workpackage 3 economic aspects

WORKPACKAGE 3

Economic aspects

AWAST WP 3

Participants

Cemagref (France)Water and environmental engineering departmentResearch Unit : Livestock and municipal wastes Management – Rennes

Universitaet Stuttgart (Germany)

Institute for Sanitary Engineering, Water Quality and Waste Management : ISWA

AWAST WP 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.

AWAST WP 3

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)

AWAST WP 3

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

Economic modelling

Facility

Direct costs

Inputs Outputs

MSW

Production factors

• Operating : - Labour - Energy - Supplies

• Maintenance

Revenues(compost, energy, sale materials)

Residus treatment

Diagram of economics models

Cases studies

Mathematical modelling (writing)

Bibliography

Mathematical equations estimated

Questionnairesurvey

Definition of components costs

Methodology of modelling costsMethodology of modelling costsP

has

e 1

Ph

ase

1P

has

e 1

Treatment plant

CN

Nominal capacity(tph, tpd, tpy)

Operating costsCo

Residues disposal : D

Q : Flow waste

Capital cost CK

Product sales revenue : S

- Labour : L- Energy : E- Reagents : R- Maintenance : M

1

6

4

2

5

3

Flowsheet of economic evaluation

Direct plant costs (DPC) Indirect plant costs (IPC)

(Equipment costs) (Land, start- up, supervision)

(Building and civil works costs)

Total capital cost = CI = DPC + IPC

CI = Fonction (CN, process)

Existing models costs Model cost Data acquisition on plants

and actualisation

Annual capital cost = Ck = CI /T T : life plant

/

Estimation of capital costs

Capital cost of incineration plantCapital cost of incineration plant

CI = 275,7 x CN + 18 277 000

CN : tpy

CI : in euros h t

Source data :

France : 15 plants

Norway : Trondheim

Austria : Vienna

Factor method : relation between component costs and basic variables

Co = fonction (CN, Q, process)

Co = aL + bE + cR + d.IE

L : direct labour costs L, E, R, IE : basic variablesE : energy costsR : reagent costs

IE : equipment costs a, b, c, d, : processing factors are summed

d. IE : maintenance costs

Estimation of operating costs

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 IE) + 1,10 x R + (0,023 x IE + 20 x Q) – 620 x PU x Q

Incineration : symbols explanationL Labour cost, which is supposed to be a function of the installation nominal capacity.

Dry scrubber Semi-wet scrubberReagents Ratio in kg/t

Lime 12 -Bicarbonate ofsodium

- 22

Active charcoal 0,35 to 0,65Lignite coke 0,625 to 1,03Urea 2,2

R

R represents the APCS reagentscosts. With ratios and a reagentunitary costs, it is possible todetermine the APCS reagents costs.

Ammoniac 3,3

Furnace boilerAir Pollution Control System (APCS) - StackTurbo generatorWaste handling equipmentSolid residue storageElectricity equipment

IE

Equipment capital cost

Automation

Q Annual quantity of incinerated waste

Standards et variables localesStandards et variables locales

Variables locales par défautChaux 600 F/t de chauxEau 1 F/m3 d'eauCharbon actif 4000 F/t de charbon actif

CRi

Ammoniac 1000 F/t d'ammoniacCénergie (Pf inclus) 50 F/MWh d'eau chaudeCMIOM 150 F/t de MIOMCREFIOM 1520 F/t de REFIOM

StandardsBélec 80 kWh/t de déchets incinérés 80%PREFIOM 40 kg/t de déchets incinérés

Chaux 17 kg/t de déchets incinérésEau 300 kg/t de déchets incinérésCharbon actif 1 kg/t de déchets incinérés

Ri

Ammoniac 10 kg/t de déchets incinérés

TYPES OF MRFsTYPES OF MRFs

(1) Design capacity is determined for 3 000 hours per year running

(2) Type 4 is particular to american regions

Type Design Capacity (t/y) (1)

Level of technology

Effective output

(t/h)

Collected flow Flow Separation Sorting Conveyor

1 1 000 –5 000 low 1.5 – 2 Two-flows: magazine + light

Two flows alternated sorting

1 conveyor > 70 mm

5 000 –10 000 medium 3 – 4 Mixed Fibres/container 1 fibres line > 180 mm 1container line: 70–80 mm

2

10 000 –15 000 medium 2 2 – 2.5

Two-flows: magazine + light

Fibres/container

1 magazine line > 50 mm 1 fibres line 1 container line

3 10 000 –20 000 high 7 Mixed Trommel 200 Fibres/container Separator

1 fibres line > 200mm 1 fibres line< 200mm 2 container lines

4 (2) 20 000 –100 000 high 18 - 30 Mixed Fibres/container Mechanical equipment

Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA

MRFMRF CAPITAL COSTSCAPITAL COSTS

Methods for fixed-capital cost estimation1st method :

