Why a Market-Based Tire Recycling System Shouldn’t Be Scrapped

March 12, 2019

March 12, 2019


This guest blog is courtesy of Paul Arellano.


Tire recycling is a mixed industry. There are government regulations that determine how to legally dispose of used tires, yet the system is still largely market-based. There are some who favor greater government control of the tire recycling industry. While it’s true that government regulation is a necessity, a market-based system shouldn’t be scrapped entirely.


Pros and Cons of a Market-Based System


Although a market-based system has its benefits, there is no doubt this industry would look very different without government involvement. Many businesses and individuals would probably choose not to recycle, but rather dispose of their tires in a landfill if there were no penalties for doing so. There might be less of a demand for rubber in the civil engineering industry if the government did not award tire recycling grants.


The current system has seen great success, however, and greater government regulation may not be necessary.


A 90% Success Rate


In any recycling effort, a 90% success rate is cause for celebration. The recycling programs in the state of Maine and the City of San Francisco serve as two shining examples. Maine’s 90% success rate for beverage reclamation is lauded as an industry benchmark. In San Francisco, the city’s 80% diversion rate frequently garners praise.


The recycling rate for the scrap tire industry is particularly impressive when one considers that anything metal typically enjoys a more mature recycling market than that of non-metallic recyclables.


It’s worth noting that U.S. laws have largely taken a hands-off approach to requiring vehicle or home appliance manufacturers to finance the recycling costs of their products. This is because the recycling markets within these industries continue to thrive without product stewardship laws, just as the recycling markets for scrap tires do.


Pros and Cons of a Government-Controlled System


Government regulation increases the demand for tire recycling services and tire-derived products. It incentivizes proper disposal of tires and protects the environment. A system entirely controlled by the government, however, would ultimately be detrimental.


Well-intentioned lawmakers often meddle with a well-functioning system in an effort to make it work even more efficiently. The effect can be deleterious, to say the least. Take, for example, Connecticut Senate Bill 869, which would explore the benefits of establishing licenses or permits for tire haulers, along with developing a new stewardship program. This program would force tire producers to increase prices to cover the end-of-life costs associated with the disposal of their products.


In its support of SB 869, the Connecticut Recyclers Coalition (CRC) points out that it has supported other producer responsibility efforts in the areas of e-waste, paint, and mattresses, and each of those programs have resulted in significant savings for taxpayers and municipalities.


While it is difficult to argue with the successes the CRC identifies regarding paint, electronic waste, and mattresses, scrap tires shouldn’t necessarily be brought under the same umbrella.


The TIA Weighs In


In its written testimony to the Connecticut Senate Environment Committee, the Tire Industry Association (TIA) writes: “Based on the knowledge we have from within the industry, the shared responsibility approach to scrap tire management has been very successful in the United States.”


Continuing this line of discussion, the TIA elaborates:

“The free-market based shared responsibility approach has established a successful, stable scrap tire management infrastructure, regulated by state laws governing tire hauling, storage, processing and end-use markets to ensure the system is properly maintained and operated.”


A Self-Governing and Self-Sustaining Industry


The tire recycling industry has taken great care to clean up its act and its image. Technology has assisted this effort tremendously.



This is not to say, of course, that the scrap tire industry hasn’t been helped by state and local laws regulating tire hauling, storage and processing. It has. The difference is that these regulatory efforts have worked in concert with the industry. Additional legislation like Connecticut SB 869, by contrast, would disrupt the industry by adding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, increasing costs without adding appreciable benefits, and creating barriers to a system already known for innovation and efficiency.


Paul Arellano is the Sales & Marketing Manager at Lakin Tire, a tire recycling company that was founded in 1918—its motto—giving new life to old tires through creative thinking, innovative recycling processes and optimized scrap-tire management.


NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Lynn Rubinstein. 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

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