Ord 93-197
ORDINANCE NO.
93-]97
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ADOPTING KING COUNTY'S
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PINAL SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DETERMINING THAT
KING COUNTY SHALL NOT EXERCISE ANY POWERS
REGARDING THE LEVELS AND TYPES OF SOLID WASTE
SERVICE FOR ANY ASPECTS OF SOLID WASTE
HANDLING IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY (AMENDS
ORDINANCE 90-73).
WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.080 requires that each city develop
its own comprehensive solid waste management plan, enter into an
agreement to prepare a joint city/county plan or authorize the
County to prepare the plan for the city's solid waste management;
and
WHEREAS, the city of Federal Way and King County entered
into an Interlocal Agreement whereby the parties agreed that they
shall cooperate in the County's development of a Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, in 1990 King County prepared and proposed a 1989
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and submitted it to the
city for approval and adoption; and
WHEREAS, the city, by its Ordinance 90-73, had approved
and
adopted
the
1989
King
county
Comprehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan with addenda; and
WHEREAS, the county has completed the preparation and
environmental review,
including Environmental Impact Statement
("EIS"), of the Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan ("Plan"); and
ORD. # 93-197
, ,PAGE 1
COpy
WHEREAS,
pursuant
to
WAC
197-11-630,
the
City
has
published its intention to adopt by reference the King County EIS
on satisfaction of its environmental review for the Plan; and
WHEREAS, section 10 of Chapter 431 of the Laws of the
state of Washington, 1989 Regular session, amending RCW 70.95.160,
authorizes
the
City to determine that King County
shall
not
exercise any powers regarding the levels and type of service for
any aspect of solid waste handling in the city of Federal Way;
WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the Final
1992 Plan; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
section 1.
AdoDtion of Kina Countv EIS.
The City
Council hereby adopts by reference the King County Environmental
Impact Statement prepared by King County for the Plan, pursuant to
WAC
197-11-630,
as
full
satisfaction
of
the
City's
required
environmental review.
section 2.
Adoption of Plan.
The city Council of the
City of Federal Way hereby adopts the Final 1992 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan with addenda,
attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
section
3.
city
Retains
Service
Level
Authoritv.
Pursuant
to
RCW
70.95.160,
the
City
of
Federal
Way
hereby
determines that King County shall not exercise any powers regarding
the levels and types of service for any aspect of solid waste
handling in the City of Federal Way.
King County regulations and
ORD. #
ql-1q7 , PAGE 2
ordinances regarding levels and types of service for any aspect of
solid waste handling shall not apply within the corporate limits of
the city as may now or hereafter be determined by the city.
section 4.
citv Retains Rate settinq Authoritv. The City
shall continue to determine solid waste and recycling collection
rates by ordinance and not as set forth in the Final 1992 Plan.
section
5.
Severabilitv.
The
provisions
of
this
ordinance are declared separate and severable.
The invalidity of
any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion
of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to
any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to
other persons or circumstances.
section 6.
Ratification.
Any act consistent with the
authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is
hereby ratified and affirmed.
section 7.
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be
effective
thirty
(30)
days
after
passage
and
publication
as
provided by law.
PASSED by the City council of the City of Federal Way
this
7th
day of
December
, 1993.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
~1~
ORD. #
93-197 , PAGE 3
ATTEST:
~.~c
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VA
CITY ATTORNEY, CAROLYN A. LAKE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 1, 1993
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 7, 1993
PUBLISHED: December 11, 1993
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1994
ORDINANCE NO. 93-197
MARYKlORDISOUDWST.3
ORD. # 93-197
, PAGE 4
•
� 11:
�
2 VOLUME SET OF FINAL KING COUNTY 1992 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN WI'I'Fi ADDENDA IS ON FILE WITFI THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
i•
�
Volume I
August 1993
Prepared by
King County Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
400 Yesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, Washington 98104-2637
�\I/�
���
Sorting
It Out
This enr:re documenr is
Together pri,�d�,��«��r
This document will be provided
in large print, braille, or audio cassette
upon advance request
n
�
u
•
�
•
�
.
•
•
�
•
•
King County Executive
Tim Hill
King County Council
Audrey Gruger, Chair, District 1
Cynthia Sullivan, District 2
Brian Derdowski, Distric[ 3
Larry Phillips, District 4
Ron Sims, District 5
Bruce Laing, District 6
Paul Barden, District 7
Greg Nickels, Distric[ 8
Kent Pullen, District 9
Department of Public Works
Paul Tanaka, Director
Ann Kawasaki, Deputy Director
Solid Waste Division
Rodney G. Hansen, Manager
Cynthia J. Ste�vart, Assistant Manager
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Bruce Glant, Chair
Terry Mderson
Michelle Dewey
George Duncalf
Allen Guisinger
Amanda Hindman
Laurence IsNan
Nels Johnson
Wally Kohl
Cathie Koll
Marty Neuhausen
Bob Schille
Christopher Si�u
James K. Talbot
Suburban Cities Association Policy Group
Andy BaRon, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Kirklazid
Richard Conrad, Assistant City Manager, City of Mercer Island
Jennifer Can[rell, Solid Was[e Program Coordinator, Ciry of Bellevue
Jim Harris, Planning Director, City of Kent
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum
Tim Hill, King County Executive
Pa�l Bazden, King County Councilmember
Brian Derdowski, King County Councilmember
Norm Rice, City of Seatde Mayor
Jane Noland, Ciry of Seattle Councilmember
Doris Cooper, City of Kirkland Coundlmember
Mary Gates, Ciry of Federal Way Councilmember
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, City of Renton Councilmember
Project staff
Mark Buscher, Project Manager
Helen Matekel, Assistant Project Manager
Shawn Northrup, Project Staff
Fredetica Merrell, Proiect Staf�'
Contrlbuting Staff
Program Planning Sectiort
Theresa Jennings, Manager
Julia Bassett
Jeanne Marie Isola
Russ Davies
John Sturdivant
Waste Reduction/Recycling Section
Susan Gulick, Manager
Lyne Davis
Jeff Gaisford
Donna Miscolta
Bill Reed
Suzette Riley
Edward Zaharevitz
Operations Section
Dennis Trammell, Manager
Laura Belt
Dick Richards
Eizgi�aee�•i�rag 3e�•vices Sectlon
Revin Kiernan, Manager
Mark Ellefson
Neil Fujii
Lisa Wagner Haley
Shirley Jurgensen
Marilyn Monk
John Ryland
Fiscal Seiz»ces ,4ection
Geraldine Cole
Production Staff
tiurt Bayne
Blake Feist, Computer Graphics
Crcede Lambard
n�atY 1r'est
COriSU1�i1fS
Jean Garber
SCS Enginee�s
C
Synergic Resources Corporatio��, Inc.
Solutions Res�urces Inc.
Triangle Associates
Pacific Rim Resources
King County Commission
for Marketing Recyclable Materials
Candy Cox, Interim Executive Director
jailyn Brown
•
Spedal dianks for pmviding atd.9ance to projed slaff ihrough paAicipation in
vazious intaju�sdidional and pubGc imolvianent oppoRuniUes.
Washington Department of Ecology and Washington
Transportation and Utilities Commission
Peter Christiansen, Washington State Depar[ment of Ecology
Tamara Gordy, Washington State Department of Ecology
Tom Spille, Washington State Department of Ecology
Teresa Osinski, Washington UtiliGes and Transportation Commission
City Staff
Donna Barlow, Recycling Coordinator, City of Issaquah
Laura Barlow, Solid Waste Coordinator, City of Burien
Steve Bennett, Recycling Coordinator, City of Normandy Park
Glenn Boettcher, Recycling Coordinator, City of Mercer Island
Cecelia Boulais, Recycling Coordinator, Ciry of Duvall, City of North Bend, City
of Snoqualmie
Kari Brookhouse, Recycling Specialist, Ciry of Auburn
The Honorable Peggy Breen, Councilmember, City of Duvall
Ken Cabrera, Public Works Supe�visor, City of North Bend
Frank Currie, Director of Public Works, City of Aubum
Harlan Elsasser, City Engincer, City of Duvall
Jacquelya Faludi, Recycling Coordinator, City of Federal Wa��
Rebecca Fox, Recycling Coordinator, City of Tukwila
Heidi Gallup, Recycting Coordinatot, City of Sea'I'ac
JoMn Johnson, Commercial Recycling Coordinator, City of Bellevue
Linda Knight, Solid Waste Coordinator, Ciry of Renton
Claudia Lauinger, Recycling Coordinator, Town of Clyde Hill
Corbitt Loch, Recycling Coordinator, City of Des Moiu�;
Roger T. Loschen, Mayor, City of Lake For�t Park
Terry May, Customer Service, City of Algona
Don Mosley, Gas Dept Manager, City of Enumclaw
Cecelia Muller, Recycling Coordinator, City of Bothell
Kathy Robson, Management Malyst, City of Redmond
Ka�en Siegel, Administcative Assistant, City of Kent
Lenya Shore, City Management Intem, City of Kirk(and
Dorothy Spadoni, Ciry Clerk, City of Pacific
Dick Sulser, Solid Waste Supervisor, City of Auburn
Wallace Swofford, Environmental Health Services Supervisor, Sea[de-King
County DepG of Public Health
Kim Wilde, City Administrator, City of Snoqualmie
Diane Yates, Recycling Coordinator, City of Lake Forest Park
Lane Youngblood, Recycling Coordinator, Ciry of Woodinville
•
�
•
�
•
i
!
�
•
•
•
•
•
i•
�•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Contents
Annotation of 1992 Draft Plan Comments
Executive Summary
Chapter I: Plan Development
A. PLANNING BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1
1. Puipose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1
2. Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1
3. Planning Authoriry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1
4. Plan Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 2
5. Required Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 3
6. Plan Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 3
B. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS . . ... . . . . . . . . I - 3
l. Solid Waste Plans Incoiporated by Reference ... I- 3
a. Ciry of Seattle Plau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 3
b. Local Hazardous Waste Manage►nent Plan
for Seattle-King Counry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 4
c. Metro Sludge Management Plan . . . . . . . . I - 4
d. Sludge Management of Other Jurisdictions .. I- S
2. Pla��s Related to the Solid Waste
Ma�iagement System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 5
a. City/Couury Comprehensive Land 1lse Plans . I- 5
(1) Local ]urisdictioi�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 5
(2) King County Comprehensive Land Use
Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - S
(3) Shoreline Management Master Programs I- 6
(4) Local Zoning and Related Regulations . I- 6
(5) State and Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . I - 6
(6) Groundwater and Sui�face Water
Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 6
(7) King County Sensitive Areas . . . . . . . . I - 6
3. Other Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 6
a. Snohomish County Solid Waste
Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ - 7
C. ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - �
1. Formal Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 3
a. Washington State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 8
b. King Count}� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 9
c. Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 9
d. Tribal Authoriry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 10
e. Seattle King Counry Board of Health .... I- 10
f. King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee I- 10
g. Solid Waste Interlocal Forum . . . . . . . . . I - 10
2. li�formal SU�uctures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1?
3. Solid Waste Owneiship aud Respoi�sibiliry .... I- 12
D. PLANNING HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 12
1. Ea�•ly Plauning Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 12
a. 1974 RIBCO Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 12
b. 1982 PSCOG Pla�i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 12
2. 198g Comprehei�sive Solid Waste Management
Pla�� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 13
a. Energy/Resource and Recovery (F✓RR) and
Waste Reduction a�ld Recycling (WR/R)
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 13
b. Programmatic Environmental Impact
State►nent for Solid Waste Management
Altecnatives (PEIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 13
c. ting Count�� Executive Report
Solid Waste Management Alternatives .... I- 13
d. King Counry Ordinance 8771 . . . . . . . . . I - 13
e. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 14
f. 1989 Plan Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 14
g. Waste Not Washington Act . . . . . . . . . . . I - 14
3. 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan [Ipdate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 14
a. Ordinance 9928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 14
b. State Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 15
(1) Ma�•kets and Pi•ocurement . . . . . . . . I - 15
(2) Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 15
(3) Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 15
(4) Litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 15
c. Enviromi�ental Impact Statement Addendum I- 15
E. PROCESS AND SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-- 15
1. Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 15
a. Subucban Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 15
b. Solid Waste Adviso�y Committee ....... I- 15
C. I{lllg COL111tV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 16
d. Solid Waste Interlocal Forum . . . . . . . . . I - 16
e. Depa�tment of Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 16
2. Review and Approval Process . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 16
3. Plan A�nendmeuts and Update . . . . . . . . . . . I - 16
Chapter II: Planning Area
A EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1
1. Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1
a. Eai�li . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1
(1) Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1
(2) Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1
(3) Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 1
(4) Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 2
b. Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 3
(1) Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 3
(2) Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 3
�3) Odor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 3
c. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 4
(1) Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 4
(2) Storm Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 6
(3) Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 7
d. Plants and Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 7
(1) Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . li - 7
(2) A�limals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [I - 8
e. Energy and Natural Resources . . . . . . . . II - 3
(1) Ei�ecgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 8
(2) Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . lI - �
2. Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . . . . . II - 9
a. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 9
b. Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 9
c. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 9
d. Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 10
(1) Population and Housing . . . . . . . . II - 10
(2) Business and Industiy . . . . . . . . . . II - 10
e. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare . . . . . . . . . II - 10
(1) Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 10
(2) Light and Glare . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 11
f. Transpoctation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 11
(1) Highways and Roads . . . . . . . . . . II - 11
(2) Rail aud Waterbome Transportation . II - 13
g. Public Se�vices and Utilities . . . . . . . . . II - 13
B. WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 13
1. Oveiview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 13
a. Definition of Mixed Municipal
Solid Waste (MMSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1 - 14
b. Pla�ining Forecast Model . . . . . . . . . . . II �- 14
c. MMSW Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 15
d. Waste Reduction and Recycling ...... II - 15
e. MMSW Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 16
2. Waste Chat acterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I - 18
a. Composition of Disposed Waste ....... II - 19
(1) 1987 Vetsus 1990 Total Waste� Stream
Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 19
(2) Comparison of Residential Waste
Stcea►v Composition . . . . . . . . . . . II - 19
(.3) Comparison of Nonresidential Waste
Strea�l� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 21
b. Cou�position of Rec��cled W�ste ....... II - 22
3. blonitoring aud Evalt�ation . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 22
C. SOLID WASTE FAC]LI'I1' SITING PLAN SUI��tI��tARY II - 23
1. Faciliry Ty�pes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 23
2. Siting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 24
3. Siting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 24
a. Geology and Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 24
b. Gcoundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 24
c. Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 24
d. Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 24
e. Site Capacih� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 24
f. Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 25
g. Climatic Factois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 25
h. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 25
(1) Ccitical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 25
(2) Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 25
(3) State or National Par�s . . . . . . . . . II - 25
(4) Residential Neiglibo�s . . . . . . . . . . II - 2S �
(5} Traffic Access Road Development ... II - 25
(6) Traffic Iivpact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 25
(7) Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 25
4. Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - ?5
5. Public Ii�tonnation and Involvement Program II - 26
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Chapter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling
A WASTE REDUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 1
1. Fxisting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 1
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 1
b. Counry Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 3
(1) Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 3
(2) Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 3
(3) Other Ser�ices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 4
c. City Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 4
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 4
a. Comprehensive Waste Reduction Strategy .. III - 4
b. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I11 - 4
c. Financial Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIl - 5
d. Product Packaging and Source Reduction III - 5
e. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 5
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 5
a. Alternative A, Maintalli Status Quo .. III - 5
b. Alternative B, Expand Existing Waste
Reduction Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - S
(1) Integcation of Esisting Progran�s .... III - 6
(2) Media Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 - 6
(3) Targeted Waste Reduction Plan ..... Ill - 6
(4) Collection R�te Incentives . . . . . . . . IlI - 7
(5) Waste Reduction Policy and Program
Research and Development . . . . . . . III - 7
(6) Packagii�g Restriction Program Research
and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 8
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - �
5. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 8
B. RECYCLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 10
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 10
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IlI - 10
(1) Status of 1989 Plan Recommendatiouslll - 10
(2) 1989 Plan Urban and Rural
Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - L
(3) 1�8� Pla�l Designation of Recycl�bles Ill - 1?
(4) 1�4inimum Seivice Levels . . . . . . . . III - 12
(5) Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 13
(6) Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - l3
b. County Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 18
(1) Recyclables Collection . . . . . . . . . III - 1�3
(2) Support Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 19
(3) Regional Programs . . . . . . . . . . . III - 21
(4) King Counry Commission for
Marketing Recyclable Materials .... III - 22
c. Ciry Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 22
(1) Recyclables and Yard VJ�ste Collection III - 22
(2) Support Seivices . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - ??
�3) City Optional Programs . . . . . . . . . III - 23
(4) Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - ?3
2.
3.
4.
5.
d. Mixed Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . III - 23
(1) Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 23
(2) Feasibiliry A�lalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 23
Needs a�id Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 24
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . III - 24
b. Recvclables Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 24
(1) Unrecycled Waste Stream By Generator III - 24
(2) Seivice Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 25
c. Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 27
(1) Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 27
(2) hey Market Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 28
(3) Marketing Commission . . . . . . . . . III - 28
d. Suppoct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 29
e. Regional Prog�ams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 29
(1) Intergovermnental Relatioi�s/
Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 29
(2) City Optioiial Pcogcaros . . . . . . . . . III - 29
(3) Educatio��/Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 29
(4) Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 29
(S) Clean Wood 1�aste . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 30
f. Snn�maiy of Needs and Opportunities .. III - 30
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 31
a. Alternative A, E�isting Programs ...... III - 33
(1) Recyclables Collection . . . . . . . . . . III - 34
(?) Support and I:ducation Programs .. II[ - 34
(3) Re�ional Programs . . . . . . . . . . . III - 34
(4) Program Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 34
(5) King Count�� Commission for
��arheting Recyclable I��taterials . . . . III - 3S
b. Altecnative B, Expanded Se►vice5 ...... III - 35
(1) Residential Collection h9iniron►i�
Service Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 36
(?) Noncesidential Collection Minimum
Setvice I,evels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 41
(3) Recyclables Collection at Solid Waste
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIl - 42
(4) Yarci Waste Disposal Limitations Ban III - 43
(S) Additional Counry-sponsored
Collectioo Seivices . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 45
(6) Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 4S
(7) Regional Programs . . . . . . . . . . . III - 46
(8) I'vng Counry Commission for
Niarl�eting Recyclable Materials .... III - 46
(9) Program Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 47
c. Alternative C, Mandatoiy Recycliug
Tllrough Disposal Limitations . . . . . . . . III - 47
(1) Recyclables Collection . . . . . . . . . . I[I - 47
(?) Support Programs . . . . . . . . . . . III - 48
(3) Regional Programs and �4arkets ... III - 48
(4) Program Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill - 48
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 48
I�vplementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 49
�
Chapter IV: Mixed Municipal Solid
Waste Handling Systems
A. SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES COLLECTION .. IV - 1
1. E�isting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - ?
a. Legal Authoriry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 2
(1) Ecology Autltoriry . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 2
(2) WUTC Solid Waste Authoriry . . . . . . . IV - ?
(3) WUTC Recyclables Authority . . . . . . . IV - ?
(4) County Solid Waste Authorit�� . . . . . . IV - ?
(5) County Recyclables Authority . . . . . . IV - 3
(6) Cities and Towns Solid Waste Authoriry IV - 3
(7) Cities and Towns Recyclables Autlloriry IV - 4
b. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . tV - 4
(1) Residential Collection of Solid Waste
and Recvclables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 4
(2) Commercial Sector W�tste and
Recvclables Collection Svsteil�s ..... I�' - 6
c. Collection Rates for Solid Waste and
Recyclables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 6
(1) Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - �
(2) V✓aste Reduction and Recycliilg (�VR/R)
and Rate Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . I4' - 6
?. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 6
a. Urban Solid Waste aud Recyclables CollectionlV - 8
b. Rural Solid W;�ste aud Recvclables Collection IV - 8
c. Nonresidential Collection . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 8
d. lnstitutional and Incentive Rates ...... IV - 8
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 8
a. Alternative A, Status Quo Voluntai��
Collection Syste�v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 9
b. Alternative B, Voluntary Collection with
Regulato�y Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. IV - 9
c. Alternative C, Mandato�y Collection System IV - 9
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 10
a. Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 10
b. W[JTC Rate Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14' - 10
5. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 10
B. TRANSFER SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 1 ]
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 12
a. System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 12
(1) King Counry Transfer Stations .... IV - 1�
(2) Other Public and Private Transfer
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 13
b. Transfer System Operations . . . . . . . . . IV - 13
(1) Transportation Routes . . . . . . . . . . IV - 16
(2) Vehicle Capaciry . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 16
(3) Tonnage Capacih� . . . . . . . . . . . . 14' - 17
(4) Variations in Seivice Demand ..... IV - 17
c. 1989 Tral�sfer System Development Plan . N- 17
d. Growth Management Legislation Impacts IV - 18
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Role of the Transfer System . . . . . . . . .
b. Tonnage Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Customer Seivice Capaciry . . . . . . . . . .
d. Compliance with State and Local
Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e. Recycling Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f. Accommodation of New Equipment ....
g. Master Faciliry Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1) Faciliry Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Physical Facilities for Waste Expoi�t
Transfer ..................
(3) Recycling and Materials Recovery . .
(4) Technological Obsolescence . . . . . .
h. Implementation Schedules . . . . . . . . . .
(1) Short-term Needs and Opportunities .
(2) Long-term Needs and Opportunities .
i. Pcivate and Public Sector Interactions ..
j. System Use Data Collection . . . . . . . . .
k. Growth Managen�ent Legislation Impact .
3. Alternatives .... . . . . . ..... ..... ...
a. Alternative A , Status Quo System Plau ..
(1) North Count�� Area . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Central County Area . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) South County A�•ea . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4) Rural Count�� Area . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Alternative B, Updated System Plan ....
(1) North Counry Area . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Central County A�•ea . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) South County A�•ea . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4) Rural County A��ea . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Alternative C, Privatization . . . . . . . . . .
d. Alternative D, Smaller Facilities ......
4. Rewmmendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. 1992 Transfer System Development Plan .
(1) Setvice A�•ea Changes . . . . . . . . . .
(2) General Changes in the System ....
5. Implementation ...................
IV - 18
iv - 19
IV - 20
IV - 20
IV - 21
IV-21
IV - 21
IV - 22
IV - 22
IV - 22
IV - 22
IV - 2Z
IV - 22
IV - 22
Iv - 23
IV-23
IV - 23
iv - 23
IV - 23
IV - 24
IV - 24
IV - 2S
IV - 25
iv - 26
IV - 26
iv - 26
iv - 26
iv - 26
IV - 27
IV - 27
IV - 27
IV - 27
IV - 28
IV - 28
IV-28
IV - 28
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C.
DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - ,31
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 32
a. Disposal Facilities and Capaciry ...... IV - 32
(1) Cedar Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 32
(2) Hobart Landfill . . . . . . : . . . . . . . IV - 33
(3) Enumclaw Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . IV - .33
(4) Vashon Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 34
(5) Waste Eacport Evaluation . . . . : . . . IV - 34
(6) La�ld Availabiliry for
Future Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 34
b. King County Solid Waste Regulatio►�s
Compliance Demonstration . . . . . . . . . N - 35
c. Capital Constructiou Plan for Disposal
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 35
d. Financial Assucance Demonstratioii .... IV - 35
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 39
a. Disposal Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 39
(1) Cedar Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 39
(2) Hobart Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 40
(3) Enumclaw Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 40
(4) Vashon Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 40
(5) W�ste Eaport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 40
b. King County Solid Waste Regulations
Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 40
(1) Cedar Hills Groundwater . . . . . . . . 14' - 40
(2) Cedar Hills Laudfill Gas . . . . . . . . IV - 41
(3) Enumclaw Landfill Gas . . . . . . . . . IV - 41
(4) Vashon Island Landfill Groundwater . IV - 41
(5) Vashon Landfill Sole Source Aquifec
Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N - 41
c. Capital Constructio�l Pl for Disposal
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 41
d. Financial Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 41
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 44
a. Ongoing Requireii�ents . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 44
�l� KIR� COU1111 Solid Waste Health
Regulations Compliance . . . . . . . . IV - 44
(Z) Capital Coi�struction Plan . . . . . . . IV - 44
(3) Financial Assuiance . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 44
b. Disposal Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 44
(1) Alternative A, Existing Facilities .... IV - 44
(2) Alternative B, New h�ib1SW Regional
Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 45
(3) Alternative C, Waste Export . . . . . . IV - 4S
4. Recommendatioi�s . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 46
a. Ongoing Reqnireinents . . . . . . . . . . .. . IV - 46
(1) King County Solid Waste Regulations
Code Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 46
(2) Capital Construction Plan . . . . . . . IV - 46
(3) Fina�icial Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 46
b. Disposal Capaciry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 46
(1) Cedar Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 46
(2) Hoba�•t Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 47
(3) Vashon La�ldfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 47
(4) Waste E�port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 47
5. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 47
la
INACTIVE LANDFILLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 48
1. E�isting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 48
a. Cedar Falls Laudfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 48
b. Duvall Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N - 48
c. Cocliss Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 48
d. Bow Lake Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 48
e. Houghton Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 49
f. Puyallup/titt Corner Landfill . . . . . . . . IV - 49
g. Enuroclaw Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 49
h. Financial Assuiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 49
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 49
a. Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 49
b. Financial Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 50
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 50
4. Recommendatious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 50
E. ENERGY/RESOURCE RECOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - SO
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - SO
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 51
Chapter V: Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
A. CONTAMINATED SOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Alternatives to Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. Potential Disposal Optioi�s . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Alternative A, Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Alternative B, Recycliug aud Tceatii�ent,
Analyze Disposal Options . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. ASBESTOS WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Disposal of Asbestos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. BIOMEDICAL WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. EX1Stlllg COIlaItlOI1S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Biomedical Waste fron� Medical, Dental, and
Veterinary Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Home-generated Sha�ps . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Alteinatives .. ....... .......... .. ..
a. Biomedical Waste froui Medical, Dental, and
Veterinary Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1) Alternative A, Out-of-Counry Treatment
a�id Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Alternative B, Flow Control . . . . . . .
b. Home-generated Shaips . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1) Alternative C, Disposal Ban . . . . . . .
(2) Alteruative D, Educatiou . . . . . . . . .
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Implementation ....................
V-1
V-1
V-1
V_2
V-2
V-2
V-2
v-3
�'-3
V-3
v-3
V-4
V-4
V-4
V-4
V-4
V-4
V-4
V-4
V-S
V-5
V-5
V-5
v-6
v-6
D. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLI'PION,
AND LAND CLEAKING V✓ASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 7
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 7
a. Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 8
U. CDL Waste Reduction and Recycling .... V- 9
c. Market Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 9
d. CDL Transportation and Disposal ...... V- 10
e. Processing of Mixed CDL and Disposal
of Waste Residuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 10
f. Regulatory Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 11
(1) ting Counry Solid Waste Regulations . V- 11
(2) King Couuty Solid Waste Code ..... V- 11
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 11
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 12
a. Alternative A, Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 12
b. Alternative B, Increase WR/R . . . . . . . . . V - 12
(1) Source Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 12
(2) Education and Technical Assistance .. V- 12
(3) l��arket Development . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 13
c. Alternative C, Regulatiou . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 13
(1) Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 13
(2) nisposal Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v - 13
(3) Waste Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 13
(4) Rewrd Keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 14
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 14
5. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 14
v-6
v-6
v-6
V-7
V-7
V-7
V-7
V-7
E. AGRICULTURAL WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 14
1. Existiug Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 14
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 15
F. WOOD WASTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 1 S
1. E�isting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 15
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 16
G. OTHER SPECIAL WAS'I'ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 16
l. Sludges and Septage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 16
2. Waste Tires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 16
3. Dredge Spoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 16
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Chapter VI: Enforcement
A SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1
a. Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1
b. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - ?
B. WASTE FLOW CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - ?
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - ?
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 2
3. Altematives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi - 3
a. Alteinative A , Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 3
b. Alternative B, Policy and Progcams ..... VI - 3
c. Altei�►iative C, Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 3
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 'I - 3
C. CONTROL OF INCOMING �VASTES . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 4
1. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 4
a. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 4
b. Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 4
c. Implementation Responsibilities . . . . . . . VI - 5
(1) Waste Clearauce Program . . . . . . . . VI - 5
(2) Waste Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 5
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 6
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 6
a. Alternative A , Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . V1 - 6
b. Alternative B, Expanded Waste Screening VI - 7
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 7
5. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 7
D. ILLEGAL DUMPING AND LITTERING . . . . . . . . . . VI - 7
1. EX1SCll1� CORd1�lORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 7
a. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 7
b. Purpose and Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - �
c. E��forcement Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 8
d. Investigation and Prosecution . . . . . . . . . VI - �
e. Cleanup Respoi�sibilin� . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 9
f. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 9
g. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b7 - 9
�l. EkISt1Rg PCOgCdll]S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� - 1?
(1) Preventiou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1?
(2) Cleanup . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . b'1 - 13
i. Status of 1989 Plan Recoivmendations .. VI - 13
2. Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 13
a. Data and Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 13
b. Abatement Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 13
c. Model Litter Control Ordinance ....... VI - 14
3. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 14
a. Alternative A , Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . V - 14
b. Alternative B , ��panded Response
Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 14
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 15
S. Imple►nentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 15
Chapter VII: Financial Systems
A. FINANCING OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Surcharges ..................
2. Solid Waste Fund Structure . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Individual Fund Descriptions . . . . . . . . . .
a. Capital Equipment Replacen�ent Program
Fund (CERP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Landfill Rese�ve Fund (LRF) . . . . . . .
c. Landfill Post-closure Maintenance Fund
(LPCb1) ....................
d. Environmental Reseive Fund (ERF) . . .
e. Capital Improvement Funds . . . . . . . .
B. GRAN1'S ..........................
l. Coordinated Prevention Grants . . . . . . . . .
?. 1990 Compost Study Grant Program .....
3. ��aste-Not-Washington Communities Grant
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Klllg COUR� WR/R Grant Program ......
EIS Addendum
References
VII-1
VII - 1
vIi - 3
VII - 3
VII-4
VII-4
VII-4
VII-5
VII-S
VII-5
VII-S
VII-S
VII-6
VII - 6
VII-6
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
Related Legislation
Figures
Figure I.1 Department of Public Wor�s organizational chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 11
Figure I.2 Conap�•ehertsive Solr�t Wcr.ste hlc�nagei�lerit Plr��i review and decision-malcii�g process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 17
Figure II.1 Generalized suiface geology of King County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 2
Figure II.2 Mean annual precipitation in inches King Counry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 4
Figure II.3 Air quality nonattainment areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - S
Figure IL4 Su�face water, aquifeis and major wells, and wate�sheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 6
Figure IIS Overleaf: Land use in �ing County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 9
Figure I1.6 King Counry 1990 population density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 11
Figure II.7 Major highwa��s in King Counry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 12
Pigure Il.� King Counry m�ed muuici�al solid waste 20-year genecation and disposal projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 16
Figure IL9 Waste quantities contributed by cesideuti�l and nonresideiitial waste generato�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 18
Figure II.10 King County total waste stceam composition, 19�7 and 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 20
Figure II.11 Residential waste streaii� coivposition 1987 and 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 20
Figure II.12 Nonresidential waste stceam coroposition, 19�7 and 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 20
Figure [1.13 Recycled and disposed quautities by material categoi}�, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 22
Figure IIl.1 Urban and rural seivice areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 12
Figure III.2 Single-family household recycling and yard w�ste collection seivices, Jni�e 199� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 19
Figure II13 Onsite multifa�nily recycling and yard w�ste collection se�vices, June 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 20
Figure III.4 1990 recycled a�ld disposed quantities by material category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 25
Figure III.S 19�0 disposed quantities by generator and material categoiy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 25
Figure III.6 Additional divetsion potential resulting from Alternatives A, B, and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 32
Figure III.7 Nonresidential recycling collection seivices, June 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 43
Figure IV.1 Overleaf: Vi�IITC franchise areas for MMSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 2
Figure IV2 King Counh� tiansfer system facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 11
Figure IV.3 Main haul routes bet� �een transfec stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 16
Figuce IV.4 1989 Transfer Sy�stem Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 19
Figure IV.S 1�92 planning areas ...... IV - 25
....................................................
Figure IV.6 I�iug Counry Solid Waste Division seivice areas and facilit�� recommeudatioi�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N - 2�
Figure IV.7 Existing and inactive landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 31
Figure IV.8 Projected Cedar Hills lifespan using alternative disposal forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 33
Tables
Table I.1 Plan Participants . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 2
Table I.2 Legislative, Regulatoiy, and Contract Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . I - 7
Table II.1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 15
Table II.2 Impact of King Counry Population and Per Capita Income Growth
on Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 20 - Ye ar W;�ste Generation and Disposal Projectioi�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 15
Table II.3 King County Transfer and Disposal Faciliry 20-1'ear Tonnage Forecast (Mixed Municipal Solid Waste) ....... II - 17
Table II.4 King County Tomlage Summary, 1990-199? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - 17
Table II.S Waste Composition Tonnage, 1987 and 1990-1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tI - 21
Table III.1 Summaiy of 1989 Plan Waste Reduction Recommendations . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 2
Table III.2 Summaiy of Waste Reduction Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - S
Table III.3 1992 Waste Redi�ction Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 9
Table III.4 Waste Reduction Implenlentation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 10
Table III.S Summa�y of 1989 Plau Recycling Recommendatio«s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 11
Table III.6 King Counry Cities, Recycling Collection Seivice Summaiy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 14
Table III.7 Urban Uninco�porated Recyclables Collection Seivice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 15
Table III.8 1990 Recycling by Material Ty�pe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 16
Table II1.9 'Pons Disposed per Year by Recyclable Commodiry and Geneiator T}�pe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 26
'Pable III.10 Summary of Recycling Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 31
Table III.11 Summary and Compaiative Advantages and Dis advantages of WR/R Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 33
Table III.12 Additional Diveision Potenti Resulting from Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 34
Table III.13 Alternative B, EsUmated Percent Increase Resulting from Expanded Voluntai�� Prograil�s
with 1'ard Waste Disposal Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 37
1'able III14 Criteria for Prima�ti� and Secondary RecS�clables R an�ings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tt1 - 39
7'able III.15 Designated Prima�y and Secondary Recyclables ���ith Ran�ings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 40
Table III.16 1992 Recycling Reco►nmendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 49
Table III.17 Recycling Implementation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III - 52
Table IV.1 Status of 1989 Plan Collection Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 1
Table IV.2 King Counry Municipal Solid W�ste Franchise Holdeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 3
Table IV3 Collection System Regulatory Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 3
Table IV.4 Residential Solid �Vaste and Recycling Collection Seivice Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 5
Table IV.S Swnmaiv of Solid �Vaste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 7
Table IV.6 Summaiy of 199? Collection Altern atives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 9
Table N.7 SUllllll�l'}� Of 1��� COIIeC[IOIl RQC011lll]QRCIaC10R5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - IO
1'able IV.8 Status of 1989 'Pransfer Plan System Reconul�endations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 12
Table IV.9 Transfer Station Compliance with ting Counry Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC 10.30.030) ............ IV - 14
Table IV.10 Drop-bo� Transfer Facilities Compliai�ce with King County Solid �t�aste Regulation (KCBOHC 10.0�.030) ..... IV - 14
'Pable IV11 King County Trai�sfer S��stem Tonnages 19�6-199? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �v - 14
Table IV.12 Description of Tra«sfer Facilities Operated by King Counry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 15
Table IV.13 Year Transfer Station is Estimated to Exceed Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 17
Table IV.14 1989 Transfer System Development Plau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 18
Table IV.15 Tra«sfer Station Altematives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 23
Table IV.16 Summaiy of 1992 Tra�isfer S��stem Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 28
Table IV.17 Transfer Station Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 30
Table IV.18 Summary of 1989 Plan Disposal Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 32
Table IV.19 Status of Confomlance with Couuty and State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 36
Table IV.20 Estimated Costs of Disposal System Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 38
Table IV.21 Disposal System Project Descriptions and Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 42
Table IV.22 Summa�y of 1992 Disposal Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 44
Table IV.23 Summaiy of 1992 Disposal Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 46
Table N.24 Disposal System Implemeutation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - 47
Table IV.25 Inactive Landfills Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV - SO
Table V.1 Suuuua�y of 1959 Plan Recommeudations for Special and l�liscellaneoas W�stes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 1
Table V.2 Summary of 1992 Contaminated Soil Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 3
Table V.3 Sum�vaiy of 1992 Contaminated Soil Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 3
Table V.4 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 6
Table V.5 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 7
Table V.6 Composition of CDL Waste Stream (in percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 8
Table V.7 Summary of 1992 CDL Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 12
Table V.8 Summary of 1992 CDL Kecommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 14
Table V.9 Woodwaste Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V - 15
Table VI.I Private Solid Waste Handling Facilities iu King Counry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 1
Table VL2 Waste Flow Contcol Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 3
Table VI.3 1992 Waste Flow Control Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 4
Table VI.4 1989 Plan Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 4
Table VIS Summaiy of 1992 Alternatives for Control of Incoming �Vastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 6
Table VI.6 1992 Recommendations on Contcol of Incoiving Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 7
Table VI.7 Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 10
Table VI.8 Unlawful Dumping Investigations by� the Health Department a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 12
Table VI.9 1989 Plan Illegal Dumping and Littecing Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 13
Table VI.10 Summa�y of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 14
Table VI.11 Summary of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI - 15
Table VII.1 Solid Waste Division Rate History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 2
Table VII.2 Solid Waste Fee Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 2
Table VII.3 King County Solid Waste Division Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII - 4
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
NOTATI01� OF
1 2 L,�N
99
� OMMENTS
King County
Comprehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
�\I /i
���
Sorting
It Out
Together
�
�
..R
:�
.�
1��2 Draft Plan Comments
Annotation of
An-1
The following is an annotation of all comments received on the Draft 1992 King Counry Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan, issued in August of 1992. The aunotation summarizes the wmments received, identifies the concerned parry, and references the
action taken within this Pla�l to address the comment.
Key to Codes for Concerned Parties
Cities
C1 Bellevue
C2 Lake Forest Park
C3 Bothell
C4 Redmond
C5 Tukwila
C6 Mercer Island
C7 Federal Way
C8 Aubum
C9 Seattle
Industry Regulatory Agencies
11 UNOCAL RA-1 Seattle-King County Health Department
12 Texaco RA-2 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
13 Shell RA-3 State Department of Ecology
14 Remtech
15 E�ocon Citizens
I6 Aippersbach and Ryan CIT-V Vashon Island Citizens
CIT-CH Cedar Hills Area Citizens
Advocates CIT-SE Southeast King County Citizens
A1 Washington Citizens for Recycling CIT-NE NE Lake Washington Citizens
A2 West Seattle Recycling CIT-MS Mid-Snoqualmie Citizens
For parties' suggested revisions, added te�rt is indicated by bold italic, .
Comment
Chapter I
Be more explicit in identitying Cedar Hills as a resource.
Implementation timelines should be updated.
Provide discussion on the plan amendment process.
Concerned
Parties Reference in Plan
SWAC Change made; see I.A.1
C7, C9, Updates made; See Executive
RA-1 Summary Table 4, Figure 1.2,
Tables 111.3, 111.4, 111.17 and 111.18,
IV.16, IV.17, IV21, IV.23 and
IV.24.
C8 See I.E.3.
An�aotation of Draft Plan Comments
An-2
Comment
Include in plan development section, a discussion of penalties for non-
compliance with the 1989 CSWMP, according to terms of interlocal
agreements.
The description of RCW 36.58 should read: ' solid
waste collection dlstrJcts.'
Add the following statutes to Table 12:
RCW 36.58 Solid Waste Disposal
WAC 480-12 Motor Carriers
WAC 480-70 Solid Waste Collection Companies
Revise: "WUTC authority does not aocassscil�c extend to city collection utilities
or contracts.'
Revise: "King County cannot provide solid waste collection unless a solid
waste collection district is formed (RCW 36.58A.010) and the Washington
Utilities and Transportatlon Commisslon determfnes that no cert�cated
hauler is available to per/orm collection servlces. However, RCW
36.58.04000(1) gives counties the suthority to contract directly for resldentlal
recyclable collection or to allow private solid waste haulers frawc#►icod
certificated by the WUTC to collect recyclables. The County has chosen to
have scaxaaccis�L�ce►tNlcated haulers set up recyclable collection programs in
unincorporated areas.'
Add that projected tonnage figures for materials do not include Seattle.
Prior to final approval of the plan the County needs to conclude interlocal
agreements with Woodinville and Burien.
Is energy resource recovery being considered as a means of refuse disposai?
Chapter II
Discuss draft legislation being considered which would impose fines on
recyclers who are not in compiiance with DOE survey requirements.
Add the population density of each area serviced by a city or franchised
operation. Required per RCW 70.95.090 (5)(c).
Need additional discussion of the relationship of tonnage projections and the
1992 decline in tonnage.
Explain how waste reduction and recycling are measured and address errors
in the forecast methodology and the generation forecast.
Differentiate waste reduced from waste recycled in Table 11.1
Revise Table II.t to make figures consistent from year to year.
Data is missing in the '2010' column of Table 11.3 for rows Iabeled 'rural
landfills" and 'Cedar Hills.'
Concerned
Parties Reference in Pian
SWAC
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
C9
RA-3
CIT-MS
C9
RA-3
SWAC
C9
RA-3
RA-3
RA-2
No change; not within the scope
of the plan.
Revision made; see Tabie 1.2.
Additions made; see Table 1.2.
Revision made; see I.C.1.a.
Revision made; see I.C.1.b.
Addition made, see 1.6.1.a.
Interlor�- ����^�^°"•-
,,,,,..,��ded. See Table 1.1.
See I.D.2.a.
No change made; not within the
scope of the plan.
Change made; see Figure 11.6.
Addition made; see II.B.1.e.
Discussion added; see 11.6.1.d.
See II.B.1.d.
Change made; see Tabie 11.1.
Revision made; see Table 11.3.
Annotation of Draft Plan Comments
ATl -
3
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Are there any PSAPCA regulations regarding air emissions which apply to the
siting of transfer stations?
Add to transfer station siting constraints, fragile or sensRive slope areas.
How do you notify the public that the County is in the process of sking a new
facility?
Why is waste generation per person increasing?
What are the reasons for the recent decline in disposal tonnage?
C9
C9
CIT-SE
CIT-V, CH See 11.8.1.e.
CIT-SE See II.B.1.e.
Not specifically. PSAPCA
regulations require that the
County be cognizant of odor
and dust from the operation of
transfer stations and landfills.
AddRion made; see II.C.3.f.
See II.C.5.
Chapter III
Implementation plans in the WR/R and facilities sections are too vague. Add a
waste reduction goal and a discussion of what the County and cities can do to
affect waste generation.
Add to the waste reduction analysis and strategy section per capka waste
generation goals and a program/methods for monitoring waste generation
rates.
The County should continue to accept all materials at transfer stations which
the cities are required to collect including yard waste, bulky yard waste,
appliances and teMiles.
Expand 1989 plan summary to include the County's and cities' compliance
with the 1989 plan recommendations.
Define 'on-call' collection with regard to bulky yard waste and white goods.
SWAC
SWAC
Clarification made; see III.A.1.a
and A.3.b.(5).
The County needs to devote greater study and analysis to the yard waste ban
If a ban is enacted the County needs to provide new collection skes for yard
waste and indicate this commitment in the plan.
Assess the industry's abiliiy to manage an increase in supply before
implementing a full or partial ban on yard waste.
Reword requirements for urban yard waste collection to allow for greater
flexibility in service options.
is the county planning to document the need for public sector provision of
multifamily yard waste collection? Clarify whether collection would be
required for multffamily or if the requirement is for the establishment of
collection sites at each complex. Collection should not be mandatory.
The plan should ailow cfties to meet the need for bulky yard waste collection
in ways other than on-call collection.
Clar'rfication made; see III.A.1.a,
A.2.e, and A.3.b.(�.
C1 Clarification made; see
111.6.3.b.(3) and IV.B.2.a.
SWAC See Table 111.5.
C4 Program change made;
see III.B.3.b.(1) and (�.
Ct, C4, C8 Program change made;
see 111.6.3.b.(4).
RA-3 Program change made;
see 111.8.3.b.(4).
C7 Clarification made;
see III.B.3.b.(4).
C1, C3, C4, Clar'rfication made;
C6, C7 see 111.8.3.b.(1).
C1, C2, C4, Program change made;
C6, C7, CS see III.B.3.b.(1).
Annotation of Draft Plan Comments
An-4
Concerned
Comment Parti Reference in Plan
Clarify whether the 21 percent of urban single-family households which do not
currently receive recycling senrice reside in incorporated or unincorporated
areas.
Does the Couniy intend to define a minimum number of months for the
provision of yard waste collection services?
Clarify the recommended frequency of textiles collection from househoids.
Is it the County's intent to distribute the costs of textiles collection across the
entire residential customer base?
The cities should not duplicate textiles collection services which are already
available through the private sector. Textiles should not be added to the list of
secondary recyclables.
Acknowledge the modest return of collecting textiles, polycoated materials and
other items which constitute a small percentage of the waste stream.
Has the Couniy considered less expensive means of diverting teMiles?
Cities and haulers should not be responsible for on-call collection of white
goods.
The County should support the local collection of white goods by re-instituting
the collection option at transfer stations.
County coordination of white goods recycling should supplement, not replace,
other appliance recycling efforts. The issue of CFCs should be addressed
more thoroughly.
The plan needs to placa greater emphasis on waste reduction and provide
more opportunity for optional programs, flexibility, and innovation in this area.
The plan should include a more aggressive role for the County in seeking
legislation which supports waste reduction and recycling.
Add a discussion of the County's poskion on the `ban on bans.'
Address need for more interaction with manufacturers on packaging issues.
Cities and counties should be required to use differential rata incentives and to
educate customers about collection services and rate incentives. Discuss
which cities already have rate incentives and the education methods in use.
Add to the existing conditions section of the waste reduction chapter a
discussion of the effectiveness of collection rate incentives (mini-cans,
universal recycling faes, substantial can rate differentials).
RA-2 Clarification made;
see 111.6.3.a.(1).
RA-3 Not at this time. Collection
service standards will be
developed by the County and
cities during implementation.
See 111.6.3.b.(4).
C1, RA-2
Ct, C2, C3,
C4, C6, C7,
C8
C5, C8,
RA-2
RA-3
Program change made;
see 111.6.3.b.(1).
Program change made;
see 111.6.3.b.(1).
Program change made;
see III.B.3.b.(1).
Program change made;
see III.B.3.b.(1).
C2, C4, C8 Program change made;
see 111.8.3.b.(1).
C1, C4, C5
C7
Program change made;
see 111.6.3.b.(1).
Program change made;
see III.B.3.b.(1).
C1, C5, C6, Emphasis expanded;
C7, C8 see III.A.3.b and 111.8.3.b.(1).
C1, C5, C6, Emphasis expanded.
C7 See 111.6.3.b.(2) and (4),
and III.A.3.b.(5) and (6).
C9, A1 See III.A2.d and III.A.3.b.(6).
C2, C7, See III.A.2.d and III.A.3.b.(6).
SWAC
SWAC
SWAC
Detail added; see III.B.1.c.(2).
No change made; not within the
scope of the pian.
See 111.6.1.c.(2).
Annotation of Draf1 Plan Comments
ATl -
5
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Identify the city which has yet to implement a variable rate structure and
describe their plans.
State Iaw does not grant the counties authority to require differential rate
incentives nor change rate structure. All recommendations which seek to
implement programs which fall, by statute, within the WUTC jurisdiction should
be reconsidered.
Revise: "The Ccuaty-a�d cities would all implement and maintain a variable
rate structure for solid waste collection, wkh cost differentials a that offer
substantial incentives to reduce waste. The County can work wlth the
Washington Utlllties and Transportatlon Commisslon to Implement rates
that make waste reduction and recycling more attractive waste
management alternatives.'
Add to the existing conditions section of the waste reduction chapter greater
description of the baby diaper project, the food waste composting study, the
'dollars for data' program and other projects. Include current funding levels,
benefits of the programs, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
programs.
Consolidate information provided on Table 111.6 onto one page.
Clarify the units of ineasurement used in Table 111.8 with regard to batteries
and tires.
Reference Table 111.13 in the waste reduction chapter.
Does the County plan to monitor the effect of waste reduction efforts?
Reconsider the requirement that all secondary materials be accepted at
special collection events funded by the County.
It is not clear whether household collection of #3-7 plastics would be required
or optional.
Clarity the 'voluntary" component of recyciing collection programs.
Create a provision for the periodic review of recyclables markets. Develop a
mechanism for changing the recyclables lists, based on market viability for the
materials. Coilection of a material should not be required until markets are in
place.
Should King County work to promote higher value markets in coordination
with the Clean Washington Center and/or Tetrapak? Should the County avoid
collection of these materials unless the market covers additional costs?
Expand the existing conditions section of the recycling chapter to include a
discussion of green glass market conditions and reasons for including this
material in the list of designated recyclable materials.
RA-3 See 111.6.1.c.(2).
RA-2 Clarification made; see
m.B.�.a.�s�, m.a.i.�.�2�,
III.6.2.b. (2),
III.B2.f, and 111.6.3.b.(2).
RA-2 Revision made; see III.A.3.b.
SWAC Some detail added. Not all
information is within the scope
of the pian. See IIi.A.i.a,
III.A.2.e, and III.A.3.(�.
SWAC No change made. Not
technically feasible.
SWAC No change made. See footnotes
to III.B.1, Table 111.8.
SWAC Change made; see III.A.1.a.
RA-3 Yes. See III.A.1.a, III.A.2.e, and
III.A.3. b. (7).
C1, C2, C3, Change made; see 111.6.3.b.(�.
C6, C7
C1 Clarification made; see
111.6.3. b. (�.
RA-2 Clarification made; see
111.6.3.b.(1).
C2, C7, 17, See 111.6.3.b.(1).
SWAC
C9 No change made; not within the
scope of the plan.
SWAC See 111.B.3.b.(i).
Annotation of Draft Plan Comments
AIl -
6
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Goals for materials diversion should be accompanied by goals to procure
recycled products.
Is King County planning to strengthen its procurement ordinance?
Wait until the next plan update to add polycoated paper and additional
plastics to the list of mandatory recyclables.
Neither food waste nor #3-7 plastics should be classified as recyclable
materials.
Mixed waste paper, #1 and #2 plastic bottles and yard waste should no
longer be classified as primary recyclables.
Clarify and standardize the use of terms describing the different recyclable
plastics.
Does King County discourage the recycling of PVC and mixed resins?
Polycoated paperboard should not be included in recycling programs.
Add that the Clean Washington Center is researching the production of
cellulose insulation and mulch/bedding from MWP.
Establish and enforce recycled content standards for cellulose insulation.
Consider requiring that lead-acid batteries genereted in IGng County be
reclaimed in the U.S. and not shipped overseas.
Add glass collection to Table III.6 for Auburn.
Add an explanation of regulatory structure to Table 111.6 .
Identity the two urban cities who have not implemented a household
recyclable coilection or equivalent program and describe their plans.
Establish minimum educational guidelines for entities (cities, counties and
haulers/recyclers) responsible for recycling collection programs.
SWAC See 111.6.3.a.(5).
C9 See III.B.3.a.(5).
C7 See 111.8.3, Table 111.15.
C7 See 111.6.3, Table 111.15.
C7 See 111.6.3, Table 111.15.
SWAC Standardization made
throughout the plan as follows:
'#1 and #2 Plastics (PET and
HDPE� and #3-7 Plastics (vinyl,
LDPE, polypropylene, and
polystyrene)'
C9 No. King County doesn't
discou�age the safe recycling of
any reusable material.
See 111.6.1.a.(3).
C2 See Table 111.15.
C9 No change made. This level of
detail does not fit within the
scope of the plan.
C9 No change made. Recycled
content standards are
established by legislative
process.
C9 No change made. Trede policy
does not fall wRhin the
jurisdiction of King County.
C8 Addition made; see 111.6.1,
Table 111.6.
RA-2 See Table IV.4.
RA-3 Change made; see III.B.1.a.(1).
SWAC No change; not within the scope
of the plan.
Annotation of Draft Plan Commenls
. ................... ......................... ....... ..................:::::::::::::::::::::::.�::: :..�:::::: ::.:::::::::::::::<.�.�::::. ....:.::::
..........................................:.....:....................,........................,........................:........................................................ .:::::::.>.:::»;:�»:::>::::::;:>::::::;:>:<:;<:<:::: ::::......
:::»:::«:>:::>::::»::>;::::::;:>::::>::::>::::>:::>::>:::>::>::::::<:::::>::>::>::>:<:;;<::»>:::::::>:>:;:>:::::<:::>::::>::<:<:>:::<:>:::::<>::>::>>;<::>::>:>::>:::<:»:
ATl -
�
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Revise: 'Businesses could select their service provider, but ff recyclers or
cities were unable to provide recycling services,
a bus►nesa could su6scribe to
services prov�ded by any common, coniraci or private carrle► ofleriny
�ecycling servlces ln thelr area.'
State law constrains the Commission from placing minimum service level
requirements for nonresidential recycling on motor carriers regulated under
chapter 81.80 RCW.
RA-2
RA-2
Revision made; see 111.8.3.b.(2).
Greater emphasis on nonresidential recycling programs is needed.
Collection service plans for nonresidential recyclables shouid maximize
freedom of choice.
The County should be more specific about its role in identifying and
addressing barriers to nonresidential recycling.
Note the appliance recycling resource list as an on-going program in
Table III-18 [formerly 111.17]. The list should be updated regularly.
Include a key to symbols on each page of Table 111.18 [formerly 111.17]. Also
indicate that the table is divided into the quarters of the year.
Cost estimates for the new on-cali programs should be revised to account for
an expected participation rate of less than 100 percent. A cost/benefit analysis
should be done for each program to ensure ks necessity and economic
feasibility.
Expand the cost assessment element of the plan to include information on the
sufficiency of revenues to fund associated programs and how surplus
revenues would be used.
Include complete estimates of the cost of providing bulky yard waste
collection, appliance collection, and textile collection as well as yard waste
collection services to mukifamily residential structures.
Consider providing financial incentives to buy-back centers for #2 HDPE
plastic, ferrous materials, green glass, and mixed waste paper.
The County may wish to protect the confidentiality of those surveyed for
recycling data by entering into interlocal agreements with those who wish to
have access to this data.
There should be greater incentives for citizens to recycle.
Why is there a decline in mixed waste paper collection?
Why isn't recycling mandatory?
Provide additional recycling collection bins in more available and convenient
areas.
Clar'rfication made; see
III.6.3. b. (2).
C1, C4, C5, Emphasis expanded; see
C6 111.8.3.b. (2).
C7 See 111.6.3.b.(2).
C7 Clar'rfication made; see
111.8.3. b. (2).
SWAC Revision made; see Table 111.1 S.
SWAC Change made; see 111.6.3,
Table 111.18.
C1, RA-2 Changes made to programs.
See III.B.3.
RA-2
RA-2
A2
RA-3
Cff-CH
Cff-CH
CIT-V
CIT-CH
Program ahanges made; see
III.B.3 and Appendix K.
Programs revised; see 111.8.3.
No change. Program currently
only focuses on primary
recyclables. See III.B.1.
No change made in the plan.
Comment noted.
See 111.6.3.b.(�.
See III.B.2.c.(2).
See 111.6.3.
See 111.8.3.b.(1).
Annotation of Draft Plan Comments
AIl -
g
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Is King County working on the markets for recycled materials?
Who uses recycled papei'!
Where do people take refrigerators since they are not being accepted at the
facilities?
Chapter IV
What are the standards for new and upgraded transfer stations? What new
systems will be incorporated? Will there be segregation of commercial from
self-haul unloading?
Reconcile references to Factoria expansion.
Are there any plans to site a transfer facility in the S.E. area?
Enumclaw landfill variance has already been granted.
Hobart implementation schedule should be adjusted.
Typo: 'Algona..Sxbadukd Scheduled to close.
Will the Waste Management Northwest-Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station
(formerly Snohomish Eastmont) open by 12/31/92?
Is the existing transfer station system cost-effective and is the County looking
at ways to make k more so? Would an expanded system of smaller stations
be more effective?
List the types of recyclablas that each transfar station accepts.
Change: 'Under the Solid Waste Management and Recovery Act, local
governments are given primary responsibility for solid waste baadliag
planning.'
Add: 'Cities may require mandatory collection, in which all residents and
businesses subscribe to designated refusa collection services or mandatory
payment for collecilon servlcea."
Change: 'Contracts usually are awarded
biddac through an RFP or bid process. Occaalonally, �Mracts are
awarded throu�h dlreci ne�otlatlons.
CIT-SE Yes. See 111.2.c.(1), (2), and (3)
CIT-NE See 111.2.c.(1).
CIT-NE See 111.3.b.(t).
SWAC See IV.B2.a, e, and g.
SWAC Changes made throughout
Chapter IV.
C9 See N.6.3.a.(3) and 6.3.b.(3).
RA-1 Change made throughout
Chapter IV.
RA-1 Adjustment made throughout.
See IV.C.3.b.(1) and Tabie IV24.
RA-1 Correction made; see
Chapter IV, Table IV.B.
C9, RA-1
C9
No. Change made throughout.
See IV.8.3.b.(1).
See IV.B2.a, IV.6.3.a, b, and d.
C9 No change made; information is
subject to change. See IV.6.2.e.
C9 No change made as handling is
correct. See Related Legislation
RCW 70.95.020(1).
C9
C9
Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(6)
Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(6)
Annotation of Dra,�t Plan Commenls
�-9
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Add: 'In unlncorporated IOng County, individuals may choose to haul their
own waste...'
Add greater specificity about County and private sector roles in monitoring
and addressing self-haul waste.
Add: 'Cltles can also establish ihe collecilon ratea, blll ►esidents for ihe
servlce, collect revenue and pay the coniracior for the servlces provided."
What issues are to be covered in the waste export position pape►? Add
discussion of the waste export option to pian. Need further discussion on
disposal options after Cedar Hills is closed.
How will the closed landfills be used?
Investigate alternatives to using increased levels of soil and earth material
cover at Cedar Hills.
Discuss the need for a groundwater study and the problem with periodic
migration of landfiii gas at the Vashon Island landfill.
Inciude an implementation schedule for the installation of new wells at Cedar
Falls and Duvall landfills.
Revise: • If a county leglslailve authorlty comments
to the Commission per RCW 81.77.120, the WUTC-to wfll manitor ihose
comments concerning the adequacy of garbage and refuse collection in
unincorporated portions of a county or unregulated areas in cities or towns.'
Clarify "exceptions' granted to solid waste collection companies by WUTC.
Revise: 'RCW 36.58A authorizes counties to establish a system of solid waste
disposal. Under certain conditions, as allowed by chapter 36.58A RCW,
counties may establish collection districts...'
Revise the "license' column of Table IV.3 to reflect that cities have three
regulatory choices not four.
Revise: 'In a licensed system, WUTC certificates are augmented by city
licenses, which grant the municipality
�ollaciicncaa�revenue through fees.'
Define the abbreviation 'FA' in Table IV-5.
In Table IV.4 distinguish local government options for the collection of garbage
from the options for collection of recyclables.
C9 No change made. Residents
throughout the County may
choose to haul their own waste
in addition to receiving regular
collection services. See
IV.A.t.b.(1).
C7 See IV.B2.a.
C9
SWAC
SWAC
C9
RA-1
RA-3
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
No change made. This level of
detail does not fit within the
scope of the plan. See
IV.A.2.c.(1).
Discussion added; see
IV.C.1.a.(5), IV.C2.a.(5), and
IV.C.3. b. (3).
See IV.8.4.a.(2).
No change made. Landfill cover
is an operations issue and is not
within the scope of the plan.
See IV.0 Table IV.19 and
associated footnotes.
No change made. That is an
operational detail not within the
scope of the plan.
Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(2).
Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(3).
Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(4).
Revision made; see IV.A.1,
Table IV.3.
Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(6).
Revision made; see Table IV.4.
Distinction made; see Table IV.4.
Annotation of Draft Plan Comments
An - 1
0
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Correct regulatory authorRies in Table IV.4 for Des Moines (cert), Federal Way
(contract) and Mercer Island (contract).
Table IV.4 does not reflect the fact that Lake Forest Park's residential rates
include the cost of yard waste collection.
RA-2
C2
C8
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
Revisions made; see Table IV.4.
Clarify mandatory collection in Table IV.4 Does this include recycling?
Correct can rates for Auburn.
Add a statement of which agency was responsible for the moderate risk waste
surcharge.
Revise wording to reflect the fact that the WUTC cannot promote cross-
subsidization between solid waste collection companies and motor carriers.
It is untrue that the cost of service methodology used by WUTC'does not
allow for incentive rates to encourage WR/R behavior.'
Clarify whether the County is or is not asking the Wlli'C to increase rates
through shorter amortization periods?
Investigate alternatives to current leachate disposal method for the Duvall
landfill.
F�cpand section 62.g.(3) of Chapter N. Does'materials recovery' include the
idea of salvaging materiais from the MSW stream?
What information is there about the types of additional transfer station services
the pubiic wants?
Table IV.22 lists two afternatives and the text discusses three.
Add a discussion of actions which could be taken in rasponse to the results of
the queuing study.
How do waste management problems spec'rfic to Vashon Island fit into the
discussion of the County waste system?
When will transfer station siting begin in the Northeast (formerly Mid-
Snoqualmie) area? How long does the process take?
Is the County considering mandatory garbage collection for the Snoqualmie
valley?
Is a new transfer station going to be sited at Hobart or anywhere else in SE
King County?
Why is Houghton transfer station being closed and where is the new NE Lake
Washington transfer station ske?
No change made. That levei of
detail is not within the scope of
the plan.
Clarffication and changes made,
see Table IV.4.
Addition made; see IV.A.i.c.(1).
Revision made; see IV.A.2.c and
Table IV.7.
Revision made, see IV.A.2.d.
RA-2 No change made. The County
is not recommending specific
alternatives to the current rate
review process. See IV.A.3.b.
C9 No change made; see IV.D.3.
C9 No. Clarification made;
see IV.62.g.(3).
C9 See IV.62.a.
SWAC Correction made; see Table
IV22.
17 Change made; see IV.B.2.c.
CIT-V See IV.C.1.a.(4) and IV.C.4.b.(4).
CIT-MS See IV.B Table IV.17.
CIT-MS Not at this time. See IV.A.3.c.
CIT-SE Yes. See IV.B.3.b. and IV.C.4.
CIT-NE See IV.6.1.a.(1) and Figure IV.6.
Annotation of Draft Plan Commenls
•i:{•iiii}i:i{{•iiii}ii:•iiiii:dii:i•iiiTi:Liiiiii:{hi:ti?
An - 11
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Pian
Chapter V
Do not require soil waste generators to use the Cedar Hilis landfill for disposal 11, 12, 13, 15,
of petroleum-contaminated soil wastes even temporarily. 16
Add a discussion of tracking mechanisms for the removal of hydrocarbon- 16
contaminated soils.
Add: "Airborne asbestos can present a considerable risk...'
Add: "Home generated sharps are exempt from KCBOHC regulation 'rf they
are...(3) placed into a needle clipper or a sealed and labeled PET pop bottle."
Discuss the alternatives to home sharps disposal which could be offered by
making changes in state law.
Are there any exceptions to the flow controi ordinance, such as recyclables
and untreated biomedical wastes?
Add a section on IMIX and list IMIX in Appendix E.
Add information on the new KCBOHC 'solid waste treatment site' category and
the accompanying standards.
Revise to reflect that KCBOHC Titie 10 regulations on CDL Iandfilis are now
significantty more strict than State WAC 173-304.
Update the CDL section to reflect the most current information.
Add: 'CDL collectlon will 6e accomplished per chapter 81.77 RCW."
Are some seif-haulers also allowed to dump at Cedar Hills, such as self-
haulers with special wastes?
Where do people go with inert CDL and small quantities of non-inert CDL
waste?
What is the role of the new CDL screening employees? Where will they be
stationed and are they necessary?
Has the Mt. Olivet landfill closed yet?
Hogfuel and painted wood should not be considered woodwastes.
C9
C9
C9
C9
RA-1
RA-1
RA-1
SWAC
RA-2
C9
C9
SWAC
C9
C9
Detail added. See V.A.3.(2) and
V.A.4.
No change made. Not within
the scope of the plan.
Change made, see V.B.1.
Addition made; see V.C.1.a.
No change made. Not within
the scope of the plan.
Yes. See V.C.3.a.
Addition made to plan;
see V.D.3.b.(2).
No change in plan. See Related
Legislation, Solid Waste
Handling Code, Title 10,
KCBOHC Section 1024.
No change. This level of detail
does not fit within the scope of
the plan. See V.D.1.f.(1).
Change made; see V.D.
Addition made; see V.D.1.f.
Residential haulers may bring in
some special wastes in limited
amounts. See Related
Legislation, King Couniy Public
Rules 7-1-2 and 7-2-1.
For a description of waste
acceptance and waste clearance
policies see Related Legislation,
King County Public Rules 7-t-2
and 7-2-1.
Clarification made; see V.D.1.e.
Yes. See V.D.1.
Clarifica4ion made; see Table
V.9.
Annotatron of Draft Plan Comments
An
- 12 :''��:
Concerned
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Acknowledge the HeaRh Dept support for a rewrite of Ecology's minimum
functional standards for woodwaste landfills.
Provide an implementation schedule and cost summary for recommendations
in Chapter V.
Add: '...King County Surface Water Management, and the Environmental
Health Division of the Seattle-IGng County Department of Public Heakh...'
The County should accept used tires at the landfill.
Add that large amounts of tires could be used as lightweight fill, landfill cover,
or fill in road construction.
Add discussion of tires, sludge, and septage and dradge spoils to your plan
as required by RCW 70.95.090.
Does King County use tire-derived fuel in small-scale boilers?
Chapter VI
Isn't it a King County public rule which requiras generators of contaminated
soil and industrial wastes to obtain a clearance, not the Heakh Dept.?
Doesn't all asbestos waste have to have a PSAPCA Notice of Intent and a
Waste Clearance Form?
Table VI-7 does not reflect that violation of tha litter ordinance is a
misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $500 fine or six months in jail.
Develop a revolving fund to abate illegally dumped waste.
The plan shouid place more emphasis on dealing wfth the problem of illegal
dumping and County responsibility for clean-up in view of additional banning
of Iandfill disposal for various materials.
Consider providing information for the public on the disposal of acceptable
and unacceptable wastes.
Typo: '...in a receptacle paid they paid for.'
C9 No change made; not within the
scope of the plan.
RA-3 Scheduling clarification made
throughout; see Chapter V. See
Chapter Vil and Appendix K for
cost summaries.
RA-1
C5
C9
RA-3
Addition made; see V.E.1
See V.G
No change made. Landfill cover
is an operations issue.
Change made; see V.G.
No. No change made in the
plan as the procurement of
boiler fuel is an operations
issue.
C9 The Heakh Department and/or
the County require ciearance
forms. See VI.C.1.b. and c.(1).
C9 No. In cases where a PSAPCA
Notice of Intent form is not
required, the County requires a
Waste Clearance Form. For a
discussion of waste clearance
authoriiy. See VI.C.1.b and c.
C2 Correction made; see VI.D,
Table VI.7.
C7
C1, C4, C6,
C7, C8, C9
C9
F�A-2
Change made; see VI.D.3.b.
Change made; see VI.D.
No change made. That
information is provided at the
transfer stations.
Change made; see VI.D.2.c.
Annotalsbn of Draft Plan Comments
An -1
3
Concerned
Comment Pa r t i e s RMerence in Plan
Amend current laws to require drop-box owners to also include an
identification number on all bins.
SWAC
Discussion added; see VI.D.3.b.
Include in enforcement section a discussion of King County Iaw pertaining to
the labeling and maintenance of recycling drop-boxes.
The problems with illegal dumping are well-documented and further study is
not needed. The County needs to follow-up on reports, impose higher fines,
and enact more stringent laws.
Chapter VII
Include plans for future financing of SWD activkies.
When, what, and how will rural recycling programs be funded and carried out?
Is there a difference between 'user fees' and 'disposal fees'?
Does the Solid Waste Division have the ability to charge fees other than
disposalfees7
Is the minimum fee for regional direct and charitable customers $5.73 or
$5.93?
It would be useful to see the budget broken down by 'fixed' and 'variable'
costs.
Are closure costs for Cedar Hills financed wkh bond sales or only through
surcharges?
What are the plans/contingencies if state grant funds end? What are the plans
for avoiding the elimination or reduction of these grant funds?
Can we assume that all CPG funds coming to the Solid Waste Division are
spent on and in unincorporated King County?
Include an analysis of the sensitivity of variable and fixed costs to decreasing
tonnages. The implications for each of reaching our WR/R goals should be
examined.
How much of the budget is determined by computer models? What are the
plans for ongoing review and revisions of the models?
Explain clearly the rationale for the forecasted timing of capital expenditures.
How will computer modeis be affected by major changes in disposed
tonnage? Will they and the transfer system as a whole be affected by Growth
Management Act issues?
SWAC
Discussion added; see VI.D.3.b.
Cff-CH, NE, See VI.D.
MS
SWAC See VII.A.1.
SWAC See VII.A.1 and Appendix K.
SWAC No. Change made throughout
to standardize as 'disposal fees.`
SWAC No. Clarification made;
see VII.A.1.
SWAC
SWAC
ft is $5.73. See VII.A.1.
No change; not within the scope
of the plan.
C9 Closure costs are financed
through the landfili reserve fund
with transfers from the operating
fund. See VII.A.3.b.
SWAC See VII.A.1.
SWAC Clarification made; see VII.B.1.
SWAC See VII.A.1.
SWAC
C9
SWAC
No change; not within the scope
of the plan.
See VII.A.3.e.
No change; not within the scope
of the plan.
Annotation of Draft Plan Commen�s
::<:' An - 4 ;>:':
1
Concemed
Comment Parties Reference in Plan
Identify alternatives to disposal fees for covering costs of Solid Waste Division
operations and activities. Discuss the decoupling of solid waste management
from disposal services.
What would be the effect of immediate closure of the Vashon Landfill on the
Landfill Reserve Fund and other accounts? What are the contingency plans if
this occurs?
SWAC
SWAC
C1, C6
C6
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
RA-2
CIT-SE
CIT-SE
See VII.A.1.
When will tipping fees be expected to increase, why is such an increase
necessary and how will the additional revenue be allocated?
The plan should avoid actions which lead to rate increases.
Expand Chapter VII and Appendix K to include discussion of the revenues
which come from hauler surcharges to customers.
Expand the cost assessment element of the plan to include information on
plans to increase, decrease or terminate surcharges.
How does the County collect fees from all populations to insure that
ratepayers of certificated haulers are not unduly burdened?
Clarify that residential and commercial customers of solid waste collection
companies pay a different surcharge for recycling programs.
Revisit and revise the 22-cent fee which goes to the HeaRh Department as
necessary.
Is the Solid Waste Division funded fuily with its own revenues?
Add an explanation of the rate setting process.
Related Legislation
Chapter 70.95 RCW has been revised and needs to be corrected in your
related legislation section.
Add additional pages and amendments for KCBOHC Title 10.
The $10.00 fee for each additional acre in K.2 should be in K.1 under the
$150.00 fee for the first acre.
No change; not within the scope
of the plan.
Detail added; see VII.A.1
See VII.A.1.
Ciarification made; see VII.A.i.a.
Clarification made; see VII.A.1
See VII.A.1 for a discussion on
financing.
Clar'rfication made; see VII.A.1.
Detail added; see VII.A.1.a.
Yes. See VII.A.1.
See VII.A.1.
RA-2 Code revised. See Related
Legislation, Solid Waste
Management Act, Chapter 70.95
RCW.
RA-1 Code revised. See Related
Legislation, Solid Waste
Handling Code, Titla 10 of the
King County Board of Health
Code.
RA-1 Code revised. See Related
Legislation, Solid Waste
Handling Code, Title 10 of the
IGng County Board of HeaRh
Code.
Annotation of Draf� Plan Commenls
An - 1
5
Concerned
Comment Partie Reference i Plan
Section 10.28.087 Human Excrement, is now included in our Regulations and
is not •Reserved.'
Section 10.68.010: B.7 has been repealed a�d replaced with C.
Change 10.72.020.C: 'All facilities shall also...testing parameters listed in
Section 10.68.72.020(c)(2) per WAC 173-200.'
Appendices
Change PSCOG to the Puget Sound Regional Council.
What percentage by weight or volume of the MMSW stream is woodwaste?
Add: •Preference should be given to those sites where gas control
requirements are minimized and/or where yaa recovery can 6e minlmlzed."
Has King County surveyed local wineries to verify that they only want virgin
green glass and why this is so?
Correct Appendix E with regard to Auburn's collection program and school
programs.
Bassett Western facility no longer accepts yard waste, tree trimmings and
prunings.
Add Lloyd Enterprises to Appendix F.
Cedar Grove should be included in Appendix F
Nurseryman Products is no longer in business.
Carpinito Bros. no longer accepts yard waste.
RA-1 Code revised. See Related
Legislation, Solid Waste
Handling Code, Title 10 of the
King County Board of Health
Code.
RA-1 Code revised. See Related
Legislation, Solid Waste
Handling Code, Tkle 10 of the
iGng County Board of Heakh
Code.
RA-1 Code revised. See Related
Legislation, Solid Waste
Handling Code, Title 10 of the
King County Board of Health
Code.
C9 Change made. See Appendix
A.C.
C9 See Appendix B, Table 3.3.
C9 No change made; see
C.C2.b.(2)
C9 A survey has not been
necessary. Color standards for
light green ('deadleaf green')
wine bottles preclude the use of
recycled glass cullet. Dark
green wine bottles can be made
with from 40-8096 recycled culiet.
Both types of botties are used
by local wineries. See
D.1.E.2.c.
CS No change made as this level of
detail is not required. See E.E.2.
RA-1
RA-1
RA-1
RA-1
RA-1
Change made; see Appendix F.
Change made; see Appendix F.
Change made; see Appendix F.
Change made; see Appendix F.
Change made; see Appendix G.
Annotation of Draft Plan Comments
-1
An 6
Concerned
Comment Panies Reference tn Plan
Redmoor Resource Recovery is closing down its Issaquah yard in January '93.
RA-1
RA-2
SWAC
SWAC
C9
Ct
Change made; see Appendix G.
Appendix K
If the County cannot provide separate customer counts and tonnages for state-
regulated and city-regulated collection programs, add a footnote to that effect.
What are the matching doliars for the Waste-Not-Washington grants and where
are they?
What are the $1.5 million for the IGng County WR/R grant program and where
are they?
Does the forecast of future CIP expenditures reflect the most recent revisions
to the forecast of waste disposal.
How has the County responded to WUTC assertions that the plan understates
required revenues despite increases in tipping fees? Explain the discrepancy
between WUTC's analysis of tipping fee increases and the County's
ca�culations.
Provide a more thorough definkion of cost estimates and detail the link
between program expenditures and rate components.
The plan does not adequately detaii the costs of all required programs.
The plan does not estimate the cost impacts of a yard waste ban.
Describe short-term program costs and financing needs for the transfer system
in a more accessible and complete manner.
What are the $2.8 miliion matching funds for the Stete CPG and where are
they?
Add detail on the 22-cent administrative surcharge and the moderate risk
waste surcharge to Appendix K
Address discrepancies between WUTC and County projections for MRW,
administrative and hazardous waste items.
No change. To provide a city-
by-city accounting would require
an amendment to current
reporting requirements.
See Appendix K.
See Appendix K.
Yes. See Appendix K.
Correction made; see
Appendix K Table 4.12.
C7, RA-2, C9 See Table 4.6.1, Appendix K.
RA-2
RA-2
RA-3
SWAC
See revised Table 3.1,
Appendix K.
Clarification made; see
discussion in III.B.3 and
Appendix K, Table 3.1.
Updates made; see Appendix K,
Table 4.3.1.
See Appendix K.
RA-2 See revised Table 4.6.1 in
Appendix K.
RA-2 Correction made. See Table 3.3
in Appendix K.
Annotation of Draft Plan Comments
0
XECUT:[��E
UMM�ARY
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
,v�,
��►�
�OI"�lllg
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1
Executive
SUmmar�y
Solid waste management is a tremendous challenge.
From 1980 to 1990 the population of King Counry grew 28
percent. The rate at which each individual generated waste
grew 6S percent from 4.3 pounds per day in 1980 to 7.1 in
1990. If this trend were to continue, per capita generation
would increase to approximately 10 pounds per day in the year
2000. In addition, 218,000 new residents will live and work
within the King County solid waste region, bringing the total
population to 1,209,000.
King County and its cities are reducing this waste stream
by 35 percent in 1992 through their nationally recognized
leadeiship in waste reduction and recycling. This outstanding
accomplishment is suppocted by residents and businesses with
commitment and enthusiasm.
This 1992 Conaprehensive So�id Wc�ste M��aage��7e�ct
Plan will lead King County toward its goal to further reduce
t�he waste stream by 50 percent in 1995 and by 65 percent in
2000. Through this Plan, King Counry will also continue its
nationally recognized leadership in solid waste management
with state-of-the-art facilities and operations.
The waste reduction and recycling success attained since
1987 has already extended the useful life of Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill by several yea�s. Onder c��rrent planniug
assumptions, achieving and sustaining the 35 percent WR/R
goal could mean the remaining capaciry at Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill could last for 21 yeais, until 2013. Achieving
the 50 percent waste reduction and recycling goal could yield
24 years—until 2016—and 65 percent WR/R could achieve 27
yea�s—until 2019. King County is veiy proud of these solid
waste ma�iagement achievements.
PLAN BACKGROUND
This is the 1992 Con7prehe��aslve Solid Waste
Manage�nent Plan (Plan) for the suburban cities and
unincorporated areas of King Counry. The ciry of Seattle
prepared a pla�i for its solid waste in 198�. This Plan
addresses what is needed to meet the adopted King Counry 65
percent waste reduction and recycling goal by the year 2000
and to ensure adequate services and environmental controls at
King County transfer and disposal facilities. This Plan is based
on a 20-year forecast of the waste stream. It is reviewed and
updated every three yea�s to identil'y changed conditions and
new needs.
This update of the 1989 Plan builds on the joint
accomplishments of the cities and the Counry which have
depended on the citizens, businesses, and recycling and solid
waste managen�ent industries. Representatives of all of these
groups and the King County Solid Waste Advisoiy Committee
�SWAC� CORCl7I)UCed CO CI11S PI1R Clll'OUgIl WOCI{SIlOpS, meetings,
working groups, and monthly SWAC meetings. This Plan
examines the successes iu implementing the 1989 Plan,
identifies new needs and alternative ways to achieve them, and
recon�mends specific actions with implementation schedules and
responsibilities.
THE PLAN
The Waste Stream Forecast
Table 1 shows projected waste generation and reduction
through the year 2010. Mued municipal solid waste disposal
increased amlually until 1992. In 1992 tonnage began to
decline, because of waste reduction and recycling, and the
decline is projected to continue until approximately 2000 when
it will begin to increase again. The County is projected to
reach its 65 percent waste reduction and recycling (WR/R} rate
in 2000. It is assumed the WR/R rate would remain at 65
percent thereafter, while tonnage disposed would once again
grow due to population growth.
About lialf the unrecycled waste stream i� paper, wood,
and yard w;�ste. W�ste reduction and recycling programs and
seivices recomn�ended in Chapter III of the Plan target the
major waste components listed in Table ?.
�xecutave Szsmmary
11
Table 1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Projections Table 2 1990-91 Waste Stream Characterization
Tons
Year Tons Tons Reduced/ Percent
Generated Disposed Recycled WR/R
1987 989,500 808,000 181,500 18.3
1988 1,038,500 813,000 225,500 21.7
1989 1,138,500 838,500 300,000 26.4
1990 1,258,500 890,500 368,000 29.3
1991 1,346,500 914,000 432,500 32.1
1992 1,339,600 870,700 468,900 35.0
1993 1,391,500 834,900 556,600 40.0
1994 1,458,600 802,200 656,400 45.0
1995 1,538,600 769,300 769,300 50.0
1996 1,622,900 762,800 860,100 53.0
1997 1,711,900 753,200 958,700 56.0
1998 1,805,800 740,400 1,065,400 59.0
1999 1,904,900 723,900 1,181,000 62.0
2000 2,009,400 703,300 1,306,100 65.0
2001 2,064,500 722,600 1,341,900 65.0
2002 2,121,100 742,400 1,378,700 65.0
2003 2,179,300 762,800 1,416,500 65.0
2004 2,239,000 783,700 1,455,300 65.0
2005 2,300,400 805,100 1,495,300 65.0
2006 2,363,500 827,200 1,536,300 65.0
2007 2,428,300 849,900 1,578,400 65.0
2008 2,494,900 873,200 1,621,700 65.0
2009 2,563,300 897,200 1,666,100 65.0
2010 2,633,600 921,800 1,711,800 65.0
° The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from
previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils,
asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste).
Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals
Waste Reduction
State and local legislation identify waste reduction as the
highest solid waste management prioriry. Despite impo��taut
waste reduction successes through education, rate incentives,
and other iiutiatives, waste generation continues to increase.
Tliis increase is due, in part, to King County's growing
economy and population, but also because of manufacturiug
trends and consumption habits. Therefore, King Count�� and
the cities must continue to improve on their existing waste
reduction efforts. With this Plan, the County has developed a
more detailed and comprehei�sive waste reduction strategy. This
strategy identifies a plan of action for creative a�id innovative
ways to meet economic needs while producing little or no solid
waste.
Paper 29.4°k
Wood/Yard Waste 19.6
Plastics 9.6
Food Waste 7.0
Demolition 6.4
Metals 5.3
Textiles 4.6
Glass 2.7
Other 15.4
Source: Chapter II, Figure 11.10, and Volume II, Appendix B.
Eatpanded Programs
Recommended new waste reduction strategies would
consist of both general progra�ns focused on expa�iding public
awareness and understanding of waste reduction and programs
targeted at specific generator groups. The strategies are briefly
described below.
• Business programs would emphasize waste reduction.
• Schools would be encouraged to set goals for waste
reduction of specific wastes.
• A countywide mass media campaign, coordinated across
jurisdictional lines, would be implemented by the Counry.
• The Counry and the cities would develop waste reduction
programs to meet the needs of residents, businesses, and
1I1StItUt10RS.
Policy and Program Rescarch
A comprehensive analysis of nationwide waste reduction
policies and programs is needed to identify elements that would
augment existing County a�id ciry progra�i�s.
Research would focus on waste generation, packaging
issues, and regulatoiy optioi�s. Options for implementing
restrictio��s or imposing t�es on the sale of specific packaging
or products could be explored with the lifting of the "ban on
bans" in July 1993.
Measurement
'It�vo methods of ineasurement a�•e to be developed for
waste reduction:
• A method to monitor progress made toward decreasing per
capita generation rates through waste reduction.
• A method of evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of waste
reduction programs implemented by the Counry and the cities.
Execut�'ve Sumnzary
111
r�
�
�
�
u
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Recycling
The Plan identifies needs for the recycling collection
system, recyclable materials markets, regional seivices, and
other supports for recycling.
Collection
King County and the cities have established a counry-wide
household recyclables collection system. Other collection service
needs addressed in the Plan include:
• Household yaxd waste collection in all urban areas.
• Secondary recyclables such as white goods, plastics (SPI
codes 3-7), bulky yard waste, and scrap metal.
• A more comprehensive rural residential collection system.
• Where feasible, more recyclables and yard waste collection
at King Counry transfer stations.
• More yard waste collection seivices for multifamily and
commercial generators.
• Nonresidential recyclables collection se�vice standards a�ld
financial incentives.
Recyclable Materials Designation
This Plan designates recyclable materials for collection.
Primary recyclables are those commonly coltected and ace
included in minimum service levels. Secondaiy recyclables are
less commonly collected (see Table 3).
Required Recyclables Collection
The Plan designates urban and rucal se�vice areas that
correspond to the ICi�ag Coun�y Coiraprel�ensrve Pl�7a. The
urban minim«m residential se�vice level reqt�ires the following
collection seivices:
• Primary recyclables collected from both single- and
multifamily residences.
• Yard waste collection from single-family residences
• Yard waste collectio��/drop-off seivice for multifamily
residences.
• Appliance wllection opportunities.
• Bulky yard waste collection opportunities.
• Textiles collection opportunities.
Table 3 Designated Primary and Secondary Recyclables
Primary Secondary
newspaper polycoated paperboard
cardboard
high-grade office paper
computer paper
mixed paper
yard waste (< 3" diameter) bulky yard waste
wooa
food waste
PET & HDPE bottles all other plastics
glass containers
tin cans other ferrous metals
aluminum cans other nonferrous metals
appliances (white goods)
textiles
The rural minimum seivice levels established in the Plan
require the following drop-site collection se�vices:
• Primary recyclables.
• Single-family yard waste collection.
Ophonal Recyclables Collection
In addition to collection required by the minimum service
levels, the Counry and cities are encouraged to implement the
following services:
• Urban and rural household polycoated paperboard
collection.
• Urban and rural household collection for #3-7 plastia
(vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and polystyrene).
• Rural household collection for primary recyclables.
• Rural yard waste collection (household or drop-site).
• Rural household appliance collection opportunities.
• Rural household textiles wllection opportunities.
• Cities nonresidential recycling collection services.
Nonresidential Recyclables Collection
This Pla�i recommends that nonresidential collection
seivice guidelines be implemented voluntarily by cities that
contract directl�� with hauleis. In all other cities and in
Fxecutive Summary
1
V
unincorporated areas, these guidelines should be implemented
by haulers with support from those cities and the County. State
law does not provide cleax authority for cities a�id the County to
require nonresidential recyclables collection. King Counry
should clarify this authoriry to ensure better nonresidential
recyclables collection service counry-wide.
Clean wood collection
After a study to determine volume and generator
information for clea�l wood programs may be developed for
waste reduction and the collection of recvclable clean wood
materials
Recyclable Materials Market Needs
Recyclable materials that need high-priorit�� marhet
development to support successful recycling are plastics, glass,
compost, and mixed waste paper. The King Counry
Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials will work to
stimulate procurement through education, outreach, increased
recyclable product procurement, product testing and
demonstration, coalition building, coordination with the Clea�i
WaShington Center, policy analysis, legislative initiatives, a�id
technical assistance to businesses and government.
Support Services
This Plan recommends the cities and the Counry contiiwe
1989 Plan support programs, including collection rate
incentives, procurement policies that favor use of recycled or
recyclable products, and new coi�struction standa�•ds requiring
onsite space for recyclables storage. In addition, progress will
be measured by routine recyclables collection data reporting and
annual reports of progress toward Plan implementation.
Regional Servioes
King Counry should continue to provide more waste
reduction and recycling information to the public. The County
should also continue to work with cities and odler agencies to
achieve stronger intergovernmental coordination and to
maximize a�ailable grant asslstance through the Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Coordinated Prevention
Grant and other programs. King Counry should increase
coordination with school districts and continue to provide
extei�sive edacation and anticipated public information.
Residential Solid Waste and
Recyclables Collection System
E�;cept for the recycling needs a�ld recommendations
described above, the basic recyclables and solid waste collection
system appea�s to be adequate.
Nonresidential Collection Authority
Local governments need authoriry to set non-residential
recyclables collectiou minimum service standards. Also, King
Count�� may need to work witll the Washington Utilities and
Tra�lsportation Commission to promote cross-subsidization
(allowing income from one t��pe of operation to subsidize
another; for instance, solid waste collection could subsidize
recyclables collection), other foru�s of combined rates, and other
means of stimulating comivercial recyclables collection.
Institutional and Incentive Policies
Incentive Rates
Aggressive recycling goals need to be supported by a rate
design process that allows haulets to provide waste reduction
and recycling incentives and recover costs associated with
improving se�vice. The cities, King County, and the collectois
should continue to implement and niaintain rate incentives that
encourage waste reduction and recycling.
Mandatory Collection
Ma�idatory solid waste and recyclables collection is not
recommended at this time. However, the County should study
the relatio«ship between mandatory solid waste collection,
participation in recycling programs, self-haul activiry, �uid
illegal dumping in order to evaluate the possibility of making
collection mandato�y in the future.
Fxecutive Summary
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
V
The Transfer System
Transfer system planning provides for adequate capaciry
for the tonnage and number of vehicles projected to use each
faciliry. It also plans for required recycling setvices, and for
environmental controls in the tra��sfer system. Future
expansion and wnfiguration of the system will continue to be
examined. Four planning needs ha�e been identified:
• To provide adequate tonnage capacity to serve all areas of
the county.
• To increase customer seivice capaciry.
• To accommodate recycling at Counry transfer facilities.
• To plan for future decisions, such as to set level of se�vice
standards in urban and rural areas a�ld to acco►nmodate sucti
changes as technological advances, new regulations, oc othec
needs.
This Plan modifies the 1989 tra�lsfer system development
plan based on current circumstances. 'I'his updated 1992
transfer system development plan (Figure 1) rewmroends that
the site selection process for a new Northeast Lake Washington
Area faciliry would begin in 1993 , and site selection for a new
South Counry station would begin ui late 1994.
The Pla�i also recommends:
• Analysis of the role oF the trausfer system, (including
possible privatization of some seivices).
• Development of master faciliry plans for those transfer
stations with ea�pansion potential.
• Opdate of system use data.
Disposal
Disposal facilities are needed to seive all areas of King
County. Their capaciry must be adequate to meet this need
over the next 20 yea�s. Cedar Hills Regional Landfill lias a
disposal capaciry of 45 million cubic yards, but Kiilg Counry
should anticipate the need for additional disposal capacin�
beyond the 20-year planning requirement.
In addition to facilities availabiliry and capacih�,
compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC
Title 10), necessaiy capital improvenients, and closure and post-
closure activities and funding are also identified needs in this
Plan.
King Counry should coutiuue to upgrade existing disposal
facilities to meet the requirements of the King County Solid
Waste Regulatiot�s (KCBOHC Title 10). Continuation of
adequate capaciry should be the primary goal for the disposal
system. Recommendations for specific landfills are listed below.
• Cedar Hills. Re-evaluate and revise the Draft Cedar Hills
Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS in response to
cevised tonnage forecasts, opecating experience, public comment
and potential out-of-counry disposal. The Plan proposes
accelerating the development of Refuse Area 5.
• Hobart. Continue limited operations at the landfill until
the facility closes.
• ��sho�l. Determine the impact of a sole source aquifer
designation on this IandfilL Evaluate the replacement of the
landfill with either a transfer station or a drop-box.
Waste export, or sliipi��ent of solid waste out-of-county,
would continue to be studied tllcoughout tlie planning period.
Closure and post-closure funding for all facilities should
be assuced by adjustments in contributions in the next rate
period.
Inactive Landfills
King County has custodial responsibiliry for seven inactive
landfills. These are Enumclaw, Cedar Falls, Duvall, Corliss,
Bow Lake HOU�TI1COl1 and Puyallup/Kitt Corner landfills. The
ciry of Carnation is respousible for the Carnation Landfill. The
major needs identified for the landfills are monitoring,
maintenance, and a set aside of sufficieut funds to support the
costs of monitoring and maintenance for a minimum of 20
years.
The post-c(osure costs for the King County landfills ace
presently funded from the Solid Waste Division operating
badget, the landfiil post-closure maintenance fund and the
environmental reseive fuud. The appropriateness and adequacy
of this funding method should be eval�ated upon completion of
further environmental studies.
Energy/Resource Recovery
The 1992 Plan does not recommend an energy/resource
recovery faciliry. Waste reduction and recycling goals are being
successfully achieved and landfill resources are adequate.
Ezecutive Summary
Vl
^ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ , __; -��, Proposed Waste Management N W. Transfer Station _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I�
ic
J L�
Y �
� �
� SEA
c
�� v
� Tuk
� Ar
%
f Trar
� ^.�t2
j Vashon !
i �Landfill
� VASHON�
I ISLAND
v South (
, .. Transfer
5
0
s
MILES
_ Washington
Transfer Station
��,�tT:H
q ,.
��_ .
_. �___ - ,
Northeast Area ` `' :�., Skykomish Drop-box i�
Transfer Station ' ---
. ��
, : .. _... ., .
_. .. , ,
� . ! !
\ ':.,`_, _...,
N O R T H E '1�.
,.
� ;�.
? , .., .�•' -
; �� :! t ., - . `' �. ` '>
� Factoria Transfer Station _ •—•�
`G�N7'�iAL i� ;�
.
, ,. , .
.�
`• �•,. -
.- - r _; _, ... ,..
�.�
�' SR-18/I-90 Area Transfer Station � �)
� Renton Transfer 3tation , � " • ' . ' - ' �
' -
� , /
` . N
�
� ., . , . . _ _ _ / �,.
O _�
a Cedar Hills % —�
Cedar Falls LandfilVDrop-box
�'_ Regional Landfill ❑ f
sfer Station �._ (not open to public) ,j �
,.. ; 1
;" „ :! ,' >•_.. \� \
O; ,.. . ._.
Hobart Landfilllfransfer Station, , �
i.. ; _•i
.
' ;., _ - : : �. \
SOUTH ..:, , __ �
'�
....,. RU,-RAL`. 'i
� , �
.. 1
' <r•
a Transfer Station �
_.�..:� � �)
` i
�.
t` '' f
._. _.....___.. . . ._.. ('`
_..._.
5 1. '�,
� � �Enumclaw Landfill/Transfer Station - `
'�•� • Transfer facility upgrade
�•'""� � � 1 ■ New transfer facility
v �'1 .� �•..• � ��•..-,; �'�•� ♦ Landfill upgrade
�� � , O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station
.`
" ❑ Drop-box
�� Future transfer facilities locations (conceptual)
'1'RANSFER STATIONS
CLOSE
• Houghton Transfer Station
• Renton Transfer Station
• Algona Transfer Station
UPGRADE
• First Northeast Transfer Station
UPGRADE OR REPLACE
• Factoria Transfer Station
• Bow Lake Transfer Station
RURAL LANDFILLS TO BE CLOSED AND
REPLACED WITH TRANSFER STATIONS
• Hobart Landfill
NEW TRANSFER STATIONS
• Northeast Lake Washington Area
• Factoria Area
• Middle Snoqualmie
• Intersection of SR-18 and I-90
• Tukwila Area (if Bow Lake cannot be
upgraded)
• South County Area
• Hobart
Figure 1 King Counry Solid Waste Division seivice areas and faciliry recommendations.
Executive Summary
n
u
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Vll
Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
Special wastes are those mixed municipal solid wastes
that may require special handling a�id therefore must receive
regulatory clearances prior to disposal in the King County solid
waste system. The Plan specifically addresses significa�it special
wastes, including contaminated soils; asbestos; biomedical; a�Id
construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste.
Miscellaneous wastes, including woodwaste and agricultural
wastes, are handled outside the King County mixed municipal
solid waste disposal system.
Contamina.ted Soils
Couta�ninated soils typically are those that contaiu
petroleum products or other hazardous substances. Disposal of
conta�ninated soils at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill creates
impacts and contributes 1.5 percent of the disposed tonnage. A
variery of treatment processes to remove or destroy hazardous
substa�lces from contaminated soil are preferable to disposal.
Treatment processes should be promoted over disposal and
disposal options should be revaluated in relation to the
economic and operational impacts to processo�s and operational
impacts to the Cedar Hills Landfill.
� Asbestos waste
� No needs have been identified beyond those for waste
� screening (see Ei�forcement). The existing system is otheiwise
adequate for asbestos waste disposal.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Biomedical Waste
Because there are no major biomedical treatment facilities
to ha�ldle wastes from medical, dental and veterinary facilities
within King Counry, biomedical waste, including residuals fl•oil�
treatment oc incineration, should be eacluded from flow control
provisions. Continued disposal at appcopriate facilities in and
outside of King County is recommended.
The adequacy of the current option for disposal of home-
generated shaips needs to be further assessed. Home generatois
of shaips wastes should receive more education ou proper
disposal measures.
Construction, Demolition, and
Land Clearing Waste
King County has provided for CDL disposal services
through two contracts with Regional Landfill Corporation for
disposal in Klickitat County (eapected to begin in September
1993) and Waste Management in Arlington, Oregon (to
commence before mid-1994). There are many in-counry
options for CDL recycling and composting of land clearing
debris.
Planning for disposal is adequate, however better
ii�tormation is needed on the waste stream and operations of
local recycleis and processois to support waste reduction and
recycling efforts. Waste generatois need to systematically plan
for waste handling early in project planning and peimitting.
CDL materials markets also need to be further assessed.
Miscellaneous Wastes
No solid waste management needs are identified and no
action is recommended for the remaining miscellaneous waste
streams, woodwaste, agricultural waste, sludges and septage,
waste tires, and dredge spoils.
Enforcement
Four types of ei�torcement activities are carried out by the
Seattle-King Counry Depart►nent of Public Health (Health
Department) and the Solid Waste Division.
• Soli�l wc�ste 1��7adli��ag facilitie.s permat r�uirements. The
Health Department is respoi�sible for permitting both public and
private solid waste facilities in accordance with the King Counry
Solid Waste Regulations. The existing enforcement system
appeais to be effective to ensure compliance, but staffing levels
need to be evaluated.
• Waste,�low coTr.trol. Waste generated within the King
County solid waste planning area must be disposed at King
Counry facilities unless its disposal is prohibited by the
Division's waste acceptance policy or disposal elsewhere is
specifically permitted by ordinance or the Plan. Data indicate
that total tonnage delivered to the system appea�s to be
declining faster than anticipated. This impacts financial
planni��g a�id operatioi�s and indicates a need to monitor waste
. Executive Summary
�
Vlll
flow control and evaluate needs for further measures. Vi�aste
from jurisdictions that are not part of this Plan must be
charged a triple rate. The Pla�i recommends increased
attention to the source of waste in order for the rate
disincentive to work, public education, a�id continued
monitoring.
• Control of incoming waste. The Plan recommends that
e�anded waste screening operations at King Count�� and private
transfer stations, to ensure only allowable mixed municipal
solid waste is disposed.
• lllegal dumping and littering. Few data are available to
accurately assess the nature and extent of illegal dumping aud
littering. The Plan recommends resea�ch and analysis of these
problems. Based on findings, a counry-wide i«formation
tracking system may be needed.
Environmental Impact
Sta.tement Addendum
This 1992 Pla�i is substantially si►nilar to the 1989 Plan.
Although this 1992 Pla�i contains a number of new
recommendations, they build upon the same basic solid waste
management programs recommended in the 1�89 Plau.
Because of the similariry of the two pla��s, the probable
significant adverse impacts of the recommendatioi�s and
alternatives in the 1992 Plan fall within the range of those
evaluated lll the 1989 Pla�l EIS. Therefore, rather than prepa�•e
a new EIS on the 1992 Plan, the King County Solid Waste
Division has decided to adopt the 1989 Plan EIS in its entirety,
and prepare an addendum that contains needed additional
information.
Plan Recommenda.tions
A table of Plan recommendations is found at the end of
this summary (Table 4).
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The 1992 Plan has been developed with extei�sive early
public involvement and dle active pa��ticipation of the suburban
cities. City recycling coordinato�s a�ld County staff have also
worked cooperatively to identify and resolve Plan issues. The
SWAC also reviewed and commented on the Plan at each stage
of its development.
The Plan development process consisted of the three steps
described in the following sections.
Draft Plan Development
Development of the Draft 1992 Plan began in early
1991. In order to identify countywide concerns, two counry-
sponsored wor�shops were held to discuss the 1992 Plan.
Suburban cities' elected officials, administrators, and managers,
SWAC membeis, recycling coordinatots and representatives of
the hauleis and recycling businesses participated in these
meetings and worhshops. 7'hree communiry meetings were also
held at locatious potentially affected by the Plan's transfer
facility siting recommendations. Based on the input received at
these meetings and research conducted by Solid Waste Division
(SIVD) staff and consuhants, the Draft 1992 was produced and
distributed for review and comment in August 1992.
A 90-day public review period began upon issuance of the
Draft Plan. The Plan was widely distributed for review aud
comment by those affected b}� it. King Counry conducted public
meetings, hearings, and briefings for elected officials in addition
to tal�ing written comments. The SWAC and tlie Suburban
Cities Staff Policy Group reviewed and commented upon the
Draft Plan.
Tlie Draft Plan was forivally reviewed by Ecology per
RCW 70.95 and the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission reviewed the Cost Assessment (Volume II, Appendix
K).
Final Plan Development
This Final Plan was revised based on strategies developed
by the public, suburban cities staff, SWAC, and the Staff Policy
Group of the Suburban Cities Association during and after the
Draft Plan review period. Based on the comments received,
issues needing review and revision were identified and strategies
were developed to address the concerns raised. Consensus was
gained on revision strategies through meetings with the Staff
Policy Group, suburban cities recycling coordinatois, the SWAC,
and Ecology.
F.xecutive Summary
1X
Figu�e 2 Comprehensive Solid Waste Managen�ent Pla�� i�eview �u�d decision-malcing process.
��eecutrr,� Summ�ry
X
:::»:;:::::::>:;>;:::`::<:::"::::>:<:::>::::>::>:
Based on the consensus acl�ieved during the pceceding
pcocess, the Suburban Cities Association has adopted by
resolution support for the final plan.
Plan Adoption
Plan adoption is the third and final stage. Pending
Ecology's concureence that the Final Plan and Suburban Cities
Association recommendatio��s are in complia�ice with RCW
70.95, Plan adoption will be voted on by suburban the cities
and then the King Counry Council. The Plan is deemed
adopted if cities representing 75 percent of the incoiporated
population approve it within the 1?0-day adoption period,
which begins when the Plan is issued. Ecology would grant
final approval once these steps are completed. (The Plan
process is shown in Figure 2.)
PLAN ORGANIZATION
VOLUME I
Annotation of 1992 llraft Plan Conunents
Executive Sunnnary
Chapter I: Plan Development
A. Planning Background
B. Relationship to Other Plans
C. Administration
D. Planning Histo�y
F.. Process and Schedule
Chapter II: Planning Area
A. Existing Conditions
B. Waste Stream A�lalysis
C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Summaiy
Chapter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling
A. Waste Reduction
B. Recycling
Chapter IV: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Ha�idling
Systems
A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection
B. Transfer System
C. Disposal
D. Inactive Landfills
E. Energy/Resource Recovery
Chapter V: Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
A. Contaminated Soil
B. Asbestos W�ste
C. Biomedical Waste
D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste
E. Agricultural Waste
F. Woodwaste
G. Other Special VVastes
Chapter VI: Enforcement
A. Solid Waste Ha�ldling Facilities Pern�it Requirements
B. Waste �low Control
C. Control of Special �Va.Stes
D. Illegal Dumping and Littering
Chapter VII Financial Systems
A. Financing Operations
B. Grants
E�lvironmeiltal [ulpact Stateil�ent Addenduil�
G lossaiv
References
Related Legislation
voL�L li
Appendix A: Waste Generation Forecas[ Methodology
Appendu 6: Waste Characterization Study
Appendu C: Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan
Appendi� D: Rec`�cling ti1arhets Assessment
AppeudL�; E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
Appendix F: Resource Guide to Recycling Centeis in King
Counry
ApPendix G: Resource Guide for Recycling and Disposal
Alternatives for Construction, Demolition, and
Land Clearing Debris
Appendix H: I�-ti�ed Waste Processing Feasibility r�ialysis
Appendi.r L Landfill Reseive Fund
Appendix J: Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste
Appendi� K: VU[1TC Solid Waste Cost Assessment
Execufiive Stsn2an��ry
X1
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan RecommendaUons
Rec.
No. Recommendation Description
Chapter III - Waste Reduction and Recycling
WASTE REDUCTION
111.1 Business waste reduction Expand business waste reduction program by developing model office dispiay,
1112
IH.3
County in-house program
Holiday waste reduction
111.4 Green teams
111.5 Multimedia strategy
111.6 Targeted waste reduction
111.7 Packaging analysis
III.B Identification of reducible waste
111.9 Waste reduction data
111.10 Consortium building
111.11 Intergovernmental coordination
111.12 National activities
111.13 Rate incentives
and recognize businesses that incorporate waste reduction into company
practices.
Form a networking committee to expand and create new waste reduction
programs for County In-House program.
Expand waste reduction programs targeting consumers and businesses during the
holiday season.
Increase number of Green Teams school program sites to include all schools.
Purchase videos on waste reduction for airing on public access television and
participate with other jurisdictions and television media to buy air time to promote
waste reduction.
Develop and implement one waste reduction program per generator type
(residential, business, and institution).
Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packaging and design and identify
excessive and nonrecyclable packaging.
Identiiy categories of waste which can or cannot be reduced to target eliminating
reducible waste.
Identify existing waste reduction efforts by the private and public sectors.
Establish a waste reduction consortium with trade associations and manufacturers.
fncrease intergovernmental coordination to increase influence on waste reduction
decisions.
Develop proposals for establishing industry consortiums, intergovernmental
coordination and national coalitions to promote waste reduction in products and
packaging.
Continue to encourage waste reduction and recycling through such rate-related
incentives as mini-can garbage service, special recycling service rate for non-
garbage customers, distributing cost of recycling among all rate payers, and
establishing substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service
levels.
RECYCLABLES COLLECTION
Required Collection
111.14 Urban household collection of primary Provide household collection of paper, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDP�,
recyclables yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter), glass containers, and tin and
aluminum cans from all urban single- and multifamily residences
111.15 Rural drop box collection of primary Provide rural single- and multifamily residences with drop-sites for collection of the
recyclables same materials collected at urban households
111.16 Urban single-family household yard Provide household collection of yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter) from
waste collection urban single-family residences in unserved urban areas
Exe�cutrve Summary
X
il
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Managen�ent Plan Recommendatlons (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendatlon
111.17 Urban multifamily onsite yard waste
collection service
111.18 Urban household bulky yard waste
collection service
111.19 Urban househo�d appliance collection
service
11120 Urban household textiles collection
service
11121 Nonresidential recycling service
guidelines implementation and
promotion
Optional Collection
111.22 Urban and rural household polycoated
paperboard collection
11123 Urban and rural household collection
of #3-7 plastics
111.24 Rural household collection of primary
recyclables
111.25 Rural drop-site collection of yard waste
111.26 Rural household collection of
appliances
11127 Rural household textiles collection
11128 Nonresidential recycling collection
service contracts
Other County Collection Programs
Description
Ensure yard waste collection service options are available to urban multifamily
dwellings
Ensure household collection service options for yard waste too large or in
excessive amounts for regular household collection are available
Ensure large appliance collection service options are available to urban
households
Ensure collection service options are available for textiles on a regular basis
Ensure that businesses have minimum recycling services available to them
Evaluate the inclusion of polycoated materials (milk cartons, butter and frozen food
packages) in household collection programs
Include #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and all other plastics) in
household collection programs
Collect primary recyclables at the household from rural single- and multifamily
residences
Provide on-call household or drop-site collection of yard waste
Collect appliances from rural households
Collect used clothing and fabrics from rural households
Initiate collection contracts to provide minimum recycling services to businesses.
111.29 Recyclables collection at King County Continue current level of primary recyclables including yard waste services at
Solid Waste Facilities existing facilities where feasible; collect these and other materials as needed at
upgraded and new facilities
111.30 Yard waste drop sites Ensure the provision of yard waste drop sites or services in the northeastern, near-
south, and eastside areas of the County
111.31 Yard waste disposal ban Implement a phased ban on yard waste disposal at County disposal facilities
111.32 Incentives to buy-back centers Evaluate the feasibility of providing financial incentives to existing private buy-back
centers to encourage them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials
111.33 Appliance recycling resource list Maintain and distribute a resource list of appliance dealers and recyciers capable
of accepting, collecting, or recycling used appliances and who meet the new
Federal Clean Air Act CFC regulations
111.34 Secondary recyclables collection Coordinate special collection events countywide (urban and rural) for secondary
events recyclables
111.35 Primary Recyclables Education Develop and impiement a campaign to increase public awareness of household
Campaign collection service of primary recyclables.
Executive Summ���
Xlll
T�le 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Managemen[ Plan Recomn�endations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation
CITY/COUNTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
111.36 Collection rate incentives
111.37 Procurement policies
111.38 Recycling space standards for new
construction
111.39 City annual reports
111.40 Data repoRing by haulers, recyclers,
cities
COUNTY REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Description
Continue to establish rate incentives for solid waste collection that encourage
participation in recycling programs (see Recommendation 111.13)
Continue the adoption of procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or
recyclable products
Continue to develop new construction standards that require onsite space for
collecting and storing recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential structures
countywide
Continue annual reports to the County on progress toward implementing the
Plan's required programs and achieving established diversion goals
Continue to provide collection data from househo�d and nonresidential collection
programs
111.41 King County Commission for Continue to foster the development and expansion of recycling markets in King
Marketing Recyclable Materials County and the region
111.42 Business recycling program Continue to assist businesses and institutions in developing and implementing
WR/R programs in the workplace
111.43 King County employee recycling Continue to provide recycling opportunities in the workplace to King County
program employees
111.44 School education program Continue to work with cities, school districts, haulers and recyclers in the delivery
of school educational and collection programs
111.45 Other WR/R education Continue existing education programs and community events, develop new
programs in the areas of yard waste and mixed waste paper collection, and
develop and coordinate a comprehensive media campaign aimed at multiethnic
and other groups
111.46 Clean wood collection Study and develop programs to increase waste reduction and recycling
opportunities for clean wood waste.
111.47 Master Recycler Composter program Continue to train community volunteers in recycling and composting techniques
Fxecutive Summary
XI
V
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation
Description
Chapter IV - Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
COLLECTION
IV.1 Collection authority
IV2 Evaluate mandatory collection
IV.3 WUTC rate review
IV.4 Rate incentives
IV.S
IV.6
IV.7
IV.8
IV.9
IV.10
IV.11
IV.12
IV.13
Waste Management Northwest
Northeast Lake Washington
Houghton
First Northeast
Factoria
South County
Algona
Bow Lake
Renton
IV.14 Enumclaw
IV.15 Hobart
IV.16 New transfer facilities
IV.17 Role of Transfer System
IV.18 System Use Data Collection
DISPOSAL
Pursue state legislation to clarify nonresidential recycling authority of counties and
cities to set recommended minimum service standards for nonresidential collection
of recyclables.
Study relationships between mandatory collection, self-haul activity, illegal
dumping, and participation in recycling programs.
Continue to seek changes in statutes and in the WUTC rate review process to
allow haulers to recover costs related to nonresidential recycling service level
improvements called for in the Plan.
Continue to implement rate incentives that will encourage waste reduction and
recycling (see also Chapter III, Recommendations 111.13 and 111.36).
Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system.
Begin site selection in 1993, completion in 1999.
Close in 1999, after new Northeast Lake Washington is completed.
Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible.
Build new facility. Add MRW services if feasible.
Build new transfer station. Begin site selection in 1994.
Close after new South County Transfer Station is completed in 2000.
Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible, or build a replacement in Tukwila
area.
Close Renton after Factoria and Bow Lake expansions or Tukwila replacement
facility is built.
Landfill closed. Replaced with new transfer station in 1993.
Close landfill in 1994.
Place on hold pending the outcome of Growth Management Act initiatives
Develop a study on the role of the transfer system.
Collect current data on transfer system usage, programs, and regulations.
IV.19 KCBOHC Title 10 compliance Continue monitoring compliance.
IV.20 Capital construction plan (a) Accelerate development of the Refuse Area 5, Cedar Hilis. (b) Delay Vashon
new area development and final cover projects. (c) Adjust costs associated with
Capital Construction Plan with updated estimates.
IV21 Financial assurance Adjust contributions to individual accounts in next rate period.
IV.22 Cedar Hills Regional La�dfill Modify draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS.
IV.23 Hobart Landfill Maintain existing load restriction and continue operation until capacity is reached.
Close in 1994.
IV24 Enumclaw Landfill Landfill closed. Closure process initiated.
E.�cutive Summary
X
V
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation
Description
IV.25 Vashon Landfill (a).Seek clarification on impact of a sole source aquifer designation for Vashon
Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill. (b) Evaluate
replacement options for the Vashon Landfill. (c) Evaluate leachate storage,
transport, and treatment alternatives and select alternative.
IV26 Waste export Evaluate economics of out-of-county alternatives with continued operation of Cedar
Hills; include back-up level operation necessary for Cedar Hills.
INACTIVE LANDFILLS
IV.27 Inactive �andfilis
Conduct further study and evaluation to determine what actions may be necessary
to manage inactive landfills.
Chapter V- Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
CONTAMINATED SOIL
V.1 Recycling and treatment Promote recycling/treatment. Analyze disposal options and the costs and benefits
of in-County vs. out-of-County disposal.
BIOMEDICAL WASTE
V2 Treatment and disposal Continue to allow treatment and disposal outside of King County.
V.3 Flow control exclusion Remove biomedical waste references from flow control provisions.
V.4 Home-generated sharps education Develop and distribute additional education materials for home generators of
sharps waste.
V.5 Home-generated sharps disposal Continue to evaluate the adequacy of current disposal options for home-generated
sharps.
CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
V.6 Source separation Encourage a policy of source separation for CDL. Promote an increase in the
number of dispersed locations receiving CDL recyclables.
V.7 Onsite assistance Conduct onsite waste audits.
V.8 Resource guides and brochures Develop broad distribution network for the "Resource Guide." Develop new
brochures to target various audiences, e.g., CDL generators and recyclers.
V.9 Workshops Conduct workshops in conjunction with building trades organizations
V.10 Waste exchange Expand the work of the IMEX group to add components of demolition and
construction waste into its listing. Expand the County's procurement policy to
cover CDL materials most easily recycled, such as asphalt, untreated wood, and
compost made from land clearing debris. Develop incentives to encourage
recyclers to locate in King County or expand their existing operations. Develop
monitoring program for non-contracted recyclers.
V.11 Permitting Develop, in conjunction with DDES and city permit agencies, a waste reduction
and recycling plan requirement for commercial and residential building, grading,
or subdivision permits.
V.12 Disposal ban Study imposition of a disposal ban on specific CDL materials.
