Latest news with #CalRecycle
Los Angeles Times
11-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Amid state inaction, California chef sues to block sales of foam food containers
Redwood City — Fed up with the state's refusal to enforce a law banning the sale of polystyrene foam cups, plates and bowls, a San Diego County resident has taken matters into his own hands. Jeffrey Heavey, a chef and owner of Convivial Catering, a San Diego-area catering service, is suing WinCup, an Atlanta-based foam foodware product manufacturing company, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. He is suing on behalf of himself, not his business. The suit, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court in March, seeks class action status on behalf of all Californians. Heavey's attorney, William Sullivan of the Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, said his client is seeking an injunction to stop WinCup from selling these banned products in California and to remove the products' 'chasing arrows' recycling label, which Heavey and his attorney describe as false and deceptive advertising. They are also seeking damages for every California-based customer who paid the company for these products in the last three years, and $5,000 to every senior citizen or 'disabled' person who may have purchased the products during this time period. WinCup didn't respond to requests for comments, but in a court filing described the allegations as vague, unspecific and without merit, according to the company's attorney, Nathan Dooley. At issue is a California ban on the environmentally destructive plastic material, which went into effect on Jan. 1, as well as the definition of 'recyclable' and the use of such a label on products sold in the state. Senate Bill 54, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, targeted single-use plastic in the state's waste stream. The law included a provision that banned the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene food service ware — such as foam cups, plates and takeout containers — on Jan. 1, unless producers could show they had achieved a 25% recycling rate. 'I'm glad a person in my district has taken this up and is holding these companies accountable,' said Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas). 'But CalRecycle is the enforcement authority for this legislation, and they should be the ones doing this.' The intent of the law was to put the financial onus of responsible waste management onto the producers of these products, and away from California's taxpayers and cities that would otherwise have to dispose of these products or deal with their waste on beaches, in rivers and on roadways. Expanded polystyrene is a particularly pernicious form of plastic pollution that does not biodegrade, has a tendency to break down into microplastics, leaches toxic chemicals and persists in the environment. There are no expanded polystyrene recycling plants in California, and recycling rates nationally for the material hover around 1%. However, despite CalRecycle's delayed announcement of the ban, companies such as WinCup not only continue to sell these banned products in California, but Heavey and his lawyers allege the products are deceptively labeled as 'recyclable.' In his suit, Heavey includes a March 15 receipt from a Smart & Final store in the San Diego County town of National City, indicating a purchase of 'WinCup 16 oz. Foam' cups. Similar polystyrene foam products could be seen on the shelves this week at a Redwood City Smart & Final, including a 1,000-count box of 12-ounce WinCup foam cups selling for $36.99. Across the aisle, the shelves were packed with bags of Simply Value and First Street (both Smart & Final brands) foam plates and bowls. There were 'chasing arrow' recycling labels on the boxes containing cup lids. The symbol included a No. 6 in the center, indicating the material is polystyrene. There were none on the cardboard boxes containing cups, and it couldn't be determined if the individual foam products were tagged with recycling labels. They were either obstructed from view inside cardboard boxes or stacked in bags which obscured observation. Smart & Final, which is owned by Chedraui USA, a subsidiary of Mexico City-based Grupo Comercial Chedraui, didn't respond to requests for comment. Heavey's suit alleges the plastic product manufacturer is 'greenwashing' its products by labeling them as recyclable and in so doing, trying to skirt the law. According to the suit, recycling claims are widely disseminated on products and via other written publications. The company's website includes an 'Environmental' tab, which includes a page entitled: 'Foam versus Paper Disposable Cups: A closer look.' The page includes a one-sentence argument highlighting the environmental superiority of foam over paper, noting that 'foam products have a reputation for environmental harm, but if we examine the scientific research, in many ways Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam is greener than paper.' Heavey's suit claims that he believed he was purchasing recyclable materials based on the products' labeling, and he would not have bought the items had they not been advertised as such. WinCup, which is owned by Atar Capital, a Los Angeles-based global private investment firm sought to have the case moved to the U.S. District Court in San Diego, but a judge there remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court or jurisdiction grounds. Susan Keefe, the Southern California Director of Beyond Plastics, an anti-plastic environmental group based in Bennington, Vt., said that as of June, the agency had not yet enforced the ban, despite news stories and evidence that the product was still being sold in the state. 