Review of Related Literature

1. Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

A materials recovery facility (MRF) accepts waste materials that may be source separated
or mixed, separates and processes those waste materials, and stores them for later use as raw
materials for manufacturing and reprocessing. It is part of a Regional Waste Management
System place where the dry fraction of municipal solid wastes are delivered to be separated,
processed and temporarily stored for transport to recycling or remanufacturing. MRFs that
receive source separated dry materials such as paper, glass, cans, and plastics are known as
“clean MRFs” and are an integral component of any waste management system (Ryan,
2010).

Materials recovery facility can be classified as either clean or dirty MRF. Clean MRF
receives waste that are already separated and usually constructed in areas where there are
high degree of separation at source while dirty MRF accepts mixed waste. Although the
output are the same, papers recovered from the latter are likely to be contaminated (Asian
Development Bank (ADB), 2013).

In terms of operation, MRF can be manually operated, semi-automated, or fully automated.

Manually operated MRF involves manual labor in the sorting of wastes. In Semi-automated
MRF, several mechanical equipment like conveyors are added to help facilitate in the sorting
of wastes. And in fully automated, sorting is done by machines alone and the interaction of
human and waste are very limited (ADB, 2013).

2. Role of Materials Recovery and Recycling on Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Materials Recovery Facility is an essential part of any solid waste management systems.
Solid waste management has to do with the handling of refuse, from the point of generation
through storage, collection, transportation, recovery, and treatment process to disposal.
Proper solid waste management is vital to a community. But it is difficult to come up with
a solid waste management system which can utilize all generated biodegradable and non-
biodegradable wastes in every household (Malinauskaite et al., 2017). Maton et al. (2016)
argued that integrated solid waste management practices and principles of sorting of waste
at source of generation would reduce the adverse impacts on human health while eliminating
the effects on the environment through waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. In addition to
that, Malinauskaite et al. also argued that sorting is very important part of waste
 management wherein sorted wastes can be further treated and recovered using special
facilities like MRF. Furthermore, Valderama (2013) argued that the efficiency of solid waste
management relies on the proper segregation and diversion of solid waste. The poor
management of these wastes poses a great danger not only in polluting the environment but
also to human well-being (Maton, Kigun, & Ogalla, 2016). Recycling and materials
recovery are gaining more grounds in applicability as viable options to sustainable waste
management especially in municipal solid waste schemes (Asong, 2010). But from the result
of the study conducted by Othman and Yuhaniz about the recycling of domestic waste
among the terrace house residents in Shah Alam, it was found out that aside from being not
knowledgeable in recycling, the main reason of the people for not recycling is that there was
no waste separation facility in their area. Asong stated that although recycling is not well
practiced in some areas, it will be more useful than the highly practiced dumping and
landfilling because it significantly reduce the quantity of wastes going to landfill and
conserve valuable landfill spaces.

3. Establishment of LGU Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 or Republic Act 9003 was created to
provide an ecological waste management program, creating the necessary institutional
mechanisms and incentives, declaring certain acts prohibited and providing penalties,
appropriating funds therefor, and for other purposes. Section 32 of this act states that there
shall be established Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in every barangay or cluster of
barangays. The facility shall be established in a barangay-owned or –leased land or any
suitable open space to be determined by the barangay through its Sanggunian. For this
purpose, the barangay shall allocate a certain parcel of land for the MRF. The MRF shall
receive mixed waste for final sorting, segregation, composting, and recycling. Section 33 of
this act provides guidelines and some considerations for establishment of Materials
Recovery Facility (MRF). It shall be designed to receive, sort, processes, and store
compostable and recyclable material efficiently and in environmentally sound manner. The
facility shall address the following considerations:

a. The building and/or land layout and equipment must be designed to accommodate
efficient and safe materials processing, movement, and storage; and
b. The building must be designed to allow efficient and safe external access and to
accommodate internal flow.
4. Waste Analysis and Characterization

The amount of waste generated and its composition is an important basis in the planning
and design of Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). In order to properly design a MRF, it is
advisable, among other tasks, to perform an analysis of the waste stream, i.e., a waste
characterization study, so that the variety and relative quantities of incoming materials can
be identified and determined (Peer Consultants P.C. & CalRecovery, 1991). The type of
equipment and the sizing of the facility will depend on the volume and types of waste
generated that will be delivered to the MRF. An analysis of waste stream can suggest
whether an investment in sorting equipment to improve recovery rates will pay off in
commodities sales. It is therefore important to have a Waste Analysis and Characterization
Study (WACS) to determine the amount of potential recyclable materials since not all waste
materials collected can be recovered and recycled. As indicated in the WACS Manual, the
Waste Analysis and Characterization Study or WACS generates basic data for planning the
solid waste management which includes the establishment of materials recovery facility.
These includes waste generation at source; total waste generation within collection area and
in the whole LGU; composition of waste generated at source; volume composition of waste
brought to the disposal site; potential percentage of waste for diversion at source and at
disposal site; and percentage of generated waste within collection area that are not collected
or accounted for.

5. Waste Generation, Waste Generators and Waste Composition

Waste generation rates indicate how much waste can be generated by a given city or
municipality, which can potentially serve as the source of recyclables for MRFs (ADB,
2013). The MRF proponent should take note that generation rates increase with economic
activity and should be updated by conducting WACS for a more updated and realistic
estimate of potential recyclable waste (ADB, 2013).
In preparing a 10-year solid waste management plan, which includes the establishment of
MRF, demographic changes through time of an area must be considered because as
population increases, the amount of solid waste generated also increases. It is therefore
required to project the population for ten years using average growth rate to determine the
amount of waste that will be generated (Valderrama, 2010). The design of the MRF must
 perform its intended use for a minimum of ten years. It is therefore important to obtain
projected amount of wastes for ten years to have a basis for the design of the facility. In the
study by Saeed et al. (2009), they observed that the yearly solid waste generation in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia is linear and predicted the future trend to determine the possible amount
of waste to be generated in the future.

According to the Materials Recovery Facility Toolkit, the nature of waste generators should
be considered in planning MRFs. Residential areas discard newspaper, mixed paper,
plastics, clothing, food packaging, cans, bottles, food scraps, and yard trimmings.
Commercial and institutional establishments dispose cardboard, office paper, mixed paper,
newspaper, packaging materials, and food waste. Schools and offices produce
predominantly paper waste. Industrial facilities produce more packaging materials than
most waste generators. Hotel and restaurants generate a large amount of plastic bottles and
tin cans.

6. Siting of Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

In siting MRF, it is important to consider the separation distances of the facility to lessen
potential environmental conflicts between non-compatible land uses and the facility, and to
minimize the possibility of public complaints and environmental issues (Ryan, 2010).
Accessibility, land use and site geology are also need to be considered (ADB, 2013). The
two authors both argued that MRF shall be located away from environmentally sensitive
areas like schools, parks, hospitals, etc. In the toolkit provided by ADB, a minimum of 100
meters buffer zone is suggested to be used to those areas. In addition to that, MRFs shall not
be located in flood prone areas and in sloping areas which will require additional excavation
cost and to avoid slope stability problems. Moreover, it should be located near transportation
arterials and provide for easy access and egress. Furthermore, MRF should be located near
population centers and collection sources (Patrick Engineering, 2010).

7. Design of Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

Aside from the amount and kinds of waste to be generated and brought to the MRF, the
nature of collected waste can affect the design and operation of MRF (ADB, 2013). The
manner on how the solid wastes are delivered to the MRF plays an important role in the
design of the facility. Collected mixed wastes are fed into clean MRF while segregated
recyclable materials are delivered to dirty MRF (ADB, 2013). Kessler Consulting Inc.
(2009) presented the different ways on how waste materials can be delivered to the MRF:

 Source separated – Incoming recyclables have been sorted by type at the

point of collection, e.g., drop-off and curb-sort collection programs. Some
processing might be needed to further sort materials, such as separating steel
cans from aluminum cans and sorting glass by color, but the primary purpose
of the facility is to remove contaminants and prepare the material for
marketing, often by baling, flattening, or crushing.
 Dual stream – Recovered materials are received in two streams, typically
fiber (newspaper, magazines and catalogs, mixed paper, cardboard, etc.) and
commingled containers (plastic, glass, metal, and sometimes aseptic
containers). Separation of materials is accomplished by a combination of
automated equipment and manual sorting.
 Single stream – Recovered materials are received in a single stream, with
fiber and commingled containers combined. The first stages of processing
typically utilize equipment that separates the material into two streams (fiber
and containers), which are further sorted using equipment similar to that used
in dual stream MRFs.
 Mixed waste – Unsegregated mixed waste is processed using various
technologies to separate mixed recyclable materials from waste. Recyclable
materials are then processed using equipment similar to a single stream
MRF.

