HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEDRAC PKT 10-09-2000 City of Federal Way
City Council
Finance/Economic=Development/Regional Affairs Committee
Special Meeting
Monday, October 9, 2000
2:00 p.m.
City Hall
Mt..Baker C0~nference Room
(formerly Administration Conference Room)
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. City of Federal Way Comments on King County Draft Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan (VanOrsow)
4. NEXT MEETING: October 24, 2000 2:00 p.m.
Action
Committee Members:
Mary Gates, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge
Michael Hellickson
City Staff:
Iwen Wang, Management Services Director
Enola Christian, Administrative Assistant
(253) 661-4061
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
October 5, 2000
Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee
Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator~-"/.
Moseley, City Manager ~
David
H.
City of Federal Way Comments on the King County Draft 2000 Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan
BACKGROUND
King County issued their Draft 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) update. In
response staff reviewed the pla.n, and prepared comments designed to ensure that the final plan will best
serve the City of Federal Way ratepayers. These comments focus on the following five areas:
(1) The cost and equity of the county-wide solid waste system, emphasizing that collected wastes
should be directed to minimize the cost to Federal Way ratepayers. ~ - -
(2) Issues related to self-haul access at disposal facilities, to oppose changing self-haul rates and access
at the expense of ratepayers and the City.
(3) City involvement in the solid waste plan implementation, to ensure that the final plan clearly defines
the City's role in the approval of system components developed through the new plan.
(4) The draft plan's level of detail, to provide the City with detail on how plan components will be
ranked, selected and approved.
(5) Solid waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) planning, to provide suggested improvements to the
plan and its alternatives in order to best serve ratepayers through proficient program planning and
design.
A draft letter detailing these comments is attached.
Staff originally intended to forward the draft plan comments to the City Council at the same time they
would be submitted to the County. However, due to the complexity of the plan's issues, these draft
comments are being submitted to the City Council for analysis, to ensure that the comments are complete
and reflect the City's policy position. Subsequently, the County deadline lapsed due to staff
misunderstanding. Staff informed King County that the City intends to provide these comments. There
are several months built into the comment review process, and County staff indicated that the comments
by the City of Federal Way would receive consideration in the final version of the CSWMP provided they
are submitted in a timely manner.
Staff would appreciate any suggestions for improvement to the range of comments already drafted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends placing the following item on the October 17, 2000 Council Consent Agenda for
additional consideration and approval by the City Council:
Approval of the City's comments on the King County Draft 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan to be finalized and forwarded to King County.
k:\fedcX2000\kccswmp comments.doc
DRAFT COMMENTS
October __, 2000
Mr. Mark Buscher, Lead Planner
King County Solid Waste Division
201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Subject: City of Federal Way Comments on King County Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan
Dear Mr. Buscher; ::
The City of Federal Way has reviewed the King County Draft 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
(Draft Plan) and prepared the following comments related to specific issues of concern to the City of Federal Way
including cost and equity, self-haul issues, City involvement, the Plan intent and level of detail and the Waste
Reduction/Recycling (WP, JR) elements. We appreciate your consideration of these comments.
(1) Cost and Equity in the Solid Waste System
Transfer System Equity and the Impact of the Regional Direct Rate - South King County is not served equitably
by the anchor/branch concept. The Algona site is the closest King County transfer station to the City of Federal
Way. This transfer station has limited capacity, both in terms of the type of collection vehicles that can be
efficiently unloaded, and in the number of self-haul and collection vehicles that can be accommodated in a lfimely
manner.
The City's hauler has typically directed a significant portion of its vehicles to the private Eastmont transfer station
to take advantage of lower effective tipping fees~ in spite of the increased operating costs to deliver waste to
Seattle. The City's previous contractor commented that there was minimal increase in route time due to the
excessive late afternoon wait times at both the Algona and Bow Lake transfer stations as well as the operational
difficulty of having drop-box loads routinely rejected at King County facilities due to size restrictions. Although
these comments are subject to debate, it is clear that real financial incentives existed that sp~!rred.the contractor to
use the private facility.
From the City ratepayer perspective, collected wastes should be directed to minimize costs once tipping fees and
contractor operating costs are fully accounted for. As such, it may not be in the City ratepayer's interests to bear
the costs of using King County transfer stations for collection vehicles if net disposal and operating costs are higher
than they would be to use a private facility. A better approach for the City would be to use a competitive process to
select a collection contractor and to allow bidders to determine the best destination(s) [i.e. perhaps a mix of private
and County transfer station usage] that would allow them to submit the most competitive bid. This cost reduction
pressure on bidding haulers will force them to optimize their waste collection and transfer methods, passing a
portion of those savings to the ratepayers. For this reason, the City contends that the Regional Direct Rate issue
should be studied further. However, the City is now disinclined to a shift in the Regional Direct Rate toward
marginal cost pricing, as this may not be in the best interest of cities as a whole. The City suggests that the Final
Plan reassess the pros and cons of the Regional Direct Rate and gauge how this rate relates to potential WRIR
programs and the need for transfer facility expansion.