V.13 Waste screening Evaluate instituting a waste screening program.
V.14 Record keeping Monitor the disposal of CDL waste.
Executive Summary
X�
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation Description
Chapter VI - Enforcement
WASTE FLOW CONTROL
VI.1 Waste flow control education
V1.2 Enforcement
CONTROL OF INCOMING WASTES
VI.3 Expanded waste screening
V1.4 Staff training
VI.5 Regulation of private transfer stations
ILLEGAL DUMPING AND LITTERING
Develop waste flow control education program.
Increase enforcement of flow control and waste acceptance policies.
Allocate resources for routine observation of unloading, periodic load checks, and
documentation of screening activities at transfer stations.
Provide additional training for employees to screen wastes.
Establish screening and record keeping requirements at private transfer stations.
VI.6 Evaluate current systems Evaluate current monitoring, enforcement, and cleanup systems.
VI.7 Central monitoring system Develop a central system for monitoring illegal dumping complaints and
countywide enforcement activities.
VI.8 Abatement of illegally dumped waste Research provision of revolving fund for abatement.
VI.9 Model litter control ordinance Research and draft a model ordinance to address litter and illegal dumping
concerns.
Executive Summary
�
�
• o
.
.
� CHAPTER I
•
• � l�,('11V
•
� EVELOPMENT
•
� King County
• Comprehensive
•
Solid Waste
� Management Plan
•
•
•
•
•
• � �
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
,���,
vmv �
SOrting
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
I-1
Plaxl
A. PLANNING BACKGROUND
Chapter I
Development
This chapter of the lgg2 King Counly Compreherzswe
Solul l�aste Management Plan (the Plan, Volumes I and II)
describes the Plan's purpose, goaLs and objectives, legislative
and planning authority, its relationship to other plans, a history
of the planning effort, and the process and schedule.
� 1 1.'
The 1989 Plan and this lgg2 Plan update provide a
strategy for achieving federal, state, and local goaLs for solid
waste handling within most of King Counry. The 1g89 Plan
established a comprehensive program that emphasized reduction
and recycling of the solid waste stream and disposal of
nonrecyclable materials in environmentally safe landfills.
The 1992 Plan continues this emphasis, focusing on
programs and services that prevent land, air, and water
pollution and conserve the region's natural, economic, and
energy resources. The 1992 Plan update reviews progress made
since the 198g Plan was implemented, reassesses the Counry's
needs, and expands on the recommendations laid out in the
1989 Plan by increasing waste reduction and recycling activities
in order to reduce waste and preserve capacity at the Cedar
Hills landfill. The 1992 Plan update helps to implement
adopted County Policy, which statss:
"This Counry recognizes that there will be
considerable difficulry in siting a new landfill at any
time now or in the future. The counry, therefore,
finds that the Cedar Hills landfill is a valuable and
irreplaceable resource and that aggressive and
timely action must be taken to preserve and insure
the safe use of this resource as long as possible for
the future." (KCC 10.14).
Ci.�pter !.• Plan Deuelopment
2. Goals and Objectives
Goals of the Plan were determined in an eactensive public
and legislative process that resulted in amendments to RCW
70.95 and King County Code (KCC) 1014. The goals are:
• To preserve the environment and public health of the
County through the proper management of solid waste.
• To achieve a waste reduction and recycling rate of
35 percent in 1992, 50 percent by 1995, and 65 percent by
2000.
• To mitigate impacts of e�sting and future solid waste
handling.
• To continue development of adequate disposal capaciry that
meets all regulatory requirements.
3. Planning Authority
King Counry prepares and maintains this comprehensive
solid waste management plan pursuant to state and loca]
enabling statutes that require its preparation. The most
important of these are:
• RCi� 70.95 (Solid Waste Management Reduction and
Recycling Act) sets solid waste management priorities and
assigns solid waste planning authoriry to local (county and
city) governments and directs each counry to prepare a plan in
cooperation with the cities in its planning area
• KCC Tide 10 defines the County's role as the solid waste
planning authoriry for the Counry and provides for interlocal
agreements to implement these activities within cities and
towns.
To carry out the planning process, King County entered
into cooperative solid waste management agreements--or
Interlocal Agreements (ILAs)�vith cities in the planning area
in 1g88. The ILAs wnform with RCW 39.34 (the state statute
A. Planning eackground
�
I-2
governing interlocal agreements between loca.l jurisdictions),
RCW 70.g5, and King County Council Motion 7143, which
authorizes the Counry Executive to enter into such agreements.
The ILAs establish the Counry's responsibility for solid waste
management pla�u►ing for the cities and uninco�porated areas
and define authorities and responsibilities for solid waste
handling.
Another ILA, the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Agreement,
establishes a policy advisory body. These agreements (they will
both be refereed to as ILAs for ease of reference) are in effect
from July 1, 1g88 to June 30, 2028, although provisions may
be reviewed or renegotiated at the request of any of the parties
(ILA Section 5.1., see Related Legislation addendum to this
Plan).
The ILAs:
• Create a Solid Waste Interlocal Forum consisting of 12
elected representatives of suburban cities, Seattle, and King
Counry, which is charged with making recommendations
concerning solid waste policies.
• Affirm the priorities of waste reduction and recycling as
identified in RCW 70.95.
• Designate the County as the operating authoriry for transfer,
processing, and disposal facilities for a[I jurisdictions parry to
the ILAs.
• Authorize the Counry to serve as the planning authoriry for
solid waste handling for all parties to the ILA.
• Reaffirm cities' responsibility to provide for solid waste
collection within their corporate limits.
Adoption of the Plan requires approval by the County,
participating cities representing 75 percent of the incorporated
population (provided that they act on the Plan within 120
days), and the Department of Ecology (Ecology, RCW
70.95.094). Environmental review for the Plan is in the form
of an addendum (included in this Volume) to the 198g Plan
Environmenta.l Impact Statement (EIS).
4. Plan Participants
The Plan was prepared by the King County Solid Waste
Division (the Division) with the input of representa.tives of the
Counry and suburban cities and assistance from private
consultants. It encompasses all King County cities and
unincorporated areas except Milton, which is included in the
Pierce County plaiu�ing area, and Seattle, which has its own
plan.
RCW 70.95 and the ILAs identify the suburban cities and
the County as the major participants involved in the planning
process. This Plan update includes the cities listed in Table I.1.
The ciry of Seattle disposes of its own nonresidential,
residential, and special wastes and has prepared its own solid
waste management plan. The Seattle plan will be incorporated
by reference into the final King County Plan update (pursuant
to RCW 70.g5.080) and updated in 1995.
Because Seattle was part of the Counry's disposa( system
for approximately five years, the city aLso signed an agreement
to participate in the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum. Seattle has
been less involved in Forum activities since leaving the County's
disposal system (see Section I.B.I.a).
Tabk I.1 Plan Puticipants
Algona Kirkland
Auburn Lake Forest Park
Beaux Arts Village Medina
Bellevue Mercer Island
Black Diamond Normandy Park
Bothell North Bend
Burien Pac'rfic
Carnation Redmond
Clyde Hill Renton
Des Moines SeaTac
Dwall Skykomish
Enumclaw Snoqualmie
Federal Way Tukwila
Hunts Point Woodinville
Issaquah Yarrow Point
Kent
A. Planning Bac�ground Cfxapter L• Plan Der,�lopmerat
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
I-
3
5. Required Contents
The elements required in a solid waste plan are
delineated in RCW 70.95.090, which specifies minimum
requirements for solid waste plans to ensure a uniform,
comprehe«sive approach, and in KCC Chapters 10.22 and 10.24
which provide policy direction on solid waste management and
incorporate the state requirements.
The Guzdslines for the Developnaent of the Loual Solz�l
Waste Managen2ent Plans and Plara Revzsio7as (WDOE 90-11,
hereafter referred to as "Ecology Guidelines"), issued by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), provide
direction to local jurisdictions for the develop�nent, content, and
adoption and approval processes for solid waste pla��s. The
guidelines a�e issued pursuant to RCW 70.95 and require the
following content elements in local jnrisdiction plans:
• Invento�y and descciption of all solid waste liandling
facilities.
• Estimated capaciry needs of solid waste handling facilities
for the duration of the plan.
• Prograan for solid waste handling facilities development.
• Surveillance and control program for solid waste operatiot�s.
• Current inventory a�id description of solid waste collection
needs and operations within the planning area.
• Review of potential areas that meet the solid waste faciliry
siting criteria outliued in RCW 70.95.165.
• A waste reductioNrecycling element.
6. Plan Organization
The Pla�l is divided into seven chapteis, which are
described below. Technical documentation and Uackground
reports a�e provided in the technical appendices (Volume II of
the Plan).
• Chapter I, Plan Development: puipose and goals,
participants, relationship to other plans dI1CI p131111111� �1lStOly
• Chapter II, Planning A�•ea: the natural and built
environment waste stream analy�sis, and the solid waste
facilities siting process.
• Chapter III, Waste Reduction and Recycling: existing
conditioi�s and needs and oppoi�tunities for waste reduction and
recycling, altenlatives for programs that address these needs,
and reco►nmended cou�se of action.
• Chapter IV, Ivlixed blunicipal Solid Waste System: existing
conditions and needs and opportunities of the solid waste
handling system, alternative methods to address these needs,
and implementation schedules.
• Chapter V, Special and Miscella�ieous Wastes: solid waste
liandling systems for construction, demolition, and land
clearing, biomedical, agricultural, woodwaste, asbestos, and
contaminated soil.
• Chapter VI, Ei�forcement: existing conditions and needs
and opportunities for enforcement, and recommended action for
waste flow control, solid waste handling facilities, litter and
illegal dumpiug, and control of incoming waste.
• Chapter VII, Financial System: financial system a�ld grant
programs.
B. RELATIONSHIP TO 01�R PIANS
This section describes the relationship between the Plan
and other planning or regulatory activities.
1. Solid Waste Plans
Incorporated by Reference
a. City of Seattle Plan
'1'he ciri� of Seattle's solid waste management pla�i,
entitled Sec��ttle's IntP��crte�l Sodz�l Waste Managenae�at Plan
(August 198g), sets forth a strategy for collection and disposal
of the city's residential, commercial, and special wastes.
As described in the Seattle plan, the ciry's goals are to
reduce, cecycle, or c;ompost 60 percent of its total waste stream
by 1998, with interim goals of 40 percent by 1g91 and SO
percent by 19�3. Nonrecyclable waste will be disposed of in an
enviromnentally safe manner at an out-of-county landfill. The
Seattle plan also emph�sizes waste reduction, public education
��nd fulfillroent of tlie closure requirements for the Kent
Highlands and Midway landfills.
. Clxapter 1.• Pl�rr Deaelopnaerat B. Relat�onship to Other Plans
�
I-4
M agreement between Seattle and the Counry, signed in
late 1986, allowed the city to dispose of i� mixed municipal
solid waste (MMS� at the Cedar Hills Regional Landf'ill after
Seattle's Kent Highlands and Midway landfills were closed. This
agreement was terminated in June 1991, when Seattle began
shipping Its wastes to a landflll in Arlington, Oregon. Seattle
controls all of the waste generated wikhin its boundaries and
disposes of it in its own system. Similarly, other King Counry
waste is controlled by King County and dces not go to Seattle
waste handling facilities.
Seattle is not included in King Counry's plan; however,
the Seattle plan is consistent with the 1992 Plan and, pursuant
to RCW 70.95.080, is integrated into the King Counry Plan.
Projected tonnage and cost data throughout this plan are for
King County and the suburban cities and do not include
Seattle.
b. Locdl Hazardous Waste Management Plan
for Seattle-King Counry
The State Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW
70.105.220[1]) requires each local government, or combination
of contiguous local governments, to prepare a loca.l hazardous
waste plan to manage "moderate risk wastes," generated by
households and small quantity generators (defined by
RCW 70.105.010[17]). The Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health (the Health Department), the King Counry Solid
Waste Division, the Seattle Office of Long Range Planning, the
Seattle Solid Waste Utiliry, and the Municipaliry of Metropolitan
Seattle (Metro) worked together to prepare the 1989 Local
Hazardous l�aste Management Plan (LIiWMP), with
assistance from the Suburban Cities Association.
The LHWMP focuses on the amount of hazardous
substances entering the solid waste and wastewater saeams
generated in households or produced in small quantities by
businesses.
The stated objectives are:
• To reduce accidenis resulting in worker exposure to
hazardous waste in solid waste or wastewater facilities.
• To establish a management program that will allow solid
waste and wastewater facilities to oontinue meeting
B. Relationsd;p to otber PJans
environmental discharge standards, even as the numbers of
people and small businesses increase, or as the wastewater
discharge requiremenis become more stringent.
Public education, waste reduction, recycling, waste
treatment, storage and disposal programs, and facilities are
emphasized in the I.HWMP. It recommends a number of
programs to reduce the amount of waste generated and to
safely dispose of the hazardous wastes collected. Permanent
facilities and mobile oollection are both recommended for
household hazardous waste (HH� and waste generated by
small quantiry generators (SQG). The public education
programs highlight proper disposal and reduction of household
and SQG waste generation. SQG businesses will be offered
technical assistance in handling their hazardous waste and
reducing the use of hazardous materia.ls.
The LHWMP was issued in 1989, adopted by the cities
and the Counry, and appmved by Ecology in 1990. It is
scheduled for revision in lgg4.
c. Metro Sludge Management Plan
Sludge, a byproduct of municipal wastewater treatment, is
defined as a solid waste in the King County Solid Waste
Regulations (King Counry Board of Health Code, KCBOHC Title
10) but generally dces not enter the counry mixed municipal
solid waste stream. Provisions for adopting and enforcing
sludge management regulations are contained in RCW 70.95.
Major regulations for sludge management are contained in
KCBOHC Tit1e 10. In addition, Ecology developed Munic�pal
and Dbmestic Sludge Utilizatzon Gurdelines (WDOE 82-11)
and Best Management Practir,�s for Use of Municrpal Sludge
(WDOE 82-12). Sludge management is the responsibiliry of the
wastewater treatment agencies (RCW 35.58.180 and RCW
35.58.200).
The Metro Sludge Management Plan and amendments
are incorporated into the Plan by reference. They direct Metro
to develop sludge management facilities and practices to
accommodate sludge loads projected through the year 2000.
The March 1991 amendments set forth the following policies:
• Digested sludge is considered a resource that can ha�e
beneficial use through recycling by land application. Metro
Cbiapter 1.• Plan Der;elopment
�
� ..... ........
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
should use the soil conditioning and plan nutrient value of
sludge to improve soils, fertllize forest lands, produce compost,
and fertilize agricultural lands.
• Sludge will not be disposed through incineration or
dumping in the ocean or in landfllls.
• New and innovative technologies will be considered for
sludge treatment, land appllcation, and energy recovery,
including both public and private ownership of facilities.
• Production of a pathogen-free (Class A) sludge will be
investigated and existing solids handling will continue. At the
West Point Treatment Plant, an end-product mix will be
produced by continuing both the existing digestion and
dewatering of sludge and private vendor pmcessing of a portion
of the solids.
d. Sludge Management of Other jurisdidions
The Health Department estimates that 90 to 95 percent of
the sludge generated in the County is handled and disposed of
through the Metro Sludge Management Plan. 1'he remaining
5 to 10 percent originates in Black Diamond, Duvall, Midway,
Enumclaw, Lakota, Miller Creek, North Bend, Redondo, Salmon
Creek, Snoqualmie, and Vashon. Redondo and Lakota belong
to the Federal Way Sewer District; Salmon Creek and Miller
Creek belong to the Southwest Suburban Sewer District. Most
wastewater management agencies in King Counry are members
of the Washington State Regional Sludge Management
Committee. These agencies work together on a regional basis
to site projects that can be used by all members.
Sludge disposal is allowed by permit only. Applications
for permits may be approved, denied, or conditioned by the
Health Officer (KCBOHC 10.40.010). Importing sludge from
other counties is allowed pmvided that the usess are permitted
by the Health Department pursuant to RCW 70.95 and KCBOHC
Title 10. The Health Department estimates that sludge which is
not managed through the Metro plan is composted (60
percent), used for land applications (30 percent), and offered to
the public for soil improvement (10 percent).
Chapter L Plan Deuelopment
I-
5
2. Plans Related to the
Solid Waste Mana.gement System
a. City/County Comprehensive Land Use Plans
To ensure oompatibiliry of land uses, Ecology Guidelines
(WDOE 90 require that the Counry consider comprehensive
land use plans and pertinent legislation for all participating
jurisdictions when developing the Plan. These include the State
Growth Management Act (SHB 2929 and 1025), the 1985 King
County Comprelienswe Land Use Plan and 1992 amendments,
community plans for unincorporated King Counry, and ciry
comprehensive plans. Compatibility amang plans is important
when planning future disposal, transfer, and waste reduction
and recycling facilities, and is particularly significant when
siting facilities.
(1) Local Jurlsdlct�ons
Cities ha�e permitting processes regulating land use and
the location, development, and cons�vction of facilities within
their corporate boundaries. Their regulations and policies are
expressed in comprehensive plans, shoreline management
master programs, and zoning codes. Appropriate local plans
are reviewed prior to siting solid waste facilities.
(2) Ktng County Comprehens�ve Land Use Plan
The 1985 King County Compreliensive Land Use Plan
(Comprehensive Plan) and 1992 amendments (Chapter 10,
Comprehensive Plan Rernew, Ordinance 10237) contain the
following policies related to solid waste facilities and
managemen�
• Regional and �sssential public facilities (including solid
waste facilities) should be compatible with neighboring uses
and adjoin nonresidential uses whenever possible. Those
serving large areas and used by the public should be located in
or near urban areas or rural activities centers.
• Proposed regional and essential public facilities should be
reviewed through countywide public hearings and formal action
by elected officials.
B. Relatimasbip to Otber Plans
I-6
�
.......................................... .............. ......... �
• Protection of environmental qualiry and equitable
distribution countywide should be primary considerations when
siting facilities.
Specific policies affecting solid waste handling set forth in
Ordinance 10237 are:
• Solid waste should be handled and disposed of in ways that
minimize land, air, and water pollution and protect public
health (F-326).
• Management of solid waste should take a regional approach
in planning for needs, facilities, and seivices (F-327).
• The life of existing landfills should be maximized, the need
for new landfills a�oided by expanding and developing new
waste reduction and recycling opportunities, and the use of out-
of-county landfills investigated to the ea�ent possible. Other
impacts of landfills that should be considered include air and
water quality and public health (F-328).
(3) Sboreline Management Master Programs
Shoreline master programs contain policies and
regulations affecting most development projects on shorelines
abutting state waters, including reservoirs, tloodplains, and
associated wedands, and excluding stream segments on rivers
with a mean annual flow of less than 20 cubic feet per second
and lakes smaller than 20 acres (Shorelines Management Act,
RCW 90.58). Local shoreline master pmgrams generally either
prohibit or significandy restrict siting of solid waste facilities on
shorelines.
(4) I.ocal Zon�ng and Related Regulatto�ss
Ciry zoning codes and regulations affect whether solid
waste facilities may provide recycling wllection areas. They
may aiso include structural size limita.tions; site design
requirements, such as setbacks from properry lines; and other
aspects of land use, such as noise and air pollutant generation.
(S) State and Federal lands
A large area of King Counry falls under state or federal
jurisdiction, primarily forests and parks in rura.l areas. State
and federal land could be potential sites for solid waste
facilities. Such a strategy could require land purchase or a
lease from the appropriate administrating agency.
(6) Groundwater and Surface Water
Management Plans
The siting, construction, and operation of any facility
recommended as part of this Plan should be coordinated with
the appropriate surface and groundwater plans and
admInistrating agencies. The improper dlsposal of solid waste
has been identified as a potential source for groundwater
contamination (Puget Sound I�ater Quality Authority, PSl�QA,
1991 Plan. The PSWQA plan states that the sources which
contaminate groundwater are often the same sources that
contaminate surface water. Surface and groundwater
management plans develop a strategy for eliminating or
minimizing problems with surface water runoff or risk of
contamination to groundwater resources.
There are several plans that address surface and
groundwater management in King Counry in addition to the
PSWQA plan. These include the King County Surface l�ater
Management Divrsion Strategic Plan (1991), local water
utilities plans, and the Se�ttle l�ater Plan (1985). Ecology, the
Health Department, and ciry surface water drainage programs
will also be consulted during faciliry siting processes.
(7) Ktng County Senstttve Areas
The Ktng County Sensitwe Are�s Map Folio, updated in
1gg0, displays environmentally sensitive areas in unincorporated
westem King County that are subject to natural hazards and
lands that support unique, fragile, or valuable natural features.
These characteristics or features are considered when locating
faciliry sites.
3. Other jurisdictions
If the comprehensive solid waste management plans of
other jurisdictions recommend alternatives that involve the use
of King Counry Solid Waste Division disposal facilities or private
solid waste facilities within the Counry solid waste planning
area, these alternatives must also be accommodazed in the
Plan. Similarly, if the Plan recommends actions that will affect
B. Relationship to Other Plans CGapter L• PJan DeUelopment
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:�.ri:..::::::a:..,..::.>:•::s:.:�.: •'.'•:'f•:%>'
•}}:...tx.yxv,. : +F:�::jF: .. . . r f ,
.............::::::::.: .........r :;:.: .:::::.::::::r::..::::.::.::: .>: ............ ..
+••:.:. «...... e.... ....�>:o:'•k::.:::::::::.<c:.:� i:Y k�.'a.o:.»:.•.�T..�.''�.`x"...'Gw."+Fs'5........ . ... ' '.. . .+ . .:::£v:::
:�::o:..........: .>.......v...:::�:: .. ...k . . #"x., f....
:::. rr::::: n.nn.:Y::�:: � - : :.r. ... ...�n0........... x:i•rG:..... i:. v..0 ''
....:.......... . . : :`.•i::n. f.} . . r n... .. f:,v..v..... ..... •x:::nwnx\........v.�..v.... x•..v. t{•.x ti.A.... i:�:::::::
........... . : .: :.::::::::...:.+.+:n. ... .............. w:::: :•. •
.:aai:'
.. �
v<4 ���':'ss•:. —
::::��::
;::;?;:
::;i.:»S;.`f;::i$>...'�w<x....c.>:?.
I
7
�
•
•
•
.
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
C�
•
•
�
•
•
•
�
other jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle or Snohomish County), the
recommendations must be communicated to the appropriate
parties and their responses lncluded In the Plan
Recommendations involving another jurisdiction may be subject
to interlocal agreements and any appllcable permit
requirements.
a Snohomish County
Solid Wast�e Management Plan
SnohomLsh County, bordering King County to the north,
received approval from Ecology for the Snohomrsh County Solyd
i�aste Management Plan in 198g. The major features of the
Snohomish County plan are an aggressive waste reduction and
recycling program to reduce the muced municipal solld waste
s�eam, design and consavction of a regional landfill, and
implementation of out-of-county disposal for nonrecyclable
waste.
Table I2 Legisladwe, Regulatory, and Contract Authorlries
Citation
Description
KCBOHC Title 10 County Board of Heakh Regulations
KCC Title 10 King Counly Solid Waste Code
KCPR PUT 7-1-2 Waste Acceptance Policies
KCPR PUT 7-2-1 Waste Clearance Policies
ILA Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
ILq Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Agreement
PSAPCA Reg 11, Article 4 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Asbestos Control Standard
RCW 35.21 Miscellaneous provisions affecting all cities and towns
RCW 36.58 Solid Waste Disposal
RCW 36.58A Solid Waste Collection Districts
RCW 39.34 Interlocal Cooperation Act
RCW 4321c State Environmental Protection Act
RCW 70.105 Washington State Hazardous Waste Manageme�t Act
RCW 70.93 Washington State Comprehensive Litter Code
RCW 70.95 Solid Waste Management Reduction and Recycling Act
RCW 81.77 WUTC Regulation of Solid Waste Collection
RCW 81.80 WUTC Motor Freight Regulation (nonresidential recycling)
WAC 173-303 Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations
WAC 173-304 Washington State Minimum Functional Standards
WAC 173 Washington State Model Toxics Control Act
WAC 480.12 Motor Carriers
WAC 480.70 Garbage and Refuse Collection Companies
WDOE 90-11 Washington State Department of Ecology Guidelines for the Development of local Solid Waste
Management Plans
RCW 90.58 Shoreline Management Act
29CFR Part 1910 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
40CFR, Part 240-271 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA, Subtkles C and D
40CFR, Part 259 Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988
40CFR, Part 61, NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutarits
42CFR Parts 280-281 Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ('Superfund�
Cbapter L• Plan Der,�elopment
B. Relatlonsb;b to Otber Plans
I-8
The proxirnity of the two counties has occasioned
considera.tion of regional planning for the use of transfer
stations in at least one instance. The 1989 King County Plan
included a recommendation that the privately owned and
operated Snohomish Eastmont facility be used as a north King
County transfer station (with hauling to Cedar Hills) if the
faciliry was permitted by Snohomish Counry. The 1989
Snohomrsh County Comprehensrve Solid l�aste Management
Plan states that
"In principle, private u►itiatives in solid waste
management are encouraged, and such facilities
might be allowed to the extent that they are
consistent with the orderly and efficient
implementation of the CSWMP. Such proposed
facilities may ar.cept wastes from beyond the
boundaries of the counry and its participating
jurisdictions if the handling of such wastes is
consistent with the orderly and efficient
implementation of the current CSWMP update."
(Snohomish County Solid [�aste Management Plan
Update, December 1989, page 10-8).
In its plan approval resolution, Snohomish Counry
included a policy stating that a11 private transfer stations or
mixed waste processing plants would ha�e to be pre-approved
by the Snohomish County Council prior to final approval of
such facilities.
To date, the Snohomish Eastmont faciliry has not been
approved by Snohomish Counry, therefore no action was taken
on King Counry's 1989 Plan recommendation. The Snohomish
Eastmont faciliry is now used as a recycling faciliry. This 1992
King Counry Plan update includes a recommendation that the
Snohomish Eastrnont faciliry be used as a north counry transfer
station if the permitting gces forward before December 31, 1992
(see Chapter IV, Section B.3).
C. ADMINISTRATION
1. Formal Structure
Solid waste handling, as defined by the sta.te of
Washington, includes management, storage, collection,
transportation, treatrnent, utilization, processing and final
disposal (RCW 70.g5.030[17]). The administration of solid
waste handling systems in Washington is divided among the
counties, jurisdictional health departments, and the cities. The
governmental roles and authorities for solid waste handling are
delineated in legislation, regulations, and agreements and are
summari7.ed in Table I.2 and described below. The state
establishes authorities, minimum standards, and planning
requirements that are delegated to counties and cities.
a. Washington State
RCW 70.95 gives Ecology the authoriry make solid waste
regulations. These regulations are set forth in WAC 173304
and are called the Minimum Functional Standards (MFS).
Counties have the authoriry to permit solid waste handling
facilities, which are designated in comprehensive solid waste
management plans. Health deparhnents set local standards,
which must be at least as strict as the WAC 173-304 standards.
The MFS protect public health; prevent land, air, and
water pollution; and conserve the state's natural, economic, and
energy resources by:
• Setting minimum standards for proper handling of all solid
waste materials.
• Identifying those functions necessary to ensure effective solid
waste handling programs at both the state and local level.
• Reflecting state solid waste management priorities.
• Describing the responsibilities of jurisdictions and agencies
under existing laws and regulations related to solid waste.
• Requiring use of the best available technology for siting,
designing, constructing, operating, and closing solid waste
handling facilities.
• Fstablishing sta,tewide standards to provide consistency and
expectations regarding the level at which solid waste is
managed throughout the state.
C. Administratio�c Chapter L• Plan Devslopment
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
: ; . ; :: ; :: > : <: ; . ; :: : :: : : : <:: � : > : > ::: : � : ; � : > : : <::: : > > > > > > > : : > > : > ; > > ::: : :: > > : : : � <:: ; ; : : : > > > ::: ; :: <: ; : <: > :: > : _ :::::: � ; :: > : <: <: > : < : > > > > > > > > > > ; : > :: > :: > > > > > > > :: > > : > > > : <: : <::: > > :: > > : <:::: ; :: > > > > :: > ::: :: > :: > :: > :: ; < < <: < <:: <: > ; :: > :: > :: > :: > : : > :: > : � ; : < < <: > :: > > : : > : : > : : > > > > > : � > > :: > :
>:�,:.
I-
v::�::::::::::K 9
:::: <: : <:: �:>: �::.: :>:;
::�::>....
Ecology has been delegated the authority to manage
hazar�dous waste in the state by the U.S. Environmental
Protectlon Agency. Hazardous waste ls regulated under RC1A
70.105 and its disposal is Implemented under WAC 173303.
Private garbage collection companies serving
unincorporated areas are regulated by the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission (W[TTC). The W[J1'C grants
franchises and sets rates and rypes of secvice. W[TTC authoriry
dces not necessarily extend to ciry collection utilities or
contracts (RCW 81.77). (See Chapter IV, Section A)
The state has provided partial funding for various solid
waste planning and project development activities through the
grant programs administered by Ecology. In the last five years,
Ecology has contributed grant support for food and yard waste
composting ProBrams, assistance in establishing required waste
reduction and recycling programs in the rural cities and
unincorporated areas, the Cedar Hills site development study,
and a number of capital improvement projects for landfills.
The agency has also funded the Coordinated Prevention Grant
Program. Moderate risk waste and comprehensive solid waste
planning ha�e been supported through state grants. In
addition, the Health Depa,rtment receives funding for solid waste
disposal faciliry inspections and related administrative expenses.
(See Chapter VII, Section B, for grant discussion.)
b. King County
Counties may establish or acquire solid waste disposal
sites and make and enforce rules and regulations for their use
(RCW 36.58.030). Rules include operating hours, types of
waste accepted, access by customer class, and rates (KCC Tide
10.10-10.12). Fees, based on tonnage, are oollected at disposal
facilities and constitute the primary revenue source for the Solld
Waste Division
The Division has the authoriry to determine the types of
waste accepted at King County disposal sites (Title 10.08 KCC).
Mixed munlcipal solid waste (MMSV� is accepted at all active
landfills, and Cedar Hills accep�s both MMSW and special
wasttess. Disposal of dangerous or hazardous wastes is
prohibited at the County disposal facilities by Tide 10.04, and
special wastes (discussed in Chapter � may be refused under
King County Publlc Rules PUT 7-1-2 (PR) and PUT 7-2-1 (PR)
Chapter L• Plan Deve6opment
Waste Acceptance and Waste Clearance Policies. A generator
with dangerous or hazardous materials is referred to Ecology
for direction on disposal.
King County designates which disposal facilities may be
used by individuals, municipalities, and commercial haulers.
Haulers are pmhibited from transporting waste outside the
Counry unless it is authorized by the adopted comprehensive
solid waste management plan (KCC Tide 10.08) or specifically
permitted by state law, Counry ordinance, or interlocal
agreement
Disposal of solid waste generated in unincorporated areas
ls the responsibillry of the County. King Counry cannot provide
solid waste collection unless a solid waste collection district is
formed (RCW 36.58A.010) and the Washingwn Utilities and
Transportation Commission determines that no certificat�ed
hauler is available to perform collection services. However,
RCW 36.58.040(1) gives counties the authoriry to contract
directly for residential recyclables collection or to allow private
waste haulers certificated by the W[JTC to collect recyclables.
1'he County has chosen to have certifica,ted haulers set up
recyclable collection programs In unlncorporated areas
(KCC Title 10.18). (See Chapter III, Section B.1.)
Any ciry disposing of solid waste at county disposal
facilities is required to sign an interlocal agreement with the
County (KCC Title 10.08). The agreements designate the
Counry as the operating authoriry for the solid waste
management system for the participating cities (KCC Title
10.08.050).
King Counry has authority to prepare the comprehensive
solid waste management plans for unincorporated areas and for
any cities that elect to ha�e the County prepare plans for them
by signing ILAs (Solid Waste Interlocal Agreements and
RCI�U 70.95.080).
The organizaitonal structures of the King County
Department of Public Works and the Solid Waste Division are
presented in Figure I.1.
c. Cities
There are 29 incorporated cities in King Counry
participating in the interlocal agreemenis. lbvo new cities will
participate once their incorporation is complete (see discussion
C. Adminrstration
I-1
0
in Section I.A3). Under state law, cities may provide or
contract for the collection, processing, recycling, and disposal of
all solid waste generated within the city limits and for the sale
of reclaimed products (RCW 35.21.120). Unlike counties, cities
may require collection and set charges for garbage pickup.
d. Tribal Authority
Treary Indian tribes possess a f�ll range of powers
independent of other powers and authorities discussed in this
section. The regulation, administration, and management of
all solid waste handling and disposal on tribal lands is the
responsibility of the tribal authorities. Indian tribes are not
covered by this Plan.
e. Seattle King County Board of Health
The Hea(th Department has adopted standards for storage,
collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, and
final disposal of all solid waste in the County (Title 10, King
County Solid Waste Regulations, KCBOHC). The King Counry
Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Tide 10) are implemented
through the permitting process. The Health Department issues,
renews, and�vhen necessary—�suspends permits for solid waste
handling and disposal facilities (KCBOHC Title 10.12).
Landfills, transfer stations, drop-boxes, energy recovery and
incineration plants, and recycling facilities open to the elements
must have permits in order to legally operate. All solid waste
facilities must be inspected by the Health Department on a
regular basis. Sites that are not in conformance with the King
County Solid Waste Regulations are given compliance schedules
in an e�ort to ensure timely correction of defects.
Rules and regulations relating to methods of disposal are
made and enforced by the Health Departrnent The rules
implement the state MFS in King Counry and prescribe how
mixed municipal solid waste is to be stored, collected, and
disposed (see discussion, Chapter V for special wastes).
Clearances are issued by the Health Department for
nonhazardous materials, thereby informing the Division that the
wastes are acceptable in the landfill.
The Health Department collects annual permit fces for
solid waste disposal sites and receives a portion of the ttpping
fee charged at county landf'ills.
The Board of Health Code requires that there be a plan of
operation for each solid waste handling facility in the County.
The plans must include emergency procedures for fire, leakage,
and water contamination, as well as general operating
procedures and closure plans. Another fi: .:.:��. .� r��r nr���.; �- _,-
Department is to establish rules for excavation and " �
redevelopment of abandoned or closed landfilLs.
£ King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee
The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) was
established by County Ordinance No. 6862, ln accordance with
the provisions of RC1A 70.9S.16S. The SWAC has the
responsibiliry to advise King Counry on all aspects of solid waste
management planning; assist King Counry in the development
of programs and policies concerning solld waste management;
and review and comment on proposed solid waste management
rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption.
The SWAC has functioned since 1985, meeting at least
once each month at a location open to the public. Notices of
the meeting time and place are published in various general
circulation local newspapers. Minutes are kept of a11 committee
meetings and specific program and policy recommendations are
transmitted to the County Executive and the County Councll.
1'he SWAC has reviewed and commented on the
development of policies for inclusion in this Plan, has reviewed
a preliminary draft, and will provide additional comment prior
to final adoption of the Plan.
g. Solid Waste Intsrlocal Fonun
The Solid Waste Interlocal Forum is a body of twelve
elected offlcials and a citizen chair who represent King Counry
unincorporated areas, the city of Seattle, and participating
suburban cities to involve those jurisdictions in advising King
Counry on solid waste issues. For additional information on
the forum, see Section I.A3.
C. Adminrslration Cbapter L• Plan Der.�elopment
+:.ra:»»r.. rr.. c
..t..
:�:ii;:'<'::::�::�:"+#i::�::i�i:�:�:�
..........:: .::: ................ ::.: ::::.. ::....::: ...........................: .....::: ....:: .: .......:: ............ ...... ..... •: �: �..
..z............ ,�.0 v _
:::::::::..:...: :::.: :.:::::.::.............:::....::::::::::::: .::::::::::::.:::::...::::..:.:::::::..:::: •: :.:::::.::::::::: .....: ::. :............,..
...............................................................:..........................................:.................. �.............:.:.:..:....
�':�•.'i�:�':�::::�:��:�>:�ii:�:r::::':::i�:::i: ::bc•::>» ..f...,..;...
........................................,....: :•::......; .................,-..::::• ::•: ::::::.�::::::::::. �:.y;::::::
:�::i:::::3i:::;;:.::::::%%'<:�i:::�:::�:�':�:�::�:;:::;:�:::�::�::� .........................:.....:...........
::::::::.::..:::.::::::.�:::.::�::::. I 11
Department of Public Works
Commission for
Administration Airport Marketing
Recyclable
Materials
Fleet Roads and ' Surface Water
Solid Waste
Administration Engineering Management
----------------------------------------------------------------•
��,.,
Waste Reduction/Recycling
Waste ReductioNRecycling
Policy and Program Development
Moderate Risk Waste
March 1993
Assistant
Manager
Manager Engineering Services
Field Engineering
Landfill Engineering
Facility Engineering
Special Waste Management
Administration and
Customer Service
Program Planning
Program Evaluation
Comprehensive Planning
Public Involvement
Fiscal Services
Accounts Payable
Accounts Receivable
Internal Controls
Human Resource Services
Operations
Administration
Customer Transactions
Shop/Maintenance Operations
Transportation
Transfer Operations
Rural Landfills
Cedar Hills Landfill
Landfill Gas/VVater
�igme I.1 Deparm�ent of Public Works organizatlonal chart.
Chapter /.• Plan Deuelopmerct C. Administralion
2.
I-12
Informal Structures
The 1989 Plan recommended that a technical advisory
committee be formed, to be composed of staff from
participating cities. Recycling coordinators of the suburban
cities meet on a regular basis. This committee pmvides a
means of coordinating program implementation and sharing
information on waste reducaon and recycling programs. It
aLso participated in the early development of thls 1992 Plan
update.
3. Solid Waste Ownership
and Responsibility
Wastes with no perceived value or with potential negative
environmental effects, once delivered to and accepte�i at a
county facility, become the responsibility of the County. The
enforcement section of this Plan, Chapter VI, includes a
dlscussion on the control of wastes coming into the county
disposal system.
Ownership and responsibility for solid waste at different
stages of the collection and disposal process is established by
the state as de.scribed below.
• The generator retains ownership of the wastes until they
a�rive at the transfer station or disposal site (RCW 36.58.060).
• Removal of litter on public land is the responsibiliry of sta,te
and local agencies; removal of litter on private properry is the
responsibiliry of the owner (RCW 70.93.110).
• The collector is raponsible for proper handling of solid
waste from the point of collection to the transfer station or
disposal site (RCW 36.58.060).
• King Counry designates the disposal site to be used for
waste generated in unincocporated areas and in cities that have
interlocal agreements with the Counry (KCC Tide 10.08.020
and 10.08.130).
• Transportation of solid waste between transfer stations and
the disposal site is the responsibility of the County managing
the facilities and is exempt from WIJTC regulation (RCVP
36.S8.o50).
D. Planning History
• The person or agency managing the disposal or recycling
faciliry owns the solid waste upon its arrival at the facility
(xCW 36.58.060).
D. PLANNING HISTORY
1. Early Planning Effortis
After the State Comprehensive Solid �aste Management
Act (RCtv 70.95) was passed in 196g King County began a
comprehensive planning process for its solid waste, developing
disposal policies, considering disposal alternatives, and adopting
recommended approaches. The County's original plan was
prepared in 1g74 by the Metro River Basin Coordinating
Committee (RIBCO) and updated in 1g82 by the Puget Sound
Councll of Governments (PSCOG). These documents were
followed by che 1989 Plan and this lgg2 update prepared by
King Counry.
a 1974 RIBCO Plan
The 1974 RIBCO plan recommended formation of a
multijurisdictional solid waste management board and
consolidation of solid waste functions into a single agency, a
feasibiliry study of an energy resource and recovery system
(E/RR), and construction of the recommended E/RR system by
1981. The plan was adopted in 1975 by Metro (Councll
Resolution 2328), and approved by Ecology in 1977. The
formation of the solid waste management board recommended
in the RIBCO plan was a condition of approval.
b. 1982 PSCOG Plan
The 1982 King Counly Comprehen.sive Solut [�aste
Management Plan updated the 1g74 RIBCO plan and
examined solid waste issues related to waste stream ownership,
operational and disposal costs, landfill and closure costs, risk
and liabiliry, environmental degradation, energy resource
recovery, and hazardous waste disposal. Its preparation was
delegated to the King Subregional Councll of the Puget Sound
Council of Governments (PSCOG), functioning as the Solid
Waste Management Board. This board was assisted by an
Ch�apter L• Plan Deuelopment
��
��
�
�
�
LJ
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
n
�
�
H
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
::> :�
::;:<a�<::<:>�:� �:>::::;;::::>::::>:::;;:::::::>:::::
:<.,.;:
,,
I
-1
3
: : : : ; > . : : : : : . . : . . : : > .
interagency staff and received input from a citizens' advisory
committee and the King Subregional Council Committee on
Solid Waste. The plan was adopted in 1g83 and amended in
19g5 by the PSCOG King Subregional Council and the Counry
and its cities. Ecology, however, did not approve this plan,
continuing instead to recognize the 1974 RIBCO plan until the
1989 King County Plan was approved.
The 1982 PSCOG plan included a six-year capital
improvement program, which made specific recommendations,
including landfill improvements and closures, landfill leachate
control system upgrades, and upgrade and new construction of
transfer sta,tions. The Counry used these recommendations to
develop and improve the solid waste disposal system. 'The
background and current status of specific solid waste disposal
facilities is discussed in Chapter IV, Sections B, C, and D.
2. 1989 Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan
The 1989 Plan was initiated in 1986 by Ordinance 7737
(KCC 10.24), which established the process for adopting and
updating it. The ordinance addressed the Plan's requirements,
development, and revision; planning coordination with the
cities; and review. It also provided for establishment of the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum.
Studies and policy development activities that preceded the
1g89 Plan and contributed to its development and focus
include: the King County Energy/Resource and Recovery
Management Plan (1g87), the King County Solid t�aste
System Operating Plan (Staff Report, 1988), the
Programmatic Environmental lmpact Statement on Solid
l�aste Management Alternatives (1988), and the King County
Executive Report, Solul i�aste Management Altentalives
(1988).
a. Energy Resourae and Recovery (E/RR) and
Waste Redudion and Recycling (WR/R) Programs
In August 1g86 in Ordinance 7764, the King County
Council stated the County's intent to develop F✓RR facilities and
directed the County Executive to submit a plan, which was
issued in 1987. At that time, the County issued a scoping
notice addressing siti�►g of one or more 2,000-ton per-day FJRR
facilittes. The notice aLso addressed programmatic solid waste
management alternatives, including continued landf'illing and
WR/R levels. Seven sitss were selected as potential locations for
the F✓RR faciliry.
b. Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Solid Waste Managennent
Altematives (PEIS)
In response to public comment, the County reevaluated its
FJRR program, establishing a process and schedule for making
policy decisions regarding solid waste management and
emphasizing public input by passing Ordinance 8383. 77ie
ordinance directed preparation of the PEIS on policy choices for
waste reduction, recycling, F✓RR, and disposal. Issued in
September 1g88, the PEIS represented the first phase of
environmental review of the 1g89 Plan, in accordance with the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
c. King County F�cecutive Report
Solid WasCe Management Alternarives
Since the PEIS did not include recommendations, the
County E�cecutive issued a report in October 1988 that
recommended development of WR/R programs, exclusion of
solid waste incineration, and allowance for planning of an out-
of-county landfill program with other jurisdictions.
d. King County Ordinanoe 8771
After considering the alternatives presented in the PEIS
and the Counry Executive's recommendations, the County
Council passed Ordinance 8771 in December 1g88 (KCC 10.22).
This concluded the first environmental review phase of
alternatives initiated by Ordinance 83g3 and directed the County
Executive to prepare a solid waste financing study and rate
proposal (released May 1, lg8g). Solld waste strategies
supported by Ordinance 8771 are:
• Requirements for WR/R programs to provide aggressive
reduction in the County's solid waste stream.
Cbrtpter L• Plan Deraelopment
D. Planning History
�
n
U
I-14
• Elimination of F✓RR as a disposal method for the 1989
Plan.
• Study of other disposal options that could be implemented
to reduce waste going to Cedar Hills, such as waste export or
mixed waste proc..�ssing.
The ordinance also established �AR/R goals for the
County.
e. Public Inwlvement
There was extensive public involvement during
development of the 1989 Plan. The PEIS received considerable
public review, including suggestions from the Solid Waste
Management Alternatives Development Committee (an advisory
group), review and comment from the King County Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SWAC), public hearings, briefings ro the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum and the Counry Council Solid
Waste Committee, and public hearings conducted by the Counry
Council on Ordinance 8771.
Scoping meetings for the Plan EIS were held in December
1g88, three public hearings were held in May lg8g to review
public comments and testimony, and the County and
participating cities conducted public review as part of the Plan's
adoption. King Counry's SWAC, formed in 1g85, participated in
developing and reviewing the Plan. The King Counry Solid
Waste Interlocal Forum, established in 1988, reviewed and
commented on solid waste issues and policies contained in
Ordinance 8771.
E 1989 Plan Environrnental
Impact Staternent (EIS}
In accordance with SEPA, a Draft EIS was issued in April
1g89 for the Plan; it served as the second phase of
environmental review (the PEIS and resulting Counry Council
actions represented the first phase). During the SEPA scoping
period (December 1g88 to January 1989), three public hearings
on the EIS and Plan were held, and 25 comment letters were
received.
g. Waste Not Washington Act
The Waste Not 1Aashington Act (SHB 1671, the Act),
enacted in 198g and amending RCW 70.95, accomplished a
number of the 1989 Draft Plan's legislative recommendations
needed to assist the County in meeting its solid waste
management goa.Ls. King Counry worked closely with the
Washington Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Solid Waste
to formulate and pass this bill, contributinng recommendations
from the 1g89 Draft Plan that were ultimately addressed in the
Act.
The Act established solid waste management priorities for
the state as (1) waste reduction; (2) recycllng, with source
separation preferred; (3) energy recovery, incineration, or
landfilling of separated waste; and (4) energy recovery,
incineration, or landfilling of mixed waste. A sta,tewide
recycling goal of 50 percent by 1995 was aiso established,
although the bill did not require the new WR/R element for
King County until 1991. King County incorporated this element
in its 1989 Plan, however, in order to implement programs
necessary to achieve its aggressive 65 percent WR/R goal by the
year 2000.
3. 1992 Comprehen.sive Solid
Waste Management Plan Update
KCC 10.24.020.B requires that the County's solld waste
management plan be updated or revised every three years.
Additional legislation passed after the 1g89 Plan was adopted
also has an impact on solid waste strategies. The following
changes that affect the development of the Plan update have
occuned since the adoption of the 1989 Plan.
a. Ordinanae 9928
In May 1991, the King County Council adopted Ordinance
992g (KCC 10.18) enabling franchised solid waste haulers to
provide recyclables collection services for 460,000 wunty
residents. This ordinance extended household recyclables
collection to all residents llving in single- and multifamlly
housing in urban areas.
D. Planning History Cbapter L• Plan Deraelopment
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�«`;�:°a::ri:`x �>':::>: <:<
;:::ti `w>:��:i>::::::s::�?:>:
::::: :.:::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::::.: �::::: ::.::::::::::::::::::::::::. �::. �:::::::::::::::: :. :.::::::. �. �:. �:::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::. �::::::: :.:::. �:::::::::: ::.:.
......................:...: ............................................................................ :.::. �:. �:::::::::::::::::::::::. �:::::::::::::.:: �:::::::::::::: :.::.
:::«:��:<:;:;<�>:;::�': �:«:� ...............<.....>...................... _
I 1
5
� ............................................................................................................ »........
�
�
�
�
� b. State Legislation c. Environmental Impad State�nent Addendum
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
In 1991 and 1992, the Washington State Legislature
passed the following solid waste legislation:
(1) Markets and Procurement
Two bills in the 1991 Legislature addressed markets for
recyclable materia.ls.
1. SB 5591 created the Clean Washington Center to develop
new and expand existing markets for recycled commodities.
2. SB 5143 requires state and local jurLsdictions to increase the
purchase and use of recycled products, requires standard codes
for plastia, allows expansion of the state SWAC to more than
11 members, and expands d�ties of the local SWACs in
developing waste reduction and recycling elements for
comprehensive plans.
In accordance with SEPA, an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was issued for the 198g Plan. The 1992
update dces not propose programs or a new facility plan that
will differ substanttally from the 198g Plan. Therefore, this
1989 EIS is being adoptsd and supplemented with an
addendum, which is included in this volume.
E. PROCESS AND SCHEDULE
1. Planning Process
The major participants and their roles in development
and adoption of the Plan are described below.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
(2) Collection
1�vo bills addressed recyclables collection in 1991.
1. SB 5478 (1991) redefined "multiple family residences" and
requires collection of source-separated materials from single-
and multiple-family residences. It also requires new
multifamily residences and new commercial facilities to ha�e
adequate and conveniendy located space to store and dispose of
recyclable materials and solid waste.
2. HB 1304 (1991) cequires state parks marinas, and auports
to provide opportunities to recycle.
(3) Disposal
Two bi1Ls addressed disposal in the 1992 Legislature.
1. HB 2391 created a statewide definition of biomedical wastes.
2. HB 2633 encourages privately owned hazardous and
moderate waste facilities to manage the disposal of these wastss.
(4) Lttter
One bill affecting litter was passed in 1992. SHB 2635
amends the Model Litter Control and Recycling Act by adding a
waste reduction emphasis and fi�nds that promote markets,
recycling, and education.
a. Subuc�an Cities
Suburban cities are actively lnvolved in Plan development
throughout the planning process. County and ciry recycllng
coordinators meet to discuss and plan for cities' participation in
defining Plan issues. Two county-sponsored workshops were
held to discuss the 1992 Plan Suburban cities' elected officials,
administrators, and managers, SWAC members, recycling
coordinators, and representatives of the haulers and recycling
businesses participated in these meetings and workshops. Three
community meetings were held at locations potentially affected
by the Plan's uansfer facility siting recommendations.
b. Solid Waste Advisory Committee
RC1A 70.95.165 direcis the counties to establish local Solid
Waste Advisory Committees (SWACs) to assist in developing
programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and to
review and comment on proposed rules, policies, and
ordinances. Committee members represent a balance of
community interests—private citizens, public interest groups,
businesses, the waste management industry, and local
government officials. The King County SWAC reviewed and
commented on the Plan at each stage of its development
� Cbapter !.• Plan Development E. Process and Schedule
�
;:;:}i;::j;i::iii::',i:
I-1
6
c. King county
The King Counry Solid Waste Divlsion provides the staff
and administrative support to organize the platuiing process,
000rdinate involvement among all participants, and write and
produce the Plan.
d. Solid Waste Interlocal Fonun
The Solid Waste Interlocal Forum (Section IA3) advises
the County and other jurlsdictions on all aspects of solid waste
management and planning policies, reviews and comments on
draft Plan alternatives and recommendations, and facilitates
cities' approval of the fmal Plan.
e. D�artrnent of Eoology
The Department of Ecology (Ecology) provides technical
assistance to counties, from determining issues to final
adoption. It reviews the Plan draft for consistency and
adherence to state legislation and regulations and Ecology
Guidelines (WDOE 90-11).
2. Review and Approval Process
The public review and oomment period will extend for
g0 days following the issuance of the draft Plan. The
comments are reviewed and addressed in the final Plan.
Ecology, King County, and the suburban cities must
approve the final Plan. (The Plan is deemed approved for all
suburban cities that are parties to the ILAs if it is adopted by
cities representing three-quarters of the tota.l population of the
cities that act on the Plan within 120 days.) The review and
appmval steps are shown in Figure I.2.
E. Process and Scbedule
3. Plan Amendments and Upda�e
The solid waste ILAs require that solid waste management
plans "be reviewed and any necessary revisions proposed at least
once every three years," or more frequendy if conditions
warrant Elements to be updated will be assessed to
accommodate contemporary needs and opportunities and to
make corrections necessary to achieve the 1g89 Plan goals.
Goals and objectives will also be reviewed for appropriateness.
M amendment process was developed and agreed upon
by the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum in August 1990. If issues
requiring a plan amendment are resolved between the Counry
and the affected jurisdiction, the parties develop a plan
amendment and take formal action on the agreed amendment.
If an agreement Is not reached, a formal request is made
by the County or the jurisdictions by proposing an amendment
to the Plan. The County (or the Forum if there is a dispute)
determines which jurisdictions are affected by the amendment.
M amendment would be developed and presented for approval
to the Forum. If approved, King County and any other affected
jurisdictions would act to adopt the amendment. Ecology
would then have to approve the amendment and it would be
distributed to all jurisdictions by King County.
Cbrrpter L• Plan Deuelopment
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
I -1
7
May 1991 - February 1992
Early Public Involvement
February - March 1992
Preliminary Plan Draft Summary for Review and Discussion
�igure I.2 Comprebenssve Solid Waste Management Plan review and decision-making prooess.
Chapter /.• Plan Der�elopmerct E. Process and Schedule
0
CHAPTER II
L,A:I�NING �
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
.
1\'��
�.�
SOrtlrig
It Out
Together
�
�
� . ....................................
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Chapter
Planning
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the characteristia of the natural
and built aspects of the environment in King County and briefly
describes how they relate to solid waste management.
1. Natural Environment
a. Earfh
(1) ropograpby
Site topography can ha�e both negative and positive
impacts on solid waste facilities. Steep slopes are more likely
to be unstable than gende ones and may pose access problems
for trucks and equipment with maacimum grade constraints.
However, a gende grade can provide noise and visual buffers
and may lessen the need for excessive filling when cons�ucting
facilities.
In King Counry, land elevations generally increase from
west to east, rising from sea level on Puget Sound to thousands
of feet along the ridge line of the Casca,de Mountains. The
western one-third of the County is relatively flat, dominated by
low hills and terraces, with elevations generally less than 500
feet above sea level. The central third is characterized by
foothills and several mountain peaks. The eastern third has
rugged relief and steep slopes characteristic of the central
Cascade Range.
(2) Geology
Geologic features, such as bedrock formations, surface
deposits, and fault wnes, can have a direct impact on siting
and operations of landfills and other solid waste facilities and
the stablliry of structural foundations and roadways. They can
aLso affect the loca.tion and degree of natural protection of
A. Existing Condidlons
II
, .,
II-1
groundwater and decrease or increase the potential for
contamination.
'It,vo major geologic processes—glaciation and erosion—are
most responsible for King County's surface geology
(Figure II.1). The most recent continental glaciation deposited
great loads of rock, gra�el, and finer materials into the Puget
Lowland and shaped them into mounds and hills covering the
underlying bedrock Water erosion then formed the general
surface patterns of rock, sand, and silt (Kruckeberg, 1991).
t3) so�ls
Soils and other surface materia.ls are important factors in
the design and operation of landfills. Specific types of soils are
used in landfill conswction and operation for bottom liners,
caps, final cover, daily and intermediate cover, dikes, and roads.
Fine-grained materials like silt and clay are useful for liners
and caps, while coaise-grained materiaJs, such as sand and
gra�el, are useful for daily cover, gas venting, and backfill for
leachate collection systems. If suitable soils are not available
on a landfill site, large quantities may ha�e to be imported,
which can be costly.
In King County, most soils were formed after the retreat
of the continental ice sheet and were largely defined by
coniferous forests. Soil types are defined as a"series," which
enwmpasses materials with common characteristia, such as
depth to till or bedrock, amount of coaise fragments, color, and
percent of organic material. Most common in King Counry is
the Alde�wood Series. These soils develop on gende rolling
terrain and ha�e good surface drainage, but display restricted
subsurface drainage because of an underlying hardpan layer.
They ha�e a couse te�ure, with depths of 28 to 32 inches to
the hardpan or glacial till layer. All similar soils originally
supported coniferous forests.
Chapter 11.� Planning Area
�
II-2
Other soiLs in King Counry are alluvial types, the most
common of which is the Everett Series. Everett soils are fine-
textured, very fertile, and provide rich agricultural land.
Alluvial soils usually support grasses, shrubs, and herbs
(Kruckeberg, lggl).
(4) Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards in King Counry include erosion,
landslides, mines, and seismic areas susceptible to earthquake-
induced ground failure. Thesse areas are defined in and
regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of the King Counry
Code (KCC 21.54) and its administrative rules.
The Counry's Department of Parks, Planning and
Resources mapped these areas in the 1990 King Counry
_ _ _ __
TpTb
� !�
,� :1
�1 • � I ` �1
�y ;,�:�r
v
1. : ��'
�- i
_�
��
� �
t ._. _..
J�
�
�
1
FIGURE II -1
GENERALI2E0 SURFACE
GEOLOGIC MAP
OF
KING COUNTY
�� ALLUVIUM
� OSCEOLA MUDFLOW
S GLACIALANDNONGLACIAL
DEPOSITS, UNDIVIDED
� BEDROCK
VASHON DRIFT GLACIAL DEPOSITS
� OUTWASH DEPOSITS
Q TILL DEPOSITS
so�: uMroa smros c w�x s�,�.y, ta�s.
�+a �N. w� troaoV+nK �vl. uMSe
smes oewmmem a m. iM«p..
N
'i'
,• as�...
Figure II.1 Generallzed surface geology of King County. Souroe: United States Geologlcal Survey, 1978, King County, Washington (wpographic
map), UnIted States Deparhnent of the Interior
Cbapter Il.• Planning Area A. B,�tisting Conditions
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
Serzsitive Areas Ma� Folio. The maps include areas where soils
are susceptible to increased erosion resulting from development.
Any solid waste facility developed in these areas requires an
erosion control plan. Landslide haza,rd areas on 40 percent or
greater slopes are regulated as steep slope hazards, and facilities
developed in these areas require buffers of native vegetation.
Areas mapped as seismic hazards are those susceptible to
earthquake-induced ground failure. 'fhe Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (KCC 21.54) regulates development in these areas.
Also, the King Counry Solid �Waste Regulations (King Counry
Board of Health Code, KCBOHC, Title 10) prohibit the
development of solid waste facilities "over a Holocene fault, in
subsidence areas, or on or adjacent to geologic features which
would compromise the shuctural integriry of the faciliry"
(KCBOHC 10.32.020[A]).
b. Air
(1) Cltmate
The Puget Sound region has a rypical marine climate.
In late spring, an eastern Pacific high-pressure system forces
storms well north of the state, resulting in dry, stable weather
conditions. During winter months, a relatively stationary low-
pressure system sends Pacific storms through the region,
resulting in cloudy, rainy weather. Annual precipitation in King
Counry generally increases from west to east as elevation rises
(Figure II.2). The impact of precipitation on solid waste
management is discussed in Section II.AI.c.
Ground-level temperature inversions can occur during the
winter, resulting in conditions conducive to poor air quality.
The National Weather Service issues an air stagnation advisory
when such conditions are forecast to last 24 hours or more.
There are rarely more than three of these advisories issued per
year, and none in some years (TRC Environmental Consultants,
1gg�).
(2) A�r Qual�ty
Vehicles and equipment operated during solid H�aste
collection, transfer, processing, and disposal contribute to
ambient concentrations of regulated pollutants. Therefore,
impacts on air qualiry must be considered in facility siting,
A. Existmg Conditio�zs
II-3
design, and operation. Project-specific mitigation can usually
be developed to satisfy air quality concerns.
Three agencies have jurisdiction over air quality in King
Counry: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). They regulaie
allowable concentrations of air pollutants and emission levels of
contaminants from air pollution sources. Ecology and PSAP('.A
maintain air qualiry monitoring stations throughout the region.
Ambient standards for particulate matter and carbon monoxide
(CO) ha�e been exceeded in recent years, resulting in the
designation of "nonattainment areas" (Figure II.3). Existing
nonattainment areas for particulates are in the Duwamish
tideflats and the city of Kent; the CO nonattainment area
encompasses the entire Seattle metropolltan area In addition,
based on recent monitoring data, EPA has proposed designating
the entire Puget Sound region as a nonattainment area for
ozone (Personal communication, B. Miller, Ecology, 19g1).
PSAPCA has designated developed areas as a naburn
wne where open burning is restricted (it conforms exactly to
the CO nonattainment area). The no-burn designation has
increased construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL)
wastes and yard waste entering the solid waste system.
(3) Odor
Odor is a key public concern associated with handling
and disposing of solid waste and can be an important
consideration in recyclables collection and design and operation
of transfer stations and landfills. Odor emissions in King
County are regulated tluough Sections 9.11 and 9.12 of
Regulation 1 of PSAPCA, which specify that odor emissions may
not be injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or
property, or unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of life and
property. In response to odor complaints, PSAPCA officers may
issue a notice of violation.
An active gas and odor control system has been installed
at the Cedar Hills Landfill to prevent odors from impacting the
surrounding communiry. Transfer stations are sited and
designed to mitigate odor impac�.
Cbiapter U.• Planning Area
II-4
C. Water
(1) Surface Water
The King Counry Solid Waste Regulations do not allow
solid waste disposal sites within 200 feet of streams, lakes,
ponds, rivers, or saltwater bodies (KCBOHC 10.32•020 [c]). To
prevent water qualiry degradation, surface water and leachates
at solid waste facilitiess---particularly IandfilLs—must be carefully
controlled.
There are 38 separate drainage basins that form five
major river watersheds in King County: the White, Green,
Cedar, SnoquaUnle, and Skykomish. These rivers originate in
the Cascade Mountains, flow west, and empty into Puget Sound
(Figure II.4). There are also many lakes throughout the
Counry, including several created by dammed rivers: the Tolt
Seattle Water Supply Reservoir on the South Fork of the Tolt
River, Chester Morse Lake on the Cedar River, the Howard
. -� '� \'
1 \
;
% ,�
� G
/ C
� m
;� �
I i
I �
� 1 \
S �o
O -1 ~ �
��, w `.. � ;' m
� m" �
SEATTLE 3 ` �, .
Y e F
� � ° � o �
ti
. a
J, ��� �
\
m `.
a - ' o
a � �' -._.
Ri
��a
�
, 4 � �_..
p � -�..
:
�� _ p, ...: � �. o
... � . � . _d" ' n ' q j e
5 0 5
MILES
1
� �r
� � iv
�. -._._..�ri
O •
%
f
° -•/ ^
_ ��
•�..
� \ ,_.._. .....-_..�
9 � v e ��
1
�
P1g�ue II.Z Mean annual precipitatlon 1n Inches, King Counry. Source: U,S, Weather Bureau, 19y2.
`\ \ fy %
_.
4 i , ,�.. ,-._\,.-'_.-....., i
i ,.
` '- , h q'�ve� .�
/ �\ ' f
'• f )
120 M � 140 160 180 l
d`., ' 1
:. P =��i� 1
` � ` a' ,;�
' �\ �.���r
. � ',� ♦ >
,
� a� ._..;
\, P e �� i
Cbiapter 11.• Planning Ar� A. Exfsting Conditions
r' /�� . \ `�.�\ `y,.�
�
II-
5
Hanson Reservoir on the Green River, and Mud Mountain Lake
on the White River.
Water quality in King County ranges from very good to
poor. The King County Basin Reconna9ssance Program found
evidence of water qualiry degradation in various waters
(Personal communication, R. Storer, King County, 1991).
Some of the degradation ls attributed to continuing
urbanization, which results in nonpoint source pollution, such
as increased urban runoff from impervious surfaces, fertilizers,
and commercial or industrial sources. Degradation can also
occur from failing septic tanks or illegal hook-up of sewer lines
to storm drains, increased sedimentation from uncontrolled
access of livestock to stream banks, and illegal dumping of
solid or hazardous waste (Personal communication, R. Storer,
King Counry, 1991).
A. F.xisting Conditrons C�apter /1.• Planning Area
I�gu�e II3 Air quality nonattainment areas. Source: Puget Sound Air Polluaon Control Agency, 1991.
II-6
�
(2) Storm Water
Floods have historically been the Counry's most damaging
and frequently occurring natural hazard. The King Counry Solid
Waste Regulations require that all landfills located in a 100-
year floodplain comply with local floodplain management
ordinances and be designed so as not to restrict the flow of the
base flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the
floodplain, or result in a washout of solid waste
(KCBOHC 10.30.070). The Solid Waste Regulations also require
that all solid waste facilities provide peak rate runoff control for
a 25 24-hour storm event (KCBOHC 10.36.030 [c] [d]).
Flooding occurs in counry rivers during two sharply
defined periods. From October to March, the highest
precipitation of the year causes winter runoff, which Is
characterized by sudden surges in water diseharge, aggraaated
by heavy rains or melting snow. From March through June,
1� �
ic
/ c�
�
Y
U7 '
� SEATTLE 3
c m
2 Y
v o
`_°
�h �
�' �
%
%
% �
I
1
�
VASHON
� ISLAND
.\ R
_ ,� j ., _._ _ n R,�a�
. . o
n -.. \ i
� : � _; "� , SKYKOMfSF�
'�. }a<sz' SNO�UALM,J-E` � - '
i
� ;�3 ��RIVER :s _:
. �
r.,..r::.� ,;� �BASIN
m9�e RIVER ._ _ _ � _�i
'' - � . , i
,' V _ ..:,� <
�; _ _.... s ,.
: � � , -
� -� ... � r� y,� :'��,, .
>_ F ...,
.. - ..
, : ., a . ;- � -..
� s .. - � ._._ �
, S
\.: :�:: ... �`:\;:::.::` j -r� ,- /
:�'.; � , \ S �.
�_�RIVER ?>i`� �$'AS1N` ` � 1�I
�``< _ j - - ... - _ . j
. _ -
_e •� �`-
�`\� � (
EN ,aj� . , � _. - _ __, ... � J,-
r . �
i ' �1ti
. ,:.� :_ „ .. _
� RI V E R.�; . :;;.;.
-��, '� �ii;
•.%,_ '��._ : � `; i
�v.. �
���Q'�'� :� ._..: �e
':T� � n _R i v
5 0 5
MILES
RIV
�� - ,-SA S Y'NF C e ad �.9 ; a
.. . \�
�
, , ,
- � . � r
.... : -, � .. � ._' .
\
� / �,•'" /
.. _.`\ . �.�•_,_ �''
BASIN �
:._....._ _
r
G r e�'B (
n _ `'�
_,.��.._ ,..... .
� . �-..,�-' � \
BASIN ' ` 1
��'t,.,,,� � Sole source aquifer
` �.J^•..� J J \.�...i��"•�
\ • Areas of major groundwater withd
�� for public water supplies
� Urban boundaries
Figune II.4 Surface water, aqulfers and major wells, and watiersheds.
Cbapter 11.• Planning Arett
A. Existing Conditions
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
�
II-
7
. ...................................:�:>«;':;:<><>::::�;;`.<.{;:�:��:<��` .........
rivers swell as the mountain snowpack melts. Water volumes
peak in ]une, but the pattem is a gradual increase rather than
the sudden surge of winter floods (Kruckeberg, 1991).
Recent development in King Counry has increased the
area of impervious surface and diminished the size and number
of wetlands, leading to more surface water runoff and
potentially more frequent and severe flooding (Personal
communication, R. Storer, King County, 1991). V�hen runoff ls
unusually hea�y, rivers may completely fill or overtop
designated floodways. Loca1 flood management is provided by
the King Counry Department of Public Works, Surface Water
Management Division.
Ordinance. These are areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water.
Principal users of public water supplies from groundwater
are the municipalities of Renton, Kent, Redmond, Issaquah,
Federal Way, and Auburn, and small water districts in King
County. Typlcally, in rural areas, individual, privately-owned
wells are used for residential water. Fut�re development in the
County Ls expected to rely on groundwater as the principal
source of potable water. (Personal communication, T. Rolla,
SKCDPH 1992.)
d. Planis and Animals
(3) Groundwater
Landfills have a potential impact on groundwater. The
King County Solid Waste Regulations specify that a landfill
owner or operator cannot contaminate the groundwater
underlying the facility (KCBOHC 10.36.020 [A]). Groundwater
monitoring is required for all landfills, waste piles,
landspreading disposal facilities, and surface impoundments
(KCBOHC 1Q.72.010).
Most groundwater impacts associated with solid waste
landfills can be mitigated during siting and design. Ideally, a
disposal site would be located as far as possible from e�sting,
active drinking water wells; utilize geologic barriers to minimize
movement of contaminants; and maintain as much distance as
possible between the lowest liner and seasonal high
groundwater. The proposed Seattle-King Counly Groundwater
Management Plan would prohibit placing a landfill on a
critical aquifer recharge area Maps showing the general
locaUon of these areas will be developed as part of the plamiing
process (Personal communication, T. Rolla, Seattle-King Counry
Department of Public Health, SKCDPH 1992).
Many aquifers in King County are associated with alluvial,
post-glacial deposits and occur less than 100 feet below the
surface (see Figure II.4). They are usually linked to adjacent
water courses, such as rivers. Recharge of groundwater results
from precipitation and adjacent stream flovus. The Seattle-King
Counry Department of Public Health (hereafter called the Health
Department) has proposed designating "critical aquifer recharge
areas" as suitable for protection under the Sensitive Areas
A. E�rsting Conditions
(1) Plants
King County Solid Waste Regulations pmhibit the
placement of a land disposal faciliry in areas designated as
critical habita.t for endangered or threatened species of plan�
(KCBOHC 1032•020 [e] [2]). However, there are no lmown
endangered or threatened plant species in King Counry
(Personal communicatlon, S. Norwood, Washington Department
of Natural Resources, DNR, 1992). There are 11 species of
vascular plants in the County that have been declared sensitive
by the DNR. My future solid waste faciliry sites found to have
sensitive plant species would require protection measures, such
as adequate buffers.
The two major habitat types that support vegetation in
King Counry are forests and wetlands. Of the three rypes of
forest zones, the Western Hemlock Zone is the principal forest
habitat in the County and the one most likely to be disturbed
by construction of solid waste facilities.
Wetlands are common and widespread, and the
importance placed on their preservation is reflected in the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (KCC 21.54). The overall policy
objective identified in this ordinance is no net loss of wedand
functions and values. Detailed development standards are
provided in the ordinance and ia administrative rules. King
County Solid Waste Regulations pmhibit the placement of an
active landflll within 200 feet of a wedand (KCBOHC 10.32.020
[�D�
Chapter 11.• Planning Area
�
II-8
(2) An�mals
King Counry Solid Waste Regulations prohibit siting of a
landfill within areas designated as critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species of wildlife or fish by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or the Washington State Departrnent of
Wildlife (KCBOHC 10.32.020 [E]).
Significant areas in King County still harbor a variery of
wlldlife, including species that are considered threatened or
endangered, e.g., the bald eagle and western pond turtle
(threatened), and the gray wolf (endangered).
e. Energy and Natural Resouroes
(1) Energy
The cureent emphasis on waste reduction and recycling
(WR/R) in solid waste management results in the conse�vation
of energy and natural resources. In addition, placement of
transfer stations reduces the use of petroleum fuels by
consolidating waste volumes and reducing travel distances for
most haulers.
Solid waste can also be used as an energy source for
heating and electriciry, however the lgg2 Plan does not
recommend pursuing energy resource recovery (FJRR) strategies
at this time. King County is currently investigating the
feasibiliry of capturing and ut�lizuig landfill gas from the Cedar
Hills Landfill as an energy source. Landfill gas can be
collected and purified as a substitute for natural gas or burned
duecdy.
King County currendy derives its energy from natural gas,
petroleum, electricity, and ooal. Natural gas is supplied
through pipellnes from Canada. Crude oll from Alaska,
Canada, and overseas is refined by local refnieries. Electriciry is
genera.ted by hydroelectric, nuclear, and coal-, wood-, oil-, or
gas-fired plants and cogeneration. Some coal is mined in King
Counry and burned by the Centralia power plant Wood,
primarily from commercial foresdands, is burned in stoves and
fireplaces as a primary or secondary heating fuel for residences
and for indusaial purposes (Washington State Energy Office,
1988).
(2) Natural Resources
State and county emphasis on preserving resource lands
has made them an important consideration in siting solid waste
facilities. The Ksng County Compre{ienswe Land Use Plan
encourages long-term retention of lands for productive forestry.
The State Growth Management Act requires that the Counry
ensure conservation of designated agricultural lands. Both
require that mineral resource lands, if not urbanized, be
designated and conserved for continued or future use (King
Counry, 199�).
King County has 1,330 square miles of forest land, which
comprises 62 percent of the County's total area. Approximately
1,000 square mlles are reserved for commercial forestry;
225 square mlles of forest land are preserved for open space
uses in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Approacimately 90 percent
is held in 1,700 large parcels potentially subject to commercial
harvest
Agriculture contributes an estimated $75 million in
sales per year to the Counry's economy (Personal
communication, C. Moulton, King County Cooperative Extension
Service, 1992). Farm land decllned from 165,000 to 55,500
acres between 1945 and 1g74, mosdy east of Lake Washington
and in the Green River Valley. An estimated 54,000 acres of
active farm land remain, and the Counry has applied restrictive
agricultural wning to 43,000 of them (King County, 1990).
'fhe major mineral resources in the County are sand and
gravel, with limited e�ploration for gold and silver and
extcaction of clay and silica. Sand and gravel consumption—
estimated at 7.35 million tons annually countywide—is related
to residential, commercial, and industrial construction, and 70
to 80 percent of it is produced in-county. Principal sand and
gra�el deposits are located along the eastern flanks of the
Snoqualmie River Valley. Coalfields are loca.ted in central and
southeastern King County; the largest and most productive are
in the Green River Valley. Production is about 58,000 tons per
year�, reserves are estimated to be 828 million tons.
Chapter Il.• Planning Aren A. Bxrstrizg Conditions
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
2. Built Environment
a Noise
Noise from consnvction, traffic, and operating equipment
associated with solid waste facilities is a major public concern.
Proximiry to sensitive noise receptors (such as hospitals,
schools, and residences) and the availablliry of enough land to
buffer noise are important siting factors. King Counry Solid
Waste Regulations require that buffer zones adequate to
minunize noise nuisances surround the operating area of
transfer stations (KCBOHC 10.60.020 [F]). Noise reduction
must also be considered in equipment specifications and
facilities design.
Noise is regulated by the King Counry Code and criteria
established by the state. In addition, several federal
agencies—including the EPA and Federal Highway
Administration—have guidelines to evaluate noise impacts.
KCC 12.86 limits levels and duration of noise transmitted across
property boundaries. Allowable maximum sound levels depend
on zoning of the noise source and receiving properry (limits do
not apply to traffic-generated noise).
b. Public Health
There are currently no public health problems associated
with any of King Counry's solid waste facilities. However, solid
waste handling facilities, if not properly located, designed, and
operated have the potential to cause adverse impacts to public
health. The Health Department is the primary agency
responsible for ensuring that solid waste facilities do not
adversely impact public health and the environment. State and
local rules, regulations, and enforcement procedures applicable
to solid waste are described in Chapter VI.
Most of the waste delivered to the King County disposal
system is mixed municipal solid waste generated by households
and businesses. Screening and clearance of incoming waste to
identify waste rypes requiring special handling and to keep
inappropriate waste out of the system is described in
Chapter VI, Section C.1.
A. Fxisting Conditions
II-9
P3gime II.5 Overleaf: Land use in King County. Note: Since this
map was prepared, the cides of Burien and Woodinville have
incoiporated.
c. Land Use
In desscribing land-use patterns in King County, it is
useful to divide the County into the following four subregions
(King Counry, 1991):
1. Seattle, four suburban cities (Des Moines, Lake Forest
Park, Normandy Park and SeaTac), and the unincorporated
Highline and Shoreline community planning areQS. This
highly urban subregion sustained most of the Counry's growth
until 1960. Little undeveloped land remains in this subregion,
which has well-developed urban utilities and roads.
2. 7�ie urban belt from Snohomish County east of Lake
l�ikshington and south to the Pierce Counly border. This
subregion contains 19 suburban cities and 6 unincorporated
communiry planning areas. Once a farm belt that fed the
urban areas, residential and commercial land development since
the 1950s has focused in this area. Most of the public
infrastructure needed to accommodate growth is already
developed.
3. Bear Creek and F.ast Sammamrsh community planning
areas, and portions of Tahomu/Raven Heights. Aside from
small portioas of Redmond, this region contains no cities. Over
the last 30 years, this area has e�cperienced the greatest
population change in the Counry. Land use is mixed urban
and rural. Much of the basic infrastructure required to support
urban development is planned, but not yet in place.
4. Hobart and Enumclaw plateaus, Snoqualmie �alley,
Yashon Island, and F.ast King County plannang area.
Although this area contains three-quarters of the County's land
area, most of it is in farm, forest, or rural residential use.
The King Counly Comprehensi•rve Land Use Plan
identifies urban areas ea�pected to see the most population and
employment growth, and to achieve housing and employment
densities that support urban services. Within urban areas,
commercial and industrial activities are encouraged to
wncentrate in compact activity centers (see Figure II.S).
C�iapter Il.• Planning Area
>: II-1
0
Solid waste management services, particularly collection of
waste and recyclables, are most efficient when they are in a
well-developed urban infrastructure. As a result, program
design and implementation rypically differs between urban and
rural areas.
ll �I M 1:MI 1 1 1.
(1) Populat�on and Hous�ng
King County is the most populated of 1Aashington 39
counties. Growth in population and number of households
during the 1980s and the resulting increase in solid waste
generation, provided the impetus for emphasis on waste
reduction and recycling in the 1989 Plan and this Plan update.
The Counry is expected to continue to experience significant
growth in population through the 20-year planning period.
King County's Aprll 1, 1990 population of 1,507 �s
two and a half times the size of the neact largest county, Pierce
Counry, and comprises nearly a third of the total state
population of 4.87 million.' Seattle, with 516,259 residents, is
the largest jurisdiction in the state; unincorporated King Counry
is the second largest, with 513,29g• 7'he 29 suburban cities of
the King Counry solid waste planning area have 477,067
residents. King Counry's population distribution is shown in
Figure II.6. (1990 Census and King Counry, 1991)
There were 616,000 households in King County in 1990.
During the 1g80s, the number of households increased at a
faster pace than tota.l population, 24 versus 19 percent, as a
result of declining a�erage household size. Persons per
household dropped from an average of 2.9 in 1970, to 2.5 in
1980, to 2.4 in 1gg0 (King County, 1991).
(2) Bustness and Industry
The King County [�aste Characterization Stu�ly
(Volume II, Appendix B) determined that appro�mately
' However, note that Seattle is not included in the King Counry solid
waste management planning area.
40 percent of the solid waste generated in the County comes
from nonresidential sources.
King Counry had about 945,000 nonagricultural wage and
salary jobs in 1990, 39 percent more than 1g80. About three-
quarters of this increase occurred after 1985. The strong
performance of the aircraft industry in the manufacturing sector
and of the services, wholesale, and retail sectors are responsible
for most of the growth.
Geograplucal distribution of jobs changed dramatically.
In 1g80, appro�mately 58 percent of all jobs In King Counry
were located in Seattle—one in five in the downtown area. By
1g88, over half of all jobs in the County were outside the ciry.
Downtown Seattle is still the major employment center (120,000
jobs), but suburban centers in Bellevue, Kent, and Highline
have developed substantial employment concentrations. The
most rapid growth in new jobs is occurring in Redmond,
Woodinville, and Federal Way (King County, 1991).
e. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
(1) Aestbetics
King County is located in a region of spectacular
landscapes, characterized by mountains, forested plateaus and
tulJs, river valleys, and shorelines. Many areas of the Counry
ha�e inspirational views and i�s residen� value the aesthetic
qualiry of life.
Aesthetia is most applicable to solid waste management
in the siting and design of facilities. Site selection can consider
whether views might be altered or obstivcted, and buildings can
be designed with features that enhance aesthetics. For example,
materlals such as natural stone, brick, glass, or wood (rather
than metal siding� can enhance the exterior, colors can
articulate architectural and design features; deta.ils such as
fascias, canopies, arcades, can break up large wall surfaces;
equipment or structures can be screened from publlc view; and
areas can be landscaped. King County requires that one
percent of certain facility costs be spent on artwork to either
enhance the visual quality of the site or onsite structures or to
mitigate offsite impacts.
Chapter II.• Planning Area A. B.xisting Condrtions
\ � �✓\ _, I. —
� ' � � i _'� � �a h !J a � _ _ .�,�, -- - —
�
\ �f �-- I �` „- �-- ��_ c — - -- --- - -- --� ----- - -------- .. ... .___. _----- .,,.,,�. i = e ��__ �, .� e r
� r � �
, � , , ���, �; ��� � �
�
.a� �� �..� � , � . , � s�
. _
, � . �
'
. . Ke �
„ � � a �,�.,,�, _� � _ , � � u , �� oae,
. y E
.� �,�_ — .,. . �.. �
I � w.
� n�
i ° •
, . _ . . a ,' � , ,.
�'�
� � � .� �. I� �n ��y � ',. .. � ,.1 - � �� _ ,.m .ss
� a� ��
o ��
:
�
1"
,
\�
� z
�--_--_-� � �� , � �. , � �.�,�.. �� � � a , ' � , ., - '"`�..' - � 4 � � -_�"A"^�.�-��—� , .m � � . ,,. � o /� �
� i
�
,•i �.
,
�
e v : c
prv
, � .,.e..� , ,.. ¢ .
� ., ,
� �,. .
�
J / \� I : ° 1 . � : f I �.. , � . � .. �,, ,,. rr,.
� �
, �
_, , j�
�I � , � � �,' '�
��,.� �� � ���
.
,
� , i �, �. � 1 4y
� ,
, w.�,�
—
,.... �i
� , �� � � � �,
,� „o„ , _ �
� � �'� ° ' - • �' ' - .,�. �,. �-
, :. ,
� �, � , � ; p � �� �� � ; i
f'
{ ,
. , �
�
_ ,
��
; �� x , � �
� '.^
; / . � � � _, s . � � .a. �>� "��
.
.
,,. �a
� � - � _� 3� n � �_
,�.
� � `� ' l �i, �,� - � r , � , �, l . _ � '� � � _.�-� - ^._.,,� . � �mxax � �� ..._�1 - , ��,.
� . �
� �- � �
�r`� ' / �- a � w � � sr —v� � s � ,. �, ss �
� `
'� � F� qR Nd � � , �, li` �" � ,,,� _ r�. � ; '`�
° �a
. s,.,. o
_� r
, - . � � ;�.
� , � . ���� E NQ. � ;. sP � �' � „ �. , �� - ����wo,.,s�NNV „ � � - 4. ,
a %'
� � , � ,,, ..� � � , � �� � i - � Re.�,�. � � �
, . ,, �^�
� �
�� � �� �� -��_�.,
., . _
, _ . ,
�� .��„ irn� o ^ � t : � t ' I 1 i1 Y,� "/' � O ... e � , �.,a �5 N 0 U A L M I E ��
�� a,s ,��� � �
� � = , s I a. ; .- / �...00 y° � � _ s , . ' .r � .� l ,. . .,i
� .� � � � � �' � r �
.
, , � � - , �. - .
, . � �� .
l� � . - �, : , z ._ � -- � � �` � ,�
1 I � P
..s�
� „ � o ,�
. f�
� - , :' �
, I ,�•.� . � - : . , ;_ � ; . W , � � _���° �' � � ��_. � � �°
� ,,. �
,. . � ��.. .... . ���..,. � � , , I � _ � s . ° ;: �� : e �ti aa���°'° R,e, ��� � �%� ,
�.
�
„ � �� ,�, � z �.� � � � � r � j
� �• , , � � ��g, .�, - � � ��LS-�—_ �v �� �- � � � ���
' r _ _ �.. .
- \ " O F S �
� � . f . •,' � Pql(K'�Y I � . , ".��, N A T i A f. F ft. u, �
� ` , . t ,: ,�� M e ..., �� � _ 1 .,, '��d. � -�f . .... l .,,'
� � � , „o � `\` 1
�� �
� e p � � � 1 sr�� �� ,
„
� � � � � 3 � �� . D�_� \ d e�
r
v.
o.�
•,
�r�s�ow .�, r . � .� � z
� � 1 � �. . � ,��,�_ � . , ..,. � ' � � � � �� � � s � �
,
u ..�.
:
N� o A .,,,. � . � , , �
, ,,_ . .
� �
, � � . �� b. � � a � ,. (
,
�- . � � a� ° �` ° -
r
� ' ` ,
� ,,., � _ . . �, � . '� �
�
,�
�' < ! g "�,�� i
�`
� � ,.
,- .- . �
a .
� �., e� � � > �y _. i -� �.,a., � - ,, > � � (: � �o
�•ti n
� � � �� " ' S Tt E ... , J_, � �� � � ,_ = v � � :�� "� . ��;
.,, o -`'� ..
- o„
i � � — ., �e... + , , p � x � _ m. e _ �
m . � � ,. .. �.,. „ „ .� A. �
„ . .. � _ / ., � � �, ,. r � a�� -� � � ��;
>� ,. „ ,� � o
� � � �� , �. � � �w�
�., r
,
-, ...
� _ o��., .�, ; �
fZ , . . ; n_ � � � � � _ 1.� �� ��s
.
�
_ � � �m, � r i� ` �� , � � '� _ � ; �tr �`� o .'.� � u_ ' ��� �;�` ,, v
�� a�. ��
�. _ � .�.� . �.
� , _ _ � pu � w�
�.�.a
�� . A � / � � .-� ,o •, —/ � '�' � �1 � , , , , � s .s�,_'I � i � 'r'� `
, J �
\ � . 9... _ � �� o _
a a �
„
�''� �'� �� �� P,�. �,� � ,... �� .� _ �� �"'3-� f\ �� � ��
, . ._._i � o � ,,� ,�,. I 1 � - • r � ��� �"�� �� � ������ �d.a p qwmiy:. � �^� . ^� _ � �,�.�� _�
o �` �
t
0
'-� ,'� . ° '-
.
� � -. `,. < a.,� s . . < MEH� ! a� . � �-�` �S' � � ,z�.t � � o -_ � � , " �
. , . _ „�, �
W.°
� �
, � ��,
��z ; i �{ � �. � ISLAND J v.ucm� • � �-• `>. �� � ,�,��� �- -'��-�
._
_ , y �� -
o , � � ti � � � ��
� j
. � ;n � .
�
, t _ , �
�.� � � Mm � �
� i , ��, � .�� _ �
e
z
� .... �
� ,.
� ��
_ e
\ t
; ,2 , . � � � . � � ���. - - � . Kin Count
� .�.
�:
._ � . . a �.� � � - �� �
�
�, _ , � � e o >
� � , L . `r = r ., .0 � e: �
/
� \ � � _ vm �i.. V
� � , A
. � , � .., K.�-�� � o . . _ � . . s� �., .
� , n�� ,,.. ��-� '` ° � � ��'� � � / , �� � Comprehensive Plan
� u , , a ��.
( � _ � )
� / � . �r ' � '
� � ..., ) /.� . - � �. � � � � ... >e.,� �»Y� F ��^ u� /' ,.
� �
` �
�� .. � + , � � ,. „ �M.. „ � _. „ t � „ y 1992
o.,
� � ;,.� °�
�� o � ✓ \�;�. „ ,� .• ��� � � ,�, Ma
�� � _
� �. � r
� ` �° °°�
� � � uex
,�. �. � , ..� a ��� .
� a
��
-� „ , naa .�� ,aa = �..s �. - �--. . .... ... � � �� � ,,, . ' . aeo
i
' �_ �
�,�. ��. � _ � w •� .. ._.w . ; ,� � , y��
o.t .
,,
,s r'� �
� �
� � � - � , � ��� ,,_� � d _ �:
� .
/ `� ° " _
� �� � � � � .�� � d � �- , - -
� > ,o�„�. r � � � � - s, �� ��, r �a�� , � � ...�� ��� ���'
� x � .
� ��4 ��
i �� � ;� , rv �:� . 1 :� ��. ��� ' ��� -�= � '�� .,,. _ 'a' � .. � � . ., ��-'� _ / � s � E�ps n9 publ� park and recreation areas,
�-
.
�� .,�
.� ,
.� �� -
„ 9
.
:
! � �' �� :"��� �� : °, .. ;: ° � � °=� I .,�, � �a,,���~. � �� �--� and natural features protected by environ-
� , -,.
�
� • �� .,
� � ,� . ; � �
, � � �� �
� ; , � -� „o.
� � ` � men a r a ions
.
� ' � � ��
� ' .
:
� � � � � ee� � �� u � ��� t I egu t .
i� �
� c:i. _ °
�w
�
� , � ... �
_.. � . „ .e . )
., \
;
, � : .,,.. . "
d r 3 •
o °
a
� � `r�- � ��. � � . R , , � ,�.U� v� � ,.� "l . � �,� °" -� • �„��- Resource �Lands
� , ,
� ��� _ � 1� �,�. �
.;
- � . ° ..H ,..
�
�
:
, �
, q
� � �°� �-°1 �, n-�- �� ; � ����° �- ,�> �° _ �� • �� �r Forest Production Districts
iI � �
w
�.
�,s�, � � m �
� �
\ . ,. � ,
��
� � 5 � , , �� - �� � ,. , „ "`
,- �� � \ NORMIINDV , , -• . ,. � �� 1 `
�. �
:
� • P ,� K � „ „ , .u,o _ cultural Production Distncts
� � �-rA ���_ 9,,� � � , � w. ���_.. '�°'�,,.`�� �"�� � �``��,.� _ ��,4_,z � Agri
.. �,
� � -
, �.�
. . �.�., �,� � , - ��
o � � � � ���� ,;� s �� ..m� �� � � �� � 0
i = .�°� � � � 6 j • . s �:� -'; Rural Areas
� - �� '�
. . -
i ��� � , � `` � „ - �� � : -m" � ` 'm �� Areas to remain in rural land uses, where
�
, m.,. ,
� a � I � �;� � _ � � '�° _ �q � �' � � �: � ��� � ;� ' ` � �m �'�� ��`��'' rural public facility and service standards
�.
� z � ��,.
�
� �� � � A � �� � � � � ��� � ,m�
...
� �_ � � e,,... a ws.� � � �,m � � aPP�Y•
, � .� _ ,
� -
� � i s �� s`a DES MOINE9 � ' � : � � � �, J �-� �
. _
� � �
.
i ",� � �Y w'C," .'�� �� _
�
.,� �� , � . . ' � �
/
, ' -� .,„ � _ �
� . � �..�,a„ _
�'"��� ��' = C' '� � � " o q r o F . A eas p an�ed for growth at a range of
, , , _�,, �.�,,,� � �, �oQ�a�M F � a�:�t_ oRES, -°�
�� o _, �
t
� / � � >' � e ; :� � ; ., k � )� � I � . �, � s
.�.. _
�_ �
� r .
/
. . - _ �� i �. � f ,-,.�.� _ .... •-«� � � y� � `� residential densities (from very high to very
�.sa. M � '
� �,�. . � � � ,.�
,
,� � n _ ... � ,__ . �
� .
� "°`° ° r � � ,. �, � u• • ow), where urban public facility and service
,s �- �
b ���
2 �
b _ „� � � , . „ �
a
a .-� . , �-�oA �-- u �
/ \ �, _._.,,,,,,,„„ , �, , � '��-- ` g ' �-CITYOFSEATTLEWATERSHED �, . Standar S W�
� - � .• � �C`- � ��, ��, aPp�Y•
� - � ` . � , , „ ,,..
� p d �II
.�.�. �...�., � � • - � ,
. , M
�
`-,� ��' � �� � _. ��,'� � :� � i �-=� f � �� �m ` �".` _ � 0 Transitional Areas
�
_: . ° ��
�
ah , � � . .,. ;
,
� � . 'ti� � �
*_ �
��� J � a � �" � � ° � �(`� � �� � � ,�, To remain n low density land uses as a
':°��e - ; - .�� °
_'; w _
� .�.. ,
� �o„�
� � � / " �� „ � � ° � � � � � reserve for future urban development or
r � ...
� „ �. �
. ,
,,
\ y � , `� e war � , �� � � �� _ de ation as Rural Areas.
��
� HuS�On � � _ — 4
a�.<.,.y.. . ��, _ �... � � � \ S�gn
i
2 � � . � �' f -; — . / /.� r`�
�� "' � � ° �,-�� r �,_ �� ���� ��� �� j u .� ����� ' � _ , Rural City Expansion Area
, � , TACOMA,� �r. ,,, _ � ° �' �� � �
� R .. � �,.M E
� � � � „� �� °�� � �' � o en ia r an ctivi enter
, �
, _
. .
;w
�� � ` � � /�_ �� r �
' �'•, r 1 . - P t t' I U b A 'tiy C
� � 6-
� ,����� � ,.:. .,. � � �,. ,. „ � „ .. � „ ,.��� -
L11 . `
.. F x� � ,.i , / ,.
... �:. x °- �
,
,� �
��,� - — - '..`� , ` � � ?� �. � � � � �� � �,....� "�`� �- f� �� c ,�� � Indian Reservation
\ ' 4 ,4 � . \ � , �l
If_' . , ; c � L . � e e e ... .v. � .b / _� _
U � y� r � „
� 7 �: d _ �. ti .,,.,.v.�. �
\ .., � s .. . �x.�,.. ,,...
3
i
�., s
,� �' � ;c � . � �, � � � 1 ., � � ,� nc ra e rea
� _, � � �� I orpo t d A
� � . 0
-, _ � -
��� --��` � �, __ -�� �� � '�`� - - - . , , '� �, - f �� ,.. � � Urban Activity Centers
,: - r
� �� � � !� , � � � �� � � � � �" �ties containi g on r more concentrations
.� , �
� .`�� -`—� � � ��� �� d / '°,r i CITYOFTACOMA WATERSHED � � � ,�_ _� J Q I em
� ' .w I , � NGCK '' ' � .
I - � I .,. � � r
I ... MO UN IAI ��
. � 1 � 1
� �� � �% �,.� p �� -� W : I ��, � Major concentrations of employmenU
� ,.�.
..
e •
o , a � �°` ,. „ .,. ,. „ ,. ,.
( "afq s n uninc rated Ki ou
c�r ;� � ,. „ �
vl oppmg i orpo ng n y.
M��ES - �'�'���� :, � � - � - � o �, �� � / , '� � � Rural Activity Centers
Buckley ���.� ° �-� � °'-` �._J ; ° � � .° /-� �.A Concentrations of employment, shopping
� � -��� � �� °' '� ` �„ � � �� and higher density housing in Rural Areas,
,�,,� ,� ~-
�,� J � °�` �., ' �,�� _, „�. �' including incorporated and unincorporated
`'� �-:_y--� rural towns. Existing city boundaries will
I � � �� "' expand through annexations.
- . � , � �.� �n� � �. �d
�=. „ , `"�, Source: King County Comprehensive Plan Map.
`'� 'City of Burien incorporation eflective early 1993.
� � : "� �' \
=" 1992
i:':::::-::::::f::•<::::•,::::•:•::r::::�::i::::}:::i �
II 11
(2) L�gbt and Glare
Light and glare from bright outdoor lamps or motor
vehicles can intrude onto adjacent properties and can also
create safety hazards or interfere with views. Design and
operational elements that can abate offsite impacts of solid
waste facilities include minimizing reflective surfaces, orienting
the faciliry to keep light away from nearby structures, using
hoods on outdoor lamps, and installing fencing along roadways
to deflect vehicle headlamps.
f. Tran.�ortation
(1) H�gbways and Roads
Because most solid waste is transported along freeways
and arterials, roadways are an integral component of a solid
waste system. Any plans for new or expanded solid waste
facilities must consider existing traffic levels on haul routes,
and the capacity of these roadways to handle additional truck
traff'ic. In some cases, it may be necessary to improve
A. Exlsting Conditions Cbetpter II.• Plannr�zg Area
Figure II.6 King County 1990 populaeon density. Souroe: Puget Sound Regional Council. Nooe: Seattle populadon data are not shown.
I
I-12 :<:
roadways or adjust haul routes or schedules to mltigate
potential impacts.
The County's transportation system includes a full range
of roads: arteriaLs for fast travel between activiry centers, local
access streets for low speeds and volumes in residential areas,
and neighborhood collectors for circulalion between residential
areas and for connecting local access streets to arteriaLs.
Arterlal roads comprise the Counry's prlmary road system
(Figure II.7).
i�
ic
,i c�
� i
cn `m.�,
� SEA
C
�� O
/ �
%
%
% �
1
1
i
, VASHON
� ISL
V
�
i
.,
�
', - — - - -
, , \�
: ,-.: ____� _
._. .. . _ _ _-- , ,.. _.
< , �
_ , zo j � .. _ _. _.
.�r, . . __"� ` ` �
��
�
�'
';. :�
\ \, ` _
,�; � ,
.� �:<?;::: .>
k; ::
. . i' Yi
..:>;gg. :i;::1.
;:\:
::�;::::: :�;:���; ` ., .
.>;i?. �" .,��:.
•��'�'`�'' ':\_..n .
._._. .�._...,...::�
\
5 0 5 �,
l
MILES '�.�
Traffic congestion is particularly heavy in urban areas.
Roadways experiencing severe peak-hour congestion include
portions of I I SR SR-167 and SR-16g. To ease
this situation, the County is constructing new arterials and
widening existing ones (King County, 1990). County and local
municipalities ha�e six-year road improvement programs that
are updated annually. In some cases, county and municipal
agencies work together to develop and fund mutually bene�cial
road improvements.
� � i
�
Y - �... ,, .. - � �� \
, . ��-..\ � .
i . '�'� . :.�.., �.�
/ r � y . . . \ _ �/ �'.. .
S r.,
, — - ,.. / � _ -/.' j .
� _. _ > � �, � --
' _ �; � , -. ._ \ _ �
•\' _ , \ / \ -__ /\.\, . `•; .
` '\ \�
� �
�
. .:. .. . �. � '
-_'. ". _ \ '__ ,.
� � / /
/ �: -�.� ' .�
- �'M1_•—; ;�
` `\ 1
� �1
%
r .
._........_""'...
` 'v.
_,-...
-�..-. . ��..
�...._
\
i•.. �
..i •�.
(
1
1
's 1
�
��
Figure II.7 Major h3ghways in King County.
Chapter I!.• Planning Area A. Pxxsting Conditions
i•
�
�
•
•
�
�
`
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
::: ::. ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::: ::::: :: : ::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::; : : ::::::::: : :::::: : : ::::::::::: ::::::: :::: :::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::;:: ::;:: ::: :: ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::::;: :::: ::::::::::
::::�.:;::�::::::..::::::�:.:::::.::�::::::::�:::.:::::::::�:::::::::::::::::.:::::::;::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::�::�:::::::::::::::�.:::::�::�::.:.::�.::::::::::::::.::�::.:::::.::�:::::�::::.:::::::::::: _
:.::.:::::. ::.:::::::.
........ . , , . .
:::::::::::.:::.::.:,.:,.::.:::..:.: ,:::::::::::::::::.r.:: . :::::::::.
.. II 1
3
The Kng County 7�ansportation Plan aimed road
improvements primarily at urban and suburban areas
ea�periencing the worst traffic congestion. In 1989, over 90
percent of road improvement funds were earmarked for growth-
related improvements. Despite this level of spending, funding is
not adequate to finance the construction projects needed to
establish a complete road network or improve mobiliry in
urbanizing areas (King County, 1990)•
The 1990 Washington State Legislature approved
additional revenue for transportation improvements by counties,
cities, and public transit districts. Local options authorized for
increased funding include both mass transit and mad
improvements. Given development and population growth in
unincorporated King County, the Transportation Plan will
continue to focus on supporting operation, maintenance, and
improvement of the general purpose road network in
unincorporated areas. The planning process has not been
completed and the adequacy of this new funding has not been
determined.
(Z) Ra�l and Waterborne Transportatfon
Rail will play an important role in transporting CDL
waste generated in King Counry to out-of-counry land fills
under recendy approved contracts with private vendocs (see
Chapter V, Section C). Also, rail or barge may play a role in
any future consideration of mixed municipal solid waste export
(see Chapter IV, Section Al.d.).
King County is well served by rail and barge. The main
line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, shared by the Union
Pacific Railroad runs north-south through the County. Spur
lines provide rail access from industrial areas. Well-developed
port facilities on Puget Sound provide year-round ship and
barge acce�s. Puget Sound barge tr�c connects to the 465-
mlle Columbia/Snake River narrigation system •ria the Pacific
Ocean.
g. Public Seivioes and Utilities
Availabiliry of water and sewer services is an important
consideration in siting solid waste facilities. Adequate water
supply is required at solid waste facilities to fight fires, control
dust, wash dovm facilities and �quipment, and provide potable
B. Waste Stream Analysis
water for employees. Connection to a sewer system is needed to
discharge preaeated landf'ill leachate and for wastewater runoff
from transfer stations. Wastewater discharge permits from
Metro are required for such discharges. Since sewer utilities are
typically restricted to urban areas, rural facilities may require
treatment capability on site.
There are 21 sewer districts, 35 water districts, several
large private water systems, approximately 2,000 small public
water systems, and thousands of private wells in King Counry.
Water and sewer capaciry and services for solid waste facilities
must be consistent with density. In densely populated and
developed urban areas, large public sewer and water systems are
needed. In rural areas, onsite sewage disposal systems and
small public or individual water systems are acceptable.
Critical recharge areas for aquifers used for potable water are
subject to regulation. (King Counry 1990.)
Police protection is provided by the cities and King
County. There are SO fire departments operated by special
purpose districts in unincorporated areas. All solid waste
facilities are required to prepare an action plan for a fire or
explosion as part of a comprehensive operations plan (KCBOHC
10.34.030 [B] [4]).
B. WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
1. Ovelview
The rate at which King Counry generates solid waste is
increasing due to growth in population, wntinued growth in
the business sector, and increases in the amount of waste each
individual generates. It is important to understand waste
generation quantities and composition to make wise decisions
about future waste management. Knowing what materials
comprise the waste stream and evaluating trends in their usage
can provide valuable information in planning to reduce solid
waste generation and toxicity.
The counry system includes transfer and disposal of mixed
municipal solid waste, special wastes, and recyclables delivered
to counry-operated transfer stations, landfills, and drop-boxes.
To plan and manage solid waste disposal and recycling
effectively, King County seeks to understand who is generating
Cbeapter !l.• Planning Area
>: II - 14
waste and what rypes of materials these generators dispose.
This section presents a description of the quantiry and
composition of the County's mixed municipal solid waste
stream.
King County relies on its own economic pla�uiing model,
disposal records, and data from the Ecology's (Ecology)
recycling survey to obtain reliable disposal and recycling data
for short- and long-term planning. To furtt►er enhance and
validate these sources, the Counry initiated a waste monitoring
program to collect data on the quantiry and composition of the
disposed and recycled waste stream. The data collected comes
from a variery of sources, including data from suburban cities
and haulers, information from consultant studies based on data
obtained from waste samples, and surveys at counry disposal
facilities.
a. D�inition of Mixed Muniapal
Solid Waste (MMSV�
King Counry defines "solid waste" to include all
". .. putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid
wastes ... including but not limited to garbage, rubbish,
ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction
wastes ..." MMSW and special wastes are subset� of solid
waste (KCBOHC 10.04.020). MMSW is composed of wastes that
are generated by residences, stores, offices, and other generators,
but which are not industrial, agricultural, or from demolition.
Special wastes are those that require regulatory clearance and
special handling practices, such as asbestos, medical waste, and
contaminated soils. Miscellaneous wastes are solid wastes that
are generally not disposed in the King Counry disposal system.
These include woodwaste and agricultural wastes and CDL
wastes. Chapter V addres,ses specific information about special
and miscellaneous wastes.
MMSW quantities, as described in this section, are
typically post-consumer solid wastes that end up in either the
disposed or recycled waste streams. They can be categorized as
materials or recyclable products, such as paper, metals, plastia,
or yard wastes. MMSW can be picked up by public or private
collectors, or self-hauled ro landfills, transfer stations, compost
facilities, recycling facilities, or drop-boxes.
b. Planning Forecast Model
The Solid Waste Division uses a planning forecast model
to predict future waste quantities for planning, budgeting,
operations, and maintenance purposes. The model is also used
to estimate capacities of existing and planned transfer and
disposal facilittes. Its primary objectives are to estimate future
waste disposal and to provide estimates of the amount of waste
reduced and recycled. The total of all waste dLsposed, reduced,
and recycled represents the amount of waste that is actually
generated. Table II.1 provides a description of the 20-year
waste generation forecast for MMSW.
To predict future waste quantities,-the planning forecast
model relies on statistical relationships between waste disposal,
population, and income. Although many factors appear to
influence waste generation and disposal, research indicates that
historical and projected changes in population and real
personal income provide the best indicators of future waste
generation. The Counry relies on population and personal
income projections provided by the Puget Sound Regional
Council of Governments. The model assumes that the
projections of population and real personal income adequately
represent e�ected changes in both of these factors.
Changes in the County's overall population and the
amount of waste each individual generates (or the per c�ita
rate), have the greatest influence on future changes in waste
generation and disposal. From 1980 to 19g0 the population of
King County grew 28 percent In addition, the amount of
waste generated by each indlvldual increased from 43 pounds
per day in 1980 to 6.9 pounds per day in 1990. If this trend
continues, per capita generation will increase to appro�mately
10 pounds per day in the year 2000.
Personal income is also considered a good indicator of
changing economic conditions. The more money people spend,
tke more waste is generated, both in terms of the items
replaced and new purchases and packaging. Although not
direcdy included in the planning forecast model, other factors
intluencing future waste quantities include general economic
growth, which influences the amount people consume and
dispose; the continuing urbanlzation of King County, which
results in the construction oF more housing and commercial
buildings, which in turn creates waste; and socioeconomlc
Cbiapter !l.• Planning Area B. Waste Stratm Anadysis
��
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
• 1987 989,500 808,000 181,500 18.3
1988 1,038,500 813,000 225,500 21.7
� 1989 1,138,500 838,500 300,000 26.4
1990 1,258,500 890,500 368,000 29.3
• 1991 1,346,500 914,000 432,500 32.1
1992 1,339,600 870,700 468,900 35.0
• 1993 1,391,500 834,900 556,600 40.0
1994 1,458,600 802,200 656,400 45.0
1995 1,538,600 769,300 769.300 50.0
• 1996 1,622,900 762,800 860,100 53.0
1997 1,711,900 753,200 958,700 56.0
� 1998 1,805,800 740,400 1,065,400 59.0
1999 1,904,900 723,900 1,181,000 62.0
• 2000 2,009,400 703,300 1,306,100 65.0
2001 2,064,500 722,600 1,341,900 65.0
2002 2,121,100 742,400 1,378,700 65.0
• 2003 2,179,300 762,800 1,416,500 65.0
2004 2,239,000 783,700 1,455,300 65.0
• 2005 2,300,400 805,100 1,495,300 65.0
2oos 2,�,soo s2�,2oo i,sss,soo ss.o
• 2007 2,428,300 849,900 1,578,400 65.0
2008 2,494,900 873,200 1,621,700 65.0
• 2009 2,563,300 897,200 1,666,100 65.0
2010 2,633,600 921,800 1,711,800 65.0
�
•
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
II-1
5
changes, such as changes in households, personal wealth, and
demands for convenience and time-sa�ing gadgets. For
example, over the past 10 years households have increased
while the number of people making up a household ha�e
decreased. Since a"household" implies a certain fixed level of
maintenance, mail, purchasing, and so on, regardless of the
number of people in it, the increasing number of households
and their decreasing size have a significant effect on increasing
waste generation. Additionally, increases in personal wealth and
demands for convenience and time-saving gadge� result in
increased IeveLs of disposed products, which further contribute to
waste generation.
Table II.1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid WasOe Projectlons
Tons
Year Tons Ton� Reduced/ Percent
Generated Dtsposed Recycled WR/R
c. MMSW Generation
King County's planning forecast model is designed to
identify the anticipated waste generation of counry residents,
assuming the County had not pursued aggressive waste
reduction and recycling programs. 1Aaste generation is defined
as the amount of waste disposed plus the amount of waste
reduced and recycled.
The Counry uses 1g87 as the base year for forecasting
waste generation. The model assumes that appro�mately 18
percent of the total waste generated in 1987 was reduced or
recycled through local recycling drop-boxes sponsored by
businesses and charitable organizations. Historical waste
disposal data and estimates of amounts reduced or recycled
prior to 1g87 are used to project the anticipated level of waste
generation from 1g88 through the year 2000 ff no additional
recycling programs had been implemented. Table II.2 provides
the historical population and personal income data, used to
forecast future waste generation. A more detailed description of
the generation forecast methodology and alternative growth
assumptions are provided in Volume II, Appendix A of this
Plan.
a The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from
previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils,
asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste).
Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals
Table II.2 Impact of King Counry Populadon and Per Capita Income
Grow[h on Mi�ced Municipal Solid Waste 20-Year Waste Generalion
and Disposal Projectlons
Real Personal MMSW MMSW
Population Income (S) Generation Disposal
d. Waste Reducbion and Recycling
In 1991, King Counry reduced and recycled an estimated
32 percent of the total waste generated. Waste reduced is
defined as waste no longer generated from an activiry previously
generating waste. E�camples include changed manufacturing
1980 775,100 15,605 603,000 507,000
1985 853,828 16,464 806,000 673,000
1990 991,060 18,695 1,258,500 890,500
1995 1,096,900 18,380 1,538,600 769,300
2000 1,195,300 19,800 2,009,400 703,300
2005 1,247,030 20,600 2,300,400 805,100
2010 1,301,000 21,450 2,633,600 921,800
a Exclusive of city of Seattie
b In tons
B. Waste Stream Analysis
Cf�pter 1I.• Planning Area
-1
::: II 6 :>
methods that reduce or eliminate the amount of materials used
to package a product and/or altering purchasing practices that
favor producis that are reusable and finding secondary uses for
goods previously discarded after a single use. Measuring an
activity (disposal) that no longer occurs is extremely difficult
King County currendy recognizes that "buy recycled"
procurement policies, and commercial and residential
promotion programs annually increase the level of waste
reductioa However, without a reliable method of estimating
the amount of material diverted from the waste stream due to
waste reduction, King Counry conservatively estimates that
beginning in 1989, 2 percent of the waste diverted from
disposal has been eliminated through waste reduction activities
and this amount will increase approximately 0.5 percent
annually. Future waste reduction policy and program
development efforts are dlscussed in Chapter III. King County
will also explore methods of ineasuring the amount of waste
reduced through these effort5. Figure II.8 illustrates projected
waste generation and waste disposal levels under four separate
planning forecast scenarios. The "baseline" scenario represents
the anticipated level of waste disposal if the Counry had not
initiated aggressive waste reduction and recycling policies. This
scenario recognizes that counry residents would ha�e continued
to recycle a limited amount of their waste, i.e., 18 percent in
1g87 and remaining at 18 percent thereafter. The "Status Quo
Scenario" assumes a waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) rate
of 35 percent will be achieved in 1992 and remain at 35
percent thereafter. The "50 Percent Scenario" assumes that a
50 percent WR/R rate will be achieved in 1995 and remain
constant thereafter. The "Goals Scenario" represents the
adopted King County WR/Et goal of 65 percent in 2000, and
assumes that the rate will remain constant thereafter. The
20-year projected disposal level under the 35 percent,
50 percent, and 65 percent scenarios are displayed in
Table II.3.
e. MM$W DISPOS�
The quantity of solid waste disposed has been growing
steadily despite increasing recycling rates. This growth occurred
primarily because waste generation has been growing faster
than recycling due to increased population, employment, and
per capita generation. The map in Figure II.6 illustrates the
current population densities in each counry jurisdiction. Since
1g80, disposal of MMS1A in King County's system has increased
from approximately 507,000 tons in 1g80 to appro�mately
890,000 tons in 1990. This represents an average increase of
7.5 percent per year. Municipal solid waste disposal in King
County prressently occurs at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (g7
percent) and three rural landfllls (3 percent). Despite overall
growth, waste disposal in 1992 dropped sigtuficandy for several
reasons:
� Generation
• Baseline-18°�
—�— Status-35°,6
0 50��
— • Goals-65°�
3,000
2,soo
o z,000
0
0
y 1,500
�
0
� � ,000
500
Year
Figure II,8 King County mixed municipal solid waste 20-year
generaaon and disposal projecGOns.
C�apter I!.• Planning Area B. Waste Stream Analysis
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
::�: II
-1
7
:':t:::::::i'i,
Tab1e II3 King County Transfer and Disposal Facility 20-Yeaz
Tonnage Forecast (Mixed Municipal Solid Waste)
1990 1995 2000 2010
SCENARIO: STATUS QUO (35 PERCENT WR/R)
Transfer Stations
Factoria 168,000 145,400 190,850 251,050
HougMon 186,500 192,850 263,200 360,050
Renton 69,000 58,550 70,050 83,850
Algona 128,500 134,500 179,150 239,100
Bow Lake 195,000 179,800 233,750 304,400
First NE 98,500 87,350 106,550 130,100
Cedar Falis 2,500 3,400 4,150 5,050
Enumclaw not open 12,850 15,750 19,350
Hobart not open 28,200 38,100 51,650
��6 �� i;i�8�55a i;�
Disposal Facilities
Rural Landfills 43,500 4,900 5,600 6,400
Cedar Hills � 1,373,500 1,001,200 1,307,400 1,713,400
SCENARIO: 50 PERCENT WR/R
Transfer Stations
Factoria 168,000 111,750 146,700 193,000
Houghton 186,500 148,250 202,300 276,800
ReMon 69,000 45,000 53,850 64,450
Algona 128,500 103,350 137,700 183,800
Bow Lake 195,000 138,150 179,650 234,000
First NE 98,500 67,100 81,900 100,000
Cedar Falls 2,500 2,600 3,200 3,900
Enumclaw not open 9,900 12,100 14,900
Hobart not open 21,650 29,300 39,700
- 8�,b� �d7,75b � �
Disposal Facilities
Rural Landfills 43,500 4,300 4,900 5,600
Cedar Hills 1 1,373,500 771,100 1,006,700 1,319,000
SCENARIO: GOALS (65 PERCENT WR/R)
Transfer Stations
Factoria 168,000 111,750 102,550 134,950
Houghton 186,500 148,250 141,450 193,550
Renton 69,000 45,000 37,650 45,050
Algona 128,500 103,350 96,250 128,550
Bow Lake 195,000 138,150 125,600 163,650
First NE 98,500 67,100 57,250 69,950
Cedar Falls 2,500 2,600 2,250 2,750
Enumclaw not open 9,900 8,500 10,400
Hobart not open 21,650 26,500 27,800
�WII �7;756 � - 77&,�56
Disposal Facilities
Rural Landfills 43,500 4,300 4,100 4,700
Cedar Hills � 1,373,500 771,100 706,100 925,000
� includes special wastes
• The City of Seattle left King County's waste disposa( system
in June of 1991. 1992 was the fust full year the Counry did
not receive waste from the ciry of Seattle.
