By now, solid waste managers know the overseas markets for traditional recyclable materials have been inverted due to import bans and restrictions put in place by China. To boot, China’s actions are having a ripple effect across the globe as more countries adopt waste and material bans or expand their restrictions.

While this is certainly affecting the industry, it will not be the end of community-based recycling programs as we know them. Thanks in large part to these recent challenges, the emphasis in recycling is now on quality as opposed to quantity.

Many community programs are dropping low- and no-value materials to focus on the “Big Four”: corrugated cardboard, No. 1 and 2 plastic containers, and metal containers. The value for mixed paper and mixed resin plastics is currently low, and in some instances, recycling has become the highest cost waste management option. So, what can forward-thinking North American solid waste managers and policy leaders do other than accept, or even increase, the amount of solid waste being sent to landfill?

Traditional combustion-based waste- to-energy plants are highly reliable with predictable costs, but given today’s low electricity values, they are not economical, which is why maybe now is the time to take another look at emerging waste conversion technologies. A lot of potential exists for waste conversion solutions, and several technology suppliers are even advancing projects and starting up their first full-scale commercial facilities this year.

Mixed waste processing with mechanical biological treatment (MBT)

MBT encompasses a broad array of technologies that use mechanical and biological processes to recover recyclables, stabilize organic material, generate energy and produce products.

Bunker at Entsorga West Virginia

MBT facilities have enjoyed broad adoption across the European Union (EU), where they are used to recover recyclables and produce solid recovered fuel (SRF) that can serve as a substitute for coal. By one count, there are over 300 MBT facilities operating in the EU presently. Large industrial firms and, more specifically, cement manufacturers in the EU, have adopted aggressive SRF-utilization goals as a component of their corporate sustainability plans. The carbon content of SRF is about 50 percent biogenic, and several companies occupying the space (Buzzi Unicem, LafargeHolcim, Titan, etc.) also operate cement manufacturing facilities in the U.S., which aid in meeting their worldwide sustainability goals.

Two of the emerging waste conversion companies, Entsorga West Virginia and RePower South, are putting the finishing touches on MBT facilities designed to produce an alternative solid fuel from municipal solid waste here in the U.S.

Entsorga West Virginia in Martinsburg is a partnership between Apple Valley Waste Technologies, Entsorga USA and BioHiTech Global. It is the first application of Entsorga Italia’s proprietary High Efficiency Biological Treatment (HEBioT) technology in the U.S. This technology utilizes a system of mechanical equipment to preprocess inbound waste, removing dry, oversized constituents prior to placing the remaining high-moisture material into holding bunkers for biological treatment. Air is drawn through the stored waste mass, drying it to a desired moisture level. Once dried, the treated material is extracted from the bunker and further processed to recover valuable material and remove unwanted contaminants, and then it is sized to create a valuable fuel product. The fuel product is sold to a local cement manufacturing facility.

RePower South of Charleston, South Carolina, is a privately owned firm. The company has begun operation at two facilities this year—one just outside of Charleston and a second in Montgomery, Alabama. The South Carolina facility was a greenfield development project, while the Montgomery facility encompassed the refurbishment and remodeling of a failed waste processing facility. Both the Charleston and Montgomery facilities utilize mechanical systems to screen in-bound waste for undesirable contaminants, recover valuable materials and size the balance of the waste material to create a valuable fuel product for use as a coal substitute. The Charleston facility is privately owned and was financed by tax exempt bonds and private equity. The Montgomery facility is publicly owned with RePower South financing the facility refurbishments and the fuel production system.

In the public sector, the Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District (WIWMD) in Utah is constructing what will be a publicly owned and operated mixed waste processing facility. For many years, the WIWMD operated a traditional mass-burn waste-to-energy facility, which sold electricity to the local power grid and steam to a nearby U.S. Air Force base. When the base greatly curtailed the amount of steam it purchased, the waste-to-energy facility was no longer economical. Instead of falling back to landfilling, the WIWMD elected to develop a mixed waste processing facility. The processing facility will be used to increase the volume of valuable recyclables recovered from the waste stream and will be able to produce an engineered fuel for a nearby cement kiln. The facility is fully financed, and design engineering is underway, with groundbreaking slated for later this year.

Fiberight LLC has its own version of MBT technology, which is being demonstrated at a new facility outside of Bangor, Maine. The facility is designed to recover and produce an array of products from 600 tons per day of municipal solid waste (MSW) and single-stream recyclables. The facility’s front-end processing system will screen inbound material and recover traditional recyclables such as containers, OCC and metals. The remaining material will then be subjected to a wet processing system wherein low-quality fiber will be recovered and upgraded into market-quality fiber pulp. Within the wet processing system, soluble organics, such as food waste, will be recovered and eventually converted into renewable natural gas via the facility’s in-house wastewater treatment plant. Finally, plastic film will be recovered for use as an engineered fuel. The facility is privately owned and was financed through a combination of equity from Ultra Capital, a sustainable infrastructure fund and tax-exempt bonds. The facility will serve 104 communities in Maine.

Mixed waste composting and anaerobic digestion

Composting alone or in combination with anaerobic digestion is a proven strategy for select, source-separated constituents of the solid waste stream, but successful applications with the full municipal waste stream are still limited. A limiting factor appears to be the difficulty of cleaning the resultant compost to make a relatively contaminant-free product. Cleaning technologies from Europe are available, but they are considered expensive in the U.S. market. Mixed MSW compost is a mostly unknown commodity in the environmental regulatory arena, so market development work is required to successfully advance projects.

Waste to biofuels

Technologies to convert MSW to renewable transportation fuels, primarily cellulosic ethanol and diesel, have long captured the eye of visionary entrepreneurs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) can provide indirect subsidies approaching $200 per ton of MSW for cellulosic ethanol. Some federal loan guarantees can significantly lower a facility’s cost of capital, which is important as waste-to-biofuels facilities are very capital intensive. A 1,000-ton-per-day waste-to-biofuel facility can cost over $500 million to construct, so these technologies are generally economically feasible only at sizes of 1,000 tons per day or more.

Enerkem Alberta Biofuels, located outside of Edmonton, Canada, is the only commercially operating MSW-to-biofuels facility in North America. Designed to produce 10 million gallons per year of ethanol, construction of the facility began in 2014. In 2016, it produced bio-methanol as a renewable chemical feedstock. In 2017, it was certified by the U.S. EPA to produce and sell bioethanol through the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard. Enerkem, its investors and partners are developing additional facilities in North America and Europe.

Fulcrum BioEnergy has begun construction of its Sierra BioFuels facility outside Reno, Nevada. Once completed in 2020, the facility is expected to convert 175,000 tons per year of MSW into low-carbon Syncrude, which can be further processed into biofuels at a nearby oil refinery. The facility is privately owned and financed through a combination of private equity and tax-exempt bonds.

Chemical recycling of plastic waste

A relatively new strategy for waste conversion is the chemical recycling of plastic waste. Chemical recycling of plastics involves the conversion of plastic waste into a liquid hydrocarbon that can then be used to produce new products. The conversion process typically involves a pyrolysis technology, which is akin to gasification. With the heightened visibility of the impact of single-use plastics on the environment, this is a sorely needed technology in the current market.

There are several technology providers developing their first chemical recycling facility. Most recently, Brightmark Energy broke ground on its first commercial scale plastics-to-fuel facility in Indiana. The facility is designed to convert 100,000 tons per year of mixed waste plastics into 18 million gallons per year of low-sulfur diesel and waxes. Additionally, Agilyx has operated a demonstration facility outside of Portland, Oregon, for several years.

