Waste and Recycling: 2019 in Review

January 7, 2020

January 7, 2020


2019 has been a fascinating year for recycling and waste. Markets continue to stink, plastics are condemned as evil and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-embraces recycling. Listed below, in no particular order, are some of the more interesting stories in 2019.


MRFs Go Crazy with Advanced Technology


Recently, I spoke at a recycling conference in Toronto. One of the panels consisted of four companies that manufacture materials recovery facility (MRF) processing equipment. Usually these panels feature over-the-top sales claims and thinly disguised sharp elbows aimed at the competition. This one was the opposite. When the panelists were discussing their latest breakthroughs in sorting technology, especially in robotics and artificial intelligence, they were so polite to each other I thought I was attending a love-in. The reality is that their order books are full, and they all know their technologies are compatible. Their breakthroughs will increase the quality of recyclables for markets while making MRFs safer for workers. Who could possibly complain about that?


EPA Embraces Recycling


In 2017, the EPA budget proposed by the Trump administration zeroed out federal expenditures on solid waste and recycling. Its authors argued that both are state functions not deserving of federal dollars. Congress, instead, chose to maintain funding for those EPA programs at their existing levels. Flash forward two years to America Recycles Day. The EPA-sponsored Innovation Fair featured an array of new technologies and packages. EPA’s Administrator Andrew Wheeler proclaimed the agency’s decision to establish national recycling goals. I guess the federal government has a role in recycling after all.


A Mill Grows in Wapakoneta, Ohio


On October 1, Pratt Industries opened its new recycled containerboard mill in John Glenn’s hometown. This new mill will use 162,000 tons of mixed paper and 68,000 tons of old corrugated boxes as its raw material. The plan is to double the amount used in 10 years. While this mill is not enough to bring life back to depressed recycled paper markets, it is an important first step. Within two years, at least four more new mills will open. I don’t expect recycled paper prices to get close to the dizzy heights of a decade ago. But I do expect that by the end of 2021, the depressed prices we continue to experience will be a thing of the past.


Drone Delivery of Packages Takes a Flight Forward


In September, drones began delivering packages in Christiansburg, Va. Wing, the company whose drones will deliver packages of 3 pounds or less, was the first to be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration as an “air carrier.” The certification allows Wing’s drones to carry packages beyond their operator’s sight. If the drones prove cost effective and do not spark opposition based on noise, privacy or other concerns, drone delivery may become common in rural and exurban areas where they will be more cost effective than truck delivery. The drones also will start carrying heavier loads. Clearly, the packaging used for drone transportation will have to be sturdy enough to withstand any wind buffeting and the impact of being lowered to the ground. Which raises the question, what materials will they be made of?


San Francisco Quietly Abandons its Zero Waste Goal


For years, San Francisco has been claiming it diverts 80 percent of its waste from disposal. The city continued to make these claims even as the amount of waste it sent to landfills steadily increased every year since 2012. It now landfills 427,000 tons of trash. With the 2020 zero waste deadline looming, San Francisco quietly abandoned its 16-year-old goal. Now it wants to cut the amount of garbage going to disposal in half by 2030 and to cut per capita waste generation by 15 percent at the same time. As it turns out, San Francisco recycles barely more than half of its trash. This is quite an achievement for a large, densely populated, multi-lingual city with a high percentage of its population living in multifamily housing. But it’s not 80 percent. San Francisco proved that aspirational goals and aspirational accounting can mask reality for only so long.


Plastics as the Root of All Evil


The country, or at least some environmental groups, appears to have gone on an anti-plastic rampage. Driven by horrific pictures of a turtle with a straw in its nostril and water surfaces covered by plastic packaging, a rising tide of fervor is threatening to lead to sweeping restrictions on single-use products. While some of them are made from paper, glass or metals, it’s the plastic ones that are the focus of protest. As I noted in a summer blog, I have a soft spot in my heart for some single-use plastic products. Instead of railing against all plastic products, we need to accept the fact that many bring substantial environmental benefits, including lower greenhouse gas emissions, from cradle to grave, than their heavier, more recyclable competitors. This creates a dilemma. Which is more important? Lowering greenhouse gas emissions or increasing recycling? Until we figure out how to have our cake and compost it, too, we will have to decide. My choice is to use our brains, not our emotions. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions should be our priority. 



Chaz Miller is a longtime veteran of the waste and recycling industry. He can be reached at chazmiller9@gmail.com.

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