2018-078 Solid Waste Operations Review & Staffing AnalysisDate: June 22, 2018 Report No. 2018-078
INFORMAL STAFF REPORT
TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Operational review and staffing analysis of the Solid Waste department
BACKGROUND:
Staff recently executed a professional services agreement with solid waste consulting firm Blue Ridge Services, Inc. to conduct an operational review and staffing assessment of the Solid Waste
Department’s landfill and collections operations.
As part of the engagement, Blue Ridge performed a thorough review of Solid Waste’s
operational data and examined the department’s policies, standard operating procedures, and organizational structure. The firm recently spent several days onsite conducting interviews with
Solid Waste staff, observing critical processes, and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of
the department’s operations.
The results of Blue Ridge’s evaluation include recommendations to eliminate underperforming programs, increase efficiency in core operations, and reorganize the department’s reporting
structure.
The City Council will receive a summary of Blue Ridge’s findings during the work session
portion of the June 26 Council meeting. To supplement the firm’s presentation, a copy of the firm’s complete report is attached for Council review. An Operational Recommendations Action
Plan outlining staff’s responses to the Blue Ridge findings will be discussed during this meeting.
Staff would like to stress that all recommendations from Blue Ridge to eliminate
underperforming programs will be discussed in detail with the Public Utilities Board and City
Council on an individual basis and Council recommendations will be obtained before any actions are taken.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Blue Ridge – Operational Review & Staffing Assessment
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ethan Cox, Director of Solid Waste
(940) 349-7421 Ethan.Cox@cityofdenton.com
1 | P a g e
Operational Review &
Staffing Assessment
City of Denton Solid Waste & Recycling
Department
March 13, 2017
Prepared for:
City of Denton
Solid Waste & Recycling Department
1527 South Mayhill Road
Denton, TX 76208
Prepared by:
Blue Ridge Services, Inc.
5065 Highway 140 (Suite C)
P.O. Box 2398
Mariposa, CA 95338
Blueridgeservices.com
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW & BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Location ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Historical Climate Data ................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Temperature ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Precipitation ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 15
LANDFILL ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Landfill Operations Planning ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Soil Management Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Annual Fill Sequence Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Wet Weather Tipping Pad ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Examples of Planning “Optimization” .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Pancake Cell Construction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Typewriter Tipping Pattern ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
Spotter Station .............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Rubble Processing ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Building Material Recovery ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Airspace ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30
Staffing and Heavy Equipment Utilization .................................................................................................................................................... 30
Financial Viability ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Enhanced Leachate Recirculation System ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Landfill Gas Generation ................................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Landfill Life Expectancy ................................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Equipment ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Ancillary Equipment ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Landfill Heavy Equipment ............................................................................................................................................................................ 36
COLLECTIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Collection Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Dispatch ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Route and Truck Assignments ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Route Maps and Route Lists ......................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Residential Collection .................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Residential Trash Collection ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Residential Recycling Collection ................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Residential Yard Waste Collection ............................................................................................................................................................... 42
Residential Bulky Items Collection ............................................................................................................................................................... 45
Household Chemical Collection .................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Commercial Collections ................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Commercial Trash Collection ....................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Saturday Commercial Trash Collection ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Commercial Recycling Collection ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Multi-Family Recycling ................................................................................................................................................................................. 50
Collection Tonnage ....................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Collection Route Audits ................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Productivity Reporting .................................................................................................................................................................. 56
Routing .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Residential Route Design ............................................................................................................................................................................. 56
Commercial Route Design ............................................................................................................................................................................ 58
Equipment ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
Fleet Maintenance ........................................................................................................................................................................ 60
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Fleet Maintenance, Drivers’ Perspective...................................................................................................................................................... 61
Fleet Maintenance’s Perspective ................................................................................................................................................................. 61
3 | P a g e
Maintenance/Driver Safety Issue ................................................................................................................................................................. 63
Joint Meeting, Fleet Services and Collection Departments .......................................................................................................................... 63
Fleet Maintenance Annex ............................................................................................................................................................................ 64
Pre-Post Trip Inspections ............................................................................................................................................................................. 65
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING DEPARTMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 66
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Safety ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 66
Truck Accident and Worker Injury Report Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 66
Truck Accidents ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 67
Worker Injuries ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 69
Safety Culture ................................................................................................................................................................................ 70
Recommendations for Building a Safety Culture ......................................................................................................................................... 71
Customers Safety Vest Program ................................................................................................................................................... 77
Training ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 78
Organizational Culture .................................................................................................................................................................. 81
Collections Driver Scheduling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 81
Innovation and Specialty Projects ................................................................................................................................................................ 82
Staffing and Organizational Chart ................................................................................................................................................ 82
Director ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 83
Collections .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83
New Positions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Landfill .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Administration ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 89
APPENDIX A – RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ............................................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX B – HEAVIEST LOADS ................................................................................................................................................................. 93
APPENDIX C – TYPEWRITER DUMPING PATTERN ............................................................................................................................................ 96
4 | P a g e
List of Abbreviations
ADC Alternative Daily Cover
AUF Airspace Utilization Factor
BMR Building Material Recovery
BMP Best Management Practice
BRS Blue Ridge Services, Inc.
City City of Denton
CDC City of Denton Collections
CDL City of Denton Landfill
DMED Denton Municipal Electric Department
DTE DTE Biomass Energy
ELR Enhanced Leachate Recirculation
FSP Fill Sequence Plan
FY Fiscal Year
NCTCOG North Central Texas Council of Governments
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCC Pancake Cell Construction (system)
SMP Soil Management Plan
SWRD City of Denton Solid Waste & Recycling Department
TTP Typewriter Tipping Pattern
WWTP Wet Weather Tipping Pad
5 | P a g e
Executive Summary
The City of Denton Solid Waste and Recycling Department (SWRD) contracted Blue
Ridge Services, Inc. (BRS) to perform a thorough review of the City of Denton
Landfill (CDL) and Collections (CDC) operations, with one of the key goals being
development of a staffing model for each operation. This review occurred through
questionnaire responses, documents review, data analysis, and onsite visits by Neal
Bolton, Ron Proto and Kasem Cornelius. Our team spent 96 -hours on-site.
Landfill
By planning ahead for both long and short-term operations, significant savings and
efficiency improvements can be made to operations and landfill airspace utilization.
BRS recommends the following for the landfill:
Development of a Soil Management Plan;
Development of a Fill Sequence Plan;
Construction of Wet Weather Tipping Pad;
We recommend that processing rubble in-house be discontinued. According to
Fiscal Year 2015-2017 Proformas, 205,474 tons of processed material has remained
on-site in the last 3 years, and a combined loss of $387,039 has occurred due to the
rubble-processing operation. Most rubble can be used as-is for other on-site
purposes, with minimal processing and, with strategic planning, the annual quantity
can be reduced – helping preserve valuable landfill airspace;
Proformas also indicate that the Building Material Recovery (BMR) operation
caused a combined loss of over $800,000 in Fiscal Years 2015 and 2017. Based on our
observations of ongoing financial losses, expensive specialized equipment required,
operational inefficiencies, poor utilization of staff, as well as the current recycling
commodity markets, we recommend that SWRD discontinue BMR operations.
Efforts to increase airspace utilization should be refocused toward improving
landfill waste compaction and reducing cover soil usage. Landfill life expectancy and
operational efficiency can be increased to a far greater degree using these methods
than grinding material for size reduction – and at much lower cost;
6 | P a g e
We see little long-term value being added to the landfill through the Enhanced
Leachate Recirculation (ELR) operation. We recommend that SWRD
decrease/discontinue ELR operations. Airspace utilization should instead be
improved by implementing industry best management practices for waste
compaction and cover soil processes;
Tipping pad operations should be modified to allow more space and better
organization for vehicle placement and sequencing;
Stockpiles of soil, rubble and processed aggregate should be strategically located so
as to better monitor inventory and consumption, maximize airspace by well-
planned surcharging, and minimize first-time and subsequent multiple-handling.
The waste compaction process can be dramatically improved by changing the layout
of the active face – and by consistently tracking and regulating the compactor’s
hour-by-hour production rate.
A significant quantity of landfill airspace can be preserved by expanding the use of
Alterative Daily Cover (ADC).
We recommend that a program be initiated to track the performance of key landfill
activities, including: machine hours, inbound waste tonnage, soil consumption,
cover soil ratio, and other key operational metrics.
Collections
Residential recycling route productivity is low. The drivers drive by the same
number of houses as the MSW drivers, yet they collect only 22% of the residential
tonnage. The low tonnage could indicate that the recycling cart setout rate (the
number of carts set out on any given collection day) is as low as 50%, or that the
carts are between 25 to 50% full. CDC should audit the residential recycling routes
for the setout rate and cart volume, then adjust the routes accordingly. It’s possible
the route audits will show that recycling could be collected every other week;
Yard waste routes have a two-person crew. They drive by almost 2,000 houses
making about 128 collections per day and averaging less than four tons per load. If a
pile has large material, a grapple truck driver is contacted to assist with collecting
the material. The grapple trucks make about 18 collections per day. The yard waste
collection system is slow, inefficient, leaves a mess, and is unsafe. CDC should
consider using a cart-based system like residential MSW collection. A cart system is
cost-effective, in addition to being fast, clean, and safe for the driver;
CDC provides bulky item collection, a valuable service to the residents. The crews
average 35 collections a day, low by industry standards, which can range from 100 to
200 collections per day. CDC should consider running the bulky collection route
every other week or every third week to increase collections to 70 or 100 per day.
The schedule can be seasonally adjusted based on the service history;
7 | P a g e
We recommend that SWRD discontinue the HCC residential collections service, and
instead obtain the appropriate permitting to operate as a regional drop-off facility
only;
The commercial MSW front-loader routes average 102 lifts per day. The lift count is
low considering the drivers drive directly to the bin to lift and empty it, occasionally
exiting the truck to open and close the gate for a bin enclosure. This is a very efficient
way to collect front-loader bins and should allow a lift count of 125 to 150 per day,
more in line with industry standards. CDC should eliminate one Monday through
Friday and one Saturday route. This change would increase the Monday through
Friday routes lift count to about 120 per day;
CDC has a complex schedule for commercial recycling using half-day and full-day
routes, Monday through Friday. The lift count average is 68 per day with a payload
a little over three tons, less than 50% of the trucks carrying capacity. CDC should
consider a complete review of the commercial recycling system, then redesign the
routes to increase their lift count to around 150 per day, in line with the industry
standards for commercial front-loader recycling routes;
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulation 396.11, “Driver
Vehicle Inspection Report,” will require the CDC to revise their post-trip Driver-
Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) procedure. The new procedure must require that
a copy of the DVIR remain in the vehicle, so the mechanic can certify that any
necessary repair(s) was performed, and so that the driver can sign off that he
reviewed the previous report and acknowledges that any necessary repairs were
certified as being completed;
In a sample of more than 68,000 collections loads, 32% exceeded 54,000 pounds, the
Texas Department of Transportation’s (DOT) gross vehicle weight limit. More than
4% of those loads exceeded 66,000 pounds, the manufacturer’s maximum gross
vehicle weight (MGVW) limit. Driving a vehicle heavier than allowed by DOT’s
weight regulations is not a good practice. Driving a vehicle above the MGVW limit
is dangerous. Supervisors should monitor truckload weights daily and bring
overweight loads to the drivers’ attention. Drivers should be instructed to adjust
their loads as necessary. Supervisors and drivers need to be accountable for
delivering legal weight loads to post-collection facilities;
The Mantis front-loader truck body has a design flat that allows debris to make its
way on the packer blade roller track and disrupt the sensors, not allowing the packer
blade to function correctly. Drivers climb on the side of the truck body to clean the
sensors that regulate the packing blade. Climbing on the truck without proper
safety equipment is a dangerous practice that should be discontinued. CDC should
work with the Fleet Services Department and the manufacturer to develop an
engineered solution to resolve this problem or devise a safe procedure to clean the
track to allow the packing blade to function correctly;
8 | P a g e
Truck repairs takes too long to fix is a major complaint and a source of driver
frustration; consequently, drivers avoid dropping off their truck for repairs unless
it’s absolutely necessary. Drivers mentioned that they don’t report broken rearview
cameras because of the delay in getting their truck back. This is a dangerous practice
and should be corrected immediately;
A written technical training program for new and veteran drivers should be
developed and all trainers should be required to follow it. The program should
include classroom, yard, and on-the-job training. It is imperative that the training
curriculum for each model truck be based on the manufacturer’s operating manual.
Every drivers should be recertified every two to four years for continuing education
and a refresher-training program.
Safety
BRS noted the absence of a safety culture during the on-site visit. The BRS team did
not notice a safety poster, sign, or slogan anywhere on the site. Most drivers wear
the minimum high visibility apparel, a gray shirt with orange stripes. Supervisors,
office personnel, and managers do not wear a high visibility safety vest when in the
yard, in the shop, or in the field. A strong safety culture is built over time, by
management’s relentless commitment to protecting worker’s health and welfare.
This starts and the top and must be consistently encouraged and monitored.
Workers will respect what management inspects.
BRS recommends the implementation of regular safety meetings with topics focused
on applicable (and historical) safety topics. These should be reinforced during
regular and frequent tailgate meetings and morning huddles to instill safety
consciousness in equipment operators, laborers, technical staff, drivers, supervisors,
managers, and office personnel.
BRS also recommends that SWRD develop and implement comprehensive Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs)for all CDL and CDC tasks.
Organizational Structure
Appendix A contains the revised Organizational Chart recommended by BRS;
CDC has a staff of 70 employees; 84 percent are directly involved with the collection
operation. Management accounts for 16 percent of the staff. Reorganizing the
division as recommended will reduce management staff to 10% and increase the
supervisors’ span of control to 11 or 12 routes with a headcount of 13 to 14. Both moves
bring the Department’s management to frontline worker ratio in line with industry
standards;
We do not see special projects and new operational processes being implemented
on the scale or frequency they have in the past. This reduces the scope of the Site
Operation and Planning Manager role, which we recommend moving under the
9 | P a g e
direct oversight of the Landfill Operations Manager, rather than directly reporting
to the SWRD Director;
At the time of our on-site visit, the CDL currently had a staff of 15, with 11 frontline
employees being overseen by 4 management level employees. To bring staffing
closer to industry standards, we recommend that the Landfill Manager position be
dissolved;
We recommend that the Solid Waste Support Supervisor that is currently under the
Site Operation and Planning Manager, instead report to the Administration
Manager.
10 | P a g e
Introduction
In February 2018, Blue Ridge Services, Inc. (BRS) was contracted by the City of Denton
(City) to perform an operations review and staffing assessment of the City of Denton Solid
Waste and Recycling Department (SWRD). This project was to include a review and
assessment for the City landfill and collections operations.
The project began with BRS requesting relevant and recent site-specific data and
information. This information was requested in the form of comprehensive landfill and
collections questionnaires, and the results were researched and provided by SWRD staff.
These questionnaires addressed operational and safety issues regarding staffing,
equipment, schedules, route information, landfill, customer service, and administration.
Additional documents and data were also obtained throughout the course of the project,
including historical accident reports, tonnage, and a number of other relevant operational
and safety program documents and data.
From March 26-March 30, 2018 BRS team members Neal Bolton, Ron Proto, and Kasem
Cornelius travelled to Denton for an on-site visit of the SWRD. Our team spent 96 hours
on-site observing landfill and collections operations, interviewing staff, collecting photos
and video, and identifying specific areas for operations and staffing improvements. In
addition, our team made visits to the Pratt recycling facility, fleet maintenance facility,
and to the Customer Service Department. BRS’s time onsite led to a thorough assessment
of all elements of the SWRD.
Our primary goals for this project were to identify opportunities for SWRD to effectively
utilize staff, increase operational efficiency, reduce costs, maximize landfill life, improve
customer service, and enhance safety throughout the landfill and collections operations.
During the evaluation, we closely examined key aspects of SWRD operations, with most
of our focus on the waste-handling operation – as that is where the bulk of the staffing,
resources and money are spent at the facility. It should be noted that the focus of the
assessment was to look for inefficiencies or areas within the operation that could be
improved. The following report identifies areas or specific activities where improvements
can be made. And in doing so, it addresses a wide range of operational issues – many of
which are inter-related. Thus, in order to properly understand individual findings, it is
necessary for the reader to see how each one fits into the whole. So, we strongly
recommend that the entire report be read before taking a position based on a single issue.
Finally, despite the areas within SWRD operation where we identified room for
improvement – which was in fact what we were looking for – it should also be noted that
11 | P a g e
there were many tasks being performed correctly and efficiently. It is with pleasure that
we present this report in that context.
12 | P a g e
Department Overview & Background
The following sections provide a brief overview of the environment in which SWRD
operates.
