THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS...

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

http://www.westernplastics.org/

2


“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

http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

3


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


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 .

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/30/6748372/california-plastic-bag-ban-signed.html

http://www.ngr.at

5



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 .

http://plasticsindustry.org/apba/

6



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



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


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


9



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.


10


(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



11


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


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



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


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



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



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),


tion 42280, shall comply with the

same requirements of Section

42283 that are imposed upon a



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



12


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,



13


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. •


14


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 ...

http://www.whcorp.com/

15


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


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 ]

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/30/6666099/california-legislature-passes.html

17



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 .

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

18



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


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 ]

http://www.alsplastics.com/

20


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 .

21


http://www.erema.net/

22


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 .

http://www.oregonlive.com/

23


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 .

http://www.americanchemistry.com/

24


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


http://www.hubinternational.com/

26


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


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


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


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



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



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



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 .

http://www.biobagusa.com/


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

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS...

Documents

Transcript of THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS...