Agenda - 12-09-1995 - Attachment 1

Browse Search

r.w ms's Table FS-5 summarizes the costs of each of the systems. Collection costs are provided for the various sectors. These costs represent planning level estimates. The cost ranges correspond to the variation in tonnage between the minimum and maximum diversion estimates. In some cases, because waste prevention results in less materials to be collected and processed, costs in the maximum case are less than the minimum case. When possible, variations in unit costs resulting from economies of scale between the minimum and maximum diversion cases are included. However, typically, the range of costs is based on the range of tonnage applied to an average unit cost. For example, based on literature research, our experience with similar projects, and local information provided by the LOG, an average unit cost to operate a commingled NIRF given the range of tonnages included in the analysis is approximately $55 per ton. This unit cost will vary dependent on facility design, method of operation, and private or public operation. Additionally, the LOG may elect to utilize an existing local facility or regional facility. Since these factors will affect the unit cost to a greater extent than the economies of scale associated with tonnage differences between minimum and maximum diversion, the range of costs provided is intended to represent a reasonable planning level estimate. As can be seen, System 1 and System 2 operating costs are very similar- between $81 and $85 per ton. System 3 operating costs are somewhat lower- approximately $74 to $78 per ton. If the assumptions regarding markets for paper in System 1 (as discussed previously) were made similar to the assumptions for System 2, System 1's costs would be reduced by approximately $480,000 to $720,000 (or $6 to $9 per ton). This reduction in costs is because the materials would not have to be "double-handled" at the MRF and composting facility. System unit costs are based on the total annual operating and maintenance costs over the total generated waste stream. Capital costs include new equipment (without accounting for the sale of existing equipment that is not needed in the proposed system) and facilities/programs. The new facilities and program capital costs are not amortized and included in the annual costs; amortized capital for collection equipment is included because of the typical need for replacement. Table ES-6, ES-7, and FS-8 present a comparative summary of the three remaining evaluation criteria. The information is not all inclusive but rather is intended to highlight significant differences between the three systems. Subsequent sections further describe similar attributes of the systems that were used in evaluating these criteria. NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDL001.WP ES-9 09/95