1. WORKPACKAGE 3 Economic aspects AWASTWP 3

2. Participants Cemagref (France) Water and environmental engineering department Research Unit : Livestock and municipal wastes Management – Rennes Universitaet Stuttgart (Germany) Institute for Sanitary Engineering, Water Quality and Waste Management : ISWA AWASTWP 3

3. Objectives  Providing the economic aspects of the decision support system which will help decision makers to know which kind of system should be developed, respective of the local conditions.  A more accurate undestanding and control of municipal waste management service costs will be available and proposed to decision- makers.  Help waste management authorities maximize long term efficiency of MSW management system by minimizing its costs. AWASTWP 3

4. Work description  Task 1 : state of the art and data acquisition (Month 3 to 24)  Task 2 : definition of production cost models (Month 6 to 14)  Task 3 : calibration and validation of the models (Month 13 to 19) AWASTWP 3

5. Production costs by facility Thematic approach by facility - MSW Operations Data acquisition (production factors : Quantity, Unit costs) Collection Sorting Landfill WP 4 Biological Treatment WP 5 Thermal Treatment WP 6

6. Economic modelling Facility Direct costs InputsOutputs MSW Production factors Operating : - Labour - Energy - Supplies Maintenance Revenues (compost, energy, sale materials) Residus treatment Diagram of economics models

7. Methodology  Identify and inventory of the types of costs to take into account within a process standardisation between facilities to allow the global approach  Definition of parameter models by facility  Data acquisition on site in order to test each model of facility  Processing of available and newly acquired data (data standardisation according to the matter description defined)  Calibration and validation of the models (models for each activity and for the global system) AWASTWP 3

8. Cases studies Mathematical modelling (writing) Bibliography Mathematical equations estimated Questionnaire survey Definition of components costs Methodology of modelling costs Phase 1

9. Treatment plant C N Nominal capacity (tph, tpd, tpy) Operating costs Co Residues disposal : D Q : Flow waste Capital cost C K Product sales revenue : S - Labour : L - Energy : E - Reagents : R - Maintenance : M 1 6 4 2 5 3 Flowsheet of economic evaluation

10. Direct plant costs (DPC) Indirect plant costs (IPC) (Equipment costs) (Land, start- up, supervision) (Building and civil works costs) Total capital cost = C I = DPC + IPC C I = Fonction (C N, process) Existing models costs Model cost Data acquisition on plants and actualisation Annual capital cost = Ck = C I /T T : life plant / Estimation of capital costs

11. Capital cost of incineration plant C I = 275,7 x C N + 18 277 000 C N : tpy C I : in euros h t Source data : France : 15 plants Norway : Trondheim Austria : Vienna

12. Factor method : relation between component costs and basic variables Co = fonction (C N, Q, process) Co = aL + bE + cR + d.I E L : direct labour costs L, E, R, I E : basic variables E : energy costs R : reagent costs I E : equipment costs a, b, c, d, : processing factors are summed d. I E : maintenance costs Estimation of operating costs

13. Incineration : decomposition of the operating costs (Dry scrubber) Operating cost model Co = F + P + M – S or Co = (1,36 x L + 0,005 x I E ) + 1,10 x R + (0,023 x IE + 20 x Q) – 620 x P U x Q

14. Incineration : symbols explanation

15. Standards et variables locales

16. TYPES OF MRFs (1) Design capacity is determined for 3 000 hours per year running (2) Type 4 is particular to american regions Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA

17. MRF CAPITAL COSTS Methods for fixed-capital cost estimation  1st method : C FC = k. IEC  2nd method : C FC = h. C N,, h is a cost in € / 1000 t/y IEC, the installed equipment cost, can be:  calculated as a sum of equipment items costs, IEC = Σ i IEC i  estimated as IEC = f. C N, f is a cost in € / 1000 t C N is the design capacity. Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA

18. MRF OPERATING COSTS Methods for operating costs estimation:  1st method : C O = k (α. L + β. C FC )  2nd method : C O =λ L k is > 1, it accounts for overhead expenses α. L represents Direct Cost, that includes Labour, utilities and repairs β. C FC represents Maintenance This method is used when no sufficient data are available (types 3,4) L is labour cost, it depends on type of MRF and number of shifts per day. L= Σ k w k l k where k= sorters, conductors, foreman, etc. l = number of k workers w = unit cost of a k worker Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA

19. Flowsheet to calculate the collection cost Flowsheet to calculate the collection cost Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA AWASTWP 3 Waste collection on area Requirements : vehicles crews containers Waste quantity Qs COST ANALYSISLOCAL AUTHORITIESTECHNICAL ANALYSISWASTE STREAM Collection data by collection system Components costs by data processing Collection cost model Cp = Cc + Co Collection data France / Germany Crew efficiency Rc = f (CL) Vehicle efficiency Residual waste Dry recyclables Biowaste TOTAL PRODUCTION COST UNIT PRODUCTION COST (per waste stream) 1

20. Cost determining factors Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA AWASTWP 3 2

21. Work time and number of trips to facility assessments 1. Definition of the work time per day : Tc : collection available time Tj = Tc + (Nt x Th) + Tb Th : haul time Tb : break time 2. Definition of the work per week and per year : T =  Tj = j x Tj(France : T = 5 x 7 = 35) 3. Number of trips per day determination : Nt = Tc / Tv Tv : vehicle loading time Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA AWASTWP3 3