Conversion to electricity

Noticeably absent from any list of projects coming online are those deploying high-temperature processes, such as gasification or pyrolysis, to generate electricity. This is a reflection of electricity being a relatively low-value product that does not support the capital intensity of these complex technologies at the moment. As long as fracking continues to provide an abundant supply of inexpensive natural gas for electricity production in the U.S., this fact is unlikely to change.

What’s next?

Solid waste visionaries have long waited for advanced waste conversion technologies to move from the research stage, through the demonstration phase, and into commercial operation. With the current activity in this space, 2019 might be the year wherein that wait finally pays off. However, it may take another two to three years of successful operation with several of these technologies before the most conservative of solid waste managers accept them into their community waste management system.

Steve Simmons is the president of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton. He can be reached at ssimmons@gbbinc.com.

Converting hazardous sites into flourishing properties comes with a long list of unknowns.

On top of the potential risks, conversion can involve years of hard work, financial challenges and even legal constraints that hinder making the vision a reality.

However, Mark Thimke and Bruce Keyes, attorneys at Milwaukee-based Foley & Lardner LLP who specialize in brownfield redevelopment, say numerous laws have changed in the past decade to create more resources and further simplify the process of breathing new life into brownfields—properties that are difficult to redevelop or reuse due to the presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.

“You’re able to convert them and take them from being very much a negative zone, or at least perceived that way by the community, to an area that’s productive and vibrant and changes the whole quality of an area,” Thimke says.

Challenges abound

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates more than 450,000 brownfields exist in the U.S. These sites can be converted into areas of various uses, from parks and fields to commercial and industrial developments—but doing so often takes years of planning.

Brownfields can have numerous past lives. Those on the site of closed or abandoned landfills, however, present a unique set of challenges.

While all landfills produce certain contaminants that need to be addressed, such as methane and leachate, many also contain a mix of materials that can generate a host of other unknown contaminants. “Landfills are more complicated because you typically have a mix of waste,” Keyes says. “It makes it much harder to understand what issues you might have.”

The costs associated with pinning down those exact contaminants, along with the numerous other costs that come with cleaning up and revitalizing a brownfield, only add to the challenge.

However, the federal government passed a law in 2002 that established a wealth of federal funding for brownfield cleanup, which has since been expanded.

The most recent legislation related to brownfields, the Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development (BUILD) Act of 2018, expanded the grants EPA offers to cover a broader range of steps in the revitalization process, from environmental assessment to the actual cleanup. (Please see “Finding the funds” for a comprehensive list of available brownfield grants.)

Many states also have low-interest loans and grants available to help in cleanup costs if the property meets requirements specified by the state.

Keyes and Thimke say they have had success securing contributions from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who may have liability in the conversion, including municipalities and former owners. Finding investors, though, will likely only be successful if development is already taking place in areas adjacent to the brownfield to drive surrounding land values there, which would justify the cost and likely provide a return.

“You need to find the monetary resources for conversion,” Thimke says. “That can be through some investment from the municipality, environmental financing or grants from the state. It’s all very site-specific as to how you happen to work that out.”

On top of funding, brownfield redevelopment requires pinpointing just who is liable for the site both before and after its conversion—a task that, in many cases, is the most challenging of all.

Liabilities

Brownfield redevelopment comes with a long list of potential liabilities, the largest being the risk of the EPA or the state imposing additional cleanup conditions that require future remediation efforts.

Coupled with other headaches, such as public perception of the site and potential risk of exposure to contaminants, many entities are dissuaded from taking on the challenge.

Thimke and Keyes say dealing with liabilities is best done by involving all stakeholders in the conversation. This includes the developer, the municipality and any other identified PRPs, which may be anyone who either owned the property or was involved with hazardous waste being disposed of there. Other stakeholders could include groups that may participate in the future uses of the site, like store tenants or community groups.

Having these PRPs involved from the outset allows for easier negotiations to determine who will carry each liability.

“It takes a motivated group with a vision to see the path forward,” Keyes says.

“You have to be creative in the way you structure it,” Thimke adds.

"If we were involved in the process of closure, we could design the closure around future development, and it would save tremendous costs.” –Mark Thimke, attorney at New York-based Foley & Lardner LLP

More brownfield tools have recently come into play to further ease liability burdens.

The BUILD Act eased some of the provisions put in place by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which established a strict system for determining who can be held liable for the costs of cleaning up contaminated properties.

Before the BUILD Act, which is effective until 2023, municipalities could only receive exemptions and protections by acquiring brownfields involuntarily or through a narrow set of EPA-approved exceptions. However, the act now permits municipalities to take over brownfields both voluntarily and involuntarily without fear of bearing the brunt of the liability.

In Wisconsin, for example, Thimke says he helped change a state law in 2009 after efforts to convert the closed Holtz-Krause landfill into a sports complex in Marathon County dwindled over fear of liabilities. The new law shifted liability burdens from the local to the state level, allowing the purchaser to clean up the land and receive exemption from future liabilities that may arise during development and beyond.

Planning ahead

Forward-thinking landfill operators can ease the future challenges of converting their sites by planning ahead.

EPA recommends owners “consider the anticipated property reuse prior to and during assessment and cleanup” by integrating property reuse alternatives into decisions during that time.

Beyond limiting the environmental exposure of contaminants, these decisions could include anything from structuring landfill gas monitoring systems to capping off the surface of the landfill.

The EPA requires a post-closure care and monitoring period of 30 years from landfill closure (although this can be shortened or extended by the state), so monitoring systems are best designed to accommodate future potential uses on the site.

And while closure caps are often designed as mounds so water can run off, these can be designed with flatter surfaces to accommodate future development.

“If we were involved in the process of closure, we could design the closure around future development, and it would save tremendous costs,” Keyes says.

Cultivating community

While converting brownfields into useful sites requires substantial time and dedication, the hard work can pay off for both the developer and the community.

The closed Holtz-Krause landfill in Marathon County took nearly 15 years to clean up and even more time was needed to change local legislation. But when the work was complete in 2015, the Eastbay Sports Complex finally opened to the public.

Today, one would never know a landfill stood in its place just decades ago. The Eastbay Sports Complex now sits on 60 acres of sprawling green lawn that forms various sports fields, which are surrounded by concessions, a curling rink and commercial development.

A group of PRPs spent $4 million developing the property, which includes funds for long-term upgrades and operations, like continuous emissions monitoring. Their investment has already seen substantial return—a soccer tournament held there generated about $1.4 million in local spending in just one weekend.

“The end results have been, I think, spectacular,” Thimke says. Even with the right tools in place, though, Thimke says one of the most vital aspects to getting the job done was the group of stakeholders who had “a broader view of what they want to accomplish.”

The author is the assistant editor for Waste Today magazine and can be contacted at tcottom@gie.net.

Material recovery facility (MRF) operators have little control over their incoming material, yet they are expected to produce specification-quality secondary commodities for use by reprocessors and manufacturers. Doing so requires constant reassessment of their operations because the incoming material stream can change from season to season and even from day to day, says Miriam Holsinger, vice president of operations and business intelligence for Eureka Recycling, Minneapolis.

Eureka, a nonprofit MRF operator that offers programs designed to help individuals, organizations and communities reach their zero waste goals, recognized that the residential recycling stream has evolved over time to include more containers and less paper, she says. For this reason, the company embarked on its most recent upgrade, adding a second optical sorter to improve polyethylene terephthalate (PET) container recovery and further clean up its recovered paper quality. This upgrade followed a 2016 retrofit that was designed to increase volume while also improving Eureka’s fiber quality.

Quality concerns

Eureka converted from a dual-stream processing system to a single-stream system that was supplied by Machinex, Plessisville, Quebec, in 2014. Holsinger says the change was prompted by increasing interest in single-stream recycling from the cities in Eureka’s service area. “We wanted to move where the industry was moving and really dig into it,” she says of Eureka’s decision to convert to single-stream processing and collection.

