HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 27, 2004 Agenda AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
January 27, 2004
After determining that a quorum is presem, the City Council of the City of Demon, Texas
will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. in the
Training Room at the City of Demon Solid Waste Facility, 1527 South Mayhill, Demon,
Texas at which the following item will be considered:
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding solid waste
policies and procedures.
Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the need, purpose, and time
frame for the creation of an ad hoc committee to explore a Council ethics policy.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall
of the City of Demon, Texas, on the day of , 2004 at
o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.)
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON SOLID WASTE FACILITY IS ACCESSIBLE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE
CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE
SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT
349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY
CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN
BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
January 27, 2004
Solid Waste
Howard Martin, 349-8232 ~
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding solid waste policies and
procedures.
BACKGROUND
Typically Denton's solid waste service issues have generated interest from the citizens as well as
the City's elected and appointed representatives. At times the solid waste issues have been
debated throughout the community. The Department will present information on current solid
waste topics for the City Council's review and discussion.
Throughout 2002 the citizens of DeNon and the City Council discussed providing curbside
recycling services to DeMon's residemial households within the community. A curbside
recycling collection program was initiated in November 2002.
At the request of a neighborhood group, the Solid Waste Department began a Pay-As-You-
Throw (PAYT) refuse collection pilot program in the Wind River subdivision using refuse cart
service. This pilot program looked at a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) service and its effect on
recycling participation. The program confirmed that PAYT refuse collection service increased
recycling participation over other service areas, and the service success showed the PAYT
system as a viable service option for Denton.
Staff has developed brief informational presemations on several topics, as outlined in Exhibit 1,
and will presem these topics to the City Council for review, discussion, and guidance for the
solid waste departmental staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Solid Waste staff is seeking the City Council's guidance and direction on the presemed topics.
Staff is prepared to provide departmental recommendations on the topics discussed.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Direction and guidance provided by the City Council may impact existing or future solid waste
departmemal budgets. Staff is prepared to provide projected budget impact information on any of
the topics discussed, as requested by City Council.
EXHIBITS
1. Omline
2. Wind River Pay-as-you-Throw Final Report
3. Analysis of Variable Rate (PAYT) and Recycling Options - SERA
4. December 1, 2003, PUB Presentation
Respectfully submitted:
A. Vance Kemler
Director of Solid Waste
City Council Work Session
January 27, 2004
11:30 am - 1:30pm
Solid Waste Services Building
1527 South Mayhill Rd.
Outline
Solid Waste Services and future alternatives
General and Residential
a. Wind River Pay-As-You-Throw Project - Final Report
b. Future service options: Once per Week Refuse Collection,
Hybrid PAYT service (bags and carts)
c. Local Solid Waste Management Plan
d. Review service areas for Cart service
Landfill and Commercial Services
a. Cooperative efforts with neighboring communities for future
projects and services
Equipment and services for emergencies
b. Review commercial container locations in Rights-of-Way
c. Rate Study for Commercial Services
2. Landfill Gas and Biodiesel Project
Demonstration of Solid Waste Equipment & Tour Landfill
Operations
L:\CC 2004\January 27, 2004\SW CC Presentation\2-EX 1 Agenda.doc
EXHIBIT 1
2003 Pilot Study for Cart Collection System
Prepared for:
City of Denton Waste Management Department
By:
D'Arlene Ver Duin
Paul Ruggiere
James Glass
Survey Research Center
University of North Texas
May 15, 2003
EXHIBIT 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... I
TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. II
TABLE OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... III
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
II. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 2
SAMPLE .................................................................................................................................... 2
INSTRUMENT ............................................................................................................................. 2
DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................... 2
ANALYSIS BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS ....................................................................................... 3
REPORT FORMAT ...................................................................................................................... 3
III. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 4
IV. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 6
BAG COLLECTION SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................. 8
CART COLLECTION SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................. 14
SPECIAL SERVICES ................................................................................................................. 26
RECYCLING ............................................................................................................................. 34
V. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX A: INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................... 39
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
i
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Overall Ratings of Current Trash Collection Service Provided by City ............ 6
Participate in Cart Collection System .............................................................. 7
Reason Not Participating in Cart Collection Program ..................................... 8
Aware of Different Cart Sizes .......................................................................... 9
Aware that Smaller Cart Sizes Mean a Lower Fee .......................................10
Would Switch to Cart Collection Service if Saved $48 per Year ................... 11
Would Switch to Cart Collection Service if Saved $60 per Year ................... 12
Would Switch to Cart Collection Service if Saved $72 per Year ................... 13
Aware of Different Cart Sizes ........................................................................ 14
Aware that Smaller Cart Sizes Mean a Lower Monthly Fee .......................... 15
Size of Cart Used .......................................................................................... 16
Use of Trash Cart on Weekly Basis .............................................................. 17
Would Consider Switching from 95-Gallon Cart to 68-Gallon Cart ............... 18
Would Consider Switching to 35-Gallon Cart ............................................... 19
Ever Had More Trash than Would Fit Cart ................................................... 20
How Resolved Problem of Extra Trash ........................................................ 22
Comparison of Trash Cart to Plastic Trash Bags ......................................... 23
Will Stay with Cart Collection System .......................................................... 24
Switch Back to Bag Collection ...................................................................... 25
Aware that Yard Waste is Collected Separately ........................................... 26
Aware of Special Pick Up of Large Appliances ............................................ 27
Aware of Special Bulky Waste Pick Up ........................................................ 28
Where Trash is Stored Between Collection Days ......................................... 29
Trash Carts are Re-Stored on Trash Collection Day ..................................... 32
Trash Carts are Left Out too Long ................................................................. 33
Amount of Trash Recycled Each Week ......................................................... 34
Recycling More due to Cart Size Limitations ................................................. 35
Aware That There is No Cost for Increasing Size of Recycling Cart ............. 36
Likelihood of Increasing Recycling and Decreasing Amount of Trash .......... 37
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Sample Characteristics ................................................................................... 4
Ever Had More Trash than Would Fit in Cart ................................................ 21
Participant Opinions Regarding Trash Carts ................................................. 30
Opinions Regarding Trash Bags and Carts ................................................... 31
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
iii
I. INTRODUCTION
During the month of April 2003, a telephone survey was conducted of residents
in the Wind River Estates subdivision in Denton, Texas. Since November 2002, most of
the residents in the Wind River subdivision have been participating in a pilot project
utilizing an alternative method of household trash collection. The collection system
provides residents 95-gallon carts for depositing household waste replacing the plastic
bags provided by residents. Trash collection takes place weekly instead of twice a week.
The survey was designed to rate several components of the system. These
included:
· Overall ratings of current trash collection systems;
· Reasons why bag collection system customers did not participate in the
pilot program;
· Awareness of trash collection components including pricing structure, cart
size options, bulky waste collection, yard waste collection and recycling
options;
· Participant experience and behavior using the cart system, and;
· Preference between the cart collection and bag collection systems.
The survey was conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of
North Texas for the City of Denton's Solid Waste Department.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
1
II. METHODOLOGY
Sample
SRC was given a data file by the City of Denton's Solid Waste Department (SWD) of
381 residential customer records in the Wind River subdivision. Sixty-four of the
numbers called resulted in classifications of "invalid phone number" which included
disconnected numbers, wrong numbers, fax machines, and households that did not live
in Wind River.
A total of 200 telephone interviews were conducted representing an adjusted
response rate of 63 percent. In a population of 381 households, 200 interviews yields a
margin of error of ± 4.8 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means, for
example, that if 40 percent of the respondents answered "yes" to a question, we can be
95 percent confident that the actual proportion of residents in the population who would
answer "yes" to the same question is 4.8 percentage points higher or lower than 40
percent (35.2 percent to 44.8 percent).
Instrument
SRC staff met with SWD staff to learn about the pilot project and develop a list of
objectives for the survey instrument. A draft survey instrument was created by SRC staff
to serve as a starting point to develop the final survey instrument. Several revisions on
the instrument were made based on feedback from SWD staff. The final instrument
approved by SWD staff is presented in Appendix A.
Data Collection
Trained telephone interviewers who had previous experience in telephone
surveys were used to conduct the survey. Each interviewer completed an intensive
general training session. The purposes of general training were to ensure that
interviewers understood and practiced all of the basic skills needed to conduct
interviews and that they were knowledgeable about standard interviewing conventions.
The interviewers also attended a specific training session for the project. The project
training session provided information on the background and goals of the study.
Interviewers practiced administering the questionnaire to become familiar with the
questions.
All interviewing was conducted from a centralized telephone bank in Denton,
Texas. An experienced telephone supervisor was on duty at all times to supervise the
administration of the sample, monitor for quality control, and handle any other problems.
Data for the survey were collected between April 15 and April 30, 2003.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
2
Analysis by Demographic Groups
Each question in the survey was cross-tabulated with the following 7
demographic categories:
Years lived in Denton
Children under 18 living in
household
Age of respondent
Gender of respondent
Household income
Number of people living in household
Participation in cart collection program
Whenever the responses to a single question are divided by demographic groups,
the percentage distribution of responses within one group will rarely exactly match the
percentage distribution of another group; there will often be some variation between groups.
The most important consideration in interpreting these differences is to determine if
the differences in the sample are representative of differences between the same groups
within the general population. This consideration can be fulfilled with a test of statistical
significance. The Survey Research Center only reports those differences between groups
that are found to be statistically significant.
Caution should be used when interpreting differences between the cart collection
group and bag collection group. While the response rate from each of these groups is
similar, only 23 respondents in the sample participated in the bag collection system.
Report Format
The remainder of the report is arranged in three sections beginning with Section II1.
This section, "Sample Characteristics," presents the findings for all respondents except
where it is otherwise noted. Section IV, "Findings," presents findings of customers' attitudes
towards bag collection services, cart collection services, special services, and recycling.
Section V contains the report's Conclusions. The instrument can be found in the Appendix.
The number of respondents who answered each question is reported using the
notation (n=) either within the title or within the table or figure. A notation of (n=200) means
that 200 respondents answered that question.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
3
III. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Demographics Percent
Responding
Years lived in Denton
Less than 1 year 7.5
1 to 5 years 56.5
6 to 10 years 10.5
More than 10 years 25.5
Age
18 to 25 2.0
26 to 35 33.7
36 to 45 37.7
46 to 60 20.6
61 to 70 3.5
Over 70 2.5
Children under 18 living in household
Yes 63.1
No 36.9
Number of people living in household
1 6.7
2 24.1
3 25.1
4 28.7
5 or more 15.4
· As shown in Table 1, over half (56.5 percent) of the respondents have lived in
Denton for 1 to 5 years. Twenty-six percent of the respondents have lived in Denton
more than years, 10.5 percent for 6 to 10 years, and 7.5 percent for less than one
year.
· Nearly three-quarters (73.4 percent) of the respondents were 45 years old or
younger. Twenty-one percent were 46 to 60 years of age. When using age in
crosstabulations throughout this report, the 6 categories were collapsed into 3
categories: 18 to 35, 36 to 45, and 46 and over.
· Sixty-three percent of the respondents had a young person under the age of 18 living
in their household.
· Over two-thirds (69.2 percent) of the households had 3 or more inhabitants.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
4
Table I (continued)
Sample Characteristics
Demographics Percent
Responding
Household income
Under $25,000 1.6
$25,001 to $40,000 2.7
$40,001 to $60,000 15.6
$60,001 to $80,000 32.8
$80,001 to $100,000 31.2
Over $100,000 16.1
Gender
Female 57.5
Male 42.5
Nearly half (48.4 percent) of the respondents had an annual household income
ranging between $40,001 and $80,000. Forty-seven of the respondents had an
annual household income of over $80,000. When using income in crosstabulations
throughout this report, the first three categories were collapsed into one: Under
$60,000.
The respondents were 57.5 percent female and 42.5 percent male.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
5
IV. FINDINGS
Figure 1
Overall Ratings of Current Trash Collection Service Provided by City
(n=199)
47.2%
40.2%
9.0%
3.5%
60%-
50%-
40%-
30%-
20%-
10%-
O%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
· The respondents were asked to rate their current trash collection service provided by the
City as excellent, good, fair or poor. As shown in Figure 1, 87.4 percent of the 199
respondents said their current trash collection service was excellent (40.2 percent) or good
(47.2 percent).
· There were no statistically significant differences in ratings between respondents with the
cart collection system and respondents with the bag collection system. Participants in the
system had the following ratings: 42.6 percent "excellent," 46.0 percent "good," 8.0 percent
"fair," and 3.4 percent "poor."
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
6
Figure 2
Participate in Cart Collection System
(n=200)
Cart Collection
System
88.5%
Bag Collection
System
11.5%
Respondents were reminded that the City chose the Wind River neighborhood to participate
in a pilot program last November where carts were provided by the city for the disposal of
trash. Respondents were asked if they were participating in this program or if they still used
the plastic bag collection system. Eighty-nine percent of the 200 respondents said they were
participating in the cart collection program and 11.5 percent were using the plastic bag
collection service (see Figure 2).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
7
Bag Collection System Participants
Twenty-three respondents in the survey were participating in the bag collection system
of waste collection. Since not all respondents answered all of the questions, the "n" value may
vary from question to question.
Figure 3
Reason Not Participating in Cart Collection Program
(n=22)
100%-
80%-
60%'
40%'
20%-
O%
31.8%
13.6% 13.6% 13.6%
18.2%
Prefer twice-a- Not enough No room to store Carts retain Carts are a
week pickup capacity the cart odors/not clean hassle
as bags
9.1%
Other
Non-participating respondents were asked why they were not participating in the cart
collection program. As shown in Figure 3, 31.8 percent of the 22 respondents preferred the
twice-a-week pickup, and 18.2 percent reported that the carts were a hassle. Equal
percentages of the respondents said there was not enough capacity (13.6 percent), no room
to store the cart (13.6 percent), and carts retain odors or are not as clean as bags (13.6
percent). Nine percent (2 respondents) reported that they either did not participate for all of
these reasons or they did not specify their reason.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
8
Figure 4
Aware of Different Cart Sizes
(n=23)
Yes
91.3%
Non-participating respondents were asked if they were aware that there are different cart
sizes available. Ninety-one percent of these 23 respondents said they were aware of the
availability of different cart sizes (see Figure 4).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
9
Figure 5
Aware that Smaller Cart Sizes Mean a Lower Fee
(n=22)
Yes
86.4%
No
13.6%
Non-participating respondents were asked if they were aware that their current trash
collection fee would be lower if they use smaller cart sizes. As shown in Figure 5, 86.4
percent of these 22 respondents answered "yes."
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
10
Figure 6
Would Switch to Cart Collection Service if Saved $48 per Year
(n=21)
Yes
19.0%
No
181.0%
Non-participating respondents were asked if they would consider switching to the cart
collection service if they could save $48 per year over their current rate for trash collection.
Nineteen percent of the 21 respondents reported that they would consider switching if they
could save $48 per year (see Figure 6).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
11
Figure 7
Would Switch to Cart Collection Service if Saved $60 per Year
(n=18)
Yes
5.6%
Non-participating respondents who stated that they would not switch for $48, were asked if
they would consider switching to the cart collection service if they could save $60 per year
over their current rate for trash collection. As shown in Figure 7, 5.6 percent of the 18
respondents said they would consider switching if they could save $60 per year.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
12
Figure 8
Would Switch to Cart Collection Service if Saved $72 per Year
(n=15)
Yes
6.7%
No
193.3%
Non-participating respondents who stated that they would not switch for $60 were asked if
they would consider switching to the cart collection service if they could save $72 per year
over their current rate for trash collection. As shown in Figure 8, 6.7 percent of the 15
respondents said they would consider switching if they could save $72 per year.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
13
Cart Collection System Participants
One-hundred seventy-seven respondents reported participating in the cart system of
waste collection. Since not all of the respondents answered every question, the "n" value may
vary from question to question.
Figure 9
Aware of Different Cart Sizes
(n=176)
Yes
76.7%
No
123.3%
Respondents participating in the cart collection service were asked if they were aware that
there are different cart sizes available. Seventy-seven percent of the 176 respondents said
they were aware of the availability of different cart sizes (see Figure 9).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
14
Figure 10
Aware that Smaller Cart Sizes Mean a Lower Monthly Fee
(n=177)
Yes
57.1%
No
42.9%
· Participating respondents were asked if they were aware that use of smaller cart sizes
would lower their current monthly fee. As shown in Figure 10, 57.1 percent of the 177
respondents said that they were aware.
· The percentages of the respondents who were aware that use of smaller cart sizes would
lower their current monthly fee varied with the age of the respondent: 18 to 35 (44.4
percent), 36 to 45 (66.7 percent), and 46 and over (59.1 percent).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
15
Figure 11
Size of Cart Used
(n=172)
lO0
89.o%
9.3%
1.7%
Large (95 gallon) Medium (68 gallon) Small (35 gallon)
Participating respondents were asked which size cart they were using: large (95-gallon),
medium (68-gallon), or small (35-gallon). As shown in Figure 11,89.0 percent of the 172
respondents reported using a large cart, 9.3 percent used a medium-sized cart, and 1.7
percent used a small cart.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
16
Figure 12
Use of Trash Cart on Weekly Basis
(n=177)
24.9%
23.2%
21.5%
14.7%
11.3%
4.5%
Less than 25 percent 25 to 49 percent 50 to 74 percent 75 to 90 percent 90 to 100 percent More than 100 percent
· Participating respondents were asked, in general, how full their trash cart is on a weekly
basis. As shown in Figure 12, 36.2 percent of the 177 respondents reported that they
utilized 90 to 100 percent (21.5 percent) or more (14.7 percent) of their trash cart on a
weekly basis.
