Plastic World

November 7, 2017

November 7, 2017


Plastics are ubiquitous; this fact cannot be denied. Many plastics are needed to support our happy modern day lifestyles. But where do we draw the line on our ever-growing production of plastics; and even more importantly, the ever-increasing environmental impacts of plastic materials?


According to the nonprofit Plastic Oceans, the world produces almost 300 million tons of plastic each year. Adding to the environmental burden, fully one-half of the plastics produced are for single use.


For years, the growing Chinese economy provided a reliable market for recycled plastics and other materials. However, in large part because of changes in domestic recycling practices, U.S. exports to China (and other countries) of “recyclable material” increasingly contained dirty and poorly sorted materials, or even materials contaminated with hazardous substances such as lead or mercury. In 2013, China went on the offensive to clean up these imports with its “Operation Green Fence.”


This past July, China notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of its intention to ban 24 types of solid waste imports, most notably plastics, paper, and textiles. Considering that $5.6 billion in scrap commodities were exported from the United States to China in 2016, one can imagine how the impact on the recycling industry could seem unsurmountable. Just last year, almost a quarter of our country’s largest exporters (by volume) were recyclers of paper, plastic, or metal.


Municipalities and processors are now scrambling to find markets for collected plastics. Many are finding that they will receive no revenue; indeed, they may even have to pay to get rid of materials. Communities are scaling their collection back to accepting only #1 PET or #2 HDPE bottles and containers. Markets for plastic bags and other film plastic, as well as rigid plastics like plastic lids, bins, or crates, and mixed plastics (a category that includes plastic cups and a range of food containers) are particularly constrained.


North America has processing capacity for clean, sorted streams of PET and HDPE bottles, and even polypropylene resins. For films and non-bottle rigids, China’s ban presents more of an issue. End markets for these materials have depended on exports as there isn’t enough domestic processing capacity. The limitation of North American processing capacity is, however, only one facet of the plastic issue.


Exporting our plastics to China allowed us to put a false happy face…a “plastic facade”, if you will, on our overuse of this valuable resource. While our industry voices its opposition to China’s ban, we are all nonetheless culpable for the current situation. We are all responsible for polluted communities in China and other countries that have imported the packaging and remnants of our consumer culture.


I recently viewed “Plastic China,” a movingly poignant film that puts a real face on the people processing so much of our plastic scrap. When the film was made in 2016, China was the world’s biggest plastic waste importer, receiving ten million tons of recycled material per year. Much of this material was processed at small, “plastic waste household-recycling workshops.”


The impact on the local environment, as well as the health of workers and their families that live with them, is staggering. Yes, some of these materials were recycled into new clothing, toys, or other items to satiate consumer habits around the world. Much of this plastic, however, cannot be reprocessed and lives on, polluting the environment and communities surrounding these recycling shops.


Should China be doing more to protect its environment? Yes, of course. Should China be doing more to raise its people out of the cycle of poverty? Yes. However, we as a nation need to also examine the role we have in exporting waste around the world.


As an ever changing, global nation, each of us has a role to play in keeping all of the world’s environments healthy. Our role in exporting unsorted, dirty materials to China and other nations has now come back to haunt us. The fact that we ignored the realities of how our materials were being processed by adults and children in environmentally devastating circumstances is what should truly be haunting us.


The global flow of recycled scrap plastic, which ends up in mountains of burning piles and contaminated waterways, is an image we don’t want to face. 


The more than 8 million tons of plastic that ends up in our oceans every year is another image that troubles some, but hasn’t made a dent in our global production and use of plastics.


We are all responsible for a world which consumes more than one million bags every minute, and the 101 billion plastic beverage bottles sold in just one year in the U.S.


We are all responsible for embracing single-stream recycling without a vetted plan to ensure clean loads of recyclable materials that can be used in the manufacture of new products. We accept government agencies trying to save money by eliminating recycling positions, and thus failing to provide the consumer education needed to clean up the materials destined for processing.



Plastic is a valuable resource, one that needs to be used responsibly and with greater consciousness.