Location
Denton, Texas is located in the northern portion of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex,
approximately 40 miles North of Dallas and Fort Worth. According to the 2010 United
States Census, Denton had a population of 113,833. Since 2010 the city has seen rapid
population growth, resulting in an estimated 2016 population of 133,808. New commercial
and residential developments have led to increased solid waste tonnage generated within
the city and required the addition of SWRD collections. Due to the multiple universities
in Denton, the population experiences some annual fluctuations based on school breaks,
and solid waste generation typically increases in the weeks that students move in/move
out.
Historical Climate Data
The weather data utilized for the following sections was collected from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
13 | P a g e
Temperature
The average monthly high and low temperatures for Denton are shown in the following
chart (based on data from 1914-2017). This information is useful in understanding any
weather related, operational restrictions. The data indicates that there are 2 months with
average high temperatures in excess of 90 degrees. These sustained high temperatures
present some challenges with maintaining adequate dust control measures and can cause
equipment to overheat if not properly and regularly maintained. The average yearly
temperature at CDL is 64°F, which is 16% higher than the national average (55°F) but 7%
lower than the Texas average (69°F).
We recommend that one of the key performance metrics for heavy equipment at the
landfill be to regularly monitor machine temperature through VisionLink™ where
applicable (for Cat equipment) or through other remote monitoring systems for non-Cat
equipment.
14 | P a g e
Precipitation
The average monthly precipitation for Denton is shown in the following chart (based on
data from 1914-2017). Denton has a humid subtropical climate that is characteristic of the
southern United States. The heaviest rainfall occurs during May and October, with May
being the wettest month. The area averages 38 inches of precipitation per year, which is
just under the national average (39 inches). Denton can also experience volatile weather,
with significant weather variations in a short period of time, even within a single day –
typically as related to regional or localized storm cells (i.e., thunder storms). This means
operations must be prepared for unexpected changes in weather. When considering the
average, the annual rainfall may occasionally lead to operational challenges, including
excessive leachate generation, drainage issues, and vehicle and equipment access
problems.
This highlights one of the primary goals of having a comprehensive Fill Sequence Plan: to
pre-plan and construct adequate all-weather access roads for landfill customers. This also
requires strategic pre-placement of adequate quantities of rubble in appropriate locations.
Stormwater control – especially on the recently-constructed new liner – can help reduce
the quantity of leachate created by aggressively working to keep clean stormwater
separated from contact water and leachate.
15 | P a g e
Findings & Recommendations
Our findings and recommendations have been split into the following sections:
Recommendations related to the landfill site and operations
Recommendations related to collections operations
Recommendations related to the entire SWRD (both landfill and collections)
Due to the broad scope of this review, comprehensive analysis was not performed on every
individual aspect of the SWRD. Instead, we used information gained through the
questionnaires, data requests, and on-site visit to determine the specific areas for
analytical focus in which operations and staffing could see the greatest improvement.
16 | P a g e
Landfill
The City of Denton Landfill (CDL) accepts solid waste from City of Denton Collections
(CDC), public residents of the city, and private haulers. In the past 10 years, landfill
tonnage has seen substantial growth, from accepting a total 170,972 tons in calendar year
2008 (averaging 541 tons per day), to 392,098 in calendar year 2017 (averaging 1,240 tons
per day).
This increased tonnage has seen a corresponding growth in landfill revenue from tipping
fees collected at the scales. Total scale revenue has grown from about $5.5 million in 2008
to $10.75 million in 2017.
In addition to growth of the traditional landfill operation, SWRD has instituted multiple
ancillary operations at the landfill, including:
Building Material Recovery (BMR)
Rubble Processing
Enhanced Leachate Recirculation (ELR)
In our experience at hundreds of waste facilities, we have found that in times of rapid
growth and addition of ancillary activities, foundational inefficiency within the landfill’s
operations can occur. These inefficiencies often involve excessive staffing and overuse of
heavy equipment (i.e., high utilization rates), and a lack of overall operations planning.
We sometimes find that ancillary facilities and site infrastructure are over-built. These
17 | P a g e
types of problems are simply the too-common result of having lots of available revenue
and losing sight of sound business practices in regard to revenue v. cost.
The following sections discuss key areas we identified for operational improvement at the
CDL.
Landfill Operations Planning
On-site observations and interviews indicate that landfill planning is not happening to the
extent it should. This is evidenced in long-term planning with the placement of soil
stockpiles in areas that are not readily accessible, portions of the soil stockpile overlaying
(piggyback) on previously screened concrete/asphalt rubble, and inadequate planning to
provide uninterrupted wet-weather access for waste vehicles.
While the CDL has a Site Layout Plan that address cell boundaries and overall site layout,
the actual day-to-day operations planning of constructing the landfill and handling
material currently is not happening. BRS asked landfill supervisors and operators how cells
are constructed, where the face will be in the coming weeks/months, and other site
development questions. It was clear that while supervisors may have an idea in their heads,
there is currently not a documented, nor optimized, plan for landfill development.
By planning ahead for both long-term and short-term operations, significant savings and
efficiency improvements are possible. These will result in immediate benefits in
operations and down-the-road benefits in the form of landfill airspace utilization. BRS
recommends that the following be developed for the CDL:
Soil Management Plan
Fill Sequence Plan
Wet Weather Preparation Plan
Soil Management Plan
A practical and efficient Soil Management Plan (SMP) takes the typical broad and
generalized sequencing of long-term landfill site development and converts it to a
financially-optimized development plan. Like a chess player planning moves ahead, an
SMP will identify the most efficient and cost-effective way to manage soil excavation,
transport and stockpiling, liner development, closure sequencing – and all major capital
(construction) projects that will be required throughout the remaining life of the landfill.
During preparation of the SMP, many different scenarios are considered, along with the
expected timeline and related cost. In most cases, the timing of specific capital
expenditures such as liners, final cap, large-scale excavation, is based on the rate of
consumption for landfill airspace.
18 | P a g e
While an SMP would include operational improvements to slow the consumption of
landfill airspace, it would also be looking at the most effective ways to increase compaction
and reduce cover soil usage. An SMP all also be looking for ways to defer the most
expensive projects for the longest period of time.
An SMP is all about strategic planning the development of the landfill – to minimize the
actual net-present cost. Once the volumes and other cost-related data has been compiled,
creation of a practical SMP effectively becomes a matter of looking at various development
options under a “What If” scenarios.
Upon completion of an SMP, the landfill will have an excavation/development plan that
will maximize the existing on-site soil, minimize double-handling, and push future capital
costs (i.e., liner construction, closure, etc.) as far into the future as is practically possible
– generally through the entire life of the landfill. This approach – of creating a SMP – is
cost-effective because it helps streamline the operation. will prove cost-effective by
maximizing air space. It will also allow the landfill to take advantage of potential
settlement by strategically placing soil stockpiles on top of existing waste.
Finally, this SMP information, along with the major cost items associated with all
activities, should be plotted on a timeline so that the timing of major events, remaining
capacity, and associated cash flow can be evaluated. This should include the calculating
of the Net Present Value (NPV) for all future costs.
Based on economic analysis and adjusted to match other requirements (i.e., is it practical
and buildable?), the CDL will be able to identify the most efficient, practical, and cost-
effective scenario. We recommend that the CDL develop an SMP that will identify the
optimum development scenario for the landfill, while presenting it in a practical format
that supervisors and the landfill team can easily understand and follow.
In essence, the SMP becomes the goal, toward which the Annual Fill Sequence Plan moves.
Annual Fill Sequence Plan
An Annual Fill Sequence Plan (FSP) is an engineering drawing that provides step-by-step
guidance for filling the landfill. Compared to the SMP, an FSP is relatively short-term:
generally covering a period of 12-18 months. An effective FSP addresses the following:
Are storm water controls adequate and properly located?
Where will the next wet-weather tipping pad be located?
How long will the current lined area last and are we fully utilizing the existing fill
capacity?
Are the short-term access roads, stockpiles and haul roads in the best locations?
19 | P a g e
Are there problems with the current topography in regard to drainage, erosion,
or infiltration …and how will they be corrected?
How can the next 12-18 months of filling most effectively work toward the overall
development of the landfill?
The FSP provides answers to these and other questions. However, it more than just show
an arbitrary sequence of filling - it shows an "optimized" operation. Optimizing the
landfill's FSP ensure that the overall operation is as productive and cost-effective as
possible. An optimized sequence plan also provide the basis for annual budgeting and
scheduling. Quantifying and ensuring adequate filling capacity - especially during wet
weather – should be included as well.
Wet Weather Tipping Pad
Denton received 1.74 inches of rain in a single day during our on-site visit. This made for
a very muddy, messy, and unsafe operation at the tipping face. We witnessed multiple
trucks become stuck in the mud, and require the bulldozer to pull them out. In speaking
to landfill employees as well as regular customers, the perspective was that this type of
operation is normal when it rains, and there wasn’t much to be done about it.
We recommend that the CDL follow the industry standard best management practice
(BMP) for wet weather landfill operations and construct a wet-weather tipping pad. A wet-
weather tipping pad is a designated tipping and access road constructed for all-weather
access and constructed with unprocessed rubble and may be topped with aggregate. The
intent is that these roads/pads will be used only during wet conditions. During dry
periods, filling would occur on areas accessible via unsurfaced roads/pads. Wet-weather
tipping pads often increase customer and employee safety as well as improve operations.
In order to minimize the cost of constructing these all-weather roads and tipping pads,
their location should be pre-determined in the FSP. With this pre-planning, customers
can be instructed to unload rock and rubble at the desired wet-weather tipping pad
location throughout the year. This allows this material to be collected and stockpiled
where it will be needed and allow CDL to avoid the cost of loading and transporting it.
For more information on how a wet-weather tipping pad would fit into current landfill
operations, see the following Rubble Processing section.
Examples of Planning “Optimization”
The following are examples of how an SMP and FSP not only help plan the future of the
landfill but can be used to optimize the operation by increasing efficiency, reducing costs,
and improving safety.
20 | P a g e
Push Distance Optimization
At the CDL, waste is pushed from where it is
dumped (by garbage trucks) to the active
tipping face. When working from a wet
weather tipping pad, this process creates two
conflicting costs.
Here is an example of optimized push
distance. The brown line shows the all-
weather pad cost per day – indicating that the
further you are willing to push the trash from
the tipping pad, the longer that particular pad
will last. This allows the cost of that pad to be
amortized over a longer period of time. In
essence, the cost decreases with distance – it
becomes asymptotic (i.e., approaches zero).
The yellow line shows the dozer cost. The dozer cost is obviously directly proportional to
push distance, the further the push, the more dozer hours required (and so the cost
increases). This is a linear function.
Finally, the red line shows the combined costs of the two parameters. The low point in
the red line is the “optimized” point, where the two opposing costs (pad and dozer) are
minimized. This low point corresponds to the optimum push distance.
Haul Road Slope Optimization
The longitudinal slope of the haul roads used
by scrapers or articulated trucks (i.e., soil
haulers) is normally set to minimize cost
(…which also maximizes efficiency). This
process is again, a balancing act between flatter
slopes – which allow vehicles to move quickly
but not rapidly gain elevation, and steep slopes
– that gain elevation quicker …but reduce
vehicle speed. Effective planning would
evaluate specific productivity curves for the
CDL fleet of articulated haul trucks in order to
determine the optimum slope – seeking the
slope that allows these vehicles to be most
efficient.
21 | P a g e
This type of analysis would be included in a SMP, where future phasing of the landfill is
evaluated.
During our time on-site, we observed soil being hauled to the active face, using the same
access road(s) as the waste vehicles. And, while this is clearly an excellent haul road, it is
not safe for waste vehicles. We strongly recommend that heavy equipment (i.e.,
articulated haul trucks) not be allowed to operate on the same roads used for waste
vehicles. Additionally, these haul trucks cause damage and increased road maintenance
by dropping a lot of dirt/mud on the haul road. In future planning, dedicated haul roads
should be designed/constructed for heavy equipment.
In regard to daily operations, we suggest the landfill adopt two (2) important changes:
Pancake Cell Construction (PCC) and a Typewriter Tipping Pattern (TTP). These are
explained below:
Pancake Cell Construction
We suggest the CDL staff transition from
their historic advancing face cell
construction technique to a horizontal
“Pancake” cell construction (PCC) method.
We offer the following information and
background relating to pancake cell
construction.
Selecting the best overall kind of cell
construction can be a complex task. Many of
the major factors are inter-related. For
example, in order to minimize the use of
intermediate cover soil (on each lift of trash), a very thick lift would be preferable. However,
a thick lift, when combined with uphill pushing results in the dozers having to work much
harder. Similarly, a steep working face will minimize the amount of ADC required, but
will also slow the compactors, thus resulting in decreased density. In the following
sections, we will present what we believe are the most significant issues related to
horizontal cell construction.
The first issue is related purely to geometry, and the fact that a small daily cell will require
a higher percentage of cover soil than a large cell. As cell size increases, the surface area
increases as a squared function (i.e., length x width), whereas the volume increases as a
cubed function (i.e., length x width x depth).
22 | P a g e
So, in order to take maximum advantage of this economy of scale, we recommended that
CDL begin constructing what are, in essence, weekly cells. Thus, instead of building and
covering daily cells, the interval of placing cover soil is deferred to once every week.
At the beginning of the next stack, previously-placed soil should be stripped for the next
footprint (pictured). The stripped soil should be stockpiled at the side of the cell for re-
use. This salvaged soil can be used to fill initial voids prior to using clean cover soil.
Additionally, pre-fill stripping tends to minimize leachate seeping issues and can also
improve landfill gas flow.
Waste would then be spread horizontally across the stripped area and compacted.
23 | P a g e
At the end of the day, the waste is covered with tarps. Only the side slope receives cover
soil green waste, salvaged soil or other suitable material. This graphic shows 2 tarps,
however, depending on many factors, we expect many more tarps would be required at
the CDL.
Each day, the tarp is removed, and more waste is placed. Once the stack reaches grade,
the entire process is repeated at an adjacent location.
At the end, the stack of pancakes would be covered with soil, and the face would be
covered with a tarp. The next day, the entire process would be repeated. Please note: the
completion of the stack does not have to occur on any specific day …or on any set time of
day. It is simply completed when the stack reaches grade – and if it doesn’t reach grade or
isn’t ready to receive cover soil by the end of the day it is simply re-tarped.
24 | P a g e
By changing the way waste cells have historically been constructed, and by minimizing
the quantity of soil used for daily cover, we believe the CDL can continue to extend its life
and save a significant quantity of soil. And, as the CDL staff refines these practices, we
expect to see the landfill operation become more efficient and consistent.
Obviously, adopting the PCC will require a more diligent use of the mechanical tarping
unit – and the purchase of additional tarps.
Typewriter Tipping Pattern
While onsite, the pattern for how commercial vehicles dumped at the active tipping area
was inconsistent and undefined at times. This inconsistent tipping pattern created some
inefficiencies, confusion, liabilities, and potential safety issues. In conjunction with the
recommended Spotter practices, we encourage the CDL to fully and consistently
implement a “Typewriter” Tipping Pattern (TTP).
A TTP requires that once a commercial
tipping row is started, the adjacent slots are
occupied and eventually cleared by the
bulldozer in a consistent and logical manner
(either left to right or right to left). Tipping
out of sequence is discouraged as this
minimizes the predictability and intent of
the pattern. Using the appropriate amount
of tipping slots discussed within the Landfill
Production Analysis and Optimum Cell
Geometry sections of this report will further
minimize the congestion, chaos and safety
issues traditionally encountered during peak tonnage periods.
25 | P a g e
The TTP has additional benefits: First it allows the customers, spotter and equipment
operators to all know where the next load is going to be spotted. By maintaining a
minimum 2 slot buffer, the pattern allows customers to remain a safe distance from the
bulldozer as it clears the tipping pad and integrates waste into the cell. This safety buffer
also prevents the bulldozer from having to sneak in between two trucks to hastily push
the loads to make room for the next inbound customer. The standardized pattern allows
uniform practices from one staff member to the next, minimizing confusion and
inconsistent practices.
We have provided a series of illustrations in Appendix C. describing the basic TTP
fundamentals.
Along with implementing a TTP, we also suggest that a spotter’s station be installed at the
tipping pad. This is an important step in helping truck drivers become familiar with the
TTP, it also minimizes potential risk to the spotter.
26 | P a g e
Spotter Station
The landfill tipping pad is typically one of the
most hazardous areas at a landfill. Based on
our observations, we feel that the CDL staff
needs to improve safety at the tipping pad.
At times we observed some confusion at the
tipping pad in regard to where/when the
next truck should dump. We suggest this be
remedied through clearly defined procedures
and additional operations training. Of
utmost importance, we recommend that the
CDL consider utilizing a portable spotter’s station (pictured).
Safety is of utmost concern when placing a spotter on a busy landfill tipping floor. When
used in conjunction with the Typewriter Tipping Pattern a dedicated portable spotter
station is an excellent method a safely and effectively spotting customer loads. The intent
of this station is for the spotters to greet the customers, check loads and provide general
customer direction while keeping the spotters confined and safe. The direction provided
by the spotter should be in relation to which
“slot” the customer should utilize. It is
important that the spotters do not assume
too much liability by providing excessive
direction. For example, if a spotter is
directing a customer and the customer backs
into another vehicle, the spotter could
potentially be liable.