· Respondents with children age 18 or younger living in the household (68.4 percent) were
more likely to fill their trash cart to 75 percent or fuller than respondents without children age
18 or younger living in the household (41.0 percent).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
17
Figure 13
Would Consider Switching from 95-Gallon Cart to 68-Gallon Cart
(n=147)
Yes
44.2%
I No
55.8%
· Participating respondents using the 95 gallon cart were asked if they would consider
switching to a 68-gallon cart if they could save $48 per year on trash collection fees. As
shown in Figure 13, 44.2 percent of the 147 respondents said that they would consider
switching to a 68-gallon cart if they could save $48 per year.
· The percentages of the respondents who said they would consider switching from a 95-
gallon cart to a 68-gallon cart if they could save $48 per year on trash collection fees
decreased as income increased: less than $60,000 (61.5 percent); $60,001 to $80,000
(51.0 percent); $80,001 to $100,000 (38.6 percent); and over $100,000 (17.4 percent).
· Respondents who answered "no" to this question were asked, "what if you could save $60 a
year on trash collection fees?" Twenty-three percent (20 respondents) said "yes" they
would consider switching.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
18
Figure 14
Would Consider Switching to 35-Gallon Cart
(n=103)
Yes
31.1%
No
168.9%
· Participating respondents who were using a 68-gallon cart or who were willing to switch their
95-gallon cart to a 68-gallon cart were asked if they would consider switching to a 35-gallon
cart if they could save $60 per year on trash collection fees. As shown in Figure 14, 31.1
percent of the 103 respondents said they would consider switching to a 35-gallon cart if they
could save $60 per year on trash collection fees.
· Forty percent of female respondents and 20.0 percent of male respondents said they would
consider switching to a 35-gallon cart if they could save $60 per year on trash collection
fees.
· Respondents who answered "no" to this question were asked, "what if you could save $72
per year on your trash collection fees?" Twenty-seven percent answered "yes" they would
consider switching.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
19
Figure 15
Ever Had More Trash than Would Fit in Cart
(n=177)
Yes
58.2%
No
141.8%
· Respondents were asked if, since the cart collection service program began in November,
they had a situation where they had more trash than would fit in their cart. As shown in
Figure 15, 58.2 percent of the 177 respondents answered "yes."
· As shown in Table 2, the percentages of the respondents who said they sometimes had
more trash than would fit in their cart decreased as the age of the respondent increased,
and increased as the number of people living in the household and annual income
increased.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
2O
Table 2
Ever Had More Trash than Would Fit in Cart
Percentage responding
Yes No
Age of respondent
18 to 35 65.1 34.9
36 to 45 62.3 37.7
46 and over 43.2 56.8
Number of people living in household
1 16.7 83.3
2 56.8 43.2
3 54.8 45.2
4 61.7 38.3
5 or more 75.0 25.0
Income
Less than $60,000 43.8 56.3
$60,001 to $80,000 49.1 50.9
$80,001 to $100,000 63.5 36.5
Over $100,000 80.0 20.0
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
21
Figure 16
How Resolved Problem of Extra Trash
(n=103)
100%-
80%-
60%'
40%-
20%'
O%
59.2%
18.4%
7.8%
6.8%
5.8%
1.0%
Saved some Put trash next Took trash to Put trash in Called for a Brought trash
trash for next to or on cart dumpster neighbor's special pick up to City landfill
week container
1.0%
Other
Respondents who had more trash than would fit in their cart were asked how they dealt with
the problem that week. As shown in Figure 16, 59.2 percent of the 103 respondents
reported saving some trash for the next week, and 18.4 percent put some trash next to or on
top of their cart. Eight percent of the respondents took their trash to a dumpster, 6.8 percent
put the extra trash in their neighbor's container, and 5.8 percent brought their trash to the
city landfill. Two percent called for a special pick-up (1.0 percent) or dealt with the problem
using some other way (1.0 percent).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
22
Figure 17
Comparison of Trash Cart to Plastic Trash Bags
(n=176)
lO0
72.7%
13.1%
14.2%
City-provided trash cart more
Same Trash bags more
Participating respondents were asked if they liked using the trash cart more than bags, the
cart and bags about the same, or bags more than the trash cart. As shown in Figure 17,
72.7 percent of the 176 respondents liked using the city-provided trash cart more than the
bags, 13.1 percent liked them both about the same, and 14.2 percent liked the trash bags
more.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
23
Figure 18
Will Stay with Cart Collection System
(n=175)
lO0
82.3%
12.6%
5.1%
Return to bag collection system
Does not matter Stay with Cart Collection System
Participating respondents were asked if they wanted to stay with the cart collection system
or did they want to go back to the bag collection system. As shown in Figure 18, 82.3
percent of the 175 respondents wanted to stay with the cart collection system. Thirteen
percent said they wanted to return to the bag collection system, and 5.1 percent reported
that it did not matter which system they used.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
24
Figure 19
Switch Back to Bag Collection if it Meant Paying $48 More a Year
(n=30)
Yes
30.0%
No
170.0O,/o
Respondents who said they wanted to return to the bag collection system or that it did not
matter which system they used were asked if they wanted to switch back to bag collection
even if it meant paying $48 more each year than they are paying now. As shown in Figure
19, 70.0 percent of those 30 respondents would not switch back to bag collection if it meant
paying $48 more per year.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
25
Special Services
Figure 20
Aware that Yard Waste is Collected Separately
(n=200)
Yes
82.5%
No
17.5%
· All 200 respondents were asked if they were aware that yard waste is collected separately
from their trash on Wednesdays. As shown in Figure 20, over three-quarters (82.5 percent)
knew that yard waste is collected separately from their trash on Wednesdays.
· The percentages of the respondents who were aware that yard waste is collected separately
from trash on Wednesdays varied with the length of residence in Denton: less than 1 year
(60.0 percent), 1 to 5 years (86.7 percent), 6 to 10 years (71.4 percent), and more than 10
years (84.3 percent).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
26
Figure 21
Aware of Special Pick Up of Large Appliances
(n=198)
Yes
62.6%
No
137.4%
Respondents were asked if they were aware that they could arrange with the City a special
pick up of large appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers, or washing machines. Sixty-
three percent of the 198 respondents were aware that they could arrange for a special pick
up of large appliances (see Figure 21).
The percentages of the respondents who were aware that they could arrange for a special
pick up of large appliances increased as length of residence in Denton increased: less than
1 year (40.0 percent), 1 to 5 years (58.0 percent), 6 to 10 years (60.0 percent), and more
than 10 years (80.4 percent). The percentages of the respondents who were aware also
increased as age increased: 18 to 35 (52.2 percent), 36 to 45 (64.0 percent), and 46 and
over (73.6 percent).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
27
Figure 22
Aware of Special Bulky Waste Pick Up
(n=200)
Yes
42.5%
No
157.5O,/o
· Denton's residential customers can take furniture and other bulky items to the landfill for
free. Respondents were asked if they were aware that they could also schedule with the
City a special bulky waste pick up at their home. Forty-three percent of the 200 respondents
were aware that they could schedule a special bulky waste pick up at their home (see Figure
22).
· Forty-nine percent of the female respondents and 34.1 percent of the male respondents
were aware that they could schedule a special bulky waste pick up at their home.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
28
Figure 23
Where Trash is Stored Between Collection Days
(n=200)
lO0
76.0%
10.0%
12.0%
1.0% 0.0% 1.0%
In the house In the garage In the back yard Side of the At the curb Other
house
Respondents were asked where they stored their trash between collection days. As shown
in Figure 23, 76.0 percent of the 200 respondents stored their trash in the garage between
collection days. The respondents who answered "other" (1.0 percent) put their trash in a
trash container but did not state its location.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
29
Table 3
Participant Opinions Regarding Trash Carts
iiiiiiiiii~ ii ~i~i iiiiiiiii Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
ii!iii!iii!iii!iii!iii!~!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Agree Disagree
use. (n=176) iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~i!i!eii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 28.4 60.8 4.0 3.4 3.4
(n=175) iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3iiiiSiigiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11.4 61.7 12.6 12.6 1.7
maneuver. (n=176) !!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!~i!!~!iS!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i! 2.3 14.2 8.0 60.2 15.3
moveto the curb. (n=176) !!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!~i!!~!i~i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i! 4.5 12.5 4.5 62.5 15.9
myfamily, ii!iii!iii!iii!iii!iii!iii!iii2!ii2i!3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5.7 10.2 6.8 56.3 21.0
Non-participants (n=23) iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiSiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 56.5 17.4 0.0 21.7 4.3
· Respondents were asked if they agreed with a series of statements regarding the trash cart
or trash collection. An average score was calculated using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree).
· As shown in Table 3, 89.2 percent of the 176 participating respondents either strongly
agreed (28.4 percent) or agreed (60.8 percent) that the trash cart is convenient to use. The
average score was 4.07.
· Seventy-three percent of the 175 participating respondents either strongly agreed (11.4
percent) or agreed (61.7 percent) that the trash cart is clean. The average score was 3.69.
· Seventy-five percent of the 176 participating respondents either disagreed (60.2 percent) or
strongly disagreed (15.3 percent) that the trash cart is difficult to maneuver. The average
score was 2.28.
· Seventy-eight percent of the 176 participating respondents either disagreed (62.5 percent)
or strongly disagreed (15.9 percent) that the trash cart is difficult to move to the curb. The
average score was 2.27.
· Both participants and non-participants were asked if weekly trash collection has been a
problem for their family. Sixteen percent of the 176 participants either strongly agreed (5.7
percent) or agreed (10.2 percent) that weekly trash collection has been a problem for their
family (average score 2.23), while 73.9 percent of the 23 non-participating respondents
either strongly agreed (56.5 percent) or agreed (17.4 percent) that it would be a problem if
they had to go to weekly trash collection (average score 4.00).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
30
Table 4
Opinions Regarding Trash Bags and Carts
iiiiiiiiii~ii~i~iiiiiiiiii Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
ii!iii!iii!iii!iii!iii!~!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Agree Disagree
trash. (n=198) !!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i3i!!!gi0i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i! 29.8 46.5 12.1 7.6 4.0
than trash bags. (n=198) !!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i~i!!!~!i~i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i! 31.8 36.9 11.6 12.1 7.6
carts. (n=197) i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!~i!i~!~i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i! 3.6 12.7 16.8 36.5 30.5
· All respondents were asked if they agreed with a series of statements regarding the trash
carts. An average score was calculated using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).
· As shown in Table 4, 76.3 percent of the 198 respondents either strongly agreed (29.8
percent) or agreed (46.5 percent) that the trash cart reduces problems with animals in trash.
The average score was 3.90. Average levels of agreement were higher among cart system
participants (4.05) than among bag system participants (2.78).
· Sixty-nine percent of the 198 respondents either strongly agreed (31.8 percent) or agreed
(36.9 percent) that the trash carts on the curb look better in the neighborhood than trash
bags. The average score was 3.73. Respondents with children under 18 living in the
household (74.2 percent) were more likely to strongly agree or agree than the trash carts on
the curb look better in the neighborhood than trash bags than respondents without children
under 18 living in the household (59.7 percent). Average levels of agreement were higher
among cart system participants (3.91) than among bag system participants (2.35).
· Sixty-seven percent of the 197 respondents either disagreed (36.5 percent) or strongly
disagreed (30.5 percent) that trash bags on the curb look better in the neighborhood than
the City-provided trash carts. The average score was 2.22. Respondents age 36 to 45
(71.2 percent) were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree that trash bags on the curb
look better in the neighborhood than the City-provided trash carts than respondents age 18
to 35 (70.4 percent) or respondents age 46 and over (57.7 percent). Average levels of
agreement were higher among bag system participants (3.39) than among cart system
participants (2.07).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
31
Figure 24
Trash Carts are Re-Stored on Trash Collection Day
(n=194)
lO0
83.5%
12.4%
4.1%
Same day Next day Several days
Respondents were asked if their neighbors normally roll their trash cart to its storage area
the same day it is emptied, the day after it is emptied, or more than two days after it is
emptied. Eighty-four percent of the 194 respondents reported that their neighbors normally
roll their trash cart to its storage area the same day it is emptied (see Figure 24).
Responses varied by the type of collection system currently used. Eighty-six percent of the
cart system participants stated that their neighbors rolled their trash cart to their storage
area the same day compared to 57.9 percent of the bag system participants. Bag
participants were more likely to say that neighbors rolled carts to their storage the next day
(21.4 percent compared to 11.4 percent) or several days later (21.1 percent compared to 2.3
percent).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
32
Figure 25
Trash Carts are Left Out Too Long
(n=197)
Yes
14.7%
No
185.3%
· Respondents were asked if, in their neighborhood, they thought that the City-provided trash
carts were left out too long after collection days. As shown in Figure 25, 14.7 percent of the
197 respondents said they thought that the trash carts were left out too long after collection
days.
· Seventy percent of the respondents who do not participate in the cart collection program
thought that the City-provided trash carts were left out too long after collection days
compared to 8.5 percent of the respondents who participate in the cart collection program.
· The percentages of the respondents who thought that the City-provided trash carts were left
out too long after collection days varied with length of residence in Denton: less than 1 year
(0.0 percent), 1 to 5 years (13.5 percent), 6 to 10 years (4.8 percent), and more than 10
years (26.0 percent).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
33
Recycling
Figure 26
Amount of Trash Recycled Each Week
(n=197)
23.9%
19.8% ~
//i
14.7%
11.2%
7.6% /
5.1% /
· I I I I I I
60%-
50%-
40%-
30%-
20%-
10%-
0%
None
1 to 10 Up to 20 Up to 30 Up to 40 Up to 50 More than 50
percent percent percent percent percent percent
· Respondents were asked, in general, about how much of their trash they recycled each
week. As shown in Figure 26, nearly one-quarter (23.9 percent) of the 197 respondents
reported recycling more than 50 percent of their trash each week.
· The percentages of the respondents who reported recycling more than 50 percent of their
trash each week increased with the age of the respondent: 18 to 35 (12.9 percent), 36 to 45
(30.1 percent), and 46 and over (30.2 percent).
· Twenty-seven percent of the female respondents and 19.0 percent of the male respondents
reported recycling more than 50 percent of their trash each week.
· Sixty-three percent of the respondents with 68 gallon or 35 gallon reported recycling 40
percent or more of their trash compared to 37.7 percent of respondents with 95-gallon
containers.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
34
Figure 27
Recycling More Due to Cart Size Limitations
(n=172)
Yes, recycle
more
38.4%
No, no effect
61.6%
· Participants in the Cart Collection System were asked if they recycle more since they are
limited by the size of their cart or if has had no effect on their recycling habits. Thirty-eight
percent of the 172 respondents reported that they recycle more because they are limited by
the size of their cart (see Figure 27).
· The percentages of the respondents who said they recycle more varied with the age of the
respondent: 18 to 35 (43.5 percent), 36 to 45 (45.5 percent), and 46 and over (20.9
percent).
· Forty-six percent of the respondents with children under 18 living in the household said they
recycle more compared to 26.2 percent of the respondents without children under 18 living
in the household.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
35
Figure 28
Aware There is No Cost for Increasing Size of Recycling Cart
(n=199)
Yes
51.8%
No
148.2%
All respondents were asked if they were aware that they could increase the size of their
recycling cart at no cost. Over half (51.8 percent) of the 199 respondents said they were
aware that they could increase the size of their recycling cart at no cost (see Figure 28).
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
36
Figure 29
Likelihood of Increasing Recycling and Decreasing Amount of Trash
(n=193)
lO0
26.4% 28.o%
Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely
· All respondents were asked how likely they will be to increase the size of their recycling cart
and decrease the size of their trash cart or the amount they put in bags. Nearly half (48.7
percent) of the 193 respondents said they were either very likely (26.4 percent) or somewhat
likely (22.3 percent) to increase the size of their recycling cart and decrease the size of their
trash cart or the amount they put in bags (see Figure 29).
· The percentages of the respondents who were either very likely or likely to increase the size
of their recycling cart and decrease the size of their trash cart or the amount they put in bags
varied with age: 18 to 35 (48.5 percent), 36 to 45 (62.5 percent), and 46 and over (30.8
percent).
· Fifty-eight percent of the respondents with children under 18 living in the household reported
they were either very likely or likely to increase the size of their recycling cart and decrease
the size of their trash cart or the amount they put in bags compared to 34.2 percent of the
respondents without children under 18 living in the household.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
37
V. CONCLUSIONS
During the month of April 2003, a telephone survey was conducted of residents
in the Wind River Estates subdivision in Denton, Texas. Since November 2002, most of
the residents in the Wind River subdivision have been participating in a pilot project
utilizing weekly trash collection using City-provided carts.
The survey was designed to rate several components of the system. Participants
in the program appear to be generally satisfied with the alternative system. Eighty-nine
percent of all participants were either very satisfied or satisfied with the cart collection
system. Eighty-two percent preferred to stay with this system and 12.6 percent preferred
to return to the bag collection system. The percentage preferring bags drops to 5.1
percent if it meant paying 48 dollars more each year.
The most common reasons why some Wind River residents remained with the
bag collection system and did not participate in the pilot program were that they
preferred a twice-a-week collection (31.8 percent) or thought that using carts was a
hassle (18.2 percent). Three non-participating respondents (13.6 percent) cited each of
the following reasons: not enough capacity, no room to store the cart, and issues
regarding cleanliness.
Eighty-six percent of the non-participants were aware that a smaller cart size
would result in a lower price compared to 57.1 percent of program participants. Forty-
three percent of all respondents were aware of the bulky waste collection service and
62.6 percent were aware of large appliance disposal services. Eighty-three percent were
aware that yard waste was collected separately on Wednesdays, and 51.8 percent were
aware that they could get a larger recycling cart free of charge. Thirty-eight percent of
the participants reported that they recycle more due to limitations in the size of the cart.
The results of this survey can be used to evaluate the pilot project and help the
City plan future waste management services.