By Athena Lee Bradley

Share Post

Maryland PaintCare Program Becomes 13th State-Wide Paint Recycling Program

By PaintCare • March 31, 2026
Marylanders can now recycle their leftover paint with PaintCare ! PaintCare is a nonprofit organization that plans and operates paint stewardship programs in states that have passed the paint stewardship law. The Maryland PaintCare program launched on April 1, 2026, making it the thirteenth jurisdiction to pass paint stewardship legislation. With the addition of Maryland, PaintCare now serves one-third of the U.S. population. PaintCare operates a network of over 100 drop-off sites across the state where households and businesses can recycle their leftover paint at no additional cost. Most drop-off sites are located at local paint retailers, making it convenient for Marylanders to responsibly dispose of their leftover paint. To find a drop-off site near you, visit the drop-off site locator on PaintCare’s website. PaintCare offers a large volume pickup (LVP) service, which provides free pickups of 100 gallons or more of eligible paint products. Those with large quantities of paint are encouraged to use this service to responsibly dispose of leftover paint. Large volume pickups can be requested through the large volume pickup request form. The paint stewardship law requires a fee, called the PaintCare fee, to be added to the purchase price of new paint. The fee is based on container size and funds all aspects of the program. This includes paint collection and recycling, consumer education, and program administration. The PaintCare fee in Maryland is as follows:

A greener goal, at a cost: recycling in Arlington is no longer free

By Brynn O'Connor | Your Arlington • March 26, 2026
As the cost of recycling continues to rise across the country, the community will decide how to cover the costs at the ballot box this weekend. Arlington is an environmentally conscientious community. It’s been ranked at number two in a list of the “ top 10 greenest towns ” in Massachusetts. Town leaders, employees, and residents have created climate goals and are putting policies in place to achieve them, such as electrifying transportation , building energy-efficient homes , and expanding recycling across the town. So when the town announced at the beginning of the year that paper cups would be added to the list of recyclable items , many celebrated it as a step toward a greener Arlington. Environmentally speaking, it is something to celebrate. But at a time when recycling is becoming more expensive than ever, the question arises: Is this progress the town can afford? “The recycling commodity market continues to falter, with our recyclables generating less and less revenue to offset the cost of their processing,” Town Manager Jim Feeney wrote in an email to YourArlington. The collapse of the recycling market The pivotal shift of the recycling market dates back to January 2018, when China, the largest importer of waste, enacted its National Sword policy ; extreme limitations on shipments which denied recyclables mixed with trash, the wrong type of and low-quality recyclables. At the beginning of this year, Feeney spoke at the Jan. 12 Select Board meeting to discuss the town’s trash and recycling budget for fiscal year 2026, during which he explained the recycling streaming costs and consequences of the declining commodity values. “Now, we have to pay roughly $125 per ton to have our recycling stream processed at a Materials Recovery Facility, also known as a M.R.F.” Feeney explained during the meeting. A new contract, a new reality As many in town now know, the town signed a new waste hauler contract with Waste Management , effective as of July 2025. With this new contract, according to Feeney, the town now owns its recyclables and can profit from the materials it collects, but only when commodity prices are strong. When municipalities send their waste products to MRFs, the blended value of their commodities, from cardboard, plastics, mixed paper, and more, is subtracted from the