We recommend that the spotters stay in the
spotter’s station as frequently as possible.
We do not encourage spotters to direct
traffic from the potentially dangerous
tipping floor. If the spotter station is positioned properly, a spotter can adequately provide
customer direction while viewing all that is taking place at the tipping area.
Rubble Processing
The rubble material the landfill receives consists of broken concrete, asphalt, and bricks.
The rubble data used through this section is drawn from the Concrete Receipt & Crushed
Concrete Sales Analysis (dated 3/19/18) that BRS received from SWRD while on-site.
27 | P a g e
The following chart indicates that rubble material is routinely being brought in at
approximately half the listed gate rate. The average gate revenue received for all rubble
material in fiscal years 2015-2017 was $3.02/ton.
Rubble material brought to the landfill is currently stockpiled for processing by the CDL
or an outside contractor (Big City). This material has historically been processed into
aggregate base material, and stockpiled elsewhere on-site for sales to customers, or used
as landfill road base, or placement at the tipping face during wet weather.
While this processed aggregate base material is useful for well-manicured roads and may
have increased outside sales potential, it is not effective road base for landfill access roads
or wet weather tipping pads. In the landfill setting, with heavy trucks and equipment, this
aggregate base material is easily pushed into the soil, especially in wet weather, providing
little to none of the desired benefit.
We suggest that most of the concrete and asphalt rubble can be used as is (un-processed)
for roads and tipping pads, because this type of material creates a stronger, much more
durable road.
Some processed aggregate is being sold to customers. In the past 3 fiscal years (2015-2017)
however, only about 10% of inbound concrete and asphalt was sold. This means that the
majority of rubble material is currently:
Listed Gate Rate
$/ton
Average Gate Revenue
$/ton
Concrete $8.00 $3.37
Asphalt $8.00 $3.39
Brick $2.00 $0.01
Average Total Rubble $6.00 $3.02
Fiscal Years 2015-2017
Rubble Listed Gate Rate vs. Average Gate Revenue
28 | P a g e
1. Being brought across the scales at nearly half price (averaging $3.02/ton)
2. Handled by CDL equipment and placed in stockpiles
3. Processed by either CDL (averaging $5.04/ton) or by Big City (averaging
$7.35/ton)
4. Handled by CDL equipment and placed in stockpiles
5. Roughly 10% of processed material handled by CDL equipment and sold to
customers (averaging $8.66/ton)
6. Remaining 90% of processed material is either:
a. Handled by CDL equipment and placed on roads and tipping pads for little to
no benefit, and potentially taking up airspace (currently valued by SWRD at
$6/cubic yard)
b. Collecting in on-site stockpiles
As the following chart indicates, 205,474 tons of processed material has remained on-site
in the last 3 years, and a combined loss of $387,039 has occurred due to the rubble
processing operation. Of course, this “loss” is based on cost v. revenue and does not
account for the benefit of the material that was used on-site. However, even though the
CDL did receive some benefit from the processed material, the value to the landfill does
not warrant the high cost of processing this material, because:
The CDL may not have needed the full volume of aggregate that was produced. We
suspect that it was used because it was available on-site;
We also believe that processing the rubble into aggregate base adds significant cost
to create a product that doesn’t perform as well as the unprocessed material;
Based on the ongoing financial losses, expensive specialized equipment required, and
inefficient operations and staff utilization, we recommend that the SWRD:
Tons Revenue/Expenses
Concrete, Asphalt, & Brick Tons Received 226,171 $683,116.00
Material Processed by Big City (Actual Expenses 2015-2017)45,729 -$336,162.00
Material Processed by SWRD (Actual Expenses 2015-2017)180,442 -$910,366.00
Crushed Concrete & Asphalt Sales 20,697 $176,373.00
Tons of Concrete & Asphalt Remaining On-Site
(Processed & Not Sold)205,474
-$387,039.00
Rubble Processing Operation Fiscal Years 2015-2017
Concrete & Asphalt Income FY 2015-2017
29 | P a g e
1. As previously mentioned in this report, develop a detailed SMP and FSP that will
identify the location of future tipping pad(s). Those pads be constructed a year or
more prior to when they will be used. The inbound customers with select rubble
would then be directed to the future tipping pad(s), thus eliminating the CDL’s
future cost of processing and transporting.
2. We estimate a wet-weather tipping pad and access road requiring roughly 3,380
tons of rubble annually
3. Discontinue processing rubble in-house. Most rubble can be used as-is for other on-
site purposes, without further processing or taking up valuable airspace. This would
allow the sale of all heavy equipment,
grinders and screeners dedicated to
this operation. Money received from
these equipment sales should be set
aside in CDL reserves for future
equipment maintenance/purchases.
4. Contract Big City on an annual basis to
process large pieces of concrete
(thicker than 2 feet) or pieces with lots
of protruding rebar. Big City would
also process into fine aggregate only
the amount of tonnage CDL forecasts
selling in the coming fiscal year and
needs on-site based on landfill
planning.
a. We estimate the amount of
processed tonnage required will
reduce to 10,000 tons per year or
less.
5. Gate rates for all rubble materials
should be increased and consistently
charged. Detailed analysis and trials
should be conducted to determine the
price point that:
a. Ensures that the CDL receives
the rubble tonnage required for on-site uses and forecasted aggregate sales
b. Reduces incoming tonnage that will end up stockpiled and unused
c. Maximizes CDL profitability
NOTE ON BMR ANALYSIS:
One portion of the BMR is rubble
processing, which has already been
discussed in a previous section. The
data received for the BMR operation
overall included tonnages and values
for rubble/aggregate material that was
inconsistent with the data we received
specifically for rubble processing.
Inconsistencies included:
Incoming tonnages and
revenues
Big City contracted expenses
and tons processed
Crushed concrete sold
tonnage and revenue
Rather than forensically analyze and
manipulate the data to reconcile these
inconsistencies, we have conducted
our analysis of these portions using
the respective data sources SWRD
provided.
30 | P a g e
Building Material Recovery
The Building Material Recovery (BMR) operation, established in November 2011, is meant
to increase landfill airspace utilization and diversion of inbound construction and
demolition material through sorting, shredding, reuse, and recycling of material.
Airspace
We believe the additional density gained by shredding the material at the BMR is not
worth the effort or cost. Instead, by properly using the existing landfill equipment, the
landfill could achieve in-place waste density that exceeds the current density rate… for
much less cost. In our experience at many other landfills across North America, those that
consistently achieve the highest in-place density, are doing so with traditional landfill
compactors and an appropriate application of water/leachate. Applying leachate/water to
the active face is something we suggest the landfill pursue (from a regulatory approval
standpoint). From an operations perspective, it is a good practice and will yield better
density, reduced litter and over the long term, a more consistent and uniform gas
production than the ELR. As noted later in this report however, increasing gas production
– through the application of water at the face or through the ELR, do not appear to be
practical at this time. In any event, the BMR is simply not cost effective.
Staffing and Heavy Equipment Utilization
Staffing required for the BMR operation includes 2 supervisors and 5 heavy equipment
operators. The BMR also currently requires multiple pieces of specialized and costly heavy
equipment, including, but not limited to:
CAT 973 Waste Handler ($548,231)
Komatsu PC490 Excavator ($388,140)
Powerscreen Sorting Table ($193,000)
RotoChopper 900 HP High Speed Grinder ($770,900)
Doppstadt DW3060k Slow Speed Shredder ($613,446)
Volvo L180E Wheel Loader ($295,850)
While on-site we observed very poor utilization of both staff and equipment. Disposed
material is being excessively handled with little to no added value with each touch.
Observed examples include:
Volvo L180E Wheel Loader picking up 10-20 lbs. of metal material at a time and
loading into roll-off bin
Skid steers picking up small metal items and loading into roll-off bin
Cat 973 Waste Handler picking individual 8 to 10-foot lengths of material (pipes,
wood, etc.)
10 to 12-person sorting table/pick-line being operated by 1 employee
31 | P a g e
Magnetic lead separating metal that is contaminated from snagging carpet, foam,
and other material in the grinding process.
Financial Viability
While the scope of this project does not include an in-depth feasibility analysis of the
BMR, our on-site observations raised questions regarding the financial viability of the
operation.
Gate fees for material processed at the BMR would not factor in determining the BMR’s
financial viability since the landfill would still be receiving that revenue if material was to
be landfilled, and not processed through the BMR at all. The additional processing of
material by BMR staff and equipment should prove financially viable through the
combination of:
Commodity sales revenue
The value of lined-landfill airspace saved through diversion and consolidation of
processed solid waste material
Using the BMR proformas available, we compared these BMR revenue/value streams to
operating expenses for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 and 2017.
Commodity sales revenue in both years covers less than half of operating expenses, leaving
the remaining expenses to be funded through the value of airspace savings. To cover
operating expenses, the BMR needed to reduce airspace consumption by an additional
80,780 cy in FY 2015, and 58,474 cy in FY 2017 (at the SWRD calculated airspace value of
$6/cy). Instead of generating profit, the BMR operation caused a combined loss of over
$800,000 in these two years alone.
We believe that actual losses are even greater however. We utilized data and values
provided by SWRD in the above calculations, but in reviewing these proformas, we found
issues with the method of calculating diverted materials.
2015 2017
Commodity Sales Revenue $175,785.00 $314,926.00
Reported Airspace Savings Value on BMR Pro Forma $436,138.00 $453,565.00
Reported BMR Revenue $611,923.00 $768,491.00
BMR Operating Expenses $1,096,604.00 $1,119,336.00
BMR Income -$484,681.00 -$350,845.00
BMR Financial Viability FY 2015 & 2017
32 | P a g e
BMR material stockpiled or placed within the landfill footprint should not count as
diverted material, as is currently the case. Even if the material is intended for beneficial
use, it is still consuming landfill airspace. Only the following pro forma categories should
count toward diversion:
Mixed C&D
Tires
Cardboard (OCC)
Electronics Sales (ECS)
Metal Sales
Wood Loads
Processed Wood to Compost Operations
Wood Chip Public Sales
Concrete & Asphalt
Road Base – Reduced Rate Material
Crushed Concrete Public Sales
An accurate accounting of diverted material would drastically decrease the value of
airspace savings reported on current proformas, resulting in greater losses than those
previously indicated.
Recommendations
The BMR data presented throughout this section, along with our experience at other solid
waste facilities with similar operations, lends to the conclusion that the BMR is not
financially viable.
Based on our observations of ongoing financial losses, expensive specialized equipment
required, operational inefficiencies, poor utilization of staff, as well as the current
recycling commodity markets, we recommend that SWRD:
1. Discontinue BMR operations.
2. Sell all heavy equipment, grinders, screeners, etc. dedicated to the BMR. The
money received from these equipment sales should be set aside in SWRD reserves
for future equipment maintenance/purchases.
3. Refocus efforts to increase airspace utilization on improving landfill compaction
and soil usage. Landfill life expectancy and operational efficiency can be
increased to a far greater degree using these methods than grinding material for
size reduction.
The current BMR operation does provide an unloading area for self-haul vehicles. So,
while we are recommending that the BMR operation be halted, there may be some benefit
to having self-haul vehicles dump in that same area (as opposed to dumping at the landfill
33 | P a g e
face.) However, this will increase operating costs. As an alternative, we suggest that the
fill sequence planning provide for a safe unloading area (for self-haul vehicles) adjacent to
the tipping pad
Enhanced Leachate Recirculation System
The Enhanced Leachate Recirculation (ELR) system pumps collected leachate back
through the landfill. The goal of the ELR system is to:
Generate more LFG to increase the amount of power produced by LFG-to-energy
system
Extend the life expectancy of the landfill by increasing the rate of landfill
settlement to provide additional available airspace
We will address each of these goals individually in the following sections.
Landfill Gas Generation
In 2004 SWRD entered a 20-year landfill gas (LFG) contract with DTE Biomass Energy
(DTE). This contract includes the following responsibilities for each party:
34 | P a g e
SWRD Responsibilities DTE Responsibilities
Provide DTE exclusive rights to LFG
Pay capital cost of LFG collection
system, extraction wells, & flare
Build, maintain, manage, and
monitor generating station and gas
collection system
Pay City of Denton 12.5% royalty of
gross power sales
We believe that the current gas migration issue is being exacerbated by the addition of
leachate into the landfill’s waste mass. A problem that cannot – under the current gas
system contract – be mitigated. From that perspective alone, we suggest the ELR process
be discontinued for the time being.
If/when control of the gas collection system comes under the full control of the landfill,
they the ELR may make sense – for two reasons. There may be revenue gained from the
sale/use of landfill gas – and the increased settlement produced by injecting leachate will
help extend landfill life.
Landfill Life Expectancy
While the ELR system may increase the speed at which landfill settlement occurs, the total
settlement of solid waste material will ultimately be of negligible difference. We believe
the SWRD’s goal of extending landfill life expectancy can be achieved more effectively
through improved operational techniques. There are a number of operational aspects of
the landfill that are currently not performing at the level of industry best management
practice. Making the needed operational improvements would greatly increase airspace
utilization and extend the landfill’s life.
Two key areas of focus should be soil usage and compaction. Landfill airspace utilization
data we were provided by SWRD, indicated that the landfill’s effective density (pounds of
waste per cubic yard of airspace consumed) for FY 2017 was 1,100 pounds/cy. We believe
there is room for significant improvement. Solid waste industry best management
practices average between 1,500 and 1,600 pounds/cy.
If the landfill had been operating at this level for the last 10 years, there would currently
be an additional 1.2 million cy of airspace available. At industry standard densities, CDL
could automatically begin saving over 100,000 cy of airspace annually, quickly adding
years onto the landfill’s life expectancy.
35 | P a g e
Recommendations
We see no significant value being added to the landfill by the ELR operation. As
highlighted in the previous sections:
The CDL is currently having LFG migration issues, and has no need for the
additional LFG generated through ELR
Bringing landfill operations up to industry best management practices will have
a greater impact on airspace utilization and landfill life expectancy than ELR –
but in the future, ELR may actually help to further improve the landfill’s
performance
With these points in mind, we recommend that SWRD:
1. Decrease/discontinue ELR operations
2. Prioritize improving airspace utilization by implementing industry best
management practices, such as:
a. Minimizing soil usage through:
i. Alternative daily cover
ii. Tarps
iii. Improved cell geometry and construction techniques
iv. Soil salvage
v. Improved cover preparation and placement techniques
vi. Landfill planning
b. Improve waste density/compaction through:
i. Proper compactor wheels/teeth
ii. Flat compaction
iii. Improved compactor operation techniques
iv. Improve compactive effort
Equipment
Our operations review included an assessment of equipment utilized at the landfill.
Ancillary Equipment
As mentioned in the preceding sections, we believe a number of ancillary landfill activities
should be discontinued or reduced. We also found a number of redundant or under-
utilized pieces of equipment that can also be sold at auction.
We recommend that SWRD:
Sell equipment dedicated to the BMR and Rubble Processing operations. The
money received from these equipment sales should be set aside in SWRD reserves
for future equipment maintenance/purchases.
Assess all other equipment for utilization and redundancy
36 | P a g e
Landfill Heavy Equipment
In the process of evaluating the landfill operation, we considered the current equipment
fleet compared to inbound waste tonnage. Using our experience at hundreds of other
landfills as point of reference, we concluded that some change is in order. These changes
include the following:
Primary Landfill Dozer (Komatsu D155): This machine is properly sized to handle the
inbound waste stream. However, we believe it is being over-utilized. It appears that this
machine logged approximately 2,730 hours last year. We believe that by changing the
layout of the tipping pad to a typewriter dumping pattern, the dozer’s working hours could
be reduced by more than 50%, to approximately 1,300 hours per year.
Landfill Compactor (Caterpillar 826K): The CDL currently utilizes two Caterpillar 826K
compactors. These machines worked a combined total of approximately 4,300 hours last
year. Based on density tests we have performed at other landfills – and on our experience
across the industry – we believe that these machines should actually be working a
combined total of 5,600 hours per year. This is based on the optimum waste density being
achieved when an 826k handles approximately 70 tons of waste per hour.
More importantly, these compactors are too small for the inbound tonnage at the CDL.
Under the current configuration, the 826Ks can handle the tonnage if they increase their
work hours from 4,300 to 5,600 hours per year. Unfortunately, when one of them is down,
the remaining compactor is unable to handle the inbound waste tonnage.
So, we recommend that they be replaced by two Caterpillar 836 landfill compactors (or
other makes of similar size). A Caterpillar 836K can handle approximately 125 tons of
waste per hour – which means that 1 machine could handle most of the inbound tonnage,
with the 2nd machine helping during peak tonnage periods. And, if one of them goes down,
the remaining machine can – for the most part- hold its own in terms of keeping up with
the tonnage.
