HomeMy WebLinkAbout22-1265DocuSign Envelope ID: 079736FB-C51C4E69-8314-5F07BCD49B89
RESOLUTiON NO. 22-1265
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ADOPTrNG THE CITY OF
DENTON’S COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (“CSWMS”)TO GUIDE THE CITY’S FUTURE SOLID WASTE/MATERIALS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMAND TO DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES NECESSARY TOMANAGE MATERIALS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE
CSWMS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton (“City“), and the North Texas region, is one of the fastest
growing areas in the nation; and
WHEREAS, with population growth comes the generation of additional waste and the
opportunity for increased diversion, which includes reusing, recycling, composting, or eliminatingmaterials that would otherwise be buried in the landfill; and
WHEREAS, to achieve diversion, the City will need to support the implementation of
several processes and programs designed to facilitate and incentivize the reduction of material
from its waste steam to ultimate disposal; and
WHEREAS, The City of Denton landfill serves as a regional disposal facility forthe North Texas Area; and
WHEREAS, landfill disposal capacity at the Denton landfill is finite; and
WHEREAS, a strategy to comprehensively address local and regional waste diversions is
required to minimize the amount of material disposed increasing landfill life; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton’s Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy
(CSWMS) is a Denton-centric document designed to help the Solid Waste and RecyclingDepartment make informed decisions to maximize waste reduction and drive diversion from
ultimate disposal to the greatest extent possible, including, but not limited to residential and
commercial programmatic recycling, yard and organic waste management, construction and/or
demolition debris, non-programmatic recyclable and reusable material; and
WHEREAS, the CSWMS sets forth goals, policies, and actions to manage the diversion
of solid waste materials from ultimate disposal for the next two decades; and
WHEREAS, the CSWMS is inspired and informed by citizen values and aspirationsexpressed in the Community Visioning and Think-Tank a description of what and how the
community wants to manage its solid waste in the future, and through 2040; and
WHEREAS, the CSWMS is a critical step in purposefully shaping the future of the City
solid waste/material management system as economic and population growth continue and marketfactors evolve.; and
WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Board held three work sessions (October 12, 2020,
November 8, 2021, and February 28, 2022) to review, discuss, and provide recommendations for
DocuSign Envelope ID: 079736FB-C51C4E69-8314-5F07BCD49B89
the development of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held three work sessions (October 13, 2020, November 9,
2021, and March 1, 2022) to review, discuss, and provide recommendations for the development of
the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City of Denton Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Strategy is in the best interests of the health, safety, and general welfare of thecitizens of the City of Denton, Texas; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. The findings and recitals contained in the preamble to this Resolution are
hereby incorporated by reference into the body of this Resolution as fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby establishes that the Denton 2040 Comprehensive
Plan shall affect all waste generation and diversion operations and activities of the City of Denton.
SECTION 3. The Denton City Council adopts the City of Denton Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Strategy and its recommendations and implementation actions, as presented inExhibit A.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this resolution or the application thereof to any person orcircumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the
provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this resolution are severable.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
"“ "!" “ ’”T' "'; '';"":'" "’; "“' b’ A\\'son K%c)ire ’'dsecondedby -.Jese h)is , the remmv=Fai;miTb3iMdby
the following vote []_- C) ]:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 079736FB-C51C4E69-8314-5F07BCD49B89
Aye
b/
P/
1/
1/
b/
Nay Abstain Absent
Mayor Gerard Hudspeth:
Vicki Byrd, District 1 :
Brian Beck. District 2:
Jesse Davis. District 3 :
Alison Maguire, District 4:
Brandon Chase McGee,
At Large Place 5 :
Chris Watts, At LargePlace 6:
1/
1/
PASSED AND APPROVED thi, th, I+ d,y of
2022.
GERARD HUDSPETH, MAYOR
ATTEST:
ROSA RIOS, CITY SECRETARY b\111111111
_6aaa _z{hz!
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
MACK REINWAND, CITY ATTORNEY
hqaHih N. SaWs) (1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 079736FB-C51C4E69-8314-5F07BCD49B89
EXHIBIT A
Denton Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Strategy
BURNS&M£DONNELL-l
Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Strategy (CSWMS)
DENTON
City of Denton, Texas
Project No. 128365
Final Report
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page No.
1 .0 OVERVIEW, PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES1 . 1 Purpose..........................................................1.2 Guiding Principles ........................................1.3 Project Approach ..........................................
1.3.1 Goals and SWOT Analysis ............
Stakeholder Engagement ...............1.3.2
Key Terms.....................................................Guide to the CSWMS Sections.....................
1.4
1.5
2.0 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING TRENDS, POLICIES ANDREGULATORY REIVEW .................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Review of Relevant Planning Studies.................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Regulatory and Policy Review............................................................................. 2-2
2.2.1 Role of the Federal Government in Regulating Solid Waste ................ 2-2
2.2.2 Role of the State Government in Regulating Solid Waste.................... 2-5
2.2.3 Recent State Legislative Trends............................................................ 2-8
2.2.4 Role of the City of Denton in Regulating Solid Waste......................... 2-9
Solid Waste Management Industry Trends........................................................ 2-10
2.3.1 Landfill Waste Reduction, Diversion and Zero Waste Philosophies.. 2-102.3.2 Material Waste Diversion and Alternative Metrics ............................ 2-13
2.3.3 Alignment with National Solid Waste Reduction Goals .................... 2-18
2.3.4 Promotion of Ingenuity in Reuse and Recycling ................................ 2-19
2.3.5 Alternative Waste Management Technologies ................................... 2-20
2.3.6 Landfill Management....................................-...................................... 2-23
2.3
3.0 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................... 3-1
3.1 Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................... 3-13.1.1 Historical and Current Populations ....................................................... 3-13.1.2 Single-Family and Multifamily Household Distribution ...................... 3-33.1.3 Population Projections .......................................................................... 3-5Economic Characteristics..................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.1 Current Employment and Industry Characteristics............................... 3-8
Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal .............................................. 3-8
3.3.1 Residential Generation, Recycling, and Disposal................................. 3-93.3.2 Commercial Generation, Recycling, and Disposal ............................. 3-113.3.3 C&D Generation, Recycling, and Disposal ........................................ 3-13
3.3.4 Total Generation, Recycling, and Disposal ........................................ 3-143.3.5 Residential and Commercial MSW Forecast ...................................... 3-16
Waste Characterization ...................................................................................... 3-17
3.4.1 Regional Capture Rate ........................................................................ 3-20
3.2
3.3
3.4
City of Denton, Texas TOC-1 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
3.4.2 Recycling Contamination.................................................................... 3-23
4.0 FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................ 4-1
4.1 Current System Review ....................................................................................... 4-14.1.1 Landfills ................................................................................................ 4-3
4.1.2 Materials Recovery Facilities ............................................................. 4-114.1.3 Transfer Stations ................................................................................. 4-14
4.1.4 Organics Processing Facilities ............................................................ 4-16
4.1.5 C&D Processing Facilities .................................................................. 4-19
4.1.6 Home Chemical Collection and Other Special Wastes....................... 4-21
Regional Partnerships ........................................................................................ 4-22Land Use and Growth ........................................................................................ 4-26
4.3.1 Current and Projected Growth in the City of Denton ......................... 4-27
4.3.2 Projected Growth in Surrounding Communities................................. 4-34
Current System Findings.................................................................................... 4-36
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND COMPLIANCE............................... 5-1
5.1 Education, Outreach and Compliance Evaluation ............................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Components of a Successful Education, Outreach and ComplianceProgram................................................................................................. 5-1
Overview the City’s Education, Outreach and Compliance Efforts ..... 5-3
Evaluation of the City’s Education, Outreach and ComplianceEfforts ................................................................................................... 5-8
Case Studies....................................................................................................... 5-10
5.2.1 Regional Education and Outreach Campaign ..................................... 5-105.2.2 Cart Auditing Programs ...................................................................... 5-11
5.2.3 Compliance Incentive Policies............................................................ 5-125.2.4 Commercial Recycling Support .......................................................... 5-135.2.5 Strategically Allocate Resources ........................................................ 5-14
Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ 5-15
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.3
6.0 ORGANICS MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 6-16.1 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Food Waste Recovery Hierarchy .......................................................... 6-26.1.2 Pre-consumer versus Post-consumer Food Waste ................................ 6-3
Generation and Diversion Summary.................................................................... 6-3
Organics Management Infrastructure .................................................................. 6-4Yard Waste – Residential and Commercial ......................................................... 6-5
6.4.1 Yard Waste Options .............................................................................. 6-5
Residential Food Waste ....................................................................................... 6-7
6.5.1 Residential Food Waste Options........................................................... 6-76.5.2 Residential Food Waste Case Studies................................................. 6-10
Commercial Food Waste.................................................................................... 6-10
6.6.1 Commercial Food Waste Options ....................................................... 6-116.6.2 Commercial Food Waste Case Studies ............................................... 6-13
Biosolids ............................................................................................................ 6-15
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
City of Denton, Texas TOC-2 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
6.8
6.9 Wood Waste and Other Organic Wastes ........................................................... 6-15
Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ 6-16
6.9.1 Residential Organics Recommendations ............................................ 6-16
6.9.2 Commercial Organics Recommendations........................................... 6-17
7.0 LANDFILL DISPOSAL...................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Landfill Pricing Strategies ................................................................................... 7-17.1. 1 Gate Rates ............................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 Guaranteed Tonnage Contracts ............................................................. 7-57.1.3 Landfill Disposal Surcharges ................................................................ 7-7
Other Approaches to Increase Diversion and Extend Landfill Life .................... 7-87.2.1 Landfill Bans for Certain Materials .................................,.................... 7-87.2.2 Other Incentives and Disincentives .................................................... 7-10
Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ 7-10
7.2
7.3
8.0 PLANNING FOR FUTURE GROWrH & INFRASTRUCTURE ......................... 8-1
8.1 Future Transfer Station Evaluation...................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1 Operational Appropriateness Evaluation .............................................. 8-18.1.2 Financial Feasibility Evaluation ........................................................... 8-28.1.3 Long-Term Considerations for a Transfer Station................................ 8-5
Development Code and Community Planning .................................................... 8-68.2.1 New Urbanism and Development Trends ............................................. 8-6
Recycling Program and Policy Options to Address Growth .....,......................... 8-88.3.1 Residential Recycling Options.............................................................. 8-8
8.3.2 Multifamily Recycling Options ............................................................ 8-98.3.3 Commercial Recycling Options.......................................................... 8-118.3.4 C&D Recycling Options ..................................................................... 8-14
Data Needs for Licensed Hauler Reporting ....................................................... 8-17
8.4.1 Case Studies: Hauler Reporting .......................................................... 8-17Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ 8-19
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.0 RECYCLING PROCESSING............................................................................. 9-1
9.1 Minimizing Challenging Materials in the Recycling Stream .............................. 9-1
9.1.2 Plastic Film and Bags............................................................................ 9-4
9.1.3 Styrofoam.............................................................................................. 9-49. 1.4 Food ...................................................................................................... 9-6
9.1 .5 Glass...................................................................................................... 9-6
9.1.6 Sharps.................................................................................................... 9-89.1.7 Batteries ................................................................................................ 9-9
9.1.8 Tanglers and Explosives ....................................................................... 9-99.1.9 Home Chemical Waste ....................................................................... 9-109.1.10 Shredded Paper ................................................................................... 9-119.1 . ll Textiles................................................................................................ 9-12
9.1.12 Furniture and Other Bulky Items ........................................................ 9-12
Recycling Processing Agreement Overview ..................................................... 9-13
9.2.1 Recycling Processing Agreement Best Management Practices .......... 9- 13
9.2
City of Denton, Texas TOC-3 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
9.2.2 Evaluation of Lease and Recycling Processing Agreement ............... 9-16
Recycling Agreement Procurement Considerations .......................................... 9-20
Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ 9-22
9.3
9.4
10.0 MATERIAL END MARKETS & PARTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITIES .............. 10-1
10.1 Current Markets for Typical Recyclables .......................................................... 10- 110.1.1 Paper Markets ..................................................................................... 1 o-310.1.2 Metals Markets..................................................................................,. 10-410.1.3 Plastics Markets ......................................,........................................... 10-5
10.1.4 Glass Markets....................................................................................., 10-5
Current Markets for Organics ............................................................................ 10-6Current Markets for C&D Debris ...................................................................... 10-6
Value of Additional Recycling Opportunities ................................................... 10-8
Role of Local Government in Recycling Market Development ........................ 10-9
Partnerships Options for Increased Diversion ................................................. 10-1010.6.1 Partnerships with City Departments ................................................. 10-11
10.6.2 Partnerships with Other Community Entities ................................... 10-13
10.6.3 Partnerships with Neighboring Communities ................................... 10- 16
Key Findings and Recommendations .............................................................. 10-19
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
11.0 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS ............................................, 11-1
11.1 Enhance Education, Outreach and Compliance................................................. 11-111.1.1 Tactics and Recommendations ........................................................... 11-111.1.2 Financial Impacts ................................................................................ 11-311.1.3 Environmental Impacts ............................,.......................................... 1 1-3
Implement Innovative Organics Management................................................... 11-411 .2.1 Tactics and Recommendations ........................................................... 11-5
I1 .2.2 Financial Impacts ................................................................................ 1 1-6
I1 .2.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 11-7Efficiently Use Landfill Capacity ...................................................................... 11-811.3.1 Tactics and Recommendations .............................................,............. 11-8
11.3.2 Financial Impacts ................................................................................ 1 1-911.3.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 11-9
Planning for Future Growth and Infrastructure ............................................... 1 1-10
11 .4.1 Tactics and Recommendations ......................................................... 11-11
11.4.2 Financial Impacts ..................................,........................................... 11-12
11 .4.3 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 11-15Optimize Recycling Processing ....................................................................... 11-1511.5.1 Tactics and Recommendations ......................................................... 1 1-15
11.5.2 Financial Impacts .............................................................................. 1 1-1711.5.3 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 11-17
Support New Markets and Leverage Partnerships........................................... 11-18
11 .6.1 Tactics and Recommendations ......................................................... 11-18
I1 .6.2 Financial Impacts .............................................................................. 1 1-20
11 .6.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................,.... 11-20
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
City of Denton, Texas TOC-4 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
12.0 IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN.............................................................................. 12-1
APPENDIX A - GOAL AND SWOT ANALYSISAPPENDIX B - VISION FOR DENTON THINK-TANK REPORTAPPENDIX C - WASTE CHARACTERIZATION MEMO
City of Denton, Texas TOC-5 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 2-1: Status Summary for Landfill Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Zero Waste
Philosophies ......................................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-2: Texas Cities with High Diversion or Recycling Goals ........................................ 2-14
Table 2-3: Alignment of Metrics to Zero Waste Principles....,.................................................. 2-15
Table 2-4: Alternative Metric Evaluation for City of Denton Single-Family MSW ................. 2- 17
Table 2-5 : Status Summary for Material Waste Diversion and Alternative Metrics................. 2- 18
Table 2-6: Status Summary for Alignment with National Solid Waste Reduction Goals ......... 2-19
Table 2-7: Status Summary for Promotion of Ingenuity in Reuse and Recycling..................... 2-20
Table 2-8: Summary of Texas Cities’ Efforts to Evaluate Conversion Technologies........... 2-22
Table 2-9: Status Summary for Alternative Waste Management Technologies........................ 2-23
Table 2-10: Average Per-ton Landfill Tipping Fees ................................................................ 2-24
Table 2-11: Status Summary for Landfill Management ............................................................ 2-25
Table 3-1: City, County, and State Historical Population & Growth, 2010-2020....................... 3-2
Table 3-2: Household and Population Distributions by Household Type, 2019 ..................... 3-4
Table 3-3 : City of Denton Future Population Growth Scenarios to 2045 ............................... 3-6
Table 3-4: Residential and Commercial Management, 2018-2020 (pounds per person
per day)................................................................................................................. 3-15
Table 3-5: Regional Single-Family Capture Rate by Individual Recyclable Materials ............ 3-21
Table 3-6: 2020 Participating City and Denton Single-Family Capture Rate ........................... 3-23
Table 3-7: Recycling Contamination by Generator Type.......................................................... 3-25
Table 3-8: Reported Single-Family Recycling Contamination Rates.................................,...... 3-26
Table 4-1 : NCTCOG Type I Landfill Disposal and Remaining Capacities, FY 2020 ................ 4-3
Table 4-2: Disposal Rates at Landfill Facility (2020) ................................................................. 4-7
Table 4-3 : Denton Landfill Disposal Tons by Customer Category, 2016-2020...................... 4-9
Table 4-4: NCTCOG Materials Recovery Facilities and Accepted Residential Materials ....... 4-11
Table 4-5: NCTCOG Transfer Stations and Tonnage Handled, FY 2020................................. 4-14
Table 4-6: NCTCOG Organics Processing Facilities and Accepted Materials ..................... 4- 16
Table 4-7: City of Denton Organics Management Tons by Source, 2016-2020 ................... 4- 17
Table 4-8 : NCTCOG Type IV Landfill Disposal and Remaining Site Lite, FY 2020 ......... 4-20
Table 4-9: Common Home Chemical Collection (HCC) Program Options .............................. 4-22
Table 4-10: City of Denton Home Chemical Collection and Other Special WasteTons, 2016-2020................................................................................................... 4-22
Table 4-11: Examples of Public-Private Partnership Options for MSW Operations ................ 4-23
Table 4-12: Advantages and Disadvantages of Approaches to Finance and Operate
Processing Facilities .................,........................................................................... 4-24
Table 4-13: Comparison Matrix of Denton and Largest 10 Texas Cities ServiceProvision1 ............................................................................................................. 4-25
Table 5-1 : Evaluation Matrix of City’s Education, Outreach and Compliance Efforts..........,.... 5-9
Table 6-1 : Evaluation Matrix of the City’s Yard Waste Programs .............................,........... 6-7
Table 6-2: Evaluation Matrix of the City’s Residential Food Waste Programs ...................... 6-9
Table 6-3: Evaluation Matrix of the City’s Commercial Food Waste Programs ...................... 6-12
Table 7-1 : Disposal Rates at the Denton Landfill (2022) ............................................................ 7-2
City of Denton, Texas TOC-6 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
Table 7-2: City Put-or-Pay Contract Terms................................................................................. 7-5
Table 7-3 : Historical McCommas Bluff Landfill Gate Rate (Dallas) .................................... 7-6Table 7-4: Landfill Discount Matrix........................................................................................ 7-7
Table 7-5: Alternatives to Landfill Bans ................................................................................... 7-10
Table 8-1 : Transfer Station Direct Costs1 .................................................................................... 8-3
Table 8-2: Estimated Financial Feasibility of a Transfer Station Compared to DirectHaul ........................................................................................................................ 8-4
Table 9-1: Current and Available Management Strategies for Challenging Materials atWFs1..................................................................................................................... 9-3
Table 9-2: Evaluation Matrix of City’s Current Lease and Recycling Processing
Agreement ............................................................................................................ 9-17
Table 9-3 : Recommended Schedules for Recycling Processing Procurements .................... 9-21
Table 10-1 : Current and Five-year Average Commodity Prices ............................................... 10-2
Table 10-2: Estimated Value of Recyclables in the City’s Landfilled Waste Stream ............... 10-8
Table 10-3 : Example Community Collection and End Use Opportunities.............................. 10-13
Table 11-1 : Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Commercial Organics Pilot.............................. 11-6
Table 11-2: Anticipated Impacts of Sector-Specific Options .................................................. 11-14
Table 11-3 : Planning-Level Cost Estimate for C&D Warehouse Program ............................. 11-14
Table 11-4: Planning-Level Cost Estimate for EPS Densifier Program .................................. 1 1-17
Table 11-5 : Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Regionalized HCC Program......................... 11-20
City of Denton, Texas TOC-7 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure ES-1: U.S. EPA’s Waste Management Hierarchy................................................................1
Figure 1-1: City of Denton CSWMS Development Process..................................................... 1-3
Figure 2-2: U.S. EPA’s Waste Management Hierarchy ............................................................ 2-10
Figure 2-3: Circular Economy ................................................................................................... 2-11
Figure 3-1: Historical City Population Growth, 1970 – 2020 ..................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2: Recent City, County and State Population Growth Rates, 2010-20201 .............,...... 3-3
Figure 3-3: City of Denton Population Growth Scenarios Through 2045 ................................ 3-6
Figure 3-4: City of Denton Population Projection, 2020-2040.................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-5: City of Denton Employment by Industry, 2019..................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-6: Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Generation Trends, 2018-2020(Tons)1’2 ............................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-7: Residential Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Trends, 2018-2020
(Pounds per Household)1...................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-8: City-Collected Commercial Waste by Material Type, 20191 ................................. 3-12Figure 3-9: Commercial and Multifamily Refuse Distribution, 2019 (Tons) ......................... 3-13
Figure 3-10: City of Denton Landfill C&D Debris Disposal Trends, 2018-2020 (Tons)1 ....... 3-14
Figure 3-11: City of Denton Residential & Commercial Generation by Material Type,2020 ...................................................................................................................... 3-15
Figure 3-12: Projected City-Managed Residential and Commercial Waste Generation,2019-20401 ........................................................................................................... 3-17
Figure 3-13: Single-Family Residential Garbage and Recycling Composition, 2020............... 3-19
Figure 3-14: Multifamily Residential Garbage and Recycling Composition, 2020 .................. 3-19
Figure 3-15: Commercial Garbage and Recycling Composition, 2020..................................... 3-19
Figure 4-1 : MSW Management Facility Locations within the City of Denton ........................... 4-1
Figure 4-2: MSW Facility Locations within Denton County and NeighboringCounties.................................................................................................................. 4-2
Figure 4-3 : Trends in Annual Regional Disposal, Type I and IV Landfills (Tons)..................... 4-4
Figure 4-4: Projected NCTCOG Remaining Regional Types 1 and IV Landfill Capacity,2021-2045............................................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-5: Denton Landfill Scalehouse ...................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 4-6: Denton Landfill MSW Tonnage by Broad Customer Category, 2020................... 4-8
Figure 4-7: Denton Landfill Annual Tonnage by Customer Category, 2016-2020 .................. 4-9
Figure 4-8: Projected Denton Landfill Capacity Based on Forecasted Scenarios, 2021-2080 ............................................................................................................,......... 4-10
Figure 4-9: Pratt Industries Material Recovery Facility ............................................................ 4-12
Figure 4-10: City of Denton Recycling Process Flow Overview ............................................. 4-13
Figure 4-11 : City of Denton Dyno Dirt Composting Facility.................................................... 4-17
Figure 4-12: City of Denton Pecan Creek WWTP .................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-13: Champion Construction MRF Materials Processing Line .................................... 4-20
Figure 4-14: Manual Sorting of Building Materials for Recover .............................................. 4-21
Figure 4-15: Compact Growth Scenario (Preferred Scenario from Denton Plan 2030) ............ 4-27
Figure 4-16: Denton Population Distribution in Relation to City Solid Waste Facilities ......... 4-29
City of Denton, Texas TOC-8 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Table of Contents
Figure 4-17: Projected City of Denton 2040 Population in Relation to City Solid WasteFacilities ............................................................................................................... 4-30
4-18: Population Areas Greater Than 6,000 Persons in City of Denton ........................ 4-3 14-19: New Residential Communities and Number of Platted Lots in Relation to
City Solid Waste Facilities ................................................................................... 4-33
4-20: Population Change Through 2040 for City of Denton and SurroundingCornrnunities ........................................................................................................ 4-35
5-1 : Example of Messaging Communicating Service Information .................................. 5-4
5-2: Example of Messaging Communicating General EnvironmentalInformation............................................................................................................. 5-5
6-3: Waste Wizard............................................................................................................ 5-66-4: Brochure Mailer ........................................................................................................ 5-7
5-5: Example of Regionally Collaborative Messaging .................................................... 5-87-1 : U.S. EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy...................................................................... 6-2
6-2: Organic Material Managed by the City in 2020 (Tons) ......................................... 6-4
6-3 : Non-Residential Excess Food Generating Sectors .........................................,..... 6-13
7-1 : Average Gate Rates Charged in the NCTCOG Region (2020)1 ............................... 7-49-1 : Densified Briquettes of EPS Foam ..........................................,................................ 9-5
9-2: RFP Process Description........................................................................................, 9-20
10-1: Single Stream Material Revenue (per Ton).......................................................... 10-2
10-2: Regional HCC Brochure1.................................................................................... 10-18
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
City of Denton, Texas TOC-9 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name
AD Anaerobic digestion
Austin Energy Green Building
Automated Side Loader vehicles
Building Materials Recovery program
Battery, Oil, Paint, and Antifreeze
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Construction and Demolition Debris
AEGB
ASL
BMR
BOPA
Burns & McDonnell
C&D
CAA Clean Air Act of 1976
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Center for Hard to Recycle Materials
CERCLA
CHaRM
the City
COGs
The City of Denton
Councils of Governments
Composting Facility The Dyno Dirt Composting Facility
Consumer Price Index
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy
UNT’s College of Visual Arts and Design
Cubic Yard
Dallas-Fort Worth
Denton Independent School District
Denton TV
CPI
CSWMS
CVAD
CY
DFW
DISD
DTV
EPP Environmental procurement programs
Extended Producer Responsibility
Expanded polystyrene, "Styrofoam"
Environmental Research and Education Foundation
EPR
EPS
EREF
FL Front Loader vehicles
Fats, oils, and greases
Full time employees
FOG
FTEs
City of Denton, Texas Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name
FY
GHG
GRC
HCC
HDPE
HHW
HOAs
ICI
LCA
LDPE
LEED
LLDPE
MPCs
MRF
MSW
NCTCOG
NGO
NRDC
NTMWD
OCC
ONP
PAYT
PET
PP
PPP
Pratt
PS
PSA
Fiscal year (October through September)
Greenhouse gas
Glass Recycling Coalition
Home Chemical Collection
High density polyethylene
Household hazardous waste
Homeowner Associations
Industrial, commercial and institutional sector
Life-cycle assessment
Low density polyethylene
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Linear Low-Density Polyethylene
Master Planned Communities
Materials recovery facility
municipal solid waste
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Non-Governmental Organization
The Natural Resources Defense Council
North Texas Municipal Water District
Old Corrugated Cardboard
Old Newspapers
Pay-as-you-throw
Polyethylene terephthalate
Polypropylene
Public-private partnerships
Pratt Industries
Polystyrene
Processing Service Agreement
City of Denton. Texas 11 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name
PSAs
PVC
RAP
RCRA
Recycling Agreement
RFB
RFI
RFP
RFQ
RMDP
RMDZs
RNG
SARA
SL
SMM
STA
STaND
STAR
SWDA
SWOT
SWR
TASWA
TCEQ
TPH
TPY
TWU
TxDOT
U.S. EPA
Public Service Ads
Polyvinyl Chloride
Rubberized Asphalt Paving
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Lease ad Regional Recycling Processing Agreement
Requests for Bids
Request for Information
Requests for Proposals
Request for Qualifications
Recycling Market Development Plan
Recycling Market Development Zone
Renewable Natural Gas
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1 986
Side Loader vehicles
Sustainable Materials Management
US Composting Council’s Seal of Testing Assurance
Statistical Trends and News of Denton
The State of Texas Alliance for Recycling
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
The Solid Waste and Recycling Department
Texoma Area Solid Waste Authority
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
tons per hour
tons per year
Texas Women’s University
Texas Department of Transportation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Denton, Texas 111 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
Abbreviation
USDA
UNT
UNT
URP
WARM
WWTP
Term/Phrase/Name
United States Department of Agriculture
University of North Texas
University of North Texas
Universal Recycling Ordinance
Waste Reduction Model
Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Denton, Texas IV Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
Developing a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy (CSWMS) is a critical step in
purposefully shaping the future of the City’s material management system. The City and its consultant,
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell), developed this CSWMS by
evaluating existing programs, policies and infrastructure as well as the local, regional, and national
emerging trends and technologies for sustainable materials management. As cities throughout the United
States pursue solutions to their solid waste management challenges, it is apparent that no single method,
technology, or program offers a complete solution; rather, a combination of methods is required to
provide for appropriate and cost-effective management of all material types, while continuing to build an
integrated management system. The unique purpose of the CSWMS is to provide a framework to guide
the City’s future solid waste/materials management system and to develop infrastructure, programs, and
policies necessary to manage materials in alignment with the Guiding Principles of the CSWMS.