~ In the case of the City's previous contractor, Eastmont provided a rebate (discount tipPing fee) for using that facility. The
City's current contractor owns the Eastmont facility, and is able to internalize additional profit by. using that facility.
Page 2 DRAFT COMMENTS
The County's proposed anchor/branch configuration will not necessarily address operational issues at the Algona
transfer station which impact the efficiency of the city contractor's collection operations. Further, if host fees are
provided to those cities with the best (anchor) facilities, then Federal Way ratepayers could pay two penalties: an
additional amount to compensate other cities for hosting their more efficient facilities as well as the increased costs
of operational inefficiencies at the AIgona facility. Ifa decision is reached to compensate host cities, funds that are
provided should be dedicated for mitigation of specific, quantifiable impacts, and the level of compensation should
be periodically reviewed to ensure that neither excess nor inadequate compensation is provid_e.d.
The Draft Plan also appears to downplay the role of private transfer stations. The Final Plan should explore what
would happen if all of the private transfer tonnage were redirected to County facilities. It is possible that the
County's unit costs could increase if the added tonnage pushes past the threshold where significant capital
investment would be required. Since the County is concerned with its aging transfer infrastructure, a better
approach might be to view the private facilities as a relief valve for tonnage that the current system cannot handle
'efficiently. From this perspective, the ~onnage handled by the private facilities provides an excellent WR/R target -
those tons can be reduced at relatively" low cost and operational risk to the County, while deferring some capacity
investments for existing County transfer stations. For this reason, the County plan should more aggressively
embrace WR/R with the objective of reducing overall system tonnage (this is discussed further in Section (5) of this
letter). The County could then re-evaluate its needs over the next five years, and develop ,/in appropriately sized
transfer system when needed. The end result would be increased diversion and less system costs for ratepayers.
System Costs and Cost Measures - The Draft Plan focuses on the County's tipping fee as a measure of overall
costs. Using the county tipping fee as the main basis for measuring costs implies that the maintenance of the
existing scale for the County's transfer and disposal system is the main mission for the Draft Plan and the primary
criterion for evaluating WR/R program components. The City believes that the full system costs (including, for
example, collection costs) should be taken into account in evaluating WR/R options, along with the other three
more global objectives of resource conservation, environmental protection, and economic development, to be used
in ranking options and alternatives. The Final Plan should ensure that resource conservation, environmental::
protection, and economic development are not overlooked based on too narrow a definition of cost effectiveness.
This will best serve our ratepayer's long-term interests.
Performance Audit - With regard to the Deloitte & Touche Performance Audit of 1996, the County has made
progress on many recommendations. However, the organizational/structural recommendations made for
implementation by the King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) appear to be largely a work in progress. The
Final Plan should include a specific schedule for implementing the remaining recommendations or to provide a
suitable alternative that meets the intent of the performance audit recommendations ....
Gainsharing Incentives - Gainsharing is not mentioned in the Draft Plan. The plan should address this if there is
any intention of implementing, such a program within the KCSWD (similar to programs that have been
implemented at the County's sewage treatment facilities).
(2) Issues Related to Self-haul Access
Self-haul rates and access should not be changed at the expense of Federal Way ratepayers. The County is
considering a number of changes .to transfer station pricing to discourage self-hauling. There are two broad
categories of self-haulers: those hauling relatively small amounts of material instead of subscribiag to regular
garbage collection; and those hauling loads of bulky waste or higher volumes of commercial or miscellaneous
wastes that would not necessarily be appropriate for regular scheduled garbage collection.
Unfortunately, pricing policies designed to affect the former group may unfairly impact the latter group to the
detriment of cities. If a perception exists that unfairly high minimum fees and scale charges make the disposal of
self-hauled bulky or clean-up waste unreasonable, the cities may have to develop additional services to fill that
need and to counter illegal dumping. Those services could include additional community drop-off events, a
Page 3 DRAFT COMMENTS
subsidized curbside collection program for bulky wastes, additional code enforcement, or other programs.
Regardless of the strategy, the City and/or its ratepayers will bear additional costs to address the unavailability of
"reasonably" priced disposal for those items. Those costs may exceed the corresponding costs of County transfer
station improvements or additional shifts (i.e. transfer stations open one or two evenings a week to handle
residential self-haulers) to better serve self-haul customers without penalties.
Therefore, the County should carefully consider the impacts to all classes of self-haulers before adopting punitive
rate structures. If the self-hauling of small amounts of household waste is the primary concern, the County should
review options for county-wide mandatory collection. For example, the County could' consider adopting a
collection district (county-wide universal collection) as was done in Whatcom County.
(3) City Involvement
The existing County/City Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement is relatively one-sided in favor of the County. The
term, lack of opt-out process, and limited avenues for City approval of County system changes do not allow for
adequate reflection of City interests ~nd concerns. The County is facing a number of critical issues in the next
decade, including a shift of disposal site, a significant need to invest in the transfer station infrastructure, addressing
labor/contracting constraints facing the County, and determining the role of private waste management firms in
providing transfer facilities, and municipal solid waste and construction, demolition and landclearing (CDL)
disposal capacity. All of these issues will directly impact the City and should require City approval prior to
implementation. The City's role needs to be better defined in the Final Plan.
The city approval process for the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) is one of the only
means cities have to directly endorse the County's major solid waste policies and procedures. Therefore, it is
important that the CSWMP provide clear policies and recommendations that cities can review and approve or
disapprove.
(4) Plan Intent and Level of Detail
Compared with the previous King County CSWMP, the Draft Plan is vague on the specific programs and policies
to be implemented during the Plan period. The CSWMP typically refers to the need for study, or a pending
decision, but provides little direction. At a minimum, the Draft Plan should clearly define the study scope and
issues to be addressed, the study timeline, the criteria on which the decision will bd made, and identify who will
make the decision. Many key decisions will be made during the planning period, including transfer station
configuration and system pricing, the involvement of the private sector in transfer operation, and specific diversion
programs. In a plan lacking concrete recommendations, cities must have assurances in the Final Plan on how
decisions will be made and a clear definition of the cities' roles in that decision-making process. :-
(5) Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Planning
King County has been a recognized leader in waste prevention and recycling, and deserves congratulations for
attaining the goal of 50% waste diversion by 1995 established in the County's prior solid waste plan. A narrative
mission, spelled out in the Draft Plan on page 2-3, replaces that numerical goal:
"...to divert as much material as possible from disposal in a manner which reduces the
overall costs of solid waste management to County residents and businesses, con-
serves resources, protects the environment and strengthens the County's economy."
This broader mission could provide direction for waste prevention and recycling programs and systems that
advance beyond the 50% diversion goal. However, the County's Draft Plan falls short on this mission. Instead, it
focuses primarily on maintaining and expanding the County's current waste transfer and disposal system, with
major concerns centering on transfer anddisposal system configuration, sizing, pricing and operating policies. The
Draft Plan rejects substantial programs for waste prevention and recycling on the basis that decreased disposal
tonnage would require increased disposal fees. Resource conservation, environmental protection, and economic
Page 4 DRAFT COMMENTS
development are not even mentioned as criteria in the Draft Plan's evaluation of waste prevention and recycling
alternatives. In effect, the Draft Plan's evaluation of WR/R alternatives ignores three of the four criteria issued in
its mission statement. The Final Plan should be reformatted so that these.criteria are also included as measurable
factors in goal setting, program planning, and evaluation of alternatives. This revision should provide a rational
means for making decisions among strategies and policies that involve trade-offs between these four objectives. Of
even more importance to the City, this revised plan could also result in a reduced need for expansion of the solid
waste infrastructure, which would translate into lower ongoing costs for ratepayers.
In a related topic, the Final Plan should also include waste reduction and recycling goals that:hre easy for residents
and businesses to understand (and therefore easy for cities to promote and incorporate into service level
requirements). It would be ideal if these goals were specific for each sector (single-family, multi-family,
commercial, CDL, etc.).
The Selected Waste Reduction/Recycling (WR/R) Alternative - As discussed above, the Draft Plan's
recommended WR/R Alternative #2 discounts the real potential for additional diversion and appears to have
disposal rate stability as its primary objective. Alternative #3 appears to be feasible, would offer greatly increased
diversion and certainly is worthy of more careful consideration. Alternative #3 should be given greater
consideration as a means to maximize long-term diversion.
Organics Diversion - The Draft Plan states that Alternative #3 was rejected due to uncertain market capacity for
compost products and concerns oVer adverse impacts to disposal rates. This market question is similar to issues
raised before recycling programs were implemented in the early 1990s. It seems unlikely that phased-in organics
programs will exceed market demand, particularly with the amount of habitat restoration work planned or in
progress in the Puget Sound area. This restoration work will require significant amounts of organic amendments.
Barring evidence to the contrary, organics programs should be able to be gradually implemented over the next few
years, with the phase-in schedule adjusted to address any market concerns.
Disposal Rate Stability - The issue of managing disposal rates is primarily an administrative responsibility of the...
County and can be used as an argument against any and all diversion programs. In fact, scrapping existing County
recycling programs would reduce the County's tipping fee, at least to the degree that the existing system could
handle the increased tonnage without additional capital investment. Instead, the County should be responsible for
adjusting the disposal system to cost-effectively handle residual tonnage. This may mean downsizing replacement
facilities, deferring future disposal system capacity investment or adjusting staffing levels to reflect changes in
disposal levels. If pollution prevention and waste minimization are desirable objectives in their own right, then the
disposal system should be managed strictly as a "residual handling system," designed to take care of the "left-
overs" with the County adjusting service and investment levels to match disposal quantities~- With more flexible
management by the County and a shift to a disposal system with a lower fixed cost to variable cost ratio, the
system's cost impacts on ratepayers should be minimized.
A better approach would be to project costs under various tonnage capacity conditions, and then revise the Final
Plan to clearly state a policy preference for maximum diversion, allowing the disposal system to be scaled to handle
remaining residuals.
Definitions - An important part of any CSWMP is defining the term "recyclables." The definition should clearly
delineate the boundary between garbage and recyclables. This is also critical to encouraging entrepreneurial
diversion activity and reducing conflicts between private recyclers and certificated or contracted garbage haulers.
For example, a clear designation of post-consumer organics as "recyclables" would allow private companies to
offer cost-effective collection and composting services and avoiding service area challenges by certificated or
contracted garbage haulers. Therefore, the Final Plan should provide a specific policy of what is a recyclable
material versus "garbage" and define ~'recyclables" as "...source-separated materials considered to be unwanted
residuals or byproducts which are separated from disposed solid' wastes by the generator for recycling or reuse,
including, but not limited to papers, metals, glass, plastics, organics and other materials..."
Page 5 DRAFT COMMENTS
A similar issue is the Plan's use of the terms "source-separated" and "commingled" within the context of recycling.
The Final Plan should incorporate a definition of"source-separated" indicating that the generator has separated
recyclables from residual garbage, and not use this term in defining the degree of cotnmingling in a recycling
collection system. This preferred definition of source-separated is consistent with State law [RCW 70.95.030(24)].
Various recycling systems have different levels of commingling: the three-bin recycling system typically includes a
commingled containers category, while Seattle's new system commingles all materials with the exception of glass.
Other syste~ns may commingle all fibers in one collection category and ali containers in another category. All of
these recycling systems feature a degree of commingling, which again, has little to do.witl! _t.he fact that they are all
based on source-separation. These definitions should be clarified within the' text of' the'Final Plan, either in the
introduction (in the context of the overall framework of the Plan) or specifically addressed in the appropriate plan
chapter (e.g. WR/R). :
The Final Plan should also include more precise definitions for service providers. Haulers operating under
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) authority should be referred to as "certificated
haulers," not "franchised" or "licensed" haulers. Franchises and licenses are more specific tools cities can use to
overlay their authority over WUTC'~certificated haulers. These changes should be made where appropriate
throughout the Final Plan.
Construction, Demolition and Landclearing (CDL) Materials Diversion - The Couhty has an important
opportunity to significantly increase landfill diversion through CDL programs. The fact that the County does not
physically manage the bulk of that stream does not mean that the County does not have a planning responsibility to
develop diversion targets and the programs and policies needed to meet those targets. There are a wide range of
diversion alternatives that could be implemented now, or phased-in. For example, the County and cities could
consider revised demolition permit requirements, disposal restrictions, economic incentives, tipping fee rebates or
other such mechanisms to drive CDL recycling. Some policies and programs, could be implemented under the new
CDL disposal contracts with regional operators. The Plan does not specifically address these alternatives, other
than to indicate that they will be studied in the next year or two.
Also of concern is the definitional issue discussed above. Specifically, at what point do mixed CDL materials
become "garbage" which can only be hauled by certificated or contracted haulers. Clear definitions and policies
should be developed for Section 8 of the Plan to encourage private recycling efforts. This in turn, will help to
ensure that cost effective WR/R options for CDL are available for ratepayers.
Moderate Risk Waste (MRIAD - The Final Plan should address MRW issues as they related to solid waste
programs and funding. At a minimum, the plan should explicitly state that MRW is subject to the same waste
management hierarchy as other materials (reduction, reuse, recycling, and finally disposal). This could lead to
greater flexibility in collecting this material more cost-effectively. This would also better allow the County to
develop system costs for transfer stations that incorporate an MRW collection component. It is also important that
the Final Plan explicitly allows for the installation and operation of MRW collection facilities at all County-
operated transfer stations. This will assist in enhancing the equity of MRW collection available to Federal Way
ratepayers.
Recycling Potential Assessment (RPA) - A difficulty with developing WR/R recommendations is the need to
establish a system for continuous evaluation and improvement. The Final Plan should recommend a "rolling RPA"
approach where by Recycling Potential Assessments are conducted for each generator sector on a rotating schedule.