CFC = k. IEC

2nd method :

CFC = h. CN, , h is a cost in € / 1000 t/y

Type design capacity (t/y) k h f1 1 000 - 5 000 1.77 167 500 € 107 000 €

2.1 5 000 - 10 000 2.80 290 000 € 99 000 €2.2 10 000 - 15 000 1.81 243 500 € 132 500 €3 10 000 - 20 000 1.88 200 000 € 112 000 €4 20 000 - 100 000 2.43 159 000 € 66 000 €

IEC, the installed equipment cost, can be: calculated as a sum of equipment items costs, IEC = Σ iIECi

estimated as IEC = f. CN , f is a cost in € / 1000 t

CN is the design capacity.


MRF OPERATING COSTS MRF OPERATING COSTS

Methods for operating costs estimation:1st method : CO= k (α. L + β. CFC)

2nd method : CO=λ L

k is > 1, it accounts for overhead expensesα. L represents Direct Cost, that includes Labour, utilities and repairs β. CFC represents Maintenance

This method is used when no sufficient data are available (types 3,4)

Type k αL βCFC λL 1 1.14 1.03 0.032 1.25

2.1 1.17 1.11 0.04 1.24 2.2 1.14 1.06 0.038 1.16 3 2,74 4 2,43

L is labour cost, it depends on type of MRF and number of shifts per day.L= Σk wklk where k= sorters, conductors, foreman, etc. l = number of k workers w = unit cost of a k worker


Flowsheet to calculate the collection costFlowsheet to calculate the collection cost


AWAST WP3

Waste collection on area

Requirements : vehicles crews containers

Waste quantityQs

COST ANALYSISLOCAL AUTHORITIESTECHNICAL ANALYSISWASTE STREAM

Collection databy collection system

Components costsby data processing

Collection cost modelCp = Cc + Co

Collection dataFrance / Germany

Crew efficiencyRc = f (CL)

Vehicle efficiency

Residual wasteDry recyclables

Biowaste

TOTAL PRODUCTION COSTUNIT PRODUCTION COST

(per waste stream)

1

Cost determining factorsCost determining factors

Parameters Symbol Performances Formula Unit

Crew size : driver + collector

Daily work time Tj Collection rate Rc = Qj / Tc t / h

Collection time / day Tc

COLLECTIONRATE

Daily tons per crew Qj

Vehicle capacity Vv Specific weight Mv = Qv / Vv Kg / m3

Quantity per vehicle Qv Loading time / vehicle Tv = Qv / Rc hVEHICLELOADING

TIMECollection distance Dc Linear loading road CL = Qv / Dc t / km

RC = f (waste stream , crew size, linear loading road)

CL = f (waste stream, density of population, collection frequency, collection system)


AWAST WP3

2

Work time and number of trips to facility Work time and number of trips to facility assessmentsassessments

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


AWAST WP3

3

The different collection systems The different collection systems

4

WP3AWAST

Collection system Waste stream Type of vehicle Required containers

Type 1 KERBSIDE Commingled dry recyclables Mono-compartment

Type 2 KERBSIDECommingled dry recyclables

(+ residual waste)

Bi-compartment

(residual + packaging)

Plastic bags

Boxes

Wheelie bins (mono-compartment)

Type 3 KERBSIDE2 flows :

Dry recyclables : light / heavy

Bi-compartment

(packaging only)+ Wheelie bins (bi-compartment)

Type 4 KERBSIDE Multi flows : dry recyclables Multi-compartment Boxes

Type 5 BRINGDry recyclables

(1 container / waste stream)

Specific vehicle :

skip + crane

Wheelie bins

Containers

Areas fenced off with wire netting


Crew efficiency graphsCrew efficiency graphs


AWAST WP3

5

Rc = f (CL)

BRING COLLECTION

t

Mr Vr 60 Re Emptying rate :

t = emptying time / container (2 - 6 min)

Qj = Re x Tc

KERBSIDE COLLECTION

Model of waste collection costModel of waste collection cost

Capital cost : CC = Iv / d

Operating cost : CO

Production cost :

CP = CC + CO

Wages : L = Σ lk wk

Energy : E = Ce Dy

Collection follow-ups : determination of , ,

Breakdown of operating cost itemsCOST DESIGNATION FACTEUR COST (€/year)

