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

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.