For example, in the first year the County could conduct a residential RPA; the following year would be a
commercial RPA; the third year would be a CDL RPA; the fourth year would be a residential RPA again; and so
forth. Each RPA would identify and quantify alternative or enhanced programs while involving major stakeholders
with the evaluation. The RPA should avoid becoming overly oriented toward modeling at the expense of properly
evaluating the range and feasibility of operational alternatives.
The "rolling RPA" approach would also allow the County to implement a continuous improvement approach to its
WR/R programs. By reviewing and evaluating programs for all sectors every three years, the County could
Page 6 DRAFT COMMENTS
continually optimize and adjust programs and reduce the potential for dated or inefficient programs and service
delivery. This innovation would best serve ratepayers by ensuring that WR/R programs are'efficiently designed
and operated.
Recycling Market Prices - One of the Draft Plan's concerns about recycling is expressed on page 4-11 as the belief
that a potential exists for a sustained downturn in global recycling commodity markets "...putting prices for ali
recyclables at historic lows for a considerable period of time." Price data collected during the last 15 years that
measures the average per ton value for the mix of materials collected curbside in King County indicates that this
concern is not supported by historical evidence. Aggregate prices in the late-1980s for the:i:ommodities averaged
under $60 per ton, while prices for these commodities in the late-1990s averaged over $80 per ton (following the
market spike in the mid-1990s which pushed prices over $160 per ton). The trend in recycling market prices has
been moderately positive over the period since the widespread adoption of residential curbside recycling in the
early 1980s. Ratepayers will best be served by WR/R plans which reflect market data so this assumption should be
reassessed in the Final Plan.
The City of Federal Way is pleas'ed to provide these comments regarding the King County Draft 2000
Comprehensive $olM Waste Management Plan (Draft Plan). We look forward to reviewing the final version of the
plan to see how these comments are incorporated. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact
Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator, at (253) 661-4141. Thank you for!~ully considering these
comments in preparing the Final Plan.
Sincerely,
David Moseley
City Manager
DM/RV.-jlf
cc:
City Council
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director
Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator
Project File
k:~swr~cswd~plancomments-cc.doc
King County Department
Solid Waste Division
of Natural
l~esouroes
April 2000
King Bounty Solid Waste Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite #701
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
(206) 296-6542
(~) T.his entire document is printed on recycled paper.
From .Planning
to Action
Residents and businesses in King County are reducing wastes and recycling more
than ever before. Since the 1980s, regional programs and'services have increased
the amount of materials recycled by more than 250 percent. Vital markets are
continually being pursued for recyclable materials and recycled-content products. All in
all, as a region, we're headed in the right direction.
On the other hand, the region is growing and, despite our best efforts, so is the
amount of garbage generated. It's unavoidable - more people means more garbage. But
the future is far from bleak. During the current planning period from 2000 to 2020, the
region's aging transfer system will be readied for waste export since the County's only
active landfill is expected to close in 2012. Recycling and reuse opportunities and mar-
kets will be expanded. The primary challenge for the future is to strike a balance between
providing safe and efficient region-wide services and keeping the rates customers pay as
low as possible.
The 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is a work in progress. This
draft Plan is the culmination of the first phase of a region-wide planning effort. While it
was prepared by the King County Solid Waste Division, it represents the diverse ideas and
concepts of the many participants in the regional system, including:
· Elected officials and solid waste coordinators from the 37 cities that are part of the
regional system
· Representatives froln the private solid waste management companies
· The Unincorporated Area Councils
DRAFT King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan · 2000
1-:1.
Chapter ~. From Planning to Action
· The Solid Waste Advisory Committee
· Solid Waste Division employees
· Private citizens served by the regional solid waste system
The process for preparing the draft 2000 Plan began in the spring of 1999 with the
input phase. Division staff met individually and in groups with the six key constituents
identified above to discuss the wide range of- solid waste issues facing the region during
this 20-year planning period. To be sure the citizens were heard, six public meetings were
·
During the development
of the draft Plan, six -
public meetings were
held across the County to
hear input from citizens
held across the County. These meetings were attended
by some 250 citizens who contributed their ideas and
expectations about the future of solid waste and recy-
cling services in the region and :in their own communi-
ties. Suggestions from all of the participating groups
form the basis of the proposed alternatives and recom-
mendations developed in this Plan.
Release of this draft Plan marks the beginning of the
second phase of the planning effort - regional dialogue.
The discussion process will begin again 'in this second
phase, with the ultimate goal of achieving regional con-
sensus. The last phase of the process will be the'devel-*
opment and adoption of a final Plan for the region.
Guide to the Plan
This Plan presents the region's road map to .~the future. Chapter 2 h~ps set the stage for
the reader by providing a brief look at the history of solid waste management in the
regipn and the mechanisms - both legal and administrative - that guide the planning
process. Chapter 3 looks at projected growth and how that growth and other factors are
used to develop waste generation, recycling, and disposal forecasts for the region.
