11. Confidential and Proprietary. Copyright (c) by Titus MRF Services. All Rights Reserved.
Project Portfolio – Stakeholder Studies, Portable
Sorting and LA Secondary MRF
The McKinsey article comes at a time when the American
Chemistry Council also recently looked at the issue with similar
findings.
A study performed by Titus MRF Services of Danville, Calif., for
the ACC concludes that collecting the back-end material from
MRFs on a regional basis would give a secondary MRF the
needed volume to pull out enough quality recyclables to
support operations.
12. Providing Sustainable Solutions for Material Recovery
Explain the chicken or the egg when it comes to recycling low
volume materials
The "chicken or the egg" problem in the context of recycling
low volume materials refers to the challenge of determining
which should come first: the development of technology and
infrastructure for recycling these materials, or the creation of a
market for them. Without the technology and infrastructure in
place, it can be difficult to recycle low volume materials, but
without a market for them, there may be little incentive to
develop such technology and infrastructure. This creates a
Catch-22 situation where the lack of one aspect prevents the
development of the other, leading to the question of which
should come first in order to break the impasse.
17. • 460 lbs./12 months = 38 lbs/month
• 52 homes equal one ton (raise rates $3 per home close the loop)
• MRFs send to market 80% of the 38 lbs
• 4 lbs are not recycled at the MRF and an opportunity to
improve the quality of existing plastics bales generated at a
MRF
23. What is the optimal way to expand secondary
processing?
Issue license to sort residual region by region and deploy the Secondary MRF Line as designed by Titus
• Target Plastic Recycling Facilities (PRFs) and Feedstock Preparation Facilities (FPF)s
• Work with Cities, MRFs, and using existing equipment manufacturers to modify or add a processing line
capable of processing the last 4 lbs in a residence recycling bin to close the loop for up to 1,400,000 residences or
about 3,640,000 people
Capital cost is $3 to $6M and collection and sort incremental cost is by household is $2.00 to $3.00 per month.
• Can a Municipality or MRF provider find means and methods to capture an additional $3 per month rate
increase?
• Will a resident pay more for a collection and sorting service that deliver a 5% increase in diversion and no
ocean pollution plastic leakage?
Our solution is to enhance curbside collection and sorting SERVICE to
residents and cities and cover the cost thru residential collection fees.
26. Providing Sustainable Solutions for Material
Recovery
• Provide installation services to existing
equipment suppliers
• Assist in altering designs to facilitate
sorting the container line residual stream
from primary MRFs
• Assist in altering design to facilitate the
soring of post fiber reject from MRFs
• Provide patent protection for processing
MRF residual (Regional license)
• Work with operators on how best to sort
residual material
• Work with operators on how to maximize
the data from closing the loop on the
recycling bin