LAWR

MRF Designing a new MRF: An expert's guide Jonathan Clarke, global sales director for TOMRA Sorting Recycling, considers the steps waste management companies should take to ensure their material recovery facilities (MRFs) deliver optimal results from the outset. ebruary's announce- ment that the MRF Code of Practice should be implemented by October 2014 was wel- comed by many. By setting benchmarks, the code should result in higher and more dependable quality output, improving the efficiency of the UK's recycling industry, and also improving its reputation, both here on home turf and further afield. However, the Code will not work in isolation. Although we have some outstanding examples of appropriately designed and well-managed MRFs, there are sadly many more that are failing to operate anywhere near as effectively as they could. This is largely due to a lack of planning, understanding and collaboration prior to these MRFs being built. A well-designed fully automated plant has the potential to vastly increase the profitability of modern MRFs, yet all too often this isn't the case. An estimated four in five UK MRFs are not operating to their full potential because far too little attention is being given to ensuring that the MRF is equipped with appropriate technology. Investment in the UK's recycling sector continues to rise, creating opportunities for new MRFs to be designed and built across a range of material sectors. The commercial and industrial (C&I) sector, for example, is experiencing considerable growth. With this investment taking place, it's vital that those involved in the development of new MRFs ensure they get the design process right first time. Trying to correct a badly or incorrectly designed MRF once built is nigh on impossible, not to mention vastly expensive. The tender stage When designing a new MRF from scratch, an obvious first step would be to visit reference sites throughout the UK – and further afield if appropriate – to determine what is and isn't working. However, this alone is insufficient research as every MRF will have its own unique design and operational challenges. The waste industry is fairly unique in that, when it comes to MRFs, design and build is normally carried out by the same company. With the plant builder's key objective often being to ensure that the MRF gets accepted, it shouldn't be assumed that their objectives will be the same as the MRF operators. Operators must therefore bring together experts that can advise on all aspects of the new facility. By engaging in early consultation with these plant builders, engineering companies and technology providers, there is an early opportunity to put all the ideas into a giant 'mixing pot' and come up with the best solution for the proposed plant. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the development of new MRFs is the highly competitive nature of the UK's waste management industry. Companies investing in new MRFs want them to be profitable from the outset and will put considerable pressure on plant builders and engineering companies to deliver maximum returns on minimum design and build costs. This can actually be highly detrimental as, in order to ensure they secure the contract, some plant builders may not propose the optimal treatment processes for the facility. The design of every MRF will be unique and warning bells should sound if plant operators should not trust that a 'black box' approach to the tendering process. They should instead be prepared to go into detail and question all aspects of the plant's operation. Moreover, operators should appoint their plant builder on the basis of their expertise and knowledge, rather than on cost alone. It is vital that the best available technology is chosen and that emphasis is placed on long-term performance and back-up service. Failure to do this can lead to significant problems when it becomes operational. Consideration should be given, among others, to in-country service support, training, product reliability, track record for performance guarantees, flexibility of the solution to adapt to continuously changing output specification and stability of the units. Taking these factors into consideration at the very " An estimated four in five UK MRFs are not operating to their potential " 10 Local Authority Waste & Recycling June 2014 F June 2014 Local Authority Waste & Recycling 11 MRF early stages will save MRF operators money and pitfalls in the long-term, ultimately increasing profitability. Knowledge is king Automation has a lot to offer MRF operators. It can vastly reduce labour requirements, increase recovery of materials, improve quality of materials, deliver consistent plant performance and recover certain materials that the human eye can't easily identify. However, to fully benefit from automation and optimise recovery of target materials, it is essential for MRF operators to optimise the upstream plant design to get the most out of automated sorters. This all starts with a detailed understanding of the composition of the in-feed material – a key factor in the design and build of a new MRF facility. At TOMRA Sorting, we have come across a number projects where there is very little understanding of what the in-feed material will be. In some cases, operators may simply guess what will be put into it or they will base it on average industry figures. This approach is a recipe for disaster. Just as you would with any other production facility, operators need to know what they want to produce and why. They must undertake a waste characterisation study, so that they understand the percentage, sizes, density and variability of the in-feed material. A detailed knowledge of the end markets for the products and residue – outlets, specification and prices – is also key to understanding what is worth recovering and what isn't. Trials should also be considered as these will identify any issues at an early stage in the design process. If things go wrong when a plant becomes operational, plant builders may try to avoid paying penalties by claiming that the in-feed material wasn't right. In these situations nobody wins, so it is essential that MRF operators get heavily involved in the design process. It's definitely a case of 'if you would be well served, serve yourself'. In our experience, some of the most successful UK MRFs – examples include Viridor West Sussex (takes single stream commingled material), UPM Shotton (commingled with focus on producing paper), Weir's Waste in the West Midlands (commercial and industrial) and Wastebeater in Northern Ireland (commercial and industrial) – all adopted the same approach. The people behind their development took a keen interest in design, really knew their business, tested where possible and consulted TOMRA Sorting in a huge amount of detail from the earliest stages. There's a lot that MRF operators could learn from adopting this approach when developing any new facilities in the months and years ahead. Jonathan Clarke is global sales director for TOMRA Sorting Recycling.

• Cover