“We definitely saw residue increase,” Holsinger says. “We were around 1 to 2 percent with dual stream. When we switched, we saw that double in the first year, and now we are between 6 and 8 percent.”

She adds that it is important for Eureka to educate its customers on the material the nonprofit receives for recycling and what is truly recyclable. “Communication is key. We educate at the curb or go back to our customers.”

One-third of the material Eureka’s MRF processes is from communities it collects recyclables from; the rest is third-party-collected material.

Eureka’s initial retrofit in 2016 occurred when the MRF operator bid on the city of Minneapolis’ recycling contract. “We wanted to increase our processing speed and volume and were not quite happy with our quality,” she says. “No one was complaining about our paper quality, but we weren’t satisfied.”

To address Eureka’s concerns, Machinex suggested the addition of a scalping screen, a second ballistic separator and a second eddy current separator. Eureka also added a steel conveyor belt on its presort line because the belting material it had been using was getting destroyed by the scrap metals contained in the incoming material, Holsinger says.

The scalping screen was installed after the old corrugated containers (OCC) line and before two old newspaper (ONP) screens to remove 5-inch-minus materials. This material is then directed to the second ballistic separator.

In addition to adding the second eddy current separator, the nonprofit installed a wider unit to improve aluminum recovery.

These changes allowed Eureka to recover 90 percent of the aluminum in its incoming material stream using its first, larger eddy current and to clean up its paper quality, she says. “When we separated the smaller stuff and sent it to its own ballistic separator, the system performed better,” Holsinger adds.

However, she says there is “no perfect setting” for single-stream material, as its composition can vary widely based on the time of the year or the day. “We need our quality control staff to do that extra little bit.”

Regarding Eureka’s original equipment upgrade, she adds, “I think it was just remarkable to me how much we were able to clean up our paper. If you can focus on making sure you have the right equipment and it’s running optimally, you don’t need to slow down the equipment or add [manual] sorters.”

Additional optics

With the composition of the recycling stream evolving to include more containers, Holsinger says Eureka’s original optical sorter was “getting overworked a bit.” For this reason, the MRF operator installed a second optical sorter this year.

Eureka relocated its first eddy current and its magnet further back in the processing system to install the second optical sorter, which is positively sorting PET containers. Holsinger says PET accounts for 4 percent of the material Eureka recovers and markets.

The nonprofit repurposed its original optical sorter to sort paper and polypropylene (PP), also known as No. 5 plastic.

The addition of the second optical allowed Eureka to change the settings on its ballistic separator to allow more paper to flow with its containers, Holsinger says, because she is less worried about overwhelming the other optical sorter now.

“We were excited at the opportunity to clean up our containers,” she says. “We [also] removed more bottles and cans that ended up in our paper.”

Additionally, Eureka “more than tripled” the amount of tubs and lids it recovers for recycling, Holsinger says, though she adds, “increasing PP doesn’t bring in a lot of revenue.”

She says the burden on Eureka’s quality control sorters has been reduced as well because of the addition of the second optical sorter. The nonprofit employs up to 22 sorters per shift.

The MRF operator also was able to increase its overall processing speed with the addition of the second optical sorter. Holsinger says the nonprofit went from processing 350 to 375 tons per day prior to its most recent upgrade to 400 tons per day.

Taking downtime

Eureka runs a shift and a half five days per week. To prepare for the installation of the second optical sorter, the company ran the weekend before the installation was scheduled to start so it could clear its tipping floor, she says. The installation took six operating days and nine days overall, including weekends.

“We have contracts and have to keep accepting material,” Holsinger says, which meant that Eureka stockpiled incoming material throughout the installation process. She adds that the nonprofit could have sent material to other area MRFs for processing had it run out of storage space. However, she adds that this is an expensive solution.

Keeping material moving

Among the recyclables Eureka produces and markets today are PET, colored and natural high-density polyethylene (which is sorted by hand), PP, mixed paper, sorted residential paper and news (SRPN), OCC, carrier stock, glass and UBCs.