• Since 1990,the suburban cities have been gradually
implementing recycling senrices that help ro reduce the volume
of waste disposed. In September lggl, the County provided
recycling services to citizens in the uninco�porated areas, which
represent appro�mately 52 percent of the Counry's population
outside the ciry of Seattle. Increased recycling services have
helped to decrease disposal tonnages in 1992•
Table II.4 King County Tonnage Summary, 1990-1992
1990 1991 1992
Transfer Stations
Factoria 168,000 158,000 140,500
Houghton 186,500 188,500 177,500
Renton ��� �s�� ���
Algona 128,500 136,000 126,500
Bow Lake 195,000 180,000 172,500
First NE 98,500 102�500 88�500
Enumclaw Not opened
Subtotal 845,500 841,000 765,500
Rural L.andfills
Enumclaw 11,000 7,000 6,000
Vashon 5,� ��� ���
Hobart 27,000 15,500 10,500
Cedar Falls 500 ciosed closed
Subtotal 43,500 29,500 23,500
Regional Direct
King County 104,500 96.000 119,500
Ciiy of Seattle 379,500 162,500 0
Subtotal 484,000 258,500 119,500
Cedar Hilis-Other
Commercial 24,000 20,500 15,732
Special Waste 34,000 25,000 6,000
Cedar Falls d/b 2,500 3,500 3,500
Cedar Hiiis Total 1,373,500 1,146,000 909,500
Grand Total�ystem 1,434,000 1,178,500 933,500
System less Yardwaste 1,433,000 1,175,000 931,500
B. Waste Str�am Analysis Cixrpter !l.• Planning Area
<� II - 18
• King County has implemented alternative methods for
managing CDL waste that focuses on recycling and also allows
residual CDL waste to flow to out-of-county landfills.
• Finally, the region as a whole was in an economic
recession in lgg2. Economic recession causes disposal tonnages
to decline by cutting industrial production, which reduces the
waste disposed by factorles and other businesses. Consumer
spending also declines, which causes the volume of waste
disposed by households to decline.
Table II.1 projects future disposal tonnages for the King
County region.
To determine the h.istorical quantities of waste disposed,
King Counry relies solely on internal billing and disposal
records. Since the Solid Waste Division is responsible for
providing for the disposal of all MMSW generated within its
jurisdiction, internal activity records are the most reliable source
for aggregate disposal data. To determine the quantity of waste
disposed by each ciry or unincorporated service area, the County
initiated a monthly reporting system in 1991 to collect detailed
information on the amount of waste collected from cities and
unincorporated service areas. These reports are submitted to
the County by the cities and all certified haulers operating
within their jurisdictions.
To project anticipated levels of future waste disposal, the
Counry uses the planning forecast model discussed previously
(Section B.l.b and Volume II, Appendix A). Similar to waste
generation projections, the model forecasts waste disposal using
historical population, income, and disposal data. 1'he model
incorporates historical disposal data to assist in predicting
future disposal requirements. Table II.4 provides detailed
information on disposal estimates by disposal facility for 1gg0
through 1992.
2. Waste Chara,cteriza,tion
In addition to estimating the total quantiry of waste
disposed at King Counry disposal facilities, it is also important
to characterize the material composition of the waste that is
disposed to understand the behavior of individual waste
generators. Understanding the amount and material
composition of waste that the County's residential and
nonresidential (commercial) sectors generate is important to
target specific loR/R programs and identify future policies for
the County's solid waste management system.
In 1g89, King County estimated that the majority of its
disposed waste (60 percent) was generated by the nonresidential
sector (Figure II.g). This estimate was based on King County,
including the city of Seattle. The 1990 study indicated that for
King Counry excluding Seattle, 60 percent of the disposed waste
is generated in the residential sector, while the nonresidential
sector only accounted for 40 percent. 1'hese estimates ha�e
signif'icant impacts on counry strategies for reaching WR/R
goals, since planned programs must target those sectors that
account for the majority of disposed waste.
The 1990 transfer station surveys revealed that residential
and nonresidential self-haulers represent 29 percent of the
disposed waste stream. Self-haulers are those waste generators
who take their waste directly to counry disposal facilities rather
ao
�
�
20
a
,o
Pigure II.9 Waste quantities contrlbuted by residential and
non�sidentlal waste generators.
Chapter /1.• Planning Arer� B. Waste Stream Analysis
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
.
�
�
�
�� ,�� ,�3 .�c� ..� .�
�,� r r ,� F �
� � �� �� � � c �a
c c
o �a �
� oc` �� Q 0 y QJ J
z
i•
��
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
II-1
9
than ha�ing garbage haulers collect and transfer it One
eacplanation of the high percentage of self-haulers contributing
to the disposed waste stream may be related to the une�ected
increases in construction and demolition waste bmught into the
counry system after the Newcastle Landf'ill closure. The
significant number of self-haulers raises questions coitcerning
the access individuals and businesses ha�e to garbage or
recycling collection services and the impact that self-haulers
ha�e on county disposal facilities. Over the ne� few years, the
Counry plans to continue monitoring and evaluating the impact
of the self-hauler category.
King Counry will continue to develop and implement
special studies to determine the quantity and composition of its
disposed waste stream. Information gained from thesse studies
e
will be used to plan short- and long-term waste reduction and
recycling programs discussed in Chapter III. Additionally, this
information is aLso being coordinated with the King County
Marketing Commission to provide information about materials
in the waste stream that are a�ailable for marketing.
The following sections discuss the e�sting composition of
King County's residential and nonresidential waste streams and
compare changes in waste composition between studies
performed in 1g87 and 1gg0.
a. Composition of Disposed Waste
The waste composition information provided in the 198g
Plan resulted from a 1987 characterization study (R.W. Beck,
1987) that relied on available waste composition data from the
ciry of Seattle, the state of Washington, and the Portland
Metropolitan Service District. Based on analysis of the data
from these studies, King Counry drew conclusions about the
amount of recyclable materials disposed by i� residential and
nonresidential generators. In 1990, the Counry initiated a more
comprehensive waste characterization study, which involved
actual sampling and sorting of waste disposed in King County
(see Volume II, Appendix B). Although the methods used to
perform the 1987 and 1990 studies varied significandy, thereby
limiting a statistically valid comparison, the results of these
studies point to interesting contrasts in the quantiry and
composition of residential and commercial waste in 1987 and
1990.
B. Waste Slream Analysis
(1) 1987 Ve�sas 1990
Totad Waste Stream Composftlon
Figure II.10 displays an overall comparison between the
1987 and 19g0 waste disposal composition. In general, wood,
yard waste, glass, paper, and aluminum represent the majoriry
of waste disposed both in 1g87 and 1gg0; however, they each
represent a smaller proportion of the total waste stream in 1990
than they did in 1987. Additionally, in the 1990 study, wood,
construction, and demolition waste were measured separately.
Ttvs was not the case in 1g87, when construction and
demolition were combined with the °wood" category.
Consequently, the reducUon in wood alone from 1987 to 1990
appears higher than it actually is. Tota1 tons of waste disposed
increased by approxirr�ately 82,000 tons. Yard waste disposal
decreased by 53,00 tons, while wood disposal increased by
20,500 tons, metal disposal by 9,500 tons, glass by 12,500 tons,
and paper by 4,000 tons. On the other hand, the amount of
plastic and textiles disposed increased by 14,500 and 15,000
tons respectively. The largest increase between 1987 and 1990
occurred in the "other" category, which consists of small
amounts of organic and inorganic material including rubber,
furniture, ashes, and small particles of waste that are not
clearly identified.
(2) Comparlson of Resldenttal
Waste Stream Compositton
Figure II.11 compares the compositions of the 1987 and
1990 residential waste streams. As shown in Table II.S, the
County experienced significant decreases in the amount of
wood, yard waste, paper, plastic, and glass disposal. The
decreases are attributable to the implementation of significant
levels of residential curbside recycling in suburban King Counry.
MateriaJs such as textiles, food waste, and metals indicate
minunal increassess or decreases. As in the total waste stream,
the largest increase in residential waste is observed in the
"other" ca.tegory.
The 1990 study also examined the composition of waste
from self-haulers. This waste revealed a very different material
composition: 12 percent was wood waste and 7 percent was
yard waste. The remaining waste included paper (10 percent),
metals (9 percent), and miscellaneous organic (14 percent) and
Chapter /1.• Planning Area
II-2
0
1987 1990-1991
Paper
32.9%
Papei
29.4 %
Wood/yard
waste
26.6%
Wood/yard
waste
19.6 %
� �\\\\\` Textiles ' ��'����\����
�`r��n��" i '' ,�
Teztiles Other 4•s% �,;a"' �her
Figute II10 Ki�g Counry total s.2°i, Food Waste �oi Food waste 16.4%
waste stream r,om osiUon, 1 7 ^'���g �.o i, Nletals Demolition
p � 7.9% 7.0% 6.3% 6.4%
and 1990-91
Glass Plastics a��ssPlastics
7.6% 10.0% 3.4% 7.9%
Paper
36.1 %
Paper
27.3%
Wood/yard
waste
26.8%
Wood/yard
waste
20.8%
Other
^' �` inorganics
0
\5 TeXq1e5 2.1 /o
Other 4.6%
F1gUIC II.11 RCSI(iCriG2� W2SIC '` Metais� •�°� Food waste °' `'''' Other organics
StC2al11 CO1T1pOS1U011 1�g] �11d Textiles Food waste 6.6°/, 8.4% Metals 76.6°/,
19 � 91 ' 3.4% 8.9% 6.6%
Glass p�astics Glass
2.1% 7.8% 1.9% P124'%s
Papei
30.3 %
Textile
Paper
Wood/yard 32•9°�^
waste
26.6%
Wood/yard
waste
17.9%
Other
inorganics
2.7%
3.0°/, Food ;8;;;����\�\ Textiles Other organics
FlglliC II.12 NOIICCSIdClltl� waste Other 4.6% Food ` 8.9%
waste stream composition, 19g� � ��� 16.9 % Wa Metals Demolition
7.4 % 4.9% 4.9 % 9.4%
and 1gg0-91
ChRpter U� Planning Area B. Waste StreQm AnQ6ysis
C31ass p�astics
4.6% 8.8 %
Glass p�astics
2.7% 9.6 %
II
- 21 :::
�
�
•
.
•
�
•
�
•
�
•
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
�
inorganic materials (13 percent). Since the 1987 l�aste
Characterizatiort Study (R.W. Beck, 1987) did not address the
composition of residential or nonresidential self-hauled waste, it
is not possible to compare changes in the composition of waste
disposed by these generators.
(3) Compartson of Nonrestdenttal Waste Stream
Figure II.12 compares the composition of the 1987 and
1990 nonresidential waste streams. The nonresidential sector
experienced shifts becween 1g87 and 1990 in the amount of
wood, yard waste, paper, and plastic disposed. Approximately
19,000 fewer tons of wood and yard waste were disposed in
1gg0 than in 1g87, while paper and plastic disposed by the
nonresidential sector increased by roughly 20,000 tons each.
The 1990 study aLso measured the composition of
nonresidential self-haulers. CDL waste represented 26 percent of
this waste. This is assumed to be due to the Newcastle Landf"ill
closure. Yard waste represented an additiona120 percent.
Wood (7 percent), paper (12 percent), plastic (18 percent), and
miscellaneous inorganic material (28 percent) accounted for the
majoriry of the remaining waste. As with the residential sector,
there are no data available on this group from the 1987 study
to use for the purpose of comparison.
Again, it is important to note that the different
methodologies used in developing the composition data in 1987
and 1990 limit a statistically valid comparison. However, waste
composition data that allow statistically vatid comparisons are
necessary in order to efficiently manage the Counry's solid waste
system. Therefore, beginning in 1993, all future waste
composition studies conducted by the Counry will utilize the
same methodology. This will �llow the County to accurately
track changes in disposal patterns over time. Comparative
information is useful in determining how to adjust service levels
at disposal facilities to meet changing needs and develop new
pmgrams and services that help to meet the Counry's
established waste reduction and recycling goaLs. It is
anticipated that the 1993 waste composition study including
data gathering and analyses, will be completed in 1994. A
descriptlon of the methodology to be used is contained in
Volume II, Appendix B, to the Plan.
B. Waste Stream Analysis
Tabk II.S Waste Composlflon Tonnage, 1�7 and 1990-1991
Total Waste 1987
Tons
1990-1991 Variance
Tons
Paper 265,903
Wood/Yard waste 206,903
Plastics 71,123
Food waste 63,849
Metals 56,575
Glass 36,370
Textiles 25,863
Other 81,630
Demolition
261,746
174,498
85,468
62,321
47,186
24,038
40,954
137,105
56,979
-4,157
-32,405
+14,345
-1,528
_9,�
-� 2,332
+15,091
+55,475
+56,979
Total 808,216 890,295 +82,079
Residential Waste
Paper 175,059
Wood/Yard waste 125,112
Piastics 48,493
Food waste 43,159
Metals 31,520
Glass 36,855
Textiies 16,488
Other 8,244
Other organics
Other inorganics
Demolition
145,830
111,109
42,200
44,871
29,914
18,162
24,572
83,332
11,218
�,s�o
-2s,rzs
-14,003
-6,293
+1,712
-1,606
-18,693
+a,osa
-8,244
+as,3os
Total 484,930 534,178
Nonresidential Waste
Paper 97,956 117,163
Wood/Yard waste 82,438 63,389
Plastics 25,216 44,159
Food waste 22,630 17,094
Metals 23,923 16,738
Glass 6,789 6,410
Textiles 9,699 16,381
Other 54,635
Other organics 31,694
Other inorganics 9,615
Demolition 33,475
Total 323,286 356,118
nonresidential
+n,s�o
+as,2aa
+19,207
-� s,oas
+18,943
-5,536
-7,185
-��s
+6,682
-54,635
-13,326
+33,475
+32,832
Chapter Il.• Planning Area
:: II - 22 ::
b. Composition of Recycled Waste
Measuring the composition of the recycled waste stream is
a complex task It involves data collection for materials
recycled by all recycling haulers, processors, and end-users.
Beginning in 1g87, Ecology began to collect these data
annually through surveys of haulers, processors, and end-users
throughout the state. These sun+eys include questions on the
quantity and composition of recyclables wllected in curbside,
drop-box, buy-back, and nonresidential programs. The
information collected is disaggregated by counry.
Although Ecology believes the surveys provide reliable
information statewide, the department acknowledges that the
data may not be accurate at the county level. This is because
many haulers, processors, and end-users handle recyclables
from more than one counry and many respondenis to Ecology's
survey could not identify the original counry or ciry from which
the recyclable materials were collected. As a result, 34 percent
of the total tons of material recycled in Washington State could
not be attributed to any specific county. Consequendy, King
Counry relies on information provided by the survey to
determine recycling composition but utilizes the plamiing
forecast model described in Section B.l.b to identify the quantity
of waste recycled. The Counry began collecting monthly
recycling information from haulers and suburban cities in
September 1990. Over time, these data wiIl provide an
additional source for verifying the accuracy of Ecology's surveys
and the planning forecast model.
Figure II.13 illustrates the estimated composition of waste
recycled in 1990. This information was obtained by applying
the results of Ecology's recycling sucveys to counry estimates of
tons recycled. Ferrous metals represent the largest ca,tegory of
recycled waste, followed by corrugated paper, yard waste,
newspaper, and mixed waste paper. This information provides
only an estimate of the composition of recycled waste, because
a large portion of Ecology's data could not be attributed to any
one counry. Efforts to collect information on recyclables at the
counry level may improve estimates of recycled waste
composition in the future.
3. Monitoring and �aluation
King Counry will continue monitoring and evaluating the
quantity and composition of its waste stream. To do this, the
Counry will work with representatives from the suburban cities
and unincorpora,ted service areas and recycling haulers to
obtain accurate data on recyclables to evaluate the success of
solid waste programs. To further enhance the validiry and
reliabiliry of the waste quantity and composition information,
the Counry intends to: �
• Research and evaluate methods to measure waste reduction.
• Continue to collect data to asslst suburban cities in
evaluating the success of their solid waste programs.
• Work with Ecology to refine King County recycling data.
• Develop a method for estimating the impact of waste
reduction and recycling programs on residential and
nonresidential disposal.
300
250
200
�
a�
N
Q 150
N
0
100
50
Material Category
l�guie II.13 Itecycled and disposed quantlties by matedal category,
1990.
Chapter /1.• Plannsng Arer� B. Wa,ste Stre�m Analysfs
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� V N N � �
lp � L .
a m C7 � � �
a
3
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:::>:;;:r;;:z;ri;i<:>:;;:;;>;:?�..w:`<�::z:><:'<`:>:>:::::i:':�:::::;: -
�
:::::.::::::::.:�.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:�:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.:::::._.�.::::::.:::::::::::::::..::::::::::..::::.:� I
...................................................................:.............................. I
2
3
• Continue researching alternative external validation methods
to estimate the composition and quantity of the disposed and
recycled waste streams.
• Use current and future waste composiUon and quantity
information to draw conclusions about changes in residents'
beha�ior with regard to recycling and waste reduction.
• Continue to monitor the percentage of waste disposed by
self-haulers.
• Coordinate with the Marketing Commission on the results of
the t�aste Characterization Study and impacts on marketing
requirements.
C. SOLID WASTE FACILITY SITING
PLAN SUMIVIARY
This summary provides an overview of the facllity siting
process, but because transfer stations are the only King Counry
solid waste facilities recommended by this 1992 Plan update,
discussions beyond general descriptions of other types of
facilities are omitted. The complete te� of the King County
Solid [�aste Facilily Siting Plan can be found in Volume II,
Appendix C of this Plan.
Selecting a solid waste facility site is often the most
controversial step in the overall process of developing facilities
to meet solid waste management needs. To facilitate this
process, in 1986 the King Counry Councll requested the
E�cecutive ta
"... develop a plan for locating sites for each of the
solid waste disposal facilities ... anticipated within the
20th century. This plan shall provide for identification of
multiple site alternatives for each facility, comparison of
the alternatives through an EIS, a process for public
review of the alternatives and EIS findings, and
recommendations to the Council, including equitable
distribution of these disposal facilities within t�e Counry."
(Motion 6862)
The King County Solud [�aste Facilily Siting Plan
included in the 1989 Plan addresses requiremen� set by the
King County Council (KCC 10.08.030), the King County Solid
Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) and by the state
C. Solyd Waste Facrlity Siting Plan Summary
(RCW 70.95 �AC 173304 and Ecology Gurdelines for the
Derielopment of the Local Solyd t�aste Management Ptan and
Plan Ret�sions (Ecology Guidelines, WDOE 90-11).
The facillty sitlng plan:
• Guides the Solld Waste Division's faciliry-speciflc siting
efforts.
• Ensures a reasoned site-selection process and delineates
where and how agencies and the public can provide input
• Communicates policy guidance to county staff.
• Provides an assessment tool for individual siting
recommendations.
KCC 10.08.030 further requires that the plan provide for
equitable distribution of solid waste faciliti�s and their
associated impacts throughout the County. The potential
impacts vary dramatically. Traffic and aesthetics are major
concerns for a transfer station. Landfllls face other complex
water quality, air qualiry, and land use issues as well.
Siting constraints also differ. Transfer stattons require
smaller sites and are located throughout the Counry. A landfill
may require hundreds of acres, is usually sited in less developed
areas, and may serve the entire Counry. To ensure equitable
distribution, county and cities' wning codes need to include
provisions for solid waste facilities as appropriate uses to ensure
the flexibility to locate facilities to meet service needs and
mitigate their impacis.
1. Facility Types
There are two major types of solid waste facilities covered
by the siting plan:
1. 7�ansfer statzon/recycling processing centers. Transfer
stations are facilities where wastes from many smaller-capacity
vehicles (passenger cars, light trucks, and other collection
vehicles) are combined, loaded into a fewer number of transfer
trailers, and trucked to a landfill. Recycling processing,
including composting facilities, potentially may be incorporated
into transfer stations or developed separately.
2. Mzxed municrpal solld waste landfills. Waste in landfills is
compacted and buried between layers of earth with extensive
control systems to mitigate potential environmental impacts.
(For discussion of landflll siting, see Volume II, Appendix C.)
Cfx�tpter II.• Planning Area
- 4 °:�
':" II 2
2. Sitillg PrOCeSS a. Geology and Soil
The siting proccesss objective is to recommend a site to
decision makers that is environmentally a,cceptable, feasible
from an engineering and operational perspective, and acceptable
to the public. There are s1x steps in the process:
1. Site fdentification. Potential sltes are identified.
2. Broad site scr�ening. Sites are screened according to
general criteria (regulatory, environmental, development, or
other situational factors), and a prioritized list of sites is
compiled.
3. Focus�d site screening. Sites are screened for site-specific
criteria and ranked. These tughest ranked sites proceed to
comparative site evaluation.
4. Comparative site eualuatiort. These highest ranked sites
are examined from environmental, operational, and policy
perspectives. These sites are ranked again, and the top three or
four sites, along with a no-action alternaave, proceed to
environmental ceview.
5. Environmental reuiem. Fina1 candidate sltes undergo
environmental review (SEPA process) and EIS development (if
required). A preferred site alternative is recommended to the
County Executive.
6. County decision making. The Counry Executive reviews
the reoommendation and approves, modif'ies, or rejects the
recommended site.
3. Siting Criteria
Solid waste transfer stations are not subject to state
regulatory exclusionary siting criteria for landfills. Local
conditions and needs drive the siting of transfer stations. For
each criterion, the features that tend to make a site more
suitable for development are discussed. (For discussion of
landf'ill criteria, see the complete tea� of the faciliry siting plan
in Volume II, Appendix C).
The geology of subsurface materia.is is important in
determining foundations stabiliry for roadways and smactures.
Sites with unstable foundation materiaJs will be difficult and
expensive to develop for transfer station use.
b. Groundwater
Sites with shallow water tables have a high potential for
flooding of waste pit and transfer trailer loading areas. There
are engineering solutions for some aspects of this problem, but
sites with deeper water tables are more desirable than sites with
higher ones.
c. Flooding
Since floods can produce excessive amounts of debris
requiring disposal, it is important that waste disposal facilities
remain operable. Sites within the 100-year floodplain are less
preferable than sites located outside of it.
d Surfaoe Water
To meet local service needs, transfer stations are located
where those needs dictate. With the rare exception of facilities
cequiring access to barge haul, facllitles are not required to be
sited close to surface water bodies. A transfer station can be
sited near water bodies if shoreline management designations
permit ALso, sites located in or near surface water bodies, such
as creeks or wetlands, would be more difficult and e�cpensive to
develop than sites that do not have these features in or near
their development boundaries.
e. Site Capacity
The size and shape of a site determine the layout of
transfer station facilities, such as buildings and roads.
Required parcel size depends on planned vehicle and tonnage
capacities, buffer requirements, onsite queuing capacity, and
onsite recycling and processing facilities. Irregularly shaped sites
are more difficult to develop than square or recta.ngular ones.
Chapter 1!.• Planning Area C. Solyd Waste Facrlity Srting Plan Summary
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
II-2
5
f. Slope
Site topography is important because of exca,�ation-to-fill
ratios and site access. Sites on flat tereain may have good
access for truck traffic but require excessive filling for
construction. Sites located on hillsides may have excellent
exca�ation-to-fill ratios, but may be fragile or unstable or may
ha�e grades too steep for truck access. For such conditions,
excavation-to-fill ratios and access must be considered together
for each site.
g. Climatic FacCors
Because transfer stations may be partially enclosed,
depending an climatic factors, they generally are not subject to
siting constraints due to wind, rain, snow, and freezing weather
conditions. However, sites must be served by all-weather roads
that are maintained and kept open.
h. Land Use
(1) Crlttcad Habitat
Areas designated as critical habitat for endangered or
threatened species of plan�s, fish, or wildlife by the U.S. Fish
ts
and Wildlife Service or Washington Department of Game are
considered regulatory exclusions. There are no areas currently
designated as critical habitat in King County.
(2) Zontng
A potential transfer station that is consistent with a site's
zoning increases the probability of obtaining land use permits,
where necessary, and minimizes land use impacts. In some
jurisdictions a transfer station is considered an unclassified use
and can potentially locate in any zone. Generally, however,
transfer stations are most consistent with light industrial or
commercial uses.
(3) State or National Parks
Transfer stations should not be sited wittun 1,000 feet of
a state or national park
C. Solid Waste Facrlity Srting Plan Summary
(4) Res�denttal Nelgbbors
A transfer station is similar to a light industrial or
oommercial use and has substantial transportation-related
needs. Transfer stations have been located in various rypes of
settings, most commonly in commercial, industrial, or rural
areas, many of which may be close to residential areas.
M industrial land use would be most compatible with a
transfer starioa The least compadble land uses are residential
areas with sensitive uses nearby, such as schools, nursing
homes or hospitaJs, and heavlly used recreational areas.
(S) Tra,,�9c Access Road Developmeitt
Access refers to the road system to be used in transporting
solid waste from collection points to the transfer station.
Potential transfer station sites should be located as close as
practicable to the bulk of waste generation. Project costs will
include improvements required to meet the faciliry's needs and.
to meet road capacity and safery standards. Proximity to a
state highway system is preferable.
(6) Tra,,�c Impact
Another consideration in siting is the effect of transfer
station-generated traffic. A tr�c impact analysis would
compare possible sit�s to assess potential secondary impacts
such as safery, air quality, and noise. The most desirable sites
are those where there would be less signif'icant increases above
existing levels.
(7) A�r Emissions
The major air quality concerns of a transfer station relate
to vehicle emissions and their impact on areas tluough which
solid waste is transported. Preferable sites are those that reduce
both the level and impact of such emissions. Other air qualiry
concerns that must be addressed are odor and dust control
(KCBOHC 10.020).
4. Rating
Site characxeristta are rated numerically to compare
alternative sites in relation to a single criterion. Criterion
Cfxtpter /1.• Ptanning Araz
II-2
6
weight compares the importance of a given criterion in relation
to other aiteria.
5. Public Information and
Involvement Program
A sound public information and involvement program is
vital to successful sitinng effor�s. The elements of the program
are early noaf'ication regarding siting plans and procedures,
regularly updated information about the siting proccesss, and
ample opportunities for public input in all phases.
The objectives of a public involvement program are as
follows for the siting steps:
• Site identifrcution. Ensure that an adequate number of
sites are identified, and the public has an opportunity to assist
in identifying them.
• Site screening. Ensure that communiry concems are
adequately addresssed.
• Comparatirie site eualuation. Inco�porate local issues into
evaluative criteria and provide for public input in establishing
those criteria.
• Environmental reuietv. Identify communiry impaca, create
broad public awareness, and provide diverse opportunities to
participate in the review and to provide oommuNry Input into
mitigation measures.
• County d�cxsion makting. Give people in the communiry
who may be affected by a siting decision adequate notice and
opportunities to expresss their opinions and preferences.
There are three major components to public involvement
and information.
1. Inforn�a�tion gathering and r�sue identifu�,ation. Activities
may include review of literature; interviews with communiry
leaders to gather baseline information, summarize key issues,
and identify groups to be involved; surveys to quantify public
preferences (e.g., random sample telephone surveys, random
sample or communitywide mail surveys, or handout
questionnaires at meetings); focus groups to obtain more in-
depth qualitative Information about public perceptions and
opinions.
2. Inforniation drssemination. Elements may include media
relations activities (e.g., news releases, presss conferences, press
packets); dissemination of targeted information to elected
officials, public agency staff, community organizations,
individuals, neighbors or neighborhood organizations, and
businesses; and dissemination of general information through
brochures and fact sheets, advertisements and public notices,
public se�vice announcemen�, newspaper inser�, and
communiry organizations.
3. Public involvement and consensus building. These
activities may include enlisting the services of citizen advisory
committees and task forces; encouraging dialogue through
community leader forums; conducting communiry workshops;
employing structured consensus-building processes when needed
(e.g., third parry mediation); and holding public input forums
to allow individual comment for the record, (e.g., public
meetings and hearings).
Chapter I/.• Planning Aren C. Sodid Waste Facrlity Srting Plan Summary
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
, �
�
� CHAPTER III
•
• ASTE REDUCTION
.
D REC YCLING
.
� xin county
• g
Comp rehensive
• Solid Waste
� Management Plan
•
•
•
•
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•.
�
•
•
•
�v�.
�m°
Sorting
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
r�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Chapter III
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Waste reduction and recycling are recognized as basic
elements of a responsible waste management system because
they help to reduce waste generation and disposal ratess,
preserving the environment and landfill space. Accordingly, the
State has identified waste reduction and recycling as priority
methods of managing solid waste (RCW 70.95). King Counry
has also identified the importance of waste reduction and
recycling in preserving environmentally secure landfill capacity
at Cedar Hills. It is the Counry's policy that aggressive and
timely action be taken to preserve and insure the safe use of
the landfill for as long as possible (Title 10, King County Code
(KCC) 10.14).
The citizens and business community in King County
have made the County a national leader in waste reduction and
recycling (WR/R). Aggressive goals for WR/R were adopted by
the State and Counry under RCW 70.95 and KCC 10.22.030,
respectively, and programs designed to pursue the new policy
were implemented through the lg8g King Counry
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (1989 Plan). In
1991, 32 percent WR/R was achieved. The County has also
met its first goal�5 percent WR/R in 1992. This chapter
reviews the existing WR/R system and lays out a strategy to
achieve the second goal-50 percent WR/R in 1995 and the
foundation for 65 percent by 2000.
A. WASTE REDUC'I'ION
1. Existing Conditions
Successful waste reduction requires changes in the ways
goods and services are produced and consumed throughout
sociery. Waste reduction challenges citizens and businesses to
be efficient and creative to devise more ways to fulfill economic
needs while producing little or no solid waste.
A. Waste Reduclion
III - 1 >
State and counry legislation identify waste reduction as
the highest prioriry for solid waste management The
development of specific waste reduction educa,tion, promotion,
and secvice programs by the County and suburban cities
recognizes the irnportance of waste reduction as part of King
Counry's overall solid waste management strategy.
a. Background
By definition, waste reduction means that less waste is
generated at the source or that there is a reduction of difficult-
to-recycle wastes at the source. For example, reusable goods
are manufactured and purchased instead of disposable ones;
packaging is minimized or changed from difficult-to-recycle
materia7s (such as plastia) to more easlly recycled materials
(such as paper). Other examples include products that are
made to be durable and ha�e a long useful life, use of double-
sided copies in offices, and use of shrubs and ground cover
that don't require pruning or mowing for landscaping. Waste
reduction decisions can be made when (1) manufacturers
decide what goods to produce, how they are produced, and how
to package them, (2) consumers decide what to buy, and (3)
consumers decide to use and reuse products efficiendy.
Because waste reduction is the act of not producing waste,
the best method available for measuring waste reduction is the
per capita generation rate for the Counry. Per capita waste
generation is the number of pounds of waste generated, either
for disposal or recycling, per person per day within the Counry.
Over the last decade, the Counry's per capita generation rate
has been steadily rising. The goal of the waste reduction
program is to reverse this trend over time.
Per capita waste generation is a measure of social
beha�ior and can be influenced by a variety of factors other
than waste reduction programs. Therefore, it is difficult to
assign quantitative values ro dlscrete waste reduction practices
Ch�ter 111.• t�aste Reductron and Recycling
'> III
-2 �::
or programs implemented by the County and suburban cities.
Factors that can intluence per capita waste generation include
changes in population, economic cycles, and other outside
influences such as ir�formation and public opinion relayed by
the national media. As a result, the effectiveness of specific
Counry or city waste reduction programs cannot be assessed at
this time by measuring the volumes of waste reduced through
the implementation of each program.
Because of these measurement difficulties, the Counry's
WR/R rate includes a conservative estimate of annual waste
reduction. The estimate recognizes the succ�sss of procurement
policies for buying recycled products, promotion of waste
reduction to school children, and media programs targeted at
residential and commercial generators. 'I�vo percent of the total
WR/R rate has been assigned to waste reduction, and this
amount is expected to increase by approximately 0.05%
annually. (See Chapter I1.B for a discussion of waste reduction
and recycling rates measurement and Table III.13 for WR/R
rates.)
Although recycling can be accomplished locally, waste
reduction measures are affected by the national and
international economies and enwmpass changes in production
methods and consumption patterns. Waste reduction measures
eartend waste management responsibiliry to a broader field of
players—those who design, manufacture, and consume products
and packaging.
Since 1989, local governments in Washington ha�e been
prohibited by state law from banning products or packaging
and from assessing taxes or deposit� on products or packaging
for the purpose of affecting their use or disposal (RCW
70.95.C100 and RCW 82.02.025).
Consequendy, e�sting programs in King Counry are
focused on educating consumers and working with businesses to
implement waste reduction practicces in the work-place. The
"ban on bans" will be lifted in July 1993 giving local
jurisdictions a broad range of strategies with which to increase
waste reduction.
King Counry and the suburban cites ha�e ea�anded the
public's understanding of waste reduction and provided the
means for individuals and businesses to begin to reduce their
waste by implementing the 1989 Plan's recommendations for
waste reduction (Table III.I).
Table �.1 Summary of 1�9 Plan Waste Reductlon Recommendadons
Program Description
Collection rate Establish variable can rates to encourage participation in
incerrtives yard waste and recyclables collection programs.
(city/counly)
Implementation Status
Established in the County a�d 28 cities.
City optional Allow cities to receive backyard composting, Master Four ckies implementing nonresidential technical
programs (city) Recycler/Composter, and nonresidential technical assistance; one c'ity implementing backyard
assistance services from the County or operate their own composting.
programs wkh funding assistance from the county.
Yard waste programs Provide backyard composting bins from county and Established and ongoing.
(county) Master Recycler/Composter training.
Nonresidential Conduct WR/R consuRations for a wide range of Ongoing technical assistance provided to
technical assistance nonresidential generators; develop educational materiais businesses through onsite visits, coordinated
(city/county) and hold workshops to assist businesses in implementing collection, workshops, and phone assistance. Four
WR/R programs in the workplace. cities implementing nonresidential technical
assistance.
WR/R promotion, Promote WR/R through printed materials, special events, WR/R informational brochures; annual Recycle
education, etc. and school programs Week; community events; school education
(county) programs; WR/R telephone hotline are provided.
Chapter Ul.• Waste Reduction and Re�cyCling A.1. Waste Reduction: Emsting Conditions
i•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
::: III -
3
b. County Ptogr�uns
(1) Bd�cat�on
King Counry has developed a range of education
programs designed to reduce the County's per capita generation
rate over time. These programs encourage citizens to generate
less waste; to generate waste that is more readily recyclable and
less toxic; and to recycle a greater portion of the waste
generated. Most public awareness and education efforts which
promote recycling also incorporate waste reduction components.
These e�orrs include:
• 73�e Home Waste Guide, a wuledy distributed booklet that
le�rds the reader on a tour through the average home and
identif�s waste reductron and recycling options. It includes
the "Resource Catalog," which lists oontacts for more detailed
information on waste reduction, and the " Waste Reducer
Checklist," which explains ways to reduce, reuse, recycle, and
compost waste.
• S�ecial events, such as the annual Recycle t�eek, whach
recognize waste reduction accomplrshmenls. Recipients of the
Achievement Awards for outstanding contributions to waste
reduction ha�e included an elementary school that eliminated
cardboard lunch trays from its waste stream; a consumer
cooperative which offers a five-cent rebate to consumers who
reuse shopping bags; and a retailer who reuses packing
materials provided by consumers and neighboring businesses.
• School programs, which include materials about waste
reduction for children and teachers. The elementary school
program for the academic year 19g0-lggl offered an assembly
presenta.tion called "The Wiz Kids of Waste." The Wastebusters
Program for middle and junior high school students includes
student-teacher camp-ins where participants can learn
intensively about waste reduction issues. A video focusing on
the themes of reduction and reuse was produced featuring
words and music written and performed by high school
students.
• Waste reduction education far businesses provided
through the Business Recycling Frogram. This program
includes waste consultations and written materials, such as the
Bu.siness l�aste Reduction and Recycling Handbook, which
has been distributed to over 2,500 businesses.
A.1. Waste Reduction: F.xisting Conditrons
• County Model Empdoyee Program. Through this program,
County employees are encouraged w make double-sided copies,
reuse paper and other office supplies, and use washable
dinnecware. Some County agencies, such as the Solid Waste
Division and the Department of Stadium Administration, use
worm bins to compost organic food waste genecated at the
work-place.
• Training in wqste reduction practu,�s for Master
Recycler/Compaster volunteers. The manual for the lggl-
1992 training has been revised to expand the waste reduction
information.
• Compasting bins to hel� resi�krtts ke� yard waste in
their oum backyard. The County also provides a wide variery
of printed information on composting and operates a
composting hodine.
(2) Researcb
King County conducts ea�perimental waste reduction or
pllot projecis, including:
• A project that provrd�s cloth baby drapers to low-income
families. In addition to pmmoting waste reduction, the
program provides educational workshops and opportunities to
improve infant care.
• A project with Seatlle Solid l�aste Utilily to test a variely
of foad waste compasting methods. This research, funded by a
grant from Ecology, will aLso test the feasibiliry of backyard
food waste composting and on-site nonresidential food and yard
waste composting.
• A financ7al assrstance program (Dbllars for Data) to
enable business�s to implement waste reduction projects and
services. Businesses provide the Counry with information and
data on the effectiveness of their waste reduction efforts in
exchange for waste reduction assistance. Businesses
participating in this program include a food bank organization
that is vermi-composting unusable food, a hair salon that is
providing hair care products in bulk to its clients, a major
retail distributor that is replacing disposable plastic clothing
bags with durable reusable wvers, and a high school that has
installed an electronic mail system to convey messages, reports,
and other communications in lieu of using paper.
Cixrpter 111.• Waste Reduction and Recycling
�
:: III - 4 >
(3) Otber Serv�ces
::1 , 1 � 1 1 1 :�
The other types of waste reduction measures used by the
Counry and suburban cities are support sen+ices, such as rate
incentives and a procurement policy that promotes the use of
both reusable and recycled products.
Variable can rates, which provide an incentive for garbage
subscribers to reduce the amount of materials they throw away,
ha�e been established throughout unincorporated King Counry.
Subscribers are encouraged to practice waste reduction and
recycling by subscribing to a mini-can rate, which offers cost
sa�ings over the regular one-can rate. There are substantial
cost differentials between garbage service levels, and an
additional fee is charged for each extra can the subscriber
requests and occasional extra bags of garbage placed at the
curb. The Counry and suburban cities regularly disseminate
rate incentive and recycling information to subscribers through
brochures, radio ads, and bus boards.
The King County Recycled Producis Procurement Policy
promotes waste reduction by requiring counry departments to
use both sides of paper sheets whenever practicable. All bids
and proposals issued by the County requice contractors and sub-
oonsultants to adhere to this policy when submitting documents.
c. City Prograrr�s
Waste reduction information is included in brochures and
other publications distributed by the cities. Many cities
participat�ed in the statewide Shop Smart campaign coordinated
by Ecology in lggl to encourage consumers to reduce waste by
shopping selectively for minimally packaged products, durable
and reusable items, and bulk quantities. The cities have also
initiated other efforfs to promote waste reduction, such as
distributing reusable travel mugs and developing waste
reduction kits for schools. (Refer also to Volume II, Appendix E
for more information on city programs.) Most cities ha�e
enacted some form of garbage rate incentives and several have
formally adoptsd procurement policies.
�
�
�
�
�
�
a. Comprehensive Waste Reduction Shategy �
Realization of the next two WR/R goals, 50 percent by
1995 and 65 percent by 2000, can be greatly assisted by major
achievements in waste reduction. Despite remarkable WR/R
succe,ss, the per capita waste generation rate continues to grow
(see waste generation discussion, Chapter II, Section B). Also,
as recycling strategies are successfully implemented and
recycling increases, achieving additional marginal increases in
the recycling rate may become more difficult and expensive.
These two reasons undecscore the need for much more
aggressive waste reduction aimed at reducing the County's per
capita waste generation rate, in addition to exlsting and future
recycling efforts. A comprehensive waste reduction strategy
would encompass legislative efforts to actively pursue
elimination of excessive and non-recyclable packaging as well
as more focused and better integrated educa,tional effor� and
financial incentives. The role of the private sector should also
be considered in product design, manufacturing, and marketing.
b. Education
The County and cities ha�e already implemented many
waste reduction education programs. However, these could be
even more effective with better integrated and more widespread
promotion that conveys a clear definition of waste reduction
and offers spec�'ic ezcamples of actions which reduce waste. A
counry-wide educational effort, delivered through a variery of
media, could reach a wider consumer audience. Specific
strategies also need to be developed for businesses, residents,
governments, and institutions.
Chapter 111.• Waste Redurlion and R�y�lrng A.2. Waste Redudlort: Ne�s and Opportuniti�s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
•
•
.
�
:�<�:�><:�>::::;::<:::::::::>:;`: �;<::::::::`:.::::»;>`::>::»::
III -
5
c. FinanaalInc�ntives
Financial incentives can be very effective tools in
changing purchasing and disposal habits. Manufacturers and
retailers need to be encouraged to reduce waste at the points of
production and marketing. This can best be accomplished
through such state-imposed actions as product dlsposal charges
on particular products, or tax exemptions or credits for
companies and institutions that follow specific waste reduction
procedures.
At the local level, a variable can rate for garbage
collection or other financial incentives to reduce waste need to
receive continued emphasis and support. Existing rate
incentives could be further developed to increase their
effectiveness.
d. Product Packaging and Souroe Reducction
Under State law, King Counry and the cities ha�e the
ultimate responsibiliry for managing solid waste and meeting
state and local recycling goals. The Counry and the cities need
a full complement of strategies to deal with solid waste disposal
issues. The eapiration of the "ban on bans" in July 1993 offers
the opportunity to examine the various source reduction
strategies. Among the strategies that need to be examined are
packaging and product prohibitions, advance disposal fees,
deposit systems, and mandatory recycling and disposal sites.
e. Measurement
In order to monitor progress made toward achieving the
waste reduction program's goal of a decreasing per capita waste
generation rate over time, an accurate method of ineasurement
needs to be developed. The methodology developed must
account for changes in the per capita waste generation rate
attributable to population shifts and economic cycles so as to
produce an accurate projection of social beha�ior.
The evaluation of the effectiveness of specific waste
reduction programs implemented by the County is also
necessary for making decisions about how to expand and
improve on the County's overall waste reduction effort As
discussed in Section III.AI.a., it is difficult to measure the
impact of discrete waste reduction practices or programs on per
A.3. Waste Reduclion: Alternati�s
capita waste generation rates. Therefore, alternative methods
for measuring the effectiveness of programs must be developed
that include focusing on the targeted waste stream and
potential number of generators impacted by a particular
program.
3. Altematives
There are two waste reduction alternatives considered:
maintaining the status quo and expanding existing programs.
These alternatives are summarized in Table III.2 and discussed
below.
a. Alternative A, Maintain Status Quo
Existing policies and progr.ams promoting waste reduction
would be continued (rate incentives, procurement policies, and
packaging guidelines). Regional education programs (school
programs, publications, special events, technical assistance to
businesses, volunteer trainin� would continue to tceat waste
reduction as the first prioriry for solid waste management. The
Counry's model employee pmgram would continue to
incorporate waste reduction practices into the work-place.
Ongoing data collection on waste reduction projects
through the financial assistance program to businesses would
be an important resource for determuung effective strategies for
the commercial sector.
b. Alternative B, Fxpand Fxisting
Waste Re�uction Programs
The Counry and cities would continue to integrate waste
reduction into all WR/R programs. In addition, each
jurisdiction would establish additional waste reduction programs
targeted at residences, businesses, governments, and u�stitutions.
The County and the cities would all implement and maintain a
variable rate structure for solid waste collection with cost
di�erentials that offer substantial incentives to reduce waste.
Table III2 Summary of Waste Reductlon Alternatiwes
ARernative A Continue existing policies and programs
Alternative B Expand existing waste reduction programs
Chapter Ul.• Waste Redudio�t and Recy�cling
:>: III - 6 ���`
The programs desaibed in Alternative B would require
relatively small budget� for implementation. No increassess in
rates due to thesse programs is anticipated.
Waste reduction efforts would consist of seven major
strategies, which are discussed in the sections that follow.
(1) Integrat�on of Bx�sting Programs
The Counry and cities would continue to integrate waste
reduction elements into programs for atl targeted groups.
Business, school, and public education programs described
under "FxLsting Conditions" (III.A 1) would continue to operate
at the same level of effort. This strategy is referred to as
"Waste Reduction First." New strategies that would be
implemented under these prograrns are as follows.
• The Counry would expand its waste reduction efforts in i�
business recycling program by developing a model office display
which would demonstrate methods, equipment, and
procurement procedures that reduce waste. The display would
be exhibited at trade fairs, offices, and malls.
• The Counry Model Employee Program would continue to
encourage double-sided copying, reuse of office supplies, and
use of durable dishware through motivational signs and waste
reduction checklists. A networking committee would be formed
to look for potential waste reduction projecis within the Counry.
• The outreach potential of Master Recycler Composters would
be inaeased with additional tratning in holiday waste reduction
techniques and conducting school workshops.
The Counry would also be responsible for implementing
additional programs that are related to existing effort5. These
include:
• Green Works - a program which recognizes businesses that
ha�e implemented at least three waste reduction strategies. It is
anticipated that the positive lmage associated with Green Works
recognition will motivate businesses to incorporate waste
reduction into company practices.
• Holiday Waste Reduction - a program that would target
consumers as well as businesses by providing information on
how to reduce waste generation during the holiday season;
presenting demonstrations on how to wrap gifls and make
greeting cards using waste reducing techniques; educating
consumers on less wasteful purchasing habits; and working with
retailers to encourage the use of reusable shopping bags and
gift boxes.
• Green Teams - a program that would augment the waste
reduction component of the elementary school program by
assisting in the formation of teams at each school. Green team
members would include studena and teachers who would adopt
and pursue a waste reduction goal such as reducing the
amount of paper or food waste generated at their school. They
would be assisted in their efforts through King County
curriculum materials.
(2) Media Campatgn
The County would implement a county-wide mass media
waste reduction educational campaign which would be
coordinated across jurisdictions in its message, presentation, and
audience. The purpose of the campaign would be to define
waste reduction for the public and describe actions they can
take to reduce the amount of waste they generate. Media
approaches could include the following.
• Newspaper, television, radio and bus-board ads.
• Videos on waste reduction, home composting, and
household to�a reduction purchased by the Counry for possible
airing on public access and commercial television stations.
• A multi-jurisdicuonal project to buy air tirne to promote
waste reduction topia during breaks in children's
programming.
(3) Targeted Waste Reduct�on Plan
The cities and the Counry would develop specific waste
reduction programs to meet the particular needs of their
residents, businesses, and institutions. The County would
implement, at a minimum, at least one program for each
residential, business, and institutional generator class from the
following list of existing strategies for unincorporated King
County.
Each ciry would either implement at least one program
from each of the waste reduction strategies below for each
generator class, or create their own programs appropriate for
each generator class. If cities create their own programs,
program summaries would be reviewed and commented upon
by the County before implementation, and implementation
Chadter 1/1.• Waste Reduction and R�cy�clmg A.3. Waste Reductron: Alternativas
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
status would be reported by the cities In their annual report to
the County.
�� �- �
• Point of purchase �ehibils and informalion. Develop and
display e�ibits and information ln retail stores to educa.te
consumers on selective shopping techniques that reduce waste.
• SwaD meea. Sponsor citywide or community-based swap
mee�s to encourage residents to trade or sell used goods.
• Moded prograrr�s. Develop and publicize a model residence
where waste reduction techniques ha�e been incorporated into
daily activities. A checklist might include the use of reusable
sandwich boxes for school lunches, cloth diapers, solar-powered
products, and landscaping and gardening practices that reduce
waste. Emulation by other residents would be encouraged
through a recognition program.
• Durable shopping bag dis[ribution. Devise a pmgram
targeted at shoppers who do not yet use durable or reusable
ba�. Pcovide durable shopping bags containing brcehures and
other materials on selective shopping and other waste reduction
strategies.
Businesses
• Procurement u�orkshops for businesse,r. Conduct
workshops that assist businesses in developing procurement
programs that favor durable and reusable products.
• Model programs. Develop model programs for different
types of businesses and encourage emulation by other businesses
through recognition programs.
• Waste reduction tachnical assrstance. Provide technical
assistance to retailers and other businesses in developing waste
reduction programs.
• Product or shelf-labeling programs. Work with retailers to
develop a product or shelf-labeling program to help consumers
identify types of products that reduce waste.
• Directory of businesser/organizations employing waste
reduction methods. Develop a directory of businesses that
employ waste reduction practices as a resource for other
businesses planning waste reduction programs.
Covernment/Institutions
A.3. Waste R�uction: Alternati�s
III - 7
• Procurement standards. Ensure that procurement
specifica.tions for equipment, vehicles, supplies, furniture, parts,
and materials provide for the systematic purchase of durable
and reusable products.
• Model programs. Develop models for waste reduction in
o�'ices, cafeterias, pazks, or other facilities. Use recognition
programs to encourage widespread adoption of waste reduction
practices.
(4) Collectfon Rate Incent�ves
The County and the cities would continue to implement
rate incentives that encourage waste reduction and recycling
and further develop variable rates to ensure substantial cost
differentials between solid waste collection service levels. These
incentives cou(d include:
• Mini-can garbage service.
• A special recycling service rate for customers who do not
subscribe to garbage collection service.
• Distribution of recycling costs among all rate payers.
• Substantial cost differentiaLs between solid waste collection
service levels.
(S) Waste Reduction Pol�cy and Program Research
and Development
King Counry would undertake a comprehensive analysis of
waste reduction policies and programs implemented in other
parts of the counhy to identify new options for augmenting the
expanded programs discussed above. Areas of research could
include the following:
• Review current assumptions regarding waste generation to
determine whether King Counry's waste generation forecasting
model needs revision.
• Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packaging
and design to determine the types of packaging to be targeted
in waste reduction programs.
• Identify excessive and non-recyclable packaging, wasteful
products, una�oidable waste, and waste that could potentially be
eliminated or reduced.
Chiapter /!/.• Waste Reductron and Re�ccycling
III - 8
• Identify existing waste reduction efforts by the private sector
and by government agencies at the local, state, and federal
levels.
• Evaluate regulatory options for enhancing waste reduction.
The results of this analysis could lead to additional
program proposaLs for the cureent planning period. Among the
new policies and programs that could be considered are:
• Establish a waste reduction consortium with trade
associations and manufacturers.
• Increase intergovernmental waste reduction coordination to
influence state and local decisions.
• Work with citizen groups, as well as local, sta.te, and
national government coalitions to lobby for regional and
naUonal changes in the manufacture, distribution, and
marketing of goods and packaging.
(6) Packaging RestrlcMon Program Research and
Development
With the expiration of the ban on bans, the Counry and
cities would immediately gain the authority to implement
product restrictions or impose taxes. Although local
jurisdictions would ha�e the right to act independendy, the
Counry and the cities would attempt to coordinate the
implementation of any product restrictions or taxes with one
another. Any actions would be implemented through
ordinances and be subject to public review.
The County and the cities would pmpose to evaluate the
following actions for the 1995 Plan to determine if they are
necessary to meet state and local goals:
• Prohibitions on the sale of products made of materials that
result in excessive waste or waste that is difficult to recycle
• Enactment of advance disposal fees on the sale of products
that also result in excessive waste or waste that is difficult to
recycle
• Deposit systems requiring retailers to add a deposit fee for
specified producis to be refunded upon their return
• Fstablishment of mandatory recycling/disposal sites by
retailers for certain products that they sell. (This option would
require amendment of eacisting statutes.)
Measurement
King Counry would develop and implement a waste
reduction measurement program consisting of:
•. Annually reporting the per capita waste generation rate
countywide. The reported generation rate would account for
population shift�s and economic cycles in order to accurately
assess social behavior.
• Evaluating the effectiveness of specific waste reduction
programs implemented by the County and suburban cities at
the end of each planning period. The evaluation would consist
of an analysis of the size of the waste sa�eam targeted and
number of generators impacted by the particular program.
4. Recommenda.tions
Alternative B, expand e�sting waste reduction programs,
is recommended because it addresses the need for greater waste
reduction achievements (specific recommendations that comprise
A(ternative B are summarized in Table III.3). It provides both
short- and long-term strategies for managing waste among
businesses, residents, and local governments through waste
reduction. The short-term strategy is to increase the awareness
of waste reduction opportunities for all generator classes. For
the long term, Alternative B provides research and analysess that
will lead to the development of more targeted programs and
more accurate measurement of program effectiveness. Waste
reduction activities are interrelated with recycling programs and
goals. Therefore, this recommendation is also coordinated with
the recycling recommendations in Section B.
5. Implementation
The waste reduction implementation chart (Table III.4}
provides information on program responsibiliry and projected
timelines. Both new and continuing programs are shown.
Chapter /!1.• Waste Reductio�a and Re�ling A.4. Wa,ste Reductio�a: Racommendations
III - 9 :�:
Table III.3 1992 Waste Reducdon RewmrnendaUons
Strategy
Recommendation 111.1 Business waste reduction
Recommendation 111.2 Employee recycling
program
Recommendation 111.3 Holiday waste reduction
Recommendation 111.4 Green teams
Recommendation 111.5 Multimedia strategy
Recommendation 111.6 Targeted waste reduction
Recommendation 111.7 Packaging analysis
Recommendation 111.8 identification of reducible
waste
Recommendation 111.9 Waste reduction data
Recommendation III.10 Consortium building
Recommendation 111.11 Intergovernmental
coordination
Fecommendation 111.12 National activities
Recommendation 111.13 Rate incentives
Expand business waste reduction program by developing
model office display, and recognize businesses that
incorporate waste reduction into company practices.
Form a networking committee to expand and create new
waste reduction programs for employee recycling program.
Expand waste reduction programs targeting consumers
and businesses during the holiday season.
Increase number of Green Teams school program sites to
include all schools.
Purchase videos on waste reduction for siring on public
access television and participate with other jurisdictions
and television media to buy sir time to promote waste
reduction
Develop and implement one waste reduction program per
generator type (residential, business, and institution).
Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packaging
and design and identify excessive and nonrecyclable
packaging.
Identify categories of waste which can or cannot be
reduced to target eliminating reducible waste.
Identify existing waste reduction efforts by the private and
public sectors.
Establish a waste reduction consortium with trade
associations and manufacturers.
Increase intergovernmental coordination to increase
influence on waste reduction decisions.
Develop proposals for establishing industry consortiums,
intergovernmental coordination and national coalRions to
promote waste reduction in products and packaging.
Continue to encourage waste reduction and recycling
through such rate-related incentives as mini-can garbage
service, special recycling service rate for non-garbage
customers, distributing cost of recycling amo�g all rate
payars, and establishing substantial cost differentials
between solid waste collection service levels.
Implementation
Responsibility
County
County
County
Counry
Couniy
County, ckies
Cc�nty
County
County
County
County, cities
County
County, cities
A.4. Waste Reduction: Rerammendations Cbapter I/1.• Waste Reduction and Recycling
7
<`::: III - 10
Table ID.4 Waste Reductlon Implementatlon Table
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
B. RECYCLING
The 1g89 Plan established minimum levels of
recyclables collection sen+ice for the residential sector.
Household recyclables collectlon is required in urban areas and
drop-sites are required in rural areas. Yard waste collection
was specified for both urban and rural areas. Substantial
progress has been made implementing residentia( collection
programs. About 95 percent of the County's single-family
residences ha�e household collection of recyclables a�ailable,
and in many areas household yard waste se�vice is provided as
well.
Support programs, such as procurement policies and
collection rate incentives, enwurage participation in WR/R
programs and services. Education programs have pmvided
information to schools, businesses, and residents on specific
ways to reduce and recycle waste.
1. Existing Conditions
This section reports on the status of the 1989 Plan
recommendations for recycling and provides background
information on recyclables oollection and material markets.
More specific information on counry and ciry activities and
accomplishments over the last three yeais is also presented in
Volume II, Appendix E.
a. Background
(1) Status of 1989 Plan Recommendat�ons
The status of recycling recommendations made in the
1989 Plan is summarized in Table III.S. Except for special
waste recycling, which is readdressed in this plan update, all of
the 1989 recommendations ha�e been fully or partially
implemented. For instance, while rate incentives are in place
in 28 cities, procurement policies have been adopted so far by
only the Counry and six cities. However, other cities ha�e
informal policies pending formal adoption.
Additionally, 20 of 24 cities in the urban area have
implemented a household recyclables collection program.
Auburn has implemented an alternative program which is being
assessed for adequacy by Ecology and Algona is still developing
plans for its household recycling program. Effortss are ongoing
to fully implement all recommendations.
C�apter U/.• Waste Reduction and R�cyr.lmg 8.1. Racg�clrng: Existing Conditions �
�
Cities = C ` Planning period
County = CO Implementation period
Continuation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
.
•
•
�
III - 11
Table III.S Summary of 1989 Plan RecyclIng Recommendaations
Program DQSCriptlon Implementation Status
Urban/rural designation Determine urban and rural boundaries to provide basis for Established in 1989 Plan.
minimum levels of recycling services.
Fiecyclables designation List possible materiats to include in collection programs. Estsblished in 1989 Plan.
Minimum service levels Require household collection of recyclables in urban cities and Twenty of 22 urban cities and 3 of 7 rural cities have or
(cities) encourage it in rural cities. Require drop-ske collection, at a pian household collection of recyclables. Yard waste
minimum, in rural cities. Require yard waste collection services in programs are offered or planned in 28 cities.
both urban and rural cities.
Minimum service levels Require household collec6on of recyclables for urban areas and Household collection of recyclables and yard waste is
(county) encourage R for rural areas, which must othervvise be served by available throughout urban unincorporated IGng CouMy
drop-sites or buy-back centera. Require yard waste collection in and some rural cities. Most county solid waste facilities
urban areas. County must provide solid waste facilities in rural offer recycling services. Drop boxes and buyback centers
areas for collectio� of recyclables and yard waste. serve rural areas.
Rate incentives Establish variable can rates to encourage participation in yard Established in the County and 28 cities.
waste a�d recyclables collection programs.
Procurement policies Adopt procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or Adopted by the County and six cities; remaining cities
recyclable materials. have informal policies.
Mi�imum requirements Revise zoning and building codes to include the provision of Recycling space requirements will be included in the
for new construction recycling collection space in new construction. Revised IGng County Zoning Code; recycling space
requirements are under consideratio� by many cfties.
Monitoring progress Require cities and county to prepare annual reports on status of Progress by all cities and the Counry is reported in Solid
toward WR/R goals programs and progress toward WR/R goals. Waste Division Mnua/ Report
Analysis of mult'rfamily List options and implementation strategies for cities to use in Drak menual distributed in 1991.
collection options developing collection programs for multifamily residences.
City optional programs Allow cities to rece ve backyard composting, Master our cities implement�ng nonresidential technical
Recycler/Composter, and nonresidential technical assistance assistance; one city implementlng backyard composting.
services from the Counry or operate their own programs with Remainder participate in countywide programs.
f unding assistance from the counry.
Yard waste programs Provide backyard composting bins from county, Master Established and ongoing.
Recycler/Composter Vaining, Christmas tree collection, and
nursery composting demonstrations.
Food waste processing Evaluate food waste processing altematives. Received Ecology grant to study collection, processing,
and composting.
MMSW processing Evaluate implementation issues and develop a procurement MMSW processing evaluated by Solid Waste Division in
approach related to the construction of a mixed municipal solid report issued in 1991.
waste processing faciliry.
Nonresidential technical Conduct WR/R consultations tor a wide range of nonresidential Ongoing technical assistance provided to businesses
assistance generators; develop educational materials and hold workshops to through onsite visits, coordinated collection, workshops,
assist businesses in implementing WR/R programs in the and phone assistance.
workplace.
Market development Encourage procurement of recycled products by all IGng County County procurement policy adopted; cities adopting
age�cies; emphasize the development of local markets through procurement policies on an individual basis (six cities have
the IGng County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials. formal policies). Marketing Commission established and is
undertaking several market development acGvities.
WR/R promotion, Promote WR/R through printed materials, special events, and WR/R informational brochures; annual Recycle Week;
education, etc. school programs. commu�ity events; school education programs; WR/R
telephone hotline.
Special waste recycling Evaluate collection, processing, and recycling of bulky waste, Readdressed in 1992 Plan.
CDL waste, and woodwaste.
8.1. Rery+cling: F.xisting Conditions Chapter 111.• Waste Reductron and Recy+clrng
�
III - 12
(2) 1989 Plan Urban and Ru� Desfgnatton
Seivice levels for collecting recyclables are based on
whether an area is urban or rural and include materials
foi�nally designated as recyclable in the ting County 1989 Plan.
Since the criteria in the 1985 Ka'�zg Courtt�� Contpreherrsrve
Plan (KCCP) for urban and rural designations are consistent
with the policies and intent of RCVU 70.95, the Counry used
them for the 1989 Plan. They are shown in Figure III.1 and
include:
• U��ba7t. King Counry a�ld the cities have made ficin
commitments to urba�i development and se�vices; natural
features are capable of supporting urban development without
significant enviro►unental degradation; public facilities and
seivices are in place or can be provided to accommodate ucban
growth; and the area is generally developed at one dwelling or
more per 2.5 acres and is extensively platted into lot sizes
averaging less than five acres.
• Rz�r�l. There are major physical barrieis (for e�ample,
steep slopes or water bodies) to urban seivices; environmeiital
constraints make the area generally unsuitable for intensive
❑rban development existing resource activities (famiing,
forestry) and soils make the area desirable for rural designation
to encourage continuing resource management; new
development will average one dwelling unit per ten acres in
areas where large parcels remain, and one dwelling unit per
five acres in areas with many existiug small parcels.
• Ti•�nsa�tiorac�l �re�s. Areas that remain low-densit}� land
uses as a reserve for future urban developmeut or desiguation
as a rural area.
For urban areas, the Counry considered total population,
population densiry, and land use and utility seivice plans.
Urban areas are a�iticipated to develop at higher densities in the
long term areas designated as rural a�•e expected to ren�ain at
lower densities.
Figure III.1 illustrates seivice areas designated as urban
and rural for planning purposes; it represents the most recent
updates to the KCCP map. Figure III.1 is a guide for collection
services. Generally, areas with at least 200 dwelling units per
square mile, as determined by the King County 1991 Azr�zzurl
Growtli Repo�rt should receive liousehold collectioii se�vice.
Collection se�vice a�•eas are delineated in city and county
�
�
�
�
�
Figu�e III.i Urban and rural service areas. (See overleaf.) •
implementation ordinances and contracts or through
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC)
regulation of haule�s. Collection seivices a�e described in more
detail under county and ciry programs, Sections B.l.b and B.l.c,
and Volume II, Appendu E. They are also discussed in
Chapter IV, Section A.
(3) 1989 PIQn Des�gnatton of Recyclubles
Materials are defined �s recyclable in RCW 70.�5 if they
yield a price on the marhet or have a beneficial end use. �
b4aterials designated ;�s recyclable in the 1989 Pla�i, and
therefore among those included in collection programs, are:
• Paper—newspaper, corrugated cardboard, computer, office
paper, mixed paper, other paper
• #1 and #2 Plastics—PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and
HDPE (high-densit�� polyetlrylene)
• Gl�ss—container gl�ss
• Metals—almuinum cai�s, tin (steel) cans, ferrous metals,
noi�fecrous metals, insulated wire, bi-metaLs/combination metals
• Tires
• I'ard waste
• Bull,y waste—furniture, appliances, white goods
(4) M�ntnz��nt Servfce Levels
Cities are responsible for ensuring tlle provision of
minimutn seivice levels within their jurisdictions and the
Counry does so in unincoiporated areas (collection services are
summarized in Tables III.6 and III.7). These levels differ for
urban and rural areas. However, under the 1989 Plan, both
urban and rural collection programs at a minimum were
required to collect:
°(1) glass, mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard,
bi-metals and alumiuuin cans; or (2) a�iy
combination of the materials designated as
recyclable in tl�is pla�l (including yard waste) that
will result in the collection of at least 10 percent of
Claapter /ll.• Waste Reduct�o�a a�ad Recycli�ag 8.1. Recycling: Exy"sting Condit�ons
� �/ � '
. .
-
���k � , ' '�.� �` � .! � ; d -� � -� �� - - ---- -- -- ��; - - _ _ -- � � _ - --_ _ - - - - - - -� - - - --- � -- — ; . .. , - - _ � .. � ,__ �.. � x,. ...�`
� ` �
� , ""
, � ,_ � , � � o `�:
� ��� � '' ° � � � � �r P � �? � � � � ` `�`� �%�, ` �� �'
.,
, � ,.
�
��
; � - ,,.
, u - . � �� �
� ,
,
� � t
� � ; � - ��� -� . . � � _ �.
-
� �y �: , .� , � , . ,
`
��
� °
� _ . _. - .
'
. ' . 1 :_ _ �: � -s: � .,, f ; ,
,
� , ,,,,,,�,�;- � � � �._a_ � ._ ,`. „ �_ ; __. -A�- :� � v � �.; �., s
,.._..
� ' �� � .. - �
— , . � Am w�.
,_
,_ .:�� _ ..�
, , .� �„��.-�-� , �. � � ::��
,
J �, ,.a..
� 4,
Y,
r., � _ � ; . .,
��, . , � ,� � � — �. -- �
• � � � ��' � ��, �.. - � � � .. �� � v _ �
� , �,
�
..
}
_ �,
�—� �� ���
. ,
� ��� �, �: � , �. �. _ �
� .� _ _ � �
� , , � , , ." _ . ., � ��� �- � - �_,.;.-
� � �
�
, � � � � -- .,� . „.. _ - _-
� �' ",�° -� . s ' • �" ,. , „
. � ., "��' �.� � � y �� K p� ,..`
� ,
�
i � KIR D ,.-, � � / � � '�w" ; �;
�� �
. _
� �, _
, - -
� . , G 1 � � � � � � � �-� �„ ,. n.�,� .:.�,.�o �_ � �,� . �
� � a � � . , °
�
� �� �" � � '�� .�� , � 14� �NO � � � � �, �, � �
„ . ; �
/ 1
�
�
�
_
- � E _ s ,
.I ,: I � rz '. I ,x� �" �� �. ` �i_, �?� _�� . . ' ,,.,,, i:S N O Q U A 1_ M I E� V � -
n
� Y
i �
i .��u 1� � .. �� � * . . _
�
� � '� � �° 1 �k .��,. � � -y � � �{ . �+, �� .,. .,
.�.
, �
� >;
..._
, �, y „r� " � .._._.. _ �. '.
� A..... ,.._.. � l
,
.T _ .� .�,— < .._ 1 I� ,. � . � � a
- s - � ��,.: - . . �_� - . ��-- �,-,._� : . . .�,� ° ' Z :, �
� � � - � T . , � � � . � -y � -�` � � � '+� �
,- � � �,. � _ . � �
� �ti
i � � .� . _ .
� a � ���� � � ��� � s � �� �. �
�- w, -
„
...
� � � �� , �� ,
- „ _.� � � r ��
._
,,, ��" � I � � � � � � ; °°�� � i'� -; � " ( o _. �/ T �,.�.
,.. _ � . N� ,�., , i J � , W � � �..� ;
f I �.� I � �. . n ..a^- .. _� I a '/ ' N A l 1 O, IN A L F O R E 5 Y � . £ l � S
r / e � . 1 ). �� . y ;' F'IltNil0li � x.. ( , ' : w•�.e
�
�
• I � I r ..... \ � . � -� .. �' �n I r,: ...� 1 '.. � �/. 4
.� , �„"� JONi� - I } ( � I �
� , r � � �� � =i
\ � w .,� -�j/- - ,...... '� _ /�- � l. �� „ � N��
. � >•t� �, _\ � ;
, .,.� � �oie�( �. � : I � i c ,.l `� _ af . . _
J
. . , _
, ,� . . , , ;!�
F � _�, f ` � � ` �
� � �� � : a ` � �''- , � � -� �-� � � � .... �o J � � �� a . l
�
,.
,,.. ..
,
�
�� _ .. � ,
,
- � j ,� .. _ ,
.
, ,. �
.
: �� � �, . �
� '
� ...
t, , i , , a
fiLLE�I+l �, � 1
jk ��� , 1T�E � � �� � a i � . , � � „ r' . „ `_ � _ �., „ ,. _ � � � »., o
�j 1 i ���� S . ' ;� ; 1�� _ '� � �,, = y -
� � � i � J �k ��, , e , v ,: a �-> r i � p. ��a
. „ 6 `
a
. 1 � •, �, � . .. $ . j .�r.a� .. si � �
�
z
�.— � ,, "� � '�i " � � �.�, �� �� i , ° � . rt<`1 �C I
� ! ;i� �
,
,, , a
, i �- _�, �
� „ � r
� � � t " ...a.�j Ei "� i r � �
, .. .� o � �
r .
r � ' � h
.
� � '
� . ' . : \ �. �,,e . _
n...- _ -x �..w:I ui � �� - �
� `' g �� `' en `- . � � ��`;.. �� �. , ; ,,°" � , . ,,._- � `'��;'0`� `, ' - y� �-,"�
u . ��;". ,� t ,�„`\ . 'rl � � ;�.h -., . _ �� fwCXV') /`'� ":'1.. ` e � m o- .. `� . .. .
�
� �
} �, ��,� _ _ a.�. r �. .. 1 ` �
.
� � � _ �. � �,. �`_ � � - �. � � � � � �--� ��
�� � t�' r7
• � . , .
� ;
� �� � � � .,. w ...�. "
.
�' � � 'I �11 « ... 4.�. . ;� �. � �� � �� -S
I
.�
� /
� 2 �
� � , � �
_ . . ��
�
: �,
—�� „ , w .�. _ M,. .�
,
.. a �, . ,
� � ��..�,�k ����� � � � � � — ,�.
>
. �: ,, �
L
.
. � �, . ak � � . � ��� , � � , — , �
� �, �
, , . , < . � , :s.��
; ,.Wn
f � � 1 , , , � �. ; 9_�,� � � _. , , o � . r . . ,
,�
� . � �� �. . ��� o_ • z "
� � i . � �.;� �„�,,,� ,.`
, �_ � �r �= � , � �> �� , � ;
� � � � � � , . � _ , ,� , � �� „ r �,.. ,. ,. , , � � � ,., ya ` - •_
Y a
.. a �e. .� Yr , � m.,
J $ ' 1
nwn
r � �
� .
: �_..
� ¢
L � � y � y
?1 n
� _
'
�
� \ t � \ � '\��T� �.. �'��° �+ '� � `r v � � '._-4
� . , � � ��. �- ..� - , i f , . o.iw �) .i ... _ s .. . �i;' ..
'I
� w�, ' � ... .
1 i i . .0 �9a � \ \
Mo..� '.w..
rN.
_ . . Y r -r� . . , , - �- • .
e
t
i
� . a i. , ... �I � I � �
\
. . . ... . ., � � .n
�
, .� w. � , � u. � .� n.� �� �
, ��
� �
., �� � } � ti� � �tt� _�. �- -�� � � � � .o< < ,s �� , � �..
�_
_ v � T�
�. � �-,t �. _ � P �-- .�... _ �
�
� �.
� �� ��� 1
� � _ � ��s ,� 1, � �.m
� � � . , � : ,_ ��
9
� ,,,_:_ � k , ;::.� �4�-=--�--�E�7�+ �� ; � _ FIGU RE I I I-1
t
, j � i . �++ ., , €
, . .�.. � . .. ..,a - -
q e . , i I ,
�.
,� � �
� u
,r_� . �.�., �- "n' � ` " � � � . �TUtt�tt. � � � - ...,.� / ` .., �� . ,- _ ' , ,
�
1 ,,.:� � v.,,�
,�
� � `� � ,,.,� _.. ��� y �� _, � , 4 ����.,� , ,��... '' ' �'�t. URBAN AND RURAL
�
�
�' t _. � -
� � . j
k , ,,� y�. � i . .�
- � � , � ,�. _ . .... j
... � M �°
4 :
y " ' �r- '�' '" .
' �l .. NOflMAYt�� r� �TA >:! { / � � 4� r, '1� �,+".,�, ,. „ � ,� . , �S x .� '
i �
_ . . .
�� PA�� f -�= ,, ,, �� '=_ ' � �, �� ' � � °. �---��� � '� �� ��� e,_ SERVICE AREAS
� � s
• ��°-_��,�, •~ r - -� r �� - �� �� s �w�w _
° � � � '� � � �� � " . '� - � "° � �
�
z � _ � ,,, _
,�.� R i
� �� ' I � r � N URBAN SERVICE AREAS
,�
-, - � � ` .
�
�
� � � � � � � ��_ _ _ � ��., .� j � ,�/
o.
—� — —�
��; �
Q I �. �_ � U(EMS '� =I �� �I .,��E e � _ ��.
i rt,
• � � ,, _ „,,., RURAL SERVICE AREAS
, .�r� � .: , i- - � -
.
s
, i �� � `- �- -� " � ��
�. _ ., r .
,:.
�� �,��' ._.. oFSh�vu � �� --$,+ -', rr ��� �. . .
' ._ � � \
�,
�� � �' � i, �,;. ;""" �� � _ �'� "� �� � , � '� ,r `-�:: N , '" ' �;,, g � TRANSITIONALSERVICE AREAS
� _
,� � k , � , _ � .9,� . � A,�,� � o�A �� .�
� � , . ,� ��� �n�F
�
, ; � � s;�
;
, �_ . ,� �
��� .�� , � . .:
,. � .. �
� �� � .w... � , � �. , ,,r. � � u. � -� , ��� � _
._ y
• ; . • ... � �+{ ` I � 1 . .,/ �"�. j l �. • I � .. 6 �' , CITYOFSEATTIEYYATERSHED , , n„
\
—,
.�
, _ - � � . k ..z � �
'� � �`— � ' ' � f � ' �' .... � � ,` � ,:1....
� �.
,..:
� �
. . . . . �� , �� - r � . ,o.. ^ �..,,.
. � . �, � .� F � � � .� t � �, o- 2. � � ' ,
� (
i '� ; �.. _ . �� ' � ` �C , _ Noc
�� : � - _ � ,,. � _
= " , . � AU811RH "� � t _ - ''�� �' ' r . �'\ ` e: Rural service area designations includes Forest and Agriculturai
`,
-.
1R � ,
j -1� j" ��.� ��, , Production Districts as designated on the King County Comprehensive
FEIIENhI WA1`� � ��...,,�__, ,`.� fi � �, , �_ Mo �� Plan p
_ .
� , Aown � ma .
, , �.;� �L i �-� � _ �
� "�
--- �_ .
• � �� , � �� � . ,." � � �� "� _ �� � '� .�. � �� .. � �
�
� � �� � �� � � � , � �� � � � ; 1 �
,
�
+ _ � � � ' �.- . k '. f� ,�_�- �t � ..
` �
� � . ,�� � _ .0 . .
/ �
� j ' a�.sona 9 ^<-- �' �
� , ,
, f� -
� �
, � .
� � �
,
�a
�
, . . , ,
. . ��
.�
� �% � �� , � � ,� � � �� � . .. , � �: - , M. „ �. � ,fi �
<
,
e
• ... .. - .. • k =l I � Yp �l . �
�' ` �d � � �� ; ' , � e s .. .... �
\ " ` " ' .._. .. � � . � "
:
� L . �,. F9 "" �
�
� � � � � � .. �F � .�
_ ,. s :,� r :�, ,
_.
� ; I � _ �as �.� , . ,.�:
�.� «.
� �,�
J — --' _ _ � _ . -- ,> . .. � .� �
, . , -� ,:,. .. � ,a _.: . .;.. �,. . .
� a �� I � '' � , ' �� ., :..�..� k ..
.�w.
+w.
, , � a � Cg ' 9 s s CITYOFTACOMAWfTERSHED � i�.i, ' � -'
��� �—k : � . .
z�,
�
, -��-,�- ..
�, .� , _ ..
• �� I � I..y � ..� �. MOUNTaIh . f - , _ i. �
� i, �
� i
� � .. �. � � �ie
�
. , �
• . . . . , . . . , . 7 v. � .. � .. ii .. & �e .�
� � � .. l � �, � � e r c.�..n. � F
H n !
-�.�� �n \ L ~. . ..
o-�
\/ 9 � / ep
M � � /�� _
,.. - .
� � ' _ � �, 1 , .;.� �
� �. �
�_..... .
! �� � ; zo �. ,.
.n a.r,
• ..... ��� � ,
l \\�
� r4�2
r�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
*
�
�
�
�
,
,
;. ;.: ::::::>::;::::>:::;::::>:::::: ,:: ; ,
' III -
;..;.: .::: : . .
; ; <
,,;;,;..:
: :.::::.::..: ..... . ; 3
:
:.
the residential waste stream by weight by July l,
1992, as provided in SHB 1671."
The 1989 Pla�l minimum setvice levels for urban areas
are:
• Household collection of source-separated recyclables froin all
residential dwellings, including multifamily dwellings.
• Programs for the collection of yard w�ste. These programs
should be designed to seivice all residential dwellings and
commercial establishments. Either drop-site (mobile or
permanent) or household collection may be provided.
The 1�89 Plan minimum seivice levels for rural areas
ace:
• Collectio7z o�'sou�•ce-se�a�rate�l �•ecycl�l�le r�z�teri�ls,
Programs should be designed to se�vice all residential dwellings
and commercial establislunents througLi strategically located
drop-sites, buy-back cente►s, or mobile collection se�vices that
provide cegular seivice. Household rec��clables collection is
enwuraged but� not required.
• Collectio��t of y��•d waste. Programs sliould be designed to
seivice all residential dwellings and commercial establishmenGs
through strategically located drop-sites, buy-back centers, or
mobile collection services that provide cegular se�vice.
(5) Collectfon Methods
Tliere are four collection n�ethods for recyclables
employed iu ti�1g Counry: household, nouresideutial, drop-site,
and buy-back. AppendiK F is a resource guide to recycling
centeis in King Counry.
Residents who receive household col(ection se�vices co-
mingle recyclable materials in a single toter or separate them
into multiple bins and place them uear the street ou a specified
day for pickup. The commingled system results in higlier
processing costs; the multiple-biu system iuvolves higher
collection costs. For ya�•d waste collection, cesidents bag, bo�,
or bundle yard waste, or put it into totecs oc gacbage cans.
The frequency of pickup diffeis aiilong se�vice providers and
includes seasonal variations. To ensuce participation, soii�e
cities ha�e passed ordinances banning yard waste from
residential garbage cans.
Counties and cities do not have the authority to require
haulers to offer recyclable materials collection services to
nonresidential generato�s; therefore, collection services are
provided on a voluntary basis. Nonresidential collection service
provideis typically require minimum volumes and processing
levels for specific materials (for example, they might require
that all cardboard be baled). Commercial waste haulers and
private recyclers often provide multiple bins for customers with
large quantities of recyclable items who a�•e willing to source
sepacate them. Source-separated materials usually command
higher market value because of lower processing costs and
higher quatity product. This enables businesses to recovec a
portion of tLie market value of tlle recyclable either through
lower garbage rates, monthly payment from the collector, or
both. Financial inceutives often facilitate paper recycling in
individual businesses or office buildings.
Drop-site collection is provided by haulers and private
recycleis who coilect recyclables at commercial establishments,
institutions, and multifamily dwellings. King Counry and some
cities offer recycling and vard waste drop-sites; nonprofit
organizations have drop-boxes for reusable or refurbishable
goods and recyclables; and some cities hold cleanup days, when
residents can drop off matecials at a designated location.
Buy-back cente�s pay for materials from businesses or the
public. They may be coii�modiry specific or accept a variety of
recyclable roaterials. Son�e buy-back centeis pichup at
businesses, bat this is becoming less common and currently is
very restrictive regarding types of materials and volume.
(6) Markets
Mackets for recycled materials are affected Uy many of the
same factois that affect other iudustcies. For example, recycling
markets depend on the availability of materials and on
adequate processing capacit� to convert reusable materials into
feedstock; u�arkets are affected by supply and demand and
competition from other sources (such as raw materials); and
pcices are �ffected by local, national, and global ewnomic
conditions. For materials collected by King Counry recycling
programs, all these factois come into play.
As market conditions vary, so do the recycling rates
among different materials (Table III.8). For example,
� B1. Recycdirrg: Fx�sti�ag Co�7diRio�rs CL�pter lll.� Waste Rer�zsct�on anr� Recycling
�
III - 14
Table III.6 King County CiUes, Recycling Collecrion Service Summary
Materials Recycled
= a �
O) , N , m. !e a a
C � � � 6 m m
•V m r W �L � O O
� u 'a m w `m a a a
�+ ` a m a � o v a .o `m u c+
`o W E o o � a � �o s W m 'a 'a
ia a. o � �+ v` a ° � `m a 'o �+ a m w
� 0 7� a a E i 9 m ,= 6 y
L � ` C r l0 7 C C X � �+
i+ 3 c � 'm �, c� a i= � i �, � 'x z ic 3c Other materials
Algona
Auburn RST M Y N
Beaux Arts Easiside All S Y
Bellevue Fibres Sub S2.50 S M Y
Black Diamond Meridian
Bothell WM Sno S Y
Burien Sea•Tac A �� S1.83 S M V
Raffo S1.80
Carnation WM Sno
Clyde Hill Eastside All S Y
Des Moines ST Sub S M Y N
Duvall WM Sno All S3.90 S M N
Enumclaw RST
Federal Way RST Sub S M Y
Hunts Point Eastside All S Y
Issaquah Lawson Sub 52.44 S M Y N
Kent Kent Dis Sub S M N
Kirkland WM Sno S M Y
Lake Forest Park Eastside All S M Y N
Medina Eastside All S Y
Mercar Island Eastside S Y
Normandy Park Fibres Su6 S3.60 S M Y
North Bend Lawson All 54.00 S M Y N
Pacific RST
Redmond Fibres All S M Y N
Renton WM Rai All S M Y
SeaTac Sea•Tac Sub S M Y
Skykomish
R
1
3 R
Y
3 R
1,3
RY
1
1
R
R
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
R
R
RY
R
R
D DN DN DN DN DN DN DN Wood,DN
H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H Drink boxes, poly
coated paper H
Oil
H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H
D D D D D D D
H H H H H H
HN HN HN HN HN H,N HN HN HN
HN HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN
D D D D H
H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H
HN HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN Drinkboxes,milk
cartons H
HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN WoodpalletsN
H H H H H H H H
HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN
H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H
HN HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN H
D D D D
H N H N H N H N H N H N N H N H N H N Drink 6oxes, poly�
coated paper H
H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H
Snoqualmie Lawson All S4.00 S M N 3 R Y H N H N H N H N H N H N H N N H N H N H N
Tukwila Raffo Sub S M Y 3 H H H H H H H H
Sea•Tac Su6 S M Y 1 H H H H H H H H
Woodinville WM Sno All S1.83 S M Y 3 H N H H H H H H
Yartow Point Eestside All S Y 1 H H H H H H
Chapter !1/.• Waste Redur,�ma and Re�yr,l'tn8 8.1. Recy�cling.• Ex�'sting Conditions
':.'l:i.ii:4iiiii:4iiiiiiiiiiiii:iO:tiii.iiiii:i?i:i::ti?::iiiiiii:3iiiiiii:i.:'ii:L{.iiiii:{.}}}}iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:'ii:iiiiiiiiiiiiii:;:?iiiiiiiiiiiiiii}yiii}}}iii:'iiiiiiii:;iii:'i:vii:vi:
III - 1
5
Table III.7 Urban Unincorporated Recyclables C�IIecUon Service
Service Area 1
Service Area 2
Service Area 3
Service Area 4
Service Area 5
Service Area 6
Service Area 7
Service Area 8
m
!
w ` a
`o W E
ia � o �
o r o �
ca 3 e� d
WM NW All S3.74 S M Y
Eastside All 51.83 S M Y
WM Sno All 52.74 S M Y
Lawson All S4.10 S M Y
WM Rain All S2.82 S M Y
WM Sea All 51.95 S M Y
Sea•Tac All 51.83 S M Y
WM Sea AI� 51.95 S M Y
Sea•Tac AIl 51.83 S M Y
Raffo All 51.80 S M Y
RST All 51.60 S M Y
Sea•Tac AII 51.83 S M Y
Meridian All 51.83 S M Y
[1] Monthly charpe per customer
f21 Household collection method:
number of bins of recyclabies collected
�3) Citysponsored residential drop•site services
�4] High•grade paper: collected separate from
mixed waste paper.
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
nIa
nla
nla
nIa
nIa
nla
nIa
nIa
nla
nIa
nla
nIa
nla
H
H
Materials Recycled
a �
W M M
� m • 0
m 6 �
W � d O O
m a `m a a
� o � W -o a u u
a � `i° n �° a �a �a
` m a m `oi a �o w
� v x s 3 a n
.i z �, � s z ac �c Other materials
Eastside Eastside Disposal • Rabanco
Fibres Fibres International
Kent Dis Kent Disposal
Lawson Lawson Disposal
Meridian Meridian Valley Disposal • Rabanco
Raffo Nick Raffo Garbage Co.
RST RSTIFederal Way Disposal (Nick Raffo)
Sea•Tac Sea•Tac Disposal•Rabanco
WM Rai Waste Management • Rainier
WM Sno Waste Management • Sno-King
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
All all residents pay
D drop•site
H household
M multifamily
N Nonresidential
R recyclables
S single•family
Sub subscribers
Y yard waste (household)
� M
7 a
m r
� 'a
a
o °
ce 9
a «
'm e3
C
m �
� a
8.1. Racyclmg: Existing Conditions Chapter 111.• Waste Reduction and Recycling
III -
1
6
100 percent of lead-acid automobile batteries are recycled, but
fewer than 1 percent of household batteries are recycled. This
is because automobile batteries provide a competitive source of
lead (due to costly environmental regulations for lead minin�.
The core charge on lead-acid batteries encourages users to
recycle them, and processors ha�e ample capaciry. A core
charge is a deposit charged when a battery is purchased; it is
refunded when the battery is returned to the retailer after use.
However, such market stimulants do not exist for household
batteries. Except for small quantities of button cell batteries
that are collected and shipped to processo�s in the eastern
United States, there are limited oudets for recycling household
batteries.
By far the most significant recycled material is
paper�oth in terms of volume collected and percent of
material generated that is recycled. Paper recycling in King
Counry consists of fairly well-developed systems for collecting
cardboard from businesses and mixed waste paper (MWP) and
old newspaper (ONP) from the residential sector, as well as a
developing commercial, office paper collection system.
Recycling has a.lso made significant in-roads in diverting other
materials from the waste stream, such as aluminum and tin
cans and ferrous scrap. A detailed discussion of market
conditions for recyclable materials is given in Appendix D,
which provides current and projected recycling volumes and
commodiry prices, an analysis of the current market and an
assessment of potential new markets, and a discussion of the
impact of recycling programs on market infrastructure. Key
points for each major material market are as follows:
• Paper, In 1990, an estimated 165,500 tons of paper were
collected for recycling, about 39 percent of the waste paper
generated. In the coming decade, the volume of paper
collected for recycling is expected to increase by an average of 9
percent annually, but the abllity of recycling markets to handle
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Table mS 1990 Recycling by Material Type •
Material
Paper
Glass
Metal
Aluminum cans
Aluminum scrap and nonferrous
Tin cans
Ferrous scrap
White goods
Lead-acid batteries
Household batteries
Plastics
Textiles
Tires
Total Tons
% Recycled Total Tons Generated 8 Recycled
39
35
427,600
37,300
165,500
13,000
43
n
36
69
93
100 `
<1
>1
7
23
6,450
14,400
12,000
101,400
���0 b
5,200
2,900,000 d
83,000
43,300
6,500,000 e
2,800
11,100
4,350
70,400
28,�00 b
5,200
<29,000 d
930
3,000
1,500,000 8
a Total tons generated are based on estimates of disposed and recycled tonnages.
b Based on Solid Waste Division estimates
° 10096 recycling is assumed since no lead-acid batteries were found during the King County Waste Characterizadon Study (Appendix B)
Nationally, the recycling rate for lead-acid batteries is approximately 85 percent.
d Individual batteries (not tons)
e Individual tires (not tons)
Source: Recycling Markets Assessme�t, Volume II, Appendix D
C{aapter 111.• Waste Reduction and Recycling
8.1. Racy�ling: Eristing Conditions
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
r�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
III - 1
7
this growth will vary by grade. Nevusprint recycling capaciry in
the Northwest is expected to surpass local supply by mid-1993
as new mills come on line, while MWP will continue to be
eacported to Pacific Rim countries. The markets for MWP are
not expected to come into balance until 1994-1996. Old
corrugated cardboard will remain fairly stable, while the market
for higher grade office paper will decline in 1992-1994, or until
new domestic capacity comes on line. Currendy, much of the
paper collected for recycling in King Counry is exported to
Pacific Rim countries. Expansion of domestic markets is
crucial in order to maintain long-term stabiliry. A substantial
barrier to developing -domestic markets for paper is the large
capital investrnent required. Before making these investments
the paper industry must be confident that there is sufficient
demand for their product
• Gl�ss. In 1gg0, about 13,000 tons of glass were collected
for recycling in King counry, about 35 percent of the glass
waste generated. During the past 10 years, the increasing use
of plastia has led to a decreased market share for the glass
container manufacturing industry. This decreasing demand for
glass containers, coupled with increasing collection of glass
containers for recycling, has created a serious market imbalance
for glass throughout the United States. In King Counry, the
volume of glass collected for recycling is increasing at an
average rate of 10 percent per year. With the implementation
of new curbside programs, it is estimated that by the year 1995,
recycled glass volumes in the Puget Sound region will reach
77,�0 tons/year and will exceed 100,000 tons/year by the year
2000. At this time there are no plans by local manufacturers
to increase their cullet use. Unless economically feasible e�ort
markets are developed, which is unlikely in the short term, or
new end-use markets are developed, the current market
imbalance will worsen.
• Aluminum cans. Aluminum cans were recycled at a rate
of 40 percent in King Counry in 1990. Aluminum has
readitionally been the most profitable commodiry for small
recycling processors, but currently the market is on a downward
trend. The recycling rate for aluminum cans, unlike most
materials, does not seem to be significantly increased by
curbside programs. The price paid for aluminum cans seems
to have a greater impacG 1Ahen pric..ess are high, people sell
cans to buy-back centers. When prices are low, they either
store them and wait for a better price, or recycle them at the
curb.
• 7�n Cans. Tin cans were recycled at a raze of 28 percent
in King County in 1990. The Steel Can Recycling Institute
estimates a national tin can recycling rate of 66 percent by the
year 1995 and 75 percent by the year 2000. MRI Corporation,
the only processor of tin cans in King Counry, has recendy
upgraded its machinery, and with its current equipment
probably won't reach capaciry unW 1995. The steel market is
a very established worldwide market. Recycling programs are
not expected to have a significant impact on the processors,
end-users, or commodity prices.
• Plastics. Approximately 670 tons of all types of plastic were
collected for recycling in King Counry in 1990. This represents
less than one percent of the 85,400 tons of plastia generated in
the Counry. The plastia manufacturing industry dces not use
recycled resin in quantities significant enough to ha�e a major
impact on markets. From the perspective of the recycling
industry, however, the low densiry of post-consumer plastia will
cause these materials to have an increasing impact on
collection and processing systems. The addition of #1 and #2
plastic bottles (PET and HDPE) to curbside routes has been
manageable with existing equipment, but expansion to other
rypes of plastics may ovenNhelm this capaciry. Some collectors
are e�erimenting with on-huck densifiers as a possible
solution to this problem.
• Compost materials In 1990, 3�'� of the wood and yard
waste generated in King Counry was diverted through yard waste
collection programs. The markets for yard waste products are
in the middle of a critical period of rapid expansion and
development in King Counry. The input market for unprocessed
yard waste and the product markets for composted materiaLs
and mulch are being inundated by unprecedented expansions of
supply. The dramatic increase of household collection
programs over the last few years and continuing into 1993 w�
continue to provide increasing quantities of yard waste. Over
the next few years, collection programs will probably produce
an oversupply in the yard waste pmcessing sector, creating
compost stocl�iles and difficulties in marketing. There will
aLso be some increases in the supply of wood to recyclers, but
they already have secured successful channels into the mulching
and hog fuel markets. In the long term, there should be
8.1. Rec}�cling: F,xisting Conditrons
Chapter /1/.• Waste Reductian and R�cy+clsng
. �
;,.
; ,::.. : ;:: . _ :
;;:::;:::;:::> III - 18 ;:'..;'::>:.:.. : �
sufficient processing and dema�id capacity in existing markets
to ensure long-term sustainable markets for wood and yard
wastes. The products will be primarily topsoil, mulch, and
separated wood used as a fuel.
To date there ha�e been no significa�lt efforts to recycle
food waste. Most of the area processois have eaperimented on
some level with adding food waste to their ya�d waste during
the dewmposition process. Food waste is seen as a potentially
strong market and addition to the compost business if
processing issues sucli as odor, contaminants, cost, and otlier
concems can be resolved. A market is being secured f'or the
food waste compost that will be derived froin the Counry's
Ecology-funded pilot project.
• Olher nu�terials. Currently there are limited collection,
processing, and markets for polycoated paperboard in ting
Counry. 'I�vo processois handle the estimated SO tons per year
that are being recycled in the Counry. The curcent il�arket for
fer�ous scrap is stable, bi�t the price is lower than normal due
to generally low prices on international steel markets. Current
market conditions for noi�ferrous scrap are depressed due to an
increase in supply caused by domestic smelteis producing at or
above full capacity. New recycling techuologies for tires ace
being developed at a rapid pace and several facilities are
projected to come on line over the ne�t decade. All of the
scrap tires generated in the Count�� go to a vast array of
processors and end-users througllout the Pacific Northwest or
a�e landfilled. The tire recyclulg industry is stlll relatively
young, with new technologies developing at a rapid pace. 'I'ire-
derived fuel is currently the largest end-use for scrap tires in
the state. Several new markets, sucli as py�•olysis and
rubberized asphalt, are on the verge of major growth in
Washington State.
b. County Prograrns
WR/R programs established in the 1989 Plan are
discussed under three areas:
1. Recyclables collection (cities and counry)
2. Support programs (cities and count��)
3. Regional progra�ns (county and cities optioual)
Over the last three yeats the County and suburban cities
ha�e achieved significant results in all three areas. Household
collection programs are offered throughout most of the County,
and support programs such as procurement policies and
variable can rates have been adopted by the Counry and n�any
of the cities. County recycling programs are described below,
followed by a s}�lopsis of the cities' programs; waste reduction
progra�i�s are also discussed in Section II[.A. Major
achievements of the Count�� and cities are summarized later in
this section; a moce detailed description of programs is included
in Volua�e II, Appendi.x E.
(1) Recyclables Collectfon
Recyclables collection consists of seivices such as
household collection and facilities that have drop-sites. A�eas
seived by housellold recycling and yard waste collection se�vices
are shov��� iil Figures III.2 and III.3. Under the 1�8� Plan,
ting Counry was responsible for in�plementing programs that
n�eet or exceed iuinimum seivice levels for collecting recyclables
and yard w�ste in unincoiporated areas, both ❑rban and rural
by September 1, 1991.
Requirements for unincoiporated urban collection were
met in 1991 by mahing hoi�sehold recyclables and yard waste
collectiou available to all resideuts. Table III.7 utdicates se�vice
provideis, roaterials collected, and other program ii�formation
for each of the eight unincoiporated urban seivice areas. King
Counry has the authoriry to contract recyclables collection from
residents in urban unincoiporated areas but instead chose to
establish a setvice level ordinance stating program specificatio��s
to be implemented by w;�ste hauleis. The W[ITC regulates
franchised waste hauleis iu providing these seivices. tn May
1991, Ordinance 9�28 was adopted (now King County Code
[I�CC] 10.18), which res��lted ii� certificated solid waste haule�s
providing recyclable collectiou seivices for the 450,000 residents
of urban unincoiporated King Counry. The Counry has
developed, and will continue to develop, proii�otional and
educational ►naterials to encourage further participation in these
programs.
In accordance witli mini�vun� seivice requirements,
counry solid waste facilities in designated rural areas collect
source-separated recyclable materials and yard waste. Seivices
at rural ting County solid waste facilities are:
• Cedar Falls drop-Uox—recyclables, yard waste
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Ch�apter /Il.• Waste Reductio�a anrl Recycli�ag 8.1. Rec>>cli�ag: �xisti�zg Co�aditions
�
�
�
�
�
�
�:�i:::•:•:::•:•:•:<i::•:•:: �
::::::::
I 1
::» : :.: : : :.: : : : : : ;: : : :.: : : : : : :.: : : : :.. . . . : : : : . _ : : : .:::;:: :.:.:;;: .:::.::;.;;:;.;. . : : . . . . . : . . . . . :: :.:.:;.;:.:.:>:.: ::: . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ;;;: :: : : : :.: : : : . . . : : . . . : � : : � .;.: : .; ::.:;;;:;.;:;:;;;;:.;:.:::: . . . . . . . : . . : . .: :.. I I
9
r�
LJ
•
•
�
i
•
�
•
�
•
•
�
• Enumclaw Landf'ill—�recyclables
• Enumclaw Transfer Station (1993)--�'ecyclables, yard waste
• Hobart Landf'ill—recyclables, yard waste
• Vashon Landf'ill—recyclables
Rural collection programs are aLso planned under the Waste
Not Washington Communities Program funded by Ecology for
Issaquah and the surrounding area @egun in March 1991);
North Bend, Snoqualmie, Carnation, and Duva11, and nearby
unincorporated area @egun in early Ig92); and the oudying
communities of Skykomish and Snoqualmie Pass. Urban and
rural areas are further se�ved by privately operated drop-boxes
and buy-back centers, which are available to both residents and
businesses.
(2) Support Programs
Support programs in the 1989 Plan were the responsibility
of the cities and the County, while education programs were to
be primarily regional sen+ices implemented by the County. The
1�
IC
J G�
Y I
m `o.�
� SEA
C
2� v
, ;
.
� Duvall �,
,
� -- --
, : . ❑
.. ..._._ ._._.._ �. �.
_ ,
` , _ Skykomish': `.
� , �'
��arnation 1!
• , ;., ..
i'�'
, ,,. < , i
. ,.. .
_ __ _, , .. .
� ;i.�-J
'� ` : . '� ' ,..... l
4 Snoqualmie , .i
\ . \ S �-i
`North Bend ;%" � '! N
, _' _� •
_ / �, �
.. .
. __� ,, � ^
__ .. ; �._ �
; _.. ,=
__. >- �
%
%
� BU
%
� Norman
� Park
i
; VASHON M
i ISLAND
V
.. ..
Milton Pacific
5 0 5
MILES
� ,, r _ �.
/ ..... � �
;. _. �
, -
. , _._ _ �
__, ,: �
_. _ .
,
- . ...-►
.. _ _, \ ,= � • . 1
.
� .; . .
._ . , �
,\
,�
� -_. ;
Black Diamorad •�
t,�.—
__..
.,... __..
�_...� .... •.
Enumclaw "
� Eligible for household recycling collection
� Eligible for household yard waste collection
SA Urban unincorporated service area
Figu�e III2 Single-family housel�old recycling and y�rd waste collec;Uon �er�ias, )une 1y92.
�
� 8.1. Recyclmg: P.xisting Conditions
�
Chapter Ill.• Waste Reduction and Re�ling
:<::: III - 2
0
1g89 Plan specified flve support programs to be implemented
by the Counry to encourage WR/R: rate incentives,
procurement policy, recycling space requirements for new
construction, monitoring, and a multifamily dwellings recycling
implementation handbook
Rate incentives are achieved through variable can rates
for garbage collection, which ha�e been established throughout
unincorporated King Counry to encourage participation in
recyclables collection programs. Other rate incentives include a
Park
'� ' ' otnel' / ` _
,
. .� � -- '
, - _.__ _ � ..>, _
%C � ' � ,
,, �"�,rA : � Duvall ' '. , ,\
% � ' _, . � „
� < ,.: , ._... . . �•, .\ _ . . -' ,,.
kla ' , - __ _. .
� , _.-._ , i
y ,, ', , .,:. , ...... : - Skykomish:, �. :
a w Q '� � �
,.:
� �
_ ,
. . �
� �:
° i' +da �Carnation % �` � ' ' �
�
:+ �
� SEATTLE M � Ff81f8Yu8 i 3 ,,<'\
C g �- �....: � . , . .. r.v�!
_.
_ ; `' _ � �' � . ��' �
O _.._ , � . � ;,, " )
i � o ' " , ��._.,,
- Snoqualmie
„ �.
.. .
, . ,
,:, �-.
_..
`! North Bend , � � .%
,
, ..
, , - ,. . _._.. _ ..� �
.__..._ • �,
�... • �.
, ,
,
.._..� , �, _, _.
�
VASHON
ISLAND
I V
Way
' --. \ 1
_. ,.,
\ ,.. ..,� : '� �
__ , , ,....._._
� r,-... � .
. _..
' `\ , ; -1
, , ,
,
, „
,.; ,
_ i .. �,
♦
\ %� 1
�moRd '�� � . ,�'�
.�
_ ' �.r—._..
"mini-can" rate, substantial cbst differentiaJs between garbage
se�vice levels, and rates for recycling service only (for non-
garbage customers).
A procurement policy was adopted by the Counry that
favors the use of recycled or recyclable products. In 1992,
recycled paper use was at 82 percent in the fourth quarter of
the year, surpassing the 1995 goal of 60 percent sta,ted in King
County Ordinance 9240. Recycled paper use is expected to
climb gradually as additional rypes of recycled paper be�me
available.
"
N
• I
• I
• I
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
�
�� •—�L,y `,`�_.
Milton Pacific � `
�` _._._._..__.,. �
_.._.
.,.., ___..
5 o s L� �Enumclaw __ �.___--' \.
MILES ��-� ���
\.� ... .� , �..��
� Eligible for multifamily recycling collection
� Eligibie for multifamily yard waste collection
SA Urban unincorporated service area
F1giu�e III3 Onsi�e multlfamity recycling and yard wac�e collectlon servloes, June 1992.
Ciaapter 111.• Waste Raductron and R�c�cl'mg
8.1. Re�cy�ling.• Exrsting Conditions •
i
::::: III - 1 <:>:
2
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
New constr�ction standards have been developed that will
require onsite space for collecting and storing recyclables in
multifamily and nonresidential structures. Draft standards were
distributed for comment in the fall of 1991, and are included
in the revised King County Zoning Code under consideration by
the King County Council.
Monitoring of the progress made in meeting WR/R goals
is reported in the Solid Waste Division's annual report to the
Counry Council. Cities are required to submit reports for
inclusion in the annual report. In addition, haulers serving the
urban unincocporated areas of King Counry provide monthly
reports of recycling and solid waste tonnages.
The 1989 Plan recommended that the County develop
options and implementation strategies for cities to use in
developing multifamily residence collection programs. King
County prepared a draft manual and distributed it to cities in
the spring of lggl.
(3) Regional Programs
Regional programs are those offered county wide to
support WR/ft goals including public information, education,
nonresidential technical assistance, yard waste projects,
experimental projects, and zone coordination.
Under the public information program, King County
produces information and promotional publications (brochures,
newsletters, and reports), maintains a recycling and composting
information line, and sponsors special events such as Recycle
Week
Education programs for schools seek to integrate WR/R
into K-12 cureicula and school disposal practices—providing
teacher training, classroom and school assembly materials, and
support to the districts in setting up collection programs. In
the communiry, the Master Recycler/Composter Program trains
volunteers in WR/R, backyard composting, and household
hazardous waste management
The Business Recycling Program helps businesses and
institutions develop and implement WR/R programs in the
workplace by providing waste consulcations, telephone
assistance, workshops, presentations, and written and video
materials.
B.1. Re�ling: Ezisting Condiiti�ons
Regional yard waste programs provide residents with yard
waste handling alternatives or supplements household collection,
such as programs for backyard composting and the collection
of Christmas trees for recycling without charge at county
disposal sites. From 1989 to 1991, mobile collection sites were
provided to communities with no other yard waste alternatives.
With the increased availability of household yard waste
collectlon in urban areas, thls program was dLscontlnued in
1991.
The Counry has developed a resource list of over fifty
businesses throughout the Counry that are willing to accept,
collect, or recycle used appliances and which meet the new
Federal Clean Air Act CFC regulations effective July 1 1992.
The County will monitor the continuing availabiliry of this
seNice to ensure that it remains a�ailable at a reasonable fee
before considering contracting with appliance dealers and
recyclers to collect appliances from residences for a fee to
supplement or replace other appliance collection opportunities.
Experimental and pilot pro�ects implemented to encourage
WR/R include a project that provides reusable cotton diapers
through a diaper service to low-income families; a food waste
composting project at the King Counry Fair to obtain
information that might lead to larger-scale food waste
composting; a food waste collection processing and product
testing grant from Ecology to King County and Seattle; and a
model employee WR/R program for the King County
Department of Public Works to develop techniques for reducing
waste in the worl�lace.
The Zone Coordination Program provides information,
staff assistance, and grants to cities on a variery of issues
through meetings and workshops. Zone coordinators are
invoived in the adminisreation of a WR/R grant program to
cities that provides funding for multifamily, nonresidential, and
yard waste collection, and other WR/R prograrns. A previous
grant program distributed 17 grants from 1988 to lggl to
assist 23 cities in developing residential and nonresidential
recyclables, yard waste, and public education programs.
Chapter 1//.• Waste Reductro�a and Rac�xling
�
;:.;;;;;::
;:;::;::;. . .>::>:::>:::. ,: . .:..
:;::>::>::> III - 22
: ; ;::;::::>::::>:.;.. :::>:..>::>::.: . �
(4) Ktng County Comm�ssfon for
Markettng Recycluble Materials
The King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable
Materials was foin�ed in July 1989 Uy the ting Counry Council.
As part of the Depa�hnent of Public Worhs, the Marketing
Commission's objective is to help close the "recycling loop" in
King County—the local remanufacture and purchase of recycled
products. King County and the suburban cities have il�ade
tremendous strides in collecting recyclable �naterials and
diverting them from landfill disposal. The Marketing
Commission is complementing this effort by promoting ivarkets
for recycled materials. The Marketing Commission's efforts
focus on encouraging businesses, pi�blic agencies, and the
general public to buy recycled products. To this end it is
(1) providing ii�formation on where and how to obtaiu recycled
products, (2) testing and de►nonstratiug applications for
recyclable materials and recycled products, (3) promoting the
"buy recycled" ethic through a broad education prog�am, and
(4) recommending policy to address recycling market issues.
Voluntary packaging and labeling guidelines wece
developed by the Marketing Commission for coinpanies to
reduce contamination caused by misleading recycling labeling.
The County is prohibited by state law from enacting
prohibitioi�s or deposits on products or packaging before July 1,
1993. In the absence of state or federal standards Clle C011I1CV
has taken this step to lielp consu►i�e►s make ii�formed clioices.
c. Ciry Prograrns
The 1989 Pla�� directs cities to begin implementi��g
minimum service WR/R collection and support seivices by
September 1, 1991 and to complete implementation by
September 1 , 1992. The seivices include urban household
recyclables collection, rural drop-boa seivices, and yard waste
prograans. Additionally, three support se�vice programs are
being implemented: (1) rate incentives, (2) procurement
policies, and (3) onsite recycling space require�nents for new
multifamily and nonresidential construction. Appendu E
provides more detailed information on city WR/R progiams.
(1) Recyclables And Yurd Waste Collect�on
Under tlie 1989 Plan the cities are responsible for
implementing programs that meet or exceed minimwn seivice
levels f'or collecting recyclables and yard waste in incoiporated
are�s. 'I�vent�� of twenh--two urban cities and three of seven
rural cities have household collection of recyclables (Table III.6
provides ii�f'ormatio►1 on se�vice provideis, collection metllods,
and materials.) Five cities provide residential recycling drop-
boxes. Yard waste wllection progi ams are offered or planned
in tweuty-eight cities. 'I'hirteen cities have recyclables collection
seivices available to multifamily dwellings. In addition, a
number of cities provide special collection da��s for certain
cecyclables, such as such a5 plastics and waste oil.
(2) S��pport Se��v�ces
All cities, except tirklaud, provide rate ince��tives
thcough variable can rates. Howevec, the cost difference
between can sizes varies among cities, with some offering
greater incentives than otheis. (Refer to Chapter N, Section A
for additional ii�fonnatioii on solid waste and recvclables
collection seivices and rates.)
The cit�� of tir�land has used a flat �ate collection fee
since 1973 as a disincentive to illegal dumping. In spite of
their continued use of the t1at rate collection fee, the
participation rate for curbside collection seivice in tirkland is
similar to that of other subucban cities widi differential rates.
tir�land would reexaminc tl�e iss��e of differential collection
rates if the cih�'s participation rate for curbside recycling
declined.
Residents of cities where rate incentives are used are
regularly educated on how they can reduce their monthly
collection bill by ta�ing advantage of differential can rates and
recycling setvices. The cities and the hauleis include
ii�tormation widi their billings, and new residents are
automatically ii�formed of rate incentives when they sign up for
collection seivice.
Su cities have adopted a recyclable and recycled products
procureroent polic�; the remaining cities abide by an informal
policy pending formal adoption. Six cities liave developed
requiren�ents for onsite recycling for new construction; the
cemaining cities have indicated plans to do so.
Chiapter 11l.� Waste Reduction and Recycli�ag 8.1. Rec��cling: E�rsti�ag Conditions
❑
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
><; . . . .:. :<;;; ... ,;:.. ; ; < _ III
: . ::::.;::: :. .. ..
; ;:::
; -
>::.: .:.::: ;::<
; .::.:.::.: 3
:::.:: ... . ; ; :
>::.:. ; .>.
::.
::;:.::.::>::::: ::::..... . ....... ....... :._ ' ... ;::;
(3) C�ty Optfonal Progran:s
The 1989 Plan identified three progtams for optional ciry
implementation: backyard composting bin, blaster
Recycler/Composter, and the Business Recycling Program (BRP)
Cities could apply for counry funds to operate these programs
or receive county services. The cities of Auburn, Bellewe,
Mercer Island, and Redmond chose to implement their own
BRP and received counry funds to do so. Waste consultations,
focus groups, workshops, and educational materials are among
the seivices they offec The ciry of Redmond also opted to
implement its own backyard composting progiam in 1992. No
cities chose to implement a M��.ster Recycler/Composter
program.
(4) Other Programs
Cities have implemented a variery of other progran�s
including in-house recycling, newsletteis and other promotional
materials, waste oil collection, award progran�s, compost
projects, and school projects. (See also Volume II,
Appendix E.)
d. Mixed Waste Prooessing
(1) Backgrat�nd
Mixed municipal solid waste can be mechai�ically
processed to remove recoverable material and reduce tlle
amount of waste disposed. Mixed waste processing (M�VP)
facilities can remove recyclables and compostable material from
the mixed muiucipal solid waste stream. These ivatecials can
be processed and can then be ivarketed. The qualitr� and
consistency of the end products depend on the composition of
the incoming municipal w�ste. Unusable residual ivaterials
can be disposed of through landfilling, incineration, or the
production of refuse-derived fuel.
King County Code 10.22.020 F. authorir�es one privately
owned and operated m�ed waste processing facility in King
Counry, which could supplement source-sepaiation measures,
and directs that the Division evaluate the long-term benefits,
costs and ris�s of mixed waste processing in combination with
extensive source separation programs.
(2) Feastbtltty Analysts
In 1991 IUII�, COURCI issued the Mzxect Wr�ste Processing
Fe�szbili�� Ara�1l�s�s (see Voluiue II, Append� H). The report
offe►s an evaluation of the need for a mixed waste processing
faciliry (bi�VPF) and an analysis of the constraints which would
be placed on the facilih� and the impact of those constraints on
the fe�sibility of the project.
The repoct includes discussion of other jurisdictions'
e�;periences with roixed w��ste processing, as well as the likely
effects on dle total recycling recovery rate in ting County from
the construction of an MWPF. 'Che principal findings of the
report are ��.s follows:
1. btixed waste processing could compete with the preferred
source seperation programmatic strategies for w�ste ceduction
and recycling in King Couiity.
King Counry can obtain critical information about the
success of mued w��ste processing facilities operating iu
conjunction with source reduction programs by evaluating these
programs where the�� exist in other jurisdictions.
3. Reconsideration of current facilit�� constraints for the
operation of an ivI�VPF is needed.
As a result of this analysis, the Division reconimended
delaying an issuance of request for proposals for a mixed waste
processing facility until 1995 in order to:
• I��onitor the success of other areas' ability to combine
mi�ed waste processing with extensive source separation.
• Re-evaluate the potential for a mixed waste processing
facility in 1995 to sapplement progiammatic waste reduction
and recycling efFor�s.
Ovec the next few yeais, iui�ed waste processing
technolog�� mav continue to advance, and more marhets may
emerge for the processed end-products. Additionally, sufficient
time will have passed for the County to evaluate the long-term
success of mixed waste processing combined with source
sepaiation in other U.S. conununitics. In the interim, King
County can focus full attention on source separation strategies.