Guiding Principles
The Solid Waste and Recycling (SWR) Department established Guiding Principles to direct the
development of specific strategies presented throughout the CSWMS. The four Guiding Principles are:
1.Develop innovative municipal solid
waste (MSW) management methods
consistent with the waste management
hierarchy to achieve as much MSW
reduction, reuse, and diversion from
landfill disposal as sustainably feasible
[based on economic, regulatory,
environmental and social constraints].
Figure ES-1 : U.S. EPA’s Waste Management Hierarchy
Source Reduction
2. Provide MSW services that are convenient,
environmentally conscious, and cost-
effective for customers and the City.
3 . Balance landfill revenue with capacity preservation, and collaborate with third-party landfill
customers to implement efforts consistent with the waste management hierarchy.
4. Strategically utilize program data and technology for informed decision-making.
City of Denton, Texas ES-1 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
Alignment with Other Strategic Efforts and Goals
The CSWMS was developed to align with the City’s current and ongoing strategic efforts, including the
City’s Simply Sustainable Framework. The City adopted the Simply Sustainable Framework in June
2020, and provides a framework, goals, and sustainability metrics for many of the City’s activities
including Material Resource Management. Established goals relevant to the CSWMS are to reduce solid
waste generation and divert material away from landfill and leverage the City’s purchasing power through
sustainable procurement. The strategies presented in the CSWMS align with these Material Resource
Management objectives.
The City has also recently initiated the process to establish Citywide diversion goals to be ambitious (to
reflect the City’s commitment to sustainable materials management) while also realistically accounting
for the types of materials generated in the City and the level of control the City has over how these
materials are managed. While the City is the refuse service provider for residential, multi-family and
commercial sectors, both multi-family and commercial sector generators may contract with third parties
for recycling service (or provide no recycling service at all). This limits the City’s ability to track
recycling in these sectors, which comprise an estimated 71 percent of generated wastes. Various programs
and ordinances can influence and increase recycling from these entities.
The following summarizes potential additional diversion opportunities identified as part of the CSWMS:
•Maximizing the recovery of residential recyclable programmatic materials. Currently, 54
percent of single-stream recyclable materials are successfully collected for recycling (rather than
disposed to landfill ) from single family generators. Improvements to the well-established
program to increase participation and capture rate could theoretically divert an additional 4,295
tons, if every recyclable item were successfully diverted from the waste stream.1 A small quantity
of yard waste is disposed from single family households. Together, an additional -5,000 tons of
recyclables and yard waste could be captured from the single family sector, at current generation
rates. If all of this material could be captured,1 it could add an additional three percentage points
to the Citywide diversion rate.
• Targeting commercial and multi-family recycling. The commercial and multi-family sectors
are significantly larger than the single family sector, but with less City control over how materials
are managed. An estimated 11,200 tons of single-stream recyclable material was landfilled by the
1 Currently, no cities are known to have achieved capture rates nearing 100 percent. Seattle, Washington hasachieved an 85 percent capture rate for single-family recyclables and King County has achieved an 80 percent
capture rate for accepted commercial recyclables. Achieving 100 percent capture rate in intended to serve as atheoretical maximum.
City of Denton, Texas ES-2 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
commercial and multi-family sectors in 2020. If all of this material could be captured,1 it could
add an additional seven percentage points to the Citywide diversion rate.
• Implementing food waste diversion programs. Food waste is the largest divertible component
of the landfilled waste stream in the City, with an estimated 30,400 tons of commercial food
waste and 11,800 tons of residential food waste landfilled in 2020. If all of this material could be
captured,1 it could add an additional 27 percentage points to the Citywide diversion rate.
Based on data presented in this CSWMS, the City managed a total of 1 58,909 tons material through its
residential and commercial collection services in 2020, including a total of 7,062 tons of recycling and
30,600 tons of organics which were recovered from residential and commercial generators. A small
quantity of HCC, electronics, drug kiosk and C&D metals were also reported as recycled. In total, this is
equivalent to approximately a 24 percent diversion rate.
In the near term (e.g., by 2030), increasing the capture rate of current program materials will result in
increased diversion; however, achieving a Citywide diversion rate above 24 percent will likely be
challenging without implementing new programs targeting large quantity materials such as commercial
food waste. Longer-term, achieving higher diversion rates (e.g., 40-50 percent) could be considered
achievable through strong residential and commercial recycling programs that include significant food
waste diversion. Achieving diversion rates above 60 percent could be considered aspirational, though as
materials and technology continue to evolve and the policy and regulatory landscape may change,2 higher
diversion rates (calculated based on recycling and organics diversion) could become more achievable.
Stakeholder Engagement
The CSWMS development process engaged stakeholders from the community and multiple City
departments. Community stakeholders engagement included a survey of Denton residents and other
community members (e.g., business owners) and a community Think Tank group. The stakeholder
engagement process included 883 responses to the community survey, and a series of three Think Tank
workshop meetings. Responses from the survey and visioning results from Think Tank group provided a
data-driven approach to were used to understand the key emergent trends and vision for the City of
Denton, specifically:
2 For example, future technology development may support cost-effective recycling of additional types of containersor packaging; or policy or market factors may result in manufacturers phasing out non-recyclable packaging, thereby
increasing diversion rates by reducing total landfilled material.
City of Denton, Texas ES-3 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
•
•
•
There was a strong Think Tank vision for “Change the future now!” indicating a clear direction of
change toward sustainability and the integration of policy and technology to achieve increased
diversion.
The Think Tank and survey responses show community support for near-term action for
recycling and solid waste management.
The community survey responses identified three top trends/needs: recycling education;
population growth and increased waste; and landfill capacity.
The full results of the stakeholder engagement process are presented in the Vision for Denton Think-Tank
Report (Appendix B).
Guidance for Reading the CSWMS
The CSWMS is organized into three overall sections: (1) introduction, (2) strategy evaluation and
recommendations, and (3) the implementation plan. The introductory sections provide key context about
the CSWMS, materials management trends, regulations, projected material management needs, and
regional facilities and infrastructure. Strategy evaluation and recommendation sections are dedicated to
defining, evaluating and developing recommendations for each of the six strategies presented as part of
the CSWMS. The implementation plan presents the tactics and recommendations for the City to
implement each of the six strategies, as well as an evaluation of the financial and environmental impacts
The six strategies of the CSWMS are described below.
•The Strategy to Enhance Education, Outreach and Compliance. Providing effective public
education and outreach to residential and commercial customers is critical for the ongoing and
future success of the City’s solid waste and recycling programs. The City currently provides a
robust education and outreach program for residents, complemented by cart tagging and
contamination tracking. This strategy evaluates and recommends enhancements to these programs
to address system challenges and improve program performance (i.e., contamination rate,
participation rate, diversion rate), which can drive increased sustainability.
The Strategy to Implement Innovative Organics Management. Organic materials comprise a
significant amount of the total waste stream generated from the residential, commercial, and
industrial sectors and present an opportunity for diversion. Effective organics management can
reduce the amount of waste that is sent to the landfill, generate renewable energy through
anaerobic digestion, create a valuable compost product, and return nutrients to the soil. This
strategy evaluates and recommends tactics to implement innovative organics management
•
City of Denton, Texas ESq Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
focused on two-pronged approach: to increase the diversion of food waste recovery from
commercial generators where clean food waste materials can be collected and processed
efficiently, and to increase awareness and technical assistance City-wide of reduction and
diversion strategies.
The Strategy to Efficiently Use Landfill Capacity. Landfills will play a necessary role in
materials management through the 2040 planning horizon, even with increasing rates of
recycling, waste reduction efforts, and technological advancement. Regional growth and facility
closures will increase landfill demand and value in the future. The City owns and operates the
Denton Landfill, placing it in a position of self-determination regarding refuse disposal and
capacity planning. This strategy evaluates and recommends tactics to efficiently use landfill
capacity that are focused on efforts to balance the need to preserve airspace while meeting short-
and long-term revenue needs.
The Strategy to Plan for Future Growth and Infrastructure. While the local and regional
infrastructure and capacity is currently sufficient to meet the City’s current needs, the City is
experiencing rapid growth, including concentrated growth in the Hunter Ranch and Cole Ranch
Mater Planned Communities (MPCs). This growth will result in increased waste generation
(residential, commercial, and construction and demolition (C&D) materials) as well as potential
operational challenges when continuing to provide cost-effective and efficient waste and
recycling services. This strategy evaluates and recommends tactics to plan for future growth that
are focused on actions the City can take to continue to safely and efficiently manage the materials
generated in the City and to increase diversion as more materials are generated from increasing
population and associated construction and development.
The Strategy to Optimize Recycling Processing. Many recycling facilities, including the Pratt
MRF which processes the City’s single-stream recyclables, receive materials that are not suitable
for processing at the facility or could be managed through alternatives. The City has programs to
divert many of these challenging materials, however there are opportunities to expand diversion
and increase processing efficiency. This strategy evaluates and recommends tactics to optimize
recycling processing that are focused on considerations to improve MRF processing by diverting
challenging or hard-to-recycle materials before they reach the M[RF as well as securing sufficient
recycling processing capabilities.
The Strategy to Support New Markets and Leverage Partnerships. Many valuable materials
(e.g., furniture) can be diverted for reuse prior to entering the solid waste management system.
Increasing the diversion of these materials through reuse can address community and recycling
market needs while increasing diversion. This strategy evaluates and recommends tactics to
•
•
•
•
City of Denton, Texas ES-5 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
support new markets and leverage partnerships that are focused on actions the City can take to
increase the supply and demand of reusable items and recycled products through partnerships and
other methods outside of the City’s solid waste program.
Key Findings and Priority Next Steps
The following summarizes the most salient key findings and recommendations related to each of the six
strategies in the CSWMS. The implementation and funding plan (see Section 12.0) prioritizes
recommendations and next steps developed as part of the CSWMS.
•The City’s current education and outreach program is robust, however program metrics
can be enhanced to provide a clear and measurable definition of success. For the City,
material capture rate, recycling contamination rate, and waste reduction rate can serve as valuable
metrics to understand how well education and outreach program content impacts residents and
others in the City to participate in recycling programs (through material capture rate), recycle the
right materials (through contamination rate), and engage in other sustainable behavior for waste
reduction (through waste reduction rate). With these metrics, it is essential to have quality data to
benchmark and track the progress of education, outreach and compliance efforts and goals. The
City currently tracks data related to its waste and recycling programs from a variety sources,
including the quantities of material collected through its curbside programs (primarily residential
data), information on collection activity from on-board technology, and estimates of recycling
contamination from the Pratt recycling facility. The City has also participated in NCTCOG waste
composition studies, which provide insight into the composition of its waste and recycling
streams and resulting capture rates of recyclable materials.
The City’s current cart audit and “oops” tag cart-tagging programs have been successful in
decreasing contamination in highly contaminated routes. Incorporating compliance incentives
into the existing program can help further deter contamination and improve recycling behavior.
The City has the opportunity, infrastructure, and financial support to pilot a commercial
organics composting or co-digestion program at Pecan Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). The commercial sector presents the greatest food waste diversion potential for the
City with over 30,000 tons of commercial food waste generated in the City and subsequently
disposed in landfill in 2020. The City has existing anaerobic digestion infrastructure and biogas
upgrading experience, providing the potential to convert clean source-separated commercial
organics to energy in partnership with the Pecan Creek WWTP. Recent support through a North
Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) grant provides financial support for the City
to pilot this new organics management approach.
•
•
City of Denton, Texas ES-6 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
•The recent landfill expansion provides long term capacity for the City. If diversion rates do
not improve, the City currently has sufficient capacity through at least 2057 and potentially
through 2077. The City’s landfill space will only increase in value over time as the area continues
to grow and more landfills reach capacity. As a City-owned and operated landfill, the City
maintains control over its disposal needs and should consider the Denton Landfill a valuable
resource. The City should anticipate increased interest from third-party haulers and private waste
management companies to operate or acquire the facility; however, the City should seek to
malntarn lts status as owner-operator.
•Landfill pricing and contract structures could be leveraged to support the City’s costs of
services while also encouraging diversion in surrounding communities. The Denton Landfill
is an important disposal resource not just for the City but also for north and west areas of the
region where disposal alternatives and diversion programs are limited (e.g., Wise County). While
the City provides essential sanitary service to these communities through the safe disposal of non-
recyclable wastes, there is an opportunity to divert material from these communities as well. The
City can leverage its pricing structures to incentivize third-party communities to divert by
contracting directly with communities (rather than their contracted hauler) and implementing a
discount structure that provides an increase discount rate based on documented diversion
tonnages. This approach could be used to attract increased volumes of recycling material to the
Pratt MRF (or future expanded regional MRF) as well as the potential regionalization of other
City programs for improved economies of scale to help facilitate recycling of City-generated
materials.
There is opportunity and need for decreased contamination, increased recycling
participation and diversion, and standardized services in the multifamily and commercial
sectors. As residential and commercial activity increases in the City as a result of growth, it is
important for the City to develop sector-specific plans to address key challenges or needs,
including to: (1) address contamination through education and outreach and additional
ordinance(s) such as contamination limits and reclassification of highly contaminated commercial
or multifamily recycling loads and refuse; (2) develop a multifamily recycling implementation
plan, including expanded opportunities (e.g., drop-off programs) and ordinances (as desired) to
expand multifamily recycling access and requirement as warranted by program performance; and
(3) develop a commercial recycling implementation plan, including expanded opportunities (e.g.,
partnerships) and ordinances (as desired) to expand commercial recycling access and requirement
as warranted by program performance.
•
City of Denton, Texas ES-7 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
•As residential and commercial activity increases in the City as a result of growth, it is
important for the City address the opportunities and needs for construction & demolition
(C&D) material management. While C&D recycling infrastructure exists in the area, many
C&D materials can be reused rather than recycled. There is opportunity for the City to establish a
City-operated C&D Reuse Warehouse at Building 651, to provide an opportunity for the
diversion of re-use quality C&D materials. Additionally, the City can develop a C&D recycling
implementation plan, and desired ordinance(s) to incentivize C&D recycling through existing
regional capacity and reuse through the City-operated facility.
The City has programs that divert many challenging materials in the recycling stream, but
there are opportunities to expand recovery. The City’s home chemical collection (HCC),
curbside yard waste, and bulky collection programs provide for the proper collection of materials
that would become contamination at the Pratt MRF. The City should leverage its education and
outreach program to further increase the awareness of how to divert these materials, including the
use of existing resources (e.g., NCTCOG “Know What to Throw” and NRDC food waste source
reduction). New programs or services that the City should consider in the near- or long-term to
increase diversion of challenging materials include recycling facility upgrades for improved
processing capabilities, drop-off recycling for expanded polystyrene (EPS, “Styrofoam”)
partnerships with other entities for safe sharps disposal and reusable furniture/household items,
and hosting paper shredding events to capture this material for recycling.
•
•Explore recycling processing options that include a regional recycling approach. Given the
limited recycling processing capacity in Denton and Collin Counties and anticipated growth in
the region, it is important for the City to plan appropriately for any efforts to increase recycling to
identify options for new capacity and/or facilities. Options for developing additional recycling
processing capacity include exploring expanded recycling at the Pratt recycling facility and
alternatives such as accepting responsibility for the processing of recycling materials either solely
or through partnerships with other cities in the area (e.g., McKinney, Plano) once the current
recycling processing agreement with Pratt ends in 2028.
There are coordination opportunities for the SWR Department with other City
departments to increase diversion through sustainability initiatives, programs, and services.
As the service provider, SWR may be department most associated with waste and recycling;
however, other departments can plan important roles in enacting initiatives and policies to
advance sustainable materials management. These include collaboration with:
o Parks & Recreation to address opportunities to increase public space recycling
o Pecan Creek WWTP to advance a long-term strategy related to organics diversion
•
City of Denton, Texas ES-8 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Executive Summary
o Procurement & Compliance to develop environmental procurement programs to support
recycling markets
There are community needs that could be met through coordination with local entities to
recover specific materials. By directly partnering or supporting and facilitating programs
established by local universities or non-profits, the City can help divert materials that would
otherwise be collected and landfilled through City-provided disposal service. Potential examples
include reuse and donation drop-off at college move out to support shelters and homelessness
services, including the Loop 288 Building/Our Daily Bread initiative; and food waste diversion
efforts to support food banks and soup kitchens.