'It's really frustrating. CalRecycle's disregard for enforcement just permits a lack of respect for our laws. It results in these violators who think they can freely pollute in our state with no trepidation that California will exercise its right to penalize them,' she said. Melanie Turner, a spokesoman for CalRecycle, said in a statement that expanded polystyrene producers 'should no longer be selling or distributing expanded polystyrene food service ware to California businesses.' 'CalRecycle has been identifying and notifying businesses that may be impacted by SB 54, including expanded polystyrene requirements, and communicating their responsibilities with mailed notices, emailed announcements, public meetings, and workshops,' she said. The waste agency 'is prioritizing compliance assistance for producers regulated by this law, prior to potential enforcement action,' she said. Keefe filed a public records request with the agency regarding communications with companies selling the banned material and said she found the agency had not made any attempts to warn or stop the violators from selling banned products. Blakespear said it's concerning the law has been in effect for more than six months and CalRecycle has yet to clamp down on violators. Enforcement is critical, she said, for setting the tone as SB 54 is implemented. According to Senate Bill 54, companies that produce banned products that are then sold in California can be fined up to $50,000 per day, per violation. According to a report issued by the waste agency last week, approximately 47,000 tons of expanded polystyrene foam was disposed in California landfills last year.
Business Wire
18-06-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
RE:CIRCLE Ontario Fights Food Waste in California with Innovative TraceOS Tracking System
ONTARIO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- RE:CIRCLE Ontario LLC, a RE:CIRCLE Solutions Inc. company and leader in organic waste recycling, feed production and diversion strategies, today announced the launch of its proprietary, industry-first waste repurposing and carbon avoidance data tracking system, 'TraceOS.' RE:CIRCLE Ontario's significant industry expertise in effective and proven repurposing strategies transforms waste into value while enabling businesses to achieve their sustainability initiatives and reduce dependency on landfills. The company's integrated services include collection and transportation of organic waste from inbound partners – like grocery retailers, food and beverage producers and other key players in the food ecosystem – to its state-of-the-art processing site in Ontario, California. Once there, RE:CIRCLE Ontario's nutritional experts and advanced processing methods test the nutritional value and energy potential of pre-consumer organic food waste that cannot be sold or donated. The material is then processed into feed, converted via farms, anaerobic digestion or commodity recycling specialist partners. RE:CIRCLE Ontario follows the disposal route with the greatest possible utility – in line with the food recovery hierarchy – where food waste is repurposed into animal feed, biofuel, biofertilizer or valuable secondary raw materials with landfill being last resort. 'With California law prohibiting food waste disposal in landfills, organic waste management is now critical for grocery and foodservice businesses,' said Clemens Stockreiter, Founder of RE:CIRCLE Solutions. 'Effective diversion and repurposing strategies are necessary to ensure compliance, meet sustainability goals and reduce costs. That's where RE:CIRCLE comes in – we don't just recycle, we revitalize waste and upcycle it for the highest possible utility with immense environmental value. Our services are seamless and scalable, and our first-of-its-kind TraceOS system further provides customers with online access and transparency into these sustainability efforts.' TraceOS provides customers with auditable tracking of the volume or composition of their food waste. It quantifies the impact of their recycled material on reducing landfill dependency, maximizing resource recovery and greenhouse gas avoidance. Its proprietary online dashboard enables customers to view the impact of their sustainability goals, where each batch and ton is recycled, and progress in reducing carbon footprint