Future of MRFs: New contract terms, more tech, ongoing stress

December 11, 2018

December 11, 2018


Cole Rosengren of Waste Dive Magazine attended NERC's Fall 2018 Conference In Rocky Hill CT. Here is his account of the many subjects covered in depth. The original article can be found here.


It's well-documented by now how challenging operations have been at U.S. MRFs recently, especially in the wake of China's scrap import restrictions. Last week, at the Northeast Recycling Council's fall conference in Rocky Hill, Connecticut, multiple presentations even went so far as to include images of MRFs getting struck by lightning bolts or being targeted by aircraft bombs. Amid this siege mentality, however, there were still signs of hope for how the industry can move forward.


Under Pressure


Few, if any, areas of the country have been immune to tight commodity markets. The largest publicly-traded players in U.S. recycling have discussed it ad nauseam during earnings callsinterviews and conference appearances since last summer. They touched on many of the usual points during an opening panel, with a few variations on running messages.


  • Susan Robinson, Waste Management's director of federal public affairs, made her signature presentation on the potential emissions benefits of recycling certain materials, noting the current scenario of an inelastic supply chain puts​ MRFs under "extreme stress." She described as unrealistic the concept some have of MRFs being a "black box" that can handle whatever comes their way. “We’re asking them to basically work magic with something that’s a very complex stream coming in the door."
  • Frank Chimera, senior manager of municipal services for Republic Services, delivered his company's own message about why cost expectations need to be adjusted. “We believe strongly that you can’t have sustainability without economic viability," said Chimera. The fact that Republic has invested $1.5 million in new technology at its Seattle MRF was held up as a sign that similar upgrades could be possible elsewhere when contract terms are favorable.
  • Bob Cappadona, vice president of recycling for Casella Waste Systems, described the scrutiny on bale quality as unlike anything he's seen in a 30-plus year career. Cappadona said "we’ve done it all" when it comes to improving quality, motivated in part by the specter of highly expensive container rejection fees. However, he questioned how feasible proposed uniform audit standards would be at large facilities such as the company's Boston MRF, which produces around 1,000 bales per day.


Evolutions and Changes


As all of these recycling cost pressures play out, there have already been numerous changes in the way that industry and local government interact. This has manifested itself in a variety of examples around the country and will continue to do so for months — if not years — to come. Presentations from multiple consultants in the field covered a few key trends currently underway and made the case for no longer thinking about recycling as a purely profit-driven enterprise:


  • Michael Timpane, vice president of process optimization and recovery at RRS, said he was aware of roughly 100 contract conflicts around the U.S. These include multiple instances of force majeure being invoked and ongoing disputes over who should bear various costs. He recommended rethinking single-stream as a "convenience service" and decoupling it from a traditional commodity value mindset.
  • Mitch Kessler of Kessler Consulting agreed that contract structures need to move away from local governments or companies counting on commodity revenue. “It was never meant to be budgeted; it was never meant to be a revenue generator," he said. Kessler also said that blaming long-running trends — such as the evolving ton, changing oil prices and, above all, Chinese trade policy — lacked perspective. "This has been going for a while. We chose to ignore it to some extent."
  • The need to invest significantly in new MRF tech was also a running theme, with multiple speakers saying the industry could do more. Nat Egosi, president of RRT Design & Construction, said counting on revenue alone to cover capital costs wouldn't be sufficient. “Huge investments need to be made, and I mean huge investments," he said. According to Egosi, ideal technology for the "MRF of Tomorrow" will include new OCC screens, auger screens, anti-wrapping screens and more optical sorters.


2019 and Beyond


Now that the industry is more than a year into this new post-China reality, there is a sense of tentative stability and occasionally even cautious optimism about what comes next. Many local governments will continue to struggle with rising costs, but speakers at the NERC event saw reason for hope in the Northeast. They also touched on a few potential changes that have yet to materialize, but are either being discussed or could come up in the years ahead:


  • Multiple speakers urged against suspending or canceling recycling programs. Gregory Anderson, chief of staff at New York's Department of Sanitation, said participation rates suffered for years after the city temporarily cut certain items. “The solution today isn't to to take drastic steps to cut entire products out of our recycling program because of current day situations, unless we’re prepared to never have those products back in our program in the future."
  • Despite a few examples around the country, no one expects to see dual-stream make a big comeback. Convenience and capital costs were listed as key reasons. “You’re going to get a better quality stream out of dual stream, there’s no doubt about it, but the cost to collect is exorbitant," said Chimera, adding that in many areas “those trucks are gone."
  • Eileen Berenyi of Governmental Advisory Associates predicted the industry might see more public-private partnerships, increasing automation and possibly even new mixed waste concepts. Projects by Fiberight in Maine and RePower in Alabama were cited as recent examples. “I really think in the future we’re going to see more attempt to capture the energy component of the waste," she said.
  • Chaz Miller, formerly of NWRA, said he was heartened by the amount of news about recent paper mill investments but expects markets to remain tight for at least the next 24-36 months. “There’s clearly light at the end of the tunnel, but you don’t build these facilities overnight."



NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Megan Schulz-Fontes. Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

By Megan Fontes May 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) published its Chemical Recycling Policy Position on May 30, 2025. The purpose of the policy statement is to articulate guiding principles for environmentally responsible chemical recycling of plastics. NERC supports the conservation of natural resources, waste minimization, and recognizes the role of recycling in reaching these goals. Plastic is a prevalent material for packaging and other products due to its material properties. Producing virgin plastic from fossil fuels is an extractive process with negative environmental and social impacts. Therefore, NERC supports reduction, reuse, and recycling processes that displace virgin production in plastics where environmentally preferable. You can view the policy statement here: https://www.nerc.org/chemical-recycling . The Policy Position was developed by the Subcommittee of the NERC Chemical Recycling Committee. Participants on the Subcommittee included Committee Chair Tom Metzner, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Claudine Ellyin, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP); John Fay, Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA); Anthony Fontana, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Retired ; Michael Fowler, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP); Timothy Kerr, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Left MDE ; Shannon McDonald, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE); Chaz Miller, Ex-Officio, NERC Board; Elizabeth Moore, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Marc Moran, Pennsylvania Department Of Environmental Protection; Michael Nork, New Hampshire Department Of Environmental Services; Megan Schulz-Fontes, Northeast Recycling Council (NERC); and Richard Watson, Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA). NERC created the Chemical Recycling Committee in 2022 with the goal of sharing information on new technologies called “chemical recycling.” The Committee shares information on the efficacy, cost, and impacts of these new technologies. Our Policy is the result of those efforts. The Committee is open to NERC state members and several advisory member organizations whose participation has been approved by the state members serving on the committee. NERC has published several other policy positions including the Post-Consumer Recycled Content Policy (2019) and Product Stewardship and Producer Responsibility Policy (2018), which can be found among others on NERC’s website: https://www.nerc.org/policy-positions-and-statements . For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org .
May 28, 2025
Waste Advantage NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period January – March 2025 showed a slight jump in the average commodity prices for Q1. The average value of all commodities increased by 9% without residuals to $102.34 and 8% with residuals to $89.62, as compared to last quarter. Single stream increased by 12% without residuals and 11% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated increased by 10% without residuals and 9% with residuals compared to last quarter. The average percentage for outbound tons marketed per commodity in calendar year 2024 showed decreases for all commodities as compared to 2022, except for polypropylene and bulky rigids, which increased by 40% and 29%, respectively. We also see an increase in mixed glass and residue, as compared to 2022, by 31% and 8%, respectively, further offsetting the decreases in marketed commodity percentages across the board. Notably, green, brown, and clear glass had the largest fall with clear glass decreasing by 77%. Changes in calculation methodology may affect these trends. Percentages are derived from tonnages reported for calendar year 2024 as opposed to percentage breakdowns in previous years. This is the 24th quarterly report in NERC’s series of reports on the market value of commodities from MRFs in the Northeast. This report includes information from 19 MRFs representing twelve (12) states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These survey results reflect the differing laws and collection options in the participating states. Five of the states included in this report have beverage container deposit laws. As a result, fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans are processed in MRFs in those states. Those MRFs are also likely to have less revenue from those recyclables. In addition, the report reflects a mix of single stream, dual stream, and source separation to collect recyclables with single stream being the most common approach. The type of collection used will have an impact on MRF design and operation. Thus, the data from this report reflects the unique blend of facilities and statewide laws in the reporting states. Residual refers to the incoming material that cannot be marketed and goes to disposal. The value without residuals reflects the value of a perfect ton of marketed material, while the value with residuals reflects the value of each ton processed with the costs associated of disposing unmarketable material. Note: In many cases, recovered glass goes to market but at a negative value. This data is not intended to be used as a price guide for MRF contracts. NERC’s database represents single and dual stream MRFs, states with and without beverage container deposits, a wide variety in markets and geographic access to markets, and variety of materials collected for processing at the participating facilities. As a result, it represents the diversity of operating conditions in these locations and should not be used as a price guideline for a specific program. For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org or visit www.nerc.org .
By Megan Fontes May 22, 2025
2024 Average Percentage of Outbound Tons Marketed per Commodity Published; New Format: Report Includes Q1 2025 Individual Commodity Average Prices
More Posts