•
City of Denton, Texas ES-9 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Ltr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
1.0 OVERVIEW, PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 Purpose
Developing a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy (CSWMS) is a critical step in
purposefully shaping the future of the City of Denton’s (City) solid waste/material management system as
economic and population growth continue and market factors evolve. Planning and implementing an
integrated solid waste management strategy is a complex and challenging endeavor encompassing a host
of issues: technological, institutional, legal, social, economic, and environmental. As cities throughout
the United States pursue solutions to their solid waste management challenges, it is apparent that no
single method, technology, or program offers a complete solution; rather, a combination of methods is
required to provide for appropriate and cost-effective management of all material types, while continuing
to build an integrated management system. The purpose of the CSWMS is to provide a framework to
guide the City’s future materials management system and to develop infrastructure, programs, and
policies necessary to manage materials in alignment with the Guiding Principles of the CSWMS (Section
1.2)
1.2 Guiding Principles
The Solid Waste and Recycling Department established the Guiding Principles to direct the development
of specific strategies presented throughout the CSWMS (refer to Section 1.5). The four Guiding
Principles are:
5.Develop innovative municipal solid waste (MSW) management methods consistent with the
waste management hierarchy to achieve as much MSW reduction, reuse, and diversion
from landfill disposal as sustainably feasible [based on economic, regulatory, environmental
and social constraints]. The materials management hierarchy (see Section 2.3 for further detail)
describes the environmentally preferred methods for managing materials, ranking the various
methods of diversion, with disposal (landfilling or incineration) as the least preferred. The
CSWMS is focused on increasing the effectiveness of traditional recycling and exploring options
for increased organics diversion where these options can be feasibly implemented based on
economic, regulatory, environmental and social constraints. Source reduction is another
City of Denton, Texas 1-1 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Ltr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
environmentally-preferred method of diversion, focused on reducing consumption, that the City
may further explore in the long-term in subsequent CSWMS updates.3
6.Provide MSW services that are convenient, environmentally conscious, and cost-effective
for customers and the City. There are many approaches the City could implement in working
toward its goals of increased diversion and sustainable materials management, and all have
inherent costs. The strategies included in the CSWMS are intended to strike a balance between
maintaining a cost-effective management system for both the City and its customers, while taking
meaningful steps toward a sustainable and environmentally responsible future.
7.Balance landfill revenue with capacity preservation and collaborate with third-party
landfill customers to implement efforts consistent with the waste management hierarchy.
The importance of Guiding Principle 1 is emphasized by Guiding Principle 3. With the
recognition that landfill capacity is a finite resource in the region and will become increasingly
valuable for the City in the future, it is important for the City to continuously seek or improve
upon methods of landfill diversion. This CSWMS recognizes that the Denton Landfill is an
important disposal resource not just for the City but also for north and west areas of the region
where disposal alternatives and diversion programs are limited (e.g., Wise County). While the
City provides essential sanitary service to these communities through the safe disposal of non-
recyclable wastes, there is an opportunity to divert material from these communities as well.
8.Strategically utilize program data and technology for informed decision-making.
Strengthening the City’s mechanisms for consistent data tracking and increasing diversion
activities within the commercial and institutional sector is a key objective of the CSWMS. In the
past, the primary focus has been on the single-family residential sector, resulting in an effective
program. Enhancing the City’s ability to obtain commercial and institutional generation and
recycling data, and integrating key generation, recycling, and contamination data into outreach
and engagement, is an essential step in developing and implementing targeted and effective
strategies for future materials management.
1.3 Project Approach
During the CSWMS planning process, Burns & McDonnell worked with the City of Denton to evaluate
current systems and programs to identify potential strategies and options for key solid waste and resource
3Material bans (i.e., banning materials such as single-use bags from sale within the City) are an example of source reduction
programs that could be enacted by local government; however, such policies currently cannot be enforced due to the Texas
Supreme Court ruling in City of Laredo , Texas v Laredo Merchants Association
City of Denton, Texas 1 -2 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Ltr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
recovery issues, as presented in subsequent sections of the CSWMS. The CSWMS was developed to
evaluate current programs and identify key near- and long-term trends influencing recycling and solid
waste management in the City. The CSWMS process included external stakeholder engagement
(including a community Think Tank process described in more detail in Section 1.3.1), City Council
communications, detailed evaluation of strategies, and development of a detailed implementation plan.
Figure 1-1 presents the planning process the City and its consultant, Burns & McDonnell, utilized in
developing the CSWMS.
Figure 1-1 : City of Denton CSWMS Development Process
Establish Goals andReview Prior
Studies/Plans Objectives
131Identify AlternativesCurrent System
Review
Evaluate OptionsWaste Generation
Evaluate Cost ofProtections
Options and
Composition StudY Strategies
iIIFePr?ent;Foanr
Plan and Funding
Plan
Develop Schedule
Write Strategy
Evaluate ExistingSystem
Develop Strategies
and Options
Strategy
Workshop
Solid Waste
Management Study
City/Stakeholder Engagement and Public Outreach
The CSWMS development process engaged select stakeholders within the City’s departments and
included meetings and workshops between the Solid Waste & Recycling Department, Burns &
McDonnell, and other relevant City Departments and programs (e.g., Water Utilities, Sustainable
Denton).
1.3.1 Goals and SWOT Analysis
As part of the CSWMS project approach, City Staff participated in a project kick-off workshop to identify
goals (e.g., increase diversion, be cost-effective) and conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats) analysis. Findings from the kick-off workshop were used as background
information to guide the CSWMS development, including setting the guiding principles (see Section 1.2).
The full results of the goalsetting and SWOT analysis are provided in Appendix A.
City of Denton, Texas 1 -3 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Ltr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
1.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement
The stakeholder engagement approach for the CSWMS was comprised of two components, a survey of
Denton residents and other community members (e.g., business owners) and a resident Think Tank group.
The stakeholder engagement process included 883 responses to the community survey, and a series of
three Think Tank workshop meetings. Responses from the survey and visioning results from Think Tank
group provided a data-driven approach to were used to understand the key emergent trends and vision for
the City of Denton, specifically:
•
•
•
There was a strong Think Tank vision for “Change the future now!” indicating a clear direction of
change toward sustainability and the integration of policy and technology to achieve increased
diversion.
The Think Tank and survey responses show community support for near-term action for
recycling and solid waste management.
The community survey responses identified three top trends/needs: recycling education;
population growth and increased waste; and landfill capacity.
The full results of the stakeholder engagement process are presented in the Vision for Denton Think-Tank
Report (Appendix B).
1.4 Key Terms
This section presents definitions of a selection of key terms utilized throughout the CSWMS that are
necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the current MSW management system and strategies that
will be implemented in the future.
Sectors. This section defines the terminology utilized throughout this CSWMS to discuss the five
distinct generation sectors or MSW customer types (as well as other MSW management topics) that the
City engages through its solid waste and recycling systems and programs.
•
•
Single-family residential. The single-family residential sector is defined as single-family
households and the materials generated by these households. In Denton, the single-family
residential sector also includes residential properties having four or fewer housing units.
Multifamily residential. The multifamily residential sector is defined as residential properties
having greater than four individual housing units (e.g., apartment complexes, condominiums,
etc.) and the material generated by these households. Multifamily MSW is collected, processed,
and reported in combination with commercial material. Generally, MSW data specific to the
City of Denton, Texas 14 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Ltr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
multifamily sector is not available. Estimates regarding multifamily generation were developed,
as described in Section 3.3.2.
Commercial and institutional. The commercial and institutional sector refers to commercial
(offices, retail and wholesale establishments, restaurants, etc.) and institutional (schools, libraries,
hospitals, local government, etc.) entities and the material generated by these entities. Distinction
between the commercial and institutional sector and the multifamily sector is made throughout
this CSWMS, where applicable.
Construction and demolition (C&D) material. C&D material is defined as materials that are
generated by construction, demolition, or renovation projects and includes, but is not limited to,
materials such as brick, roofing materials, wood, flooring, drywall, insulation, concrete, and
asphalt. C&D material is not included in the category of MSW as defined below and was
included in this CSWMS as a distinct sector because it is generated by multiple customer types,
including single-family, multifamily, commercial, and the public sector (e.g., municipal, state, or
federal).
Events and public spaces. The events and public spaces sector is defined as materials that are
generated through activities and special events taking place in various public locations throughout
the City, such as parks, sports facilities, pedestrian areas, and various events held by the City each
year
•
•
•
Material types. This section defines the terminology utilized throughout this CSWMS to discuss the
varying material types that the City manages through its solid waste and recycling systems and programs.
•Municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW refers to the entirety of the material stream (refuse and
recycling) that is generated by everyday activities in homes, commercial businesses, institutions,
and public spaces. MSW can be further categorized by material types including refuse,
recyclables, bulky items, organics, and home chemical collection (HCC) and other special wastes,
as defined below. MSW does not include commercial hazardous waste or industrial, agricultural,
or mrnrrrg wastes.
Refuse. Refuse is the portion of MSW that cannot practically be recycled, reused, or otherwise
diverted from disposal. True refuse has no viable handling methods other than disposal.
However, in most communities, a portion of the material disposed as refuse has the potential to be
recycled or otherwise diverted.
Recyclables. Recyclables includes single-stream recyclables, or programmatic recyclables, which
refers to materials that are typically accepted through municipal curbside recycling programs or at
•
•
City of Denton, Texas 1-5 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Ltr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
drop-off locations, processed through materials recovery facilities (MRF), and sold as
commodities to markets where the material is then repurposed. These programmatic recyclables
include, but are not limited to, items such as plastic and glass containers, aluminum and steel
cans, cardboard, and other various paper products. Recyclables also includes other materials that
can be recycled, such as textiles, electronics, appliances, and film plastic, which can also be
referred to as hard-to-recycle materials.
Bulky items. Bulky items generated by households or commercial customers that are too large to
be placed inside a customer’s regular collection container. Bulky items include items such as
furniture, mattresses, metal, cardboard, and limited quantities of carpet and fencing.
Organics. Organics include plant or animal-based materials. Organics have the potential to be
diverted from landfill disposal through composting or mulching processes. Within the category
of organics there are many sub-categories of materials including:
o Yard trimmings. Vegetative material generated from property maintenance or
landscaping is categorized as yard trimmings and includes grass clippings, leaves, plants,
small cuttings, brush, and tree limbs.
o Food scraps. Food scraps are materials such as fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy
products. Often, processing of food scraps also includes food-soiled biodegradable items
such as napkins, paper plates, and compostable food containers.
o Biosolids. Solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic
sewage in treatment works (sewage sludge that has been treated or processed to meet
Class A, Class AB, or Class B pathogen standards for beneficial use).
o Wood waste. Non-C&D items such as pallets.
o Other. Items such as natural textiles, material pumped from septic tanks (septage), water
treatment plant residuals, fats, oils, and greases (FOG), dead animals, and manure.
Home chemical collection (HCC) and other special wastes. HCC programs include common
household chemicals or other household materials that should not be disposed of in MSW
landfills due to their potential for adverse environmental and human health impacts. They require
special disposal by an entity that is permitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ). HCC program materials include, but are not limited to, materials such as paints,
fertilizers, pesticides and poisons, pool chemicals, household cleaners, and automotive products.
HCC does not include chemicals or other materials generated by commercial or industrial entities.
Construction & demolition (C&D) debris. C&D debris is defined as solid waste resulting from
the construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of structures, roads, sidewalks, and utilities.
Material is generated from residential, commercial, and public sector (e.g., municipal, state, or
•
•
•
•
City of Denton, Texas 1 -6 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Ltr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
federal) projects. It includes, but is not limited to, materials such as brick, roofing materials,
wood, flooring, drywall, non-asbestos insulation, concrete, and asphalt. Most C&D debris is
disposed in separate C&D permitted landfills. Smaller amounts may be recycled or reused.
Material management. This section provides definitions regarding the total amount of materials
generated within the City and the material disposal or processing streams that comprise total generation
quantrtles.
•Generation. Total material generated is the quantity of material that the City must manage
through its various disposal and recycling programs and services. Generation is the total quantity
of material disposed plus the total quantity of material recycled or otherwise diverted from
disposal.
Diversion. Within this CSWMS, diversion refers to the proportion of generated material that is
collected and diverted from landfill disposal. Diversion methods include single-stream recycling,
organics diversion though composting or mulching, HCC recycling, reuse, and other diversion
methods. Currently, yard trimmings accounts for most of the City’s diverted material. For
Denton, single-family residential diversion quantities of single-stream, HCC, and yard trimmings
materials through City services (curbside and drop-off collection) are tracked and the City
currently has a residential diversion rate of approximately 23 percent. Commercial and C&D
diversion quantities for the City are not available. Some cities also include reuse materials in
landfill diversion rates; however, reuse materials are not currently included in the City’s diversion
rates discussed in this CSWMS because reuse material quantities are small and difficult to
quantify. There are various methods for measuring diversion (as discussed in the “Material
Waste Diversion and Alternative Metrics” portion of Section 2.3).
Disposal. Disposal refers to all remaining material placed in landfills that has not been recycled,
composted, or otherwise diverted. Disposed materials include some quantities of materials that
were not recovered prior to disposal but could potentially be recovered through improvement of
recycling and other diversion programs, infrastructure, or education. City and regional waste
characterization and potential for increased recovery of materials from materials currently
disposed in landfills is further addressed in Section 3.4 and Appendix C.
•
•
1.5 Guide to the CSWMS Sections
Sections 2.0 through 4.0 of the CSWMS each present discussion and analysis of current trends,
infrastructure and programs relevant for identifying and defining the six strategies of the City’s CSWMS,
which were developed to align with the Guiding Principles. Specifically, these six strategies are to:
City of Denton, Texas 1 -7 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management StrategyRevision Rev. No. or Hr Overview, Priorities and Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enhance Education, Outreach, and Compliance
Implement Innovative Organics Management
Efficiently Use Landfill Capacity
Plan for Future Growth and Infrastructure
Optimize Recycling Processing
Support New Markets and Leverage Partnerships
Sections 5.0 through 10.0 of the CSWMS each present a detailed discussion of one strategy, including
evaluation of the City’s current program or approach to the strategy, benchmarking or case studies
considered in the development of the CSWMS, and the identification of key findings and
recommendations for the City to implement each strategy.
Section 1 1.0 presents the tactics and recommendations for the City to implement each of the six
strategies, as well as an evaluation of the financial and environmental impacts. Section 12.0 is a complete,
high-level implementation plan, compiling the strategies presented and evaluated in Sections 5.0 through
10.0. The implementation plan presents the following information for each of the six strategies of the
CSWMS :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strategy recommendations and tactics
Priority
Increased diversion potential
Financial impact
Potential funding sources
Implementation timing
Responsible party
City of Denton, Texas 1 -8 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
2.0 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING TRENDS, POLICIES AND REGULATORY
REIVEW
This section provides a broad perspective of the historic and current state of the MSW management
environment in which the City is developing this CSWMP. It provides a review of relevant existing
planning studies, a summary of relevant laws and regulations, and information on key trends in MSW
management. Discussion for each key trend also includes information on the City’s activities and progress
related to the trend, identification of any challenges or threats to implementing actions related to the trend,
and recommendations for how the City could address the trend moving forward.
2.1 Review of Relevant Planning Studies
Understanding prior MSW and community planning projects completed at the local, regional, and state
levels is a critical step in effectively and efficiently developing the CSWMS for the City. To inform
development of this strategy, Burns & McDonnell reviewed the following studies and plans presented
chronologically.
•Simply Sustainable: A Framework for Denton’s Future4 This plan was adopted in June 2020,
and provides a framework, goals, and sustainability metrics for many of the City’s activities
including Material Resource Management. Established goals are to reduce solid waste generation
and divert material away from landfill; and leverage the City’s purchasing power through
sustainable procurement.
City of Denton Plan 20305 This plan was adopted in 2015 and is a comprehensive plan to
address the anticipated growth in the City and the DFW Metroplex. The plan examines current
and potential land use and growth strategies, and recommends goals, policies, and actions to
guide the City’s growth in areas such as mobility, urban design, community health, and
infrastructure. Recommendations related to solid waste and recycling focus on three areas: waste
minimization and reuse, efficient solid waste and recycling collections, and environmental
protection and disposal capabilities.
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan 2015 - 2040. This plan was approved in 2015 and covers a 25-year planning
•
•
4 City of Denton 2020. “Simply Sustainable: A Framework for Denton’s Future” Available online:https://www.cit}'ofdenton.com/CoD/media/City-of-
Denton/Residents/Make%20a%20Difference/Sustahable%20Denton/Exhibit-2-Simply-Sustainable-Framework-
Final-Copy 1.pdf
5 City of Denton 2015. “Denton Plan 2030: Our path to the future” Available online:https://www.cityofdenton.com/CoD/media/City-of-Denton/Government/Denton Plan 2030.pdf
City of Denton, Texas 2-1 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
period for the NCTCOG, the 16-county regional planning area in the North Central Texas region.
The primary purposes of this plan are to inventory closed landfills, quantify regional landfill
capacity in relation to projected future growth in waste generation, identify the region’s most
prominent needs and problems, and outline activities and priorities to be initiated throughout the
planning period.6 NCTCOG is currently in the process of updating this regional planning effort.
City of Denton Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
TCEQ Study on the Economic Impacts of Recycling. This 2017 study, completed by the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as outlined in House Bill 2763,
documented the quantities of MSW recycled and landfilled in Texas. The report provides a state-
level understanding of 2015 recycling and landfill disposal quantities and composition and
provides key economic and market trend data.7
TCEQ Recycling Market Development Plan. The TCEQ recently published the Recycling
Market Development Plan WIDP) to promote the use of recyclable materials as feedstock in
processing and manufacturing. Similar to the Study on the Economic Impacts of Recycling, the
RMDP will provide state-level estimates of recycling and landfill disposal quantities statewide
and estimates the resulting economic benefits of recycling. The RMDP will also provide a plan to
increase recycling, developed based on the key barriers and opportunities identified across the
State. Plan development began in February 2020, and a final report was published in September
202 1 .8
•
•
•
2.2 Regulatory and Policy Review
Prior regulations and policies related to material management, as well as trends and the current regulatory
climate, have largely shaped the state of material management and defined the environment in which this
CSWMS was developed. This section provides a summary of federal and state regulations, policies, and
trends
2.2.1 Role of the Federal Government in Regulating Solid Waste
The federal government sets basic requirements for regulations that protect public health and the
environment, which helps to provide consistency among states. The United States Environmental
6 North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 2015. “Planning for Sustainable Materials Management
in North Central Texas 2015-2040.” Available online: https://www.nctcog.org/envir/materials-
management/materials-management-plan
7 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). July 2017. “Study on the Economic Impacts of Recycling.”
Available online : https://www.tceq.texas.gov/p2/recycle/study-on-the-economic-impacts-of-recycling.
8 TCEQ. August 202 1. “Recycling Market Development Plan.” Available online:
https://www .tceq .texas.gov/assets/public/assistance/P2Recycle/Recyclable-Materials/2021 %20Recyc ling%2C}Market%20Development%20Plan.pdf
City of Denton, Texas 2-2 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste management
through the Office for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. There are three major pieces federal
legislation pertaining to solid waste management:9
1. Prior to 1965, solid waste management was entirely dependent on the judgement and decisions of
individuals or local departments of health and sanitation. In 1965, Congress made its first attempt
to define the scope of the nation’s waste disposal problems by enacting the Federal Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA), which financed statewide surveys of landfills and illegal dumps.
2. The first significant federal legislation governing the disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous
waste was passed in 1976 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA
established landfill construction, management, and closure guidelines. It also regulates hazardous
waste management facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRA has been
amended three times since its inception:lo
o 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, requiring the phasing out of land
disposal of hazardous wastes and granting the U. S. EPA regulatory authority over
landfills (Subtitle C Hazardous Waste and Subtitle D Non-hazardous waste)
o 1992 Federal Facility Compliance Act, strengthening enforcement of RCRA at federal
facilities
o 1996 Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act, providing regulatory flexibility for land
disposal of certain wastes
3. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress to address abandoned hazardous waste sites
in the United States. CERCLA was subsequently amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1 986 (SARA) to stress the importance of permanent remedies, provide for
increased state involvement, and increase federal funding.11 The Office of Air and Radiation
regulates solid waste-related air emissions, enforcing the Clean Air Act of 1976 (CAA) and its
subsequent amendments.12
In addition to federal legislation, there are national policies in place and under development to guide
lawmakers to develop and implement future legislation. On November 17, 2020 the U.S. EPA established
9 Texas Center for Policy Studies. 1995. “Texas Environmental Almanac.” Available online:http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017. “History of the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA).” Available online: https://www.epa.gov/rcra/history-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra
11 U.S. EPA. 2017. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Available online: https://www.epa.qov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview
12 U.S. EPA. 2020. “Summary of the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970).” Available online:https://www .epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act
City of Denton, Texas 2-3 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
the National Recycling Goal of 50 percent by 2030 to provide the benchmarks needed to evaluate the
success of the collective efforts to significantly improve the nation’s recycling system. The metrics
identified in the National Recycling Goal are based on the broad objectives of the draft National
Recycling Strategy and are divided into four categories: assessing recycling performance, reducing
contamination, increasing processing efficiency and strengthening recycled material markets. The
National Recycling Goal aims to create standardized definitions for the recycling industry to keep pace
with today’s diverse and changing waste system. The following lists the measures that will be used to
track the progress toward the National Recycling Goal.
o Measure 1: Reduce contamination in recycling. This will be calculated by examining the
percentage of contaminants in the recycling stream.
o Measure 2: Make the national recycling processing system more efficient. This will be
measured by tracking the percentage of materials successfully recycled through recycling
facilities compared to the inbound material.
o Measure 3: Strengthen the economic markets for recycled materials. This will be
measured by tracking the average price per ton of recycled material on the secondary
materials commodity market.
The related National Recycling Strategy identifies objectives and actions needed to create a more resilient
and cost-effective recycling system nationwide. The draft National Recycling Strategy was open for
public comment until December 4, 2020 and is expected to be finalized in late 2021. The National
Recycling Strategy will be aligned with and support implementation of the National Recycling Goals.
To address food loss and waste nationwide, the U.S. EPA established a national goal on September 16,
2015 to reduce food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030. The Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal
was a joint effort with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to address food insecurity and reduce landfill
methane emissions. The goal aims to reduce the amount of food waste generated and subsequently
managed (e.g., through landfilling, composting, anaerobic digestion, etc.), and was updated in September
2021 to align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving the target 50 percent
reduction is equivalent to reaching a total generation rate of 164 pounds of food waste per person per year
(including food waste recycled through composting or anaerobic digestion).
National organizations other than the federal government also play a role in national solid waste policies
and trends. The Recycling Partnership has been working to develop an initiative called the Circular
City of Denton, Texas 2-4 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Economy Accelerator Policy13 to support the collective U.S. residential recycling collection system to
develop a collaborative public-private policy solution that includes:
o A packaging and printed paper fee paid by private-sector brands to support residential
recycling infrastructure and education.
o A disposal surcharge on waste generators to help defray recycling operational costs for
communrtles.
Packaging and printed paper fees would be based on a needs assessment and data-driven plan. Fees would
be calculated to address the level of investments that are needed to provide recycling access to residents
on par with disposal, provide education and outreach to residents to reduce rates of inbound
contamination, and enhance MRF capabilities to efficiently sort and process collected materials. A third-
party Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) would set and collect fees based on the established needs
and disburse funds in order to meet statutory goals.
Combined, this dual-policy solution is intended to bring key stakeholders together to create funding
mechanisms that could address the infrastructure, education and operational challenges facing the
recycling collection system.
2.2.2 Role of the State Government in Regulating Solid Waste
Texas has a long-standing solid waste material management regulatory program, initiated with the Texas
Solid Waste Disposal Act and passed by the state legislature in 1969. This Act required the Texas Health
Department to adopt regulations pertaining to the design, construction, and operation of landfills and
other processing facilities. Today, the TCEQ holds jurisdiction over solid waste material management.
Several other major pieces of state legislation from the state Senate and House of Representatives have
been enacted:
1.
2.
The 1983 Comprehensive Municipal Solid Waste Management, Resource Recovery, and
Conservation Act, which established the Municipal Solid Waste Management and Resource
Recovery Advisory Council, prescribed criteria and procedures for regional planning agencies
and local governments that wanted to develop solid waste management plans.
The 1987 House Bill 205 1 established a preferred hierarchy via state policy for the management
of hazardous waste, municipal waste, and municipal sludge.
13 For more information on the Accelerator Policy see the report “Accelerating Recycling: Policy to Unlock Supplyfor the Circular Economy” here: https://recyclingpartnership.org/accelerator-policy/
City of Denton, Texas 2-5 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
3.The 1989 Senate Bill 1519 established a solid waste disposal fee program to fund the state’s
MSW regulatory programs. It required the state’s regional planning agencies (Councils of
Governments, COGs) to develop regional solid waste management plans and to provide grand
funding to support development of local plans.
The 1991 Omnibus Recycling Act (Senate Bill 1340), set a statewide recycling goal of 40 percent
of its MSW by January 1, 1994 and directed several state agencies to develop a joint market study
and strategies to stimulate markets for recycled goods.
The 1993 Senate Bill 1051 expanded state recycling programs and amended the state’s 40 percent
recycling goal. The goal became a 40 percent waste reduction goal, aimed at reducing the total
amount of material disposed of in the state through recycling as well as source reduction.
The 1993 House Bill 2537 addressed the risks associated with methane gas release from closed
landfills by establishing a process for the TCEQ to review proposals and issue permits to build
atop closed MSW landfills.14
The 2007 Texas Computer Equipment Recycling Law required manufacturers to establish and
implement a recovery plan for collection, recycling, and reuse of computer products.15
The 2013 House Bill 7 reduced the disposal fees that landfills are required to pay to TCEQ from
$1.25 per ton to $0.94 per ton and reduced the percentage allocated to Councils of Governments
(COGs) to 33.3 percent.
The 2015 House Bill 2736 required the TCEQ to conduct a study to quantify the amount of
materials being recycled in the state, assess the economic impacts of recycling, and identify ways
to develop new markets to increase recycling. The TCEQ completed Study on the Economic
Impacts of Recycling in 2017.
The 2019 House Bill 61 was the “Slow Down to Get Around” legislation that established a
misdemeanor violation for vehicles that do not adhere to the Transportation Code’s requirements
of slowing and moving 2 lanes away from a solid waste collection vehicle.
The 2019 Senate Bill 649 required the TCEQ to produce a plan to stimulate the use of recyclable
material as feedstock in manufacturing. The bill also requires the TCEQ to develop an education
program outlining all the ways that recycling provides economic benefits to the state.
The 2019 House Bill 1435 authorized the TCEQ to inspect the facility or site before a permit for a
proposed MSW management facility is issued, amended, extended, or renewed.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
9
10.
11.
12
14 Texas Center for Policy Studies. 1995. “Texas Environmental Almanac.” Available online:
http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/15 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “Guidance for the Texas Recycles Computers Program“ Available
online: https://www.tceq.texas.qov/p2/recycle/electronics/computer-recycling.html
City of Denton, Texas 2-6 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
13. The 2019 House Bill 1953 prohibited TCEQ from treating post-use polymers or recoverable
feedstocks as solid waste if the substances are converted (by pyrolysis or gasification) into other
valuable products.
The state procurement office requires that state agencies give preference to specific types of products
known as “first choice purchasing options.” These preferred products have a 10 percent price preferential
(meaning they should be preferred even if they cost up to 10 percent more than products that do not
contain recycled content) and must suit the needs of the purchasing agency. Preferred products include:
•
•
•
•
Re-refined oils and lubricants (to be 25 percent recycled content, if quality similar)
Certain paper products, including paper towels, toilet paper, toilet seat covers, printing, computer
and copier paper, and business envelopes (a state agency is to procure the highest recycled
content that meets their needs and is offered by the Comptroller)
Certain plastic products including trash bags, binders, and recycling containers
Steel products
Additionally, the state comptroller may give priority to Rubberized Asphalt Paving (RAP) material made
from scrap tires by a facility in this state if the cost, as determined by life-cycle cost-benefit analysis, does
not exceed the bid cost of alternative paving materials by more than 15 percent. (Texas Government Code
§2 155.443).
In addition to state legislation, the Governmental Entity Recycling Program became effective July 2, 2020
and requires local government entities in Texas to create and maintain a recycling program for their
operations, as well as create a preference in purchasing for products made of recycled materials when the
cost difference is less than 10 percent.
o As part of the Governmental Entity Recycling Program, entities must give preference to products
made with recycled materials, so long as the products meet applicable specifications as to quantity and
quality and the average price of the product is not more than 10 percent greater than the price of
comparable non-recycled products. The TCEQ rules require municipalities to:
•
•
•
Separate and collect all recyclable materials
Provide procedures for collecting and storing recyclable material and making contractual or other
arrangements with buyers of recyclable materials
Evaluate the amount of recyclable material recycled and modify the recycling program as
necessary to ensure that all recyclable materials are effectively and practicab ly recycled
City of Denton, Texas 2-7 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
• Establish educational and incentive programs to encourage maximum employee participation
To establish a Governmental Entity Recycling Program, municipalities should review purchasing
procedures, prioritize purchasing products that are recyclable or contain recycled content, encourage the
community buy recycled, and leverage the Texas Smart Buy Membership program (State of Texas
Cooperative Purchasing program).
2.2.3 Recent State Legislative Trends
The Texas Legislature meets on a biennium, or every other year. When the Texas Legislature is in
session, a variety of Senate and House bill proposals relating to solid waste material management are
introduced. During the recent 2021 legislative sessions, the Texas Legislature passed the following bills
that could have an impact on the solid waste industry:
1. House Bill 1322 requires agencies such as TCEQ to provide plain-language summaries of any
proposed rules.
2. House Bull 1869 amends the definition debt in the Tax Code to include debt for “designated
infrastructure” including landfills.
3. House Bill 1118 increases cybersecurity requirements for state and local entities, including
compliance with cybersecurity training.
4. House Bill 2708 provides some municipalities access to certain hazardous waste remediation fees
for reimbursement related to environmental cleanup at used battery recycling facilities.
5. House Bill 3516 requires TCEQ to adopt rules for the treatment and beneficial use of oil and gas
waste, including permitting standards for commercial recycling.
6. House Bill 4110 increases recordkeeping requirements and documentation needed when a person
attempts to sell a catalytic converter to a metal recycling facility.
7. Senate Bill 211 creates a 30-day deadline to file a petition on a TCEQ ruling, such as a permit
issuance or other decision under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
8. Senate Bill 1818 defines liability and reasonable care criteria for scrap metal recycling
transactions with an end user/manufacturing facility.
Throughout the recent 2021 session and subsequent special sessions, additional topics of interest to state
legislators based on proposed bills include16:
16 North Central Texas Council of Governments. 2021. “87th Session Legislative Matrix.” Available online:
https://nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Environment-and-Development/Documents/Materials'Y,20Management/87th-LeRislative-Matrix Solid-Waste.pdf
City of Denton, Texas 2-8 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regulations related to restricting local government ability to enact prohibitions on the sale or use
of a container or package
Regulations that for any product listed as recycled, remanufactured, environmentally sensitive be
certified as accurate
Regulations relating to municipal solid waste management services that cap the fee of gross
receipts of a collection service provider to two percent17
Regulations relating to the authority of certain municipal employees to request the removal and
storage of certain abandoned or illegal parked or operated vehicles
Creation of an eight-member council that advises state agencies and local governments on
environmental justice issues (15-member review board advises the council) and the creation of an
Office of Environmental Justice within the TCEQ
Development of the Texas Clean and Healthy program, a rebate system for recyclable materials
with verified end markets and direct economic relief18
Amendment of the water code to restrict direct discharge or waste or pollutants into a classified
stream segments that has had low phosphorus level at or below 0.06 mg/L in 90% or more of
water quality samples for 10 years
Regulation to allow a county to regulate solid waste services and ability to establish a mandatory
program to collect a fee for solid waste services through the county tax assessor-collector’s office
Stricter regulations for locations of new landfills or the horizontal expansion of existing landfills
in environmentally sensitive areas, such as over sole source aquifers or within special flood
hazard areas
Regulation related to the discharge ofpreproduction plastic, including prompt and
environmentally responsible containment and cleanup, additional stormwater permit
requirements, monitoring and implementation of best management practices
2.2.4 Role of the City of Denton in Regulating Solid Waste
Chapter 24 of the City of Denton Ordinances relate to solid waste management and defines the City as
“the exclusive provider of municipal solid waste collection and disposal services for all premises within
the city” (Ord. No. 2005-256 §24-4) for residential, multi-family, and industrial, commercial and
17 North Central Texas Council of Governments. 202 1. “House Bill 753 One-Pager.” Available online:
https://www .nctcog.org/nctcq/media/Environment-and-Development/Committee%20Documents/RCC/FY202 1 /HB-
753-One-Pager.pdf
18 North Central Texas Council of Governments. 2021. “Texas Clean and Healthy Initiative.” Available online:https://www.nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Environment-and-
Development/Committee'Y,20Documents/RCC/FY2021/Texas-Clean-and-Healthy-Initiative Summary.pdPext=.pdf
City of Denton, Texas 2-9 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
institutional (ICI) generators. The City is not the exclusive provider of special waste and recycling
services, and Chapter 24 also outlines the annual permit requirements for recyclables and special waste
haulers. City ordinance also includes provision for the City to establish and amend tipping fees at the
City’s landfill.
2.3 Solid Waste Management Industry Trends
This section provides an overview of key MSW management industry trends, including an overview of
efforts occurring in other communities to reduce waste disposal. Tables throughout the trends overview
provide a summary of the City’s current progress and recommended next steps in each area.
2.3.1 Landfill Waste Reduction, Diversion and Zero Waste Philosophies
Current landfill waste reduction, diversion, and zero waste philosophies center around the following
concepts.
Sustainable Materials Management (SMM). SMM is a systematic approach to using and reusing
materials more productively over their entire life cycles.19 SMM encourages changes in how
communities think about the use of natural resources and environmental protection and emphasizes the
consideration of a product’s life from manufacturing to disposal and the need to make sustainable choices
throughout that life cycle. It has become a trend for the material management industry to apply the broad
view of SMM to better plan for their community’s economic and environmental future.
Waste management hierarchy. The waste
management hierarchy, developed by the U.S.
EPA, has been adopted by many communities as
a guide to managing MSW. This hierarchy is
used as a tool in implementing an SMM approach
to waste management. It was developed in
recognition that no single waste management
approach is suitable for managing all materials
and all waste streams in all circumstances. The
hierarchy ranks various management strategies
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017. “Sustainable Materials Management Basics.”
Available online: https://www.epa.Rov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-basics
City of Denton, Texas 2-10 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
from most to least environmentally preferred. It places emphasis on reducing, reusing, and recycling as
key to SMM.20 Figure 2-2: Circular Economy
Circular Economy. Like an SMM approach to
planning for a community’s future, the concept of a
circular economy considers environmentally and
economically sustainable decision-making
throughout a material’s life cycle. It offers a shift
from the traditional linear manufacture-use-dispose
concept of materials to a circular economy model
that keeps resources in use for as long as possible,
maximizes life and extracted value, and emphasizes
that used materials are recovered and regenerated
for other uses. This economic approach allows the
cycle to begin again while minimizing material
disposal
ba /T//7/J
Material Sourcing
Product Design
Recycling
Circular
Economy Manufatture
Collection
Consump
Zero Waste. Zero waste is a philosophy that encourages the redesign of resource life cycles so that all
products are reused. Zero waste is not a static, defined benchmark of eliminating landfill disposal of
waste, but is rather a vision or philosophy around which communities and society should develop and
adapt their materials management systems and culture. A number of industry organizations, states, and
cities have begun setting zero waste goals. While diversion rate is a common metric used to evaluate zero
waste progress, 100 percent diversion is not the ultimate goal of zero waste principles. Rather, the focus
is on continuous improvement and progressively working toward maximizing use of resources, and
minimizing adverse environmental impacts and material disposal.
A comparison of the accepted municipal and industry definitions of zero waste shows that there are a
number of prominent or key concepts across zero waste philosophies:
• Zero Waste as a guiding vision, philosophy, or set of principles (rather than a numeric goal); Zero
Waste as striving for continuous improvement, not an absolute term or goal
• System and material life cycle approach
• Minimize waste generation and promote waste prevention
20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials
and Waste Management Hierarchy.” Available online: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-
management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy
City of Denton, Texas 2-11 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
•
•
•
•
•
•
Circular economy
Supporting economic value, stimulation, and job creation
Minimization of environmental and health impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, landfill
burial, water pollution)
View used materials as resources, not waste and maximize recovery of materials
Extended producer responsibility (EPR)
Adherence to the materials management hierarchy
City of Denton, Texas 2-12 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Table 2-1 : Status Summary for Landfill Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Zero Waste Philosophies
The City has not defined a SMM or zero waste philosophy or set a recycling
goal. Defining a SMIVI or zero waste philosophy can be an effective tool to
incorporate waste reduction, reuse and recycling into program metrics and
goals, as well as raise awareness of the importance of SMM principles.
However, it is also important to recognize that several Texas cities, as
discussed in Section 2.3.2, have set high zero waste goals and are well below
their recycling rate goals. For cities that set these types of goals, it is important
to distinguish between aspirational (e.g., an 80 percent recycling rate) and
rational (e.g., increasing the recycling rate by 10 percent over the next fiveears) goals.
The Denton Plan 2030 uA Simply Sustainable: A Framework for Denton’s
Future reports include recommendations to incorporate actions relevant towaste reduction and -minimization into the City’s sustainability practices.
The City’s recycling and composting programs divert material from residential,
commercial, and other sources for beneficial uses. The City’s ReUse Store
provides waste reduction opportunities to residents, which aligns with waste
reduction and zero waste principals of reuse and waste reduction. In addition to
the City programs, the City partners for diversion with community non-profits.
Status and
Evaluation
The Denton community also includes many reuse-focused entities aligning with
zero waste principles (e.g., Thistle Creative Reuse, thrift stores). Reuse isdiscussed in more detail in Section 2.3.4.
One key challenge in implementing a zero waste philosophy is collecting the
data necessary for tracking progress and continuous improvement. As the sole
provider of municipal solid waste disposal services, the City currently collects
data to measure disposal trends. Diversion data can be harder to obtain,
especially from multi-family and ICI sources as this material is typically
collected by private haulers and may be processed at various recycling andcomposting facilities in a region.
Recommendations for the City to address landfill waste reduction, diversion,
and zero waste philosophy trends are to:
o Establish a waste reduction or zero waste statement and/or goal to
highlight the importance of waste reduction and reuse (in addition
to diversion);
o Continue to incorporate the hierarchy and SMM into planningefforts.
Impediments
Recommendallllons
2.3.2 Material Waste Diversion and Alternative Metrics
Zero waste or high diversion goals by other Texas cities. Over the last 10 years, several cities in Texas
have developed MSW management plans that include goals to recycle or divert a high percentage of
material from being landfilled. Some of these cities have specifically developed “zero waste” plans,
while others have preferred to use terminology such as “high diversion.” Zero waste is a philosophy that
encourages the redesign of resource life cycles so that all products are reused. The goal for zero waste is
City of Denton, Texas 2-13 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies and
Regulatory Reivew
that no MSW be sent to landfills or waste-to-energy facilities. Zero waste is more a goal or ideal rather
than a hard target, as multiple cities with zero waste plans set maximum goals that still include some
MSW going to landfills (e.g., 80% landfill diversion).
It has become common for cities to set short-, mid-, and long-term goals for recycling and diversion and
to develop progressive programs and strategy implementation plans to meet those benchmarks. Texas
cities that have established high diversion or zero waste goals include but are not limited to those
presented in Table 2-2. Recently published diversion rates for these cities range from 20-42 percent. The
City’s recent single-family diversion rate was approximately 30 percent in 2018 and 2019.
Table 2-2: Texas Cities with High Diversion or Recycling Goals
Recently PublishedDiversion Rate
Goal Percent
20%202040% recycling rate by 2020
60% recycling rate by 2040
Zero Waste by 2060
20% reduction in per capita solid waste
disposal by 2012
75% diversion by 2020
90% diversion by 2040
30% residential recycling rate by 2021
40% total City recycling rate by 2023
50% total City recycling rate by 2030
60% landfill diversion by 2037
80% landfill diversion by 2045
60% single family residential recycling rate
by 2025
2015
Austin2
30%2018
Fort Worth3
San
Antonio4
36%2019
1
2.
3.
4.
City of Dallas, 2011-2060 Local Solid Waste Management Plan. City is currently in the process of updatingthe LSWMP.
City of Austin, Zero Waste Strategic Plan. The city of Austin is currently in the process of updating theirplan. While these figures may not change, the metrics to evaluate progress toward them may be adjusted as
part of the plan update.
City of Fort Worth, 2017-2037 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
City of San Antonio, Recycling and Resource Recovery Plan, 2013 Update.
While diversion rate is commonly used in zero waste goals, there is growing recognition that diversion
rate may not be an ideal measure of SMM or zero waste progress. For example, San Francisco is a zero
waste leader and has recently discontinued use of diversion rates as a means of measuring diversion and
City of Denton, Texas 2-14 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
progress towards zero waste. Instead, San Francisco tracks total waste generated and the proportion
landfilled and incinerated with the goal of 15 percent reduction in generation and 50 percent reduction in
disposal by 2030.
As described above, incorporating additional metrics such as capture rate and disposal rate allows for
additional program evaluation aligning with SMM and zero waste principles. Table 2-3 presents the
calculation method for three metrics associated with zero waste principles.
Table 2-3: Alignment of Metrics to Zero Waste Principles
Zero Waste
Principle
Metric for
Evaluation
Per-capitawaste
generatlon rate
Calculation Method1
(Total Diverted + Total Disposed)
Population Served
Indicators of
Progress
Decreasing trend
in per-capita
generatIon
Reducing the
generation ofwasted
materials at the
source
Capture rate For each recyclable material (e.g., aluminum cans):Capture rate
approaching 90
– 100 percent2
suggestmg
recycling ismaximized
Maximizingdiversion
methods
Amount Recovered
(Amount Recovered + Amount Disposed )
v a e
landfill and I waste disposal 1 1 capita disposalincinerators I rate I I rate
1. For population-based calculations, the population served should be equivalent to the population represented by the
tonnage of material in the numerator (e.g., tons disposed, tons diverted).
2. In current practice, capture rates of 100 percent are likely unattainable due to contamination and inefficiencies during
product use and within the recovery system (e.g., incorrect sorting by residents, limits to equipment, food-soiled
materials).
Recycling Measurement. Traditionally, a recycling rate has been calculated as a means to measure
recycling efforts. A recycling rate indicates the percentage of MSW generated that is recycled. In
support of the use of transparent and consistent methods to measure materials recycled, SWANA’s
technical policy for Measuring Recycling (T-6.4), published in 2018, defines recycling rate as the
City of Denton, Texas 2-15 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
proportion of generated MSW that is recycled and is typically calculated utilizing the following formula,
where totals are measured by weight in tons21.
total recycled
t x 100 /o = TecYcling Tate peTcentage
Over the past decade, the weights and composition of materials in MSW streams have changed. For
example, there is now typically less newspaper but more cardboard, and individual plastic bottles and
aluminum cans weigh less. Some consumer packaging contains multiple materials, making recycling
more challenging. Due to these factors, some communities are considering alternative methods to
recycling measurement, other than recycling rates as described above:
•
•
•
•
Single-stream recycling collected. The amount of residential recyclables collected annually on a
pounds per household basis.
Capture rate. Percentage of recyclable material that is recycled versus disposed
Disposal rate. Based on per capita/employee disposal quantities
Contamination rate. The amount of contamination (i.e., material that is not accepted by the
City’s contract recycling processing facility) present in the residential recycling program on a
percentage basis. Contamination rate includes both non-recyclable contaminants and MRF
process residue.
Participation rate. Based on how frequently a resident or business recycles over a defined time
period (e.g., monthly)
Life cycle analysis. Analysis of the total environmental impacts associated with a product or
process and evaluation of opportunities to reduce impacts throughout its life cycle, using methods
such as replacing virgin material inputs with recycled material
Carbon footprint. Quantification of greenhouse gas reductions through increased use of recycled
materials as product inputs (life cycle analysis) and reduction of material landfilled, which
reduces the generation of greenhouse gases due to decomposition
•
•
•
Table 24 summarizes the City’s current single-family recycling activities using four recommended
alternative metrics. Section 3.0 provides detailed information and discussion on the amount of recycling
collected, capture rate, disposal rate, and contamination rate for material managed by the City.
Environmental impacts are discussed and evaluated in Section 8.3 .
21 Solid Waste Association of North America Technical Policy T-6.4, Measuring Recycling, available athttps://swana.orR/TechnicalandManagementPolicies.aspx
City of Denton, Texas 2-16 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Table 24: Alternative Metric Evaluation for City of Denton Single-Family MSW
Metric City of Denton Evaluation
Based on a 2016 survey by The Recycling
Partnership, the national average for single-
stream recycling is 357 lb/HH annually.
Recycling Collected
(lb/HH)
287 lb/HH (2020)
316 lb/HH (2019)
362 lb/HH (2018)
The City’s recycling rate was at the national
average in 2018. Multiple factors likely
contributed to decreases since then, including the
coronavirus pandemic, challenging recycling
markets, and increasing contamination rates.
CUITy) or single-stream
I Capture Rate 1 49% (2020) 1 recycling is lower than the combined capture rate
for NCTCOG (59%).
ag disposal rate
for single family residential; however, shifts in
disposal patterns due to the coronavirus
pandemic contributed to increases in 2020.
Based on the survey for the TCEQ’s Recycling
Market Development Plan, the average MRF
contamination rate was 22.4% in 2019, with
reported rates ranging from 10-60%.
Capture Rate 49% (2020)
2,086 lb/HH (2020)
1,856 lb/HH (2019)
1,740 lb/HH (2018)
Disposal Rate
44% (2020)
35% (2019)
21% (2018)
Contamination Rate The City’s single-stream contamination rate has
increased in recent years, and is above the
reported statewide average. The increase in
contamination may also be associated with
processing limitations at the MRF.
City of Denton, Texas 2-17 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Table 2-5: Status Summary for Material Waste Diversion and Alternative Metrics
Status and The City has not established a formal public diversion goal.
Evaluation Data necessary to calculate diversion rate and alternative recycling
metrics such as capture rate and disposal rate is currently collected fromCity-provided Programs and services.
While a recycling or diversion rate provides insight into material
recovery, additional metrics should be incorporated to assess program
lerformance holisticallThen?;–2mErR;m)
exceeds the statewide average of 27.5 percent as communicated in the
TCEQ’s Recycling Market Development Plan.
orrID The City has set a contamination rate goals and tracks residential and
commercial contamination rates to track progress toward reducingcontamination.
As the sole provider of municipal solid waste disposal services, the City
currently collects data to measure disposal trends. Diversion data can be
harder to obtain, especially from multi-family and ICI sources as this
material is typically collected by private haulers and may be processed atvarious recycjing and composting facilities in a regjon.
Tmlmendations for the City to address material waste diversion andalternative metrics are to:
o Set performance goals that include alternative metrics (e.g.,
disposal rate and capture rate) to reflect progress toward
SMM and zero waste principles.
o Incorporate reporting requirements into the recyclables
hauler annual permits to gather key data to measure progress
Impediments
Recommendations
2.3.3 Alignment with National Solid Waste Reduction Goals
As described in Section 2.2.1, current national policies and priorities related to solid waste management
include recycling measurement and food waste diversion. Through the National Recycling Strategy, the
EPA is focused on reducing contamination, increasing recycling rate, and strengthening economic
markets for recycled materials. Recommended measures include tracking contamination rates at the curb
and in the processing system. These efforts are meant to align with the National Recycling Goal of 50
percent by 2030. Additionally, through the Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal, the EPA is focused on
reducing the amount of food waste sent to landfill by 50 percent by 2030.
City of Denton, Texas 2-18 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Table 2-6: Status Summary for Alignment with National Solid Waste Reduction Goals
The City has established programs targeting recycling contamination and
organics diversion.Status and
Evaluation The City’s focus on improving recycling system performance through reduced
contamination (e.g., “Lift the Lid” program) and organics diversion (includingfood waste) aljgn with national priorities.
The City has set contamination rate goals. Continued evaluation and goalsettingcan be used to monitor efforts to reduce contamination.
The City’s cart tagging and targeted outreach has helped to reducecontamination.
Future
The City received grant funding from the NCTCOG to expand commercial food
waste diversion in the downtown valet area. The City also collects commercial
food waste from a select number of large quantity generators.orrID
Education and outreach messaging includes the importance of waste reductionbehaviors such as reduce, reuse, and refuse.
Tracking contamination and material recovery rates requires data which can be
difficult to obtain, especially for generators or activities not directly tracked by
the City (e.g., private commercial recycling haulers, food donation
Recommendations for the City to address alignment with national solid waste
reduction goals are to:
Recommendations
o Continue to incorporate waste reduction messaging in education and
outreach content, especially for food waste reduction.
2.3.4 Promotion of Ingenuity in Reuse and Recycling
As cities incorporate SMM and zero waste principles into material management programs, additional
focus and emphasis is placed on waste reduction and reuse. Cities may use a variety of strategies to
promote waste reduction and reuse behavior, including:
• Education and Outreach. Education and outreach campaigns can encourage waste reduction and
reuse behavior change, for example promoting the use of reusable shopping bags and water
bottles.
• Material Directories and Exchanges. Online directories (such as “material marketplaces” or
“material exchanges”) can connect material generators with entities or individuals who can reuse
or recycle unwanted materials. These directories can encourage creative reuse or repurposing of
raw materials. Cities may develop these databases in partnership with local non-profits.
City of Denton, Texas 2-19 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies and
Regulatory Reivew
• Reuse Centers. As part of municipal drop-off programs, cities may facilitate reuse through
ReUse stores or “share sheds.” Commonly, these programs address hard-to-recycle or HCC
materials such as paint. Some cities are expanding the services offered at these facilities to further
promote reuse and recycling. Examples include:
o Establishing partnerships to accept additional materials (e.g., yoga mats, textiles) desired
by local companies for their products
o Hosting workshops and clinics to educate residents on reduce and reuse behavior such as
backyard composting, material repair workshops (e.g., textiles, electronics)
o Facilitating a tool lending library or similar “library of things” to reduce the need for
residents to purchase common one-time or rarely-used items
Table 2-7: Status Summary for Promotion of Ingenuity in Reuse and Recycling
Status and
Evaluation
The City’s ReUse Store makes reusable items collected through the HCC
program available to residents. Waste reduction and reuse behavior is promoted
through Sustainable Denton.
There are opportunities for the City to expand reuse opportunities, facilitate
creative reuse/recycling, and expand awareness among residents. A detailed
evaluation of the City’s education and outreach and enforcement efforts, and
recommendations in provided in Section 6.0.
The City’s ReUse store facilitates the reuse of a variety of materials
Future
a
ma;iii;= businesses are not aware of reuse programs and resources,success will be limited.
Recommendations for the City to address the promotion of ingenuity in reuse
and recycling are to:o Increase education and outreach efforts related to reuse and waste
reduction
o Expand the types of materials accepted through the City’s ReUsestore
o Establish a C&D reuse facility to facilitate reuse of these materialso Partner with entities such as local universities and homeless
shelters to facilitate the reuse of bulk items (e.g., furniture:
Recommendations
2.3.5 Alternative Waste Management Technologies
While recycling and disposal have been considered traditional MSW management methods in Texas,
some components of the MSW stream can be converted into energy or further processed. Over the past
several years, many local governments in the United States have considered various technologies (e.g.,
City of Denton, Texas 2-20 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
mass burn combustion, mixed waste processing, gasification, etc.) to manage their disposed MSW stream.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic wastes is a growing trend for managing diverted pre- and post-
consumer organics. Options for anaerobic digestion include stand-alone facilities designed to manage
MSW and co-digestion of organic MSW streams at wastewater treatment plants or agricultural AD units.
An estimated 209 AD facilities manage organic MSW in the U.S., including 68 stand-alone and 141 co-
digesters.22
From a SMM perspective, waste-to-energy incineration is considered distinct from diversion in the waste
management hierarchy (Figure 2- 1), and is less preferred than activities such as recycling, composting,
and mulching. However, some states have defined waste-to-energy to be a form of recycling. Based on
the U.S. EPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy, AD of food scraps is considered to be more preferred than
diversion through composting. It is unclear where emerging chemical conversion technologies such as
gasification and pyrolysis belong on the established hierarchy, though multiple states, including Texas,
have passed legislation to define the pyrolysis of plastic wastes to be a form of recycling.23
The cities included in Table 2-8 have considered and evaluated various technologies for their
communities, but none have implemented any waste-to-energy or other conversion technology. Key
reasons for deciding against implementation of these technologies included preferring to focus on more
traditional recycling (e.g., single-stream) and organics diversion programs and the relatively low cost of
landfill disposal.
22 US EPA. Jan 2021. Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Food Waste in the United States (2017 & 2018),Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/202 1-
02/documents/2021 _final_ad_report_feb_2_with_links.pdf
23 The Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act was updated in 2019 to consider gasification or pyrolysis of recovered
plastics as recycling. HB 1953 (2019) expanded the definition of recycling in Section 361.421 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to include post-use polymers and recoverable feedstocks (e.g., plastics) that are converted through
gasification or pyrolysis into valuable raw, intermediate, or final products such as new plastics, chemicals, wax,lubricant, fuels, and other products.
City of Denton, Texas 2-21 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Table 2-8: Summary of Texas Cities’ Efforts to Evaluate Conversion Technologies
City
San
Antonio
Year
2011
Summary
Evaluated the feasibility of waste-to-energy and concluded that those
technologies are not economically feasible “at this time or in the
foreseeable future.” City decided to focus zero waste
implementation efforts on traditional recycling strategies.
Issued request for proposals for waste-to-energy and received five
responses. City declined to further pursue proposals as none of the
companies were in commercial operation in the U.S. at the time.
Waco
Killeen
2013
2013
While the City entered into negotiations for a gasification facility,
the private company did not secure financing and the project wasterminated.
Following adoption of its zero waste plan, City evaluated the
feasibility of technologies such as single-stream processing, mixed-
waste processing, anaerobic digestion and gasification. Elected to
focus on the more proven single-stream recycling.
City’s request for proposals for recycling processing included
consideration of alternative technologies. However, City decided to
continue contracting for recycling via single-stream processing.
Evaluated “One Bin for All” approach, where all MSW would be
collected together (i.e., mixed waste), but City declined to enter into
contract for “One Bin for All” concept.
Dallas 2014
Fort Worth 2016
2017Houston
City of Denton, Texas 2-22 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Table 2-9: Status Summary for Alternative Waste Management Technologies
Waste-to-energy and other refuse conversion technologies are not currently used
to manage MSW in Denton.Status and
Evaluation The feasibility of waste-to-energy and other emerging technologies has been
evaluated by multiple Texas cities, and these projects did not move forward.There has been success in the U.S. for using AD to manage organics.
s a;mercial food waste through anaerobicdigestion at the City’s Pecan Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP
The City collects and diverts food waste from multiple commercial entities
within the City.Key
Impediments
Recommendations
Accomnllshrrlents The City recently received a grant from the NCTCOG to support diversion of
commercial food waste, which presents a potential opportunity for anaerobicdjgestion.
Potential impedimente===mMr i_:de-packaging) and challenges associated with contamination.
Recommendations for the City to address alternative waste management
technology trends are to:
o Establish a pilot program for commercial wood waste generators in
the valet area for co-digestion of targeted commercial organics
streams for the production of renewable ener;
2.3.6 Landfill Management
Landfill trends. As regulations become more restrictive and it becomes increasingly more challenging to
obtain permits for new landfills, the MSW industry is seeing an increase in the vertical and horizontal
expansion of established landfills. Owners are more commonly seeking to extend the useful life of their
landfill by expanding the landfill footprint, improving operations, or implementing additional
technologies such as enhanced leachate recirculation (a process in which liquids or air are added into a
landfill to accelerate degradation of the waste and prolonging its useful life).
Landfill tipping fees. The Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF) has conducted
annual studies comparing landfill tipping fees across the country since 2016. In 2019, average per-ton
landfill tipping fees in Texas are lower than both the national average and the South Central Region
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) average. In 2020, the average landfill tipping
fees in Texas remained below the national average but rose slightly higher than the regional average. The
average tipping fees in Texas increased while both the regional and national averages decreased slightly
in the year from 2019-2020.24 This increase could be attributed to differences in economic growth across
24 Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF). March 2020 and January 2021. “Analysis of MSW
Landfill Tipping Fees.” Available online from EREF: https://erefdn.org/biblioRraphy/datapolicv-projects/
City of Denton, Texas 2-23 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
regions and landfill capacity, as well as that EREF received responses from a slightly different set of
landfills from one year to the next. The multi-year trends developed by EREF show increasing tip fees
nationally and in all regions over the period from 2016-2020.
The tipping fees shown in Table 2-'10reflect the average of posted tipping fees at surveyed landfills.
Negotiated tipping fees between a landfill and individual haulers may be lower.
Table 2-10: Average Per-ton Landfill Tipping Fees
2019
$40.18
$40.92
$55.36
2020
$42.22
Difference
+$2.04
Percent Increase
+5.1%
-3.1%
-2.9%
Texas
South Central Region
United States
Source: Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF)
In the North Central Texas region, multiple landfills are nearing capacity which may result in increased
landfill tipping fees in the region. The closures also have the potential to shift the flow of disposed
materials throughout the region, including more material to the City of Denton Landfill. A detailed
analysis of landfill capacity and tip fees specific to the North Central Texas region and the City of Denton
Landfill is presented in Section 4.0.
City of Denton, Texas 2-24 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Solid Waste and Recycling Trends, Policies andRegulatory Reivew
Table 2-1 1 : Status Summary for Landfill Management
The City owns and operates the City of Denton Landfill, which plays a crucial
role in managing wastes not recovered through various City diversion programs,
as well as wastes from neighboring communities without disposal infrastructure.Status and
Evaluation In addition to being a revenue source for the City, landfill tip fees can be a tool
to encourage material recovery. TCEQ’s Recycling Marker Development Plan
identifies the low cost of disposal as a key barrier to recycling marketdevelopment in the state.
The City should continue to evaluate its use of put-or-pay contracts and the tip
fee structure to preserve valuable airspace, encourage recycling, and staycompetitive in the marketplace.
The TCEQ approved the expansion of the City’s Landfill, securing disposal
capacity for non-recoverable materials into the future. This capacity can be
further extended through continued diversion and waste reduction practices.
0 The City’s landfill gas-to-energy system provides environmental benefits
through responsible landfill management and the production of pipeline quality
renewable natural gas (RNG
Community perception of landfill activities can present challenges toimplementing new strategies or modifying landfill operations.
Recommendations for the City to implement landfill maM
o Explore revisions to put-or-pay contracts to encourage recycling in
neighboring communities, which would include regional
collaboration on recycling collection and processing programs
o Routinely evaluate tip fees and potential rate changes as landfills inthe NCTCOG region
Recommendations
City of Denton, Texas 2-25 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
3.0 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS
To effectively plan for the City’s future materials management needs, an understanding of the factors that
will impact those needs is important. This section describes the City’s current demographic and
economic characteristics as well as anticipated future growth. To the extent that data is available, the
material generation in the City is presented, including material disposed and recycled or diverted. As the
population of the City and region continue to grow, the volume of materials generated will increase
accordingly. Anticipated growth of residential population, businesses and continued development in the
City is one of the primary factors the City and North Central Texas region must consider in planning for
future materials management. Following description of the demographic and economic characteristics of
the City, this section summarizes waste characterization information for the City and the North Central
Texas region.
3.1 Demographic Characteristics
The population and economic growth the City experiences in the coming years will be the primary factor
impacting the quantities and quality of material generated in the City. Anticipated material generation
quantities will influence future materials management approaches addressed throughout this CSWMS,
including infrastructure development, public-private partnership opportunities, and appropriate timing of
continued system and program development. This section presents a selection of existing population data
and projections and economic development information to provide an understanding of the planning area
considerations under which this CSWMS has been developed.
3.1.1 Historical and Current Populations
The City of Denton is among the 25 largest Texas cities, by population, and is situated in the center of the
sixth most populous county in the state. Historically, Denton has seen high levels of growth (Figure 3-1).
Over the past two decades, the City’s population has grown substantially, from a population of
approximately 80,500 in 2000 to 147,500 in July of 2020 – an 83 percent increase.25 Table 3-1 presents
population growth of the City, Denton County, and the State of Texas from 2010 to 2020 and compares
the average annual growth rate of each entity during that period. Both the City and Denton County are
growing at a faster rate than the State of Texas overall for the last decade. As shown in Figure 3-2, the
population growth has been accelerating for the City and Denton County since 2018, with a 4.2 percent
25 Sources: Year 2000 population estimate as reported in the Denton Plan 2030, available online at
https://www.cit}'ofdenton.com/CoD/media/City-of-Denton/Government/Denton Plan 2030.pde Year 2020
population estimate as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, City and Town Population Totals: 2010-2020, availableonline at https://www.census.gov/proRrams-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-cities-and-towns-total.html
City of Denton, Texas 3-1 Burns & McDorinel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
growth rate for the City from 2019 to 2020 and a 3.6 percent annual growth rate for Denton County
during the same period. In contrast, growth statewide has been slowing since 2015.
Figure 3-1 : Historical City Population Growth, 1970 – 2020
160,000
140,000
120,000
147,515
117,010
100,000
80,000
80,537
66,270
60,000
39,874 48,063
40,000
20,000
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Table 3-1 : City, County, and State Historical Population & Growth, 2010-2020
City of Denton
131,154Population 2,679’a147,515
Denton County2
Population 779,584 919,324
State ofTexas3
25,241 ,971Population 27,470,056 29,360,759
City of Denton population estimates 2010-2019: U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Incorporated Places in Texas: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-48), U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Division, Release date May 2020; available online at https://w\vw.census.gov/data/datasets/time-
series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html
Denton County population estimates 2010-2019: U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties in Texas: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (CO-EST2019-ANNRES-48), U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,
Release date March 2020; available online at https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-
counties-total.html
State of Texas population estimates 2010-2019: U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the
United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (NST-EST2019-01), U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Division, Release date December 2019; available online at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-
series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html
2.
3.
City of Denton, Texas 3-2 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
4. All 2020 population estimates: U.S. Census Bureau, City and Town Population Totals: 2010-2020, available online at
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-
evaluation-estimates/2010s-cities-and-towns-total.html
Figure 3-2: Recent City, County and State Population Growth Rates, 2010-20201
City of Denton .Denton County =„„„„„'.State of Texas
4,5%
E 4.0%CD: 3.5%bIg 3.0%L(9c 2.5%0Ma 2.0%3Q.g 1.5%g 1.0%CC< 0.5%
0,0%
2010 2012 2014 2016
1. Annual growth rates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau
2018 2020
Historical population growth trends over the past decade illustrate the elevated growth rate of the City and
county populations when compared to the state as a whole. Denton County’s total population has
increased at a higher rate than the City itself, owing to the significant central and southeastern portions of
the county that are part of the larger Dallas-Forth Worth metroplex, which is experiencing rapid growth.
Considering the growth trends of not only the City but other surrounding entities within the area serviced
by the Denton Landfill, is essential in future landfill capacity planning. The area and entities served by
the Denton landfill and landfill capacity planning are discussed further in Section 4.0.
3.1.2 Single-Family and Multifamily Household Distribution
Many municipal planning efforts, including materials management, categorize residential populations into
two general categories – single-family and multifamily. The City’s total residential population is
distributed between these two categories. In Denton, residential refuse and recycling collection services
are provided to residents residing in a single-family housing unit and multifamily structures with four or
fewer housing units (referred to as single-family residential throughout this CSWMS).26 All other
26 Based on service definitions provided in the recent solid waste and recycling collection rates (Ordinance 20-
1551). This differs from the single-family definition used in the Statistical Trends and News of Denton (STaND)
reports by the City’s Planning and Building Inspections Departments.
City of Denton, Texas 3-3 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
multifamily housing units (e.g., apartment complexes and dormitories) receive services through the
commercial collection system.
The distinction between household categories is important because generation, disposal, and diversion
patterns differ between single-family and multifamily and each category requires different planning
considerations and management strategies. Multifamily-generated material is generally collected and
managed in combination with commercially-generated material, and services and information are often
provided directly to multifamily property owners and managers, rather than directly to multifamily
residents.
In 2019, approximately 75 percent of the City’s total residential population lived in single-family housing
units and the remaining quarter of the population lived in multifamily housing units. Table 3-2 presents
the 2020 estimated single-family and multifamily populations and household distributions for the City. It
should be noted that the average persons per household is typically higher for single-family households
than for multifamily households. Therefore, the total population would not be proportionately spilt
between the two household types.
Table 3-2: Household and Population Distributions by Household Type, 2019
Single-Family Multifamily
Occupied Households1
14,62233,525
69.6%30.4%
Population2
109,981 37,534
25.4%74.6%
Number
Distribution
147,515
1
2
The total number of households and distribution of single-family and multifamily households
are based on estimated occupied housing units (U.S. Census Bureau 2019 1-year ACS
Estimates for the City of Denton). Average residential customer counts differ slightly from
census data for occupied households and averaged 33,623 for calendar year 2019.
Population distribution between single-family and multifamily households was estimated
based on average persons per household, and an adjustment factor to account for the typical
differences between population per household for single-family and multifamily households.
City of Denton, Texas 34 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
For purposes of current and projected waste generation estimates, presented in Section 3.3, residential
sector quantities include materials generated only by single-family households and multifamily units with
four or fewer housing units. Commercial sector material generation estimates and projections are
inclusive of multifamily households with more than four units and commercially-generated materials.
3.1.3 Population Projections
Based on the City’s historical population trends, as presented in Section 3.1.1, and robust planned housing
growth for both single- and multifamily dwellings, the City expects that its population will continue to
expand at a significant rate. However, the timing of population growth and ultimate population realized
are dependent on various factors.
Figure 3-3 presents three potential growth scenarios of the City’s population from 2010 to the 2045,
developed by separate entities using the 2010 Census data as a basis. NCTCOG previously developed a
2045 forecast to provide estimated number and distribution of population by member city for the North
Central Texas region, which presents a relatively low projected annual growth rate of 0.99 percent. 27
Burns & McDonnell developed a relatively moderate potential future growth scenario (2.67 percent) by
calculating the average annual growth rate, based on U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, and
holding that growth rate constant through 2045. The population growth scenario developed by the
University of North Texas (UNT) Center for Economic Development and Research assumes the highest
annual growth rate (3.44 percent) of the three scenarios, through 2030.28 Burns & McDonnell
extrapolated this growth scenario through 2045. Table 3-3 presents the average annual growth rate and
projected 2045 City population for each scenario.
27North Central Texas Council of Governments. Regional Data Center. NCTCOG 2045 Forecast City
Approximations. Available online at: https://data-nctcoggis.opendata.arcgis.com/documents/NCTCOGGIS::nctcog-
2045-forecast-city-approximations/explore
28 Obtained from the Statistical Trends and News of Denton (STaND) Third Quarter Fiscal Year 20/21 report
compiled by the Denton Economic Development Department.
City of Denton, Texas 3-5 Burns & McDonneii
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 34: City of Denton Population Growth Scenarios Through 2045
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000C0
% 200,0003al0a 150,000
100,000 NCTCOG Forec
U NT Forecast
Census-based
50,000
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Table 3-3: City of Denton Future Population Growth Scenarios to 2045
Growth
ProjectionScenario AnnualGrowth Rate
Projected Population
2040
290,800
250, 100
168,400
2045
344,400
285,400
177,000
High
Moderate
Low
UNT Forecast
2010-2019 Census Estimates
NCTCOG Forecast
To create a single population estimate for the City through the 2040 CSWMS horizon, Burns &
McDonnell produced a blended growth projection based on the UNT and Census-based forecasts.
Population growth through 2030 is based on the high growth scenario as forecasted by UNT. This
scenario aligns with growth projections used in the Denton Plan 2030, recent growth rates, and known
and anticipated residential development. From 2030-2040, Burns & McDonnell projected the population
using the moderate growth scenario annual growth rate based, reflective of the Denton Plan 2030 land use
vision to reduce sprawl while “much of the land within approved Master Planned Communities (MPCs)
will likely not buildout in the next 20 years“ 29 and therefore continue to support growth from 2030-2045.
29 City of Denton 2015. “Denton Plan 2030: Our path to the future” pg 19. Available online:https://www.cit1'ofdenton.com/CoD/media/City-oFDenton/Government/Denton Plan 2030.pdf
City of Denton, Texas 3-6 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 3-4 shows the resulting single-family and multifamily population growth for the City through
2040. The allocation between single- and multifamily households was held constant through the
projection based on current housing data; however, the Denton Plan 2030 documented the community’s
preference towards compact growth which would shift development trends to more new multifamily
housing units than new single-family households.
Figure 34: City of Denton Population Projection, 2020-2040
300,000 2040 ProjectionTotal: 270,000
250,000
Multifamily: 68,700
200,000
C0BrI
CDa 150,0000a
2020 Baseline
,600
Single-Family: 110,200
Single-Family: 201,300
100,000
50,000
0
aSbaa $t) d)ba d)as dbNo
• Single-Family , Multifamily
3.2 Economic Characteristics
The City of Denton is part of the larger Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metroplex, the largest metropolitan
area in Texas and the fourth largest is the country.30 A primary driver of the population growth the City
has experienced (refer to Section 3.1) is the economic development that has taken place.
30 New Census Bureau Estimates Show Counties in South and West Lead Nation in Population Growth, U.S. Census
Bureau Press Release April 18, 2019. Retrieved September 2021 from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2019/estimates-county-metro .html
City of Denton, Texas 3-7 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
3.2.1 Current Employment and Industry Characteristics
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data,31 the City’s workforce was approximately 77,500 employees in 2019,
an increase of 13.4 percent in the five-year period since 2014. Figure 3-5 presents the City’s 2019
employment by industry. The largest four industries account for approximately 67 percent of total
employment, each with near ten percent or greater of the total employees within the City.
Figure 3-5: City of Denton Employment by Industry, 2019
Educational services, and health care and social assistance
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accomodation and foodservices
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and
waste management services
Retail trade
32.2%
14.9%
10.0%
9.8%
7.6%Manufacturing
Construction 60 %
Finance and insurance, and realesate and rental and leasing = 45%
Wholesale trade = 35%
Other services = 33%
Public administration = 31%
Transportation and warehousing and utilities = 28%
Information • 12%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining • 1.1%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
3.3 Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal
Understanding current and projected future MSW generation allows for appropriate planning for solid
waste and recycling system needs, including services, programs, and infrastructure. This section presents
available data regarding the City’s solid waste and recycling material generation on a sector basis
(residential, commercial, and C&D) and by material type. Refer to the Key Terms in Section 1.0 for
definitions of sectors addressed in this CSWMS, material types, and material generation, recycling, and
31 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 ACS 1-Year Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau data does not include self-
employed individuals, employees of private households, or government employees (public administration).
Retrieved July 2021 from
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=denton%20cit)'%20employment&tid=ACSDPIY2019.DP03
City of Denton, Texas 3-8 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
disposal. All annual tonnage and material generation data included in this CSWMS refers to the fiscal
year (FY) in which it was generated (October through September), unless otherwise specified.32
As described in the following sections, the data currently available for each sector varies. The City has a
near-complete understanding of residential materials generated, disposed, and recycled because most
residential materials are managed directly by the City. Disposal in multifamily and commercial sectors is
also well understood as the City is the exclusiVe provider of solid waste collection and disposal services
for these generators. The City is not the exclusive provider of special waste and commercial recycling
services in Denton, and as a result the recycling quantities for the multifamily, commercial and C&D
sectors are not well-known. While annual permits are required for recycling and special waste haulers
operating in the City, this does not include a reporting mechanism for obtaining consistent data from
hauler permitees.
3.3.1 Residential Generation, Recycling, and Disposal
Residential solid waste and recycling refers to materials generated by the City’s single-family residential
customers. Multifamily-generated material quantities are addressed along with commercial material
generation presented in Section 3.3.2.
In 2020, a total of approximately 46,500 tons of single-family City of Denton residential MSW was
collected and managed through City services and facilities, equating to a total of 2,707 pounds of MSW
per household on an annual basis. Approximately 77 percent of residential material was collected and
disposed as refuse in the City of Denton Landfill. Approximately 11 percent was collected and recycled
through the Pratt MRF and 12 percent was brush and yard waste that was composted at the City’s Dyno
Dirt facility. Small quantities (less than 0.2 percent each) of electronics, HHW, and prescription drugs are
collected through additional City diversion programs. As shown in Figure 3-6, the distribution of refuse
and recyclables generated by the residential sector has changed over the past three years, from 2018
through 2020. Compared to the prior two years, 2020 data show an increase in disposal tonnage and
decreases in recycling tonnage and diversion rate. These changes are likely the result, in part, of a shift in
waste disposal trends due to the coronavirus pandemic due to shifting work and school patterns. The
amount of material generated by residents has increased and the amount of material generated by
commercial establishments has decreased. This has led to additional demands on residential collection
routes, and a decrease in commercial collection activity. Additionally, the recent trends in lightweighting
of material and decreased paper usage have accelerated due to this shift in behavior related to social
32 For example, tonnage indicated as generated in 2018 typically refers to fiscal year (FY) 2018, which includes themonths of October 2017 through September 2018.
I
City of Denton, Texas N Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
distancing, and working/schooling from home (e.g., more lightweighted products are being consumed and
less paper is being generated for use of digital media). This has contributed to decreases in recycling
tonnages and rates both locally and nationwide. Additionally, weather events (e.g., tornadoes, winter
storms) often result in temporary increases in the recovery of materials such as brush and yard waste due
to storm debris management, and can contribute to annual variation in organics quantities.
Figure 3-6: Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Generation Trends, 2018-2020 (Tons)1, 2
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
29% Diversion
,3,550
23% Diversion
b6,49030% Diversio
40,441cr)C01-
• Refuse • Recyclabtes • Brush & Yard Waste
q
1 Recyclables tonnage reflects net tonnage, with recycling residuals included in Figure 3-6 as refuse.
2 Small quantities of electronics, and HHW (less than 0.5 percent of total generation for each year) are also included in
the totals shown in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-7 further illustrates the trend in generation and refuse disposal on a household basis. Based on
tonnage and customer count information provided by the City, both residential MSW generation and
disposal rates increased in 2020, with the generation increasing four percent to an average of 226 pounds
per household per month and disposal increasing 16 percent to an average of 175 pounds per household
per month.
City of Denton, Texas 3-10 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 3-7: Residential Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Trends, 2018-2020 (Pounds perHousehold)1
250
200
£WC0E 150
1.=
TabB loo30a
50
2018 2019 2020
0
Refuse Total Generation Recyclables Brush & Yard Waste
1 Per-capita values (pounds per person per month) are based on average monthly residential customer
data provided by the City.
3.3.2 Commercial Generation, Recycling, and Disposal
The City of Denton is the exclusive provider of commercial refuse collection and disposal services in the
City. Commercial entities can also contract with the City for recycling services, including typical
recyclables, brush/yard waste, and food waste. Multiple permitted haulers also operate within the City to
provide for the collection, transportation, and processing of commercial recyclables; and because of this,
quantities of commercially generated recyclables are not fully known. Tonnages summarized in this
section are based on data available to and reported by the City.
In 2020, approximately 86,700 tons of commercial sector refuse was collected by the City, including
approximately 2,100 tons of recycling and 300 tons of organics. Due to impacts of the coronavirus
pandemic, less material was generated in the commercial sector than is typical and tonnages were down
about 1 1 percent from the previous year (2019) and the City experienced an 11.5% decrease in
commercial roll-off pulls in 2020. In 2019, approximately 97,500 tons of material was collected by the
city from commercial and multifamily generators, including 3,300 tons of recycling and approximately
525 tons of organics (Figure 3-8). An additional approximately 21,900 tons of additional organics were
City of Denton, Texas 3-1 1 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
recovered from facilities and wastewater treatment activity, comprised of 16,917 tons of facilities brush
and 4,934 tons of wastewater treatment sludge were diverted as organics in 2019.
Figure 3-8: City-Collected Commercial Waste by Material Type, 20191
Organics
22,400
19%
Recyclables
3,300
3%
Refuse
93,700
78%
Similar to many other Texas cities, the multifamily residential sector in Denton receives services in a
similar manner as the commercial sector. Commercial refuse quantities include material generated from
both commercial entities and multifamily residents because these waste streams are often collected
together and data is not tracked separately.
Burns & McDonnell developed a planning-level estimate of multifamily refuse quantities generated in
Denton by first calculating single-family per-capita renrse generation and using multifamily household
size to estimate multifamily refuse generation. The per-household multifamily refuse generation estimate
was then multiplied by the total number of occupied multifamily households to estimate the City’s total
annual multifamily refuse quantities. This estimated multifamily refuse generation figure was subtracted
from total commercial generation to get the estimated refuse generated by commercial businesses.33
33 Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 ACS, it was estimated that, on average, multifamily households have 0.5
fewer persons per household than single-family households. To estimate total multifamily annual refuse generation,
Burns & McDonnell multiplied per-capita refuse generation rates by 2.57 persons per multifamily household,
multiplied by the total occupied multifamily households in the City. Based on this, an estimated 11,100 tons of
refuse per year may be generated by the multifamily sector, or approximately 12 percent of total commercial refuse
generatron.
City of Denton, Texas 3-12 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 3-9 shows the estimated total commercial refuse generation in Denton in FY18- 19, distributed
between commercial businesses and multifamily households. Since commercial dumpsters may be
serviced between one and six times per week, the distribution in tonnage between multifamily and
commercial entities differs from the distribution of customer count. Currently, an estimated 16 percent of
dumpster service accounts are multifamily customers.
Figure 3-9: Commercial and Multifamily Refuse Distribution, 2019 (Tons)
Multifamily
10,567 Tons
11%
Total Commercial &
Multifamily Refuse Tons
93,701
Commercial
83,134 Tons
89%
3.3.3 C&D Generation, Recycling, and Disposal
Denton’s C&D debris management previously included the Building Materials Recovery (BMR) program
to recycle materials such as concrete, metal, and wood. C&D debris intended for disposal is managed at
the City of Denton Landfill. C&D services are provided via an open market system and C&D generators
that choose to recycle may contract independently with a hauler. Under this current system, the City
tracks and provides data for total C&D debris disposed but the City is not able to comprehensively track
recycled C&D quantities. Figure 3-10 shows how C&D debris disposal at the City of Denton Landfill has
varied for the last three years. It’s important to note that not all of this material was generated in the City.
Quantities of C&D disposal declined in 2020, which may be the result of the coronavirus pandemic as
well as competition with the recently opened 380 McKinney C&D Landfill.
City of Denton, Texas 3-13 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 3-10: City of Denton Landfill C&D Debris Disposal Trends, 2018-2020 (Tons)1
35,000
30,531
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2020
1. C&D debris disposal tonnage data from TCEQ annual reports for the City of Denton Landfill.
3.3.4 Total Generation, Recycling, and Disposal
In 2020, City managed a total of 158,909 tons material through its residential and commercial collection
services, with 46,490 tons (29 percent) generated by the single-family residential sector and 112,419 tons
(71 percent) generated by the commercial sector (including multifamily households, facilities, and
wastewater treatment). As shown in Figure 3-11, a total of 7,062 tons of recycling and 30,600 tons of
organics were recovered from residential and commercial generators which is equivalent to approximately
24 percent diversion for these generators. A small quantity of HCC, electronics, drug kiosk and C&D
metals were also reported as recycled.
City of Denton, Texas 3-14 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 3-1 1 : City of Denton Residential & Commercial Generation by Material Type, 2020
Total Residential & Commercial
Generation Tonsl: 158,909
Organics
30,600
19%
RecYclables
7,062
5%
Refuse
120, 119
76%
Table 3-4 communicates the combined residential and commercial MSW tonnages on a per-capita basis
for the last three years. In 2020, the City managed a total of 5.9 pounds per person per day of MSW, with
4.5 pounds per person per day landfilled. These generation and disposal rates are higher than the U.S.
EPA nationwide estimates, at 4.9 and 2.4 pounds per person per day respectively for 2018; however, other
nationwide estimates suggest that U.S. EPA may underestimate landfill disposal and actual disposal rates
are higher.34
Table 34: Residential and Commercial Management, 2018-2020 (pounds per person per day)
Pounds
2018
4.5
1.5
5.9
'r Person per Da'
2019 2020 U.S. EPA
:2018
Landfill Disposal
Material Diversion
Total Generation
1. Total generation also includes small amounts of HCC, electronics, and drug kiosk
tonnage .
34 Other nationwide MSW management studies, including those published by BioCycle magazine, theEnvironmental Research & Education Foundation, and multiple U.S. universities suggest the methodology used by
the U.S. EPA likely underestimates MSW disposal and generation tonnage and rates.
City of Denton, Texas 3-15 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Based on recent trends, the City has strong residential recycling and diversion programs in place. While
the City has programs and relationships in place that actively encourage commercial and C&D debris
recycling, no formal reporting mechanisms are in place to track diversion activities from third-party
haulers in these sectors. As a result, non-residential recycling activity is difficult for the City to routinely
track. Waste composition data collected for the strategy development (and presented in Section 3.4 and
Appendix C) provides additional insight into the opportunities is increase diversion in the residential and
commercial sectors. Further evaluation of these opportunities in presented in Sections 5.0 through 10.0.
3.3.5 Residential and Commercial MSW Forecast
Currently, the City develops six-year planning forecasts for materials managed by the City based on
recent year trends, known contract conditions, and anticipated development. To facilitate strategy long-
term development, Burns & McDonnell developed solid waste projections through 2040 for City-serviced
residential and commercial services based on current and projected population, employment, and land
development. The impact of projected regional disposal quantities and landfill life projections for the City
of Denton Landfill are presented separately in Section 4.0.
As with any long-term planning activity, the development of the MSW generation projections requires a
number of assumptions to be made. Figure 3-12 presents the forecasted tons of material generated in the
residential and commercial (including multifamily) sectors and managed by the City on an annual basis
using a 2019 baseline. The developed projections conservatively assume constant per-capita and per-
employee waste generation rates, based on a 2019 baseline.35 The City may be able to drive decreased
waste generation and/or increased recycling rates through its continued programs and initiatives such as
waste reduction and diversion education and policies implemented by cities and entities within the region.
35 2019 baseline data was selected as a baseline for long-term planning based on the availability of detailed
demographic data. This baseline inherently assumes that that short-term shifts in solid waste generation and disposal
due to the coronavirus pandemic are temporary. Based on data provided by the City for the first part of 2021,
commercial and residential generation rates have begun to return to pre-pandemic trends.
City of Denton, Texas 3-16 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 3-12: Projected City-Managed Residential and Commercial Waste Generation, 2019-20401
300,000
250,000
2040 Projection
,400Total: 27
laalW
Laa)Ca)CDC/)C0t-
CD+J0F-
200,000
2019 Baseline
Total: 165,600
Commercial
191,300
• Commercial e
150,000
100,000
• Residential
Commercial
122,000
50,000 Residential: 83,100
0
esidential: 43,600
IS)\91olo d)is dbIG rP) es)
1 Commercial includes material generated by commercial, multifamily, and ICI generators including wastewatertreatment sludge and facilities brush.
3.4 Waste Characterization
In addition to understanding the quantity of material generated, the relative fraction of material types is
critical to estimating potential recycling, diversion, waste reduction, and refuse disposal. As part of the
CSWMS development, Burns & McDonnell performed a 3-day waste characterization study to better
understand the composition of both recycling and refuse from single-family residential, multi-family
residential, and commercial generators. A memo summarizing the study results is provided in Appendix
C. Residential waste and recycling composition for the City was also evaluated as part of the NCTCOG
Regional Recycling Survey and Campaign. Combined results are summarized below for both the City and
City of Denton, Texas 3-17 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
the NCTCOG region. Figure 3-13,
Garbage Recycling
Figure 3-14, and Figure 3-15 present the compositions results for single-family residential, multifamily
residential, and commercial generators, respectively. Notable variations exist in both garbage and
recycling composition based on generator, underscoring the importance of considering streams
independently when evaluating diversion programs success and opportunities. For example, commercial
recycling is primarily cardboard leaving a higher percentage of recoverable metals and plastics in the
refuse stream.
City of Denton, Texas 3-18 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Figure 3-13: Single-Family Residential Garbage and Recycling Composition, 2020
Garbage Recycling
Plastic
21%
Figure 3-14: Multifamily Residential Garbage and Recycling Composition, 2020
Garbage Recycling
C&D Problem2%Materials
4%
Other
8%
Organi
5%
Problem
Materials
10%
Paper20%
Plastic
13%Paper56%Metal
3%
Organics40%
Metals
3%
Plastic13%
Figure 3-15: Commercial Garbage and Recycling Composition, 2020
City of Denton, Texas 3-19 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Garbage
Other
2%
Recycling
Problem
Materials
2%
C&D
Glass Organics 1%3%1%
Problem
Materials
2%
Paper
23%
Organics41%
Plastic
Metals
3.4.1 Regional Capture Rate
As part of the NCTCOG Regional Recycling Survey and Campaign, the capture rate was a key metric of
the data collection and analysis, rather than the traditional recycling rate, to generate a more impactful
education and outreach campaign. A capture rate provides insight on individual types of recyclable
materials to target for increased recovery and supports the development of focused education/outreach
campaign materials. Capture rate is calculated using the following formula:
Pounds of RecyclabLe Materials in Recycling
(Pounds of RecyclabLe Material in RecycLing + Pounds of RecyclabLe Material in Garbage )
The capture rates from the NCTCOG waste characterization study were derived by using the composition
profile of hand-sorted single-family refuse and recycling to calculate the capture rate of between four and
12 samples delivered by each city, where each recycling sample represented about 100 pounds of material
and each refuse sample represented about 250 pounds of material.
Low capture rate indicates where opportunities exist to increase material recovery through single-stream
recycling and provides an understanding of how effectively a curbside recycling program operates. Table
3-5 compares the capture rate on a material-by-material basis for recyclables among the North Central
Texas region for 2019 and 2020 on a region-wide basis.
City of Denton, Texas 3-20 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Table 3-5: Regional Single-Family Capture Rate by Individual Recyclable Materials
2019
RegionalCaptureRate
58.8%
34.1%
41,lt70
24.9%
28.0%
25.8%
11.3%
22,29G
26.1%
14.2%
19,59/o
34.4%
34,49G
29.8%
2020
RegionalCaptureRate
62.4%
Year-over-Year
Change
3.6%
(6.3%)
(3.2%)
1.6%
6.1%
0.49,'6
1.4%
1,59/o
4.8%
4.2%
4.80/,
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
(1.3%)
Recyclable OCC
Mixed Paper
Paper Subtotal
PET Containers
HDPE Containers - Natural
HDPE Containers - Colored
#3-#7 Containers
Plastic Subtotal
Aluminum Used Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal Food Containers
Metals Subtotal
Recyclable Glass
Glass Subtotal
Regional Capture Rate
26.1%
12.7%
23,79G
31.0%
18.4%
24,4t70
33.9%
33a9t70
28.70/,
Approximately 435,000 tons of recyclables are sold to market annually in the North Central Texas region
and among all of these material categories the recycling system is operating at a capture rate of less than
30 percent.
Burns & McDonnell also developed the capture rate for the samples provided by each participating city
on an aggregated and individual basis.
City of Denton, Texas 3-21 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Table 3-6 shows the capture rate for the aggregated participating cities compared to the City for the
single-family residential samples.
City of Denton, Texas 3-22 Burns & McDonnei
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Table 3-6: 2020 Participating City and Denton Single-Family Capture Rate
Recyclable Material
Recyclable OCC
Mixed Paper
PET Containers
HDPE Containers - Natural
HDPE Containers - Colored
#3-#7 Containers
Aluminum Used Beverage Containers
Ferrous Metal Food Containers
Recyclable Glass
Total
1. Capture rate is reflective of the combined results (a total of 12 samples of garbage and
recycling) from the samples provided both during the City’s sorting event and the NCTCOG
sorting event intended to show results with an increased level of confidence.
The capture rate for the City at 49 percent is lower than the capture rate of the aggregated NCTCOG
samples at 59 percent. Based on these results, there is opportunity for the City to improve in the capture
of key and highly valuable recyclable materials including mixed paper, PET, HDPE and ferrous metal.
3.4.2 Recycling Contamination
Table 3-7 shows the recycling contamination present in the City’s aggregate sort samples from each
generator type. Contamination rates are calculated as the weight of all non-recyclable materials collected
from a sample divided by the total weight of that sample. Contamination categories include non-
recyclable Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC), other non-recyclable paper, non-recyclable plastic, non-
recyclable glass, organics, other C&D, problem material, and other material.