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
38
APPENDIX A: INSTRUMENT
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
39
TRASH COLLECTION
PILOT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
Hello, my name is from the University of North Texas Survey Research Center.
The Survey Research Center is conducting a survey about solid waste collection on behalf of
the City of Denton and I need to speak to someone over the age of 18. Your participation is
voluntary. Your responses to our questions will be reported to city staff only as percentages so
your individual answers will remain confidential. The survey will take less than 10 minutes to
complete. This project has been approved by the UNT Committee for the Protection of Human
Subjects. If you have any questions you may call 369-7351.
1. Do you live in the Wind River neighborhood?
1. YES
2. NO (TERMINATE INTERVIEW)
2. Overall, would you rate your current trash collection service provided by the City as
excellent, good, fair or poor?
1. EXCELLENT
2. GOOD
3. FAIR
4. POOR
9. DK/NR
Last November, the City chose your neighborhood, Wind River, to participate in a pilot
program where carts were provided by the city for the disposal of trash. Are you participating
in this program or do you still use the plastic bag collection service?
1. CART COLLECTION SYSTEM
2. BAG COLLECTION SYSTEM
9. DK/NR
ASK IF RESPONDENT IS NOT PART OF PILOT PROGRAM
4. Could you tell me why you are not participating in the cart collection program? CODE
ANSWER
1. ONCE AWEEK PICK UP; PREFER TWICE AWEEK
2. NOT ENOUGH CAPACITY
3. NO ROOM TO STORE THE CART
4. OTHER
9. DK/NR
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
4O
5. Are you aware that there are different cart sizes available?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
Are you aware that if you use smaller cart sizes, the trash collection fee that you currently
pay will be lower?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
7A. If you could save $48 a year over your current rate for trash collection, would you consider
switching to cart collection service?
1. YES (SKIP TO 14)
2. NO
9. DK/NR
7B.
How about $60 a year?
1. YES (SKIP TO 14)
2. NO
9. DK/NR
7C. How about $72 a year?
1. YES (SKIP TO 14)
2. NO (SKIP TO 14)
9. DK/NR (SKIP TO 14)
ASK IF RESPONDENT IS PART OF PILOT PROGRAM
8. Are you aware that there are different cart sizes available?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
9. Are you aware that if you use smaller cart sizes, the monthly fee that you currently pay will
be lower?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
41
10.
The large, 95 gallon cart is the size which was given to you unless you requested a
smaller size. Which size cart are you using?
1. LARGE (95 GALLON)
2. MEDIUM (68 GALLON)
3. SMALL (35 GALLON)
9. DK/NR
11. Generally, how full is your trash cart on a weekly basis? Would you say...
12A.
12B.
12C.
12D.
13.
1. Less than 25 percent
2.25 to 49 percent
3.50 to 74 percent
4.75 to 90 percent
5.90 to 100 percent
6. More than 100 percent
9. DK/NR
Would you consider switching from a 95 gallon cart to a 68 gallon cart if you could save
$48 a year on trash collection fees?
1. YES (SKIP TO 12C)
2. NO
9. DK/NR
What if you could save $60 a year on trash collection fees?
1. YES
2. NO (SKIP TO 13)
9. DK/NR
Would you consider switching to a 35 gallon cart if you could save $60 a year on your
trash collection fees?
1. YES (SKIP TO 13)
2. NO
What if you could save $72 a year on your trash collection fees?
1. YES
2. NO (SKIP TO 13)
Since this program began in November, have you ever had a situation where you had
more trash than would fit in your cart?
1. YES
2. NO (SKIP TO 14)
9. DK/NR (SKIP TO 14)
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
42
ASK
14.
15.
16.
13a. How did you deal with the problem that week?
1. Saved some trash for the next week
2. Called for a special pick up
3. Brought trash to the City landfill
4. Other
ALL
Are you aware that yard waste is collected separately from your trash on Wednesdays?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
Are you aware that you can arrange with the City a special pick up of large household
appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers or washing machines?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
All of Denton's residential customers can take furniture and other bulky items to the landfill
for free. Are you aware that you can also schedule with the City a special bulky waste pick
up at your home?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
17. Where do you store your trash between collection days?
1. IN THE HOUSE
2. IN THE GARAGE
3. IN THE BACK YARD
4. SIDE OF THE HOUSE
5. AT THE CURB
6. OTHER
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
43
18.
19.
20.
ASK
21.
22.
I am going to read you a list of statements about the trash carts supplied by the City. As I
read each statement, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, are neutral,
disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement.
The trash cart is convenient to use. (ONLY ASK PARTICIPANTS)
The trash cart is difficult to move to the curb. (ONLY ASK PARTICIPANTS)
The trash cart is difficult to maneuver. (ONLY ASK PARTICIPANTS)
The trash cart is clean. (ONLY ASK PARTICIPANTS)
The trash cart reduces problems with animals in trash.
Trash carts on the curb look better in the neighborhood than trash bags.
Trash bags on the curb look better in the neighborhood than the City-provided trash
carts.
Weekly trash collection has been (would be [NON PARTICIPANTS]) a problem for my
household.
Normally, do your neighbors roll their trash cart to its storage area the same day it is
emptied, the day after it is emptied, or more than two days after it is emptied?
1. Same day
2. Next day
3. Several days
9. NR/DK
In your neighborhood do you think that the City-provided trash carts are left out too long
after collection days?
1. Yes
2. No
9. NR/DK
ONLY OF PARTICIPANTS (NON PARTICIPANTS SKIP TO Q23)
How would you compare using the City-provided trash cart to using plastic trash bags?
Do you like using the trash cart more than bags, the cart and bags about the same, or do
you like using bags more than the trash cart?
1. City-provided trash cart more
2. Same
3. Trash bags more
9. NR/DK
Do you want to stay with the cart collection system or do you want to go back to the bag
collection system?
1. RETURN TO THE BAG COLLECTION SYSTEM
2. DOES NOT MATTER
3. STAY WITH CART COLLECTION SYSTEM (SKIP TO 23)
9. NR/DK (SKIP TO 23)
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
44
22A. Would you want to switch back to bag collection even if it meant paying $48 dollars more
each year than you are paying now?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
23. In general, about how much of your trash do you recycle each week? Would you say...
1. None
2. 1 to 10 percent
3. Up to 20 percent
4. Up to 30 percent
5. Up to 40 percent
6. More than 40 percent
9. DK/NR
ASK
24.
PART ICI PANTS ON LY
Do you recycle more since you are limited by the size of your cart or has it not had an
effect on your recycling habits?
1. YES, RECYCLE MORE
2. NO, NO EFFECT
9. DK/NR
ASK ALL
25. Are you aware that you can increase the size of your recycling cart at no cost?
1. YES
2. NO
9. DK/NR
26.
In the future, will you be very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to
increase the size of your recycling cart and decrease [the size of your trash cart/the
amount that you put in bags]?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Somewhat unlikely
4. Very unlikely
9. DK/NR
The next few questions are for classification purposes only.
27. First, how long have you lived in Denton?
28.
1. LESS THAN ON E YEAR
2. 1 to 5 YEARS
3.6 to 10 YEARS
4. MORE THAN 10 YEARS
9. NR/DK
Into which of the following age groups do you fall?
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
45
1. 18-25
2. 26-35
3. 36-45
4. 46-60
5. 61-70
6. 71 and over
9. NR/DK
30.
I am going to read several different income categories. Without telling me your exact
income, into which category did your total household income for the past year fall?
1. Less than $25,000
2.25,001-40,000
3.40,001-60,000
4.60,001-80,000
5.80,001 to 100,000
6. Over 100,000
9. NR/DK
31. Do you have any children age 18 or younger living in your household?
1. YES
2. NO
9. NR/DK
32. Including yourself, how many people live in your household?
1. 1
2.2
3.3
4.4
5. 5-6
6. 7 or more
9. NR/DK
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. We believe that this project will help city
officials provide better services to all citizens.
INTERVIEWER: RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT
1. FEMALE 2. MALE 9. NR/DK
Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas
46
· Consulting to Government & Utilities
Boulder Office: 762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80027
Voice: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
email: skumatz @ serainc.com
Website: www. serainc.com; payt.org
ANALYSIS OF VARIABLE RATE AND
RECYCLING OPTIONS FOR THE
CITY OF DENTON, TE~S
Task I & 2 Draft Report
Prepared by:
Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. and Blake Bear
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
7'62 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100
Superior, CO 80302
May 24, 2002
EXHIBIT 3
I. BACKGROUND ON VARIABLE RATES
A. Project Introduction
The City of Denton is interested in significantly increasing recycling and diversion through a
number of changes to their solid waste program. Currently, Denton residents recycle
approximately 7% of their waste at City recycling drop-off sites and an additional 10% through
the City's curbside yard waste / brush program.
The Denton Solid Waste Advisory Committee (appointed by the Denton City Council, with the
assistance of the Public Utilities Board) published a Master Plan for solid waste management in
1995 that calls for an integrated approach to the management of the City of Denton's solid
waste over the next twenty years. The Plan was revised in 1997 and instituted goals to
increase the life of the City landfill and to significantly increase diversion.
The City is considering a variety of programmatic strategies to improve the convenience and
availability of recycling. Variable rates (VR) / Pay As You Throw (PAYT),~ a strategy with many
advocates, has been proposed as one possible strategy to incent additional recycling in the
residential sector. Under a variable rates system, customers are provided an economic signal
to reduce the waste thrown away, because garbage bills increase with the volume (or weight) of
waste they put out for disposal.
B. Current and Planned Programs
The City provides solid waste collection for residences and businesses, including residential
solid waste collection for nearly 20,000 single family and small multi-family residences, with
approximately 1100 new accounts added on an annual basis. During fiscal year 2001, the City
disposed of 110,000 tons of garbage, nearly 25,000 tons of which was residential. The Denton
Solid Waste Department consists of 88.5 full time equivalent employees and has a budget of
approximately $10 million.
Most residents receive unlimited garbage collection services two times a week for a monthly fee
of $17.50. The City maintains a fleet of manual, rear-load trucks for residential garbage
collection that are each staffed by three collection personnel. A small percentage of residents in
newer sections of town and/or in annexed areas receive cart service once per week. The
service costs $15 for a 96-gallon cart or $13 for a 64-gallon cart. A number of different service
levels are offered for commercial and institutional solid waste customers.
The city also provides a number of recycling services to residents as part of their solid waste
service, including weekly (biweekly during winter months) yard waste collection, recycling drop-
off centers, appliance collection for reuse and recycling, used oil and oil filter collection centers,
and composting and composting materials sales.
~ This system is also known as "Pay By The Can", "Pay By The Bag", volume based rates, and, as Austin,
TX dubbed their system, "Pay As You Throw" (PAYT). These names all designate systems by which
customers that put out more garbage for disposal pay more.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
The City is also planning to implement a fully commingled, curbside recycling program for single
family and small multi-family accounts in November 2002 that will be one of the most
progressive recycling systems in the state of Texas. Residents will receive either an 18-gallon
bin or a 35-gallon cart for recyclables and will be able to recycle plastics (all types), paper (all
types), cardboard, chipboard, glass, and aluminum and tin containers. Trinity Waste Systems of
Piano, Texas will provide all collection and processing services for the cost of $1.47 per
household and will receive the revenues derived from the sale of recyclable materials. The City
will charge all garbage customers a monthly, mandatory fee of $1.99 for the recycling service
and associated costs.
The City is also planning to implement a VR system to encourage residents to reduce waste
generation and to increase recycling through the new curbside recycling program and the
existing yard waste program. The specific features of different types of VR systems are
discussed below.
C. Variable Rates Features and Advantages
Variable rates are a simple concept - those who use more service pay more. Key features
include:
Economic signal and equity: The crucial change is that behavior now affects a bill that
previously was fixed, more or less regardless of what disposal choices a household made.
Avid recyclers paid the same as large disposers. Variable rates provides a recurring
economic signal to modify behavior, and allows small disposers to save money compared to
those who use more service (and cost the system more).
Not restrictive: Variable rates do not restrict customer choices - customers are not banned
from putting out additional garbage; but those who want to put out more will pay more than
those customers who keep their disposal lower.
Incentive to recycle and reduce: Variable rates provide advantages even beyond
recycling programs. Certainly recycling programs encourage recycling, but variable rates
programs encourage all kinds of behavior that lead to less thrown out for disposal,2 including
recycling, composting, and source reduction (SR). Source reduction is the highest priority
and cheapest waste management strategy (and one that is not directly encouraged by
recycling and yard waste programs). Ultimately, it is anticipated that using VR to reduce the
burden on the disposal system will lead to more efficient use of services, improved
environmental and resource use, and lower long run solid waste system management costs.
These programs have "caught on" in the last decade, and SERA, Inc. information on the number
of programs in North America shows they have increased from about 100 to about 5,1003 and
that the programs are available to more than 20% of the U.S. population. Furthermore, many
states recommend these programs as strategies for increasing recycling and meeting diversion
goals; a few even mandate the adoption of variable rates for communities in the state.
Variable rates programs can be broken into five major system types:
2 Including, potentially, unwanted behaviors like illegal dumping, etc. These issues are addressed below.
3 Skumatz, Lisa A. and Green, John, "Variable Rates...", Resource Recycling, June 2001, updated.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
Variable can or subscribed can: Customers select a number or size of container as their
"normal" weekly disposal amount. These are commonly one can, two cans, etc., or can be
set as 30 gallons, 60 gallons, etc. Rates for customers signed up for two can service are
higher than rates for one can customers. Some communities have also introduced mini-can
(20 gallons) or micro can (10 gallons) service levels to provide incentives for aggressive
recyclers.
Bag program: In this program, customers must purchase specially Iogoed bags, and any
waste they want collected must be put in the special bag. Thirty to 35 gallon bags are most
common, but some communities also sell smaller bags at a discounted price. Bags can be
sold at city hall or community centers, but even more commonly, communities work with
grocery stores or convenience store chains to sell the bags (sometimes with a commission,
and sometimes the foot traffic is enough reward to the retailer). The price of the bag
incorporates the cost of the collection, transport, and disposal of the waste in the bag (as
well as other programs, etc.). In some communities, they use the bag program in
conjunction with a "customer charge", and in those cases, the bag price reflects only a
portion of the cost of collection and disposal, with the remainder collected through the
monthly charge.
Tag or sticker programs: These programs are almost identical to bag programs, except
instead of a special bag, customers need to affix a special Iogoed sticker or tag to the waste
they want disposed. The tags need to be visible to collection staff so they know whether the
waste has been paid for. Like the bag program, tags are usually good for 30-gallon
increments of service. Pricing and distribution options are identical to the bag program.
Hybrid system: This system makes a "hybrid" of the current collection system and a new
incentive-based system. Instead of receiving unlimited collection for payment of the monthly
fee or the tax bill, the system is changed so that the customer gets only a smaller limited
volume of service for the fee. Typical limits for the base service in communities across the
country are one can, two bags, or two cans as limits. Limits usually vary based on maturity
of the program, disposal behavior, and availability and comprehensiveness of recycling
options. Beyond the approved "base" service, customers are required to buy bags or
stickers, as described above. Under this program, the "base" service level can be tailored to
best suit the community or to achieve a variety of objectives. No new billing system is
needed, and bags only need to be purchased for service above the base. Current collection
and billing is retained with minimal changes, but an incentive is provided for those who are
putting out higher levels of garbage.
Weight-based: This system uses a modified scale on trucks to weigh garbage containers
and charge customers based on the actual pounds of garbage set out for disposal. On-
board computers record weights by household and customers are billed on this basis.
Special "chips", called Radio frequency (RF) tags are affixed to the containers to identify
households, and these are read and recorded electronically on the on-board computer along
with the weights for that household.
Other variations: Some communities (or especially haulers) offer variable rates as an
option along with their standard unlimited system. Drop-off programs, using punch cards or
other systems are also in place in other communities.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
Nationally, SERA finds that can and bag programs are the most common, followed by hybrid
programs. Sticker, optional and drop-off programs are somewhat less common. No weight-
based programs are currently in full-scale operation in the U.S. Communities with variable rates
programs range in size from about 50 to over a million in population. The programs are most
commonly in place in communities ranging from several thousand to about 50,000. This is not
surprising, because there are many more communities of this size in the U.S. However, there
are also a significant number of large communities with these systems.
Communities see savings through reduced landfill usage, efficiencies in routing, staffing, and
equipment, and higher recycling. However, some negative aspects also arise that are important
to address. Collection changes can lead to additional costs; new administrative burdens
(monitoring and enforcement, billing, etc.) arise; rate setting and revenues are more complex
and uncertain; and significant public outreach expenditures are necessary to implement a
successful variable rates program. In addition, specific concerns arise. These are addressed
in the section below.
D. Challenges in Implementing Variable Rates:
Key concerns regarding variable rates focus on several major issues.
Illegal dumping: The largest concern of most elected officials is usually worry that the
economic incentive will lead to increased illegal dumping. Currently, there is not a large
illegal dumping problem in Denton. At issue is whether variable rates might lead to an
increase. Because of the continuing focus on this issue across the nation, SERA has
conducted extensive work on illegal dumping. We find that fewer than 25% of communities
cite problems after the implementation of a VR system and that in fact the bulk of illegally
dumped waste is not residential in origin, but rather commercial.4 The largest residential
component of illegal dumping is typically sofas, appliances, etc. Therefore, communities
recommend having a convenient bulky waste program (which Denton has) to increase the
success of the VR program and to minimize the incentives for dumping these awkward
materials.
Administrative workloads and costs: Concerns about costs are an issue for many
communities. This is difficult to estimate because the costs depend on the current system in
place, and the type of system that the community is considering going to - and that provides
an impossible number of combinations for which to provide general cost guidance.
