Zoe Heller, director of CalRecycle, the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s SB 54 EPR law for single-use packaging the state’s SB 343 “truth-in-recycling” labeling law, discusses how these policies will affect packaging design, recyclability claims, and compliance strategies for brands selling into one of the nation’s largest markets.
Packaging World:
Zoe Heller, director of CalRecycle, the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s SB 54 EPR law for single-use packaging the state’s SB 343 “truth-in-recycling” labeling law, discusses how these policies will affect packaging design, recyclability claims, and compliance strategies for brands selling into one of the nation’s largest markets.
Packaging World:
If you had to summarize SB 54 for a national brand owner selling into California, what’s the biggest misconception about the law, and what does it change about packaging design beyond simply paying EPR fees?
Zoe Heller:
Zoe Heller, Director, CalRecycleCalRecycle
For producers, this is a transformative opportunity to rethink their systems and products to supply a more circular economy for packaging and food serviceware. By reevaluating materials and formats, producers can design for less waste and ensure their materials are collected and turned into new products to address the cost and pollution burdens for consumers.
Given that rulemaking is still evolving, what does designing for compliance in California look like in practical terms, and what actions should brands be taking now versus waiting for final regulations?
Some immediate steps producers can take include registering with the Circular Action Alliance, which is California’s producer responsibility organization [PRO] and engage with them to align their compliance strategies. Brands should also assess their portfolios to understand which formats may require additional investments, innovation, or alternatives to meet future targets. Another step they can take is to explore design innovation opportunities and consider how material choices, changes to components, and reuse or refill systems can better position them for success. Brands need to start planning now. Early action can help reduce risks and position them as innovation leaders.
What packaging counts under SB 54, and what parts of packaging do companies often overlook when they think about compliance? Does the law treat primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging differently?
Single-use packaging, or “packaging routinely recycled, disposed of, or discarded and typically not refilled or reused by a producer,” applies to all covered material types. Primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging all count if they are single-use covered material and sold in or into California. Tertiary packaging may include things like plastic film used for transport packaging or large packaging used to contain smaller packaging for bulk items.
Under SB 54, how does California define recyclable and compostable, how does that differ from industry norms or marketing usage, and what packaging features most often disqualify a format from meeting those definitions?
California’s SB 54 defines recyclable and compostable based on what’s actually collected and processed at scale, not just what’s technically possible. For recyclability, SB 54 refers to the state’s truth in labeling law (SB 343, Allen, 2021) criteria, including packaging that’s accepted for collection by local recycling programs that serve at least 60% of the state’s population and packaging that’s sorted into defined streams by facilities that serve 60% of the state’s recycling programs and sent to reclaimers that meet Basel Convention requirements [a 1989 international treaty designed to reduce, control, and manage the transboundary movement of hazardous and other wastes]. It also includes packaging that meets design and composition requirements such as those meant to reduce harmful chemicals.
For compostability, the law relies on AB 1201 (Ting, 2021) compostable labeling standards that require materials to be allowable agricultural organic inputs under the USDA National Organic Program, among other requirements.
Some covered materials don’t yet have strong markets or face other challenges that inhibit their recycling or composting at scale. Because of this, changing how products are designed can make a big difference in whether these materials can actually be recycled or composted.
How will California evaluate alternative compliance pathways such as compostable packaging or emerging recycling technologies like chemical or advanced recycling when determining recyclability and program compliance?
It’s premature to provide a definitive answer to this question since the rulemaking process is ongoing. That said, SB 54 provides an avenue for materials to be considered recyclable if a clear trend toward meeting the criteria I outlined in my response to the last question can be shown. Additionally, emerging recycling technologies are processing methods that might be considered “recycling” pending processes and performance standards that are part of the proposed regulations and identified in the law.
What constitutes an “indicator of recyclability” under SB 343, how should brands reconcile national labeling strategies with California’s restrictions, and what documentation should companies retain to substantiate recyclability or compostability claims?
For manufacturers to sell products and packaging in California that include recycling claims, like the chasing arrows symbol or other indicators of recyclability, they must demonstrate that the products and packaging meet the labeling criteria established in SB 343.
CalRecycle can’t speak to national branding strategies or legal substantiation of marketing claims. We don’t review and approve labels, nor do we take enforcement action related to the use of labels on product or packaging. We’re required by law to help manufacturers determine the appropriate labeling for their products by providing data on the collection and processing of that material in California.
Compliance with SB 54 concerns whether materials are considered recyclable in the state. How packaging is actually labeled isn’t relevant to our enforcement of SB 54. CalRecycle doesn’t determine whether labels violate SB 343.
Will SB 54 fees be eco-modulated, and what packaging attributes or design decisions are most likely to increase or reduce a producer’s financial obligation under the program?
SB 54 gives CAA the ability to establish and adjust eco-modulated fees to incentivize safer and more sustainable materials, including malus fees that may apply to materials that contain toxic heavy metals, pathogens, or additives. It can also provide credits or reduced fees based on the use of PCR content, reduced plastic content, a transition to reuse and refill systems, and derivation from renewable materials.
How should brands think about strategies such as PCR content and reuse or refill systems within SB 54 compliance pathways?
Producers must achieve a 25% reduction in single-use plastic by 2032. At least 10% of that must come from shifting from disposable packaging to reusable or refillable systems. The rest will be reduced by shifting to non-plastic materials, rightsizing, optimization, the elimination of components, concentrated products, and large or large-format packaging. Source reduction may include a limited credit for the use of PCR content in lieu of virgin plastic.
What audit, verification, and enforcement approaches should brands anticipate as the program rolls out?
Producers of covered materials should anticipate a compliance-assistance-first approach as SB 54 ramps up. This includes educational material, guidance documents, and outreach from CalRecycle on producer obligations. We may conduct audits, verify reported data, and follow up with producers as we deem necessary to support compliance.
More format enforcement actions remain available. However, we may use discretion in accordance with the statute and regulations, once they’re approved, to determine the best approach to facilitate producers coming into compliance.
Given the withdrawal and revision of the proposed SB 54 regulations, what’s the current anticipated timeline for final rules, PRO approvals, and producer obligations?
The rulemaking process doesn’t change the overall direction of SB 54 and its statutorily mandated obligations or timelines. We withdrew the proposed regulations from the Office of Administrative Law Review to make targeted clarifications. We held a 15-day comment period on the proposed revised regulations from January 29 through February 13, and we’re currently in the process of reviewing and responding to those comments.
CalRecycle remains committed to implementing this bold recycling law in a way that achieves its goals of reducing plastic waste and supporting a circular economy, while minimizing costs for businesses as well as consumers and working families as much as possible. PW