Komatsu D65 Dozer: This machine is well-suited for placing cover soil, stripping soil,
track-walking the waste surface prior to placing cover soil, and a host of other projects
where a more detailed, lighter touch is required. We recommend this machine be further
integrated into the waste covering operation.
Articulated Haul Trucks: We believe that the three (3) articulated haul trucks
currently at the landfill is excessive. By adopting a Pancake Cell Construction (PCC)
system, we estimate that the daily cover process will require approximately 1.5 hours per
day – for 1 truck. Of course, there are other uses for an articulated haul truck, but we do
not see the need for three of them. Aggressively, the CDL could likely operate with one
truck …or two if a backup is desired. However, because of the wide distribution of these
37 | P a g e
types of trucks, we would expect that a backup truck could be obtained on fairly short
notice. Also, by careful pre-planning (i.e., Fill Sequence Planning), future stockpiles of
cover soil could be strategically placed out ahead of the fill operation, making truck
down-time much less of a crisis.
Tarp-O-Matic: We recommend that the CDL increase the use of the Tarp-O-Matic.
This is a foundational component of the Pancake Cell Construction (PCC) system. In
that regard, additional tarps will be required. Also, the CDL crew will be required to
improve the geometry of daily cell construction in order to allow consistent utilization of
the tarps.
38 | P a g e
Collections
Collection Overview
In 2017, City of Denton Collections (CDC) collected 76,984 tons of MSW, 11,050 tons of
recyclables, and 7,178 tons of yard waste from approximately 32,000 residential, 2,300
commercial, and 100 scheduled roll-off accounts. CDC provides a variety of services for
residential customers including MSW, recycling, and bulky item collection. They also offer
door-to-door curbside household chemical collection. CDC provides commercial
customers MSW and recycling collection, and they have started collecting food waste.
Dispatch
Commercial routes start at 4:30 a.m. No dispatcher or supervisor is available at the start
of the shift. The routes are scheduled the night before and posted in the drivers’ computer
room. Open routes, no driver available, are listed on the daily schedule. All paperwork is
placed in the driver’s mailbox along with any special instruction like a notice to pick up or
drop off a truck at the maintenance facility.
Drivers complained that because there is no dispatcher or supervisor at the beginning of
the shift, they are not able to get the route list for the open routes. It's essential for drivers
to get the route list early because almost all routes have time-critical stops that need to be
picked up first thing in the morning, to avoid traffic or blocked containers. Drivers claim
if a supervisor was available they could get the customer list for the open route early,
divide up the time-sensitive stops between themselves and collect them before going on
their route, this would save time by avoiding delays due to traffic or blocked containers.
39 | P a g e
Commercial and residential supervisors
start at 6:30 a.m. The same time as the
residential and roll-off drivers.
Supervisors rotate a late shift to ensure
there is supervision at the end of the
day.
Residential routes are scheduled the
night before and revised in the morning
for drivers who call in to alert dispatch
that they are not reporting for work. All
paperwork is placed in the driver’s
mailbox along with any special
instruction. Residential drivers have a
chance to speak with supervisors to
discuss any truck, route, or customer
service issues before they start their
route.
Roll-off routes are scheduled the night
before, and all paperwork is placed in
their mailbox. Like the residential
drivers, roll-off drivers have a chance to
speak with supervisors to discuss any
truck, route, or customer service issues
before they start their route. Roll-off routes are adjusted throughout the morning. CDC
accepts customer calls for roll-off service up to 11 a.m. Calls before 11 a.m. are dispatched
to the driver for a collection that day.
Recommendations for dispatch: A dispatcher/supervisor position is recommended in
the Staffing and Organization Chart section located further in this report. See that section
for details.
40 | P a g e
Route and Truck Assignments
Crews are generally
assigned to the same route
with the same truck every
day. This practice allows
for the consistent
collection and improves
customer service.
However, when there are
open routes or not enough
trucks, drivers and trucks
are shuffled to ensure that
all material is picked up
before the end of the
workday.
Route Maps and Route
Lists
All residential drivers are
given a map of the day’s
route. Their pre/post-trip
form has a section for
customers that have
special service
requirements.
Residential
Collection
Introduction
CDC operates a variety of truck styles and models to collect all residential material
curbside including municipal solid waste (MSW), recycling, yard waste, bulky items, and
household chemical collection. Drivers work four 10-hour days Monday through Friday.
The MSW and recycling routes have a single driver/operator. All other routes have a two-
person crew except the grapple route and the hybrid route. The grapple route has a single
driver/operator, and the hybrid route has a three-person crew.
41 | P a g e
Residential Trash Collection
There are seven 4-day residential automated side-loader (ASL) MSW collection routes.
CDC runs one additional MSW route on Tuesday. All routes have a single-person,
driver/operator. According to the response to our questionnaire, each MSW route has 1120
scheduled lifts per day. Based on our experience, 95 to 98 percent of customers put their
MSW cart out for collection each week. Consequently, each route makes about 1,064 to
1,097 lifts/day.
A report prepared for the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) states that
automated routes can make about 950 to 1,000 lifts a day. This lift count should be
considered a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. Productivity can vary from community
to community and route to route depending on topography, housing density, distance to
the post-collection facility, traffic, and other factors.
Recommendation for Residential Trash Collection:
CDC should conduct an objective study to determine if the residential MSW route lifts per
day provide for a full day’s work. Although 1,000 lifts/day appears reasonable, the crews
work 10-hour days. It is possible that the routes can be made larger.
Residential Recycling Collection
There are seven 4-day residential ASL recycling collection routes. CDC runs one additional
recycling route on Tuesday. All routes have a single-person, driver/operator. It is unusual
to have 1:1 ratio of MSW routes to recycling routes because the setout rate (the number of
carts set out on any given collection day) for recycling carts is usually between 60 and 70%
compared to 95 to 98% for MSW carts.
The response to BRS’s questionnaire listed recycling route with 1120 account or drive-bys
a day, the same as MSW routes. The actual set-out rate is not known, but it is low based
on the tonnage collected. The recycling drivers drive by the same number of homes as the
MSW drivers, yet they collect only 22% of the residential tonnage, excluding yard waste.
Material/Truck Routes Days Crew
Size
Average
Lifts/Day
Loads/Da
y
Average
Tons/Load
Average
Hours/Day
MSW * 7.25*4 1 1,120 2 8 10
Recycling * 7.25*4 1 1,120 2 4 10
Hybrid, half MSW, half
recycling
1 3 3 450 2 N/A 10
Yard Waste 4 4 2 128 1 4 10
Brush, Grapple 2 4 1 18 N/A N/A 10
Bulky Items 1 4 2 35 N/A N/A 10
Residential Route Profile
*The Department also runs one extra MSW and one extra recycle route one day a week on Tuesday
42 | P a g e
Low tonnage indicates that the recycling cart setout rate could as low as 50%, or that the
carts on average are 25 to 50% full.
At an assume setout rate of 50 to 60%, recycling drivers make between 561 and 672 lifts
per day. This lift count is low compared to the MSW routes that make between 1064 to
1098 lifts per day. A more reasonable lift count for recycling routes is 90 percent of MSW
routes or 960 to 990 lifts per day because recycling routes drive by more houses to make
their lift count each day.
Another factor indicating low productivity is the average recycling truck payload of 3.88
tons. The maximum legal payload for recycling trucks is about 9 tons. The recycling routes
are averaging less than 50% of the maximum legal carrying capacity of the truck.
Recommendation for Residential Recycling Collection:
CDC should conduct residential recycling route audits to determine the setout rate and
volume per cart. The audits can be done by the supervisors who drive the street before the
driver collects the recyclables and count the number of recycling carts out for collection
and check the volume. If a more independent audit is necessary, perhaps someone from
the Customer Service Department can conduct the audit as part of their on-route training.
A third option is to hire a summer, college-level, intern to do the audit. Ideally, each route
should be audited for four consecutive weeks to get an accurate picture of the recycling
setout rate and cart volume.
After completing the route audits, adjust the recycling routes lift count between 960 to
990 lifts per day or more, depending on the productivity level goal. If the route audits
show that cart are less than one half full, CDC may consider collecting recycling every
other week.
Residential Yard Waste Collection
There are four 2-person rear-loader routes and two grapple trucks that collect yard waste.
The rear loader crews drive by almost 2,000 houses per day averaging less than 4 tons per
load; that’s less than 50% of the truck’s carrying capacity.
The yard waste crews drive their route looking for piles and plastic bags of yard waste to
collect, averaging about 128 collections per day. If a pile has large material, the grapple
truck driver is contacted to assist with collecting the material. The grapple trucks make
about 18 collections per day.
CDC’s yard waste collection system is slow, leaves a mess, is inefficient, and unsafe.
43 | P a g e
Slow: The yard waste piles are loose and untied. Leaves and grass are in plastic bags. The
collectors wrap their arms around the loose branches walk to the back of the truck and
throw the material into the truck’s hopper. The plastic bags with are opened and emptied
into the hopper. The empty bags
are balled up and placed in a
plastic bag hanging on the side of
the truck. The whole process is
time-consuming.
Mess: Some of the piles have
branches with leaves, small
branches, or other loose material.
During the process of hand-
loading the truck, the collector
spills material on the street.
Although they attempt to clean it
up, they leave a fair amount of the
material behind.
Inefficient: The loading is all
done by hand with a 2-person crew driving past 2,000 homes. Two-person crews have a
lot of non-collection time. When the truck is moving from stop to stop, or repositioning
to another location on the route, the helper is non-productive, increasing the cost of the
operation.
When there is a large pile, the grapple truck is called in to help load the material. This
system is convenient for the customer, but inefficient and costly for the City.
In addition, the rear-loader truck chassis used for this operation is not appropriate for the
job. The Peterbilt Model 367 is a high mount truck cab that doesn’t lend itself to getting
in and out of the truck conveniently and safely. Furthermore, the yard waste crews only
make an average of 128 collections a day. The grapple truck operator average 18 collections
a day. Both operations are not efficient.
44 | P a g e
Unsafe: The collection crews
collects both sides of the street at
the same time, sometimes parking
the truck on the wrong side of the
street. One crew member walks
across the street to collect material
and bring it back to the truck. This
exposes the collector to traffic
driving down the street. In this day
and age, with all the distracted
driving, walking across the street
with an armload of branches or
several full plastic bags is
dangerous. Also, handling the
material by hand exposes the
collector to lacerations and puncture wounds, which were 13% of all worker injuries,
especially when they wear short sleeve shirts. Loading the material by hand and the
frequent walking across the street in traffic makes for a dangerous operation.
Lastly, the helper on the crew rides on the narrow rear steep of the truck, riding for blocks
before coming to a pile of yard waste, or riding on the back step when the truck is backing
up. According to ANSI Standard Z245.1, a helper should only ride on the back step of the
truck when,
1. Truck is going less than 10 mph
2. Truck is going less than 1/5 mile
3. Never ride on the back of the truck when the truck is backing.
45 | P a g e
Recommendations for Residential Yard Waste Program:
CDC should consider adopting a cart-based system for collecting yard waste similar to the
one for collecting residential MSW and recycling. Customers would be required to place
all their yard waste in a 95-gallon or other size carts, cutting branches to fit inside.
Customers can put excess material in large paper bags that are acceptable to the program.
The driver can reload the cart with the bags to empty them into the truck. A cart-based
yard waste system is fast to collect, efficient, safe, and doesn’t leave a mess.
If the CDC decides to continue with the same system, they should consider mounting the
rear-loader truck body on a different truck chassis. Peterbilt makes a lower-entry right-
hand drive model. With this type of truck, the Department could eliminate the helper
position and go with a single driver/operator.
Residential Bulky Items Collection
CDC collects bulky items from residents. They use one truck with a two-person crew. The
crew makes an average of 35 collections a day, low by industry standards, which can range
from 100 to 200 collections per day. Bulky collection is a valuable service to the resident;
however, the Department should consider a more efficient way to collect the material.
Recommendations for Bulky Items Collection:
CDC should consider running the bulky item route every other week or every third week
to increase collections to 70 or 100 per day and more in line with industry standards. The
schedule can be seasonally adjusted based on service history.
46 | P a g e
CDC should monitor the workload daily; if they decide to keep the weekly schedule.
When collections for the day are low, the crew could be assigned other duties to fill out
their day.
An additional recommendation is to increase the marketing and advertising for the
program. These additional campaigns could increase participation and perhaps help deter
illegal dumping.
Household Chemical Collection
The Household Chemical Collection (HCC) operation provides residential pickup of
household hazardous materials such as:
Paints
Cleaners
Pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides
Fertilizers
Etc.
A total of 4 employees currently operate the HCC (1 Supervisor and 3 HCC Techs).
Residents call to request a pickup, which will be handled by 1, or sometimes 2, HCC
employees on the residents regular collections day. These collections are conducted using
an HCC pickup truck with material handling bins in the truck bed.
The HCC also operates a ReUse store where select items are stocked, and customers can
collect up to four items at a time. The ReUse store is currently open:
Wednesdays, 12 pm to 6 pm
First and third Saturdays of each month, 7 am to 12 pm
In FY 2017, expenditures for the HCC
totaled $485,741. Projected budgets for FY
2018-2021 are all above $500,000. The HCC,
particularly the residential collection
service, is a very expensive operation that
not all City residents get use of. In FY 2017,
HCC conducted 3,899 pickups, meaning
only 12% of the 32,605 residential
customers utilize the service.
The HCC provides a level of service for
household hazardous materials that is excessive by industry standards, and is being
funded by residents who do not utilize the service.
Residential Pick Ups
2012 2,991
2013 3,130
2014 3,465
2015 3,590
2016 3,793
2017 3,899
Household Chemical Collection
47 | P a g e
Our interviews revealed that residents often attempt to drop off material to the HCC
building. In multiple instances, illegal dumping of household hazardous material has been
discovered at the blue bin site on Mayhill Road or in surrounding areas following the
refusal to accept a resident’s material.
With the above factors in mind, we recommend that SWRD discontinue the HCC
residential collections service, and instead obtain the appropriate permitting to operate
as a regional drop-off facility only. This would allow SWRD to:
Immediately reduce the ongoing costs of HCC operation
Sell vehicles currently used for the HCC
Better utilize staff, and avoid the hiring of an additional employee when regional
drop-off begins
Commercial Collections
Commercial Trash Collection
The commercial division of CDC
collects MSW, comingled paper,
cardboard and food waste. There
are seven MSW routes Monday
through Friday, one hybrid route on
Tuesday and Friday that collects
one load of MSW and one load
recyclabes and two Saturday MSW
routes. The Monday through Friday
MSW routes average 102 lifts per
day. This lift count is low
considering that all the containers
are considered “stabs”1, which is the
most productive way to empty
front-loader containers.
Occasionally, though, a driver may have to exit the truck to open and close a gate to an
enclosure.
The industry average for front-loader collection routes can vary from 100 to 150 lifts per
day. The variance is due to many variables including how many times a driver exits the
cab to retrieve and return a container to and from its original location, drive-time between
1 Stab is a term of art that means the driver can empty the container without getting out of the truck cab by
lowering and aligning the lifting forks and inserting them directly into the lifting pockets on the side of the
container to raise and empty it. This eliminates the need to get out of the truck to push or pull a container in to
position to be lifted. This method is by far the most efficient way to empty front-loader containers.
48 | P a g e
stops, the number of containers per stop, and distance and time to the post-collection
facility. The most critical variable, though, is how many times a driver exits the cab to
push a container to the truck to be emptied and returned to the storage location. It’s not
uncommon for drivers in dense urban areas to retrieve and return 90 percent of their
containers. The distance can vary from a few feet to line up a container to be emptied to
hundreds of feet to retrieve and return a container from behind an apartment complex.
SWRD decided to eliminate wheels on containers allowing direct access by the truck for
quick and easy collection. With this accommodation, BRS would expect that productivity
for front-loader routes to be at the high end of the range of 125 to 150 lifts per day.
Saturday Commercial Trash Collection
The two Saturday commercial MSW routes average 97 lifts per day. The route sheet lists
88 customers that have three-times a week collection or less and do not require Saturday
collection. A good rule of thumb to qualify customers for Saturday service is a minimum
of four-times a week service.
The second route was added so there would be two Saturday routes. The rationale was
that if a driver has a problem, the other driver could help out. If there is a problem on
Saturday, a supervisor should be notified. The supervisor has the resources, knowledge,
and wherewithal to handle any situation that arises. A driver who needs assistance is
better off calling a supervisor rather than another driver who may not have the necessary
resources to help.
The commercial side-loader route is a four-day route, no Tuesday route, and makes an
average of 106 lift/s day. Friday is an exceptionally light day with only 45 lifts. The average
lift count on the other three days is 125 lifts per day.
Recommendations for Commercial Trash Collection:
BRS recommends increasing the lift count on Monday through Friday routes by
eliminating two routes, one Monday through Friday route to increase the lifts per day to
Material/Truck Routes Crew
Size
Average
Lifts/Day Loads/Day Average
Tons/Load
Average
Hours/Day
8 M W F
7 T H*
3 M F
2 T W H*
Hybrid, Half-day routes
MSW/Recycling 1 T H*1 N/A 43101 N/A 8
Commercial Side-Loader 1 M W H F 1 106 N/A N/A 8
*H=Thursday
Commercial Route Profile
MSW
Recycling
1 102 3 9 8
1 62 1 N/A 8
49 | P a g e
116 from 102, and one Saturday route by moving the 88 Saturday customers that have three-
times a week or less service to the Monday through Friday routes. This change will
increase the lift count to 119 from 116 lifts per day. The remaining Saturday route will have
106 lifts per day.
Eliminating one Monday through Friday route and one Saturday route will increase the
lifts/day counts to 119, and more in line with industry standards. This change is a
reasonable productivity target considering that the drivers "stab" all their containers,
exiting the truck cab occasionally, to open and close a gate to an enclosure.
Commercial Recycling Collection
There are three full-day recycling routes on Friday, two full-day routes Monday, Tuesday
and Thursday, and one full-day route on Wednesday. CDC runs half-day or hybrid routes
Monday through Thursday.
A complicated route schedule like the one is a red flag and deserves a closer look. Half-
day routes are never as productive as full-day routes. A review of the productivity report
bears this out. Recycling routes make on average 68 lifts per day. This lift count is
considerably low compared to industry standards.
Another factor indicating low productivity for these routes is the average payload of 3.14
tons. The maximum legal payload for these trucks is about 9 tons. The recycling routes
are averaging less than 50% of the maximum legal carrying capacity of the truck.
Routes Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Full-Day 2 2 1 2 3
Hybrid
Cardboard 1/2
Hybrid
Commingle 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2
Hybrid Food 1/2
Hybrid MSW 1/2 1/2
Commercial Recycling Route Profile
50 | P a g e
Recommendation for Commercial Recycling Collection:
BRS recommends a complete review of the commercial recycling routes. CDC runs 2.6
five-day routes making an average of 68 lifts per day, substantially lower than the industry
average for recycling routes of 150 lifts per day. Generally, recycling containers are not
filled to capacity on service day. Consequently, the recycling routes could handle 150 lifts
per day or more. CDC should audit the recycling containers to determine the appropriate
service level for each customer, then adjust routes accordingly.
Multi-Family Recycling
It is our understanding that the City is looking to significantly expand CDC recycling for
multi-family housing customers. Multi-family recycling is one of the most challenging
sectors when it comes to minimizing contamination. Our visit to Pratt Recycling indicated
that recyclables delivered by CDC have become increasingly contaminated over time, and
we believe adding multi-family recycling to the mix will only exacerbate the problem.
Recently implemented international standards for contamination (e.g. China’s current
0.5% contamination rate threshold) have created volatility in recycling markets. While the
full extent and long-term effects are not known at this time, there will no doubt be changes
to the industry in regard to various types of recycling – and the associated contamination.
Based on these factors, we recommend that the City wait for current markets to stabilize
before making a decision on whether to expand multi-family recycling.
Alternatively, if the City decides to move forward with this program, we strongly suggest
that pilot program be implemented at a handful of representative multi-family units. This
would allow the City to better understand – and measure – the impact such a program
would have overall.
We also caution the City against making policy changes simply because another
municipality has implemented a program. We often see recycling (diversion) numbers
that are exaggerated. It is important to remember that much of the diversion success that
was being quoted by many municipalities in the U.S. was not real – something that was
recently exposed by China’s recent policy change.
Collection Tonnage
CDC collected 133,453 tons of material in 2017, 76,984 tons of MSW, 11,050 tons of
recyclables, and 7,178 tons of yard waste. The average annual tonnage for the last three
years has grown by 4.24% driven by a 9.54% average annual growth rate in roll-off tonnage.
Excluding roll-off, the average annual tonnage growth rate was 2.32%.
51 | P a g e
The average annual growth rate for residential and commercial recycling tonnage over the
last three years has slid by -0.86%, and -4.48% respectively. This decrease may be due to
the increase in contamination noted by Pratt Recycling‘s General Manager during BRS’s
tour of their plant. The decrease in tonnage could also indicate that residents are not
recycling as much as in previous years.
Over Weight Truck Loads
The maximum legal weight limit for a three-axle truck in the State of Texas is 54,000
pounds and the manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight (MGVW) limit for CDC three-axle
collection trucks is 66,000. The tonnage data from January 2015 to April 2018 showed
22,616 loads that were above 54,000 pounds, of which 2,938 loads were above 66,000
pounds.
Material 2015 2016 2017 Avg. Annual
Growth
Number of
loads
Average
Tons/Load
Residential MSW 24,483 25,562 26,424 4%9,315 8
Residential Recycling 7,736 8,126 7,576 -1%6,041 4
Residential Yard Waste 6,748 6,923 7,178 3%5,517 4
Commercial MSW 48,336 49,156 50,560 2%16,195 9
Commercial Roll-Off 31,871 34,570 38,241 10%28,271 4
Commercial Recycling 3,637 3,657 3,474 -4%3,426 3
Total 122,811 127,994 133,453 4%68,765 6
Annual Growth 4%4%
Annual Growth w/o RO 3%2%2%
Tonnage Profile
0.00
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
2015 2016 2017Tons (Individual)Annual Tons
2015-2017
Residential Trash Residential Yard Waste Commercial Trash Commercial Roll-Off
52 | P a g e
Driving a vehicle heavier than allowed by the state’s weight regulations is not a good
practice. Driving a vehicle above the manufacturer’s Gross Vehicle Weight limit is
dangerous. First, the trucks are not designed to carry that much weight. It puts undue
stress on the vehicle components, which could cause them to fail, like brakes, axles, and
tires, or even the frame to crack. Failure of any one of these components puts the driver
and the surrounding vehicles at risk. Furthermore, in the event of an accident with a
serious injury or a fatality, the SWRD assumes a greater liability because the truck is
heavier than the MGVW limit. Drivers should not be allowed to carry loads heavier than
permitted by the states weight regulations.
See Appendix B for a list of the 10 heaviest loads for residential, commercial, and roll-off
trucks.
Truck Weight Data Anomalies
The truck weight data revealed several anomalies. The tare weights for four residential
truckloads and four commercial front-loader truckloads were in the range of 71,220 to
80,960 pounds, twice as much as the normal tare weight. There was one entry in the
residential tonnage database that only listed the net tons as 106,978. There were no other
entries on that line of the database.
In addition, there were 150 residential load entries with a net weight of less than 2,000
pounds, the weight of about 80 customers.
Recommendations for Keeping Loads Within the Legal Weight Limits:
Category >54,000*>66,000**Total
Residential 5,182 15 5,197
Commercial 12,740 2,731 15,471
Roll-off 1,756 192 1,948
Total 19,678 2,938 22,616
Number of Overweight Truck Loads
*54,000 pounds is the State of Texas legal weight limit for 3-axle
**66,000 pounds is the Manufacturer’s Maximum Gross Vehicle
Weight for the 3-axle trucks used by the Department
53 | P a g e
Supervisors should immediately notify drivers of the rules to keep truck weights under
54,000 pounds. Supervisors should monitor truckload weights daily and bring to the
drivers’ attention any load that goes over 54,000 pounds.
Supervisors can help the driver stay within the weight limits by calculating the average
weight per cart or bin. Then review the route list with the driver. Using the average weight
per cart or bin the supervisor and the driver can determine where the driver should end
his load. Supervisors should continue to monitor truckload weights and adjust drivers’
routes, so the driver stays within the legal weight limits. Eventually, the drivers will know
where to cut their route to make sure they stay within the weight limits. The supervisors
must continually monitor the trucks weights to ensure drivers comply with the weight
limits.
A second method to managing truckload weights is to install onboard scales. The scales
give the driver immediate feedback on the weight of the truck.
Onboard scales are expensive and can take a long time to budget, procure, and install.
Even with the onboard scales, supervisors will still have to monitor truck weights for
compliance. Compliance with weight regulations should be one of the drivers and
supervisor’s performance measures.
Roll-off Load Weights
The almost 10 percent average annual growth rate of roll-off tons lead to a deeper dive into
the numbers. The average roll-off load weighs 3.7 tons, relatively low considering the
nature of this service that hauls trash compactor bodies and large open top boxes, some
with construction material.
There were 12 loads with a negative or zero net weight, yet the truck tare weights seemed
reasonable. There are, however, a few possible reasons for these anomalies. First, the truck
may not have been entirely on the scale. Second, the scale attendant may have entered the
wrong tare weight for either the compactor body or the open top box on the truck. And
last, the scale system could have malfunctioned. In any event, the error should have been
identified and corrected by the scale attendant, the driver, or the supervisor on the day it
happened.
The data also reveals that 33 percent of roll-off loads are less than 4,000 pounds or two
tons. This data suggests that many roll-off customers are candidates for front-load service,
a more cost-effective service.
54 | P a g e
Pounds Tons Loads % of
Loads
Negative Pounds -7 0.02%
Zero Pounds 0 5 0.02%
Less than 1,000 1 810 2.87%
1,000-1,500 .5-.75 852 3.01%
1,501-2,000 .75-1 1,333 4.72%
2,001-2,500 1-1.25 1,651 5.84%
2,501-3,000 1.25-1.5 1,621 5.73%
3,000-4,000 1.5-2 3,242 11.47%
Total loads less than
4,000 9,521 33.68%
Total Roll-off Loads 28,271 100%
Roll-off Load Weight Profile (2015-2017)
55 | P a g e
Collection Route Audits
During our meeting with the Customer Service Department staff, they mentioned that the
City’s customer information and billing software, NorthStar, does not always accurately
communicate with Paradigm software that SWRD uses. The city is working on a solution
to correct this problem.
Also, the CDC doesn’t conduct regular billing and service route audits. It’s possible that
billing and service information is not correct in the customer database. How much is to
be determined. An inaccurate customer database has implications for designing
productive routes and potential for lost revenues.
Route audits help ensure the accuracy and integrity of the customer database. It is
essential to know how many customers have service, and the number of services each
customer receives, in order to bill them accurately.
Good route audits not only assess the service customers receive, they generally increase
revenue. A good route audits system ensure that the information identified in the field
gets entered into the customer database, any discrepancies are reconciled, and customers
are notified and billed for any additional services. If the fieldwork is not followed through
with data reconciliation and customer notifications, the route audit will not be successful.
Residential audits have the potential to yield a 1 to 3% increase in revenue, and commercial
route audits can generate as much as a 10% increase in revenue. Updating the accuracy
and integrity of the customer database has significant impacts on future revenue
generation and route productivity.
Recommendations for Route Audits:
CDC should work with the City’s IT Department to promptly complete the work on the
FME project which links the NorthStar customer information and billing system with
SWRD’s Paradigm software used to manage the collection operation.
CDC should implement a route audit system that ensures the information gathered in the
field is accurately entered into the customer database. The process should notify
customers of any changes to their bill and why they were made.
Residential routes should be audited once every three years and commercial routes every
two years, with the caveat that if the first audit uncovers significant discrepancies,
subsequent audits will be conducted annually until the number of errors diminishes. In
addition, a root cause analysis should be performed to determine why errors are occurring
and how they can be corrected.
56 | P a g e
Productivity Reporting
SWRD uses Paradigm’s CompuRoute software to manage the CDC customer information
database and the back-office operation. They also use Paradigm’s CompuWeigh scale
system to manage truck weights. Both programs have robust productivity reporting
features.
BRS requested copies of productivity reports. CDC was not able to generate the reports
from the Paradigm system. They manually created them. Our experience suggests two
reasons why the reports could not be generated from the system. First, CDC staff may not
be trained how to create the reports. Second, the customer information data may not be
correctly entered into the system.
Paradigm Software offers many training opportunities for its customers. Training support
is available to customers as part of their active Support Services Agreement; however, in
situations where "New User and Refresher training" is required, Paradigm Software will
work with the customer to identify the best means available. The training could include
on-site at the customer’s location, at Paradigm Software corporate office, their annual
User Conference, or web-based training.
BRS recommends that SWRD contact Paradigm Software to initiate a review/audit of their
program to ensure that the CDC is using the system correctly and if more training is
needed.
Routing
Residential Route Design
CDC divides the City into four sections for residential collection. One section is collected
each day, Monday through Thursday.
BRS does not know if the routes have even boundaries or if the boundaries meander into
one another. The optimum way to design routes is with somewhat even boundaries, so
routes don’t intrude too much into the adjacent routes.
Routes are manually designed using the City’s Graphical Information System (GIS) based
on the ArcGIS mapping platform. The system is not intended for route optimization but
can be used for routing.
When a new route is designed, a supervisor uses GIS to locate the section of the City where
the route is to be established. Once the area is selected on the GIS map, the houses are
manually counted to determine the lift count for the new route. It’s a trial and error
57 | P a g e
process until the desired lift count is achieved. However, the lift count is not accurate
because the system doesn’t know how many carts are at each house.
It is possible to automate the process somewhat and develop an accurate lift count. CDC
can upload the customer database with collection addresses and the number and sizes of
carts to ArcGIS. Additionally, each size cart in the database is assigned a weight and
customers with special service requirements can be identified. Now, when the supervisor
selects a section of the City, the application will return the number of lifts and total weight
for that area. The supervisor can print maps that show the route and the customers who
have special service requirements. The supervisor can also decide where the first load ends
so that the driver can stay within the maximum legal load limit. This method takes some
of the guesswork out of designing routes but is not a substitute for route optimization
software.
It is also possible to color code different routes and display them using ArcGIS. This
method will show the routes boundaries to see if routes interwind with each other.
58 | P a g e
Commercial Route Design
Commercial drivers use sequenced route lists to run their route. Route maps are usually
not necessary for commercial routes.
BRS does not know if commercial routes have even boundaries or meander into one
another. The optimum way to design routes is with somewhat even boundaries, so they
don’t intrude too much into the adjacent routes.
Over time, especially when a city is growing, commercial route boundaries are notorious
for overlapping one another. It happens slowly and unexpectedly. Without a way to see
all the routes at one time, it’s virtually impossible to know if the route boundaries overlap.
Sometimes, though, commercial drivers will notify their supervisor if their route takes
them too far into another route’s territory.
It’s possible for CDC to check commercial route boundaries by uploading the customer
database to ArcGIS. The routes can be color-coded and displayed using ArcGIS to show
their boundaries. Adjustments can be made if necessary.
Recommendations for Designing Routes: CDC should work with the City IT
Department to learn how to use the City’s GIS to design and display routes. It will take the
guesswork out of designing productive routes.
59 | P a g e
CDC may want to consider using route optimization software to design routes. This
software has a long and steep learning curve. It can, however, design and optimize
residential, front-loader, and roll-off routes. Given the right information, the software can
sequence and show the driver the travel path of the route, identify time-sensitive stops or
when to avoid school zones. The software can also show the driver when to end the first,
second, or third load to ensure the truck does not go over the maximum legal weight limit.
Equipment
CDC uses a fleet of 40 trucks to collect residential and commercial MSW, recycling, yard
waste, bulky material, and household chemicals, in addition to approximately 15 support
vehicles, like container delivery and pickup trucks, and vans. Residential collections use
ASL and Rear-Loader (RL) trucks. Grapple trucks are used to assist with large yard waste
items. Commercial service uses Front-Loader (FL) and Roll-Off (RO) trucks. There is one
Commercial Automated Side-Loader truck (CASL).
The industry standard for a backup fleet is 15 to 20 percent, depending on the type of
trucks and age of the fleet. This standard is not a hard and fast rule, only a guideline. The
percentage of backup trucks in the CDC fleet ranges from 29 to 100 percent. ASLs may be
a larger percentage of backup trucks because of their high maintenance. CDC uses some
of the backup trucks for partial-week and seasonal collection routes. This system accounts
for the high percentage of backup trucks for ASL, RL, FL, RO, and grapple trucks.
The CASL trucks have a 100 percent redundancy. This redundancy is inevitable since there
is only one CASL route. Consequently, the route requires one frontline and one backup
truck. CDC should consider converting CASL bins to FL bins, thus eliminating two
specialized trucks and their associated parts. Frontline FL trucks would increase to 10 with
Truck Categories Frontline Back-up % Back-up
Automated Side-
Loader 14 4 29%
Rear-Loader 6 3 50%
Grapple 2 1 50%
Box 2 1 50%
Front-Loader 9 3 33%
Commercial Side-
Loader 1 1 100%
Roll-Off 6 2 33%
Total 40 15 37%
Collection Fleet By Category
60 | P a g e
two backups. This move reduces the FL backup trucks to 20 percent, more in line with
industry guidelines.
Fleet Maintenance
Overview
Truck maintenance is provided by the City’s Fleet Services Department located at 804
Texas Street in Denton, almost 4 miles from the collection Department’s parking facility.
It makes dropping off and picking up trucks for repairs inconvenient and time-consuming.
When drivers drop off their truck for repairs, they need a ride back to the parking facility
if another truck is not ready to take back to the yard. In the morning if a truck is available
for pick up a driver has to be shuttled to the maintenance facility. Both ends of the repair
process are time consuming and inconvenient, causing driver frustration.
61 | P a g e
Fleet Maintenance, Drivers’ Perspective
BRS interview several drivers during our visit. A major complaint and a source of
frustration were that it takes too long to get a truck repaired; consequently, drivers avoid
dropping off their truck unless it’s absolutely necessary. One driver reported that his
truck's backup camera doesn’t work. He didn’t want to take the truck to the shop because
he didn’t know how long it would take to get it back. A second driver reported his truck
has a severe air leak. He didn’t want to take his truck in for the repair either because it’s
uncertain when he would get his truck back. BRS caution both drivers that their repairs
constituted a serious safety violation and encouraged them to turn their trucks in
immediately for repairs. Other drivers mentioned that they don’t turn in their truck for
repairs until they have a major breakdown.
Fleet Maintenance’s Perspective
During our visit, BRS met with
the fleet services superintendent
and told him about the drivers’
complaints. BRS asked if he had
enough technicians to work on
the collection fleet. There are 16
technician positions, with one
currently vacant, that are
responsible for servicing the
City’s approximately 1,100 assets.
This ratio of 1 technician: 69
assets is an issue leading to long
downtimes.
The collections industry standard is one technician to 7 to 10 trucks. To minimize truck
downtime and improve the quality of maintenance, CDC needs to get their ratio much
closer to industry standards. In our visit to Fleet Maintenance, it was clear that every bay
is currently being used at the shop and adding additional technicians would be crowded.
To address this issue, and reduce equipment downtime, Fleet Maintenance should
consider adding additional shifts of technicians later in the day. This swing shift could
start at 2 or 3 pm., depending on when collections trucks end their shift. This would allow
Fleet Maintenance to perform basic preventative maintenance, which average 2.5 hours,
outside of normal working hours. This would potentially allow drivers to get their trucks
back the following day and encourage them to get maintenance performed.
The fleet services superintendent identified two additional reasons for the delay in
returning trucks to the drivers. First, many times when a truck comes in, there are so many
repairs to be made that it just takes a long time to fix everything. Mechanics are trained
62 | P a g e
to repair anything they find wrong with the truck, not just what is on the repair order.
When drivers fail to report minor repairs, the broken part may put stress on other parts
of the truck causing other components to fail, requiring more time to repair all the items
on the truck. Second, OEM parts can have long lead-times because they come from a third-
party vendor or they are on backorder. Both items delay quick turnaround for repairs.
Here is an example of the technician’s note for a truck that came in for an air leak on
March 8, 2018, and was ready for pick up on March 27, 2018, 13 working days:
The technician repaired the air leak. He also discovered that the CNG tank was due for an
inspection, in addition to a CNG tune-up. The truck was also due for preventative
maintenance (PM) service. The technician completed all three services. As part of the CNG
inspection, the technician repaired the right CNG tank cover. Some parts had to be special
ordered. From the description, the CNG tank cover repair required a fair amount of work
and wait-time for parts. Also, the technician replaced a light in the instrument cluster,
repaired a broken wire for the right side working light, installed a new bumper and
reflective tape. During the PM the technician discovered both tarp cylinders and the long
hoses on the cylinders were leaking. He replaced the cylinders and the hoses. The
technician also fixed the right front fender. Bolts were missing and the bracket that holds
the fender needed to be welded.
From the technician’s notes it is easy to surmise that the driver chose not to bring the
truck in for several obvious repairs thus, taking extra time to fix the truck and delaying its
return to the driver.
As previously mentioned, drivers are frustrated because it takes too long to get their truck
back from the shop and they never know the repair’s status. The Fleet Services
Superintendent said that drivers could access FASTER, the fleet maintenance software, to
review the status of their truck repair. This system is remarkable and can reduce driver
frustration. Naturally, the drivers will have to be trained on how to use the software.
63 | P a g e
Maintenance/Driver Safety Issue
Supervisors and drivers do minor
maintenance work on trucks. Drivers
complain that it takes too long for a
technician to respond to a road call, and that
it’s faster if they do the repairs themselves.
They make minor repairs to keep the truck
running and the driver on schedule, like.
changing a light bulb, replacing a windshield
wiper blade, or fixing a mirror. Supervisors
and drivers are allowed to draw parts from
inventory to make the repairs. At first glance,
this practice seems efficient and harmless.
Sometimes, unknowingly though, a minor repair done by an untrained person can turn in
to a major repair, or worse yet, cause an injury. Technicians are trained to correctly and
safely make repairs, drivers and supervisors are not. If this practice is to continue, fleet
services and the collection department must come together to develop a list of repairs that
supervisors and drivers can make, then train them to correctly and safely make the repairs
on the list.
There is one repair that needs immediate attention. The Mantis front-loader truck body
has a design flaw that allows debris from inside the body to make its way on the packer
blade roller track and disrupt the sensors, not allowing the packer blade to function
correctly. Drivers climb on the side of the truck body to clean the sensors that regulate
the packing blade. Climbing on the truck without proper safety equipment is a dangerous
practice and should be discontinued. CDC should work with the fleet services and the
manufacturer to develop an engineered solution to resolve this problem or devise a safe
procedure to clean the track to allow the packing blade to function correctly.
Joint Meeting, Fleet Services and Collection Departments
BRS mentioned to the fleet services superintendent that it might be helpful if he
occasionally meets with the drivers to explain the challenges they face maintaining the
collection fleet. This meeting would initially allow the drivers to vent their frustration,
then move on to develop a mutual understanding of the importance for drivers to bring
their truck in for repairs, as soon as they are discovered. It might also be helpful to bring
along a technician that can provide a first-hand account of the personal challenges they
face when a truck comes in for repairs. A technician and a driver talking face to face can
develop a peer to peer relationship. It will foster a better relationship between the drivers
and the technicians who repair their trucks.
64 | P a g e
Recommendations:
1. Draft an SOP requiring drivers to turn in their truck as soon as they discovered
that repairs are needed. This should be part of their daily pre/post-trip
inspections. Reinforce the SOP requirement at tailgate meetings and huddles by
reminding drivers of their responsibility to keep their truck properly maintained.
2. Draft an SOP requiring supervisors to complete a quality truck safety and
maintenance inspection on each vehicle at least one time a month. This
requirement should be part of the supervisor’s performance review.
3. Schedule a training session to teach drivers how to access FASTER, so they can
view the status of their truck repair.
4. Fleet Maintenance should develop a list of parts that require special orders or
have long lead times. A supply of these parts should be kept in inventory to aide
quick turnaround times when trucks come in for repairs. A process should be
put in place to immediately reorder these parts as soon as they are taken out of
inventory.
5. Schedule periodic meetings with fleet maintenance services and drivers. The
purpose of these meetings is to develop a mutual understanding of the challenges
drivers and technicians face when a truck goes in for repairs, especially if the
truck repairs have been neglected or if a major repair is required.
6. CDC and fleet maintenance should develop a list of repairs that supervisors and
drivers can make. Supervisors and drivers must be trained to correctly and safely
make only the repairs on the list.
7. The method the drivers use to clean the packer blade roller track on the Mantis
truck body is dangerous and unsafe. CDC should work with fleet services and the
manufacturer to develop an engineered solution to resolve this problem or devise
a safe procedure to clean the track to allow the packing blade to function
properly.
Fleet Maintenance Annex
During our visit, BRS toured the maintenance facility. The superintendent mentioned that
they had outgrown it and that the needs to be expanded. In a separate interview, the
SWRD Director said that they have a fleet maintenance annex project on hold. The timing
couldn’t be better. Locating a truck maintenance facility on the same property where the
trucks are parked is ideal, not only for the drivers but also for the technicians who work
on the trucks.
Recommendation: The City should consider constructing a maintenance shop annex
close CDC’s truck parking facility. A shop next to the parking facility makes it convenient
for drivers to drop off their truck for repairs, reducing driver frustration and encouraging
65 | P a g e
them to turn in their truck for repairs immediately when needed. It also makes it
convenient for fleet services to retrieve trucks for preventative maintenance services and
other repairs.
Pre-Post Trip Inspections
The City is required to comply with the FMCSA regulations as stated in Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Title 49/Subtitle B/Chapter III/Subchapter B/Part 383.3 (a)
Applicability, “The rules in this part apply to every person who operates a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce, to all employers of
such persons, and to all States.”
The CDC process for drivers completing pre/post-trip inspections is not in compliance
with FMCSA regulations. A new procedure must be put in place to meet the regulations.
Pre-trip inspections are required by FMCSA regulations 396.13: Driver inspections and
392.7: Equipment, inspection, and use. The regulations clearly state that drivers are
required to conduct a thorough pre-trip inspection, review and sign the last driver vehicle
inspection report if any defects or deficiencies were previously reported.
Post-trip regulations are governed by FMCSA regulation 396.11 Driver Vehicle Inspection
Report.
This regulation requires drivers to conduct a thorough post-trip inspection at the
completion of the day’s work and to list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported
to the driver that would affect the safe operation of the vehicle or result in its mechanical
breakdown.
As of 2014, drivers of commercial vehicles, other that passenger-carting commercial
vehicles are not required to turn in a report if no defect or deficiency is discovered by or
reported to the driver. As a practical matter, CDC should require drivers to turn in a
completed and signed post-trip inspection report every day regardless if they find defects
or deficiencies.
66 | P a g e
FMCSA regulation 396.11 further states in paragraph (3) Corrective action, “Every motor
carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists
any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is
unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.”
These regulations have implications for the vehicle maintenance department. According
to the regulation, the mechanic who made the repair(s) must certify on the original report
that the repair was made, or it was unnecessary. This will require CDC to revise its
pre/post-trip Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) procedure.
Recommendations: CDC should draft an SOP for a new pre/post-trip procedure that
requires that a copy of the DVIR remain in the vehicle, so the mechanic can certify that
any necessary repair(s) was performed, and so that the driver can sign off that he reviewed
the previous report and acknowledges that any necessary repairs were certified as being
completed.
Solid Waste and Recycling
Department
Introduction
The following sections discuss our findings and recommendations that apply to the entire
SWRD (Landfill and Collections).
Safety
Truck Accident and Worker Injury Report Analysis
SWRD provided truck accident and worker injury data for March 2015 through March
2018. The data was incomplete and difficult to analyze. There were 172 records; 157 records
did not contain a source of the incident and 154 did not contain a cause. Two incidents
did not include any description.
The few entries that listed a cause were not categorized in a meaningful way to analyze
the data. To provide some analysis, BRS categorized the incidents based on our experience
and knowledge of the subject matter.
67 | P a g e
Truck Accidents
During the study period, there were 88 truck accident claims. The top three accident
categories, Hit Parked Car or Stationary Object, Backing Accident, and Property,
accounted for 84% of the claims.
There were 10 truck accidents that could not be categorized or evaluated based on their
description. Here are three examples of claims that could not be evaluated, Waters Edge
Apartments [sic] Wants reimbursed [sic] for electrician bill; Wind blow [sic] the gate
closed; and Auto Accident. More care should be taken when writing and recording claim
details.
The 39 incidents of hitting a parked car or stationary object included 4 incidents where a
driver hit an overhead bridge. There were another 6 incidents where a driver pulled down
a power line. It’s important for drivers to stay focused and be on the lookout for overhead
dangers. When drivers identify an overhead danger, they should avoid it and immediately
notify their supervisor. The supervisor, in turn, should alert all the drivers of the danger
and contact the appropriate agency to correct the hazard.
Safety meetings should include the topic, “Be Alert for Overhead Dangers.” The topic
information can be reinforced during tailgate meetings and morning huddles. SWRD
should invite the Denton Municipal Electric Department (DMED) to make a presentation
at the safety meeting. A new presenter and fresh information are sure to get the drivers’
attention. DMED can talk about warning signs for spotting overhead dangers, how to
Description Number Percent*
Hit Parked Car or Stationary Object 39 50%
Backing accident 13 17%
Property Damage 13 17%
Pulled Down Power Line 6 8%
Hydraulic Fluid Spill Caused
Accident 3 4%
Hit Moving Vehicle 2 3%
Rear Ended Vehicle 1 1%
Theft of City Property 1 1%
Total 78 100%
Truck Accident Summary
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
68 | P a g e
report them, and what to do if the driver pulls down an electrical wire. Downed power
lines are not only dangerous for the drivers, but also for the people nearby.
As an additional precaution, the CDC may want to place a sign on the front of containers
that alerts drivers that an overhead danger is present.
Backing accidents were 17% of all truck accident and the second largest category.
According to the USDOT Federal Highway Administration, the average driver – age 35-55
– drives over 15,000 miles per year, forward …and less than 1 mile in reverse. But 1 out of
4 accidents occurs when backing. Mile for mile, backing poses 5,000 times more risk of
an accident.
Of course, garbage truck drivers log even more miles per year – an estimated 25,000 –
although there is wide variability due to route layout and distance to landfill or transfer
station, etc. And these drivers also do much more backing than the average individual
(non-truck) driver.
That’s why safe backing practices are always a prime concern in any collection operation.
Backing a large vehicle comes with inherent risks that demand extra caution and constant
vigilance. Drivers must always be aware of their surroundings, with or without a spotter
or rearview camera, even if it means getting out of the truck and looking around the
vehicle to make sure there are no hazards.
A few drivers complained that their rearview camera was not working. They don’t want to
bring their truck in for repair because it takes too long to get it back from the shop. Not
reporting a broken review camera is a serious safety issue and should be corrected
immediately. Backing a collection truck has enough inherent risks without increasing
them because the rearview camera is broken.
Recommendations Backing Safety
Drivers should use extreme caution when backing with or without a rearview camera.
Broken rearview cameras should be brought to management’s attention promptly given a
priority repair status.
Driver training is critical when it comes to backing a collection vehicle. Part of the training
curriculum should include backing under challenging situations including, backing
without a camera. Also, CDC should consider preparing an SOP on how drivers should
proceed when operating a vehicle without a rearview camera.
Backup alarms are also a critical safety component for garbage trucks. Drivers should be
cautious not to disable them and to report broken backup alarms to the shop immediately.
69 | P a g e
Worker Injuries
During the study period, there were 73 worker injury claims. The top three injury
categories, Strains and Sprains; Slip, Trip and Falls; and Struck by or Collided with Object
or Equipment, accounted for 59% of the claims.
There were 10 incidents that could not be categorized or evaluated based on their
description. Here are three examples of worker injury claims that could not be evaluated,
Injury, Right Elbow, and three entries described the incident as Employee hit back of truck
while pulling past it.
SWRD’s nonfatal injury rate per 100 workers increased substantially from 1.84 in 2016 to
3.5 in 2017, a 90% increase. In 2016, the last date the figures were available2, the waste
industry’s nonfatal injury rate was 2.3. SWRD incident rate is 52 percent higher the waste
industry as a whole.
Recommendation for Reporting and Tracking Truck Accidents and Worker
Injuries:
Accident and injuries reports should be written with more care and attention to the facts.
Managers should provide more oversight of the reporting process and the accident and
injury record database.
2 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, November 2017
Description Number Percent*
Strains and Sprains 18 29%
Slip, Trip, Fall 10 16%
Struck by or Collided with Object or Equipment 9 14%
Cut/Puncture wound 8 13%
Animal or Inset Bite, Scratch, Sting, Kick 6 10%
Eye Injury 4 6%
Burn Injury 3 5%
Illness 2 3%
Heat Exhaustion 1 2%
Caught in/Compressed by Equipment or Objects 1 2%
Auto accident injury 1 2%
Total 63 100%
Worker Injury Summary
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
70 | P a g e
SWRD should work with the City’s Risk Management Department to develop guidelines
for categorizing truck accident and worker injury claims and writing claims descriptions.
At a minimum, the claim description should include the name of the driver, number of
years on the job, a clear explanation of the incident including the who, what, when and
where.
Separately, the supervisors should collaborate with the operations manager and the Risk
Management Department to determine how and why the accident happened, and how
similar accidents can be avoided in the future. The cause and avoidance analysis should
become subjects for safety meetings and reinforced in tailgate meetings and morning
huddles.
SWRD should calculate their truck accident and worker injury incident rates every month.
They should be used as benchmark for improvement.
Safety Culture
A strong safety culture is essential for the successful deployment of any safety program.
During our visit to observe the SWRD’s operations, we sensed the absence of a safety
culture. It wasn’t because drivers, landfill workers, and management weren’t interested in
safety, they were. We spoke to many in the department. Not one person shrugged off
safety. The problem is related to a lack of continuity regarding safety planning,
implementing, and monitoring of safety procedures.
Here is our list of observations that led to this conclusion.