However, two states conducted surveys simply asking communities whether solid waste
management and administrative costs increased, decreased, or stayed the same after
putting in variable rates. Almost 2/3 of the communities indicated costs had decreased or
stayed the same. This provides good evidence that implementing variable rates does not
have to be expensive, and that appropriate system choices can be made to minimize the
costs. In all cases, long run costs were expected to be lower, but these surveys show that
even short run costs (even within a budget cycle) can be manageable.
4 Skumatz, Van Dusen, and Carton, "Illegal Dumping: Incidence...", SERA, Seattle, Washington, 1995.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
Low-income customers and large families: Concerns are raised that the program is
perceived as unfair to large families. It is important to separate concerns about large
families from concerns about Iow-income households. Addressing just the large family
issue, consider turning the argument around. Has it been fair all these years for small
disposers to be subsidizing large disposers all these years under fixed bill (or nearly fixed
bill) systems? Opportunities to reduce waste are available to all households (recycling, etc.)
and those who limit their waste can get control over a bill they previously could not reduce.
Although there is some relationship between family size and amount disposed, all
households have opportunities to reduce, and large households do not generally receive
discounts on water service, groceries, or other services that might also vary by family size.
Low-income issues can be addressed through differential rates for "qualified" households,
and through distribution of free or reduced-cost stickers or bags along with other assistance
programs.5
Revenue uncertainty: Variable rates programs, because they depend on customer
behavior choices, will inherently lead to more volatile revenue streams than systems with
fixed bills. This is very commonly a concern both for haulers and for municipalities.
Revenues are no longer based on a stable number like households, but rather on the
number of individual bags or cans of waste sold/disposed. The number of bags disposed
can vary month-to-month and week-to-week, based on diversion program availability,
seasonal factors, advertisements and promotions, and many other factors, and this can
cause significant revenue headaches. However, a much greater source of concern is
determining - up front, before the program goes in place - the average amount of service
that will be used by customers. This is vital for initial rate setting, and making sure that rates
are established that will provide sufficient revenues to fund the solid waste management
system. Appropriate rate setting is more complicated, but many firms have experience in
this work. However, uncertainties associated with this process can be significantly reduced
if data are available on current set outs (volume of garbage and weight of waste set out for
collection6), remaining recycling potential in the sector, and other information. If revenue
uncertainty is a primary concern, systems with less volatility include: variable can, and
hybrid programs, or bag/tag programs that include a customer charge.
Other concerns: Although the systems do not work well for large apartment buildings with
shared "chutes", they are routinely implemented in garden apartments, town houses, and
apartments of about 6 or fewer units. Recall also, that larger multifamily buildings are
already receiving a volume-based signal (although at the building and not tenant level)
through dumpster charges, which are charged based on cubic yards of service. Customers
routinely view the programs as fair, and they end up being very popular with residents after
the fact. Finally, any change always lead to confusion and resistance to change. Public
education is strongly emphasized by all communities to improve success of the variable
rates program. All systems establish weight limits for the cans and containers, to address
both safety and equity concerns.
In summary, technical issues are seldom the problem in implementing variable rates. Variable
rates programs have tremendous flexibility in their design and can usually be tailored to
5 See, for instance, Skumatz, "Low Income Strategies...", SERA, 1996.
6 Weight is recorded because compaction is a concern and can affect set outs and therefore, computed
rates.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
accommodate most concerns. Instead, political will is usually the largest stumbling block to
implementing variable rates programs.
E. So Why Consider Variable Rates?
The key impacts communities have found from implementing variable rates fall into the following
categories.
· Tonnage shifts away from disposal: The incentives from the program cause customers to
try to reduce disposal and to increase recycling, composting, yard waste diversion, and
source reduction. Although some report that variable rates leads to disposal decreases
anywhere from 25% to 60%, this information is misleading because many of the
communities made several changes at once, and variable rates was only one of them.
Many implemented new recycling programs at the same time, so it would be a mistake to
assume this large a decrease would be derived from implementing a variable rates program
only. To provide more realistic expectations about the impacts of VR programs, SERA
conducted detailed work using data from over 500 communities across the nation to clarify
the impacts that could be attributed to the variable rates programs only. We found that
variable rates decreases residential disposal by about 16%7 in weight, with 8-11% being
diverted directly to recycling and yard programs. We also found:
· 5-6%8 percentage points go to recycling (with similar increases for both curbside and
drop-off programs).
· 4-5%9 go to yard waste programs, if any.
· About 4-7%4° is removed via source reduction efforts. This includes buying in bulk,
buying items with less packaging, etc.
· The quantitative work also indicates that the impacts from variable rates were the single
most effective change that could be made to a curbside (or drop-off) program.
Implementing variable rates had a larger impact on recycling than adding additional
materials, changing frequency of collection, or other changes and modifications to
programs?~
· These results are confirmed by other work. For instance, a survey in Iowa found that
recycling increased by 30% to 100%, and averaged about 50%. When adjusted to the
percent of the total waste stream instead of considering just increases in recycling, we
find the results are very comparable to the SERA work. Recently completed work on
California communities estimates the impact to be 3-4% for recycling, and 3-4% for yard
waste for a total of 6-8% to programs.~2 Surveys conducted by several universities and
others also confirms the preliminary source reduction results - customers report taking
the rates system into consideration when they are making decisions at the grocery store.
· Reduced set outs: We find that set outs reduce dramatically - from 90 gallons to 30-45
gallons in many communities that have active recycling programs. Some of this is
7 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Measuring Source Reduction...", SERA, 1998.
8 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Nationwide Diversion Rate Study...", SERA, 1996.
9 Ibid.
l0 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Measuring Source Reduction...", SERA, 1998.
~ Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Nationwide Diversion Rate Study...", SERA, 1996.
~2 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Getting to 50%...", prepared for the California Chapters of SWANA, SERA,
1999.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
accomplished through actual tonnage reductions as method above, but additional decreases
are due solely to compaction - the "Seattle Stomp". Set out decreases are important
because they reflect the new unit of revenue, and are crucial to rate setting.~3
System cost impacts: This is difficult to measure, not only in general, but also even for
specific communities. Communities rarely make only one change independently, and it is
difficult even for them to attribute the cost impacts directly due to variable rates. As
mentioned before, surveys in two states found that 60-65% of the communities reported that
costs stayed the same or decreased after putting variable rates programs in place.
II. EVALUA TING VARIABLE RATES FOR DENTON
A. Evaluating Specific Variable Rates Systems for Denton
One step for Denton is to determine which system may make most sense for the community.
Certainly each of the variable rates systems has pros and cons - or presumably, the systems
would not be in place in communities around the county. The mix of pros and cons makes
some more suitable for particular communities and their priorities than others. Table 1 below
provides a summary of the major advantages and disadvantages of the different system types.
In order to select the best system for Denton, we established a number of criteria that have
been important in studies for other communities. These criteria are listed in Table 2 below. The
simplified list of variable rate system options was then "scored" relative to each other using a
scale from 1-4 on each of these characteristics.
The priorities regarding characteristics of a VR system in Denton (1-5, with 5 being most
important) are found in the right-most column of the table. Then, weights were established from
these priorities, with the total of the weights adjusted to equal 100%. Using these weights, we
calculated a total score for each of the four systems, based on our assessment of Denton's
priorities. Highest priorities were assumed to be: increased recycling / decreased disposal /
signals; lower long-run costs for the solid waste system; lower staffing / labor costs; revenue
certainty / minimize volatility; flexible system / adaptable over time; and track record / well
demonstrated success.
The system that scored best (lowest, using this system) was the hybrid program. Key
advantages of this program include: easy and inexpensive to implement; no new billing system
needed; good acceptability for customers; piggybacks on current collection system, and similar
advantages. This system also limits revenue volatility, and enforcement is not as complicated
as others.
13 Note that decreases in set outs don't, however, directly reflect the changes in costs for the system.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 'I & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
The analysis indicates the other strong semi-finalist program for the City to consider is a VR
cart-based program with collection. Key advantages for this system include savings in staff
costs, a stable revenue base, and a proven track record in many cities. Implementation costs
will be higher for this program due to the cost of purchasing specialized trucks and new
containers. However, long-term savings in staff reduction should offset initial implementation
costs and slightly higher maintenance costs over a period of three to four years.TM
~4 This estimate assumes that Denton will purchase a total of 13 new trucks at $158,000 and 20,300 carts
at an average price of $40 each; that additional yearly operation and maintenance costs for the trucks will
be approximately $100,000; and that 23 fewer collection staff (a reduction of 2 staff per truck with the
addition of one extra staff for an additional truck) will be needed at $45,000 per staff. This estimate only
includes these basic program costs. Additional costs and savings factors would increase or decrease the
estimated payback time.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
B. Relative Implementation and Administrative Costs
The relative costs for implementing and operating the various variable rates systems are
outlined in Table 3 below. Major areas of implementation costs for variable rates systems
include:
· Phone / customer service costs: When changes occur, customers call with questions.
Some communities handle the extra phone traffic as part of normal work, or are able to
absorb it by deferring other administrative work that is not time sensitive. Some
communities have been able to use staff from other municipal calling centers (water
department, etc.). Others, with more elaborate changes, may require additional phone lines
and new temporary staff for a month or two. This also includes costs related to on-going
billing questions. Training of these staff may also be necessary.
· Billing: The systems differ in the need for new or enhanced billing systems to
accommodate the new methods for billing.
· Service level selection: Under some programs, customers need to select a "basic" service
level. This requires sending forms for customers to fill out, and entering the information into
the billing system for each household.
· Trucks and equipment: Some variable rates programs require changes to collection
vehicles. In particular, the weight-based program requires retrofit of vehicles.
· Containers: Some systems include the purchase of new, uniform containers (variable can
programs).
· Bag or tag purchases: This includes designing, ordering, and storing bags or tags, as well
as the costs to identify
· Bag or tag distribution: This includes finding and negotiating agreements with grocery
stores or convenience stores to sell bags or tags for the program. It is suggested that these
outlets be used, and that the City not try to sell them through community centers or City Hall
alone.
· Advertising and outreach: Costs will be incurred in public education about the new
program, including potentially PSAs, newsletters, bill inserts, or other media.~5
· Service level enforcement: some programs are almost "self enforcing", and others may
need more aggressive enforcement to assure that customers are not getting more service
than they are paying for.
· Illegal dumping enforcement: Some of the programs lead to somewhat greater incentives
to dump waste illegally. For these systems, it may be appropriate to institute higher levels of
enforcement of illegal dumping than would be needed with other programs.
· Collection staff training: Some of the systems require modifications to the way in which
the waste is collected, and others may require additional or new duties. The relative
complexities are shown in the table.
· Rate study: Rate studies will be needed to set rates. Some of the systems may have more
complexities associated with the rate setting efforts, and these are shown. More information
is needed to support a rate study for variable can rates than for a bag program, for instance.
· Recycling and diversion program: The recycling and diversion programs may need
additional capacity to handle the increase in tonnage. This may mean more routes and staff
and trucks; it may mean greater operating hours or additional capacity at processing
facilitates; or it may mean more frequent collection at drop-off sites for example.
~5 Some communities report expenditures on the order of $2-3 per household.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
11
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
Table 3: Relative Implementation Costs for Variable Rates Systems
(Source: SERA, 1999)
Relative Hybrid Variable Bag/Sticker Weight-
potential system Cart based
level of the
cost item
Phone / Customer service Medium Moderate High Moderate High
to Iow
Bi/ting system High None High None High
Service/eve/se/ection/admin Medium None High None None
Trucks and equipment High None None None High
Containers and distribution High None High None High
Bag or tag purchase Low Medium Low High None
Bag ortag distribution Low Medium Low High
Advertising and outreach Medium Low - Medium Medium Medium-
medium high
Service/eve/enforcement Low Low Medium Medium Low
Illegal dumping enforcement Low Low Low Medium Medium
Collection staff training Low Very little Low Low Higher
Rate study Low Medium Higher Medium-low Medium-
high
Recycling and diversion Medium Medium- Medium Medium Larger
programs Iow i m pact
Other All need bulky waste programs associated and well known
by households. Ordinances will need to be passed for
rates, illegal dumping fines, etc.
Overall, we find that the hybrid program is expected to lead to Iow implementation and
operation costs, especially for those items with the potential to be very high. The cart-based
program would be expected to have somewhat higher implementation costs, but may have
lower on-going labor costs to offset these initial expenditures.
C. "Selling" Variable Rates - Suggestions to Increase Acceptance
Getting variable rates programs approved is often harder than designing and running the
system. Some council are nervous enough that we have seen one council approve the concept,
and leave it for then next council to deal with the issue of the actual rates to be charged! And
council are sensitive to concerns about not fixing things that are not broken. There are several
key strategies and activities that may be useful in helping Denton move in this direction.
· Customer education: Key is the information and outreach provided to households about
the new system. The central message to residential customers should include:
· The problem you are trying to solve through the new program. This is very important
and often ignored. Why is it an important problem(s), and how will this system contribute
to the solution?
· How the program works - rate levels, where to get bags, types and sizes of containers
and limits (volume and weight). Be sure that those in the municipal collection area vs.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
12
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
those not collected by the City understand they need to buy different colored bags or
tags for extra waste!
· Information about opportunities to reduce their waste - specific recycling, source
reduction opportunities. Clearly explain what to do with bulky waste.
· Provide information and (graphics) examples of how making different choices about
behavior can save customers money under the new program, and how some choices
lead to higher payments.
· Notify about ordinances and fines for illegal dumping, etc.
· Remind about collection days- always useful.
· Be sure to include phone numbers on where to get more information on the program.
Starter-Kit: One additional suggestion might be for Denton to develop a "starter kit" to
increase acceptance. This might be as simple as including as a door hanger, or even as an
insert in the Sunday paper, a free first tag for the system, with a detailed description of how
the system works. This makes customers immediately familiar with the program, with the
actual bags or stickers, and gives them a first "free" tag that can provide a favorable
introduction. In addition, it is recommended that the system be "phased in". For the first few
weeks, tags should be left indicating that waste was collected, but in the future, tags will be
needed. One city left extra waste error-tagged for one day and then returned to collect it all
the next day to give citizens the idea of how it worked.
Other suggestions: Based on interviews with communities across the nation that have
implemented these programs, we find several additional key suggestions.
· Meet with editorial boards to try to get some favorable up front coverage and
"endorsement".
· Education is crucial - no community reports wishing they had done less outreach.
· A "champion" is useful in getting programs accepted and to help through the tough times
when some things (inevitably, no matter how well-planned) go wrong.
· Make sure collectors understand the program - they are a crucial link in communication.
· Don't ignore opponents or bad press coverage - deal with it immediately.
· Consider establishing a task force that includes representatives from a wide variety of
favorable and unfavorable interest groups.
· Consider developing a "catchy" name for the program, as Austin did with "pay as you
throw", rather than "variable can rates". Logos and other items that tie in with the
integrated array of programs are helpful, and it is important to tie with your available
recycling opportunities, etc.
· Provide updates on progress in the paper and through other outreach - and keep
councilmembers up to date with "sound bites".
D. Results of VR / Diversion Analysis
The results of our variable rates analyses indicate that the potential additional diversion from
variable rates is on the order of 5.5% for additional recycling, and on the order of 4.5% for yard
waste programs. In combination with the estimates of source reduction from variable rates
(approximately 6%), a VR system is expected to increase diversion by 16% for the City of
Denton.~6
~6 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Measuring Source Reduction...", SERA, 2000.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
13
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
Denton is also planning to implement a curbside, fully commingled recycling program for
residences, which should also significantly increase diversion. Our research has shown that the
switch from a robust drop-off recycling system to a curbside program adds approximately 6-10%
diversion to a community's recycling rate?7 Results also indicate that the ease of a fully
commingled system and the extra materials that will be collected in the new system will increase
recycling diversion by another 4%.48
We estimate that variable rates, in conjunction with the new curbside program, could move the
City of Denton from current residential recycling of 17% (including residential yard waste) to
37%. This equates to a diversion total of nearly 13,000 tons based on fiscal year 2001 tonnage
data. Assuming a landfill tipping fee of $33.75 per ton, the avoided cost to Denton will be nearly
$440,000. The results of this analysis are tallied in Table 4.
Table 4: Diversion Percent, Diverted Tonnage, and Avoided Cost by
Program Component
Program Component~9 Diversion Diverted Avoided
Contribution Tonnage Cost*
VR Recycling 5.5% 1,645 $55,532
VR Yard Waste 4.5% 1,346 $45,435
VR Source Reduction 6.0% 1,795 $60,580
Curbside Recycling 6.0% 1,795 $60,580
Single Stream 4.0% 1,197 $40,387
Current Recycling Rate 6.8% 2,037 $68,749
Current YW Recycling 10.6% 3,172 $107,055
Diversion Due to VR System 16.0% 4,787 $161,546
Diversion Due to All Changes 26.0% 7,778 $262,513
Total Expected Diversion 43.4% 12,987 $438,317
Expected Recycling Rate 37.4% 11,192 $377,737
*Assumes a Tipping Fee of $33.75
Our research shows that some of the strongest-performing recycling programs have the
following features:2°
Curbside recycling collection (increases recycling 7-10 percentage points): Curbside
convenience encourages recycling, leading to significantly greater diversion (and associated
increased costs).
17 Skumatz, Lisa A., PH.D., "Achieving 50% in California...", SERA, 1999.
~8 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Achieving 50% in California...", SERA, 1999; Skumatz, Lisa A. Ph.D.,
"Nationwide Diversion Rate Study...", SERA, 1996.
19 Our analyses have also found that a recycling fee embedded in the price of garbage collection (i.e. not
optional) typically increases diversion by 4%. However, we have not included this component in our table
because these results cannot strictly be added and because we wanted to offer a conservative estimate.
2o Skumatz, Lisa. A Ph.D., "Measuring Source Reduction...", SERA, 2000; Skumatz, Lisa. A Ph.D.,
"Achieving 50% In California...", SERA, 1999; Skumatz, Lisa. A Ph.D., "Nationwide Diversion Rate...",
SERA, 1996.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
14
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
· PAYT / VR (increases recycling 4.5 percentage points): As discussed above, these
programs provide strong incentives for diverting waste from the disposal stream into
recycling, compost, yard waste diversion, and source reduction.
· Commingled collection (increases recycling 2-4 percentage points): Commingled
collection makes recycling easier for residents, and increases collection efficiencies
dramatically. We find it leads to significant savings on program costs.
· Weekly collection (increases recycling 3-4 percentage points): Every other week collection
leads to lower recycling, but also reduces program cost.
· No separate fee (increases recycling 4 percentage points): Embedding the recycling costs
in the garbage fee increases recycling in the community above programs with separate fees
or line-items for the program on the bill.
· Cart-based collection2~: Our research shows that providing carts or bins increases the
recycling rate.
These features tend to be associated with the highest recycling rates. The new program in
Denton addresses virtually all these high-performing features that we would ordinarily
recommend. As shown in the Table 4, we have been able to provide estimates for the impacts
of this new program on the tonnages recycled, diverted, and disposed in Denton.
Based on our research, one option that can reduce costs of recycling programs is every-other-
week collection. The research shows that weekly collection can run nearly 40% more
expensive than every other week service. We have found many communities attempt to reduce
the costs of their diversion programs by alternating recycling with yard waste collection - that is,
garbage and recycling are collected one week, and garbage and yard waste are collected the
next week. However, the recycling program cost for Denton is lower than the costs for most
communities with which we have worked. We do not believe it would necessarily benefit the
City to change the collection frequency because it can be confusing to residents, there are
tradeoffs in lower recycling tonnage, and the program costs are already very reasonable.
E. Recommendations
A variable rates system in the City of Denton would provide a strong incentive for customers to
recycle and reduce the amount of waste disposed. This kind of program--especially when
implemented with augmented recycling opportunities--will have a significant effect of residential
disposal behavior. This strategy could serve as a key element in helping reach residential
sector goals.
We estimate that the impact could be 5.5% or more transferred to recycling effort (even with a
drop-off program) and that source reduction accounts for an additional 6% of material that
avoids the disposal stream. Increased diversion to yard waste programs is on the order of 4.5
percentage points. Given the starting point of 17.4% diversion (including yard waste)in the
residential sector, variable rates show excellent potential to help the City increase diversion by
another 16% (including 6% source reduction). In combination with the implementation of a
single stream, curbside recycling program, our results indicate that the Denton may be expected
to recycle 37% of its waste.
21 Increases recycling more than 2 percentage points - interrelated with commingled collection factors.
All these results are from Skumatz, "Nationwide Diversion Rate Study...", 1996, and Skumatz, "Achieving
50%...", 1999.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
15
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
Our analysis suggests that two VR systems show particular promise for Denton - the hybrid
program and the cart-based program. Denton may be able to incorporate the advantages of
both programs.
The hybrid program is particularly strong because it can be implemented with only minor
changes in collection, billing, and containerization. That means it can be implemented without
delay, providing a price signal to encourage recycling to customers immediately. However,
although the hybrid system is relatively inexpensive to implement, it is not expected to decrease
long-tern costs through collection efficiencies or reduced labor costs. We recommend that the
November 2002 implementation of the curbside recycling program might be an opportune point
to "piggyback" the two programs. The steps to implement would include:
· Decide on a "base" amount of waste that customers may obtain for their current rate
payments, or the rate established for this service in the new rate study. We suggest that
either 32-35 or 60-65 gallons be selected22, because using a 90-gallon service as the base
provides virtually no recycling incentive.
· Establish a "bag" program for "extras" beyond the base, with a fee attached. Alternatively,
some communities use bar coded route sheets and charge customers for extras based on
these recorded overages.
· Provide significant education on how the program works, and how customers can save
money by reducing and recycling to decrease their bills.
A cart-based program is also a very strong option for Denton. The price differential for different
sizes of carts provides a strong incentive to recycle, and the system offers significant collection
efficiency improvements. Implementation costs for the cart-system will be significantly higher,
mainly due to the need to purchase trucks and containers; however, long-term savings due to
reduced staffing of garbage trucks (from 3 staff per truck to 1 staff) will offset these costs.
Over time, as new neighborhoods can be accommodated, we recommended that the City move
to a container-based VR system. Customers would be phased in as new trucks are purchased.
They would receive containers based on their selected size, and their rates would be adjusted
within the system to reflect this choice. Customers who had previously used a hybrid system
would already be familiar with the amount of garbage and recycling they generated. This
experience would facilitate their transition to a cart-based system and aid them in their choice of
cart size.
These recommendations has the effect of:
· Providing a VR incentive for all customers quickly.
· Providing the change at the same time as the recycling program, making it an almost one-
time change and "packaging" the changes (offering VR incentives plus an enhanced
recycling program to help residents utilize the incentives).
· Phasing in a cart-based system, allowing the current equipment to be utilized to its
appropriate lifetime, but moving toward a more efficient system in a relatively seamless
manner.
22 The final selection of "base" size would best be determined by a set out survey, combined with an
analysis of the expected change in gallons set out. The analysis would be based on price and recycling
program incentives and on anticipated compaction of the garbage in the container. We would be happy
to assist the City in analyzing this issue.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
16
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
After we discuss these recommendations with the City we will provide rate computations and
work with the City on possible multifamily options. We look forward to your comments on these
analyses and recommendations.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Suite 100, Superior, CO 80302
Phone: 303/494-1178 FAX: 303/494-1177
17
DENTON: TASK 1 & 2 DRAFT REPORT 5/02
PUB AGENDA ITEM #4
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
ACM:
December 1, 2003
Solid Waste
Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232
SUBJECT
Receive a report and hold a discussion on the development of the landfill gas (LFG) control
system and a biodiesel production project designed to meet regulatory and landfill permit
requirements.
BACKGROUND
Landfills must provide a landfill gas collection and treatment to comply with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act. The landfill periodically monitors the gas emissions generated from the
disposed municipal solid waste to document emission levels and determine when to schedule the
design and construction of the LFG management system.
The Solid Waste department must additionally meet certain Energy Policy Act (EPACT)
requirements for its on and off road diesel powered vehicles and equipment. These requirements
include the replacement or conversion of a portion of the fleet to alternative fuels.
Staff has been working with the premier landfill gas system operators and biodiesel industry to
determine the viability of developing a LFG project that would use the gas in some beneficial
manner. A solicitation for proposals for such projects has been completed. The evaluation
committee has selected a service provider and is proceeding with a feasibility study to determine
the viability of the proposed project.
The proposed project will consist of a landfill gas collection and treatment system that will
utilize LFG in the production of a biodiesel fuel. The proposed project would include the
development of contracts with DTE Biomass Energy, Inc. and Biodiesel Industries, Inc. to
construct and operate landfill gas and biodiesel facilities. The biodiesel fuel produced in this
process will provide fuel for our entire diesel powered solid waste fleet and will meet our
EPACT requirements.
This project will significantly reduce the cost to provide a LFG collection and treatment system
by other methods currently used in the industry.
EXHIBIT 4
OPTIONS
The City must provide for the collection and treatment of LFG to meet permit and regulatory
requirements. A feasibility study is being conducted to determine whether the proposed project
provides a technologically and financially viable option. Staff'will bring the results of the study
to the PUB in January, 2004. The PUB will have the following options:
1) Accept the proposal for the construction and operation of the system to meet the permit and
regulatory requirements.
2) Reject the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
No recommendations at this time.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
None
FISCAL INFORMATION
This project will be funded from revenue and bond funds. The estimated capital expenditure
range for this project is between $650,000 and $790,000. The cost of the feasibility study is
$10,000, below the level requiring City Council approval. The feasibility study has been
initiated.
BID INFORMATION
The City is in receipt of responses to a RFSP #3111 for a Professional Services Contract for the
Design and Development of a Beneficial Landfill Gas and Biodiesel Production Facility.
Recommendation for an award under this RSFP is contingent upon the results of the feasibility
study. Results of the feasibility study will be presented to the PUB in January for their review
and action.
EXHIBITS
2.
3.
4.
RFSP
Schedule
Landfill gas information
Biodiesel information
Respectfully submitted:
Vance Kemler
Director of Solid Waste
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
RFSP #3111
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BIODIESEL
PRODUCTION FACILITY
of
RFSP OPENING DATE:
November 13, 2003
at 2:00 p.m.
EXHIBIT 1
October 30, 2003
,E~Nj~INEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL EAST 60'1 E. HICKORY, SUITE B DENTON, TEXAS 7620f ·
· (940) 349-89'10 °FAX (940) 349.895~ · METRO (972) 434.2529 ·
Juene K. Franklin,-P:E.
Shaw EMCON/OWT, InC:
1430 Enclave Parkway
Houston, Texas 77077
REFERENCE:
Request For Proposals NO~ 3111- Development Services
Design and Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility
Proposals Due November 13, 2003
Dear Prospective Service Provider.'
The City of Denton is soliciting proposals for
Development ora Biodiesel Prod~ti{3n
provider
'~ and
intention
~ specialized services on the basis of
to ~negotiate with that
If you are interested in these se~ices,
attached Request for
questions relating to the technical aspects of this project, please contact:
Charles Fiedler, Project Manager at 940-349-8910.
pond to the
defined. For
We look forWard to your response and the potential-of working with you on this important
infrastructure improvement for the City of Denton.
Sincerely,
Tom Shaw
Attachments:
Notice to Bidders
Request For Proposal No. 3111
cc. Charles Fiedler
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
· CITY HALL EAST 601 E. HICKORY, SUITE B DENTON, TEXAS 7620'1 ·
· (940) 349-8910 · FAX (940) 349-895'1 · METRO (972) 434-2529 ·
October 30, 2003
Scott Hill, P.E.
Energy Developments, Inc.
7700 San Felipe, Suite 480
Houston, Tx 77063-1613
REFERENCE:
Request For Proposals NO. 3111- Development Services
Design and Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility
Proposals Due November 13, 2003
Dear Prospective Service Provider:
The City of Denton is soliciting proposals for development services in the Design and
Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility. The City has made a concerted effort to
identify Companies capable of providing these development services and it is the intention
of the City to select a highly qualified provider of these specialized services on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications, and then attempt to negotiate with that
provider a contract at a fair and reasonable pdce.
If you are interested in providing these services, please review and respond to the
attached Request for Proposals in the form described, within the schedule defined. For
questions relating to the technical aspects of this project, please contact:
Charles Fiedler, Project Manager at 940-349-8910.
We look forward to your response and the potential of working with you on this important
infrastructure improvement for the City of Denton.
Sincerely,
Tom Shaw
Attachments:
Notice to Bidders
Request For Proposal No. 3111
cc. Charles Fiedler
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
Sealed bid proposals will be received by the City of Denton, Texas at the office of the
Purchasing Agent pdor to 2:00 P.M. November 13, 2003 then publicly opened to
purchase services for the following listed items as per bid instructions and
specifications.
RFSP #3111 - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BIODIESEL
PRODUCTION FACILITY
Qualified prospective bidders may obtain copies of the bid invitation with information to
bidders, bid proposals, plans and/or specifications at the office the Purchasing Agent,
located at 901-B Texas Street, Denton, Texas 76209 in the Purchasing/Warehouse
portion of the Service Center complex.
The City of Denton, Texas reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive
defects in bids.
No officer or employee of the City of Denton shall have a financial interest, direct or
indirect, in any contract with the City of Denton.
Minodty and small business vendors or contractors are encouraged to bid on any and
all City of Denton projects.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
(940) 349-7100
TOM D. SHAW, C.P.M.
PURCHASING AGENT
CITY OF DENTON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 3111
Biodiesel Production Facility Proposals Due: November 13, 2003 Page 1 of 7
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Design and Development of a Biodiesel ProductionFacility
RFP NO. 3111
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Denton is interested in receiving proposals to enter into a public-private
partnership with a qualified private corporation for the development of a biodiesel production
facility utilizing recycled cooking oils and fueled by landfill gas. This effort will include, bUt not
be limited to the design, develOpment, installation and operation of a biodiesel production
facility, the collection of used cooking oils as a feedstock for this facility, the design and
operation of a landfill gas collection system to provide energy to the facility, and the
marketing of biodiesel produced from the facility. Receipt of appropriate responses to this
Request for Proposals comprises the initial phase of identifying and selecting a qualified and
available team to partner in this scope of work.
II. SCOPE OF WORK
A. EFFORT REQUIRED
The development effort will result in a public-private partnership that designs, develops and
ultimately operates a minimum three million gallon per year biodiesel,.production facility. This
partnership development will involve the following phases:
1. Feasibility Phase:
This task will identify the market and evaluate the economics of developing a biodiesel
facility relying on recycled cooking oil and landfill gas.
2. Design Phase:
a. Prepare construction plans and specifications.
b. Identify required equipment.
3. Construction Phase:
Manage the construction and development of the biodiesel production facility and
associated landfill gas collection system and bulk material storage.
4. Operation Phase:
Commission and operate the facility producing ASTM standard biodiesel
B. WORK PLAN
Provide a complete work plan, including time,line, and project staff allocation. You may also
provide any alternate approaches, which may reduce costs.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
· CITY HALL EAST 601 E. HICKORY, SUITE B DENTON, TEXAS 76201 °
· (940) 349.8910 · FAX (940) 349.8951 · METRO (972) 434-2529 ·
October 30, 2003
John Villella
Manager Business Development
DTE - Biomass Energy
P.O. Box 349
Cassadaga, FL 32706-0349
REFERENCE:
Request For Proposals NO. 3111- Development Services
Design and Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility
Proposals Due November 13, 2003
Dear Prospective Service Provider:
The City of Denton is soliciting proposals for development services in the Design and
Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility. The City has made a concerted effort to
identify Companies capable of providing these development services and it is the intention
of the City to select a highly qualified provider of these specialized services on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications, and then attempt to negotiate with that
provider a contract at a fair and reasonable pdce.
If you are interested in providing these services, please review and respond to the
attached Request for Proposals in the form described, within the schedule defined. For
questions relating to the technical aspects of this project, please contact:
Charles Fiedler, Project Manager at 940-349-8910.
We look forward to your response and the potential of working with you on this important
infrastructure improvement for the City of Denton.
Sincerely,
Tom Shaw
Attachments:
Notice to Bidders
Request For Proposal No. 3111
cc. Charles Fiedler
ICITY OF DENTON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 3111
Biodiesel Production Facility Proposals Due: November 13, 2003 Page 2 of 7
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The City has developed the following project schedule:
Notice to Proceed
Feasibility Phase Complete
Design Phase Complete
Construction Phase Complete
Operation Phase initiated
December 18, 2003
January 15, 2004
March 2004
June 15, 2004
July 1, 2004
III. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The responses should address each of the following areas in the same order in which they
are set forth below:
A. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Provide a statement of interest pertaining to this specific project, including a statement of
availability to undertake this project with respect to personnel proposed for the project team
and the time frame defined by the City.
B. PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION
1. Name and Address of respondent and each sub-consultant/contractor Company (if
applicable)
2. Data and General qualifications for each Company
3. Company profile, including
a. Age
b. Type of Company (e.g. partnership, professional corporation, etc.)
c. Company history
d. Company size
e. Areas of specialty/concentration
f. Telephone number and fax number
4. Description of the team:
a. Identification of the single point of contact for the team.
b. Identification of key personnel for respondent and sub-
consultants/contractors to be assigned to the project.
c. Organizational chad illustrating reporting lines and names and titles for key
participants proposed by the respondent and each sub-
consultant/contractor, if applicable.
Resumes for each key individual on the team and definition of that person's role in
developing the design for the subject project.
I
CITY OF DENTON:PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR,PROPOSAL# 3111 I
Biodiesel ProdUction Facility ProPosals Due:' NOvember 13, 2003 Page 3 of 7
I
C. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES
Relevant experiences and caPabilities for the respondent and team members will be judged
through a review of both cOmpleted~ and ongoing projects; however,
greater weight will be given to projeCts'comPletedin the past FIVE Years containing the team
members proposed.
1. The key areas of interest for which project data is to be submitted:
a. Experience with biodiesel production
b. Experience with landfill gas
2. Relevant project experience information to include:
a. Institution name
b. Location
c. Project description with specifics related to project scope.
d. Nature of project delivered by your organization on each of these relevant projects
including proposed team member participation.
e. Nature of your organization's control on each of these relevant projects (i.e., joint
venture~ prime developer, consultant,.etc.)
f. LiSt of customer references for relevant projects with contact name(s)and telephone
number(s).
3. Approach:
State briefly what you believe to be the most pertinent considerati0ns and Challenges ;that
must be addressed in developing this partnership
4. DiScuss your proposed team organization'and communication.,-'Be~speciflc with regard to
internal and external cOmmunications, quality control, and individual responsibilities.
5. Include anticipated percentage of time-that each key;'team member will allOcate to the
project, for each phase.
6. Show an outline schedule for the anticipated project duration. Schedule should include
each anticipated phase of Work, as you currently understand project scope.
7. Provide a statement of projected deliverables: reports, studies~ designs, facilities,
product, etc.
D. DEVELOPMENT PRICE PROPOSAL
A price proposal for this public pdvate partnership between the City of Denton and the
proposing Company identifying coast and' benefits to the City for participation inthe project.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
· CITY HALL EAST 601 E. HICKORY, SUITE B DENTON, TEXAS 76201 ·
· (940) 34~8910 · FAX (940) 349-8951 · METRO (972) 434-2529 ·
October 30, 2003
CIMCO, Inc.