Wages L

Social charges 1

1.L

Bonus + longevity 2

2.L

Absence 3

3.L

Uniform + safety equipment 4

4.L

Insurance + taxes 1

1.Iv

FIXED COSTS FC = (1+1+2+3+4)L + 1Iv

Fuel E

Oil, lubricants, batteries, tires 1.E

DIRECT COSTS DC = (1 + 1) E

MAINTENANCE M = 2 Iv

OPERATING COSTS CO = .L + .E + .Iv

1 = 0.48

2 = 0.08

3 = 0.25

4 = 0.0272

1 = 0.287

1 = 0.0165

2 = 0.064

Trondheim - 20-21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA

AWAST WP3

6

PRODUCTION COSTSPRODUCTION COSTS

COLLECTION : CP = 1.7572 L + 1.287 E + (0.0805+1/d) Iv

Take into account the utilization rates for :

- the vehicle : d = (35 7) / (Tj j)

- the crew : full-time : L

share-time : L1, L2 L1 + L2 = L

under-time : L [ T / (Tj j)]

PRECOLLECTION : C’P = Nw I’r (2’ + 1/n’)

required containers / week / crew: Nw = (Nj j) / f = (Nr Nt j) / f


AWAST WP3

7

Example of collection costs calculationExample of collection costs calculation

City data Crew data Vehicle data

Annual waste quantity : Qs Daily work time : Tj

Weekly waste quantity : Qs / 52 Collection time / day : Tc

Daily waste quantity : Qs / (52 x j) Collection rate : Rc

Haul distance to facility : Dh Linear loading road : CL

Payload : Qv

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.Iv


AWAST WP3

8

AWAST WP 3

Full cost of MSW Service

Global approach – Integrated MSW management

Collections Sorting

CompostingIncineration

Landfill

General administrationExecutive oversight

Indirect costsDirect costs

Local Authority

+

OMR79 347,4

DEM1 500,53

JM7 718,9

OM93 568,07

OM tri5 001,24

Déchetteries51 252,61

DAS2 161,98

DIB3 942,72

Verre6 083,89

Graisse669,28

Compostage5 001,24

IncinérationCentre de tri

sélectif

Compost2 000,5

REFIOM1 414,08

Mâchefers20 289,52

Acier2 824,82

Al47,82

Energie35 254 MWh

Papier4 628,48

Carton etTetra-pack

2 168,1

Flaconnagesplastics578,76

Acier526,42

Al17,46

CET1

Verre6 083,89

Eaux traitées495,41

?40

?1 300,21

Evaporation1 101,08

Maturation20 289,52

Verre849,379

Tout venant14 961,65

Végétaux14 175,01

Gravats16 186,49

Papiers874,56

Cartons1 313,6

Ferrailles2 503,46

Plastiques23,8

Huiles120,07

D.M.S154,33

Pneus55,6

Batteries34,66

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

AWAST WP3

Materials flow’s synoptic : the case of Orléans

Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref

AWAST WP3

Method of knowledge costs


Waste collection

Incineration plantQ1+Q2

Q1

Q2Other authorities

Local authority

A

Stream

Activity

Bottom Ash

Fly Ash Landfill 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

AWAST WP3

Production cost per activity (Level A) : the case of Orléans, year 2000


Sorting plant Composting plant Incineration plantMaturation of bottom ash

Civic Amenity sites

TOTAL REVENUES in francs 8180736,75 105828,65 7514286,62 ? 0

REVENUES/ton in francs 887,34 21,16 85,64 ? 0

NET PRODUCTION COSTS in francs

70,04 1998,21 472,88 #VALEUR! 246,94

Civic Amenity sites: CostsGuarding 2461334

Ordinary stuff contribution 5732088Plant-like contribution 2614398

Special household waste 65164Rubble (gravats) contribution 1095903

Paper contribution 49108Card-board contribution 461552Container (corps creux) 14586

Glass contribution 162319TOTAL 12656452

Tonnage 9219,43 5001,24 87747,08 ? 51252,61Depreciation and

amortisationLeases' dues 1197802,227 6235255,79 22202977,66 ?

Part of fixed costs (buildings,personnel…) 5844424,601 3638541,68 13322576,72 ?

Part of proportional costs (energy, supplies…) 1784223,25 225566,64 13482580,80 ?

GROSS OPERATING COSTS in francs

8826450,07 10099364,11 49008135,18 12656452

GROSS OPERATING COSTS/ton in francs

957,37 2019,37 558,52 #VALEUR! 246,94

AWAST WP3Cost per path or stream (level B) : the case of Orléans

(France), year 2000


Organic stream Thermal stream Recycling streamLINES TO TAKE INTO

CONSIDERATION:tonnage

cost/revenues in francs

tonnagecost/revenues

in francstonnage

cost/revenues in francs

Annual employees' wages and salaries

- - -

Vehicles and operating expense - - -Containers: bin, bags… - - -

Depreciation cost of capital outlays - - -Payments for rent and leases - - -

Purchase of non-capital goods and furniture

- --

Contracted services for collection - - -Indirect costs:operationnal and

administrative costs- - -

TOTAL COLLECTION - 0 - 0 - 0

Household refuses 5001,24 79347,4 9219,43Banal industrial waste - 3942,72 -

Medical waste - 2161,98 1451712,645 -Grease - 133,87 153245,0771 -

Treatment refuses 1899,66 261,45 65370,26313Refusal treatment 0 2161,11 61394,06

TOTAL WASTE 5001,24 87747,08 1666351,782 9219,43 65370,26313

Leases' dues (buildings) 6235255,79 22052407,26 1197802,227Part of fixed costs 3638541,68 12247036,96 5794344,442

Part of proportional costs 225566,64 12419870,54 1768939,678Electricity profit-sharing 150570,4 -TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 10099364,11 46869885,16 8761086,348

Compost revenues 2000,5 45813,65 - 0 - -Energetic revenues - 28944 6734912,94 1090726,95

Clinker revenues - 23482 65212,27 - -Incinerated steel revenues - 2824,82 195948 -

Incinerated aluminium revenues - 47,82 98213,41 -Premium, subsidy 2000,5 60015 420000Paper revenues - - 4356,44 1743717,58

Non-incinerated steel revenues - - 494,04 276470,03

Non-incinerated aluminum revenues - - 14,24 56440,95

Card-board revenues - - 1840,01 3903392,84Tetrapack (briques) revenues - - 68,93 120241,33

Plastic bottles revenues - - 477,75 989747,07TOTAL REVENUES 2000,5 105828,65 26354,64 7514286,62 7251,41 8180736,75

NET PRODUCTION COST 9993535,46 41021950,32 645719,8614Ultimate residues cost - 1909,49 471898,2386

Platform of bottom ash maturation TOTAL NET PRODUCTION COST 9993535,46 41493848,56 645719,8614

TOTAL NET PRODUCTION COST/ton

1998,211536 472,8801068 70,0390

AWAST WP3Full cost providing for local authority (level C) : the case of Orléans,

year 2000


Collection Composting Recycling unit Incineration Landfill Civic Amenities PrestationTransport

activityTransfer station

activity Facility activity: Net production

costs (c.f level A)Final residues

costs

Total indirect costs :General

administative overhead costs

Billing costsFinancial interest

Post-closure care costs

Full cost providing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Revenues:By-product salesSubsidy, grantPrivate firms

Other authorities

SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTSSCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS

STEP Task 1 : State of artDataacquisition Task 2 : Cost models

Methodology

Chemical processes (USA) R.Turton and al (1998) S.Peters, D.Timmerhaus(2002)MSW : D.C.Wilson (1981)

/ Capital cost model Operating cost modelProduction cost model

CollectionCOSEPRE(World bank)2001 P&R : Ontario (1996)Ecotec (Europ Com 2002)

17 followingup in France Stuttgart ( ?)

Cp = L+ E+ IV :collection C’p = NW IR : precollection

Incineration

European Commission(1997) Juniper survey (2001)D.A.Tillman,A.Rossi (1989)

Trondheim Vienna 15 plants inFrance

Cc = a + b CN

Co = L + E + R + IEa,b,,,, = Cte

Sorting

ETSU (1999) Eco-Emballages (2002) Proctor&Redfern Ltd (1997)WDO (2001) CRIQ (2000)

11 plants inFrance Cologne ( ?)Augsburg (?)

Cc = K in € /tpy per type or Cc = IIEC

Co = L+ IE, : different for each type

Full cost Full cost accounting for MSW(EPA)

Orleans(partial)

Framework definition :accounting costs according to activity, MSW paths, authority

AWAST WP3

Trondheim - 20 - 21 June 2002 - Cemagref

PROBLEMS ENCOUTEREDPROBLEMS 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 technologiesLandfill, 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)


AWAST WP3

7

ECONOMIC ASPECTS - FOR THE NEXT 6 MONTHSECONOMIC 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 )


AWAST WP3

7

workpackage 3 economic aspects

Documents

production costs

component costs

types of costs

direct labour costs

models models

data data standardisation

model cost data acquisition

facility data acquisition