A secondary MRF is a regional sortation facility that takes the materials primary MRFs cannot economically sort and processes them at scale to recover value. It is the next layer in the recycling system. It is also one of the most underused tools in operator and policy playbooks.
We have authored four regional secondary MRF studies (California, Pacific Northwest, Northeast, and Chicago) and hold the patent on the business model (US 8,813,972 B1). This is the operator-level explainer.
The short answer
A primary MRF is the facility your curbside hauler delivers to. It takes mixed single-stream material from cities and counties, sorts the high-volume commodities (cardboard, paper, PET bottles, HDPE bottles, aluminum cans, steel cans, glass), and bales them for sale to mills and reclaimers.
A secondary MRF takes what is left behind. That includes:
- The residual stream from the end of the container line
- Yield loss from the fiber line
- Mixed plastics #3 through #7
- Film and flexible packaging
- Cartons, polypropylene, polystyrene, PLA
- Any low-volume material the primary MRF cannot run at economic scale
The secondary MRF aggregates these materials from a network of primary MRFs across a regional waste-shed, runs them through optical sorters, screens, air classifiers, and a five-pass sortation process, and ships clean truckload commodities to traditional markets and advanced (chemical) recycling end users.
Why the primary MRF cannot do this work
Primary MRFs typically recover 80% to 90% of the materials they are contracted to sort, which is excellent for the materials they target. The challenge is the other side of that number.
What gets missed at a primary MRF:
- Low-volume materials. Cartons, PLA, polypropylene, polystyrene. None of these generate enough weekly tonnage at a single primary MRF to justify dedicated sortation equipment.
- Difficult-to-sort plastics. Black plastics absorb near-infrared energy and are invisible to NIR optical sorters. Full-shrink-label packaging hides the underlying resin.
- Film and flexible packaging. Film tangles in disc screens, wraps around shafts, and causes downtime. Most primary MRFs reject film outright.
- Machine yield loss. Even the best optical sorter ejects 5% to 10% of its target material into the wrong stream. Multiplied across an entire sort line, that adds up to tons per day of misidentified commodity.
A primary MRF chasing those streams individually would price itself out of its city contract. A secondary MRF aggregating that material from ten primary MRFs across a region has the volume to make it economic.
The hub-and-spoke model
The architecture is simple:
- Spokes = primary MRFs across a metropolitan or regional waste-shed
- Hub = one secondary MRF that takes the residual from all the spokes
Each primary MRF ships its end-of-container-line residual (and optionally its fiber-line yield loss) to the hub. The hub processes that material through a single high-throughput sortation system designed specifically for what primary MRFs cannot capture.
The hub does not compete with the primary MRFs. It extends them. Each primary MRF in the network now has a recovery destination for everything that used to go to the landfill.
What we proved in Chicago
In an eight-week demonstration funded by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste and the Recycling Partnership, the Council of the Great Lakes Region commissioned us to test the secondary MRF model at four primary MRFs in greater Chicago.
The result: 79% recovery from residual material. That outperformed our prior California (49.9%), Pacific Northwest (50.7%), and Northeast (50.7%) studies.
Scaled to a regional facility, the projection model showed:
- 85,000 tons diverted from landfill annually
- 67,150 tons of additional commodity recovered per year
- 187,000 tons MTCO₂e of greenhouse gas reduction
- 46 green jobs created
Read the full Chicago Secondary Sort Demonstration case study →
What a secondary MRF recovers
Based on the projected output from a Chicago-region facility, here is the commodity breakdown a hub would produce annually:
| Material | Tons/year | Market | |---|---|---| | Chemical / advanced recycling feedstock | 32,256 | Advanced recycling | | Mixed paper (ISRI PS-54) | 23,345 | Mills | | Polypropylene (#5 PP) | 3,791 | Reclaimers | | HDPE + LDPE | 2,552 | Reclaimers | | PET (#1) | 2,096 | Reclaimers | | PLA | 764 | Composters / specialty | | Aluminum cans | 596 | Smelters | | Metals (ferrous + non-ferrous) | 544 | Mills | | Polystyrene (#6 PS) | 456 | Specialty | | Cartons (ISRI PS-52) | 397 | Mills | | Film | 353 | Reclaimers / WTE |
41% goes to traditional commodity markets. 38% goes to advanced (chemical) recycling. The remainder is residual.