in real time, at their fingertips. Additionally, RE:CIRCLE Ontario provides customers with comprehensive tracking of recycled material as it moves through RE:CIRCLE's innovative repurposing system. TraceOS's certified, auditable reports provide data in line with relevant reporting standards (CalRecycle, Food Loss & Waste Champions 2030, EPA). It delivers actionable insights to offer a level of complete transparency and management control unmatched by the industry. RE:CIRCLE Ontario LLC is a fully owned subsidiary of RE:CIRCLE Solutions Inc. and a Southern California leader in organic waste recycling and feed production, which offers critical waste diversion strategies that repurpose unsold pre-consumer food waste for the highest possible potential as animal feed, biofuel, biofertilizer or valuable secondary raw materials.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers ask Newsom and waste agency to follow the law on plastic legislation
California lawmakers are taking aim at proposed rules to implement a state law aimed at curbing plastic waste, saying the draft regulations proposed by CalRecycle undermine the letter and intent of the legislation. In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and two of his top administrators, the lawmakers said CalRecycle exceeded its authority by drafting regulations that don't abide by the terms set out by the law, Senate Bill 54. "While we support many changes in the current draft regulations, we have identified several provisions that are inconsistent with the governing statute ... and where CalRecycle has exceeded its authority under the law," the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Newsom, California Environmental Protection agency chief Yana Garcia, and Zoe Heller, director of the state's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle. The letter, which was written by Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) and Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), was signed by 21 other lawmakers, including Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) and Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) and Monique Limón (D-Goleta). CalRecycle submitted informal draft regulations two weeks ago that are designed to implement the law, which was authored by Allen, and signed into law by Newsom in 2022. The lawmakers' concerns are directed at the draft regulations' potential approval of polluting recycling technologies — which the language of the law expressly prohibits — as well as the document's expansive exemption for products and packaging that fall under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The inclusion of such blanket exemptions is "not only contrary to the statute but also risks significantly increasing the program's costs," the lawmakers wrote. They said the new regulations allow "producers to unilaterally determine which products are subject to the law, without a requirement or process to back up such a claim." Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email that Newsom "was clear when he asked CalRecycle to restart these regulations that they should work to minimize costs for small businesses and families, and these rules are a step in the right direction ..." At a workshop held at the agency's headquarters in Sacramento this week, CalRecycle staff responded to similar criticisms, and underscored that these are informal draft regulations, which means they can be changed. "I know from comments we've already been receiving that some of the provisions, as we have written them ... don't quite come across in the way that we intended," said Karen Kayfetz, chief of CalRecycle's Product Stewardship branch, adding that she was hopeful "a robust conversation" could help highlight areas where interpretations of the regulations' language differs from the agency's intent. "It was not our intent, of course, to ever go outside of the statute, and so to the extent that it may be interpreted in the language that we've provided, that there are provisions that extend beyond ... it's our wish to narrow that back down," she said. These new draft regulations are the expedited result of the agency's attempt to satisfy Newsom's concerns about the law, which he said could increase costs to California households if not properly implemented. Newsom rejected the agency's first attempt at drafting regulations — the result of nearly three years of negotiations by scores of stakeholders, including plastic producers, package developers, agricultural interests, environmental groups, municipalities, recycling companies and waste haulers — and ordered the waste agency to start the process over. Critics say the new draft regulations cater to industry and could result in even higher costs to both California households, which have seen large increases in their residential waste hauling fees, as well as to the state's various jurisdictions, which are taxed with cleaning up plastic waste and debris clogging the state's rivers, highways, beaches and parks. The law is molded on a series of legislative efforts described as Extended Producer Responsibility laws, which are designed to shift the cost of waste removal and disposal from the state's jurisdictions and taxpayers to the industries that produce the waste — theoretically incentivizing a circular economy, in which product and packaging producers develop materials that can be reused, recycled or composted. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
