the newsletter of the western plastics...
TRANSCRIPT
1
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
W W W. W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S . O R G O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4
T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S A S S O C I AT I O NWPA TODAY
G O V E R N O R J E R RY B R O W N P R E S S R E L E A S E O N B I L L S I G N I N G :
GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS LEGISLATION TO BAN SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGSBY OF F ICE OF GOVERNOR EDMUND G . B ROWN J R .
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
today signed the nation’s first
statewide ban on single-use
plastic bags—SB 270—aligning
state law with ordinances passed
by a growing number of local
governments in California to
reduce plastic waste.
“This bill is a step in the right
direction—it reduces the torrent
of plastic polluting our beaches,
parks and even the vast ocean
itself,” said Governor Brown.
“We’re the first to ban these
bags, and we won’t be the last.”
The legislation, authored by Sen-
ator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima),
prohibits grocery stores and
pharmacies from distributing
single-use plastic bags after July
2015 and enacts the same ban
for convenience stores and liquor
stores the following year. It will
also provide up to $2 million in
competitive loans—administered
by CalRecycle—to businesses
transitioning to the manufacture
of reusable bags.
Thus far, over 120 local govern-
ments in California have passed
ordinances banning single-use
bags in some fashion, with wide-
spread support from community
and environmental groups. SB
270 is supported by many of
these same groups, along with
local governments, businesses
and labor organizations.
“I applaud Governor Brown for
signing SB 270 into law. He con-
tinues to lead our state forward
with a commitment to sustain-
ability. A throw-away society is
not sustainable. This new law
will greatly reduce the flow of
billions of single-use plastic bags
that litter our communities and
harm our environment each year.
Moving from single-use plastic
bags to reusable bags is common
sense. Governor Brown’s signa-
ture reflects our commitment to
protect the environment and
reduce government costs,” said
Senator Padilla.
“The California coast is a
national treasure and a calling
card for the world, helping us
attract visitors and business from
around the globe. Removing the
harmful blight of single-use
plastic bags, especially along our
coastline and waterways, helps
ensure the kind of clean and
healthy environment we need to
have a stronger economy and a
brighter future,” said Assembly
Speaker Toni Atkins.
(Continued, see Brown, page 2)
I N T H I S I S S U E :
Press Release: SB 270 1
SB 270 3
Other Legislation 15
Marine Debris 22
Recycling 23
Member News 26
S AV E T H ED AT E S :U P C O M I N G M E E T I N G S
November 18 N O RWA L K , C A
November 19 VA N C O U V E R , B C
2
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
“SB 270 is a win-win for the envi-
ronment and for California work-
ers. We are doing away with the
scourge of single-use plastic
bags and closing the loop on the
plastic waste stream, all while
maintaining—and growing—
California jobs. As we further
develop our green economy, SB
270 will be a model for balancing
the health of the planet with the
preservation of people’s liveli-
hoods,” said Senate President
pro Tem-elect Kevin de Leon,
a joint author of the bill.
“For nearly 10 million Californi-
ans, life without plastic grocery
bags is already a reality. Bag
bans reduce plastic pollution and
waste, lower bag costs at grocery
stores, and now we’re seeing job
growth in California at facilities
that produce better alternatives,”
said Californians Against Waste
executive director Mark Murray.
“California is the first state in the
U.S. to ban the most ubiquitous
consumer item on the planet,
in an effort to drive consumers
towards sustainable behavior
change. Data from the over 127
local plastic bag bans has proven
that bans are effective at reduc-
ing litter and changing consumer
attitudes, and have refuted
industry’s claims of apocalyptic
impacts on jobs and poor com-
munities. A state plastic bag
ban saves taxpayers the huge
amount of money spent on litter
cleanup, and protects the envi-
ronment,” said Clean Seas
Coalition and Seventh Genera-
tion Advisors director Leslie
Tamminen.
“SB 270 is a great victory for all
of California. We’ve seen locally
that plastic bag bans lead to
cleaner water and healthier
wildlife, keeping trash off our
beaches and out of our creeks.
The success of bag bans in our
local communities has empow-
ered state legislators to make
the right decision for the health
of California’s waterways. Gover-
nor Brown’s signature of this
statewide bag ban is an impor-
tant moment for our state,
demonstrating that California
is once again willing to take the
lead on important environmental
issues,” said Save the Bay execu-
tive director David Lewis.
For full text of the bill, click here.
[See also page 7.] •
GOVERNOR B ROWN S IGNS S TAT EW IDE BAG BAN [CONT ’D ]
THE B I L L R EDUCESTHE TORRENT OFP LAS T IC PO L LU T INGOUR B EACHESPARKS AND EVENTHE VAS T OCEANI T S E L F.
www.hudsonsharp.com
3
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : S B 2 7 0
CALIFORNIA PLASTIC BAG BANSIGNED, SETTING OFF SWEEPINGCHANGESBY J E R EMY B . WH I T E , SACRAMENTO BEE
Time to invest in a reusable
shopping bag.
Concluding the long odyssey
of one of the most contentious
bills of 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown o
n Tuesday signed legislation
phasing out the single-use plas-
tic bags that grocery stores and
other retailers use to package
products at the checkout line.
Brown’s assent hands a sweep-
ing victory to environmentalists
and vindicates the scores of
cities and counties that have
already banned bags.
“This bill is a step in the right
direction—it reduces the torrent
of plastic polluting our beaches,
parks and even the vast ocean
itself,” Brown wrote in a signing
message. “We’re the first to ban
these bags, and we won’t be the
last.”
Minutes after Brown announced
signing the bill, an industry
group called the American Pro-
gressive Bag Alliance vowed to
begin collecting signatures in an
effort to overturn the law via a
referendum on the 2016 ballot.
“Our research confirms that the
vast majority of California voters
are opposed to legislation that
bans recyclable plastic bags and
allows grocers to charge and
keep fees on other bags,” a
release from the organization
said, denouncing the legislation
as “a back room deal between
the grocers and union bosses to
scam California consumers out of
billions of dollars without provid-
ing any public benefit—all under
the guise of environmentalism.”
Implementing the law will rever-
berate through multiple indus-
tries, shifting how retailers and
manufacturers do business.
Consumers will face a choice:
purchase a reusable bag, or pay
at least ten cents for a paper bag
or a multi-use plastic carrier that
meets a set of state durability
standards.
It is not a new concept. There is
precedent in the more than 100
municipalities across the state
that have already enacted similar
prohibitions after concluding that
the amount of waste generated
by plastic bags outweighs the
convenience. Advocates for a
statewide ban said the experi-
ment has unfolded on the local
level with few hitches.
“There has been very little in the
way of noncompliance with the
local ordinances—grocery stores
seem to be complying readily,”
said Mark Murray, executive
director of Californians Against
Waste, which spearheaded the
state legislation. “There has
been zero need for plastic bag
police.”
Senate Bill 270 authorizes local
governments to impose fines of
up to $5,000 on businesses that
don’t ditch their single-use bags
or fail to charge for substitutes.
But in San Francisco, where
California’s first bag ban has
been extended to cover busi-
nesses large and small, a spokes -
man said the city has not leveled
a single fine.
“The idea for us was really to
change behavior,” said San
Francisco Department of the
Environment spokesman
Guillermo Rodriguez, pointing
to a campaign that included
preparing explanations of the
new law merchants could post
in their stores. “We felt the
education and outreach has
been the primary vehicle.”
Davis is one of the most recent
adherents, adopting a ban this
summer. The manager of Nugget
Market on Mace Boulevard said
the transition has been painless.
“It’s pretty seamless, I would
say,” manager Vicente Osegueda
said. “There’s always a little bit
of a reaction when something’s
different, but most (customers)
really understand why they were
taken out.”
(Continued, see Changes, page 4)
ADVOCATES FORA S TAT EW IDE BAN SA ID THE E X P E R IMENT HAS UNFOLDED ONTHE LOCA L L E V E LW I TH F EWH I TCHES .
4
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
That lack of consternation reflects
the fact that organizations repre-
senting retailers and grocery
stores backed SB 270, calling a
statewide standard preferable
to the current quilt of varying
ordinances.
Opposition came from other
quarters. Critics representing
paper and plastic bag businesses
denounced the minimum ten-
cent fee as an unjustified sweet-
ener included to buy the backing
of grocery stores.
Lawmakers who voted against
the bill called the ten cent fee a
hidden wealth transfer tax that
would enrich a powerful industry
while burdening low-income Cali-
fornians, confusing consumers
and damaging the economy.” •Reprinted from Sacramento Bee,
September 30, 2014. Read more
at www.sacbee.com.
SWEEP ING CHANGES [CONT ’D ]
L AWMAKERS WHOVOTED AGA INSTTHE B I L L CA L L EDTHE T EN CENT F E EA H IDDEN WEA LTHT RANSFE R TAX .
5
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : S B 2 7 0
APBA WILL ATTEMPT RECALL OF BAG BAN BILLBY MOL LY PACA L E
With the passage of SB 270
banning thin plastic bags in Cali-
fornia, the American Progressive
Bag Alliance has initiated the
referendum process to attempt
to have the electorate repeal the
legislation. Following is the
statement that they issued upon
the bill’s passage, and announc-
ing their campaign to repeal
the law.
The American Progressive Bag
Alliance (APBA) issued the fol-
lowing statement from Executive
Director Lee Califf in response to
Governor Jerry Brown’s decision
to sign SB 270 (Padilla) into law.
“The approval of SB 270 by the
California legislature and Gover-
nor Jerry Brown could serve as
a case study for what happens
when greedy special interests
and bad government collide in
the policymaking process.
“Senator Padilla’s bill was never
legislation about the environ-
ment. It was a back room deal
between the grocers and union
bosses to scam California con-
sumers out of billions of dollars
without providing any public
benefit—all under the guise of
environmentalism. If this law
were allowed to go into effect it
would jeopardize thousands of
California manufacturing jobs,
hurt the environment, and fleece
consumers for billions so grocery
store shareholders and their
union partners can line their
pockets.
“Fortunately, California’s consti-
tution provides voters the oppor-
tunity to stop bad laws through
the referendum process. Our
research confirms that the vast
majority of California voters are
opposed to legislation that bans
recyclable plastic bags and
allows grocers to charge and
keep fees on other bags. So we
have taken the necessary steps
to gather signatures and qualify
a referendum to repeal SB 270
on the November 2016 ballot.
Since state lawmakers failed
their constituents by approving
this terrible bill, we will take the
question directly to the public
and have great faith they will
repeal it at the ballot box. Ulti-
mately the voters will decide
and, until then, California fami-
lies—including thousands of our
industry's workers—will be pro-
tected from the implementation
of this unprecedented scam.”
Information about the California
referendum process:
• Once receiving the Governor’s
signature, the bill is chaptered
by the Secretary of State.
• Upon chaptering of the bill, a
referendum proponent has 90
days to gather the necessary
number of signatures of regis-
tered voters to qualify the refer-
endum; the number of signatures
must be equal to 5% of the votes
cast for all candidates for Gover-
nor in the last gubernatorial
election (504,760).
