Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full: The State of Glass Recycling - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full: The State of Glass Recycling at U.S. MRFs Northeast Recycling Council Webinar Presentation, Finding Opportunities in MRF Glass, May 16, 2018 Eileen Berenyi, PhD Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Westport, CT

Elements of Presentation  View from 10,000 feet  Discussion of Highlights of MRF survey  Status of Glass Recovery

Materials Recycling Facility Survey  Since 1990, firm has been surveying recycling facilities in the United States.  Results published as Database of Materials Recycling and Processing in the United States  Information obtained from variety of sources, including telephone contacts, annual reports, budgets, etc.

Developments Affecting Recycling: Markets  Markets, markets, markets –China!! – National Sword – Pricing drop in mixed fiber and OCC. Plastics rebounding somewhat  Financial pressures on MRF operators and their customers.  MRF operators are building in market risks into their customer contracts.

Developments Affecting Recycling: Technology  Single stream MRFs pushing technology  Continually evolving technologies within the MRF, i.e. robots, A.I., new types of screens, separators.  Paradox – technology supports less sorting at the curb, while markets are demanding a high quality product. – can drive up sorting costs in volatile market environment

Other Challenges  Residential diversion has plateaued. Recycling rates in range of 28% to 34% nationally.  High residue rates are plaguing MRFs  Waste streams are changing – Multiple layer plastics – Amazon and “Blue Apron” impact

The Recycling Infrastructure Landscape: What is a MRF  Boundaries are blurring between types of facilities  Various types of recycling facilities in addition to MRFs processing mainly residential curbside: – Transfer Station Hybrids – Dry Commercial MRFs – Mixed Waste Facilities – Single Materials-i.e. fiber, metals, plastic

What Does a “Typical” MRFs Look Like in 2018?  It is likely to be a single stream system.  If it is single stream, it may be confronting high residue rates. Rates, if glass is included could be in the range of 20 to 30%.  It is likely to be above 100 tons per day. Small facilities are giving way to regional projects. There have been MRF closures and consolidations.  Over the past several years, it has accepted more materials, particularly with respect to fiber and plastics.  It is relying on highly mechanized sort systems with optical sorting equipment.  It is most likely owned and operated by a private firm.

Figure 1: Number of Operating Multi- Material MRFs/MWPFs in the United States 600 556 514 494 462 465 500 337 369 400 300 166 200 100 40 0 199119931996199820022006201420162018

Figure 2: Distribution of Facilities by Region Over Time 60% 50% 40% Northeast 30% South Midwest 20% West 10% 0% 19911993199619982002200620162018

Size of Projects- Daily Throughput  On average, daily throughput at MRFs has increased.  The average size of a MRF is now at about 180 tons per day.  This average has been growing steadily over the last decade, as plants have made the switch to single stream processing.  Over 50% of the plants are handling throughput of above 120 tons per day.

Figure 3: Size of Operating Facilities- Average Tons Per Day Throughput 250 213 200 182 180 138 150 119 116 108 89 100 50 0 1991 1993 1995 2002 2006 2016 2018NERC

Size of Projects – Annual Throughput  Amounts of recyclables processed at MRFs have increased  The increase is a function of the growth of capacity and broader types of material being recycled.  Tonnage growth is coming from the switch to single stream.  Growth is also the result of increased commercial recycling, particularly in urban areas.

Figure 4: Annual Throughput in Millions of Tons 30 27.65 25.87 25 21.20 20 15.72 15 10.78 10 4.90 5 0.94 0 1991 1993 1996 2002 2006 2016 2018

Single Stream is Now the Dominant Curbside Collection System  Single stream collection is where residents place all their recyclables, fiber and MGP, in a single container, which is picked up at the curb for processing. Residents do not have to separate their recyclables into different containers.  This system reduces collection costs and tends to increase participation and tonnages of recyclables at the MRF. Increase in tonnage collected range from 10% to 35% with the implementation of single stream.  Single stream implementation driven the development of larger, capital intensive MRFs.  There is increasing regional dispersion of these single stream collection programs.

