Adam Gendell argues that yield loss should be considered when recycling rates are determined.

We’re keeping score in recycling. The stakes have been raised, ambitious aspirations are everywhere, corporate reputations and billions of dollars are on the line, and the health of planet Earth hangs in the balance. Wins matter and agreement is widespread that recycling has a long way to go before anyone gets to hold a victory parade. In this heightened context, it’s more important than ever to ensure that there’s a trusted rulebook and a clear metric of success. In the game of recycling, it’s important that the referees tally the points correctly.

Recycling is most meaningfully viewed in terms of rates, with the ultimate metric being the recycling rate, which should be a simple and straightforward measure of the overall percentage of material that gets recycled. Definitionally, there’s a near-universal understanding that anything recovered from the waste stream and transformed into a new material feedstock for use in the manufacture of a new product has effectively been recycled. When that definition is met, the amount of material goes in the numerator. When that definition is not met, the amount of material goes in the denominator. Divide, get a percentage, and bingo: Assess the health of recycling. In concept, it’s not rocket science. In practice, though—like everything else in recycling—it is complicated, and a critical examination and application of common-sense principles suggests we haven’t been measuring this rate at all correctly.

Recycling should be understood as a sequence of processes, and the thorny issue is the question of where in that sequence the measurement should be taken. A simplified version of the recycling sequence involves three steps: collection, sortation and reprocessing. Each step is a bottleneck. Not everything that could be recycled gets collected for recycling. Not everything collected for recycling gets correctly sorted. Not everything that gets sorted and sold to a reprocessor actually gets transformed into a new material feedstock. Yet, the predominant method of measuring recycling rates occurs between the second and third step, considering the tonnage of material sorted then sold to reprocessors as the amount of material recycled. This assumes that paper mills, plastic reclaimers and other industrial manufacturing processes perfectly use 100 percent of the material they procure to make new, recycled materials. In other words, it assumes—quite literally—that manufacturers can achieve perfect efficiency using scrap as feedstock.

The inconvenient truth of recycling is that it is an inefficient process, and every unit of material put in a recycling bin does not result in a unit of material getting recycled. Our systems of measurement should reflect that. Yield loss at reprocessors can be significant, and it should be emphasized that yield loss means disposal. Those fibers that are too short to make it through another papermaking process? Landfilled, or dehydrated and burned for energy. In other words, disposed of. The polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle with a label that is incompatible with the PET reclamation process? Same fate: disposed of. Eunomia’s recent report The 50 States of Recycling—a first-of-its-kind assessment of packaging and beverage container recycling rates in all 50 states of the U.S., published with Ball Packaging—found that these yield loss rates range from 3 percent to more than 20 percent, which is certainly enough to make a difference in our understanding of the success of recycling.

The recycling rate should be measured at the conclusion of the recycling process when recycled content is created. Anything that does not emerge at the other end of the process as recycled content, quite simply, has not been recycled and should not be considered recycled material. Doing so will give a much more accurate depiction of the success of our recycling systems. It will also hurt. Our recycling rates are low, and this new, better form of measurement will draw them even lower. Nobody wants to see low rates get lower. But with better accuracy, a clearer picture of the opportunities for improvement will also come into focus.

Understanding yield loss shines a light on the biggest tragedy in recycling: Some material goes through an extraordinary effort to get within inches of the finish line, only to fall out of the race at the last minute. With greater emphasis on this bottleneck, we can shift from handing out participation trophies to recognizing that good material already has passed through multiple bottlenecks and could simply need different treatment to nudge it to its happy home. Different reprocessing technologies fare differently in terms of yield loss, and that ought to be part of our discourse on recycling, just the same as there are robust discussions around the effectiveness of collection practices and sorting technologies. Better reprocessing technologies deserve recognition. But they will only receive that shine if they’re acknowledged to move the needle in our recycling rates.

With many categories of recyclables, the amount of yield loss is a direct consequence of packaging design decisions, and illuminating that relationship can lead to a renewed conversation on designing for recyclability. The producer community has vested interests in raising recycling rates. If the recycling rate cannot be raised without addressing those design features that present incompatibilities with reprocessing, it’s doubtful that they ever will be addressed at scale. This could carry particular importance in the eyes of companies that have pledged to use the Ellen MacArthur definition of recyclability. That definition says an item can only be considered recyclable if it is recycled at a rate of at least 30 percent. With this more accurate system of measuring recycling rates, no category of plastic packaging could be considered recyclable. That would hurt and would light a bigger fire that should lead to bigger and bolder actions.