Wide bays utilizing a minimum number of interior columns is preferred to present the least
possible interference between workers and equipment (Peer Consultants P.C. &
CalRecovery, 1991). Similar to that, according to materials recovery facility toolkit which
is provided by the Asian Development Bank (2013), a typical Materials Recovery Facility
(MRF) is sited within a warehouse-type building to minimize the construction of columns
that could interfere with the operation and to allow for higher ceilings. In addition to that, it
should have the following components:

 Receiving or tipping area

 Sorting/processing area
 Storage area for recyclables
  Residuals storage area
 Equipment area
 Space for an office
 Loading area for residuals and processed recyclables

Manually operated MRFs with capacities of less than 2 tons per day have roofed floor areas
of not less than 50 square meters, which only contain the receiving, processing, and storage
areas (ADB, 2013). Consideration should also be made in the design of the building for
possible expansion and an increased on the amount of waste materials. Figure 1 below
shows a diagram of a manually operated MRF.

The receiving/tipping area shall be located within the roof of the building to protect from
outside weather. Also, tipping floor must be made of impermeable, sealed concrete, asphalt
or other material that will prevent possible subsoil and groundwater contamination.
Moreover, the floor shall be designed to withstand the wear of the hauling or transport
vehicles (Ryan, 2010).

Bobcock (2015) provided a list of the factors that dictates the types of the equipment to be
employed in a MRF. These are:

 Incoming material composition

 Annual volume of material available to be processed
 Markets & end use for recovered materials
  Capital available for investment
 Personal preference of plant equipment suppliers and/or operators on the
recovery technologies employed

8. Safety Inside the MRF

Safety of workers inside the MRF is one of the major concerns during its operation. Since
the processes involve direct contact between workers and the waste material, it imposes a
greater risk of acquiring injuries. According to Berg Mill Supply Company, the most
common health and safety risks faced by recycling workers include exposure to harmful
chemicals and biological substances as well as exposure to sharp objects like broken glass,
nails, sharp metals, and wood shards. Also, moving vehicles can put workers at risks of
being struck or run over. In addition to that, the dust produced from waste and recyclable
materials can have serious health consequences because it may contain microparticles of
plastics, glass, biohazards and other toxic substances. Furthermore, risk for musculoskeletal
disorders and injuries may be experienced while sorting materials. Noise also contributes to
the risks faced by workers inside the MRF as it can cause irreversible hearing damage as
stated by the Health and Safety Executive. In the study by Baltazar et al. (2015), it was
recommended that to reduce musculoskeletal disorders and injuries, hire additional workers
to work in the shift to lessen the frequency of repetitive actions made by the current number
of workers because repetitive actions in sorting is one of the common causes of muscle and
skeletal injuries. Avoid direct contact to hazardous waste. Separate wastes that contain
chemicals and do not store these materials where it can explode and cause fires. Since
personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, face mask, and proper work attire are
already available, the facilities should become stricter with their regulations regarding safety
and impose the use of PPEs during work hours. Provide guardrails to the machines,
specifically the bioreactor used in processing waste materials. Also, put barriers or fences
or warning signs around the compost pit. Provide at least one fire extinguisher per facility
in case of accidents involving fire and train employees regarding safety measures.

9. Operation Procedures for Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

10. Multi criteria
Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) is concerned with designing computational and
mathematical tools for supporting the subjective evaluation of performance criteria by
 decision-makers (Zavadskas, Turskis, & Kildienė, 2014). For the past years, techniques and
approaches have been suggested to choosing the optimal probable options (Jusoh, et al.,
2015).

One area in which MCDM is used is in the field of construction, project, safety and risk
management where AHP is the most used out of nine methods. (Jusoh, et al., 2015). AHP
is easy to use, scalable, hierarchy structure can easily adjust to fit many sized problems and
the data that are used are not intensive which is widely used in the fields of performance-
type problems, resource management, corporate policy and strategy, public policy, political
strategy, and planning (Velasquez & Hester, 2013)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), introduced by Thomas Saaty (1980), is an effective
tool for dealing with complex decision making, and may aid the decision maker to set
priorities and make the best decision. AHP is “a theory of measurement through pairwise
comparisons and relies on the judgments of experts to derive priority scales” (Saaty, 2008)
and it is one of the most used method in multi-criteria decision-making (MDCM). The AHP
considers a set of evaluation criteria, and a set of alternative options among which the best
decision is to be made. AHP method is based on three steps: first, structure of the model;
second, comparative arbitration of options and criteria and third, combination of priorities
(Da˘gdeviren, 2008).