• Upon qualifying the referen-
dum, the law will be suspended
until voters cast their ballots
during the next general election
in November 2016
• If a majority of Californians
votes to repeal the law, the issue
is settled; if a majority votes in
favor of the law, it will go into
effect in January 2017
About the American Progressive
Bag Alliance (APBA)
The American Progressive Bag
Alliance was founded in 2005
to represent the United States’
plastic bag manufacturing and
recycling sector, employing
30,800 employees in 349 com-
munities across the nation. APBA
promotes the responsible use,
reuse, recycling and disposal of
plastic bags and advocates for
American-made plastic products
as the best environmental choice
at check out-for both retailers
and consumers. •For more information on APBA,
and the bag issue, please see
http://plasticsindustry.org/apba/.
I T WAS A BACK -ROOM DEA L B E TWEEN THEGROCERS ANDUN ION BOSSES .
6
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : S B 2 7 0
HEAL THE BAY SENDS SURVEY“WHAT’S NEXT”?BY RUSK IN HART L E Y, HEA L THE BAY
Heal The Bay, an environmental
group based in Santa Monica,
California, sent the following
email out to their supporters.
The visuals in the email are taken
directly from the email.
Included is a link to a survey for
their supporters to fill out and
submit, asking the question
“what single use item should
we tackle next?” See the survey
below to find out their sugges-
tions.
WPA has included this email
and Heal The Bay survey in this
newsletter so our readers are
informed that the bans on prod-
ucts will not stop with plastic
bags. The environmental groups
are already gearing up for more
battles in Sacramento and in
cities and counties throughout
the state.
At 10:04 a.m., California Gover-
nor Jerry Brown signed SB 270
into law, making California the
first state in the nation to enact
a statewide ban on single-use
plastic bags. The ban will take
effect in July 2015.
This is history, in the moment,
right now. And Heal the Bay was
there from day one, thanks to
support from you and thousands
of other activists.
From inner-city schools in South
L.A. to late-night confabs at the
Capitol, we’ve mobilized every-
day Californians in reaching our
goal of eliminating this ocean-
choking and neighborhood-
blighting menace from our state.
We're grateful to all of you for
supporting us on this journey, as
well as to Senators Alex Padilla,
Kevin de León and Ricardo Lara,
SB 270’s co-authors.
Today we celebrate, but the bat-
tle to heal Southern California is
far from over. In order to use this
wonderful victory as a stepping
stone to our next challenge on
the pollution front, we need
your input.
Please take the next minute to
tell us what you think Heal the
Bay should tackle next.
One lucky respondent will win
a Heal the Bay t-shirt and base-
ball cap!
Thanks in advance, friends, for
standing—and marching, letter-
writing, petition-signing—with
Heal the Bay. We can’t wait to
hear what’s important to you. •
HEAL THE BAY SURVEYThanks to your support, we have
been able to support statewide
efforts to ban single-use plastic
bags. This week. Gov. Brown
signed Senate Bill 270, making
California the first state to ban
the bag! Your voice matters.
What should Heal The Bay tackle
next?
One survey respondent will be
randomly selected to win a Heal
the Bay t-shirt and baseball hat.
Thanks for taking the time to
share your opinion with us.
What single-use item should
we tackle next? *
What should our Science & Policy
team focus on? These are some
of the most common items found
at beach cleanups.
• Cigarette butts
• Food wrappers (candy, chips,
etc.)
• Plastic beverage bottles
• Plastic straws and stirrers
• Styrofoam containers
• Other:
Reprinted from Heal the Bay
email survey.
THE ENV I RON -MENTA L GROUPSARE A L R EADYGEAR ING UP FORMORE BAT T L E S .
7
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : S B 2 7 0
SENATE BILL NO. 270
CHAPTER 850An act to add Chapter 5.3 (com-
mencing with Section 42280) to
Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public
Resources Code, relating to solid
waste, and making an appropria-
tion therefor.
[Approved by Governor Septem-
ber 30, 2014. Filed with Secretary
of State September 30, 2014.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S
DIGEST
SB 270, Padilla. Solid waste:
single-use carryout bags.
(1) Existing law, until 2020,
requires an operator of a store,
as defined, to establish an at-
store recycling program that
provides to customers the oppor-
tunity to return clean plastic
carryout bags to that store.
This bill, as of July 1, 2015, would
prohibit stores that have a speci-
fied amount of sales in dollars or
retail floor space from providing
a single-use carryout bag to a
customer, with specified excep-
tions. The bill would also prohibit
those stores from selling or dis-
tributing a recycled paper bag at
the point of sale unless the store
makes that bag available for pur-
chase for not less than $0.10. The
bill would also allow those stores,
on or after July 1, 2015, to distrib-
ute compostable bags at the
point of sale only in jurisdictions
that meet specified requirements
and at a cost of not less than
$0.10. The bill would require
these stores to meet other speci-
fied requirements on and after
July 1, 2015, regarding providing
reusable grocery bags to cus-
tomers, including distributing
those bags only at a cost of not
less than $0.10. The bill would
require all moneys collected pur-
suant to these provisions to be
retained by the store and be
used only for specified purposes.
The bill, on and after July 1, 2016,
would additionally impose these
prohibitions and requirements
on convenience food stores,
foodmarts, and entities engaged
in the sale of a limited line of
goods, or goods intended to be
consumed off premises, and that
hold a specified license with
regard to alcoholic beverages.
The bill would allow a retail
establishment to voluntarily
comply with these requirements,
if the retail establishment pro-
vides the department with irrevo-
cable written notice. The bill
would require the department
to post on its Internet Web site,
organized by county, the name
and physical location of each
retail establishment that has
elected to comply with these
requirements.
The bill would require the opera-
tor of a store that has a specified
amount of sales in dollars or
retail floor space and a retail
establishment that voluntarily
complies with the requirements
of this bill to comply with the
existing at-store recycling pro-
gram requirements.
The bill would require, on and
after July 1, 2015, a reusable gro-
cery bag sold by certain stores to
a customer at the point of sale to
be made by a certified reusable
grocery bag producer and to
meet specified requirements with
regard to the bag’s durability,
material, labeling, heavy metal
content, and, with regard to
reusable grocery bags made from
plastic film on and after January
1, 2016, recycled material con-
tent. The bill would impose these
requirements as of July 1, 2016,
on the stores that are otherwise
subject to the bill’s requirements.
The bill would prohibit a pro-
ducer of reusable grocery bags
made from plastic film from sell-
ing or distributing those bags on
and after July 1, 2015, unless the
producer is certified by a 3rd-
party certification entity, as spec-
ified. The bill would require a
reusable grocery bag producer
to provide proof of certification
to the department. The bill would
require the department to pro-
vide a system to receive proofs
of certification online.
The department would be
required to publish on its Inter-
net Web site a list of reusable
grocery bag producers that have
submitted the required certifica-
tion and their reusable grocery
bags. The bill would require the
department to establish an
administrative certification fee
schedule, which would require
a reusable grocery bag producer
providing proof to the depart-
ment of certification or recertifi-
cation to pay a fee. The bill would
(Continued, see SB 270 text, page 8)
SB 270 A P P ROVEDBY GOVERNORAND F I L ED W I THSECRE TARY OFS TAT E .
8
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
SB 270 T E X T [CONT ’D ]
require that all moneys submit-
ted to the department pursuant
to these fee provisions be
deposited into the Reusable
Grocery Bag Fund, which would
be established by the bill, and
continuously appropriated for
purposes of implementing these
proof of certification and Internet
Web site provisions, thereby
making an appropriation. The bill
would also require a reusable
grocery bag producer to submit
applicable certified test results
to the department. The bill would
authorize a person to object to a
certification of a reusable grocery
bag producer by filing an action
for review of that certification in
the superior court of a county
that has jurisdiction over the
reusable grocery bag producer.
The bill would require the court
to determine if the reusable
grocery bag producer is in com-
pliance with the provisions of
the bill and, based on the court’s
determination, would require the
court to direct the department to
either remove or retain the
reusable grocery bag producer
on its published Internet Web
site list.
The bill would allow a city,
county, or city and county, or the
state to impose civil penalties on
a person or entity that knows or
reasonably should have known
it is in violation of the bill’s
requirements. The bill would
require these civil penalties to
be paid to the office of the city
attorney, city prosecutor, district
attorney, or Attorney General,
whichever office brought the
action, and would allow the
penalties collected by the Attor-
ney General to be expended by
the Attorney General, upon
appropriation by the Legislature,
to enforce the bill’s provisions.
The bill would declare that it
occupies the whole field of the
regulation of reusable grocery
bags, single-use carryout bags,
and recycled paper bags pro-
vided by a store and would pro-
hibit a local public agency from
enforcing or implementing an
ordinance, resolution, regulation,
or rule, or any amendment
thereto, adopted on or after
September 1, 2014, relating to
those bags, against a store,
except as provided.
(2) The California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989
creates the Recycling Market
Development Revolving Loan
Subaccount in the Integrated
Waste Management Account and
continuously appropriates the
funds deposited in the subac-
count to the department for mak-
ing loans for the purposes of the
Recycling Market Development
Revolving Loan Program. Existing
law makes the provisions regard-
ing the loan program, the creation
of the subaccount, and expendi-
tures from the subaccount
inoperative on July 1, 2021, and
repeals them as of January 1,
2022.
This bill would appropriate
$2,000,000 from the Recycling
Market Development Revolving
Loan Subaccount in the Inte-
grated Waste Management
Account to the department for
the purposes of providing loans
for the creation and retention
of jobs and economic activity in
California for the manufacture
and recycling of plastic reusable
grocery bags that use recycled
content. The bill would require
a recipient of a loan to agree, as
a condition of receiving the loan,
to take specified actions.
(3) The bill would require the de-
partment, no later than March 1,
2018, to provide a status report
to the Legislature on the imple-
mentation of the bill’s provisions.
Appropriation: yes.
The people of the State of Califor-
nia do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 5.3 (commencing with
Section 42280) is added to Part
3 of Division 30 of the Public
Resources Code, to read:
Chapter 5.3. Single-Use Carry-
out Bags
Article 1. Definitions
42280.
(a) “Department” means the De-
partment of Resources Recycling
and Recovery.
(b) “Postconsumer recycled
material” means a material that
would otherwise be destined
for solid waste disposal, having
completed its intended end use
and product life cycle. Postcon-
sumer recycled material does not
include materials and byproducts
generated from, and commonly
reused within, an original manu-
facturing and fabrication
process.
(c) “Recycled paper bag” means
a paper carryout bag provided by
a store to a customer at the point
of sale that meets all of the fol-
lowing requirements:
(1) (A) Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), contains a
minimum of 40 percent postcon-
sumer recycled materials.
(B) An eight pound or smaller
recycled paper bag shall contain
a minimum of 20 percent post-
consumer recycled material.
(2) Is accepted for recycling in
curbside programs in a majority
of households that have access
to curbside recycling programs
in the state.
(3) Has printed on the bag the
name of the manufacturer, the
country where the bag was
manufactured, and the minimum
percentage of postconsumer
content.