BRS did not see one safety notice, encouragement, slogan, or safety warning
posted anywhere in the SWRD office, including where the drivers congregate.
Most drivers wear minimal high visibility apparel, gray shirts with orange
reflective strips.
Supervisors and managers do not set a safety example. We observed them not
wearing a high visibility safety vest or jacket when walking outside the building,
around the trucks, landfill, or in the parking area.
The safety meeting for the residential collections did not focused on safety
training. It was not a typical safety meeting. The meeting consisted of a series of
admonishments to the drivers to slow down and be careful. The main focus of
the meeting was a sales pitch for Airrosti by Airrosti, a company who bills itself
as “We Fix Pain Fast.” The topic had nothing to do with safety. The topic was
about personal health care. The second half of the meeting was about operations.
The drivers were given more admonishments to slow down and be safe. The
remainder of the meeting dealt with the low cart inventory, and how they could
get their safety boots.
71 | P a g e
The landfill’s tipping area was very crowded and somewhat chaotic. And while
we understand that there had recently been a lot of rain, the fact is, rain occurs
every year and the landfill staff should be planning ahead to deal with those
conditions safely. We have made some recommendations regarding tipping pad
and cell construction activities that will help reduce risk in those areas
Another safety issue addressed in the meeting was drivers having a problem
dumping small carts. If the grabber on the lift arm is not adjusted correctly, the
carts slip into the truck’s hopper. Drivers were instructed to stop by the shop and
have the grabber adjusted. Drivers were also told not to pack the cart, but to
retrieve them if the cart falls into the hopper. If drivers couldn’t get the cart out
easily, they were told to go to the shop, and the shop would pull it out with a
hook.
As a matter of safety, drivers should not be climbing on their truck and reaching
into the hopper without the proper training and equipment. This practice is not
safe and could lead to a serious injury or even death. However, this could have
been a great training opportunity to have the drivers assemble by a truck and
demonstrate the safe way to retrieve a cart from the hopper.
Recommendations for Building a Safety Culture
A strong safety culture is the foundation for
building a safety program that puts workers’
health and safety first, by working tirelessly
to prevent accidents, injuries, and illnesses.
A strong safety culture is built over time by
management’s relentless commitment to
protecting workers health and welfare.
Safety should be presented and thought of
as coaching employees, rather than policing
them. Cooperation between management,
safety personnel, and frontline workers is
essential to building a strong safety culture.
72 | P a g e
Hold Safety Focused Meetings
CDC holds monthly meetings where safety is part of the program. The other part of the
meeting deals with operations. The focus of these meetings should be on safety.
Operations items should be discussed at a separate meeting, at tailgate meetings, or
during a morning huddle. Safety meetings should focus on safety topics.
The Risk Management Department should continue to develop the safety meeting
schedule and topics, paying close attention to OSHA required training. Here is a list of
some of industries best practice safety topics.
PPE, what is required and how
to use it;
Hearing Conservation and
Prevention;
Cold and Heat Stress
Prevention;
Lockout/Tagout;
Confined Space Entry;
Fire Extinguisher Training;
Hazard Communications;
Spill Response;
Blood Borne Pathogens;
Backing Safely;
Proper lifting techniques;
Substance Abuse Policy;
Violence in the Workplace
Prevention;
Slip trips and Fall Prevention
Disclaimer: OSHA required training is job specific. Regulations are in a state of flux
and continually changing. Although the City is not required to follow OSHA
regulations because the State of Texas does not have a state-approved OSHA plan,
CDC in conjunction with the City’s Safety Department should review all regulatory
requirements to ensure that any training delivered follows the requirements of the
latest regulations.
BRS is a strong supporter of having supervisors conduct safety training. The drivers report
to them, and the supervisors have the most influence on the drivers. Conducting the safety
meetings should be rotated among the supervisors. The City’s Risk Management
Department should provide supervisors with basic information but require the supervisors
to research the topic and prepare their presentation. The best way to learn a subject is to
teach it. Holding the supervisors accountable for safety training gives them a vested
interest in becoming the Department’s biggest safety advocates.
Supervisors should hold weekly tailgate meetings and morning huddles. Tailgate meetings
should be regularly scheduled and last between five and 10 minutes. Huddles can be
scheduled daily and last no longer than five minutes. The topics and schedule for these
meetings should be coordinated through the operation managers in cooperation with the
City’s Risk Management Department to ensure all supervisors touch on the same topics.
The tailgate meeting and huddle topic should reinforce the monthly safety meeting’s
primary topic or draw attention to a safety issue in the supervisor’s district. Accidents and
injuries that occurred the previous week should be discussed, ending with how to avoid a
75 | P a g e
reoccurrence of the same incident. The agenda can be supplement with other safety topics
and issues related to quality control and productivity.
Safety Plan
The State of Texas does not have an OSHA approved State Occupational Safety and Health
Plan. Consequently, state and local government agencies are not covered by Federal
OSHA. In addition, the Texas Workforce Commission states,” OSHA does not apply to the
federal government, the Texas state government or any of its agencies, or a political
subdivision of Texas, such as a city or county government, citing 29 U.S.C. § 652(5).” Since
Texas does not have an OSHA approved state plan, OSHA regulations do not apply to the
SWRD.
The SWRD does not have a written safety plan. Although OSHA regulations do not require
an employer to have one, OSHA has written extensively on the merits of a written Injury
Illness Prevention Program (IIPP).
In their White Paper date January 2012, OSHA stated3:
An injury and illness prevention program is a proactive process to help employers find
and fix workplace hazards before workers are hurt. We know these programs can be
effective at reducing injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Many workplaces have already
adopted such approaches, for example as part of OSHA's cooperative programs.
OSHA goes on to say:
OSHA representatives have noted a strong correlation between the application of
sound management practices in the operation of safety and health programs and a
low incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses. Where effective safety and health
management is practiced, injury and illness rates are significantly less than rates at
comparable worksites where safety and health management is weak or non-existent.
A written safety plan is key to developing a comprehensive safety program and is the
foundation for a strong safety culture. The industry’s best practices for safety include a
written safety plan. BRS highly recommends that SWRD draft a comprehensive safety
plan. The plan should include, at a minimum, these elements: Responsibility and
Authority, Compliance, Communications, Hazard Assessment, Accident Investigation,
Hazard Correction, Training and Instruction, and Record Keeping.
3 OSHA Injury and Illness Prevention Programs White Paper, January 2012
76 | P a g e
High Visibility Safety Apparel
SWRD should develop an SOP regarding Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and
require managers, supervisors, office personnel, operators, drivers, and visitors to comply
with the policy.
Drivers, operators, supervisors, and managers should be required to wear high visibility
apparel (safety vest at a minimum) at all times when they are in the yard and shop, on the
route, or at a post-collection facility. High visibility apparel is the single most important
expression of a safety culture.
Most drivers wear gray shirts with orange reflective stripes. Although this is considered
high visibility apparel, it is not up to par with ANSI/ISEA standard 107-2015, which
recommends Type R high visibility apparel because it “provides daytime and nighttime
visual conspicuity enhancement for workers in occupational environments which include
exposure to traffic.
SWRD provides frontline workers with PPE and a variety of uniform apparel. Except for
the shirts, none of the other outerwear is high visibility. It is not a safe practice to provide
a high visibility shirt, then give a jacket or a sweatshirt that is not high visibility. It defeats
the purpose of wearing high visibility apparel. All uniforms provided by the SWRD should
be Type R high visibility apparel. In addition, it should be branded with the City’s logo to
go along with the branding on the City’s trucks. During our visit, we observed personnel
with SWRD issued apparel that did not show the City’s logo.
SWRD should also require managers to a wear safety vest whenever or wherever a driver
is required to wear high visibility apparel. Management needs to be safety’s most
prominent advocate. When managers wear a safety vest and other appropriate safety
equipment, it shouts their commitment to safety and helps to build the safety culture.
Visitors, including sales representatives and other vendors, staff from other departments
and elected officials should be required to wear safety vests and other appropriate safety
equipment when they are on the property touring the facilities, in the field visiting drivers
on the route, or at a post-collection facility. Safety starts at the top. When the Mayor or
other elected official wears a safety vest, it says a lot about the City’s commitment to safety
and a strong statement about their safety culture.
Along that same line, we strongly recommend that the CDL adopt a policy that requires
all landfill customers to wear a safety vest (or other high-visibility apparel) at all times
when outside their vehicle. Data on fatalities at waste facilities indicate that more non-
employees are killed than employees. And, while many of these incidents are related to
over-the-road (collection) trucks, an unacceptable number are killed at landfills too.
77 | P a g e
Neal Bolton’s experience as an expert witness on more than 60 solid waste-related cases,
bears this out.
In further support for this problem, please note that we produced nearly 100 safety videos
for landfills – videos specifically targeted customer safety.
Customers Safety Vest Program
When enforced, the current customer safety
vest program sends a strong message
regarding the safety culture of the CDL. We
believe that all customers should be required
to wear safety vests while at the landfill.
78 | P a g e
Redesign the Drivers’ Room Appearance
The drivers’ room should be redesigned to focus on safety-related information. A big
screen TV should be installed to draw attention to safety messages that scroll on the screen
in addition to other important messages relevant to the operation. It’s important to vary
the messages and their location on the screen to keep viewers engaged with the content.
Prominently display safety messages in the drivers’ room. Include recent editions of
“Safety Monday” (available through SWANA), safety messages from the Director and other
members of the management team, and safety slogans and warnings.
It’s important to draw attention (in good taste) to recent accidents and injuries by briefly
describing the incident, what went wrong, and how to prevent a future occurrence.
Present the topic on a nicely designed 8½ x 11 or larger poster. It should be placed
prominently on a wall, so it draws the drivers’ attention or can be pointed to when
discussing the subject.
The drivers’ room is an excellent place to promote safety. It’s a place where drivers visit in
the morning and at the end of their day. It is essential to keep the messages, slogans, and
briefings fresh by rotating them often. The purpose of the postings is to make safety a
constant reminder.
Training
The SWRD does not have a written driver training program. Training for new drivers is
not as comprehensive as it should be. The current program is three weeks long as follows:
Week 1—The trainee rides along with a regular driver to become generally
familiar with the truck and collection activities.
Week 2—The trainee operates the truck on the route while the regular driver
rides along providing guidance on how to operate the truck.
Week 3— The driver drives route alone. (Week 3 is not considered training since
the driver is working alone.)
There is no written documentation or written feedback on how the driver performed
during the training. Verbal feedback is given to the supervisor. On week three the driver
is on his own continuing to learn the intricacies of operating the truck and the challenges
of an unfamiliar route. This training program is not a well-devised plan from a safety
standpoint.
During our visit it was mentioned that if drivers are available, residential driver trainees
go to an area on the property where carts are set up, so they can practice lifting and
emptying carts.
79 | P a g e
Training Recommendations
Training is not a one-time event. Training has to be repetitive and hands-on, to be
effective. Sports teams continuously train to get better at their job, so do police and fire
Departments. It should be the same for the SWRD.
To improve safety and performance, the SWRD should develop a comprehensive training
program that includes classroom work and hands-on training at the landfill, the
collections yard, and on the road. The training should emphasize the fundamentals of the
job, and target weaknesses identified in safety and performance.
Supervisors should be involved in developing the training curriculum to include basic
collection principles, truck operations, safety, and customer service. Supervisors have
first-hand knowledge of practical matters to improve safety and performance.
New Drivers
The SWRD should develop a written technical training program for new drivers, and every
trainer should be required to follow the program. The program should last about six weeks
and include classroom time, in the yard practice, and on the road training (on the job
training). The classroom training should be based on the Original Equipment
Manufacturers’ (OEM) operating manuals that come with each truck, in addition to topics
to improve safety and performance. The SWRD has several different types of trucks. It is
imperative to tailor the training to each specific truck using the OEM’s operating manual
for that truck. The training should also include a comprehensive pre/post-trip inspection
curriculum based on DOT regulations and City policy, and a defensive driving program.
SWRD should consider using a smaller training route specifically designed to teach new
drivers how to collect safely in different scenarios, in addition to using different trucks.
Currently, a new driver goes with a trainer and is required to complete a full route. This
practice puts stress on the driver and the trainer to achieve full productivity on the first
day. Instead of learning safe collection practices the new driver is being forced into full
production. A smaller training route takes the pressure off new drivers and their trainers
to finish an entire route and allows them to focus on safe collection practices instead of
productivity. With time and practice, new drivers will achieve full productivity while using
the safe collection methods they learned on the smaller training routes.
As a final check, supervisors should ride with new drivers, within a week or so after the
six-week training program is completed and periodically after that for the next two
months. This procedure provides the supervisor a first-hand opportunity to gauge a
driver’s skills, abilities, and safety awareness, in addition to identifying gaps in the driver’s
training. It also allows the supervisor to recommend additional training based on these
observations. Supervisors should be held accountable for the training drivers receive.
80 | P a g e
Driver Certification
Veteran drivers should be recertified on their current truck every two to four years as part
of a continuing education and refresher-training program. The training program should
include curriculum based on the OEM’s operating manual along with safe collection
practices. The training should also include a walk around pre/post-trip inspection,
defensive driving, safety, and a performance refresher course.
In addition to completing the continuing education and refresher training, all drivers
should be required to take and pass a training program before being qualified to operate
a new collection vehicle. When new trucks enter the fleet, SWRD should develop a
training program with the curriculum based on the OEM’s operating manual. This training
should also include a safety and performance refresher course.
Train the Trainer
SWRD should develop a Train the Trainer program. The program should teach general
training principles. Supervisors should be involved in developing the curriculum to
include basic collection principles, safety, and acceptable performance standards. They
have firsthand knowledge of practical matters to improve safety and performance.
The trainer selection criteria should include a skills assessment to determine if candidates
have the aptitude to be a trainer. This assessment should be part of the selection process
and completed before a candidate is selected to enroll in the Train the Trainer program.
Supervisors should be involved in the trainer selection process. The selection process must
be fair and objective and based on the individual’s qualifications and training abilities, not
on seniority alone. Supervisors know their drivers better than anyone else and can provide
valuable insight into the trainer selection process.
In addition to taking and passing the Train the Trainer training, candidates should take
and pass truck specific training to become certified to train on a specific type and model
of truck.
On-Road Defensive Driver Training
The SWRD should develop a defensive driving program as part of the driver training
curriculum. SWRD should consider augmenting the defensive driver training with the
Smith System, or similar defensive driving program that includes on-road training. There
is no substitution for on-road training. A driver can effectively learn the principles of
defensive driving in a classroom. It’s essential, however, to put those principles to work
with on-road training.
Staff Training
81 | P a g e
Department managers and supervisors should be required to take training courses to stay
current with the ever-changing Federal and State Department of Transportation
regulations. In addition to classes on regulations and as part of their continuing education,
managers and supervisors should be given the opportunity to take training classes that
focus on improving communications skills and explore the latest trends in managing
teams. They should also take courses in how to train and motivate individuals. Safety is
an attitude, and some individuals have to be motivated for their own safety.
Standard Operating Procedures
Although CDC has a Departmental Manual for Solid Waste Truck Operators, it’s not a
complete set of Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) to guide the staff on how to operate
and manage a safe and efficient operation. The SWRD should develop a comprehensive
set of SOPs for all CDL and CDC employee tasks. BRS have made a substantial number of
recommendations in this report. At a minimum, SWRD should develop SOPs that reflect
our recommendations adopted by SWRD.
Organizational Culture
Based on our observations and experience, SWRD provides an overall good and fair work
environment for all employees. In the course of our on-site visit, it was clear that SWRD
frontline employees were very helpful and forthcoming in supporting this review and
interested in making improvements to operational safety and efficiency. The following
sections will discuss some specific organizational culture findings within the SWRD.
Collections Driver Scheduling
The operations manager sets the tone for teamwork, as required in the City’s
Departmental Manual for Solid Waste Truck Operators. Drivers help each other to finish
the day’s work. No driver completes his route and goes to the landfill, except if their truck
is full, until all drivers complete their route. It’s a team effort.
Drivers work 40-hour a week. Supervisors work diligently to control overtime, sometimes
to the dismay of the drivers. Drivers have complained that they are pulled from their route
if completing it would put them into overtime. For example, if a driver has 36 hours when
he starts his Thursday or Friday shift, the supervisor will pull the driver from his route at
40 hours and send him home. The uncompleted work is divided up among the drivers who
are still working. This practice causes frustration with all the drivers, the one who was sent
home and the ones remaining, who just got more work.
If CDC continues monitoring overtime closely and pull driver before they go over 40
hours, they may want to consider giving the driver the option to stay home that day and
use paid leave to complete their forty hours. Some drivers may take the option, and other
82 | P a g e
drivers may want to work the few hours to fill out their forty hours. The decision to work
or not is the driver’s, and it’s easier for him to accept.
This system, however, works both ways. If a driver can’t work a full day for personal
reasons and needs a few hours off, the supervisor will either reassign the driver to a job
that doesn’t require a full day’s work or give the driver paid leave time to ensure the driver
gets 40 hours pay.
