Loading...
FEDRAC 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