(d) “Reusable grocery bag”
means a bag that is provided by
a store to a customer at the point
of sale that meets the require-
ments of Section 42281.
(e) (1) “Reusable grocery bag
producer” means a person or
entity that does any of the
following:
(A) Manufactures reusable
grocery bags for sale or distribu-
tion to a store.
(B) Imports reusable grocery
bags into this state, for sale or
distribution to a store.
(C) Sells or distributes reusable
bags to a store.
(2) “Reusable grocery bag pro-
ducer” does not include a store,
with regard to a reusable grocery
bag for which there is a manufac-
turer or importer, as specified in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of para-
graph (1).
(f ) (1) “Single-use carryout bag”
means a bag made of plastic,
paper, or other material that is
(Continued, see SB 270 text, page 9)
9
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
SB 270 T E X T [CONT ’D ]
provided by a store to a customer
at the point of sale and that is
not a recycled paper bag or a
reusable grocery bag that meets
the requirements of Section
42281.
(2) A single-use carryout bag
does not include either of the
following:
(A) A bag provided by a phar-
macy pursuant to Chapter 9
(commencing with Section 4000)
of Division 2 of the Business and
Professions Code to a customer
purchasing a prescription med-
ication.
(B) A nonhandled bag used to
protect a purchased item from
damaging or contaminating other
purchased items when placed in
a recycled paper bag, a reusable
grocery bag, or a compostable
plastic bag.
(C) A bag provided to contain an
unwrapped food item.
(D) A nonhandled bag that is
designed to be placed over
articles of clothing on a hanger.
(g) “Store” means a retail estab-
lishment that meets any of the
following requirements:
(1) A full-line, self-service retail
store with gross annual sales of
two million dollars ($2,000,000)
or more that sells a line of dry
groceries, canned goods, or
nonfood items, and some perish-
able items.
(2) Has at least 10,000 square
feet of retail space that gener-
ates sales or use tax pursuant to
the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local
Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5
(commencing with Section 7200)
of Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code) and has a phar-
macy licensed pursuant to Chap-
ter 9 (commencing with Section
4000) of Division 2 of the Busi-
ness and Professions Code.
(3) Is a convenience food store,
foodmart, or other entity that is
engaged in the retail sale of a
limited line of goods, generally
including milk, bread, soda, and
snack foods, and that holds a
Type 20 or Type 21 license issued
by the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control.
(4) Is a convenience food store,
foodmart, or other entity that is
engaged in the retail sale of
goods intended to be consumed
off the premises, and that holds
a Type 20 or Type 21 license
issued by the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control.
(5) Is not otherwise subject to
paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), if
the retail establishment voluntar-
ily agrees to comply with the
requirements imposed upon a
store pursuant to this chapter,
irrevocably notifies the depart-
ment of its intent to comply with
the requirements imposed upon
a store pursuant to this chapter,
and complies with the require-
ments established pursuant to
Section 42284.
Article 2. Reusable Grocery Bags
42281.
(a) On and after July 1, 2015, a
store, as defined in paragraph (1)
or (2) of subdivision (g) of Sec-
tion 42280, may sell or distribute
a reusable grocery bag to a cus-
tomer at the point of sale only if
the reusable bag is made by a
producer certified pursuant to
this article to meet all of the fol-
lowing requirements:
(1) Has a handle and is designed
for at least 125 uses, as provided
in this article.
(2) Has a volume capacity of at
least 15 liters.
(3) Is machine washable or
made from a material that can
be cleaned and disinfected.
(4) Has printed on the bag, or on
a tag attached to the bag that is
not intended to be removed, and
in a manner visible to the con-
sumer, all of the following infor-
mation:
(A) The name of the manufac-
turer.
(B) The country where the bag
was manufactured.
(C) A statement that the bag is a
reusable bag and designed for at
least 125 uses.
(D) If the bag is eligible for recy-
cling in the state, instructions to
return the bag to the store for re-
cycling or to another appropriate
recycling location. If recyclable in
the state, the bag shall include
the chasing arrows recycling
symbol or the term “recyclable,”
consistent with the Federal Trade
Commission guidelines use of
that term, as updated.
(5) Does not contain lead, cad-
mium, or any other toxic material
that may pose a threat to public
health. A reusable bag manufac-
turer may demonstrate compli-
ance with this requirement by
obtaining a no objection letter
from the federal Food and Drug
Administration. This requirement
shall not affect any authority of
the Department of Toxic Sub-
stances Control pursuant to Arti-
cle 14 (commencing with Section
25251) of Chapter 6.5 of Division
20 of the Health and Safety Code
and, notwithstanding subdivision
(c) of Section 25257.1 of the
Health and Safety Code, the
reusable grocery bag shall not be
considered as a product category
already regulated or subject to
regulation.
(6) Complies with Section 260.12
of Part 260 of Title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations related to
recyclable claims if the reusable
grocery bag producer makes a
claim that the reusable grocery
bag is recyclable.
(b) (1) In addition to the require-
ments in subdivision (a), a
reusable grocery bag made from
plastic film shall meet all of the
following requirements:
(A) On and after January 1, 2016,
it shall be made from a minimum
of 20 percent postconsumer re-
cycled material.
(B) On and after January 1, 2020,
it shall be made from a minimum
of 40 percent postconsumer re-
cycled material.
(C) It shall be recyclable in this
state, and accepted for return
at stores subject to the at-store
recycling program (Chapter 5.1
(commencing with Section
42250)) for recycling.
(D) It shall have, in addition to
the information required to be
printed on the bag or on a tag,
pursuant to paragraph (4) of sub-
division (a), a statement that the
bag is made partly or wholly from
postconsumer recycled material
and stating the postconsumer
recycled material content per-
centage, as applicable.
(Continued, see SB 270 text, page 10)
10
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
(E) It shall be capable of carrying
22 pounds over a distance of 175
feet for a minimum of 125 uses
and be at least 2.25 mils thick,
measured according to the Amer-
ican Society of Testing and Mate-
rials (ASTM) Standard D6988-13.
(2) A reusable grocery bag made
from plastic film that meets the
specifications of the American
Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) International Standard
Specification for Compostable
Plastics D6400, as updated, is
not required to meet the require-
ments of subparagraph (A) or (B)
of paragraph (1), but shall be
labeled in accordance with the
applicable state law regarding
compostable plastics.
(c) In addition to the require-
ments of subdivision (a), a
reusable grocery bag that is not
made of plastic film and that is
made from any other natural or
synthetic fabric, including, but
not limited to, woven or nonwo-
ven nylon, polypropylene, poly-
ethylene-terephthalate, or Tyvek,
shall satisfy all of the following:
(1) It shall be sewn.
(2) It shall be capable of carrying
22 pounds over a distance of 175
feet for a minimum of 125 uses.
(3) It shall have a minimum
fabric weight of at least 80 grams
per square meter.
(d) On and after July 1, 2016, a
store as defined in paragraph (3),
(4), or (5) of subdivision (g) of
Section 42280, shall comply with
the requirements of this section.
42281.5.
On and after July 1, 2015, a pro-
ducer of reusable grocery bags
made from plastic film shall not
sell or distribute a reusable gro-
cery bag in this state unless the
producer is certified by a third-
party certification entity pur-
suant to Section 42282. A
producer shall provide proof of
certification to the department
demonstrating that the reusable
grocery bags produced by the
producer comply with the provi-
sions of this article. The proof of
certification shall include all of
the following:
(a) Names, locations, and con-
tact information of all sources of
postconsumer recycled material
and suppliers of postconsumer
recycled material.
(b) Quantity and dates of post-
consumer recycled material pur-
chases by the reusable grocery
bag producer.
(c) How the postconsumer recy-
cled material is obtained.
(d) Information demonstrating
that the postconsumer recycled
material is cleaned using appro-
priate washing equipment.
42282.
(a) Commencing on or before
July 1, 2015, the department shall
accept from a reusable grocery
bag producer proof of certifica-
tion conducted by a third-party
certification entity, submitted
under penalty of perjury, for each
type of reusable grocery bag that
is manufactured, imported, sold,
or distributed in the state and
provided to a store for sale or
distribution, at the point of sale,
that meets all the applicable
requirements of this article. The
proof of certification shall be
accompanied by a certification
fee, established pursuant to
Section 42282.1.
(b) A reusable grocery bag
producer shall resubmit to the
department proof of certification
as described in subdivision (a)
on a biennial basis. A reusable
grocery bag producer shall pro-
vide the department with an
updated proof of certification
conducted by a third-party certi-
fication entity if any modification
that is not solely aesthetic is
made to a previously certified
reusable bag. Failure to comply
with this subdivision shall result
in removal of the relevant infor-
mation posted on the depart-
ment’s Internet Web site
pursuant to paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subdivision (e) for each
reusable bag that lacks an
updated proof of certification
conducted by a third-party
certification entity.
(c) A third-party certification
entity shall be an independent,
accredited (ISO/IEC 17025) labo-
ratory. A third-party certification
entity shall certify that the pro-
ducer’s reusable grocery bags
meet the requirements of
Section 44281.
(d) The department shall provide
a system to receive proofs of
certification online.
(e) On and after July 1, 2015, the
department shall publish a list
on its Internet Web site that
includes all of the following:
(1) The name, location, and
appropriate contact information
of certified reusable grocery bag
producers.
(2) The reusable grocery bags
of producers that have provided
the required certification.
(f ) A reusable grocery bag
producer shall submit applicable
certified test results to the
department confirming that the
reusable grocery bag meets the
requirements of this article for
each type of reusable grocery
bag that is manufactured,
imported, sold, or distributed in
the state and provided to a store
for sale or distribution.
(1) A person may object to the
certification of a reusable grocery
bag producer pursuant to this
section by filing an action for
review of that certification in the
superior court of a county that
has jurisdiction over the reusable
grocery bag producer. The court
shall determine if the reusable
grocery bag producer is in com-
pliance with the requirements
of this article.
(2) A reusable grocery bag pro-
ducer whose certification is
being objected to pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be deemed
in compliance with this article
pending a determination by the
court.
(3) Based on its determination,
the court shall direct the depart-
ment to remove the reusable gro-
cery bag producer from, or retain
the reusable grocery bag pro-
ducer on, its list published pur-
suant to subdivision (e).
(4) If the court directs the de-
partment to remove a reusable
grocery bag producer from its
published list, the reusable
grocery bag producer shall
(Continued, see SB 270 text, page 11)
SB 270 T E X T [CONT ’D ]
11
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
remain off of the published list
for a period of one year from the
date of the court’s determination.
42282.1.
(a) A reusable grocery bag pro-
ducer shall submit the fee estab-
lished pursuant to subdivision
(b) to the department when pro-
viding proof of certification or re-
certification pursuant to Sections
42281.5 and 42282.
(b) The department shall estab-
lish an administrative certifica-
tion fee schedule that will
generate fee revenues sufficient
to cover, but not exceed, the de-
partment’s reasonable costs to
implement this article. The de-
partment shall deposit all mon-
eys submitted pursuant to this
section into the Reusable Gro-
cery Bag Fund, which is hereby
established in the State Treasury.