Figure 5: MRFs Taking Single Stream Percent Single Stream of All MRFs 2018 70% 2016 70% 2006 27% 2002 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Where the Single Stream MRFs Are? Region 70% All 88% West 61% Midwest 77% South 55% Northeast 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Impact of Single Stream Systems Average Throughput Avg. Residue Rate Type of System Percent (TPD) (excluding glass) All NERC All NERC All NERC Single Stream 70% 54% 229 305 15.6% 15.7% Dual Stream 17% 28% 95 145 6.5% 9.0% Source 5% 10% 39 18 2.3% 2.8% Separation Other* 8% 8% 23 34 3.7% 5.2% * Other comprised of truck sort, drop boxes with various levels of pre-separation

Growth in Level of Technology- Optical Sorters as an Example  Through 2002-there were 6 facilities that had one or more optical sorters. These were mainly for fiber and glass  As of 2018, at least 182 facilities have installed optical sorting systems.  Most of the optical sorters are being used for plastics.  Interestingly, one of the first applications in MRFs was for glass. These were largely abandoned. Now only a few facilities use optical sorters for glass.  The average throughput at these facilities is 325 tpd.

Current Challenges to Single Stream Programs  High costs in reduced revenue environment. Average capital cost for a new MRFs is $11,000,000.  Facilities have broadened acceptable materials, but have seen an increase in residue rates and handling costs.  Results – Increased emphasis on customer education – Tabling of additional equipment purchases – Cutting back of types of materials taken, particularly plastics and glass. – Sharing of market risks, implementation of processing fees. Base fees, before revenue sharing, in range of $35.00 to $45.00, but can go above $65.00/ton.

Growing Selectivity on Certain Materials  Glass – About 20% of MRFs are not taking glass as part of curbside program. – Offer separate drop off locations, or kept separate in collection – Markets are problematic in many areas  Plastics – Plastic bags continue to cause problems. In most cases excluded. – Caps sometimes included, sometimes not – Rigids may be excluded or limited to certain size  Aseptic Packaging- Increased acceptance. Taken in over 50% of facilities.

Percentage of MRFs by Region with No Glass 28% 30% 26% 25% 19% 19% 20% 15% 10% 1% 5% 0% Northeast South Midwest West All

Where is Glass Going? Stockpile Brokers 2% 8% Intermediate Fiberglass/Sandbla Processor sting 27% 9% Glass Companies 18% Aggregate/ Construction 16% ADC 20%

Who Owns and Operates MRFs Owner/Operator Number Percent of Average Facilities Throughput (tpd) Public/Public 102 20% 44 Public/Private 58 11% 150 Private/Private 359 69% 226

Regional Aspect of Glass Market  Where glass processor or end user is located determines ease of access to markets by MRF – Ripple Glass-KC Metro Area into Nebraska – Momentum Glass- Salt Lake City Metro and now Front Range area of CO-Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs – Ardagh Group-Minnesota  Closure of Ardagh Glass Plant in Milford MA- Ripple Effects throughout Region

Future of Glass Processing in Region  Opening of Pace Glass in NJ  Efforts by State of MA to provide grants, etc.  New outlets for glass  Re-emphasis on aggregate and other uses

Private Sector Recyclers Under Stress  Choosing not to renew contracts  Sharing risks of market volatility. – Implementing base processing fees. – Fees are in the $35.00 to $70.00 range before revenue sharing  Sharing in burden of customer education  Re-thinking service levels – Reducing types of material or imposing additional costs for certain materials – Moving from weekly to bi-weekly collection

Some Questions About the Future  Is technology outstripping economic feasibility? We can sort faster and better, but not all the materials have sufficient – quantity or value. Global markets are becoming more discerning, demanding a higher quality – product, while the feedstock has become degraded through contamination. Consumer packaging is oriented to convenience, but poses recycling – challenges.  If curbside organics/food waste collection becomes standard practice, where will the MRF fit in?  What happens to a MRF if localities move to a two bin organics/non-organics collection system?

Thank You! Contact: Eileen Berenyi Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. ebb@governmentaladvisory.com 203-226-3238 Governmental Advisory 29 Associates, Inc.