Chapters 4 through l0 discuss in detail the operational and programmatic elements of
the system, including:
· Waste reduction, recycling, and market development
· Collection of mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) and recyclables
· The transfer system
· MMSW disposal
· Handling of construction, demolition, and landclearing debris (CDL), and
special wastes
Dun King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan · 2ooo
Chapter 1. From Planning to Action
· Enforcement
· System financing and rates
Each chapter presents the background and planning issues associated with these ele- '
merits. In some cases, detailed alternatives are developed and presented for considera-
tion. For each issue discussed, the chapter also presents a recommendation, which' might
propose specific actions, suggest a continuation of current practice, or ~
identify the need for further dialogue or additional studies. For ease of
locating the recommendations, they a.r.e noted with the symbol to the right.
Management Plan Technical Appendix.
under separate cover.
A summary Of the recommendations, with the associated page on which discussion
can be found, is provided in Table 1-1. Every reader and participant in this planning
process should understand that these recommendations are not final. Rather, every alter-
native, proposal, and recommendation is open for public comment during this regional
dialogue phase. Any recommendation selected for implementation will be required to
comply with all federal, state, and local laws.
Each chapter also contains tables and figures intended to illustrate specific points
or issues in the draft Plan text. As such, they must be read in conjunction with the
accompanying text found in each chapter. A glossary of terms is presented at the end of
the document. In addition, each chapter cites various supporting documents, studies,
and technical papers that are provided in the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste
This appendix is bound in a single volume
Tabte a-a. Sum~hary of Plan Recommendations
Chapter 4 Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Market Development
I~ Use the newly developed objectives and measurement targets to
track the region's progress in reducing waste generation and
meeting waste reduction and recyc(ing goa[s .................. 4-5
~ Continue and expand education, promotion, incentive, and technica(
assistance programs related to waste reduction, source reduction,
resource conservation, and recycling ........................ 4-15
I~ Continue and expand promotion of existing material exchanges and
reuse centers; evaluate development of other venues for reuse... 4-16
I~ Build on existing partnerships and ioint programs with other
governments, agencies, businesses, and organizations ......... 4-~6
I~ Integrate programs with other conservation activities ...........
~ Increase coordination with the cities ........................ 4-18
DRAFT King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan · 2ooo ~' ' 3
Chapter =. From Planning to Action
Table ~-~. continued
Chapter 4 Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Market Development, continued
I~ Evaluate recycling opportunities at County transfer~stations ...... 4-18
~ Implement enhanced collection of organic materials ............ 4-t9
I~ Develop ways to improve the recycling rate in the small
business community ..................................... 4-2o
I~ Expand market development programs for recyc[able materials... 4-20
Chapter 5 Collection of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste and Curbside Recyc[ables
I~ Maintain the existing system of flow control and keep the
Interlocal Agreements with the cities in place ................. 5-13
~ Explore an efficient and economical service for residential
pick-up of bulky wastes ................................... 5-15
I~ Continue to research the benefits of commingled recyclables
collection, changing the frequency of collection, and adding
.. '.recyclable materials for collection ........................... 5-17
~ Look at more ways to coordinate special collection
events with the cities ..................................... 5-17
~' Continue to study the costs and benefits of providing a stationary
household hazardous waste collection site in the County ........ 5-18
I~ Continue to monitor and support state legislation that would
allow local government to establish region-wide incentive rates to
encourage waste reduction and recycling ..................... 5-18
k Expand opportunities in the community for recycling and
reuse through take-back programs .......................... 5-19
Chapter 6 The Regional Transfer System
I~ Reduce demand for self-haul service at transfer stations by
encouraging subscription to curbside collection services and
holding more special collection events ....................... 6-12
I~ At smaller stations, restrict self-haul use during peak hours of
commercial hauling activity ................................ 6-12
1~ Seek Executive authority to adiust transfer station hours to
tailor services to the customers ............................ 6-12
Further analyze and discuss three
transfer system alternatives ............................... 6-3o
· Implementation of the anchor and branch concept
developed in the Division's ~999 Business Plan
DRAFT King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan · 2ooo
Chapter t. From Planning to Action
· Rabanco's proposal to have the County close the Renton Transfer
Station and direct garbage to Rabanco's Black River CDL Transfer
and Recycling Station
· The addition of a competitive review process for public-
and private-sector proposals for the transfer system
Chapter 7 Disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
I)' Procure waste export for the region when the Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill closes (expected in 2o12) .................... 7-6
I)- Continue to monitor export price and landfill capacity and
report annually .......................................... 7-8
~' Continue to monitor and maintain the closed and custodial landfills
and explore beneficial reuse options whenever feasible ......... 7-~.3
Chapter 8 Construction, Demolition, and Landclearin§ Debris and Special Wastes
I~ Continue to study the CDL waste stream
composition through 2ooz ................................. $-6
I~ Based on studies, evaluate alternatives for managing
CDL before the current CDL handling contracts expire in 2oo4 ..... 8-6
I> Continue to manage special wastes (which includes contami-
nated soil, asbestos-containing materia[s, biomedica[ wastes,
treatment plant grit, vactor wastes, wood wastes, agricultural
wastes, waste tires, and other) under current practices; after
the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill closes, handle special wastes
as shown in Table 8-3 ..................................... 8-7
Chapter 9 Enforcement
I~ Maintain existing enforcement systems for permitting and
compliance, flow control, and special waste acceptance .... 9-:3 to 9-6
I~ Continue the Community Litter Cleanup Program, reconvene
the Illegal Dumping Task Force, and continue to coordinate
County-wide efforts to control illegal dumping and tittering ....... 9-8
Chapter lo Solid Waste System Financing and Rates
Take a comprehensive look at the costs and benefits of the
various rate structure alternatives and determine whether
different rate structures might be more equitable and
reasonable for customers overall ..........................
