Co-authors: Karen Luken of Economic Environmental Solutions International, an SCS consultant with Krista Long, Mike Miller, Anastasia Welch of SCS Engineers.
In 1987, the Mobro barge was carrying six million pounds of New York garbage. Its final destination was North Carolina, but the state turned it away. The Mobro barge spent the next five months adrift – rejected by six states and three foreign countries. The plight of the “Garbage Barge” was covered by the mainstream media throughout the summer. This unprecedented attention to trash generated a heated national debate about landfill capacity and recycling to reduce the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. This dialogue swiftly and permanently transformed recycling in the U.S.
Between 1988 and 1992 alone, the number of curbside recycling programs increased from 1,050 to 4,354. Today, 49 U.S. states ban at least one product from landfill disposal, and twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have at least one mandatory recycling requirement. The U.S. recycling rate has steadily increased from the Garbage Barge era; by 2017, the U.S. recycling rate reached 35.2 percent, with more than 94 million tons diverted from landfill disposal (67 million tons recycled and 27 million tons composted).
The U.S. was becoming increasingly proficient at collecting recyclables; however, our performance in domestically remanufacturing these resources into valuable commodities was less than stellar. China was the main destination for U.S. recyclables for most of the early twenty-first century. A number of factors contributed to this, including:
By 2018, China was the top importer of U.S. fiber recyclables, buying 2.73 million tons of U.S. corrugated cardboard during the first half of 2018 and 1.4 million tons of all other U.S.-sourced recovered fiber during the same time. The U.S. became dependent on China to process fiber recyclables, which contributed to the closure of 117 American fiber mills and the elimination of 223,000 jobs since 2000.
Sending plastics to China also impeded the U.S. progression of advanced plastic-recovery technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis. Products created by these technologies can have a market value that exceeds the cost of collection and processing. This was not always the case when selling plastics to China, as this market could be highly volatile. Even with unpredictable revenues, recycling companies perceived China as an eternal end market for their plastics. With China basically locking up the plastic supply chain, advanced plastic recovery technologies in the U.S. could not secure sufficient quantities of feedstock and, consequently, could not demonstrate financial viability for commercial-scale facilities.
Not only did China enthusiastically accept our recyclables, but they also turned a blind eye to the large quantity of trash (contamination) mixed in with the recyclables. This lenient policy validated the U.S. preoccupation with collecting as many recyclables as possible without really considering their quality, potential to become a valuable commodity or the carbon footprint created by using fossil fuels to transport them halfway around the world. Some in the environmental community began to question the net ecological impact associated with transporting recyclables to developing countries for remanufacturing, especially with the limited environmental regulations in these countries related to processing them into a new product. However, state recycling goals are typically based on the quantity of materials collected (rather than if they actually become a marketable product), and local recycling programs were only turning a small profit, or barely breaking even. Thus, no one wanted to “rock the boat.”
However, in 2018, China introduced the “National Sword” that almost sunk the U.S. recycling boat for the short term. The National Sword banned many scrap materials from entering China and required other materials to meet an extremely strict (low) contamination level of only 0.5%. To put in perspective, contamination rates of U.S. recyclables before processing (directly after they are collected) can reach 25% or higher. Processing removes some of the contaminants, but not typically down to 0.5%. After the National Sword, U.S. recycling companies started looking for new markets in other Southeast Asia countries. However, one by one, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and India also shut their doors by introducing new restrictions on waste imports. So far, there are few signs that any of these countries intend to relax their standards on contamination levels again.
In the short term, there is no question that the National Sword severely disrupted recycling in the U.S. The Chinese market for recyclable commodities was greater than the next 15 markets combined, leaving the U.S. with little in the way of backup to accept this commodity. Thousands of tons of recyclables are now in a landfill rather than becoming a new product. Some municipalities have stopped collecting recyclables (or specific items) altogether, and many more, both public and private, have been stockpiling collected materials in the hope that markets return.
In the long term, the National Sword may be the most significant catalyst to transform recycling since the Garbage Barge started its journey over 30 years ago. In 2019, seventeen North American paper mills announced an increase in their capacity to process recycled paper. Also, and somewhat ironically, Chinese paper companies have begun investing in North American mills because they could not import enough fiber feedstock. Experts anticipate the domestic market for fibers mills to improve for at least another three years.
Chemical companies have also begun investing in advanced plastic recycling technologies, improving recycling systems, and creating bio-based polymers since 2018. In April 2019, Brightmark Energy announced the closing of a $260 million financing package to construct the nation’s first commercial-scale plastics-to-fuel plant, which will be located in Ashley, Indiana. The plant is in a testing phase, and Brightmark anticipates bringing the facility to production-scale in 2021. Now, rather than using fossil fuels to ship plastics to China, more than 100,000 tons of plastics from Indiana and the surrounding region will become feedstock to produce fuel and other intermediate products.