Eureka uses a blend of spot-market and contracted sales, with 80 percent of the material that it recovers remaining in Minnesota, Holsinger says, while just under 90 percent remains in the Upper Midwest. While Holsinger says Eureka is “not adverse” to selling material overseas, the company prefers to sell locally for the immediate feedback.

“If there are any issues, they can let us know, and we’ll work to address them. We can get that feedback sooner with local markets. We focus on local markets for that reason and for the environmental impact,” she says, citing a desire to preserve the reduced environmental impacts of recycling.

Because of Eureka’s focus on and relationships with local end markets, the fallout from China’s National Sword and Blue Sky policies has had less of an impact on the nonprofit. She says Eureka is still selling its mixed paper. “We have agreements that allow us to still get paid for that material,” she adds. “We know we are in a fortunate position.”

However, the nonprofit has not been able to escape the broader decline in material value that has resulted from China’s reduced buying and the glut of material available in the North American market. “The largest impact has been on the financials because the material is worth so much less than it was a year ago,” Holsinger says.

The situation has prompted Eureka to find efficiencies wherever it can in its operations, she adds.

The nonprofit directs a good deal of its profits to community education and outreach, Holsinger says, which has had to be scaled back as a result of market weakness.

Current market conditions have not altered Holsinger and Eureka’s future planning, however. “We are always looking at stuff and evaluating the composition of material and how our equipment is doing and if it is still the right equipment for the job,” she says.

For these reasons, Eureka Recycling will likely continue to make system upgrades in the years to come as technology evolves to address the issues it and other MRF operators encounter as the material stream changes.

This article originally ran in the July issue of Recycling Today, a sister publication of Waste Today. The author is the editor of Recycling Today and can be contacted at dtoto@gie.net.

Between a low number of drivers entering the waste industry and a high number of hauler truck-involved accidents occurring out on the road, Robert Bourcheau, the corporate operations trainer for Longwood, Florida-based Waste Pro, knew something needed to be done.

Out of those problems, Waste Pro’s Co-Heart program was born.

Bourcheau founded the Co-Heart program five years ago as a way to help develop safer, more educated commercial driver’s license (CDL) drivers. The program aims to take helpers from the back of the truck to the driver’s seat through a comprehensive training program that emphasizes safe operations.

“We have instructors and trainers in place, and we are cultivating our helpers and helping them get promoted to the driver’s seat,” Bourcheau says.

In order to oversee the program, Bourcheau received his credentials from the state of Florida and became a state and federal examiner. Waste Pro also designed its training facilities to be in compliance with the state as a designated testing site.

The program is designed to teach advanced backing and driving skills, rollover prevention and other techniques that can help keep both drivers and pedestrians safe on the street.

While the program has a comprehensive driver safety focus, preventing rollover accidents is one area in particular Bourcheau emphasizes.

“About five years ago, when I first started here, accidents were pretty prevalent from somewhat transient CDL drivers who were not really familiar with our trucks,” Bourcheau says.

Collection trucks tend to be a little bit higher than other trucks out on the road, Bourcheau explains, so it is easier for them to roll when making left turns.

“The blade pushes the garbage up and the profile of the truck starts to lean toward the passenger side. You are driving the same rate of speed around corners, and you make a left turn. Now all the liquid starts to shift right, and all the garbage is piled on the right side and the truck is already leaning to the right. When you take a left turn, it doesn’t take much to roll those vehicles over,” Bourcheau says.

When trucks are involved in rollover accidents, both the expenses and worker injuries can come at a steep cost. Each vehicle costs approximately $400,000, Bourcheau says. The minimum damage to a truck that has rolled over is around $80,000 “if you just roll it over nice and neat,” Bourcheau says, which is rarely the case. In the worst cases, it is not uncommon for workers to lose their lives during a rollover incident, which is why Bourcheau says potential drivers receive a separate diploma for completing a class dedicated to preventing these incidents.

