EPR | Recycling Policy ·
Back to Blog
California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) was designed to be a national model for producer responsibility for packaging —one that reduces waste, holds producers accountable, and builds a more circular, transparent recycling system.
AMBR strongly supports SB 54’s goals, but we’re deeply concerned that the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle’s) draft regulations include provisions that could undermine the law’s effectiveness, credibility, and environmental impact.
The agency released the draft regulations on May 16 and accepted public feedback until June 3 (see AMBR’s full comments to the agency).
Here’s where the proposed rules fall short—and how to strengthen them:
1. Cover the True Cost of Recycling
The draft regulations give the industry-run Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) too much control over what counts as a reimbursable cost and how much recyclers are paid, creating a clear conflict of interest.
The state—not the PRO—must set transparent criteria to ensure that recyclers are fairly compensated for the additional work SB 54 requires.
We need high recycling standards, including responsible end markets, strong worker safety and rights, and high-quality bales. SB 54 should support the development of strong recycling programs.
2. Exclude Chemical “Recycling” from Counting Towards Recycling Rates
The draft regulations improperly allow so-called “chemical recycling” technologies such as pyrolysis, gasification, and solvolysis to be approved as legitimate recycling operations.
These technologies are not recycling—they are energy-intensive disposal methods with a history of environmental harm.
SB 54 explicitly excludes plastics recycling processes that generate hazardous waste and significant emissions. The regulations should reinforce that by clearly prohibiting these technologies from being counted as recycling.
3. Restore Oversight of Technologies Used Under the Program
An earlier draft included critical technology safeguards, like peer-reviewed analysis and public access to data. These safeguards have been removed. Any technology approved under SB 54 should be subject to independent scientific review and full transparency.
4. Protect the Definition of Recycling
The current draft weakens statutory definitions of “recycling” and “disposal,” which could allow plastic-to-fuel processes to count toward recycling targets. CalRecycle should restore full legal definitions to prevent this misclassification.
5. Narrow and Justify Packaging Exemptions
Overly broad exemptions—for categories like FDA-regulated packaging or medical products—could allow vast swaths of packaging to avoid SB 54’s requirements. Exemptions should be narrow, transparent, and reviewed regularly to ensure they are truly necessary.
6. Close the “De Minimis” Loophole for Plastic Components
Ambiguous terms like “de minimis plastic components” invite abuse. Even small plastic pieces can contaminate recycling streams. Clear thresholds and enforceable definitions are needed to prevent backdoor exemptions that will only result in bale contamination and limit needed waste reduction.
7. Ensure Reuse and Refill Systems Are Genuine
We support strong incentives for reuse and refill, but only when the entire package is reusable and returned. Partial reuse claims (e.g., reusable container with disposable lid) should not qualify. Additionally, CalRecycle needs to create specific guardrails to prevent superficial design changes from qualifying packaging as reusable or refillable without delivering meaningful environmental benefit. We are particularly concerned that this version of the regulations may create a new loophole—similar to the well-documented “thicker plastic bag” scenario—where industry slightly modifies packaging to technically meet reuse thresholds without actually reducing plastic pollution or improving circularity. Clear reuse criteria should be spelled out and verified return data should be required to prevent greenwashing.
8. Prohibit Mass Balance Accounting
The proposed regulations lack clear requirements for how recycled content must be calculated, opening the door to opaque accounting methods that allow producers to overstate their use of post-consumer recycled content. Producers should not be allowed to use credit-based or “free allocation” mass balance systems to claim recycled content. These accounting tricks obscure the truth and undermine public trust. Instead, recycled content should be physically traceable and measured by weight to ensure integrity.
Communities Need Real Regulation
The success of SB 54 depends on strong, enforceable rules rooted in science, transparency, and environmental integrity. We urge CalRecycle to revise the draft regulations and stay true to the law’s promise: a future where packaging is designed responsibly, waste is minimized, and communities are protected.