Notwithstanding Section 11340
of the Government Code, moneys
in the fund are continuously ap-
propriated, without regard to fis-
cal year, to the department for
the purpose of implementing
this article.
Article 3. Single-Use Carryout
Bags
42283.
(a) Except as provided in subdi-
vision (e), on and after July 1,
2015, a store, as defined in para-
graph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g)
of Section 42280, shall not pro-
vide a single-use carryout bag to
a customer at the point of sale.
(b) (1) On and after July 1, 2015,
a store, as defined in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of
Section 42280, shall not sell or
distribute a reusable grocery bag
at the point of sale except as
provided in this subdivision.
(2) On and after July 1, 2015, a
store, as defined in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of
Section 42280, may make avail-
able for purchase at the point of
sale a reusable grocery bag that
meets the requirements of
Section 42281.
(3) On and after July 1, 2015, a
store, as defined in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of
Section 42280, that makes
reusable grocery bags available
for purchase pursuant to para-
graph (2) shall not sell the
reusable grocery bag for less
than ten cents ($0.10) in order to
ensure that the cost of providing
a reusable grocery bag is not
subsidized by a customer who
does not require that bag.
(c) (1) On and after July 1, 2015,
a store, as defined in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of
Section 42280, shall not sell or
distribute a recycled paper bag
except as provided in this subdi-
vision.
(2) A store, as defined in para-
graph (1) or (2) of subdivision
(g) of Section 42280, may make
available for purchase a recycled
paper bag. On and after July 1,
2015, the store shall not sell a
recycled paper bag for less than
ten cents ($0.10) in order to
ensure that the cost of providing
a recycled paper bag is not subsi-
dized by a consumer who does
not require that bag.
(d) Notwithstanding any other
law, on and after July 1, 2015, a
store, as defined in paragraph (1)
or (2) of subdivision (g) of Sec-
tion 42280, that makes reusable
grocery bags or recycled paper
bags available for purchase at
the point of sale shall provide a
reusable grocery bag or a recy-
cled paper bag at no cost at the
point of sale to a customer using
a payment card or voucher
issued by the California Special
Supplemental Food Program for
Women, Infants, and Children
pursuant to Article 2 (commenc-
ing with Section 123275) of
Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety
Code or an electronic benefit
transfer card issued pursuant to
Section 10072 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(e) On and after July 1, 2015, a
store, as defined in paragraph (1)
or (2) of subdivision (g) of Sec-
tion 42280, may distribute a
compostable bag at the point of
sale, if the compostable bag is
provided to the consumer at the
cost specified pursuant to para-
graph (2), the compostable bag,
at a minimum, meets the Ameri-
can Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) International
Standard Specification for Com-
postable Plastics D6400, as
updated, and in the jurisdiction
where the compostable bag is
sold and in the jurisdiction where
the store is located, both of the
following requirements are met:
(1) A majority of the residential
households in the jurisdiction
have access to curbside collec-
tion of foodwaste for composting.
(2) The governing authority for
the jurisdiction has voted to
allow stores in the jurisdiction to
sell to consumers at the point of
sale a compostable bag at a cost
not less than the actual cost of
the bag, which the Legislature
hereby finds to be not less than
ten cents ($0.10) per bag.
(f ) A store, as defined in para-
graph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g)
of Section 42280, shall not
require a customer to use,
purchase, or accept a single-use
carryout bag, recycled paper bag,
compostable bag, or reusable
grocery bag as a condition of sale
of any product.
42283.5.
On and after July 1, 2016, a store,
as defined in paragraph (3), (4),
or (5) of subdivision (g) of Sec-
tion 42280, shall comply with the
same requirements of Section
42283 that are imposed upon a
store, as defined in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of
Section 42280.
42283.6.
(a) The operator of a store, as
defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subdivision (g) of Section 42280
that makes recycled paper or
reusable grocery bags available
at the point of sale, shall be
subject to the provisions of the
at-store recycling program
(Chapter 5.1 (commencing with
Section 42250)).
(b) A store that voluntarily
agrees to comply with the provi-
sions of this article pursuant to
subdivision (g) of Section 42280,
shall also comply with the provi-
sions of the at-store recycling
program (Chapter 5.1 (commenc-
ing with Section 42250)).
42283.7.
All moneys collected pursuant to
(Continued, see SB 270 text, page 12)
SB 270 T E X T [CONT ’D ]
12
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
this article shall be retained by
the store and may be used only
for the following purposes:
(a) Costs associated with com-
plying with the requirements of
this article.
(b) Actual costs of providing
recycled paper bags or reusable
grocery bags.
(c) Costs associated with a
store’s educational materials or
educational campaign encourag-
ing the use of reusable grocery
bags.
42284.
(a) A retail establishment not
specifically required to comply
with the requirements of this
chapter is encouraged to reduce
its distribution of single-use plas-
tic carryout bags.
(b) Pursuant to the provisions of
subdivision (g) of Section 42280,
any retail establishment that is
not a “store,” that provides the
department with the irrevocable
written notice as specified in
subdivision (c), shall be regu-
lated as a “store” for the pur-
poses of this chapter.
(c) The irrevocable written notice
shall be dated and signed by an
authorized representative of the
retail establishment, and shall
include the name and physical
address of all retail locations cov-
ered by the notice. The depart-
ment shall acknowledge receipt
of the notice in writing and shall
specify the date the retail estab-
lishment will be regulated as a
“store,” which shall not be less
than 30 days after the date of the
department’s acknowledgment.
The department shall post on its
Internet Web site, organized by
county, the name and physical
location or locations of each
retail establishment that has
elected to be regulated as a
“store.”
Article 4. Enforcement
42285.
(a) A city, a county, a city and
county, or the state may impose
civil liability on a person or entity
that knowingly violated this
chapter, or reasonably should
have known that it violated this
chapter, in the amount of one
thousand dollars ($1,000) per
day for the first violation of this
chapter, two thousand dollars
($2,000) per day for the second
violation, and five thousand dol-
lars ($5,000) per day for the third
and subsequent violations.
(b) Any civil penalties collected
pursuant to subdivision (a) shall
be paid to the office of the city
attorney, city prosecutor, district
attorney, or Attorney General,
whichever office brought the
action. The penalties collected
pursuant to this section by the
Attorney General may be ex-
pended by the Attorney General,
upon appropriation by the Legis-
lature, to enforce this chapter.
Article 5. Preemption
42287.
(a) Except as provided in subdi-
vision (c), this chapter is a matter
of statewide interest and concern
and is applicable uniformly
throughout the state. Accord-
ingly, this chapter occupies the
whole field of regulation of
reusable grocery bags, single-
use carryout bags, and recycled
paper bags, as defined in this
chapter, provided by a store, as
defined in this chapter.
(b) On and after January 1, 2015,
a city, county, or other local pub-
lic agency shall not enforce, or
otherwise implement, an ordi-
nance, resolution, regulation, or
rule, or any amendment thereto,
adopted on or after September 1,
2014, relating to reusable grocery
bags, single-use carryout bags,
or recycled paper bags, against a
store, as defined in this chapter,
unless expressly authorized by
this chapter.
(c) (1) A city, county, or other
local public agency that has
adopted, before September 1,
2014, an ordinance, resolution,
regulation, or rule relating to
reusable grocery bags, single-
use carryout bags, or recycled
paper bags may continue to
enforce and implement that ordi-
nance, resolution, regulation,
or rule that was in effect before
that date. Any amendments to
that ordinance, resolution, regu-
lation, or rule on or after January
1, 2015, shall be subject to subdi-
vision (b), except the city, county,
or other local public agency may
adopt or amend an ordinance,
resolution, regulation, or rule to
increase the amount that a store
shall charge with regard to a
recycled paper bag, compostable
bag, or reusable grocery bag to
no less than the amount specified
in Section 42283.
(2) A city, county, or other local
public agency not covered by
paragraph (1) that, before Sep-
tember 1, 2014, has passed a first
reading of an ordinance or reso-
lution expressing the intent to
restrict single-use carryout bags
and, before January 1, 2015,
adopts an ordinance to restrict
single-use carryout bags, may
continue to enforce and imple-
ment the ordinance that was in
effect before January 1, 2015.
Article 6. Financial Provisions
42288.
(a) Notwithstanding Section
42023.2, the sum of two million
dollars ($2,000,000) is hereby
appropriated from the Recycling
Market Development Revolving
Loan Subaccount in the Inte-
grated Waste Management
Account to the department for
the purposes of providing loans
for the creation and retention of
jobs and economic activity in this
state for the manufacture and
recycling of plastic reusable
grocery bags that use recycled
content, including postconsumer
recycled material.
(b) The department may expend,
if there are applicants eligible for
funding from the Recycling Mar-
ket Development Revolving Loan
Subaccount, the funds appropri-
ated pursuant to this section to
provide loans for both of the
following:
(1) Development and conversion
of machinery and facilities for the
manufacture of single-use plastic
bags into machinery and facili-
ties for the manufacturer of
durable reusable grocery bags
that, at a minimum, meet the
requirements of Section 42281.
(2) Development of equipment
for the manufacture of reusable
grocery bags, that, at a mini-
mum, meet the requirements
of Section 42281.
(c) A recipient of a loan author-
ized by this section shall agree,
(Continued, see SB 270 text, page 13)
SB 270 T E X T [CONT ’D ]
13
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
as a condition of receiving the
loan, to retain and retrain exist-
ing employees for the manufac-
turing of reusable grocery bags
that, at a minimum, meet the
requirements of Section 42281.
(d) Any moneys appropriated
pursuant to this section not
expended by the end of the 2015-
16 fiscal year shall revert to the
Recycling Market Development
Revolving Loan Subaccount for
expenditure pursuant to Article
3 (commencing with Section
42010) of Chapter 1.
(e) Applicants for funding under
this section may also apply for
funding or benefits from other
economic development programs
for which they may be eligible,
including, but not limited to,
both of the following:
(1) An income tax credit, as
described in Sections 17059.2
and 23689 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
(2) A tax exemption pursuant
to Section 6377.1 of the Revenue
and Taxation Code.
SEC. 2.
No later than March 1, 2018,
the department, as a part of its
reporting requirement pursuant
to Section 40507 of the Public
Resources Code, shall provide a
status report on the implementa-
tion of Chapter 5.3 (commencing
with Section 42280) of Part 3
of Division 30 of the Public
Resources Code. •
SB 270 T E X T [CONT ’D ]
14
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
EXTRUSION | PRINTING | CONVERTING
Windmoeller & Hoelscher
23 New England Way · Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865-4252 Phone 800-854-8702 · [email protected] · www.whcorp.com
What do you get when teams of brilliant
minds scrutinize each component of
the proven VAREX range to make it
even better? Higher output, superb
ergonomics, improved safety and a
new world of energy effi ciency.
More than just a pretty face: VAREX II.
VAREX II’s modular design provides fl exibility
for producing blown fi lms from diverse resins.
With the new ENERGY MONITORING module,
you get real-time data, making it easier than ever
to identify potential savings. And that’s just the
beginning ...