P.O. Box 54027
Lubbock, TX 79453
REFERENCE:
Request For Proposals NO. 3111- Development Services
Design and Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility
Proposals Due November 13, 2003
Dear Prospective Service Provider:
The City of Denton is soliciting proposals for development services in the Design and
Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility. The City has made a concerted effort to
identify Companies capable of providing these development services and it is the intention
of the City to select a highly qualified provider of these specialized services on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications, and then attempt to negotiate with that
provider a contract at a fair and reasonable price.
If you are interested in providing these services, please review and respond to the
attached Request for Proposals in the form described, within the schedule defined. For
questions relating to the technical aspects of this project, please contact:
Charles Fiedler, Project Manager at 940-349-8910.
We look forward to your response and the potential of working with you on this important
infrastructure improvement for the City of Denton.
Sincerely,
Tom Shaw
Attachments:
Notice to Bidders
Request For Proposal No. 3111
cc. Charles Fiedler
Biodiesel Production Facility Proposals Due: November 13, 2003 Page 4 of 7 I
CITY OF DENTON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 3111
IV. SELECTION PROCEDURE/DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
All submissions of interest must be received by 2:00 p.m. (local time) on November 13, 2003
to be considered.
A. SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS:
1. One odginal copy signed by an officer authorized to bind the company, and FOUR
copies of your completed proposal must be submitted in a sealed envelope by 2:00
p.m. on November 13, 2003. Proposals may be mailed or hand delivered.
However, if sent by mail, the responsibility of timely delivery is entirely up to the
proposer.
2. Proposals shall be no more than FIFTEEN pages.
3. Each sealed proposal shall be propedy addressed with the name of the
Company/proposer and the item description "RFP # 3111 Denton Biodiesel
Project" wdtten on the outside of the package and delivered or mailed to:
City of Denton
Purchasing Department
901-B Texas Street
Denton, Texas 76209
Attn: Tom Shaw
4. Proposals received after 2:00 p.m. on November 13, 2003, will not be considered,
and any proposal received after the scheduled closing time shall be retumed to the
proposer unopened.
5. Questions concerning technical issues related to this proposal should be directed
to Charles Fiedler at 940-349-8910.
6. Questions concerning procurement issues related to this proposal should be
directed to Tom Shaw, 940-349-7100
B. PROPOSAL WITHDRAWAL:
No proposal may be withdrawn after having been formally opened by the City of Denton.
C. LEGAL DISPUTES:
Proposer agrees and stipulates that in the event any litigation should occur concerning or
arising out of any proposals submitted in response to a Request For Proposal the sole venue
of any such legal action shall be in Denton County Texas.
D. CITY & LICENSES:
Company must be registered by the State of Texas to do business in the State and have a
Texas registered professional engineer in responsible charge of the design effort. Any and all
fees and taxes are the responsibility of the offeror.
Biodiesel production Facility Proposals Due: November 13, 2003 Page 5 of 7
E. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS:
The City of Denton reserves the right to: 1. Reject any and all proposals, and
2. Issue subsequent Requests For Proposal.
F. PROPOSER RESPONSIBILITY - PROPOSAL COSTS:
It is to be understood and agreed by offeror that this Request For Proposal does not obligate
the City of Denton to pay any costs incurred by offeror in the preparation and submission of a
proposal, or oral interview.
G. PROPOSALS - PUBLIC INFORMATION:
After evaluation and Award by the City of Denton, the unsuCCessful offeror(s) may request a
debriefing regarding their proposal. Please contact Tom Shaw at the above telephone
number.
H. PROPOSAL FORMAT:
Telecopy (facsimile) proposals will not be accepted by the City of Denton.
I. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFCOMPANYATIVE ACTION:
All Equal Employment Opportunity laws apply to this project.
J. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:
Any resulting contract will be subject to the standard requirements, termS and conditions of
the City of Denton covering such contracts. An Official and signed copy of the contract
requirements (Agreement) will be furnished to the Company awarded this contract.
K. SUB-CONSULTANTS/CONTRACTORS:
The City of Denton reserves the right to approve any sub-consultants or sub-contractors
proposed for work under this proposal.
L. CANCELLATION:
The City of Denton reserves the right to cancel the contract if the services provided are not
meeting the City of Denton's needs. Notification will be provided in writing. Payment Will only
be provided on those services that are performed prior to possible cancellation of the
contract.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
· CITY HALL EAST 601 E. HICKORY, SUITE B DENTON, TEXAS 76201
· (940) 349-8910 · FAX (940) 349-8951 · METRO (972) 434-2529 ·
October 30, 2003
Dr. L. Kondor
BDT Biodiesel Technologies,
a division of CHL Handels- und Projektierungs GmbH
Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 50
A-1130 Vienna, Austria
REFERENCE:
Request For Proposals NO. 3111- Development Services
Design and Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility
Proposals Due November 13, 2003
Dear Prospective Service Provider:
The City of Denton is soliciting proposals for development services in the Design and
Development of a Biodiesel Production Facility. The City has made a concerted effort to
identify Companies capable of providing these development services and it is the intention
of the City to select a highly qualified provider of these specialized services on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications, and then attempt to negotiate with that
provider a contract at a fair and reasonable pdce.
If you are interested in providing these services, please review and respond to the
attached Request for Proposals in the form described, within the schedule defined. For
questions relating to the technical aspects of this project, please contact:
Charles Fiedler, Project Manager at 940-349-8910.
We look forward to your response and the potential of working with you on this important
infrastructure improvement for the City of Denton.
Sincerely,
Tom Shaw
Attachments:
Notice to Bidders
Request For Proposal No. 3111
cc. Charles Fiedler
CITY OF DENTON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 3111
Biodiesel Production Facility Proposals Due: November 13, 2003 Page 6 of 7
V. EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
A. PROPOSAL REVIEW
A Selection Team will review the proposals. This Selection Team will include the Project
Manager and members from within the staff of the City of Denton familiar with this proposed
project. Selection for the development services in this Request will be made on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications to perform the development service required.
The Companies most highly qualified and responsive to the City of Denton's need may be
invited for an oral interview, if necessary. Once this selection has been made the City will
attempt to negotiate a development contract with the selected Company at a fair and
reasonable pdce. Evaluation of proposals will be based on the following:
1. Identification and understanding of the City's requirements for this project.
FACTOR: 10%
2. Company's past performance and experience on projects of this magnitude and
complexity.
FACTOR: 40%
3. Company's experience with specific issues related to this project.
FACTOR: 20%
4. City of Denton Benefit and cost.
FACTOR: 20%
5. Schedule presented for this service as defined in the scope of work.
FACTOR: 10%
B. FURTHER INFORMATION
The City of Denton has the option to request that a Company provide further information in
order to complete the evaluation.
C. CONTRACTING
The selected Company will be offered a contract with the City of Denton.
D. NOTIFICATION
All proposers will be notified of the Company selected to perform the requested work, upon
final determination by the City of Denton.
ICITY OF DENTON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL# 3111
Biodiesel Production Facility Proposals Due: November 13, 2003 Page 7 of 7
E. PROPOSAL SCHEDULE
Following is the proposed schedule for the selection process:
RFP'Issue Date:
Proposal Due Date:
SelectiOn Notification Date:
Receive Fee Proposal:
COmplete Developer Negotiations:
PUB Authorization:
City Council Authorization:
Notice to Proceed
October 30; 2003
NoVember 13, 2003 (2:00 P.M. local time)
November 18, 2003
November 25, 2003
December 2, 2003
December 8, 2003
December 16, 2003
December 17, 2003
These are proposed and estimated dates only.
RFSP Process Schedule
#3111
RFSP Response
Review
Feasibility Study
Award
Design
Construction
Operation Start Up
November, 2003
November, 2003
December, 2003 - January, 2004
February, 2004
February - March, 2004
April - June, 2004
July, 2004
EXHIBIT 2
EPA - LMOP - About LMOP Page 1 of 3
Landfill Methane Outreach Program
Contact Us [ Print Version Search: ~
EPA Home > Non-CO2 Gases and Sequestration Branch > LMOP >About LMOP
Home
About LMOP
Database of Landfills
and Energy ProJects
Landfills Seeking
ProJects
LFG as Green Power
LMOP Partners and
Endorsers
Join LMOP
Toolkit
Products and Services
Gasette
International Activity
Workshops/
Conferences
FAQ
Site Map
Contact Us
About LMOP
The Benefits of Utilizing Landfill
Gas
Landfill gas (LFG) emitted from decomposing garbage is a reliable and
renewable fuel option that remains largely untapped at many landfills across
the United States, despite its many benefits. Click on one of the entries
below to find out more about LFG:
· Gg0~erti0g ts0dfi!! Gs~ (tEG) t9 E0~rgy
Converting Landfill Gas (LFG) to Energy
Landfill Gas Results from Decomposing Waste
LFG is created when organic waste in a landfill naturally decomposes. This
gas consists of about 50 percent methane (CH4), the primary component of
natural gas, about 50 percent carbon dioxide (CO2), and a small amount of
non-methane organic compounds. Instead of allowing LFG to escape into
the air, it can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source. Using
LFG helps to reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG
emissions, and it helps prevent methane from migrating into the atmosphere
and contributing to local smog and global climate change.
Using Landfill Gas Can Benefit the Local and Global Environment
LFG projects go hand-in-hand with community commitments to cleaner air,
improved public welfare and safety, and reductions in greenhouse (global
warming) gases. Converting LFG to energy also offsets the need for non-
renewable resources such as coal and oil, and thereby reduces emissions
of air pollutants from conventional resources such as sulfur dioxide, a major
contributor to acid rain. Eliminating LFG emissions also reduces unpleasant
odors and explosion threats at a landfill, making the area around the site a
better place to live. LFG projects also help fight global climate change, since
they eliminate emissions of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse
gases.
Using Landfill Gas Can Benefit Communities
Using LFG is a win/win opportunity. LFG projects involve citizens in
sustainable community planning, create partnerships, and promote common
interests among local entities. For example, the Ecology Club at Pattonville
High School in Maryland Heights, Missouri, came up with the idea to use
gas from the nearby landfill to heat their school. The school paid $175,000
to run a 3,600 foot pipeline between the landfill and the school's two
basement boilers. In turn, the landfill owner donated the methane to the
school as a way of "giving back to the community." The school anticipates
that it will save $40,000 a year, and recapture its investment within five
years.
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/about.htm
EXHIBIT 4
11/26/2003
EPA - LMOP - About LMOP Page 2 of 3
Using Landfill Gas Can Benefit Environmental Compliance
Current EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act require many larger
landfills to collect and combust LFG. There are several compliance options,
including flaring the gas, or installing an LFG use system. Only LFG energy
recovery or use offers communities and landfill owners the opportunity to
reduce the costs associated with regulatory compliance by turning pollution
into a valuable community resource.
Using Landfill Gas Can Benefit the Local Economy
LFG projects generate revenue from the sale of the gas. LFG use can also
create jobs associated with the design, construction, and operation of
energy recovery systems. LFG projects involve engineers, construction
firms, equipment vendors, and utilities or end-users of the power produced.
Much of this cost is spent locally for drilling, piping, construction, and
operational personnel, helping communities to realize economic benefits
from increased employment and local sales.
By linking communities with innovative ways to deal with their LFG, LMOP
helps communities enjoy increased environmental protection, better waste
management, and responsible community planning.
Calculating LFG Benefits
To determine the environmental and energy benefits of an
LFG utilization project, LMOP compiled the following
figures:
1 million tons of municipal solid waste in a landfill
typically generates 300 cubic foot per minute (cfm)
of landfill gas that could then generate 7,000,000
kilowatt hours (kWh) per year.
7,000,000 kWh is enough energy to power 700
homes for a year.
Utilizing 300 cfm/year of landfill gas yields the same
reduction in greenhouse gases as removing 6,100
cars from the road for one year.
Similarly, utilizing 300 cfm/year has the same
greenhouse gas impact as planting 8,300 acres of
trees.
Want to figure out the greenhouse gas benefits for a
specific LFG utilization project? Just replace the waste in a
landfill in the first bullet above with the actual tons of waste
in a particular landfill and calculate what the environmental
and energy benefits will be for that project.
EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP)
LMOP Promotes Landfill Gas as an Important Local Energy Resource
The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), created as part of the
United States' commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is a voluntary
program designed to encourage and facilitate the development of
environmentally and economically sound LFG projects. LMOP does this by
educating local government and communities about the benefits of LFG
recovery and building partnerships among state agencies, industry, energy
service providers, local communities, and other stakeholders interested in
developing this valuable resource in their community. Accomplishments
since program launch in 1994 include the following:
http://www'epa'g°v/lm°p/ab°ut'htm 11/26/2003
EPA - LMOP - About LMOP Page 3 of 3
As of August 2003, LMOP has more than 345 Partners and
Endorsers that have signed voluntary agreements to work with EPA
to develop cost-effective LFG projects, including every major LFG
project development company.
LMOP has developed detailed profiles for over 1,300 candidate
landfills in 31 states, and has data for more landfills in all states.
There are more than 340 operational LFG projects in the United
States. In addition, about 200 projects are currently under
construction or are exploring development options and opportunities.
To date, LMOP has assisted in the development of over 230 LFG
utilization projects - including all 22 projects that went on-line in
2002. Together, these 230 projects are responsible for significant
reductions in the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
They also are preventing the emission of carbon dioxide, since using
LFG for energy offsets the need to use other, more polluting fuels. In
the year 2002, all operational LFG energy projects in the U.S.
prevented the release of 17.3 million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MMTCE, the basic unit of measure of greenhouse gases) into the
atmosphere. This reduction is the carbon equivalent of removing the
emissions from 13.9 million cars on the road for one year.
LMOP Brings Interested Parties Together on LFG Project Development
Through its Endorser and Partner programs, LMOP works with energy
organizations, non-profits, states, tribes, and local government, and the LFG
industry and trade associations to promote the recovery and use of LFG.
The LMOP Endorser and Partner programs help communities and landfill
ownedoperators learn more about landfill gas use. LMOP educates
communities about the benefits of using LFG as an alternative energy
source and helps them develop or participate in LFG projects that are
considered technically and economically feasible. LMOP provides--free of
charge--information, software tools, and marketing assistance, and access
to technical experts to facilitate development of LFG projects. The program
then promotes the success of LFG projects and participants.
Top of Page
Last updated on Tuesday, November 4th, 2003
URL: http://www.epa.gov/Imop/about.htm
http://www'epa'g°v/lm°p/ab°ut'htm 11/26/2003
Page 1 of 9
Home
About LMOP
Database of Landfills
and Energy Projects
Landfills Seeking
Projects
LFG as Green Power
LMOP Partners and
Endorsers
Join LMOP
Toolkit
Products and Services
Gasette
International Activity
Workshops/
Conferences
FAQ
Site Map
Contact Us
Landfill Methane Outreach Program .... i::
Contact Us I Print Version Search: W
EPA Home > Non-CO2 Gases and Sequestration Branch > LMOP > Products and Services > LFG
Questions and Answers
Frequently Asked Questions
about Landfill Gas and How It
Affects Public Health, Safety,
and the Environment
April 16, 2003
Introduction
How is Landfill Gas Generated?
What Components Make Up Landfill Gas?
How are Nonmethane Organic Compounds Generated in Landfill Gas?
At What Concentrations are Nonmethane Organic Compounds Typically Found in
Uncontrolled Landfill Gas?
Whpt pro tho Ppb!i~ Hop!th, Sp~oty, pnd En¥irpnmontp! ~pn~orn~ ~p~iptod with
Landfill Gas?
Compounds?
What are Dioxins and Furans and are They Released from Landfill Gas Combustion?
How does Landfill Gas Combustion Affect Mercu~ Emissions?
Where Can I Get Additional Information About:
Types and Amounts of Compounds Found in Landfill Gas?
Potential Health Effects of Landfill Gas?
Standards for MSW Landfills?
Releases of Mercu~ Compounds or Dioxins/Furans?
National Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
Introduction
Approximately 60% of all municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in the
U.S. is currently being disposed of in over 2,100 operational MSW landfills,
as referenced in EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2000. Landfills are the largest single human source of methane
emissions in the U.S., accounting for 33% of all methane sources.
Uncontrolled MSW landfills also emit nonmethane organic compounds
(NMOC), which include volatile organic compounds (VOC) that contribute to
ozone formation and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that can affect human
health when exposed. However, combustion of landfill gas significantly
reduces emissions of methane and NMOC. Over 330 MSW landfills in the
U.S. recover and combust landfill gas to generate heat or electricity, and
more than 500 other MSW landfills flare the gas. EPA's air quality
requirements and advances in landfill gas energy technologies have
encouraged the combustion of landfill gas to benefit human health, safety,
and the environment, as well as provide economic opportunities. The
following questions and answers are provided to inform interested parties
about compounds found in landfill gas and about how combusting landfill
gas can significantly reduce emissions of these compounds to the
atmosphere.
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm
11/26/2003
Page 2 of 9
The answers provided in this document are not rules nor are they binding
upon the EPA in any context. Should you have questions related to
information provided in this document, please call EPA's Landfill Methane
Outreach Program hotline toll-free at 1-888-782-7937 or JoLynn Collins at
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (919-541-5671,
coll ins.jolynn@ epa. gov).
How is Landfill Gas Generated?
Landfill gas is generated during the natural process of bacterial
decomposition of organic material contained in MSW landfills. A number of
factors influence the quantity of gas that a MSW landfill generates and the
components of that gas. These factors include, but are not limited to, the
types and age of the waste buried in the landfill, the quantity and types of
organic compounds in the waste, and the moisture content and temperature
of the waste. Temperature and moisture levels are influenced by the
surrounding climate.
What Components Make Up Landfill Gas?