The debate about whether chemical recycling “counts” as recycling? Totally eliminated under this improved system of measurement. Any fuel-type outputs of gasification, pyrolysis or similar technology simply wouldn’t be counted in the numerator of the recycling rate. By shifting the measurement to focus on the amount of recycled content created, a chemical recycling technology could be viewed in the context of every other reprocessing technology, with the critical question of whether its “recycling efficiency” merits investment and encouragement. Reprocessors aren’t binary, either counting or not counting as recycling. They’re all in the grey area, with some chemical recycling technologies being greyer than others.

Love it or hate it, a shift toward this new-and-improved recycling rate measurement already is in process. The European Union recently introduced its new measurement methodology that accounts for processing yield, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has signaled that it will pursue considering processing yield as a key performance indicator of recycling. It has become a key discussion point for the assessment of bottle bills. We must brace ourselves for the pain of learning that, as poor as recycling rates appear to be, they could be much poorer.

Recycling is a game with high stakes, and the players need to up their intensity. Just like the material that gets all the way to the reprocessor but never completes the recycling process, there shouldn’t be participation trophies.

Adam Gendell is a senior consultant with Eunomia Research & Consulting, headquartered in Bristol, U.K. He works out of Charlottesville, Virginia, for the company's New York City-based office. 

Containerboard and boxboard production were up in the third quarter of 2021 compared with the prior year.

Containerboard and boxboard production in the United States in 2021 continues to outpace last year’s performance, according to the Washington-based American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA).

Total containerboard production in the U.S. in the third quarter increased 9 percent compared with the same three months of last year. Output is up 7 percent year to date, says AF&PA.

The containerboard mill operating rate averaged 95.6 percent in the third quarter of this year, up 1.7 points from the third quarter of 2020. The year-to-date average operating rate is up 1.5 points in 2021 compared with last year.

Overseas demand for U.S.-made containerboard enjoyed a bump, with AF&PA reporting that in this year’s third-quarter exports of containerboard increased 10 percent compared to the same quarter last year. Year-to-date, however, containerboard exports are down 15 percent compared with 2020.

Production figures for boxboard also are showing an increase, although recycled-content boxboard production lags the gains enjoyed by boxboard made with other materials.

Recycled-content boxboard production in the third quarter increased 1 percent compared with last year’s third quarter, while year to date it is down 1 percent.

Solid bleached boxboard production in the third quarter, meanwhile, increased by 10 percent compared with last year’s third quarter. It is up 1 percent year to date. Unbleached kraft and gypsum board production this year’s third quarter increased 5 percent compared with last year and is up 5 percent year to date.

Company says upgrades in Oswego, New York, will include ability to close loop on more scrap.

Atlanta-based aluminum producer Novelis Inc. has announced plans to invest approximately $130 million to upgrade its operations in Oswego, New York. The company cites “growing customer demand for sustainable, aluminum flat rolled products” as a reason for the investment.

“This investment further strengthens the plant’s position for additional recycled aluminum inputs and increased recycled content across its product lines in the future,” states Novelis. The company says the project allows it to increase hot mill capacity by 124,000 metric tons at the plant, which serves the beverage can, automotive and specialty products markets.

Part of the investment also will go into “enhancing finishing capabilities for automotive sheet,” says Novelis. The company says construction on the project will begin in the spring of 2022 with work expected to be completed in 2024. 

The project includes upgrades to the plant’s hot reversing mill motors and drive train and hot finishing mill coolant systems and changes to its batch annealing capabilities. The project also will enhance energy efficiency at the plant, says Novelis.

“By investing in modern, energy-efficient upgrades in Oswego, we aim to sustain and grow important partnerships with our valued customers,” says Tom Boney, president of Novelis North America. “These upgrades also strengthen Novelis’ ability to thrive in Oswego as a great place to work and a partner to the community.”

Previous spending at the plant has included a 2015 expansion of the recycling center, which processes roughly 12,500 tons of automotive aluminum scrap per month. Using recycled aluminum requires significantly less energy and water and avoids 95 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with primary aluminum production, says Novelis.

Automated sorting and conveying equipment from German company on the job at FCC plant in Spain.

Spain-based FCC Medio Ambiente has worked with Germany-based Stadler to complete the renovation of its CITR (Centro Integral de Tratamiento) material recovery facility (MRF) and waste treatment plant in El Campello, Spain. FCC Medio Ambiente chose Stadler for the renovation “based on the long-standing relationship between the two companies,” states Stadler.

FCC Medio Ambiente, part of the FCC Group, has been managing the plant since April 2009. Stadler calls CITR “a large facility that manages extreme variations in waste input.” It serves 52 municipalities in the region.

“The size of the facility, the short time in which to complete the works, and the added complexity of having to carry out the refurbishment while the plant was in operation, were factors that drove our decision to choose Stadler,” says Javier Cerezo, technical manager of FCC Medio Ambiente.