15
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : C A L I F O R N I A
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATUREPASSES PAID SICK LEAVE BILLBY CHR I S TOPHER CADE LAGO, SACRAMENTO BEE
In the waning hours of their
session, California lawmakers
passed a measure to provide
workers with three paid sick days
a year, capping tense negotia-
tions that splintered supporters.
The top Democratic priority
squeaked through both houses
of the Legislature despite losing
backing from major labor unions
following amendments. The
Service Employees International
Union and the American Federa-
tion of State, County and Munici-
pal Employees abandoned the bill
after it was rewritten to exempt
home healthcare workers.
But it benefited from a late-
session push by Gov. Jerry Brown
and author Assemblywoman
Lorena Gonzalez, a San Diego
Democrat and former labor
leader who corralled enough
votes to keep it moving. Brown’s
office rarely weighs in publicly
on pending legislation, typically
doing so to help push prominent
measures—like a recent water
bond—across the finish line.
“Tonight, the Legislature took
historic action to help hardwork-
ing Californians,” Brown said in a
statement. “This bill guarantees
that millions of workers—from
Eureka to San Diego—won’t lose
their jobs or pay just because
they get sick.”
Several Democrats voiced frus-
tration over the amendments to
the bill, saying that removing the
in-home caregivers from the sick
leave benefit put them in a bind
between supporting a policy they
favored, and supporting a union
with whom they are aligned.
Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, de-
scribed it as a “Sophie’s choice.”
Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles,
had harsher words: “This is B.S.,”
she said.
“I resent the fact that we are
picking between two sets of
workers,” Mitchell said, adding
that she saw the amendment
as an attack on a mostly female
segment of the workforce.
“This is yet another example
where a female-dominated
industry, that has taken dispro-
portionate hits during the state’s
fiscal crisis is once again being,
quite frankly, disrespected.”
Sick leave has been a critical
goal of Democrats and their
liberal allies across the country
since San Francisco voters in
2006 passed a first-in-the-nation
initiative allowing all workers in
the city to accrue and use time
off. Past efforts at the California
Capitol to expand the paid time
were sidetracked by the reces-
sion and fierce lobbying by
business groups.
Employers currently are not
required to give time off to sick
employees. Supporters of
Assembly Bill 1522 pointed to
the roughly 40 percent of the
state’s workforce, totaling about
7 million people, who do not
earn leave benefits for when they
fall ill. Given the rising cost of
living, they contended workers
cannot afford to forfeit a day’s
pay for being sick or caring for
a loved one.
They also cited studies showing
that supplying sick days saves
businesses money by reducing
turnover, stops the spread of
maladies and boosts workplace
morale and productivity. Home
healthcare workers could still
bargain for the benefit.
Business groups and their allies
contended the measure would
harm their ability to operate and
ultimately drag down their bot-
tom line. They noted that many
employers large and small already
provide compensated sick days
and said the state shouldn’t
create another mandate.
Former Assemblywoman Fiona
Ma, D-San Francisco, introduced
at least two similar measures,
the latest of which sought to
allow workers to use paid sick
time for up five days a year for
(Continued, see Sick Leave, page 16)
MI L L IONS OFWORKERS WON’ TLOSE THE I R JOBSOR PAY J US T B ECAUSE THEYGET S ICK .
16
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
small businesses and nine days
a year for all other workers.
Though patterned after the San
Francisco ordinance, it stalled in
committee after the sponsoring
Labor Federation asked law -
makers to hold the bill.
The last-minute exodus of SEIU
reprised a clash from earlier this
year between Brown and the
union over home healthcare
aides. Brown’s budget this year
sought to cap overtime hours
for participants in the state’s
In-Home Supportive Services
program, prompting concerted
labor pushback.
That time, SEIU’s position pre-
vailed. But AB 1522 succeeded
on Brown’s terms. The amend-
ments cutting IHSS workers out
of the bill emerged after negotia-
tions between Brown and Gonza-
lez, and lawmakers advanced the
measure despite the union’s
protestations.
“I would like to say this bill was
as pristine as when I first brought
it but we had to make compro-
mises in order to ensure that we
have a bill that this governor
would sign,” Gonzalez conceded,
but she argued that “we have
been able to maintain the in-
tegrity of the bill that, if passed
tonight, would expand workers
rights in a way that is unprece-
dented in this state or in this
nation.” •
Reprinted from Sacramento Bee,
August 30, 2014. Read more at
www.sacbee.com.
PA ID S ICK L EAVE B I L L [CONT ’D ]
17
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : C A L I F O R N I A
GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE MILL IONS OF CALIFORNIANSWITH PAID SICK LEAVEBY OF F ICE OF GOVERNOR EDMUND G . B ROWN J R .
Putting California’s workers first,
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
today signed the Healthy Work-
places, Healthy Families Act of
2014 (AB 1522) by Assembly-
member Lorena Gonzalez (D-San
Diego), which provides paid sick
days to the millions of Californi-
ans—roughly 40% of the state's
workforce—who do not currently
earn this benefit.
“Whether you’re a dishwasher in
San Diego or a store clerk in Oak-
land, this bill frees you of having
to choose between your family’s
health and your job,” said Gover-
nor Brown. “Make no mistake,
California is putting its workers
first.”
Under current state law, approxi-
mately 6.5 million workers in
California cannot take a paid day
off when they are ill or a family
member is sick.
“As a single working Mom, I
know first-hand the challenge of
having to juggle a sick child who
needs to see a doctor and your
responsibilities at work,” said
Assemblymember Gonzalez. “But
no parent should have to experi-
ence the heartache of having to
choose between making the rent
and taking care of their child. I
am exceptionally proud to have
authored this pro-family, pro-
worker and pro-public health
legislation and very grateful that
my Democratic colleagues in the
Legislature and Governor Brown
also appreciate the need enough
to make California the leader in
the nation on this issue.”
This bill specifically requires
employers to provide paid sick
leave to employees who work 30
or more days within a year from
commencement of employment
and employees will earn a mini-
mum of one hour of paid sick
leave for every 30 hours worked.
“Today, we celebrate a major
victory for the 6.5 million hard-
working Californians who will
no longer have to sacrifice their
health to avoid missing work and
losing income,” said Senator
Ricardo Lara. “Employers benefit,
workers benefit and ultimately,
the California economy benefits.”
With the Governor’s signature,
California becomes only the
second state in the nation to
require paid sick leave. The
Healthy Workplaces, Healthy
Families Act of 2014 will go into
effect July 1, 2015.
National Leaders Weigh In
“Paid sick leave is essential for
the health of our families, the
strength of our workers, and the
success of the middle class,”
said House Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi. “California’s
Healthy Workplaces, Healthy
Families Act will help lower
health care costs, reduce
employee turnover, prevent the
spread of illnesses, and support
both women and men caring for
their families. In order to jump-
start the middle class, Congress
must now follow California's lead
and guarantee paid sick leave
for workers across the entire
country.”
“When the Shriver Report polled
American workers, the number
one thing women who live pay-
check to paycheck said would
make a difference in their lives
was sick leave,” said journalist,
founder of the Shriver Report and
former First Lady Maria Shriver.
“California listened and got them
what they asked for. Who’s next?
I hope the rest of the country
follows California's lead.” •For full text of the bill, click here.
CA L I FORN IA B ECOMES ONLYTHE S ECONDSTATE IN THE NAT ION TO R EQU I R E PA IDS ICK L EAVE .
18
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : C A L I F O R N I A
RECYCLING ADVOCATES PONDEREXPANDING CALIFORNIA’S PROGRAMBY J E R EMY B . WH I T E , SACRAMENTO BEE
The fact that you drag that recy-
cling to the curb doesn’t mean
it escapes the landfill.
In the years since California
enacted a recycling framework,
subsidized by the deposits paid
on cans and bottles, people have
generally been willing to do their
part. Cities and counties have
reflected that receptiveness by
expanding the universe of mate-
rials eligible to be picked up
curbside.
But putting recyclables in a bin
forms just one link in a long
chain allowing containers to live
second lives as repurposed raw
material. Once discarded goods
arrive at a processing facility,
their fate is governed by a simple
business decision: given the
resale value, is it worth the time
and money to collect, separate
or process?
A recent Californians Against
Waste report found that most
cartons containing milk and
juice end up intermingled with
garbage—despite the fact that
more and more cities encourage
residents to toss those contain-
ers in with other recyclables. Sty-
rofoam is technically recyclable
but often becomes garbage.
“It’s important to make a distinc-
tion between collected and
recycled,” said Mark Oldfield,
a spokesman for CalRecycle.
“It quite often comes back to,
what do they have locally in
terms of processing capability?”
California’s foremost recycling
advocacy group hopes to expand
that capacity. Fresh off a resound -
ing victory as the Legislature
passed a ban on the single-use
plastic bags that gum up recy-
cling machinery and clutter
waterways, Californians Against
Waste is contemplating legisla-
tion to expand the type of materi-
als covered by the state’s
program.
“Californians have been very
responsive to curbside recycling,
and if we tell them something
is recyclable in their curbside
program, they’re very happy to
change their habits,” Californians
Against Waste head Mark Murray
said. “It’s coming in the door, but
the problem is we need to create
an incentive for the processing
facility.”
That incentive could come in the
form of a California Redemption
Value deposit, commonly called a
CRV. California’s so-called “bottle
bill” covers items like plastic and
glass bottles, although wine and
liquor bottles are exempted.
Included items carry five- or
10-cent deposits that fund a
complex system of payments
designed to increase overall
recycling rates. It begins with
manufacturers paying an upfront
fee for the recyclable products
they sell. Later, recycling proces-
sors can claim payment and fees
for handling those materials.
Murray and others credit the
program with both prodding
consumers to cash in bottles and
paying processors to make recy-
cling financially viable. Extending
the range of products covered
could divert waste from landfills.
According to the Californians
Against Waste study, less than
3 percent of the cartons flowing
through California get recycled.
“There are alternative containers
that are not getting recycled at
the rate they should be or could
be,” said Assemblyman Richard
Gordon, D-Menlo Park. “The
recyclers that I’ve been meeting
with, they’re working very hard to
figure out how to catch all mate-
rials in a cost-effective way. I
have not found them to be antag-
onistic to this—maybe they don’t
have the equipment they need,
maybe they’re not fully prepared,
but they want to be ready.”
Some materials simply have a
higher intrinsic scrap value than
others. Corrugated cardboard
tends to be worth more than
office paper, for instance. But
with every item that collection
trucks unload at sorting and
(Continued, see Recycling, page 19)
I S I T W O RTH THET IME AND MONEYTO COL L ECT, S E PARATE OR P ROCESS?
19
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
processing facilities, a basic
question determines what hap-
pens next: is there a market?
“Just because something’s recy-
clable doesn’t mean there’s a
market for it,” said Bert Wallace,
who runs a Truckee facility called
Eastern Regional Landfill. “Any-
thing can be recycled—it’s just,
how much does it cost and how
do you recover it? And if the
processor doesn’t make a profit,
he’s not going to recover it.”