It was evident during the interviews that the supervisors go out of their way to make sure
the drivers get their 40-hours pay, and the drivers go out of their way to pick up the slack
when there is extra work to complete.
Innovation and Specialty Projects
Under the oversight of the previous Director and Landfill Operations Manager, the SWRD
undertook or proposed several specialty projects (Landfill Mining, the BMR, Leachate
Recovery, HCC collections, etc.). These projects generated excitement in employees,
including management staff, due to their intended innovations and the resulting national
(and at times international) publicity.
Recent SWRD reviews of financial viability, including this project, have resulted in the
discontinuing or downsizing of these specialty projects. It is likely that more of the
projects will be impacted in the future as well. Despite the inviable financials, some
members of management we interviewed expressed their disappointment in
discontinuing what they viewed as “innovative” ideas and projects. It appears that
management has passed these thoughts on to some lower level employees as well.
We recommend that SWRD generate excitement in management for improving SWRD
operational safety, efficiency, and profitability. Rather than engaging projects solely for
the sake of “innovation,” SWRD organizational culture should be on that is excited about
providing Denton residents an essential service that is safe, efficient, and financially
sound.
Staffing and Organizational Chart
A main goal of this project was to provide SWRD with recommendations of how to best
utilize available staff and how to structure the organization of employees. The following
sections discuss our recommendations for SWRD staffing and organizational structure,
assuming full implementation of the operational recommendations contained in this
report. The recommended organizational changes are based on our review of SWRD
operations, industry standards, and our observations working with similar solid waste
operations. Appendix A contains the full recommended organizational chart.
83 | P a g e
Director
The SWRD Director currently has 4 direct reporting managers:
Landfill Operations Manager
Collections Operations Manager
Administration Manager
Site Operation and Planning Manager
Based on our on-site discussions and understanding of future SWRD operations, we do
not see special projects and new operational processes being implemented on the scale or
frequency they have in the past. This reduces the scope of Site Operation and Planning
Manager role, which we recommend moving under the direct oversight of the Landfill
Operations Manager, rather than the SWRD Director. In addition, the employees that
previously reported to the Site Operation and Planning Manager are better suited being
under the oversight of the Collections, Landfill, or Administration Managers as will be
discussed further in this report. Reorganizing the Site Operations and Planning Manager
role would streamline the communication and reporting structure to the SWRD Director
and eliminate a redundant level of management personnel.
While the Compliance/Technical Support Manager does not report directly to the SWRD
Director, open and constant communication is required between the two. To acknowledge
the importance of this relationship we have included this in the organizational chart, but
with a dashed line.
Collections
CDC has a staff of 70 employees; 84% are directly involved with the collection operation.
Management accounts for 16% of CDC staff.
84 | P a g e
Management
The operations manager is responsible for the day-to-day operation, planning, and
budgeting for CDC. There is a residential manager and a commercial manager and eight
supervisors, four each for residential and commercial collections. Each residential
supervisor has nine staff and commercial supervisors have six staff.
Supervisors
The supervisors job description is very broad with latitude for assigning duties. The job
description recommends that supervisors spend 30% of their time working in the field
with crews. This is very low percentage of field work based on industry standards.
Supervisors should spend 60 to 70 percent of their time in the field working with crews to
ensure safe and productive work practices, and good customer service.
We interviewed many of the supervisors. They spend an inordinate amount of time in the
office entering data and tracking just about everything related to the operation. Much of
their office work can be handled by administrative staff.
The supervisors take a team approach to supervision. Each driver is assigned to a
supervisor for administrative matters, like vacation, sick leave, pay, etc. However, all
drivers can contact any supervisor for operations matters, accidents, customer issues, and
route issues. Any supervisor can direct a driver for work activities. The drivers’ first contact
is supervisor Ramon Rodriguez if they can’t report to work and for truck issues. If he’s not
available, they go down the list until they find a supervisor who is available. For all other
issues, they contact any supervisor that answers the phone.
This supervisory team approach can be chaotic and frustrating for drivers as wells as
supervisors. Drivers have complained that communicating with supervisors can be
difficult. One driver reported that a supervisor told him to remain with his truck when it
broke down. The driver received a call from a second supervisor who said someone was
Staff Category Staff Percentage
Drivers 39 56%
Helpers 6 9%
Relief 10 14%
Container Delivery 3 4%
Welders 1 1%
Total Front Line 59 84%
Management 11 16%
Total Collections 70 100%
Collection Staff By Category*
*Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
85 | P a g e
on the way to pick him up and bring him to the yard to get a different truck. Principles of
supervision recommend that a worker should only report to one supervisor. This improves
communications, accountability, and performance.
Here is a partial list of the supervisors’ secondary duties:
Track and enter data for pre/post-trip reports including mileage, tonnage, and
fuel;
Order and maintaining container inventory;
Order, distribute, and track uniforms and PPE;
Track accidents and injuries;
Liaison between drivers and maintenance;
Correct customer service errors;
Track cart hangers and enter data into customer accounts;
Post the drivers’ service notes to customer accounts,
Route residential and commercial routes;
Add new housing developments that are not on the map.
Another drain on the supervisors’ time is the procedure they use to respond to a customer
service issues. Supervisors respond in twos when there is a customer complaint. The
second supervisor is there to corroborate what the customer and the other supervisor
discussed in case there is any future issues. This definitely is not an industry-standard.
Only one supervisor should respond to a customer inquiry unless it’s a serious situation.
Span of Control
Each residential supervisor has 9 direct reports, including a share of the relief drivers.
Commercial supervisors have 6 direct reports, also including a share of the relief drivers.
Normally relief drivers are not included in a supervisor’s headcount because either the
regular driver is working, or a relief driver is taking his place. Thus, the supervisor’s
headcount doesn’t change.
A supervisor managing six to nine drivers is 30 to 50 percent below the industry standard.
BRS conducted a study several years ago that showed supervisors manage between 9 and
18 routes with a slightly higher headcount due to a few two-person crews. Relief drivers
were not part of the supervisors’ headcount. We updated the report for this engagement
and found that the span of control was about the same with two exceptions, one company
reported supervisors with 20 routes; another company reported supervisors with 25 routes.
The companies we spoke with cited improved communication devices, computers in the
supervisors’ vehicles, and GPS as reasons for the large span of control. Some of those
interviewed also mentioned putting computers in collection trucks allowed supervisors to
manage more drivers.
86 | P a g e
Collections Reorganization
CDC has 3 managers and 8 supervisors, which constitutes 16% of the staff. The industry
standard targets management staff at around 10%. BRS makes the following
recommendations to bring the CDC management staff percentage in line with the industry
standard (see accompanying organizational chart): Reduce the number of managers from
3 to 1 and reduce the number of supervisors from 8 to 5. This is a 66% reduction in
managers and a 37% reduction in supervisors, a 54% overall reduction in management.
The reorganization puts the supervisors’ span of control between 11 and 12 routes with a
headcount of 13 to 14, well within the industry standard.
New Positions
The reorganization includes two new supervisory positions, a dispatcher/supervisor and a
facilities supervisor without increasing head count. The reorganization also includes
moving two solid waste analysts from the site operation and planning manager to the new
dispatcher/supervisor position. These solid waste analysts will assume the administrative
and data entry duties from the supervisors along with other duties to be assigned.
Dispatcher/Supervisor: This position has a staff of 10 relief drivers, 6 recycling drivers,
and 2 solid waste analysts. Once the relief drivers are dispatched, they become the
responsibility of the supervisor for whom they work. After the roll-off drivers are
dispatched, any issue that arises in the field would be handled by the supervisor in the
area.
Category Staff Percent Staff Percent
Drivers 39 54%39 57%
Helpers 6 8%6 9%
Relief 10 14%10 15%
Container
Delivery 3 4%3 4%
Welders 1 1%1 1%
Total Front Line 59 82%59 87%
Administrative 0 3%2 3%
Management 11 15%7 10%
Total 72 100%68 100%
Current Reorganization
Number of Staff by Category*
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
87 | P a g e
It’s been our experience that roll-off drivers as a group require little supervision. First, they
are usually the more senior, experienced drivers. Second, they only interact with
customers a few times a day compared to a front-loader driver who might have 125
customer interactions or a residential driver who may have up to 1,000 customer
interactions a day.
The Dispatcher/Supervisor would also be the liaison for the Fleet Services Department, in
addition to supervising the solid waste analysts. This position could also become the
liaison with the Customer Service Department, a suggestion they made when we met with
them during our site visit.
Facilities Supervisor: The Facilities Supervisor position has a staff of 7. The position
would be responsible for household chemical collection and container delivery, inventory,
and repair, including roll-off boxes and compactors. In addition, the position would be
responsible for ordering, inventory, and distribution of all PPE and supplies for the drivers
and other duties as assigned. This position would take over when the Dispatch/Supervisor
finishes his shift.
Landfill
At the time of our on-site visit, the CDL currently had a staff of 15, with 11 frontline
employees being overseen by 4 management level employees. This meant that
management accounted for 26% of the landfill staff.
88 | P a g e
Management
There are currently 2 levels of management
between the Landfill Operations Manager and
frontline landfill employees: Landfill Manager
and Field Services Supervisor. To bring staffing
closer to industry standards, we recommend
that the Landfill Manager position be dissolved.
The Landfill Operations Manager should be
responsible for managing all landfill operations,
without a redundant manager position. Daily
landfill oversight should be supported by 2
Landfill Operations Supervisors.
As previously mentioned, we recommend that the Site Operation and Planning Manager
be moved under the oversight of the Landfill Operations Manager. Based on our on-site
discussions and understanding of future CDL operations, we do not see special projects
and new operational processes being implemented on the scale or frequency they have in
the past. This reduces the historical need for the additional Project and CIP Administrator
role that previously reported to the Site Operations and Planning Manager. We
recommend that the Project and CIP Administrator position be dissolved. One skilled
employee, proficient in project management and business analysis, should be appointed
as Site Operations and Planning Manager, and as needed, perform the duties previously
part of the Project and CIP Administrator role. There is no need for this individual have a
pool of employees reporting directly to them. If the Site Operations and Planning Manager
needs employees for a specific project, the Landfill Operations Manager should
temporarily assign individuals to help with the special project.
89 | P a g e
Supervisors
We recommend that the 2 Landfill
Operations Supervisors have staggered
scheduling to cover all lunches and the
full 6-day per week landfill operation.
These supervisors should provide the
direct oversight of daily operations and
all frontline landfill employees. This
should include those previously
stationed at the BMR, and the
Grounds/Maintenance Heavy
Equipment Operator that was previous
under the Project and CIP
Administrator. There are currently 12
frontline employees that should report
to the 2 supervisors, giving an oversight
ratio of 6 employees: 1 supervisor.
Currently, all frontline landfill and BMR
employees are in the Heavy Equipment
Operator II classification. In our review
however, it did not appear that all these
employees actually operate equipment. We recommend that SWRD review the employee
classification structure, and re-designate roles as appropriate. This may include laborers,
Heavy Equipment Operator I, etc. If a review of employee classifications reveals more
Heavy Equipment Operators than warranted for operation, we recommend that these
positions be eliminated through attrition.
Administration
While our review was focused on operations staff, those recommendations have impact
on the Administration organizational structure as well.
We recommend that the Solid Waste Support Supervisor that is currently under the Site
Operation and Planning Manager, instead report to the Administration Manager. Our
understanding is that the Solid Waste Support Supervisor oversees the landfill scale house
operation and 6 Solid Waste Analysts, who either operate the scale house or perform
landfill data analysis. We recommend moving 2 of these Analysts to Collections,
supporting the new Dispatcher role that was previously recommended. The remaining 4
analysts should be able to adequately provide coverage for the scale house and any
additional analytical tasks.
90 | P a g e
91 | P a g e
Appendix A – Recommended
Organizational Chart
92 | P a g e
City of Denton
SWRD Director
Collections
Operations
Manager
Landfill
Operations
Manager
Site Operations &
Planning Manager
Administration
Manager
Compliance/
Technical Support
Manager
(Reports to City
Compliance)
Dispatcher
16 Drivers*
6 Roll-off Drivers
Relief Drivers:
6 Residential
4 Commercial
2 Solid Waste
Analysts – Final
Number TBD
*Note: Once the relief drivers
are dispatched they become
the responsibility of the
supervisor they are working
for.
Once the roll-off drivers are
dispatched, if an issue comes
up in the field, the closest
field supervisor will handle it.
This supervisor oversees all
data input for operations.
District 2 Supervisor
11 Routes
13 Drivers/
Laborers
Truck Operators
2 ASL Trash Routes
2 ASL Recycling
Routes
1 Yard Waste
Routes (2 crew)
1 Bulky Route (2
crew)
1 Claw Route
3 FL Trash Routes
1 FL Recycle Route
District 1 Supervisor
11 Routes
14 Drivers/
Laborers
Truck Operators
2 ASL Trash Routes
2 ASL Recycling
Routes
2 Yard Waste
Routes (4 crew)
1 Semi-Auto Route
(2 crew)
3 FL Trash Routes
1 FL Recycle Route
**Note: On March
26 a two-day FL
trash route was
added. FL relief
driver fills in.
Facility
Supervisor***
7 Headcount
Home Chemical
Collection
3 Techs
3 Bin & Cart
Delivery
1 Welder
2 Landfill
Operations
Supervisors
Solid Waste
Support Supervisor
4 Scale House
Attendants/Landfill
Analysts11 Landfill Heavy
Equipment
Operators
1 Grounds/
Maintenance Heavy
Equipment
Operator
Business Account
Coordinator
SW Applications
Coordinator
2 Administrative
Assistants
Enviro Tech
***Note: This supervisor would
take over for the dispatcher at the
end of the dispatcher's shift and
provide relief when field
supervisors are off. This
supervisor would also be
responsible for bin and cart
inventory, in addition to all clothing
and supplies for the drivers.
District 3 Supervisor
12 Routes
13 Drivers/
Laborers
Truck Operators
3 ASL Trash Routes
3 ASL Recycling
Routes
1 Yard Waste
Routes (2 crew)
1 Claw Route
4 FL Trash Routes**
Note: For improved legibility when printing, this page has been formatted to 11” x 17” margins.
93 | P a g e
Appendix B – Heaviest Loads
94 | P a g e
Transaction
Number Route Truck Date Gross
TN
Gross
Pounds Pounds >MGVW
860146 Not Specified 1443 8/3/2017 49.57 99,140 33,140
906336 Not Specified 1443 1/17/2018 45.24 90,480 24,480
869029 Not Specified 1674 9/1/2017 43.50 87,000 21,000
872861 Not Specified 1598 9/14/2017 41.74 83,480 17,480
640559 223 671 6/1/2015 37.51 75,020 9,020
634888 1402 1156 5/6/2015 34.18 68,360 2,360
735634 1603 1598 6/3/2016 34.02 68,040 2,040
851878 1207 15101 7/10/2017 33.94 67,880 1,880
640274 1603 1598 5/29/2015 33.80 67,600 1,600
688562 1606 1599 11/27/2015 33.47 66,940 940
Top 10 Heaviest Residential Loads
Transaction
Number Route Truck Date Gross
TN
Gross
Pounds Pounds > MGVW
635663 226 1380 5/11/2015 52.40 104,800 38,800
630625 Not Specified 670 4/17/2015 46.18 92,360 26,360
879867 Not Specified 1055 10/9/2017 45.82 91,640 25,640
764263 Not Specified 1248 9/6/2016 45.20 90,400 24,400
895023 Not Specified 1249 11/29/2017 43.50 87,000 21,000
635532 224 1248 5/11/2015 41.54 83,080 17,080
632018 268 671 4/24/2015 41.10 82,200 16,200
688580 279 977 11/28/2015 40.99 81,980 15,980
915350 243 1678 2/21/2018 40.87 81,740 15,740
635582 224 1248 5/11/2015 40.50 81,000 15,000
Top 10 Heaviest Front-loader Loads
95 | P a g e
Transaction
Number Truck Date Gross
TN
Gross
Pounds Pounds > MGVW
898248 14100 12/12/2017 44.44 88,880 22,880
677472 870 10/13/2015 42.18 84,360 18,360
905148 14100 1/11/2018 41.49 82,980 16,980
677493 870 10/13/2015 41.03 82,060 16,060
670769 14100 9/16/2015 40.13 80,260 14,260
644736 1054 6/11/2015 40.08 80,160 14,160
683329 1440 11/5/2015 40.01 80,020 14,020
858151 1680 7/28/2017 39.89 79,780 13,780
790555 1440 12/12/2016 39.60 79,200 13,200
874496 870 9/20/2017 39.53 79,060 13,060
Top 10 Heaviest Roll-Off Loads
96 | P a g e
Appendix C – Typewriter Dumping
Pattern
97 | P a g e
98 | P a g e
99 | P a g e
100 | P a g e
101 | P a g e
102 | P a g e