31-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Lawmakers ask Newsom and waste agency to follow the law on plastic legislation
California lawmakers are taking aim at proposed rules to implement a state law aimed at curbing plastic waste, saying the draft regulations proposed by CalRecycle undermine the letter and intent of the legislation. In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and two of his top administrators, the lawmakers said CalRecycle exceeded its authority by drafting regulations that don't abide by the terms set out by the law, Senate Bill 54. 'While we support many changes in the current draft regulations, we have identified several provisions that are inconsistent with the governing statute ... and where CalRecycle has exceeded its authority under the law,' the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Newsom, California Environmental Protection agency chief Yana Garcia, and Zoe Heller, director of the state's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle. The letter, which was written by Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) and Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), was signed by 21 other lawmakers, including Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) and Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) and Monique Limón (D-Goleta). CalRecycle submitted informal draft regulations two weeks ago that are designed to implement the law, which was authored by Allen, and signed into law by Newsom in 2022. The lawmakers' concerns are directed at the draft regulations' potential approval of polluting recycling technologies — which the language of the law expressly prohibits — as well as the document's expansive exemption for products and packaging that fall under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The inclusion of such blanket exemptions is 'not only contrary to the statute but also risks significantly increasing the program's costs,' the lawmakers wrote. They said the new regulations allow 'producers to unilaterally determine which products are subject to the law, without a requirement or process to back up such a claim.' Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email that Newsom 'was clear when he asked CalRecycle to restart these regulations that they should work to minimize costs for small businesses and families, and these rules are a step in the right direction ...' At a workshop held at the agency's headquarters in Sacramento this week, CalRecycle staff responded to similar criticisms, and underscored that these are informal draft regulations, which means they can be changed. 'I know from comments we've already been receiving that some of the provisions, as we have written them ... don't quite come across in the way that we intended,' said Karen Kayfetz, chief of CalRecycle's Product Stewardship branch, adding that she was hopeful 'a robust conversation' could help highlight areas where interpretations of the regulations' language differs from the agency's intent. 'It was not our intent, of course, to ever go outside of the statute, and so to the extent that it may be interpreted in the language that we've provided, that there are provisions that extend beyond ... it's our wish to narrow that back down,' she said. These new draft regulations are the expedited result of the agency's attempt to satisfy Newsom's concerns about the law, which he said could increase costs to California households if not properly implemented. Newsom rejected the agency's first attempt at drafting regulations — the result of nearly three years of negotiations by scores of stakeholders, including plastic producers, package developers, agricultural interests, environmental groups, municipalities, recycling companies and waste haulers — and ordered the waste agency to start the process over. Critics say the new draft regulations cater to industry and could result in even higher costs to both California households, which have seen large increases in their residential waste hauling fees, as well as to the state's various jurisdictions, which are taxed with cleaning up plastic waste and debris clogging the state's rivers, highways, beaches and parks. The law is molded on a series of legislative efforts described as Extended Producer Responsibility laws, which are designed to shift the cost of waste removal and disposal from the state's jurisdictions and taxpayers to the industries that produce the waste — theoretically incentivizing a circular economy, in which product and packaging producers develop materials that can be reused, recycled or composted.