By volume, landfill gas is about 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon
dioxide and water vapor. It also contains small amounts of nitrogen, oxygen,
and hydrogen, less than 1 percent NMOC, and trace amounts of inorganic
compounds. Some of these compounds have strong, pungent odors (for
example, hydrogen sulfide, or H2S). Nonmethane organic compounds
consist of certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC), which can react with sunlight to form ground-level ozone
(smog) if uncontrolled. Nearly 30 organic HAP have been identified in
uncontrolled landfill gas, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and
vinyl chloride. Exposure to these HAP can lead to adverse health effects.
Thermal treatment of NMOC (including HAP and VOC) and methane
through flaring or combustion in an engine, turbine, or other device greatly
reduces the emission of these compounds.
How are Nonmethane Organic Compounds Generated in
Landfill Gas?
Nonmethane organic compounds are contained in discarded items such as
household cleaning products, materials coated with or containing paints and
adhesives, and other items. During the waste decomposition process,
NMOC can be stripped from the waste by methane, carbon dioxide, and
other gases and carried in landfill gas. Three different mechanisms are
responsible for the production of NMOC and their movement into landfill
gas: (1) vaporization (the change of state from liquid or solid to vapor) of
organic compounds until the equilibrium vapor concentration is reached, (2)
chemical reaction of materials present in the landfill, and (3) biological
decomposition of heavier organic compounds into lighter, more volatile
constituents.
At What Concentrations are Nonmethane Organic
Compounds Typically Found in Uncontrolled Landfill Gas?
Concentrations of NMOC in uncontrolled landfill gas can vary depending on
several factors, including the type of waste discarded in the landfill, the
climate surrounding the landfill, and the physical properties of the individual
organic compound. A default concentration of 595 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) of NMOC is presented in EPA's Compilation of Air Poflutant
Emission Factors (AP-42). Of this total NMOC, 110 ppmv are considered
HAP compounds, according to default concentrations in AP-42. Therefore,
total uncontrolled concentrations of organic HAP at MSW landfills are
typically less than 0.02 percent of the total landfill gas. The Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and National Emission
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm 11/26/2003
Page 3 of 9
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations require
combustion of NMOC, a surrogate for organic HAP, at a destruction
efficiency of 98 percent, or to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv NMOC.
What are the Public Health, Safety, and Environmental
Concerns Associated with Landfill Gas?
The public health, safety, and environmental concerns fall into three
categories: subsurface migration, surface emissions/air pollution, and odor
nuisance.
Subsurface Migration
Subsurface migration is the underground movement of landfill gas from
landfills to other areas within the landfill property or outside the landfill
property. (Note: Most subsurface migration occurs at older, unlined landfills
because there is minimal barrier for lateral migration. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act began requiring all new or expanded
landfills be lined as of October 9, 1993. This requirement decreases the
likelihood of subsurface migration.) Since landfill gas contains approximately
50 percent methane (a potentially explosive gas) it is possible for landfill gas
to travel underground, accumulate in enclosed structures, and ignite. There
have been incidences of subsurface migration causing fires and explosions
on both landfill property and private property.
Surface Emissions
Possibly the biggest health and environmental concerns are related to the
uncontrolled surface emissions of landfill gas into the air. As previously
mentioned, landfill gas contains carbon dioxide, methane, VOC, HAP, and
odorous compounds that can adversely affect public health and the
environment. For example, carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse
gases that contribute to global climate change. Methane is of particular
concern because it is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the
atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Emissions of VOC contribute to ground-
level ozone formation (smog). Ozone is capable of reducing or damaging
vegetation growth as well as causing respiratory problems in humans.
Finally, exposure to HAP can cause a variety of health problems such as
cancerous illnesses, respiratory irritation, and central nervous system
damage. Thermal treatment of NMOC (including HAP and VOC) and
methane through flaring or combustion in an engine, turbine, or other device
greatly reduces the emission of these compounds.
Odors
The final concern related to uncontrolled landfill gas emissions is their
unpleasant odor. Compounds found in landfill gas are associated with
strong, pungent odors. These smells can be transmitted off-site to nearby
homes and business. Unpleasant odors can lower the quality of life for
individuals that live near landfills and potentially reduce local property
values.
What is EPA doing to Protect Public Health, Safety, and the
Environment?
The EPA promulgated Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR
Part 258) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on
October 9, 1991. The criteria contain location restrictions, design and
operating standards, groundwater monitoring requirements, corrective
actions, financial assurance requirements, landfill gas migration control,
closure requirements, and post closure requirements. Under the design
standards new landfills and lateral expansions that occur on or after October
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm 11/26/2003
Page 4 of 9
9, 1993 are required to line the bottom and sides of the landfill prior to waste
deposition. In addition, all landfills operating after October 9, 1991 must
place a final cap over the landfill surface. The placement of liners and caps
reduces the potential for subsurface and surface landfill gas migration and
groundwater contamination.
Recovery and combustion of landfill gas will reduce emissions of organic
compounds that would otherwise be released from the landfill. Because of
the benefits of collecting and controlling landfill gas, the 1996 EPA
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources, and the recently published
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (N ESHAP)
require "large" MSW landfills to collect landfill gas and combust it to reduce
NMOC by 98 percent (or to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv). A "large"
landfill is defined as having a design capacity of at least 2.5 million metric
tons and 2.5 million cubic meters and a calculated or measured uncontrolled
NMOC emission rate of at least 50 metric tons (megagrams) per year.
Landfills are meeting these gas destruction standards using flares or energy
recovery devices including reciprocating engines, gas turbines, and boilers.
In addition to gas destruction requirements, the NSPS and NESHAP require
that gas collection systems be well designed and well operated. They
require gas collection from all areas of the landfill, monthly monitoring at
each collection well, and monitoring of surface methane emissions to
ensure that the collection system is operating properly and to reduce fugitive
emissions. Smaller MSW landfills are not required to control emissions by
the NSPS or NESHAP, but can still greatly reduce emissions of NMOC by
collecting and combusting landfill gas for energy recovery or in a flare.
EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) is a voluntary
assistance and partnership program that promotes the use of landfill gas as
a renewable energy source. By preventing emissions of methane through
the development of landfill gas energy projects, LMOP helps businesses,
states, and communities protect the environment and build a sustainable
future. The LMOP Partnership program helps communities and landfill
ownedoperators learn more about the benefits of using landfill gas as an
alternative energy source and helps them develop or participate in landfill
gas energy projects. In addition, LMOP provides information, software tools,
and marketing assistance, and access to technical experts to facilitate
development of landfill gas energy projects. For more information about
LMOP, please visit the LMOP Web site or call the LMOP hotline toll-free at
1-888-782-7937.
Can Landfill Gas Combustion be Used as an Energy
Source?
Landfill gas can be an asset when it is used as a source of energy to create
electricity or heat. It is classified as a medium-Btu gas with a heating value
of 350 to 600 Btu per cubic foot, approximately one-half that of natural gas.
Landfill gas can often be used in place of conventional fossil fuels in certain
applications. It is a reliable source of energy because it is generated 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. By using landfill gas to produce energy,
landfills can significantly reduce their emissions of methane and avoid the
need to generate energy from fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions of
carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants from
fossil fuel combustion.
How do Landfill Gas Energy Projects Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions?
Landfill gas recovery projects provide a highly effective means of reducing
overall greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, whether the landfill gas is
combusted by flare, electricity generation equipment, or other end use
system. By using the otherwise wasted methane contained in the collected
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm 11/26/2003
Page 5 of 9
landfill gas to generate electricity or directly as a fuel, fossil fuels such as oil
and coal are displaced. This displacement of fossil fuels is an environmental
benefit, the magnitude of which would depend on the actual amount of
electricity generated or landfill gas used.
For example, if a 3 MW landfill gas electricity project starts up at a landfill
with previously uncontrolled landfill gas, the project would have a direct
methane reduction of approximately 6,000 tons per year (125,000 tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2E) per year) and a fossil fuel displacement
of approximately 700 tons of methane per year (15,000 tons of CO2E per
year). The combined emissions reduction of 6,700 tons of methane per year
(140,000 tons of CO2E per year) would be equivalent to any of the following
annual environmental benefits for 2003:
Removing emissions equivalent to 28,000 cars
Planting 38,000 acres of forest
Offsetting the use of 630 railroad cars of coal
Preventing the use of 300,000 barrels of oil
How do Landfill Gas Energy Projects Reduce Emissions of
Nonmethane Organic Compounds?
Landfill gas energy projects involve collecting and combusting landfill gas.
The process of combustion destroys organic compounds, including methane
and NMOC. During combustion, these organic compounds chemically react
with oxygen in the presence of heat, breaking apart to form water vapor,
carbon dioxide, and other, less volatile, compounds. Combusting the gas in
a reciprocating engine, gas turbine, or boiler to generate energy also
reduces pollution associated with the extraction and use of fossil fuels to
produce the same amount of energy.
What are Dioxins and Furans and are They Released from
Landfill Gas Combustion?
Dioxins and furans are a group of toxic chemical compounds, known as
persistent organic pollutants, that share certain similar chemical structures
and biological characteristics. Dioxins/furans are released into the air as
byproducts of many combustion processes such as incinerating municipal
waste, burning fuels (like wood, coal, or oil), and some industrial processes
such as bleaching pulp and paper. Some of the conditions that are
conducive to dioxin/furan formation are the combustion of organic material
in the presence of chlorine and particulate matter under certain
thermodynamic conditions such as Iow combustion temperatures and brief
combustion times. Sources of dioxin/furan include but are not limited to:
MSW combustors (incinerators), residential and commercial coal
combustion, residential and commercial oil combustion, backyard trash
burning, residential fireplaces, cars, cigarettes, forest and brush fires, and
the combustion of landfill gas. However, relative to many of these
combustion sources, the characteristics of landfill gas combustion are less
conducive to dioxin/furan formation.
EPA's review of the available data indicates that dioxins/furans can be
released in small amounts when landfill gas is combusted by flare or for
recovering energy. Based on national and international source tests, the
concentration of dioxins from landfill gas combustion ranges from non-
detectable to 0.1 nanograms (10-9 grams) of toxic equivalents (TEQ) per dry
standard cubic meter of exhaust, at 7 percent oxygen. Because of the
health threat from uncontrolled emissions of other organic compounds in
landfill gas, EPA found, in developing emissions standards, that landfill gas
destruction in a proper control device (e.g., flare or energy recovery unit)
with minimal by-product generation of dioxins/furans is preferable to the
release of uncontrolled landfill gas. In summary, EPA believes that the
potential for dioxin emissions from the combustion of landfill gas is small.
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm
11/26/2003
Page 6 of 9
How does Landfill Gas Combustion Affect Mercury
Emissions?
Mercury, although present throughout the environment, is a health concern
because it can bioaccumulate through the food chain as methylated
mercury, an organic, more toxic form of mercury. Sources of mercury in
MSW landfills can include batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, electrical
switches, thermometers, and paints. Once mercury enters the waste
stream, it will ultimately be released from the landfill and is contained in
uncontrolled landfill gas. However, combustion of landfill gas reduces the
toxicity of landfill gas emissions by converting the organic mercury
compounds, including methylated mercury, to less toxic, less hazardous,
inorganic mercury compounds. According to EPA's 1997 Mercury Study
Report to Congress, MSW landfills contributed less than 0.1 percent of the
total mercury released from all man-made sources in the U.S. in 1994.
When compared on an annual basis, mercury emissions from landfill gas
are significantly less than mercury emissions generated by small oil-fired
boilers used in homes and apartments.
Where can I Get Additional Information about the Types
and Amounts of Compounds Found in Landfill Gas?
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Fifth Edition,
Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 2.4. (134K
PDF) U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards.
November 1998. AP-42 Chapter 2.4. Background Document: (663K
PDF).
This chapter of AP-42 provides typical concentrations for individual
compounds from uncontrolled landfill gas (Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2); the
default concentrations are based on test data from multiple landfill sites. The
background document provides the concentrations observed in the
individual tests. Table 2.4-3 contains control efficiencies for several
combustion devices, lit is important to note that default concentrations and
control efficiencies in Chapter 2.4 of AP-42 are assigned quality ratings
reflecting the limited data that were available when the chapter was
developed in 1998. Therefore, minor differences in emission reductions for
different combustion devices should not necessarily be considered
significant. EPA is collecting additional test data in 2002 and 2003 and
plans to use these data to make recommendations for changes to the
current AP-42 emission factors for MSW landfills.
Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) and User's Manual,
Version 2.01. U.S. EPA, Clean Air Technology Center. EPA/600/R-
98-054. January 6, 1999.
This software model can be used to estimate emissions of methane, NMOC,
and several other compounds from individual MSW landfills based on the
default concentrations in AP-42.
Emission Reduction Benefits of Landfill Gas Combustion, Final
Report. Prepared for Environment Canada, National Office of
Pollution Prevention, by Cheminfo Services Inc. February 2002.
This report interprets the Environment Canada test results for the emissions
of 19 selected compounds measured at 4 landfill sites. The study
summarizes the pollutant emissions before and after the landfill gas
combustion process.
~ ~vi~E of th~ Literature ~g~rding ~o~:Meth~n~ ~n~ Vo[~til~
Qrg~nic Gompound~ in ~n/~p~! ~oli~ Waste L~ndfill ~. (351 K
PDF) [[:×rr,li, d.,, ....... >] H. Soltani-Ahmadi, University of Delaware,
file://C:\DOCUME~l\cwfiedle\LOCALS~l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm 11/26/2003
Page 7 of 9
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Featured in the
September/October 2002 issue of MSW Management (Forester
Communications, Inc.).
This paper reviews and compiles information from the current literature
regarding concentrations of NMOC and VOC from landfill gas. Various
potential techniques for VOC treatment with their advantages and
disadvantages are described. In addition, a critical review of sample source,
concentration, and flux measurement techniques is presented.
Where can I Get Additional Information about the Potential
Health Effects of Landfill Gas?
Landfill Gas Primer: An Overview for Environmental Health
Professionals. [,::×n',J,;,,.~.,,; ....... 7] U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
November 2001.
This primer was designed to provide environmental health professionals
with a general understanding of landfill gases and to help them in
responding to community concerns that may be related to landfill gas
issues. It provides basic information about the composition, formation, and
movement of landfill gas. The primer also discusses health and safety
issues related to landfill gas, and it provides information about landfill gas
monitoring methods and control measures.
Where can I Get Additional Information about Standards
for MSW Landfills?
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal Sofid Waste
Landfills. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards. 61
FR 9905. March 12, 1996.
As required under the Clean Air Act (CAA), this document contains the final
emission standards for new MSW landfills and the final emission guidelines
for existing MSW landfills. These standards and guidelines require certain
MSW landfills to control NMOC emissions using flares or other combustion
devices. Minor amendments have been made since 1996, and the latest
versions of the standards and guidelines are contained in the Code of
Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP): Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Final Rule. (97K PDF)
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards. 68 FR 2227.
January 16, 2003.
This final rule outlines the emission standards for reducing HAP from MSW
landfills. These standards contain the same requirements as the NSPS and
Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources for MSW landfills.
Office of Solid Waste. 40 CFR Part 258. October 9, 1991.
As required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the purpose of this regulation is to establish minimum national criteria for all
MSW landfill units. As stated previously, the criteria contain location
restrictions, design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring
requirements, corrective actions, financial assurance requirements,
migration control, closure requirements, and post closure requirements.
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm 11/26/2003
Page 8 of 9
Where can I Get Additional Information about Releases of
Mercury Compounds or Dioxins/Furans?
Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume I1: An Inventory of
Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States. U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards and Office of Research
and Development. EPA/452/R-97-004. December 1997.
This report provides an assessment of the magnitude of U.S. mercury
emissions by source, the health and environmental implications of those
emissions, and the availability and cost of control technologies.
Database of Sources of Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like
1987 and 1995. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/C-01-012.
March 2001.
This database serves as a repository for dioxins/furans emissions data from
all known sources in the U.S. The information contained in the database is
associated with two reference years - 1987 and 1995. This database
provides the technical basis for the derivation of emission factors used to
estimate dioxin/furan releases by source in the draft final report below.
Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3, 7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. Part
h Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume 2:
Sources of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the U.S., Draft Final Report.
(172K PDF) U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental
Assessment. EPAI6OOIP-O01001 Bb. September 2000.
This document is the ultimate reference for sources of dioxin-like
compounds (including furans) in the U.S. This report is part of EPA's Dioxin
Reassessment effort, which began in 1991, to conduct a scientific
reassessment of the health risks resulting from exposure to 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and chemically similar compounds
collectively known as dioxins/furans.
Summary of ReadilyAvailable Information and Conclusions Drawn
Regarding the By-product Production of Dioxin from the Combustion
of Landfill Gas. U.S. EPA. Memorandum from M. Laur, Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards, to the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center. Publicly available in Docket No. A-98-28,
Item No. II-B-23. March 20, 2000.
This memorandum summarizes readily available information on the by-
product production of dioxin from the combustion of landfill gas.
Where can I Get Additional Information about National
Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000,
Final Version. U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
EPA/430/R-02-003. April 15, 2002.
This report presents estimates by the United States government of U.S.
human-related greenhouse gas emissions and sinks for the years 1990
through 2000. The information provided in this inventory is presented in
accordance with the Revised 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Top of Pggo
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm
11/26/2003
Page 9 of 9
Last updated on Tuesday, November 4th, 2003
URL: http://www.epa.gov/Imop/prod ucts/factsheet.htm
file://C:\DOCUME-l\cwfiedle\LOCALS-l\Temp\42GIVL07.htm 11/26/2003
200!
Biodiese[ Offers Fleets a Better Alternative to
Petroleum Diesel
Biodiesel is a domestically produced, renew-
able fuel that can be used in unmodified
diesel engines with the current fueling infra-
structure. It is safe, biodegradable, and
reduces serious air pollutants such as soot,
particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons
and air toxics. Performance, storage require-
ments, and maintenance are similar for
biodiesel blend fuels and petroleum diesel.