BI{AFl' King Count,/Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan · 2000
Chapter t · From Planning to Action
·
issue of this draft Plan
begins the regional
dialogue phase, which
will lead to development
of a final Plan for
adoption
Process for Adoption of a Regional Plan
Issue of this draft' Plan begins-'the public comment
period, which extends from April through July, at a min-
imum. The County will again work with all of the public-
and private-sector groups that participated in the devel-
opment of the draft Plan. The King County Council will
also be briefed on the content and recommendations
presented in the Plan. All comments received will be
reviewed and addressed in developing the final Plan. The
final Plan must be approved. _ by the Washington
Department of Ecology and adopted by the King County
Council and the cities before implementation. A sched-
ule for development of the Plan from draft to final is
shown in Figure 1-1.
Rgute ~-l. Process for Development, Review, and Adoption of the Plan
Draft Plan Development
May-October 1999 Meetings with the public- and private-sector groups '
October 1999-April 2000 Preparation and issue of the.draft Plan and draft
Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) [Note: The draft
ElS is bein§ prepared independently and will be issued
in May 2ooo.]
Draft Plan Review and Response to Comments
April-July ;zooo · Public review and comment period~ :
· Work with Pi~n participants
· Briefing of the King County Council and Regional
Policy Committee on the Plan
Draft Plan and Draft ElS Revision (projected date)
August-November 2ooo Revision of draft Plan and draft ElS based on review of
public comments
Issue and Adoption of Final Plan (projected date)
December ~ooo Issuance of final Plan and final ElS for adoption
DRAFT King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan · 2ooo
LARRY GO~EI-I'
Metropolitan King County Council
District Te~
September 28, 2000
The Honorable Ron Sims
King County Executive
516 Third Avenue, Room 400
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear Executive Sims:
The Regional Policy'Committee has spent time at its past.few meetings reviewing a~d
discussing the Draft'2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste Managem~t Plan. The
following issues were identified by the Committee members as worthy of further revieW.
Countywide Policy on Packaging The Committee members wonder whether there is
a countywide policy on packaging and product stewardship? If not, such a policy and
implementation strategy should be committed to in the Final Plan.
Self-haul Disposal Services Provided by Private Sector The Committee desires to
know the pros and cons of having the privat~ sector build and/or op~-ate transfer
stations to serve self-haulers. Can tm~ be referenced and discussed? How will the
Final Plan indicate that this issue was explored?
Solid Waste Flows Through t~rivate and Public Facilities The Final Plan should
provide more detail on how the current level of private Iransfcr (also known as
Regional Direct), which is approximately 23 percent of total tonnage, was arrived at.
Is this an informal agreement, or can the volume change in either direction (.public
versus private transfer facilities)? What would be the.financial implications for the
County's a'ansfer stations and rates if County volumes decreased?
The Draft Plan appears to bypass this issue and sidesteps the discussion of additional
privatization, other than referencing the C0unty~s Labor Policies. RPC members
believe a more thorough discussion of how, the waste.stream is balanced between
private and public facilities would be helpful. In particular, the information would be
useful in understanding the facility siting, upgrading and expansion recommendations
in the plan. Examples (if they exist) of how other regional systems have balanced the
Room 1200, King County Couahouso. 516 Third Avenue. Seattle, WA 98104-3272
(206) 296.1010 FAX (206) 296-0198 'I-[YFFDO (206) 296-1024
~'"~' Ptif~Iod on Recycted Paper
· o o
· September 29, 2000
Page 2 ·
flow of waste streams between private.and public transfer stations may also bc
enlightening.
