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

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