Policarpo Caballero, Stadler project manager, says, “It has been a challenge for several reasons: the project was implemented in five different phases, and we have had to adjust to the existing infrastructure. In a new project, it is easier to fit everything in because you start from scratch. In this case, precision has been critical in installing our equipment without damaging the existing machines.”

Cerezo says, “The waste treatment sector in Spain has been in constant evolution for many years now, and it will continue to do so in order to address the challenge of the European objectives. With new technologies such as Stadler’s it is possible to extract more materials, with better quality, from the processed waste, as well as producing compost or alternative fuels.”

Over the course of three months, Stadler says it replaced technology that had become obsolete with “the latest generation equipment and leading brands in the waste treatment sector.”

The CITR has been refurbished to achieve “greater recovery of materials, the treatment of organic waste from separate collection and a more careful management of odor emissions. In addition, a facility such as the CITR has a key role to play in the circular economy,” says Cerezo.

The five phases of the project consisted of the installation of the new equipment in five areas of the facility: compost, refining, biomethanization, municipal solid waste (MSW) and selective organic collection. Stadler supplied and installed two trommels for screening closed bags and bottles of different from bulky waste after passing through a shredder.

The integration of a solid recovered fuel (SRF) production line for cement is another element of the refurbished plant. Says Cerezo, “This line incorporates, among other processes, a low-temperature drying stage to guarantee the required humidity. The plant has been fitted with the equipment needed to produce SRF practically to demand, as it is able to control parameters such as composition, granulometry and moisture content.”

“In short, the aim was to recycle more and better, reducing the environmental impact,” says Ana López of FCC Servicios Ciudadanos. “It was an automated plant with optical separators, but with old models that did not work properly. The plant’s technology had become obsolete and had reached the end of its useful life. New equipment with the latest technology was needed to achieve the desired byproduct treatment and recovery objectives.”

“Everything went very well, the work was completed on time, all thanks to our excellent fitters and good coordination with FCC Medio Ambiente,” Caballero says.

Cerezo adds, “The teams from both companies have been able to coordinate perfectly and adapt to the changes.” Of Stadler, he says, “Its experience in the design of waste treatment lines has been of enormous help in modernizing the CITR. I recommend Stadler for its seriousness, professionalism, the quality of its equipment and of the machinery installed, among other reasons. Without a doubt, Stadler has proven to be a reliable supplier of waste treatment plants.”

The former MassRoots, owner of Virginia-based Empire Recycling, is now GreenWave Technology Solutions.

Norfolk, Virginia-based MassRoots Inc. has made a filing to change its name to Greenwave Technology Solutions. Inc. The company operates several small-to-medium-sized scrap facilities in Virginia and North Carolina under the Empire Services name. Greenwave’s CEO says it plans to expand Empire Services’ presence in the metals recycling sector.

In a letter issued via the Business Wire public relations service, Greenwave CEO and Chair Danny Meeks writes that “Greenwave expects to rapidly expand its footprint of locations and increase its metal recycling volume, which we believe will result in significant revenue growth.”

Noting that a recent acquisition in Virginia Beach, Virginia, marks its 11th metal recycling facility, Meeks adds, “Since the closing of the Empire merger two weeks ago, we’ve had discussions with owners of scrap yards both in our immediate region and along the eastern seaboard of the United States. Many recognize the industry is ripe for a roll-up as it would likely result in a significant margin expansion while we enter into a commodities super cycle, according to Goldman Sachs.”

He continues, “We believe it is only a matter of time before there’s a roll-up of independent, profitable metal recycling facilities, and as a public company with 31,000 shareholders, Greenwave is in a position to move quickly and aggressively.”

Empire Services is in what Meeks calls “the final stages” of preparing a formal application for a listing on the NASDAQ or NYSE stock exchanges. The company’s shares currently have over-the-counter “pink sheet” status. Writes Meeks, “We believe a listing on a national exchange would result in a significant increase in visibility, liquidity, and institutional interest for our stock.”

The CEO points to wider industry conditions for his belief that “now is the optimal time for a roll-up of metal recycling facilities.” Meeks adds, “Demand for prime metallic scrap is expected to increase by approximately 41 percent from current levels to 29.6 million gross tons by fiscal year 2025. At the same time, the supply of prime steel scrap has been shrinking consistently for more than 50 years, according to a Steel Research Associates LLC scrap model. Greenwave’s management believes that this supply/demand imbalance will continue to cause rising prices for scrap metal for at least the next five to seven years.”

The company’s press release states the legal name of the company will continue to be MassRoots Inc. until the name change process has been completed; but, for marketing and branding purposes, the company has begun referring to itself as Greenwave.