B.1. R�cycling: E.��sting Co�ulitioris
G'!�[�ter /ll: Wr�sie Rerducliora �n,�l Recycling
:>: III - 4 `>::
2
2. Needs and Opportunities
a Backgrou�d
The overall WR/R objective of this 1992 Plan update is to
develop a strategy that will result in a 50 percent diversion rate
� 1995 and lay the foundation for achieving 65 percent in
2000. To focus program effort�, unmet needs in existing
collection services must be defined and appropriate government
and private sector roles for providing needed services identified.
Opportunities must also be identified for improving markets for
materials collected for recycling, and for increasing public
awareness of the importance of recycling and the need to
purchase recycled and recyclable materials.
Ways to enhance e�sting recycling and waste reduction
opportunities need to be identified and the following questions
answered:
• What materia.ls remain in the waste stream that have
potential market value, especially in the immediate future (next
three years)?
• Which markets need to be sustained and which markets
need to be enhanced or e�anded in order to support a high
level of recycling?
• Which material markets have the highest priority?
• Should voluntary recycling programs be continued or
should mandatory measures be instituted?
• If only e�sting WR/R programs are continued, will the
County achieve its established WR/R goals, or do e�sting
programs need to be expanded and new programs
implemented?
• Is the cureent recycling infrastructure adequate or are
improvements needed?
• Wluch generators or groups remain unserved or under
served by current recycling services and infrastructure? What
can be done to improve services to these groups?
• What additional or ongoing WR/R education efforts are
needed and which groups are not participating in recycling
programs that need to be reached?
• Are current WR/R responsibilities of the public and private
sector appropriate and adequate, or should they change?
This section will discuss the needs and identi(y
opportunities for recyclables collection, material markets, and
support and education.
b. RecyclableS Collection
Recycling needs can be determined by examining the
composition of the unrecycled waste stream by generator and
analyzing the numbers and rypes of generato�s served by
existing and planned city and wunty programs.
(1) Unrecycled Waste Stream By Generator
The amount of waste disposed varies among different
rypes of generators. For example, in King Counry residential
generators contribute a larger share of the solid waste disposed
than the commercial sector. The current proportions of the
waste s�eam disposed by residential and nonresidential
generators in King Counry are:
% of Total
Generator Disposed Waste
Urban residential 31
Rural residential 10
Self-haul residential 19
Total residernial 60
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Commercial haul nonresidential 30 �
Self-haul nonresidential 10
Total nonresidential 40 •
Source: 1990-1991 King County Waste Characterization Study, �
Volume II, Appendix B.
This information illustrates the need to continue to �
expand residential recycling programs and to develop •
nonresidential services.
(2) Serv�ce Needs
There is a need for both residential and nonresidential
generators to increase recycling levels. To develop effective
programs, collection service needs were assessed; areas with
adequate recycling service were identified; population data were
compiled; tonnages from city and county recycling programs
were determined; recyclers, haulers, and end-users were surveyed
to estirnate recycling volumes and sectors served; and waste
composition data were analyzed. This information was used to
Chapter !!!.• Waste Reduction and Recycling 8.2. Re�ling: Needs and Op�borlunflrss
r�
U
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
...... ... ..........: ........:: ��:. �.::.. :.: ::.:: �.�:::::: ::.. :.::::::::::::: ......:: �.: �: . :::.:::: .,,,; .....:.::>::::2' •.,::xR
� ::.:::: :.:::::::::::.:: :.::: �:::::::...........�.. ...... ....>.........................................::::>::;::>:s:>:.>�::...::.:..r•.......,.. .... ...:..::::..•.:.:..:..r . .
?::iic:::::Ft::::::.r'+.::��.'•:.: —
:::;'''r.�:�r;�; �:'�:
::: :::.: .......... ::.::c�::::: •::: :. :. :. :.::.�:.�:: �• :. :::...::�:t�. .. ... ......... . ................ .... . .
�:::�:::::•>:•::ta>:>:�::>::::::::>:::::> :::::::::::::::;:•::�::::::::::::.::;:•: :t•::::::::::.:>:�::::::::::::: :.::>:.>::::::::•::.:::�>s:.;....:.:.: �.;:.:.,�::::.::•:•.::;;:�>:•:::: :;:::�: i:......
...c...:r ...................... .k'..
............................................................................... :............: ................................::::: :•:::.::..: :•::....:.. : »::<•>::.::....:: ; . y; .
:.::::.;.::::::::::::::.;.::::::::::<.::::.;:.::::::::.�:::.: :.:::::::::::::«.;:.:::.:::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::;.:�::::::::.�:.::.;:.::::::;:: :.._:::::::::.;.:.::::.;::: ::.>�;.;..: III
::.. ........... ....:::::::::::...::.::.::.:.:..:.:: :.::.�.�:...;::.::::.::.:::.::,;;:.:::.::.:>;:::...;:. ..>..
..: ::::.::::::.. ................n.. ......... .......... ..::.:::... .........:..:..:::.::::.:.:::...:.�:.: 5
estimate the number of county residents currently receiving
recycling seNices. From these data, tons disposed by recyclable
material and generator rype were determined. Figure III.4
shows the amount of materiaLs that are being recycled or
disposed. Paper, wood, and yard waste represent a large share
of the materials currently being disposed that are readily
recyclable.
Figure III.S illushates the disposed waste composition of
the major generators in King County. This chart illustrates that
single-family residences and self-haulers generate a large
portion of the material being disposed. It further indicates that
these are groups that will need to be reached in order to
achieve established 1AR/R goals. For example, further
300
250
200
0
0
0
r
x 150
�
c
0
H
100
50
0
Material category
Figuie ID.4 1990 recycled and disposed quanuues by material
category. Source: Waste Chiaracterization Study, �olume !!.
B2. Re�yclmg: Needs and OAbortunities
education of urban single-famlly generators about the rypes of
m'uced waste paper that can be recycled oould Incxease the
diversion of paper in household collection programs.
Table III.9 provides detailed lnformation on the materials
which may be recyclable being disposed by single-famlly,
muldfamlly, and nonresidential generators. This table provides
more specific information to support Figures III.4 and III.S.
Percentages of households (urban and rural) and
businesses in King Counry and the cities lacking recycling and
yard waste collection secvice are:
• Single-family recycling-5 percent
• Single-family yard waste-12 percent
• Multifamily recycling-45 percent
• Multifamily yard waste-71 percent
200
175
150
p 125
0
0
T
x � 00
�
c
I-� 75
50
25
0
Material category
Pigu�e III.S 1990 disposed quantitles by generator and maoerial
category.
Cfxrpter 111.• Waste Redud�are and Racy�cling
t 5 5 �5 �a m�
Q aQ� �, �a � �\� O
Q �
Q �a���� � ���� ����� �
Q � �ooa
�` I - 2 :
��<. II 6 ��:���-
`
�
r
�
Table m.9 Tons Disposed per Year by Recyclable Commodiry and Generator 'type
Recyclable commodity
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office paper
Computer paper
Mixed paper
#1 Plastic (PE� bottles
#2 Plastic (HDP� bottles
#&7 Plastics
Wood waste
Yard waste
Textiles
Food waste
Glass
White goods
Tin cans
Other ferrous metals
Aluminum cans
Aluminum scrap
Other nonferrous metals
Batteries, household
Batteries, automotive a
Polycoated paper
Tires'
Generator Type
Sinyle-family MuitNamily Nonresidential
2�9�0 b ���300 6,200
10,060 b 7,900 36,200
880 260 9,400
200 90 3,110
18,690 b 13,700 27,300
730 b 190 0
2,900 540 1,100
14,170 4,330 22,400
2,730 5,100 48,700
26.900 4,600 12,700
11,800 6,200 15,900
28,500 10,000 16,600
0 b 4,400 3,520
n/a n/a n/a
3,150 b 1,300 1,400
2,650 850 7,700
770 b 520 950
290 0 350
180 80 780
n/a n/a n/a
0 0 0
4,500 .° 3,000 ` 7,500 `
0 0 0
a Estimates based on deposk of used tire or battery with retail establishment at the time of purchase of new tire or battery.
b Denotes tonnage corrections to the September, 1990 waste stream sampling. The estimated volume of the marked commodities was
claculated for programs that have come on line between September 1, 1990 and March 31, 1992, and subtracted from the total
disposed tonnage sampling numbers.
° Based on unpublished research for the polycoated paper industry.
n/a = Figures not available.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study
• Nonresidential recycling-SO percent
While the above percentages indica.te overall se�vice gaps,
a breakdown by urban and rural areas provides more specific
information on services offered and services needed.
In urban areas, household collection of rec��clables is
available to 95 percent of single-family residences, and yard
waste collection is available to 79 percent. For urban
multifamily residences in incorporated areas, household
collection of recyclables is offered to 51 percent and yard waste
collectton to 6 percent. All multifamily residences in urban
unincorporated areas ha�e a,ccess to household collection of
recyclables and yard waste (see also Figure III.3). Household
collection programs rypically include recyclables, such as paper,
glass, metaLs, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE), and
yard waste under 3 inches in diameter. Some cecyclables,
however, such as white goods, #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE,
polypropylene, polystyrene), scrap metal, and yard waste over 3
inches in diameter are not widely collected. As Figure III.3
indicates, there are few opportunities for urban residences to
Cbr�bter 111.• Waste Reduction and Racycling B.2. Re�ling: Ne�ds and O�ortunrtr�s
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
�
.
.
•
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
<>::««::>;�::::<: :�::»::>:::::::`:::::�:;;:::<:>�<::::>;>;><:»`:>::>::::>::>:><:»>`::;;`::;`:::::>;::<;:<:::>::>::»><:::<:::`.>::>`.:`:::::::::;:><`;�:::::::<:»::::;;:;;;:::;:<:::<::[:>::::»: �::>:«:::::::>::»:':>:: ::>:::<::::>::>::;;;`:; «<:::::;
;:.;:.;;:.;
.:: III - 2
7
recycle these latter recyclable materials. This information also
indicates there is a need to expand multifamily recyclables and
yard waste collection services in the cities of King Counry, and
to a lesser extent, improve single household yard waste
collection in urban areas.
In rural areas, household collection of recyclables is not
requll�ed but several rural cities offer ik Others are served by
existing or planned drop-sites, thus completing coverage of
incorporated rural areas for recyclables collection. Yard waste
drop-sites are located in flve rural cities, serving 54 percent of
rural inoo�porated area residents. Recycling and yard waste
collection secvices in the rural unincorporated areas are more
limited. Drop-sites for recyclables and yard waste are a�ailable
at rural counry disposal sites at Cedar FalJs and Hobart; drop-
sites for recyclables are a�ailable at the Enumclaw transfer
station and Vashon landfill. There is still a need to improve
recycling and yard waste services in rural areas.
In the nonresidential sector, approximately 10 percent of
King County businesses receive recyclables collection service
through city-sponsored programs and an additional 10 percent
are served through privately operated programs. The majoriry
of the remaining unserved businesses are within a five-mile
radius of a drop-site, transfer station, or buy-back center.
However, only an estimated 10 to 20 percent of these businesses
regularly use these facilities. In short, businesses are not
participating in recycling programs at the same level as
residences in King Counry. Signlficant increases in
nonresidential recycling must be achieved to meet WR/R goals.
King County's Business Recycling Program has effectively
provided businesses with information about how to improve
WR/R activities, and several citles have successful collection
programs. However, providing information addresses only one
barrier. Regulatory barriers to implementation, such as cross-
subsidization between commercial garbage and recycling rates,
also need to be addresssed; impediments to increased
nonresidential WR/R should be identified; and the roles and
responsibilities of the cities, the County, and the private sector
in overcoming these baniers need to be delineated. The
following issues must be addressed:
• Colleclion serrn�s. To determine gaps in nonresidential
collection services, the following should be identified: rypes of
8.2. Re�ling: Needs and Opportunili�s
businesses and areas of the Counry receiving recycling se�vices
and the materiaJs currently collected.
• Local government authority. Staze law dces not provide
locai governments the same regulatory authoriry for commercial
recyclables collection as it does for residential recyclables
collection. The cities' and Counry's authoriry to provide for
commercial recycling must be clearly delineated. Because
commercial recyclers respond to market demand, secvice may
not be available to all businesses �n a given area, and materials
collected and prices charged can vary. Changes in state law
may be needed to allow local government the authoriry to
require that a minimum level of recycling senrices be made
available to businesses county wide.
• Financial incentives. Rate-setting practices can result in
recycling rates that are not competitive with or are more than
the cost of disposal. Financial incentives to encourage
businesses to recycle should aLso be addressed.
Programs are also needed to address the significant
quantities of waste disposed by self-haulers—largely residents
and businesses that do not subscribe to garbage sen+ice or
periodically dispose of waste at counry facilities. Of the 1gg0
tonnage disposed by residential self-haulers (estimated to be 15
to 20 percent of the single-family population), 18 percent was
recyclable materials and 43 percent was yard waste and wood.
Of the nonresidential disposed tonnage, 15 percent was
recyclable materials, and 27 percent was yard waste and wood.
c. Markets
(1) Background
In order for recycling programs to succeed, increased
recycling collection efforts must be accompanied by greater
consumer demand for recycled products. King Counry and the
suburban cities can conkinue to set an example by purchasing
recycled products and promoting the purchase of recycled
products by the private sector. Market demand can also be
addressed by identafying economically viable uses for recycled
feedstocks, increasing local capaciry to process and
reman�facture recyclable and recycled products, and
investigating legislative enhancements for recycling markets.
Special attention needs to be given to glass, mixed waste
paper, plastia, compost, and other commodities that pose
Chrspter IIL• Waste Reduclron and Recyicling
II-
I 2
8
special market development challenges. Fstablishment of
minunum content standards for glass can be encouraged at the
state level, while the Counry can aggressively pursue testing and
use of products that can be made from recycled cullet Markets
for yard waste products can be strengthened by providing
quality testing and certif'ication, consumer education and
awareness, processing regulation, and open channels for
procurement by county agencies.
To ensure the quality of materials collected for recycling,
development of commercial paper recycling programs needs to
focus on source-separated programs by grade of paper.
Collection systems designed for plastia and yard waste .also
need to emphasize source separation. In addition, continuing
education to decrease contamination is important in the
collection of all materials. (See Volume II, Appendix D for
more information about recyclable materials markets.)
To promote more widespread use of produc� made from
recycled materials and to support recycled materials markets,
consumers need to be informed about their availabiliry. For
example, Lake Forest Park will use plastic lumber for benches
and other equipment in its fust ciry park While durability will
require years to assess, information addressing considerations
such as public acceptance and aesthetics can be shared with
other jurisdictions much sooner. Various recycled produc�
should be tested for effectiveness, durability, and other qualities
by testing programs distributed among the cities and the
County.
(2) Key Market Needs
• Plasttts. The key strategies for King County to pursue in
improving markets for recycled plastia fall into three categories:
(1) facilitating the design and implementation of source-
separa.ted, contamination-free collection systems, (Z) buying
products that use recycled plastia and encouraging similar
purchasing beha�ior on the part of the cities and the public;
(3) educating the public about buying products made from
recycled post-wnsumer plastia.
• Glass. Demand must be incxeased to address the
oversupply of glass. The Washington Sta.te Department of Trade
and Economic Development has established a 1995 goal that 50
percent of the glass recovered statewide be used in glass
containers, 15 percent be used in fiberglass insulations, 5
percent exported, and 25 percent used for other purposes.
Other uses being explored include refilling wine bottles, glass
aggregate as a drainage material, the use of glass aggregate in
place of sand in asphalt, and the use of glass foam for
insulation.
• Compast. The short-term market outlook may bring an
oversupply and difficult market wnditions. Three factors could
contribute to greater supply: yard waste disposal limitations, an
expanded PSAPCA burn ban, and other potential regulatory
changes. Long-term markets are e�tpected to be more stable
with sufficient processing and demand to lead to sustainable
markea. Many processors hope government agencies will
become major consumers.
• Mr�ed waste paper. Mixed waste paper consists of mixed
paper as well as paper left over after higher grades of paper
have been removed. Two major wealmesses of the material
collected are high contamination levels and lack of consistency
in product qualiry. These weaknesses ha�e prevented local mills
from accepting significant quantities for recycling into new
paper products. In 1990, 76,000 tons of mixed waste paper
were collected in Washington State, with only 6,000 rons
consumed by the region's mills. The majority of the mixed
waste paper was exported to Pacific Rim countries for recycling.
1'he current glut of mixed waste paper is expected to get
worse before it gets better. As new local and national curbside
programs come on line, increasing quantities of mixed waste
paper will flood the market and compete for the same export
markets.
James River and Daishowa are two large mills which
have come on line in the Northwest which accept used phone
books for repulping. With these two mills in operation, the
Northwest is now a net importer of phone books and markets
for these paper products may lncrease.
(3) Market�ng Commtssion
To pursue its five-year objective to develop markets by
stimulating procurement of recycled producis, the Marketing
Commission needs to:
• Educate the public, government and private industry about
the importance of buying post-consumer wntent recycled
Cf,aapter I/I.• Wraste Reduction and ReCyclrng 8.2. Recy�cling: Ne�ds and Opportunities
i•
i�
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
i
•
•
:.:t:�:..:.. :::::::::::::.:.::::::::::.:��:::.::::::.:::::,::::::::::::::.:�::.;�:::::::::::..:.:::::.:�:.::::::::::�::::::::�:::::::::::�:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::��.:::::::.:�:::::::::�:A::::::: :::.:::
. ..............:..::::::::........ ..
::::.::::;� :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::..:::..::. -
>:::<::<»�:.:>:>�:><:::.::::;.::<:.>:.»><.�: ::::.,.� .. .. . .. .. III
.......:.. ::
2
9
products. Three important topia are recyclable material
contamination, product qualiry and benefits of using products
made from recycled materials.
• Encourage inaeased government recycled product
procurement, reoommend market development policy and
legislation, and encourage collection of commodities in short
supply.
• Test the performance of recycled producis in new and
e�sting applications. Draft specifications for recycled product
procurement, and encourage further research and developmen�
• Facilitate common market development goals of public
agencies, citizens, and the private sector.
• Address policy and legislative issues such as cooperative
purchasing, advance disposal fees, and the removal of price
supports for virgin material.
• Provide the private and public sectors with information on
the qualiry and benefits of recycled products.
d. SuppoR
No new needs for support programs are identified,
however cities and King County need to continue existing
support programs. These include collection rate incentives,
procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or recyclable
products, new construction standards that require onsite space
for collecting and storing recyclables, routine recyclables
collection data reporting, and annual reports of progress toward
Plan implementation.
e. Regional Programs
(1) Intergovernmental Relatfo�as/Coord�natton
The Zone Coordination Unit has functioned as a resource
to city recycling staff, administered grants programs, and
coordinated meetings among counry and ciry staff to exchange
information and ideas. There is a need for the County to
provide more information through such activities as periodic
mailings that update the role and responsibilities of counry
WR/R staff; jointly sponsored workshops or roundtables;
continued grant program funding, and issue-specific
interjurisdictional committees. In establishing disposal bans,
for purposes of promoting recycling or for other operational
B.2. R�ycling.• Ne�eds and Opportunitres
reasons, the County will coordinate implementation with the
cities through the Zone Coordination Unit
(2) City Opt�onal Programs
Three programs were designated as ciry optional ln the
1989 Plan: (1) nonresidential tecYulical assistance,
(2) backyard composting bins, and (3) master
recycler/compostec Under the program, cities could apply to
the County for funds to establish and operate these prograrns or
continue to receive services from the Counry. There is a need
to evaluate which programs operate more effectively as regional
services and which are best updated locally. The Backyard
Composting Bins Program and the Master Recycler/Composter
Program are most cost-effective as regional services, and cities
have generally not opted to implement these programs. To
continue to offer cities some flexibiliry in providing servlces,
new programs need to be considered for city optional status.
(3) �ducationJ'Scbools
More emphasis on coordination with school districts and
cities is needed to streamline scheduling and enhance program
effectiveness. Currently, presentations depend on individual
teachers who request it for their classes. Schools aJso need
assistance with establishing recyclables collectlon prograrns.
(4) PubCic Education
The Counry's public education and promotion of WR/R
issues is extensive. Whlle comprehensive in its coverage of
topia and use of various media, there remain opportunities to
increase public awareness of the need to reduce, recycle, and
purchase recycled products. These include providing
information on what to use in place of diiffllcult-to-recycle
materials, increased informaiion on procurement for the
nonresidential sector, and a more visible waste reduction
campaign.
New and innovative promotional approaches need to be
explored, such as newspaper inserts, paid advertising, and
cooperative effoetss with other organizations, businesses, and the
suburban cities. Finally, targeted Information needs to be
delivered to minoriry, low-income, senior groups, and other
groups not reached by previous educational effort�.
Chapter 1//.• Waste Reductiorc and Re�ling
�
::�:> III - 30
(S) Clean t�ood Waste
Clean wood is defined as wood that has been processed
into lumber and has not been contaminated during use. Most
clean wood waste is generated by large commercial and
residential construction projects and is taken to privately owned
CDL facilities. After September 1993 most CDL generated in
the County will be taken to a privately owned processing system
developed to meet operational specifications established by the
Counry (Section V.D.I.e.). Recycling will be encouraged by
requiring that the contractors mainta.in a specified minimum
proc.�ssing capacity at one or more of the facilities that receive
loads of mixed CDL materials from generators and haulers and
by rese�ving the Counry's right to prohibit or limit disposal of
materials deemed recyclable. The County is also developing
WR/R programs that target building contractors and other
trades that will utilize the CDL processing system.
V�t►ile the new CDL processing system is expected to
capture most of the clean wood generated in the Counry, small
volumes of clean wood generated by remodeling contractors,
do-it-yourself remodelers, and pallet users will likely continue to
be delivered to transfer facllities in privately licensed vehicles
(PLVs) for disposal. Opportunities for recycling and programs
for waste reduction and recycling education are needed for this
portion of the wood waste stream not captured by the Counry's
CDL processing system.
The Waste Characterization Study, prepared for the Counry
in 1991 documents the quantiry of wood waste present in both
the residential and nonresidential waste streams. However, the
study did not provide information about the specific components
of the wood waste stream. Therefore, it is difficult to project
how much wood entering the CDL processing system or County
transfer system will be clean wood. This lack of speclfic
information makes it di�icult to plan or implement wood waste
recycling program. In order to lmprove the County's ability to
manage wood waste, the 1993 Waste Characterization Study will
gather information to better differentiate clean wood waste
components, identify generator sources, and determine volumes.
f. Summary of Needs and Opporduiities
In summary, alternative methods for enhancing recycling
efforts should be evaluated that consider the following needs
and opportunities:
• Additional residential collection programs to include
household collection of yard waste in all urban areas; services
and facilities for secondary recyclables such as white goods, #3-
7 plastia (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), oversized
yard waste, and scrap meta.l; and more comprehensive rural
residential recycling systems.
• Self-hauler recyclables and yard waste collection
opportunities.
• Yard waste collection alternatives for multifamily and
commercial generators.
• More comprehensive, nonresidential recycling systems, which
include collection service standards and financial incentives to
increase recycling among nonresidential generators.
• Legislative authoriry allowing the Counry and the cities to
require minimum levels of recyclables collection service for
nonresidential generators.
• Market development for collected materials, particularly
paper and compost.
• Stronger intergovernmental coordination of common WR/R
efforts.
• Iden�fication of additional strategies as potential ciry
optional programs.
• Testing and promotion of additional produc�s made from
recycled materials.
• Increased coordination with school districts and cities to
assist schools in implementing collection programs.
• Distribution of V�R/R information to all segments of the
population using multiethnic and other educational strategies.
• Increased diversion of recyclables, such as mixed waste
paper, in existing collection services through additional
educational effor�s.
Cbr�pter !/!.• Waste Reductton and Re�ling 8.2. Racyclmg: Neieds and OAbortunities
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
::<.�:
i�i?fi:'>:::`ii>��:'?i:ii:�:3:2�r; —
�....:: :••.
.: :.
..... . ..:::.............:.:....:............................... III 1 <;�<�::'>:::::
...............,z...,.............................................. ................. .... :....�.�::::::.: ...
......:..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.::::::::::::::::::::::.�:::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.::::: ::.:::::::::.>:.::::>::::.::::......:::::::::......... ....................................... .............. �. 3
...........,.,.........,'•.::f:2:...........,.,......,.. ..................................................................................................................................................................... ..........
3. Altematives
There are three alternative ways to meet the WR/R needs
described in the previous section
• Contlnue the existing voluntary WR/R efforts.
• Continue eacisting e�'orts and initiate new measures to
increase recycling of targeted materials or generators.
• Continue some existing efforts and pmhibit the disposal of
selected recyclable materials.
Criteria used to develop and evaluate recommendations
include cost of service, waste diversion potential, and potential
for implementation within three years. The alternatives
considered are summarized below and in Table III.10. The
additional diversion potential for the three alternatives are
displayed in Figure III.6.
• Alternative A—�'ontinue Exxissting Programs. This
alternative would continue voluntary programs established in
the 1989 Plan without instituting new programs or disposal
bans or limitations. It would likely result in an estimated
additional diversion of 5 percent by 1995, for a total WR/R rate
of 40 percent This increase would be achieved through
targeted promotional efforts and continuing public education for
existing programs and the addition of services that are currently
in the planning stages (i.e., multifamily and yard waste
collection prog,rams). Diversion rates greater than 40 percent
would not be expected because no significant improvemen� in
recycling services or facilities would be considered.
• Alternative B�and �xr.sting programs and instztute a
yard waste ban. This alternative wo�ld expand voluntary
services for all generators, provide collection opportunities for
additional materials, and ban or limit disposal of yard waste.
It would establish nonresidential collection service guidelines to
encourage the e�ansion of services to commercial generators.
This would likely achieve an estimated diversion rate of just
over 50 percent by 1995, assuming that a yard waste disposal
ban or limitation is in place in 1993•
• Alterrtative C�nitrate mandatory recycling through
dispasal bans. This alternative would initiate mandatory
recycling measures, including disposal prohibitions for certain
recyclables and yard waste. 1t would be more expedient and less
costly than focusing on voluntary collection programs for
8.3. RacyCling: Alternatives
recyclables and yard waste, and if fully implemented would
result in an additional 26 percent of recyclables collected,
bringing total diversion to 60 percent or more by 1995, but
only if active enforcement is initiated. Furthermore, the
capaciry of processing facilities and the adequacy of markets to
absorb each commodiry would need to be ascertained before a
material is banned from disposal.
The advantages and disadvantages of all ttu�ee alternatives
are compared in Table III.11. The diversion potential of the
program alternatives is based on analyses of the King Counly
Waste Characterizatiort Study (Volume II, Appendix B), the
1991 Ecology recycling survey resulis (Washington State
Recycling Survey, Ecology), and Solid Waste Division waste
generation forecas�. The alternatives reflect policy
considerations and priorities expressed by the suburban cities
and other participants at plan update workshops.
Each of the three alternatives respond in some way to the
needs and opportunities of the WR/R system. Alternative A
assumes that there are limited resources and that additional
resources would not be allocated to new WR/Ft programs. This
alternative also assumes that continued implementation of
status quo programs adequately meets the WR/R needs of King
Counry residences and businesses.
Alternative B assumes that there is a significant amount
of material with recycling potential that is being disposed. This
alternative also recognizes that additional e�orts by the County,
cities, and the private sector are needed to meet WR/R needs in
the Counry and to meet established goals.
Alternative C also recognizes that additional diversion of
certain materials is needed in order to meet 1WR/R goa.ls.
However, this alternative would achieve additional diversion
through mandatory measures, such as prohibiting the disposal
of recyclable materials, rather than continue with the e�sting
approach of providing voluntary programs and services.
Table III.10 Summary of Recycling Alternatives
Alternative A Continue existing programs.
Alternative B Expand existing programs and institute a yard
waste ban.
Alternative C Inkiate mandatory recycling through disposal
bans.
Cbr�pter /1/.• Waste Reduction and Recycling
YARD WASTE
PRIMARY RECYCLABLES
<'':8::r :<;:�::�ui: � i::�::::::':ir::::
:?:•r.':>.'•.::::::»:::::::::::':::::::::::;
� :::::::::::::::::::: ::::•::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :•::::. �:.: �:::::::::::. � :• :•: :•: ::•::::::::::::::: ........... :...
...........................: .............................................................................................................:::::.: �:::::.::: ..........
...�`. ..............�...............
III -
33
•
�
�
•
•
•
Table ID.11 Summary and Compazativ� Advantages and Disadvantag�c of WR/R Alternatives
Alternative A-�ontinue Existing Programs
Advantages
• Presents no new costs to ckies, County, and the private
sector.
• Prese�ts fewest implementation difficukies.
Disadvantayes
• Attains only 4096 WR/R; falls far short of 1995
50 percent diversion goal.
• Does not address all identified needs in materials
collection.
• Does not increase recycling opportunities for
businesses and self-haulers.
Alternative B--Expand Existin� Programs with Yard Waste Ban
Advantages
• Could attain 50 percent 1995 WR/R goaL
• Utilizes existing hauler infrastructure for service options.
• Requires no additional statutory authority.
• Incurs moderate regulatory and enforcement costs.
• Is less likely to meet with public opposition than
Alternative C.
Disadvantages
• Has potentially higher cost to customers for recyclable
collection services.
• Incurs additional operating costs for haulers; additional
costs for cities and county.
• May incur additional capkal costs for construction of
facilities.
• Has potential for delays because of facility siting
difficukies.
• Requires further planning to clarify public and private
responsibilities for providing collection facilities.
• Provides no guarantee that collection needs of the
nonresidential sector will be met.
� Alternative C—Initiate Mandatory Recycling through Disposal Bans
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
Advantages
• Could attain 60% WR/R rate, and has highest potential
diversion rate.
• Offers potentially lower costs to the County, cities, and
haulers for services and facilkies.
• Gives greater autonomy to cfties in determining
additional collection services and their WR/R program.
Disadvantages
• Incurs addkional costs to the County and haulers to
enforce bans.
• Poses potential increase in illegal dumping 'rf collection
atternatives are not economical and convenient.
• Poses potential short-term disequilibrium for recycled
product markets.
• Has enforcement and monitoring difficukies.
�
�
�
�
�
�
Specific programmatic proposals for each alternative are
described in the sections that follow.
a. Alternative A, F.xi�ing Progran�s
1'his alternative would continue to implement the
voluntary programs recommended by the 1989 Plan described
in Secuon III.A l, which could result in additional 5 percent
waste stream diversion. This could be achieved by more fully
implementing the 1989 Plan programs, such as yard waste and
multifamily recyclables collection in urban areas; however, this
alternative dces not meet all of the needs identif'ied in Section
III.A2.
The additional diversion that could be expected from
continued implementation of the 1989 Plan recommendations is
shown in Table III.12. 1'he 1g92 WR/R rate of 35 percent
would be maintained, and some additional diversion would
result from added mul�family and yard waste se�vice. Existing
8.3. Recy�cling: Alternatir�s
Cbapter 111.• Waste Reduclion and Racyr�ing
�
III -4
3
. ................... .. . .. . .. .. . . ...... ............... .. . . ... . ...... .................... •
programs fall into four general categories: waste reduction,
recyclables collection, support programs, and regional prograrns.
These programs and implementation responsibiliry are discussed
in detail in Section IIIA1 and summarized below.
(1) Recyctables Collection
King County and the cities would continue to implement
programs to meet or eacceed minimum service IeveLs for
collecting recyclables and yard waste in the urban and rural
areas. The minimum levels of seivices are dessaibed in Section
III.A 1, with a list of the recyclable materiaLs.
To fulfill the minimum service levels from the lg8g Plan,
multifamily recyclables service and yard waste collection would
need to be available countywide. Increasing service availability
and participation to multifamily residences in cities would be
emphasized. Currently 41 percent of multifamily uniis in
incorporated areas do not ha�e recycling service. Of those that
do, it is estimated that fewer than 50 percent use the seivices.
Household yard waste collection services would be
extended to the 21 percent of urban single-family households in
incorporated areas (one through four units) that do not
currendy receive khis service. Nceds for yard waste collection
and processing facilities would be evaluated counrywide.
Current levels of yard waste and recycling opportunities
would continue to be provided at current levels at county
disposal facilities. New facilities scheduled to come on line
before 1995 including the Enumclaw Transfer Station, would
be designed with the capaciry to collect all primary recyclables.
Table III.12 Addidonal Div�ecsion Potential Resultlng from
Altemative A
1993 1994 1995
Yard Waste .75 t.50 225
Primary Recyclables .30 .65 1.00
Muk'rfamily .60 1.20 1.75
Total WR/R Increase hom 1.65 3.35 5.00
1992
1992 WR/R Rate 35.00 35.00 35.00
Total WR/R Rate 36.65 38.25 40.00
(2) Support and Educatfon Programs
Existing programs would be continued, with emphasis on
publicizing service expansions to multifamlly dwellings.
Education programs include school programs, communiry event
displays, and a recycling/composting hotline. Cities would
continue to either utilize the County's Business Recycling
Program or apply for counry funds to implement their own.
(3) Reglonal Programs
Existing regional programs would be continued. The
Backyard Composting Program and Master Recycler/Composter
Program would become regional—instead of ciry
optional--support and education programs.
(4) Frogram Costs
Implementation of alternative A generally would maintain
public and private costs at current levels. Existing funding
mechanisms would be used. Collection services would continue
to be paid through ciry contracts or directly thmugh fees
charged to customers. Cities would continue to fund other
WR/R programs and services with utiliry taxes, general fund
revenue, and granis. Regional programs and services offered by
the County would continue to be funded through tipping fees
charged at disposal facilities.
The addition of new household yard waste collection
services wuld result in an added monthly cost to participating
households. The cost to the customer of new multifamily
recyclables collection service could vary wldely depending on the
size of the complex and the frequency of service. However,
most cusromers should a.lso see a commensurate reduction in
their garbage bill, as they reduce the amount of waste being
disposed if rates are structured to do so:
(S) ICtng County Comm�ss�on for
Markettng Recyclable Matertals
Under alternative A, the King Counry Commission for
Marketing Recyclable Materials would continue to establish,
enhance, and ensure methods of utilizing recyclable materials;
promote the use of products manufactured from recycled
materials; and recommend policies to enhance market
Cb�apter 111.� Waste Reduct�on and Racy�cling B.3. R�c�ling.• Alternatrr,+�s
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
III -
3
5
development The following programs and actions would be
undertaken by the Commission to fulfill this charge:
• Market inforn�ation. Maintain a market information system
that allows the Counry to monitor basic trends in the regional
recycled materlals infrasavcture.
• Recycled producJs promolron and educatron. Continue to
expand recycling markets by promoting the use of recycled
products by residents, businesses, and public agencies. Educa,te
and motivate the public, government, and private industry
about the importance of buying post-consumer content recycled
products. This should include information about
contamination issues, as well as the qualities and benefits of
using recycled materials.
• Recyclable commodities priorit�s. Focus efforts on priority
commodities including—but not limited to—glass, compost,
mixed waste paper, and plastia.
• Recycled yard waste compast. Promote the consumption
of recycled yard waste compost in King Counry thmugh product
testing and market development and support activities
• Clean l�ashington Center coordinatron, Continue working
cooperatively with the Clean Washington Center and other
agencies to promote local recycling markets, providing
assistance and support to the Center for its market development
activities in the region.
• Coalition building. Facilitate the common market
development goals of public agencies, citizens, and the private
sector. This can be accomplished by using the expertise of the
Commissioners, assisting public agencies to buy recycled
products, and recommending policies regarding market
development issues.
• Product testing and demonstratron. Test recycled
materials in new and eacisting applications to evaluate their
performance and potential for continued and expanded use.
This would include drafting specifications for recycled product
procurement, and monitoring and supporting research and
development effor� of private industry and other public
agencies.
• Tec�inical assrstance. Provide technical assistance to private
businesses and public agencies by providing information on
qualities and benefits of recycled products, and assistance in
drafting specifications that meet applicable guidelines.
• Procurement of recycled products. Promote the purchase
of recycled producis by the public and private sector by
supporting the King Counry Purchasing Agency to promote local
agency procurement of recycled and recyclable materiaJs.
Provide tschnical assistance to targeted businesses to incorpora.te
recycled and recyclable products into the merchandise they
market and the supplies they use. Increase exposure and access
to recycled and recyclable productss for residents.
• Frocurement goals. Fstablish procurement goals for
targeted commodities by King Counry.
• Policy analysir. Analyze legislative initiatives and
recommend policy, including those regarding cooperative
purchasing, advance disposal fees, and removal of price
supports for virgin material.
• Legislation. Support market development legislation at the
state and federal level.
b. Alternative B, F�panded Servioes
Under this alternative most existing seivices and programs
would continue; additional services, facilities, and programs
would be provided; more rypes of materials would be collected;
and the 198g Plan recommendation for a yard waste disposal
ban would be phased in beginning in 1993. 'I'he first phase of
the disposal limitation would affect single-family residences.
The second phase would affect all other yard waste generators
and is expected to take e�'ect by 1995.
Implementation of 1989 Plan requiremenis resulted in a
35 percent WR/R rate in 1992. Alternative B is based on the
need to go beyond the minimum requirements of RCW 70.95 to
achieve 50 percent diversion or higher. This approach identifies
additiona( services or actions needed to do so, assuming King
County continues a voluntary WR/R system.
The additional services proposed in alternative B are
designed to meet the service needs identif'ied in Section III.A2:
• Add services (and materials) to established urban household
collection programs to include all primary recyclables. These
include paper, cardboard, glass, tin, and aluminum beverage
containers, yard waste, and #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and
HDPE).
• 83. Recycling: Alterrratives Cb�apter II/.• Waste Reduct�on and Racyr.ling
�
:::: III - 36
• Implement a campaign to educate residents in the urban
area about the availablliry of urban household collection
programs for all primary recyclables.
• Provide optional collection opportunities for secondary
materials in both urban and rural areas. These include wood,
#3-7 plastia (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), textiles,
appliances, furniture, saap metals, and food waste.
• Provide additional yard waste recycling opportunities to
serve residences, self-haulers, and businesses.
• Fstablish minimum service guidelines for nonresidential
recyclables collection.
• Initiate the phased implementation of the yard waste
disposal ban.
• Determine roles and services of Solid Waste Division
facilities in recyclables collection.
Programs are described in detail in the sections that
follow.
The diversion potential of Alternative B is shown in
Table III.13. It lllustrates the additional increment of diversion
expected from continued implementation of the 1989 Plan
recommendations and the new diversion increment that would
result from new senrices. The 35 percent WR/R rate being
achieved in 1992 would be maintained and there would be
some additional diverslon as a result of additional multifamily
and yard waste services. Expansion of curbside yard waste
collection service to all urban residents, initiation of a yard
waste ban, and additional composting opportunities would
result in an additional6 percent diversion by 1995. These
estimates assume that almost 80 percent of the currently
disposed yard waste would be diverted from disposal. It also
assumes that, by 1995, at least SO percent of those eligible far
program services would be participants.
New optional programs to provide additional collection
opportunities for selected secondary recyclables could result in
an additional 1 percent diversion of the total waste stream in
1995. Significant diversions can be achieved through the
promotion of multifamily recycling services, additional amounis
of mixed waste paper, and additional opportunities for textiles
collection. It is estimated these programs would achieve an
average participation rate of 60 percenG
The successful promotion of voluntary nonresidential
recycling collection se�vice guidelines could result in an
additional 3 percent diversion by 1995, if half the businesses
targeted in the guidelines recycle 50 percent of their waste
stream. Greater diversion could be expected if the legislative
authority of counties and cities is changed to allow local
governments to require nonresidential recyclables collection.
This alternative aJso assumes a moderate increase in
waste reduction as a result of accelerated educational efforts by
cities and the Counry, and through additional backyard
composting of yard waste.
(1) Resfdenttal Collect�mt
M�n�mum Servfce Levels
Altemative B increases the 1989 minimum seivice levels
for both residential and nonresidential collection. Both urban
and rural collection systems must include all primary
recyclables (the urban and rural boundaries are shown in
Figure III.1; primary recyclables are listed in Table III.15). In
changing minimum service levels, cities with contracts for
residential garbage and/or recycling services would negotiate
these service levels with their contractor. King County would
change its senrice level requirements (KCC 10.18) as needed.
Cities with garbage or recycling services regulated by the W[ITC
could amend their service level requiremen�s to ensure
minimum services or work with their franchise haulers through
franchise agreements or other means.
Recyclable materials, as defined by this Plan are in
accordance with RCW 70.g5.030 (Table III.14). They are
classified as "primary" and "secondary." Primary recyclables
are those materials most commonly collected in ho�sehold and
drop-box programs and those with established or emerging
markets, including paper, cardboard, glass, tin, aluminum
beverage containers, and #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and
HDPE). Secondary recyclables are those less commonly
collected than primary recyclables because of limited markets or
lack of collection systems. These include batteries, #3-7 plastics
(vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), textiles, appliances,
furnit�re, scrap metals, and food waste.
State statute RCW 70.95.090 and KCC 10.22 require that a
list of recyclable materiaLs be included in the County's solid
Chapter Ill.• Waste Reduction and Rery�ling B.3. R�cy�cling: Alte►nativss
• �
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
. .........................................................................: ..............ih+iiiii:4:iii': •y:v.}y: w::::p:i:i:::: ...; ........: ::.::::. �: .. ......:::i.
. ................................. ............ . ..................................... .........w:::::::::::::::::: :.::.::::::::::::v3:...... ' � L.; ..:::...n.nry.ii�}:'�}?iii:ti+f.tn}};?i}?^: �i•:...1.,
:;•ijYOi:{.:iii}?:i.ivv
�":4�jii:L+•S'i:�iii$i'•i:
?'�l:+ti"iii''.�:i..'ry'::•Y?��v:'''i:>�iiYitiiri:� {:< . -
ti r!
. {..+Y+
•.?CM viji:i:
::::•j:::::::4:•<::ii:n�Y:•i�i:•i: 1.....•.
............. ,:::::::
�, fv.>�:�. III
:::::::::.:::.>:.::.::.::.;:.::.:........ .... .:::::::.......:. ..:::::::. . �
.......... ...... , ......... ..:::::.....::::.::.:..:�:.......: ::::::::::::::::::<:;::::::: <.::
::.........: :..: .... :.: : .........: �..:.
,::
.;;:::;:.;:.;:>::.::::.:; ::::::.::.::.;:.::.::::.;:.::.;:.:::::::;.::.:;.;.::::..........::::::..... :.::.�.:.::..:.::::::::...:::::::: :.:::::.:...:::::.:... :::
:.:::. � ::::::::::::: .....:................................::::..::::::::::::::::::.�:::: :.:. �:::::.: �:::. �::::::::::::::::::: ::.::::::: :.::
........................::..:::::::::::...: ...::::::.�.:.::::::::.�::::.::�:.::.::.;:r:.;:;.:>;::«.:>:>:.;�.::::.;;:.<,<:::::<:.:<:. .. ... ,:., . . ....<...:::>...�:..:�... v... .
:,..::::.::..A .v>::....>..........,. ::.�< .::::.:::::::. 3
;�:
.:::::: :.::::::::::.::.�::: :.::.:::.:.:::.:::.: <.:::.. .w::. :..:�.:::>..::::..:..:::n.::,.::::::::.:. ....... .......Y<.::.:::: <.:::>:: . ..... .
......n.. ... ... v....... : .:}:.r} ...... n�...nOr... }........n. :w:........�....7.�: � :.......:........�..t:}}ii :.:::::i.�:::....... .M1...n........x. .iG::::::.
...... ..�... �..�... ::::}, .......L......v...... .....x .......... . .......................................................................................: .......:....: :.....................
.......�.....r.......r. ....{ .....................t................:..:..v:...................................................................................x:n:: ....M1.s.•...::: ..........
.. . .... ......::::n.........f.4iiiii:i•iiiiii::ti?iiiiiiii:
waste management plan. Criteria were developed for
determining what recyclable materials could be included on the
primary and secondary lists. These criteria are that the
materials:
• are already being collected or are collectable,
• are recyclable, �
• have markets or potential markets (as described in
Appendix D, Recycling Markets Assessments), and
• have potential diversion rates that will contribute to meeting
state and local recycling goals.
A scale of high to low was used to rank materlals
according to the criteria A high ranking in all the criteria is
preferable for placement of materiaLs on the ILst; however,
materiaLs can be included without receiving high ranking for
all criteria. Recyclable materiaLs could be placed or kept on
the recyclables list for one of the following reasons:
T�le ID.13 Alternati�e B, EsUmaaed Percent Increase ResulUng hom E�anded Voluntary Programs wlth Yard Waste Disposal Ban
1982
% of Total
Total Tons Waste Stream
Total Waste Stream
Total Disposal Stream
Residentiai Programs
Single-Family Primary Recyclables
Muftifamily Primary Recyclables
Secondary Recyclables
Buy-Back Centers
Wood Waste
Construction/Demolkion
Drop-sites (Primary Recyclables)
Clean-Up Events
1,339,600
870,447
64,212
5,068
12,123
6,143
1,000
0
1,428
943
90,917
100.00
64.98
4.79
0.38
0.90
0.46
0.07
0.00
0.11
0.07
6.79
Nonresldential Programs
Nonresidential Recycling
Wood Waste
Construction/Demol ition
Yard Waste Programs
Single-family Collection
Multifamily Collection
Nonresidential Collection
Roll-off Services
Drop-boxes
303,499
1,000
0
304,499
20,578
0
136
0
30.102
50,816
22.66
0.07
0.00
22.73
1.54
0.00
0.01
0.00
2.25
3.79
1995
% of Total
Total Tons Was1e Stream
1,571,582
784,573
119,131
29,418
19,836
11,600
16,399
2,599
3,737
3,000
205,719
394,280
25,047
8,260
427,588
39,090
4,293
1,569
1,170
62,005
108,127
100.00
49.92
7.58
1.87
1.26
0.74
1.04
0.17
024
0.19
13.09
25.09
1.59
0.53
27.21
2.49
027
0.10
0.07
3.95
6.88
Waste Reduction Programs
Residential Programs 12,317 0.92 25,066 1.59
Nonresidential Programs 10,604 0.79 20,509 1•30
22,921 1.71 45,575 2.90
Total Diversfon 469,153 35.02 787,009 50.08
8.3. R�cy�cling: Alternatives Cbiaapter !!!.• Waste R�uction and Re�cling
:: III -
3
8
• to create or guarantee an adequate a�ld coi�sisteiit supply of
materials for development and maintenance of a recycled
products industry,
• to a�oid frequent changes in the recyclaUles list that could
undermine die public commitment to WR/R
• to insure adequate diversion of recyclable materials from
the waste stream to meet state and local goals.
Table III.14 defines the scale for each of the criteria used
for developing the recyclables lists. Table III.15 applies the
criteria and displays the ranking for the materials on the Plan
lists.
Urban, household, collection progra►ns would be e�anded
to include the following minimum levels of residential seivices:
• Urban /�ousehold pri�na�y �•ecyclables collectiora. All
single- and multifamily residences would have household
collection, or a collection progra�n determined to be equivalent
to household collection by Ecology, of paper (newspaper,
cardboard, mixed wastepaper); #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET
a�id HDPE); ya�d waste (smaller than 3 inches in diameter);
glass wntainers; and metal (tin and alumiuum c;�ns).
Participation by residences would be voluntaiy. As the ya�•d
waste disposal ban is phased in, household options for
managing their yard waste would be limited to participating in
household collection programs, self-hauling their y�ard waste to
processois or collection facilities or on-site compostiug.
• Urbc�n, single fanzily, yard waste co6lectio�i. Household
collectiou of ya�•d waste (less than 3 inches in diameter) would
be required in urban a�eas. Regula�� yard waste collection
seivice would likely be subject to volume restrictions to be set
by individual cities a�ld by the County.
• Urban, mullifamily, on-site va�d u�aste codlectio��. Local
goveinments would ensure that this seivice is available by
requiring haulers to provide on-call multifamily yard waste
collection service throughout their territory; or through some
other means of collection that is deemed appropriate by the
individual jurisdiction. This seivice would be made available in
all urban areas but participatiou by multifamily property
owners would be voluntary.
Expanding this service will not cause overall collection
rates to rise. Haulers can employ the same equipment used for
siugle-family household yard waste collection. Additional
operational costs would be covered by service fees paid by
progra�n participants: Promotional costs cau be managed
within existing budgets.
Although it is expected that only a small percentage of
multifamily complexes will participate, tl�e program will close
an identified setvice gap.
• U��f��r�a, /�ousel�old, capplrc��rce collectio�a ser�vice. To
comply with the federal Clean tir Act which prohibits the
venting of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the air, effective
July 1, 1992, appliance and appliances containing CFCs will
require special handling before they can be recycled. Other
appliances (stoves, ranges, heat pumps, water heateis,
dehumidifiers, dishwasheis, washers and diye�s, trash
compactois, furnaces) would also be banned from disposal at.
tlie county's transfer statiol�s and landfills on September 1,
1993.
Local govermnents would ensure that appliance collection
seivice is available to residents by disseminating ii�formation
about existing collection se�vices or accepting appliances at
locally sponsored special events. ting Counry would maintain
aud continue to regularly update a list of the SO or n�ore
applia�ice dealeis, recycleis, and non-profit orga�iizations that
accept large appliances, including those that contain CFCs, or
provide houseliold pick-up for a reasonable fee. In addition,
over the long ter�i�, all new County tiansfer stations would be
designed to accept CFC appliances. The availability and costs
of appliance collection would be re-evaluated during the 1995
planning process.
Because appliance collection would not be a part of
regular solid waste and recyclables collection seivices, there
would usually be an additional cost to those households that
must dispose of a used appliance. In 1992, tlie a�erage fee for
residential pick-up of a CFC appliance in urban areas is
approximately $40. The average fee for non-CFC appliances is
approximately $30. Costs to local governments for promotion
can be managed within existiug budgets. Governments can
expect to spend an average of $13,000 to sponsor a special
collection event; adding appliances to the list of materials to be
collected at planned events will add costs to events but can be
ma�laged within existing budgets.
• Urb�t�a, house{�old, bul�ry ya�•d waste collection service.
This includes ya�•d waste too large for regular household
collection (limbs, stumps, and other yard waste larger than 3
Clxapter Ill.• Waste Reductio�z ��2rt Recyc/i�ag B.3. Ree��c6ing: Alte�yzatives
�
•
•
•
•
•
i
�
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
I II-
3
9
Tabie III.14 Cd�eda for Prlmary and Secondary Recyclables Ranking�
Ranking Collectabla
H Materials are easy to set out for
pick-up or transport; containers and
the means to handle them are
readily available.
M Separation of this materiai could be
achieved by combining it with
another material already collected,
possibly creating certain but not
unreasonable contamination or
handling problems.
Separation of this material would
require special handling and/or
equipment due to special properties
such as size, buik, consistency,
moisture content and potential for
significant contamination of other
materials.
Processing Capacity
Either local processing or
low-cost transport to
processing is available
Local processing or
transport may be
available under certain
conditions such as
moderate increases in
cost.
No local processing
available; transport to
processing very costly.
Market Potenttal
Markets are well-
established and are
generaily strong, despite
periodic fluctuations.
Markets exist but are
static and possibly weak
due to oversupply or
competing materials.
Markets do not exist or
are in the early stages of
development.
Diversion PoteMial
Relatively high volumes,
ekher by weight or cubic
yards, are generated and
disposed.
Relatively moderate
volumes are generated
and disposed.
Low volumes are
generated and disposed.
inches in diameter), or large volumes generated at one time
(i.e., fall prunings). The County and Cities would assure that
bulky yard waste collection service is available to households by
choosing to provide on-call collection service, disseminate
information about private sector chipping services and private
yard waste oollection depots that accept self-hauled loads of
bulky yard waste, or sponsor collection events that accept bulky
yard waste. Yard waste disposal limits at counry facilities would
encourage use of the services provided.
King County would develop countywide information for
home owners which identifies private depots and chipping and
hauling services that handle bulky yard waste. Cities may
choose to develop and distribute information about local
services. The Counry would also sponsor collection events that
accept bulky yard waste.
The County would monitor bulky yard waste collection
se�vice so that the level of countywide service can be re-
evaluated during the 1995 planning process. The need for
required household collection of bulky yard waste would also be
examined at that time.
• Urban, household textil�s collection service. Many non-
profit organlzations provide on-call or depot collection of
B.3. ReCycling: Alternatiu�s
reusable and recyclable teactiles (used clothing, leather goods,
and natural household fabria). Cities and the County would
ensure additional collection opportunities by choosing to
disseminate information which identif'ies the organizations that
provide this service, by accepting reusable and recyclable
household textiles at regular collection events sponsored by local
governments, or by providing household collection of textiles on
a regular basis. King County would work with the non-profit
organizations to help coordinate collection efforls so that
counrywide service is ensured. The County would monitor
textile collection service so that the level of countywide service
can be re-evaluated during the 1995 planning process. The
need for required household collection of textiles would aLso be
examined at that time.
Costs of promoting a�ailable services can be managed
within existing budgets. Specia( collection programs average
$13,000 an even� Adding textiles to the list of recyclables to be
collected at planned events can be managed within existing
budgets. If the local government chooses to provide household
collectlon, costs would vary according to the design of the
program.
ChApter Il/.• Waste Reduction and Re�ccycling
,
<:::: III - 40
Table III.15 Designated Primary and Secondary Recyclables with Ranldngs
(L = low, M= medium, H= high)
Primary Recyclables
Newspaper
Cardboard
High-grade office paper
Computer paper
Mixed Paper
PET & HDPE bottles (clear 8� colored)
Yard waste (< 3' in diameter)
Glass containers (flint, amber, green)
Tin cans
Aluminum cans
Secondary Recyclables
Polycoated Paperboard
Other plastics
Bulky yard waste (> 3' in diameter)
Wood
Food waste
Appliances (white goods)
Other ferrous metals
Other nonferrous metals
Textiles
Collectable
A� B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L-M
L
L
M
L
L-M
L-M
L
L-M
Prxessing Market Diversion
Capacity Poterniai Potential
H
H
M
M
L
L
H
L-M
H
H
H
M
M
M
L
M
M
L
M
H
H
M-H
L
L
H
L
H
M
L
L
L-M
L
M-H
M-H
L
M
H
H
H
H
L
L-M
H
M
M
M
M
H
L
M
L-M
H
M
L
M
L
H
� Currently being collected in most household recyciables coilection programs in King County.
2 (1) Currently being collected in some programs or collected regularly through other means.
(2) Has the potential to be collected (curbside or otherwise). There are no technical reasons why k cannot be collected.
3 Appendix D- Recycling Markets Assessment 4 Appendix B- Waste Characterization Study 5 green glass
6 All plastics except PET/HDPE bottles, which are primary recyclables. These are PET (non-bottle), HDPE (non-bottle), vinyl, LDPE,
polypropylene, polystyrene, and other plastics. These plastics also known by their SPI codes (1 through 7 respectively).
Rural collection programs would also include the
following residential secvices:
• Rural, drop-site, primary recyclables collectzon. A(1 single
and multifamily residences would have collection of the same
materia.ls wllected at urban households. Participation by rural
residents would be voluntary. The County would provide
recycling dmp-sites or expand household collection service in
unserved unincorporated rural areas. The Snoqualmie Valley
cities drop-sites (provided through the Waste Not Washington
grant) would continue to operate within their own jurisdictions.
• Rural, single family, yard u�ste collaction. Yard waste
drop-sites would be required, at a minimum.
• Retriew of minimum seruice letiel ra?uiremenJs. In
addition to the above minunum service levels, optional
household collection of #3-7 plastia (vinyl, LDPE,
polypropylene, polysryrene, and all other plastics), and
polycoated materials (milk cartons, butter, and frozen food
packages) would be considered for possible future inclusion in
this Plan for urban areas. 1fie County is evaluating the
Cfx�pter Ill.• Waste Reduction and Recycling 8.3. Racy�ling: Alterrtatiu�s
•
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
III - 41
r�
u
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
following factors to determine the feasibiliry of collecting these
materials: potential markets, potential diversion rates,
additional collection and processing costs, and the impacts on
collection and processing equipment. If this evaluation
indicates that household collection of any or all of these
materials is feasible, they would be added to minimum service
requirements as early as 1994. If changes are made to
minimum service level requirements, then a Plan amendment
would be proposed by the Counry. The cities and the Counry
may opt to collect these materiaLs from all households sooner.
(2) Nonres�denttal Collection
M�nimum Servlce Levels
Alternative B recognizes the need to increase the amount
of recyclables diverted from commercial generators. To increase
diversion, additional collection services need to be a�ailable to
businesses and institutions throughout King County, within the
limits of local government authoriry.
The Counry's Business Recycling Program would continue
to offer technical assistance to develop and implement WR/R
programs for nonresidential generators. Waste consultations,
telephone assistance, workshops, presentations, and written and
video materials are among the services that would be offered.
The new primary nonresidential WR/R program included
in Alternative B is the establishment and promotion of
voluntary nonresidential recycling service guidelines based on an
evaluation of gaps in e�sting services a�ailable to businesses.
The guidelines would target materials that comprise the
majoriry of the nonresidential waste stream currently being
disposed (King Counly i�aste Characterizatzon Study,
�olume Il, Appendzx B). The guidelines would be voluntary
because of limited local government authoriry to require
commercial recycling services; however, the guidelines establish
the minimum level of service needed to reach the WR/R goals.
Efforts would be made during the 1992 Plan period to
pass legislation granting counties and cities the authoriry to set
minimum standards for the collection of nonresidential
recyclables. If such legislation is passed, the voluntary
minimum service guidelines described in Alternative B would
become the minimum se�vice levels requirements, to the e�ent
feasible, pursuant to the new legislation. Cities could develop
8.3. Recycltng: Alternatives
their own prograrns and go beyond the voluntary guidelines as
long as the minimum standards in the 1992 Plan would be
met. Implementing ordinances passed by the County and cities
would also be nec.essary under such new legislation.
Under the voluntary program, the cities and the County
would be responsible for promoting and meeting the following
nonresidential recycling service guidelines. Nonresidential
service providers and the W[ITC would be strongly encouraged
to voluntarily comply with the senrice guidelines.
• Cities would ensure that businesses have minimum
recycling services a�ailable to them. 1'his can be done by
initiating contracts to provide these seNices or by working with
haulers, recyclers, and the �[JTC. Cities would also be
responsible for promoting nonresidential recycling sen�ices if
they receive funding from the County.
• The Counry would work with haulers, recyclers, and the
WUTC to ensure that businesses in the unincorporated areas
have minimum recycling services. The Counry would aLso be
responsible for promoting se�vice guidelines in cities and
unincorporated areas that are served through the Business
Recycling Pmgram. The Counry would also monitor recyclables
diversion using data provided by haulers and recyclers.
• Haulers and recyclers would be encouraged to provide
minimum recycling services to their customers. Businesses
could select their se�vice provider, but if recyclers or cities were
unable to provide recycling services, a businesss' garbage hauler
would provide the minirnum level of services. Haulers and
recyclers would also be requested to provide the County with
monthly reports of nonresidential recyclables collected
throughout the Counry.
• The �[JTC would be encouraged to permit haulers and
recyclers to establish rattess and seivices that meet the minimum
service requirements, and to work cooperatively with cities and
the County in implementing service guidelines.
The nonresidential (commercial) recycling service
guidelines would establish clear and uniform expectations of
what constitutes reasonable recycling collection services for
businesses in King County. They would recognize the roles of
current service providers and the limitations of local
government to mandate nonresidential recycling and work
within the existing authorities. The guidelines would not be
Chapter /Il.• Waste Reducnore and Rery+clmg
III
- 42
within the existing authorities. The guidelines would not be
intended to supplant current service provideis. They would
allow current service providers to continue collecting recyclables
from current customers and encourage expansion of setvices to
meet recommended service levels. Businesses and it�stitutions
would still be allowed to select the best recycling seivices they
can find.
The Division would prepare a handbook to describe the
service guidelines. There would be three major components:
1. Areas to, be serued (targeted busi�aesses). Businesses would
be targeted for collection service are based on their location and
size (service areas are shown in Figure III.7). In primary
service areas, all businesses regardless of their size would be
targeted; in secondary service areas, businesses with 50 or more
employees; and in rural service areas, b�sinesses with 100 or
more employees.
2. Minimuna services to be provide�l Minimum would be
defined as providing services on a regularly scheduled basis;
source-segregating materials to meet processing needs;
promoting services to all targeted businesses; and establishing
rates in which recycling and garbage seivices combined cost
less than an equivalent level of garbage seivice aloue.
3. Materials to be collected. The minimum services would
include the collection of paper as described below and at least
one other material category other than paper. Nonresidential
recyclable materials to be collected would include at least two
grades of paper (cardboard, high grade, mixed waste paper,
and poly-coated paper). All nonresidential progran�s would also
include at least one of the following categories: at least four
types of containers (glass, tin cans, aluminum cans, plastic
botdes, and poly-coated paperboard cartons), wood, metals, yard
waste, and textiles.
The following options would be promoted among
businesses not targeted for collection services because of their
size or location:
• Cooperative collection. Recycling se�vices would be
coordinated for a group of businesses in a limited geographic
area.
• Self-haul to buy-backs and �l�•op-srtes. Businesses would
be encouraged to use and would be assisted in locating drop-
sites and buy-back centeis.
• Case-E�y-case serUZCes. Businesses would be assisted with
collection alternatives on a individual basis.
King Counry would monitor the diversion of recyclables
from the nonresidential waste stream using infonnation
provided by Ecology, hauleis, and recycleis. Mandatoiy
recycling measures would be evaluated in the 1995 Plan, and
possibly instituted through disposal limitations, if these service
guidelines do not result in sufficient diversion.
Under the voluntaiy seivice guidelines, no impact on rates
is anticipated. Businesses and collection companies would
continue to negotiate prices for collection of nonresidential
recyclables. If state statutes are amended to give cities and
counties authorities to set minimum collectioi�s standards for
nonresidential recycling, ciry contracts could be affected.
(3) Recyclables Collectton at
Solfd Wqste Fac�lit�es
The objectives of establishing recyclables collection service
at counry transfer facilities and landfills are to:
• Provide the opportuniry to recycle at all points of disposal.
• Provide recycling se�vices to self-haul custonleis.
• Educate customeis about recycling.
• Contribute to overall WIUR goals.
• Supplement and enhance private sector recycling facilities
and seivices.
While the private sector would be relied on to provide
most of the collection and processing of recyclables in King
Countp, minimum services at wunry transfer stations would be
developed according to the following criteria:
• All e�isting transfer stations and landfills would conti�me
the current level of recyclables including ya�•d waste seivices to
provide adequate primaiy recycling seivices to self-hauler
custome�s.
• All upgraded transfer stations would collect prima�y
recyclables including yard waste, and other materials (from
designated recyclables list, Table III.1S) in order to fill
identified private-sector recyclables collection seivice gaps.
• All new transfer stations would collect prima�y recyclables,
including yard waste, to provide adequate basic recycling
services to self-hauleis, and would collect other seconda�y
Chapter 1l1.• Waste Reduction and Recycling 8.3. Recycling: Alternatives
II I-4
3
materiaLs (from designated recyclables list, Table III.15) in
order to fill identified private-sector recyclables collection seivice
gaps.
(4) Yard Waste D�sposal Ltmttat�ons Ban
Major diversion of yard waste is necessary to achieve the
SO and 65 percent WR/R goaLs. The 1989 Plan recommended
a penalry fee for yard waste disposal (p. III-73, 1989 Plan) to
encourage source separaaon of yard waste from the waste
stream, beginning in january 1993. '1'his penalty was not
imposed because regulations and the necessary infrastructure
were not in place to divert yard waste from the waste stream
for all generators. Alternative B includes a yard waste disposal
ban that would be initiated with a ban on residential collection
of yard waste in refuse cans and would progress to banning
residential and nonresidential yard waste from the disposal
system.
i�
ic
j c�
, y 4
U7 `a,,..V
� SEA
C
2�.
0
% �8
i;
f ::>:
i �
�
� , Norm+
i ::: Pai
>:»:�;::;:_>:=.
;' VASHON_;;;;>;:
I ' ISLAND'
�
. .� _ �
N
Milton Pacific
s o s
MILES
�� Primary service area
� Secondary service area
� Rural service area
SA Urban unincorporated service area
�igune III.7 Nonresidendal recycling collection servioes, June 1992.
8.3. Recy�clsng: Alterrtatir�s Chapter 111.� Waste Reduction and Rery�cling
�
::>:: III - 44
The impacts of a yard waste disposal ban on the transfer
and disposal systems would be minimal. Faciliry engineering
and operational plans have assumed a total ban on yard waste
for the planning period so implementation of a ban would not
cause unplanned tonnage decreases at the transfer stations or
the Cedar Hills Landflll.
The yard waste disposal ban would be implemented in
two phases. Phase 1 would be the implementation of a ban on
the disposal of yard waste in refuse cans set out by residents for
pickup by garbage haulers. The ban would be applicable to a11
unincorporated areas where yard waste collection services are
a�ailable. Phase 2 would be implementation of a ban on
disposal at all King Counry solid waste facilities which would
affect both residential and nonresidentia( generators in the
Counry and suburban cities.
The Plan recommends the eactension of household
collection service for all primary recyclables, including yard
waste, to most households in the County. Therefore, an
adequate collection system for Phase I of the yard waste
disposal ban would be in place.
The residential yard waste disposal ban would consist of
the following elements:
• The ban would go into effect in the unincorporated areas of
the oounry during 1993 with the passage of an ordinance
prohibiting disposal of yard waste in refuse cans set out for
pickup by garbage haulers.
• Suburban cities with existing yard waste collection service
programs would have until 6 months after Plan adoption to
implement the residential yard waste disposal ban. Cities that
are implementing new yard waste collection programs, as
recommended by the Plan, will implement the residential
dispasal ban 6 months after they implement their household
collection programs.
• Garbage haulers would enforce the ban by issuing warnings
and refusing to collect cans containing yard waste.
Phase 2, a total yard waste disposal ban, would be
implemented by 1995. This ban would affect all generators,
including nonresidential and self-haul. Implementation of a
total yard waste ban would occur only after an environmentally
secure and convenient system of collection and processing is
�
�
�
�
developed. The steps to be taken in developing the system • , I
would include:
• Siting of inter�m yard waste depols - The primary method
of collecting yard waste from nonresidential and residential self-
haul generators would be at interim recycling drop-off depo�
and recycling facilities at new county transfer stations as they
are bullt The County would revise the King County Zoning
Code and work with the cities to revise their wning codes to
allow interim recycling depots as permitted uses in certain
existing wnes.
• Interim yard u�ste de�ols funding - Interim recycling
depots for the collection of yard waste would be privately owned
and operated. However, the County could help fund the cost of
developing the depot system through the use of grant funds to
ensure enough depots would be available to provide convenient
collection service throughout the Counry.
• Regulation - To ensure an environmentally secure
alternative to disposal for yard waste, the Health Department
would regularly inspect the operations of the depots to assure
compllance with health regulations.
• Markets - Active markets for composted yard waste already
exist In King County. In 1992, 45 percent of the 113,500 tons
of yard waste generated in the County was composted at private
facilities and offered for sale. Working with the King Counry
Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, the Counry
would plan actions to expand markets prior to the
implementation of a total yard waste disposal ban.
It is recognized that the greatest potential for compost
market expansion is in the private sector. The Counry would
seek to eacpand private sector demand for yard waste compost
over time through its waste reduction and recycling education
programs, Business Recycling Program, and other means as
they are identified.
Mother method of expanding compost markets would
likely be changes in procurement policles for government
agencies that would favor recycled products, including compost
Actions would include the development of procurement
standards for compost products by the Marketing Commission
and the incocporation of these standards into the King County
recycled products procurement policy. The County would also
Chapter 111.• Waste Reduction and Recycling B.3. Re�cyiclacg.� Alternati�,�s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;.`:�:f<:>:
N;:::�>».>;.�;z...
>:<:�::�:?n`>; `::::
....:.:.::.:......:.: :::::.:..........:..:.:::.:.....:..:.::.:::: �::::::::::::::._:::::::: :.:::::::::::.::::::.......:::::: :.::: �:::..::::::: �•::::: :.:::::.::..:..,-.,-....: ::::.:::::
� :::..:.: ...::::::.:.:......:::::::::::.:.....:.::::::.::.:......:......::::::::::: :•::::::: �::: :::::::;:::::::�;;:;;•>::: ••::•;::::::�::::::::�::;:>,:.;•::•;::::::::::::•;
::: :• :::.::::::::::::::::::::.;�:: :•::::. �:::::.::::: ::•::::. �:::.:::.;�::::....................:...:...................:::. _: :.....:::::::: ...:�; � ::•:::::::::::: :•::::: rr:�::::::::::. �.: �::
........... :.::. �::::. �::.>�.:�.::::::. �:.::;::;.; <.:�::::::::: :.>•.; ::.:::::;.;:.:.>•.:::�:::::::: c::.>•.:•.>�::::::. �::::.::.::�:: :.... :.:::.,......... ::.: •:...... :. :::.::: :. ::.....::::::: ...: :..::::
:.;� :•: :•:
........... ...:.: �:::
»:�»::;>:.::::.::.:::�:> :.:::::::.:::;:�;:::.:::.:::::.::.::.>:.:>�xx«;:.::::.;:•� s•:«< -�: �:�s:::;::::: <>::�>:s>:>::...: .
_ ;;.<zs::: i
III 4
5
encourage the suburban cities to adopt the procurement
standards.
The prospect of expanding compost markets to include
government-sponsored capital improvement projects would be
an incentive for processors to meet the compost qualiry
standards. Private sector confidence in compost may also
increase with the establishment of qualiry standards.
Implementa.tion of Phase 2 of the ban is dependent upon
successfully developing and adopting zoning and siting
standards for yard waste recycling depots, private sector siting of
collection depots, and evidence of an expanded market for
composted materials. If these do not occur within the projected
timeline, the implementation schedule and respective roles of
the public and private sectors for the yard waste disposal ban
would be re-evaluated by the County and the cities. Options
considered during re would include:
• Delaying implementation
• Developing an alternative yard waste depot siting process
• Reliance on new or existing County facilities for collection
SCNICE
• Examination of the adequacy of the collection capacity of
existing yard waste processing facilities as they may exist at the
time of re-evaluation, and
• Examuung other options for providing convenient collection
locations for source separated yard waste.
The County and cities would cooperate in re-evaluating
the total yard waste disposal ban options. Some of the criteria
that are likely to be used to analyze and select the preferred
option from the list above would be:
• Geographic diversiry of built drop-off depots, recycling
facllities at transfer stations, and processors as they exist at the
time of re-evaluation;
• Operating capaciry of depots, recycling facilities, and
processors;
• Projected annual marketing capacity for yard waste
compost;
• Ability of the yard waste collection system to meet or exceed
environmental and public health regulations as they may exist
at the time of re-evaluation.
(S) Addttfonal County-sponsored
Collection Servlces
• lncentives to buy-back centers. Under this program, the
Counry would evaluate the feasiblllty of providing financial
incentives to existing private buy-back centers to encowage
them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials.
• Optronal secondary recyclables collection. The County
would coordinate countywide evenis (urban and rural) for the
collection of secondary recyclables. These events are discussed
under ciry optional programs, recommendation II134 in the
following sectioa
• Clean wnod colleclion. The Counry would conduct a waste
characterization study at the transfer statations to determine the
volume and composition of clean wood waste, generator source,
and type of generator using the transfer system.
After completion of the study, programs could be
developed to improve waste reduction efforls and increase clean
wood waste recycling for generators utillzi�►g transfer stations.
Some of the programs that could be offered are:
• collection of source-separated clean wood waste at newly
constructed or expanded transfer stations where feasible
• a waste audit program for do-it-yourself remodelers
an education program on wood waste reuse and recycling
• distribution of a list of avallable recycllng proc.essors and
businessses that accept clean wood for reuse to the conshvction
trades and general public.
(6) Support
Alternative B includes the following support programs in
addition to those in the lg8g Plan.
• Data reporting requirements. Haulers and recyclers would
continue to provide collection data from household and
commercial wllection programs, which the Counry would
maintain in a data base. For each ciry and urban
unincorporated service area, the following information woulct be
provided monthly on household collection: average pounds of
recyclable and yard waste collected per set-out, pmgram
summary tonnage, contaminatsd recyclables and yard waste by
receiving facility, and the number of single-family customers
and multifamily complexes (and units) served. For commercial
� B.3. Racycling: Alternatives Cfx�pter //l.• Waste Redudiorc and Re�cy+cling
�
;::: III - 46
collection, the following would be collected quarterly by the
Counry: summary of tonnage, amount of contaminated
recyclables and yard waste disposed of by receiving faciliry, and
the number of businesses seNed.
(7) Regfonal Programs
Altemative B includes the following new programs in
addition to those continuing from the 1g89 Plan.
• Frimary Recyclables Pducation Campaign. The County
would develop and implement a campaign to educate the
public in the urban unincorporated areas about the availabiliry
of household collection service for all primary recyclables. The
program is intended to increase participation rates in household
collection programs and increase the volume of primary
recyclables recovered from the residential waste stream.
• Single fami6y, household yard waste collection education
program. King Counry would implement a program designed
to increase participation in the yard waste collection services
a�ailable in urban unincorporated areas. This would help
planned and recently implemented yard waste collection
programs achieve their full potential more quickly. The
campaign would emphasize waste reduction and composting
first, signing up for yard waste service second. The program
would be developed for the urban unincorporated area program,
but would be available for the cities to use to promote their
own yard waste programs.
• Rural yard waste compasting education program. The
County's backyard composting pmgram would be eapanded to
include education efforts for rural populations. This program
would help divert some of the increase in rural residential yard
waste anticipated as a result of the PSAPCA burn ban which
took effect in September 1992•
• Mudtiethnic anrl other audience-specifrc materials. The
Counry would develop and coordinate a comprehensive media
campaign to promote WR/R aimed at multiethnic and other
groups. The information and promotional materials produced
would be available to cities and the Counry.
• School education and collection programs with cil�'es and
school drstricts. 'The County would work with cities and school
districts and haulers and recyclers in the delivery of school
educational and collection programs.
• Cily oplional progra�ns. ltvo of the ciry optional
programs recommended in the 1989 Plan would be
implemented as regional programs. Backyard Composting Bin
and Master Recycler/Composter programs would be offered only
as regional programs adminlstered by the County. Only one
ciry opted to implement its own backyard composting program
for one year. It would be more cost effective if these programs
were implemented on a countywide basis.
The Business Recycling Program would continue to be
city optional. In addition, urban and rural secondary
recyclables collection event� would become city optional. These
events (such as "roundups") for the collection of secondary
recyclable items, white goods, and other bulky items would be a
coordinated program between the County and the cities.
Special collection events would be held at regularly scheduled
times at designated sites throughout the Counry. As a ciry
optional program, cities oould implement a special collection
event with funding asslstance provided by the Counry. In order
to receive funding, cities would agree to ha�e regularly
scheduled events each year; allow non-ciry residents to attend;
and collect a minimum of four macerials from a list of
secondary materials.
(8) King County Comm�ss�on for
Markettng Recyclable Matertals
Under Alternative B, the King County Commission for
Marketing Recyclable Materials would continue to foster the
development and expansion of recycling markets in King
Counry and the region with the activities under Alternative A
The Commission would step up efforts to gather and assess
market information in order to address increasing volumes and
rypes of materials collected. Such information would be used
to set priorities for market development initiatives. For
example, the impacts of increased collection of recyclables from
residential and nonresidential sources would be more closely
monitored to quickly address emerging market supply, demand,
and capaciry. This is particularly true for yard waste, due to
the pmposed disposal ban. The Marketing Commission would
also work to complement the Solid Waste Division's messages
in outreach programs, such as those for yard waste and other
primary recyclables.
Cbapter !!!.• Waste Redur,�on and Re�ling B3. Re�cyrling: Alternativ�s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
III -4
7
(9) Program Costs
Alternative B would call for the a�ailabiliry of new
collection seNices that could result in added costs to local
governments, residences, businesses, and the private sector.
Wt►ile precise costs of the additional WR/R efforts described in
Alternative B are difficult to project, some that can be estimated
are described below (complete cost estimates for Alternative B
collection programs are summarized in Appendix K).
F�isting programs (see Alternative A) would continue to
incur public and private sector costs at current levels. Existing
funding mechanisms would a.lso be continued. Collection
services would oontinue to be paid thro�gh city contracts or
direcdy through fees charged to customers. Cities would
continue to fund other WR/R programs and services with utiliry
taxes, general fund revenue and grants. Regional programs
and services offered by the County would continue to be funded
through tipping fees charged at disposal facilities.
The new collection services would result in additional
costs to the customer—a,nd potentially the service provider—if
the new services require the purchase of equipment or
additional labor.
Some of the additional programs would not add significant
costs. Ensuring that on-call multifamily yard waste collection
is provided, for example, would expand a service which is
already widely available to single-family residences.
Implementation of the program will not cause overall collection
rates to rise. Haulers can utilize existing equipment with
additional operational costs covered through service fees paid by
users of the service. Start-up promotional costs would be
managed within existing budgets. Cities with contracts for
services would need to include these new programs and could
recover their costs through fees charged to customers or
through other city revenue mechanisms. In areas of the
Counry where recycling services are regulated by the WUTC, the
additional costs would be passed on direcdy to the customer.
New city educational or promotional efforts would be
funded by ciry utiliry taxes, general revenue funds, or grants.
Regional pmgrams, educational or othervvise, provided by the
County would be funded through tipping fees charged at
disposal facilities.
8.3. Recy+cling: Alternatit�s
c. Alternative C, Mandatory Recycling
7'I]POU�1 DISPOS� L1TI11�10I1S
Under this alternative, most e�sting seNices and
programs would continue, while a regulatory approach would
be undertaken to increase recycling. This policy alternative is
based on the recognition that it may be necessary to go beyond
providing voluntary recycling services and waste reduction
programs to achieve established WR/R goals. This approach
might increase the WR/R level to 60 percent or more by
banning disposal of recyclable materiaJs in the county solid
waste disposal system.
This alternative would limit disposal of one or any
wmbination of the following: primary residential recyclables;
metals and appliances; yard waste; and selected nonresidential
recyclables. Table III.15 gives the diversion potential of the
bans.
(1) Recyclables Collectfon
The materials that could be selected for bans comprise a
major portion of the waste stceam or are readily recyclable.
The estimated diversion impact (Table III.15) is based on the
amount of these materials currendy disposed at county facilities
(ICi'ng Coi�nly Waste Characterizalion Study, Volume II,
Appendix B). King Counry would evaluate the feasibility of
these bans in the same way it would evaluate the yard waste
ban (Section III.A3.b). In addition to yard waste, which would
result in an additional diversion of nearly 8 percent, Alternative
C would ban disposal of one or more of the following:
• Primary residential recyclables. Container glass,
aluminum cans, tin cans, newspaper, mixed paper, and#1 and
#2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE). Despite extensive residential
collection, these materia.ls are still disposed in significant
amounts. Loads containing these materials would not be
accepted at transfer stations from haulers or self-haulers. This
ban could result in an additional diversion of over 3 percent of
the total waste stream by 1995.
• Ferrous and nonferrous scra� metal and applrances.
Tin and aluminum cans are included in the ban on primary
recyclables. A ban of these materials would result in an
additional diversion of less than 2 percent by 1995.
Chapter //!.• Waste Reduction and Re�cling
�::::: III - 4
8
• Selected nonreside�ctral recyclables—all p�er, gl�ss,
metals, u�od, and some pl�rsCics. Banning materials
commonly recycled in the nonresidential sector could result in
an increased waste diversion of almost 13 percent by 1995.
This assumes 80 percent of these materials would be diverted
from the nonresidential sector.
Before a ban would be instituted, the County would assess
the a�ailabiliry of disposal and recycling alternatives, the
capacity of recycling markets to absorb additional materials, the
effect on se�vice costs, collection and processing facilities
capaciry and availabiliry, and which public facilities would best
fID any gaps.
Since disposal bans create markets for collection services
from the private sector, this alternative assumes the Counry
would be less involved in developing service options than in
Alternative B. However, there would be a need for increased
counry personnel to monitor wmp(iance by checking loads at
transfer facilities or randomly suiveying dumpsters and garbage
cans.
(2) Support Programs
Under Alternative C, no new support programs would be
implemented.
(3) Regtonal Programs and Markets
Programs promoting recyclables collection could be scaled
down since garbage haulers would require their customers to
source separate. However, substantial public education would
still be needed, including programs to provide information on
waste reduction, backyard composting, and recycling to educate
the general public, particularly the nonresldential sector, about
what materials cannot be disposed.
Banning disposal and increasing collection of recyclables
would result in pressure on recycling markets to absorb more
materials. Potential market impacts include:
• Significant price drops for some commodities, particularly
in the short term.
• Insufficient capaciry to process materials or use them to
manufacture new products.
• Added incentives over the long term for remanufactures to
increase the recycled content of products.
To address these and other market impacts, the Counry
would increase its efforts to actively develop markets for
materials targeted for a disposal ban. For example, the
Marketing Commission would identify market barriers,
encourage the private sector to increase local capaciry to process
recyclables and manufacture recycled products, work with
wholesalers and retailers to increase availability of recycled
products, and test recycled products in new and existinng
applications.
(4) Program Costs
Implementation of Alternative C would maintain public
and private costs for existing programs at current levels.
Existing funding mechanisms would also be used. Collection
services would continue to be paid through city contracts or
direcdy through fees charged to customers. Cities would
continue to fund other WR/R programs and services with utiliry
taa�es, general fund revenue, and grants. Regional programs
and services offered by the Counry would continue to be funded
through tipping fees charged at disposal facilities.
Mandatory recycling measures could result in additional
costs to the County and the private sector in enforcing disposal
prohibitions. The Counry could incur additional costs of staff
to monitor compliance with disposal bans. The private sector
could also see increased cost through additional staff to ensure
compliance or through penalties or fines paid. The magnitude
of the costs to enforce disposal limitations would vary
depending on the level of monitoring put in place
4. Recommendations
In order to reach 50 percent diversion by 1995, either
voluntary se�vices must be expanded (Alternative B), mandatory
measures must be imposed (Alternative C), or a combination of
the two alternatives must be implemented. Alternative B is the
recommended approach because voluntary programs in many
areas have only recendy been implemented. These, as well as
eapanded programs, should be given a chance to work on a
voluntary basis before a mandatory approach is considered.
One exception is the proposed Countywide yard waste disposal
Che�pter 111.• Waste Reduction and Rery�cling 8.4. Rery�ling: ReCOmmendations
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
III -
4
9
�
�
�
�
•
ban that requires the Counry and suburban cities to develop
alternative collection methods for yard waste.
Alternative B(Table III1� is recommended for several
reasons:
• The expansion of services and facllities builds on the
existing recycling system and supports the current aQproach of
making recycling as wnvenient as disposal.
• These additional se�vices and programs are clearly needed
in order to reach the stated WR/R goal of 50 percent by 1995.
• This alternative fills needs not being met by the current
recycling system. These include: ensuring high participation in
multifamily recycling; expanding participation in all yard waste
programs by establishing increased yard waste services for
households, self-haulers and commercial generators to support
the phased implementation of the yard waste disposal ban;
establishing and promoting improved nonresidential recycling
services; and providing more opportunitles to collect secondary
recyclable materials at home or through drop-off services.
The recommended pmgrams and actions target the
diversion of large portions of the waste stream, emphasizing
materials with potential market value. In addition, Alternative
B combines hauler and facility-based options to address service
needs of self-haulers and businesses. It also provides seivice
options, which result in the best coverage for rec:overy of
materials that are not generated daily or that
require multiple diversion options. Recyclable materials as
defined in the 1992 Plan are listed in Table III.14.
5. Implementa.tion
The implementation chart (Table III.17) provides
information on program responsibility, and anticipated start
times. Both new and continuing programs are shown.
Table ID.16 1992 Recycling Recommendations
RECYCLABLES COLLECTION
Strategy
Implementatlon
Responsibflity
Required Collection
• Recommendation 111.14 Urban household collection Provide household collection of paper, #1 and #2 plastic County, cities
of primary recyclables bottles (PET and HDP�, yard waste (less than 3 inches in
• diameter), glass containers, and tin and aluminum cans from
all urban single- and mult'rfamily residences
�
•
Recommendation 111.15 Rural drop box collection of Provide rural single- and muR'rfamily residences wkh drop- CouMy, cities
primary recyclables sites for collection of the same materials collected at u�ban
households
Recommendation 111.16 Urban single-family
• household yardwaste
collection
Provide household collection of yard waste (less than 3 Cities
inches in diameter) from urban single-family residences in
unserved urban areas
• Recommendation 111.17 Urban mukifamily onsite Ensure yard waste collection service options are available to CouMy, ckies
yardwaste collection service urban muk'rfamily dwellings
• Recommendation 111.18 Urban household bulky Ensure household collection service options for yard waste CouMy, ckies
• yardwaste collection service too large or in excessive amounts for regular household
collection are available
� Recommendation 111.19 Urban household appliance Ensure large appliance coliection service options are available County, ckies
collection service to urban households
• Recommendation III.20 Urban household textiles Ensure collection service options are available for textiles on a County, cities
collection service regular basis
•
•
•
�
�
8.5. Re�cyclrng: hnplementatron
Chiapter lII.• Waste Reductfon and Re�ccycling
III - 0
5
1992 Recycling Recommendations (Continued) Implementation
Strateyy Re�pon�ibility
Recommendation 111.21 Nonresidential recycling Ensure that businesses have minimum recycling services County, cities
service guidelines available to them
implementation and
promotion
Optional Collection
Recommendation 111.22 Urban and rural household Evaluate the inclusion of polycoated materials (milk cartons, County, cities
polycoated paperboard butter and frozen food packages) in household collection
collection programs
Recommendation 11123 Urban and rural household Include #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and all County, cities
collection of #3-7 plastics other plastics) in household collection programs
Recommendation 11124 Rural household collection Collect primary recyclables at the household from rural single- County, cities
of primary recyclables and muft'rfamily residences
Recommendation 111.25 Rural drop-site collection of Provide on-call househoid or drop-ske collection of yard CouMy, cities
yard waste waste
Recommendation 11126 Rural household collection Coliect appliances from rural households County, ckies
of appliances
Recommendation 111.27 Rural household textiles Collect used clothing and fabrics from rural households County, cities
collection
Recommendation 11128 Nonresidential recycling Initiate collection contracts to provide minimum recycling Cities
colleetion service contracts services to businesses
Other County Collection Programs
Recommendation 111.29 Recyclables collection at Continue current level of primary recyclables including yard County
iCing County Solid Waste waste services at existing facilkies where feasible; collect
Facilkies these and other materiais as needed at upgraded and new
facilkies
Recommendation 111.30 Yard waste drop skes Ensure the provision of yard waste drop skes or services in County
the northeastern, near-south, and eastside areas of the County
Recommendation 111.31 Yard waste disposal ban Implement a phased ban on yard waste disposal at County County
disposal facilities
Recommendation 111.32 Incentives to buy-back Evaluate the feasibility of providing financial incentives to County
centers existing private buy-back centers to encourage them to collect
and recycle secondary recyclable materials
Recommendation 111.33 Appliance recycling Maintain and distribute a resource list of appliance dealers County
resource list and recyclers capable of accepting, collecting, or recycling
used appliances and who meet the new Federal Clean Air Act
CFC regulations
Recommendation 111.34 Secondary recyclables Coordinate special collection events countywide (urban and County,
collection events rural) for secondary recyclables city optional
Recommendation 111.35 Primary Recyclables Develop and implement a campaign to increase public County
Education Campaign awareness of household collection service of primary
recyclables.
Chapter U!.• Waste Reductiorc and R�c�lsng B.S. Recycling; Implementation
ii:•''F.�:}:i�:•:•ii:•?ii:::•:•:•i:•>:•>:•:•:•:•i:•:•:::•:•):•:•:::'>:::':i3`i>i?ir?ii:i:•:•:•ii:•:•:•ri:::i>:•:•i:'i:':'}:
:::ti}i?:i:�4:�i�:'2ii:?:•tiYii::i:•,u::•:::i:-:�:v<:�ivi'i:i�ii•i:i�:j:i�itS::ivi:::::Ji::iiv::::::•ii::?i::::::::i'{:::•�::::•,::�::i:::i:�iiY:;::::i::�::i:::i::�i:•:C:i$iii<i<G :::??�?:ivi:?:•'r'iiii{ii2k•,:::in:i::::•i:i:::�i:':�'i>::::;t':•,:i:•;:•:i:.'li:iiiii:Fi::•,::::::"i �
•: :v.:. ii::::::%
w::ii: .........
w: :•:: v::::::::
:w:::: ':::::::::
.. }..�; .:. n:
•
�
•
•
�
1992 Recycling Recommendatlons (Contlnued)
CITY/COUNTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Strategy
Implemernation
Responsibility
Recommendation 111.36 Collection rate incentives Continue to establish rate incentives for solid waste collection County, cities
that encourage participation in recycling programs (see
Recommendation 111.13)
Recommendation 111.37 Procurement policies Continue the adoption of procu�ement policies that favor the County, ckies
use of recycled or recyclable products
Recommendation 111.38 Recycling space standards Continue to develop new construction standards that require County, cities
for new construction onsite space for collecting and storing recyclables in
muk'rfamily and nonresidential structures countywide
Recommendation 111.39 City annual reports
Recommendation 111.40 Data reporting by haulers,
recyclers, cities
Continue annual reports to the County on progress toward
implementing the Plan's required programs and achieving
established diversion goals
Continue to provide collection data from household and
nonresidentiai collection programs
Cities
CouMy, cities
COUNTY REGIONAI PROGRAMS
Recommendation 111.41 King County Commission
for Marketing Recyclable
Materials
Continue to foster the development and expansion of
recycling markets in King County and the region
County
Recommendation 111.42 Business recycling program Continue to assist businesses and institutions in developing County,
and implementing WR/R programs in the workplace city optional
Recommendation 111.43 King Couniy employee Continue to provide recycling opportunities in the workplace County
recycling program to King County employees
Recommendation 111.44 School education program Continue to work with cities, school districts, haulers and County
recyclers in the delivery of school educational and collection
programs
Recommendation 111.45 Other WR/R education Continue existing education programs and community events, County
develop new programs in the areas of yard waste and mixed
waste paper collection, and develop and coordinate a
comprehensive media campaign aimed at mukiethnic and
other groups
Recommendation 111.46 Clean wood collection Study and develop programs to increase waste reduction and County
recycling oppoRunities for clean wood waste.
Recommendation 111.47 Master Recycler Composter Continue to train community volunteers in recycling and County
program composting techniques
Recommendation 111.48 Foodwaste research and Continue to implement a foodwaste collection, processing, County
development and product testing project under a grant from Ecology
B.S. Recy�cling: hnplementation
Cbr�pter I/1.• Waste Reduction and Re�cy�clsng
'>:< II -
I 2 ��<::
5
Table III.17 Recycling Implementatlon Table
Program Implementation
Name Responsibility 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
RECYCLABLES COLLECTION
Required Collection
111.14 Urban household collection of primary C,CO
re clables
111.15 Rural drop-box collection of primary recyclables C,CO
111.16 Urban single-family household yard waste C,CO
collection
111.17 Urban muft'rfamily onsite yard waste collection C,CO
S8NIC6
111.18 Urban household bulky yard waste collection C,CO
S@NICB
111.19 Urban household appliance collection service C,CO
111.20 Urban household textiles collection service C,CO
11121 Nonresidential recycling service guidelines C,CO
im lementation and romotion
Optional Collection
111.22 Urban and rural household polycoated C,CO
a erboard collection
jlll23 Urban and rural household collection of #3-7 C,CO
lastics
111.24 Rural household collection of primary C,CO
rec clables
111.25 Rural household drop-site collection C,CO
111.26 Rural household collection of appliances C,CO
11127 Rural household textiles collection C,CO
_ _ _. _ . __
111.28 Nonresidential recycling collection service C
contracts
Other CouMy Collsctlon Programc
11129 Recyclables collection at King County Solid CO
Waste Facilities
111.30 Yard waste drop-sites CO
111.31 Yard waste disposal ban Phase I CO
Phase II P
111.32 Incentives to buy-back centers CO
111.33 Appliance recycling resource list CO
111.34 Secondary recyclables collection events C,CO
c' o tional
111.35 Primary recyclables education campaign CO
Chapter 111.• Waste Reducxion and Recy�cling B.S. Re�y�c!'mg: fm�lementation
::C:::L::':::} ii:: ::::::::::::::::::::::%::F:.'i:::i::::::•:::�:::::::S:.:i'::::i����.:::::f:�:ii:::�::::'::::::::':::'''ii:'i:':'::::i::�iii �
'':':':''':':':+'?:: 'i:ii:::iC::ti:•:L: � tititi::•::::•:':':::::.':!::::':':::':::':':'::::ii:iti::::•?: T:'.:{<:ii:':!::::'::'ii:::'ii:i:::i::iii::::i::::iii::::i:::: �i<::':':• � ii
>::>::>::»::»::>::>::::»:;;:::;;<::::<:;:::<:;::>::»::;::>::>::»>::»> ::>::<>::>::>::>::»;:<:>::>;:::>::»»::»»»::;>::»>::;>;:;:»>:: . III :::`:;;::>.:>.
5
3
Recycling Implementatlon Table (Condnued)
Cities = C " Planning period
County = CO Implementation period
Private sector = P Ongoing program
B.S. ReCycling: /mplementation Chapter //l.• l�aste Reduction and Re�y�ding
�
.
0
.
� � CHAPTER IV
•
• Ix:ED MUNICIPAL
.
OLID �UASTE
.
• YSTEM
.
� King County
• Comp rehensive
•
Solid Waste
� Management Plan
•
•
�
•
•
�
•
•
• .
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,���,
�n�
SOI"�111g
It Out
Together
N-1
Chapter IV
Mixed Municip al Solid Waste
Handling Systems
This chapter addresses the needs for solid waste and
recyclables collection, transfer, and disposal, and for
management of inactive landfills. A brief background
discussion of energy/resource recovery (E/RR) is also included
in this chapter, although FJRR is not included in the ting
Counry solid waste management system.
A. SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLABLES COLLECTION
This section examines solid waste and recyclables
collection services in King County, identifies potential problems
with meeting present and future needs, evaluates alternatives,
and recommends policies and activities consistent with other
portions of this 1992 Plan. Specifically, this section
recommends legislation needed to clarify nonresidential
recycling authority for counties and cities, further study of
mandatory collection of solid waste to achieve other program
goals, and adoption of incentives to encourage waste reduction
and recycling (WR/R). The status of 1989 Plan
recommendations is given in Table IV.I.
r�
u
� Table IV.1 Status of 1989 Plan Collection Recommendations
• Program Recommendation
Implementation Status
• III.C.4 Minimum service Require household collection of recyclables for urban Household collection of recyclables and
levels (County) areas and encourage it for rural areas, which may yard waste is available throughout urban
also be served by drop-sites. Require yard waste unincorporated King County. Most
• collection in urban areas. County must provide solid county solid waste facilities offer
waste facilities in rural areas for collection of recycling services.
• recyclables and yard waste.
• III.C.5 WUTC rate review Seek changes to WUTC rate review process to allow Ongoing
change haulers to recover costs incurred from service level
improvements in solid waste and recycling collection
• III.C.6 WUTC variable rate Seek changes to the WUTC process to establish Ongoing
change variable rates to encourage recycling. See 1992 Plan Recommendation
• III.C.7 Solid Waste Division Establish information line in SWD to answer Implemented 1990
• information line questions and make referrals concerning haulers
III.C.8 Bulky item pickup Establish convenient and affordable service for the Not implemented•
• pickup of bulky items through contracts and See revised 1992 Plan recommendation
minimum service levels
�
•
• A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collect7o�a
�
Cl�apter N A��ed Munrcipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
I -2
V
1. Existing Conditions
a. Legal Authority
Legal authoriry for solid waste and recyclables collection
and disposal is shared among the state, acting through the
Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission (W[ITC), the counties, and the
cities.
(1) Ecology Author�ty
Under the Solid Waste Management and Recoveiy Act
(RCW 70.95), local governments are given primary
responsibiliry for solid waste ha�idling. Counties plan for
collection seivices through comprehensive solid waste
management plans. Ecology reviews and approves plans to
assure their compliance with state requirements.
(2) WUl"C Sol�d Waste Authority
Concurrent with the Ecology review, the WUTC reviews the
Pla�i cost assessment to determine the impact on collection
rates (see Volume II, Appendix K, for complete WUTC cost
assessment). Under RCW 81.77, the W[ITC certifies and
regulates garbage and refuse collection wmpanies and requires
complia�ice with local solid waste management plans and
related implementation ordinances. However, this statute does
not apply to operations of any collection wmpanies under
contract for garbage collection and disposal with any city or
town, nor to any ciry or town that undertakes disposal of its
own garbage.
If a county legislative authoriry comments to the
Commission per RCW 81.77.120, the W[ITC will monitor those
comments concerning the adequacy of ga�bage and refuse
collection service in unincorporated portions of a counry or
unregulated areas in cities and towns. All of unincorporated
King Counry is served by collectois who operate under WUTC
certificates of public necessity. Certificate holdeis ha�e the
exclusive territorial right to collect the type of solid waste within
their service areas as stipulated in their franchise, except in
those service areas that overlapped when RCW 81.77 was passed
in 1961. Certificated haulers collect waste in the
unincoiporated sections of their franchise areas and in cities
and towns that choose not to regulate collection themselves.
Certificates ha�e market value and ►nay be purchased
from the existing holdeis. Certificates exist in peipetuiry for the
fianchised area unless the certificate holder fails to provide
adequate service. They are also issued for collection of different
types of waste, which may lead to overlapping certificated areas
(fra�lchises) for wllection of mixed municipal solid waste
(MMSW). Franchise haulers are listed in Table IV.2; WUTC
franchise a��eas for MMSW a�e shown on Figure IV.1.
(3) WU1'C Recyclubles Author�ty
Under RCW 70.95, residential recycling is regulated under
the WUTCs solid waste statute (RCW 81.77), while commercial
recycling is regulated under its motor freight laws (RCW 81.80).
The distinction between the two lias important rate design
implications. Under RCW 81.77, haulers file their own tariffs to
recover costs associated with unique characteristics of their
collection se�vices. [Jnder RCW 81.80, the W[ITC publishes a
common set of tariffs, which all hauleis must adhere to, unless
they publish their own tariffs under special permission from the
commission. Under RCW 81.77, solid waste hauleis must
comply with a local solid waste plan, but under RCW 81.80
there are no equivalent requirements for commercial recyclables
wllection.
(4) Co�inty Sol�d Waste A��thor�ty
RCW 36.58 authorizes counties to establish a system of
solid waste disposal. Under certain wnditions, as allowed by
Chapter 36.58A RCW, counties may establish collection districts
for the mandatory collection of solid waste. There are currently
no solid waste collection districts in King County. Counties
may also adopt regulations and ordinances governing the
collection, transportation, storage, processiug of solid waste, and
establishment of bans qr limitations on the disposal of certain
materials. In establishing a ban for purposes of promoting
Figure IV.I Overleaf: W[JTC franchise areas for MMSW.
Cha�iter N Mz�ed Municrpal Solid Waste Ha�adling Systems A. Solul Waste and Recyclables Collectaon
� �u.,, M• l � � y / 1 .,
. luI ��.� / aS
Y' \�
..w
�\\ � n� . �. .
�
•.
�= =
a O �� �
\�__�'�..
M �
J N 1� tJ l�� A I M I h. . , �.
�
... .,, ' ,.,.. P
, �
.. �� '\
. . . , � � . .. `;
..� T I n�N A L I� U R E 5 7 � .• .. .`�•.��
� ^ \,
, , . � �-
a
� , 't i
� b"
.,. O
`
p
y
`P
I ',
1
�
�
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
1990
Residential Franchise City Contract Haulers
Haulers
� Island Disposal 1Q Eastside Disposal
0 Lawson Disposal Q2 Kent Disposal
� Murrey's Disposal Q3 Lawson Disposal
� RST Disposal a Murrey's Disposal
0 Rabanco Disposal O5 RST Disposal
� Waste O6 Rainier Disposal
Management
Q7 SeaTac Disposal
� Overlapping
Areas Q SnoKing Disposal
� City operated collection
❑ Urban service area
— City boundaries
;;�_; .
.,� - - '°� �
� ., �'�
, � „ -� �, i
a
s ,,,� ,
�� � -- _ � .,a
�
, �.. y,�
„� — = -��,.. m.s
��
,�, �
, �„> .,
�
�
•
�
�
�
N-
3
• Table N.2 King Counry Municipal Solid Waste Franchise Holders [certificate numbers in brackets]
� Ronald Teed Island Disposal [G-32]
dba Island Disposal
• 1345 North Lake Way
Bremerton, WA 98312
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
Lawson Disposal [G-41 ]
Post Office Box 1220
Issaquah, WA 98027
Murrey's Disposal Company, Inc. [G-9]
dba Points Garbage Service
Post Office Box 399
Puyallup, WA 98371
Nick Raffo Garbage Company, Inc.
[G-16, G-35, G-185]
dba Fedeial Way Disposal, RST Disposal
Post Office Box 1877
Auburn, WA 98071-1877
Rabanco, Ltd.
[G-12, G-60]
dba Eastside Disposal, KentJMeridian Disposal, Sea-Tac
Disposal.
4730 - 32nd Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98118
Waste Management, inc.
[G-43, G-63, G-67, G-126, G-140�
dba W.M.�eattle, W.M.�lorthwest, W.M.�4ainier,
W.M. �no-King.
4020 Lake Washington Boulevard Northeast
Source: WUTC 1992. Kirkland, WA 98033
recycling or some other operational objective, the Counry will
coordinate implementation with the cities. (See King County
Solid Waste Regulations, King County Board of Health Code
[KCBOHC] Title 10.)
(S) County Recyclables ATithority
RCW 36.58 authorizes counties to set minimum seivice
levels and contract for wllection of source-separated recyclables
from residences in unincoiporated areas. In addition, counties
may impose fees on these services to fund WR/R programs.
Counties can contract directly with haulers and recycle�s (or
allow WUTC franchise haulers to collect in these jurisdictions},
but they do not have to collect commercial recyclables, which
a�e regulated under RCW 81.80.
King Counry Code (KCC) 10.18 adopted in 1991 specifies
minimum service level sta�lda�•ds for residential recyclables
collection and incentive rate stivctures in uninco�porated urban
areas. To permit the most efficient provision of seivices
countywide, recyclables collection districts are delineated. Under
the current structure, the WUTC continues to control rate-
settiilg, but is required to allow for costs incurred due to service
level requirements (see Chapter III, for further discussion of
recycling implications).
(6) C�ttes and Tozons Soltd Waste Authority
Collection systems and the regulatory structure they fall
under are summari�ed in T able IV.3. Cities may require
mandatory collection, in which all residents and businesses
subscribe to designated refuse collection services, or mandatoiy
Tabk IV3 Collection System Regulatory Structure
Ceriificated License
Collector Private Private
Contract
Private
Municipal
Public
Collection Authority WUTC WUTC Municipality Municipality
Rate Approval WUTC WUTC Municipality Municipality
Billing Collector Municipality or collector Municipality or collector Municipality
• A. Solul Waste and Recyclables Collectio�r Chapte�• N M�ed Munic�l Solid Waste Iiandling Systems
�
�
IV-4
_ _ ..._ ............................... .................... �
pay�nent for collection se�vices. Under RCW 35.21.120, cities
and tow��s may allow W[JTC franchise haulers to collect in their
jurisdictions or choose one of the following options for
managing solid waste collection (none eliminates a citizen's
right to haul his or her own waste, though they may be
required to participate in a collection system and share the
financial burden):
• Certificated. Newly incorporated cities must continue to use
the present franchised hauler for at least five years (RCW
35.02.160), but this requirement does not preclude purchase of
the WUTC franchise.
• Lice�ase. Cities may issue lice��ses to collect solid waste. In
a licensed system, WUTC certificates are augmented by city
licenses, which grant the municipaliry cevenue through fees.
• Cont��act. Cities and towns may enter into contracts with
private hauleis to collect residential and commercial wastes.
The contracted hauler does not need to hold a certificate of
public necessity or a franchise for that area. Contracts usually
are awarded through an RFP or bid process. Occasionally,
contracts are awarded through direct negotiations.
• Municipc�l. Muuicipalities may operate their own collection
systems.
(7) Cttfes and Towns Recyclables Az�thority
Cities may contract directly with hauleis or recycleis to
collect recyclables and yard waste, provide the collection seivice
themselves, or allow the W[ITC to establish these seivices. No
jurisdiction llas been given the authoriry to enter into an
exclusive contract for the collection of commercial recyclables,
which are regulated under RCW 81.80. Cities may provide
collection seivices for commercial recyclables, but businesses
may choose an alternative service if they wish.
RCW 70.95 requires household collection of recyclable
materials in areas designated urba�i. According to the
requirements of the Plan, residents in areas designated rural
must be served by drop-sites, btry-back centers, or mobile
collection facilities for recyclables and yard waste.
b. M�ed Municipal Solid Waste
(1) Resfdenttal Collect�on of
Solid Waste and Recyclables
Residential collection wnsists of the removal of recyclables
and waste from individual residences and the transport of those
materials to processing facilities, transfer stations, or disposal
sites. In 19g1 there were four major certificated haulers for
MMSW in King Counry: Rabanco, Waste Management, RST, and
Lawson.
The methods of collection, types of service a�ailable, and
nature of the service vary throughout the Counry. Residential
seivices a�ailable in each jurisdiction are summarized in
Table IV.4.
In King Counry and nationwide the collection industry is
moving toward more fully automated equipment that requires
standardized containeis. Automated and semi-automated
wllection decreases risk of injury to workers and is more cost-.
effective. For the most part, these containers are owned and
maintained by the collection companies, and customers are
charged a rental fee.
Individuals may choose to haul their own waste (self-
haul) to transfer stations or rural landfills in lieu of regular
collection service or in addition to receiving regular secvice. In
1990, self-haul accounted for 17 percent of total residential
waste and 25 percent of commercial waste received at counry
facilities. Individuals who self-haul usually do so because of the
material they are disposing of (for example bulky items), or
because they live near la�ldfills or transfer stations. With few
exceptions, direct haul by individuals to the Ceda�• Hills Landfill
is not permitted.
Residents may also self-haul recyclables, although
household collection services are available in most urban areas.
Recycling collection is being implemented or planned wherever
possible at most King Counry transfer stations and rural
landfills (see Chapter III, Section B for program descriptions).
Meeting collection needs where growth rates are
significa�itly higher will require additional investment in
equipment and seivice levels by haulers. Although the total
population in King County is e�cpanding rapidly, most growth is
occurring in well-established urban and suburban areas.
However, haulers note that increased population will facilitate
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Chapter /V Mi�ed Municrpal Solul Waste Handling Systems A. Soli{l Waste and Recyclables ColleGtion
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
IV -
5
•
•
•
.
•
•
�
�
Table IV.4 ResidenUal Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Service Summary
Jurisdiction
Algona
Auburn
Beaux Arts
Bellevue
Black Diamond
Bothell
Burien
Carnation
Clyde Hill
Des INoines
Duvall
Enumclaw
Federal Way
Hunts Point
Issaquah
Kent
Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Medina
Mercer Island
Milton
Normandy Park
North Bend
Pacific
Redmond
Renton
SeaTac
Skykomish
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Form of
Collection
Regulation
contract
contract
certificate
contract
certificate
contract
certificate
contract
cert/FA
certificate
certificate
city
contract
cert/FA
contract
contract
contract
contract
cert/FA
contract
contract
cert/FA
contract
contract
cert/FA
contract
certificate
city
contract
certificate
Woodinville certificate
Yarrow Point cert/FA
Unincorporated King County
Mandatory
Solid Waste Collector
Collector Solid Waste Collection Recyclables
Sea-Tac (R) yes
RST yes RST
Eastside (R) no Eastside
Eastside (R) no Fibres
Meridian Valley (R) no Meridian Val
SnoKing (WM) yes SnoKing
Same as area 6
Snoking (WM) yes
Eastside (R) no
Sea-Tac (R) no
SnoKing (WM) no
City yes
Federal Way Disp (RS� no
Eastside (R) no
Lawson no
Kent Disp (R), TriStar (RS� no
SnoKing (WM) yes
Eastside (R) no
Eastside (R) no
Eastside (R) no
Murrey's Disposal yes
Raffo(RS�, no
Sea-Tac (R)
Lawson yes
RST (R) yes
SnoKing (WM) no
Rainier (WM) yes
Raffo (RS� no
Sea-Tac
City yes
Lawson yes
Raffo (R)/ no
Sea-Tac
Lawson no
Eastside (R) no
Recycling Collection Rates
included Mlni-can 1 can 2 cans
7.05 9.70
6.50 7.90 15.80
yes 8.80 9.70 11.95
yes 6.80 11.75 16.15
8.10 10.15
yes 10.00 14.00
SnoKing
Eastside yes
Sea-Tac
SnoKing
RST
RST
Eastside yes
Lawson yes
Kent
SnoKing yes
Eastside yes
Eastside yes
Eastside yes
Fibres
Lawson yes
RST
Fibres
Rainier yes
Raffo
Sea-Tac
Lawson yes
Raffo yes
Sea-Tac
Lawson yes
Eastside yes
11.15
8.89 10.43
7.10
7.62
2 can min.
7.10
5.00 7.85
7.92 12.78
7.60
6.35 10.80
6.35 9.95
5.00 7.85
6.35 10.80
6.15
5.60 7.40
3.95 7.30
10.00
5.60 6.95
7.14 11.55
3.60 8.90
5.60 8.35
9.50
10.35
7.10 10.65
5.75 9.10
8.20 12.93
5.00 7.85
15.00
14.22
9.85
8.90
10.05
9.85
10.85
22.51
11.35
15.20
13.95
10.85
15.20
9.34
11.10
10.60
10.95
16.80
14.90
11.75
14.20
12.40
17.18
10.95
Service Area 1 certificate WM, Northwest no WM, NW yes 8.21 12•21 16•21
Service Area 2 certificate Eastside no Eastside yes 5.22 8.07 11.07
Service Area 3 certificate Sno-King no Sno-King yes 7.21 10.36 14.26
Service Area 4 certificate Lawson no Lawson yes 8.20 12.93 17.18
Service Area 5 certificate Rainier no Rainier yes 7.64 11.54 15.29
W M-Seattle W M-Seattle 8.27 12.32 16.87
Sea-Tac Sea-Tac 6.02 9.47 13.17
Service Area 6 certificate WM-Seattle no WM-Seattle yes 8.27 12.32 16.87
Sea-Tac Sea-Tac 6.02 9.47 13.17
RST RST 7.32 10.32 14.42
Service Area 7 certificate RST no RST yes 7.32 10.32 14.42
Sea-Tac Sea-Tac 6.02 9.47 13.17
Service area 8 certificate Meridian Valley no Meridian Val yes 6.05 9.60 13.35
(R) = Rabanco companies, (WM) = Waste Management, (RS� = RST Disposal FA = franchise area
b 32-gallon owner containers, curb or alley pickup. Toter containers are billed at different rates.
A.1. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection: Exzstr�rg Co�aditio�zs Clu�pter IV M�xed Municpal Solut Waste Handltng Systems
�
N-6
collection, because higher densiry concentrates routes, thereby
increasing cost-effectiveness.
(2) Commerc�al Sector Waste
and Recyclables Collectfon Systems
Commercial collection consists of the removal of
recyclables and solid waste from commercial and institutional
bulldings and some multifamily residences. Multifamily units
are typically included under commercial collection due to the
number of pickups required, the size of containers used, and
billing procedures (charging the landlord rather than residents).
However, the Plan requirement for household recyclables
collection in urban areas does apply to multifamily dwellings.
Municipalities may control commercial waste collection within
their boundaries, and many cities that utilize licei�ses and
contracts to regulate residential solid waste collection also
choose to regulate the commercial sector.
Most of the certificated franchises in King Counry collect
garbage from both residential and commercial customeis.
Some certificates also designate particular areas or types of
wastes that may be collected. Table IV.S is a summary of
companies that collect commercial waste, types of materials
they wllect, and their areas of operation in the Counry.
Most commercial recyclables wllection services a�e
arranged directly between businesses or properry manageis and
service providers. Currently, there are few municipally
sponsored wmmercial collection programs in the County,
although many cities are evaluating their options for initiaUng
such programs. The 1989 Plan provided for a Business
Recycling Program to assist in developing collection programs
for recyclables. (See Section III.B.)
c. Collecction Rates for
Solid Waste and Recyclables
(1) Sol�d Waste
Refuse collection rates vary among municipalities and
franchise a�•eas. For the most part recent rate increases reflect
the rising cost of disposal and the imposition of a moderate
risk waste surcharge by the Seattle-�ing Counry Board of
Health. Rates are also affected by population size and densiry,
size a�id type of commercial and industrial secrois, distance to
the transfer station or disposal sites, age and size of the
collection vehicle fleet, and any administrative and billing costs
added by municipalities. Also, services may vary in numerous
ways—free pickup of municipal garbage, length of the wntract,
a�id location of pickup, for example.
Solid waste rates are regulated by the WUTC for haulers
with franchise certificates and by cities for haulers with
contracts or licenses (Table IV.3). Table IV.4 shows solid waste
collection rates for suburban cities.
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
(2) Waste Reduct�on und Recycl�ng (WR/R) + I
and Rute Incenttves
Collection rates for recyclables are often included in
residential solid waste rates. Consolidation of collection fees for
recycling and solid waste into one bill is believed to have made
residential rec}�cling more successful because it is more efficient
for haulers, more convenient for customers, and demonstrates
to customers how minimizing disposal through WR/R can also
reduce costs. This is particularly effective when hauleis also
use an incentive rate structure to encourage WR/R. Incentive
rates include mini-can services, once-a-month garbage
collection service, yard waste rates, and substantial cost
differentials between service levels.
