MRF Glass Used as Alternative Daily Cover

July 12, 2023

The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has released a report that reveals data about post-consumer recycled glass containers being used at landfills in the Northeast states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont) and Quebec. NERC’s Glass Committee compiled the Recycled Glass Used as Alternative Daily Cover in the Northeast US & Quebec Report to get a better understanding of the volume of recycled glass containers coming out of Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) that never reach manufacturers for making new products, but are instead used as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC)—cover material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day.

“The Report provides great insight into MRF glass that is not reaching manufacturers for making new products and is instead being used at landfills—the lowest value end use with the least environmental benefits,” said Mary Ann Remolador, Assistant Director of NERC and Glass Committee staff lead.

One of the key findings is that 75% of the states/province reported that post-consumer glass collected for recycling is being used as ADC. These states include Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Quebec. The glass being used for ADC includes crushed recycled glass that is broken into pieces too small for manufacturers to use in their processing, non-bottle bill glass, and glass meeting the state’s specifications for ADC. The states not using glass for ADC are Delaware, Maryland, and Vermont. 

One of the contributing factors for glass being used as ADC is the poor quality of glass coming from MRFs. It is oftentimes considered too dirty or contaminated for use in manufacturing. The contamination is due to the glass being mixed with other recyclables at the MRFs. In addition, many Northeast US MRFs aren’t equipped with the necessary systems for removing glass at the beginning of the sorting line. This contamination adds weight to the glass, which makes the cost of shipping long distances impractical.   

The Northeast US also lacks enough beneficiation facilities that accept MRF glass to serve the entire region. Beneficiators clean and process glass, making it into a feedstock for manufacturers. Without these facilities, the region’s contaminated MRF glass has no viable market within a practical shipping range. As a result, many MRFs are sending their separated glass to landfills for ADC.

Another key finding from the report is that only 58% of the states/province have data about the tonnage of MRF glass used as ADC. These include Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Quebec. 

Additionally, 76% do not recognize post-consumer glass used for ADC as recycling (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Quebec), and 83% require post-consumer glass to be recycled. Maryland and New Hampshire do not require it.   Also, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Vermont (25%) are the only states/province that have post-consumer glass disposal bans.

The report also shows that transparency with the public about what happens with post-consumer glass could be improved in most states. While some states take a proactive approach to ensuring end uses for recycled material are publicly available, others do not readily share this information. 

After a thorough analysis of the compiled information, NERC and its Glass Committee drew the following conclusions:

  • Until more investment is made in the glass recycling infrastructure, MRF glass will continue be used as ADC.
  • Without having consistent outgoing materials reporting requirements for MRFs, it’s impossible to generate data about the total tonnage of recycled glass diverted for use as ADC in the Northeast region.
  • More beneficiation facilities capable of cleaning MRF glass are needed throughout the region to make the glass economical for use as a manufacturing feedstock.

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.