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

Eileen Berenyi, PhD Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. Westport, CT

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

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

100 200 300 400 500 600 199119931996199820022006201420162018 40 166 337 369 462 465 556 514 494

Figure 2: Distribution of Facilities by Region Over Time

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 19911993199619982002200620162018

Northeast South Midwest West

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

50 100 150 200 250 1991 1993 1995 2002 2006 2016 2018NERC 89 108 116 119 138 180 182 213

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

5 10 15 20 25 30 1991 1993 1996 2002 2006 2016 2018 0.94 4.90 10.78 15.72 21.20 27.65 25.87

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

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 2002 2006 2016 2018 15% 27% 70% 70%

Percent Single Stream of All MRFs

Where the Single Stream MRFs Are?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Northeast South Midwest West All 55% 77% 61% 88% 70%

Region

Impact of Single Stream Systems

Type of System Percent Average Throughput (TPD)

• Avg. Residue Rate

(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 Separation 5% 10% 39 18 2.3% 2.8% 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

• ptical 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

• nly 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%

• f facilities.

Percentage of MRFs by Region with No Glass

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Northeast South Midwest West All

1% 28% 26% 19% 19%

Where is Glass Going?

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

Who Owns and Operates MRFs

Owner/Operator Number Percent of Facilities Average 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

• rganics/non-organics collection system?

Thank You!

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

Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.

29