In 1990 the WUTC initiated a notice of inquiry on solid
waste collection rate design, focusing on how to structure rates
to encourage WR/R. The W[ITCs current cost
methodology does not produce significant incentive rate
stivctures, but the commission is continuing to investigate this
matter through workshops and public involvement. In 1991
King Counry worked with the W[JTC to implement an incentive
rate structure for household recyclables collection in urban
unincorporated areas. Implementing rate incentives satisfies the
requirements of the rate policy addressed in KCC 10.18.020.
2. Needs and Opportunities
The collection system is evaluated within the framework
of the overall mission of the King Counry Solid Waste Division
to protect the public health and environment through the
proper management and disposal of waste. The goals for
determining needs for solid waste and recyclables collection are
Chapter N,� Mzxed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Syste»zs A.1. Solid Wuste and Recyclables Collection: F,xisting Conditions
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
N-
7
Table N.5 Summary of Solid Waste Collection
(Companies affiliated with Rabanco are indicated by [R]; companies affiliated with Northwest Waste Industries are indicated by [NWWI]
certificate numbers are in brackets)
• Eastside Disposal [R] [G-12]
• Garbage in Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila areas, extending east to
include North Bend and Black Diamond
• • Garbage (commercial only) in White Center and Burien areas
• Scrap and refuse in Tukwila, part of Renton, Burien, and White
• Center
Garbage and rubbish in North Bend, Snoqualmie west to
. Issaquah, and Kent
• Scrap and refuse in King County north of the line of South 180th
Street extended and east of Lake Washington
� • Scrap and refuse in Seattle and the northern part of Vashon
Island
• Sea-Tac Disposal (R] [G-12]
• Refuse and debris in the Auburn, Federal Way, Algona, Des
• Moines, and Kent areas
• Scrap and refuse in all of King County south of a line determined
• by 180th Street, extended east and west
• Garbage and rubbish in Auburn and Black Diamond.
�
•
•
•
Kent/Me�idian Valley Disposal [R] [G-60]
- Garbage and refuse for western Kent, Auburn, Algona, Black
Diamond, Issaquah east to Snoqualmie, Renton, and North Bend
Seattle Disposal [NWWI] [G-124]
• Garbage in Seattle
• Refuse throughout King County (and Washington State)
• Rubbish and debris in Seattle north of the ship canal and Lake
Union
Poniius Trucking [G-212]
• Non-metallic residue from Northwest Steel Rolling Mills
Lawson Disposal [G-41 ]
• Garbage and refuse in North Bend, Issaquah, and an area near
Snoqualmie and North Bend
R.S.T. Disposal [G-185]
• Garbage in Algona, Kent, Auburn, and Federal Way areas
• Rubbish in Tukwila, Kent, Federal Way, Des Moines, and Burien
areas
Nick Raffo Garbage Company [G-16]
• Garbage in Burien, White Center, and Federal Way areas
Federal Way Disposal [G-35]
• Garbage in Federal Way
Murrey's Disposal Company [G-9]
• Garbage and refuse in a small part of western Federal Way
The following haulers are certified to collect either a particular
mate�ial or f�om a limited number of sites, or both
Northwest Recovery Systems [G-209]
• Garbage and refuse from NOAA facilities and the VA Medical
Center
Resource Recovery [G-176]
• Liquid industrial wastes in the state of Washington
• Hazardous or chemical wastes in the state of Washington
Montleon Trucking [G-203]
• Construction and demolition debris in King, Pierce, and
Snohomish Counties
Amalgamated Services [G-204]
• Hazardous waste and bulk liquid non-hazardous waste from
King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties
Fedderly-Marion Freight Lines [G-207]
• Kiin dust from Ideal Basic Industries
Environmental Transport [G-211 ]
• Extremely hazardous semisolid waste in Whatcom, Skagit,
Snohomish, King, Kitsap and Pierce counties
Sure Way Medical Services (N.W. Waste Industries) [G-236]
• Medical waste from King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties
• Waste Management of Seattle [G-140]
• Refuse in Seattle
• • Garbage and refuse throughout King County (and Pierce,
Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties)
• • Debris and refuse in the southern half of Seattle
• Garbage and refuse in Seattle south of North 85th Street
• Garbage and refuse in Seattle south of North 145th Street
• • Garbage in White Center and Skyway
• Waste Management�noKing [G-126J
• Garbage and refuse in Bothell, Redmond, Duvall, and Carnation
areas
� • Rubbish in North City, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Kirkland, and
Bellevue
. Waste Management—Northwest [G-43]
• Garbage and refuse in Richmond Beach
•
•
•
•
Waste Management—Rainier [G-63, G-67]
• Garbage in an area to the west, south, and southeast of Renton,
northeast of Auburn, and Skyway
� A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Codlectio�a
�
Cl�pter N.• M�ed Mu�aic�l Solyd Waste Handla�ag Systems
�
IV -
8
to make collection seivices a�ailable to all county residents and
to e«sure compatibility with WR/R progra�lls. (See also
Chapter III, Section B.)
a. Urban Solid Waste and Recyclables Collecction
Most la�ge cities maintain contracts with wllecto�s to �
provide recyclables and solid waste collection for their residents;
the remaining cities a�id towns allow franchised hauleis to
collect under a liceuse or certificate. The uninwrporated areas
a�•e se�ved by franchise haulers. These seivices appea�• to be
adequate. A collection system for secondaiy recyclables, such as
appliances, fui�iiture, food waste, mixed plastics, and bulhy yard
waste is needed. Residential collection vehicles generally are
not equipped to ha�idle bulky items, a�id residents who are
unable to transport them to transfer stations or la�idfills must
arrange special pickup. Depending on tlle location, this can be
costly. The consequences can be illegal dumping or donations
to local charities which may then be burdened with unusable
furniture and appliances. (See Chapter III, Section B.)
b. Rural Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection
Solid waste collection seivices are a�ailable countywide;
however, a comprehensive system for collecting recyclables and
residential and commercial yard waste is needed in some rural
areas.
c. Nonresidential Collection
Although the Business Recycling Program has beeu
effective in providing businesses with infoi7nation about how to
improve WR/R activities, collection seivices for commercial
recyclables are often unavailable or expensive. Local
governments have not been given explicit authoriry to set se�vice
levels.
Achieving an integrated collection and billing program for
nonresidential solid waste and recyclables is difficult because
different statutes regulate the collection of commercial solid
waste and recyclables (see Section IV.A.2.b.) The WUTC believes
that because RCW 81.80 and RCW 81.77 utilize different rate-
setting methods, it is inappropriate to allow a single firm with
both types of authority to use income from one type of
operation to subsidi�e another (called "cross subsidization").
For example, solid waste collection income might be used to
subsidize recyclables collection. If there are no significant
increases in the volumes of recyclable materials collected in the
nonresidential sector during 1992-93, King Counry may need to
work with the WUTC to develop rate incentives, other forms of
combuled rates, or other mea��s of stimulating wmmercial
recyclables collection.
d. Instituhonal and Incentiv�e Rates
Because the authorities and responsibilities for setting
seivice level standa�ds a�•e shared among the WUTC, counties,
and cities, there is a need for clear and coordinated goals in
solid waste management and rate design. Aggressive recycling
goals set by the state, counties, and cities need to be supported
by a rate design process that allows hauleis to provide WR/R
incentives and recover wsts associated with improving service.
The WUTCs current rate methodology calculates collection
rates based on a strict adherence to a historic cost-of-service
allocation model, which only allows for limited cost differentials
between service levels. It is e�ected that as. collection,
processing, and disposal costs rise and as further rate incentives
are established, most customers will practice more waste
reduction and recycling. Rate design that includes substantial
cost differentials between different service levels is needed to
support these alternatives.
Current procedures a�ld the risks and limitations imposed
on wst recovery discourage haulers from investing in additional
or upgraded equipment and have inhibited innovation in the
area of recycling. The mechanism for providing assistance to
the collection industry for service modifications to support
recycling and other programs needs to be improved.
3. Alternatives
This section identifies alternatives that address the needs
discussed above (Table IV.6 summarizes these alternatives).
There a�e no unserviced areas in King Counry—the current
system fulfills the first goal of ensuring a�ailability of solid
waste collection to all counry residents. However, an increased
Chapter N Mzxed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systenzs A. Solul Waste and Recyclables Collection
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r�
LJ
i•
I•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
N-
9
Table IV.6 Summary of 1992 Collection Alternatives
Alternative A
Alternative B
Status quo—voluntary Continue voluntary participation in recycling and solid waste collection services, and maintain
collection system current regulatory structure.
Voluntary collection Mitigate institutional barriers created by the state-imposed collection franchise system through
system with county involvement in rate and service evaluations and lobbying the WUTC to change its rate
regulatory changes review process. Clariiy collection authority of counties and cities.
Alternative C Mandatory collection Institute mandatory collection of solid waste.
service level is needed to meet the second goal of supporting
WR/R programs.
a. Alternative A, Status Quo
Voluntary Collecction System
This alternative would continue implementation of the
programs recommended in the 1989 Plan (See Table IV.1).
b. Alternali�e B, Voluntary Collection
with Regulatory Changes
This alte�native would expand upon the 1�89
recommendations. The need for seivice improvements in
nonresidential recycling highlights a�i area where collection
authority needs to be clarified. Counties are not authorized to
provide wllection seivice, except as provided under RCW 36.58A
regarding solid waste collection districts. State legislation is
needed to delineate counry and city authoriry to provide for
nonresidential recycling progra�ns in comprehensive solid waste
management plans. The institutional banie�s created by the
state-imposed collection franchise system could be mitigated
through continued wunry involvement in rate a�ld seivice
evaluations. Due to the comple�ity and limitations of W[JTC
rate evaluations, haulers ha�e little incentive to upgrade
curbside recyclables and solid waste collection. The Counry
could provide support to improve seivice levels, particularly the
compatibiliry of recycling and other programs, by WlltillUlRg CO
provide documentation supporting increased seivice levels and
incentive rate structures.
The County could also lobby the WUTC to chauge its rate
review process to consider a11 reasouable costs in the purchase
of new collection equipment (including financing costs). This
would speed up the turnaround time between when costs are
incurred and when they are recouped through increased rates.
It would also provide for consideration of risk in recovering
costs associated with service level changes when they are directly
tied to programs recommended in an approved solid waste
management plan.
King Counry recognizes that intervention and support for
service level and rate changes may not be consistently
successful. The primary purpose of intervention would be to
ensure that private haulers can improve the level of se�vice to
be consistent with other elements of the Plan update.
c. Altemativ�e C, Mandatory Collection System
Improved participation in recycling programs may require
further changes in solid waste and recycling collection
authoriry. Mandatory recycling could be initiated by imposing
disposal limitations on materials that are readily recyclable or
for which there are adequate recycling opportunities (Section
III.B, Alternative C). Mandatory collection of solid waste could
be initiated by requiring that all households in unincorporated
King Counry be billed a minimum rate for collection. A
rationale for implementing mandatory collection would be to
limit self-haul activiry, to limit illegal dumping and littering,
and to distribute the costs of recycling and solid waste
management among all city and counry residents. However,
the relationships betuveen mandatory collection, self-haul, and
illegal dumping activities are unknown. The County could
study these relationships as a first step toward evaluating
mandatory collection.
As noted in Section III.A.I.a, implementing mandatory
collection under the present systein would require the formation
of solid waste wllection districts, which require approval by the
• A. Solid Waste and RecyclQbles Collectio�a Chiapter N.• Mixed Municipal Soli� Waste Eiandling Systems
�
�
-1
N 0
county governing body and public hea�•ings, or a change in
state law to authori�e counties to make this decision more
easily. Cities would also be required to implement mandatory
collection.
4. Recommendations
Alternative B is recommended to meet the goal of
supporting WR/R programs by improving rate structures and
clarifying nonresidential collection authorities. The specific
recommendations that comprise alternative B are summari�ed
in Table IV.7.
a. Authority
The cities and King Counry will implement a�id maintain
rate incentives that encourage waste reduction a�id recycling.
These include va�•iable rates with substa�ltial cost differentials
between solid waste collection seivice levels; once-a-month
garbage collection service; mini-ca�i garbage seivice; a�id rates
for recycling services only for non-garbage customeis (see
Chapter III, Recommendatioi�s III.1-4). To reach 50 percent
diversion by 1995, King County should assist a�id support
collection agencies and plan service modificatio��s that a�e
compatible with recycling and other solid waste programs and
goaLs.
The County should pursue state legislation that clarifies
authority of counties and cities to set minimum service
standards for nonresidential collection of recyclables. (See
Chapter III, Recommendation III.1.)
Although mandatory collection is not recommended at
this time, the County should study the relationship between
mandatoiy collection, self-haul activiry, illegal dumping and
participation in recycling programs.
b. WUTC Rate Review
The County should continue to seek changes through the
WUTC rate review process that would allow hauleis to recover
costs related to nonresidential, recycling se�vice level
improvements called for in the 1989 Pla�l.
The Counry and cities should continue to implement rate
incentives in residential solid waste collection. (See Chapter III,
Recommendation III.[d]).
5. Implementation
The recommended actio��s for solid waste and recyclaUle
collection focus on strengthening King Counry's abiliry to
implement tlie 1992 Plan update through ei�lianced collection
seivices. This would be accomplished by securing state
legislation authorizing nonresidential minimum seivice levels
a�ld improving the W[JTC rate review process to support a�id
reinforce recycling. It would require an estimated one to two
yeais to implement the desired collection practices.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
T�le IV.7 Summary of 1992 Collection Recommendations �
Recommendation IV.1
Recommendation IV2
Recommendation IV.3
Collection authority
Evaluate mandatory collection
WUTC rate review
Pursue state legislation to clarify nonresidential recycling authority of
counties and cities to set recommended minimum service standards for
nonresidential collection of recyclables.
Study relationships beiween mandatory collection, self-haul activity,
illegal dumping, and participation in recycling programs.
Continue to seek changes in statutes and in the WUTC rate review
process to allow haulers to recover costs refated to nonresidential
recycling service level improvements called for in the Plan.
Recommendation IV.4 Rate incentives Continue to implement rate incentives that will encourage waste
reduction and recycling (see also Chapter III, Recommendations 111.13
and 111,36),
Chapter N M�ed Mun�crpal Solul Waste Handling Systenzs
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
A. Solid Waste an�l Recyclables Collection �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
- 11 >:
B. TRANSFER SYSTEM
Approximately 84 percent of the refuse disposed in King
Counry is processed through the King Counry transfer system.
The system is a network of seven publicly owned transfer
stations and two rural drop-boxes where residential customers
and commercial haulers transfer loads from many small
vehicles to fewer, large hauling vehicles that haul the waste to
the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (Figure IV.2). Some solid
waste is also delivered to Cedar Hills from two privately owned
transfer/recycling stations. Waste from Seattle's two transfer
stations is no longer disposed at Cedar Hills, since Seattle
withdrew from the King County system in May 1991.
In 1991, King County transfer facilities handled 842,083
tons of solid waste and received 821,722 visits from commercial
haulers, businesses, and self-haulers. Transfer stations operated
by the private sector and the Ciry of Seattle handled 255,485
tons of mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) in 1991. Special
i
• � . . First ._._ _
� � Ave NE f �"" \
• �c
%�
/ � �� �
• � ti Seatde North �I�lkffi,�ht3
: ■ ■ ;:
•
.
C �
� V
� SEATTLE
c
2� Third 8
o � Lander
i,
� Seattle
� South
• ;'� �
• ,
%
I �
� Vashon
•� •
• '\ V14.S�'IVI`�
% ISLAND
. �
•
•
•
•
•
.
�
�
�
__ i
`'� �Cedar Hills � � � /'
� ♦ Cedar Falls (
, .
, , ; ,.
_ ,,.
,,., .. .. �./
�
, , ,,, ..., :�� ... ' '� �•.� 1
-d ,.. � ..- : ,.. . r:.., ... .., \
' `�. '� l �°;:-... Skykomish
_.
, , ., . .._...
� __.
; ;�
,
_ .
i ` �
„ . _.
�r \ 1
�.
,
; -. ) , � �
.
. .,
,, .
, ,, .
' ' 1
�... ) _
,
,
'1
.
::1
, ., i
I�; , � �.
., '', � i
.�•J
�., � I
j
,
_.
. .: ' .i
��.. :` �.i
� S'
iver. ' ` "� N
, : A Hobart, : . �
>; _
_.
_.s
_. � .
, 1
.
,. � .
, - �
, .� •�.
�: ` _ . �
, _ ,.. ...
%
; ,� _s' ,
'� ■ Atgons '' \ . ,.. _ , r —._.
i.. ,
��..,,..,.�.... _._ � ...
�,
c� `' __ ...
• Enumclaw -
5 0 5 \. _, �,::,: ....,..... ...... __
MILES �-�
� Mixed waste landfill
■ Solid waste transfer station
� Drop-box
� CDL transfer station
Figu�e IV.2 King County transfer system facilities. `-
B. Mixed Municpal Solul Waste 7�ansfer System
Chapter N M�ed Mun�cipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
�
N-12
wastes, such as asbescos, medical waste, contaminated soil, and
others, require special handling and a�•e not allowed in transfer
statioi�s. They are disposed at Cedar Hills, with special
clearance (see Chapter V).
The 1989 Plan recommended a number of improvements
to the transfer system to increase capacity a�id provide better
customer service. The recommended activities are proceeding
on schedule and the status is reported in Table IV.8.
1. Existing Conditions
a. System Descriphon
(1) KZng Car�nty Transfer Stutfons
There are nine King Counry transfer facilities: seven
transfer stations and two rural drop-boxes. The seven trai�sfer
stations are located at First Northeast (north of Seattle),
Houghton (in Kirkland), Facroria (in South Bellewe) Renton,
Bow Lake (Tul�tivila), Algona, and Enumclaw (which opened in
mid-1993). The two rural drop-boxes are at Sl.ykomish and
Cedar Falls. All solid waste from the Counry's transfer system
is disposed at Cedar Hills.
Five of the seven existing transfer stations—Algona,
Factoria, First Northeast, Houghton, and Renton�vere built
between 1963 and 1967 and are of the same basic design.
They are direct load facilities, in which refuse is loaded directly
into tra��sfer t�ailers. The Bow Lake Transfer Station,
constructed in 1977, is a push pit faciliry—refuse is unloaded
into a pit, then pushed into waiting trailers. This design is
more desirable because it provides some storage during peak
use periods. At the time they were designed, these facilities
represented the state of the art, however they do not meet
current needs.
These transfer facilities were also constructed prior to the
current emphasis on recycling, a�ld some do not provide the
recycling services that are desired. VUhere possible, drop-boxes
have been added at the existing facilities to collect self-haul
recyclables. They are in place at Bow Lake, Factoria, First
Northeast, and Houghton, and faciliry plans were submitted for
approval for Algona and Renton. Yard waste is collected during
the second shift at Factoria, but adding it at the other facilities
is difficult due to site constraints.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Table IV.8 Status of 1989 Transfer Plan System Recommendations
Facility Recommendation
Houghton Complete compliance requirements.
Replace with new facility.
Renton Close—complete MFS requirements.
Algona Close
1stAvenueNE Upgrade
Factoria Expand or replace (expansion was
deemed infeasible)
Bow Lake Upgrade or replace
Enumclaw Open
Hobart Landfill Open
Waste Management Get permitted
Northwest (formerly
Snohomish Eastmont)
Implementation Status •
Compliance completed by 1992; replacement scheduled for
1999. •
Will complete compliance in 1993, close by 2010 after Bow
Lake expansion.
Scheduled to close in 1998, replace with South King County.
Upgrade to meet compliance requirements completed in 1992
Upgrade to meet compliance requirements completed in 1992;
replace with new faciliiy in 1996.
Upgrade to meet compliance requirements implemented 1990.
Landfill final closure in 1993, replaced with new transfer facility
in April 1993.
Landfill closure to begin in 1994. Facility services and
capacity will be replaced by existing facilities.
Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer
system.
Skykomish Drop-box Implemented
Chapter !V M�xed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems 8.1. Transfer System: Fxisting Condilrons
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
�
•
•
�
� ;;;;:.;;>;:.
�
-1
3
� ....
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
The new Enumclaw transfer station utilizes a modification
of the push pit technology described above. It also provides a
full range of recyclable collection services on site.
Construction is scheduled to begin in 1995 for the
replacement of the Factoria Transfer Station, as recommended
in the 1989 Plan, to increase capaciry (see Table IV.8). This
will be a push pit faciliry, which will include an area for self-
haul recyclable materials, including yard waste. The facility
will also be designed to provide for moderate risk waste
collection though this service is not anticipated to begin in
1996 when the faciliry opens. This is consistent with the Loccal
Hazardous Waste Managenaent Pl�n (I.IIWNIP) for Seattle-
King Counry, which recommends that, as King County expands
its solid waste facilities, permanent household hazardous waste
(W-IW) collection facilities be considered in the design. At the
request of the Management Coordination Committee for the
Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, inclusion of a
moderate risk waste collection seivice has been made a part of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Factoria
Transfer Station replacement project. However, the Management
Coordination Committee has recommended that this service not
be provided initially, allowing for an assessment of collection
needs before household hazardous waste collection seivices are
offered at this site.
The Skykomish drop-box uses two containeis that can be
rolled on and off a truck and hauled to the Houghton Tra��sfec
Station for transfer to Cedar Hills. The Cedar Falls drop-box,
serving the North Bend area, uses two containeis for mixed
waste and one for ya�d waste. They are hauled directly to Cedar
Hills or to a yard waste composting facility.
Tables IV.9 and IV.10 summa�ize the tra�isfer system
compliance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations
(KCBOHC 10.08.030). All King Counry facilities are largely in
compliance.
(2) Other Public und Prtvate Tr ansfer Fac�l�t�es
This Plan reevaluates the possible use of the Waste
Ma�iagement, Northwest-Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station
(formerly Snohomish Eastmont), a privately owned faciliry
north of the King-Snohomish county line. Although the 1989
Pla�i recommended using the station, it is not operational
because it has not been granted a permit by Snohomish
8.1. Transfer System: F.xisting Conditions
Counry. Therefore, it is not included in that counry's solid
waste management plan.
In addition to King Counry's facilities and the Waste
Management, Northwest-Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station,
there are other solid waste facilities in Seattle outside the King
County planning area. 'I�vo are owned and operated by the city
of Seattle, and two are private. Waste from Seattle's transfer
stations is not taken to Cedar Hills but is exported to a landfill
in Oregon.
The two privately owned and operated transfer/recycling
stations are the Regional Landfill Company's (formerly
Rabanco) Third and Lander facility and the Waste Management
of Seattle (formerly Eastmont) faciliry. Table IV.11 lists actual
tonnages ha�idled at these two transfer stations from 1986
through 1991. Records fi•om Cedar Hills indicate that these two
facilities handle waste generated both from within and outside
Seattle. No other privately operated facilities are planned at
this time in King Counry.
King County Ordinance 8771 (KCC 10.22.030.F) authorizes
one privately owned and operated mixed waste processing
faciliry (MWPF) in King County. (See Chapter III.B and Volume
II, Appendix H.)
As a result of reevaluating current policy guidelines, the
Solid Waste bivision published an issue paper titled °Mixed
Waste Processing Feasibiliry Analysis" in November lggl. It
recommended delaying the Request for Proposal, while
contiiming to monitor the experiences of other jurisdictions that .
employ both an MWPF and source separation, and reevaluation
of this technology in 1995 to supplement programmatic WR/R
efforts.
b. Transfer System Operations
Table IV.12 shows the location, size, capaciry, use,
numbe�s of customeis seived, and waiting times associated with
six Counry-operated transfer stations and the two drop-box sites.
Information is not yet available for the new Enumclaw Transfer
Station because it has only been in operation since April 1993.
Chapter N Mzxed Municipal Soli�l Waste Handling Systems
;;:> :.
IV 14 >: ><; ;<:. ;..;:.>,... .::: .<; :::: . .:... :;::;:>:;:::: ` . ::. :
Table IV.9 Transfer Statlon Compliance with King County Solid \�aste Regulations (KCBOHC 1030.030)
Standard Algona Bow Lake Factoria 1st Ave NE Houghton Renton Enumclaw
(a) Fenced and screened Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(b) Cleanable materials Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(c) Control rodents and harborages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(d) Screened and litter controiled Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(e) Tipping floor covered Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(� Buffer zone (50' to residential N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A Yes
property)
(g) Compiy with zoning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(h) Surface and groundwater Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
control: 24-hr, 25-yr storm event
+ washdown
(i) All-weather roads Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(j) Odor and dust control Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(k) Prohibit scavenging Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(I) Have site attendants when open Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(m) Signage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(n) Access to emergency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
communications
(o) Remove waste at closure. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes
a llonconforming use—In operation before local zoning ordinances were adopted.
Table IV.10 Drop-box Transfer Facilities Compliance wi[h King Counry Solid Waste Regulation (KCBOHC 10.08.030j
Standards Cedar Falls Skykomish
Constructed of watertight materials with lid, controlling loss Yes Yes •
of material during transport and access by rats and vermin
Serviced by all-weather roads Yes Yes
Serviced regularly to ensure adequate capacity Yes Yes
Signage Yes Yes
Remove waste at closure N/A N/A
T�le IV.11 King County Transfer System Tonnages, 1986-1992
King County Transfer System
Regional Landfill Co.,
3rd and Lander
Waste Management of Seattle
(formerly Eastmont)
City of Seattle
1986 1987
624,247 681,472
151,000 170,000
112,000 128,000
9,691 291,791
1988 1989
667,651 712,156
138,000 127,000
148,000 138,000
267,483 208,460
1990 1991
846,422 842,083
91,000 75,000
169,000 111,000
221,621 70,155 a
1992
770,448
not reported
not reported
0
a Withdrew from King County system May 31, 1991.
C/aapter N Mixed Munici�al Solul Waste Handling Systems 8.1. 7�ansfer System: Exzsting Conditrons
N -1
5
Table 1V.12 Description of Transfer FaciliGes Operated by King County
1st Ave NE Houghton Factoria Renton Algona Bow Lake Cedar Falls Skykomish
Location County Kirkland Bellevue Renton Algona Tukwila County County
County planning area North North Central South South South Rural Rural
Type of transfer facility Two-trailer direct unload transfer station Push-pit TS Drop-box
Round trip miles to Cedar Hilis 73 48 36 24 41 33 56 132
Acres occupied by site 12.5 8.4 7.8 9 4.6 16.9 3 1
Hours of operation per week 66.5 66.5 99 66.5 66.5 66.5 63 63
Design capacity/waste
received (tons):
Design capacity at one
&hour shift per day (tons)
Daily 275 275 275 275 275 750 44 44
Monthly 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300 22,625 1,333 1,333
Yearly 99,550 99,550 99,550 99,550 99,550 272,000 16,000 16,000
Estimated actual capacity (tons)
Daily average 350 350 350 350 350 750 44 44
Monthly 10,560 10,560 10,560 10,560 10,560 22,625 1,333 1,333
Yearly 126,700 126,700 126,700 126,700 126,700 272,000 16,000 16,000
Peak day of year 650 650 650 650 650 1,350 N/A N/A
Waste received, 1991 (tons)
Daily average 291 483 632 262 471 596 9 3
Monthly average 8,541 12,961 15,705 6,314 11,354 15,016 281 94
Peak month (July) 9,822 14,848 17,363 7,076 12,599 16,204 401 115
Yearly 102,488 155,538 188,465 75,773 136,251 180,197 3,372 1,130
Number of customers served:
Peak day capacity 850 850 850 850 850 1,900 N/A N/A
Average daily vehicle 387 387 387 387 387 900 N/A N/A
capacity
Annual vehicle capacity 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 326,000 N/A N/A
Vehicles served, average 13,618 12,829 11,925 7,070 9,899 13,337 1,244 20
month (1991)
Vehicles served, 16,476 15,471 14,601 8,833 12,105 16,038 1,613 25
peak month (July 1991)
Weekend average (1991) 354 345 339 165 252 358 N/A N!A
Weekday average (1991) 537 524 420 351 438 561 N/A N/A
Waiting time/vehicle queue
Longest wait, average 17 15 15 15 15 15 none • none
weekend day (minutes)
Longest wait, pea�c weekend 105 123 66 20 29 30 none none
day (minutes)
Capacity of onsite queue 54 43 16 47 19 31 none none
(18 feeUvehicle)
No. of times queue extended 17 10 0 1 43 1 N/A N/A
offsite (year)
Peak queue,average 13 0 4 0 0 0 none none
weekend day
Peak queue, peak weekend 251 292 142 19 64 51 none none
day
a 362 operating days per year. d For the year 1984-1985.
b Number of vehicles that can be seroed in 1 day without offsite f From May 1984 through April 1985.
waiting lines. August
° Estimates calculated from daily vehicle counts and assumptions 9 April a�d July
about unloading times.
8.1. 7ransfer System: Extisting Condit�ons C/xapter N M�ed Municapal Solid Waste Handling Systems
N- 1
6
(1) Transportatton Routes
Figure IV.3 shows the main haul routes between tra�lsfer
stations and Cedar Hills. The transfer stations a�•e located
generally within one mile of interstate freeways. The Figure
shows a haul route from the Factoria Transfer Station to Cedar
Hills through Issaquah. This route is cureently not in use
because the City of Issaquah prohibits large trucks to travel
along the route.
(2) Vehtcle Capac�ty
Design peak vehicle capaciry is the greatest number of
vehicles a transfer station can handle without creating a
waiting line that extends into the street. Design peak vehicle
capaciry is different for each site. It is inf(uenced by the
interaction of several factors, e.g., cashier transaction time,
length of roadway between cashier/scale complex and transfer
building, the actual mix of commerciaVprivate vehicles using
the facility at any particular time, and the length of time to
Waste Management N.W. Transfer Station
1� '
ic
l�
y �4
cn '
� SEATTL�
v l
i
i
%
;
�
1
i
, VASHON
� ISLAND
V
.�
t.
NORTH
,:•: _
� : , - ___._.
, S ::.
`.
_ \ , ;` ; 1
\ .
�
� 1
'1
�
� �:� r
RURAL >
'". ... , .. _: . . \ .. ' . '. . . :. /'.�-J
�
"... '. ' - _.. J
, ,., _ . , , - .
•, � -' � � -_ : .,' „i
�' �. ,' ,- ...... �./
a, �-'`1� $OUTH 1 ' /y
��''�``o .: ; ' '
_ . N
� :: , _ .., , i � �
7 '�� ��� � '�'CE�AR HILLS Landfill ' % �
., a
Transfer ' �
� � e , 'Station ;; i 1 2�3!4�6•7
�
_ _ ... ' > -
-' '��� . —' �./
TrBtisfer ` 3 ., _. ,_. . _ .. .1
Sta�n .t e; - . . _ �
• •• . . _ -, r
,.
� :' ....1
. ,
' • �. - ' '... 1
, ,
,.: , . .. . _ , .
<; �.
� 3 i � ♦
� � �� • � � ... �
i � „
� ...-- , � . .. ;.....
�.... . ,,. -. .
k 7€�nsfer ... ��� i , ' s , ., � ... ii _ _..
'� �#ation Q :;: a � " �... _ , r
�t,... —•...._.�. _ �_ . : ��,
�' J
�
� �•
� ........... . •
� ; 0 Enumclaw Transfer Station " - �•�.�
5 0 5 \, ��--� .
� � ...� .__ �.,.. \
MILES '�.� �
.\.� �.' /
"•\
% ^.� \
1 i ^ J \.r-.r ��`'� ��' �
�� � �'� 1 .� ..... f
Figu�e IV3 Main haul routes between transfer stations. ' ''
Clxipter N Mi�ed Municpal Solul Waste Handling Systems 8.1. Transfer System: F.xlsting Conditions
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
N-1
7
transfer or tip waste. There is also a significant difference
between weekday and weekend vehicle capacity. This is due to
the change in the mix of commercial and private vehicles and
their very different unloading times.
The average daily vehicle capaciry (Table IV.13) was
estimated by multiplying the actual, single peak day's traffic by
the historical ratio of average daily traffic to single peak day
traffic count. The annual vehicle capacity was estimated by
multiplying the a�erage daily capaciry by 362, the number of
operating days in a year.
(3) Tonnage Capactty
Peak tonnage capaciry is the total tonnage that can be
ha�idled during a single work shift. This includes unloading
(tippin� by customeis and loading into trai�sfer traileis and
hauling refuse off site. Capaciry is exceeded if unacceptably
long waits occur, if on-site storage capaciry is exceeded, or
unpla�ined for constraints develop.
(4) Vuriat�ons �n Serv�ce Denzand
The busiest houis for traffic and tonnage at trai�sfer
statioi�s are usually during midday but these fall off after
3:00 P.M. The busiest months are during spring and summer
The greatest traffic volumes occur on Saturdays and Sundays,
because of the high number of passenger vehicles, but the
busiest days measured by tons received are weekdays, when
collection truc�s are operating.
In 1991, the daily volume of waste received at King
Counry transfer stations was three times higher on weekdays
than on weekends, yet vehicle traffic on weekend days was one-
third higher (greater) than on weekdays. July is the peak
month of the year for both tons and customer activity. Both
tonnage and traffic are higher in the summer and lower in the
winter, although the difference between the two seasons is
becoming less pronounced over time. During the slowest winter
month (November), the transfer station daily tonnage was 84
percent of what it was in July.
c. 1989 Transfer System Dev�elopment Plan
In the 1989 Plan, the Counry was divided into four
pla�uling areas: north, central, south, and rural. Thirteen
alternative plans were evaluated, and one was selected for each
planning area. This resulted in the 1989 Transfer System
Developnaent Plan (summarized in Table IV.14 and Figure
IV.4), Recommendations were made to replace facilities if either
tonnage or customer service capacity was exceeded.
Table IV.13 Year Transfer Station is Estimated to Exceed Capacirya
Vehicie Traffic Capacity
Tonnage Cap acity
, Year
Rated Capacity Current
• Transfer Station Capacity Exceeded d Status
� Houghton 350tpd 1986 Exceeded
First Northeast 350 tpd 2007
• Factoria 350 tpd 1986 Exceeded
Algona 350tpd 1990 Exceeded
• Bow Lake 750tpd 2010
Renton 350 tpd -- b
�
i
�
•
•
Daily Year
Vehicle Capacity
Capacity Exceeded
387 1984
387 1984
387 1985
387 1990
900 -- b
387 -- b
Current
Status
F�cceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
a Tonnages based on the forecast shown in Section II.0
b Capacity is not expected to be exceeded within the 20-year planning period.
° Capacity is stated for the first weekday (M-F) shift and weekend operating hours. It does not include the second weekday (M-F) shift,
when the station is open until 1:00 a.m.
d Weekday average tonnage capacity, assuming the County's 65% waste reduction and recycling goals is achieved.
• B.1. 7�ansfer System: Exzsting Condilio�zs Claapte�• N.� Mzxed d�unicipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
�
-1
N 8
d. Growth Management Legislation Impacts
Recent growth management legislation requires that the
County develop comprehensive county-wide planning policies.
These policies, wupled with the individual jurisdictions'
comprehensive plan updates, are expected to encourage higher
densiry growth in urban centers, while preserving the current
rural character of much of King Counry. These new centers
will become the target for increased employment and housing
development.
Adoption of the Counry's Growth Management Plan by
the County Councll and the cities may alter implementation
schedules for alternatives recommended in the 1989 Plan.
Delineation of an urban growth bounda�y will be a significant
factor in implementing level-of-seivice improvemeuts within the
service area. Upon adoption of the urban growth bounda�y
line, the level of service for each sector will be defined for both
urban and rural areas. The urban level of service is
anticipated to remain as currently provided.
Both the 1989 Plan and 1992 update present alternatives
that are consistent with proposed growth management planning.
Specific modifications to the Plan will be addressed in greater
detail in the 1995 Plan update.
2. Needs and Opportunities
Existing faciliry limitations indicate the need to expand or
replace a number of transfer stations. 1`wo main conclusio«s
were reached in defining needs for the transfer system. Fiist,
regardless of the WR/R levels achieved, there a�•e actions the
Counry needs to take to address current transfer system
demands. Second, the present uncertainry associated with the
types and capaciry of recyclable materials drop-off and storage
units that will be needed at transfer facilities in the future
requires a tlexible approach to long-range facility planning.
Other key needs and opportunities for improving King
County's transfer system operations are listed below and
described in the subsections that follow.
• Evaluation of the role of the transfer system in solid waste
management, e.g., service levels, changes in source-separated
waste streams, and potential service improvements for specific
customer groups.
�
�
�
�
�
Table IV.14 1989 Transfer System Development Plan •
(brackets indicate year site study is scheduled to begin] • I
North County Area
Seek to permit the Snohomish Waste Management Northwest
Transfer Station. Add a new facility in the Northeast Lake
Washington Area when necessary. [1993�
Close Houghton after addition of the Northeast Lake Washington
Area Transfer Station and expansion of the First Avenue
Northeast Transfer Station.
Expand the First Avenue Northeast Transfer Station on site, as
space allows.
Central County Area
Expand the Factoria Transfer Station on site or build a new
facility at a nearby location, if necessary. [1989] (expansion was
deemed infeasible)
South County Area
Build a new transfer station in the South County (Auburn) area.
�� ssa�
Close the Algona Transfer Station after construction of the South
County Area Transfer Station.
Study the feasibility of expanding the Bow Lake Transfer Station.
Expand on site or, if necessary, site and build a replacement
transfer station in the Tukwila area.
Close the Renton Transfer Station after the expansion or
replacement of Factoria and Bow Lake or the addition of a
Tukwila Area Transfer Station.
Rural County Area
Replace the Cedar Falls Landfill with a rural drop-box facility.
When appropriate, site and construct a new transfer station near
the intersection of I-90 and SR-18, closing Cedar Falls after
completion of the new facility.
Replace the Enumclaw Landfill with a rural transfer station on or
adjacent to the existing site. [1989]
Replace the Hobart Landfill with a rural transfer station in the
vicinity of the Iandfill. [1990]
Build a new transfer station in the Northeast County Area. [1995]
• Adequate capaciry.
• Increased tonnage capaciry.
• Compliance with state and local regulations.
• Expanded recycling opportunities.
• Abiliry to accommodate new equipment and technologies.
Cheipter N Mrxed Municipal Solul Waste Handling Systems B.2. Transfer System: Needs and Opportuniti�s
.
�
•
•
�
•
.
�
.
•
•
•
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
N-1
9
• Facility master development plans.
• Updated system use data.
• Evaluation of the potential role, if any, of the private sector
in the operation of the transfer system.
• Schedules for implementing facility decisions.
• Definition of the level of service to be provided in the rural
portion of the Counry, upon completion of the growth
management planning.
a Role of the Trar�er System
The transfer system is currently designed and managed to
consolidate many refuse loads into fewer, larger transfer loads.
It provides wnvenient access to the solid waste system and
minimizes traffic entering the regional landfill. It is designed
and operated to handle both small self-haul loads and large
commercial haulers. The system has been retro-fitted where
possible to provide for self-haul recyclables collection. New
facilities will be designed for considerably higher recycling
seivice levels.
�
� ��—
• �1
I�
%C
%�
• ��
/ �/ �
%
• 1
�
I �n
• �\ O �
Ic
i=
• j o �c°
� 1
• i
I
%
• /
%
� asho
• � andfill
I -
%
, \ VASHON
/ ISLAND
L� `
� �TF
\ _.� � � �/'"
• ��`v
�
�
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
First Ave NE
Transfer Station ,, NE Lake VVashingZqn Transfer Station
'
g — _ . ,.
, , ,
, , , .
£ ,. ;
Hou�t�i�:Tt�nsfe[,Station � � Northeast Area
� Transfer Station
�... '.
TTLE
� ` ' ., �:., , �... �'�-..., .��� ...
< ��' ' ::; _ _
, _. ` � ,
�fa�toria fer Station `' '
, . ,
� _
.
�•
Tukwil�: '� SR 1�tl-�0 Area Transfer Statior� ti
�
Area'� ,, ; � .
Trar�Sfer, , � �'�nton Tr,ansfer Station ' �r �
. _..... . , __ � ' _.
St� �_-�' "� �Cedar'�alls Landfill/Drop-box �
• Q.� ; � ; _ ..:
BoW LZtkB Ttansfer St�lipn'� ,`, _. _. �./
� "� _ . . � � �
1
, .,.
, , \
s O �" " .
\. �tiobarP.LendfilhfTransfer Station.' V ;
" `` 1
:. ` . .;' �
, .\
�.. : 1
.
�
_ , _., '�
t.�.—
r�t�sf.er $tatbn. ; --
-•-�
�`
5 0 5 1. ��. ��' ._....
�„ Enumclaw Landfill/Transfer Station
MILES
(
I
l
, 1 . 1
,,.' \_
N
• Transfer facility upgrade
■ New transfer facility
� Landfill upgrade
O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station
� Future transfer facilities locations (conceptual)
Figw+e IV.4 1989 Transfer System Developn�ent Pla�� -- —
8.2. Transfer System: Needs and Opportunit7e,s
G'lxtpte�• Iv A�ixed Municrpal Solul Waste Handling Systems
IV-2
0
As changes occur in the Counry's demographic makeup,
especially in relation to high-densiry growth patterns, changes
in self-haul patterns, recyclables source separation and levels
and types of service to be provided all need to be evaluated.
This will incl�de reevaluating service levels to be provided in
urban and rural areas, and targeting potential improvements to
specific types of customers (e.g., commercial hauleis) by
providing improved access to transfer facilities and reduced
waiting times.
A role of the transfer station study will be conducted in
1993. The results of the study will be used to review and
develop capital improvement plans for the tra��sfer system as
well as operational practices at the facilities. No changes
rewmmended by the study will be implemented without public
review and input from the hauling indust�y a�ld the public.
b. Tonnage Capaciry
Existing King Counry transfer stations lack capaciry for
projected waste quantities. This capaciry, defined as tonnage
capaciry, is the amount of refuse that can be handled at a
faciliry on an average day. Based on the 20-year forecast, which
assumes a Countywide 65 percent waste reduction and recycling
rate by 2000. Table IV.13 shows when each station is expected
to reach tonnage limits if no additional capaciry is added to the
system. The Houghton, Factoria, and Algona transfer stations
already operate at or nea� capaciry; the Fiist Northeast and Bow
Lake stations are projected to reach tonnage capaciry between
2006 and 2010.
Table IV.12 shows that the First Northeast, Algona,
Factoria, Hougllton, and Renton tra�lsfer stations lia�e
approxiinate capacities of 350 tons per dap (126,700 toi�s per
year), and Bow Lake is 750 tons per day (272,000 tons per
year). �
Acquisition of a new or replacement facility requires a
minimum of five years to site, design, a�id construct. To
ensure that adequate facilities are available when needed,
implementation of a new or replacement faciliry should begin
when tonnage exceeds target levels. Target levels a�e defined as
that tonnage which will result in su�passing faciliry capaciry
within the five year implementation time-frame, based on
tonnage projections produced by the Solid Waste Division.
Implementation begins with project authorization, site
identification, and properry acquisition. Once project
authorization is given, the process is governed by the King
Cou7at�� Solid Waste Facility Si�i'ng Plan summarized in
Chapter II, Section C. (The complete text of the siting plan is
given in Volume II, Appendix C.). The siting plan also defines
the criteria to be used in the selection of potential sites. These
siting activities can occur concurrently with continual evaluation
of need. A�ly land that is acquired will be a�ailable for future
use.
A siting study for a new faciliry to replace the Renton
Tra�lsfer Station will be needed when tonnage levels reach the
target level of 285 toi�s per day (103,000 per year). Contingent
on the completion of Master Faciliry Plans at First Northeast
and the Bow Lake Transfer Station, siting studies for new
facilities may also be necessary. This would allow the five
years needed to construct a new or replacement faciliry,
consistent with the tonnage growth rate projected in the
Counry's planning forecast (Chapter II, Section C).
c. Customer Service Capaciry
Waiting lines at several transfer stations are long and are
expected to lengthen as use increases. Additional services, such
as recycling, may also affect waiting times.� Table IV.13 shows
when each station is expected to reach customer service
capacity, defined as the number of vehicles that can be
accommodated at a given faciliry without unacceptable impacts,
such as off-site queuing. Vehicle traffic was projected by
multiplying the 1991 average vehicles per ton at counry
facilities (0.98) by the tonnage projections presented in
Chapter II, Section B. Since these projections are based on
historical use pattenis, they may fall short of actual future use
as WR/R rates increase. If there are significant volumes of
recyclable materials deposited at transfer stations, vehicle traffic
may increase faster than disposed tonnage.
Algona, Houghton, First Northeast, and Factoria stations
have already reached or exceeded capaciry. Long waiting times
and queues of vehicles extending onto nearby streets at these
three stations frustrate users, create safery problems, and may
encourage illegal dumping.
Cixipter !V Mixed Municipal Solul Waste Ha�adling Syste��zr 8.2. Tra�zsfer System: Needs and Opportuniti�s
i•
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
IV-21
A survey of transfer facilities from May 1984 through
April 1985 indicated that customeis spent 15 minutes on a�l
average weekend day waiting in line and unloading. On the
busiest weekend day, some customers waited up to two houis.
On these days, waiting and unloading ranged from 20 minutes
at Renton to 123 minutes at Houghton. In 1989, design
criteria, including service levels, were developed for the
replacement transfer stations.
Maximum queuing during any stage of the disposal
process for self-haul customeis should be 30 minutes or less.
For commercial haulers, the maximum queue should be S
minutes or less. Maximum time required in the facility,
excluding tipping floor time should be 60 minutes for self-
hauleis and 10 minutes for commercial haulets. In 1993, a
study of actual through-put times at tlie transfer facilities will
be conducted in order to validate the present maximum queue
time assumptions. The study recommendations will be
evaluated by the Division and representatives of the hauling
industry and will be incorporated into the 1995 King Counry
Solid Waste Management Plan.
During implementation of the 1989 Plan, public
comments received indicated that customer service capacity for
the northeast counry area is less convenient, due to the closure
of the Duvall and Carnation landfills and that plans for
providing more convenient disposal seivice within the area
should be accelerated. The need for new facilities and other
methods of providing disposal service within the northeast
county area will be addressed as a part of the role of the
transfer station study to be conducted by the Solid Waste
Division in 1993. The Study will examine the impact of the
Counry's growth management policies when developing a
recommended service level for the northeast county area.
d. Compliance with State and Local Regulations
Some transfer stations did not fully comply with King
Counry Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10); however,
the Health Department has either granted waivers or compliance
measures are being implemented. Table IV.9 shows the
compliance status for the six transfer stations. Responsibiliry
for enforcement of these measures rests with the Seattle-King
Counry Department of Public Health (the Health Department;
B2. Transfer System: Needs and Opportuyaities
see Chapter VI). Transfer station compliance with Title 10 was
evaluated in lggl. Noncompliance areas included insufficient
buffer zones and lack of surFace water and groundwater
pollution controls. The Health Department established a
schedule to complete improvements to meet the standards. The
Solid Waste Division received a waiver from buffer requirements
for existing facilities. All other compliance measures ha�e been
completed, except for improvements to the surface and ground-
water management system at the Renton Transfer Station.
Upgrades to correct this single remaining noncompliance
condition are scheduled to be completed by the end of 1993.
e. Recycling Faalities
Existing transfer stations were not designed to include
space for recycling facilities. Some have been retro-fitted with
recycling collection, and the feasibiliry of adding it at or near
other existing transfer stations is under examination. Space
and design constraints may limit the type and capaciry of
recycling facilities that can be installed. The limitations may
preclude expanding services to meet new program goals, such
as public education and collection of recyclable items not
cuirently picked up through household collection programs.
Expansion of the yard waste program presents particular
problems because of the need for large dumping and holding
areas. Despite these limitations, transfer stations a�•e convenient
locations for recycling, and providing this service is consistent
with the emphasis on waste reduction and recycling (WR/R).
The role of the transfer station study will examine which types
of recycling services can be provided efficiently at new or
retrofitted facilities as they are designed and constructed.
f. Accommodation of New Equipment
Since King County's transfer stations were constructed
between 1963 and 1977, they do not accommodate the newer,
larger waste collection vehicles now in use. Ceiling clearances
are low and maneuvering space is severely limited for the five
transfer stations designed and constructed in the 1960s. The
tipping floors are small and movement is further constrained by
several structural roof support columns on the tipping floor.
These limitations restrict efficiency and capaciry and present
difficulties for drivers and operators trying to maneuver newer,
CJaapter /[! Mixed Mun�c�al Solid Waste Handling Systems
N
- 22
larger trucks and equipment inside the stations. In some cases,
the size of newer vehicles has resulted in damage to both trucks
and buildings. More unobstructed floor space, higher roofs, or
differently designed vehicles are needed to maneuver a�id
unload. Self-haulers using trailers also ea.perience difficulry in
positioning their vehicles to unload.
g. Master Facility Plans
Fxisting transfer station sites a�•e also constrained by
existing space configuratioi�s a�id the space required by new
programs, such as recyclables collection.
Faciliry plans are needed to make optimal decisions for
each faciliry and to coordinate planning system-wide.
(1) Fac�ltty Expans�on
Some sites, such as Bow Lake and Fi�st Northeast,
potentially can be expanded. Sucn expansions require master
facility plans to ensure that available space and resources are
allocated to the highest prioriry uses.
(2) Pbys�cal Factl�t�es for Waste Export Transfer
Decisions to implement waste ea�port (long haul to out-of-
counry disposal facilities) may also change demands on the
transfer system. Such decisions are important to future tra��sfer
station ea�pansion or replacement because payloads must be
maximized when using long-haul disposal. The recently
completed Pre-load Compactio��/Dens�tion Feasibility Study
(CH2M Hill, March 1992) pointed out that significant facility
modifications would be required at existing stations. For most
of them it is not economically feasible to incorporate this new
technology. Compaction equipment will be installed at new or
replacement transfer stations, making them compatible for
future long-haul operations.
(3) Recycl�ng and Mater�als Recovery
One of the objectives for transfer station upgrades and
master faciliry plan design is to accommodate the wllection of
source separated recyclables to the maximum extent possible.
The option of postcollection material recovery is not being
considered at this time.
(4) TechnologiculObsolescence
Technological obsolescence is another factor to be
considered amid growing concerns about the age of county
facilities and their abiliry to meet current and future King
Counry Solid Waste Regulations as well as more stringent sewer,
stoi7n water, and groundwater qualiry regulations.
As new transfer stations using pre-load compaction
technology come on line, it will also become uneconomical to
operate separate components of the transfer trailer fleet. In
essence, there will be two sepa�ate operating subsets of the
transfer system: one system will include tra��sfer stations using
compactor-based teclmology and the other will be composed of
transfer facilities using the current transfer trailer fleet. Up to
twice as many top-loaded traileis as con�pactor-loaded trailers
would have to be operated for the same tonnage. This would
also increase the number of truck driver positions required and
demands on maintenance and support facilities.
h. Implementation Schedules
(1) Short-term Needs und Opportun�t�es
The faciliry openings and closure decisions identified in
both the 1989 Pla�l a�id the 1992 update are generally not
affected by the WR/R levels aclueved by the Counry. Due to the
long lead time involved in implementing capital project
decisions (e.g., site selection, property acquisition(s), project
design, pennitting, and coi�struction), implementation schedules
for capital projects extend over several yeais, and in some cases,
well beyond the six-year CIP planning horizon. Decisions made
now may not come to fruition or even achieve major project
milestones during the current Plan update period. Accordingly,
when projections indicate tonnage or customer activiry limits
will be reached or exceeded, future year CIP projects should be
implemented.
The First Northeast and Bow Lake tra�isfer stations have
capaciry for a�iumber of yeats beyond the present CIP planning
horizon. Both of these facilities were identified in the 1989
Plan as having the potential for e�ansion. The first step in
determining the full potential of these facilities for expansion
and upgrade would be to develop a master facility pla�i at each
site. Issues that should be considered include site development
Chapter N M�xed Munic�al Solzd Waste Kandling Syste�ns B2. 7�a�zsfer Syste�n: Needs and Opportunitie.s
��
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
i•
�
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
•
�
•
C�
•
•
•
�
N -2
3
restrictions, operational characteristics limiting ea.pansion, and
ability to accommodate new services and technologies.
(2) Long-term Needs and Opportun�t�es
The Counry's WR/R goa.is imply significant changes in
disposal beha�ior and may require changes in solid waste
handling methods and facilities. It is difficult to predict long-
term facilities needs with sufficient accuracy to make detailed
cost estimates or to plan reasonable implementation scliedules.
As WR/R levels increase, they will significantly affect the timing
and size of transfer system modifications.
The 1992 Plan seeks to balance the possibiliry of
prematurely expending funds for facilities that might be too
large if WR/R goals are achieved against the possibiliry that
system capaciry could be insufficient if those goals are not met.
To do this, needs and functional requirements of facilities
(tonnage capaciry, customer activity capaciry, physical facilities
for long-haul transfer, or recyclinn� and technological
obsolescence for 1997 through 2008 need to be continually
assessed. The Counry will proceed with planning activities when
any one of the four criteria is not satisfied by the existing
system.
i. Private and Public Sector Interactions
1�vo privately operated transfer/recycling stations deliver
waste to the King Counry system. The Counry has not
supported additional private sector facilities because of concern
that they may not provide the desired level of service, could
erode the rate base, and could conflict with existing labor
agreements.
j. System Use Data Collection
The Solid Waste Division conducted a detailed field
analysis of transfer system use patterns in 1985. These data
ue the basis for several assumptions used in Plan development.
New services have been implemented since that time and no
additional data ha�e been collected to date. These data will be
updated in 1993. Data wllected in 1984 and 1985 indicate
that nearly all existing transfer stations were at vehicle and
tonnage capaciry, except Bow Lake a�ld Renton, which had
near-tenn reseive capacity (within six years). Since these data
8.3. 7�ansfer System: Alternatives
were collected, both tonnage and customer activity have
increased. There has been no appreciable relief for the over-
capacity transfer stations, while reserve capaciry of the two
under-capaciry stations ha� been reduced significantly. Despite
the success of recycling efforts, population growth in King
Counry has more tha�i offset the gain.
k. Growth Management Legislation Impact
After the Counry's growth management policies are
implemented, service levels will be defined for the urban areas
as a part of the role of the transfer station study. Cureent
urban seivice levels at the six existing transfer stations will then
need to be examined and any shortfalls identified. Services
planned at the new Factoria Trai�sfer Station are expected to
meet most, if not all, required service levels.
After the urban growth boundary line is adopted, rural
levels of seivice will also be developed. The County needs to
adopt rucal service levels consistent with the growth
management policies.
3. Altematives
Several alternative Plan recommendatio«s a�•e available
for the transfer system. They are the status quo 1989 system
plan, updated 1992 system plan, privatization, and smaller
facilities alternatives. These are summarized in Table IV.15 and
discussed in further detail in the subsections that follow.
Alternative A generally cai�ies forth the 1989 Plan
rewmmendations and implementation schedules. Alternative B
primarily modifies the implementation schedule based on events
tliat have occurred since the 1989 plan was prepared.
Alternative C concerns involving the private sector in transfer
Table IV.15 Transfer Station Alternatives
Alternative A Continue with implementation of 1989
recommendations as scheduled.
Alternative B Continue with implementation of 1989
recommendations and amend implementation
schedule per changed conditions.
Alternative C Privatize the transfer system.
Alternative D Develop smaller facilities.
Chapter N.� A�z�e�l Mun+crpal Soli� Waste Handling Systems
�
N-24 «
�
�
�
�
�
stations operations, and alternative D considers the question of
scale (more, smaller scale tra�isfer facilities). Alternatives C
and D address two new issues that ha�e emerged since the 1989
Plan was adopted.
a Alternative A, Stalus Quo System Plan
This alteinative is the implementation of
recommendations exactly as identified in the 1989 Plan. They
are identified as the 1989 Transfer System DeUelopnlent Plan
(see Section N.B.1). Their selection was based on the criteria
listed below. The criteria are not presented in order of relative
importance and no attempt was made to resolve any conflicts
anlong them.
• User convenience. Combined travel a�id waiting ti►nes foc
most users should be sufficiently low to discourage illegal
dumping. Increased opportuniry for tipping at the trai�sfer
facility is a major factor in reducing queuing (waitin� time.
• Co��a�7au�aily impacts. Trai�sfer station siting and operation
may have adverse impacts on nea�•by cominnnities, which
should be reasonably mitigated. Consistent with ting Counry
Code 10.08.030, these impacts should be shared equitably
among communities of solid waste facllities, rather than
concentrated in only a few.
• Faci6lty cost. The desired level of seivice should be
provided at the minimum capital and operating cost for the
total life of the facllity. Econonlies of scale will gei�erally make
fewer large facilities less costly to coi�struct a�id operate tha�i a
large number of small facilities (see Section IV.C.3.d).
• Transportatzon cost. The desired level of service should be
provided, while minimizing haul costs from transfer facilities to
regional seivice facilities.
• Regulatory compliance. Transfer facilities must be sited
and operated in compliance with King County Solid Waste
Regulations (Title 10, KCBOHC).
•(Iniform facility size, design, and operation. Reduced
wsts for staff training and maintenance should be achieved,
and the abiliry of operators to shift among the facilities
increased.
• Facility size. To increase the efficiency of operations,
facilities should be la�•ge enough to accommodate push-pit rype
designs a�id other faciliry design features that minimize risks to
the public during loading of transfer trailers.
• Facality sit�'ng. The number of new facilities should be
minimized and maximum use should be made of existing
facilities (see Section IV.C.3.d).
• Integration with reg�onal service faciliti�s. Distribution of
transfer facilities should be compatible with future plans for the
development of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill or potential
out-of-county (long-haul) disposal proposals.
• Conzpat�'bility with collection system. Improved interface
with enhanced collection technologies should be provided, e.g.,
larger collection vehicles, and be consistent with increased
source-separation of recyclables.
• Compat�'bility with waste reductron and recycling
objectives. The system should be flexible to accommodate any
new source-separated materials or new processes and methods
to achieve WR/R goals.
Some of the 1989 recommendatioi�s are no longer
appropriate. Changes in tonnage forecasts, delays, and the
continued non-operational status of the Waste Management,
Northwest-Woodinville Recycling TransFer Station have affected
implementation schedules.
The recommendations correspond to each geographic
planning a�ea, e.g., North, Central, South, and Rura1 (see
Figure IV.S). The specific recommendations for each planning
axea are summarized in Table IV.14 and are described as
follows:
(1) North Cartnty Areu
• Seek to permit the Waste Management, Northwest-
Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station. Add a new faciliry in
the Woodinville area when necessary.
• Close the Houghton Transfer Station after addition of the
Woodinville Area Transfer Station and expansion of the First
Avenue Northeast Transfer Station.
• E�cpand the First Northeast Transfer Station on site, as space
permits.
C/aapter IV M�ed Munrcpal Solul Waste Handlang Systems 8.3. Transfer System: Alternatives
N-Z
5
�
�
•
.
�
•
•
(2) Central County Area
• Replacement of the Factoria Transfer Station
(3) South County Area
• Build a new transfer station in the South Green River Valley
(Auburn) area.
• Close the Algona Transfer Station after construction of the
Auburn Area Transfer Station.
,.
, � \ �
'' �
- .. -. : .
_ °�. :,
. �
� ., � .. ,
i_
\. =
, i.
;
, .
,. � , ,> : _..._' _: • i
� �.
_� �,..,- „ ,- / _.
' ' 1e � Cedar Falls Drop-box ^ (
�Ced � Hilis Regional Landfill ,�' � ,.
_ .
--- ..,, .
' • Hobart Landfill ,. "' " �
`
_. �-
, ..., __ _. .
`� .f
,: „ ,
.,. __ ` _ . ;
�; .
�,, � , .
.
..
. � .
� , .- i
. .
; , ,_ .... ,,.
,
.
. �
..... 169 . �
� )
�\. r
,.
f�
; .
...______. _. �__.__..
!,
� Enumclaw Transfer Station ` . ._ ._. _- " `�� ` ���
_ �
� Proposed Waste Management N.W. Transfer Station _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ _ _._._._.—.—._._._._._.---•—•—,
First Ave NE � T
%c
l�
/�
%y
%
1
.\
� y
\O
IC
%_
ivt
• �' �
i
• /
%
j ashon �
• j Landfill
1
%
• I (�`�
� VASHON
% IS�AND
� �\,� _ v ,
• � :
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
5 0 5
MILES
NORTH :.
0
� � � �-::�
�' Transfer S(atio�a..,
e "
K901: C..'"_
CENTRAL
c oria Transfer ic
�
. SOUTH �
�n Tr�nsfer Station�l
� . �
Lake '-
� Stat�om --
�
RURA
• Study the feasibility of eapanding the Bow Lake Transfer
Station. Expand on site or, if necessary, site and build a
replacement transfer station in the Tukwila area.
• Close the Renton Transfer Station after the expansion of
Factoria and Bow Lake or the addition of a Tukwila Area
Transfer Station.
:.3 �. .
N
; ; Planning areas
� Urban boundaries
Figune IVS 1992 planning areas.
8,3. Transfer System: Alternatives
Chapter N �Ylzxed Municipal SolPd Waste Handling Systems
�
-2
N 6
(4) Rural County Area
• Replace the Cedar Falls Landfill with a rural drop-box
faciliry. When appropriate, site and construct a new transfer
station near the intersection of I-90 and SR-18, closing Cedar
Falls after completion of the new facility.
• Replace the Enumclaw Landfill with a transfer station.
• Replace Hobart Landfill with a transfer station.
• Build a new transfer station in the northeast county area.
b. Alternative B, Updated System Plan
AlternaUve B is nearly identical to Alternative A except for
the modifications to the transfer station development pla�l
schedule and the additional planning activities.
Selected actions for Alternative B are based on responses
to evolving conditions resulting from implementation of the
status quo alternative described above and refinements to
program goals. Execution of the 1989 Plan has demonstrated
that the proposed time tables were too optimistic, and actual
time frames ha�e been longer than anticipated. Evolving
federal and state regulations have placed additional restraints
on specific element� of the CIP Program. The inabiliry to
reach closure on whether the Waste Management, Northwest-
Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station would be granted an
operating permit played a major role in determining which new
transfer stations should be scheduled and planned.
In lg8g, a decision was made to proceed with the
Factoria Transfer Station replacement project, even though the
Houghton Transfer Station was operating above capacity in both
vehicle and tonnage categories. This was based on the
eapectation that the Waste Management Northwest-Woodinville
Recycling Transfer Station could provide transfer service by early
�gg0, and that its opening would provide immediate capaciry
relief to the Houghton Transfer Station. Similarly, the South
King Counry Area Transfer Station project was scheduled to
begin in 1992, in order to be on-line to replace Algona in
1997. Houghton's replacement, the Northeast Lake Washington
Area Transfer Station project, was planned to start in 1994.
Because the Waste Management, Northwest-Woodinville
Recycling Transfer Station is not eapected to become a part of
the Counry's transfer system, the decision was made to begin
work to site the N.E. Lake Washington Transfer Station and
defer the South King County Transfer Station Project until 1994.
As part of the 1989 Plan recommendation to e�and or
replace the Bow Lake and Fiist Northeast U•ansfer stations, and
the need to execnte several major (non-CIP) faciliry plan
projects at these two facilities, faciliry master plans (FMP)
studies have been proposed in the 1993 budget. These FMPs
would identify major development conflicts and provide feasible
alternative recommendations for site redevelopment a�id
expansion.
The setvice data obtained in 1984-1985 may not
accurately reflect current disposal practices, customer usage,
initiation of source-separated recyclable collection services, or
recent changes in disposal regulations, e.g., bans on CFC-
containing applia�ices and household hazardous waste. A�i
updated waste stream a�ialysis has also been proposed in the
1993 budget.
(1) North Coz[nty Area
• The Waste Ma�lagement, Northwest-Woodinville Recycling
Transfer Station is not e�ected to become a part of the
Counry's transfer system. The transfer station implementation
schedule will be accelerated to begin the Northeast Lake
Washington transfer station project in 19�3 instead of 1994.
The design for the South Counry station would then be delayed
to begin in 1994 or later.
• The new transfer facility would be named the Northeast
Lake Washington (rather than the Woodinville Area Transfer
Station) to better define the potential site search area.
(2) Cent�•al County Area
• A collection faciliry for moderate risk waste may be added
at the Factoria replacement facility, if feasible.
(3) South County Area
• The schedule for South Counry transfer faciliry design work
would begin in 1994 or later.
• The new transfer facility would be renamed South Counry to
better define the potential site sea�ch area.
Chu�ter /V M�ed Munic�al Solid Waste Handling Systems 8.3. Transfer System: Alternati7,+�s
•i
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i•
��
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
(4) Rural County Area
• A new transfer faciliry near the intersection of I-90 a�ld SR-
18 and a new facility to se�ve the Northeast County a�ea would
be further evaluated pending the outcome of growth
management planning and the completion of the role of the
transfer station study.
c. Alternative C, Privatization
It has recently been suggested that the Counry look into
the role of the private sector in operation of the transfer system.
The options range from complete privatization to an exclusive
franchise to operate a transfer station within a specific service
area. At this time, very little is known about the potential for
and possible impacts of privatizing transfer service in King
Counry.
King Counry could evaluate the feasibiliry of privatization
and potential impacts on the existing transfer system, including
impacts on the rate base, different staffing criteria for publicly
versus privately operated transfer statio��s, levels of service, legal
issues (such as considerations involved in contractin�, and
enforcement issues.
To date, privatization has not been formally analy�ed.
Preliminary evaluations indicate that transfer station tonnage
revenues would decrease significantly faster than would a
corresponding reduction in total system costs, e.g., ��ot all
operational or administrative costs could be reduced at the
same rate as tonnage could be diverted for private disposal. A�i
evaluation of the impacts to the overall solid waste system
would be needed before a formal recommendation on
privatization could be made.
d. Alternative D, Smaller Facilities
This alternative develops the concept of more, smaller
capaciry transfer stations in lieu of fewer, larger ones.
Implementation of the 1989 Plan has provided some
opportuniry to evaluate the feasibility of this alternative by
comparing the new Enumclaw and proposed Hoba�•t transfer
stations (which are smaller) to the new larger Factoria transfer
station. Based on actual bid results and a completed design for
8.4. 73�ansfer System: Recommendat�ons
N-27
the Enumclaw Transfer Station, there does not appear to be any
significant cost sa�ings between the two sizes of facilities.
The physical size of a transfer station is almost unaffected
by rated tonnage. Vehicle turning radii, desired queue times,
inclusion of recycling opportunities for a wide variety of
materials, and compliance with King County Solid Waste
Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) requirements preclude major
reductio��s in the physical plant. Temporary on-site storage of
MMSW will primarily affect the shape and size of the surge pit
a�id the amount of space dedicated to trailer parking, but these
do not ha�e a big impact on total size. Approximately 20 acres
or more for each transfer faciliry is desirable to meet the
transfer station program objectives.
Prelimina�y analysis shows that it would cost significantly
more to build several smaller transfer facilities to provide the
same rated tonnage and/or vehicle capacity tha�i it would for
fewer, larger transfer facilities. Siting costs such as EIS's and
site searches, are the same for large or small facilities. There
are no apparent significant reductions in staffing on an overall
system basis. In addition, tonnages are projected to decline
beginning in 1993 through 2000 when they begin to increase
again (Table II.1). It will be important to keep system-wide
costs down during this period of declining tonnage.
It appeais that it would be more prudent to provide for
fewer, larger new transfer facilities in lieu of ha�ing several
large parcels devoted to the construction of smaller t�ansfer
stations.
4. Recommenda.tions
Alternative B is recomivended to be implemented as the
1992 Tr��asfer System Development Plan. The basis for the
recommendation is that Alteinative A is no longer valid because
it included the assumption dlat the Waste Management
Northwest-Woodinville would become a pa�t of the County
transfer system, which is no longer coi7ect. Table IV.16 and
Figure IV.6 summari�e the recommendations. Based on current
population growth projectioi�s, Alteinative B identifies
geographic areas that will require facilities and rewmmends
construction schedules. This alternative also recommends
suiveys and analytical studies needed for long-range planning
aud transfer station master facility plans. Privatization of the
Chapter !v.• Mi�ed �lunic�pal Solyd Waste Hdndling Systems
N-
2
8
transfer system will be studied with the role of the transfer
system.
a 1992 Transfer System Dev�elopment Plan
(1) Servlce Area Cbanges
Figure IV.6 shows the approximate locations of the
recommended faciliry constructions, closures, and upgrades. If
the County solid waste system continues to meet its WR/R
goals, ma�iy of the actions shown in Figure IV.6 could be
defeired until after the year 2008. Progress toward these goals
and customer activiry at facilities will be repoi�ted in tlie Solid
Waste Division annual report. A�l implementation schedule for
the first six years of the planning period is provided in Table
N.17. It assumes the Waste Management, Noi�thwest-
Woodenville faciliry will not become a part of the Counry's
transfer system. Therefore, the schedules for the Northeast Lake
Washington and South Counry facilities have been modified.
Northeast Lake Washington will be accelerated and South
Counry will be delayed.
(2) General Changes in the System
The recommended alternatives include changes to the
solid waste facilities evaluated in this plan, including two
closures, three replacements, and six new facilities. It is
unlikely that all these facilities will be built within the 20-year
planning period. The Skykomish drop-box will not be changed.
Plans for closed transfer station sites will not be included
in the 1992 Plan. Closed transfer system sites will require
several years of monitoring for health and environmental risks
before they could be used for any other purpose.
The Waste Management, Northwest-Woodinville facility is
not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system.
Therefore, the Northeast Lake Washington Transfer Station will
need to be sited and built sooner than previously anticipated
and will need to have a larger capaciry than previously
envisioned.
5. Implementa,tion
The implementation schedule for the 1992 t�ansfer system
development plan is shown in Table IV.17.
Table IV.16 Summary of 1992 Transfer System Rewmmendations
Recommendation IV.5
Recommendation IV.6
Recommendation tV.7
Recommendation IV.B
Recommendation IV.9
Recommendation IV.10
Recommendation IV.11
Recommendation IV.12
North Area
Waste Management Northwest
Northeast Lake Washington
Houghton
First Northeast
Central Area
Factoria
South
South County
Algona
Bow Lake
Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system.
Begin site selection in 1993, completion in 1999.
Close in 1999, after new Northeast Lake Washington is completed.
Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible.
Build new facility. Add MRW services if feasible.
Recommendation IV.13 Renton
Build new transfer station. Begin site selection in 1994.
Close after new South County Transfer Station is completed in 2000.
Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible, or build a repiacement
in Tukwila area.
Close Renton after Factoria and Bow Lake expansions or Tukwila
replacement facility is built.
Rural
Recommendation IV.14 Enumclaw Landfill closed. Replaced with new transfer station in 1993.
Recommendation IV.15 Hobart Close landfill in 1994.
Recommendation IV.16 New transfer facilities Place on hold pending the outcome of Growth Management Act initiatives
Other Recommendations
Recommendation IV.17 Role of Transfer System Develop a study on the role of the transfer system. �
Recommendation IV.18 System Use Data Collection Collect current data on transfer system usage, programs, and regulations.
Chapter N Mlxed Munici�al Solul Waste Ha�adling Syste�ns
�
�
�
�
•
.
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
�
•
�
B.S. Transfer System: Implementation •
�
N-2
9
I�
�C
%�
�s
v� .
o S
c
o�
� Tub
� Ai
%
j Tr�i
j �te
j Vashon .,
i �Landfill
� VASHON
I ISLAND�
v South (
.. Transfer
�
Proposed Waste Management N.W. Transfer Station
� Washingfon
fer Station
�� �r H
.-'`�
, __. ' •
� i
__. _... � ; ,
Northeasi Area `. �' � Skykomish Drop-box
,
; �
Transfer Station ' � .- , .
'.` �i S ,�- ...�. ' '
: �
,; � .,_..., .: � �;': C.% �
. . . , . - . .
,, , _
, ,
. . ,,
, __.- ^
NORTHE�1�'�1� '
�\ ` � ��
� , � <'� -
.
,, ; ; ,-: ..
_.. ._
. : ___ .- _ _.:_., � ,.-- .
� ;: ;,
x �� .. ,; •� :
� Factona Transter Station " ^ ' ` � � � \
G� N 7` '�i A L \ �, ` �
� � — '` � �;, / _. �' �..
\�� '� SR 1 S/I-90 Area Transfer Station � �
�RentonTransferStation �� �. ,� ... __ ' / "D �`"" - -'�!
� •_ % _ �.
VY �
0 Cedar Hilis �
� � �Cedar Falls LandfilVDrop box, ` �
' Regional Landfill ❑ --_.., ; .., f
isfer Station �. (not open to public) ' ,%"
._ . .�,. ,.� .
,, ,.:.,.
, �._. -
\ �
• ; ��. _.. \
` �Hobart LandfilllTransfer Stabon�. %
'. ,, `.,l \ ..,' .l"... .,.... r.S
_ , .
, = , . ., ,
, -_ - ,. .._�, \
.: . , . .
SOUTH �, `�� ..., .,
,
�-� .�i
,._.
� . , _....� . U%R A L r _
x ` t- .
3 Transfer Station°,.,; .-.. �—���
� )
r
...
\. �',
(` 1 f '
___._..__._..
_ [
5 0 5
MILES
�Enumclaw Landfilllfransfer Station
1'RANSFER STATIONS
CLOSE
• Houghton Transfer Station
• Renton Transfer Station
• Algona Transfer Station
UPGRADE
• First Northeast Transfer Station
UPGRADE OR REPLACE
• Factoria Transfer Station
• Bow Lake Transfer Station
RURAL LANDFILLS TO BE CLOSED AND
REPLACED WITH TR,4NSFER STATIONS
• Hobart Landfill
N
,...._. \ ,\
• Transfer facility upgrade
■ New transfer facility
♦ Landfill upgrade
O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station
❑ Drop-box
j Future transfer facilities locations (co�ceptual)
NEW TRANSFER STATIONS
• Northeast Lake Washington Area
• Factoria Area
• Middle Snoquaimie
• Intersection of SR-18 and I-90
• Tukwila Area (if Bow Lake cannot be
upgraded)
• South County Area
• Hobart
Figu�e IV.6 King Counry Solid Waste Division service areas and facility recommendations.
8.5. Transfer System: Implementation Claapter /V M�xed Municipal Solyd Waste Handling Syste�ns
N- 0
3
Table 1V.17 Transfer Staeon Implementation Schedule
Chapter /V Mr,xed Municrpal Solid Waste Handling Systems 8.5. 73�ansfer System: lmplementation
�
� ................. .. . ...... . .. .
�
�
�
�
� C. DISPOSAI.
. King County's disposal system for mixed municipal solid
waste (MMSW) consists of the regional landfill at Cedar Hills,
• and two rural landfills at Hobart and Vashon (Figure IV.7).
This 1992 Plan update evaluates the adequacy of this system
� and recommends appropriate actions to ensure that adequate
disposal capaciry is a�ailable and environmentally sound.
� Specific state and counry requirements of the Plan include:
�
N - 1
3
• Use of a 20-year planning horizon for disposal capacity.
• Inclusion of a six-year capital wnstruction plan.
• Demonstration of compliance with the King Counry Solid
Waste Regulations (King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC
Title 10) for solid waste handling or demonstration of a
compliance plan.
• Demonstration of financial assurance for compliance with
King Counry Solid Waste Regulations, specifically closure and
post-closure maintenance.
�
• �---�•—
�� � F�,st
• ��
s `~
; �
:
� 1 tn
�� SEATI
IC
� f2
\
• �f
• � �
• !
� vasno
�� •
VASHON
� % ISLAND
``•_ _ •`
• �
t;:;:::
. ��
�
NE
�` ■ Du
.J!' ,I
;
r ,
:�
�
�::3:?>: >;>;
.. �.: :....
:
f
^`.� • ��ar
��'���
r:% .
,� ,_
, -- �_ - a
�=`-- �
5 0 5
� MILES
•
•
,�
Skykomish
- �� _
.. , " '\ �.
,... ^ , � .
�
. •.. ,\ ...
°--.-. -., ,..
� �: :�;
S , "
„ /--
.r' �'� _ . � ! / i , � r .i
�. • ;.
,. _. ......,:
_... ._. �r
�`.� ._ , _f
� , ■ Cedar Falls ' ' �
;'
'�; i
. �� _,, � �
��Hobart. , ' , _ '�� � �
`- „i '- `'� �_.. � �\� ..\ �a
-' .. \
"\,.; ''� - .. __., �
� �
- . � ,•� . i� \-' ' %
� � � '•� :.: .._ � ` 4•— _.^.
..�..`
N
� Open Landfill
■ Closed
� Figu�e IV.7 Existing and inactive landfills. Note: The First Northeast faciliry was built on the Corliss site.
�
�
� C. Disposal
�
Cfx�pter N Mi�ed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
;;
:::: :::
IV - 2 ' <.>..>.' :°`.. . ; . >:;:::,;;:,:
3 ::::::><> ; . . .
1. Existing Conditions
a. Disposal Faalities and Capacity
The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill receives over 97 percent
of the municipal solid waste generated in the King Counry
system (which excludes the city of Seattle). The ivral landfills
receive waste from large but spa�sely populated rural areas in
their immediate viciniry.
The 1989 Plan recommended closing all of the rural
landfills except Vashon and replacing them with drop-boxes or
transfer stations (1989 Plan recommendations are summarized
in Table IV.18). Waste collected at these new transfer stations
will be transported to Cedar Hills for disposal.
Completion of the Enumclaw transfer station has brought
all of the King Counry solid waste disposal system (excluding
Vashon Island) into the Cedar Hills seivice area.
(1) Ceda�• H�lls
Cedar Hills has six years of built capacity remaining a�ld
room to construct additional capacity for the 20-year planning
horizon. Its remaining pet7nitted capacity (land use permit
and soils balance) is approximatel}� 45 million cubic yards.
Table IV.18 Summary of 1989 Plan Disposal Recommendations
Recommendation Description
Hobart Close, replace with transfer station
Enumclaw Close, replace with transfer station
Cedar Falis Close, replace with drop-box
Vashon Upgrade
Wet-site landfill Meet state wet-site landfilling standards for
standards any out-of-couniy disposal sites.
Transshipment Continue to examine development of a
facility study transshipment facility in cooperation in one
or more other Puget Sound governments.
This capaciry may need to be reduced depending on a planned
faciliry needs assessment (see Master Faciliry Plan, Section
iv.c.i.c).
Figure IV.8 illustrates how the three planning forecast
scenarios described in Chapter II, Section B would impact the
remaining capaciry of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Under the 1987
planning forecast (trends) scenario, the Counry could anticipate
a remaining capaciry of approximately 18 years without the
implementation of aggressive WR/R goals. Conversely, if the
County reaches its WR/R goal of 65 percent in the year 2000,
Cedar Hills' remaining capaciry increases significantly—to 27
years (2019). The 35 percent WR/R scenario would mean a
remaining capaciry of 21 years (2013) while the 50 percent
scenario equates to a closure date of 2016, or 24 years of
remaining capaciry.
The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill D�•aft Site
Developmerat Plan (Site Development Plan, CH2M Hill, 1g87)
and associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft
EIS) were completed in December 1987. The draft Site
Development Plan was prepared concurrently with a Draft EIS
that compared relative environmental impacts of development
alternatives. Its purpose was to provide sufficient information
to support a modified land use permit, if required.
Implementation Status
Landfill closure to begin in 1994. Complies with MFS.
Landfill will be replaced with existing facilities.
Closed
Implemented 1989
Implemented 1989, complies with all MFS except
Performance Standard Groundwater
Not applicable
Preliminary data shows not enough data to complete.
Regional landfill site Evaluate available land suitable for siting a Analysis was not performed. Evaluation for CD� site
availability study new regional landfill. mapped areas of county suitable for siting a landfill
Cedar Hills Regional Continue operation as the primary disposal Complies with MFS except for Performance Standard
Landfill facility. Groundwater and Performance Standard Gas in older
areas of the landfill. Remediation projects are nearing
completion.
•i
�
�
�
�
•
��
Chapter N M�xed Municrp�l Solid Waste Hayadling Systenzs C.1. Dzsposal: F.x�sting Conditlons
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
»::::>: <:::'�>:`;::::>;:;<:>:::::::<:::>: <:`::>:::<:;:>::>;::>::::>:>;;::>::»::::>::::<: ::::<::::>:::::<::;:< <:<:::>:[::::>:: ::::<:::>::::>::::;::>:<::>:::::>::::::::>:::::><:::::>::::::::>::: : ::::::>::::::::>:::::>::::>::>::::> :>.
N-
33
The preferred alternative would modify the use permit to
allow placement of support facilities in the 1,000-foot buffer
zone and allow soils stockpiling in the southern and western
buffers. The proposal maintained 250 feet of existing buffer in
its natural state around the perimeter and a 1,000-foot buffer
from any areas of landfilling. It would have increased the area
available for landfilling to 355 acres and increased the
remaining capacity to approximately 45 million cubic yards. It
included development of eight separate disposal areas, four of
which ha�e already been constructed. A second stage of landfill
development was proposed that would involve placing two to
four lifts of refuse on top of the eight disposal areas. A western
buffer stockpile would ha�e been coi�structed during the
construction of Refuse Area 5.
The proposed expanded capaciry—to 4S million cubic
yards—is based on a revised soils balance that would increase
the life of the landfill by increasing the depth of excavation and
therefore capaciry. The draft Site Development Plan proposed
moving support facilities, such as the administrative offices and
the operation and fleet maintenance facilities, to the properry's
southern buffer. These modifications would require a revised
land use permit.
(2) Hobart Land, ftll
The Hobart Landfill has a remaining capacity of
approximately 100,000 cubic yards and is projected to close in
1994. To preserve its remaining capaciry, commercial haulers
and vehicles with greater than 8,000-pound gross capacity are
prohibited from using the site. A replacement is not planned
for Hobart as there is adequate service capacity at other
facilities in the area.
(3) Enumclaw Land, fill
The Enumclaw Landfill was granted a variance by the
Seattle-King Counry Department of Public Health (the Health
Department) from some of the King County Solid Waste
Regulations (Section IV.C.I.b and KCBOHC Title 10) that
allowed it to remain in operation until May 1993. The landfill
is no longer accepting waste and closure is now in progress.
Maximum Capacity = 45,000,000 Cubic Yards
� � N
o �n
N N
❑ 65% WR/R ❑ 50°,6 WR/R � 35°,6 vVR/R
Cubic Yards
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
Figure IV.8 Projected Cedar Hills lifespan using alternaUve disposal forecasts.
C.1. Disposal: Exuting Conditions
Chapter N.� Mrxed Municrpal Solid Waste Handling Systems
;:.;.: .
IV - 4 : : > :::.: .:.. .
3
(4) Vashon Landfill
New disposal capaciry has beeu developed at the Vashon
Landfill consistent with the 1989 Plan (see Table IV.18). The
Vashon Landfill has over 10 years of built capacity remaining
and room to construct additional capaciry for the 20-year
planning horizon. The service area for the Vashon Landfill is
Vashon Island.
An application for designation as a sole source aquifer
has been filed for Vashon Island with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). There a�•e no provisiot�s prohibiting
landfills over sole source aquife�s in federal regulations, but the
King Counry Solid Waste Regulations ha�e a location sta�ldard,
which states that "no landfill shall be located over a sole source
aquifer° (KCBOHC 10.32.020.B.2). It is unclear how this
standard would apply to facilities that existed before a sole
source designation was made.
(5) Waste Export Evaluation
The 1989 Plan, in accordance with King Couiiry
Ordinance 8771 (KCC 10.22.030) recommended that the County
continue to operate Cedar Hills a�ld develop and evaluate a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for exporting a portion of the
County's MMSW stream. If a waste e�port proposal were
selected for implementation, the 1989 Plan recommended that
Cedar Hills wntinue to be operated at a level adequate to allow
its use as a back-up faciliry in the event of an emergency
(Table IV.18).
During 1�91, the Counry conducted a preliminaiy
feasibiliry analysis of the waste eaport option. It was decided
that before a�1 RFP could be issued, the Count�� would need to
evaluate:
Which loads would be targeted for Cedar Hills and waste
export.
• Specific U•ansfer faciliry and transportation tleet
requirements for an out-of-counry system.
• Equipment, peisonnel, and cont�•acting options needed to
allow use of Cedar Hills as a back-up facility.
• The effectiveness of Seattle's and Snohomish Counry's
transition to a�i out-of-counry landfill.
Preliminary analysis indicates that to obtain m�lluum
benefits from a�i out-of-counry option, wmpaction units would
Chapter N Mrred Mun�cpal Solid Waste Handling Systems
need to be i�tstalled at transfer stations identified for waste
export disposal. The feasibiliry of retrofitting existing transfer
statio��s was exanlined in the King Counly Preload
Compaction Feasibility Study (CH2M Hill, 1992). The County
found that it would not be cost-effective to install compaction
units at any existing transfer stations except for Bow Lake and
First Northeast. Bow Lake is the only facility for which the
potential benefits of ret�•ofitting for preload capabiliry exceed the
costs of required modifications for the existing system of
transfer and disposal. The study also recommended that a�iy
new transfer stations (Section IV.B) and planned transfer station
facility replacements be designed with preload capabiliry to
improve the existing system perfor►nance.
If waste export were to be implemented, King County
would need higher payloads per trailer in order to be
economically justifiable. Only those loads originating at
transFer stations with compaction capabiliry could be
economically designated for out-of-counry disposal.
The Solid Waste Division is continuing to evaluate the
pros and cons of waste export in 1993. Specifically, the
Division is conducting analyses to:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of Seattle and Snohomisli County
out-of-counry contracts, which do not include local backup
capaciry.
• Evaluate the equipment and personnel needs and
contracting options necessary to a11ow use of Cedar Hills as a
backup facility.
• Evaluate systen� alternatives for targeting how loads could
be distributed between Cedar Hills a�ld an out-of-counry facility.
• Define specific facility and transportation fleet requirements
required for a transition to pa�tial out-of-counry landfilling.
. Assess tl�e fina�ICial impacts and the effects on rates by the
waste export strategy.
(6) Land Ava�labtltty for Future Landf�lls �
A�though the impacts of a new regional la�ldfill were
discussed in the Progra�nmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS), Ordinance 8771 (KCC Title 10) did not give specific
policy direction to evatuate this alternative in the lg8g Plan.
That Plan stated that the need for a new regional la�idfill
would depend on the status of any out-of-counry disposal
C.1. Drsposal.• Fxisting Conditions
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
N-
3
5
proposal and evaluation of the need for local back-up capacity.
The 1989 Plan recommended deferring evaluation of these
factors to the Plan update, though it did recommend evaluating
the availabiliry of land suitable for siting a new regional
landfill. This analysis was not performed. However, an
evaluation of land in King Counry suitable for development of a
construction, demolition, and landclearing (CDL) debris landfill
was performed by R.W. Beck and Associates (1991) as one of
several studies in support of the Counry's ultimate decision
regarding CDL waste handling. The study was limited to
mapping areas of the Counry that would be suitable or
unsuitable for siting a landfill, based on locational criteria.
The study found that central King Counry contains large areas
that, on a regional basis, would meet locational criteria. It did
not look at the suitabiliry of specific sites.
b. King County Solid Waste Regulations
Compliance Demonstration
Pursuant to RCW 70.95.090, The Department of Ecology's
(Ecology) Guidelines for the Deuelop�nent of Locr�l Solid Waste
Management Plans and Plan Revzsioras Planning Guideli�aes
(Ecology Guidelines, WDOE 90-11, 1990) require that the Plan
demonstrate that existing facilities are in compliance with the
requirements and standards for solid waste handling facilities or
recommend a program to ensure that solid waste facilities meet
them.
The requirements and standards that apply to all solid
waste handling facilities—landfills, transfer stations, compost
facilities, and surface impoundments—a�•e found in ting Counry
Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) and the state
Minimum Functional Standa�ds (MFS, WAC 173304).
Subsections that apply to disposal facilities include location
standards, general facility requirements, suiface i►npoundment
standards, landfilling standards, a�id groundwater monitoring
requirements. The status of each of King County's operating
landfills with respect to these standards is presented in
Table IV.19.
C.1. D�sposal: F�isting Conditions
c. Capital Conshvction Plan for
Disposal Facilities
The Solid Waste Division has a six-year capital
improvement program (CIP) that includes capital projects to
upgrade existing facilities and maintain or expand service levels
and disposal capaciry (see Volume II, Appendix K). The CIP is
funded by bond proceeds and revenue deposited in a landfill
reserve fund (LRF). In general, the LRF finances new disposal
area development, closure, and post-closure maintenance. The
remainder of the CIP is funded through bond proceeds.
Projects related to disposal facilities and projected expenditures
from 1992 through 1997 are given in Table IV.20.
The wst estimates are based on sta�idard engineering
estimating techniques, estimates prepared for the draft Site
Development Plan, bids for similar projects, engineering reports,
and actual bids. They reflect the 1992 adopted CIP budget.
The Solid Waste Division prepares project status reports
quartedy (more frequently when needed). The reports include
funding sources, cumulative authorizations, projected total
budget, original commitment, approved changes, cun•ent
commitment and obligation, pending changes, eapenditures,
estimated e�penditures to completion, cost at completion,
variance budget, variance authorization, unencumbered
authorization, and unobligated authorization. Individual
projects are described in Table IV.20.
d. Financial t�surance Demonstra.tion
a
The King Counry Solid Waste Regulations have
requirements related to financial assurance for public facilities
owned or operated by municipal coiporations that relate to
closure and post-closure maintenance. Closure and post-closure
maintenance costs are to be estimated and financial assurance
funds for them generated by transferring a percentage of facility
disposal fees to a nonexpendable trust fund or one established
with an entiry that can act as a trustee and whose trust
operations are regulated and examined by a federal or state
agency. King County has adopted the latter method of
financial assurance.
Cl�pter N M�zed Alunic�l Solid Waste li�ndling Systems
��
IV -
3
6
Table IV.19 Status of Conformance with County and State Standards
Cedar Hills Hobart Enumclaw Vashon
Location Standards
Geology constraints
Groundwater constraints
Sole source aqu'rfer constraints
Down-gradient drinking water supply
we11 constraint
Flooding constraints
Surface Water constraints
Slope constraints
Land Use constraints
General Facility Requirements
Plan of operation
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Inspections
Surtace Impoundment Standards
Landfilling Standards
Performance standard groundwater
Performance standard gas
Performance standard surface water
Daily cover
Noncontainerized liquid prohibition
Surface water run-on control
Surface water run-off control
Leachate collection system
Leachate pretreatment
Liner design
Closure design
Gas control
Recycling
Groundwater Monitoring
Requirements
Conforming
Conforming a
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming d
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Nonconforming e
Nonconforming 9
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming �
Conforming
Conforming �
Conforming
Conforming
N/A "
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming b
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming k
N/A
N/A k
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Nonconforming h
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming �
N/A
N/A �
Conforming '
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming °
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming d
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Nonconforming f
Nonconforming '
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming
Conforming '"
Conforming
Conforming'"
Conforming '
Conforming
Conforming
Notes:
Conforming
a New refuse areas being developed at Cedar Hills will have greater than a 10-foot separation beNveen the bottom of the refuse and the
uppermost aquifer capable of yielding significant amounts of groundwater to wells or springs. New areas at Cedar Hiiis may not provide
a 10-foot separation between the bottom of the liner and saturated lenses capable of yielding monitorable quantities of water to an
approved monitoring device. Ecology Technical Information Memorandum No. 88-2, (October 24, 1988) defined monitorabie quantity to
be the locational standard, while the Solid Waste Division believes the significant amounts definition is the standard established by rule.
However, new areas will be constructed with underdrain systems to prevent any buildup of hydrostatic pressure under the liner.
b In the past, seasonally high groundwater-saturated portions of the in-place waste at the Hobart �andfill. A slurry wafl and groundwater
extraction system have been subsequently constructed. This system lowers groundwater levels within the refuse, and prevents the
movement of water through the slurry wall, effectively isolating groundwater beneath the landfill from the surrounding aquifer.
(Notes continued on next page)
Chapter N.• Mixed Municrpal Solid Waste Handling Systenzs C.1. Disposal: Exr'sting Conditfons
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
•
•
.
•
•
.
•
�
•
•
•
1
i
N-
3
7
Noies (continued):
` A sole-source aquifer petition was submitted to EPA for Vashon Island. It is unclear how this provision will apply to existing landfills.
d With respect to slope and land use, the active and closed areas of the Vashon and Cedar Hills landfills are not located where slopes are
unstable. Ecology Technical Memorandum 89-1 (February 15, 1989) considers existing refuse to be unstable whilethe Solid Waste Division
does not believe this to be a proper extension of the intent of the prohibition as established by rule.
e Impacts to shallow groundwater from older waste areas have been observed at Cedar Hills. Remedial measures in the form of improving
existing leachate collection and closing completed areas have been completed in the previous plan period. Others, including collection
and treatment of shallow groundwater impacted by landfilling activities, are in progress and ongoing. Groundwater quality is monitored
to observe improvements.
f Impacts to shallow groundwater from older waste areas have been observed at Vashon Landfill. Remedial measures in the form of closing
completed areas were completed in the previous plan period. Groundwater quality is being monitored to observe improvements.
g Although an in-waste active gas collection system was installed, landfill gas migration is occasionally observed du�ing periods of low
pressure. A series of migration controls were recently installed with a source of vacuum independent of the in-waste extraction system.
Since installation, no migration has been observed; however, a prolonged low-pressure period has not occurred since installation.
h Although an active gas collection and flare system was installed in the closed (northern hal� section of the landfill, landfill gas migration
is occasionally observed during periods of low pressure. Final closure in 1992 will entail the construction of gas coilection facilities in the
southern half of the site.
' Although a passive in-waste gas collection system was installed, gas migration is occasionally observed during periods of low pressure.
A consultant has been retained to make recommendations regarding improving performance of the gas extraction system.
� All areas at Cedar Hills designed, constructed, and operated subsequent to September 1986 are in conformance with the design
requirements of MFS. Areas operated prior to the adoption of this regulation were not constructed in conformance with the liner and
leachate collection requirements of the 1955 update. Consistent with the requirements of this regulation, these areas have been closed.
An apparent leachate mound was observed in the main refuse hill, one of the closed areas. Horizontal borings and leachate extraction
wells were installed to reduce this mound. Their performance is monitored to establish whether other measures are necessary.
k The Division applied for a variance from liner design standards in 1989. The Seattle/King County Gepartment of Public Health advised
that a variance was not required because, in their opinion, the slurry wall qualified as an equivalent design under WAC 173-304-460 (3)
(c) (iii) in that it minimized the migration of solid waste constituents or leachate into groundwater and functioned at least as effectively as
the standard and alternative designs allowed by the code.
� The Solid Waste Division proposes to close this facility in 1994. The Division has received a 3-year variance from the effective date of the
landfilling standards (November 1989). Specifically, these are WAC 173-304-460(3)(b), Leachate Systems, and WAC 173-304-460(3)(c),
Liner Designs. Partial closure incorporating a geomembrane cover system and the construction of surface water and combustible gas
control are expected to mitigate impacts during continued operation. These improvements were completed in 1989.
`" The area currently being filled at the Vashon Landfill has been designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with the design
requirements of the MFS. Areas operated prior to the adoption of this regulation were not constructed in conformance with the liner and
leachate collection requirements of the 1985 update. Consistent with the requirements of this regulation, these areas were closed.
" Cedar Hills Landfill is not open to the general public and is therefore not required to provide recycling opportunities for the general public.
C.1. Disposal: F.x�sting Conditions Clxtpter /V Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
;:.;::
;:: ><: ,: ;... , . . .
:.»'>. IV - 8 ; <:::::
3
Table IV.20 EsUmated Costs of Disposal System Improvements
Project Description
Cedar Hilis Projects:
Construction of Refuse Area 5
Construction of Refuse Area 4
Closure of Refuse Area 2/3
Closure of SW Main Refuse Hill
Leachate pretreatment
Prior 1992
Expenditures Budget
(see Table IV21)
20,457,433 1,342,665
456,696 7,883,204
241,429 8,795,771
174,686 6,050,314
1993
completed
completed
completed
construction
delayed
1994 1995 1996
Leachate head reduction 2,950,033 648,207 monitoring
Active gas collection 20,497,383 1,150,261 completed
Water supply 802,925 1,505,096 completed
Retention/detention 549,491 550,509 completed
Eastside leachate system 1,004,500 completed
improvements
Expanded aquifer monitoring 355,270 completed
Master facility plan 250,000 completed
Vashon Projects:
Vashon closure 4,521,857 344,968 completed
Vashon new area development 97,000 402,000 5,371,000 110,000
Vashon final cover 68,400 325,000 4,116,000
Enumclaw Projects:
Enumclaw closure 2,431,520 2,800,786 completed
Hobart Projects:
Hobart closure 8,654,838 3,016,806 370,000 1,188,430
Group NPDES Permit for Landfilis 226,000 completed
King County has developed a�i LRF funded through
disposal fees. Contributioi�s a�e determined in the rate study
process. Specific reserve accounts related to currently active
disposal sites are:
• Cedar Hills New Area Development Account
• Ceda�• Hills Facility Relocation Account
• Ceda� Hills Closure Account
• Cedar Hills Post Maintenance Account
• Cedar Hills Replacement Landfill Development Account
• Vashon New Area Development Account
• Vashon Closure Account.
• Vashon Post-closure Mainteuance Account
Chapter N M�xed Municrpal Solut Waste Handli�ag Syste�ns
• Hoba�t Closure Account
• Hobart Post-closure Maintenance Account
• E�mmclaw Closure Account
• Enumclaw Post-closure Maintenance Account
Contributions to these accounts are adjusted in every rate
period and are evaluated more often as appropriate. Eacli
account is funded through a dedicated component of the
disposal fee, which takes the form of a fixed dollar assessment
per ton. A disposal fee component is calculated that will make
the present value of projected expenditures equal the present
value of projected revenue over the life of the landfill.
C.1. D�sposnl: E�sting G'onditions
�
�
•
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
IV -
3
9
Of the landfill reserve accounts, only closure and post-
closure accounts are required by state law. King Counry has
elected to provide financial assurance for other activities, such
as new area development and faciliry relocation, through the
same mechanism. (The financial status of the various
accounts is presented in detail in Volume II, Appendix K.)
2. Needs and Opportunities
King Counry solid waste disposal needs fa11 into several
categories: facilities availability and capaciry, compliance with
King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10),
capital improvement, and closure a�ld post-closure activities and
funding. Disposal facilities are needed to serve a11 areas of the
County. Their capacity or that of their planned replacements
must be adequate to meet this need over the next 20 yea�s.
While the Cedar Hills Landfill has sufficient capaciry, additional
disposal capaciry should be planned for the future.
Fxisting and planned disposal facilities must comply with
the KCBOHC Title 10. There are also some specific faciliry
needs independent of capacity or KCBOHC Title 10 wmpliance.
Capital projects are necessa�y to upgrade existing facilities and
maintain or expand service levels and disposal capaciry.
Closure and post-closure maintena�lce activities must be
planned and adequate funding ensured.
a Disposal Capacity
(1) Cedar Hills
The draft Site Development Pla�l for Cedar Hills needs to
be updated and finalized. The Cedar Hills Special Use Permit,
issued by the King County Board of Commissioneis in 1960,
requires that a 1,000-foot buffer strip surrounding the entire site
be maintained in its natural state. This buffer limits the area
of land currently a�ailable to be landfilled to approximately 300
acres. Excluding the solid waste already in place, the site has
a remaining capaciry of 4S million cubic yards under existing
permit conditions.
After the draft Site Development Plan and Draft EIS were
published, the Solid Waste Division identified several factors that
will require modifications to these two documents:
C2. D�sal: Needs and Opportunities
• Comments received on the draft Site Development Plan and
associated EIS.
• Revised operating assumptions.
• Revised tonnage forecasts.
• Changing regulations governing solid waste disposal faciliry
design.
Comments received from the public on the draft Site
Development Plan were very critical of two elements: (1)
developing a stockpile in a buffer zone bordering on a.
residential neighborhood and (2) the concept of a second stage
of development. Residents preferred filling to a higher initial
height than a second stage of filling, and requested additional
information regarding noise, traffic, and properry values in the
viciniry.
Revised operating assumptions are also e�ected to result
in modifications. The draft Site Development Plan assumed
that refuse densities, solid waste settlement, and daily and
interim cover used would be similar to those recorded in the
past at other facilities. Since publication of the draft Site
Development Plan, the Solid Waste Division's operating statistics
indicate that in-place densities being achieved at Cedar Hills are
higher than draft Site Development Plan assumptioi�s, that
settlement is lower, and that daily and interim cover use are
higher.
Revised tomlage forecasts are likely to impact the number
and size of future disposal areas. Based on tonnage
assumptioi�s of the draft Site Development Plan, disposal areas
were plamied to have a two- to four-year capaciry. This
capaciry reflects a balance between the need to keep disposal
areas as small as practicable to minimize leachate production
and the need to allow time for design and construction for
subsequent disposal areas. Current tonnage forecasts are
considerably lower than forecast, which—using the criteria
above—is likely to result in modifications to include more, but
smaller, disposal areas.
Planned disposal areas need to be revised based on
modifications to operating assumptions and public comment.
Support facility needs and proposed locations need to be
reevaluated and included in the draft Site Development Plan
revisions, and modifications may need to be obtained for the
land use permit.
Chapter !V Mzxed Municspal Solid Waste Handling Systems
�
-4
N 0
(2) Hobart land, ftll (5) Waste Export
Hobart landfill has 100,000 cubic yards of capaciry
remaining and is expected to close in 1994. It has been
established that there is adequate setvice capaciry iu the area
without replacing the Hobart faciliry. Cedar Hills, Renton, �uid
Bow Lake landfills are in close proximity to the Hobart service
area.
(3) Enumclaw Land, f�ll
The Enumclaw Landfill has been replaced by the new
Enumclaw Tra�isfer Station. The landfill is no longer accepting
waste and the closure process has begun.
(4) Vashon Landftll
The Vashon Landfill has over ten yeais of built capaciry
remaining and room to develop additional capaciry. However,
there are outstanding issues related to the use and cost of this
capaciry.
An application for designation as a soie source aquifer
has been filed for Vashon Island with the [I.S. Enviromnental
Protection Agency (EPA). There are no provisions prohibiting
landfills over sole source aquifeis in fedeial regulations, but tlie
King County Solid Waste Regulations have a location standard,
which states that "no landfill sha11 be located over a sole source
aquifer" (KCBOHC 10.32.020.B.2). It is unclear how this
standard would apply to facllities that existed before a sole
source designation was made. This issue must be clarified, and
continued use of the Vashon La�ldfill should be evaluated.
Leachate transport and treatment must also be cot�sidered.
Leachate currently collected at the Vashon Landfill is stored in
an aerated lagoon, then hauled via tanker truck a��d feriy and
discharged to the Metro wastewater treatment system in VUest
Seattle. This is sometimes a problem because leachate can
only be hauled when ferries are operating. There is a need to
either provide additional storage to anticipate feity down times,
or develop a�l alternative treatment facility on the island.
In evaluating the impact of a sole source aquifer
designation and leachate handling alternatives for the Vashon
Landfill, King Counry should detennine whether the landfill
should be replaced with a transfer station.
The projected life of the Cedar Hills Landfill is 27 years if
the 65 percent recycling goal is met in the year 20b0. Because
Ceda� Hills is expected to be the last MMSW landfill of its size
to be operated in the Counry, there is a need to extend the life
of the landfill beyond the 27-year projection. Although studies
indicate that land maybe available for future landfills (Section
IV.l.a.6), environmental issues and communiry resistance make
siting a new in-county la�ldfill unlikely.
Ea.porting a portion of the Counry's MMSW waste stream
is a possible method of extending the life of the landfill. King
Counry is continuing to examine a waste e�cport strategy
(Section IV.l.a.5) in order to complete an evaluation of the
impacts of waste eaport before an RFP is issued.
b. King Counry Solid Waste
Regulations Complianoe
There are four areas of noncompliance and one area of
potential noncompliance with the regulations that need to be
addressed. These are described below.
(1) Cedur Htlls Grarrndwater
Impacts to shallow groundwater from older unlined waste
areas have been observed at Cedar Hills. This shallow
groundwater is not a source or potential source of drinking
water and the extent of the area of the impacted shallow
groundwater formations and their impacts is limited to the
Cedar Hills site. Remedial measures (improved existing
leachate collection a�id closing of completed areas) ha�e been
completed. Others, including collection and treatment of
shallow gro�ndwater impacted by landfilling activities, are in
progress and ongoing. Leachate extraction wells and horizontal
borings were installed into the waste and are being monitored
to determine the effectiveness of the remedial measures. Also,
in response to impacts to shallow groundwater observed on the
east side of the landfill near a gap in the leachate collection
system, groundwater extraction wells were designed and are
expected to bewme operational in the second quarter of 1993.
There will be a continuing need to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of these systems.
Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems C.2. Disposal: Needs and Opportunihes
IV-4
1
�
a
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
(2) Cedar Nflls Landftll Cas
Although an in-waste gas collection system was installed
at Cedar Hills, landfill gas migration has been observed during
periods of low barometric pressure. A series of migration control
wells was installed with a source of vacuum independent of the
in-waste gas extraction system. Since installation, no migration
has occurred. However, a prolonged period of low pressure has
not occurred since the control wells were installed. There is a
continuing need to monitor and evaluate the in-waste and
migration wntcol gas extraction systems.
(3) Enumclaw Land, fill Gas
An active gas collection and flare system was installed in
the closed (northern halt) section of the Enumclaw La�idfill
however, gas migration has been occasionally obseived during
periods of low barometric pressure in the southern part of the
site. Closure of the southern half of the landfill will be
completed in 1993 and will entail constructing active gas
collection facilities there. The effectiveness of the existing a�1d
planned extraction system will need to be monitored and
evaluated to determine if additional n�easures are required.
(4) Vashon Island Landitll Grmtndwater
Impacts to shallow groundwater from older waste areas
ha�e been observed at Vashon Landfill. Remedial measures in
the form of closing wmpleted areas are concluded. There is a
continuing need to monitor and evaluate these measures.
(S) Vashon Land, flll
Sole Source Aqutfer Destgnat�on
Since a sole source aquifer designation was applied for
with respect to Vashon Island's water supply, there is a need to
clarify the effect of such an action on the compliance status of
the Vashon Landfill particularly with respect to the locational
co«straint to sole source aquifeis in the King Counry Solid
Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10).
C2. Disposal: Needs and Opportunit'ire,ss
c. Capital Const�vcfion Plan
for Disposal Facilities
There is a need to update the Capital Construction Plan
described in Section IV.C.I.c. As identified in Table IV.21, there
is a need to accelerate development oF Refuse Area 5 at Cedar
Hills because of short-term changes in forecasted tonnage due
to closure of the Newcastle Landfill. There is a parallel need to
reevaluate its planned size and capacity.
Although a recent capaciry assessment indicates that
Vashon new area development and final wver projects can be
delayed from the schedule in Section IV.C.1, these projec�s need
to be reevaluated in relation to the possible sole source aquifer
designation. A capital project to support modifications to the
existing leachate handling and transport system also needs to
be developed. This need will have to be addressed regardless of
whether or not the Vashon Landfill is replaced by a transfer
station.
It is essential to address the impact of new and pending
regulations on faciliry capital costs. Amendments to Subtitle D
of the Federal Resource Conseivation a�id Recovery Act (RCRA)
ha�e included new design criteria that will impact capital costs.
The prima�y impact of this regulation on capital construction
program costs are closure costs for Refuse A�•ea 4 and future
landfill units at Ceda�• Hills. This need will be addressed under
Section IV.C.2.d, Financial Assurance.
The Solid Waste Division also needs to continue to
monitor and evaluate the impacts of proposed revisions to the
MFS (WAC 173-304) on its Disposal System Capital
Co7astruction Plan.
Developing regulations resulting from recent amendments
to the federal Clean Air Act may also impact capital
construction plamling, specifically, the design of gas extraction
and leachate treatment facilities. Until proposed regulations are
developed, it is difficult to assess the impact these might ha�e
on capital construction planning.
d. Finanaal Assurance
As described under existing conditio��s, King Counry has
established a landfill reserve fund with several individual
accounts, each held in trust and funded by fixed fees per ton.
Chapter N.• Mixed Mu�aicipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
N-42
Table IV.21 Disposal System Project DescripUOns and Status
Cedar Hills Projects:
Construction of Refuse Area 5 This is not currently included in the six-year CIP. However, new tonnage forecasts indicate the need
to begin design in the current six-year period. Funds are available to be reprogrammed from
unobligated project balances to support design of this project.
Construction of Refuse Area 4 Construction of Cedar Hills Refuse Area 4 has been completed. Remaining activities associated
with this project are support to operations in the form of an erosion control plan, gas collection plan,
stormwater collection plan, and lift sequencing plan. Warranties and guaranties are also being
tracked. Remaining activities were completed in 1992.
Closure of Refuse Area 2/3 Design has been completed for the closure of Cedar Hills Refuse Area 2/3 and a contract has been
awarded. This project was completed in December 1992.
Closure of SW Main Refuse Hill Design has been completed for the closure of the Cedar Hills Southwest Main Refuse Hill and a
construction contract has been awarded. This project is expected to be completed in December
1992.
Leachate Pretreatment This project is phased to construct additional leachate pretreatment steps at the Cedar Hills Landfill
in response to Metro costs and pretreatment standards. Conceptual design alternatives have been
evaluated for this project. The total project cost will be reestimated after final design.
Leachate Head Reduction This is a project that has been phased to evaluate the feasibility of extracting leachate from the Main
Refuse Hill at Cedar Hills. Leachate extraction wells and horizontal borings have been constructed
and are being monitored to determine their effectiveness. Residual project balance is being used to
support monitoring and additional facility recommendations if required.
Active Gas Collection This was a project to construct an active gas collection system for the landfill and closed unlined
areas at Cedar Hills. It was phased over several years and closure projects were completed in
1990. Remaining work being performed under this project relates to improving the landfill gas
migration control system, which will be completed in 4th quarter 1994.
Existing Water Supply The existing water supply at Cedar Hills was inadequate to meet current nonpotable needs and is
not in conformance with some Health Department potable water requirements. Specifically the water
supply well was located closer to existing refuse than allowed by code. A potable water supply line
connecting Cedar Hills to Water District 90 has been constructed and connected. A nonpotable
water supply reservoir to supply fire protection to Cedar Hilis and the Alcoholism Treatment Center
has been designedand will be completed in August 1993.
Retention/Detention This project involved improvements to Cedar Hills stormwater collection and retention/detention
systems in response to King County Surface Water Design Standards, Minimum Functional
Standards, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Several
surface water retention/detention systems have been completed and the remaining project balance
is being held to support modifications that may be required by an NPDES Permit (see later
discussion of group NPDES Permit for Landfills).
Eastside Leachate System This is a project developed in response to observation of some impacts to shallow groundwater on
the east side of the Cedar Hilis Landfill near a gap in the leachate collection system. Design of a
series of groundwater extraction wells has begun and construction is expected to be completed in
2nd quarter 1993.
[continued on next page]
Chiapter N Mixed Municrpal Solul Waste Handling Systems
•
C2. Drsposal: Needs and Opportuniti�s •
�
N-43
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
�
Project Descripaons and Status (Continued)
Vashon Projects
F�cpanded Aquifer Monitoring This project supports construction of additional monitoring wells at Cedar Hills. It is currently in the
consultant selection phase and is projected to be completed in 1st quarter 1993.
Cedar Hiiis Master Facility Plan This plan will provide a guide for locating, siting, and constructing administrative, operating, and
maintenance facilities at Cedar Hills. Its purpose is to anticipate and plan for facilities in a logical
and fiscalty sound manner. The consultant contract has been signed. Draft alternatives are expected
to be completed in the 2nd quarter of 1993.
Vashon Landfill Closure The Vashon Landfill Closure project provided for construction of a low-permeability cap over the
existing landfill in conformance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10).
Leachate handling facilities, landfill gas control, surface water control, and a scale were also
included. The remaining project balance is being used to support preliminary design of leachate
transport and pretreatment alternatives. Leachate is currently being trucked off the island.
Vashon New Area Development
Vashon Final Cover
Enumclaw Projects
Enumclaw Closure
Hobart Projects
Hobart Closure
Group NPDES Permit
This project supports the design and construction of additional capacity at the Vashon Landfill. A
recent capacity assessment indicates that this project can be delayed from the schedule shown.
This project supports closure design and construction of the existing disposal area at Vashon Landfill.
As was the case with Vashon New Area Development, a recent capacity assessment indicates that
this project can be delayed form the schedule shown.
This is a two-phase project involving the closure design and construction of the Enumclaw Landfill.
Phase I closure was completed in 1989; Phase II closure is scheduled to be completed in October
1993.
This is another two-phase project. Phase I closure was completed in 1989 and Phase II closure is
planned to occur in 1994.
NPDES Permit Application The Solid Waste Division has received baseline general permits for the Cedar Hills and Vashon
landfills. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans are currently being developed and should be
completed in the third quarter 1993. Additional projects may result from Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan development.
� There is a need to evaluate the adequacy of this fixed-fee
contribution in light of system changes contemplated in this
� Plan. The cunent contribution to each account is based on
adopted solid waste disposal fees for 1992 through 1994. The
� Ca�iital Corastruclioya Plan presented in Section IV.C.1 diffeis
�
��
�
�
� C.2. Disposal: Needs and Opportunaties
somewhat from the assumptions used to develop rates and may
require adjustments. Similarly, any proposed changes to the
Capital Corastruction Plan in response to needs presented above
may result in cha�lges to the contributions to the individual
accoun�s (See Appendix K).
Chapter N Mzxed Mun�cipal Solid Waste Handling Syste�ns
n
U
N-44
3. Alternatives
This section describes activities to meet state and local
planning and regulatory requirements (facilities compliance, a
capital improvement plan (CIP), and financial assurance). It
considers the disposal capaciry needs of the existing King
County solid waste management system and presents some
discussion of two other capacity alternatives; a new regional
landfill and waste e�ort (out-of-counry landfillin�.
a. Ongoing Requirements
(1) Ktng County Solfd Waste
Health Regulations Compltance
Altematives to complying with the ting County Solid
Waste Health Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) are not being
considered. The Plan does recommend specific actions to
achieve and maintain complia�ICe at all facilities.
(2) Capttal Construction Plun
The Capital Co��struction Plan presented in Appendi� K
lias been proposed in response to legal and capacity
requirements. Alternative capital construction plans are not
being co«sidered in the 1992 Plan.
(3) Ftnanctal Assurance
Financial assurance requirements are established through
WAC 173-30-467 and -468. Alternative financial assurance
mechanisms are not being considered by the 1992 Plan.
b. Disposal Capacity
There are three major alternatives for future MMSW
disposal in King County, which are summarized in Table IV.22.
Although the current King Counry solid waste management
system is e�pected to provide adequate capacity for the 20 year
planning period, the policy issues raised in these alterciatives
also begin to consider longer-term disposal needs and the
preservation of existing capaciry at the Cedar Hills Regional
Landfill.
(1) Alternat�ve A, Ex�stZng Factl�ttes
Under this Alternative, the Cedar Hills landfill is
rewgnized as a limited resource. The Solid Waste Division
would continue to implement initiatives that would extend the
life of Cedar Hills so that it wuld serve the Counry's disposal
needs beyond the 20-yea�� pla�ming horizon. Hobart Landfill
has little remaining capacity and is expected to close in 1994.
The Enumclaw Landfill closed in April 1993 and has been
replaced by a new transfer station. Under this scenario, all of
the King Counry solid waste planning area except Vashon Island
would be a pa�•t of the Ceda�• Hills service area. The Vashon
Island Landfill is the only rural landfill that would continue
operation. The option to export waste as a means of extending
the life of the Cedar Hills landfill would be further evaluated.
Specific activities would include:
• Cedar Hills. The draft Site Development Plan and
associated Draft EIS would be modified and reissued prior to
being finalized. Modifications a�e underway to respond to
revised tonnage forecasts, operating e�erience, public comment,
and potential partial out-of-county disposal. Support facility
needs a�id their proposed locations would be reevaluated. The
COUIICY waste reduction a�ld recycling program would be
e�panded to meet the established WR/R goal of 50 percent by
1995. The major development would be expansion of yard
waste collection and processing services a�ailable in the County.
These would include extending curbside collection to all urban
residents, development of a yard waste collection depot system
and phased implementation of a yard waste disposal ban. In
total, e�anded yard waste collection and processing service is
estimated to divert an additional 47,000 tons of waste annually
by 1995. A separate management system for CDL management
that increases waste reduction and recycling and restricts
landfilling of CDL at Cedar Hills would also be implemented.
• Hobart La�adfi'll. Existing load restrictions would stay in
place until the landfill is closed. Periodic assessments would be
made to deteimine if additional load restrictions are warranted.
Table IV.22 Summary of 1992 Disposal Alternalives
Alternative A Continue to dispose MMSW at Cedar Hills
Alternative B Dispose MMSW at a new regional landfill
Alternative C Dispose MMSW in an out-of-county landfill
Chapter N Mz�ed Municpal Solul Waste Handling Systerns C.3• Dfspasal: Alternatives
�J
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
N -4
5
• �ashon Landfill. The impact of a sole source aquifer
designation for Vashon Island on the continued operation of the
Vashon Landfill should be determined in any alternative
scenario. Specific areas of clarification that should be sought
are (1) continued use of existing built landfill capaciry once a
sole source designation is made, and (2) if use of the existing
landfill built capaciry were to be discontinued, the period of
time operation would continue to be allowed. If the sole
source designation prohibits continued use of existing built
capaciry, the Vashon Landfill would be replaced with a drop-
box or transfer station.
Replacement of Vashon Landfill with either a transfer
station or drop-box would be evaluated both in terms of the
economic merits (independent of a sole source aquifer
designation) and in terms of the potential impacts of such a
designation.
The Solid Waste Division would evaluate additional
leachate storage, transport, a�id treatment alternatives for the
Vashon Landfill, and select a�l alternative.
• Wc�ste F.xport, Although Alternative C outlines a fully
developed waste export alternative, Alternative A also includes
some analysis of waste export. The economics of waste export
alternatives should be compared with the continued operation of
Cedar Hills. A back-up level of operation at Cedar Hills would
be developed as part of the economic analysis of the three waste
e�ort options discussed in Altei�native C(Section IV.3.b.1).
• Ki'ng Counly Solul Waste Regulatio7as Code Compliayace.
King Counry Solid Waste Regulations compliance should
continue to be monitored in any alternative.
• Cctpital Construction Plan.
The development of Refuse A�•ea 5 at Ceda�• Hills would be
accelerated from the schedule shown in Section IV.C.1.
The schedule for Vashon new area development and final
cover projects would be delayed from the schedule shown in
existing conditions.
The costs associated with the Capital Construction Plan
would be adjusted to be consistent with the updated estimates
presented in Volume II, Appendix I.
• Financial Assurance. Contributions to individual accounts
would be adjusted in the next rate period.
(2) Alternat�ve B, New MMSW Reg�onal Zand, fZll
The requirements for developing a new regional landf'ill
in King County ha�e been explored in the Solid Waste Facility
Siting Plan (R.W. Beck, June 1989), In-Counly Regional
I,�cndfill Study, (R.W. Beck, February 1g8�), and the
Programmatic Final Environmental lmpact Statement of
Solid Waste Management Alternative.s (Parametrix, September
1988). Additional information was developed in a related study
of la�ld in King Counry suitable for development of a CDL
faciliry (Technical memorandum from R.W. Beck to Mike
Wilkins dated February 4, 1991, WW-1640-EA7-DA). Further
cot�sideration of a new regional landfill in King Counry is not
authorized by policy established for the Plan (KCC
10.22.030[I]).
(3) AZternatZve C, Wuste Export
Pursuant to King Counry Code (KCC 10.22.030[F]) which
authorizes out-of-county landfilling of a portion of the waste
stream as part of the County's solid waste system, a portion of
the Counry's waste would be eaported. Under this Alternative,
the Counry would continue operating Cedar Hills Landfill at an
adequate level to allow its use as a back-up system in case of
emergencies or failure of the waste export alternative.
Tlie existing King County transport and transfer system is
not currently designed to support out-of-counry landfilling.
Pceviously considered waste e�ort disposal alternatives ha�e
involved some component of rail haul, but the existing
tra��sportation fleet (specifically the existing trailer fleet) is not
compatible with this method. Existing transfer stations would
require modificatioi�s involving installation of pre-load
equipment to increase the payload of individual traileis. Major
faciliry modifications would be required to a11ow installation of
pre-load compaction equipment (the economics of long haul
require that loads be wmpacted).
King Counry would assess the level of operation needed at
Cedar Hills to maintain it as an emergency backup to waste
export and evaluate three possible facility configurations for
implementing a waste export strategy. The options are:
• Phased tra��sition to out-of-county disposal as new transfer
stations with compactois and existing transfer stations retrofitted
with wmpactors become operational;
� C.3. Dzsposa�: A�te►�atav�s Claapter N Mixed Munrcrp�al Solirt Waste Handling Systems
�
-4
� 6
,• Development of a central transfer and pre-load facility
where loads from eacisting transfer stations could be loaded into
suitable containers for rail haul; and,
• Transfer of waste to a private vendor for compaction and
transport to a long-haul receiving station.
When the faciliry configuration and level of operation
studies are completed, King Counry would then assess the
financial impact of the preferred waste e�ort strategy on solid
waste management activities and the effect the strategy would
ha�e on the rate structure.
4. Recommenda.tions
Alternative A, Fxisting King County Disposal System is
recommended for implementation during the planning period.
This alternative provides adequate disposal capaciry for the
entire King Counry solid waste planning area. It is coordinated
with development of the King Counry transfer system and WR/R
goals. It also provides for the continued evaluation of long-
term capaciry beyond the 20-year planning period by continuing
to analyze the feasibility of waste eaport during the planning
period. Based on the results of the analyses conducted, a�i
implementation decision for the waste export program
(Alternative C) will be made during the next update to the Plan
in 1995.
A summary of disposal recommendations is listed in
Table IV.23.
a. Ongoing Requirements
(1) K�ng County Sol�d Waste Regulat�ons Code
Compltance
King County Solid Waste Regulations compliance should
continue to be monitored.
(2) Cap�tal Constrr�ction Plan
The development of Refuse Area 5 at Ceda�• Hills should
be accelerated from the schedule shown in Section IV.C.1.
The schedule for Vashon new area development and final
cover projects should be delayed from the schedule shown in
existing conditions.
The costs associated with the Capital Construction Plan
should be adjusted to be consistent with the updated estimates
presented in Appendix I.
(3) F�nanc�al Assurance
Contributions to individual accounts should be adjusted in
the next rate period.
b. Disposal Capaciry
(1) Cedur Htlls
The draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS
should be modified and reissued prior to being finalized.
Modifications are underway to respond to revised tonnage
Table IV.23 Summary of 1992 Disposal Recommendations
Recommendation IV.19 KCBOHC Title 10 compliance Continue monitoring compliance.
Recommendation IV.20 Capital construction plan (a) Accelerate development of the Refuse Area 5, Cedar Hills. (b) Delay
Vashon new area development and final cover projects. (c) Adjust costs
associated with Capital Construction Plan with updated estimates.
Recommendation IV21 Financial assurance Adjust contributions to individual accounts in next rate period.
Recommendation IV22 Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Modity draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS.
Recommendation IV.23 Hobart Landfill Maintain existing load restriction and continue operation until capacity is
reached. Close in 1994.
Recommendation IV24 Enumclaw Landfill Landfill closed. Closure process initiated.
Recommendation IV25 Vashon Landfill (a) Seek clarification on impact of a sole source aquifer designation for
Vashon Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill. (b)
Evaluate replacement options for the Vashon Landfill. (c) Evaluate leachate
storage, transport, and treatment alternatives and select alternative.
Recommendation IV26 Waste export Evaluate economics of out-of-county alternatives with continued operation of
Cedar Hills; i�clude back-up level operation necessary for Cedar Hilis.
Clxapter N Mzxed Munic�al Solld Waste Handling Systems C.4. Dlsposal: Recommendat�ons
•
•
•
�
IV-4
7
forecasts, operating eaperience, public comment, and potential
partial out-of-counry disposal. Support faciliry needs and
proposed locations are being reevaluated.
(2) Hobart Landitll
Existing load restrictions should stay in place until the
landfill is closed.
(3) Vashon Landftll
The impact of a sole source aquifer designation for
Vashon Island on the continued operation of the Vashon
Landfill should be determined. Specific areas of clarification
that should be sought are (1) continued use of existing built
landfill capaciry once a sole source designation is made, and
(2) if use of the existuig landfill built capaciry were to be
discontinued, the period of time operation would continue to be
allowed, pending transition to another disposal site. If the sole
source designation prohibits continued use of esisting built
capaciry, the Vashon Landfill should be replaced with a drop-
box or transfer station.
Table IV.24 Disposal System Implementation Schedule
Replacement of Vashon Landfill with either a transfer
station or drop-box should be evaluated both in terms of the
economic merits (independent of a sole source aquifer
designation) a�id in terms of the potential impacts of such a
designation.
The Solid Waste Division should evaluate additional
leachate storage, transport, and treatment alternatives for the
Vashou Landfill, and select a�1 alternative.
(4) Waste Expo�•t
The economics of two waste export alternatives should be
compared with the continued operation of Cedar Hills. A back-
up level of operation of Cedar Hills should be developed as pa�•t
of the ewnon�ic analysis of the thcee waste export options
discussed in Alternative C(Section IV.3.b.1).
5. Implementation
The implementation schedule is shown in Table N.24.
Program Name 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
IV.19 KCBOHC Title 10 compliance - continue
monitoring
IV.20a Capital construction plan - accelerate Cedar
Hilis Refuse Area 5 development
IV20b Capital construction plan - delay Vashon new
area and final cover projects be ond 1998
IV.20c Capital construction plan - adjust costs
IV.21 Financial assurance - adjust constructions to
individual accounts in neM rate period as re uired
IV.22 Cedar Hil�s - modify drait site development
plan and associated draft EIS
IV23 Hobart Landfill - maintain existing load
restrictions and operation until closed
IV.24 Enumclaw Landfill - closure process
IV25a Vashon Landfill - seek clarification on sole
source aquifer designetion
IV25b Vashon Landfill - evaluate replacement options
IV25c Vashon Landfill - evaluate and select leachate
storage, transport, and treatment alternatives
IV.26 Evaluate the economics of waste export
C.S. Dzsposal: hnplenae�atation Cbapter N.� Mzxed Munic�pa( So/i� Waste Ha�adling Systems
>:: IV - 48
D. INACTIVE LANDFILLS
l. Existing Conditions
King County has custodial responsibiliry for seven inactive
landfills: Ceda� Falls, Duvall, Corliss, Bow Lake, Houghton, and
Puyallup/Kitt Corner a�id Enumclaw (Figure IV.7). The Seattle-
King Counry Department of Public Health (Health Department)
ii�spects each of these facilities. The Counh�'s obligations
towa�•d these landfills depends on their closure dates. Foc
la�idfills closed prior to adoption of the l��inimum Functional
Standards (MFS) for Solid Waste Handliug in 1972, the Counry
has no specific responsibilities- as defined by solid waste rules
and regulatioils. Requirements for landfills closed after 1972,
defined by the date of closure, include groundwater, suiface
watec, and gas monitoring, and maintenauce of the facilit�� and
its structures.
The Corliss, Bow Lake, Houghton, and Puyallup/Kitt
Corner landfills, referred to as "abaudoued landfills" in the
past, wece operated and closed prioc to adoption of tlle 1972
MFS. The�� were studied iu tlle A��7t�lo�te� L�rTrc�al St�s�cty i�t
IGrag CouT7ty (Healtli Departmeiit, 1985) aud �l�aTrdo7red
Lra���l�'lls Tox�cit��/H�z�d Assessmerzt Fr�ojecd (Health
Department, 1986).
The city of Carnation is responsible for tL1e closure of the
Carnation Landfill, which ttte ciry operated until 1989 and still
owus. The city operated the laudfill from the early 1920s to
November 1, 1989, when Ecology required its clos��re due to
noncompliance with the minimum standards for landfill
operation. The landfill discontinued operations on the
November 1989 date a�id entered into an interlocal agreement
with King County for shipment of MMSW to Cedar Hills.
The ciry oF Carnation plans to pay for the landfill closure
through the use of fees and gi•ants, and ►veet their financial
assurance obligations through surcharges on garbage collection.
King Counry has no responsibilit�� for the Carnation Landfill
a�ld will have no reco►nmendations regarding its closure
a. Cedar Falls LandF'ill
The Cedar Falls La��dfill, located near North Bend, was
operational from the early 1950s through 1989, when it was
closed in co��formance with present MFS. Continuing Solid
Waste Division activities perfo��ned on this site include quarterly
groundwater monitoring, cover maintenance, securiry,
maintenance of a passive gas collection and surface water
control sy�steivs, and monthly inspections. Certain groundwater
monitoring wells dried up following closure, and new wells are
planned to replace the diy ones.
b. Duvall Landfill
The Duvall Landfill accepted waste from the early 1950s
through 1981. In 1981 the closure process bega�i and it was
completed in 1�84. The Duvall site coi�forms with the 1�72
Minimum Functional Standards. It has leachate collection and
storage tan�s; the leachate is trucked to a Metro discharge point
on Northeast 128th Street. Continuing Solid Waste Division
activities peiformed on this site include maintenance of a
leachate collection and storage system, and qua�terly
groundwater monitoring, suiface water control systems, cover
maintenance, security and monthly inspections. Groundwater
monitoring wells were installed in 1983. Some of them a�•e dry
and new ones are planned to replace them.
c. Corliss Landfill
The Corliss Landfill in the Shoreline area operated from
the 1940s until it was closed by the coi�struction of Interstate S
in 1959. 'I'he Fi�st Northeast Tra��sfer Station was built on the
northem half of this site, a�id the Metro North Operating Base
was constructed on the southern half. Refuse was removed
during construction of the Metro North Operating Base. The
Division continues to perform cover maintenance, securiry,
su�face water contcol systems maintenance, and inspectioi�s.
d. Bow Lake Landfill
This la�idfill, located in Tukwila, was operated from the
early 1940s until it was closed by the construction of
Inte�state 5 in the late 1950s. The Bow Lake Transfer Station
was subsequently built on a portion of the site. The Division
also continues to perform cover maintenance, securiry,
maintenance of surface water control systems, a�ld inspections.
C/xtpter /4`� M�ed Municijx,�l Solifl Waste Haadlriag S��sterr�s D.1. livactive Landfills: F,xti"sting Condittons
�
r
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
N-4
9
e. Houghton Landfill
The Houghton Landfill is located near Bridle Trails State
Park and was operated from the 1940s through 1965. The
Houghton Transfer Station was built on part of this site in
1965. Another portion of the site has been used as a ball field
by the Kirkland Little League. Continuing Division activities
include cover maintenance, gas monitoring, securiry, suiface
water control systems maintenance, and inspections.
Puyallup/Kitt Corner Landfill
The Puyallup/Kitt Corner Landfill, located in south King
County, was operated from the 1940s until shortly after the
Algona Transfer Station opened in 1967. Continuing Division
activities include cover maintenance, gas monitoring, security,
sui�face water control systems maintenance, and inspections.
g. Enumclaw Landfill
The Enumclaw La�idfill is the most recent Count�� landfill
to close. It closed in April of 1993 and was replaced with a
new transfer station. The closure process is just begiuning at
the landfill.
were closed before post-closure maintenance funds were
required. Continuing activities at these sites are funded through
the Division's annual operating budget.
In August 19g1, a solid waste environmental reserve fund
was created through King Counry Ordinance 10056. This fund
supports remediation costs related to active and closed solid
waste handling facilities the Division owns or has custodial
responsibiliry for. It will be used to support environmental
investigations and any required remediation at the Corliss,
Houghton, Bow Lake, and Puyallup/Kitt Coiner landfills. This
fund was created through a one-time transfer of funds and is
not rate supported. When it was cc�eated, the Division
recommended waiting until initial investigations were completed
to assess whether additional contributio��s were required to
support remedial measures. Sufficient funds existed to support
preliminaiy investigations and remedial alternatives
development, and the potential magnitude of costs could not be
adequately estimated until these activities were completed.
Volume II, Appendix I contains detailed information
regarding the Duvall and Cedar Falls post-closure maintenance
accounts aud the solid waste environmental reseive furid.
2. Needs and Opportunities
h. Financial h�surance
For landfills closed prioc to adoption of the King Couury
Solid Waste Handling Regulations. Ping Countp has no
financial assurance requirements. For those closed after 1�72,
these requirements were defined by the regulations in place at
the time of closure. Generally the requirements are that
sufficient funds be set aside and deposited in a post-closuce
financial assurance account to support the costs of ongoing
monitoring and ma�Itenance for a miiumum of 20 ��eais.
The Cedar Falls La�ldfill has a post-closure maintenance
reseive fund of over $3 million held in an interest-bearing
account. The amount is based on estimated avecage yearly
expenditures for post-closure maintenance of $161,000 (1992
dollais). A post-closure maintenance rese�ve fund of over $1.6
million in an interest-bearing account established for the Duvall
Landfill is based on estimated a�erage yearly eapeuditures for
post-closure maintenance of $82,000 (1992 dollais). The
Corliss, Houghton, Bow Lal�e, and Puyallup/titt Coruer landfills
D.2. lnactive l�ndfills: .Needs a�ad Opporturtities
a. Site Evaluation
The needs and opportunities associated witli the inactive
landfills vary by site and generally depend on previous
evaluations. The Cedar Falls Landfill has been thoroughly
studied in the past, but additional information is needed
regarding groundwater tlow direction and quality. Since
placement of final cover at this site, so�ne groundwater
monitoring wells have gone dry and need to be replaced.
The Duvall Landfill has leachate collection a�id storage;
however, due to its remote location, there have been difficulties
iu the past in transporting the leachate, particularly when snow
or flooding close routes to the site or considerably slow traffic.
Additional leachate storage capaciry is needed at the site, or
leachate generation needs to be reduced. Also, since final cover
was placed at this site, some of the groundwater monitoring
wells have gone dly and need to be replaced.
Clxapter /i! M�ect Nlunzc�pal Solid Waste Ha�adling Sysxerns
�
:: IV - 0 '::
5
The Houghton, Puyallup/Kitt Corner, Bow Lake, and
Corliss landfills were studied for surface impacts but have uot
had hydrogeologic studies performed to assess whether tliey
might be impacting groundwater a��d whether landfill gas is
being generated and if it is migrating. These studies may
indicate that further actions are wananted at these sites.
b. Financial �ssurance
The Duva11 and Cedar Falls landfills' post-closure reseive
funds must periodically be evaluated to determine if they are
adequate to fund continued post-closure maintenance (see
Volume II, Appendix I). If additional funds are requiced,
contributions through the next rate study should be considered.
The environmental rese�ve fund contains sufficient funds
to support initial investigations at the Houghton, Puyallup/Kitt
Corner, Bow Lake, and Corliss laudfills and day-to-day
maintena�lce. However, upon co►npletion of environmental
studies, the need for additional contributions to this fund
should be evaluated.
3. Alternatives
Alternatives for site evaluation and financial assurance
needs would be generated pending further study and evaluation.
4. Recommenda.tions
The Counry should conduct further study and evaluation
to deteimine what actio«s may be necessary to manage inactive
la�idfills (see Table IV.25).
Table IV.25 1992 Inactive Landfill Recommendation
E. ENERGY/RESOURCE RECOVERY
1. Existing Conditions
In August 1986, the King Counry Council indicated the
Counry's intent to proceed with plans to develop
Energy/Resource Recovery (FJRR) facilities. Although the
Counry was moving to increase WR/R levels, F✓RR was viewed
�s a technology which could reduce reliance on landfilling and
mitigate its impacts.
The Council approved the King Counry FJRR Management
Plan in June 1987 aud tLle Solid Waste Division began the
siting process for an E/RR faciliry. Seven alternative sites were
proposed. Public scoping meetings were held at all seven sites
and extensive public comment was received. 'I'wo �i�ajor
wncerns were: (1) that the Count�� w�s proceeding with
extensive siting studies for an FJRR faciliry before adequately
evaluatiug otLier progiam alteruatives (specifically W/RR); and
that (?) E/RR, particularly a mass burn faciliry of the size
proposed, posed an unacceptable risk to human health.
The King County Council directed reevaluation of the
I'JRR program with passage of Ordinance 8383 in January
1988. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for
Solid Waste Management Alternatives (PEIS) was conducted on
policy choices for waste reduction, processiug, and disposal.
Although the final PEIS (Septeniber 1988) reached no
conclusions on enviromnental impacts associated with
incineration, the information was used to develop the Execut�'ve
Reprn�t on Solid Waste Man�tgenae�at Altern�tives. The
Executive Report, released in October 1988, rewmmended
against solid waste incineration as a waste management
strategy.
Recommendation IV.27 Inactive Landfilis Conduct further study and evaluation to determine what actions may be
necessary to manage inactive landfills.
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
•
•
Chiapter N.• Mzaed Municy�al Solul Waste Handli�ag Systenas E. B�tiergy/Resource Recovery •
�
N - 1 `::;
5
King Counry Council review of the PEIS and the Faecutive
Report led to the adop.tion oE Ordinance 8771 in December
1g88 (see Related Legislation at the end of this volume). It
found the PEIS to be adequate and concurred with the
Executive's recommendation against including solid waste
incineration in the Pla�i. The 1989 Plan thus did not
recommend incineration.
There is no need to include FJRR in the solid waste
strategy at this time since the Counry's waste reduction and
recycling goals a�e being achieved. In 1991, the Wit/R
programs implemented by the Counry and subur cities
reached a 32 percent diveision rate. The Cedar Hills Regional
Landfill is eapected to be an adequate landfill resource for the
20-year planning period. In addition, waste export is scheduled
to be evaluated for the 1992 Plan period.
2. Needs and Opportunities
Since WR/R goals are being inet and landfill resources
remain adequate, there is no need to address E/RR facilities.
E. Ener�y/Resource Recovery Cl�pde�� N.� Mti�erl A4u�zic�l Soli�l Wrrste Hrr�arlling Syste�ns
�
.
0
� CHAPTER V
•
• PECIAL AND
•
. ISCE EOUS
• ASTES
.
� Kin coun
• g �
Comp rehensive
• Solid Waste
� Management Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
,���,
�i��
S01"�lllg
It Out
Together
0
V-1
Chapter V
Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
Special wastes are those mixed municipal solid wastes
identified as requiring clearances by King Counry Code (KCC)
10.12.020.D, the King Counry Solid Waste Regulations (Title 10
of the King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC), or the
Waste Acceptance Policy (PUT 7-1-2[PR]). Contaminated soils,
asbestos-containing material, treated biomedical wastes, a�ld
several other special wastes together comprising approximately
three percent of the waste stream a�e disposed within the King
County solid waste system. Certain construction, demolition,
and land clearing (CDL) waste will be disposed within the King
County system until September of 1993. Other miscella�leous
wastes, including forest product residues and agricultural wastes,
are disposed outside the system. See Chapter VI, Section C for
a discussion of the waste clearance and screening program for
special wastes.
The 1989 Plan recommended a number of strategies to
handle special and miscellaneous wastes. The status of these
recommendations is summarized in Table V.1.
A. CONTAMINATED SOIL
l. Existing Conditions
Contaminated soil is soil containing fuel oil, gasoline,
other volatile hydrocarbons, or other hazardous substa�ices in
concentratio��s below dangerous waste levels but greater than
cleanup levels established by the Department of Ecology
(Ecology) (PUT 7-1-2 [PR], 5.10). Contaminated soil results
from removal of leaking underground storage tanl�s and
releases of hazardous substances into soil.
a. Regulations
Disposal of contaminated soil is regulated by the Solid
Waste Division and the Seattle-ting Counry Department of
Public Health (the Health Department) through the waste
clearance process. See Chapter VI, Section C for a discussion of
the waste clearance program.
Table V.1 Summary of 1989 Plan Recommendations for Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
Recommendation
Special wastes Implement fee to recover special wastes handling costs for all special wastes.
handling fee
Status
Implemented
Asbestos waste Institute a regulation requiring proof of proper handling and permits, and advance notification Implemented
disposal regulation for disposal of asbestos-containing wastes at Cedar Hills.
Infectious waste Monitor, enforce and evaluate the current infectious waste handling regulations Ongoing
monitoring
Procurement Initiate a procurement process to select and contract with a vendor for land clearing and Completed
demolition waste disposal services and, potentially, materials recovery or recyciing services.
CDL disposal site Conduct CDL disposal site study including the potential use of Cedar Hilis for CDL disposal. Completed
CDL WR/R Develop programs to increase waste reduction and recycling of CDL. Establish recycling Ongoing
goals for CDL, conduct a recycling evaluation study, and implement programs to increase
CDL recycling.
CDL permitting Evaluate a potential permit requirement to ensure that contractors submit and comply with a Completed
requirements disposal plan for CDL.
A. Contaminated Soil Claapter v.• Specral �nd Miscellaneous Wast�s
V-2
b. Quantities
In 1991, 16,772 tons of conta�ninated soils were accepted
and deposited into lined cells at Cedar Hills Landfill,
approximately 1.5 percent of the total tonnage received. In
1992, the volume of contaminated soils accepted at Cedar Hills
declined ro less tha�� 1,000 tons. There is a degree of
uncertainry regarding the projected volume of contaminated
soils that will enter the waste strea�n during the planning
period. This uncertainry is due to the phasing out of
underground petroleum storage tank re►i�oval required by
federal regulatio►�s (Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste
A�nendments of 1984 42 CFR parts 280 aud uncertainty
about the number and type of remediation activities conducted
at contaminated sites in respoi�se to the Washington Model
Toxics Control Act Regulations (WAC, Chapter 173-340).
Contaminated soils eacavated during tank removal currently
comprise over 75 percent of the contaminated soils cleared for
disposal at Cedar Hills. The Washington Model Toxics Control
Act progra�ns a�e still in the early implementation phases and
data are limited, so the nature and qua�itity of contaminated
soils from remediation cannot be predicted. However, it is
ea�pected that these new remediation projects will cause
contaminated soil to continue to be a significant coniponent of
the waste-stream for the foreseeable fi�ture.
c. Alterna,tiives to Disposal
There are a va�iety of treahnent processes that remove or
destroy ha�u•dous substances from contaminated soil.
Treatment processes are preferable to landfill disposal and are
frequently used as alternatives. On-site treatment technologies
include aeration, in situ bioremediation, and use of mobile
thermal desorption or incineration units. Off-site treatment
technologies include thennal desoiption and incineration.
These technologies are frequently cost-competitive options for
managing contaminated soils, depending on the volume and
characteristics of the soil contaminants. In particular,
treatment is most cost-competitive for la�•ge remediation projects
and for petroleum-conta�ninated soil. Treatment and recycling
processes are not restricted by King County flow control
provisions.
d. Potential Disposal Options
King Counry's flow control ordinance currently prohibits
out-of-county landfilling of contaminated soil. The only
landfill within the Counry's system designed to accept
conta�ninated soil (a special waste) is the Cedar Hills Landfill.
A number of commeccial solid and hazardous waste landfills
located outside the County accept contaminated soils, including
tlie Columbia Ridge a�ld Roosevelt regional landfills. Some
municipal landfills, including the Kitsap County Landfill, accept
contaminated soil from other wunties.
2. Needs and Opportunities
Conta�ninated soil has impacts on the King County
disposal system, especially at Cedar Hills. While relatively
ii�frequent, some remediation projects generate large volumes of
conta�ninated soil over short periods of time that may exceed or
impact the daily capaciry at Cedar Hills. These include both
traffic impacts caused by la�ge numbers of trucks entering and
exiting the landfill and operational impacts.
Operational impacts occur because contaminated soil
must be managed in the same ma�lner as MMSW at the Cedar
Hills Landfill. All contaminated soil must be overlain with
daily cover the sa�ne day it is received. No stockpiling of
contan�inated soils ca�l occur on site. Since conta�ninated soil
is heavier tha�i MMSW, it takes more time and effort to spread
the material across the working face of the landfill before it
can be buried, which leads to the operational impacts caused
by receiving large volumes of conta�ninated soil in a single day.
In order to mitigate these in�pacts, large volumes of soil from
reinediation projects must be scheduled into the landfill in
limited daily qua�itities.
' By December 22 i99i all underground storage tanks installed prior to 1974 were required to be upgraded or closed; deadlines for tanks installed between 1975 and
1988 continue through December 1993
C/aapter V S�eecial a�ad M�scella�aeous Wastes A. ContaminQted Soil
V-3
�
�
�
�
.
�
At 1. S percent of Cedar Hills tonnage, contarnivated soil
contributes a significant quantiry of waste to the total waste
stream. Efforts to reduce the volume of conta�nuiated soil
disposed at Cedar Hills are needed to lessen these impacts.
Potential means of ineeting this need include pro►noting the
use of soils processors for contaminated soils treatment and
utilizing landfill space in out-of-county landfills.
3. Alternatives
Two alternatives co��sidered to manage wntaminated soils
are summarized below and in Table V.2.
a. Alternati� A, Status Quo
a�
This alternative would maintain the status quo. In-
county disposal of contaminated soil would be required with
clearance. Generators would be allowed to continue to choose
treatment and recycling processes.
b. Alternati� B, Recycling and Treatment,
Ail�� DISPOS� �h01]S
The prioriry metllod of managing all solid wastes in the
State, including contaminated soils, is through reduction and
recycling whenever feasible (RCW 70.95.010). Treatmeut and
recycling seivices for contaminated soils are provided by the
private sectoc The County does not provide an�� direct se�vices.
Therefore, in order to increase the volume of contaminated soils
reused and recycled C�iC COUIl� would promote the use of
treatment and recycling se�vices for diff'erent types of
contaminated soils over la��dfilling whenever feasible. In order
to implement an effective treatment and recycling program, the
County would study the availabiliry of treatment and recycling
opportunities for specific types of contaminated soils and
evaluate ►nethods for promoting the reuse of contan�inated soils
through treat�nent. Among the promotional n�ethods to be
evaluated would be economic incentives designed to make
treatment more cost-competitive with disposal.
Table V.2 Summary of 1992 Contaminated Soil Alternatives
Alternative A Maintain status quo.
Alternative B Promote recycling and treatment. Analyze
disposal options and the costs and benefits of
i n-County vs. out-of-County disposal.
Further analyses would also be wnducted to determine
whether flow control for the disposal of contaminated soil
should be retained or removed by the Counry. The analyses to
be conducted would focus on maintaining environmental
standards, the impact of decreased disposal costs to generators,
the impact on operations at Cedar Hills, and the impact to
contaminated soils treatment and recycling facilities that would
result from either retaining or removing flow control authoriry.
The Counry would maintain control over the disposal of
all contaminated soils through its waste clearance process
regardless of whether flow control authoriry was retained or
removed. If flow control is retained, wntaminated soils
destined for disposal would be directed to Cedar Hills. If flow
control is ren�oved, hauleis of contaminated soils would be
allowed to take their loads to any landfill that is in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations
relating to disposal facilities. Maintenance of the waste
clearance process would help to ensure that appropriate disposal
facilities are selected, and ensure tliat no contaminated soils
that meet "dangerous waste" levels are disposed of at mixed
municipal solid waste landfills.
4. Recommenda.tions
Alternative B, development of recycling a�id treatment
opportunities, monitoring the feasibility of disposal bans and
analyzing disposal options, is reconui�ended (it is summacized
in Table V.3). The analysis of disposal options will focus on
the potential impact of decreased disposal costs on soils
generatois and processois, and on operational impacts at Cedar
Table V3 Summary of 1992 Conta�ninated Soil Recommendations
Recommendation V.1 Recycling and treatment Promote recycling/treatment. Analyze disposal options and the costs and
benefits of in-County vs. out-of-County disposal.
�
• A. C0921R9721�1R1e(� 501�
�
Clxrpte� G.` S�(,'C1(l� Rl7C� M�SCB��llryd2021S WQSt&S
V-4
Hills. The County would require waste clearance permits for all
contaminated soils destined for disposal, regardless of whether
flow control is retained or removed.
B. ASBESTOS WASTE
1. Existing Conditions
Asbestos waste is any waste that contaii�s more than one
percent asbestos by weight (40 CFR Pa��t 61; Asbestos NESHAP
and PSAPCA Regulation III Article 4; KCBOHC 10.08.040; PUT
7-1-2 [PR], 5.3). Airborne asbestos ca�i present a co��siderable
risk to human health and is therefore coi�sidered a hazardous
air pollutant.
a. Regulations
Asbestos handling is regulated by the following federal,
state, and local laws from in situ removal through final la�ldfill
disposal:
• The National Emission Sta�idards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). A November 1990 amendment
established record-keeping a�ld operational requirements for
disposal facilities accepting asbestos waste.
• The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority's
(PSAPCA Asbestos Control Standard (Regulation III
Article 4). This regulation requires permits for the removal,
encapsulation, and disposal of friable asbestos (any material
containing more than one percent asbestos which, wlien di��,
can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand
pressure).
• King County Public Rules (PUT 7-1-2 [PR] a�id PUT 7-2-1
[PR]), the Waste Clearance and Waste Acceptance Policies and
KCBOHC 10.28.060. These statutes regulate the disposal of
asbestos-containing material.
b. Disposal of �be.stos
The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is the only disposal site
in King County's solid waste management system that accepts
asbestos.
All asbestos-containing waste must be accompanied by a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Shipment
Record for Regulated Asbestos Waste Material and either a
PSAPCA Notice of Intent or a Solid Waste Division Waste
Clearance Decision Foim.
Each asbestos load is placed in a marked area separate
from the main working face. A waste screening technician
observes the waste as it is unloaded to ensure that the material
is properly bagged and that the bags are not broken during
placement. The asbestos area is covered at the end of each
working day. The Division maintains records of the location,
depth, area, and volume of asbestos-containing waste disposed
at tlie landfill.
c. Quanrities
There were 3,851 tons of asbestos-containing waste
disposed at Cedar Hills in 1991. This amount is expected to
drop to 1,000 to 2,000 tous during 1992 as.a result of the
withdrawal of Seattle from King Counry's solid waste
management system.
2. Needs and Opportunities
No needs have been identified beyond those discussed in
Chapter VI, Section C regarding waste screening.
C. BIOMEDICAL WASTE
1. Existing Conditions
Biomedical wastes contain pathogens in sufficient
concentrations that exposure to the waste may create a
significant risk of disease in humat�s (PUT 7-1-2 [PR], 5.4.).
Biomedical wastes include cultures; laboratory waste; needles
and other sharps; and flowable human blood, tissues, and body
parts. Most biomedical waste is generated by hospitals,
laboratories, research facilities, and medical, dental, and
veterinary clinics. Residential useis of syringes, lancets, and
other home health care materials also generate biomedical
waste (home-generated sharps).
Cha V.• Special and Mrscellaneous Wastes B. Asbestas Waste
V-
5
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a Regulations
There is currendy no comprehensive scheme of biomedical
waste regulation in Washington State. Statewide definitions of
biomedical waste were established in the 1992 Legislature (SHB
2391) in an amendment to RCW 70.95. Additionally, the
Occupational Safery and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates
worker exposure to biomedical waste in the Blood-borne
Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030). The OSHA standa�d
has been adopted by the Washington Industrial Safety and
Health Administration (WISHA). The OSHA/VUISHA definitions
of biomedical waste differ from the statewide definitioi�s found
in RCW 70.95 revisions. It is not yet clear how the differing
regulations will change biomedical waste management practices.
On a local level, biomedical waste is regulated by the
Seattle-King Counry Department of Public Health (KCBOHC,
Title 10) and by King County's Waste Acceptance Policy (PUT
7-1-2 (PR)). These rules establish conditions under which
some biomedical wastes may be accepted at Solid Waste
Division facilities and specify which wastes are not acceptable
for disposal in the County's waste management system.
Definitions of biomedical waste contained in these rules are
consistent with definitions established by the Washington State
Legislature.
King Counry solid waste facilities accept biomedical waste
from medical facilities only when it has been treated according
to standards contained in King Counry Solid Waste Regulations
(KCBOHC 10.28.070). Generally biomedical waste must be
treated by steam sterilization, incineration, or another approved
method. Sharps waste, including needles, syringes, and lancets,
must be contained in rigid, puncture-proof containeis.
Containerized sharps waste is segregated and disposed in an
area of the landfill where it ca�i be covered without beiug
crushed and compacted by landfill equipment. Treated
biomedical waste disposed in King Counry's solid waste
management system is subject to waste clearance requirements
and is transported directly to the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill.
Home-generated sha�ps are exempt from KCBOHC
regulations if they are (1) returned to a medical facility, (2)
returned to a pharmacy, or (3) placed into a needle clipper or
a labeled PET pop bottle. A needle clipper is a metal box with
a blade that clips a needle from a syringe and safely contains
C. Biomedical Waste
it. Sha�ps contained in needle clippers or PET bottles are
allowed in the general solid waste stream.
Medical facilities have the responsibiliry to determine
which wastes are considered i«fectious and to comply with the
requirements of the Health Department and the Solid Waste
Division. Each facility must have an infection control
committee or staff with this responsibility (KCBOHC 10.28.070
and 10.08.222).
The federal Medical �Vaste Tracking Act of 1988 (40 CFR
part 259) directed the EPA to conduct a two-year demonstration
program for trac�ing medical wastes in several east coast and
Great Lakes states. The trac�ing program was initiated in June
1989 and expired in June 1991. The Medical Waste Tracking
Act does not apply to Washington State, but nation�l
regulations may Ue instituted if the program results are
favorable.
b. Quantities
Seven hundred tons of treated biomedical waste and
containerized shaips were disposed at Cedar Hills in 1991.
Most of this waste came from Seattle prior to the ciry's
withdrawal from the Counry's waste management system in
]une 1991. Quantities after ]une 1991 have averaged less than
one ton per month.
Most untreated biomedical waste from hospitals and
clinics in King County is handled by private ii�fectious waste
hauleis. It is generally brought to out-of-counry facilities for
treatment, either by incineration or microwave treatment. No
data are available on the volume of biomedical waste handled
by private hauleis.
No data are available on the quantiry of home-generated
sha�ps waste disposed with mixed municipal solid waste.
2. Needs and Opportunities
a. Biomedical Waste from Medical, Dental, and
Veterinary Facilities
Most untreated biomedical waste from medical, dental,
and veterinary facilities is being treated and disposed at private
incinerato�s and treatment facilities outside King Counry. This
Cfiapter V.� Speci�l an�t Mircellaneous Wastes
�
v-6
may be in wnflict with the flow control provisiot�s of tlie King
Counry Code (KCC 10.08.020). There is a need to clarify
whether all biomedical waste, including residuals from
treatment or incineration, must be disposed in King Counry.
b. Home-generated Sharps
While biomedical waste from medical, dental, and
veterinary facilities is tightly wntrolled, home-generated shaips
are ►nuch more difficult to cont�ol. Ho►ne-generated shatps
pose approximately the same risks as sharps from ►nedical,
dental, a�id veterina�y facilities. In�proper disposal of home-
generated shaips can expose solid waste workels to blood-borne
pathogens. Some efforts have been made by Ecology and the
Health Depa�•tment to inform the public about proper ha�ldling
a�id disposal of home-genei�ated shaips. Additional measures
a�•e needed to reduce improper disposal of home-generated
sharps.
Health Department regulations allow use of needle
clippers and PET bottles for containment of home-generated
sharps for disposal in the general solid waste st�•eam. This lias
reportedly caused problems in the PET recycling industry, where
home-generated sharps ha�e been found at recycling facilities.
The adequacy of cunent options for disposal of home-generated
sharps needs to be further assessed.
3. Alterriatives
Four alternatives are discussed and considered:
Altenlatives A and B are related to biomedical waste fcoro
medical, dental, and veterinaiy facilities. Altematives C and D
address home-generated sha�ps. Table V.4 summarizes
biomedical waste alteinatives.
Table V.4 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Alternatives
Alternative A Allow continued treatment and disposal of
biomedical wastes outside King Couniy.
Alternative B Enforce flow control over all biomedical wastes.
Alternative C Ban disposal of home-generated sharps in the
MMSW disposal system.
Alternative D Develop educational materials for home
generators of sharps waste.
Chapter V,� Special and Mzscellayaeous Wastes
a Biomedical Waste from Medical, Dental, and
Veterinary Facilihes
(1) Alternat�ve A, Out-of-County
Treatment and Dtsposal
This alternative would continue to allow treatment and
disposal of biomedical waste outside King Counry. Flow control
provisions would be revised to clarify that treatment and
incineration of biomedical waste are not addressed.
Alternative A would a11ow the present system for treatment
a�id disposal of biomedical waste to continue. FYisting
incineration and treatment facilities are adequate to handle
current volumes of biomedical wastes. Alten�ative A also favors
development of additional treatment capacity by not restricting
the location of these facilities in King Counry.
(2) Alterr�at�ve B, Flow Control
This alternative would ei�force flow control over all
biomedical waste. It would require either on-site treatment of
biomedical waste oc off-site treatment at a facility located in
ting Counry. All treatment residuals, including incinerator ash,
would ha�e to be disposed at Ceda�• Hills.
Alteniative B would require significant changes to the way
biomedical wastes are handled in King Counry. There are
currently no commercial biomedical waste treatment facilities in
ting Counry and most generators of biomedical waste do not
have the capabiliry to treat their biomedical waste. Either
generatois would ha�e to procure their own treatment
equipment, or a private faciliry (or facilities) within the Counry
would need to be sited and built. The quantity of biomedical
waste in King Counry is sma11, so flow control will have litde
impact on MMSW faciliry pla�ining a�id revenue generation.
Requiring biomedical waste and their treatment residues to
remain within the counry would impose significant costs for
little benefit.
C. Biomed'rcal Waste �
�
V-
7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
�
b. Home-generated Sharps
(1) Alternat�ve C, D�sposul Ban
This alternative would ban disposal of a11 home-generated
sharps in the MMSW system. It would require generators of
home-generated sharps to dispose of sharps only through a
medical facility or pharmacy, or use a hauler to pickup sharps
for disposal at Cedar Hills or a private treatment faciliry.
Alternative C has some weaknesses. First, there is limited
availabiliry for sharps disposal apart from disposal in the
general MMSW system, especially for persons in remote areas
who ha�e restricted mobiliry. Second, a disposal ban would be
difficult to enforce and, as a result, would haue limited
eFfectiveness.
(2) Alternut�ve D, Educatfon
Educational materials would be developed and distributed
for home generatois of sharps waste. Disposal of needle
clippers and PET bottles is not inherently risl�y. Additional
educational materials should help to address problems in the
PET recycling system. Options for disposal of home-generated
sharps should continue to be evaluated.
4. Recommendations
Alternative A is recommended for biomedical waste in
medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Alternative D is
recommended for management of home-generated sha�ps.
Biomedical waste recommendations are summarized in
Table V.S.
T�le V.5 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Recommendations
Recommendation V.2 Treatment and disposal Co�tinue to allow treatment and disposal outside of King County.
Recommendation V.3 Flow control exclusion Remove biomedical waste references from flow control provisions.
5. Implementation
To implement the biomedical wastes recommendations,
the Division will:
• Propose revisions to the flow control ordinance.
• Develop and distribute educational materials for home
generators of sharps waste.
D. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION,
AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
This section addresses the management of construction,
demolition, and land clearing (CDL) wastes. Pursuant to lg8g
Plan rewmmendatiot�s, the Counry actively promoted waste
reduction and recycling (WR/R) of CDL wastes and selected two
private sector vendois to ha�idle the remaining mi�ced CDL and
residual component of materials processing.
1. E�sting Conditions
CDL waste is generated by construction and demolition
companies who clear land, and build, remodel, or demolish
structures. Historically, it has been collected, transported, and
disposed by private industry. Until Ja��ua�y 19g0, the primary
faciliry in the Counry permitted to accept this waste was the
Newcastle Demolition Waste Landfill. In January 1g90, the
Newcastle Landfill closed after it reached the m�imum atlowed
capaciry (fill dirt a�id final wver are still being accepted to
accomplish suitable final grades and close the faciliry). The
l��tt. Olivet landfill, which accepted a small quantiry of County
CDL waste (approximately 10 percent), also closed after
reaching maximum capaciry in the spring of 1991.
` Termed LC/DW (land cleacing and demolition waste) in the 1989 Plan.
• Recommendation V.4 Home-generated sharps Develop and distribute additional education materials for home generators of
education sharps waste.
• Recommendation V.5 Home-generated sharps Continue to evaluate the adequacy of current disposal options for home-
disposal generated sharps.
�
�
� D. Construction, De�nolition, an�l Lan�l Cleari�zg Waste
Cfia�ite�• V.• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
n
U
V
-8
In anticipation of these closings, the 1g89 Plan
recommended that the County increase waste reduction and
recycling of CDL materials and contract with private vendors to
provide handling services.
The County responded to closings of the Newcasde and
Mt. Olivet landfills by amending its waste acceptance policy by
emergency public rule PUT 7-1 (PR) to provide some CDL
waste handlers with a local waste disposal option at Ceda� Hills.
King County solid waste facilities now accept commercial
quantities of non-inert demoliUon and construction waste (with
certain restrictions), including land clearing debris a�ld clea�l
wood. Inert wastes are not accepted from commercial vehicles.
When the CDL vendor contract is implemented, the public rules
will be amended to exclude all CDL waste from King Counry
solid waste facilities except materials transported by private
vehicles with gross weights not exceeding 8,000 pounds and
incidental amounts of CDL waste in mixed municipal solid
waste (MMSW) loads.
In preparing the Environmental lmpact Staternerat on
CDL Waste Handling Yendor Selection, the Counry estimated
that between 1.01 and 1.64 million un-compacted cubic ya�ds
of CDL waste will be generated annually in King County
through the year 2000.
a Waste Characterizaiion
The CDL waste stream is composed of inert and non-inert
materials. Data on the composition of this waste stream in
King Counry a�e limited: few ha�e been collected and private
hauling of CDL materials to a variery of disposal sites, many of
wluch are not pa�•t of the counry system, complicates efforts to
characterize or quantify the waste stream. Data for the King
Cou�tly Waste Characterizatioyt Study (King Counry, 1991)
were derived from a Portland, Oregon, study (1986-1990). It
was assumed that waste generated there is similar since the
regions ha�e comparable climates, histories, urba�i forms,
demographics, and economies, a�id both have burn bans in the
metropolitan area. CDL material is estimated to be 10.5
percent construction waste, 58.6 percent demolition waste, and
30.8 percent land clearing waste (Table V.6).
The an�ount of CDL waste generated depends on such
factors as the extent of economic growth and development,
large public works projects (e.g., I-�O COI1Stl'UCC10II� and
unplanned events like natural disasters. The amount that
requires disposal is affected by the availability a�id cost of
hauling options, recycling, and disposal options; local, state,
Table V.6 Compositlon of CDL Waste Stream (in percent)
Materials
Yard debris
Wood�
Paper
Plastic
Miscellaneous organics
Glass
Aluminum
Ferrous metal
Nonferrous
Miscellaneous inorganics
Other
Construction' Demolition' Land Clearing a All CDL b
4.1
29.6
8.7
3.4
11.7
0.5
1.0
6.7
1.6
32.2
0.4
0.4
50.9
1.0
4.4
3.7
0.0
0.6
14.9
0.2
24.0
0.0
75.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.8
4.9
23.9
33.0
1.5
2.9
7.1
0.1
0.5
9.4
0.3
19.9
1.6
a Composition figures from Portland Metro CDL Waste Composition Data Sheets, 1987, 1989, 1990
b All CDL Waste is a weighted average of the three CDL waste streams, based on construction waste = 10.53 percent, demolition waste =
58.65 percent, and land clearing waste = 30.8 percent. These values were derived from King County CDL Waste Quantiiy Projections by
Herrera Environmental Consultants, assuming midrange values and equal densities for all three substreams.
` Wood includes only those components from CDL activity, and differs from the definition of woodwaste addressed in Section V.F.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, Vo/ume ll, Appendix B.
Cha V.• Special and Mzscellaneous Wastes D. Constructaon, Demolition, and Land Cler�ring Waste
�
�
•
`
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
V-
9
and federal regulations on CDL waste handling; and the
a�ailabiliry of end-use markets.
b. CDL Waste Reduction and Recycling
Based on recommendations from the 1g89 Pla�i, the
Counry Department of Development and Enviromnental Seivices
(DDES) may require applicants to submit a waste disposal and
recycling plan (WDRP) when applying for demolition permits
(this requirement has not yet been codified).
To date, the Solid Waste Division does not have sufficient
data to analyze the full potential For increased recycling of CDL
materials. In the absence of this information, the Division has
established an interim goal of SO percent WR/R by 1995, which
is the state WR/R goal. A more definite goal will be established
after more WR/R development and analysis is completed.
Since the Ja�ivary 1990 closure of Newcastle Laudfill,
WR/R practices among CDL waste generatois have increased. It
appears that most of them recycle if it is convenient and
ewnomically feasible. An informal survey revealed tliat some
contractors employ careful site planning, ordering, and use of
materials, and replanting of vegetation to reduce waste. I�tany
use exca�ated dirt as cover and recycle inorganics, such as
brick or concrete, by using them as back-fill. Asphalt and
concrete are taken to recycling facilities if they are reasonably
close to the work site. Stumps a��d other la�ge pieces of wood
are sometimes ground on site. Wood scraps may be offered
free to the public (one contractor sold logs at current timber
prices). Plastics, aluminum, and ferrous metals are reused on
site or recycled; others are hauled to nearby laudfills.
The suivey revealed a general pattern of reusing or
recycling materials—such as cardboard, cleau wood, metal,
concrete, and brick–�since they ha�e established end-use
marke�s.
Many contractors expressed concern, however, about the
cost of separating CDL waste, lack of storage space, and
a�ailability of markets. They also were concerned about the
location of recycling facilities, since the cost of hauling lacge
volumes of CDL waste for long distances can be prohibitive. By
simply disposing of wastes, generatois can tra«sport the
materials to one location, but to recycle they must transport
separated loads to various facilities, which increases costs and
D. Construction, Demolitaon, and L�znd CleQring Waste
traffic to and from the construction site. Since the higher costs
are passed on to the consumer, the viabiliry of instituting
rigorous recycling programs in a recessed economy was
questioned.
Processois of CDL materials appear to have managed the
increased volume of materials coming to their facilities since
the Newcastle Landfill was closed. The Counry compiled a list
of these facilities, su�veying all lmown processors of CDL
material (Volume II, Appendix G).
c. Market A�sessments
To date, no market studies ha�e been completed
specifically for this waste stream in King Counry. Several
agencies are conducting research that will provide data in the
coming year. Studies of categories of more commonly recycled
materials provide data that is relevant for some components of
this waste stream.
The market assessment detailed in Volume II, Appendix D
of this Plan (summarized in Chapter III, Section A) addresses
markets for several recyclable components of construction waste
and for the organic fraction of land clearing waste. The report
indicates that markets for yard waste and wood products (the
largest components of coi�struction and la�ld clearing wastes)
are expected to be stable; markets for cardboard are expected to
cemain stable through 19�5; a�ld mad:ets for metals vary
depending on the type of inetal. Dirt, rock, sand, and sod
recoveced from land clearing and construction sites are rypically
reused as fill. Markets for other recyclable components of
construction wastes�uch as concrete, drywall (gypsum), and
paints—have not yet been evaluated for King Counry.
Summaries are not available on markets for demolition.
wastes. Because a large percentage of this waste stream is
commingled and contaminated, no conclusions may be drawn
with any reasonable level of coi�fidence until specific research is
conducted.
The King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable
Materials is developing projects to sti►nulate the increased
procurement of compost products by government agencies, the
commercial sectoc, and the general public. The Commission
will provide support to other agencies' projects to stimulate
markets as specific needs are identified.
C/�a�ter V.• Specu�l and Mzscellaneous Wastes
V-10
The Building Code Council is studying increased use of
recycled building materials from construction and building
demolition debris. This research, to be completed in late 1993,
will provide the County with a statewide peispective of CDL
materials markets.
The Washington State Clean Washington Center (a
division of the Department of Trade a�id Economic
Development) publishes a Directory of Recycle�l Co7aterat
Building and Constructwn Products, which lists products
made with recycled material. Several of these products are
displayed at the annual Northwest Regional "Buy Recycled
Conference," which is cosponsored by federal, state, and couuty
agencies.
d. CDL Transportation and Disposal
Since the Mt. Olivet and Newcastle landfills have ceased
accepting CDL waste, the portion that is not recycled has been
distributed to various facilities. Approximately 24 percent is
hauled in commercial packer trucks, a�id 76 percent is
transported by private vehicles. Disposal has been distributed
among sites such as the Hidden Valley Landfill in Piecce
Counry County Construction Recycling Faciliry in UVhatcom
Counry, Morrison Sand & Gravel in Kitsap County, private
transfer statioi�s (to be taken to out-of-counry landfills in some
insta�lces), and counry tra�lsfer facilities (some material is taken
to Cedar Hills Landfill).
e. Proccssing of Mixed CDL
and Disposal of Waste Residuals
In December 1989, the Solid Waste Division issued a
request for proposals (RFP), which resulted in selection of
Regional Disposal Company (formerly Rabanco Regional
Landfill) and Waste Management of Washington to be CDL
waste handling vendors, contingent on their completion of
required site-specific environmental review. These vendo�s a�•e
to provide suitable facilities to receive mixed loads of CDL
materials, provide for the removal of recyclable materials, and
provide transportation, final disposal, and otlier related
handling of non-recycled CDL.
Recycling is encouraged by requiring that the contractors
maintain a specified minimum processing capacity at one or
more of the facilities that receive loads of mixed CDL materials
from generators a�ld hauleis, and by reserving the Counry's
right to prohibit or limit disposal of materials deemed
recyclable. Contractor facilities used to dispose of CDL must
meet or exceed the Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) for
mixed municipal solid waste (WAC 173-304). The contract also
includes provisions for the Counry to impose a surcharge on the
contracror's fees. Regional Disposal Company and Waste
Management of Washington, the two vendors selected ro handle
CDL waste, estimate they will each receive 250,000 to 300,000
rons per year, retlecting recent increases in waste reduction,
source separation, and recycling.
The County agreed to enact a flow control ordinance
directing all non-recycled waste to the contractor's facilities
only. The waste would include residual materials resulting
from recycling and processing of CDL waste. This ordinance
will be in place when the Regional Disposal Co. facilities are
opened to use�s in September of 1993. The County has also
agreed to hire flow control office�s to enforce the provisions of
the flow control ordinance by ii�specting incoming loads of
waste at tra�lsfer stations and the Cedar Hills landfill for CDL
material and by n�onitoring other CDL handling practices.
The Counry's Public Rules include a provision that when
the tlow control becomes effective, the c�rrent provisions for
ha�idling CDL waste in King Counry's transfer stations and
regional la�idfill will be rescinded a�ld waste will be directed to
designated vendors' facilities. Flow control will be implemented
by identifying and educating generators, and tracking their
activiry from the point of waste generation to the point of
disposal or recycling.
Regional Disposal Company proposes to utilize two
transfer/recycling facilities (one existing and one proposed) to
separate mixed CDL waste and refine materials for reuse. Non-
recycled materials will be disposed at Roosevelt Regional
La�idfill in Goldendale, Washington (Klickitat Counry).
Regional Disposal Company is scheduled to begin service in
September 1993. Waste Management also proposes to use one
new transfer/recycling faciliry and modify an existing facility foc
separation and processing (they have yet to complete site-
Chapter V.• ,S�iecial and Mzscellaneous Wastes D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing i�aste
-1
V 1
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
specific environmental review requirements). One or both of
these contractors must provide capacity to commence handling
a minimum of 50,000 tons per month of CDL waste no later
than June 1, lgg4.
CDL handling service contracts require that vendo�s
provide the County with records of payload weight, customer
class, and rypes of CDL materials received in loads at
transfer/recycling facilities. The records must indicate separated
material(s), geographic origin, and disposition of materials.
This information will guide future pla�ming for CDL
ma�iagement.
f. Regulatory Structure
King Counry regulates and plans for the reduction,
recycling and disposal of CDL under RCW 70.95.
WAC Chapter 173-304 provides sta�idards for inert and
demolition waste luidfills; the King County Solid Waste
Regulations, Title 10 of the King County Board of Health Code
(KCBOHC), provides similar requirements; and the ting County>
Solid Waste Code, Title 10 of the King County Code, provides
standa�•ds for acceptance of CDL materials within the counry
system. In addition, RCW 81.77 provides for the supeivision
a�ld regulation by the WUTC of solid waste collection companies
that handle CDL materials.
(1) K�ng County Solfd Waste Regulattons
Regulation of CDL waste disposal by the King County
Solid Waste RegulaUot�s depends on the component waste types.
Wood waste components can be disposed at wood waste disposal
sites (see Section V.F.1). Inert components can be disposed in
inei�t or demolition waste disposal sites. Faciliry requirements
include standards related to slope, dust control, protection of
combustible materials, record heeping, waste acceptance, and
site access (WAC 173-304-461).
King Counry Board of Health Code Title 10 specifically
requires--depending on whether the CDL materials are being
recycled or disposed—that bulky wastes be recycled or taken to
a disposal site permitted to accept oveisized waste.
�. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste
(2) K�ng County Sol�d Waste Code
KCC 10.12.065 states that disposal of demoliuon and land
clearing debris at King Counry transfer stations and landfills is
inappropriate. Generally this is because operational
consequences may result if large quantities of these wastes are
handled within the County system. Specific acceptance
procedures in the King County Public Rules Solid Waste
Acceptance Policies PUT 7-1-2 (PR) provide for limited disposal
in the King Counry system only until private vendor se�vices are
available.
2. Needs and Opportunities
The 1989 Plan identified the need to plan for new
facilities for disposal of CDL materials. This has been
accomplished, a�id the Division is proceeding to identify the
needs for more effective planning and recycling programs.
They a�e:
• To effectively plan for recycling and disposal of CDL
matecials, cunent local data on CDL waste stream composition
and fluctuations due to seasonal and economic conditions need
to be obtained and analyzed.
• To provide assistance in recycling materials to generators,
i«formation is needed on operatioi�s of local recyclers and
processots and the status of CDL markets.
• CDL waste generatois need to be provided with information
on liow, what, and wl�ere to recycle.
• CDL materials markets need to be assessed in order to
evaluate the potential to provide assistance in this a�ea.
• To encourage recycling and waste reduction, generators of
CDL waste need to estimate quantities and plan their handling
methods in the early phases of projects
There are opportunities to reuse and recycle several
components of the CDL waste stream. Land clearing wastes
usually contain organic and mineral components, such as soll,
rocks, stumps, and brush. Compost from organic waste can be
used as soil a�nendment, and woody materials can be chipped
or shredded for mulch, for ground cover to control erosion on
slopes, or for a base for pathways and jogging trails. Finally,
rocks unearthed during the land clearing process can be
crushed and reused as gravel.
Chapte�• V.� Special and Mrscellaneous l�astes
V-12
The waste generated during a wnstruction project is
dive�se and has many uses. Concrete can be civshed and
reused as gra�el for road-base or aggregate for asphalt.
Rewvered wood can be processed and reused as particle-boa�d
or compost. Materials containing asphalt can be processed a�id
used in road-base or as paving material for driveways.and
parking lots. Ferrous and nonferrous metals can be sold to
scrap metal dealers for processing and recycling.
Recycling and reducing demolition waste is difficult
because a large portion of the waste is conta�ninated or
commingled with other wastes. The most fundamental strategy
is to remove all reusable and recyclable components (e.g., HVAC
ducts, ornamental fixtures, weather stripping� from a building
before demolition. Components such as metals, bricl;s, wood,
and concrete can be manually separated at the site. htaterials
that are commingled must be taken to processing facilities for
waste separation, recycling, and disposal of residuals.
Processing methods include flotation ponds to separate out the
wood, and vibrating feeders, screens, magnets, and crusheis to
separate and process the materials that remain.
3. Alternatives
The following discussion provides detail on three CDL
alternatives considered in this Plan: maintaining the status
quo, augmenting current services, and offering new seivices to
enhance opportunities for recycling. These alternatives are
summarized in Table V.7.
a. Alternative A, Status Quo
Current activities, with CDL waste directed to contracted
vendors, would result in viable options for handling CDL wastes.
However, the status quo alternative would not address the WR/R
needs identified.
Table V.7 Summary of 1992 CDL Alternatives
Alternative A Maintain status quo.
Alternative B Increase WR/R.
Alternative C Regulate CDL disposal and recycling.
b. Alternative B, Increase WR/R
(1) Source Separation
Most recyclers currently do not accept CDL waste that is
commingled. Source separating waste on site would greatly
expand recycling options for waste generators and haulers and
increase the supply of higli-qualiry recyclable materials available
to processors.
A policy that aggressively encourages source separation
could be the linchpin of any CDL waste reduction and recycling
program. On-site source separation could also be required by
law. King Counry could examine this option in light of
progress made with voluntaiy compliance through various
incentive progra�ns. Clearly, source separating CDL waste will
be more labor intet�sive, and thus could be more costly for the
generatois to implemeut than disposal, unless the tipping fee
for CDL disposal is considerably higher than the cost ro recycle.
Transportation costs would diminish by increasing the
number of dispeised locations for delivering materials. The
Counry could assist existing recycle�s in evaluating other options
for increasing collection locations.
(2) Edz�cat�on and Techn�cal Asststance
This alternative would augment education and technical
assistance to CDL waste generatois to promote further waste
reductiou and recycling. It co��sists of the following activities:
• On-site asszsta�ace. This assistance could include on-site
waste "audits° (teclulical assistance) similar to those the Counry
conducts for commercial mi�ed solid waste generators.
Demonstration projects would be conducted for demolition and
construction activiry.
• Resource guides a�a�l Frrocf�u�•es. The "Resource Guide"
(Volume II, Appendix G), which lists existing recyclers
(materials accepted, address and telephone number), would be
more widely distributed. New material could be developed to
target various audiences, incWding lists of products
ma�wfactured from recycled materials with supplieis' addresses
and telephone numbers; tips on general WR/R techniques and
methods of preparing materials for market; current market
conditions; and a summary of the Solid Waste Division goals,
with background it�foi�natiou and strategies.
G'hapter V.• Special and Mrscellaneous Wastes D. Construction, Denaolition, and Land Clearing Waste
� ,
�
��
��
�
�
�
•
i
�
.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
�
V-1
3
• Workshops. Informal workshops could be organized and
conducted in conjunction with regularly scheduled meetings of
associations, such as the Master Builders Association and the
American Institute of Architects.
• l�aste �xchange. The system now in place allows some
CDL generators to advertise to find parties interested in reusing
specific waste materials. The Industrial Materials Exchange
(IMEX) group, sponsored by the Health Department with
support from the Solid Waste Division and other agencies,
serves this function locally. Organized in 1989, IMEX is an
information clearinghouse for industrial waste exchange
opportunities throughout the I-5 corridor. In 1991 IMEX listed
150,000 tons of solid waste materials for reuse. The Division
could continue to work with this group to introduce additional
components of demolition and construction waste into the
listings.
(3) Market Development
Public and private sector interests can work together to
ensure viable markets for recycled CDL products: for example,
through preferential purchasing programs, increased tipping fees
for disposal of recyclable wastes, and business incentives to
recyclers to encourage them to locate in King Counry or expand
their existing operations.
King Counry could expand the procurement policy to
cover certain CDL materials: recycled asphalt, untreated wood,
and compost made from land clearing debris are three
examples. To ensure the viabiliry of the procurement policy,
however, performance standards need to be clearly defined.
Economic incentives to encourage private sector investment in
CDL market development would be consideced in any
comprehensive strategy to reduce and recycle die CDL waste
stream. Reduced-rate loans, interest subsidies, and taY
incentives ha�e been suggested as ways to stimulate the CDL
market economy. The labor costs associated with on-site source
separation and hauling to recycleis could make CDL WR/R
more costly to implement in the short term.
Counry staff could actively putsue the cooperation of non-
contracted recyclers to keep records of the quantities and
disposition of materials. Counry staff could track materials'
market activiry to assess the potential for increasing recycled
D. Construction, Demolition, an�l L�nd Cleca�•i�ig l�'aste
quantities, establishing realistic goals, forecasting problems in
marketing specific materials, and stimulating the production
and sale of recycled products.
The County could play a role by participating in the
development of research conducted by state agencies and
facilitating information gathering.
c. Alterna,ti�e C, Regulation
(1) Perm�tt�ng
The Counry could complement an education strategy by
incoiporating WR/R concerns in the permitting process and
encouraging cities to do the same. DDES and city permitting
agencies could also require a waste disposal a�id recycling plan
(WDRP) as a component of commercial building or residential
building, grading, or subdivision pennit applications. The
VUDRP will support the education program and underscore the
importance of effective WR/R strategies by anticipating waste
handling needs before construction begins. Permitting agencies
could also control the amount of native vegetation removed
from a site through a clearing ordinance.
(2) Dtsposal Ban
In order to promote recycling, the County has retained a
provision in its CDL Waste Handling Seivices Contract that
reseives the right for tlie Counry to prohibit, by Ordina�lce or
Public Rules, the disposal of Recyclable CDL materials. Key
considerations in implementing a disposal bul are whether the
pcivate sector offeis conveniently located recycling alternatives
with adequate capaciry, whether the alternatives meet
environmental standards and whether the costs of the
altei�latives are reasonable. The Contract allows the vendor to
determine, in consultation witli the Counry, the economic
feasibiliry of separating and marketing material from mixed
loads of CDL.
(3) Waste Screening
In evaluating the altemative of imposing a disposal ba��,
the effectiveness of waste screening programs would be a key
factor. Waste screening practices would ensure that county
Chcrpter V.• Speci�rl and Mzscellaneous Wastes
V
-14
facilities accept only very small quantities of non-recyclable CDL
waste.
(4) Record Keeptng
The Counry could track the amount and types of CDL
wastes being disposed, and use this information to verify current
data, more effectively manage the waste stream, and deterivine
the potential for increased recycling.
4. Recommendations
Alternatives B and C are recommended to promote waste
reduction and increase recycling of CDL w�ste. The specific
elements of the alternatives are listed in Table V.8 and
summarized below:
• Alternative B. The County should develop a comprehensive
progra�n to promote waste reduction and recycling of CDL
materials. This program should include enha�lcement and
e�ansion of existing services for technical assistance. It should
also include monitoring of disposal a�id recycling activiry and
a�lalysis of the system to detennine future needs. Staff should
collaborate with state and county agencies to develop markets
for recycled CDL material.
• Alternative C. Cities and the County should require a waste
disposal and recycling plan in all grading, building, and
demolition permits. The feasibiliry of implementing bans on
the disposal of specific CDL materials should be researched.
5. Implementa.tion
To implement the CDL waste recommendations, the Solid
Waste Division should:
• Develop and implement a comprehensive plan to promote
waste reduction and recycling of the CDL waste stream.
• Work with land use pei�nitting agencies to include a waste
disposal a�id recycling plan requirement in all grading,
building, and demolition permits; and evaluate the feasibiliry of
implementing a ban on the disposal of specific CDL materials.
E. AGRICULTIIRAL WASTE
1. E�sting Conditions
Agricultural wastes are byproducts of farming and
ranching—crop processing waste, manure, and carcasses of dead
a�iimals over 15 pounds (KCBOHC 10.08.020). The King
Table V.8 Summary of 1992 CDL Recommendations
Recommendation V.6 Source separation Encourage a policy of source separation for CDL. Promote an increase in the
number of dispersed locations receiving CDL recyclables.
Recommendation V.7 Onsite assistance Conduct onsite waste audits.
Recommendation V.8 Resource guides and Develop broad distribution network for the "Resource Guide." Develop new
brochures brochures to target various audiences, e.g., CDL generators and recyclers.
Recommendation V.9 Workshops Conduct workshops in conjunction with building trades organizations
Recommendation V.10 Waste exchange Expand the work of the IMEX group to add components of demolition and
construction waste into its listing. Expand the County's procurement policy to cover
CDL materials most easily recycled, such as asphalt, untreated wood, and compost
made from land clearing debris. Develop incentives to encourage recyclers to locate
in King County or expand their existing operations. Develop monitoring program for
non-contracted recyclers.
Recommendation V.11 Permitting Develop, in conjunction with DDES and city permit agencies, a waste reduction and
recycling plan requirement for commercial and residential building, grading, or
subdivision permits.
Recommendation V.12 Disposal ban Study imposition of a disposal ban on specific CDL materials.
Recommendation V.13 Waste screening Evaluate instituting a waste screening program.
Recommendation V.14 Record keeping Monitor the disposal of CDL waste,
Chapter V.• ,Special and Mzscellaneous Wastes E. �ricultural l�aste
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
V-1
5
County Cooperative F.��tension Service (Extension) reports that
crop processing waste is not a major concern in King County
and no estimates are available on quantity (most of it is
returned to the soil at the end of the growing season). Cunent
practices do not result in waste requiring disposal or pollution
problems.
Fann animals in King County produce from 1,371 to
1,725 tons of manure per day (Volume II, Appendu J,
Table J.1), which is generally stored and eventually applied to
farmlands. The major wncern for manure processing a�id
application is contamination of suiface water, which is the
responsibiliry of the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology), King Counry Surface Water Management, and the
Environmental Health Division of the Seattle-King County
Department of Public Health. Ecology investigates existing
manure practices and enforces proper manure application.
Long-term storage to stabilize manuce as fertilizer is lac�ing on
many county dairy farms (Appendix ]).
Management of animal carcasses is a well-developed
industry, composed of rendering plants that derive useful
products from animal remains. Carcasses may also be disposed
in landfills or buried on the owner's properry without creating a
health hazard. The numbeis of a�limal carcasses disposed in
the Counry have not been estimated. Seattle Rendering Works
processes approximately 5,000 tons per month (Appendix J).
Depending on the demand for rendered products, faciliry operat-
ois may pay for animal remains or haul away the carcass for
fiee or for a fee.
2. Needs and Opportunities
Agricultural waste is not a solid waste management
problem in King Counry. No action is cecommended at this
C1I11C.
F. WOOD WASTE
1. Existing Conditions
� Wood waste consists of wood pieces or particles generated
as byproducts or waste from the ma�iufacturing of wood
• products or handling and storage of raw materials, such as
�
n
U
+ F.l�oodwaste
trees and stumps. These wastes include—but are not limited
to—sawdust, chips, shaving, bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log-sort-
yard waste. This waste category dces not include wood
included under yard waste or CDL definitions. They do not
include wood pieces or particles containing chemical
preservatives, such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-
chrome arsenate. (KCBOHC 10.08520).
Other materiais not included in the wood waste definition
are wood from the residential and commercial sectors included
in the mixed municipal solid waste stream disposal system and
CDL debris. These are disposed at separate la�idfills (see
Chapter V, Section D) or are recycled or composted. These
include dimension lumber, stumps, large branches, and other
wood. (See also Volume II, Appendices B and D.)
There are seven lumber or wood producers (all mills)
located in King County (exclusive of Seattle) that are potential
wood waste generatois. No estimate of wood waste generation
in ting Counry has been prepared. Generators report no
unused byproducts; tliey are sold, used, or given away
(Appendix J).
Options for disposing or reusing such wastes depend, in
part, on their final form. Wood wastes generated by milling,
processing, and ha�idling of raw wood ca�l vary greatly-�ark,
shavings, wood trim, slabs, rejected products, and sawdust are
all produced (Table V.9).
Table V.9 Woodwaste Uses
Byproduct Use
Bark Fuel supplements, landscaping products,
composting
Wood trim Fuel supplements
Slabs Fuel supplements
Chipped wood Landscaping, can be manufactured into
paper, fiberboard, etc.; used in artificial
logs, composting products
Sawdust Used in artificial logs, composting products
Mill blocks Packaged and sold for home fuel for stoves
or fireplaces
Hogfuel Boiler fuel
Source: Volume II, Appendix J
Chapter V.� Specral and Mzscellaneous Wast�s
�
�
-1
v 6
•
•
•
i
•
Wood components can be disposed at wood disposal sites,
which must comply with surface- and well-water locational
standards, record keeping, acceptance restrictions, lift height
restrictions, site access, and closure. If the faciliry has accepted
in excess of ten thousand cubic yards at closure, they must
ha�e groundwater monitoring and leacliate collection a�id
treatment systems.
The KCBOHC Title 10 provisions regulating wood waste
landfills are the same as the state requirements, except that
there is an added requirement for landfill gas monitoring for
closed facilities with final capacity in excess of ten thousand
cubic yards.
2. Needs and Opportunities
Wood waste recycling and disposal is handled by the
private sector. It is an insignificant mixed municipal solid
waste component and, unless wnditions change, is not e�pected
to become a major solid waste disposal problem in the near
future. No action is recommended.
expected to begin entering the Counry's mixed municipal solid
waste strean�. The management techniques employed by waste
water treatment agencies appear adequate.
2. W1S� T1I�S
Waste tires are accepted at County disposal facilities on a
limited basis. Individuals a�•e permitted to dispose of up to 4
tires at a time. Licensed hauleis may dispose of up ro 9 tires
at a time. Commercial loads of waste tires are prohibited. In
total, waste tires and other disposed rubber products make up
less than 2 percent of the Counry's mixed municipal solid waste
stream. The majority of waste tires generated in the County
are processed by tire recycleis. The County promotes tire
recycling by maintaining a�1 up-tadate list of tue recryclers and
providing the it�fonnation over the Counry's recycling hotline.
Waste tires are also accepted for recycling at collection events
sponsored by the Counry and suburban cities. Waste tires are
not expected to become a significant portion of the Counry's
mixed municipal solid waste stream. No changes are
recommended to the existing management conditions.
G. OTHER SPECIAL WASTES
Other special wastes include sewage sludge and septage,
waste tires and dredge spoils. Of these materials, only waste
tires regularly enter the County's solid waste stream. Sludges
and septage and dredge spoils are typically managed outside of
the Counry's solid waste system.
1. Sludges and Septage
Sludges and septage are by products of waste-water
treatment. Generally, these materials do not enter the Counry
mixed municipal solid waste stream. Sludge and septage
management is the responsibiliry of waste-water treatment
agencies. The Health Department estimates that 90 to 95
percent of all the sludge generated in the County are managed
by Metro. The remaining S to 10 percent originates in Black
Diamond, Duvall, Midway, Enumclaw, Lakota, Miller Creek,
North Bend, Reciondo, Salmon Creek, Snoqualmie a�id Vashon.
These communities are served by local sewer districts that also
manage sludges and septage. Sludges and septage are not
3. Dredge Spoils
Dredge spoils consist of soils and other organic materials
generated by dredging operations. Dredge spoils are typically
used as upland fill and generally do not enter the Counry's
mixed municipal solid waste stream. No dredge spoils were
received at Counry landfills in 1992. However, the Counry is
prepared to properly manage dredge spoils in the event some
material is disposed. Dredge spoils are subject to the same
waste clearance rules as contaminated soils. Independent
testing and SWD and Health District approval are required
before dredge spoils will be accepted for landfilling at County
facilities. Additionally, dredge spoils must be dewatered before
they are accepted for disposal. Dredge spoils are not expected
to enter in the mixed municipal solid waste stream any
significant quantiry. No changes are recommended to the
existing management system.
Chapter V.� Sbecial and Mzscellaneous Wastes G. Other Special Wastes
0
CHAPTER VI
NFQRCEMENT
King County
Com re�iensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
_v�,
�na
SOI"�ll1g
It Out
Together
�
-1
Chapter VI
Enforcement
This chapter discusses four rypes of enforcement activities
carried out primarily by the Seattle-King Counry Department of
Public Health (Health Department) and the King County Solid
Waste Division. They are:
• Health Department enforcement of solid waste faciliry
handling permit requirements.
• Enforcement of laws governing the right to a�id
responsibiliry for disposal of wastes generated within Iung
Counry (flow control).
• Enforcement of the King County public rules governing the
acceptance of special wastes.
• Enforcement of illegal dumping and littering laws.
A. SOLID WASTE HANDLING
FACILITIES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Health Department enforcement activities are currently
funded by fees based on disposed tonnage and sma11 grants
from the Department of Ecology (Ecology).
b. Implementation
The Health Department is responsible for issuing permits
to both public and private facilities. The permitting process for
new and existing vehicles, transfer stations, landfills and other
disposal sites, and some commercial recycling facilities, gives
the Health Department the mechanism to e��force the Minimum
Functional Standards (MFS) contained in WAC 173304 and the
King Counry Solid Waste Regulations (King Counry Board of
Health Code, KCBOfIC Title 10). The Health Department
reviews proposed operational changes, closure and post-closure
l. Existing Conditions
a. Regula,tiions
The Health Department is the prima�y regulatoiy and
enforcement agency for solid waste handling facilities and
vehicles in King County (RCW 70.95). Solid Waste Regulations
are codified in Title 10 of the King Counry Board of Health
Code (KCBOHC).
The following solid waste handling facilities in hing
County are regulated by the Health Depa�•tment (see Chapter IV,
Figure IV.2 for locations).
1. Counry facilities�edar Hills, Hoba�•t, Enumclaw and
Vashon landfills; First Northeast, Houghton, Factoria,
Enumclaw, Renton, Algona, and Bow Lake transfec stations; and
SkykoA�ish and Cedar Falls drop-boxes.
2. Private facilities (see Table VI.1).
3. Ciry facilities—Carnation la�idfill
Table VI.1 Private Solid Waste Handling Faciliues in King County
Transfer/Recycling Stations Compost Sites
Rabanco Recycling Iddings
(3rd & Lander) Cedar Grove
Waste Management of Seattle Valley Topsoils
Recycling Center Gro-Co (Biosolids)
(formerly Eastmont) Steer-Co (cow manure)
Black River waste reduction Lloyd Enterprises
center (Rabanco)
Special Purpose Facilities
Intermodal Facilities Reserve Silica (fly ash)
Seattle International Gateway
(backup for 3rd & Lander) John Henry Coal Mine
(fly ash)
Port of Seattle Terminal 18
Seattle Intermodal Facility Solid Waste Treatment
sites
Recycling Operations Redmoor
Recycle America (WMI) Rainier Wood Recyclers
(For additional listings including addresses, see Volume II,
Appendix F)
A.1. Solid Waste Handlang Fac�lities P�m�t Requirenae��ts: Exzsting G'o�aditio�zs G'hapter u/.• Enforcement
VI-2
plans, and supporting technical documentation. Proposals for
solid waste handling facilities must be consistent with the
adopted Plan.
The Health Department also regularly i«spects solid waste
handling sites, recycling drop boxes and vehicles and requires
landfill operators to perform groundwater and methane
monitoring. Facilities that are not in compliance with the MFS
may be granted variances, with the approval of Ecology, if the
public health and environment are not endangered or if
compliance would produce hardship without equal or greater
benefits to the public. An annual permit for a noncoi�forming
site may be issued if Health Department conditions are met and
there is a schedule for full compliance or closure. The status
of faciliry compliance with the MFS is addressed in Chapter IV,
Sections B, C, a�id D of this Plan and sum►narized iu Tables
IV.10, IV.11, and IV19. Ecology has the authority to appeal
issuance of permits to the State Pollution Control Hearings
Board (RCW 70.95). The Health Department may impose civil
penalties, initiate criminal proceedings, or order a site closed if
it determines that the operation of the faciliry would endanger
the public health.
2. Needs and Opportunities
The enforcement system described above appeais to be
effective to e��sure compliance. However, the Health Department
should evaluate staffing levels to ensure tllat staffing resources
are appropriate. Fee and rate adjustmen� may need to be
considered during the next rate period.
B. WASTE FLOW CONTROL
1. Existing Conditions
Pursuant to King County Code (KCC) 10.08.020 A, solid
waste generated within King Counry must be delivered to counry
disposal facilities. The Solid Waste Division is responsible for
disposal of all waste generated within its jurisdiction, except
waste that is explicitly prohibited by the Division's Waste
Acceptance Policy (Public Rule PUT 7-1-2 [PR], see Section
C.l.b). Additional exceptions can be made to disposal
prohibitions by revisio►�s to state law or counry ordinances.
V✓aste accepted from any jurisdiction that King Counry dces not
have an interlocal agreement with is subject to a fee three
times the usual rate. Seattle and Snohomish and Pierce
counties also specifically prohibit disposal of waste generated
outside their jurisdictions.
In September 1991, King Counry began receiving monthly
reports from all certified haulers operating within its
boundaries. The hauler reports provide detailed inforrnation on
disposal and recycling activity and are designed to assist the
Counry in monitoring waste flow patterns. The County
wnducts quarterly generator smveys at i� disposal facilities to
determine the origins of the disposed waste stream. The C�unry
also randomly screens incoming vehicles to educate customers
about accepta�lce policies and fees. Staffs of Seattle,
Snohomish, Pierce, and King counties meet regularly to discuss
flow wntrol issues.
Based on monitoring, the Counry has determined that
there is a flow control problem that could escalate without
inteivention. For example, data obtained from qua�•terly
transfer station surveys and random screenings of incoming
vehicles indicate that King Counry regularly receives significant
amounts of waste from other jurisdictions. Conveisely, total
tonnage disposed at wunry facilities in the first quarter of 19g2
appeais to be much lower than anticipated. It is not known
what may be contributing to this other than the effect of WR/R.
Flow control problems could be exacerbated if rates increase in
neighboring jurisdictions.
To alleviate this problem, in the proposed 1993 budget
the Solid Waste Division has pla�med for a mixed municipal
solid waste flow control officer to develop procedures for
ei�forcement of flow control policies. The Counry anticipates
significant flow control issues associated with the opening of a
wnstruction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste facility
in 1993 and will provide two flow control officers to deal with
this waste stream (See Chapter V).
2. Needs and Opportunities
Further resea��ch is needed to detennine the extent of the
waste flow control problem. In addition, there will be a need
to address this problem more aggressively when Seattle and
Snohomish Counry rates increase. The difference between those
Claapter I�!• Enforcement 8.1. Waste Flow Control: Existing Condrtions
�-
3
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
rates and King Counry's is expected to widen in the next yea�
or so. Additionally, the success of waste flow control depends
on a coordinated effort with Seattle and Snohomish and Pierce
counties.
3. Alternatives
There are three alternatives that address waste flow
control: to maintain existing programs a�ld to expa�id existing
support services. They are summarized below and in Table
VI.2.
a. Alternativ�e A, Stahis Quo
This alternative would maintain the status quo. It would
include continued monitoring of monthly hauler reports,
quarterly generator surveys, random screening of incoming
vehicles at specific facilities when the other jurisdiction is
known, imposing triple fees for out-of-jurisdiction waste, and
meeting monthly with Seatde and Snohomish and Pierce
counties to discuss flow control issues. Three tlow control
officeis would be hired: one for mixed municipal solid waste
and two for construction, demolition, and la�id clearing waste.
Maintaining the status quo would allow the Solid Waste
Division adequate time to evaluate the effectiveness of existing
programs. There is a significa�it possibiliry, however, that the
status quo alternative may not provide adequate staffing to
effectively control the flow of waste generated in ting Counry.
Additionally, this alternative would not provide adequate flow
control without changes in acceptance policies and an
education progra�n.
b. Alternative B, Policy and Prograrns
Under this alternative, in addition to maintaining the
status quo, a regional educational prograni would be developed
to address flow control issues. This effort would include
informing many more people of the Counry's policy to charge
three times the rate for out-of-jurisdiction waste and increased
verification of the sources of waste delivered to County facilities.
This alternative would be more effective than Ntemative
A, without significantly increasing program costs.
c. Alternative C, Staff
King County would significantly supplement existing
programs by hiring one enforcement officer for each of the six
transfer stations and for the Vashon and Cedar Hills landfills,
beginning in 1993. These enforcement staff would be
responsible for screening all incoming vehicles to ensure
wmpliance with waste acceptance policies and to educate the
public on proper disposal policies and procedures.
More adequate staffing may effectively control the flow of
waste within King Counry. However, implementation of this
alternative may be premature.
4. Recommenda.tions
Altetnative B is recommended to ensure adequate waste
flow control. For the remainder of 1992 and throughout 1993,
King County should:
• Continue implementing four generator surveys per year at
each Counry disposal faciliry.
• Continue monitoring and evaluating monthly hauler
disposal and recycling reports.
• Continue random screening of incoming vehicles at County
disposal facilities.
• Begin wor�ing with representatives from the city of Seattle
and Snohomish and Pierce counties to develop a regional
education campaign to address flow control issues in the fourth
quarter of 1992.
• Hire three flow control officers in 19g3 (one for mixed
municipal solid waste in addition to the two for construction,
demolition, and land clea�ing waste.
If by January 1994 the County is still �periencing
significant problems with tlow control issues, adoption of the
more stringent measures described in Alternative C should be
considered. (Table VI.3 summu•izes waste flow control
recommendations).
Table Vi.2 Waste Flow Control Alternatives
Alternative A Maintain status quo.
Alternative B Maintain status quo and develop educational
programs on waste flow control issues.
Alternative C Hire additionai enforcement officers.
� 8.3. Waste Flow Control: Alternatives Cf.�apter Yl.� Enforcement
�
�
-4
Table VI.3 1992 Waste Flow Control Recommendations
Recommendation VI.1 Waste flow control education Develop waste flow control education program.
Recommendation VI.2 Enforcement Increase enforcement of flow control and waste acceptance policies.
C. CONTROL OF INCOMING WASTES
1. F�isting Conditions
a Introducction
Most of the waste delivered to the King Counry solid waste
disposal system is mixed municipal waste generated by
households and businesses. Special wastes, including asbestos-
containing waste, contaminated soils, treated infectious waste,
drum containers, and CDL waste, require special handling for
regulatory, operational, or safety reaso��s and have conditions
attached to their acceptance (KCC 10.12.020[E] a�id PUT 7-1-2
[PR]). Certain other wastes are prohibited from disposal in
municipal landfills, including hazardous and dangerous wastes
as defined by the Resource Conseivation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations.
The 1g89 Plan recommended development and
implementation of a waste clearance a�ld screening progra�n
(see Table VI.4).
b. Regulations
Existing laws, regulatio��s, codes, and rules that impact
the acceptance of waste at King Counry solid waste
management facilities include the following:
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA),
as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Anaeradnaents
of 1984 (HSWA). Regulations promulgated under RCRA a�Id
HSWA are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). Part 2S8 establishes minimum design a�ld
operational standards for municipal solid waste landfills,
including operational requirements to exclude hazardous waste,
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and liquids. Implementation
of these regulations is generally delegated to states. Parts 260
through 271 define hazardous wastes a�id establish
management standards for hazardous waste.
• Washi7agton State MiTair�aum Fu�actio�aal Standards (MFS)
for Solid Waste Handlirag (WAC 173 304). These regulations
expand on 40 CFR 258, establishing minimum requirements for
solid waste handling and disposal facilities. Implementation of
these standards is delegated to local jurisdictions, which may
establish more stringent requirements.
• King County Solid W�ste Regul�rtions (KCBOHC Title 10).
These regulations expand on WAC 173-304, establishing
standards for municipal solid waste; construction, demolition,
and land clearing waste; woodwaste; inert landfills, transfer
stations, and recycling facilities; and collection and transfer
vehicles. In addition to the requirements to exclude hazardous
waste, PCBs, and liquids, these regulations identify other
unacceptable wastes, including oil, oil-based paints, wood
preservatives, untreated ii�fectious waste, and others. The Health
Department is also authorized to require generators of
contaminated soil a�id industrial waste to obtain clearance prior
to disposal.
• King Cou�aty Solid Waste Co�le (KCC 7'itle 10) and King
Couyaty Public Rules PII7' 7-1-2 (PR) (Waste Acceptaytce
Policy) a�ad PITT 7-2-1 (PR) (W�rste Clearance Policy). KCC
Title 10 authorizes the Solid Waste Division to develop operating
regulations for its solid waste facilities that address controls on
incoming wastes. The Waste Acceptance Policy and the Waste
Clea�•ance Policy establish these controls.
The Waste Acceptance Policy describes the categories of waste
which are accepted by the County. In some cases these
restrictions a�e more stringent than those of the Health
Depa��t►nent. The Waste Clea�ance Policy specifies which wastes
require clearance and what the conditions of clearance are.
Table VI.4 1989 Plan Recommendations
Recommendation Status
Develop and implement Public rules PUT 7-1-2,
a waste clearance and PUT 7-2-1 established.
screening program. Implementation ongoing.
Chapter V/.• Enforcement C.1. Control of lncoming Wastes: E�r'sts'ng Conditions
VI -
5
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
For some wastes, clearance by the Health Department and the
Counry are required. For other wastes, cleara�ice is required by
one authority or the other.
• Nalional Emzssion St�ndards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs) (40 CFR Part 61) and the Puget Sou�ad
Air Pollution Control �gency Asbestos Control Stan�rd
(Regulatron 111, Article 4). These regulations control the
disposal of asbestos containing waste.
The Solid Waste Division is authorized to develop and
amend public rules in response to changing special wastes
needs and conditions (KCC Title 10). Rules are developed in
cooperation with all affected parties and there is a forn�al
public involvement process.
c. Implementation Responsibilihes
Various federal, state, and local agencies ei�force solid
waste rules and regulations depending on the ty�pe of waste:
• The Health Department has the authority to ei�force its solid
waste regulations, which deal broadly with management of
hazardous, moderate risk, and infectious wastes; contaminated
soil; and other special wastes.
• Ecology has primary authoriry to regulate the hazardo�s
waste management system in the state and to respond to
reports of illegally disposed hazardous wastes.
• Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
responds to reports of improper disposal of asbestos-containing
waste and other materials with air emissions.
• The Solid Waste Division enforces King Counry Public Rules
on waste acceptance and clearance according to procedures
specified in KCC Title 23.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
oversight authoriry for enforcement of hazardous waste and
asbestos disposal programs administered by Ecology aud
PSAPCA.
Responsibility for compliance with federal, state, and local
regulations is shared by generatois, hauleis, and solid waste
faciliry operators (KCBOHC 10.04.020):
• Generators are required to determine whether their wastes
are hazardous or otherwise regulated, to properly prepare them
G 1. Control of Incoming Wastes: F�isting CortdiCio�zs
for disposal, and to direct them to an appropriate disposal
faciliry.
• Haulers may transport only authorized wastes to King
County transfer and disposal facilities.
• The Solid Waste Division is responsible for establishing
controls over special wastes and implementing programs to
detect and respond to illegal disposal of hazardous and other
prohibited wastes. Controls over incoming wastes are
implemented by the Division and the Health Department
through both waste clearance and waste screening functions.
(1) Wuste Clearance Progran:
The Solid Waste Division establishes policies a�ld
administrative controls over special wastes entering the solid
waste system through the waste clearance program. King
Counry Public Rule 7-1-2 (PR) establishes policies for accepting
various wastes at King Counry facilities, i.e., which ones are
prohibited, which are accepted with certain conditions, etc.
PUT 7-2-1 (PR) descrihes procedures for obtaining approval (or
cleara�lce) to dispose of special w;�stes. The Health Department
reviews data a�ld issues cleaiance on all conta�ninated soil and
industrial waste. The Solid Waste Division reviews and issues
clearances for all other special waste. By requiring clearance of
special waste, the Division may ensure that hazardous wastes
are not accepted and acceptable wastes are properly handled
and disposed. The program also maintains a data base to
track and monitor special wastes accepted at Division facilities.
(See also Chapter V, Special Wastes.)
(2) Waste Screen�ng
Through the waste screening program, King County
monitois and inspects solid waste entering the sy�stem to detect
and remove haza�•dous or other unauth�orized wastes. Waste
screening is pei�fo�7ned in several ways:
• Solid Waste Division technicians at Cedar Hills screen loads
of special waste and petfot�n random solid waste checks of
other loads. They also perform periodic waste screening at
rural landfills and transfer stations, and investigate incidents of
suspected improper disposal.
Chrapter VI.• Enforcement
�-
6
�
. ................................ ......... .. ........ .................... . ........ ............... ............. ................................................. .......................... •
• Site attendants perform limited screening of waste entering
transfer stations. They are trained to recognize a�id report
illegal disposal of hazardous and other regulated wastes.
• Equipment operators perform simila�• screening at Cedar
Hills and the rural landfills. They are trained to recognize and
report improperly disposed material during unloading of
transfer trailers and compaction at the face of the la�ldfill.
• S�pervisors respond to staff reports of suspected improper
disposal as appropriate, such as isolating the waste, conducting
further investigation, and notifying regulatory agencies.
• Health Department inspecto�s peiform limited waste
screening during inspections of solid waste facilities, note the
results on their inspection reports, and fo�ward them to the
Solid Waste Division for resolution. The Health Departivent
also evaluates certain waste materials to detenvine whether they
are of regulatory significance.
2. Needs and Opportunities
Once mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) is accepted at
a counry disposal faciliry it becomes the respoi�sibiliry of the
Counry (RCW 3658.060). Therefore, the inadvertent acceptance
of prohibited wastes subjects King Counry to certain financial
and legal risks. The County may be obligated to pay for the
removal and proper disposal of dangerous and hazardous
wastes that enter i�s facilities, especially if they pose a tlu•eat of
release into the environment. Investigation and cleanup of
facilities contaminated by illegally disposed materials can be
extremely expei�sive. Worker safety and public healtli can be
affected by releases of hazardous substances at transfer statioi�s
a�ld landfills. Severe contamination with haza�•dous substances
could subject the County to legal liabiliry under Supeifund
(RCRA) or the Washington Model Toxics Control Act.
Due to these risks, the Solid Waste Division needs to
continue to evaluate its waste accepta�ice policies and revise
them as necessary in light of changing waste streams, new
waste management alternatives, and new regulations.
The waste screening program needs to be evaluated
regularly to ensure that the Division is providing wmprehensive
screening throughout the solid waste disposal system. Waste
screening is now cairied out primarily at la�idfills. Hazardous
waste and other prohibited wastes can generally be detected
more effectively at earlier stages in the waste management
system, particularly at transfer facilities as waste is being
unloaded. Eighry-four percent of solid waste disposed at Cedar
Hills passes through county tra��sfer facilities. Additionally,
some waste is hauled from private transfer stations in Seattle.
Only special waste and a small number of local commercial
collection routes are hauled directly to Cedar Hills.
Current staffing levels at King County transfer facilities
allow only ad hoc screening. Employees typically are not on
the tipping floor or are busy with other duties that preclude
cousistent obseivation of unloading, investigation of suspicious
loads, a�id documentation of observations and problems. There
is a need for staff at transfer stations who have specific training
a�id responsibiliry for screening and whose other duties are
compatible with screening activities.
Screening should occur early in the system, since it is
quite difficult to track the source of unauthorized waste by the
time it has passed through the transfer system to the landfill. �
Screening programs should also be extended to private transfer
facilities to enhance overall controls on incoming waste.
3. Altematives
Two altenlatives are considered: maintaining the existing
screening programs or adding training and screening
requirements to improve them. They are described below and
summarized in Table VLS.
a. Alt�ernative A, Sta11]S Qu0
This alternative would maintain the existing program for
landfill-based waste screening. The Waste Acceptance Policy
would be updated as needed to address changing conditions.
This alternative provides administrative controls over
incoming waste and a waste screening program that complies
with the operating standards for MMSW landfills in RCRA
Table VIS Summary of 1992 Alternatives for Control of Incoming
Wastes
Alternative A Maintain status quo.
Alternative B Expand waste screening programs.
Chr�pter �!• Enforcement C.2. Control of Incoming Wastes: Needs and Opbortunitras
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
•
.
•
�
�
�-
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
Subtitle D. It establishes policies on acceptance of waste and
provides screening of random loads of solid waste entering King
County landfills. However, it is weak in two areas. Fi�st, waste
screening is performed on only a small, randomly selected
portion of MMSW entering the disposal system, thus ii�frequent
but potentially serious violations of the acceptance policy may
not be detected. Second, screening at landfills rarely provides
information about the source of improperly disposed material.
The waste has generally been mixed and processed to the point
that the nature and source cannot be detei�rnined with any
accuracy.
b. Alternativ�e B, Fxpanded Waste Screening
This altei�iative would expand the waste screeuing
progra�n to provide consistent screening at counry and private
transfer facilities. Staffing plans foc wunty transfer stations
would allocate resources for routine obseivation of vehicle
unloading, periodic load chec�ing, a�id documentation of
screening activities. Additional training would be provided for
employees who screen wastes. Requirements for screening and
record keeping of screening activities at commercial transfer
facilities would be established.
Alternative B has the advantage of providing transfer
facllity-based screening to ensure that nearly all waste eutering
the system would be visually screened and a much liigher
proportion sorted. Further infoi7natiou could be gathered
directly from haulers about the source and nature of regulated
or suspicious material brought to trat�sfer stations.
4. Recommenda.tions
Alternative B is recommended (summarized in Table
IV.6). The waste screening program should be e�pa�ided to
provide consistent screening at county and private trat�sfer
facilities. Resources should be allocated for routine obseNation
of vehicle unloading, periodic load checks, and documentation
of screening activities in staffing plans. Additiona( training
should be provided for employees conducting screening.
Screening and record keeping should be established at
commercial transfer facilities.
5. Implementa.tion
Staffing plans and train.ing resources would be developed
for expanded waste screening at transfer facilities. Regulatory
mechanisms to require screening at private transfer facilities
would be investigated and implemented.
D. ILLEGAL DUMPING
AND LITTERING
1. E�sting Conditions
a Introducction
Responsibilities for illegal dumping and anti-litter laws
are discharged reactively in respoi�se to complaints and
proactively through prevention and cleanup programs. These
responsibilities a�•e shared by the suburban cities and several
counry departments, including the Seattle-King County
Department of Public Health (Environmental Health Division);
Department of Public Works (Roads, Solid Waste, and Surface
Water Ma�iagement divisions) Parks, Planning and Resources
Department; and the Department of Development and
Environmental Services (DDES). Other responsibilities are
ca�ried out by private properry owners and volunteers.
Table VI.6 19g2 Recommendations on Control of Incoming 1C�astes
Recommendation VI.3 Expanded waste Allocate resources for routine observation of unloading, periodic load checks, and
screening documentation of screening activities at transfer stations.
Recommendation VI.4 Staff trai�ing Provide additional training for employees to screen wastes.
Recommendation VI.5 Regulation of private Establish screening and record keeping requirements at private transfer stations.
transfer stations
+ C.4. Control of /ncoming Wastes: Reco�n�nend�tio�zs Cfxipter �I• Enforcement
�
�
�-g
........ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... �
b. Purpose and De�inition
The purpose of anti-litter and illegal dumping legislation
is to promote health, safery, and the aesthetic value of the
environment and to reduce the wsts of cleanup. Littering a�id
illegal dumping are generally defined as the accumulation or
disposal of waste materials anywhere other than in a designated
receptacle or permitted waste handling faciliry.
c. Enforaement Authorities
King County's prohibition against littering and illegal
dumping is codified in KCC 10.04.080; penalties and
enforcement procedures are in KCC Title 23. The KCBOHC
illegal dumping regulations are codified in KCBOHC 10.84;
penalties and enforcement procedures are in KCBOHC 1.08. In
unincorporated areas, there may be a�l overlap in ei�forcement
authoriry due to the diversity of counry departments with this
responsibiliry. Eighteen of the suburban cities also have illegal
dumping and/or anti-littering statutes. Many of these laws are
more extensive than either the King Counry Code or the Board
of Health Code. For example, some include specific
prohibitions against disposing accumulated waste in receptacles
owned or paid for by someone else, including publicly owned
receptacles. Transportation of unsecured loads is also
prohibited by many city codes a�Id the King Counry Code. The
state has a comprehensive Waste Reduction, Recycling, and
Litter Control Act (RCW 70.93) and addresses illegal dumping
separately in RCW 70.95.240 and .250. See Table VI.7 for a
comparison of these codes.
The 1g89 Plan recommended developing and promoting a
model litter control ordinance. Because there has been no
common point from which to implement a wmprehei�sive
strategy, nor authoriry for one agency or department to take the
lead in developing such a strategy, this recommendation will
need to be re-evaluated so that these issues can be addressed.
d. Invcstigation and Pmsecution
Responsibiliry for investigation, enforcement, and cleanup
throughout the Counry lies with the Health Department as well
as other counry departments and jurisdictio«s.
Upon receiving a complaint or observing illegally dumped
material, Health Department peisonnel usually conduct a field
investigation to determine the natuce of the problem, identify
the offender and the property owner, and attempt to resolve the
problem ii�foimally. Investigatois are assisted by the KCBOHC
provision that establishes a presumption of culpability based on
the presence of three items bearing a person's name in the
illegally dumped load. The Health Department may pursue
civil sanctio��s against the respousible parry. Civil penalties for
the fiist violation can be as high as $250 per day. Criminal
sanctious a�•e only rarely puisued because, in order to convict
the respoi�sible parry, both an eye-witness to the illegal
dumping event and physical evidence are required.
If the Health Department discoveis that tlie illegal
dumping is within the jurisdiction of a city oc another agency,
it will contact that jurisdiction and either defer to or cooperate
with it to resolve the probleu�. Similarly, if anothec jurisdiction
receives a complaint directly, it may choose to resolve the
matter itself or refer it to the Health Department. See Table
VI.7 for details about e��forcement provisions.
The Suiface Water Management Division of the King
County Depa�'tment of Public Wor�s has custodial responsibility
for drainage areas and will investigate illegal dumping on
custodial lands and adjacent private property. This division
contracts with Roads for both cleanup and e►�forcement. Parks
also takes responsibiliry for cleanup but only rarely attempts to
puisue ei�forcement actions. When they dq they typically ask
Roads for help with investigation. The Roads Division of die
King Coui�ry Departmeut of Public Wod�s investigates and
cleans up illegal du�nping iu road rights-of-way. Two
unifoinied officeis are available to Roads for illegal dumping
and litter e��forcement and they ei�force illegal dumping laws
through the Criminal code. This cesults in little formal
ei�forcement because the rules of evidence for criminal cases
essentially require
eye-witnesses.
Additionally, DDES investigates illegal dumping on private
properry as a nuisance under the Uniform Housing Code (KCC
16.04). The department's ei�forcement section locates and deals
directly with the owneis of the properry on which illegal
dumping has occurred but dces not investigate further.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
Chapter VI.• Enforcement D.1. lllegal Dumping and Lrltei�ing: F,.�tisti�ag Conditions
�
�
�
�
�
�
VI -
9
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
e. Cleanup Responsibility
Responsibiliry for cleanup of illegally dumped material is
often that of the properry owner, or a government agency if the
material is dumped on public property, and the offender cannot
be identified or fails to comply with a cleanup order.
Therefore, cleanup costs often fall to the private property owner
even though they may have reported the violation. This may
result in conflict and dces not promote cooperation between
agencies and the public. Most jurisdictions are authori�ed to
abate the violation and bill the responsible pa�ry for cleanup
wsts, but only if the responsible parry can. be identified.
Although DDES has a�i abatement account, the Health
Department dces not ha�e a revolving fund to cover cleanup
costs pending reimbursement proceedings against a responsible
parry, so this option is rarely exercised. Since a substantial
quantiry of illegally dumped material is deposited on public
properry (roads, waterways, greenbelts, a�id parks), various
federal, state, and counry agencies and cities shoulder a sizable
cleanup burden. As an example, the labor costs alone for the
Roads Division in 1992 were $360 per ton for roadside litter
clean up and over $2,500 per ton for special pickups of illegal
dump sites. The cleanup is done primarily by litter and
maintenance crews from public lands depa�•tments, with
assistance from volunteer wmmunity groups. In coutrast, the
average total cost of legally collecting and disposing of MMSW
is approximately $125 per ton.
f. Data
As described above, wmplaints are received a�id handled
by many different jurisdictio«s. It appears that there is a
significant problem with both litter a�id illegal dumping.
However, there are insufficient data counry-wide to evaluate this
perception. Similarly, counry-wide costs associated with
enforcement and cleanup are not easy to calculate.
Health Department statistics show only numbe�s of
activities broken down by geographic divisions of the County.
The number of follow-up contacts required to resolve a
violation, the character and scope of the problem, description of
specific location, category of violator, or outcome of
investigaUon are accessible through complaint files in district
health offices and must be consolidated. Also, va��iations in
D.1. lllegal Dumping and Littering.• Fxisting Conditions
data tracking procedures or external variables--such as
increased tipping fees (i.e., increases in illegal disposal occur
when fees are increased), increased reporting by the public,
greater or lesser assumption of responsibiliry by other
agencies—are not easily accounted for. A roads division
computeri�ed complaint tracking system initiated in lggl
includes some of these details and may serve as a model for
inter-jurisdictional tracking of complaints and resolutions. An
informal survey of Roads employees indicates that the problem
of illegal dumping may be increasing; computerized data such
as the tracking system can verify whether or not this is actually
occurring.
Records maintained by other King Counry divisions are
not easily accessible because they are not computerized, caied,
separated from other complaints, or standardi�ed. Some
divisions keep no records at all, or incomplete records. For
exan�ple, the pa�•ks division responds to a�id records complaints
but illegal dumping that is diswvered a�id cleaned up during
routine maintenance may not be noted.
The 1989 Plan recommended continued monitoring of the
number of complaints and associated costs and periodic
assessment of the issue. Health Department statistia in
Table VI.8 show that numbeis in all categories and each
geographical a�•ea a�e increasing, but—as suggested
above--given the amount of i«formation missing from these
cha��ts, concl�sions about the severiry of the county's illegal
dumping problem or the adequacy of the counry's and
suburban cities' ability to respond to it cannot be drawn from
these data alone.
g. Assumptions
Infoi�nal reporting of problems and opinions about
solutio��s reveals that laws, policies, programs, and budget
allocations designed to prevent, prosecute, or cleanup illegal
disposal a�e based on a number of assumptions about its
causes. They include: high tipping fees (i.e., increases in
illegal disposal occur when fees are increased); inadequate or
inconvenient legal recycling or disposal altematives; inadequate
public education regarding appropriate disposal options and
cleanup wsts; convenience of illegal dumping, especially in
rural areas and in unlocked public or privately owned
Cl�apte�• �/• Enforcement
>' VI - 1
0
Table VI.7 Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Codes
P = private receptacles
U = public receptacles `
O = owner responsibility d
S = secured loads e
M = mandatory litter Ab-
bags f ate- Civil
Citation a ■= presumption 9 Enforcer h ment' Misdemeanor � Penalty k
State RCW 70.93, 70.95.240, O S M ■ State Police $50 min. + pickup; 90 day $1,000/
.250, 46.61.65 max. lstviolation
WAC 173-310
County KCC 10.04.080, 7.12.440, U S Director of Public ■ $500 and/or $500-1,000/
23.08.010, 23.08.050, Works, County 90 days max 1 st violation
.080, .090 police
Seattle-King KCBH 10.84, 1.08 O ■ Environmental ■ $500 and/or $25-250/
County Health Division 90 days max 1st violation
Health
Department
Algona AMC 8.12.040 U S M law enforcement $10 min +pickup
Auburn ACC 8.166 O S ■ Director of Public $100 ma�c
Works 30 days max
Bellevue BCC 9.11 P O S ■ Code Compli- ■ * See Chapter
ance Officer 1.18
Beaux Arts none
Black none
Diamond
Bothell BMC 8.44 U O S Police Dept. $10 min +pickup
Carnation none
Clyde Hill none
Des Moines DMMC 923 (adopts some ■ Planning Dept. $50 min +pickup
sections of 70.93 by ref.)
Duvall
Enumclaw EMC 700 Police Dept.
Federal Way FWMC 9.36.020, (adopts $50 min +pickup $1,000 1st
70.93.060 by reference) 90 days max violation
Hunts Point none
Issaquah ICC 8.06 U S M Police Dept. gross misdemeanor--
$5,000/ 1 year mau
+pickup
Kent KCC 9.18 O S Building official ■ $100 max
Kirkland KMC 11.64 O S City Admin- ■ *
istrator
Chapter u!.• Enforcement D.1. Illegal Dumping and Lidter�'ng.• F,xlsting Conditio�zs
VI-11
•
�
Table VI.7 Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Coc�s (Continued)
P = private receptacles
U = public receptacles °
O = owner responsibilily d
S = secured loads e
M = mandatory litter Ab-
bags f ate- Civil
Citation a s= presumption g Enforcer h ment' Misdemeanor � Penaky k
Lake Forest LFPMC 8.04.120 P U O Police Dept. $500/6 mos. max
Park
Medina none
Mercer MIMC 8.04.030B P U M ■ Police Dept. *
Island
Normandy none U
Park
North Bend NBMC 824 S Police Dept. $50-300 +pickup. 2nd $50-300
offense gross
misdemeanor, $100-500/90
days
Pacific
Redmond RMC 6.04 U S Department of *+pickup
Public Works
Renton RMC 6-14 as amended P O S Building official ■ $1000/90 days max $100/day
by Ordinance 4238
SeaTac SMC 7.10 Dept. of Public $10 mir +pickup
Works Code
Enforcement
Skykomish none
Snoqualmie SMC 828 U S police $50-250 +pickup; 2nd
offense is a gross
misdemeanor
Tukwila TMC 6.12 O S $1500/6 months max
Yarrow Point none
* Fine pursuant to general penalty section for misdemeanor.
a Code at a minimum prohibits disposal of waste on public or private land or in waterways except in designated receptacles or in permitted
solid waste handling facilities.
b Code prohibits disposal of waste in a receptacle owned or paid for by another without permission.
` Code prohibits disposal of wastes accumulated at a residence or business in a public or park receptacle.
d Code includes a specific provision holding property owners responsible for proper storage, removal, and disposal of waste found on their
property.
e Code prohibits vehicles from driving unsecured loads.
f Code requires every motor vehicle and boat to have a litter bag.
9 Code provides for a presumption of ownership of unlawfully disposed waste when three pieces of identification are found in the load.
h Enforcement authority specified by code or reported by city.
' Code provides for clean up of violation by the jurisdiction and a reimbursement proceeding against the responsible parly.
� Violation of the code is a misdemeanor.
k A separate civil penalty is provided for.
D.1. Illegal Dumping �nd Littering: ��sti�ag Coyadit�o�zs Chapter u!• Enforcement
�
�
- 2 <;;:
�
1
........ :........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ �
Table VIS UnlawFul Dumping Investigatlons by the Heald�
Deparpnent a
Health D epartment Regions
Alder Square
(SW & S� East North b Total
1983 Initia� investigation 204 136 81 421
Follow-up investigation 258 35 97 390
Enforcement actions 22 0 0 22
Consultations * 79 1 5 4 98
1984 Initial investigation 205 141 81 427
Follow-up investigation 371 , 26 111 508
Enforcement actions 23 1 4 28
Consultations " 41 7 11 59
1985 Initial investigation 200 286 104 590
Follow-up investigation 269 89 154 512
Enforcement actions 26 0 3 29
Consultations * 26 27 19 72
1986 Initial investigation 306 136 102 544
Follow-up investigation 223 32 152 407
Enforcement actions 17 1 3 21
Consultations " 39 10 14 63
1987 Initial investigation 689 66 65 820
Follow-up investigation 664 9 109 782
Enforcement actions 81 1 0 82
Consultations * 266 16 27 309
1988 Initial investigation 804 107 118 1029
Follow-up investigation 662 32 110 804
Enforcement actions 69 3 0 72
Consultations " 308 19 64 391
1989 Initial investigation 832 41 272 1145
Follow-up investigation 871 24 89 984
Enforcement actions 115 1 3 119
Consultations * 329 11 15 355
1990 Initial investigation 933 107 343 1383
Follow-up investigation 636 87 262 985
Enforcement actions 112 6 16 134
Consultations * 700 204 85 989
1991 Initial investigation 966 212 202 1380
Follow-up investigation 833 59 84 976
Enforcement actions 106 16 12 134
Consultations * 843 290 260 1393
* Consultations are informal telephone resolutions of complaints.
a Does not include Seattle District.
b Reports from a portion of Seattle.
receptacles; reliance on voluntary collection programs,
ineffectual enforcement; and inadequate hauling equipment.
The magnitude of each of these assumptions in causing illegal
dumping to occur is not k�iown. An analysis of these issues is
needed to determine their actual impact on illegal dumping.
�
i
•
•
��
h. Exissting Programs
In addition to the ei�forcement programs described above,
there are several prevention a�ld cleanup programs:
(1) Prevention
• Legal recycling and disposal - alternatives are provided
through the continued development, implementation, and
evaluation of a conlprehei�sive collection system for waste (See
Chapte�s III and IV).
• Comprehensive waste reduction and recycling education is
conducted puisuant to RCW 70.95 (see Chapter III).
• The Industrial Materials Exchange (IMEX), a materials
exchange program, is sponsored by tlie Health Depa�•tment
(Chapter V, Section C).
• Special collection days are sponsored by �nost suburban
cities. They are tailored to each city's needs, which may
include pickup of excess waste of any kind or only items not
normally collected. They may be held once a yea�•, quarterly,
or only occasionally.
• Laws that prohibit depositing accumulated waste in public
receptacles or iu private receptacles owned by another have been
enacted by 11 cities.
• Mandatoiy garbage collection with voluntary recyclable
collection has been instituted by several cities (see Chapter IV,
Section A).
• Other strategies include such progra�ns as distribution of
free litter bags for vehicles and vessels by che ciry of Mercer
Island, and fencing a�id posting of "no dumping" signs in
persistent problem areas by the King County Parks Department.
The King County Roads Division also installs "no dumping"
signs in problem locations on rights-of-way.
Chnpter UI.• Enforcgmment D.1. lllegal Du�nping and Littering: Fxisting Conditions •
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
.
�
�
�
�
�
-1
3
(2) Cleanup
• The state, county, and some cities sponsor communiry litter
cleanup days. Coordination, bags, and disposal are provided by
the sponsors, and cleanup is done by volunteers. The state
sponsors the Adopt-a-Highway volunteer cleanup program and,
in King County, 65 roads have been adopted under the county
Adopt-a-Road program.
• King Counry Surface Water Management Division
administers communiry stewardship grants for cleanup of
waterways by volunteers.
• King Counry Roads and Solid Waste divisions oveisee litter
crews. The Roads Division is primarily responsible for
maintaining counry roads in a litter-free condition and provides
services to other agencies such as the Surface Water
Management Division; the Solid Waste Division keeps counry
transfer stations and access roads litter free.
. King Counry Department of Development and Environmental
Services does no direct cleanup but instead enforces cleanup on
private property under the counry's nuisance ordinance
contained in the Uniform Housing Code. A 1993 budget
provision requires that all penalties and recovered abatement
costs be used for future abatements.
. Parks Division of the King Counry Parks, Plamiing and
Resources Department is responsible for cleanup of materials
that ha�e been dumped illegally on parks property.
i. Stalus of 1989 Plan Recommendalions
The status of 1989 Plan rewmmendations regarding
illegal dumping is summarized in Table VI.9. The 1989 Plan
recommended development of a model litter wntrol ordinance.
It has been determined that additional data and further
evaluation of specific needs for a model litter control ordinance
are needed before this recommendation can be implemented.
The 1989 Plan also recommended continued monitoring of
illegal dumping and littering incidents (see Section D.1. fl. As
discussed above, management of illegal dumping is the
responsibiliry of a number of different counry departments and
jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no common point from which
to implement a comprehensive strategy, nor is there clear
authoriry for one agency or department to take the lead in
developing a strategy. Although monitoring has continued as
D.2. lllegal Dumping and Litterang: Needs and Opportunities
recommended, a more comprehensive and uniform effort is
needed.
2. Needs and Opportunities
a. Data and Study
Resources for the ei�forcement of illegal dumping laws as
well as prevention and cleanup of illegal dumping are currently
allocated on the basis of limited information, incomplete
descriptive data, and historical assumptions. A detailed counry-
wide picture of illegal dumping is needed to properly plan for
prevention, cleanup, and e��'orcement. This will require a
cooperative and coordinated effort between various counry
departments and the suburban cities.
The costs of gathering information to compose such a
picture of illegal dumping counry-wide are unknown. Current
allocations may be appropriate, but without adequate data, it is
not possible to adequately defend or explain programmatic
choices. Given the continuing perceptions of the public and
responsible officials about the magnitude of the problem, and
the frequency with which increased illegal dumping is
considered as a possible coi�sequence of proposed solid waste
management programs, it is clear that research and analysis of
the issue are needed.
b. Abatement Fund
Since most suburban cities and counry agencies do not
have a revolving fund to cover cleanup wsts, they must rely on
voluntary complia�lce by properry owners or offenders or
assistance from other government entities. This often results in
Tabk VI.9 1989 P�� Illegal Dumping and Littering
Recommendations
Recommendation Status
Draft and promote a model litter Being re-evaluated
control ordinance. pending further study.
Continued monitoring of number of The need to set up such
complaints, volume collected and a monitoring system is
associated collection costs; periodic being assessed in 1993.
asaesament of the problem.
Chapter u/: Enforcement
VI - 14
�
.... .......... ........... . ....................................................... �
�
�
�
�
a protracted resolution and greater use of staff time to obtain
compliance. If illegally dumped material poses a health
hazard, financial barriers to timely cleanup could increase the
risks to the communiry. An abatement fund could provide a
more expedient and direct mechanism to rapidly respond to
illegal dumping.
c. Model Litter Control Ordinance
Litter control ordinances ha�e been developed by eighteen
cities but a model litter control ordina�ice for tl�e county has
not been developed. A number of diverse concen�s have been
addressed by ordinances including mandatory litter bags,
handbill distribution, transportation of u«secured loads and
even dropping litter from an aircraft.
Health Depai�tment staff report that tlle disposal of
accumulated waste in receptacles owned by otheis may also be
a significant problem. As a result, many citizens and
commercial enterprises must assume the costs of disposal for
waste generated by others. Although numbers of such
complaints and their associated costs are unk�io�m, Health
Department personnel report that this issue may be significant.
A few cities ha�e enacted ordina�ices that prohibit the
unauthorized use of receptacles. A model ordinance would
propose methods to deal with this a�ld other related problems
in a unified ma�iner throughout the county.
3. Alternatives
Alternatives to define the extent of illegal dumping and
remedy it are summariaed below and in Table VI.10.
a. Alternative A, Staxus Quo
This altecnative would continue existing programs without
further study. The Health Departivent would continue to rely
on voluntary compliance and intergovernmental cooperation.
The counry's and suburba�l cities' methods of resolving
complaints would be continued. This alternative does not
recognize the demonstrated need for a more cooperative
monitoring effort, nor does it provide for a comprehensive
strategy to address the problem of illegal dumping.
b. Alternative B, Fxpanded Response Capabilities
Under this alternative, the Counry would evaluate current
monitoring, clean-up, and enforcement systems, and would
develop both an improved system to monitor complaints and
specific strategies to improve enforcement and assist with clean-
up costs. With the participation of the counry departments
responsible for illegal dumping and the suburban cities, the
Solid Waste Division would assume the lead role in collecting
data related to the volumes, frequency and costs associated with
the clean-up and ei�forcement of illegal dumping. These data
would be used to cooperatively develop a standardized
ii�fonnation base. Once the data base is established and
analyzed, recommendations to improve methods of enforcement
and cleanup of illegal dumping can be developed.
The need for and feasibility of a revolving fund for the
abatement of illegally dumped waste would be evaluated.
Included in the evaluation would be an analysis of costs,
potential methods of fina�lcing a�id the mechanics of utilizing
such a fund. A model litter control ordinance to encourage
stronger and more uniform enforcement would also be studied.
Such an ordinance could be cooperatively enacted by the cities
a�id the County.
The County would also evaluate options for developing
clearer authority for resolving complaints about the
unauthorized use of private receptacles, including recycling drop
boxes. The Counry would seek to establish penalties for
unauthorized use of drop boxes which a�e wnsistent with civil
penalties for other forms of illegal dumping. The
implementation of a requirement for identification numbers on
all private recycling drop boxes would atso be evaluated. The
presence of ID numbers would facilitate the policing of drop
box maintenance problems and unauthorized drop box use.
Table VI.10 Summary of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering
Alternatives
Alternative A Maintain Status quo.
Alternative B Increase response capability by evaluating and
improving current monitoring, enforcement, and
clean-up systems. Assess abatement fund and
model litter control options.
Chapter �I� Enforcement D.3. lllegal Dumping and Littering: Alternatives
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
•
�
�
�
VI -
1
5
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4. Recommenda.tions
To address the needs outlined above, Altemative B is the
recommended approach. The recommendations are listed below
and summarized in Table VI.11.
• The Solid Waste Division, with the cooperation and
concurrence of other county departments and the suburban
cities, would take the lead in developing a comprehei�sive
strategy to address illegal dumping. The initial step would be
the evaluation of the adequacy of existing monitoring,
ei�forcement, and clean-up systems. This effort is a necessaty
task which would serve as a basis for the following
recommendations and needs to occur before they can be carried
out.
• The Solid Waste Division wID develop a central monitoring
system to evaluate all complaints and ei�torcement actions
throughout the Counry. Countywide costs of current prevention,
ei�forcement, and cleanup programs should be assessed prior to
initiating any system improvements.
• The need for a revolving fund for abatement of illegally
dumped waste will be assessed. If an abatement fund is found
to be both feasible and appropriate, such a fund should be
established.
• The need for a counry and city model litter control
ordinance or separate related ordinances will be assessed. If
found to be appropriate, such ordinances will be researched,
drafted, and circulated to all relevant jurisdictions.
5. Implementation
To be effective, implementation must be a cooperative
effort between the Solid Waste Division, Health Department,
suburban cities, and other agencies. 1992 illegal dumping and
littering recommendations are summarized in Table VI.II.
• Table VI.11 Summary of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering Recomn�endations
, Recommendation VI.6 Evaluate current systems Evaluate current monitoring, enforcement, and cleanup systems.
Recommendation VI.7 Central monitoring system Develop a central system for monitoring illegal dumping complaints and
� countywide enforcement activities.
Recommendation VI.8 Abatement of illegally Research provision of revolving fund for abatement.
, dumped waste
Recommendation VI.9 Model litter control Research and draft a model ordinance to address litter and illegal dumping
• ordinance concerns.
•
C�
� D.4. Illegal Du�nping an�l Littering: Reco�n��ae�acl�tio�zs
Cha�ter ul.• Enforcement
�
0
CHAPTER VII
INANCIAL
YSTEM
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
_���,
�ii�
Sorting
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
- ::;�;:;`::<:;:
VII 1 ...
:,::.::;.�
.: <::::4..
Chapter VII
Financial
System
A. FINANCING OPERATIONS
1. Overview
It is King County policy that the Solid Waste Division be
a self-supporti�lg enterprise. The majoriry of the revenue
generated to operate the Counry's solid waste system is through
disposal fees. Other revenue sources include surcharges for CDL
management, state and federal grants, a collection fee in
unincorporated areas and interest on revenues. Disposal fees
are set by the ting Counry Council a�ld are not subject to state
or federal regulation.
Because over 90 percent of solid waste manageinent
programs in King County a�e financed through disposal fees,
bonds, and reserve funds, the majoriry of this Chapter focuses
on the Counry's financing structure. The remainder of funding
comes from grants, collection rates, surcharges, and individual
cities general funds. Solid waste progra�lls sponsoced by
suburba�l cities within King County can be funded through
several sources. The bulk of the money is collected through
residential and commercial garbage bills. Cities also h�ve tlte
authority to levy a�i administrative charge on to� of the fee
collected by hauleis. Other mecha�iisms used by suburban
cities to fund their respective solid waste programs include state
gra�lts, county gra�its, and allocations from the city's general
fund. Collection fees cha�•ged within cities are shown in
Table IV.4, Chapter IV.
The disposal fees paid by residents of King County are
based on the type of waste and the faciliry being used. The
basic fee for mixed waste at county transfer stations and rural
landfills is $66 per ton. Separated yard waste is accepted at
certain facilities for $58 per ton. Waste that is delivered to
Cedar Hills by long-haul transfer trucks after going through a
non-counry transfer station is charged the regional direct rate of
$43 per ton. Current and past counry disposal fees are
summarized in Table VII.1.
There is a fee of $100 per ton for special waste, such as
asbestos, contaminated soil, slag, and other hard-to-handle
wastes. Special waste is accepted only at Cedar Hills and must
be cleared for disposal by the Solid Waste Division and the
Seattle—King Counry Department of Public Health. Certain
recyclable materials ace accepted at no charge at most county
transfer stations and rural landfills.
A reduced fee of $43 per ron is charged to certain
charitable organizations that a�•e in the business of processing
used goods for resale. This rate mitigates the effect of dumping
unusable materials that these organizations experience as
disposal fees rise.
Charges at rural landfills and drop-boxes that do not
have scales a�•e on a pec cubic yard basis. The current fees are
$19 per cubic yard for compacted mixed waste, $11 per cubic
yard for un-wmpacted mixed waste, $17 per cubic yard for
compacted yard waste, and $9.50 per cubic yard for un-
compacted y ard waste. These charges are intended to be
equivalent to the per ton fees.
Minimum fees for use of county disposal facilities are
$9.28 for mixed waste, $7.41 for yard waste, $13.86 for special
waste, and $SJ3 for regional direct customers and charitable
organizatioi�s. These fees are set to minimize change handling
requirements so that when t�es and surcharges are included
the total charge comes out to the nearest quarter dollar. All
waste, except source sepa�•ated yard waste and special waste, is
charged a state refuse tax of 4.6% per transaction. A hazardous
waste surcharge is cha�•ged against mixed municipal solid waste
entering Counry facilities (see "Surcharges", Section VII A.l.a).
Disposal fee revenues fund all Solid tAaste Division
activities including operations and maintenance, debt service,
equipu�ent replacement, and a$15.80 per ron contribution to
the Landfill Rese�ve Fund (see Table VII.2). The current fees
went into effect on January 1, 1992, and are expected to remain
the same through 1994.
clx�pter �/L Fnaancial Sysrem
�
%iiF
-::�F (�
• ffFf�
::::•:v:v::i::i:::v:i<::i::ii::i::i::ii::::i:i::::i:::: ii::i::ii::i::i::i:::i:i::::i: i:: �:::::i::C �: � i:::i:::ii:::i :::::::::::::::i:::::i::i::i::i::ii::ii:::'i: �:i:i:::i::i:::::: � iii:::i:
f ...__'. /
..'f ... "_ � LJ � :::
,f: __::-
VII
{, i.,... ................................. ............................................... .............................. ....... ............... ...............................................................................
Yable VII.1 Solid Waste Division Rate History
Jan Jan Jan Dec Jun Jan
1981 1982 1983 1986 1990 1992
Sites With Scales
Basic fee for solid waste (per ton) $ 15.00 $ 18.50 $ 26.50 $ 47.00 $ 47.00 $ 66.00
Source-separated yard waste (per ton) 13.00 58.00
Passenger licensed vehicles (per entry) 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 928
Charitable organization fee (per ton) 43.00
Sites Without Scales
Compacted solid waste (per cy) 4.50 5.60 7.90 14.00 14.00 19.00
Uncompacted solid waste (per cy) 2.50 3.10 4.40 8.00 8.00 11.00
Compacted separated yard waste (per cy) 9.60 17.00
Uncompacted separated yard waste (per cy) 5.25 9.50
Passenger iicensed vehicles (per entry) 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 928
Minimum Charges
Solid waste (per entry) 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 9.28
Source-separated waste (per entry) 4.00 7.41
Charitable organizations (per entry) 5.93
Cedar Hills Charges
Regional direct (per ton) 5.50 7.00 11.00 31.50 31.50 43.00
Other vehicles (per ton) 15.00 18.50 26.50 47.00 47.00 66.00
Minimum charge (per entry) 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 9.28
Special waste (per ton) 75.00 100.00
Special waste minimum charge (per entry) 10.50 13.86
Tabk VII.2 Solid Waste Fee Component ($ per ton)
Basic Regional
Fee Direct
Landfill operations 7.68 7.68
Transfer/transport 10.30 0.83
Equipment maintenance/replacement 11.47 3.99
Landfill reserve fund 15.80 15.80
Waste reductioNrecycling 5.11 4.66
Administration 5.54 1.98
Support for other agencies 1.85 1.85
Debt service 824 621
Tota) 66.00 43.00
Cbiapter [9I.� Financral System
�
i
�
r
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
The Solid Waste Division operates on a two- or three-yea�
rate cycle. The Division will initiate and complete a rate study
in 1994 to determine the tip-fee rate for the next rate cycle
scheduled to be in effect from 1995 through 1997. The new
rate will be based on tonnage projections a�id revenue needs.
Both will be developed during the rate study in 1994.
The rates described above are based on the Counry's
current financing structure; however the trend towa�d less
disposed waste will have a significant impact on future
revenues. Solid Waste Division costs are either fixed or variable
(tonnage dependent), with the majoriry of the wsts, such as
debt service, environmental monitoring, and minimum required
staf�'ing levels, being fixed. Decreases in the a�nount of waste
disposed will lead to increased costs per ton to the citizei�s of
King County. The Counry will endeavor to minimize rate
increases by cutting ea�penditures whenever possible.
As described above, the Solid Waste Division collects most
of its revenue through the collection of disposal fees at transfer
stations and landfills. The Division also receives state grants
that help fund various WR/R programs. However, as the State
seeks to reduce its own budget, the a�ailabiliry of grant funds is
expected to decline. In order to further stabilize rates over the
long term, the Division needs to investigate other optious for
generating revenues. Prior to the next planning period, the
Division will initiate and complete an analysis of alternative
financing schemes for funding solid waste programs.
a. Surcharges
In addition to the disposal fee, citizens of King County
pay moderate risk waste surcha�•ges imposed by the �ing Counry
Board of Health. The methods used are a surcharge imposed
at Counry disposal facilities ($2.61 per ton with a$1.00
minimum fee for self-haulers), a surcharge collected by cectified
haulers on residential a�id commercial garbage bills ($.60 foc
residential and $5.24 for commercial), and a surcharge on
Metro sewage customers. The surcharge revenue is used to
support the implementation of the Local H�za�•dous Waste
Management Plan. The majoriry of the Solid Waste Division's
moderate risk waste programs are supported through this
funding source.
Vii-3
Residents of urban unincorporated areas of the Counry
who have curbside collection pay a surcharge of $0.22 per
month through monthly hauler billings to cover the
administrative costs of recycling programs for urban
uninco�porated areas.
Residents and businesses in King Counry who dispose
construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) materials at
the planned private CDL disposal faciliry(ies) will also be
assessed an administrative surcharge by the Solid Waste Division
(see Chapter V). The revenue will be used to support various
waste flow control measures to make sure that all CDL
generated in the Counry is disposed or recycled at the
designated disposal faciliry(ies).
Appendix K contains a detailed breakdown of Division
revenues and eapenditures.
2. Solid Waste Fund Structure
The Division follows generally accepted accounting
principles for enteiprise funds. All fee revenues are deposited in
the Operating Fund, which is composed of the following cost
centers: administration, engineering services, waste reduction
and recycling, program planning, fiscal setvices, moderate risk
waste, shop/maintenance, transfer operations, transportation,
Cedar Hills operations, rural landfill operations, operations
administration, landfill gas a�id waste-water, and customer
transactions.
Disposal fees also fund the King County Commission for
Marketing Recyclable Materials and support certaiu activities in
other counry agencies that perform work on the Division's
behalf, including the Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health, the Prosecuting Attorney, and the Roads Division.
Funds are transferred out of the Operating Fund monthly
to the Landfill Reseive Fund, annually to the Capital Equipment
Replacement Program Fund, and semi-annually to pay debt
seivice on bonds issued for solid waste capital projects.
Table VII.3 displays the actual 1gg1 and 1992 budgets and
projected budgets for 1993 and 1994.
chr�prer u/r.� Pinanciat system
VII
-4
Table VI13 King County Solid Waste Division Operating Cost� (Thousands of Dollars)
1991 1992 1993 1994
Actual Actual Budget a Projected
Administration
Debt service
CERP
LRF
Overhead Allocation
Non-programmable administration
Engineering
W R/R
Program planning
Fiscal services
Moderate risk waste
Marketing Commission
Shop
Transfer operations
Transportation
Cedar Hills operations
Legal
Rural landfills
Operations administration
Landfill gas and wastewater
Customer transactions
Total
6,888
3,771
18,675
568
2,714
1,582
5,279
1,379
583
2,191
426
5,644
3,762
5,010
6,765
159
1,8U8
674
231
532
68,641
7,686
3,785
14,749
977
2,592
1,362
3,306
693
745
2,013
585
5,166
3,630
3,753
5,309
191
1,138
895
525
1,498
60,598
7,712
3,545
13,934
1,206
3,118
3,031
7,633 b
1,384
874
4,483
1,162
6,440
4,609
4,004
4,438
168
1,197
1,687
1,883
1,704
74,212 b
7,712
4,080
12,186
1,160
2,777
1,459
3,541
742
798
2,157
627
5,319
4,536
3,350
5,490
174
421
1,219
562
1,605
59,915
a Includes budget and carryovers from 1993 and 1992 carryovers.
b 1993 budget includes $3 million transfer from E/RR Fund for WR/R grants and programs.
3. Individual Fund Descriptions
a. Capital Equipment Replacement
Program Fund (CERP)
The CERP fund was established in 1982 to ensure that
reserves are available to replace t�ansportation, landfill, and
transfer station equipment when it reaches the end of its useful
life. A model was developed that uses the purcllase price,
expected life, and salvage value for each piece of equipment,
along with assumptions on future interest and inflation rates to
project net costs and the annual tra��sfer required froro the
Operating Fund to support planned replacements. A�l annual
equipment acquisition plan and a multi-year financial pla�l for
the CERP fund is produced through the model. In addition to
trai�sfeis from the Operating Fund, the CERP fund receives
income from the sale of old equipment and earned interest.
b. Landfill Resen�e Fund (LRF)
The LRF was set up in 1983 to fund projects related to
the development, closure and maintenance of King Counry's
landfills. A contribution of $15.08 per ton is transfereed from
the Operating Fund to tlie LRF for each ton disposed. Funding
for landfill projects is collected over the life of the landfill. The
LRF is made up of 12 accounts: Cedar Hills (CH) new area
development, CH closure, CH faciliry relocation, CI-I post-closure
maintenance, replacement la�idfill development, Enumclaw
closure, Hobart closure, Vashon closure, Enumclaw post-closure
Chapter �I/.� Financial System
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
VII -
5
maintenance, Hobart post-closure maintenance, Vashon post-
closure maintenance, and Vashon new area development.
Funds for maintaining counry landfills for 30 yea�s after
closure are collected while the faciliry is operating so that all
foreseeable costs are paid by the landfill useis rather than
future rate payers. When the landfill closes, the money
collected for post-closure maintenance is trai�sferred from the
LRF to the Landfill Post-closure Maintenance fund.
c. Landfill Post-closure
Maintenanoe Fund (LPCM)
This fund contains resources for complying with all state
a�id federal regulations for the maintena�ice of ting Count��'s
closed landfills. Funds for Cedar Falls and Duvall, which had
been collected in the LRF were transferced to the LPCM fund
when it was created in 1991. A�i additional $5 million trai�sfer
was made when the Enumclaw Landfill closed in 1993.
Post-closure maintena�lce includes: gas extraction;
monitoring of groundwater, su�face water, leachate and gas;
leachate pretreatment; environmental data evaluation; pay�nent
of pennit fees; and site mainteliance. Costs of equipment, staff,
supplies, fees, and sampling for the closed landfills are covered
by the LPCM.
d. Environmental Reserve Fund (ERF)
The ERF was established in 1991 for site investigations
and any remediation costs related to active, closed, or
abandoned solid waste handling facilities, the Solid Waste
Division owns or for whicl� it has custodial responsibiliry. Also
wvered are costs related to inveise condemnation claims
resulting from solid waste activities. The fund was started with
resources collected between 1986 a�id 1990 for development of
an energy/resource recoveiy faciliry. A per ton contribution
from the Operating Fund may be included in the next rate
base.
e. Capital Improvement Funds
Capital improvement projects that are not funded through
the LRF or ERF are paid for through the sale of limited-term
general obligation bonds. The Division is currently paying
annual debt service of $7.7 million for four bond issuances. As
with all funds, the bond fund balances can be supplemented by
interest earnings, grants, the sale of surplus equipment, and
other miscellaneous sources. A bond issue for new transfer
facilities is eacpected in 1992.
Capital improvement projects are prioritized and scheduled
according to projected needs a�id the time necessary to complete
projects in time to meet the projected needs.
B. GRANTS
l. Coordinated Prevention Grants
The Department of Ecology (Ewlogy) Coordinated
Prevention Grant (CPG) program allocates Local Toxics Control
Account and Hazardous Waste Assistance Account funds to each
counry to support hazardous and solid waste program planning
and implementation (WAC 173-312). The purpose of the grant
is to fund projects required by state law and comprehensive
plans and those designed to prevent or minimize environmental
contamination. The eligibiliry and administrative guidelines are
designed to promote regional solutioi�s, intergovernmental
cooperation, and local responsibiliry for solid and hazardous
waste management.
The countywide allocation for 1992-1993 is approximately
$7 million, which will be distributed among Seattle-King Counry
Department of Public Health Environmental Division, the Ciry of
Seattle Solid Waste Utiliry, the King Counry Department of
Public Works Solid Waste Division, a�id 18 suburban cities.
Most of the funded projects will focus on waste reduction and
recycling education and recyclables and household hazardous
waste collection. One million dollars will be used to close the
Enumclaw a�id Carnation la�ldfills.
Grant funds allocated to the cities and to the
uninco�porated a�eas of the Counry are used for projects that
benefit the specific jurisdiction receiving the funds. However,
some programs that the County implements, such as
infonnation programs that include brochures, indirectly benefit
the entire County.
Gra�ltees are required to provide a 40 percent match.
The progra�n will continue indefinitely with a new allocation
Chr�pter V!/.• Financial System
v�i-6
and application process every two yeais. The progra�n may
expand to include other funding sources.
2. 1990 Compost Study
Grant Program
The Ecology Compost Study Grant Program allocates
money from the Solid Waste Management Account to fund food
and yard waste composting projects (WAC 73319). The
Division will fund projects to gather data to guide development
of environmental standards for compost facilities, to deterniine
the potential end-uses of wmpost products, and to determine
the feasibiliry of long-term, countywide implementation of on-
site nonresidential composting and backyard food waste
composting. The Division received an award of $302,000 for
the 1992-1994 biennium and is workiug in cooperation with
Seattle on this project. A 25 percent match is required. This
grant will not continue beyond 1994.
3. Waste-Not-Washington
Communities Grant Program
Phase I of the Ecology Waste ReductioNRecy Gra�it
Program, called the "Waste-Not-Washington Grant" in King
Counry, allocates funds from the waste disposal facilities bond
issue of 1980 to local governments to support waste reduction
a�id recycling projects (WAC 173-318). The puipose of the
grant is to provide comprehensive regional waste red��ction and
recycling seivices. This grant will fund recycling projects in the
Snoqualmie Valley cities and the surrounding unincoiporated
areas, the ciry of Skykomish, the Snoqualmie Pass a�ea, a�id
the city of Issaquah and sun•ounding uninco�porated area. The
allocation to the Counry a�id participating suburban cities is
$1.03 million for 1992-1995. The required 30 percent match is
provided by the County (17 percent) and Issaquah (13 percent).
Phase II of this grant will allocate approximately $2.3 million
countywide for lgg2-1996.
4. King County WR/R Grant Program
The King Counry WR/R Grant Program will allocate funds
from the Solid Waste Division budget to fund waste reduction
and recycling projects in unincorporated King Counry and the
suburban cities (King Counry Council Motion No. 8407). The
puipose of the gra�lt is to encourage waste reduction and
recycling efforts beyond those currently required by law.
Beginning in 1�92, $1.5 million will be distributed. Grantees
are not required to provide matching funds. The program will
end in 1995.
ci�apter vr�� Fanancial sysrem
�
O
�
�
�
�
. Nv�RoNMENT.�
.
MPACT TATEMENT
.
• DE
ND UM
•
� Kin Coun
� g tY
Com rehensive
• Solid Waste
` Management Plan
•
•
• .
•
•
•
� �
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
�
�r
,v��
�n�
Sorting
It Out
Together
Detemnination of Significance/Adoption Notice
and
Add�endum to Fina1 Environmental Impa,ct Sta.tement
King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
King County Solid Waste Division, July i9s9
Prepared to meet the requirements of the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules
for environmental review of the
1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
King County Solid Waste Division
August 1992
Detennination of Signi�icance
and �doption of F.xisting
Environmental Docurnent
Descrlpdon of cunent proposal: The proposal is adoptlon of the 1992 King County Comprehensive Solld Waste Management
Plan.
Proponent: King County Solld Waste Dlvlsion �A�
Locatlon of current proposal: King County is located in western Washington approximately equat distance betvveen the state's
northern and southern boundaries. T'he county is bordered on the west by Puget Sound, on the east by Chelan and Kittitas Counties,
on the north by Snohomish County, and on the south by Pierce Counry.
Tide of document being adopted: Final Enrnronmenkal Impact Statement, 1989 K'rng County Compra4er�sive Solyd I�as1e
Management Plan
Agency that prepared document being adopted: King Counry Solid Waste Division
Date adopted document was prepared: July 14, 198g
Descrlption of document (or portion) being adopted: The final environmental impact statement (Final EIS) being adopted
conslsts of the Draft Environmental lmpact Statement, 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid [�aste Management Plan, prepared
by the King County Solid Waste Division and issued on April 17, 1g89; together with the addendum-form Final Enrrironmenta6
Irnpact Statement, 1989 Kmg County Comprehensive Solul l�aste Management Plan, prepared by the King County Solid Waste
Division and issued on July 14, 1989. The latter document consists of a revised Fact Sheet and Summary, comment letters and
responses, and an Errata section. Together, these documents describe the alternatives and recommendations in the proposed 1989
Plan; and evaluate their potential significant adverse environmentat impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unayoidable adverse
impacts. The Final EIS consisting of these two documents is being adopted in its entirety.
If the document being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please descrlbe: The adopted document
has not been challenged.
The document is available to be read at (placeltime): the King County Solid Waste Division, 600 Yesler Building, 400
Yesler Way, Seattle, WA, between the hours of 8:30 AM. and 4:30 P.M.; and at all King County librarles. Major King County libraries
are open between the hours of 10:00 AM and 9:00 P.M, while smaller libraries may have more restricted hours.
EIS REQUI1tBD. The lead agency has determined that this proposal �s l�kely to have a signiflcant adveise
impact on the environment. To meet the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), the lead agency is adopting
the document descrlbed above. Under WAC 197-11-630, there wlll be no scop�ng process for this EIS.
We have ident�iifled and adopted this document as being approprlate for this proposal after independent review.
Together wlth the add�Honal information provided in the attached addendum, the document meets our
environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision maker.
Name of agency adopiing document: King County Solid Waste Division
Contact person, if other than responsible official: Jackie Krolopp Kirn
Phone: (206) 296-4406
Responsible Official: Rodney G. Hansen, Ph.D., P.E.
Position/tlde: Manager, King Counry Solid Waste Division
Phone: (206) 29�3g5
Address: 600 Yesler Building, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104
Date: �-/�4/ 3 O ��'j� 2
,"�
Signature:
Rodney G. n, Ph.D., P.E.
�
�
•
�
•
•
!
•
•
•
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
............................. ............. ...........:................,:::::.�:.�:.�:::::::::::::::::::: :.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.::::._::::::::::::.�::,:::,.:::...;�:::.;.::::::: :.:::::::::::::::. ......�::.
.............. .:::::....
...........................,............r.... ...... ............... .................::. .:::: . .... . {::::::: •�.:
. ..... ...............n .....:............................::::::.�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�:n�::::::.�:::::::::::::::::::: ................: ....:•:. :: .::.:�bi'i•:"J':4. ?v: :.: n,. ::::::::.v�
tiJ:ti.�.}. rf.� : �• ::.:: : xAf.�.•i}/.•::.:.. .r.C•: ��i�.
v::::.�:::.�::::::.�::.iiT: •v }::::.•: x::::: ..} . .:: ..::::::::::::: .............. n.. •:::
............. ......... . v.1..rn....... .. :::: :.: :w:::::::::::: :.::::::::::: ::::v::::::::::::: :.:._::::::::::::::..::::::n.: •.p::r..... r�... $}'.o-.. n. .....�x..
...f..:...•.f..:...:f.. ..t ....................................................................:.................. ...>..... t:.:: • . f.•.::!-::. _
:::::::::.,•::u::..�:.••.:.. ........::::::::.�::::r, .............................:................................................. ..... �'� ......... .....
......................... ....... .......................................................:................................... :.........,::t•::::::.......... Y.. ........,::::.::::.:f,Y........... ...�.�:...
....................�..., 4................:......................................................... ........................................ �.. �.:.:::::... EIS 1 ........:.
..�...... . ::.:<.::.:.:.� :..: ::.::::::......:::.::::.
..\\• ............................................................::..................................................::: .....: .i ' n \. .
+:.�•:u:........ .rl. •• �
• vl.v •: lf.• v.. v: xf? ..M1
r�.
i Y`''M�.'Ni:.ti:�r'f.?v... r ::./....
.K ...............: r. ..........
: ..n .........................................x...
........ .............
v:::::::iii::n�:.�:::.: .............. x::::: ..........
...: :• :::::::::::: ...... M1},: ...n�:{.ii:��:i�:i�:i:i::;:i:•i:.....,-;•:::::::.y::.:'::::::::::::::.Y.•::::: ......................... :...... :.: ...... :........... :.....ii.:.
: ............. w:::: ..... nxn.....�.. .�.
Section I
Introduction
1'he 1g92 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan is substantially similar to the 1g89 Plan.
Aithough the lgg2 Plan contains a number of new
recommendations, they build upon the same basic solid waste
management programs recommended in the 1g89 Plan.
Because of the similarity of the two plans, the probable
significant adverse lmpacts of the recommendations and
alternatives in the lgg2 Plan fall within the range of those
evaluated in the 1989 Plan EIS. Therefore, rather than prepare
a new EIS on the 1992 Plan, the King Counry Solid Waste
Division has decided to adopt the 1g89 Plan EIS and prepare
an addendum that contains needed additional information.
Section II of this addendum desscribes those
recommendations and altematives in the lgg2 Plan that have
the potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts,
indica,tes the page number of the adopted 1g89 Plan EIS where
the relevant impact analysis can be found, and provides some
minor additional analysis where needed. Section III of the
addendum provides a summary of the Cost Assessment for the
lgg2 Plan, which is included as Appendix K of the 1992 Plan.
Recommendations and alternatives for each element of
the King County solid waste system are presented in Chapters
III, IV, V, and VI of the 19g2 Plan. Those which have the
potential to cause significant adverse impacts and are addressed
in this addendum occur in the following sections of the 1992
Plan:
Chapter III - Waste Reduction and Recycling
• Section III.B - Recycling
Chapter IV - M�xed Municipal Solid Waste Handling
Systems
• Section IV.B - Transfer System
• Section IV.0 - Disposal
Chapter V- Speclal and Miscellaneous Wastes
• Section VA - Contaminated Soil
• Section V.0 - Biomedical 1�aste
• Section V.D - Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing
(CDL) Waste
Recommendations and alternatives that would not be
expected to result in signif'icant adveise impacts are not
addressed in this addendum. These include recommendations
and alternatives that involve educational activities, studies,
monitoring, waste screening, enforcement, alternative funding
mechanisms, and incentive rate structures.
E6 Addendum
�
::�:: EIS - 2
:::>�
Section II
Description of Proposed Action
and Al.ternatives and Impact Analysis
This addendum Incorporates the 1992 Plan by reference,
so descrip�ons of the proposed action and alternatives are very
brief, with reference made to the corresponding section of the
1992 Plan. Because the Fina1 EIS on the 1989 Plan was
prepared in addendum format, the page numbers provided in
the impact analyssess are for the Draft EIS. The Determination
of Significance (DS)/Adoption Notice preceding this addendum
provides complete references for the Draft and Final EIS's on
the 1989 Plan and the location where these documents can be
reviewed.
For purposes of thls addendum, the NaAction Alternative
is continued implementation of the recommendations in the
1989 Plan. The impact analyses for these recommendations
are included in the 1989 Plan EIS and are not repeated in this
addendum.
A. MMSW WASTE REDUCT'ION
AND RECYG'I.Il�iG
1. Description of Proposed
Action and Altematives
a. Proposed Ac6ion (Alternative B, Expand
Exis�ng Pro� with Yard Waste Disposal
Limitations)
Waste reduction and recycling prograrns in the 1992 Plan
are very simllar in nature to those recommended in the 1989
Plan. However, ln response to identified service needs and
opportunities, the 1992 Plan recommendations establish more
specific, expanded minlmum service levels for residenrial
collection of recyclables (provision of minimum service levels
E6 Addendum
would be mandatory, but participation by residents would
remain voluntary); provide collection opportuniues for a wider
range of recyclable materials; establish guidelines for
nonresidential collection secvice (both the collection se�vice and
business participation would be voluntary); provide additional
yard waste recycling opportunities; and implement the 1g89
Plan recommendation for yard waste disposal limita.tions in
1993. The proposed programs would be expected to achieve a
diversion rate of just over 50 percent by 1995.
Elements of the proposed action that could potentially
result in significant adverse impacts are summarized below.
Further detail on the proposed action is provided in Section
III.B.3.b of the lgg2 Plan.
(1) ResldenNal Collectlon
Under the 1g92 Plan, residential collection programs
would be expanded to include the following minimum se�vice
levels:
• Urban household primary recyclables collect�on -
Household collection of primary recyclables (paper, glass,
metaJs, PET and HDPE plastia, and yard waste under 3 inches
in diameter) would be required for all single-family and multi-
famlly residences.
• Rural drop-site prlmary recyclables collection - All
single and multifamlly residences would have drop-site
collection of the same primary recyclables collected from urban
households.
• Urban and rural single-family yard-waste
collectlon - Household collection of yard waste under 3
inches in diameter would be required for all single-family and
multifamily residences in urban areas, while rural areas would
ha�e, at a mInimum, drop-site collecction se�vices.
� ,
�
��
�
�
�
�
!
•
�
�
�
�
'
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
ii4ii�
:.:�.::
:�:�:fli:•tii•i ':•::�1 _
n?:k:iti in ~
.. �1C{+�'
�.
........... v nh.} •.:;q;}}}}; ::::::n�::.�::::i :::::::::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::w::.y::.:�::. . ....... :v::::n v :v:...... ...,
::::.}}i}�;?Oiiiii:i•:}:' w.w' :::::::::.:..:::.:�::::::::::::::::::::::::.;•.}w:v4i'O:^iii::::::: :Y:}:i:::y�:::.i:�'+ir.}v: .
...{.
<'>.:ii::::i ..\ .
:�:�:�Jii' .
.'•i::k�::::ii}::i
4iTi::::}::v}};�i.};.�::. .:::::: :w : ....:.::::...:.......:::::n.n...:::.: :v...:..:..•:n.}:.:..:..:::n.:n.::r n:.....
............ ............. ��::.>:.>:<:::<;<:::::::>:<r::::>::;:>::::::::»::�.:>:.:::.;:;><::>::>::»:::>::»::>:;>;:.::.:::::.::<;:::.;:::.::«.::.>::::.::>::�:v.....»..,. EIS
>
.......:.
:::::::.::
...,r.::...:;w�
::.::: .�.
:�:.:::.:;......., ................�....... ..... �:..:::::::..:....... ,.:..:...r.... ::.:�:�:.._
......, ................. .., ..............,.:::::..............::::.........................:::::.......... :.. . ......::::. :.......... ,...:.,.::�::�.:.::::::::: 3
.. � . .fi... �> : ::.:: ...................: .................: ..................................:.:. :..........: <.: .....................:.;::::: . : ...
v. ;�::>:::<>:.::::>:::::::>: <> ::::>::<::<:.::::: >:::::::::.::::.::.::.::.::.::::::.::.:::.:::;.::.::.::.:> :.: >:.: :::.:::::.::::.::.::.:::.::.::.::.:::::.:::.::.::::::.:;.:; .::.::::.::::.::.::.::::.: � :.::.::.>:.; <.:..:.:::::.: :.:::::.:::::.::::::::::::.::;;>;:: >.M
.................................�.................r............n.........n........:::iG'{S ..........
•>••:c:::::.>:.>:.>:•:::•::•::•:::::.>::.::.::�:::a>::•>::•>:t.::.:a::::::�:::>::::::::;:�i:a::::r:::.::::.:::.s::�r.::•:>:::.:.::.t:�:•:r:•:r.:•:i:•::t.:::: •.
........... .
:::::.::•::��::
:::::.... ::•:::. .... .. . ..... ..... .....:::: �.
:::::::::+x;r.:.::iS:•.,:�:�:::k:.;:.>�:::,:��:;�:;ti:'t't� ....................................................::::. .... .. .. .:.::':•::•.:..:.•...::.s:�::::sr:::.>::::::.: . .... .
• Urban multlfamily onsite yard waste collection -
This would be required for all urban areas.
• Urban household on-call appliance collect�on -
Residents would be able to call the city or county solid waste or
recycling se�vice provlder and arrange for collection of large
appliances for a fee. The County could provide for appliance
collection ai new transfer stations.
• Urban household on-call bulky yard waste
collection - This includes large quantities of yard waste or
yard waste too large for curbside collection (larger than 3
inches in diameter). Residents could ha�e this rype of waste
collected for a fee.
• Urban household textiles collectlon - Regularly
scheduled collection secvlce (at least quarterly) would be
required for used clothing and fabria (natural and manmade).
In addition to these required minimum service levels,
there would be optional household collection in ufian area for
additional plastia and polycoated materials. For rural areas,
optional seNices would include household collection of primary
recyclables, on-call collection of appliances and bulky yard
waste, regularly scheduled textiles collection, and household or
drop-site collection of additional plastia and polycoated
materials.
(2) Nonrestdenttal Coldection
The proposed action would establish minimum oollection
service guidelines for buslnesses. Under these guidelines,
businesses would be targeted for regularly scheduled collection
servic�s based on their location and size. MateriaJs to be
oollected would include, at a minimum, two of the four grades
of paper (cardboard, high grade, mixed waste paper, and
polycoated paper); and at least one of the following: four mixed
containers (glass, tin c�ns, aluminum cans, PET and HDPE
plastic bottles, or polycoated paperboard cartons), wood, metaLs,
yard waste, or textiles.
Options for businesses not targeted for collection services
beca.use of their size or location would include cooperative
collection, self-haul to drop-sites and buy-back centers
(businesses would be encouraged to use and assist in locating
such facilities), and collection alternatives on a case-by-case
basis.
(3) Collectlon at Solid Waste FacilftMeses
Under the 1992 Plan, the required miNmum service levels
for collection of recyclables at County solid waste facilities
would be as follows:
• All eadsting transfer stations and landf'il1s would continue
to provide the current level of recyclables and yard waste
collection seivice.
• All new and upgraded (where feasible) transfer stations
would collect primary recyclables, including yard waste; and
secondary recyclables, as needed, after evaluating private sector
options. Processing of any recyclable materials would be
determined on a case-by-case basis after private sector options
are considered.
(4) Yard Waste Dlsposal Lfmitatlons
The proposed action includes banning or limiting yard
waste disposal at County facilities if needed to meet the
Counry's waste reduction and recycling goals. Under an
ouhight ban, yard waste would be generally be prohibited from
disposal at King County solid waste facilities, but wuld be
collected at special yard waste facilities, either County or private.
A yard waste limitation might ban disposal of large quantities
of yard waste or charge a higher rate as an incentive to source
separation. A ban or limitation could be implemented with or
without the public sector providing any additional yard waste
collection seNices and facilities. Without such additional
service, residences and businesses would be directed to use
hauler-provided collection se�ices or haul directly to private
composting facilities.
(S) Add�t�onal County-sponsored
Collect�on Services
If the County decides to ban or limit yard waste disposal
and recommends additional collection sen+ices for unserved
areas, it will ensure the pmvision of ttu�ee yard-waste drop-sites
in the northwestern, near-south, and eastside areas of the
county. The County may also provide financlal incentives to
existing privaie buy-back centers to encaurage them to wllect
and recycle secondary recyclable materlals, such as polycoated
paperboard, additional plastia, bulky yard waste (greater than
E6 Addendum
................ ................. ..................................................:.�:.�:::::._: �:::::.,:::.,::::::::::::::::::::::.:::: :.:::.�:::::.:: •:;:.:�:.. : .:,....,,ir;�.:;.;f.;..;.::::::«::•>:;;.:::.:�:.::.
�
.:.,. ,,.a>.... :
::;�:}�:..
`�::�;. '� • ,
..x: ��awc•M�:•�:r:<•»:.:>:;.;:.:::�:
:::Ei:c:•.::<•.'`::%<:�:�>:: ...J.::
.......... ....... , ..•::..•:>:::: :•: :•.::::::n :::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::.;::::::.................:::::.... •.
..bK "o:::f+.-:::::.
:.>•a:�:n> .�..::.::::::::. •
:.:....... .:�:?.�:.:,••::�•ox.x•::.:::.:,>s:::::::.�•:tio>:a::.:::�::�;»:at::•>:a;i::::':':::5::}::}:;;;:::::>:�;�:�;:;�:i:ii;::::}::::,:�;;�:�:�•a:•.�.......,-;� ...:........ ...t
........:. -:.:.,•:::..... .::::::::::::. .........
.. rt•.•:::. ...9.::: • �:..•:.� ... K' ...aif ................: ..:::•::•:; •::•::,;:::
:•:::::... .• :::::::.........::::::::: ::.::::::.:::::..............................,-.....:. ...,-
4;; w, .
.......... ......................... ....... :.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::.:�:: .. ....::::}:::::::t:..itii�{n..:� •:: ::::.....: • ....
......... � .. ......................v... .................................... ......................:.:�::.�............ , ��?•:i:i�i.::.ti•!};•:'•;'+ ? •iiii:i:•:•'ir:4 ..'x:::f::::::x,\;:jtitiiiii
.$• {��,.�,.�,.� r "•:'•
.;.;�•i:;:::.
EI 4
.{. r
�.�.? .���:'!"
S ..... :: �::.»»:::vr.::
.::�.,
.......... .......... .............................................................................:.......::.�:..::......... ,::. ,:;:::;::.
......... .........::::::::::::::::::::.:::: .... . ..:.. .
:<::�::::::>.:::>;<::<>::::::«::;:::::::<:::<::.:;<, .,,,.:.:.:.;:;:::.................
>,:,:>�:::>:s:::::;>:=::: � •..... r.,...
.......... .................................. :......................: ....................: ................
:.x,
�:�:k�...., .............. . ....u•:t:�%cN�.v'•:r::.r..::::.?44h.t::::s: ::.:::::::: :•:::
. . ...::k:.`•:•:::•:x.:y.:.::::...;...::•:::j� ::•
......... .................................:::::. . •
3 inches in diameter), wood, aPPliances, metals, and textiles.
The County may consider wntracting with
appliance dealers and recyclers to collect appliances from
residents for a fee. Proposed county-sponsored "cleanup-up
events" are discussed under (� below.
(6) ReBfonal Programs
The only proposed regional program that would have the
potential for significant adverse environmental impacts is
regularly scheduled special collecrion events for secondary
recyclable materials. The County would sponsoc such events at
regularly scheduled times at designated sites throughout the
County. As a city optional program, cities could implement a
special collection event with funding assistance from the Counry.
b. Alternative A, Continue Existing Prograi�
Under this alternative, existing collection and education
programs would continue, and multifamily and curbside yard
waste programs would be a�ailable in all urban areas. It is
estimated that there would be a small increase in the recycling
rate, possibly to 40 percent Diversion rates greater than 40
percent would not be expected, because there would be no
significant improvements in recycling senrices or facilities.
Further detail on alternative A is provided in Section III.B3.a of
the 1992 Plan.
c. Altemative C, Inihate Mandatory Recycling
'1'hrough Disposal Bans
Under this alternative, most existing se�vices and
programs would continue, and disposal bans would be placed
on one or any combination of the following: primary residential
recyclables, metals and appliances, yard waste, and selected
nonresidential recyclables. Alternative C would be expected to
result in a recycling rate of up to 60 percent or better,
depending on the materials selected, and the e�'ectiveness of
enforcement Further deta.il on alternative C is provided in
Section III.B.3.c of the 1992 Plan.
2. IiripaCt Atl��'S1S
a. Proposed Action (Alternative B, E�and
F.�ing Prograrns with Yard Waste Disposal
Limitations)
(1) Resldei:tfal Collectfon
Urban and rura.l household and multifamily on-site
collection servicess v�rould be provided for a greater range of
materials under the 1992 Plan than under the 1g89 Plan.
However, on a programmatic level, the impacts would fall
within the range of those discussed in the 198g Plan Draft EIS
for yard waste curbside collection (page IV-14), residential
curbside collection (page IV-1�, and multifamlly dwelling
recycling (page IV-17). Separaie collection of additional
materials would result in incxeased auck traffic and associa,ted
noise impacts in neighborhoods se�ved, and the potential for
more frequent aesthetic impacts if the additional materials are
placed on the curb. However, these impacis would be
intermittent and would not be expected to be signif'icant
The 1992 Plan could result in the location of additional
drop-sites in rural areas. The impacts of dmp-sites would fall
within the range of those discussed in the 1989 Plan for
neighborhood yard waste drop boxes (page IV-15) and drop-off
centers (page IV-24).
(2) Nonresfdenttal Collect�on
The impacts of collection of source-separated commercial
recyclables is discussed on page IV-24 of the 198g Plan Draft
EIS. The proposed action could also result in development or
increased use of buy-back centers and drop-sites. The impacts
of these types of facilities are discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS on
page IV-23 and IV-24, r�pectively.
(3) Collection at Sol/d Waste Facil�ties
The 1992 Plan would result in wllection of additional
materials at new or upgraded County transfer stations. The
impacts of these activities would fall wlthin the cange of those
discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS for yard waste collection at
transfer stations (page IV-1�, recycling opportunities at transfer
E6 Addendum
�
.. .............................. .. ..........................,.:......:.:.....,.,..::::::.:.:>;�::::.;:.:.::::.:,, �.:::.:;:.;;;;;�:.,..;;;::.::.::::.:::::,,.::,.,:.:::� .......:.
.......................::::::::....�::,..,.:::.�:::..,,, ......................................................... .....,..;;::..:?,:...�::.�. .. �..,�;<.::;:.:. .::::::...
................,.:::,.r,:> :...............,,...........,...,......::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::..::.::::.:::::::.::.>:;:.;:.::::::::.. ,:::;:.:;.., .. ...:... �.,...: .,:::....� �� :�:�::�::::
: •t :+.•::•.+:::.:. :::.:::: :.::.:+::r:f::,.. f q w�:::�' C�.CC4?:...' , `•:�u>?<'r.�:xG<�'L ".:� .+:i f;::.
................. :..: • .•:.;::�•::�•:.;, . .:.... ., • ..... . £ .
.r.. •:•x•::•:::.�...y::':" .:..�..;x�:::;..:t...... �....:::,• .x�:....,:..... ...:�'t.. ?2�::':;.;�;.; —
LSiiiiiii:iiii}.if. ....�...n.n.��� �l4\ .. ..... ....:.f.•...: M1...........v4n..... ......... .
..... ..... ...:.. ..�i ..............�.+.. . ,C.r.... \\�.. .. . ' � ' '��'. n...... ' "'.A:: w:.w::::...... {M1".: •: . . . . . • 7.•k'r:?
.�..4.. u:n..M1 ...:::::........ ..: .. •• :::: ........ ♦ ..,.. :...,. ..; ..
............. .., ................. ......,. ........ .::::>:..;:<:.:::..:::::::::.............. ..........::::.:::....:::::::::.::...,.............:::.<.;:.:,. �:;�:��>::�..:.:;...;.;. ,�>_ EIS �>�:����:
..>f..::.: .. .:::. ..: <..: n.w::�:�::<:.:... 5
r,..
.::.>..:
............... ,,.........::..:�::::::::::...::.� :..,.:., :..:..............................:........ :�::
.:� ..::::::::::::........... ...... ....................... ....:..........:.................. ...........: ::.::>:.::.;:.::;.::.::.::.:::.:::.:::.::.;:::::.:;;::::::.:::..:.......: �.: ...�. ,.. . .:....... ..< . ...
..�.. r:n:.::.::»>:.:.. ..},.::::E.�,�.: <�...... �., � .;<:.,:-::.
: : : : :: : :: : : ::: : ,: : .:: : : .:: .: �. .. .. . .. . . . . . . .,... � . .: : : : . . . .... . . . .,: : . :.: : : . _ : :::: : : . � : : : : ::: : :: : : : : : : : : : : .,,: : :.: : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................r......:..::::.: :.:::::: ... . ».... . .... �.:::::::.... . ,.::........: :.::::::::::::::...t:t>.:::::.... . .. .�:.>::. .� �.::
.......... ,,...:::::............... .�........ r,...>:.r.......:... ..................,....::...,::::::.................:................::: �........ ..�:.::.::::::......,.:.. ::.::,...:
� ...,........., ........ K.... . . ..:>:.> :::..::. ::.::::.:.:::: :.:::.::.. ...
w ::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::i4i::::::::}iTi}:m:.::ii}iii:i::iTi}:::::::vi:Si•ii}:::.:�::::::::.�::::::..::n......::::::::::::::::.................\...:.. .:::::::: v::::::::::.•....
...................................
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
stations and rural landfills (page 4-18), and processing facilities
for yard waste/recyables (page (IV-18).
(4) Yard ►Paste Dlsposal L�m�tattons
The 1992 Plan could result in a ban or Wnits on dlsposal
of yard waste at County solid waste facilities. The impacts of
disposal bans are discussed on page IV-21 of the 1989 Plan
EIS. Disposal limitations would have simllar impacts.
(S) Additio�al County-Sponsored Collect�on
Servlces
This aspect of the lgg2 Plan could result in new buy-
back centers and drop-sites, as well as collection of appliances
from rressidences for a fee. The impacts of thesse activities would
fall withln those referred to above under Resrdentral Coll�ction
and Nonresideratral Collle�etron.
(6) Reg�onal Frograms
The impacts of special collection events to collect
secondary recyclable (hard-to-recycle) materials would be
similar to those dlscussed on page IV-24 of the 1989 Plan EIS
for drop-off-centers. Traffic increases could be greater for a
special collection event, but would be conf'med to the day(s)
that the special event took place. Also, the potential aesthetic
impacts of an unstaffed drop-off center would be less likely to
occur at a special event, because such events would be
supervised.
b. Altemative A, Continue Existing Programs
Alternative A�rould continue waste reduction, recycling,
and composting programs recommended in the 1989 Plan.
The environmental impacts of these programs are discussed in
Section 4.4.1.2 of the 1989 Plan EIS, beginning on page IV-8.
B. TRANSFER SYSTEM
1. Description of Proposed
Action and Altematives
S. PfOp06� A(�10I1 (Altefil�ll� B,
Upda�ed System Plan)
The proposed 1992 Transfer System Development Plan is
nearly identical to the 1989 Transfer System Development Plan
(see description below of Alternative A- Status Quo System
Plan), differing primarlly in the timing of proposed facility
consavcctions, closures, and upgrades. Like the 1989 Plan, the
1992 Plan def'mes four dLstinct planning areas for definuig
transfer system development options: North, Central County,
South County, and RuraL The boundaries of these planning
areas are shown in Figure IV.S of the 1992 Plan. Modifications
in the development option for each area under the proposed
1g92 Transfer System Development Plan are summarized briefly
below. Further discussion of the proposed action is provided in
Sections IV.B.3-b of the 1992 Plan, with the implementation
schedule outlined in Table IV.17 of the 1992 Plan.
(1) Nortb County Area
If Snohomish County dces not gcant a permit to operate
the Snohomish Eastmont facility as a transfer station by
December 31, 1992, replacement of the Houghton Transfer
Station with the new Northeast Lake Washington Transfer
Station (called the Woodinville Area Transfer Station in the
1989 Plan) would begln in 1993 instead of 1994.
(2) Central County Area
The EIS is in progresss for the Factoria Transfer Station
replacement site. A wllection facllity for moderate rlsk waste
may be added at the Factorla replacement facility, if feasible.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
c. Alternative C, Initiate Mandatory Recycling
Through nisposal Bans
Continuation of existing programs under Alternative C
would have the same impacts as those discussed for Alternative
A above. In addition, there would be impacts of disposal bans,
which are discussed page IV-21 of the 1989 Plan EIS.
(3) Soutb County Area
Design Wrork for the new South Counry Transfer Station
(called the Auburn Area Transfer Station in the 1989 Plan)
would begin in 1993 unless the Snohomish Eastmont Transfer
BCS Addendum
........ .:.:::....:..... ::.:.::: ...�.::....:.::._.::::.:..:.:..:::.:::.::.::::.:::::.::.:::::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.::.::.:::.::.:::::....:......................................................�:���.::::::�v::::::�:::::.::.::::::::::::::.:::::::::.
.:....... .. . }�. . { . .. .. �... .. .. ....::.:......... ............... ..............::.::.:...... ..... ... ............. ... ... . .:.::., :.:: :.::::.::..:::::: :.
....... .. .. . . .... . .. .} ................... .. ..:::::::::::::::::..�::..: ..�:.....:::::.:�:,:.::.:{.:::::::::_:.::.:::.::.::.::�:::::.;.:...:.::r:,k.:�:�.:.:,.::::::::..:. ...t..:.�..:...:..:
,�,,:: :?t ,::.:::�...:., ,.....,..�....:.::.<.f.. »..< .::.:::::::::::::::::::...:� �.:.:�.�::::.::::.. ..�::.....:.....:,. :>;�::
•:.. . r��...... ...�...... ....... .......:...:.:...
•.,. .. • .. • ...J..... ......:......•:. ...........:::::::.. .::::::. .:..•:. ..
�... w........... ......... ............................. ..•>:.r>:•::: .:.�.:;:::.:::: ' .::s..::...:::..::::..:::::::.....t.:•:::::::::::.�:.`+:;
.. .l. . . . .. ,,,,, ................. ......:.................................. ..�.... .......... ..
.�..�..,# �. . r... .......... ......:: .• ....................:::..•:::: •:....... ...................................•......::::..•.,•:::.::•::•::�:�::•::•::::::::: �•�•::•x......., :•.�::....... . ....
..r
•:..a•:::::::::::: •::.:
_ G;::i<:i:;�::�::�::;
:•>:1 ....: :.::::.:•.?i:�
...::::::: ..::. r........,:::.,. ...... ,,•;�.:::.�..•::..:•:::::..•:: •...•: •:?•:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.. .................... ::........•:. •::•::�..>:•:••::.;i:
n ... ... v....+�.••.� ;.;q \•'A;:.:'•i"h.n ... ......... .. ...v.. r..r.. ... vr. .x.xh:..�+4:iY•::i:::::: :::.i'•: ••{ vv.n...
.d. . , cc ...::::.:::::::::.,�: ..»:•••...:u:.........�. ...s::.:.�:::.,. •:.4 . ...or :.::::r.:.;;....::�: ;::::; :•.;
,<...>:. EIS 6 .. .,..<.4>,>r,.�..,,.:.:::..:..::::::::... .:::::::::::::::.......::::::.�.. ...:
..,:::.. ..�........... .
.. �..> � .
...w .
. <..... ,. � :�.<:
. �...,. . ��: �:: ....................:............:....................
.. �'.v...\ . ...........................................................................n........................................
...vv..... .r...... v...�..... vvvw:::n...... v:u::::-:i• x.:: w:::::::::::i::::::::.�:::::r'v.w:...n.....v. ........:.•...:.:.:n:x .:..:.::.:: :..::.
w :::::: :.::::::::::.
n........ v... \:.t�; n v.:s•:::i:•:...... :v::ii:ti•i:iiiiiiii::4i}i ................::::::::::::::::x:::.•:::i:ii::n....r .............................n................ ........................................
Sta�tion dces not open, in which case design work would be
delayed to begin in 1994 or later.
(4) R�ural County Area
The need for a new transfer faciliry near the intersection
of I-90 and SR-18, which was recommended in the 1989 Plan,
would be further evaluated pending the evaluation of growth
management planning.
b. Alternative A, Status Quo System Plan
This altemative is the implementation of
recommendaaons exactly as identified in Section III.D.4 and
III.D.S of the 1989 Plan. Thesse recommendations are
summarized below.
(1) Nortb County Area
The Counry would seek to permit the Snohomish
Eastrnont Transfer Station, add a new Woodinville Area Transfer
Station when necessary (called the Northeast Lake Washington
Transfer Station in the 1992 Plan), and expand the First
Northeast Transfer Station on site, as space permits. After the
latter two actions, the Houghton Transfer Station would be
closed.
(2) Central County Area
The Factoria Transfer Station would be replaced
(expansion was determined to be u�feasible).
(3) Soutb County Area
A new Auburn Area Transfer Station (referred to as the
South County Transfer Starion in the 1992 Plan) would be
constructed, after which the Algona Transfer Station would be
closed. The feasibility of expanding the Bow Lake Transfer
Station would be studied. This facility would either be
expanded on site or replaced with a transfer station in the
Tukwila area The Renton Transfer Station would be closed
after the expansion of Factoria and Bow Lake or the addition of
the Tukwila Area Transfer Statioa
ti :�j���
(4) Rf�ral County Area
1fie Cedar Falls Landfill has been replac�d with a rural
drop-box facility. When needed, a new transfer station would
be constructed near the intersection of I-g0 and SR-18, followed
by closure of the Cedar Falls facility. Both the Enumclaw and
Hobart Landfills would be replaced with transfer facilities, and a
new transfer station would be constructed in the northeast
county area
c. Alternative C, Privalization
Under this alternative, King County would evaluate the
feasibiliry of private sector involvement in opera,tion of the
transfer system. Options range from complete privatiza,tion to
an exclusive franchise to operate a transfer station within a
specific service area
d. Alternative D, Smaller Faalities
Under this alternative, a greater number of smaller
capacity transfer stations would be provided raxher than fewer,
larger facilities. By comparing the design of the new
Enumclaw Transfer Station and the proposed new larger
capaciry Factoria Transfer Station, it was determined that the
physical size of a transfer station, and therefore the needed site
size, is virtually the same regardlesss of tonnage capacity.
2. Impact Analysis
a Proposed Acbion (Alternative B,
Updated System Plan)
Like the 1g89 Plan, the 1992 Plan recommendations for
transfer station development enoompass closures of transfer
stations and rural landfills and constivction and operation of
new or expanded transfer stations or new drop-boxes. On a
programmatic level, the potenual signiflcant adverse impacts of
the 1992 Plan reoommendations fall within the range of those
discussed for the proposed action beginning on page IV�7 of
the 1g89 Plan EIS.
7
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
':}�i:titi��'�:
�:��l�:i:
i: tiLL��:'�i:i:;$'Yi:?:i n.t ....�...::.
x0 .
............:..........................................w:::::: ....v...,-........................................,-.............,-.............v.......; .. ......;; ..
:}\....f..:...»:...r....
.l.��.'•:: • ... n
v 4.w:: i:•::•i'tiv}}: _
:�'�\�iY{�v:�:•:•:2i:::�::<i+� .?:4•:: ?•.
�i:�ti�i:�:ti?{•:�r '
::::. .............. .. .........
:::., ::::: •vvv::::.t::.:::::•i:•i:•::::.::�i:�i:.ii:�ii:�ii:•i:•i:•i:tL.:i.ii:•ii:•i:•i:•i:•i:•i::::.i::::::::::�::�:�i:�iiii::
..........
vx ... ................ :....................................................................................... :ti•iiiii}i'
....v v:•:J. .:..: x ::::::.... .................... ..: ........... .... . . -.....rr i �:'v:ti•:ti�•i:4:•iiii:•:".� • : n } ......� .
.....? . ...... ..... ' ..:.� : •:::::::::::t?:::::.:;�iY:":�:ii•i:::��'+�::'i:•'•...... ' . :........:
......:v........ .t....A�....r.•::::::.:n..rf .............v............... '::::::..• ............w:::.�... .•..:•v:..... .
...,. .. ......................:.............................. . ......:......:...::..........................::............ ............ ,.....:::::.� .. ,....... ... , .... EIS 7 ::::::::::
..................�.. ...... .:..................................................... . . >,:::::;,.:;:�:::::r::::
....................x:..............................................:................................. ..................................................:.,.::::... �-,::�;::<::.:;:::.;..: ....., .... ;;�:;:.:�:::;
...............................................::....::::... .............. ........::::.::.:,..,...,.. ....,,. n..:.::..f.�::.. ..,..:.
.......,, .......... .......,.......,,...... ...... ..:.;::.;:.::::.::.;:.::.::.:::.;;:.::.:::.::.::.>:.::.;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...............;.:r.:.,,,.....�..........:.,.......�...... ..........
, . .. , �<.: : .. .. , . : : : . _ : . .. ..
.,> .::::.::::......... ..�.:�,� .........
...: ......r..•:::. . y . ......
::.:...... :� ........>. ..:•:....... ....::::: :.:.:•�::::::::::::::::::::.�::::.�::::::::::::::::::::: :.::::::::: :.:::::........:::::::::...........:::::::............. . ...... ...........
.........::::::: >. ;..; .. ::::..:. .......... .................................................................................................................: .... ..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : •: >: : : : : : •: : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The 1989 Plan EIS does not specifically address the
impacts of co-locating a transfer station and moderate-risk
waste collection facility, which could occur at the replacement
Factorla Transfer Station 1f feaslble at one of the candidate sites
currently undergoing environmental review. The impacts of co-
locating these two facilities would be similar in nature to those
discussed for a new transfer station beginning on page IV-47 of
the 1989 Plan EIS. However, the extent of the consavction and
operation Impacts, including area of land disturbed, potential
for removal of vegetaiion and wildlife habitat, aesthetia
impaccs, and trafflc and associated noise and air quality
impacts, would be greater than for a transfer statlon alone.
Also, due to the greater rlsks associated with this rype of waste,
a mitigation plan vvould have to be developed specif'ically for
the moderate-risk waste collection facility to protect workers, the
public, and the environment This would include design
measures such as adequate containment for spills; and
operational measures such as safe waste handling and storage
procedures, an emergency response plan designed specif'ically for
moderate-risk waste, and adequate worker training.
� b. Alternative A, Status Quo System Plan
• The impacts of this alternative would be the same as
those of the proposed action in the 1989 Plan, which are
• evaluated beginning on page IV-47 of the lg8g Plan EIS.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C. ��fI1�V@ C, Pf1V�l7.a110II
Since this alternative would involve only a study of the
concept of privatization, there would be no significant adverse
environmental impacts. The focus of the study would be to
evaluate potential impacts on the existing transfer system,
including impacts on the rate base, staffing criteria, levels of
service, legal issues (such as contract considerations), and
enforcement issues.
environmental Impads (similar environmental impads at a
greater number of sltes). Furthermore, preliminary analyses
show that it would cost significandy more W provide several
smaller transfer facilttles than it would to provide fewer, larger
facilities (see Section IV.B.3.d of the 1992 Plan).
C. DISPOSAL
1. Description of Proposed
A,ction and Alternatives
a Proposed Ac�ion (Alternative A, Disposal at
F.xisting King County Di.sposal Facilities)
Under this Alternative, the Cedar Hills Landfill could
remain open for the at least next 20 years, whlle the Hobart
and Enumclaw rural landf'ills would close and be replaced with
transfer stations. The Vashon Island Landf'ill is the only rural
landf'�ll that would continue operatioa The option to export
waste would be further evaluated. Specific ac�vities would
include:
(1) Cedar H�lls LandJ�'ll
The County's MMSW would continue to be disposed at the
Cedar Hills Landfill. New tonnage forecast� indicate the need to
accelerate development of Refuse Area 5 at the landfill. The
C�ddar Hil/s Regional Landfill Site D�t�elopment Plan and
associated Draft P1S (issued in December 1g87) would be
modified to respond to revised tonnage estimates, operating
experience, public comment, and potentiat partial out-of-Counry
disposal.
(2) Hobart Land,�lll
Existing load restrictions would remain tn effect unril it
reaches its capacity in 19g4. Periodic assessment� would be
made to determine if additional load restrlctions are warranted.
d Alternative D, Smaller Faalities
As noted previously, it has been determined that smaller
transfer facilities would require approximately the same size site
as larger facllities. Therefore, development of a greater number
of smaller transfer facilities would resuft in greater cumulative
(3) Enumclaw Iand, f�ll
The Solid Waste Division is seeking an additional variance
to maintain opecation of the Enumclaw Landflll until May 1993
when the new Enumclaw Transfer Station becomes operationaL
E6 Addertrlum
...................................................................:.............................v::: v: :..:: •w:: .......::::::::::.; .:...... , f n• { . ;}: •" i :. ; • { . y ,•: w::::.�.iii} i
::/.'i•i n^�. . {�. :C . 1}..v ,F,.:i:i�i:
�`•:'F...
F
Si4;ii :'' �t; .{.. .{...
. .v�
.a:SY •
.......... ......... ....
p� w"�. .b
. �::::: :•. :::::::.::•:;•:••:••>:::::::::•:::::::::::;•::•:::�::;:::.;•:.;::;;:::.;• ::::.: :.:.:::: �::::::::::.::•::•: �>•<.;•:.;.;.:'•:�::..•.
::.,r • '�`2$::�: <�:::;: �;•:.•.;:;:
�,+ .�"ix�'.:.wYY.....�...
, .+•
::::.:�::. :.iiiiiir.•: :� W::::::: 4i:}::+:}:i:: •:x:::::i}.i4:iix:ii:iiiii:iii: :vi:iniiiiii?::::::i•.::i�•i •i.�: ': . r....�} ...F+:ri' \�.. • .. . . .. . . . .: ..�.1.{.....f.........:::
.�:::::.:. r ;{.; \.....,.; ..�.....n.....n .....:::::::::::::::.�::::::::::: :.:::::::::::::.�.�.i....v.r. . � � • %'� .�'�.4..5 + :'.......
......... :.::::nv....$� ::::::..::::::::::::::::::m:..................................................... ..:v.......::::: v: �.ti{•ihi::v.� •.:F}ry..:.:.; ::\.nn•..n y., .��,v •: �' �' i•:: •v: K.....
. f.'vh::.;.��.
_ x{h:::.•:.� •: •: •::,.v. . k v, ••;v , /:::•:ti?
•:•:�f.•l}..}.ii:'r� .
w::
; { 4v�.y..
�
I ..,�.;,.:...:<:,;.
,: ,f f, •{%::,;•v,i•i�::
E S 8 :.:��
:r:f«:>>�..
„�:: ...>...
..........
�� ��t.., v. : .� .
:: :.:::::. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:;;:.;::.;.:::::: :.::::::: :.:.;:.;:.;>::.::.;::.::::;;.>::.::.::.>;:::::;.::;.::.::..
:::::::::.,.,.....:.. ,..:... ::
N �.
.;;;:�::.::. :::.::.,..w:,�;:::..::r::::::�t;::,:�:v��:>:::<:;::>�::;:.:;:;:.:<;:::.<:::.;:::.;::»:::;::::«::<:<::>::::;::<:;;;::::.: ...::. .>.....4.....,�:..... .. .. .: .........`'; ...,:,..
.::::.:: :. ,.:: ��::.{:,•.:: ::.:...:::;� •:.>.•:,.•: r;;::-.:::�:•;:.:: .. �.,. . ........ ....,.,...�� x?�::��"'��`'`.`��....,�.�...�`�.::2:�•:.........
.,:.: ..... :.::. .. t:.. .. .::.............:::::::•:.....:........ ........:::....:::::.::::::::•;::�::•::•::: :;,:.:;a•:<:....:..,..,•:.fG::..•..,......i.z.•........:...... . .....:: ,.. .. :.:::
(4) Vasbon LandJltl
An application has been filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency for designation of Vashon Island as a sole
source aquifer. The landf'ill has over ten years of built capaciry
remaining and room to provide additional capaciry. Under the
proposed action, the schedule for new area development would
be dela,yed until outstanding issues related to the use and cost
of this capaciry are settled, including the sole source aquifer
issue as well as alternatives for leachate transport and
treatment The 1992 Plan recommends that if the sole source
aquifer designation prohibits use of built landfill capacity, the
landfill should be replaced with a drop-box or transfer station.
(S) Waste Export
Although Alternative C outlines a fully developed waste
export alternative, the proposed action would include an
evaluation of the economia of waste export alternatives
compared with continued operation of the Cedar Hills Landfill.
Recommendations for a backup level of operation at Cedar Hills
would be developed as part of this evaluation.
b. Alt�ernative B, Pursue Development of a New
MMSW Regional Landfill
The requirements for developing a new regional landfill
in King County have been explored in several studies over the
past few years (see section IV.C.3.b[2] of the 1992 Plan).
Further consideration of a new regional landf'�ll in King Counry
is not authorized by policy established for the Plan (KCC
10.22.03o[I]).
c. Alternative C, Waste Export of a Portion of
the K'ing County MMSW Waste Stream
Under this alternative, a portion of the Counry's MMSW
would be exported to an out-of-county landf'ill. The County
would continue to operate the Cedar Hills Landfill at an
adequate level to allow its use as a back-up system in case of
emergencies or failure of the waste export system. This
alternative could be accomplished either by a phased transition
to out-oF-counry disposal as new or upgraded transfer stations
with compaction capabilities become operational; or by
development of a central transfer and preload facility where
loads from existing transfer stations oould be loaded into
sultable containers for rail hauL
2. Impa,ct Analysis
a Proposed Ac�ion (Alternative A, Disposal at
E�ng King County Disposal Faalities)
(1) Cedar Hdlls Land, flll
The environmental impacLs of continued use of the Cedar
Hills Landflll are discussed on page IV-54 of the 198g Plan EIS.
Acceleration of development of Refuse Area 5 would cause
construction impacts associated with new area development to
occur earlier than previously anticipated. Further analysis of
the impacts of continued operation of the landfill will be
addressed in the environmental review of the modified Si1e
Development Plan.
(2) Hobart Land, f �lt
With continued load restrictions at the Hobart Landfill,
commercial haulers se�ving the Hobart area would continue to
haul directly to the Cedar Hills Landfill. This would result in
oontinued increased traffic and associated noise and air quality
impacts on haul routes to the Cedar Hills Landfill. There
would aLso be additional use of petroleum fuels due to the
longer distances aaveled by commercial haulers to the Cedar
HilLs Landflll compared to the Hobart Landflll. Increased load
restrictions would result in simllar effects, because current users
of the Hobart Landflll would be forced to use more distant
transfer stations outside the Hobart service area. There could
be an increase in illegal dumping in the Hobart area if load
restrictions increase. All these impacts cc�uld be temporary, and
would cease when the planned Hobart Transfer/Recycling
Station opens.
(3) Bnumclaw Land,fi'lt
Under the proposed variance, impacts currendy associated
with landf'ill operation, including noise from equipment
operation and vehicle traffic, would oontirnue until May 1993
when the new Enumclaw Transfer Station becomes operational.
ELS Addendum
. ... ...................................................................................:::.:}i4w::::::::::{::::;:p}}•v::::.iii:}:i::::+i�:F :Cyi'f.+ ..........
.......................................:•:.vv•::::••.:.....................................::............:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.::. ....{:•:::�::• ........... ..5. .fi. :.�::..•:::
..\.. S:i•h•:+i�:�^:i:'i4� J/.f::• }:i�\�::?�:
............n....... w::::.:�:::: •:.:.....v.. r .... n ..........:........... r.. • �
....................:::i............. ...........v ......... M •• : w:::. ::::: w:x:::::::: w:::::::::::::::::::::..n... .:::::.v.�.....rf.•: ?v ... r ..hh::: >v.•�X`• .f......M1
..lr...,-... v �•: •:nv.v�.v..........4.. . {. v�v::u......r. ..x}%:in � .......
:::::ii:.::•i:•i:� '�.iin•nv ..:.�. •: . . . ..�. v .....................:::f.•f.\.. ........................ r.r.•rv. . n......
..... . ..}.rxr.�v. ..}}.. ....... ..............\. .....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::nw::..y::.M1... �.. .: ...... M::n�::.
v:.�•:::: .?�.. �
..; i�,{�i••;
,:.,,.;�.:.r:::�:.,�.:�.: EI
.::::::::::...........,.::.�::::.::.. ,.::.;::::........:....:::::................ ........ g
............ .........,,.,... ...:::.. .:.::::.....................::.;:.::.;:.::.:::::::.;::.::.;::.:;::;.::.;;>:::.::.;:.;;::.;:.;;;;:.::::....:........:::�:.::.;:.;::.«:.,,.:::::.> .. ..�::.....
...w..::�:.::::.:.... .::w.::.::.::.<::.::..::,.. �:..�.>.. .:k. 9
{::..:.��.,. ,
:.�:::::.� :::.....:...:.......,::: .�:::.::::: .., .::.::::::::::.:.:..�:::::...:::::.::.::.>:.>:.:�::::::::::::::::::.......... . ....:.:.::
.............. . ..f.........f. ,............... ..........:.::.,..............................:::::::::::;;::.;:.;:.;;;::.;•:<.:;>::>::.::..:::,......::::.,.,:.:;.:::,:::::>..>:z:::•<•• ,....f.... . . � ���s•:<:::::>
•::.�::::...�............. ,:::..,: .:::: •: •::::::::.�:._::; :::..........................................................:.:•:..
.:;<.. ..,,•.,... f: . ..........
. . . . . ..: : : : : : : : .: . <. , , : > : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. :w::::::x ........� .... ................\. .... ..{•n................................................... . .. ... . ........k.M1l. •i:.nv....
..�.../.. . ....................................................................n..............n.M1.......v.............r..... M1�..............
v....., .:. .... .... n...:::::.i:4ii ::............. :.. ...::::::.
::.:::::::::::\v:.�.�.� .... .......................................w:::::::::::::::::::::n..:: w::::::::::::: . ....... ....... .....
�
u
Such impacts do not occur at levels that would be considered
signif'icant Thzre is su�Icient remaining capacity at the
landflll to a11ow continued operation through May 1993 wlthout
increasing the currendy permitted footprint or final grades of
the landfill.
(4) Yasbon land, f �'11
Delay of new area development at the Vashon Landfill
would dela,y the impacts associated with such development
Depending on the resoluaon of the sole source aquifer issue,
the landf'ill may ha�e to be replaced with a transfer station or
drop box. The impacts of both rypes of facilities would fall
wittun the range of those discussed for a new transfer station
on page IV-47 of the lg8g Plan EIS under Proposed Actioa
b. Alternative B, Pu�sue Development of a New
MMSW Regional Landfill
The impacts of developing a new regional landfill in King
County are discussed in the 1g89 Plan EIS beginning on page
tv-56.
c. Altemative C, Waste Export of a Portion of
the King County MMSW Waste Stream
The impacis of implementing a long-haul program to
dispose of waste in an out-of-counry landfill, including
potential development of a new transshipment faciliry, are
discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS beginning on page IV-58.
Because only a portion of King Counry's MMSW would be
e�cported under this alternative, the impacts of the proposed
disposal action (see Section II.C.2.a above) would continue at a
reduced leveL Also, since County transfer stations would play a
role in waste export, Impacts associated with the proposed
transfer system development plan (see Section II.B.2.a above)
would continue.
D. CONTAMINATED SOILS
1. Description of Proposed
Action and Alternatives
a Propo�ed Action (Alternative C,
Recycling and T�atinent)
Under the proposed adton, the Counry would study the
availability of recycling/�eatment processes for speciflc types of
contaminated soil, and impose disposal bans when recycling
and treatment proces.ses can be demonstrated to be reasonably
available for a particular rype of contaminated soiL In-county
disposal of all contaminated soil would continue to be required.
(1) Alternat�ve A, Statrts Quo
Thls alternative would maintain the status quo. In-
county disposal of wntaminated soil would oontiinue to be
required. Generators would be allowed to oontinue to choose
treatment and recycling proces.sses.
(2) Alternative B, Out-of-County Dlsposal
This alternative Wrould remove flow conlrol over
contaminated soil to allow disposal at out-of-�ounty disposal
facilities in addition to the Cedar Hills Landfill. Generators
would be allowed to contlnue to choose treatment and recycling
proc�sses.
2. �� L�Il��'SlS
a Proposed Action (Alternative C,
Recycling and Tr�nent)
Under the proposed action, a greater percentage of
contaminated soil would be treated and recycled, but some
would wntinue to be disposed at the Cedar Hills LandfilL
E6 Addeiulum
�,
U
. v:•i#':O:ti+rir{.i:•i:•i'�iiii:::•::•i:•i'lrii'r'.::3:}iiii}iii
..... ... .�r•. •: � v•.: •.uv. v:.�:x.:: •. .:.nvv r::::.v:.ii:•i:•iiiii'!.•ii:i:i:3:t::::iT}w:.rx:::r�r{4Yri'!.•:+i:r::: •.•.�.•.•::i�: .rr.::::::::.YOi:•i%rv:r:::: ..xr:n,
:}.�.5{{S..nh4�..�. r..A...�r.........::v+::: ..l,• ::::::::.............................::::..:::::: •:.........:::::::•:: :•:::.:.'.�:::::::::::.n :.v{•::.�:::::::: ::•::.�.�::.�::::::.�:::::.�::::::
...} ..�. w:.�.�:.�.�vt...v... vv ............ ..
..v:..... . . .. .......
�ii:•:::.� .�::::::::: •. •.... .........\ ..............v.:.�::::.:�::::::::::::::::::::::::::n:vvw:::x.�:::::::::::::w:::::::::w}i:•i}i:+i;:yiiiii'•i't:i:i..,..
......... ..........f+.. ..'v..\....:•:::., . •.w.:f:+::y::v::::w:::x:::::::n�.�:n};:wni:
•::4?v:u: • :::::::::::::.:�:::::::: :.:: :.::::::: •:. •.� •n� •::n..
.v::: •:':. •::r•:: •:.t•:rr •: .+'.i•::�•::ti•'•::::�r:.�:.:v:::: •.4.::: ........ ...................... .. v M
. ....... . .n..... ......M1 .. ...... . .. ..v. . ...........n....... ......................... x\v � M1,. r. .....: ....i•i: .. 4\;::y .:;..�, ... :.:.•: vi`
.... .. v .v ... r. . . yr'::.....•t::.,-.::..'v'fn......i :. v v:.1 ..: �•::: ••:...
•.4 n _ ::Y.{.v-:: • v . ... . n.:: :9::\v..v..}..� :::::::::::::::: r.r.}}..... l.+�.::t:%•}:.:: �.:...n... .. ...+. r �^�'. ) ^!::;•,••':::::;;:::::::::
...t. . ..:...,.....;;>, .. ..;.., ..:r:::::.^•.? ...f.........
::.ar..,� . ....^�°�,.�.. ..
� � ::::::.. ,.:: . ..::::: ................ .:::.+.•::::::::::::::::::c.;:.;;::•::::::::.. � ...
... O . .... ,.......�:.�•:._••::::::::.� ::::::::::::.�:::.::::::•>:::::::•;:::•:::.y:{ ......... .,..�.......
... ... EIS ......, .. . . ..:,............,...,,. .......................... ..................... .. ..... :<.:::::::::::::::::.. ........
,.::, ::::::.. .....
......... ...... . ....� .... .. . .............. .............................:...........................:::::::..,:::::::::.r.....:::::: :.;.:�.::.;: .:...:.........:.�.�::... :...::::.;�:.;�::.:�:.:;.:;,...:.,�:::::::.::::;;:.:::::
\ . . 4...\.. : • nv� •.v .rk. v �
w:: •: •:: :::: . v.v::::i.4n�: •.�.�:n�v+w.�:: :x::::::::n •::.�.:�.:�::: vv::::::::::.�::{....\.•::: w::.:y:::::ni:ii?::.�.iii::i:n....U.:Yi:iy:::v.•.•:.v:.\+. •.r.4hnhS.�!i:: :.:.},v,n::xm.�:}:{viii}:
:i::i•'.i>.v: \•}\.r::.�f.�'/.ti�..\ .............n..........v.....1.............k............n................
...r ...... ....... ..... ....
Disposal needs would be expected to deaease as a
recycling/treatment market is developed and further treatment
options become avallable. Therefore, the Impacts of dlsposal of
contaminated soils at the Cedar Hills Landfill, as described on
page IV-87 of the 1989 Plan EIS under No Action Alternative,
would also be exp�eci to decrease.
The 1989 Plan recommendation for a speclal handling
fee to recover the cost of wntaminated soil handling at the
landflll has been implemented. There is a high degree of
uncertainty regarding quantities that would be disposed both in
the long-term and on a daily basis. The reason for this is
that most contaminated soils cleared for disposal at the Cedar
Hills Landfill are soils e�cca�ated during federally required
removal of underground storage tanks or as a remediation
activity under the state Model Toxia Control Act Insufficient
information is available on these rypes of activities to allow a
reliable prediction of their timing, the quantities of soll to be
removed, and the nature and extent of the contamination.
The most �mmonly used treatment alternatives for
contaminated soil are aeration, vapor extraction, incineration,
and bioremediatioa A desscription of these treatment methods
is provided on page IV-72 of the 1989 Plan EIS. Their impacts
are evaluated on page IV-88 of the 1g89 Plan EIS under
Alternatives to the Proposed Actioa
b. Altetnative A, Stax�s Quo
The impact� of continuation of the status quo would fall
within the range of impacts dLscussed for the proposed action
on page IV-88 of the 1989 Plan EIS. Because it is likely that
substantial quantities of contaminated soll would continue to be
disposed at the Cedar Hills Landf'ill, this alternative would ha�e
some of the impact� of the No Action Alternative as dessceibed
on page IV-87 of the 1989 Plan EIS.
c. Alternati�ve B, Out-of-County Disposal
If out-of-county disposal of contaminated soil were
permitted in addition to disposal at the Cedar Hills Landflll,
and alternative heatment pmcesses were used at the option of
the generator, some of the impacts of the status quo would still
occur, although likely at a reduced level. However, the impacts
described on page IV-87 of the 1989 Plan EIS for disposal of
contaminated soil at the Cedar Hills Landfill would aLso occur
at one or more out-of-county landflll sites. If the locacation of
an out-of-county landfill site requires long-haul transport of
contaminated soiLs, this alternative would have impacts simllar
to implementation of an out-of-county long-haul option for
MMSW, as descxibed on page IV-58 on the 1989 Plan EIS.
E. BIONIEDICAL WASI'E
1. Description of the Proposed
Action and Alternatives
Four alternatives are considered in the 1992 Plan.
Alternatives A and B are related to biomedical waste from
medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Alternatives C and D
address home-generated sharps.
a. Proposed Acaon (Alternative A, Out-of-Counry
Treatrnent and Disposal of Biomedical Waste; and
Alternative D, Education for Use�s of Home-
Generated Sharps)
The proposed action would allow continuation of the
current system for treatment and disposal of biomedical waste
from medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Because there
are currently no commercial biomedical waste treatment
facilities in King County, and most generators do not have the
capability to treat their biomedical waste, generators would be
allowed to continue to direct their biomedica.l waste to
incineration and treatment facilities outside King County. These
facilities are adequate to handle current volumes of such waste.
King Counry solid waste facilities would aLso continue to accept
biomedica.l waste if treated according to standards contained in
King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC 10.28.070).
Generally, biomedical waste must be treated by steam
sterilization, incineraiion, or another approved method, and is
subject to waste clearance requirements. Sharps waste must be
conta,ined in rigid, puncture-proof containers.
Under the proposed ackion, flow control provisions would
be revised to clarify that treatment and incineration of
biomedical waste are not addre�ed. Options for disposal of
ELS Addendum
�
•
.
•
•
....: .:::::...
,.;:��::::..
.:.,..
................... .............................::.::::.�._::::::::....,..::::::::::::::::::.�:::.:�.:�.,..:_:::._:.�::::::::::.�:...... ,..::...: � ..:: .....
................................. ,................v.,.,..,::: ... ..._ .;
. .................................... ......:................. ..................:::::.............................;,.......: .......::.>::.:...�.�::,<.: ,..,:.. .:
.......... . .....�.. M1................. ...% .� ..4..:::::: ................ ...,
............s .. . .. v;}....�. F'...4 n, . v...f... x M v ' �t , ::m w:
:�iS•:??i:tiviti�r'.,x ...�.l,.iitir.;r.•:nf:.}i�•:4::!v}ii>tii4x:.'•: i•::�
.. .. ... .. . vv '.vkv:.w:..vtttx . ��. ...v v Wnw::.•:{ �v..... ....... x:'p;m:n :......:::::::::::::::. �...v.:: :::::.::::
..n . . \ t A v}' ............ .....{ viv ♦..... .v ....::::nv CN:v}i}i:.':::iiii!:•:vi::..n..n...........: w:::::::::.�::..v...x..••:}:::::::n.:... .::n M1:•i:•i:::•�:: v::::.:.iY •; _
�/,';�'•,{ ♦ v....... . . v.\ •..}. . ../i.�S•:i::•i
::: ^: �.. v.......n:::: �v::. •• . �........:.•:::::::.�.+.v:::.�::::::::::: :w::nn........... v... ' "4ii:::. ::::::::::
...,... . .,,. ...........,.. , ..::.::.... ,.,.......:::: ........ .:::,.::........�.....�....... .::;.:::h:.;.::::::: I 11 ::::::::::
.... ..... .. . .� : .. . .. .................:�.....::::>..........................................................................r:::. ,:.::;,,,:::::.:.::::::.:... ...... E S
...n�...v.�..}...v.x ti ... .. ................h......................................................................................:::hi}: •ti....v •.w::: •.v ::::: �•:Cxi};:.:;•,A. +::.•.{�: ...::::: •::: .. :::::.iiii:
:•:}}::::n.n. i•i\5:::... +r.....
v J...... .
• �vv�i:::'-:: �1•r •iii: ii:•:: }:..
. J.......v . ':.:f.•::..
�:.+�.�'tih.ti.}}:Y::::: �;n},
...�.::. ..........
:�n{.:tiCti?::{•:•iii:iiii:ii:i�:�iii:}�;iiiii$.}}:::;ii::i�iii;:•;.=:$�.�ti�'>�''v:;Liyi:y:v�iii:4ii:iv }i?iiiiii::�... l .......
�i ?'JY::•i$:��:?'�'�i:iY•i:i•:::n:•i:i� ..................
.}�.......r. }. . .....v........n .................
r }.:: ?v::: �L::::::: •:r• . ..........................................
:::::::.� ., ....
::.�. ::.y .... ...... ........... .... n .....................::: ....y.v::::•::::.vM1
:::::::.n. w:::::.�v.vv ....................v.p;:ii}:vi::::k:;{.;y .}i':::::n}w::.i::i��9:i•ii::i.......v:::ii.:...........:}i:{•iii}ii:w::ii;w:n::::::::::n... ......... ........ ..... w:::.�:::::. ..........
:::::::::::\ .................................. v.�. .::::::n:::::....::n.......::::: :v......::::.; ....... ....
•
, home-generaied shaips would continue to be evaluated, and
educational materlals would be developed and distributed to
� home generators.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
b. Alt�emative B, Flow Control 0�er
Biomedical Waste
This alternative vvould enforce flow control over all
biomedical waste. All such waste would either have to be
treaied onsite or transported to an offsite facility in King Counry
for treatment All treatment residuals, including incinerator
ash, would have to be disposed in King Counry. As noted
above, there are currendy no commercial biomedical waste
treatment facilities ln King County. Therefore, under this
alternative, either generators would have to procure their own
�eatment equipment, or a prlvate facility or facilities would
have w be sited and constructed in King Counry.
c. Alternative C, Di.s�osal Ban on
Home-genera�ed Sharps
Thls alternative would ban disposal of all home-generated
sharps in the MMSW system. It would require home generators
of sharps waste to dispose of shaips only through a medical
facility or pharmacy, or use a hauler to pick up sharps for
disposal ai Cedar Hills or a private bceatment facility.
Currently, home-generated sharps may be disposed in the
MMSW dlsposal system ff they are placed in a needle clipper or
a labeled PET bottle. A ncedle clipper is a metal box with a
blade that clips a needle from a syringe and safely contains it.
2. Impact Analysis
a Proposed Action (Alternative A, Out-of-County
Tm.atment and Disposal of Biomedical Wast� and
Alternative D, Education for Usas of Home-
Generated Sharps)
Out-of-oounty tieatment and dlsposal of biomedical waste,
and disposal at King County solid waste facilities in accordance
with applicable standards, would continue under the proposed
action. These pradices have not ressulted in any known
signif'icant incidents of worker exposure or significant adverse
envlronmental impacts, and none vvould be expected 1n the
future. Education for home generators of shaips waste v►rould
have beneficial impacis in encouragtng generators to use
acceptable disposal practices.
b. Altemative B, Flow Control
(h�er Biomedical Waste
Extending flow control to biomedical waste dces not
appear to be a reasonable alternative at this tirne due to the
absence of commercial biomedical waste treatment facilities in
King County. The quantiry of waste requiring such treatment
facilities is small, and �uld not justify the sigitificant cost� of
siting, constructing, and operating in-county facilities. The
impacts of siting, constructing, and operating biomedlcal waste
treatment facili�es would depend on the nature and size of the
facilities, and cannot be evaluated at a programmatic IeveL
Proposals for new facilities would have to undergo project-
specific environmental review under SEPA If sited constructed,
and operated in acoordance with all appllcable standards,
biomedical waste treatment facilities would not be expected to
result in significant unavoidable adverse impads.
c Altemative C, Di.�pOSal Ban on
Home-generated Sharps
A disposal ban on home-generated sharps would reduce
the potential for worker exposure from improperly disposed
sharps. Hov�ver, it does not appear to be a reasonable
alternative at this time for two reasons. First, there is limited
a�ailability for sharps disposal apart from disposal in the
general MMSW system, especially for persons in remote areas
who have restricted mobility. Second, a disposal ban would be
difflcult to enforce and, as a result, would likely have limited
effediveness.
B6 Adderulum
`����� EIS - 12
...:�K�.<�w�:
F. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION,
AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
l. Description of Proposed
Action and Altematives
a. Proposed Action (Alternative B, Increase Waste
Reduc�ion and Recycling; and Alternative C,
Regulation)
A minimum level of processing would be provided for
mixed loads of CDL waste at vendor facilities recommended
under the 1989 Plan (see discussion under Section II.E.I.b
below). However, there would still be a need for additional
waste reduction and recycling of this waste to comply with the
solid waste management priorities set forth in RCW 70.95.
Therefore, under the proposed action, the County would initiate
a program to promote further waste reduction and recycling of
CDL waste by (1) encouraging source separation, either through
incentives or by mandating it by law, (2) providing education
and technical assistance to CDL waste generators, and
(3) working with the private sector and other agencies to
ensure viable markets for recycled CDL producis, including
possible expansion of the Counry's procurement policy to cover
certain CDL materiaLs.
In addition to a comprehensive waste reduction and
recycling pmgram, the proposed action includes regulatory
actions to complement this program. The County and cities
would require a waste disposal and recycling plan in all
grading, building, and demolition permits; the feasibility of
implementing bans on the disposal of specific CDL materials
would be researched; and waste screening would be
implemented at all county transfer stations.
b. Alternative A, Status Quo
As rec:ommended in the 1989 Plan, the County is in the
processs of implementing contracis with two vendors to provide
disposal se�vices for CDL waste. The vendors would also be
required to pmvide a speclfied minimum processing capabiliry
for removing recyclable materiaLs from any mixed loads of CDL
EIS Adderulum
waste received at their transfer faciliaes. The County has
agreed that before vendor systems are opened to users, the
Counry will enad a flow control ordinance directing all
nonrecycled CDL waste, including residual materials resulting
from processing of CDL waste, to the wntractors facilities only.
The only CDL waste that would be accepted at the Cedar HilJs
Landf'ill would be loads transported in private vehicles with
gross vehicle weight� not excceding 5000 pounds, and incidental
amounts of CDL waste in loads of MMSW. Vendor contracts
will specify that the Counry reserves the right to prohibit or
limit disposal of materials deemed recyclable.
2. Impact AnalySis
a Proposed Ac�ion (Alternative B, Ina�ase WasCe
Reduction and Recyclin� and Alternative C,
Regulation)
The pmposed action would result in inaeased recycling of
CDL waste and would likely encourage greater use of existing
pmccessssing facilities for recyclable materials (such as composting
facilities for clean wood and concrete processing facilities).
New processing facilities could aLso be developed within King
County as markets for recyclable CDL materiaJs are developed.
The impacts of new or expanded CDL waste processing facilities
fall within the range of those discussed in the 1g89 Plan EIS
for pcbcessing facilitles for yard waste/recyclables (page IV-18),
MMSW pmcessing facility (page IV-19), intermediate processing
centers (page IV-25) and oommodity specific processing facilities
(page IV-25). The impacts of a disposal ban on certain CDL
materials would be similar to those discussed for disposal bans
on recyclable components of MMSW on page IV-21 of the 198g
Plan EIS.
b. Alternative A, Status Quo
The impacts of prlvate vendors systems for handling CDL
waste are evaluated in the Final ElS on Selection of P�ivate
Yendor(s) to Frovrde CDL l�aste Handling Serrricss, issued by
the Counry In June 1991.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�a
. .. .. . ...: ...� .:�...... : ::: :... �....v ..:.:. .,. .....�..:..: ...::.::.::.::.::.:.:.:::.;...:.;:.......:.�. ...�.. ..:v ::.:.... .., . .. � : .:��:::
�•:::r.�.�>... .t.t,,,,+..... , ,..tl.R.•.�t:.�.:,;.: .!RC:"`r,:•`.:{fftc.,wgfi.tr'•',•'�+.ti�,,.,,.. ,�;{;.;.,X.,.•.: , �•.�;.'�:...::.v.'s'�'a�+.•�;. •,�#:�;:�t'�;�,.���,.,.'�,:
::: <,s.: r.,,.;; r•Y:•::•::f ., ...\•... •. •�!. .� }:..•. •: • :!:,k.t •,,.:,. . :•::� .t,•.�:�•::: �: , a.�•: .. ;r....;:. , '+ . ,f ti .
.:. .�.�.. ,... .. .:.a:• :>:........::•:. � ...a:•: •� •::•:Sr... ..;,... ;.; C,,. . ; >.,-•::;;;�:;;:�ii:�rr:�::�::: :....�. ...u•. •::s,•+., .. `'+.r. f _ , �:: r :S}'•
.. },. . ti'iG'•:: v.+f.>:.w: :•t+.•r:�... . ..{ r 'i,,^f�"titi•::�.+ . S.v
. � :. ::,..,.: ��«:::.r.;;,.�: v :.::.>.::<.....,. . ..�.. ,,. EI 1 �:�.,,
��� ` S
....,, � ........:.
ww•.<•.:••:: �.••.;;.:>. .., 3. r '
•:: �.. . «�:?�zx�:.... �. . . �!.,.� s:�'�.�,,z�'..
::.:.:..::..... } .....:.::.
.::,.::.::::.:.... ::x.: r �:� ..��. 3
i;:;::iy�:i::'�r'�. .{n.iY�•: x::: v: •. •: •:: nr nri n x�.•. v+•f.v::. �n{.\ �•:: �ri i: S+:i.}•:r i.:ii: i:::::::
vv i.. /. :..}.: r �k•: •�•: n }�...� ..............�.. r. ...�8� •;:: •.'�':i•iiii: ii:i.; ti{�iii.. :��1vr. ::.,>•;; �. r..,:.:.. M1 � ..,�.c}} r•.� { {.: r : :• n•:.:.��
:�A::T:.•v,+:l' •}:.;;:.}; �... :.,},.......� vv\ ::..............:: :w:n. . .:.'�.:vv .}}\}x... . i�r''�
.... . ....
......... v{�:r{�.�••..n....:r.::..}............ •r.v::::::::: :v:.�:.::i':::ntv:r.• ::::::::::::: r•......v }.::{:{i?:�':;:$%•�kti:};; • .... . ...An...
• ;•i•.�... . nU\.
...... .. .vr.... ... ., .: .: ... ::.: .. .............,; ............ . ....;
,ttn::::••:r•: ....,.. ..................::;++c,<•„i:r:.f•.\{.:::.Sa:f:.::,{kox.�;;:::xa:.t:•;•r.fri;;,::•.:..• ,...c,. .
•i;r• •::�: •. •; +, ::,:..,+i :k:: r+•.. .................... ..............; ..:::::::::::: :., . . .
...r.'....r.r/��Y..'.'�{.�. . WM.w}rii:tiv.........�.r.:i::•:::ri%•::i?i:i:i:h:iii:•}:•:�::�:::5>.iCh:i•::vvx ...:.::...............
Section III
Cost A�ssessment
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
,
�
RCW 70.95 requires that each county and city solid waste
management plan Include a cost assessment The cost
assessment is a comprehensive systemwide review of a solid
waste plan's cbsts, considering the dollar impact of its decisions
on ratepayers, and providing information sufficient to estimate
future rate levels. The required cost assessment for the 1992
Plan ls included in Volume II, Appendix K of the Plan and
incorporated in this addendum by reference. The following
discussion focuses on King County's funding mechanism for its
own solld waste operations, as described in more detail in
Section VII.E of the 1992 Plan
It is a King County policy that the Solid Waste Division
be supported exclusively through user fees and that user fees
will not be used for any purpose other than solid waste
management The dLsposal fees paid by King Counry residents
depend on the type of waste and the facility being used.
The basic fee for disposal of MMSW at county transfer
stations and rural landf'ills is $66 per ton. Some commercial
haulers are permitted to haul directly w the Cedar Hills Landf'ill
without going through a counry transfer station. Thesse haulers
are charged the "reglonal direct" rate of $43 per ton for
MMSW. There is a$100 per ton dLsposal fee for special waste
such as asbestos, contaminated soll, slag, and other hard-to-
handle waste. Special waste is accepted only at the Cedar Hills
Landflll and must be cleared for disposal by the Solid Waste
Division or the Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health
Sedion VIIA of the Plan provides a complete summary of
these and other fees charged at County solid waste facilities,
including minimum fees. Dlsposal fee revenues fund all Solid
Waste Divislon acrlvvities, including operations and maintenance,
debt sen+ice, equipment replacement, and a� 15.80 per ton
wntributlon to the Landfill Reseive Fund. Table 1 shovus how
the standard disposal fee and regiona! direct fee are allocated
among various Divlslon activitles.
Table 1 Allocation of Basic Disposal Fee and Regional Direct
Fee ($ per ton)
Re�lonal
Basic Fee Direct Fee
Landfill operations 7•68 7•68
Transfedtra�sport 10.30 0.83
Equipment maintenance
/replacemeM 11.47 3.99
Landfill Reserve Fund 15.80 15.80
Waste reduction/recycling 5.11 4.66
Administration 5•54 1 •98
Support for other agencies 1.85 1•85
Debt service 824 621
s6s.00 sas.00
The current disposal fces went into effect on January 1,
1992 and are expected to cemain the same tlu�ough 1994. In
addition to the disposal fee, residen�al and wmmercial self-
haulers currendy pay a surcharge of �2.61 per ton ($1
minimum) for MMSW, whlch ls used to fund lmplementaaon
of the I.ocal Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
E�S Addendum
�
O .
�
�
�
�
. FERENCES
•
� King County
� Comprehensive
Solid Waste
• Management Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
• �
!
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
_���,
�n�
Sorting
It Out
Together
�
................... . ... .. ..... . ...: .: : ... . .. .. • ::::.: •:: •:::::: �:: • ::-.;:•::•::• ;�•:;��.;::oxa•:: . .ti,,,;....;,;:,y; .'r:++' .'v'%'d ' :: '} : �i ;'2�` '?`::Yi•
. .�;; n ;�;{.:.vr+. r l..�. {h},L. L......... C.....v......... :•'4�..:.. 'F.+" iC�C�t. :+ �i;r:
.. .. .. .:i:
;�.>....................... ..Mr... r.�•::•:••>�-:k•::<..c:•>::£.........� ............:.:.. ....\,^?f:<•::.+,$•, '�':::.,;}. ::.�.'•:'^•:�. :f.'C••�+�;:
,..`.5;?K.:; ..fi....... .ow::• ::....:::::..:•;�:;, ...Y :.
........... ,,. ..•.::: ...:...:::.,•
,;;os:.:�••....... , .•.:k•::�•r:•::•r:•:r:•:r:•:... ••.>:•.::•::�•: .l..r:•:::
�::::::::::::• ..
,:.k . :•.:�•
...........:::::...•::.:::•::u..:::, :...........•:.:::.�: +•::::..
:•:r .,•;�:.,:;..;; .t , — �
.,..
•��:;�:�.: R
;:.;;;::.;:.:::::::::.. ...............�.::.;..:: :..:..,.:::::.<.:.::::::::.:::.:�.::::.::.>::.::::::.. , .;::::::::::::::......
.�.,:.,� ..
r., . :}.{ .
:: : •; •. r •: ::: •:: •:: :.: :.:
•.l.tw.'••x' ::x :. >......,.::t�
......:............................... . •..:... ..,: •.$.'.•�::�:R�S::::k: •:••:�•: .. ..::.
.........: :• ::::::::::::::::.�:::.: . . ::::. •: :::.:��.f•::•::•:?•;;:�i .:::•::•::•::.:;;.::•:;•:::;:.;, ..................:.k : �:� w.4•Y....Sk.:: ' � . �:x?�S:•::�:
..+.,;c,.a. •.a.<...>...... . .,� ...:....:......::::: •:::...:t... . ...\•:.�r• . . � . ,',:::xu'�'<c? .::3rS�7D,.1�',.,
:•. �... ...E.::�>::•::•::•�• ...:�`.�: •r......::.,•::•:;� ;:;f:•::::•;
... :::.:.........:....; .:..:,.. ....•::.,,�,.,•::.; .....: -�• .. ,...,
:>:�::::::::�::...:::•:.:•..•...:;� .......:::::::::: •• ...... ...... ... . .. :..: .
.........................:. .............:::::..----...:•::........::.�::::::::::.::.rr:•::•::•:r:•::?•>:•x:?•>:a:::..........::::.:::::.....,-.......::::•..... ....•:.:::.,:•::.:.::::.::::::•:�:.:;:•�?.0 ••„•:
• ::::::::::::::::::•:.�:;......................:....,.:<.y:a::•::•r:•::•::.::•::•;:•::•r:•::•>:�:;::::•::::.,•::.:::::::....,,-.....:.:..........;.:.......•.:::::.�..........�•.:........�. ••..........:....:..,. ...::::::::.
r�
�
�
�
L_J
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Chapt�er I
References
King County
Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1g85. Ksng County Com,prehensive land Use Plan. Planning Division. Seattlle,
WA
Department of Public Works. 1991. ICing County Surface i�ater Management Da�ision Stratetic Plan. Surface Water
Management Division. Seattle, �A
Department of Public Works. 198g. Programmatic Environment�l Impact Statement on Solid [�aste Management
Alternatives (PEIS). Solid Waste Divisioa Parametrix, Inc. Seattle, WA
Department of P�blic Works. 1988. Kzng County Solid l�aste System �erating Plan, 7�►ansfer Stations and Rural Landfil/s
and Final Environmenlal Impact Statement. Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA Prepared by (�-IZM HILL, Bellevue, WA
Department of Public Works. 1988. Kzng County Executive Report, Solid i�aste Management Alternatir�r-Pxecutive Report.
Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA
Department of Public Works. 1987. King Counry Energy/Resource Recovery Management Plan. Solid Waste Divisioa Seattle, WA
Metro, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. August 1983. Metro Sludge Management Plan. Seattte, WA
Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area, Part IV Solid Waste, December 1974. Municipality of Metro. Seattle.
Puget Sound Water Quallty Authority. 1991. 1991 Puget Sound l�ater Qualily Management Plan. Seattle, WA
Seattle, City of.
Seattle Water Departmenk 1g85. 1985 COMPLAN (Seattle Comprehensive Regional l�ater Plan) and Bnvaronmental Impact
Statement. Seattle, WA
Solid Waste Utiliry. 1g89. Seattle Comprehensive Solid l�aste Management Plan, Seattle, WA
Snohomish County
Solid Waste Management Division. 1989. Snohomish Counly Solid i�aste Management Plan. Everett, WA
Washington State
� Department of Ecology. 1990. Curdelin�s for the DeUelopment of Local Solyd l�aste Management Plans and Plan Reutirions.
• WDOE 90-11. Olympia, WA
Department of Ecology. 1982. Municrpal and Domestic Sludge Utilizatiort Guidelines. Olympia, WA
• Department of Ecology. 1989. Best Management Praclrr,�s for Use of Munic�ipal Sludge. Olympia, WA
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
References
:::::x<::>:::::;::>`::�:���:�::���>::>:�<:�<;::`�:>:`.:::<:::>:::::::>::::>:::';:>`:::::>:::::«>�:::::;:::«:>::::_:`.<::::>::::;::::;>:;:>'::�:::::<:>:;::::::`:::>�;:i
s
.......... ...: .......:: .......: ......... ::•:::: ........................ .. . . ..... .... . .....
......... ::.: :•::::..::::.� :.::::::::::...... ::•::::..•::: :•::::..; ................................: � ::•:::::.::::
.......... ..............�::::.:� ...........•::::::: • •: •::::.: �:: r:•::.;::::.: �::::.: �. �::::::::::::::.::...;,-.......
::::::.:�. ......:•.�::: • ,.•:.�...
:: :.:::::. ::.�:.. .:::.<:.;.:.>x:•:5:�:::::�:'t:�::•::•:>:::.�':.:::•::•;:::�>:•,•::•;::::�:�:�:?�:4:5::�::�::�::�5:�::�::�::�:::;::::;•'::::::.� .
......... .:.... a ................... .......................... w............... :.................: �::>..:::::::.�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. �:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:
R-2
'ri:J'r,:::?!??i::�i'�'�ii:i:i}i'i+i:?:-'':tiiti�}: :�'�iiiiiii:iiii}?'ri::{�.'•>iiiii:Y�l�i:tCti�:�i:�:i:i:iiiiiiii:?ii>iiii:�1:'vi:<:Yii::ii:;::ii.:i:::±:::i?;?::+,{Ti:
}'::4:ti::iiii::i'!�iiiii�i:..
w:::::::
.......... : y .:.
........ :..: .
..........
......... ;
.........: :.; ..........,..:.:.<::,::::: : ..................................................
ldl�lGl �
King Counry
Department of Parks, Plamiing and Resources. 19g1. Kang County SensiliveAreas Map Folio. Planning Division. Seattle, WA
Departmenk of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1991. Ksng County Comprehensive Plan Rerrieu�. Planning Division. Seattle, WA
Department of Parks, Plamiing and Resources. 1991. 71�e 1991 Annual Growth Re�iort. Plaiuiing Division. Seattle. WA
Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1985. Kng County Com Land Use Plan. Planning Division. Seattle,
WA Plaiuiing Divisioa Seattle, WA
Department of Public Works. 1988. Solyd i�aste Fiacility Siting Plan. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA
Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1991. 7t�e Natural Hrstory of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA
R.W. Beck, 1987. Technical memo on construction, demolition, and land clearing waste to Mike Wilkins, King County Solid Waste
Division, from R.W. Beck, February 5, 1991.
TRC Environmental Consultants. 1991. Air Quality Analysrs of Black River t�aste Reduclzon and
Shrpping Yard. Mountlake Terrace, WA
Washington State
Department of Ecology. 1991. Drafl i�ashington State Solyd i�aste Management Plan. Olympia, WA
Department of Ecology. 1990. Gurdelines for the DeUelopment of Local Solid i�aste Management Plans and Plan Revrsions.
WDOE 90-11. Olympia, WA
State Energy Office. 1g88. i�ashington State Energy Use Frofile. Olympia, WA
Personal Communications
Andonaequ, Carmen, Biologist, Washington State Depa.rtment of Wildlife, Olympia, WA Phone conversation January 6 1992.
Miller, Bob, Air Monitoring Coordinator, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA 1991. Phone conservation
December 16, 1991.
Noiwood, Sandy, Environmental Review Coordinator, Washington State Deparmient of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA Phone
conversation january 3, 1992•
Rolla, Trudy, Senior Environmental Specialist, Drinking and Groundwater Program, Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health, Seattle, WA Phone conversation January 6 1992.
Storer, Bob, Senior Water Qualiry Specialist, Surface Water Management Division, King County Department of Public Works,
Seattle, WA Phone conversation December 30 1991.
Moulton, Curt, Acting Chair, King County Cooperative Extension Se�vice, Seattle, WA Phone conversation january 13, 1992.
R�erencss
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
�
�
Chapter III
R-
3
• King County
Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1985. IGng Couytly Corrtprehertsive Playt. Pla�ining Division. Seattle, WA.
� Deparhnent of Public Works. 1991. Mzaed Waste Frocessirag Fecrsibilily Analyszs. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA.
Department of Public Works. 1991. IG'ng Couraly Waste Ch�aracterazalio�a Stzcdy. Solid Waste Division. Prepared by SCS
� Engineers, Bellevue, WA.
� Depa�tment of Public Works. 1990. King County Home Waste Guide. Volume One. Solid Waste Division Seattle, WA.