Synthesis

Mismanagement of solid wastes can lead to serious health and environmental problems. The
Republic Act 9003 or The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was crafted to
prevent the looming garbage problems in every community through the participation and
cooperation of Local Government Units (LGUs). The provisions of the act includes the
establishment of MRF in every barangay or cluster of barangays to receive, sort, processes,
and store compostable and recyclable material efficiently and in environmentally sound
manner. Since not all communities, such as Angat, Bulacan, have their own established
MRF, this gave the researchers the enthusiasm to design an MRF for Angat, Bulacan as well
as to provide the necessary procedures in operating the MRF. For the MRF to be effective,
it should have the following floor areas: receiving or tipping area; sorting/processing area;
storage area for recyclables; residuals storage area; equipment area; space for an office; and
loading area for residuals and processed recyclables. The size of MRF will be determined
 from those floor areas. Waste Analysis and Characterization Study (WACS) is used as one
of the basis for design because it contains the amount and characteristics of solid wastes
generated and will be generated by the LGU. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used for
Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) because the researchers had to determine the
MRF that has the optimum design and operating procedures among the selected MRFs in
Bulacan. The optimum design will be adopted and a few modifications will be applied based
on the guidelines provided by the related literatures above for it to become suitable to Angat,
Bulacan.

Bibliography
Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2013). Materials Recovery Facility Toolkit. Mandaluyong City,
Philippines.

Asong, F. (2010, January 27). Recycling and Material Recovery in Cameroon: Implications for
Poverty Alleviation and Ecological Sustainability.

Baltazar, Salazar, & Gatdula. (2015, June). Safety and Health Risk Assessment in the Materials
Recovery Facility (MRF) in Los Banos, Laguna, Indang, Cavite, and Dasmarinas, Cavite.
University of the Philippines Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

Berg Mill Supply Company. (2017). Top 5 Health and Safety Risks Faced by Recycling Workers.

Bobcock, R. (2015). Report on Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction of Material Recovery
Facility. Burnaby: Metro Vancouver.

Current Trends in MRF Design and Operation. (2011). Retrieved from swana: https://swana.org

Da˘gdeviren, M. (2008). Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP
and PROMETHEE. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 19, 397.

EcoGov Project 2011. (2011). Waste Analysis and Charatcerization Study - A Manual. Pasig City:
USAID & EcoGov.

Health and Safety Executive. (2017, March 28). Noise in Material Recovery Facilities(MRFs).

Hickman. (2011). Current Trends in MRF Design and Operation.

Jusoh, A., Mardani, A., Nor, K. M., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple
criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – A Review . Economic
Research, 524.

Kessler Consulting, Inc. (2009). Materials Recovery Facility Technology Review.

Malinauskaite et al., J. (2017). Municipal Solid Waste Management and Waste-to-Energy in the
Context of a Circular Economy and Energy Recycling in Europe. Energy.

Maton, D., Kigun, P., & Ogalla, M. (2016). Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Pallative to
Existing Waste Management Challenges in Jabi-District, Abuja. Ethiopan Journal of
Environmental Studies and Management.

Patrick Engineering. (2010). Best Operational Practices Manual for Material Recovery Facilities
and Recycling Drop-off Facilities. Illinois: Illinois Recycling Association.

Peer Consultants P.C. & CalRecovery, I. (1991). Material Recovery Facilities for Municipal Solid
Waste. Washington.

Ryan, M. (2010, May). Environmental Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Material Recovery
Facilities. Newfoundland and Labrador.

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburg: Int. J. Services
Sciences.

Saeed, M., & Mujeebu, M. (2009). Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Generation and
Recyclable Materials Potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management, 2209-
2213.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 9003: The Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000. (n.d.). Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Environmental Management Bureau, 2006.

Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods .
International Journal of Operations Research , 56-66.

Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on
MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 165–
179.