Los Angeles Times
30-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Want to understand CalRecycle's chemical recycling rules? You'll need to pay
Sacramento — Want to know what constitutes an acceptable form of recycling in California under CalRecycle's new draft guidelines for the state's landmark plastic waste law? It'll cost you roughly $187, and even then you may not find your answer. The issue arose this week when CalRecycle held a Sacramento workshop on its proposed regulations to implement Senate Bill 54, the 2022 law designed to reduce California's single-use plastic waste. In the regulations' latest iteration, the agency declared that it will only consider recycling technologies that follow standards issued by the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, the Geneva-based group that sets standards for a variety of industries, including healthcare and transportation. According to the draft regulations: 'A facility's use of a technology that is not a mechanical recycling technology ... shall not be considered recycling unless the facility operates in a manner consistent with ISO 59014:2024.' To access ISO 59014:2024, one must purchase the report for about $187. That's not fair, said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. 'Copies of those ISO standards should be publicly available,' he said. Lapis and others also noted that the law, as written, expressly prohibits chemical and nonmechanical forms of recycling. Officials at CalRecycle, also known as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, didn't respond to the criticism or to questions from The Times. ISO 59014:2024 turns out to be a 38-page report titled 'Environmental management and circular economy — Sustainability and traceability of the recovery of secondary materials — Principles, requirements and guidance.' A copy of the report reviewed by The Times offered no specifics on recycling technologies, or information about the operation of a recycling plant. The word 'recycling' is only used five times in the 'Annex,' a 13-page supplementary section of the report. And there it is mentioned only in the context of establishing definitions or examples of 'organizations engaged in the recovery of secondary materials' or 'collection system types.' For instance, 'Commercial waste and recycling companies' are listed as examples of a type of organization that collects waste. Other waste collectors, according to the report, include municipalities, retailers and reuse organizations such as nonprofit reuse operators. 'The draft calls on aligning facilities with this ISO standard,' said Monica Wilson, senior director of global programs at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. 'That ISO standard is not about recycling. It's not about chemical recycling, it's just not an appropriate comparison for us to be referring to.' Lapis also found the report hard to decipher. 'Maybe I should go back and look at it again, but it'd be helpful if you're citing ISO standards ... that you identify what parts' are being cited, he said. Karen Kayfetz, chief of CalRecycle's Product Stewardship branch, didn't respond to questions or concerns about the inclusion of a report that is not freely available to the public to review. During this week's workshop, she said the agency's use of the ISO standard 'is not meant ... to be a measure of whether you are recycling, but rather just one of multiple criteria that an entity needs to be measured against.' She said the SB 54 statute requires that CalRecycle exclude recycling technologies that produce significant amounts of hazardous waste and tasks the agency with considering environmental and public health impacts of these technologies. 'The ISO standard for the operation of facilities does address some of the best practices that would help to ameliorate and measure those impacts. ... It is meant to be one of multiple criteria that can be utilized as a measure and to help set a floor but not a ceiling,' she said. Ana Ferreira, a spokeswoman for the Wine Institute, which represents more than 1,000 wineries and affiliates across the state, was among those with no complaints about the proposed new regulations. 'We believe it incorporates common-sense changes that would reduce costs and ensure that products are appropriately recycled,' Ferreira said. Tina Andolina, the chief of staff for state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), SB 54's author, said the inclusion of the report and other items in the draft regulations suggests that CalRecycle is considering how to manage these polluting technologies — instead of forbidding them, as the law requires. 'The regulations unlawfully shift the standard from the production of hazardous waste as required by the statute to its management,' she said, reading from a letter Allen had written to the staff. Anja Brandon, director of plastic policy at the Ocean Conservancy, added that along with not being freely available, the ISO standard 'does not satisfy SB 54's requirements to exclude the most hazardous technologies and to minimize the generation of hazardous waste and environmental, environmental justice and public health impacts.' SB 54, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022, requires that by 2032, 100% of single-use packaging and plastic food ware produced or sold in the state must be recyclable or compostable, that 65% of it can be recycled, and that the total volume is reduced by 25%. The law was written to address the mounting issue of plastic pollution in the environment and the growing number of studies showing the ubiquity of microplastic pollution in the human body — such as in the brain, blood, heart tissue, testicles, lungs and various other organs. Last March, after nearly three years of negotiations among various corporate, environmental, waste, recycling and health stakeholders, CalRecycle drafted a set of finalized regulations designed to implement the single-use plastic producer responsibility program under SB 54. But as the deadline for implementation approached, industries that would be affected by the regulations including plastic producers and packaging companies — represented by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Circular Action Alliance — began lobbying the governor, complaining that the regulations were poorly developed and might ultimately increase costs for California allowed the regulations to expire and told CalRecycle that it needed to start the process over. These new draft regulations are the agency's latest attempt at issuing guidelines by which the law can be implemented.