While the U.S. recycling industry was busy making a comeback from the National Sword industry-wide disruption, in came another setback in the form of the 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic. Shelter-in-place orders began in March 2020 in many states, which resulted in families spending more time in their homes than ever before. As of August 2020, many businesses, schools, and governmental entities are still allowing or requiring their stakeholders to work or learn remotely from home.
This work or learn from home phenomenon has resulted in massive increases in MSW and recyclables placed at the curb for collection. From March to April 2020 alone, U.S. cities saw a 20% average increase in MSW and recycling collection tonnage. Struggling restaurants have to offer takeout and delivery services, which is further contributing to a rise in paper and plastic packaging waste. COVID-19 restrictions such as mask mandates have resulted in higher amounts of personal protective equipment in the waste stream, and many items that previously could have been recycled are now discarded due to sanitary concerns.
The higher volumes of MSW and recyclables encountered at the curb during a pandemic present both challenges and opportunities. Challenges include budget cuts due to lower tax revenues, adequately staffing and ensuring the safety of waste-handling employees, and preventing the spread of COVID-19 through the waste stream. During this unprecedented time where municipalities face complex decisions on how to manage their MSW, the opportunity for innovation within the solid waste industry could not be greater.
Cities have begun to “right-size” their recycling systems by evaluating the usage of community recycling containers and reducing/redistributing containers to maximize the quantity of recyclables each site receives. Communities are evaluating curbside recycling programs to increase efficiency, and decreasing contamination is a priority. “When in doubt, throw it out,” has replaced campaigns such as “Recycle more, it’s simple.”
Cities are embracing the concept of public-private partnerships with their recycling processors as they recognize the vital and interrelated role of both the public and private sectors in recovering recyclables. Lastly, the U.S. is beginning to drive manufacturing and end-use markets domestically to stimulate demand for recyclable materials – materials for which we have become so effective at collecting.
There is little doubt that through leadership, innovation, and strategic planning, cities will continue to help lead the way on recycling to achieve landfill diversion and provide for a more environmentally and financially sustainable solid waste management system for the next 30 years.
Many schools and school districts are prioritizing a shift toward zero waste and sustainability. However, learning to manage material resources on-site in a more sustainable manner presents operational and monetary challenges. Learn the benefits and steps to plan a financially sustainable program from Tracie Bills of SCS Engineers.
Tracie creates realistic approaches which allow for flexibility while maneuvering the unique challenges that occur. She takes you step-by-step through building a successful program and refers to established efforts such as in the City of San Jose that already have established zero waste programs in their schools.
The 2018 Solid Waste Association of North America, Old Dominion Chapter award recognizes significant accomplishments in the solid waste industry.
The Region 2000 Services Authority (Authority), was awarded a SWANA program achievement award on May 9, 2018, for landfill operations at the Region 2000 Regional Landfill – Livestock Road Facility, in Campbell County, Virginia. Clarke W. Gibson, P.E., Director; Larry Hall, Operations Manager; and Robert Arthur, Environmental Compliance and Safety Manager head the Authority’s operations team.
SCS Engineers nominated the team for their achievements through the Authority’s Odor Management Program, which reflects the success of the Authority’s technical strategies as well as their collaboration with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and proactive community outreach efforts.
Livestock Road became a regional landfill in 2012 when the Concord Turnpike Regional Landfill closed. Livestock Road began serving the citizens of the City of Lynchburg and the counties of Appomattox, Campbell, and Nelson with approximately 165,000 citizens living in these communities. More solid waste means more cell development, and more odors to control.
Odor management is a foremost challenge at any landfill, but particularly challenging as Livestock Road was receiving a significant increase in solid waste just as the surrounding area was developing a subdivision adjacent to the landfill. The Authority took action, and today has documented a 98 percent decrease in odor complaints as of March 2018. The results enhance the quality of life of the citizens residing in adjacent communities.
“Effective landfill odor control takes a multi-pronged and diligent approach, we wanted to implement the best management practices and the best technology to address landfill odors. As a result, we believe we have significantly improved the odor problem at our landfill and have greatly improved the quality of life for our neighbors,” stated Clarke Gibson, Director at Region 2000 Services Authority.
The comprehensive Odor Management Program was developed and implemented with the support of SCS Engineers, and is comprised of odor abatement, mitigation, and controls. Numerous elements including systems, investigations, monitoring/analyses, protocols, and practices are part of these three major elements commissioned on a voluntary basis.
“The Authority’s operations team demonstrates excellence in environmental stewardship and community relations through their program,” stated Robert Dick, Vice President, and the SCS Project Director.