In addition to roll-over prevention, safe braking is another area of emphasis students are trained on.

“Every time someone has an accident, we ask them how it happened, and they say the brakes didn’t work. It is the first thing they always say,” Bourcheau explains.

While participating in the program, helpers also learn what it takes to prepare for a successful day behind the wheel. One topic that is prioritized is the importance of having a good pre-trip routine. Not only can this help ensure safe operation, Bourcheau says, but it also promotes efficiency on the road and reduces downtime.

“[Drivers] need to make sure their equipment is running properly and that there are no leaks, their tires are good and the vehicle is generally in good condition,” Bourcheau says.

Creating opportunities

Bourcheau says that on top of promoting safety, the program is an opportunity for helpers looking for a promotion. Because helpers already know the trucks and the routes, they are the best individuals to attain their CDLs and begin driving.

“What was obvious to me is that the helpers that were on the back for two, three, five, 10 and even 20 years picking up garbage were more familiar with the routes, more familiar with the trucks and more familiar with our company than new drivers from other industries,” Bourcheau says. “Who better to take over a truck and promote than a helper who doesn’t have to worry about directions? ... It became obvious that if there was a way to promote them to a driver and get them a CDL, we would mitigate our accidents quite a bit.”

Advancing to the role of a driver through the program also guarantees a pay raise, almost doubling the helpers’ current salaries, Bourcheau says.

Besides offering a pay increase after completion, a unique feature of the Co-Heart program is the low financial burden to participate. When taking the CDL test through Waste Pro, helpers only have to pay $300, as opposed to traditional schools that charge up to $5,000.

“These helpers have all the potential to become a driver, but they never had the opportunity before,” Bourcheau says. “The $300 spent on the CDL test can also be earned back through completing a full year of driving without being in an accident.”

Waste Pro’s safety awards present another incentive for safe driving.

“After four years of perfect attendance and perfect driving, drivers can receive $10,000,” Bourcheau says. “If they make a mistake, time starts over for them.”

Because Bourcheau is representing the state and not the company in his role as examiner, drivers who pass the CDL test also have to undergo separate Waste Pro training, which, according to Bourcheau, is more difficult than the training the state requires.

“We try to weed out people who can’t handle those trucks or who are not comfortable in the trucks,” Bourcheau states.

Although initial training is critical, ongoing education is just as important for maintaining a CDL, Bourcheau says.

Existing drivers are required by the Department of Transportation to participate in annual training sessions. Bourcheau says this yearly requirement keeps CDL drivers updated on changes to laws and aware of current events in the industry.

Expanding the program

While the Co-Heart program originated in Florida, the company is looking to branch out. Waste Pro also runs the Co-Heart program out of Jackson, Mississippi, with its own state inspector and is currently looking for other areas where it makes sense to train potential drivers.

“The Co-Heart program is expanding and growing,” Bourcheau says. “Our Co-Heart program … is the shining star of the company because it is the future. It is only getting stronger. As [Waste Pro] grows across the Southeast, so does the program.”

“We want to provide opportunities that can allow members of our team to achieve and feel like an important part of our company. [Those who go through the Co-Heart program are] doing something special,” says John Jennings, chairman and CEO of Waste Pro. “The Co-Heart program certainly is an important component of making our employees feel a part of this winning team.”

Reflecting on his work building the program, Bourcheau says the training has been invaluable in helping collection professionals advance in their careers.

“Five years later, we have almost 200 helpers that range anywhere from 120 days to 20 years at our company that have been promoted to drivers. We have a return rate of 73 percent, as opposed to regular drivers at around 34 percent. This program has been so beneficial.”

While retaining drivers has long been an industrywide issue, Bourcheau says the program’s potential to help the company build its workforce is limitless.

“Don’t bet against Waste Pro,” Bourcheau says. “I’m looking forward to major growth.”

The author is a contributor to the Recycling Today Media Group and can be contacted at oshackleton@gie.net.