City of Denton, Texas 3-23 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Planning Area Characteristics
Table 3-7: Recycling Contamination by Generator Type
Single-Family1
35%
Multi-Family
25%Contamination
1. Contamination in the single-family recycling shown is reflective of the combined results (a total of
12 samples of garbage and recycling) from the samples provided both during the City’s sortingevent and the NCTCOG sorting event intended to show results with an increased level ofconfidence.
Contamination rates shown in Table 3-7 for single-family residential differ notably from those reported in
the City’s data and presented in Table 3-8. There are multiple potential explanations for this, including
that contamination rates determined through a waste sort do not account for sorting at the MRF which
may not always capture all of a recyclable material due to a number of factors including material size or
equipment. It is important to note that each ton of contamination that is managed by the City represents
increased operational costs associated with material handling, hauling costs, and MRF tipping fees.
Table 3-8: Reported Single-Family Recycling Contamination Rates
2018
7,456
5,866
1 ,590
21 %
2019
8,091
5,973
2,819
35%
Tonnage (gross)8,749
4,937
3,812
44%
5,804
2,009
3,795
65%
(net)
1.Partial year data (October 2020 through May 2021 )
City of Denton, Texas 3-24 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
4.0 FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides an overview of existing MSW processing facilities and infrastructure in the City
and North Central Texas region including landfills, transfer stations, MRFs, C&D facilities, organics
processing facilities, and home chemical collection. Planning for future disposal and processing options
now will provide the City with sufficient time to meet the future needs of the Denton community.
4.1 Current System Review
Figure 4-1 shows the City of Denton solid waste facilities, which include the City of Denton Type I
landfill, Dyno Dirt composting facility, and Home Chemical Collection (HCC) facility. Additionally,
through a public-private partnership, Pratt Industries operates a recycling materials recovery facility
(MRF) at the Denton Landfill complex. The MSW facilities in the broader North Central Texas region are
shown in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-1 : MSW Management Facility Locations within the City of Denton
A Bolivar
FB 455 E
;
:
Aubrey
mi
Krurn
;M'-'E%_K'PPa MRF
[hmo nrtGornpQsung hdrtY &f
e®I,
Hitre a+efnial Collectim Cbntervan r\)int
Ponder
Shady Shores Lit
XA @ MHdHHHdu#dn&VKAQbdbmnBa bMa+obane UBUt oHnm••nHl+hb®
= Our+n\arupa3QuOu0 125 2.5 5 MIILLLLLLLLI Esri. HERE, Garmin,
City of Denton, Texas 4-1 Burns & McDonnell
Q)3t)3hlrinCObFClaC10Ula)1 aaCDLI-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
U)q)tW1-3aOa)C
=aJQ=a)'a2laeeuaC3aC)aQ+1Ca)aCI+1- EU)eaNeuC)aJ>i
'B(BILBthE
++<+•••++ DLI
[
a)
OE
ed
C/)C3on
1=CC0aLFJ
+
>a)a
LanUJ(r)
:#1
I ID
g o
+
R
La)
E
d==I
Ea)a)
CDC
CD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
+
+
B
6:laCIC
g
++' '$lb
't EaEOOaU)gla
0'C/)
a)
>
rDCa)JC1)alE0C)
FL a\I
+
ID
a
a:I'+
g3a)iT
q:
< b 1C)
lb<
ID
++tnCDi)
IC0
a)aC
636
+1
Un=
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
4.1.1 Landfills
This section provides an overview of existing landfills in the City and region, analysis of historic and
projected regional landfill capacities, and a discussion of future disposal considerations.
There are presently 18 active Type I landfills (landfills that accept all types of MSW, including C&D
materials and special waste) in the NCTCOG region among Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson,
Navarro, Parker, and Tarrant County. Table 4-1 identifies the Type I landfills currently in operation in the
region and provides disposal and remaining capacity data, as reported by the TCEQ for FY 2020.36
Information about active Type IV landfills in the N(:TCOG region is provided in Section 4.1.5.
Table 4-1 : NCTCOG Type I Landfill Disposal and Remaining Capacities, FY 2020
Tons
Disposed1
388,067
915,892
RemainingCapacity(Tons)
27,677,394
2,139,153
RemainingSite Life
(Years)2
72
2
Permit
1590B
I025B
Permit Holder/Site Name
City of Denton Landfill3
DFW Recycling and
Disposal Facility
Camelot Landfill
Owner
City of Denton
Waste Management
County
Denton
Denton
1312B Republic/Farmer’sBranch
North Texas
Municipal WaterDistrict
City of Fort Worth
City of Arlington
City of Dallas
City of GrandPrairie
City of Irving
City of Garland
Denton
Collin
716,332
946,399
32,006,486
72,081 ,975
45
76121 Regional DisposalLandfill2294
218C
358B
62
mc
South East Landfill
City of Arlington Landfill
McCommas Bluff Landfill
City of Grand PrairieLandfill
Hunter Ferrell Landfill
Charles M Hinton Jr
Regional Landfill
Skyline Landfill &
Recycling Facility
CSC Disposal and Landfill
ECD Landfill
Republic Maloy Landfill3
Tarrant
Tarrant
Dallas
Dallas
732,522
933, 193
1,617,121
244,567
16,244,574
34,493,232
59,891,574
4,940,267
22
37
35
32
33
30
15
1394B
1895A
Dallas
Dallas
192,161
586,097
3,114,830
17,707,706
42D
1209B
1745B
1195B
Waste Management Ellis
Ellis
Ellis
Hunt
1 ,772,283 21 ,205,467
Republic
Republic
Republic
20
154,599
139,346
17, 184,946
29,260,015
19,559,746
100
160
100
36 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). September 2021. “Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A
Year in Review; FY 2020 Data Summary and Analysis.” https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/waste-permits/waste-planning/docs/187-21 .pdf
City of Denton, Texas 4-3 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Permit Holder/Site Name
City of Cleburne Landfill
Turkey CrmiiF
City of Corsicana Landfill
Weatherford Landfill
Owner
City of Cleburne
Waste Connections
City of Corsicana
City of Weatherford
Tons
Disposed1
1.
2.
3.
4
Tons disposed in the region does not reflect total MSW generation, as a certain amount of MSW is recycled and diverted as well as
imported and exported from the region each year.
Remaining years are calculated based on the annual airspace utilization factors reported to TCEQ for each landfill in pounds per cubic
yard. The remaining years reported by TCEQ shown in this table do not take population growth into account. Discussion about the
remaining landfill capacity taking population growth into account is provided in Section 4.1.1.2.
Reflects landfill expansions approved by TCEQ during 2020 and 2021.
Total may not sum exactly due to rounding.
4.1.1.2 Historic and Projected Regional Landfill Capacities
Figure 4-3 illustrates how remaining regional landfill capacity disposal has changed from 2009–2020.
During this time, total annual regional disposal has trended upward, from 8.1 million tons in 2009 to 10.8
million tons in 2020. Data is based on past annual TCEQ summary reports.37
Figure 4-3: Trends in Annual Regional Disposal, Type 1 and IV Landfills (Tons)
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
37 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Annual Summary of Municipal Solid Waste Management
in Texas archive. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/waste permits/waste planning/wp swasteplan.html
City of Denton, Texas 44 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Based on data from the TCEQ’s 2020 annual review of MSW generation and facilities in Texas, the
region has approximately 37 years of total Type I Landfill capacity remaining at current reported annual
disposal rates. However, this estimate does not account for future population and economic growth.
Actual total remaining landfill life, given current remaining capacities, is likely to be lower.38 Based on
population projections from the NCTCOG,39 the population of the region is projected to grow at an annual
rate of 2.2 percent from 2020–2045. Figure 4-4 shows the projected remaining NCTCOG region landfill
capacity through 2045, taking into account future population and economic growth and assuming no
landfill capacity is added through existing landfill expansion or new permitted landfills.
Figure 44: Projected NCTCOG Remaining Regional Types I and IV Landfill Capacity, 2021-2045
450,000,000ag 400,000,000
R-g 350,000,000@10g 300,000,000J
gT 250,000,000
j) E 2 o o / o o o / o o oa)Ca 150,000,000
CDEg loo,000,000g 50,000,0001-
0
27 Years
7 Years
2 Years
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
As of 2020 the estimated the remaining landfill capacity of the region is approximately 386.3 million
tons. If annual disposal quantities, totaling approximately 10.8 million tons in 2020, were to increase at
the same rate as regional population projections, the remaining NCTCOG regional landfill capacity would
be fully depleted in the year 2047. This equates to total remaining landfill life of 27 years for the region,
from the year 2020.
38 Data from the TCEQ’s 2020 MSW annual report, presented in Table 4-1 and discussed in this section, is reflective
of the way data has traditionally been presented by TCEQ in its MSW annual reports. TCEQ data provides anunderstanding of facilities and capacities at a given point in time and does not incorporate population and economic
growth projections.
39 2040 NCTCOG Demographic Forecast. NCTCOG Regional Data Center. Accessed February 2021. https://data-
nctcoRgis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/6e99f37880d845758788c18f5a2c36f2 10
City of Denton, Texas 4-5 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
As landfills in the region close and the total disposal capacity decreases, tonnage flows will shift to the
available disposal capacity and market pressure will cause the value of airspace to increase over time.
Further discussion and strategy in response to decreasing regional disposal capacity is provided as part of
the Strategy to Efficiently Use Landfill Capacity (see Sections 7.0 and 11.3).
4.1.1.3 City of Denton Landfill
The City of Denton Landfill (owned and operated by the City) is located at 1527 S. Mayhill Road,
Denton, TX. It began operation in 1984 under TCEQ permit number 1590. According to the TCEQ
permit issued in July 2021 (1590B), the Denton Landfill consists of a total permit boundary of 404.4 acres
and a waste disposal footprint of 258.0 acres with a total waste disposal capacity of 51.88 million cubic
yards. This includes recent approval of a vertical and lateral expansion, which added 40 million cubic
yards disposal capacity. Prior to the expansion, the site had an estimated 7.27 million cubic yards
remaining in 2020 (11.5 years of capacity). This increase provides an additional 60 years of landfill life,
giving the site an estimated 72 years of site life remaining (Table 4- 1).
All refuse collected within the City limits is disposed at the Denton Landfill, which serves both City and
non-City customers. All customers pass through the scalehouse facility which records the tonnage of
material and customer category (Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-5: Denton Landfill Scalehouse
Customer types are defined as follows, with brief descriptions:
City of Denton, Texas 4-6 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Residential. The City collects refuse material from residential customers set out at the curb in 64- and 96-
gallon rolling carts on a weekly basis using Automated Side Loader (ASL) vehicles.
City Hauled Commercial. The City collects refuse material from commercial customers set from four,
six, eight and ten cubic yard (CY) bins at a frequency determined by the customer (i.e., once per week,
twice per week, etc.) using both Front Loader (FL) or Side Loader (SL) vehicles.
City Hauled Commercial Open Top. The City provides open top containers to commercial customers
and services them at a frequency determined by the customer (i.e., once per week, twice per week, etc.)
using roll off trucks.
City Hauled Commercial Compactors. The City provides compactors and compacting units to
commercial customers and services them at a frequency determined by the customer (i.e., once per week,
twice per week, etc.) using roll off trucks.
Wholesale. The City accepts and disposes non-City collected materials from private haulers, primarily
under “Put-or-Pay” contracts including refuse and C&D material from residential and commercial
generators. Put-or-Pay contracts guarantee a specified amount of waste annually at a negotiated price.
Retail. The City accepts material from self-haul customers including refuse and C&D material from
residential and commercial sources.
The City-collected residential tons are not charged a disposal fee, City-collected open tops and
compactors are charged and the fee that is passed through to the customer, and retail tons are charge the
applicable gate rate. Table 4-2 shows the per ton rates for each customer and/or material type.
Table 4-2: Disposal Rates at Landfill Facility (2020)
Customer/Material
Gate Rate (City Residents/Businesses)
Gate Rate (Non-Denton Residents/Businesses)
City Hauled Commercial Open Top and Compactors
1 ay Contracts:
Rate per Ton
$44.00
$48.00
$40.00
$27.00-34.00
Figure 4-6 provides the fiscal year (FY) 2020 disposal distribution by broad customer category40
40 Source: Data provided by the City of Denton.
City of Denton, Texas 4-7 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Figure 4-6: Denton Landfill MSW Tonnage by Broad Customer Category, 2020
Residential
8%Retail Tons
throughScalehouse
20%
Wholesale
Customers
51%
In 2020, City hauled material accounted for 31 percent of the total tonnage disposed and non-City hauled
material comprised 71 percent, where put-or-pay contracts account for over half of the disposed material
at the landfill. Materials not hauled by the City may have been generated within the City (e.g., self-haul)
or in a neighboring community.
Figure 4-7 summarizes the annual tonnage by source from FY 2015 through FY 2020. Most source
categories have remained steady each year, however, the wholesale customer tonnage significantly
increased from 2019 to 2020 due to an increase in put-or-pay contracts with private haulers.
City of Denton, Texas 4-8 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Figure 4-7: Denton Landfill Annual Tonnage by Customer Category, 2016-2020
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
• Residential • Commercial a Wholesale Customers a Retail Tons through Scatehouse
Table 4-3 shows the historical tonnages disposed at the Denton Landfill by customer category.
Table 4-3: Denton Landfill Disposal Tons by Customer Category, 2016-2020
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
25,338 26,270 26,592 28,146 32,015Residential
86,08083,93 1 83,765 93,701 84,309Commercial
101,156Wholesale Customers 100,760 106,240 110,536 204,399
59,76859,917Retail Tons through Scale House 41,632 78,59074,309
251,661 273,424 276,364 399,313TOTAL306,692
Based on current disposal rates, the recently approved vertical and lateral expansion increases the
expected capacity of the Denton Landfill to 72 years (Table 4-1). As described in Section 3.0, population
and economic growth are forecasted to result in increased City-hauled landfill disposal tormages.
Population growth in Denton County and other surrounding areas using the Denton Landfill will likely
result in an increase in demand from retail and wholesale customers as well.
City of Denton, Texas 4-9 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Figure 4-8 shows estimated capacity for the Denton Landfill under various future waste acceptance
scenarios :
• Proportional growth. The City accepts an increasing amount of City-hauled, retail and
wholesale/put-or-pay tonnage based on forecasted population growth in the City and surrounding
communities.
• Capped put-or-pay. The City renews existing put-or-pay contracts at current tonnage levels and
accepts an increasing amount of City-hauled, retail, and other wholesale tonnage based on growth
within in the City.
• Maximum airspace preservation. The City ceases the use of put-or-pay contracts after current
contracts expire in 2023 and accepts only material from the City of Denton and the Pratt MRF.
Figure 4-8: Projected Denton Landfill Capacity Based on Forecasted Scenarios, 2021-2080
Proportional Growth
++nbcnC01-hIILU.dH
t=10CCD
-1CBCa)a
EC
rDEa)nca31-
30,000,000
25,000,000
Capped Put-or-Pay
-Maximum AirspacePreservation
20,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080
Estimates suggests that, depending on the City’s approach to utilizing airspace, the current capacity of the
Denton Landfill could be fully depleted as early as 2057, or 36 years currently remaining (as of FY 2021)
without increases in diversion rates. The capped put-or-pay scenario provides approximately 45 years of
life currently remaining, with capacity being depleted in 2066 without increases in diversion rate. If only
materials generated within City of Denton and from Pratt MRF were accepted to maximize airspace
preservation, landfill life would be depleted in 2077 or 56 years currently remaining.
City of Denton, Texas 4-10 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Further description and evaluation of using put-or-pay contracts and tonnage guarantees in the future are
provided as part of the evaluation of the Strategy to Efficiently Use Landfill Capacity (see 7.0 and 1 1.3).
The City Landfill has a renewable natural gas (RNG) project planned to make beneficial use of landfill
gas. Gas will be collected through wells, cleaned to pipeline quality, and injected into the pipeline.
4.1.2 Materials Recovery Facilities
This section provides an overview of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in the region and provides a
high-level overview of the Pratt MRF located at the Denton Landfill.
MRFs are designed to receive, process, segregate and bale various recyclable materials and prepare them
for sale on the secondary material commodity market. There are presently 11 active MRFs in the
NCTCOG region, located among Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Navarro, Parker, and Tarrant
Counties. Table 4-4 identifies the MRFs currently in operation in the region and provides the owner
and/or operator, and location.
Table 44: NCTCOG Materials Recovery Facilities and Accepted Residential Materials
Permit Holder/Site Name
Pratt – Denton
Owner/Operator
Pratt Industries
County
Denton
Residential
Materials Accepted1
Gen 1
Waste Connections MRF – McKinney Waste Connections Collin Gen 1
Plano Recycle Center
North Texas Recycling Complex
Waste Management –'Arlington
CWD Recycling Facility
FCC – Dallas
Republic Services
Republic Services
Waste Management
Collin Gen 2
Tarrant Gen 2
Tarrant Gen 2
CWD Dallas Gen 2
FCC Environmental Services Dallas Gen 2
Champion MRF2
Dallas Recycling Facilityma –– DaUas2
Champion Waste Services
Dallas Waste & Recycling Inc
Dallas
Dallas
Balcones Dallas
t llas
1. Based on 2018 interviews with the respective residential MRF operators. First generation MRFs (Gen 1) report accepted
materials as: cardboard, mixed paper, kraft bags, paperboard, office paper, glass bottles and jars, aluminum cans, steel cans,
PET bottles and HDPE bottles and jugs. Upgraded or second generation MRFs (Gen 2) report accepting all Gen 1 materials
plus cartons, clean pizza boxes, aerosol cans, aluminum foil, PP #5 containers, and bulky plastics.
2. Commercial MRF processing little to no residential recycling.
City of Denton, Texas 4-1 1 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Across the NCTCOG region, there is a reported total of nearly 600,000 tons per year (TPY) of MRF
processing capacity currently ihstalled. There is approximately 65,600 TPY of installed processing
capacity at the two MRFs closest to the City (Pratt MRF in Denton and Waste Connections MRF in
McKinney), with both facilities reportedly operating at or near capacity. Compared to other MRFs in the
region, these two facilities also accept a more limited set of materials; while other MRFs in the region
accept items such as cartons, pizza boxes, and aluminum foil, these facilities do not. As a result, recycling
processing opportunity in the northern portion of the North Central Texas region is more limited.
4.1.2.2 City of Denton Materials Recovery Facility
Recycling in the City is delivered to the Pratt MRF located at the Denton Landfill owned and operated by
Pratt Industries (Pratt). Figure 4-9 shows the front entrance of the Pratt MRF.
Figure 4-9: Pratt Industries Material Recovery Facility
=r V =F
!q::
;iPa • n: a •n :r E : / ?•: L• S
The Pratt MRF is approximately 40,000 square feet and processes about 20 tons per hour (TPH) of
Acceptable Recyclable Materials loaded into an in-feed conveyor to pre-sort material and to screen out
bags and other non-recyclable material or material that presents safety hazards (e.g., car bumper, lithium-
ion batteries, etc.). Material is conveyed over a star screen and through multiple trommel screens where it
then passes through quality control stations and drops into dedicated storage containers before it is baled
and sold on the secondary materials commodity market. Glass and fine materials (i.e., material that is less
than two inches in diameter) is collected and transported to local secondary glass processing facilities.
Source separated old corrugated cardboard (OCC) delivered by commercial entities is tipped directly on a
designated location on the MRF floor and baled without being fed through the processing system. Figure
City of Denton, Texas 4-12 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
4-10 provides an overview of the recycling process, specific to the Pratt MRF. Secondary material
commodity markets are described in more detail in Section 10.1.
Figure 4-10: City of Denton Recycling Process Flow Overview
Pratt Industries MRF CommodityMarkets
4 Landfill
The City entered into the Regional Recyclable Processing Agreement (Recycling Agreement) in 2007
with Pratt to build, own and operate a MRF at the Denton Landfill with an initial term of 20 years and the
option for two additional ten-year terms by mutual decision of both parties. The City is currently in the
initial 20-year term of the Recycling Agreement. At the conclusion of the Recycling Agreement, the City
will take ownership of the Pratt MRF building (excluding processing equipment).
The City provides utilities for the property (e.g., water, sanitary sewer, electric), delivers all recyclable
material collected from residential and commercial customers within the City limits to the Pratt MRF,
accepts residual materials at the Denton Landfill and is responsible for promoting recycling education.
Pratt pays the City $0.80 per ton of residential material delivered to the Pratt MRF to fund the City’s
effort market, promote and educate the community on recycling and waste diversion. Additionally, the
City receives a rebate ranging from $5.00 to $15.00 per ton for all Curbside Collected Single Stream
Recyclable Materials delivered by the City depending on the total tons delivered on a monthly basis. Pratt
pays a rebate for other material types delivered to the Pratt MRF (e.g., Clean Commercial Recyclable
Material, Unprocessed Commercial Recyclable Material) based on the tonnage and a percentage of index
prices and/or sales revenue.
Recyclable Material is defined as recyclable materials consisting of plastics #1 through #7, tin (steel
cans), aluminum cans, clear and colored glass bottles and jars, certain types of plastic film, newsprint,
magazines, corrugated cardboard, phone books, chipboard, white and colored paper, mail and office
paper, that are reasonably free of food residue. Unaccepted material and residue is not to exceed 15
City of Denton, Texas 4-13 Burns & McDonne i
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
percent by weight per load, and loads in excess of 1 5 percent may be rejected and disposed at the Denton
Landfill at no charge to Pratt.
Further discussion and evaluation of the Recycling Agreement is provided in the Recycling Processing
Evaluation (see Section 9.2).
4.1.3 Transfer Stations
Transfer stations are facilities that are used to consolidate MSW from multiple collection vehicles into
larger, high-volume transfer vehicles for economical shipment to distant disposal or processing facilities.
Transfer stations can be used for material destined for landfilling, recycling, or composting. With a
nationwide trend toward larger disposal and processing facilities, there has been an enhanced need for
transfer stations. When transport distances are longer, transfer stations allow collection vehicles to be
more productive by maximizing the amount of time spent collecting material rather than driving to a
distant facility.
