California lawmakers look to quantify PCR imports

As the import volume of post-consumer recycled plastic (PCR) surges, recyclers claim that this move is harming the American plastic recycling system, and there are allegations that some imported resins may not be genuine recycled materials. A bill currently being advanced in California requires beverage container manufacturers to report the origin of all PCR in their products.

Senate Bill 633 (SB 633) will add third-party PCR verification and origin requirements to the regular reporting that producers are required to submit under the state's container deposit system. These reports must be submitted to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

The bill was introduced in February by Democratic Senator Catherine Blakespear, who represents parts of San Diego and Orange County. After passing the state Senate in early June, it is now entering the review stage in the state Assembly.

At the hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee on July 14, Blakespear elaborated on California's beverage container recycling content regulations, which require that by 2025, PCR accounts for 25% of containers, and by 2030, it reaches 50%.

"These goals have driven up the demand for recycled plastics, and currently, most recycled plastics come from out-of-state and international recyclers," Blakespear said. "According to reports, last year saw a record high in imports. However, there is currently no system in place to verify the authenticity of the recycled content claimed by beverage manufacturers."

"In fact, recycled plastic, after being processed into pellets or sheets by recyclers, is indistinguishable from new plastic," Blakespear continued, "Recent reports have found that at least some of the plastic imported into the state has new plastic masquerading as recycled plastic."

Blakespear pointed out that California already has similar third-party verification requirements for manufacturers using recycled plastic in reusable shopping bags, and at the time this requirement came into effect, most bag manufacturers were unable to prove that their bags were made from recycled materials.

"This indicates that we also need a 'trust but verify' model for the recycled plastic in the bottles," she said.

The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) is the main supporter of the legislation. APR has under its umbrella Resource Recycling, Inc., which is the publisher of Plastics Recycling Update.

APR state government relations manager Allison Kustic testified that manufacturers sourcing PCR from overseas is harming recyclers within the state.

"California recyclers are indeed struggling to maintain operations because they cannot sell their recycled plastic," she said.

Kustic is discussing the necessity of the packaging producer responsibility extension system established by Bill 54 (SB 54).

"These policies will collect thousands of pounds of recyclable materials, but if California recyclers cannot sell their products, there will be no businesses left to recycle the materials collected in California, which is a big problem," Kustic added.

The American Beverage Association testified against the measure, stating that while the organization supports a recycling component verification system, the origin requirements are concerning.

"As long as the resin is certified, its origin is essentially irrelevant to the discussion," said Dennis Albiani, representing the American Beverage Association. He added that the bill places the responsibility for origin information on manufacturers, who "may not have direct knowledge of the source of the materials—we are not bottle manufacturers, we are just companies that fill beverages into bottles."

The committee passed the bill with 9 votes in favor and 4 votes against, and the bill has been submitted to the appropriations committee for further review.