·
· System Efficiencies RPC members arc very interested in achicv~c
transfer and disposal system. One method to achieve this is gains~g, another is
privatizafion. It would be helpful if the Final Plan could outline what types of.
tional e}aange,.i, efficiencies and cost savings may be possible through .
* Initiative/slncen~uce Self-haul Ill order to reduce the dgallanll for $¢lf~haul
services (thus creating system efficiencies), the Final Plan should expand the
discussion of potential incentives suCh as making extra and bulky waste collection
cost-competitive with-the costs of self-hauling. Working With the cities to develop a
disposal rate structure that would have scl.f-haulers pay for the full cost for the
services they receive may be a fine idca, but would require an incredible mount of
finesse to accomplish. -.-
The Committee supports the proposed coupon pilot program for reducing or
managing the demand for self-haul service and would like to see additional concepts
(or perhaps the broader application of this'concept) surfaced in the Final Plan.. Any
/~ such programs, however, shOuld be developed in partnership with Seattle and the
adjoining Counties in order to minimize cross-border movement of self-haul waste.
· .ou ,-or-cou.v se r-,a .t The Vinal.Vlan should hc er o=ty
could be excluded from or surcharged for use ofl~- .~e,,T..m_ nsfer Sjatio~. It would be .
helpful-to include statistics, if available, ~ demohstratj.c.il~m~nt of crossover that
takes place oris anticipated. The same'would go f~ res~ using the · · .
County facilities. 'This informatiOn would,be benefi'gi-~I as-;~'ipprovingbOdies '.
consider that amount of subsidy self-haulers apparently receive in the system.
· Transportation Costs Bid Separately Regarding 'the transportation of solid waste,
departmental staff indicated that the county .most likely would seek bids for waSte
export that included the costs of transportation. SOme RPC members questioned
whether or not thiscould make the County vulnerable to price gouging by
transportation firms. It would be helpful to have a more detailed explanation of.the -
benefits of seeking requests,for-propoSals that are all4nclusive of transportation and
disposal costs versus separate contracts.
· September 29, 2000
Page 3 -
Thank you for the opportunity to comment onthe Draf~ Solid Waste Plan. If you require
clarification of any of the preceding issues please contact me, Renton Councilmember
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, or our Council staff(Michael Alvine or Keith Oratz). We look
forward to working with you on this issue.
'Larry Gossett
Councilmember = District 10
Chair,' Regional Policy Committee
Cc;
Suburban Cities
ATTN: Deborah Eddy, Executive Director, Suburban Cities Association
Metropolitan King County Council Members
Para Bissormette, Director, .Department of Natural Resources, King County
Regional Policy Committee Members.i:":.
PUBLIC NOTICE
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Finance/Economic Development/Regional Affairs
Committee/Federal Way City Council will hold a special meeting on:
Monday, October 9, 2000
2:00 p.m.
Mt. Baker Conference Room/2nd Floor - City Hall
33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA.
Re:
City of Federal Way Comments on King County Draft Comprehensive'
Solid Waste Management Plan
DATED this 4th day of October, 2000.
/s/ N. Christine Green, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED AT CITY HALL 10/4/00
NEWSPAPERS NOTIFIED VIA FAX 10/4/00
CIRCULATED TO COUNCIL & STAFF 10/4/00
POSTED ON WEB & CH 28 10/4/00
PUBNOT42
FINANCE/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Meeting held: October 24, 2000
Location: Mt. Baker Conference Room
Meeting opened at ~og
Adjourned at
/DcRAC
hair Mary Gates '
/Jeanne Burbidge'
Michael Hellickson /
Committee Staff
/Iwen Wang, Management Services Director'
Enola Christian, Administrative Assistant
Federal Way Ci.ty Council
[] Mike Park
[if/ Linda Kochmar'
[] Phil Watkins
[] Dean McColgan
Federal Way Ci.ty Staff
Iff David Moseley, City Manager ~
?/Vacant, Deputy City Manager
Derek Matheson, Assistant City Manager/
Jenny Schroder, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
[] Kathy McClung, Interim Community Development Services Director
/Tom Chaney, Interim Police Chief
Bob Sterbank, Interim City Attorney /
[] Pat Richardson, Acting Deputy City Attorney
[~/Cary Roe, Public Works Director ~
Rob VanOrsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator /
Marie Mosley, Deputy Management Services Director /
[13/ Tho Kraus, Financial Management Supervisor~
[] Sandra Jurich, Financial Analyst
[] Tam Swett, Management Analyst
Federal Way Chamber of Commerce
[] Delores Shull, President/CEO
[] Debra Coates, Economic Development Executive
Others in attendance
[] Barbara Reid
[] Joann Piquette
[] H. David Kaplan
[] Barbara Clements, Tacoma News Tribune
[] James Geluso, Federal Way News
K :~FINANCE~LTACX, ROSTER
10/20/00
