public, the regulated community, and other interested parties to solicit feedback on some of the requirements outlined in SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022). The workshop focused on Source Reduction and Responsible End Markets. Highlights of the meeting, including comments/questions presented by the public, are provided below. The CRA team will send the workshop slides as soon as they are made available.

Important dates:

• All written feedback for the May workshop must be submitted to CalRecycle by June 14.
• The next CalRecycle workshop will be held June 28 and June 29 at 10:00 AM.
• The rulemaking process for SB 54 must be completed by CalRecycle by January 1, 2025.

Highlights from the May Workshop:

• The majority of comments and questions submitted during today's workshop included CalRecycle's modeling of SB 54 regs after Oregon; separating out compostable materials from recyclables; the End Market yield requirement of 60%; auditing concerns and PRO plans for viable markets.
• Commenters included the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, Californians Against Waste, California Product Stewardship Council and City of Palo Alto.
• Containers under SB 1013 are not covered material. CalRecycle will do its best to exclude non-covered material.
• Producers will get up to eight percent credit for source reduction achieved.
• Covered material is any material imported into the state for sale or distribution. This can include corporate promotional items given out at health fairs or other community events.
• CalRecycle reviewed and collected feedback on definitions including "plastic", "nonplastic", "nonplastic component", "paper," "source reduction", "optimize", "end market" and "responsible". CalRecycle definitions are similar to what Oregon regs propose.
• CalRecycle is also proposing end market for compostable materials. Defining an end market for compostable materials is important to CalRecycle.
• There was discussion around transparency with the information CalRecycle will be publishing under SB 54 including tracking for residuals- where they are disposed and how they are disposed. Responsible end markets could become non-responsible after PRO is approved. Public comments on this issue centered around the need to hold PROs accountable after approval.
• Spot audits were requested in addition to the audits CalRecycle has planned in the regs.
• There were concerns over plastic coding on a paper product and potential regulatory loopholes that need to be addressed. The paper product, for example, would get recycled, but the plastic label would not. 
• The regs are silent on emissions of material in regards to movement of material- commentators wanted to make sure SB 54 regs do not reduce emissions in one area while increasing them in another.
• Intermediate supply chain entities also being regulated as supply chain end markets. CalRecycle should consider the burden of tracking materials. This burden could end up going to Material Recovery Facility (MRFs) or jurisdictions to track materials when they leave the facility and pass through dozens of different entities. How will those different entities be regulated and requirements to keep track of all the data required to meet those regs.
• The City of Palo Alto commented on concerns about end market definition for compostables. If compostable straws, bags, etc. are allowed to go into waste stream, they will have to go into a high diversion processing facility, but those facilities do not have to meet the definition of compostability to ensure items are composted within 60 days or 180 days. A lot of items get screened out and land filled. Will CalRecycle reach out to these facilities to ensure they are following these standards and confirming whether or not items are being composted or not.
• There will be a variety of new products that manufacturers will come up with. CalRecycle needs to be able to determine what is acceptable or not with these regs, similar to what the agency will be doing with end markets. 
• Clarification of the phrase "economically efficient and practical" in PRC 42051.1 (c)(1) was reviewed and discussed. Increased costs alone do not qualify an action as being not economically efficient and practical. Exceptions listed by CalRecycle for increasing costs include improved access and improved economic opportunity especially in disadvantaged communities.