Home
hamburger menu icon

Recovery Facilities

Almost all material can be recycled or pyrolyzed, as discussed below.

Material Recovery Facilities

Since waste management is typically either publicly run or highly regulated, the industry might not respond efficiently to market signals. Cities can invest directly in single stream or mixed waste material recovery facilities (MRF), which collect and sort mixed waste, diverting economically useful materials for reprocessing.

The image: "mrf_cost.svg" cannot be found!

All cost figures are CPI-adjusted to 2020 and assess the total capital, operating, and infrastructure cost of running a MRF. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Other studies confirm this price range 7, 8.

With prices of recycled commodities highly variable, municipalities should evaluate whether investment in an advanced MRF makes sense, taking externalities into account.

Material Collection

The way in which material is sorted and collected can have a major effect both on the public's participation in recycling and the amount of material ultimately recycled. The debate is generally between single stream recycling, which puts all recyclable material in a single bin to be sorted by the MRF, and dual stream recycling, which separates recyclables into two categories (often organic and inorganic material) at the consumer level 9. Source-separate recycling, which uses a larger number of categories, is also done.

The image: "single_dual_stream.svg" cannot be found!

Source: 10. Total material recycled accounts both for the amount that is collected and the portion of material collected that is lost due to contamination. Single-stream recycling generally collections more material, but a larger portion is lost to contamination, resulting in less material recycled overall. In the scenarios considered, all glass is assumed to be landfilled.

Other studies confirm that single stream recycling is generally more expensive to sort 11 and that contamination rates are higher 12.

Problem:
Recycling Rates
Solution:
Wet/Dry Collection

Value of Recycled Materials

The cost of a material recovery facility can be partially offset by the sale of recovered materials. The following prices were observed in 2018.

The image: "mrf_comm_price.svg" cannot be found!

Commodity prices are reported in a 2018 presentation and fluctuate over time. The value of the commodity on a per-ton basis and the value contained in one ton of typical MSW are reported. MSW commodities by mass do not add to 100% due to incomplete characterization. Source: 13.

Other Recycling Options

The city of San Jose, California has achieved a 74% recycling rate through a franchise system, under which the city offers exclusive waste handling contracts with mandates or incentives for high recycling rates. Bidding for franchises is open to the public.

Deposit-return systems are effective tools for recovering high-value beverage containers. The system works by adding a charge on the price of beverage containers, which is refunded when the container is returned. In the United States, recovery of bottles and cans was 82% in 2002 in the state of Oregon, which has a deposit-return program. The figure is only 30% in states without such a program 14.

Problem:
Recycling Rates
Solution:
Franchise Collection

Use of Recycled Materials

Here we consider the prospects for reusing material recovered from municipal solid waste.

Composting

There will almost certainly be market demand for any amount of compost that would feasibly be produced.

The image: "compost_demand.svg" cannot be found!

Source: 15. Souces of compost assessed include municipal solid waste, biosolids (products from wastewater treatment), horticultural and silvicultural (forestry) waste, and agricultural waste. Although the study is old, we expect the basic conclusion, that there is sufficient demand for any amount of compost that could reasonably be produced, remains true.

The average American generates almost a third of a ton of yard and food waste per year. Of 94 facilities examined in a recent survey, 17 composted fewer than 5000 tons of organic matter per year 16, and so a compost facility can be viable serving as few as 15,000 residents, though larger facilities tend to have lower per-ton costs 17.

Problem:
Lack of Composting Infrastructure
Solution:
Composting Infrastructure and Policy

Injection Molding

It is possible to use fibers that are not widely otherwise recycled, such as agricultural waste 18, degraded paper fibers 18, or plastics other than HDPE and PET 19, for injection molding to make plastic parts. Recycled material saves energy relative to injection molding with virgin material.

The image: "energy_molding.svg" cannot be found!

Source: 18.

Aggregates

Construction aggregates refer to a range of particulate construction material, including sand and gravel. Recycled material from construction and demolition waste or fly ash can be used in place of freshly mined material 20. Recycled aggregates tend to be cheaper than virgin aggregates, but their mechanical properties are often inferior 21. About three quarters of aggregates used are for non-structural purposes 21, creating an opportunity for recycled material, and recycled aggregates can be used for some structural purposes as well 22.

Waste-to-Energy

Waste-to-energy, particularly incineration, generally does not perform as well environmentally as recycling. However, waste-to-energy may be preferable to landfilling. Emerging waste-to-energy, such as pyrolysis applied to municipal solid waste, is generally preferable to incineration.

The image: "pyrolysis_lca.svg" cannot be found!

Source: 23. Environmental metrics are reported for processing of one ton of mixed plastic, based on the average products in the European Union. Although pyrolysis is found to perform better than other waste-to-energy options on greenhouse gas emissions, the performance is worse on some other metrics.

Pyrolysis can be applied to many types of organic matter, including wood; organic waste; argicultural, forestry, and pulping residue; paper; cloth; plastics; and food and yard waste 24. Pyrolysis can make char, liquid synthetic fuel, or biogas 24.

Problem:
Low Recycling Rates
Solution:
Recovery Facilities

Exotic Approaches

A fusion torch is a hypothetical device that would use superheating plasma from a nuclear fusion device to break apart waste materials and sort them by chemical element 25. Such a process would require a yet-unbuilt fusion generator, perhaps an aneutronic device 26, and would be highly energy intensive 27. There has been little recent development.

References

  1. Dubanowitz, A. "Design of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) For Processing the Recyclable Materials of New York City’s Municipal Solid Waste". Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Earth Resources Engineering, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science Columbia University. May 2000. ↩

  2. Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. "Materials Recovery Facility Feasibility Report". Prepared for City of Tucson Environmental Services. November 2008. ↩

  3. Harris, T., Dick, R., Kim, M., Oliver, A., Coronella, C. "Economic Analysis of Waste Recycling Options for Washoe County". University of Nevada, Reno, Center for Economic Development. March 2011. ↩

  4. Montgomery County Recycling Consortium. "Preliminary Materials Recovery Facility Evaluation". March 2021. ↩

  5. O'Keefe, K., Uijt. S., Glazer, J. "Materials Recovery Facility for Athens and Hocking Counties". Submitted by the Appalachia Ohio Zero Waste Initiative, submitted to the Athens-Hocking Solid Waste District. October 2012. ↩

  6. Paben, J. "Survey shows fast-rising MRF processing costs". Resource Recycling. June 2020. ↩

  7. Kessler Consulting, Inc. "MRFing Our Way to Diversion: Capturing the Commercial Waste Stream". Prepared for Pinellas County. September 2009. ↩

  8. Southeast Recycling Development Council. "Characterization of Tennessee’s Recycling Economy". January 2013. ↩

  9. Koerth, M. "The Era Of Easy Recycling May Be Coming To An End". FiveThirtyEight. January 2019. ↩

  10. Eureka Recycling. "A Comparative Analysis Of Applied Recycling Collection Methods in St. Paul". March 2002. ↩

  11. Lakhan, C. "A Comparison of Single and Multi-Stream Recycling Systems in Ontario, Canada". Resources 4(2), pp. 384-397. June 2015. ↩

  12. HDR. "An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling". Prepared for Waste Diversion Ontario Continuous Improvement Fund Office. November 2013. ↩

  13. Shows, B. "MRF Economics". 36th Annual Conference & State of Recycling, Kalamazoo Radisson. May 2018. ↩

  14. Peck, M., Chipman, R. "Industrial energy and material efficiency: What role for policies?". 2007. ↩

  15. Buhr, A. B., McClure, T., Slivka, D. C., Albrecht, R. "Compost Supply and Demand". BioCycle, Battelle, pp. 54-58. January 1993. ↩

  16. Goldstein, N. "Quantifying Existing Food Waste Composting Infrastructure In The U.S.". BioCycle. 2018. ↩

  17. Center for Clean Air Policy. "Financial Work Plan for a Composting Project in Arequipa". Prepared for Municipalidad Provincial de Arequipa, on behalf of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition Municipal Solid Waste Initiative. July 2019. ↩

  18. Zhang, Y., Duan, C., Bokka, S. K., He, Z., Ni, Y. "Molded Fiber and Pulp Products as Green and Sustainable Alternatives to Plastics: A Mini Review". Journal of Bioresoures and Bioproducts, in Press. October 2021. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  19. Vassallo, C., Rochman, A., Refalo, P. "The impact of polymer selection and recycling on the sustainability of injection moulded parts". Procedia CRIP 90, pp. 504-509. 2020. ↩

  20. Specify Concrete. "Using Recycled Concrete Aggregate". February 2019. ↩

  21. CDE Global Inc. "Technology and Practice Key to Optimising Concrete with Recycled Materials". September 2020. ↩ ↩2

  22. Pacheco, J., de Brito, J. "Recycled Aggregates Produced from Construction and Demolition Waste for Structural Concrete: Constituents, Properties and Production". Materials (Basel) 14(19), 5748. October 2021. ↩

  23. Krüger, C. "Evaluation of pyrolysis with LCA–3 case studies". 2020. ↩

  24. Czajczyńska, D., Anguilano, L., Krzyżyńska, R., Reynolds, A. J., Spencer, N., Jouhara, H. "Potential of pyrolysis processes in the waste management sector". Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 3, pp. 171-197. September 2017. ↩ ↩2

  25. Eastlund, B. J., Gough, W. C. The fusion torch : closing the cycle from use to reuse. Division of Research, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission ; Washington, D.C. : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. 1969. ↩

  26. Eastlund, B. J., Gough, W. C. A review of fusion torch applications. IEEE international conference on plasma science; San Diego, CA (USA); 25-27 May 1983. May 1983. ↩

  27. Porter, W. A., Hagler, M. O., Kristiansen, M. "Global Temperature Effects of the Use of Fusion Energy and the Fusion Torch". IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 18(1), pp. 31-36. February 1971. ↩