22. The different collection systems 4 WP3AWAST Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA

23. Crew efficiency graphs Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA AWASTWP 3 5 Rc = f (CL) BRING COLLECTION Emptying rate : t = emptying time / container (2 - 6 min) Qj = Re x Tc KERBSIDE COLLECTION

24. Model of waste collection cost  Capital cost : C C = I v / d  Operating cost : C O  Production cost : C P = C C + C O Wages : L = Σ l k  w k Energy : E = Ce  Dy Collection follow-ups : determination of , ,  Trondheim - 20-21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA AWASTWP 3 6

25. PRODUCTION COSTS  COLLECTION : C P = 1.7572  L + 1.287  E + (0.0805+1/d)  I v  Take into account the utilization rates for : - the vehicle : d = (35  7) / (Tj  j) - the crew :full-time :L share-time :L 1, L 2 L 1 + L 2 = L under-time :L  [ T / (Tj  j)]  PRECOLLECTION : C’ P = N w  I’ r  (  2 ’ + 1/n’) required containers / week / crew:Nw = (Nj  j) / f = (Nr  Nt  j) / f Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA AWASTWP 3 7

26. Example of collection costs calculation Hypothesis :- vehicle : Vv ; n = 7 ; Nt = 1 - crew : full-time work ; Rc - one waste stream of annual quantity : Qs - number of vehicles = number of crews = Ns Collection data : Equipment / crews required :- collection time : Ts = Qs / (52 x j x Rc) - number of crews : Ns >= Ts / Tc Annual production cost : Cp = .Ns.L + .Ce.Dy + .Ns.I v Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA AWASTWP 3 8

27. AWASTWP 3 Full cost of MSW Service Global approach – Integrated MSW management Collections Sorting Composting Incineration Landfill General administration Executive oversight Indirect costsDirect costs Local Authority +

28. OMR 79 347,4 DEM 1 500,53 JM 7 718,9 OM 93 568,07 OM tri 5 001,24 Déchetteries 51 252,61 DAS 2 161,98 DIB 3 942,72 Verre 6 083,89 Graisse 669,28 Compostage 5 001,24 Incinération Centre de tri sélectif Compost 2 000,5 REFIOM 1 414,08 Mâchefers 20 289,52 Acier 2 824,82 Al 47,82 Energie 35 254 MWh Papier 4 628,48 Carton et Tetra-pack 2 168,1 Flaconnages plastics 578,76 Acier 526,42 Al 17,46 CET1 Verre 6 083,89 Eaux traitées 495,41 ? 40 ? 1 300,21 Evaporation 1 101,08 Maturation 20 289,52 Verre 849,379 Tout venant 14 961,65 Végétaux 14 175,01 Gravats 16 186,49 Papiers 874,56 Cartons 1 313,6 Ferrailles 2 503,46 Plastiques 23,8 Huiles 120,07 D.M.S 154,33 Pneus 55,6 Batteries 34,66 2 824 val. 47,82 val. 28 944 à EDF 6 310 MWh auto-consommation -3 192,48stocks 23 482 val. 4 356,44 val. 272,04 stocks 1 908,93 val. 259,16 stocks 477,75 val. 101,01 stocks 494,04 val. 32,38 stocks 14,24 val. 3,52 stocks Refus = 1 899,66 Refus = 261,45 2 161,98 + 3 942,72 +133,87 = 7 238,57 79 347,4 AWASTWP3 Materials flow’s synoptic : the case of Orléans Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref

29. AWASTWP3 Method of knowledge costs Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref Waste collection Incineration plant Q1+Q2 Q1 Q2 Other authorities Local authority A Stream Activity Bottom Ash Fly AshLandfill 1 Landfill 2 Illustration with the thermal path Level Boundaries Costs A Plant Production cost by activity B Stream Production cost by stream C Local authority Providing cost of local authority B C

30. AWASTWP3 Production cost per activity (Level A) : the case of Orléans, year 2000 Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref

31. AWASTWP3 Cost per path or stream (level B) : the case of Orléans (France), year 2000 Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref

32. AWASTWP3 Full cost providing for local authority (level C) : the case of Orléans, year 2000 Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref

33. SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS AWASTWP 3 Trondheim - 20 - 21 June 2002 - Cemagref

34. PROBLEMS ENCOUTERED  Requirements : available actual data, updated data, updatable data  Modelling waste collection : limited to main waste stream( residual, packaging, biowaste)  Sorting, composting : necessary to define a typology of the technologies  Landfill, anaerobic digestion : available data from only litterature review  Full cost : identification of indirect costs components on case studies  Difficulty to obtain data : in spite of the achievement of questionnaire of collection data ( operating plant by private firms )  Deliverable D6 ( Methodology ) : we have a delay on the deliverable D6 ( provisional draft)  Full cost of the service : will be achieved in year 3 ( with the analysis of case studies) Trondheim - 20 - 21 June 2002 - Cemagref AWASTWP 3 7

35. ECONOMIC ASPECTS - FOR THE NEXT 6 MONTHS  Collection : validation of the model of waste collection with data of Stuttgart ( urban area)  Composting : data costs collection in France, Portugal, Germany ( in waiting ) : Modelling production cost  Landfill and transfer station : modelling production cost ( with litterature review )  Deliverable D6 : achievement the writing « Methodology of production cost models and the full cost providing by local authority »  Beginning the transfer of models for WP7 ( integration simulator)  Beginning the determination of the full cost on case studies : ( Orleans with BRGM, Lisbon with LQARS, Stuttgart with USTUTT ) Trondheim - 20 - 21 June 2002 - Cemagref AWASTWP 3 7