Landfill trash, recycling, and yard trimmings collection vehicles may either haul material directly to one
of these facilities (referred to as “direct haul”) or utilize a transfer station, which aggregates material into
larger transfer trailers for more efficient transportation (referred to as “long haul”). There are presently
17 active transfer stations in the NCTCOG region, located among Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson,
Navarro, Parker, and Tarrant Counties. Table 4-5 identifies the transfer stations currently in operation in
the region as reported by the TCEQ in 2020.41
Table 4-5: NCTCOG Transfer Stations and Tonnage Handled, FY 2020
Permit Holder/Site Name
Custer Solid Waste Transfer Station
Lookout Drive Transfer Station
Parkway Transfer Station
Town and Country Recycling Facility
North Texas Recycling ComplexTransfer Station
WC Minnis Drive Transfer Station
Owner/Operator
North Texas MunicipalWater District
North Texas MunicipalWater District
North Texas MunicipalWater District
Champion Waste &
Recycling Services
Republic Services
Waste Connections
Collin
Collin
Collin
Collin
Tarrant
41 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). September 2021. “Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: AYear in Review; FY 2019 Data Summary and Analysis.” https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/waste-
permits/waste-planning/docs/ 187-21 .pdf
City of Denton, Texas 4-14 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Permit
40052
Permit Holder/Site Name
Southwest Paper Stock Transfer Station
Westside Transfer Station
Owner/Operator
Southwest Paper Stock
Waste Management ofTexas
City of Dallas
City of Dallas
City of Dallas
City of Garland
City ofMesquite
City of University Park
Community Waste Disposal
County
Tarrant
Tarrant
2020 Tons1
24,954
215,18140186
1145
60
1453
12
1263
227
Bachman Transfer Station
Fair Oaks Transfer Station
Southwest Transfer Station
Garland Transfer Station Facility
Mesquite Transfer Station Facility
University Park Transfer Station
Community Waste Disposal TransferStation
City of Cleburne Transfer Station
Facility
o yo oee
1. Tons represent all material processed at the facility on an annual basis and may include refuse, recycling,
and organic waste. Tons presented are based on TCEQ annual reporting data, except for the City of Dallas
transfer stations which are based on values provided to Burns & McDonnell directly by the City of Dallas
for FY 19-20.
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
160,177
84, 100
75,804
117,078
64, 1 59
13,059
119,12040196
40168 City of Cleburne Johnson 77,395
The financial feasibility of a transfer station and whether material should be direct-hauled or long-hauled
is dependent on a number of factors, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collection cost
Disposal cost
Distance/travel time to landfill
Fuel costs
Annual tonnage hauled
Payload of transfer trailers vs. collection vehicles
Assuming other factors are held constant, the further the landfill or processing facility is from the
collection point, the more financially feasible long-hauling with a transfer station is compared to direct
hauling. As described in Section 4.3, there is significant anticipated growth and development in the
southwest portion of the City. Tactics to develop infrastructure such as transfer station(s) to support
future growth and regional opportunity are evaluated in more detail as part of the Strategy to Plan for
Future Growth and Infrastructure (see Sections 8.0 and 11.4).
City of Denton, Texas 4-15 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
4.1.4 Organics Processing Facilities
This section provides an overview of organics processing facilities in the region and describes the City’s
organics processing facility.
TCEQ regulation and oversight of organics processing regulations vary depending on the types of
materials a facility accepts and therefore TCEQ does not actively regulate all organics processing
facilities. Burns & McDonnell has compiled an inventory of known active organics processing facilities,
although there may be additional organics processing operations in the region that are small scale or do
not generate a compost product that is marketed commercially.
Table 4-6 identifies major organics processing facilities within the Denton, Collins, and Tarrant County
areas that accept materials such as yard trimmings and food scraps.
Table 4-6: NCTCOG Organics Processing Facilities and Accepted Materials
1 unty I Accepted Materials1
a r
r r
t Ir
r r
e o
r or la
L la
1 lar la
L la
1 lae la
> aaa
r a
I a
v a
r aaa
1. Accepted materials are categorized as putrescible or vegetative. Putrescible materials have high moisture content and
include, but are not limited to, pre- and post-consumer food waste, biosolids, sludge, or liquid waste. Vegetative materialsare cellulosic with low moisture content and include, but are not limited to, tree branches and limbs, grass, shrubs, yard
waste, lumber, dry animal bedding, or floral trimmings.
City of Denton, Texas 4-16 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
There is one major organics processing facility near the City, operated by Living. While there are
facilities with available capacity, private-sector processors have indicated there are challenges accepting
source-separated food waste or yard waste from municipalities directly at their existing facilities due to
high levels of contamination.
4.1.4.2 City of Denton Organics Processing Facility
The City owns and operates an organics processing facility which manages organic waste collected
through the residential and commercial collection program and biosolids from the Pecan Creek Water
Reclamation Plant. The Dyno Dirt Composting Facility (Composting Facility) is covered by a pole bam,
processes the material in open air windrows and houses various screening and material management
equipment. Figure 4- 11 shows the composting facility and some of the equipment used on site.
Figure 4-1 1: City of Denton Dyno Dirt Composting Facility
@ KS'1
Br
HW
in+)+?? f:s:::inr :i: i::$ 1it;h= ! i ;fif :
J
'#
#{nB
Table 4-7 presents the annual tonnage processed at the Composting Facility from various sources
Table 4-7: City of Denton Organics Management Tons by Source, 2016-2020
Source FY 16-17
7,249
19,785
427
4,343
31,804
FY 17-18
6,219
17,250
371
4,312
28,152
FY 18-19
7, 166
16,917
343
4,934
29,360
FY 19-20
5,606
19,701
335
4,957
Residential Yard Waste/Brush
City Facilities Yard Waste/Brush
Commercial Organics
Biosolids (Sludge’TOTAL 30,599
Organic material that is ground and composted is sold and marketed as Dino Dirt products. Dino Dirt
products include compost, topdressing, potting mix, and mulch available to customers via pickup.
Although the City is able to manage the current amount of material that is delivered to the site, a
significant increase in tonnage or type of material may be challenging without infrastructure upgrades and
additional staffing (e.g., introduction of significant quantities of food waste).
City of Denton, Texas 4-17 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
4.1.4.3 Pecan Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility
The City’s Pecan Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTP) staff is responsible for the oversite,
operation, and maintenance of the Composting Facility. The WWTP TCEQ permit currently allows for
the processing of yard trimmings, biosolids, and pre-consumer food wastes at the Composting Facility.
Post-consumer food waste is not permitted at this time. The City has discussed amending the permit to
allow post-consumer food waste but elected not to at this time due to potential odor and vector issues.
The WWTP operation includes an anaerobic digester as a function of its treatment process. The digester
produces biogas which is used to produce energy for onsite electricity generation. The anaerobic digester
currently only processes biosolids but the City is analyzing the potential to accept food waste and the
capacity of food waste it could receive. The City recently received a grant from the NCTCOG to pilot a
commercial food waste composting program from the historic downtown area. The grant includes the
purchase of a piece of equipment called a macerator to prepare the food waste for acceptance in the
anaerobic digester at the WWTP. The project will require a collaborative approach to balancing the
volumes of food waste collected with the ability for the digesters to handle the additional waste stream.
Considerations must be made for additional staffing based on any additional workload demands from this
new process. Further discussion on organics processing are discussed in Section 6.0. Figure 4-12 shows
images of the Pecan Creek WWTP.
City of Denton, Texas 4-18 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Figure 4-12: City of Denton Pecan Creek WWTP
La
{\RgU=={
iX?a
4.1.5 C&D Processing Facilities
This section provides an overview of regional construction and demolition (C&D) processing facilities in
the region including Type IV landfills, processing facilities, and an overview of the City’s C&D recovery
program.
4.1.5.1 Type IV Landfill Regional Overview
A Type IV landfill only accepts brush, construction or demolition waste, and other similar non-household
or non-putrescible waste (organic waste that decomposes without causing odors or attracting pests). There
are four Type IV Landfills in the NCTCOG region as indicated in Table 4-8.
City of Denton, Texas 4-19 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 43: NCTCOG Type IV Landfill Disposal and Remaining Site Lite, FY 2020
RemainingSite Life1
tyears)
100
24
11
27
Permit
1749B
2278
1983C
664
Permit Holder/Site Name
Lewisville Landfill
Osttend C&D Waste Landfil1/380 McKinney
Fort Worth C&D Landfin2
City of Stephenville Landfill
County
Denton
Collin
Tarrant
Erath
10
222,212
403,606
16,290
1. Remaining years are calculated based on the annual airspace utilization factors reported to TCEQ for each landfill in
pounds per cubic yard.
2. Reflects landfill expansion approved by TCEQ during 2021.
4.1.5.2 Regional C&D Processing Facilities Overview
The only mixed C&D materials recovery facility in the region is Champion Waste & Recycling’s Town &
Country Recycling Facility in Celina, TX, which opened in 2015 as a single-stream construction MRF in
North Texas. The facility separates construction material using a combination of processing equipment
and sorting labor. Materials recycled throughout the process include cardboard, wood, concrete, metal,
plastics, wall board, paper, and aluminum. Figure 4-13 shows the type of equipment and labor required as
part of Champion’s operation.
Figure 4-13: Champion Construction MRF Materials Processing Line
Source: https://www.championwaste.com
Champion staff assists contractors with generating waste diversion reports that qualify towards a project’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. However, without a regulatory
obligation to provide recycled C&D tonnage or diversion metrics, Champion does not generate regular
reports regarding the diversion of material from projects in the City.
City of Denton, Texas 4-20 Burns & McDonnei
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
In addition to Champion’s mixed C&D processing capability, there are a number of material-specific
processors throughout the region processing materials such as concrete/aggregate and scrap metal and
disposal facilities in the region may manually sort mixed C&D loads to divert high-value materials such
as scrap metal.
4.1.5.3 City of Denton Building Material Recovery
The City historically optimized C&D diversion efforts by diverting select loads from the landfill to be
sorted at the Building Material Recovery (BMR) location which was capable of diverting an average of
over 70 percent of the waste from each load. Figure 4-14 shows the BMR location at the Landfill Facility
where the grapple loader previously segregated materials for diversion. The City has discontinued the
BMR facility due to challenges with the cost-effectiveness of operation. With the discontinuation of the
City-operated C&D diversion facility, the City must currently look to the private sector for C&D
diversion services.
Figure 4-14: Manual Sorting of Building Materials for Recover
4.1.6 Home Chemical Collection and Other Special Wastes
Home chemical collection (HCC) programs can take many forms and may utilize one or more of the
program options shown in Table 4-9. Programs may use a number of strategies to increase material
recovery, such as adding door-to-door service to increase convenience and provide access to households
without reliable transportation. There is increasing interest to provide HCC services through regional
partnerships, which can expand access and benefit from economies of scale.
City of Denton, Texas 4-21 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 4-9: Common Home Chemical Collection (HCC) Program Options
HCC Program Option
Permanent HCC Facility
Door-to-Door Collection (regular or on-call)
Trailer for Mobile Collection
Collection Events
Operational Service Frequency
Six days per week
Once per month to unlimited
Multiple times per week
One or more times per year
For NCTCOG programs that operate a permanent HCC facility, there is a trend to expand the materials
accepted as part of the drop-off program to include common hard-to-recycle materials such as plastic
film, expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam, electronics, textiles, paint, and batteries. Some of these programs
also expand service to neighboring communities through interlocal agreements. This form of partnership
is discussed in more detail in Section 10.6.3 .
4.1.6.1 City of Denton Home Chemical Collection Services
The City provides safe disposal of household hazardous waste through their Home Chemical Collection
(HCC) Services. The HCC facility is located at the Denton Landfill and is available by appointment for
residents to drop off their materials. The City also offers a curbside collection by appointment. In
additional to the collection of household hazardous materials, the City also provide recycling of electronic
waste and the safe disposal of prescription and over the counter medications. Televisions, computers, and
all other small household electronics and kitchen appliances are accepted for recycling. Table 4-10
provides the annual tonnage of materials collected by material type.
Table 410: City of Denton Home Chemical Collection and Other Special Waste Tons, 2016-2020
Collection Material
Home Chemical Collection
Drug Kiosk Take Back
Electronics Recycling
FY 19-20
57
0.7
71
4.2 Regional Partnerships
Appropriately planning for and developing MSW facilities and infrastructure operations, ownership, and
partnerships is critical for successful achievement of the priorities and strategies presented. Facilities,
infrastructure, and contractual service relationships allow the City to properly manage and process each
MSW material type.
City of Denton. Texas 4-22 Burns & McDonnel
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
Based on the current system findings, the City will need to rely on a combination of facilities going
forward to meet needs of the community. The key to providing the most appropriate services in a cost-
effective manner is for the City to develop and maintain the most beneficial approach for each service
need (e.g., refuse disposal, recycling processing). There are a variety of approaches that the City can
consider to address operational needs, as shown in Error! Reference source not found..
Table 4-1 1 : Examples of Public-Private Partnership Options for MSW Operations
City -Ownedand
Responsibility I Operated
City-Ownedwith Private
Operations1
PrivatelyOwned and
Operated on
City Land1
ProcessingServices
Agreement
PrivateCity
PrivateCapital
Investment
CityOperations Private Private Private
1 True public-private partnership arrangement
Public-private partnerships. Public-private partnerships (PPP) can be an effective model to provide
needed infrastructure without the full financial risk falling on either the local government or the private
business. Effective public-private partnerships exist when both local governments and the private
industry collaborate to share resources, capital investment, risk, and revenue. The City’s current recycling
processing is through a public-private partnership, with Pratt constructing and operating the MRF on land
leased from the City.
Processing service agreements. An alternative approach is to secure material processing capacity
through a processing service agreement (PSA). Under a PSA, the City contracts with a private recycling
company that owns and operates a facility at a location owned or leased by the company. Local
governments that do not directly provide municipal collection may procure MRF processing services
though contracted hauler(s).
There are advantages and disadvantages to the different types of arrangements and which entity takes
ownership of the land, capital investment, and operations. While the processing services agreement is the
most common option in Texas, public-private partnerships such as the City’s agreement with Pratt are
gaining more appeal as a means to share risk given recent market volatility. Table 4- 12 summarizes the
potential advantages and disadvantages for local governments of different ownership of the land, capital
investment, and operations.
City of Denton, Texas 4-23 Burns & McDonnell
od 0
g g g • } { u ![]}• CD •=
ala)a)Jtal3 gCgt eg gg :g333hura)gbClaC10tria)C)COLL laCCDg1)a)C0 a)OCCDCaC’rDE C§§B bb :osIO+ Derg : :aLcO
JE;8Eg :+1inq)n n'8(BLLa)C'r)inQ)C)aInaa+1
LB0)a0laCIS
G)C)CCSCiTa+1ina)=C)100L=aa<bHa
UlG)a)CS:•eIS
>laISinin
lae(Sina)a)10+1e(S
>la<
&irI\iQ)rDIS1-
inG)a)IS: HC(S>laISina
a)£+1 8 BC7e og H i
• IOi
e o i }CUe/)
b) I) B882a) a) laBag8 8 .E_J _I __I
>i
d g: i I
P g ! =E
>
£0JCa)
aJCa)I
O
aHICa)ECi)0a)
Co0Un.n Q)
1=
HEa)
Oa)=
>onlaa)Ulcaa)F)C
LS
\
T)
E0V
1 a
-1
C/)C3
qa)CC0aC)E
ed
on
=0
=V)aCECO
>ba)a)
U)
a/Ca)EgalE0O
Lo+1C/)+1Ca)Ea)a)
COC
COE
a)
B/glaa
a)
>
0+1
laa)
Ula)
to'0
a)aA3EE0
B :inajCOEU==6
E11
IE
E
E
a3EE0C)0
a)U3CDQal0(\Ia)a
EgB{caU
<
+1
C)a
a
pnnl
a)
U••Hl•l
re
>
a
R
ol
>01g
\==
re
PIca
CBa)
0
Ecia
t)0
a;T)
La
8
B,
d)
CDaal
+B a)L)30trig3UnI3
To8::9Ca0al
E
To+el'aCDOC0E3d==1
g)a)laa)a
U)a)
>nCD
>ala
U)C
0+B
g gc Og o
+ + Q + + (D
0+1a)3la
g)b'i }heg)gR\ :a)al
g i
g)LIB6£lig gi !jig
in
• C1 e
ina)a)IS: aeIS
>la
<
aS3Ca)
>g
Ljnn0
AnFaa)EEug) g! !ba)Ba
qb+PEBg :i
COC
caa)
B'a)
Bg
BaE :lgb
U)ajbnP '+qI'g0+1gj Be00'P
Ula)
>
g)g
a LE 8• CIS e
BE-CB= gb8
}}.i
aiC0aH
LUa)al0
iDgg gF:agBgS)L=
8; !EOg gg)8ar)gg_1_1
dru0000-JJ
SBE
CD
L=a)C
g BCIS-J
= A:};g -$ggCD
b=atng g0•a gi=}
UlCDXgCBCa)abb=0aU
aC)IS9aa<aii0
inCaBb=a)a0
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
In Texas, many cities provide MSW services either with City resources or through a single private hauler
contracted to provide those services. A small number of cities have an open market system in which
several private haulers are permitted to operate within the city; however, open market systems are much
more common for commercial, rather than residential, services. Generally, cities of smaller size in Texas
may choose to contract for MSW services, likely due to limited resources available for operation of a
municipal system. Among some smaller cities and many cities with higher populations, there is a split
between those that have municipally and privately provided services. This approach is consistent with
cities of comparable size in Texas. Table 4-13 shows Denton and the top 10 largest cities in Texas and
how solid waste collection, processing and disposal are managed.
Table 4-13: Comparison Matrix of Denton and Largest 10 Texas Cities Service Provision1„'„',„.„' .'::::=."M MMPMMN/TM MTMTPPPMPMI M 1 M 1 p 1 p 1 p 1 M 1 p
M
N
N
N
N
City
Denton
Houston
San
Antonio
Dallas
Austin
Fort Worth
El Paso
Arlington
CorpusChristi
Planor. M=
147,515
2,3 10,000
1 ,508,000
1 ,331 ,000
950,807
W7
679,813
a9
325,780 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 p 1 M 1 po MTMTMPMM
Municipalized, P = Private, PPP = Public-Private Partnership, N/A = Not Applicable
M M PPPM M M
M PMPM P
P P PPPM
M P M MMM
P P P P M P
M M
Other regional partnerships. In addition to the PPP options for the development of facilities, there are
opportunities for the City to partner with other municipalities in the region to expand material processing
capacity or expand services to underserved surrounding communities (e.g., regionalization of HCC
services). There are multiple ways in which local governments can successfully partner, including:
•Special law districts. The Texas Legislature can establish special law districts with solid waste
management authority to handle all aspects of solid waste management within the district’s
boundaries (e.g., collection, processing, disposal, recycling, composting). Special law districts
can include multiple counties and municipalities, and do not need to be geographically
contiguous. An advantage of special law districts is that boundaries, structure, purpose, and
authority can all be specifically tailored legislatively. Disadvantages of special law districts
City of Denton, Texas 4-25 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
include the time and expense involved in establishing such districts, and the political risks. For
example, voter disapproval of a regional solid waste authority could substantially delay or derail
efforts to develop and implement a long-term solid waste strategy for the region.
The North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) is a legislatively created special law
district responsible for solid waste management activities in the Cities of Allen, Frisco,
McKinney, Plano and Richardson, and Collin County. The NTMWD manages and operates three
transfer stations, four citizen convenience drop-off centers, and the 121 Regional Disposal
Facility landfill.
•Interlocal cooperation agreements or joint-use ownership. Interlocal agreements are contracts
that can be used by local government entities to perform or provide government services
including to establish solid waste agencies or authorities. The creation of a solid waste agency
through interlocal agreement is more flexible than legislatively developed special law districts, as
details such as the structure and management of the agency are determined by the contract itself;
however, these agencies may lack powers typically associated with special law districts such as
the ability to issue bonds or levy taxes.
The Texoma Area Solid Waste Authority (TASWA) was created from a cooperative agreement
between Cities of Gainesville, Denison, and Sherman and Grayson and Cooke Counties to
provide a solid waste disposal facility (and a recycling facility until 2009). Interlocal agreements
are also commonly used to provide a specific solid waste service (e.g., an interlocal agreement to
allow county residents to participate in a city’s HCC program). For example, Dallas County
facilitates a regional HHW program for 16 member cities through its interlocal agreement, with
each member city paying a portion of the program’s disposal, operations, and capital costs.
4.3 Land Use and Growth
The City recently completed the Denton Plan 2030, which explored land use and planned growth options.
Through the stakeholder engagement process, the Denton community indicated a high-level of
community preference toward the Compact Growth Scenario (Figure 4- 15), which reflects a shift toward
high-density multifamily and mixed-use growth in specific areas throughout the City.
City of Denton, Texas 4-26 Burns & McDonnell
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy FacIlities and Infrastructure
Figure 4-15: Compact Growth Scenario (Preferred Scenario from Denton Plan 2030)
Bi city of Denton . ' .
Nan-annexation Agreement Area
HI , Existing Development
Highway
Major Road i
.–P Railroad
..-. Ptanned Road
kb?aB
Source: Denton Plan 2030 (Figure 1.6)
This desired growth pattern is consistent with shifts toward more multifamily and condensed development
among many cities in the North Central Texas region to reduce development sprawl and create more
environmentally and socially conscious housing. Increases in compact mixed-use development and multi-
family high density can cause challenges for solid waste collection activities. If zoning requirements and
design codes do not account for the needs of collection vehicles or equipment, it can create challenging
collection environments such as private drives, small alleyways, dead-ends, hammerhead turn-arounds,
and dangerous backing situations. Continued collaboration between the City’s Solid Waste & Recycling
and Development Services departments is important to anticipate and account for collection services.
4.3.1 Current and Projected Growth in the City of Denton
Figure 4-16 illustrates the location of the City’s disposal, recycling, organics, and HCC facilities in
relation to the City’s population. Currently, the City’s collection program landfill refuse, recycling, and
City of Denton, Texas 4-27 Burns & McDonnei
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy Facilities and Infrastructure
organics collection vehicles in the City haul material directly to one of these facilities (referred to as
“direct haul”).
Figure 4-17 shows the projected 2040 city population distribution based on projections developed by
NCTCOG. Based on these estimates, population growth through 2040 is anticipated in multiple areas of
the City with the largest increases currently projected in the south and southeast, with especially high
growth anticipated as a result of large master planned communities (MPC) in southwest Denton. The
current and anticipated areas of highest population within the City are shown in Figure 4-18, further
illustrating the significant anticipated growth in the southern Denton as well as adjacent areas just outside
the city limits.
City of Denton, Texas 4-28 Burns & McDonnell