Thanks to you, our clients, SCS Engineers has received many awards and industry recognitions for research achievements and technology innovations. Engineering News-Record (ENR) recently released the Top 500 Design List, ranking SCS Engineers in the top 100 for the 9th year in a row. In the same publication, SCS is ranked in the Top 10 Sewerage/ Wastewater Firms.
Thank you for your friendship, your business, and the opportunity to serve you.
SCS Management Services™ helps many of our clients’ incorporate economic planning, financial analysis, and feasibility studies into their master planning and have requested copies of our articles. All can be found and filtered by topic area, and we are always ready to help you find the information you need.
Our articles may be printed or shared using the icons on the left navigation bar. Or, you may share or email this page to keep it handy. SCS respects your privacy; we do not monitor or collect your email address or information.
Contact Vita Quinn for more information. Ms. Quinn is SCS Engineers’ National Expert on Solid Waste Finance and Rate Studies. She has 12 years of experience as a financial analyst and management consultant. She has extensive experience working for local government and has developed financial sustainability solutions for various general governments, special revenue funds, and utility enterprise funds. Ms. Quinn has an MBA in Finance and a Bachelor’s Degree in International Economics.
An Exercise in Sound Fiscal Planning: A Rural County’s Public Works Professionals Evaluate Future Solid Waste Service Scenarios, Costs, and Financing Options
Residential Automated Collection Makes Sense for Idaho Falls
The Nuts and Bolts of Implementing a Residential Automated Collection Program
Conducting a Rate Analysis as Part of a Master Plan Study in Killeen, Texas
Financial Tools Assist in Completing Cost of Service Studies
Conducting Solid Waste Rate Studies and Business Plans
Get a Firm Handle on Solid Waste Costs to Optimize Performance
Cash Flow Analysis Forestalls Long-Term Debt
Is Privatization the Answer? You Need to Consider Several Factors Before Making the Decision for Solid Waste Services
Developing a Strategic Business Plan for Your Agency
Economic Feasibility 101 – Understanding the Tools of the Trade
Assessing a Solid Waste Agency’s Financial Health
Are Your Rates Correct? Collection and Disposal Rate Studies are a Valuable Tool
Integrating Financial Analysis into Solid Waste Operations Planning
High Costs and Limited Markets Put a Crack in Glass Recycling
Recycling Trends in the United States
Calculated Decisions: An Engineer’s Feasibility Report Can Help Communities and Financiers Assess the Risk of a Waste Conversion Project
Anaerobic Digester Economics
Give SCS a call or send an email to if you have questions. Find your local office here: https://www.scsengineers.com/locations/. Visit our Solid Waste Planning Services page for additional information, articles, whitepapers, and case studies.
Increasingly, solid waste and recycling agencies are being asked by their political decision makers to improve efficiency, focus on customers, and reduce increased costs. Many agencies are managed with a combination of manual processes, desktop computer tools, limited vehicle and cart tracking and management tools, and custom databases. While effective, these methodologies often entail more effort, labor, and costs.
Smart technologies are expected to grow substantially over the next decade as agencies attempt to minimize their overall costs in solid waste collection and recycling and increase overall efficiency. As discussed briefly in this article, smart technologies have advantages and disadvantages. As agencies investigate technology to help support their service, ensure continued quality service delivery and meet demanding business requirements, it is important to conduct feasibility assessments to evaluate the economic costs to implement and update the use of new technologies in a sustainable manner.
Marc J. Rogoff and Laurel Urena of SCS Engineers.
Using non-ad valorem assessments in solid waste management are based on the improvement or service cost allocated to a property and are levied on a benefit unit basis, rather than on value. Under the special assessment system, there is less incentive to drop out of program participation even if solid waste costs increase.
The best source of data for compiling the assessment roll is the records of the county or city official responsible for property appraisal and valuation. Limitations may exist with the data because these records are maintained for the purpose of determining property valuations, not for performing solid waste or other non-ad valorem assessments. However, additional information such as benefits rendered, occupancy, and frequency of benefits could be developed in order to convert the initial records into a complete and accurate assessment role.
Click here to read this insightful article by Marc Rogoff and Laurel Urena of SCS Engineers.
Getting a firm handle on a solid waste operation and expenses is a challenge for any solid waste agency manager or landfill operator. It is particularly imperative in this era of “lean and mean” budgets and looming regulatory policy. Doing more with less is the watchword for most operations across the country still reeling from the financial impacts of the Great Recession.
SCS Engineers has created a package of articles to help you identify if your landfill, landfill gas, or solid waste operation is ready for 2017. We hope this useful guidance will help you plan for the upcoming year. SCS professionals are always available to answer questions and provide advice. Find the office or SCS professional nearest to you by clicking on one the links here: Offices and Professionals.
Download, print or share this package by using the download button under the articles or by using the navigation at left. The package includes the following information written by SCS National Experts: