Looking back at 2014, many different transitions took place that moved the waste and recycling industry forward within the areas of hauling, recycling and even waste conversion. Waste Advantage Magazine sits down with experts in the industry to get their take on the past year.
EAB member Will Flower is President of Green Stream Recycling in Brookhaven, NY and has 31 years of experience working in the field of solid waste management and environmental protection.
EAB member Drew Weil is an Account Representative at Sunbelt Hydraulics in Pompano Beach, FL with more than 25 years of waste industry experience in the field of fleet maintenance and operation.
Michelle Leonard is SWANA’s International Board of Director’s Vice President and Vice President and Director of Sustainable Materials Management for SCS Engineers in Long Beach, CA. She has nearly 30 years of experience in environmental consulting and project management, with expertise in solid waste management planning and facilities.
John Paglia, III, is General Manager at Florida Express Environmental in Ocala, FL and a regular contributor to our “From the Experts” column. He is a 4th generation garbage man and currently focused on growing the company and offering the highest level of customer service and prolonging the world we live in today.
Looking back on the past year, how are the waste and recycling industry and its markets changing?
WF: There were no radical shifts or landmark legislation that dramatically altered the waste industry in 2014. Instead, the waste and recycling industry continue to slowly evolve. In 2014, we saw high fuel prices, escalating labor and insurance costs and skyrocketing equipment costs. Although we experienced a drop in fuel prices during the 4th quarter, we’re not sure if that is a short- or long-term trend. To deal with rising costs, large and small companies on both the collection side and the post-collection side of the business have focused on streamlining operations. One continuing trend that is changing the industry is the move to fleets powered by natural gas.
DW: I agree we are seeing a lot more CNG fleets and single-stream recycling. Single-stream has increased recycling set out rates as much as 60 percent in some of cities in our market, which leads to a direct reduction in MSW.
ML: I think that we are continuing to concentrate and look at opportunities to increase recycling. We are seeing a lot more attention on organics, including food scraps and food waste, both in terms of capturing more from the waste stream and doing other things with them besides landfilling. The solid waste industry is realizing that it is a huge issue and that it needs to be addressed before it ever gets into the waste stream. In California, a number of new waste laws were passed towards the end of the year, including a mandatory commercial and multi-family organics recycling requirement that will be phased in beginning in 2016, where large commercial generators will be required to separate their organics for recycling.
As far as traditional recycling, it is pretty flat across the U.S. The biggest issue this year was addressing contamination in co-mingled recyclables. There are those that are thinking about going back to putting them into separate bins again. Other issues include banning single-use plastic bags and other materials that are hard to recycle. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) for printed paper, and packaging will also continue to be a big discussion item in the next year or so. Many of us are concerned about the potential effect on long-term programs that have worked pretty well to collect those types of materials. By establishing EPR for these materials, you run the risk of giving control of those programs to brand owners, which may not be in the best interest for municipalities. It will take away control of those local programs and all of the work we’ve done over the last 50 years to get people to recycle.
JP: I have seen a push for everyone to recycle. I have seen it flow through corporate accounts all the way down to the small contractors. From HOAs to municipalities, it is no longer an add on but a necessity in the bidding process. As an industry, it is important to educate our customers on recycling. Contamination in single stream unless monitored and addressed becomes “almost garbage”. Recycling today cannot be done for free. Once customers are educated on the basic cost involved from collection, to processing, to shipping to end processer they accept responsibility of the charges. There are true costs involved that most commodities cannot stand on their own to recover these costs once they are processed.
What is the biggest overall change that you’ve seen so far?
WF: On the recycling side of the industry, we are experiencing a continued move toward single-stream recycling and the implementation of hundreds of new or expanded programs as municipalities seek higher recycling rates. That said, the industry struggled with anemic paper prices while continuing to deal with China’s Green Fence initiative—an effort by customs officials in China who vigorously inspect and, when necessary, reject material that they consider to be sub-par loads of recyclables. The program increased random inspection of containers of all forms recyclables including metal, plastic, textiles, rubber and paper.
On the waste collection side of the business, the move to natural gas fueled vehicles has been dramatic. Compared to diesel fuel, natural gas prices remain relatively low. Additionally, the natural gas filling station infrastructure has grown considerably allowing companies and municipalities to invest in converting their fleets to natural gas.
DW: There has been a huge push for CNG conversion in our market.
ML: There is a lot of discussion about mixed waste processing—that seems to be on a lot of people’s agendas as well. And although we’ve been doing that here in California for many years, it does seem to be gaining attention in other areas of the U.S., prompting discussion and debates. There may be additional facilities built and with that may come improvements in some of the technologies to get the materials out efficiently, cost-effectively and produce a good stream for recycling and other materials.
Is there a particular type of technology that has really stood out this year in moving the waste and recycling industry forward?
WF: While there is a big focus on natural gas vehicles, I was impressed with the strides that diesel engine manufactures have made in with clean-engine technology. The diesel engines today are designed to control and greatly reduce emissions.
DW: CNG… I hate to be repetitive but that’s been huge!
JP: With the higher demand for single-stream recycling, the cost of sorting systems is reducing. The technology associated with sorting systems has pushed to become very efficient. When single-stream processing facilities were first introduced they were not realistic for smaller private companies to become involved. There are now systems that drastically reduce the cost to sort single-stream sorting on a lower volume scale.
What are the most important things that people need to know before implementing alternative fueled vehicles?
WF: Relatively low natural gas prices together with a growing infrastructure of fueling facilities are leading companies and municipalities to invest the capital needed to convert their fleets to natural gas. Other benefits include lowering emission rates and quieter engines. Before a decision is made to make the switch, companies really need to understand the full cost of using natural gas vehicles. A strategic fleet conversion plan is critical in order to maximize the benefits associated with natural gas vehicles. The obvious cost is the capital needed for the new collection vehicles. However, there are large expenses associated with building a refueling system and modifications in the maintenance and repair shop to ensure safety when working on trucks powered by natural gas. Additionally, operators must pay particular attention to local zoning and permitting requirements. In many municipalities, a natural gas filling station will be new to building code officers and permit reviewers. This could result in some delays at zoning boards and at the permitting stage of the process.
DW: Alternative fuel vehicles will cost the same as diesel in the long run. Shops must be up-fitted, techs must be trained/certified, maintenance programs must be established, driver training must be conducted, large cost infrastructure must be accounted for; the install processes are long and sometimes painful.
JP: The real reason to convert? Is it industry pressure? I understand the shift toward CNG from the larger waste haulers. For any company under 30 service vehicles the cost to switch may not make monetary sense. Not only is the truck technology new, shops must be retrofitted, employees must be educated, and safety must be heightened when working in, on, or around CNG vehicles. I like to think of the supply and demand curve. As demand increases for CNG fueled trucks, in theory so would the cost associated with CNG. If you’re debating switching to CNG for a reduction in cost on a smaller scale, I do not believe it is your best decision to cut cost. As mentioned already in this article, diesel technology continues to increase. The diesel engines of today are light years ahead in efficiency and emission standards compared to diesels from the start of this decade alone. I would not be so quick to count out the diesels.
With regards to waste conversion, are there more hauling companies and municipalities that are looking into these types of technologies? What are the biggest challenges?
ML: We have seen a lot of interest in these types of facilities, including ongoing studies, procurements and some going online. One example is the anaerobic digestion facility in San Jose, California; everyone is looking to see how that is going to do. In California, a new legislation that was passed allows for those facilities to count for their recycling rate, so that is a motivation to develop more of those types of facilities. Other waste conversion facilities include the CR&R AD facility in Perris, CA, which is under construction. They were awarded grant money based on diversion of material and the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The challenge is the cost, particularly when you compare it to landfill tipping fees that have in some areas been historically low, so that is a difficult uphill battle. However, in areas that have a higher tipping fee or don’t have the capacity, I think they are prime candidates for zero waste programs which may include waste conversion. There are additional benefits that need to be included in the analysis of these facilities. AD is the most popular because it is aproven technology that has been used for years—not necessarily in MSW, but it has proven in other areas, so it is potentially more viable, although it only addresses one portion of the waste stream so it is limited in its application as well. Some of the others, like gasification, pyrolysis, and other non-combustion conversion technologies, have been added to our definition of biomass conversion in California, allowing for 100% diversion credit for compliance with California’s diversion mandate. This will create incentive for these types of facilities.
WF: I think there continues to be a long line of people claiming to have the “next big thing” for managing waste. However, we witnessed a number of projects that were introduced with great fanfare fade away due to lack of funding or the failure of the technology to work in a real world application. High energy costs and high landfill disposal pricing will continue to keep everyone interested in conversion technologies. People will always offer conversion technology including gasification, plasma arc gasification, hydrolysis and pyrolysis, etc. I’ll keep watching. I do think that organics may be better suited for conversion technology
What the most important issues that need to be addressed right now?
WF: Safety remains a top concern. Everyone is talking about the need for safety and how important it is. Unfortunately, we have not seen the needle significantly move in terms of fatalities and injuries. The industry has to do a better job and the current approach is not getting the results we need to keep people safe. It’s time to stop talking and start acting to make our people safe.
DW: Planning for the long term with CNG and the large amount of fleet conversions. Single-stream is also greatly improving daily but still has a way to go.
JP: I would second to the topic of an ongoing safety program. With insurance rates at a sky high safety should be everyone’s priority for more reasons than one. To be specific, I have had conversations with many large and small companies in our industry about this topic. From members of Waste Management to local private companies of the south east, we have all voiced commonalities. The frustrating part is when our trucks do everything right in an incident and we are still penalized financially. I’ve mentioned to our staff we are driving billboards and our society as sue happy as it is today sees these as giant “hit me” targets. I can recall a specific example from my conversations in two separate incidents where the waste haulers driver was not even close to at fault and cost that particular company $90,000 + in real money lost at the bottom line. The driver was hit while stopped at a traffic light, and in the other case hit while someone ran a red light. I would like to see companies rewarded for safety records, not penalized because of “Geographical trends”.
Do you think the next year will be positive or negative? What kind of advances/changes in technology or regulations do you see coming?
WF: I’m an optimist and I tend to focus on the positives. For many years, I’ve looked at society’s waste stream as an opportunity for greater resource recovery. We need to garner as much value and resources from the waste stream as possible. It will also be interesting to see the impact of China’s developing middle class and their consumption and waste generation rates. China’s new middle class could have a significant impact on the supply and demand for recyclables.
ML: I think it will be a very positive year. We’ll see some advances in technologies, particularly with emphasis on greenhouse gas reduction. We’ll also see more programs put in place to get materials out of the landfill and do other things with them. We are always going to need landfills for those residual materials that we haven’t figured out what to do with yet, but we’ll continue to see advances in our programs, policies, technologies, that will advanced the diversion of material and increase our recovery of those materials. Those in our industry should also be aware of EPR for printed paper and packaging and make sure they understand the effects and the implications of it.
DW: So far if the last two quarters of this year were a pace setter for this year, I think we will continue to soar back to some sort of normalcy that we used to enjoy.
JP: Writing down a goal and creating a habit increases the chances for success. I believe 2015 will be a good year for many dimensions of our industry. Our industry has undergone many changes in recent years. 2014 articles discussed truck technology increasing, ways to become safer on the road and in the maintenance shops, CNG as an alternative fuel, employee retention, and the increased demand by consumers and businesses to recycle. All of these and many others will continue to steer our industry in 2015 and beyond. Hopefully the goals we make individually for 2015 will change our industry collectively for the future. Success comes in many ways and not just at the bottom line. Let’s set trends this year that will benefit our industry and everyone affected by it.