It contains no aromatics or sulfur, has a high
Cetane number (good for ignition capabili-
ties), and is a superior lubricant. In addition,
regulated fleets can earn Energy Policy, Act
(EPAct) credits by purchasing biodiesel fuel.
The TechnoLogy Sc,ootheaRh
Biodiese] is made by chemically reacting
alcohol with vegetable oils, fats, or greases. It's
most often used in blends of 2% (partly for lubricity)
or 20% (B20) biodieseI. It may also be used as pure
biodiesel (B100). It is also a very good sulfur-free
lubricant. B100 and biodiesel blends are sensitive to
cold weather and may require special anti-freezing
precautions, as conventional No. 2 diesel does.
BiodieseI acts like a detergent additive, loosening and
dissolving sediments in storage tanks. Because
biodiesel is a solvent, B100 may cause rubber and
other components to fail in vehicles manufactured
before 1994. B20 minimizes all these problems.
Making It Happen -
AvaiLabiLity and Cost
Biodiesel can be purchased from an increasing
number of manufacturers and some petroleum
districts often choose biodieset because of concerns about
and air quality.
distribution companies. The distribution efficiency
should improve with expanding market volumes. For
a list of biodiesel suppliers, see the National Biodiesel
Board Web site at ztrww, biodiesel.org
Presently B100 costs between $1.25 and $2.25 per
gallon depending on purchase volume and delivery
costs. Biodiesel is taxed as a diesel fuel, so taxes are
added to the purchase price. At today's prices, B20
costs 13 to 22 cents more per gallon than diesel.
However, because it uses existing infrastructure and
vehicles, biodiesel may be a least-cost alternative for
fleets regulated by EPAct. The cost difference is
expected to shrink due to rising petroleum costs,
new EPA rules requiring reduced sulfur content in
diesel, and improvements in the biodiesel industry
such as building larger plants with more efficient
production technology.
EXHIBIT 4
Soybeans ready for harvest. Most btodieset in the U.S. ts
made from soybean oil
EPAct Credit
In January 2001, DOE published the final rule for
the use of biodieseI to fulfill EPAct requirements.
This rule allows covered fleets to use biodiesel fuel
to fulfill up to 50% of their alternative fuel vehicle
(AFV) purchase requirements. According to the final
rule, covered fleets will be allocated one biodieseI
fuel use credit (the same as one AI~' acquisition) for
each 450-gallon purchase of B100. Credits will only
be awarded if the fuel used contains at least 20%
biodieseI and is used in vehicles weighing more than
8500 lb. If blends are used, only the biodieseI portion
of the blend can be used to calculate the credits. For
example, 2,250 gallons of B20 contain 450 gallons of
pure biodiesel and would be allocated one AFV
acquisition credit. No partial credits are allowed and
the credits are good only for the year the fuel was
used. The rules that apply are in the Federal Register
for January, 11, 2001. Biodiesel credits may not be
saved or traded.
HeaLth and Environment
B100 has completed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Health
Effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. This
testing concluded that emissions from biodiesel are
Success Stories
Biodiesel Fuels Fleets in New Jersey
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NIBPU)
has approved an agreement with the New Jersey
Department of Transportation (NJDOTt to encour-
age broader user of biodiesel in the state. NJBPU
will use Petroleum Overcharge Reimbursement
Fund monies to reimburse NJDOT for the incre-
mental costs of using biodiesel instead of petroleum
diesel fuel. NJDOT follows in the footsteps of New
Jersey Transit and the Medford Township School
District in expanding biodiesel use statewide.
The school dis-
trict has used B20
since 1998 in half
of its fleet. Bus
drivers have
found that the
use of B20 is
transparent,
requiring no
engine modifica-
tions, no special
infrastructure,
and no fuel-relat-
ed maintenance
problems. DOE
New .lersey motorists benefit from
btodtese[ in the form of cleared
roads and cleaner air.
and the State of New Jersey provided funding to
install a B20 fueling tank. "Expanding the use of
biodiesel to a portion of the state's diesel-powered
fleet is consistent with New Jersey's overall efforts
to promote advanced fuel technology" said
Transportation Cormmssioner and NJ Transit
Chairman James Weinstein.
San Jose Refuse Trucks Run on B100
The Green Team, a San Jose recycling and garbage
company, is modifying 95 of its garbage trucks to
operate on B100. Ken Etherington, general manag-
er, said that using the new fuel would cut 50,000
pounds of air pollution each year. Kerynn
Gianotti, a spokesperson for the Green Team,
added, "We're the first company in the country to
use it fleet-side and in 100% of our vehicles. I
think you'll start to see more people using 100%
biodiesel, in California especially, because of the
air quali~' laws that are coming into effect short-
ly.' The only changes to the vehicle have been a
few new filters. "We like the biodiesel and the dri-
vers do too" she said, "Some of the drivers who
didn't know their trucks were running on biodiesel
thought their trucks had been tuned up."
Diesel Fuel Injection Firm Sings Praises
of Biodiesel
In recent testimony to the EPA, Paul Henderson,
Quali~' Systems Manager of Stanad,vne, a leading
manufacturer of diesel fuel injection systems, sup
ported the use of a Iow blend of biodiesel in all U.S.
diesel fuels to ensure sufficient lubrici~'. "We have
tested biodieseI at Stanadyne and the results indicate
that the inclusion of 2S; biodiesel into any conven-
tional fuel ~vilI be sufficient to address the lubrici~,
concerns that we have with these existing fuels."
Several states, including Minnesota, are considering
legislat4on this vear to add 2% biodiesel throughout
their diesel fuel' pool.
U.S. ARMY Tank Command
Approves B20 Procurement
The U.S. ARMY Tank, Automotive and Armaments
Command (TACOM) has approved a Purchase
Description (PD) for the procurement of B20 to pave
the wav for biodiesel purchases. TACOM has the
responsibility for developing ground fuel specifica-
tions for the military and has shared its research
with the U.S. Department of Energy. B20 can be used
in all non-tactical vehicles and with further research
may be used throughout the military. Several U.S.
bases have started using B20 in 2001.
Defense Energy Support Center Issues
Nationwide Solicitation for Biodiesel
The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) has
issued a biodieseI solicitation in an effort to stream-
line the process through which federal agencies buy
the fuel for use in diesel vehicles and equipment.
The move means that federal government fleets will
soon be able to obtain biodiesel just as easily as they
obtain petroleum diesel through DESC services.
Initially, the solicitation will apply only to B20.
The fuel will be delivered to various sites through-
out the country to be used by both military and
civilian fleets.
One federal agency using biodiesel is the
Agricultural Research Service, part of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, in Beltsville, Maryland.
"We use B20 in more than 150 diesel engines that
range from farm tractors to large generators to
trucks, including one bus and even one Humvee,"
MiLitary vehicles are a growing biodiesel market, partly
because of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) mandating
alternative fuels in federal fleets.
said John Van de Vaarst, Director of Facilities
Management and Operations. "We find biodiesel to
be as reliable and dependable as regular diesel fuel."
Although the DESC is a component of the
Department of Defense, it is the recognized expert
in the procurement of fuels for both the civilian and
military agencies of the federal government. By
using the DESC to buy the fuel, all federal govern-
ment agencies are able to streamline their acquisi-
tion process by simply placing orders against the
contract entered into bv the DESC.
Anv federal agency* interested in ordering biodiesel
through the DESC contract should notify the con-
tracting officer, George W. Atwood at (763) 767-9509;
email: gatwood@desc.dla.mil.
School District Marks 4 Million Miles on
Biodiesel
School buses in Arizona's Deer Valley Unified
School District fleet have driven more than 4 million
miles using biodiesel. It is one of many school dis-
tricts that have begun using cleaner-burning fuels
in school buses.
"We were careful to select a fuel with a proven track
record and with definite health and envirorumental
benefits," said Paul Cochran, president of the School
Bus Fleet Managers Association of Arizona. "We
have had a wonderful experience with the fuel, and
I would recommend it highly to anvone thinking
about cleaning up their school buses for the safety
of our children."
nontoxic and pose little or no health risk to humans.
Tests have shown that the cancer-causing potential
of particulate matter from pure biodiesel is about
94% less than that of regular diesel and the risk
from B20 is 27% less.
Biodiesel has several environmental benefits.
Vehicles that run on this fuel emit fewer heavv
hvdrocarbons and less particulate matter, carbon
dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Testing indicates,
however, that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions mav
be slightly higher, but several recent tests of NOx
reducing additives have shown promising results.
Because biodiesel does not contain sulfur, it won't
contribute to sulfur dioxide emissions or poison
exhaust catalysts when used in 100K form, and
it actually improves the efficiencv of oxidative
catalvsts.
Biodieset's Advantages
Easy to use: Biodiesel can be used with your
current fuming infrastructure and in ail diesel
vehicles with little or no engine modification.
Flexible: Biodiesel is easy to phase in and out,
so you can maintain flexibili~, in technology,
del~Ioyment.
EPAct credits: Users receive one EPAct credit for
every 450 gallons of biodiesel purchased. Users
of B20, which is 20% biodieseI, must use five
times that volume, or 2,250 gallons, to receive
one EPAct credit.
Reliable engine performance: Biodiesel's high
Cetane number and flash point and increased
lubricity mean excellent engine performance,
safety, and fuel economy.
Cleaner and renewable: Biodiesel cuts exhaust
emissions, minimizing black smoke, odor, and
greenhouse gas emissions, air toxics, and particu-
lates, and does not contribute to sulfur dioxide
emissions (acid rain).
Public utility fleets, w~th centralized vehicle serv~dng
and fueling, can effidentLy deploy biodiesel fuel.
Resources:
· National Biodiese] Board: www. biodiesel.org;
800-841-5849
· National Alternative Fuels Hotline:
www. afdc.doe.gov; 800-423-1DOE
· Department of Energy, Office of Fuels
Development: www. ott.doe.gov /biofuels;
Nohemi Zerbi, 202-586-1480.
· National Renewable Ener~, Laboratory:
K. Shaine Tyson, email: shaine_tyson~-~rel.gov
Sponsored by the U.S Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office of Transportation Teclmolog~e~
Prepared by
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (NREL)
NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
Neither the Umted States government nor any agenc? thereof, nor an~ of their emplvvee~,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assum~ any legal liability or ~ponsibilitv for
the accuracy, completeness, or useklln~s of a~ y reformation, apparatus, product, or p~s
disclosed, or ~presents that its use would not infnnge privately owned nght~ Reference
herein to any specitlc commercial product, process, or service b? trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply 115 endorsement
~c~mmendatlom or tavonng by the United Stat~ government or an7,' agency their The
views and opimons of autho~ expressed herein do not n~essarxly state or ~fl~t th~se of
the United State~ govetnmellt or any agmcy thereof
Alternative Fuels Data Center - Biodiesel Page 1 of I
Alternative Fuels
Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a domestically produced, renewable fuel that can be
manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant
greases. Biodiesel is safe, biodegradable, and reduces serious air
pollutants such as particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and air
toxics. Blends of 20% biodiesel with 80% petroleum diesel (B20) can
generally be used in unmodified diesel engines, however, users should
consult their OEM and engine warranty statement. Biodiesel can also be
used in its pure form (B 100/, but it too may require certain engine
modifications to avoid maintenance and performance problems. Users
should consult their engine warrant' statement.
What is Biodiesel?
How is Biodiesel made?
Biodiesel Fuel Market
Biodiesel Benefits
Biodiesel Res_earch and_ Development
Biodiesel Infrastructure Resources
Biodiesel Federal Legislation
Biodiese.1 publications
BiQdiesel Industrs~'Con~_c_ts_
Biodiesel Related Links
For more information go to the Nation&l_B_io_diesel Boa~r_cl's web site.
[DOE] [OWIP] [Webmaster] [AFDC Home]
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/alt fuel/biodiesel.html 11/26/2003
.AFDC - What is Biodiesel? Page 1 of 2
Alternative Fuels
What is Biodiesel?
Biodiesel (fatty acid alkyl esters) is a cleaner-burning diesel replacement
fuel made from natural, renewable sources such as new and used
vegetable oils and animal fats. Just like petroleum diesel, biodiesel
operates in compression-ignition engines. Blends of up to 20% biodiesel
(mixed with petroleum diesel fuels) can be used in nearly all diesel
equipment and are compatible with most storage and distribution
equipment. These low level blends (20% and less) generally do not
require any engine modifications, however, users should consult their
OEM and engine warranty statement. Biodiesel can provide the same
)ayload capacity and as diesel.
even pure biodiesel (100% biodiesel, or B100), can be
used in many engines built since 1994 with little or no modification.
Transportation and storage, however, require special management.
Using biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine substantially reduces
emissions of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfates,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and particulate matter. These reductions increase as the
amount ofbiodiesel blended into diesel fuel increases. The best
emissions reductions are seen with B 100.
The use ofbiodiesel decreases the solid carbon fraction of particulate
matter (since the oxygen in biodiesel enables more complete combustion
to COO and reduces the sulfate fraction (biodiesel contains less than 24
ppm sulfur), while the soluble, or hydrocarbon, fraction stays the same
or increases. Therefore, biodiesel works well with new- technologies such
as diesel oxidation catalysts (which reduce the soluble fraction of diesel
particulate but not the solid carbon fraction).
Emissions of nitrogen oxides increase with the concentration of biodiesel
in the fuel. Some biodiesel produces more nitrogen oxides than others,
and some additives have shown promise in modifying the increases.
More R&D is needed to resolve this issue.
Biodiesel has physical properties very, similar to conventional diesel.
Biodiesel's Physical Characteristics:
Specific gravity
Kinematic viscosity @ 40°C
Cetane number
0.87 to 0.89
3.7 to 5.8
46 to 70
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/alt fuel/bio_general.html 11/26/2003
AFDC - What is Biodiesel? Page 2 of 2
Higher heating value (bm/lb)
Sulfur. wt%
Cloud point °C
Pour point °C
Iodine number
Lower heating value (btu/lb)
16.928 to 17.996
0.0 to 0.0024.
-11 to 16
-15 to 13
60 to 135
15,700 to 16.735
FAQs
For answers to frequently asked questions, visit the National Biodiesel
Board's "FAO page." If you have further questions regarding biodiesel,
please call the National Alternative Fuels Hotline at (800) 423-1DOE.
Back to Biodiesel Home
[DOE] [OWIP] [Webmaster] [AFDC Home]
http://~,.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/bio_general.html 11/26/2003
AFDC - Biodiesel Fuel Market Page 1 of I
Alternative Fuels
Biodiesel Fuel Market
The use of biodiesel has ~oxvn dramatically during the last few years.
The Energy Policy Act xvas amended by the Energy Conservation
Reauthorization Act of 1998 to include biodiesel fuel use as a way for
federal, state, and public utility fleets to meet requirements for using
alternative fuels.
That amendment started the sharp increase in the number ofbiodiesel
users, which now include the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S.
Departments of Defense, Energy and Agriculture. Countless school
districts, transit authorities, national parks, public utility companies, and
garbage and recycling companies also use the fuel.
According to the American Biofuels Association, with government
incentives comparable to those that have been provided for ethanol,
biodiesel sales could reach about 2 billion gallons per year, or replace
about 8% of conventional highway diesel fuel consumption. At this level
of market penetration, biodiesel would probably be used in bus fleets and
heavy-duty trucks (primarily in blends with fossil diesel at the 20%
level), marine vessels such as ferries, construction and agricultural
vehicles, home heating oil systems, and electric generation facilities.
Feedstock costs account for a large percent of the direct biodiesel
production costs, including capital cost and return. It takes about 7.3
pounds of soybean oil, which costs about 20 cents per pound, to produce
a gallon ofbiodiesel. Feedstock costs alone, therefore, are at least $1.50
per gallon of soy biodiesel. Fats and greases cost less and produce less
expensive biodiesel, sometimes as low as $1.00 per gallon. The quality
of the fuel is similar to soy biodiesel fuel.
Back to Biodiesel Home
[DOE] [OWIP] [Webmaster] [AFDC Home_]
,/ -
http.,, x~'.afdc.doe.gov/alt fuelemo_market.html 11/26/2003
AFDC - Biodiesel Benefits Page 1 of I
Alternative Fuels
Biodiesel Benefits
Biodiesel is a substitute or extender for traditional petroleum diesel and
you don't need special pumps or high pressure equipment for fueling. In
addition, it can be used in conventional diesel engines, so you don't need
to buy special vehicles or engines to run biodiesel. However, users
should always consult with the OEM and engine warrant' statement
before using biodiesel.
Scientists believe carbon dioxide is one of the main ~eenhouse gases
contributing to global warming. Neat biodiesel (100 percent biodiesel)
reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more than 75 percent over
petroleum diesel. Using a blend of 20 percent biodiesel reduces carbon
dioxide emissions by 15 percent.
Biodiesel also produces fewer particulate, carbon monoxide, and sulfur
dioxide emissions, all targeted as public health risks by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Since biodiesel can be used in conventional diesel engines, the
renewable fuel can directly replace petroleum products; reducing the
country's dependence on imported oil.
Biodiesel offers safety benefits over petroleum diesel because it is much
less combustible, with a flashpoint greater than 150°C, compared to 77°
C for petroleum diesel. It is safe to handle, store, and transport.
For more details on biodiesel benefits go to the National Biodiesel
Board's Benefits of Biodiesel Fact Sheet (pDF 19 KB) (L~arn OloQut
PDF$).
Back to Biodiesel Home
[DOE] [O~rI~P] [Webmaster] [AFDC Home]
http:/,~qvw.afdc.doe.=ov/altfuel?bio benefits.html 1 V26/2003
[] [] []
c~
0