charge per ton, meaning the town’s final tab depends on the strength of the recycling market. “If the blended value exceeds the charge, the town would see the revenue… if it doesn’t, then we pay the net difference between the two,” said Feeney in the meeting. From $0 to $500,000 In January 2025, when the town was still bidding and receiving proposals for its new solid waste contract, the market value for the blended commodity items was approximately $67 (see diagram on Your Arlington website). Meaning, Arlington had both expected and budgeted to pay $58 per ton to process its recyclables. In addition to China’s National Sword policy, the country is currently in a “K-shaped” economic recovery following the Covid-19 pandemic, which has resulted in fewer household sales, fewer packages, and fewer shipping boxes. According to the Northeast Recycling Council , in 2025, commodity values went down for every recyclable item. “Through the first five months of fiscal year 2026, we’ve been paying, on average, $100 per ton to process our recycling,” Feeney said. In a report sent to YourArlington, Feeney estimated that if current trends continue, the town could face at least $185,000 in additional costs in fiscal year 2026, based on roughly 4,400 tons of recycling. The report indicates the town could spend as much as $500,000 to handle its recyclables this fiscal year—a striking increase from fiscal year 2025, when those costs were effectively zero. Before signing the new waste hauler contract, Arlington relied on JRM Hauling for trash and recycling collection – which was acquired by Republic Services in 2022. Under this contract, the hauler covered the recycling processing fees. While many municipalities have been faced with the effects of the declining recycling market for years, Feeney explained why Arlington has been insulated by a buffer that protected the town’s budget until this recent fiscal year. “Our old waste hauler [JRM] was looking for a contract extension prior to their acquisition by Republic. We agreed to the extension at the time, but only under the same terms, so we experienced an additional three years without bearing a cost for processing our recycling.” Covering the cost: what residents should know With Arlington’s recycling shifting from being cost free to a major budget burden, the issue at hand is how the community will cover these rising costs — a decision that may ultimately come down to how residents vote in this weekend’s town election. Feeney wrote that there may be a fee increase in the future for residents who request a second recycling cart from Waste Management, but otherwise, the town does not have plans to introduce a new recycling fee or raise taxes specifically to cover these costs. “At present we are absorbing this cost into the existing budget, and have updated budget projections for the upcoming fiscal years to reflect this experience,” Feeney wrote in an email to YourArlington. Recycling and trash collection are paid for out of the town’s General Fund, which also supports schools and other municipal services. That means the rising cost of recycling is factored into the town’s overall budget, including the proposed $14.8 million tax override on this year’s ballot . Balancing cost and climate goals While the outcome of this weekend’s vote could shape how these costs are managed, early data is already offering a look at how Arlington’s new recycling and trash collection system has been working. According to Feeney, early tonnage numbers have indicated that the town is experiencing a decrease in both trash and recycling waste streams under the new cart program. However, there has been a more “pronounced decrease” on the trash side than recycling—an encouraging sign that disposal costs could fall and help offset the new recycling expenses. The town now faces a crossroads where its environmental goals meet budget limitations and shifting markets—and where the cost of recycling is measured not just in good intentions, but in dollars. Read article on Your Arlington's webiste.

Maine, Maryland pursue PFAS biosolids remedies amid landfill capacity concerns

By Megan Quinn | Waste Dive • March 26, 2026
Northeastern states concerned with contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in sewage sludge are moving forward with new projects and proposed legislation meant to better manage the material in 2026 and beyond. During a Northeast Recycling Council webinar on Wednesday, officials from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Maryland Department of the Environment offered updates on how their states are managing PFAS in sludge. They also offered perspectives on how looming landfill capacity issues, proposed infrastructure projects and state legislation could influence how these states — and neighboring states — handle this material in the immediate term. Disposal capacity concerns prompt infrastructure plans in Maine Maine has been in the spotlight for several years for how it handles PFAS in sludge and in landfill leachate in the state. It was the first state to ban the land application of sewage sludge in 2022, and several projects are moving forward in 2026 that are meant to manage regional disposal capacity for the material as landfill space dwindles. That pressure on disposal capacity is expected to build as more Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states consider similar sludge fertilizer prohibitions due to PFAS concerns, said Susanne Miller, Maine DEP’s director of the bureau of remediation and waste management. “Right now, everything’s going to a landfill because there’s nowhere else to put it in Maine, and this is a big problem,” she said. Casella Waste, which operates the state’s Juniper Ridge Landfill, has been seeking a landfill expansion for several years, but that matter has been tied up in court. “Without an expansion, it’s going to be running out of capacity in about 2028 which is just around the corner.” One project to address capacity issues is the state’s first biosolids dryer , which is being built at WM’s Crossroads Landfill to reduce liquid volume of the material. That project, originally expected to come online sometime in 2025, is now expected to open in the second quarter of 2026, Miller said. It has a capacity of up to 200 tons a day and up to 73,000 tons a year. That project could handle up to 83% of Maine’s municipally generated biosolids, she said. The dryer is meant to help create a closed-loop system, she said. Sludge from wastewater plants will be treated in the dryer, and landfill leachate and dryer liquids will be treated onsite via a foam fractionation system that is already in operation at the landfill, she said. Treated water goes to a nearby wastewater plant, and sludge from that wastewater plant then returns to the dryer. Another proposed PFAS management project, a sludge processing plant by Aries Clean Technologies, could also be in the works in coming months. It aims to use a gasification and oxidization process to remove PFAS from sewage material and significantly reduce biosolids volumes in the process. The company built a similar facility in New Jersey in 2024. The project is currently under permit review, which Miller said will likely include a DEP review, public comment period and public hearing. The proposal has faced some public pushback over potential traffic, odor and pollution concerns, Maine Public reported . “With any kind of new technology relating to waste or that takes in a waste stream, there’s controversy and concern about it, and so we need to go through the entire permitting process to get to the point where the department is able to determine if an application can be granted,” Miller said. Meanwhile, the Portland Water District, which Miller says is Maine’s largest wastewater treatment facility, is also exploring its own treatment system for sludge. It’s an effort to reduce reliance on limited landfill capacity and unpredictable disposal costs, she said. The water district is considering a few different technologies like anaerobic digestion, drying and thermal treatments such as pyrolysis to reduce the amount of biosolids for disposal. “With the prices going up to go to landfill and the space at landfills shrinking, they want to take destiny into their own hands,” she said. According to DEP, several other sewer districts are working on similar projects. York Sewer District is planning a 2028 pilot project meant to use supercritical water oxidation technology to help destroy PFAS and reduce wastewater sludge volume. Meanwhile, landfill operators in the state have been subject to new PFAS leachate testing rules since September. A new law requires operators to test for PFAS in landfill leachate and report results annually to DEP. Wastewater dischargers that accept leachate must also maintain leachate records to report to DEP each year. Though these projects hold promise, Miller emphasized that source control efforts are just as important to reduce the amount of PFAS-containing materials entering landfills and being treated at wastewater treatment plants. The state has already passed laws that phase out intentionally added PFAS in certain products, with the list of applicable products expanding through the next few years to include artificial turf and outdoor gear by 2029 and most types of products by 2032. Maryland moves forward with biosolids ban bill Maryland is focusing on its own efforts related to PFAS in biosolids through new regulations and state legislation, said Thomas Yoo, chief of MDE’s biosolids division. The state generates about 600,000 wet tons of sewage sludge a year, and about 56% of that is hauled out of state for either land application or landfilling, mainly to Virginia and Pennsylvania, he said. Maryland has about 250 agricultural sites that are permitted to take sewage sludge, but in 2023 the state put a hold on issuing any new land application permits. It also began requesting PFAS data from out-of-state permittees bringing biosolids into the state and terminated permits for those that did not provide that data, he said. Maryland also requires all wastewater treatment plants where land applied biosolids originate to sample for PFOS and PFOA . About 50 biosolids generators are submitting this data, he said. The state already has recommended limits for PFAS in land applications , but a bill moving through the state legislature, SB 719 , would set enforceable limits starting in 2027. The bill calls for prohibiting land application for sludge that has a total concentration of PFOA and PFOS above 50 parts per billion and calls for other source tracking and mitigation plan measures. The neighboring state of Virginia passed a set of bills on March 11 with a similar intent. If signed by the governor, the bills would regulate the levels of PFAS in biosolids and would prevent the use of biosolids as fertilizer beginning in 2027 if levels of PFOA and PFOS are too high. Yoo says Maryland will continue to focus on state-level options for managing PFAS in biosolids as it awaits U.S. EPA guidance on the matter. The EPA released a draft risk assessment in January 2025 that found farmers who used the sludge may be at risk of exposure, but consumers who eat food from those sources may face less risk. The draft report says certain PFAS may leach from sludge when it’s land applied, disposed of in a landfill, or incinerated. The agency has not yet finalized the assessment. Read the article of Waste Dive