Like other recyclers, Wallace gets
a CRV-funded processing fee for
pulling materials like aluminum
and glass. When it comes to
items that aren’t under the CRV
umbrella, Wallace said, “a lot of
it ends up in the landfill.”
“The beverage containers that
are not CRV, the juice boxes and
milk jugs, the paper vendors
don’t want it,” Wallace said.
“With the CRV there is an
incentive to pull as much as
possible out.”
Assessing what gets recycled and
what gets dumped can vary from
city to city or from processing
center to processing center. The
city of Sacramento encourages
residents to toss styrofoam in
their bins. At Recycling Industries,
one of two facilities that con-
tracts with Sacramento County,
chunks of styrofoam sit in a bale
bound for the landfill—a rarity
for this center, whose owner
estimates 95 percent of what
he receives is recycled.
“The cost to pull it out, matched
with the value you get in return—
the economics aren’t there,” said
general manager David Kuhnen.
But Kuhnen worried that widen-
ing the range of CRV-covered
items would afford more oppor-
tunities to cheat a system
already plagued by fraud.
Processors throughout California
have to contend with people
cashing in cans and bottles from
Nevada and Arizona.
“Expanding the (CRV) program,
all I think it’s going to do is
create more fraud,” Kuhnen said.
“We’ve been advocating to sim-
plify it and restrict it to prevent
the fraud that’s going on.”
Any effort to broaden California’s
deposit system will also almost
certainly encounter industry
opposition. California generates
money for recycling programs by
having the manufacturers pro-
ducing containers pay an upfront
fee. That cost then flows to con-
sumers, who pay an additional
deposit fee when they buy a six-
pack, and the revenue is doled
out to processors.
“I don’t know that it’s the right
thing for cartons,” said Jason
Pelz, who is vice president of
recycling projects for an industry
group called the Carton Council
and works for Tetra Pak.
Pelz touted the work that carton
manufacturers already have done
to boost recycling, noting the
rate of curbside collection for
cartons has jumped both nation-
wide and in California.
“No, not 100 percent of cartons
that make it to the (facility) go
into the right stream, but what
we’re doing is working with the
(facilities) to improve that,” said
Pelz, who questioned the Califor-
nians Against Waste study’s ac-
curacy. “There’s also been great
growth not just in carton access
but also in the carton recycling—
the volume of cartons they’re
working with is clearly growing.”
Milk retailers also have a stake in
the issue. While containers made
of the same plastic mix as milk
jugs—also used for laundry
detergent, for example—do fall
under the CRV umbrella, milk
jugs themselves do not. The
dairy industry argues it would
be unfair to treat milk the same
as more expendable products.
“If you’re buying soda or beer,
you’re making a choice there that
you choose to do that other than
for nutritional purposes, as
opposed to a basic staple in a
family’s food purchases,” said
Rachel Kaldor, executive director
of the Dairy Institute of Califor-
nia. “Milk is generally part of a
family’s food budget, and the
idea of adding additional cost
to those would be a little bit
more burdensome.”
Proponents of enlarging the
deposit system say the addi-
tional cost is essentially the
point. The price of recycling,
Murray said, should fall on those
producing and selling containers
in the first place. Otherwise, the
economics simply do not work.
“We can do anything,” said
Wallace, the facility owner. “It
all depends on who wants to pay
for it.” •Reprinted from Sacramento Bee,
September 30, 2014. Read more
at www.sacbee.com.
R ECYC L ING P ROGRAM E X PANS ION [CONT ’D ]
20
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
L E G I S L AT I O N : H AWA I I
HONOLULU MAYOR SIGNS OAHUPLASTIC BAG BAN CHANGESINTO LAW BY WEB S TA F F, KHON2 NEWS
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell
signed off on changes to Oahu’s
plastic bag ban Thursday.
The new law, which takes effect
July 2015, now includes biode -
gradable plastic bags in the ban,
amending the original law
passed in 2012, which did not
ban any.
The changes, as defined in Bill
38, were made after concerns
about the lack of an industry
standard over the definition of
a biodegradable bag.
“Biodegradable bags take a very,
very long time to break down,”
Caldwell said. “They’re not that
great. Compostable bags are
better. They break down quickly.”
The ban already provides excep-
tions for bags that are used to
package loose items like fruits
and vegetables, prepared foods
and bakery goods, laundry, dry
cleaning and even newspapers.
Customers can be provided with
reusable bags, recyclable paper
bags and “compostable plastic
bags,” which applies to bags that
meet current ASTM D6400 Stan-
dard Specifications for com-
postability and that is labeled
with the Biodegradable Product
Institute (“BPI”) logo.
Sec. 9-9.2 Ban on [non-biode-
gradable] plastic checkout bags
and non-recyclable paper bags.
Businesses shall be prohibited
from providing [non-biodegrad-
able] plastic checkout bags and
non-recyclable paper bags to
their customers at the point of
sale for the purpose of transport-
ing groceries or other merchan-
dise. Nothing in this article shall
preclude a business from making
available to customers, with or
without charge, at the point of
sale: 1) [making] reusable [bags,
bags made of biodegradable
plastic] bags, compostable plas-
tic bags, or recyclable paper bags
[available for sale or without
charge to customers at the point
of sale] for the purpose of trans-
porting groceries or other mer-
chandise [such items]; or 2)
non-recyclable paper bags to
protect or transport prepared
foods, beverages, or bakery
goods. •Reprinted from KHON2 News
online, September 26, 2014.
© 2000-2014 LIN Television
Corporation. All rights reserved.
THE NEW LAWNOW INC LUDESB IODEGRADAB L EP LAS T IC BAGS IN THE BAN .
22
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
M A R I N E D E B R I S : O R E G O N
VOLUNTEERS PULL THOUSANDSOF POUNDS OF TRASH FROMCLACKAMAS RIVER BY M ICHAE L BAMESBERGER , THE OREGON IAN
When the sun’s shining, scores of
rafters and kayakers take to the
Clackamas River with coolers,
food and extra clothes in tow.
But when the season ends, those
items are exactly what’s left at
the bottom of the river—and
even some rafts.
So for the last 12 years, volun-
teers have organized a major
cleanup along the stretch of the
river most popular with floaters.
On Sunday, a group of about 400
scoured the river from Barton
Park to its confluence with the
Willamette River to pull as much
garbage out as they can.
The sheer amount they gather
is surprising. “We totaled about
3.7 tons last year,” said Staj
Pace, a board member of the
non-profit We Love Clean Rivers,
which sponsors the effort along-
side the Clackamas River Basin
Council.
The most common items are beer
and soda cans. But volunteers
also find plenty of sandals,
chunks of metal, clothes, sleep-
ing bags and garbage from
illegal dumps.
More than half of the items are
recycled, said Sheila Logan, a
trained Master Recycler with
Metro. Once the garbage is
hauled from boats and onto
shore, Logan and dozens others
set to work on the not-so-fun
task of sorting the junk. Some
of the items will be turned into
sculptures by a team of artists
and displayed at gallery in
December.
The cleanup effort begins early
for a team of divers. At 8 a.m.,
they began filling mesh bags
or throwing items to the bank.
Later, rafters and kayakers
floated by to collect the garbage.
Most of the volunteers bring their
own rafts and boats. But a busi-
ness also donates several rafts
and the time of a handful of river
guides, which opens up about
40 extra spots for volunteers.
Afterward, all were are invited
back to Barton Park for a free
barbecue and live music. Organ-
izers held a contest for the
scariest, cutest, most valuable,
hardest to remove and most
stylish piece of garbage found.
Each year, the effort seems to
collect more and more garbage,
Pace said, but it’s likely corre-
lated with an increase in volun-
teers actually pulling items from
the water.
The river provides drinking water
to hundreds of thousands of
people, and it’s home to one
of the last remaining wild runs
of endangered coho salmon,
she said.
Last summer, the new rules
allowed Clackamas County
Sheriff’s deputies and park staff
to visually search coolers for
alcohol in county parks, particu-
larly Barton and Carver parks.
Pace said she hopes the contin-
ued enforcement of these rules
will help cut down the amount
of garbage in the river over the
long term.
“Ideally, we would not have to
clean the river,” she said. •Reprinted from www.oregonlive.
com, September 7, 2014.
EACH YEAR THEE F FORT S E EMSTO COL L ECTMORE ANDMORE GARBAGE .
23
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
R E C Y C L I N G
NEW “TERMS & TOOLS” TO HELP COMMUNITIES RECYCLE BY A L LY SON WI L SON, AMER ICAN CHEM I S T RY COUNC I L
A broad group of stakeholders in
plastics recycling today launched
a set of new resources to help
communities recycle more plas-
tics. “Plastics Recycling Terms &
Tools” will make it easier for con-
sumers to recycle plastics and
help improve nationwide tracking
of the types and amounts of plas-
tics recycled by providing two
sets of common plastics recy-
cling terms (outreach and com-
modities) for use throughout the
United States and Canada.
Stacy Luddy of Moore Recycling
Associates Inc. introduced the
Terms & Tools at the annual
Resource Recycling Conference,
September 15-17 in New Orleans.
Because communities across the
country use slightly different
terms to refer to the same things,
consumers often are unnecessar-
ily confused about what can and
cannot be recycled. To help reduce
confusion, the Terms & Tools con-
tain a common set of outreach
terms (a glossary or lexicon) for
community recycling coordina-
tors to use when educating
residents about what plastics
to recycle.
To help communities adopt this
common language, an easy-to-
use online tool streamlines the
process of matching the plastics
collected in a community recy-
cling program with a common set
of outreach terms. The terms, a
corresponding gallery of images,
and an option to create your own
flyer (all available at no cost
at RecycleYourPlastics.org) are
designed to be used by commu-
nity recycling professionals
coast-to-coast in developing edu-
cation and outreach materials.
“Public opinion surveys and
everyday experience demon-
strate that many people are con-
fused about which plastics are
accepted for recycling in their
community,” said Patty Moore,
president and CEO of Moore
Recycling. “The new plastics
recycling terms were generated
through extensive surveys and
feedback from recycling profes-
sionals to get everyone speaking
the same language so we can
collect more of the plastics that
reclaimers need.”
In addition to the outreach
terms, the Terms & Tools contain
a separate set of recycled plas-
tics commodity terms that will
enable more accurate characteri-
zation of recycled plastic com-
modities and improve tracking of
plastics recycling at local, state,
and national levels. The com-
modity terms, created previously
by Moore Recycling in partner-
ship with the Association of Post-
consumer Plastics Recyclers, are
intended to create greater effi-
ciencies in the buying and selling
of used plastics.
The goals of the Terms & Tools
are to boost diversion rates of
clean material, increase the
types and amounts of plastics
recycled, decrease contamina-
tion, and help meet growing
demand for recycled plastics.
“We’re very excited to make the
Terms & Tools available to com-
munities nationwide,” said Steve
Russell, vice president of plastics
for the American Chemistry
Council. “Retailers, brand owners
and packaging designers want to
use more recycled plastics, and
this is an important step toward
increasing collection of these
valuable post-use materials.”