Who benefits
A secondary MRF is not a single-stakeholder play. The model creates value across the chain.
Municipalities and residents
- "Blue Bin Accountability" — residents see the full chain of where their recyclables go
- Reduced environmental impact
- Improved diversion rates measurable per city
- New recycling and clean technology jobs
Material Recovery Facilities (the primary MRFs)
- Operational flexibility for the evolving ton
- Reduced costs from machine yield loss
- Revenue share from secondary commodity sales
- Adaptability to new packaging formats
Downstream mills and processors
- Higher-quality feedstock that meets domestic mill requirements
- Processing of mill rejects to improve overall yield
- Faster reaction to new business opportunities
Brand owners and packaging producers
- Pathway to product stewardship at scale
- Markets for low-volume materials they put on shelves
- Cost-effective compliance with recycled-content goals and EPR mandates
The business model and the patent
The Titus secondary MRF concept is protected by US Patent 8,813,972 B1. The patent covers the business model of aggregating low-volume and difficult-to-sort materials, plus machine yield loss, from a network of primary MRFs and reprocessing them at a regional scale.
The equipment and technology inside the building are similar to what a modern primary MRF runs. The patented innovation is the system architecture: how the feedstock is gathered, how it is concentrated, and how it is converted into truckload commodities at scale.
The economics
For the greater Chicago waste-shed, our modeled secondary MRF would require:
- $21 million in equipment plus $4 million in working capital
- 45,000 square feet on 2 to 3 acres
- 7,000 tons per month target throughput, scaling to 10,000 tons per month capacity
- $100 per ton operating cost ($708,000/month)
- $425,000/month revenue from commodity sales
- $354,000/month in landfill cost avoidance
At landfill cost equivalent, the facility generates $71,000 per month positive cash flow without subsidies or scrap-price tailwinds. With end-market improvements, profitability scales toward $144,000/month.
For a private investor at 13% ROI, the cost per household to fund this regionally works out to roughly $0.50 per month, or $6 per year per residence.
How EPR changes everything
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation is the single biggest structural change to the recycling system in a generation. Under EPR, the producers of packaging are required to fund the recovery and recycling of that packaging. California (SB 54), Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Maine have already passed EPR laws. More states are in queue.
EPR makes the secondary MRF economic case stronger:
- Higher recovery targets mean primary MRFs alone cannot meet the mandate. Secondary processing fills the gap.
- Funding shifts from rate-payers to producers. The willingness to pay for more complete recovery increases.
- Traceability requirements under EPR are easier to satisfy when a hub-and-spoke architecture provides the data trail.
- Material expansion is required. Films, flexibles, and low-volume formats that primary MRFs reject today must be recovered. That is the secondary MRF's job.
EPR is not a tailwind that might happen. It is happening now. Any region planning recycling infrastructure for the next decade has to factor in producer-responsibility funding and secondary processing capacity.
When a region needs a secondary MRF
Five conditions where a regional secondary MRF makes sense:
- Multiple primary MRFs in a metropolitan waste-shed generating residual streams that today go to landfill
- Local landfill life under 15 years — Chicago's is currently under 9
- EPR legislation in place or coming that requires expanded recovery and producer funding
- Brand owners with recycled-content commitments in the region looking for compliant feedstock supply
- Advanced or chemical recycling capacity within reach for the residual that mechanical sortation cannot capture
If three or more of those describe your region, a secondary MRF model deserves a feasibility study.
What Titus does next
We have authored four regional studies (California, Pacific Northwest, Northeast, Chicago). We hold the patent. We own and operate the portable secondary MRF that proved the model.
For municipalities, EPR organizations, and brand owner consortia evaluating regional sortation infrastructure, we offer:
- Feasibility studies modeled to your waste-shed
- Material characterization and recovery rate projections
- Hub-and-spoke architecture design
- Full-scale facility design, build, and commissioning
The fastest path is a conversation. Tell us about the region, the primary MRFs in the catchment, the EPR exposure, and what you are trying to solve.