• Keller and Heckman Partner Katie Bond and Associate Samuel Butler recently authored an article analyzing the implications of CalRecycle’s final material characterization study for recycling claims in California. The study is required by SB 343 (Pub. Res. Code § 42355.51(d)(1)(B)), and will likely be a primary determinant of what claims of recyclability can be made for products and packaging in California manufactured from the statute’s October 2026 effective date until the issuance of the next material characterization study, set for 2027.
  • SB 343 says that the purpose of the study is “to provide information to the public sufficient for evaluating” whether a particular item meets certain criteria for recyclability. Specifically, the study is to address (1) whether an item’s “material type and form is collected for recycling by recycling programs for jurisdictions that collectively encompass at least 60 percent of the population of the state”; (2a) whether “the material type and form is sorted into defined streams for recycling processes by large volume transfer or processing facilities … that process materials and collectively serve at least 60 percent of recycling programs statewide”; and (2b) whether “the defined streams [are] sent to and reclaimed at a reclaiming facility consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention.”
  • Table 1 in the study addresses in a straightforward manner criterion 1, showing collection rates for various material types and forms as a percentage of the state’s population. Table 2 addresses the second part of criterion 2a, identifying the percentage of counties served by facilities that sort the identified material types and forms into outflows. Table 3 provides information about what materials were found in the processing facilities’ outflows, but this information does not in many cases provide a complete answer as to whether a particular material type and form is “sorted into defined streams” by the processing facilities. Citing a lack of authority to demand the relevant information, the study does not provide data addressing criterion 2b.
  • Following the release of a preliminary study and a revised preliminary study at the end of 2023 and 2024, the information included in the study is not surprising. The absence of full information to determine whether a material type and form is “sorted into defined streams” and “reclaimed at a reclaiming facility” is surprising, however, given the statute’s instruction that the study will provide “sufficient” information “for evaluating whether a product or packaging is recyclable.”
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to recycling standards in California and nationwide and advise companies on their obligations under the new standard.