The Terms & Tools were created
with guidance from a wide-rang-
ing Advisory Committee of repre-
sentatives from throughout the
plastics recycling value chain,
including reclaimers, recycling
coordinators, plastics makers,
trade associations, municipal
recovery facilities, a recycling
company, an exporter, and a
nonprofit curbside recycling
partnership. In addition, Moore
Recycling solicited input through
an extensive survey of hundreds
of recycling professionals and
through Re-TRAC Connect.
Moore Recycling Associates
oversees the Terms & Tools,
sponsored by the Plastics
Division of the American
Chemistry Council. •Reprinted from www.american-
chemistry.com, September 17,
2014.
THE NEW T E RMSWERE GENER -AT ED THROUGHEX T ENS I V E SURVEYS ANDFEEDBACK .
24
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
R E C Y C L I N G
NRC TAKES ON RECYCLING DEFINIT ION BY BOBBY E L L IO T T, R E SOURCE R ECYC L ING
What is recycling? Last week a
number of industry leaders tried
to come up with a clear and
concise answer.
During a National Recycling
Coalition board meeting, top
recycling advocates engaged in
a lively debate on the group’s
working definition of recycling
and its potential implications.
As part of NRC’s policy and advo-
cacy work, the group is attempt-
ing to clarify what it views as
recycling and what, by extension,
it views as disposal.
The meeting, which took place
during the 2014 Resource Recy-
cling Conference in New Orleans
and was attended by a Resource
Recycling reporter, also featured
a special guest, author and
sustainability leader William
McDonough. After delivering the
conference’s keynote address
alongside Walmart’s Rob Kaplan,
McDonough agreed to sit in on
NRC's meeting and offer his in-
sight on the group's draft defini-
tion of recycling, which had been
in the works for several months.
NRC representatives had defined
recycling as “a series of activities
by which material that has
reached the end of its useful life
is processed into materials
utilized in the production of new
products.” McDonough sug-
gested a slightly broader alterna-
tive: “Recycling is a series of
activities by which resources that
have ended their current use are
reprocessed and made available
for the creation of new products
to be used in the marketplace.”
Those two definitions may seem
nearly identical, but the nuanced
distinctions were enough to
create a town hall-esque back-
and-forth as the board meeting
progressed.
During the hour-long exchange,
many argued the NRC definition
was problematic in its implica-
tion that all materials that are
recycled have indeed “reached
the end" of their useful life—
many materials, members
reminded other members,
are recycled despite being
perfectly useful.
Others argued that the McDo-
nough-inspired definition was
too widespread in its use of
“resources” instead of
“material.”
“You could recycle water, but
we’re meaning to talk about
waste,” Susan Collins of the
Container Recycling Institute
contended. Jay Bassett, who
also sat in to offer insight from
the federal EPA, offered a strong
warning on the use of “resources”
instead of “materials.” He said
that “there are regulatory mean-
ings to these terms,” and that
the use of “resources” could
open the door to free-wheeling
implications.
At one point Robin Wiener,
president of the Institute of
Scrap Recycling Industries, urged
members to consider brevity and
clarity above all else. “Simplicity
is critical here,” she said.
Stephen Bantillo, who worked
with Fran McPoland on shaping
the original definition through
extensive stakeholder and
member outreach, added, “We
want the shortest elevator
speech we can come up with.”
For his part, McDonough
stressed that he was “there to
learn” and, after hearing Wiener
and Bantillo’s comments, happily
ceded “it sounds like a good idea
to use materials [instead of re-
sources].” •Reprinted from www.resource-
recycling.com, September 25,
2014.
THERE A R E R EGU LATORYMEAN INGS TO THE T E RMS .
25
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
26
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
M E M B E R N E W S :
THE TIME FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM IS NOWBY K EV IN K E L LY, EMERA LD PACKAG ING
About two years ago our com-
pany, Emerald Packaging, which
manufactures plastic packaging
for food, suffered a silent raid
by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). Like thousands
of companies over the last few
years, ICE came without notice
and asked for copies of our I-9s,
the forms employees must fill out
detailing their right to work in the
United States, including proof of
legal status. ICE takes the forms
and checks social security num-
bers (SSN) and work visa status,
and anyone whose name does
not match the declared SSN or
whose work visa has lapsed
must be terminated. Companies
themselves face penalties for
such technicalities as putting the
necessary employee information
in the wrong box on the form, a
common error since the I-9 is a
complicated document. Worse,
they can be charged with criminal
penalties if they have knowingly
hired illegal aliens.
Memories of this moment flood
back into my brain as Congress
muddles through a conversation
about immigration reform again.
The audit, which took three weeks,
left scars on our company, the
employees caught up in the
fracas, and my soul. We lost 18
people out of a staff of 200. They
were some of our longest
tenured people, the best machin-
ists and operators, friends. Pro-
ductivity fell and costs zoomed.
Those affected lost good paying
jobs, and in some cases lost
homes and suffered depression
and anxiety. I felt so helpless
to protect them, so angry at the
financial impact on our business,
that I sought grief counseling.
It did not work.
We really had no idea if we had
illegals on staff. For many years
no system existed to check legal
status. The government now
provides the E-Verify system
which matches social security
numbers but the law disallows
checking the status of current
employees. Among our 210 fac-
tory employees who produce the
plastic packaging we make, we
have a mix of Asians, Hispanics
and a smattering of Anglos and
African-Americans, the two
former groups including many
recent immigrants. Some had
immigrated years ago, bought
homes, raised families, paid
taxes and contributed mightily
to the building of our company.
Take Miguel G. He had worked
with us for over 20 years, main-
taining and troubleshooting
some of the toughest machines
in our company, those that make
plastic retail packaging that wrap
lettuce, hold carrots or protect
celery. Miguel was a model
employee, never written-up, at
work every day, able to handle
his machines without help from
our overworked maintenance
department. He was also a
strong leader, willing to speak
his mind when he felt the com-
pany wasn’t treating people
fairly or managers were playing
favorites, as can happen. He
made over $18 an hour and had
full benefits, including medical
coverage for his family and a
pension program.
So off went the I-9s on which the
fate of Miguel and others rested.
Word of the raid spread through
the factory and within 48 hours
and nine employees immediately
came forward and identified
themselves as illegal aliens.
Because the law says we cannot
knowingly employ such people,
we had to let them go on the
spot. Over the following weeks,
while ICE audited our documents,
a steady trickle of employees
came forward and confessed. By
the time ICE came back and told
us that 18 of our employees were
not eligible to work in the United
States, 17 had outed themselves,
including Miguel. Fortunately, I
suppose, ICE found the company
had done nothing wrong and we
were not fined. In our favor was
the fact that most of the jobs
affected paid well and offered
full benefits, so the government
could not find that we had hired
illegals to keep our labor costs
low.
I was devastated, as were many
in the company. Most of those
(Continued, see Reform, page 27)
MOST OF THOSE CAUGHTWORKED W I THUS FOR OVER 10 Y EARS .
Kevin Kelly, Emerald Packaging
27
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
caught had worked with us for
over 10 years, some for as much
as 15 or 20 years. Overnight we
lost their experience. Of course
we replaced them, but in many
cases their replacements did not
measure up. Either they did not
have their predecessors’ drive or
the same commitment. It’s not
like we had a huge pool to draw
from. As a company that prints
on plastic and produces sophisti-
cated packaging there just are
not people with the skills living
in the San Francisco Bay Area
anymore. Probably not the entire
country either.
Without Miguel, bag department
productivity fell, about 4% dur-
ing the three months after he
left. Other departments suffered
too. The head of our ink depart-
ment, a young man named Ser-
gio, who had worked with us for
over 15 years, ended up out the
door despite living in the country
since childhood. Sergio earned
well over $20 an hour and was
a magician, finding unique and
subtle ways to save money. The
next fiscal quarter after we lost
him our ink costs rose 10%. His
replacement just did not have
the inventiveness. During the
next two years the loss of Sergio
cost the company over $600,000,
money that could have been
invested in equipment that
would create new jobs.
Fast forward two years. Six of the
18 who we had to let go are back.
They achieved legal status
through various means. One
received his work permit through
hardship status, thanks to illness
of a child. Another was already in
route to a green card when she
was let go. She returned six weeks
later. Two achieved status
through another family member.
Amazingly Sergio turned out to
be a citizen—that’s right, a citi-
zen from birth—whose status
had been mixed up thanks to
the movement of his family back
and forth across the border and
improper record keeping by our
government. But it took him two
years to rectify the problem. His
wife, overcome with anxiety,
ended up on medication to help
her cope.
Most of the remainder, I think,
found other jobs. I know two
returned to Mexico, including
Miguel. He simply decided he
hated living in the United States.
He told me he could not under-
stand a country that persecuted
hardworking, tax paying individu-
als, which wanted Mexican labor
but pretended otherwise. He was
tired of looking over his shoulder
all the time and wondering if he
would be deported, say if he was
pulled over by a police officer
while driving; without a driver’s
license the likelihood he’d be
shipped back to Mexico was
high. So he took his family,
including three American-born
children, and left. My company
and our country lost a very
productive man.
Why didn’t at least the six who
gained status do so earlier? If
you have not had experience
with ICE you might not under-
stand. Many Hispanics, espe-
cially Mexicans, do not trust
the system. They are routinely
gamed by huckster lawyers who
ask for money up-front then
never do anything. The client,
taken for the ride, does not feel
they can sue the attorney
because they are without status.
Then there is the system itself,
which can take two absolutely
identical cases and make com-
pletely opposite rulings, leading
to a green card for one person
and deportation for another.
Many do not want to take the
risk. Cost is another barrier.
Getting status can run well
over $20,000.
We helped some former employ-
ees find reputable lawyers who
saw their cases through success-
fully. Everyone who gained status
to work—we made sure they
were legal by using the E-Verify
to check their papers—was given
their seniority back and any
annual pay increases they may
have missed. We did not let
those we had hired to replace
them go. In some cases, like the
ink department where Sergio has
taken the reins again, we simply
made the former manager his
assistant. Ink costs have fallen
7% in the months after his
return.
I cannot help but wonder how
many of those others we had
to let go could have achieved
status. Think about it. Six of 18
did, or 30%. It is a small sample
pool, but what if 30% of those
supposedly illegally in our coun-
try could become legal but they
simply are too afraid, uninformed,
(Continued, see Reform, page 28)
IMM IGRAT ION R E FORM [CONT ’D ]
THE S ENATEPASSED A GOODB I L L .
28
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
bilked by lawyers or trapped in
the immigration system waiting
for a ruling that sometimes can
take years? If so, over 3 million
people could be legalized today.
How can we not stop and help
them find their path to status?
Especially if they have lived here
peaceably, paid taxes bought
homes and raised children.
Madness, really. As the grandson
of Irish immigrants who fled
poverty and civil war during the
1920s, I cannot wonder what
might have become of them
under today’s system. My pater-
nal grandfather had some educa-
tion, not much, worked as a
laborer but sent his children to
college and one of them, my fa-
ther, started a successful busi-
ness and has contributed to
society through extensive chari-
table activities. What if the coun-
try had been denied his success?
Moreover, contrary to those who
bleat about Mexicans taking jobs
from Americans, usually they are
doing things Anglos do not want.
Factory work, even when it pays
well and offers benefits, just is
not attractive. They don’t like the
dust, noise, or the working
hours, like graveyard shift. They
no longer want physical work.
They don’t have the skills. Sad
to say but most Anglos would
rather collect unemployment or
work at Home Depot than set
foot in a factory. We know this
because very few apply. When
they are offered a job, they
usually refuse because they have
to start on the night shift. Mean-
while those that want the jobs
are being forced out.
The irony, of course, is that this
policy of silent raids has taken
off under a Democratic president,
one who says he favors immigra-
tion reform. Under the Obama
Administration, ICE I-9 audits
have gone stratospheric. Since
2009 over 9000 raids have been
conducted, with more than
300,000 people losing jobs. No
other period in our history comes
close. I wonder how many of
those people could have been or
were actually legal, maybe even
citizens like Sergio? Perhaps the
government should spend time
finding out whether people have
cases to stay in the United States
rather than spending dollars
to deport.
But that’s up to Congress, one
dominated by Republicans hos-
tile to reform. The Senate passed
a good bill. It would create more
slots for people who attained
engineering degrees and the like
to stay here. It would provide a
path towards green cards and
maybe citizenship for people like
Miguel. But the House has so far
baulked and instead mumbled
on about doing something
piecemeal.
I don’t understand this. Anything
that keeps American companies
productive, increases innovation
here by making room for those
who earn degrees not popular
with current citizens—try and
find an Anglo industrial engineer
—and breaks the hold corrupt
lawyers have over the immigra-
tion system cannot be wrong. We
need hard workers. We need that
next generation that will go to
college and start the companies
of the future. The question
Congress must answer is
whether we recognize that? If
not, do we begin mass deporta-
tions of the Miguels, Sergios and
countless others who have
helped build the United States?
Let’s hope someday they get
the answer right. •
IMM IGRAT ION R E FORM [CONT ’D ]
29
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
M E M B E R P R E S S R E L E A S E :
WINDMÖLLER & HÖLSCHER SELLS100TH OPTIMEX TO POLYKAR Windmoeller & Hoelscher has
sold the 100th OPTIMEX blown
film line to Canadian manufac-
turer, Les Industries Polykar.
The OPTIMEX was launched in
autumn 2009 as an affordable
3-layer line to complement the
established VAREX blown film
range at W&H. It offers state-
of-the-art technology and film
quality to a range of manufactur-
ers that wouldn’t normally need
the extreme flexibility offered
with the modular VAREX range.
Since its launch, the OPTIMEX
has been sold to film manufac -
turers worldwide.
Polykar’s investment in the
OPTIMEX addresses customer
demand for more complex films
with high performance and
tighter tolerances. The line is
the company’s first investment
in W&H technology and is
expected to be in production
in autumn 2014.
In a July 2014 press release,
Polykar announced an $8 million
expansion to its manufacturing
facility in Saint-Laurent, Montreal.
This includes not only the new
OPTIMEX, but also an additional
30,000 ft2 to its existing LEED
certified facility (totaling 105,000
ft2) and new, cutting-edge recy-
cling technologies.
About Polykar:
Polykar (www.polykar.com) is a
family business founded in 1987
in Saint Laurent, Quebec. The
company is a leading manufac-
turer of polyethylene film,
garbage bags, certified
compostable bags and bulk
food packaging in Canada and
has developed expertise in
plastics recycling.
About W&H:
Windmoeller & Hoelscher
(www.whcorp.com) is a leader
in the design, manufacture and
distribution of flexographic and
gravure printing presses, blown
and cast film extrusion systems,
multiwall equipment, plastic
sack and bag making machines,
as well as form-fill-seal machin-
ery for the converting and
packaging industry. •S INCE I T SLAUNCH, OP T IMEX HASBEEN SO LD TO F I LM MANUFACTURE RSWOR LDWIDE .
30
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
M E M B E R P R E S S R E L E A S E :
WINDMÖLLER & HÖLSCHERGROUP TO EXHIBIT AT PACKEXPO2014 IN CHICAGO The Windmöller & Hölscher
Group, which also includes BSW
(Bag Solutions Worldwide) and
Garant Maschinenhandel, will
exhibit at PackExpo 2014 in
booths N4745 and N6367.
Garant, making its PackExpo
debut, will be located in booth
N6367 (Brand Zone) and run a
MATADOR NG flat and satchel
bag making machine, which was
designed with the flexibility to
produce all types of paper bags
in a wide range of sizes. The line
offers widths between 2.36¢¢ –
14.96¢¢, cutoff lengths between
6.3¢¢ – 30¢¢, and maximum gus-
sets of 5.5¢¢.
To date more than 100 MATADOR
NG lines have been sold world-
wide for producing bread bags,
gift bags, die cut handle shop-
ping bags and snack bags of all
sizes. Special features of the
MATADOR NG are the job storage
and retrieval system, window
device for producing two-web
bags and the MANUPACK/Servo
bag collator for counting and
collection.
At the Windmöller & Hölscher
Group booth (N4745), the
company will showcase paper
and plastic bags and sacks man-
ufactured on W&H multiwall and
FFS lines as well as with machin-
ery from BSW for every stage of
polywoven sack production.
W&H will highlight its new com-
plete FFS/Palletizer/Stretch
hooder line, which was launched
at the company’s Open House in
Germany this past May. The
TOPAS SL FFS runs at speeds
of up to 2,600 bags/hr and can
be used with the brand new
PLATINUM palletizer and ARGON
stretch hooder.
About Us
Windmöller & Hölscher
(www.wuh-group.com/en) is a
leader in the design, manufac-
ture and distribution of flexo-
graphic and gravure printing
presses, blown and cast film
extrusion systems, multiwall
equipment, plastic sack and
bag making machines, as well
as form-fill-seal machinery for
the converting and packaging
industry.
Garant Maschinenhandel
(www.garant-maschinen.de/en)
markets new and reconditioned
machinery for the production of
flexible packaging with a primary
concentration on flexographic
and gravure printing presses and
machines for the manufacture of
heavy duty paper and plastic
sacks, blown film lines, bag
making machines as well as
slitter rewinders.
BSW (Bag Systems Worldwide)
(www.bswtex.com) manufactures
machinery for every step of the
production process of flexible
packaging made from woven
PP ranging from tape extrusion
to finished sack. •
W&H WI L L H IGH -L IGHT I T S NEWCOMP L E T E F F S/PE L L E T I Z E R/S T R E TCH HOODERL INE .
31
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
M E M B E R P R E S S R E L E A S E :
WPA WELCOMES THE TURNERGROUPThe Turner Group is pleased to
be new members of the Western
Plastics Association. Since 1996
Turner Group has represented
leading Plastics Technology
suppliers in the Western United
States, Western Canada and
Northern Mexico.
In the Extrusion Industry they
represent Conair, Reifenhauser,
Reiloy and Starlinger.
In the Injection Industry they
represent Arburg, Conair,
DynaCon, Reiloy, Sepro Robotics,
Synventive and Trexel.
The Turner Group team:
• Laura Douglas oversees
the California area and covers
Arizona, New Mexico and
Nevada.
• Chuck Roehm manages the
Pacific Northwest and Western
Canada.
• Brent Strong covers sales
in Colorado, Utah, southern
Idaho & Wyoming.
• Tom Mackey heads up the
Extrusion group in the
California area.
• Edgar Sanchez serves the
most southern part of California
including San Diego County and
the Mexico Maquiladoras.
• Andrew Schenck supports
customers in the northern
California area and Inland Empire
region of southern California.
• Randy White serves the
northern and eastern Los
Angeles region.
Turner Group, Inc. is dedicated
to the support of their customers
and suppliers. They work to
contribute positively to our
industry, communities and
environment. •
THE TURNERGROUP I SP L EASED TO BENEW MEMBERSOF WPA .
32
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
M E M B E R P R E S S R E L E A S E :
WPA WELCOMES BIOBAG AMERICASIn 2002, BioGroupUSA, Inc.
secured the U.S. sales and
marketing rights for the BioBag
brand from the Norwegian parent
company, BioBag International
AS. The founder of BioGroupUSA,
Dave Williams, and his partner,
entrepreneur, Terry Phillips
believed strongly that com-
postable plastic bags and films
would soon become a necessary
and viable part of solving both
federal and state “zero
Waste” initiatives.
In 2011, BioGroupUSA changed
its name to BioBag Americas, as
the business expanded to South
America and Canada.
Over the past 12 years, the
BioBag brand has become the
most recognized name in the
United States for compostable
bags and films, proudly achiev-
ing a 75% share of the U.S. retail
market for compostable bags.
BioBag prides itself in assisting
communities, residents and busi-
nesses with the collection of food
and lawn waste for composting.
They have worked with numer-
ous haulers, composters, and
government agencies to start,
promote and maintain compost-
ing programs. BioBag products
meet ASTM-D6400 specifications
and strongly support the use of
GMO free certified crops. This is
why most of their products are
manufactured the USA, sourcing
resin from Italy.
BioBag products include bags
from 2 to 96+ gallon for the
collection of organic waste for
composting, films for packaging
and agriculture and customized
products for retail and commer-
cial businesses. Check out all
they do: www.biobagusa.com. •
B IOBAG HAS B ECOME THEMOST R ECOG -N I Z ED NAME IN THE U . S . FORCOMPOSTAB L EBAGS AND F I LMS .
T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T
W PA L E A D E R S H I P F O R 2 0 1 4 :
OFFICERS JOHN P ICC IU TO , P R ES I D ENTH Mueh l s t e i n & Co .
K EV IN K E L LY, V ICE P R ES I D ENTEme r a l d P a c k ag i n g
M ICHAE L HA I L F INGER , T R EASURE RINX I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n k Co .
CHANDL E R HADRABA , S ECRE TARYB r ad l e y P a c k ag i n g S y s t em s
BOARD OF DIRECTORS BRUCE CART E R G r ea t Ame r i c a n P a c k ag i n gMARK DAN I E L S H i l e x P o l y Compan yS T EVE DES PA IN R e i f e n ha u s e rCOL IN F E RN I E We s t e r n Con co r d M f g .ROGER HEWSON Windmoe l l e r & Hoe l s c h e rRAY HUFNAGE L P l a s t i c E x p r e s sS T EVEN JONES J a t c o , I n c .PAT R ICK MONTOYA New G r e e n Da yS T E PHEN SCHROEDER S i gma P l a s t i c s G r o upDAVE SHEW MAKER He r i t a g e Bag
WPA TODAY published by:
Western Plastics Association1107 9th Street, Suite 930Sacramento, CA 95814
916.761.2829 Cell916.930.1938 [email protected]
Editor: Laurie Hansen
Disclaimer: Western Plastics Association (WPA) does not endorse or recommend other than those officially endorsed byWPA, any individual or companythat is mentions in this newsletter.Any business conducted is between the member and the individual or company. Any state-ments made in this newsletter arethose of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views ofWPA or its Board of Directors.
@2014 Western Plastics Association