Department of Public Works. 1987. Ki�ng County Five-Year Waste Reductiora a�ad Recycling Work� Progran2 Playa. Solid Waste
• Division. Seattle, WA.
Washington State
, Department of Ecology. 1990. VJashington State Recycling Suivey. Ol��npia, WA.
i
� Chapter IV
� Beck, R.W. a�ld Associates. 1991. Memo to M. Wil�ins, Solid Waste Division, Februaiy 4, 1��1. Ref. #VUVU-1640-EAl-DA.
Ca�•nation, ciry of.
� 1991. Coordinated PreveTatio�a G�•ant dpplicatio��. Carnation, WA.
� 1990. Engi�aeering Report of Closure Pl�n Carn�Cion Landf�r'll. Alpha Engineeis, Inc. Seattle, WA.
King Counry
� Department of Public Worl:s. 1991. Fa,ecutive P��oposec� Soli�! Waste Disposul Fees 1992-1994. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA
Department of Publie Worl;s. 1�8�. Local Hcrzr��dous Waste t19a�zage��aerrt Plan frn• Seattle-King Cou�aly. Solid Waste Division.
� Seattle, WA.
• Department of Public Works. 198�. I�t-Co2��a�� Region�rl Lcr7a�f'll St1��lj�. Solid Waste Division. Prepared by R.W. Beck and
Associates. Seattle, WA.
• Department of Public Works. 1989. Prog�•a7�7i�7�tic E7azrzroni�aeTat�l lr��p�cd St�te»aerat o7i Solirl Wcrsle Ma�a�agenae�tt
Alteriaatives (PElS). Solid Waste Division. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. Seattle, WA.
� Department of Public Worl;s. 1989. Ki�ag Coas7it�� 7�•anspo�•tation Plan. Roads Division. Seattle, WA.
Department of Public Works. 19�8. IG�ng Coi�rat� Exec2titrve Report, Solid l�'�aste tY1�n�genaent Alterraativ�s—�iecutzve Report.
� Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA.
• Department of Publie �Vor�s. 1�87. Ce�la�� Hills Regao�ac�6 Lc�7ac�ll Drcrft Srte DevelopnaeTat Pl��a (Drcrft SitP Developy�aerat Pl�n).
Solid Waste Division. Prepa��ed by CH2M Hill. Seattle WA.
• Seattle-King Counry Depa�Unent of Public Health. 1985. Ab�yado�ae�t L�ra�lfill Stu�ly iu h'a'rrg Cou�at��. Seattle, WA.
Seattle-King County Abandoned Landfills Tosiciry/Hazard Assessment. 1986.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Rejere�aces
R-4
Chapter V
King County
Department of Public Works. 1991. i�aste Characterization Study. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, Washington Portland, [Waste
Stream Characterization Study for Portland Metropolitan Service Disctrict, SCS Consultants, December 1987] 1986-1990)
Department of Public Works. Environmental Impact Statement on CDL Waste Handling Vendor Selection
Washington Sta.te
Department of Trade and Economic Development, Clean Washington Center. Feb. 1992. Recycled Products Directory. Olympia,
Washington.
Chapter VII
Municipaliry of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and King Counry (Seattle-King Counry Board of Hea(th). 1989. Local Hazardous t�aste
Management Plan. Seattle, WA
Legisiation
King County
King County Code Title 10 (10.18; 10.18.020; 10.22.020
King County Code Title 23
King County Solid Waste Code (KCC)
I�claration of Policy and Finding of Sbecial Conditzons (Noise). KCC 12.86.
King County Solid Waste Regulations, KCBOHC Title 10 (1032.020.B.2; 10.28.060; 10.28.070; 10.08.222;
King County Ordinance 10056
King County Public Rules PUT 7-1-2 PR Waste Acceptance and Waste Clearance Policies PUT 7-2-1 (PR)
King County Zoning Code
Solid Waste Division Waste Clearance Decision Form
Intergoverntnental
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreements
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authoriry Asbestos Control Standard, Regulation III, Article 4
Washington State
Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 70-105)
[�ashington Model To.x�cs Control Act Regulations, I�AC Chu�Uter 173 340
i�ashington State Solid i�aste Management Act Revised Code of Washington (RCV� 70.95.
Solid Waste Management and Reoovery Act, RCW 70.95
State Gmwth Management Act
Waste Not Washington Act (SHB 1671), amended RCW 70.95
SB 263 Hazardous WAste Plans
HB and SHB 2391 (1992)
xeferenc�s
.. ...... . .. . ..... . . . .. ....................... . .................v......................w::.vw::::::xw:::r.::::::::.w:::::::x:::::::::::::::::::::rr.::iv+}:^iiirxxOiii:•:??ii:.iiii:i•i:: :.:::G.;
•:: \n•.w::::. � w: :v .:::::::::::::::.v: :..�......; .. n ....;; .
:.i:•::::::::�.+.•.•::.4:::: {.r;{•;�•::::r:::::: •::::.�: ::..:. ..... ......
v:.\+:::::::::}::::::: ::w :::::::::::::iiii:'iii:ititi?iiii::::'' :i:•ji:•:'T}i:•i:•i:•i:':•:•:'i:•>:•ii:•:•:'iw:::::: :.iii: '
':':�:v�::tiv'•'�iiY3iii{ii:•i:•::::iiii:::�}iiiii:•:::• ::::::::..:::::::::::::::: :w::::::::::::::::::::::::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii}iiiiii:iiii...........�; ................:........;
:.w:::::iii:i?: } ....................
..n\+:: �•:x:::::::.�:i :::::::::::::::: •: :..: :•::::::::::::::::::::::::: :•::::.�:::::::::::: ::w::::::::::{:::::ii:niiY•i�.�ii+4ii: •;;:<:niiY•i:tivii:y:yii%?:yii:'v'i��i'�iiy:'v.i:
.::r,.:,:...:..:, :.:::::::::::.:::.::�.: R —
::.::::::.:n.:.�:...:::.. 5
..w .:: :..::.: :.:::::::::::::::::.:
>:«. .
..................
�.:;<.:;.::.:�.::<:.: � ::.:.:;;.:,,>
O:iryi:iii�' 4::�x::::) :: .................:•::.i:i•i�$iiii::�::i:•iii:;ii::;v:in:::: :.:.�::::.�:.w::.:..;..: �v:.�::n:v....n::::. a...
...:�r }....... ........... ...... .................:::.... .. . x:.::: .. ::::::'""".... ..........
....... ....n� . ......n.n...... ...r......... r.M1........�.........n ................... :................... ..:n......................::...........
:x\+•: w:: •::::::::::}}}:nvr .....n......v.....
. ... . . ....v:ti:j::j;:;:y::::i:};:;i:,•.:;:i�iS:�i:�:ii:::??i=::t�i:i�:$:-ii:�i�i:?�:iiSi>:�'rii'r.'•::i::Sii:�:}�: �::::i:::{L'+.�iiiiii:?:-:�i::i:ti�:�'ri:�iS%i�$:4iiYTi:iY::
.........v.�.:ii:Gh4Jii::�:•i:{.:i•i::::i:i^:4i>.'•.'•i::?v::i:•'.�i:�$:r:�:i�:i?'•i"� .. . .
SB 5143 Procurement Policies
SB 5478
SB 5591, Solid Waste Reduction Through Recycllng
HB 13-4
SHS 2635 amends the Model Litter Control and Recycling Act
RCW 35.02.160 and 35.21.120
RCW 81.77 and 81.80
Minimum Funaronal Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal. Washington Administrative Code 1989 (V�AC)
173304
Federal
Clean Air Act (Code of Federal Regulations, CFR #40 Parts 1-99)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (42 CFR Parts 280-281)
Medical Waste Tracting Act of 1988 (40 CFR part 259)
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) (40 CFR Part 61)
OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030)
Resource Conse�vation and Reoovery Act (40 CFR Parts 148, 260-281)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Shipment Record for Regulated Asbestos Waste Material (40 CFR Part 61)
PSAP('A Notice of Intent to Remove or Encapsulate Asbestos - PSAPCA Control Standard Regulation 3, Article 4
Rejererac�s
�
i O
�
�
�
�
• LOSSARY OF
• �
.
ER�MS AND
• BREV]CATIONS
.
� King County
• Comp rehensive
� Solid Waste
� � Management Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
,���,
�i.�
Sorting
It Out
Together
%i"Yj J {
G-1 ����
ft{
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�s l
Agrlcultural wastes Wastes on farms resulti�►g from the production of agricultural produds including, but not limited to,
manures and carcasses of dead animals weighing each or collectively in excess of 15 pounds (KCBOHC 10.08.020).
Aluminum cans Beverage and food cans composed of aluminum (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Aquifer A geologlc formation, group of formaiions, or part of a formation capable of yielding a sig�uficant amount of ground-
water to wells or springs (KCBOHC 10.08.035).
Asbestos containing waste Any waste that contains more than one percent asbestos by weight (PUT 7-1-2,53; see also KCBOHC
10.08.040).
Automotive batterles Includes car, motorcycle, and other lead-acid batteries used for motorized vehicles (Source: Volume II,
Appendix B).
Biomedical waste Carcasses of animals exposed to pathogens, bio-safety level4 disease waste, cultures and stocks of etiologic
agents, human blood and blood products, pathological waste, sharps waste, and other waste determined to be infectious by the
generator's Infection control staff/commlttee (PUT 7-1-2,5.4).
Buffer zone That portion of the facility that lies between the active area and the property boundary (KCBOHC 10.08.055).
Bulky CDL waste Dense, bulky materials rypically resulting from construction, demolition, and land clearing activities. These
materials include but are not limited to asphalt, concrete, masonry, stumps, and rocks (PUT 7-1-2,5.7).
Bulky yard waste Natural woods, such as stumps and logs or branches; over two inches in diameter (Source: Volume II,
Appendix B).
Buy-back center A facility where individuals bring recyclables in exchange for payment (Source: Volume lI, Appendix B).
CDL See "Construction," "demolition," and "land clearing" wastes.
Certiflcated hauler My person engaged in the business of solid waste handling having a certificate granted by the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission (W[JTC) for that purpose (KCC 10.04.020(E)).
Construction waste Solid waste originating from the construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. Generally includes,
but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles,
linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized or plashc piping, or plaster. Certaln wmponents of the
construction waste stream are consideced to be inert and others noninert (PUT 7-1-1,5.8).
Cardboard See "old corrugated containers."
City �+ery inwrporated city or town (RCW 70.95.030).
City optional programs Programs that are provided by the County on a regional level but which cities may instead opt Co
implement with county funding assistance.
Clean Air Act Act passed by Congress to have the air "safe enough to protect the public's health" by May 31, 1975. Required the
setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major primary air pollutants (PL 101 549).
' Unless a source ls cited, deflnitlons are worldng deflnitlons of the Solid Waste Divlsion or common �erminology.
Classary of 7'ernrs and Abbrerxations
r:{�iiiiiii%iiii:::>SVi:?•iii:Liiiiiiiiiii::}:ii:�r•:i
i:ti<iti::ry:{:;:;:;;:ii;:;:: ii:•ii:-:•i:i5�::•ii:�i:�:{: �'L•'rY:i�S'����5:�:•:�:�i:•S:•ii:C{�:•iii:•i:•iiiSiSi:'i:�i'�:•j:•i: r>i:•i$:i�i:•i:•ii:•iii:•:i:::::• �:;::;i:':�:•i:•R'i:!•:�i:•i$'r:�: i: ":�':�:•ii:•::
.......... }n:: •: ; w::::::::::x{ :::::::::::: ::v.�:::::::.�.�:.
:::: :.:::: ....nr ............... ..............................
•i:•i:•ii:•ii: � :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ................y�.�.•: :•:
..::::::::. .................
..\v ...........................
.......: ........................
:......... : ..... ......w::.v.; r:::x:::n:::::n:::{ii{i�:�:::::. . ... .
: ..:::::: .6i:^iiiiiii}.......ir:r: �w:n....... :•.........:::n .... ........:n......:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}}:::n ....n............................
� :C f�i:vii$i}:i�:vii:�i:
�v....... i.:... v +vvv ................... i:::::i:::::::::
•}iiriii:iv::.:::•i:•i:•iii:•i:•i:•iiiii}iiiiii:iii:�iii:•:i!•� •
.�>;�:
G
2 , ................�.......................................................::::n�:::::::::::::::::::::::::i6ii:iiiiiiiiiii::::iii:ii}::'v::::v.................
..«::�<:::<,:::<::,::>:.::;<;«:;:::::<:;.:::::<:,.:::::::«:::::><.:<::<::><���<::><::::::: <::><::««:<:::::::::»»»> � <::<::<.:: �:>>:::::::>::::>::::>::>::»>:::::<:::�:::::>::::>::;:»::::>:::>:�.
..... ..................
:.:. ::..........
.....:..,.:.:: ..... ..................................
.:.:: .::::.:.:..... .� ::......:................... ...:..:
..... nv:.vv4m.•• . .. . •.v ..............................v.:.:.nn...i:::..............n............x....:.:�:i:i•iiiiiit:.::ii:}i:•:'+.i?i:•:+l.�i:<�i%iii:�ii::}T:: ::.....:.:t�
Closure Those actions taken by d�e owner or operator of a solid waste site or faciliry to cease disposal operations and to ensure
that all such facilities are closed in conformance with applicable regulations at the tirne of such closures and to prepare the
site for the post-closure perlod (KCBOHC 10.08.070).
Compost The stabillzed product of composting that is beneficial to plant growth. It has undergone an initial, rapid stage of
deoomposi�on and Is in the process of humif'ication (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid t�aste Management Plan).
Composting The oontrolled degradation of ocganic solid waste yielding a produd for use as a soil conditioner (KCBOHC
io.os.o�o).
Computer printout paper Continuous-fced oomputer paper and forms of various types, but does not include multiple-copy
carbonless paper (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Contaminant Foreign material lending impur�ty to a primary material (Source: 1991 State Comprehe�zswe Solyd i�aste
Management Plan).
Corrugated paper Paper or cardboard manufactured in a series of wrinkles or folds, or into alternating ridges and grooves
(Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid i�aste Management Plan).
Countywide programs Programs that are implemented by the county throughout both unincorporated and incorporated areas.
Curbside collecdon See Household collectioa
Daily cover Soil layer placed above active waste dlsposal areas throughout the operating day to lsolate the landf'illed wastes from
d�e environment (Source: L�raft Cedar Hil/s Regronal Landfill Site laerie�opment Plan, 1987).
Demolitlon waste Solid waste originating from the demolition or razing of bulldings, roads, and other structures. Demoliaon
waste many lnclude, but is not llmited to, concrete, brlck, bltuminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing
paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized or plast�c piping, sheet rock, plaster,
pallets, asphalt floor tile, and caipeting. Certain components of the demolition waste stream are considered to be inert waste,
and certain components are considered to be noniner� In no event shall demolition waste include dangerous or exiremely
hazardous waste, llquid waste, garbage (as defined by KCC 10.040.020), sewage waste, animal carcasses, chemlcal waste,
pn!*�leum waste, or asbestos (PUT 7-1-2,5.13).
Disposal The discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water (KCBOHC
1o.os.l3o).
Disposal site The locacation where any final tieatment, utilization, processing, or deposit of solid waste occurs (KCBOHC 10.08.135).
1?Iversion rate A measure of d�e amount of waste matedal being diverted for recycling compared with the total amount that was
previously thrown away (Source: 1991 State Compre�ienswe Solyd i�aste Management Plan).
Drop-box facility A facility used for the placement of a detachable container including the area adjacent for necessary entrance
and exit roads, unloading, and turn-around areas. Drop-box facilities normally se�ve the general public with loose loads and
receive waste from off site (KCBOHC 10.08.140).
Drop-off center/drop-site A method for collectir►g recyclable or compostable materlaLs in which individuals take the materials to
collection sites and deposlt them into deslgnated containers (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Emission Discharge of a gas into atmospheric circulation (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solyd i�aste Management Plan).
Energy recovery The recovery of energy in a usable form from mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis or any
other means of using the heat of combustion of solld waste that involves high temperature (above twelve-hundred degrees
Fahcenheit [1,200°Fj) pcocessing (K(�OHC 10.08.145 see also RCW 70.95.030).
Ferrous metals Metals or 6nlshed products d�at contain a signif'icant percentage of iron, including stainless steel (Source: Volume
II, Appendix B).
Classary of Terms and Abbreviahbns
G-3 ��
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
•
�
Final cover System of soIl layers wlth extremely low permeability and a synd�e�c llner deslgned pursuant to state and�or federal
regulattons, and pla�ed over waste areas to close them permanently to landfilllng ac�vlty (Source: DraJ� Ca�ar Hills Regio�tal
Landfll Site D�ielopment Ptan, 1987).
Flow control A legal or ewnomic means by which waste is dlre�ed to particular destlna�ons (Source: 1991 State Compr�►enswe
Solyd l�aste Management Plan).
Flow detendon Storage and wntrolled release of leachate and water to hydraulic conveyances at an acceptable rate for the
c�eceiving oonveyance; used to smooth out variations in flow (Source: DraJ3 Ca�lar Hflls Regfonal Landfill Site I�ielqUment
Plan, 1987).
Food waste Residual food from residences, instituhons, or commercial faciliaes, or unusable portions of frult, anlmal, or vegetable
material resulting from food produc�tion (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Franchise area A solid waste hauler's territorial collection area, which is delineated in the WUTC certlticate,s for solid waste
collection
Grarbage Unwanted anlmal and vegetable wastes and animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation,
cooking, and wnsumption of food, svvill, and carcasses of dead animals, and of such a charader and proportion as to be
capable of attracting or providing food for vedors, except seavage and sewage sludge (KCBOHC 10.08.185).
Glass containers lncludes bottles and jars that are clear, brown, or green in oolor, from food, soft drinks, beer, and wine. Does
not include wlndow glass, mlrrors, light bulbs, and other glass that 1s not recyclable (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Groundwater All subsurface water occurring in the zone of saturation (KCBOHC 10.08.190).
Hazardous waste Solid waste designated by 40 CFR Part 261 and regulated as hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (PUT 7-1-2,5.17).
�PE plastic High�ensity polyethylene, often used to make bottles and other containers, such as milk, juice, and detergent bottles.
The SPI code for HDPE ls /2�. (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Head Height of the free level of a liquid above any point in a hydraulic system; a measure of the presssure or force exerted
by the liquid (Source: Draft C�dar Hil/s Regronal Zandfill Sile D�rielopment Plan, 1987).
High-grade paper Relatively valuable t}�es of paper such as office paper and computer printout paper (Source: Volume lI,
Appendix B).
Household batteries Includes batteries of various sizes and rypes, as commonly used in toys and other household applications
(Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Household collection prograroc (also lmown as curbside programs) The pick-up of recyclables from a household. This pick-
up may be at a curb, end of driveway, or alleyway from both single- and multifamlly dwellings. (Source: Volume II,
Appendix B).
Incentive rates Solid waste rates structured to provide incentives to reduce waste generaiion or to recycle.
Incinera#ion A process of reducing the volume of solid waste by use of an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion
(KCBOHC 10.08.205).
Incinerator Facility in which the combusaon of solid waste talces place (See Incineration).
Industrlal solid waste Waste byproducts from manufacturing operations such as scxaps, trimmings, packing, and other discarded
materials not otherwise designated as dangerous waste under Chapter 173303 WAC (PUT 7-1-2,5.23)•
Inert wastes Noncombustible, nondangerous solid wastes that are likely to retain their physical and chemical structure under
expected conditions of disposal, including resistance to biological attack and chemical attack from acidic rainwater (KCBOHC
10.08.220).
Cla�sary of Ternu arul Abbreviations
G
-4
Inert construciion waste Inert components of construction waste, including, but not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous
ooncrete, masonry, plastic piping, glass, dirt, and gravel (PUT 7-1-2,5.8.1).
Inert demolition waste Inert components of demolition waste, including, but not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete,
masonry plastic pipe, glass, asphalt floor tile, dirt, and gra�el (PUT 7-1-2,5.13.1).
Inorganic waste Waste that dces not originate from plan�s or animals (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solut l�aste
Management Plan).
Integrated solid waste management A practice of using several waste management techniques to manage and dispose of
speci�c components of the municipal solid waste stream. Waste management alternatives include source reduction, recycling,
composting, energy recovery, incineration and landf'illing (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solyd l�aste Management Plan).
Interim final cover Layer of compacted till and layers of other soll placed over the waste disposal areas not anticipated to receive
additional waste fill for at least two years (Source: Draft Cedar Hil/s Regional Landfill Site Der�elopment Plan, 1987).
King County Solid Waste Regulations KCBOHC Tide 10, governs solid waste handling, storage, collection, transportation,
treatment, utilization, pmcessing and final disposal of all solid waste generated wittun King County, including issuance of
permits and enforcement (KCBOHC 10.04.020).
Land clearing wastes Waste resulting from site clearing. It includes, but is not limited to, stumps, tree trunks, brush, other
vegetation, plant waste, rocks, mud, and other mineral waste. Most vegetative land clearing waste may be composted (PUT 7
2,5.2.6).
Landflll A disposal facility or part of a facility at which solid waste is permanently placed in or on land and which is not a land
spreading disposal faciliry (KCBOHC 10.08.235).
LDPE plastics Low polyethyleae, often used to make bags and lids where durability and flexibility is desired. The SPI code
for LDPE is /4\ (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Leachate Water or other liquid that been contaminated by dissolved or suspended materials due to contact with solid waste or gases
therefrom (KCBOHC 10.08.245).
Leachate head reductlon Removal of leachate from the unlined portion of the refuge areas in order to reduce the height or
head of the leachate mound in the hill (Source:l3raft Cedar H�lls Regional Landfill Site Derielopment Plan, 1987).
Lift Landfill units are developed through a series of cells and lifts. A cell is the volume of waste placed daily on the same
horizontal plane. A lift consists of all adjacent cells on the same horizontal plane.
Local government A ciry, town, or counry (Chapter 70.95.030 RC�.
LTGO Limited tax general obligation bonds; debt that is backed by the taxing authoriry of the County (Source: Volume II,
Appendix B).
Mandatory collection M obligatory fee for solid waste collection which ls required of all residents of a defined area.
Mandatory recycling Programs that, by law, require consumers to separate trash so that some or all recyclable materials are not
burned or dumped in landfills (Source: 1991 State Comprehensiue Solui t�aste Management Plan).
Methane An odorless, colorless, flammable, and explosive gas produced where organic waste such as municipal solid waste undergo
anaerobic decompositioa Methane is emitted from municipal solid waste landf'ills and anaerobic compost processes (Source:
1991 State Comprehensive Solid i�aste Management Plan).
Minimum l�nctlonal Standards WAC 173-304, the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling, see also KCBOHC
Title 10.
Mia�ed munic�pal solid waste (MMSW) Waste consisting of solid waste generated by residences, stores, offlces, and other
generators of wastes that are not industrial, agricultural, or demolition wastes. (KCC 10.04.020(ICK)
clossary of rer»rs and Abbrevrations
„..� �: �w;.�;:.�;::.t�
:n4::•;•;y:.v : r.}..r... ' iSi�.
.......... :::::::: •:::.v :::::::: ::::::.:�:: ••:.�.�}i•:.v:.vl�.v•.t•:::::.vv::.v.M1�.v:::::::: ........................: •r•:.v::::::::::::::::::: v i.. .... .�v . •: •.v:::::::..... .
v.{. .;•N.n::.�. �Awv:i.i:iCV,v,ni:ii.i}:.v �}4,}S.f.::{+i::i+:>:}}K}1.,x+.�.,+.C:}i'•ti: • �.l,•y::::{.;;:...fi.;
L:�T:i::�...vr r•:r,..i:L'.;{v.}y: .: .. .:/.,x•..v..n... ..v i}%8:i.}�yi�.4:'23,v,.ii:.}:.:•}iii:+f.•::{::iiii��:��:i'v;iiii:S�i:}{'irv ...r.... .n. . ...j'.' : .. ... .. �.}~!� .. ;t!i
•::l.•: r.•..• ..:, .�A.... . . .,:\..; , : • {•....... .:: f'�'.�vr'+::. ::.,C•. :
........... .......... . .•: •: • ::..:.:.:::::,r...::....::::::::::::...•..•?. �:. •...:•.� .�••. ..•... .::::..;t.:�::-::�.'•r,�•.:::.; ..
............:.... ,k .....•\...,.� �t .... .v..:::., ..................�:.;.r':.::.'•"` • . ..... .....+f.f..?;•.�. .
:•.:::�.:�.� ...::::.:... . ,.... ...?.••::+ :.::::::::::::::•............................. .::..,.;.
..............., . ..,..,,,, ?� ti.. ........ ...... �..... :>:•::t::�: �• •+..,,.. ••:,::::••:::.,, ..,•,�::;;'.';: —
.............. . ... . ..... ...�.h.,•:.:,•:. .•::::: :•:::::....... r:::: r::.t::.,• :•:::::::: \K•: ..• •>:,::.,,•:+.;•:.;;..•::::.,;:; •.;:•+•• .:.. :::.:r:::ii::
,..�., � . ,,,:.,.:.t>:<:.:.. .. .>�:.: .r. : ..r..,::::: , � .� .��v:,:::::::... G 5 ��,�::.:
: {M1 •v:yi�vy:nv '•:::h'.r.ii'� x >iiit•:•''Y�:Ti.k.... . nA.�? . •t�:S A�''. '�� .v ..{7v .{Xfft ::�%� .
•.'•;�'•i:•;•'•:�:`:22�.''-'..'” ".i?32cccfo< . Y ::.<.>:.....�;.•.::. <•.c•...rf•:<:.:..�.::k•::........r..•.: •:.,,ec..... .. .,.`/:..�:{ . ..':Y..o:!t;?.�=a� . ..t•:Rxa.:...
:..<... ....'t}:h":r�'`f��'+.+.�......... ...tt :.?c;{ :K:�:::::....}... .x : ... .......r.. ..........
....:::.�:
:::....: .
.:�:.�...; .
:: ::..>.�.......r..: •:,.:.....,:•:.: •• : •::•..�•..•.>?.>::. . .r..::: �:::... . ........... £•.*.. +..•v . . ..., ...:...:.:
::::n.�.�::::.�.4�.n....n�.�.v...x.Y.n...:v.\. . \vi ::::::::::::::::: :.:::::::::::::::nw::{v..:...:....w:+}ii:?•iii:'rii:}i:iiii::::: :v:::i:•i.'4•: ..'�•n:.v:C..h:: ?•::: :.::....++r\•:: ^. ri: ...; ....... . .. .......
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Mixed waste paper 1.ow-grade, potenaally compostable paper, including noncorrugated paperboard, paQefiack books, telephone
books, paper towels, and paper food containers (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Moderate rlsk waste (a) My waste that exhibits any of the properties of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulaxion under
this chapter solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation, and (b) any household wastes
which are generated from the disposal of substances identif'ied by Ecology as hazardous household substances (Chapter
70.105.010 RCWj.
Multlfamily residendal waste Waste from a residential structure designed to accommodate more than one family in separate
dwelling units. This includes apartment houses, townhouses, and row houses, but dces not include duplexes or triplexes, which
are de�ned as single family (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Needle clipper A device consisting of a box with a blade which clips a used needle off a syringe and safely contains the needle.
Nonferrous metals Nonferrous metals includes aluminum (except beverage cans), copper, lead, brass, tin, and other metals
(Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Noninert construcNon waste Components of construction waste which are not considered to be inert waste, including, but not
limited to, wood, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, steel, a�pper, aluminum or gatvanlzed piping,
sheet rock, and plaster (PUT 7-1-2,5.8.2).
Noninert demolition waste Components of demolition waste that are not considered to be inert waste, including, but not limited
to, wood, composition roo6ng, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, ste.el, copper piping, galvanized piping, sheet rock,
plaster, pallets, and carpeting (PUT 7-1-2,5.13.2).
Nonresidentlal self-haul waste Nonresidential waste delivered to a solid waste facility by the same company that generated the
waste, including construction and demolition waste brought in by the construction company that generated the waste (Source:
Volume II, Appendix B).
NonresidenNal waste Waste that originates from institutions (such as government offices and schools) and businesses and is
delivered to a solid waste facility by a garbage hauler or other third party who is paid to transport the waste (Source: Volume
II, Appendix B).
Office paper Includes typing, wpy, bond, and ledger paper and envelopes that are clean and typically white or light-colored
(Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Old corrugated containers (OCC, Cardboard) Used, l�aft liner cartons with corrugated inner liners, as typically used to ship
materials. Dces not include wa�ced cardboard or paperboard (cereal boxes, microwave and slmilar food boxes, etc.), but it does
include kraft grocery bags (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Old newspapers (ONP) Printed ground wood newsprint Includes glossy ads and Sunday ediuon magazines that are delivered
with the newspaper (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
On-call collecHon Programs that are set up to be conducted on a regular basis, but to stop at only those households that have
indicated their interest through a phone call to the collector or through other means (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Organic matter Portion of the soll that includes microtlora and microfauna in the soil (living and dead) and residual
decomposition produc� of plant and animal tissue; any carbon assembly (exclusive of carbonates), large or small, dead or
alive, inslde soil space; consists primarily of humus (Source: 1991 State Comprehenswe Solid l�aste Management Plan).
Orgdn�c waste Waste material wntaining carboa The organic fraction of municipal solid waste lncludes paper, wood, food
wastes, plastics, and yard wastes (Source: 1991 State Comprehe�tsave Solid l�aste Managemertt Plan).
Other ferrous metals Typically used to include meta.ls or finished products that contatn a significant percentage of iron, but
exclusive of white goods and tin cans (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Glassary of Ternu and Abbreuiations
G-6
Participation rate A measure of the number of people participatiing in a recycling program compared to the total number that
could be participating. (Source: 1991 State Comprehertswe Solyd [�aste Management Pl�an).
Permit An authorization lssued by the jurisdictlonal health department that allows a person to perform solid waste activities at a
specif'ic locaiion and includes specif'ic conditions for such facility operations (KCBOHC 10.08.305).
PBT Polyethylene terephthalate 2 pop and liquor bottles with or without base. The SPI code is /1\ (Source: Volume II
Appendix B).
Planning area or jurlsdict�on 1'he geographical location designated by a local solid waste management plan as the plan's legal
boundaries (Source: 1991 State Coynpre�iensive Solid [�aste Management Plan).
Plasiic bag� Includes bags made from various rypes of plastic. Most of the bags are LDPE, but this category also includes HDPE
(commonly used for garbage bags) (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Plastics 3-7 Includes less common plastia such as polyvinyl chloride (SPI code 3), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, SPI code 4),
polypropylene (SPI oode 5), polystyrene (SPI code �, and all other resins (SPI code 7). See aJso SPI codes (Source: Volume
II, Appendix B).
Polycoated paper Multicomponent packaging that contains paper as one or more of the layers, including milk cartons, juice
boxes, and simllar packaging (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Post-closure The requiremenis placed on disposal facilities after closure to ensure their environmental safety for a number of years
after closure (xCBOxC 10.08.335).
Post-consumer recycling The reuse of materials generated from residential and commercial waste, excluding recycling of
material from industrial processes that has not reached the consumer, such as glass broken in the manufacturing process
(Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Primary recyclables Recyclable materiaJs that are commonly collected and are therefore included under minimum services levels
for oollecdon programs. These include paper, cardboard, glass, tin and aluminum beverage containers, and HDPE and PET
bottles. Primary recyclables are characterized by established or emergency markets.
Processing M operation to convert a solid waste into a useful product or to prepare it for disposal (WAC 173-304-100).
Procure��nt policy Development and implementation of a policy which achieves the purchase of products made from recycled
or recyclable goods (KCC 10.04A20(UU))
Putrescible waste Solld waste which contains materials capable of being decomposed by microorganisms (KCBOHC 10.08355).
ltate incentives See Incenkive raies.
Recyclables collecHon Secvices such as household collection or facilities such as drop-sites that provide collection opportunities
for recyclable materlals.
Recyclable materlals Those solid wastes that are separated for recycling or reuse, such as papers, metals, and glass, that are
identif'ied as recyclable material pursuant to a local comprehensive solid waste plan (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solyd
l�aste Management Plan).
Recycling Transforming or remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materiaLs for use other than landfill or
incineration (RCW 70.95.020.(15)).
Regional prog�.uns See Countywide programs.
Resident�al self-haul waste Residential waste delivered to a solid waste facility by a homeowner, renter, or landlord, typically
using cars, vans, pickup trucks, and other personal vehicles (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Residual waste Materials remaining after processing, incineration, composting, or recycling ha�e been completed. Residues are
usually dispc�sed in landfllls (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solyd [�aste Management Plan).
cla�sary of rer»u and Abbrerriatimrs
. . ...... ............... .... ..... .............. ................. .............. ..v.vv.�:::::::::::: •x::::::x: •:::s.•:: •. r w:: .. x::.... w::::.. 'F.•iY:ii:'v:
...{M1. . n%.tr'� v:: :'.,{+ l p:;:;i'M;i:::yi•ii:;i•i:....riiii: •:: •: ��'ti��'
�::nw::: •.v.vv:: •: x:::: :::::..vn. . n ...............v....} ::•.� :w.�::: r.;........y::::.v^:::n� •r•rx: �v.•........... ..:. ...1......... . . . .: •.::: v.F.•:::: •.....:...::::.:: �•.}•:{'vii:
v::w::. n ., ..tif,... •vv::::x.r ..............:.....::. •:}::::vhv:::::::�v,.v;.;{::::•.w:::::�.v.�.:?:+:•:::.•rm:::w:::v..:.. v:.i:;:;:i••:•.w..r... +i i::r.:.r,... .4:,x,..w:.
.; ;.ti.::r�.. s v .v. }r. f ::::•:{ . . . .... .. . :..
R .cc.:.. rs:ac S{ic ..< .m>.+�>+> .',�..yx >.a:c..•�:ic�<,.,r.>r,>;;+.+..:"k:::a::<..{o,c•c>.`..<df;;a:,>x(•,m,?{;.�'';ic:',�',1.5,:•r:�.;>. ..�.•:.�.,vf(r?r.:.,<:.i<:...
,.sa 'S:. {>.ctt... ?:4:... ..h�xr>.�:..5.'a*.... ;.;.,�: :4•��;:: _
.....,.. .2• ..... ......,.:?.,•�.v.a..�Ek �::. . ......:...
::::: ..: . ,: :.4•.#......,,,. ..,....��... .r......: :... �;:"�'.....:,; •.,+: :<•.:;•:::.. •::.::;;...::•.....r ) ::...::::. ..:.:..:::;. ::::::.:::
�.:.<.::.r.,:.�.. .::.,,.:::: .... ...., � . � ::::....::::.�:::..�. ............. � ..........
.. ..::,� :..:.:.::::::::r.:._.:::::.::::::::.:::::::.,.:::.::,., .:.:.:.........£:.:.�:.:::.;:.;:.::::::::::.:::.::...:::::.::..:.::::.:� . .:....;;>:>:.:;,:;.:; 7 .:::::::::.
:.�.�.::,,.....>:.�>.�.�. . .�..... ..,.....,..... .........> :::.:::.::::::.,: :.:::::::::�..: :::.:.:.:.....s................ ...........:...::.::...<.:::...... :..:.......::..::.,. :N�::;:;... . v«.>.::.:;:
:.:�:n�.. .....vs ... ......., ...... . M1�.•.�..r.:.... � , ..........
} .} n:-xti•:+::{•:....: kW..k�'{.�:: ,,. . .�:.£...`i.. .. r,p..:: a,,...}•.�,.,...., .u.... 'v.'•..•::...
:�:::.n.T i,., r....r rr.:.. ♦..uv.. Nt+•.Cttt.: 'f:nr:.h�C \T e...r....':Y• f
3°Ti..?f�:a'CZRC'� �.�. •::...::..o......:: r:+:•:;;S.a.Y':::�?:`•.•::>::::.,a�cz2C'^'�'^x•::•::a::8>r;:�;:::.;:..•.�.•,x:•:+::r:•:si•::•::•:•:.�...::....:::.....;?:•>: �:fi">'•x.;:: :.,.:... •i$:::; ,....,...
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
•
�
Resource recovery The extraction and utilizaiton of materials and energy from the waste stream. The term is sometirnes used
synonymously with energy recovery (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solyd l�aste Management Plan).
Reuse Use of a product more than once in its same form for the same purpose; e.g., a soft-drink bottle is reused when it is
returned to the bottling company for ref'illing (Source: 1991 State Comprehensir�e Solyd [�aste Management Plan).
Screening The passing of wmpost through a screen to remove large inorganic particles and improve the consistency and qualiry of
the end-produd (Source: 1991 State Compreherxsive Solyd l�aste Management Plan).
Secondary materlal Material that is used in place of a primary or raw material in manufacturing a product (Source: 1991 State
Compr�hensive Solid l�aste Manageme�tt Plan).
Secondary recyclables Recyclable matertals that are not commonly collected. These include batteries, plastia coded 3
through 7, texales, aPPliances, furniture, saap metals, and food waste.
Self-haul Materlals hauled to transfer disposal site by generator rather than by contracted hauler (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Septage A semisolid consisring of settled sewage solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials generated
from a septic tank system (KCBOHC 10.08.395).
Single-family residenHal waste Waste from single-famlly residences, including duplexes and triplexes (see also "multifamlly
residential waste") (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Sludge A semisolid substance consisting of settled solids combined with varying amouNs of water and dissolved materials generated
from a wastewater treatrnent plant or other source (KCBOHC 10.08.410).
Soils balance Landfill site planning such that soils required for daily, interim, and final �ver are excavated on site, and that the
volume of the excavated soils is then available as additional landf'ill capacity.
Soil liner Landflll liner composed of compacted soll used for the containment of leachate (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive
So[id l�aste Management Plan).
Solid waste or wastes All putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including, but not limited to, garbage,
rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, infectious waste, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
discarded commodities, or contaminated excavated soil/fill material. This includes all liquid, solid, and semisolid materials
which are not the prlmary products of public, private, industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations. Solid waste
includes, but is not llmited to, sludge from wastewater treatment plants and septage from septic tanks, woodwaste, dangerous
waste, and problem wastes (KCBOHC 10.08.420).
Solid waste haudling The management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utillzation, processing, and final disposal of
solid wastes, including the reoovery and recycling of materia.ls from solid wastes, the recovery of energy resources from solid
wastes, or the conversion of the energy in solid wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof (KCBOHC 10.08.425).
Source reductlon The design, manufacture, acquisition, and reuse of materials so as to minimize the quantity and/or toxiciry of
waste produced at the place of origin (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solul i�aste Management Plan).
Source separatlon The separation of different kinds of solid waste at the place where the waste originates (RCW 70.95.030).
Special waste All wastes which requires waste clearance, as specified in the Waste Acceptance Policy PUT 7-1-2 (PR) (PUT 7-2-
1,5.11,6.3).
SPI codes The numbers assigned to different types of plastic resins by the Society of the Plastia Industry, Inc., as follows:
(Source: Volume II, Appendlx B)
1- polyethylene terephtha(ate 5- polypropylene
2- high-density polyethylene 6- polysryrene
3- vinyl and polyvinyl chloride 7- all other resins
4 - low-density polyethylene
ctossary of rernu and Abbre�iahons
iiW ri :•:'l.:{
i i:>iy i�i
..{.$
_ %tk<:i�:•,
: : %i � : : � ': ' • •. ; : : � : : ? ; <; :' ::
..1. k'+'.•:�'•'i:�:i:�
.... :........::::::::::..:::::::.:::::::::::::. �:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::>:•:::•>�•:�::<�>:::•>::::o:.::::r: r•:;;;<•:::::•:;>:::::<:?•::::�:�:
..f............
:::.�::::: .... . ::•:::: .....�; :.:.:::
:::::::::: ::::.::::. �. � ::::::::::::: :•:::....:. �::::::::::.: �::::::. �. �::. �. �. �:::: ::•. �. �. �::::::::. �:::: :•::::::::::::: :•:•... �.:>••:::.y.; •::::::::: ;:::::.; :•.'•.;;:: :•'::±:r:yi::•>:
�.
. � :..: :.:: ..
G
8
..; ,,:: •: •:::.:: ::•: •
....... .. .................. ..........................,.....
:<.:<.>:::::�.., ,f,. .: .
..,. .
... :.::.��.��:...:�..
.. .... ......,n .................................:<::«::::::«:;::>:::::<::::<:::::>:<::<:::::>:::<::>�::::»:><�:<:>:<::::;::><�::�::::�:>_`:::::;<::�::�:;
. ....<........
.... ...........:.....:...:::::::::.�::::::.;:>:.::..;:::::::.
:::::::::: ....::: :.:::::::.�::::::::._:::::::::.;::;. :.�:::::::.:::::: :..;.:::.:::.::.:::;:::::........::.�:... :.. .
. ....... ............:..:..................... :._:::::::::: ::.:::. :.::.........� ::.:....:._:.:,v:.;.:.;:.:::. ..»;..;:;:�:�:<::::�>:<:
:.:....... :.� ::::::::::.::...�.�::.:�:::::::::.:::.::.:: ...... ...,......... .... ........... ...... :::
.......... ..... . ..... ............. ....... ..M1.......v...........................4.v.�.�:%4::?•n::.vv:.: :.:A:i:!•.v:: •::::::nv: �i^:?•%•iT:i:}:v?+i//!,t{$�:!>:<?�::T:•:'{tf!/m;•::..vv%�v�
Subtitle D Solid, nonhazardous waste section of the Resource ConseNation and Reoovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR part 258).
Support services Programs or policies that encourage participation in waste redudion and recycltng programs. Examples of
support seivices are variable can rates for garbage oollecxion, procurement policies that favor the purchase of rec,ycled products,
and construcction standards thai require collection and storage space for recyclables.
Surface water run-off Surface water, leachate, or any other liquid that tlows by gravity from the surface of waste disposal areas
onto other areas.
Surface water run-on Surface water, leachate, or any other liquid that flows by gravity onto the surface of waste disposal areas
or other areas (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional landfill Si1e Derielopment Plan, 1987).
Technical assistance (State) Aid provided by the state to local governments or individuals and of a technical nature to aid ln
complying with all laws and regulations (Source: 1991 State Compreherzsive Solid i�aste Management Plan).
Textiles Used clothing and scraps of cloth made of natural and manmade materials, including cotton, wool, silk, nylon, polyesters,
and leather (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Tipping fee The price paid per ton, cubic yard, or other measurement to dispose of waste at a transfer station, incinerator, or
landflll (KCC Chapter 10.12).
Tin cans Includes tin-plated steel cans (food cans), and does not include paint or other types of steel cans (Source: Volume II,
Appendlx B).
Tires Whole tires from automoblles, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and other vehicles (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Transfer station A permanent, fixed, supplemental collection and transportation facllity, used by persons and route collection
vehicles to deposit colleded solid waste from off site into a larger transfer vehicle for transport to a solid waste handling facility.
Transfer stations may also include recycling facilities and wmpacction/baling systems (KCBOHC 10.08.460).
a
Un.authorized waste Waste that is not acceptable for disposal at any or a specific dlsposal facllity acxording to appllcable rules
and regulations or a determination of the manager (KCC 10.04.020(PPP)).
Used oil 011 that through use, storage, or handling has become unsuitable for its origuial purpose due to the presence of
impurities or the loss of original properties (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
ilTGO Unlimlt�ed tax general obligation bonds; debt that lncureed with the consent of taxpayers and that is backed by the full faith
and credit pledge of the County (Source: Volume tI, Appendix B).
Variable can rate A charge for solid waste seivices based on the volume of waste generated measured by the number of c�ns set
out for collection (Source: 1991 State Compreherrswe Solid i�aste Management Plan).
Waste clearance policy Procedure to determine whether and under what oonditions special wastes identitied in PUT 7-1-2 may
be disposed at Cedar Hills Landfill (PUT 7-1-2 ,5.38).
Waste clearance decision form Documentation provided by the Solid Waste Divrslon to generators based on informaxion
provided in the generator's applicatioR The decision form specifies conditions for disposal of materials regulated under this
public rule (PUT 7-2-1,5.14).
Waste lift Solid waste layer that is underlain and overlain by applications of daily cover. It generally has a maximum thickness
of about 13 feet (Source: Draf1 Cedar Hil/s Regronal landfrll Site IJetielopment Plan, 1987).
Waste reduction Reducing the amount or toxicity of waste generatad or reusing materials RG1�V 70.95.02 (20) see also (KCBOHC
10.08.505).
Waste screening A process by which King County monitors and inspecis solld waste entering the solid waste system to detect and
remove hazardous or other unauthorized wastes.
classary oj rerms and Abbreuiatlmrs
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.............. ......................... M1.,.;...:.tt•.v:xv. v •.�.M1• �..v•v::::•::••:::-.:: v.M1Y:r....i:�k�:�:iti:b�:�f.�i:Si�i'•:t'4:i.i.,.v..�> �.:.'::...,1 .. .,.�rri�'��'�J{{?:�'�:}r•: y .;{'/�'y:•�.i'vVn vb�ji•::ti:
:M14 li.;q:;{:• t;• . � /!:v::..;}: a.\\Y \ \.h3. .•:f.^:::•:�vrf/�<•:'�i•:'•:'.i + l. + v:w:..;. { ..::�w.•: k :}:\vr{., ' V,,,^'t�,+,(�. �i'�'f.v 1�.•, �/v,,,. .�.., !l,.;: )'Ff.;.
:!:a;:�?.t;. ..£.. }r'�•�., •. ..:.?;:•s.�•�t.C:�x.tr•::::,:.si.,,F.. ..�:.f•.:.�.:•:^:::::.r:.,......l. ./,'+,:�):...:�;..�•::::::.��,..
:..:•�: �. ,
w.Xr`� f.::�:+.•:+�r'.. •'..:i'•::.�.• :...................:..:.:....�::. ::•:.t.,.
t•:,•::•.:::..fi ... ..... r: ry • �•::::.• ::.....:........; ;.,.}, ...::::`!.v:::•:: x:.:
:v: •.v:::: v .. �• . ....... ..:..�......v .�.::::i:}::•ii• n.......::::n:::::::: �.. ... v............... ..;; .. . �.•:.;' r .�.,n.;q..r; iii:•:ti+� :•::::: ;x• �
. ti{ti.. :.�::. r4 ::• x: •:::.. .'$:h:• 'i{}•: :�'•: J, ,•.
:::}: .n . •. •J C. A:�.•.•: :. .
... n... � . .,.• :?+ :: •,: .. .........•:::: :.; . . . . .:.: •:...
:,> ,.. . .>� G :.:.>�.:.n
... �,:;.: :.::.::.: :....:.....:. ,:...... ...... ..... Q
4v:::•:: • ,•.{.;.:•A::•.:.n �..�:r.-n:�:��::�;:�::::,:•:�.:�• ;•:;'.f::;:iY::?AAd :rr,., . s•
:•+:t•.a•:. .a�. .».. . .. • .c .. ..t 1.:... ::'•}::�:�;:•':�:+.$. . ...�.., �....F,.?t.;i+:•. .�.t..•: . ...�:?•'.'%:�?: /
:::.i:::.:. � �.+' .c�dt. '�:•. ... ... : :•.+�: •: •
h::.�+.�..,;� .t i:.:....r. . ..k ..,•�:,.•:•:,+•r+:'.•;::•:::•`...�:;.r;`.::;�Sin : ..k: �•.:::.v.�..nn;7: •:::. :. i::w•:: :v::::.
:::.....v..,. .•.: r.::::::.,•. �.•. u•.
•::•::•;>::::r:+...• ...k.....���.�:.s•••s...........:>::..+ ..:......:.::...::�:;•:�•::•::::::::....,. .........................'.�`•::::.:�::�:•..::•:•• �•..... ...>..•::..;., .;;....•..:::. .n.......
4 ..........
....... \t.....,,.r......,...:>,.:�. ... }•.....•.. ,....... •.......r.•:.:.........h..t..,.•:..t:�::. :............... ;:.:•�•::�:•:
....,.,u:: ••.,:::::.X..t :•::...... ...,t�•::.. •::.:.,:::::1::.::•: :,•:........::k,•::.::,,.•:::...::::.:::.�:::..:.:: r•::..•:...•.v.�.,•::::::::::.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Waste stream The total flow of solid waste from homes, businesses, Institu�ons and manufacturing plants that must be recycled,
or disposed in landf'ills; or any segment thereof, such as the "residenaal waste stream" or the "recyclable waste stream" (Source:
1991 State Compreheixsive Solid l�aste Management Plan).
White goods Used major household appliances such as washers, dryers, and refrigeraiors, freezers, a3r wnditioners, stoves, and
water heatecs.
Woodwaste Soltd waste conslsting of wood pieces or particles generated as a byprodud or waste from the manufacturing of Wrood
products, handling, and storage of raw materials, brees, and stumps. This includes, but is not limited to, sawdust, chips,
shavings, bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces or particles contalNng chemical
preservat[ves such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome azsenate (KCBOHC 10.08.520).
Wood Includes stumps, branches over four inches in diameter, and other wood, and products made predominantly of wood except
furniture (Source: Volume II, Appendix B).
Yard waste Grass clippings, leaves and weeds, and prunings from residences or businesses (Source: Volume II, Appendix B; see also
PUT 7-1-2,5.40).
ABBREVIATIONS
BALD King County Bullding and Land Development Divislon
CDL Construction, demolition, and land clearing waste
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Ad
CERP Capital Equlpment Replacement Program
CFC Cholorfluorocarbons
CFR Code of Federal Regularions
CIP Capital improvement plan
CO Carbon monoxide
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Division King County Solid Waste Division
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (see also DEIS, FEIS, PEIS, SEIS)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER/R
ERF
FEIS
Forum
HB
HDPE
Health Deparhnent
ILAs
IMIX
KCBOHC
Energy resource/recovery
Environmental Reserve Fund
Final environmental impact statement
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum
House Bill
High-density polyethylene
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
Interlocal agreements
Industrial Material Exchange
King County Board of Health Code
Gla�sary of Terms and Abbret�iatfons
G -1
0
KCC
KCCP
LDPE
I�1WMP
LPCM
LRF
Metro
MFS
MMSW
NESHAPS
NPDES
OCC
ONP
PEIS
PET
Plan
PSAPCA
PSCOG
PSWQA
PUT
RCRA
RCW
RFP
RIBCO
SB
SEIS
SEPA
SHB
SWAC
TAP
WAC
WDOE
WDRP
WR/R
W[JTC
... ,...... .......
::>; r;::::,::::::::;, � � �:::;::: �>:>:::::>: ::::;>
.. � :::: : : :: :.. .. ...: ::::: ,: .::. � :: :.::::::::::: ;::.:.... . . ... . ;::.;:<.>::>::>::>::>::>::»::::;.::::;:::::;<.::.;:.;:.;:.;;:.::.::.::.;;:.::.::::: : : : :: : : . � ::::::::::::::::.;;:.;:.;:.:.:.::.::::::: ;:.;;:.:.::.;:.::.:::::::.
..< .......:..::::::::.....::..:
. . . . . ::;>::>:::: � :::: � :'::>:'>::>: �>: �::>::>:::::::>:: <;:::> :: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
King Counry Code
King County Comprehensive Plan
Low-density polyethylene
I.ocal Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Landf'ill Post-Closure Maintenance Fund
Landf'ill ReseNe Fund
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Mlnimum Func�onal Standards
Mixed municipal solid waste
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Old corrugated containers
Old nevvspapers
Progiammatic environmental impact statement
Polyethylene terephthalate
King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Puget So�nd Air Pollution Control Agency
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
King County Publlc Rules and Regula�ons
Resource ConseNation and Recovery Act
RevLsed Code of Washington
Request for proposal
River Basin Coordinating Committee
Senate Bill
Supplemental environmental Impact statement
State Environmental Policy Act
Subs�tute House Blll
Solld Waste Advisory Committee
TechNcal assistance program
Washington �ministrative Code
See Ecology
Waste disposal and recycling plan
Waste reduction and recycling
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Classary of 7�rrms and Abbreviations
�
.
0
.�
. _
.
. LATED
•
, EGISLAT AND GULATIONS
.
� King County
Comp rehensive
� Solid Waste
• Management Plan
•
•
•
! .
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
_�i�,
�ia�
SO�IIlg
I
It Out
Together
Related Legislation
and Regulations
Solid Waste Management Act - Recovery and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of Washington
King County Solid Waste Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title 10 - King County Code
Solid Waste Handling Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title 10 - King County Board of Health Code
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement / Forum Interlocal Agreement . . . . . . . . .
Solid Waste Acceptance Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
King County Public Rule PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
Waste Clearance Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
King County PuUlic Rule PUT 7-2-1 (PR)
RL - 1
RL - 24
' �1
RL - 113
RL - 129
' :
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Related Legislation
Rcw 70.95
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ACT
70.95.010
70.95.020
70.95.030
70.95.040
70.95.050
7o.9S.060
70.95.070
70.95.075
70.95.080
70.95.090
70.95.092
70.95.094
7o.g5.og6
70.95.100
70.95.110
70.95.130
70.95.140
70.95.150
70.95.1Go
RL - 1
Legislative finding -- PrioriUes -- Goal.
Purpose.
Definitions.
Solid waste advisory committee -- Membeis -- Meetings -- Tra�el expenses -- "Govemor's award of excellence."
Solid waste advisory committee -- Staff seivices a�id facilities.
Standards for solid waste handling -- A�eas.
Review of standards prior to adoption -- Revisioi�s, additioi�s and modificatioi�s -- Factois.
Implementation of standards -- Assessment -- Analyses -- Proposals.
County comprehensive solid waste ma�iagement pla�i -- Joint plans -- Duties of cities.
Counry and ciry comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Contents. .
Counry and ciry comprehensive solid waste ma�lagement plai�s -- Levels of seivice, reduction and recycling.
Counry and ciry comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Review and approval process.
Utilities and transportation wmmission to review local plan's assessment of cost impacts on rates.
Technical assistance for plan prepa�ation -- Guidelines -- Informational materials and programs.
Maintenance of plans -- Review, revisions -- Implementation of source separation programs.
Financial aid to counties and ciUes.
Matching requirements.
Contracts with counties to assure proper expenditures.
Local board of health regulations to implement the comprehei�sive plan -- Section not to be coi�strued to authorize
counties to operate system.
70.95.163 Local health depa�tments may contract with the depa�tment of ecology.
70.9S.16S Solid waste disposal facility siting -- Site review -- Local solid waste advisory committees -- Membeiship.
70.95.167 Private businesses involvement in source sepa�•ated materials -- Local solid waste advisory committee to examine.
70.95.170 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Required.
70.95.180 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Applications, fee.
70.95.185 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Review by department -- Appeal of issuance -- Validiry of permits issued
after June 7, 1984.
70.g5.190 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Renewal -- Appeal -- Validiry of renewal.
70.95.200 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Suspension.
70.95.210 Hearing -- Appeal.
70.95.215 Landflll disposal facilities -- Resetve accounts required by July 1, 1987 -- Exception -- Rules.
70.95.220 Financial aid to jurisdictional healdl departments -- Applications -- Allocatioi�s.
70.95.230 Financial aid to jurisdictional health departments -- Matching funds requirements.
70.g5.23S Diversion of recyclable material -- Penalry.
Related Legulation
RCW 70.95
RL -
2
�
...... .......... ................... ................ ....... . ........ . ............. ........... .. ........... ..................... �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
70.gS.240 Unlawful to dump or deposit solid waste without pei�nit
70.95.250 Name appearing on waste material -- Presumption.
70.g5.255 Disposal of municipal sewage sludge or septic tank sludge prohibited -- Exemptions -- Uses of sludge material permitted.
70.95.260 Duties of department -- State solid waste ma�iagement pla�i — Assista�ice -- Coordination -- Tire recycling.
70.95.263 Additional powe�s a�ld duties of department.
70.95.265 Department to cooperate with public and private departments, agencies and associations.
70.g5.267 Department authorized to disburse referendum 26 (chapter 43.83A RCW) fund for local government solid waste projects.
70.95.268 Department authorized to disbuise funds under chapter 43.99F RCW for local govenlment solid waste projects.
70.95.280 Determination of best solid waste management practices -- Department to develop method to monitor waste stream --
Collectors to report quantiry and qualit�� of waste -- Confidentialiry of proprieta�y ii�formation.
70.95.285 Solid waste stream analysis.
70.95.290 Solid waste stream evaluation.
70.95.295 Analysis and evaluation to be incoiporated in state solid waste ma�iagement pla�l.
70.95.500 Disposal of vehicle tires outside designated area prohibited -- Penalry -- Exemption.
70.95.510 Fee on the retail sale of new replacement vehicle tires.
70.95.520 Vehicle tire recycling account -- Deposit of funds.
7Q95.530 Vehicle tire recycling account — Use.
70.95.535 Disposition of fee.
70.95.540 Cooperation with department to aid tire recycling.
70.�SS50 Waste. tires -- Definitions.
70.95555 Waste tires -- License for transport or storage business -- Requirements.
70.g5S60 Waste tires -- Violation of RCW 70.95.555 -- Penalty.
70.95565 Waste tires -- Contracts with unlicensed peisons prohibited.
70.95.600 Educational material promoting household waste reduction and recycling.
70.95.610 Batteiy disposal -- Restrictions -- Violatois subject to fine -- "Vehicle battery" defined.
70.95.620 Identification procedure for peisons accepting used vehicle batteries.
70.95.630 Requirements for accepting used batteries by retaileis of vehicle batteries -- Notice.
70.g5.640 Retail core charge.
70.g5.650 Vehicle batteiy wholesaleis -- Obligations regacding used batteries -- Noncomplia�ice procedure.
70.95.660 Department to distribute printed notice — Issua�ice of wainings and citations -- Fines.
70.95.670 Rules.
70.95.700 Solid waste incineration or energy recove�y facility -- Environmental impact statement requirements.
70.95.710 Incineration of inedical waste.
70.95.720 Closure of energy recovery and incineration facilities -- Recordkeeping requirements.
70.95.800 Solid waste management account.
70.g5.810 Composting food a�id ya�•d wastes -- Grants a�ld study.
70.95.9� Authoriry a�ld responsibility of utilities and transportation commission not changed.
70.95.901 Severabiliry -- 1989 c 431.
70.95.902 Section captions not law -- 1989 c 431.
70.95.903 Application of chapter -- Collection and transportation of recyclable materials by recycling companies or nonprofit entities
-- Reuse or reclamation.
70.g5.910 Severability -- 1969 ex.s. c 134.
70.95.911 Severability -- 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41.
RCW 70.95
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Related Leglslation �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i�
�
U
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -
3
RCW 70.95.010
Legislative finding -- Priorities -- Goal.
The legislature finds:
(1) Continuing technological changes in methods of
manufacture, packaging, and marketing of consumer products,
together with the economic and population growth of this state,
the rising affluence of its citizens, and its ea�panding industrial
activiry ha�e created new and ever-mounting problems involving
disposal of garbage, refuse, and solid waste materials resulting
from domestic, agricultural, a�ld industrial activities.
(2) Traditional methods of disposing of solid wastes in this
state are no longer adequate to meet the ever-increasing
problem. Improper methods and practices of handling a�id
disposal of solid wastes pollute our la�ld, air a�id water
resources, blight our countryside, adversely affect la�id values,
and damage the overall quality of our environment.
(3) Considerations of natural resource limitations, energy
shortages, economics and the environment make necessary the
development and implementation of solid waste recovery and/or
recycling plaa�s and programs.
(4) Waste reduction must become a fundamental strategy
of solid waste management. It is therefore necessaiy to cha�ige
ma�iufacturing a�ld purchasing practices and waste generation
behaviors to reduce the amount of waste that becomes a
governmental responsibility.
(S) Source separation of waste must become a
fundamental strategy of solid waste management. Collection
and handling strategies should have, as an ultimate goal, the
source separation of all materials with resource value or
environmental hazard.
(6) (a) It is the respoiuibility of eveiy peison to minimize
his or her production of wastes and to separate recyclable or
hazardous materials from mixed waste.
(b) It is the responsibiliry of state, county, and city
governments to provide for a waste management infrastructure
to fully implement waste reduction a�id source separation
strategies and to process and dispose of remaining wastes in a
manner that is environmentally safe and economically sound.
It is further the responsibility of state, counry, and ciry
governments to monitor the cost-effectiveness a�ld enviromnental
Related Legislation
safety of wmbusting separated waste, processing mixed waste,
and recycling programs.
(c) It is the responsibiliry of county and ciry
governments to assume primary responsibiliry for solid waste
management and to develop and implement aggressive and
effective waste reduction and source separation strategies.
(d) It is the responsibiliry of state government to
ensure that local govemments are providing adequate source
reduction and separation opportunities and incentives to all,
including persons in both rural and urban areas, and
nonresidential waste generators such as commercial, industrial,
and institutional entities, recognizing the need to provide
flexibiliry to accommodate differing population densities,
distances to and availabiliry of recycling markets, and collection
and disposal costs in each wmmuniry; and to provide counry
and ciry governments with adequate technical resources to
accomplish this responsibiliry.
(7) Envuonmental and economic considerations in solving
the state's solid waste management problems requires strong
consideration by local governments of regional solutions and
intergovernmental cooperation.
(8) The following priorities for the collection, handling,
and management of solid waste a�e necessary and should be
followed in descending order as applicable:
(a) Waste reduction;
(b) Recycling, with source separation of recyclable
materials as the preferred method;
(c) Energy recove�y, incineration, or landfill of
separated waste;
(d) Energy recovery, incineration, or landfilling of
mixed wastes.
(9) It is the state's goal to achieve a fifry percent recycling
rate by 1995.
(10) Steps should be taken to make ��ecycling at least as
affordable and convenient to die ratepayer as mixed waste
disposal.
(11) It is necessa�y to compile and maintain adequate data
on the rypes and quantities of solid waste that are being
generated and to monitor how the various types of solid waste
a�•e being managed.
(12) Vehicle batteries should be recycled and the disposal of
vehicle batteries into landfills or incinerators should be discontinued.
XCW 70.95
�
RL-4
(13) Excessive and nonrecyclable packaging of products
should be aeoided.
(14) Comprehensive education should be conducted
throughout the state so that people are informed of the need to
reduce, source separate, and recycle solid waste.
(15) All governmental entities in the state should set a�i
example by implementing aggressive waste reduction a�ld
recycling programs at their workplaces uid by purchasing
products that are made from recycled materials a�id a�e
recyclable.
(16) To ensure the safe and efficient operatio��s of solid
waste disposal facilities, it is necessary for operatois and
regulators of landfills and incinerators to receive training and
certification.
(17) It is necessary to provide adequate funding to all levels
of government so that successful waste reduction a�id recycling
programs can be implemented.
(18) The development of stable and expa�iding markets for
recyclable materials is critical to the long-teim success of the
state's recycling goals. Market development must be
encouraged on a state, regional, a�id national basis to
maximize its effectiveness. The state sha11 assume primary
responsibility for the development of a multifaceted il�a�•ket
development program to carry out the puiposes of *this act.
(19) There is a�i imperative need to anticipate, pla�l for,
and accomplish effective storage, control, recoveiy, and recycliug
of discarded tires and other problem wastes with the subsequent
conse�vation of resources and energy.
History: [1989 c 431 § 1; 1985 c 345 § 1; 1984 c 123
§ 1; 1g75-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 1.)
RCW 70.95.020
Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a wmprehei�sive
state-wide program for solid waste ha�ldling, a�id solid waste
recovery and/or recycling which will prevent land, air, a�ld
water pollution and conserve the natural, economic, and energy
resources of this state. To this end it is the puipose of this
chapter:
(1) To assign primary responsibiliry for adequate solid
waste handling to local goveniment, reserving to the state,
however, those functions necessa�y to assure effective programs
throughout the state;
(2) To provide for adequate plamiing for solid waste
ha�idling by local govenvilent;
(3) To provide for the adoption and enforcement of basic
iniuimum peifonna�lce sta�idards for solid waste handling;
(4) To provide technical a�id financial assistance to local
governmencs in the planning, development, and conduct of
solid waste handling programs;
(5) To encourage storage, proper disposal, and recycling of
disca�ded vehicle tires and to stimulate private recycling
programs throughout the srate.
It is the intent of the legislature that local govenlments be
encouraged to use tlie e�pertise of private industiy and to
contract with private indust�y to the fullest extent possible to
cariy out solid waste recovei}� and/or recycling programs.
Histoiy: [1985 c 345 § 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 2;
1969 ex.s. c 134 § 2.]
RCW 70.95.030
Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context indicates
otheiwise:
(1) "Ciry" means every inco�porated city and town.
(2) "Commission" mea�ls the utilities and tra«sportation
commission.
(3) "Committee" means the state solid waste advisoiy
committee.
(4) "Department" means tlie department of ecology.
(5) "Director" mea�is the director of the department of
ecology.
(6) "Disposal site" means the location where any final
treahnent, utilization, processing, or deposit of solid waste
occurs.
(7) "Energy rewvery" means a process operating under
federal and state enviromnental laws a�ld regulations for
converting solid waste into usable energy and for reducing the
volume of solid waste.
(8) "Functional standards" means criteria for solid waste
handling expressed in terms of expected pecformance or solid
waste handling functions.
RCW 70.95 Related Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
R L-
5
(g) "Incineration" means a process of reducing the volume
of solid waste operating under federal and state environmental
laws and regulations by use of an enclosed device using
controlled flame combustion.
(10) °Jurisdictional health departmenY' mea«s ciry, wunty,
city-county, or district public health department.
(11) "Landfill" means a disposal facility or part of a faciliry
at which solid waste is placed in or on land a��d which is not
a land treatment faciliry.
(12) "Local govermnent" mea��s a city, town, or county.
(13) "Multiple family residence" means any structure
housing two or more dwelling units.
(14) "Peison" means individual, firm, association,
copartnership, political subdivision, govermnent agency,
municipality, industry, public or private co�poration, or any
other entiry whatsoever.
(15) "Recyclable materials" means those solid wastes that
are separated for recycling or reuse, such as papels, ►i�etals, and
glass, that a�e identified as recyclable material puisuant to a
local comprehensive solid waste plan. Prior to the adoption of
the local comprehensive solid waste plan, adopted pu�sua�it to
RCW 70.95.110(2), local governments may identify recyclable
materials by ordinance from July 23, 1989.
(16) "Recycling" means transfo��ming or rema�lufacturing
waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use
other tha�i landfill disposal or incineration.
(17) "Residence" means the regular dwelling place of an
individual or individuals.
(18) "Sewage sludge" mea�ls a semisolid substance
consisting of settled sewage solids combined with vaiying
a�nounts of water and dissolved materials, generated from a
wastewater treatment system, that does not meet the
requirements of chapter 70.95J RCW.
(lg) "Solid waste" or "wastes" mea«s all put�escible a�id
nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not
limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes,
swill,sewage sludge, demolition �uid coi�struction wastes,
abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, a�id cecyclable materials.
(20) "Solid waste handling" means the management,
storage, collection, t�ansportation, treatment, utilization,
processing, and final disposal of solid wastes, including the
recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes, tlie
Related Legislation
recovery of energy resources from solid wastes or the conversion
of the energy in solid wastes to more useful fonns or
combinatioi�s thereof.
(21) "Source sepa�ation" means the separation of different
�inds of solid waste at the place where the waste originates.
(22) "Vehicle" includes every device physically capable of
being moved upon a public or private highway, road, street, or
watercouise and in, upon, or by which any person or property
is or may be t�a��sported or drawn upon a public or private
highway, road, st�eet, or watercourse, except devices moved by
human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary
rails or tracks.
(23) "Waste reduction" means reducing the a�nount or
toxiciry of waste generated or reusing materials.
[1992 c 174 § 16; 1991 c 298 § 2; 1989 c 431 § 2; 1g85
c 345 § 3; 1984 c 123 § 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 3;
1970 ex.s. c 62 § 60; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 3.]
RCW 70.95.040
Solid waste advisory co�mnittee -- Members --
Meetings -- Tra�el expenses -- °Governor's award of
excellence."
(1) There is created a solid waste adviso�y committee to
provide consultation to dle department of ewlogy conceming
matteis covered by this chapter. The committee shall advise on
the development of programs and regulations for solid and
dangerous waste handling, resource recovery, and recycling, and
shall supply recommendations concet�ling medlods by which
existing solid and da�igerous waste handling, resource recovery,
and recycling practices and the laws authorizing dlem may be
supplemented and improved.
(2) The co�v►nittee shall consist of at least eleven
membeis, including the assistant director for waste
management progra�lls within the depat�tment. 1'he director
shall appoint membeis with due regard to the interests of the
public, local government, tribes, agriculture, industry, public
health, recycling industries, solid waste collection industries, and
resource recoveiy industries. The te�7n of appointment shall be
determined by the director. The wmmittee shall elect its own
chair a�ld meet at least four times a yea�, i�� accordance with
such rules of procedure as it shall establish. Members shall
RCW 70.95
,; , -
;. RL-6 ; ;
receive no compensation for their se�vices but shall be
reimbursed their travel expenses while engaged in business of
the committee in accordance with RCU✓ 43.03.050 and
43.03.060 as now existing or hereafter amended.
(3) The committee sha11 each year recommend to the
governor a recipient for a"goveinor's award of excellence"
which the governor shall awa�•d for outstanding achievement by
an industry, company, or individual in the area of hazardous
waste or solid waste ma�iagement.
xistory: [1991 c 319 § 401; 1987 c 115 § 1; 1982 c los
§ l; 1977 c 10 § 1. Prior: 1975-' 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 9 ;
1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 34 § 160; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 4.]
RCW 70.95.050
Solid waste advisory committee -- Staff services and
facilities.
The department shall farnish necessary staff seivices and
facilities required by the solid waste advisoiy committee.
History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 5.]
RCw 70.95.060
Standards for solid waste handling -- Areas.
The department in accordance with procedures prescribed by
the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, as uow or
hereafter amended, may adopt such minimum functional
standards for solid waste handling as it deems appropriate.
The department in adopting such standards may classify are;�s
of the state with respect to population densiry, climate, geology,
a�id other relevant factois bearing on solid waste disposal
standards.
Histoiy: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 6.]
RCW 70.95.070
Review of standards prior to adoption -- Revisions,
additions aud modifications -- Factors.
The solid waste advisory wmmittee shall review pcior to
adoption and shall recommend revisions, additions, and
modificatioi�s to the minimum functional sta�ldards governing
solid waste ha�idling relatuig, but not limited to, tlie following:
(1) Vector production and sustenauce.
RCW 70.95
(2) Air pollution (coordinated with regulations of the
depa�tment of ecology).
(3) Pollution of suiiace and ground waters (coordinated
with the regulations of the department of ecology).
(4) Hazards to seivice or disposal workers or to the public.
(5) Prevention of littering.
(6) Adequacy and adaptabiliry of disposal sites to
population served.
(7) Design and operation of disposal sites.
(8) Recovery and/or recycling of solid waste.
Hisroiy: [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 4; 196g ex.s. c 134
§ 7.]
RCW 70.95.075
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Implementation of standards -- Assessment -- •
Analyses -- Proposals.
In order to implement the minimum functional standards
for solid waste handling, evaluate the effectiveness of the
minimum functional sta�ida�ds evaluate the cost of
implementation, and develop a mechanism to finance the
implementation, tlie department shall prepare:
(1) A�i assessment of local health agencies' information on
all existing permitted la�ldfill sites, including (a) measures
tahen and facilities installed at each la�ldfill to mitigate surface
water and ground water wntamination, (b) proposed measures
taken and facilities to be constructed at each landfill to
mitigate surface water and ground water contamination, and
(c) the costs of such measures and facilities;
(2) A�i analysis of the effectiveness of the minimum
functional sta�ldards for new landfills in lessening surface water
and ground water conta�nination, a�id a comparison with the
effectiveness of the prior standa�ds;
(3) A�l analysis of the costs of conforming with the new
functional standards for new luldfills compared with the costs
of co��'orming to the prior standards and
(4) Proposals for methods of financing the costs of
co«fonning widi the new functional standa�ds.
xistory: [19s6 c sl § 1.]
Related Legislatioyc
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -
7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RCW 70.95.080
County comprehensive solid waste management plan
-- Joint plans -- Duties of cities.
Each counry within the state, in cooperation with the various
cities located within such counry, shall prepare a coordinated,
comprehensive solid waste management plan. Such plan may
cover two or more counties.
Each ciry sha11:
(1) Prepare and deliver to the county auditor oF die counry
in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste
management For integration into the comprehensive count��
plan; or
(2) Enter into an agreement with the counry puisuant to
which the ciry shall pa�•ticipate in preparing a joint ciry-county
plan for solid waste management; or
(3) Authori�e the county to prepa�•e a pla�i for tlie ciry's
solid waste ma�iagement for inclusion in the compcehei�sive
wunty plan.
Two or more cities may prepare a plan for inclusion in the
county plan. With prior notification of its home county of its
intent, a ciry in one county may enter into an agreement with
a ciry in an adjoining county, or with an adjoining counry, or
bodi, to prepa�•e a joint pla�i for solid waste management to
become pa�•t of the comprehensive pla�i of both counties.
After consultation with representatives of the cities and
counties, the department shall establish a schedule for the
development of the comprehensive pla�is for solid waste
management. In preparing such a schedule, the depactment
shall take into account the probable cost of such plans to the
cities and wunties.
Local governments shall not be required to iuclude a
hazardous waste element in their solid waste management
P�1I1S.
History: [1985 c 448 § 17; 1969 ea.s. c 134 § 8.]
� RCW 70 .95.090
• County and city comprehensive solid waste
management plans -- Contents.
�
�
�
�
�
�
Each counry and ciry comprehensive solid waste
management plan shall include the following:
Related Legzslat�on
(1) A detailed inventory and description of all existing solid
waste handling facilities including an inventory of any
deficiencies in meeting current solid waste handling needs.
(2) The estimated long-range needs for solid waste
handling facilities projected twenry years into the f�ture.
(3) A program for the orderly development of solid waste
ha�idling facilities in a ma�lner consistent with the plans for the
entire wunry which shall:
(a) Meet the minimum funcUonal standards for solid
waste ha�ldling adopted by the department and all laws and
regulatioi�s relating to air and water pollution, fire prevention,
flood control, a�ld protection of public health;
(b) Take into account the comprehei�sive la�id use
pla�l of each jurisdiction;
(c) Contain a six yea�• construction and capital
acquisition program for solid waste ha�idling facilities; and
(d) Contain a plan for financing both capital costs
and operational expenditures of the proposed solid waste
management system.
(4) A program for suiveillance and control.
(5) A current inventoiy and description of solid waste
collection needs and operatio��s within each respective
jurisdiction whicli shall include:
(a) A�iy franchise for solid waste collection granted by
the utilities and transportation commission in the respective
jurisdictions including the name of the holder of the franchise
a�ld the address of his or her place of business and the area
coveced by the fcanchise;
(b) A�iy ciry solid waste operation within the county
and the boundaries of such operation;
(c) The population dei�sity of each area se�viced by a
ciry operation or by a franchised operation within the respective
)Uf1Sd1Ctl011S;
(d) The projected solid waste collection needs for the
respective jurisdictioi�s for the next six yea�s.
(6) A comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element
that in accordance with the priorities established in RCW
70.95.010, provides programs that (a) reduce the amount of
waste generated, (b) provide incentives and mecha�lisms for
source separation, and (c) establish recycling opportunities for
the source separated waste.
RCW 70.95
;::>: ;:::
;::::>:: ,:::>::::::>:.:
RL - 8 >::>.::.: ; ,.:::..: :
(7) The waste reduction and recycling element shall
include the following:
(a) Waste reduction strategies;
@) Source separation strategies, including:
(i) Programs for the collection of source
separated materials from residences in urban and rural areas.
In urban areas, these programs shall include collection of
source separated recyclable materials from single and multiple
family residences, unless the department approves an alteinative
program, according to the criteria in the planning guidelines.
Such criteria shall include: Anticipated recoveiy rates a�id levels
of public participation, a�ailabiliry of environmentally sound
disposal capaciry, access to markets for recyclable materials,
unreasonable cost impacts on the ratepayer over the six-year
planning period, utilization of environmentally sound waste
reduction and recycling technologies, and other factois as
appropriate. In rural areas, these progra�ns shall include but
not be limited to drop-off boxes, buy-back centeis, or a
combination of both, at each solid waste transfer, processiug, or
disposal site, or at locations convenient to the residents of the
counry. The drop-off boxes and buy-back centets may be
owned or operated by public, nonprofit, or private peisons;
(ii) Programs to monitor the collection of
source separated waste at nonresidential sites where there is
sufficien� �±ensiry to sustain a program;
(iii) Programs to collect yard waste, if the county
or ciry submitting dle plan finds that there are adequate
markets or capacity for composted yard waste within or near
the service area to consume the majority of the material
collected; and
(iv) Programs to educate and promote the
concepts of waste reduction and recycling;
(c) Recycling strategies, including a description of
markets for recyclables, a review of waste generation trends, a
description of waste composition, a discussion and description
of existing programs and any additional programs needed to
assist public and private sector recycling, and a�l
implementation schedule for the designation of specific
materia.ls to be collected for recycling, and for the provision of
recycling collection services;
(d) Other info�7nation the counry or city submitting
the plan determines is necessary.
(8) A�i assessment of the plan's impact on the costs of
solid waste collection. The assessment shall be prepared in
coi�formance with guidelines established by the utilities and
transportation commission. The commission shall cooperate
with the Washington state association of counties and the
association of Washington cities in establishing such guidelines.
(9) A review of potential areas that meet the criteria as
outlined in RCW 70.�5.165.
xistory: [ 1991 c 298 § 3; 1989 c 431 § 3; 1984 c 123 •
§ 5; 1�71 exs. c 2�3 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 9.]
RCW 70.95.092
County and city comprehensive solid waste
management plans -- Levels of service, reduction and
recycling.
Levels of seivice shall be defined in the waste reduction and
recycling element of each local comprehensive solid waste
management plan and shall include the services set forth in
RCW 70.95.090. In determining which seivice level is provided
to residential and nonresidential waste generato�s in each
communiry, counties and cities shall develop clear criteria for
designating areas as urban or rural. In designating urban
a�•eas, local governments shall co��sider the planning guidelines
adopted by the department, total population, population density,
and any applicable land use or utiliry seivice pla«s.
History: [1989 c 431 § 4.]
RCW 70.95.094
County a�id city comprehensive solid waste
management plans -- Review and approval process.
(1) The depa�•tment and local governments preparing plans
are encouraged to wonc �ooperatively during plan development.
Each counry and ciry preparing a comprehensive solid waste
management plan shall submit a preliminary draft plan to the
department for technical review. The department shall review
and comment on the draft plan within one hundred twenry
days of receipt. The department's comments shall state specific
actions or revisions that must be completed for plan approval.
(2) Each final draft solid waste management plan shall be
submitted to the depa�•t►nent for approval. The department will
limit its commena on tlie final draft plans to those issues
RC'W 70.95 Related Legislation
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:: RL -
9
identified during its review of the draft plan a�id any other
changes made between submittal of the preliminary draft and
final draft plans. Disapproval of the local comprehensive solid
waste management plan shall be supported by specific findings.
A final draft plan shall be deemed approved if the department
dces not disapprove it within forry-five days of receipt.
(3) If the department disapproves a pla�i or a�ly plan
amendments, the submitting entiry may appeal the decision
under the pra:edures of Part IV of chapter 34.05 RCW. A�i
administrative law judge shall preside over the appeal. The
appeal shall be limited to review of the specific findings which
supported the disapproval under subsection (2) of this section.
History: [1989 c 431 § 8.]
RCW 70.95.096
Utiliries and transportation commission to review
local plan's assessment of cost impacts ou rates.
Upon receipt, the depa��tment sha11 immediately provide the
utilities and transportation commission with a copy of each
preliminary draft local comprehe��sive solid waste management
plan. Within forry-five days after receiving a plan, the
commission shall ha�e reviewed the plan's assessment of solid
waste collection cost impacts on rates charged by solid waste
collection companies regulated under chapter 81.77 RCW and
shall advise the counry or ciry submitting the pla�l and the
department of the probable effect of the plan's
recommendatioi�s on those rates.
xistory: [19s9 c 431 § 12.]
RCW 70.95.100
Technical assistance for plan preparation --
Guidelines -- Informational materials and programs
(1) The department or the commission, as appropriate,
shall provide to counties and cities technical assistance
including, but not limited to, planning guidelines, in the
preparation, review, and revision of solid waste management
plans required by this chapter. Guidelines prepared under this
section shall be consistent with the provisioi�s of this chapter.
Guidelines for the preparation of the waste reduction and
recycling element of the comprehei�sive solid waste ma�lagement
plan shall be completed by the department by March 15, 1990.
Related Legulation
These guidelines shall provide recommendations to local
gove�nment on materials to be co«sidered for designation as
recyclable materials. The state solid waste management plan
prepared puisuant to RCW 70.95.260 shall be co��sistent with
these guidelines.
(2) The depai�hnent shall be responsible for development
and implementation of a comprehensive state-wide public
i��formation progra�n designed to encourage waste reduction,
source sepa�ation, and recycling by the public. The department
shall operate a toll fiee hotline to provide the public
i«formation on waste reduction and recycling.
(3) The department sl�all provide technical assistance to
local governments in the development a��d dissemination of
i��formational materials and related activities to assure
recognition of unique local waste reduction and recycling
programs.
(4) Local governments shall make all materials and
ii�formation developed with the assistance gcants pcovided under
RCW 70.95.130 available to the department for potential use in
other areas of the state.
xisto�>>: [1989 c 431 § 6; 1984 c 123 § 6; 1969 ex.s. c
134 § 10.]
RCW 70.95.110
Maintenance of plaris -- Review, revisions --
Implementation of source separation programs.
(1) The comprehensive county solid waste management
plans and any comprehensive ciry solid waste ma��agement
plans prepared in accordance with RCW 70.95.080 shall be
maintained in a cutrent condition and reviewed and revised
periodically by wunties and cities as may be required by d�e
depa�tment. Upon each review such plans shall be extended to
show long-range needs for solid waste ha�ldling facilities for
twenry yeats in the future, and a revised consauction and
capital acquisition program for six yeats in die future. Each
revised solid waste manageroent plan shall be submitted to the
department.
Each plan shall be reviewed and revised within five yea�s of
July 1, 1984, and thereafter shall be reviewed, and revised if
necessa�y according to the schedule provided in subsection (2)
of this section.
RCW 70.95
�
�
>:> RL - 1
0
(2) Cities and counties preparing solid waste management
plans shall submit the waste reduction and recycling element
required in RCW 70.g5.090 and any revisions to other elements
of its comprehensive solid waste ma�iagement plan to the
department no later than:
(a) July l, 1991, for class one areas: PROVIDED,
That portioi�s relating to multiple family residences shall be
submitted no later than July 1, 1992;
(b) July l, 1992, for class two areas; and
(c) July 1, 1994, for class three areas.
Thereafter, each plan shall be reviewed and revised, if
necessary, at least eveiy five yeais. Nothing in *this act shall
prohibit local governments from submitting a plan prior to the
dates listed in this subsection.
(3) The classes of a�•eas are defined as follows:
(a) Class one areas are the counties of Spokane,
Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap and all the cities therein.
(b) Class two areas are all other counties located west
of the crest of the Cascade mountains and all the cities therein.
(c) Class three areas are the counties east of the crest
of the Cascade mountains a�ld all the cities therein, except for
Spokane counry.
(4) Cities and wunties shall begin implementing tlie
progra�ns to collect source separated materials no later than
one year following the adoption and approval of the waste
reduction and recycling element and these programs sliall be
fully implemented within two yea�s of approval.
xisto�y: [1991 c 2�8 § 4, 1989 c 431 § 5; 1984 c 123
§ 7; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 11.]
RCW 70.95.130
Financial aid to counties and cities.
Any county may apply to the department on a forii�
prescribed thereby for financial aid for the preparation of the
comprehensive county plan for solid waste management
required by RCW 70.95.080. A�iy ciry electing to prepare an
independent ciry plan, a joint ciry pla�l, or a joint counry-cih�
pla�l for solid waste management for inclusion in the county
comprehensive pla�i may apply for financial aid for such
puipose through the counry. Eveiy city application for financial
aid for planning shall be filed with the counry auditor and
shat( be included as a part of the county's application for
financial aid. A�iy city preparing an independent plan shall
provide for disposal sites wholly within its jurisdiction.
The department shall allocate to the counties and cities
applying for financial aid for planning, such funds as may be
available pursuant to legislative appropriations or from any
federal grants for such puipose.
The department shall detennine priorities and allocate
available funds among the counties and cities applying for aid
according to criteria established by regulations of the
department considering population, urba�i development,
environmental effects of waste disposal, existing waste handling
practices, and the local justification of their proposed
expenditures.
History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 13.]
RCW 70.95.140
Matching requirements.
Counties and cities shall match their planning aid allocated
by the director by an amount not less than twenty-five percent
of the estimated cost of such planning. A�iy federal planning
aid made directly to a county or ciry shall uot be co«sidered
either a state or local contribution in determining local
matcliing requirements. Counties and cities may meet their
share of planning costs by cash and contcibuted seivices.
History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 14.]
RCW 70.95.150
Contracts with counties to assure proper
expenditures.
Upon the allocation of planning funds as provided in RCW
70.95.130, the department shall enter into a contract with each
county receiving a planning grant. The contract shall include
such provisiot�s as the director may deem necessary to assure
the proper eapenditure of such funds including allocations
made to cities. The sum allocated to a counry shall be paid to
the treasurer of such county.
History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 15.]
RG'W 70.95 Related Legislatfon
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL - 11
RCW 70.95.160
Local board of health regulations to implement the
comprehensive plan -- Section not to be construed to
authorize counties to operate system.
Each county, or any city, or jurisdictional board of health
shall adopt regulations or ordinances goveming solid waste
handling implementing the comprehensive solid waste
management plan covering storage, wllection, transpoirtation,
treatment, utiliaation, processing a�ld final disposal including
but not limited to the issuance of permits and the
establishment of minimum levels and types of seivice for any
aspect of solid waste handling. County regulatioi�s or
ordinances adopted rega�ding levels and types of seivice shall
not apply within the limits of uly city where the ciry has by
local ordinance determined that the counry shall not exercise
such poweis within the cotporate limits of the ciry. Such
regulatioi�s or ordina�ices shall assure that solid waste storage
and disposal facilities a�•e located, maintained, and operated in
a manner so as properly to protect the public health, prevent
air and water pollution, a�•e consistent widi the priorities
established in RCW 70.95.010, and avoid the creation of
nuisances. Such regulatioi�s or ordinances may be nlore
stringent than the minimum functional standards adopted by
the department. Regulations or ordinances adopted b�� counties,
cities, oc jurisdictional boards of health shall be filed with the
department.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to autliorize the
operation of a. solid waste collection s}�stem by counties.
Histoiy: [19�9 c 431 § 10; 19�8 c 1?7 §?9; 1969 ea.s. c
134 § �6.]
• RCW 70.95.163
Local health departments may contract with the
� department of ecology.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
A�ly jurisdictional health department and the department of
ewlogy may enter into an agreement providing for the exercise
by the depa�tment of ecology of any power that is specified in
the contract and that is granted to the jurisdictional health
depa�•tivent under this chapter. However, the jurisdictional
health departivent shall have the approval of the legislative
authority or authorities it serves before entering into any such
agreement with the department of ecology.
xistory: [1989 c 431 § 16.]
RCW 70.95.165
Solid waste disposal facility siting -- Site review --
Local solid waste advisory committees --
Membership.
(1) Each county or ciry siting a solid waste disposal facility
shall review each potential site for conformance with the
standards as set by the department for:
(a) Geology;
(b) Ground water,
(c) Soil;
(d) Flooding;
(e) Surface water;
(� Slope;
(� Cover material;
(h) Capaciry;
(i) Climatic factors;
(j) La�ld use;
(k) Toxic air emissions; and
(1) Other factors as determined by die department.
(2) The sta�idards in subsection (1) of this section shall be
designed to use tlie best a�ailable technology to protect the
environment and human health, and sliall be revised
periodically to retlect new technology and ii�formation.
(3) Each counry sha11 establish a local solid waste advisory
committee to assist in dle development of programs and
policies concerning solid waste ha�ldling and disposa( and to
review and comment upon proposed rules, policies, or
ordinances prior to their adoption. Such committees shall
coi�sist of a minimum of nine members and shall represent a
balance of interests including, but not limited to, citizens,
public interest groups, business, the waste management
indusc�y, and local elected public officials. The members shall
be appointed by the counry legislative authority. A counry or
ciry shall not apply for funds from the state and local
improvements revolving account, Waste Disposal Facilities, 1g80,
under chapter 43.ggF RCW, for tlie preparation, update, or
major an�endment of a wmpreheitsive solid waste management
plan unless the plan or revision has been prepared with the
Rela�ed Legulr�tio�a
RCW 70.95
„:.. .
�
>:..
::::;; RL - 12 ; : .>:::; , >:..:. .:>::::.>::;.: ::::::.:..: ..: . ;: :;;::::>:.::.::.:: :
�
active assistance and participation of a local solid waste
advisory committee.
History: [1989 c 431 § 11; 1984 c 123 § 4.]
RCW 70.95.167
Private businesses involvement in source separated
materials -- Local solid waste advisory committee to
ea�amine.
(1) Each local solid waste advisoiy committee shall
conduct one or more meetings for the puipose of determining
how local private recycling a�ld solid waste collection businesses
may participate in the development and implemeutation of
progran�s to collect source sepa�ated materials froin cesidences,
and to process and market materials collected for recycling.
The meetings shall include local private recycling businesses,
private solid waste collection companies operating within the
jurisdiction, a�ld the local solid waste planning agencies. The
meetings shall be held during the development of the waste
reduction a�id recycling element or uo later than one year prior
to the date that a jurisdiction is required [to] submit the
element under RCW 70.95.110(2).
(2) Tlie meeting requirement undec subsection (1) of tlus
section shall apply whenever a city or counry develops or
an�ends the waste reduction aud recycling element required
under this chapter. Jurisdictions ha�ing approved waste
reduction and recycling elements or liaving initiated a process
for the selection of a selvice provider as of May 21, 1991, do
not have to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) of
this section until the next revisious to the waste reduction and
recycling element are made or required.
(3) After the waste reduction and recycling element is
approved by the local legislative autlioriry but before it is
submitted to the department for approval, tlie local solid waste
advisory committee shall hold at least one additional meetiug
to review the element.
(4) For the purpose of this section, "private recycling
business” means any private for-profit or private not-for-profit
business that engages in the processing and n�arketing of
recyclable materials.
xistory: [1991 c 319 § 402.]
RCW 70.95.170
Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities --
Required.
After approval of the con�prehei�sive solid waste plan by the
department no solid waste disposal site or disposal site facilities
shall be maintained, established, substantially altered, ea�panded,
oc iroproved until the counry, city, or other peison operating
sucli site has obtained a permit from the jurisdictional health
department puisuant to the provisions of RCW 70.95.180.
Histoiy: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 17.]
RCW 70.95.180
Per�nit for solid waste disposal site or facilities --
Applications, fee.
(1) Applicatious for permits to operate new or existing
solid waste disposal sites sliall be on forms prescribed by the
department and shall contain a description of the proposed a�id
existing facilities and operations at the site, plans and
specificatioi�s for any new or additional facilities to be
constructed, and such other ii�forn�ation as the jurisdictional
health department may deem necessaiy ii� order to determine
whether the site and solid waste disposal facilities located
thereo�� will comply with local a�id state regulations.
(2) [Jpon receipt of an �pplication for a permit to
establish, alter, e�pand, improve, or continue in use a solid
waste disposal site, the jurisdictional health department shall
refer one copy of the application to the depa�tment which shall
report its findings to the jurisdictional health department.
(3) The jurisdictional health department shall investigate
eveiy application as may be necessaiy to determine whether an
existing or proposed site and facilities meet all applicable laws
and regulations, a�ld coi�forms with tl�e approved comprehensive
solid waste handling pran, and complies with all zoning
requireu�ents.
(4) When the jurisdictional health department finds tliat
the peimit should be issued, it stiall issue such permit. Every
application shall be approved oi• disapproved within ninety days
after its receipt by the jurisdictional liealth depa�•tment.
(5) The jurisdictional board of health may establish
reasonable fees for peiynits and renewal of pennits. All permit
fees collected by the health department shall be deposited in the
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RCW 70.95
Related Legrslation
�
�
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
>> RL - 1
3
treasury and to the account fiom which the health depai�tment's
operating ea�penses are paid.
History: [1988 c 127 § 30; 1969 ea.s. c 134 § 1�.]
RCW 70.95.185
Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities --
Review by department -- Appeal of issuance --
Validity of permits issued after June 7, 1984.
Every permit issued by a jurisdictional health department
under RCW 70.95.180 shall be reviewed by the department to
ei�s�re that the proposed site or faciliry coi�forms with:
(1) All applicable laws and regulations including the
minimal functional sta�idards for solid waste handling; and
(2) The approved comprehensive solid waste management
plan.
The department shall review the permit within thirry days
after the issua�lce of the permit by the jurisdictional health
department. The depa�tment may appeal the issuance of the
peimit by the jurisdictional health department to the pollution
control hearings board, as described in chapter 43.21B RCW, for
noncompliance with subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
No permit issued pursuant to RCW 70.95.180 after June 7,
1984 shall be considered valid unless it has been reviewed by
the department.
xistoiy: [1984 c 123 § 8.]
RCW 70.95.190
Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities --
Renewal -- Appeal -- Validity of renewal.
Every pei7nit for a solid waste disposal site shall be cenewed
annually on a date to be established by the jurisdictional health
depa�tment having jurisdiction of the site. Prior to renewing a
permit, the health department shall conduct such inspections as
it deems necessary to assure that the solid waste disposal site
and facilities located on the site meet minimum functional
standards of the department, applicable local regulations, and
are not in conflict with the approved solid waste management
plan. The depai�tment shall review and may appeal the renewal
as set forth for the approval of pennits in RCW 70.95.185.
A renewal issued under this section shall not be coi�sidered
valid unless it has been reviewed by the department.
Histoiy: [1984 c 123 § 9 ; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § lg.]
RCW 70.95.200
Permit for solid waste disposal site or faciliries --
Suspension.
A�ly permit for a solid waste disposal site issued as provided
herein shall be subject to suspension at any time the
jurisdictional health deparhnent determines that the site or the
solid waste disposal facilities located on the site are being
operated in violation of this chapter, or the regulations of the
depa�•tment or local laws and regulations.
History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 20.]
RCW 70.95.210
Hearing -- Appeal.
Whenever the jurisdictional health departii�ent denies a
permit or suspends a pei7l�it for a solid waste disposal site, it
shall, upon request of the applicant or holder of the permit,
grant a hearing on such denial or suspe��sion within thirty days
after the request therefor is made. NoUce of the hearing shall
be given all interested parties including the counry or city
having jurisdiction over the site and the department. Within
thirry da}�s after the hearing, the health officer shall notify the
applicant or the holder of the permit in writing of his
determination and the reasoils therefor. A�iy parry aggrieved by
such determination may appeal to the pollution control
liearings boa�d by filing with the hearings board a notice of
appeal within thirry days after receipt of notice of the
determination of the health officer. The hearings boa�•d shall
hold a hearing in accordance with the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, as now or
hereafter amended.
History: [1987 c 109 § 21; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 21.]
RCW 70.95.215
Landfill disposal facilitics -- Rescrve accounts
required by July 1, 1987 -- Exception -- Rules.
(1) By July 1, 1987, each holder or applicant of a pennit
for a landfill disposal faciliry issued under this chapter shall
establish a reseive account to cover the costs of closing the
faciliry in accordance with state and federal regulations. The
Related Legislatao�a
RCW 70.95
�
'::: RL - 1
4
account shall be designed to eiuure that there will be adequate
revenue available by the proiected date of closure. Landfill
disposal facilities maintained on private properry for the sole
use of the entiry owning the site sliall not be required to
establish a reseive account if, to the satisfaction of the
depa�tment, they provide another fotm of financial �ssurance
adequate to comply with the requirements of this section.
(2) By July l, 1986, the departinent shall adopt rules
under chapter 34.05 RCW to implement subsection (1) of this
section. The rules shall include but uot be limited to:
(a) Methods to estimate closure costs, including
postclosure monitoring, pollution prevention me;�sures, and any
other procedures required under state and fedeial regulations;
(b) Methods to ensure that reseive accounts receive
adequate funds, including:
(i) Requirements that the reseive accouut be
geneiated by user fees. However, the departivent may waive
this requirement for existing landfills if user fees would be
pcoliibitively high;
(ii) Requirements that moneys be placed in the
reseive account on a regular basis and that the reseive account
be kept separate from all other accounts; and
(iii) Procedures for the department to verifi� that
adequate sums are deposited in tlie resetve account; and
(c) Methods to ensure that other ty�es of financial
assura�ice provided in accordance with subsection (1) of this
section are adequate to cover the costs of closing the facility.
Histoty: [1985 c 436 § 1.]
RCW 70.95.220
Financial aid to jurisdictional health departments --
Applications -- Allocations.
A�ry jurisdictional health department may apply to the
deparhnent for financial aid for the ei�toccement of rules aud
regulations promulgated under this cliapter. Such application
shall contain such ii�formation, including budget aud progran�
description, as may be prescribed by regulations of the
department.
After receipt of such applications the department may
allocate available funds according to criteria established by
regulations of the department considering population, urban
development, the �wmber of the disposal sites, a�ld geographical
area.
The sum allocated to a jurisdictional health department
shall be paid to the treasuiy from which the operating expenses
of the health depai�tment are paid, and shall be used exclusively
for ii�spections and administrative ex�penses necessary to enforce
applicable regulations.
Histoiy: [1g69 ex.s. c 134 § 22.]
RCW 70.95.230
Financial aid to jurisdictioual health departments --
Matching funds requirements.
The jurisdictional health department applying for state
assistance for the enForcement of this chapter shall match such
aid allocated by the department in an amount not less than
twenty-five percent of the total amount spent for such
ei�forcement activiry during the year. The local sha�e of
e«forcement costs may be met by cash and contributed services.
Histoiy: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 23.]
RCW 70.95.235
Diversion of recyclable material -- Penalty.
(1) No peison ►nay divert to peisonal use any cecyclable
►iiaterial placed in a container as part of a recycling program,
witllout the consent of the generator of sucli recyclable material
or the solid waste collection wmpany operating under the
3l1CIlOC1� of a town, ciry, wunty Ol' tI1C UCII1t12S alld
tra►�sportation commission, a�ld no peison may divert to
commercial use any recy�clable material placed in a container
;�s part of a recycling program, without the consent of che
peison owning or operatiug such container.
(2) A violation of subsection (1) of this section is a class 1
civil ii�fraction under chapter 7.80 RCW. Each violation of this
section shall be a sepa�ate ii�fraction.
xistoiy: [1991 c 319 § 407.]
RCW 70.95.240
U�ilawful to dump or deposit solid waste without
permit.
After the adoption of regulations or ordinances by any
county, city, or jurisdictional board of health providing for the
RG'W 70.95 Related Legxslation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
i•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
> RL -
1
5
issuance of pein�its as provided in RCW 70.95.160, it shall be
unlawful for any person to dump or deposit or pei�nit the
dumping or depositing of any solid waste onto or under the
surface of the ground or into the waters of this state except at
a solid waste disposal site for which there is a valid peimit:
Provided, 1'hat nothing herein shall prohibit a peison from
dumping or depositing solid waste resulting from his own
activities onto or under the suiface of ground owned or leased
by him when such action does not violate statutes or
ordinances, or create a nuisance. Any pe�son violatiug this
section shall be guilry of a misdemeanor.
Histoty: [1g69 ex.s. c 134 § 24.]
RCW 70.95.250
Name appearing on waste material -- Presumption.
Whenever solid wastes dumped in violation of RCW
70.95.240 contain three or more items bearing the name of one
individual, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
individual whose name appea�s on such items committed tlie
unlawful act of dumping.
History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 25.]
RCW 70.95.255
Disposal of sewage sludge or septic ta�ilc sludge
prohibited--Exemptions--Uses of sludge material
pennitted.
After ]anuaiy 1, 1988, the department of ecology may
prohibit disposal of sewage sludge or septic tank sludge
(septage) in landfills for final disposal, except on a temporaiy,
emergency basis, if the jurisdictional health department
determines that a potentially unhealtl�ful circumstance exists.
Beneficial uses of sludge in landfill reclamation is acceptable
utiliaation and not wnsidered disposal.
The depa�tment of ecology shall adopt rules that provide
exemptions from this section on a c�se-by-case basis.
Exemptioi�s shall be based on the economic ii�feasibiliry of
using or disposing of the sludge material other than in a
landfill.
The depart►nent of ecology, in conjunction with the
department of health and the department of agriculture, shall
adopt rules establishing labeling and notification requirements
for sludge material sold commercially or given away to tlle
Re%te�l Legisl�t7o�r
public. The depai�hnent shall specify mandatory wording for
labels and notification to warn the public against improper use
of the material.
[1992 c 174 § 15; 1986 c 297 § 1.]
RCW 70.95.260
Duties of departmeut -- State solid waste
management plan -- Assistance -- Coordination --
Tire recycling.
1'he department shall in addition to its other powers and
duties:
(1) Cooperate with the appropriate federal, state, interstate
and local units of gove�nment and with appropriate private
orga�iizations in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Coordinate the development of a solid waste
management plan for all a�eas of the state in cooperation with
local govenunent, the department of communiry development,
and other appropriate state a�id regional agencies. The plan
shall relate to solid waste management for twenry years in the
future and shall be reviewed biennially, revised as necessary,
and extended so that peipetually the plan shall look to the
future for twenry yeais as a guide in carrying out a state
coordinated solid waste management program. The p(an shall
be developed into a single integrated document a�id shall be
adopted no later than October 1990. The plan shall be revised
regularly after its initial completion so that local governments
revising local comprehensive solid waste management plans can
tahe advantage of the data and analysis in the state plan.
(3) Provide technical assistance to any person as well as to
cities, counties, and industries.
(4) Initiate, conduct, and support research, demonsreation
projects, and investigatio►�s, and coordinate resea�ch programs
pertaining to solid waste management systems.
(5) Develop state-wide programs to increase public
awareness of and pat�ticipation in tire recycling, a�id to
stimulate and encourage local private tire recycling centers and
public participation in tire recycling.
(6) May, under the provisioi�s of the Administrative
Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, as now or hereafter
amended, from time to time promulgate such ivles and
RCW 70.95
C�
RL
-16
regulations as are necessary ro car�y out the puiposes of this _
chapter.
xistory: [ 1989 c 431 § 9. Prior: 1985 c 345 § 8; 1985 c
6§ 23; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 26.)
RCW 70.95.263
Additional powers and duties of department.
The department shall in addition to its other duties and
powers under this chapter:
(1) Prepare the following:
(a) a management system for recycling waste paper
generated by state offices and institutions in cooperation witll
such offices and institutioi�s;
@) an evaluation of existing a�id potential systems for
recovery of energy and materials from solid waste with
recommendatio��s to affected governmental agencies �s to those
systems which would be the most appropriate for
implementation;
(c) a data management system to evaluate and ;�ssist
the progress of state and local jurisdictions and private industry
in resource recoveiy;
(d) identification of potential markets, in cooperation
with private industiy, for recovered resources and the impact of
the distribution of such resources on existing markets;
(e) st�dies on methods of tra�uportation, collection,
reduction, separation, and packaging which will encourage
more efficient utilization of existing waste recoveiy facilities;
(t� recommendations on incentives, including state
grants, loans, and other assistance, to local governments which
will encourage the recovery and recycling of solid wastes.
(2) Provide technical ii�formation and assistance to state
and local jurisdictions, the public, and private industry on solid
waste recovery and/or recycling.
(3) Procure and eapend funds available from federal
agencies and other sources to assist the implementation by
local govemments of solid waste recovery and/or recycling
programs, and projects.
(4) Conduct necessary research and studies to carry out the
purposes of this chapter.
(5) Encourage and assist local governments and private
industry to develop pilot solid waste cecovery and/or recycling
projects.
(6) Monitor, assist with research, a��d collect data for use
in assessing feasibility for othe�s to develop solid waste recovery
and/or recycling projects.
(7) Make periodic recommendations to the goveinor and
tl�e legislature on actions and policies which would further
imple►ne►it the objectives of *this 1976 aivendatoiy act.
History: [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 5.]
RCW 70.95.265
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Department to cooperate with public and private •
departments, agencies and associations.
The department shall work closely with the department of
tiade and economic development, the deparhnent of general
ad►ninistration, and with other state deparbnents and agencies,
the Washington state association of counties, the association of
Washington cities, and busiiless ;�.ssociations, to cariy out tlie
objectives and puiposes of *this 1976 amendatory act.
xistoiy: [1985 c 466 § 69; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 6.]
RCW 70.95.267
Department authorized to disburse referendum 26
(chapter 43.83A RCW) fund for local govenunent
solid waste projects.
The department is authorized to use referendum 26 (chapter
43.c�3A R�W� fUl1aS Of t�le W3S�illlg[011 fUtUfeS 3CCOURt t0
disbuise to local govermnents in developing solid waste recoveiy
and/or recycling projects.
History: [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 10.]
RCW 70.95.268
Department authorized to disburse funds under
chapter 43.99F RCW for local government solid waste
proj ects.
The department is authorized to use funds under chapter
43.99F RCW to disbuise to local governments in developing
solid waste recoveiy or recycling projects. Prioriry shall be
RCW 70.95 Related Legislation
�
� _ ............. _........................... .. . _.._...... _ ..............
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
given to those projects that use incineration of solid waste to
produce energy and to recycling projects.
History: [1g84 c 123 § 10.�
RCw 70.95.280
Determination of best solid waste management
practices -- Department to develop method to
monitor waste stream -- Collectors to report quantity
and quality of waste -- Conf'identiality of proprietary
information.
The depa�tment of ecology shall determine the best
management practices for categories of solid waste in
accordance with the priority solid waste management methods
established in RCW 70.95.010. In order to make this
determination, the department shall conduct a comprehensive
solid waste stream analysis and evaluation. Following
establishment of baseline data resulting from an initial in-de�th
analysis of the waste stream, the department shall develop a
less intensive method of monitoring the disposed waste streaii�
including, but not limited to, cllanges in the an�ount of waste
generated and waste type. The department shall monitor
curbside collection programs and other waste segregation and
disposal technologies to detennine, to the eatent possible, the
effectiveness of these programs in terms of cost and
pa�tieipation, their applicability to otller locations, aud their
implicatioi�s regarding rules adopted under this chapter.
Pe�sons who collect solid waste shall annually report to the
department the rypes a�ld quantities of solid waste that are
collected and where it is delivered. The depart�vent shall adopt
guidelines for reporting a�id for keeping propcietaiy i►�formation
co«fidential.
Histoty: [1989 c 431 § 13; 1988 c 184 § 1.]
RCW 70.95.285
Solid waste stream analysis.
The comprehensive, state-wide solid waste stream anal��sis
under RCW 70.95.280 shall be based on repcesentative solid
waste generation areas and solid waste generation sources
within the state. The following i«formation and evaluations
sha11 be included:
(1) Solid waste generation rates for each categoi��,
RL - 1 '
7
(2) The rate of recycling being achieved within the state
for each category of solid waste;
(3) The current and potential rates of solid waste reduction
within the state;
(4) A technological assessn�ent of cunent solid waste
reduction a�ld recycling methods and systems, including
cosbbenefit analyses;
(5) A�l assessment of the feasibiliry of segregating solid
waste at: (a) The original source, @) transfer stations, and
(c) the point of final disposal;
(6) A review of inethods that will increase the rate of solid
waste reduction; and (7) (7)
(7) A�l assessment of new and existing technologies that
are available for solid waste management including an analysis
of the associated environmental ris�s a�ld costs.
The data required by the analysis under this section shall be
kept current and shall be available to local govenunents and
the waste ►nanagement industi��.
xistoiti�: [19�8 c 184 § ?.]
RCW 70.95.290
Solid waste strcam evaluatiou.
(1) The evaluation of the solid waste stream required in
RCW 70.95.280 shall include the following elements:
(a) The deparhnent shall determine wliich
management method for each category of solid waste will have
the least environmental impact; and
(b) The depart�vent shall evaluate the costs of various
management options for each category of solid waste, includii�g
a review of market availability, and shall tahe into
consideration the economic impact on atfected parties;
(c) Based on the results of (a) and @) of this
subsection, the depa��tivent shall dete�7nine the best
management for each categoiy of solid waste. Different
n�anagement methods for the same categories of waste may be
developed for different parts of the state.
(2) The department shall give priority to evaluating
categories of solid waste that in relation to other categories of
solid waste, comprise a large volume of the solid waste stream
or present a high potential of harm to human health. At a
minimum the following categories of waste shall be evaluated:
� Related I.eg�s/atio�a RCW 70.95
�
:::::: R -
L 1
8
(a) By January 1, 1g�99, yard w�ste and other
biodegradable materials, paper products, disposable diapeis, and
batteries; and
(b) By Jaimaiy 1, 1990, roetals, gl�ss, plastics,
styrofoam or rigid lightweight cellular polystyrene, and tires.
xisto�y: [19ss c 184 § 3.]
RCW 70.95.295
Analysis and evaluation to be incor�orated in state
solid waste management plan.
The department shall inco�porate the i►�formation from the
aualysis and evaluation conducted under RCW 70.95.?80
through 70.95.290 to the state solid waste management plan
under RCW 70.95.260. The plan shall be revised periodically as
the evaluation and analy�sis is updated.
History: [1988 c 184 § 4.]
RCW 70.95.500
Disposal of vehicle tires outside designated area
prohibited -- Penalty -- Exemption.
(1) No peison may drop, deposit, discard, or otheiwise
dispose of vehicle tires on any public property or private
pcoperry in this state or in the wate�s of this state whedier from
a vehicle or otherwise, uicluding, but not limited to, auy� public
higliway, public park, beach, campground, forest land,
recreational area, trailer park, liighwa��, road, street, or alle}�
unless:
(a) The property is designated by the state, or by any
of its agencies or political subdivisions, for the disposal of
discarded vehicle tires; and
(b) The peison is authorized to use the proper�� for
such pu�pose.
(2) A violation of this section is punishable by a civil
penalty, which shall not be less than two lmndred dolla�s noc
more than two thousand dollais for each offense.
(3) This section does not apply to the storage or deposit of
vehicle tires in quaiztities deemed exempt uuder rules adopted
by the depart►nent of ecology under its functional standards for
solid waste.
History: [1g85 c 345 § 4.]
RCW 70.95.510
Fee on the retail sale of new replacement vehicle
tires.
There is levied a one dollar per tire fee on the retail sale of
new replacement vehicle tires for a period of five years,
beginning October 1, 1989. The fee imposed in this section
shall be paid by the buyer to the seller, and each seller shall
collect from the buyer the full amount of the fee. The fee
collected from the buyer by the seller less the ten percent
amount retained by the seller as provided in RCW 70.g5.535
shall be paid to the department of revenue in accordance with
RCW 82.32.045. All other applicable provisio��s of chapter
8?.3? RC�V have full force and application with respect to the
fee imposed under this section. The department of revenue
shall administer this section.
For the puiposes of this section, "new replacement vehicle
tires° means tires that are newlv manufactured for vehicle
puiposes and does not include retreaded vehicle tires.
xisto�}: [1989 c 431 § 92; 1985 c 345 § 5.]
RCW 70.95.520
Vehicle tire recycling account -- Deposit of funds.
There is created an account within the state treasury to be
l�lown as the vehicle tire recycling account. All assessments
and other funds collected or received under this chapter shall
be deposited in the vehicle tire recycling account and used by
the department of ecology for administration and
implementation of this chapter. After October 1, 1989, the
department of revenue shall deduct two percent from funds
collected puisuant to RCW 70.95.510 for the puipose of
administering and collecting the fee from new replacement
vehicle tire retaileis.
xistoiy: [19s9 c 431 § 94; 19s5 c 345 § 6.]
RCW 70.95.530
Vehicle tire recycling account -- Use.
Money�s in the account may be appropriated to the
department of ecology:
(1) To provide for funding to state and local govemments
for the removal of discarded vehicle tires from unauthorized tire
diunp sites;
RG'W 70.95 Related Legfslalion
C�
�
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:>:: RL - 1
9
(2) To accomplish the other puiposes of RCW
70.g5.020(5); and
(3) To fund the study authorized in section 2, chapter 250,
Laws of 1988.
In spending funds in the account under tliis section, the
department of ecology shall identify commuiiities with the most
severe problems widi waste tires and provide funds fiist to those
communities to remove accumulations of waste tires.
x;story: (i9ss c aso § i 1985 c 345 § 7.J
RCW 70.95.535
Disposition of fee.
(1) Every pe�son engaged in making retail sales of new
ceplacement vehicle tires in this state shall retain ten percent of
the collected one dollar fee. The moneys retained may be used
for costs associated with the proper manage�uent of the w�ste
vehicle tires by the retailer.
(2) The department of ecology will administer the funds
for the puiposes specified in RCW 70.95.0?0(5) including, but
not limited to:
(a) Ma�ing grants to local governments for pilot
demoi�stration projects for on-site shredding and recycling of
tires from unauthorized dump sites;
(b) Grants to local government for ei�torcement
programs;
(c) Implementation of a public ii�formation and
education program to include poste�s, signs, and ii�tormational
materials to be distributed to retail tire sales and tire se�vice
outlets;
(d) Product n�arketing studies for recycled tires and
alternatives to land disposal.
xistory: [1989 c 431 § 93.]
RCW 70.95.550
Waste rires -- Definitions.
Unless the coutext clearly requires othen�rise, the definitions
in this section apply throughout RCW 70.95.555 through
70.95.565.
(1) "Storage" or "storing" meai�s the placing of more than
eight hundred waste tires in a manner that dces not constitute
final disposal of the waste tires.
(2) "Trai�sportation" or °t�at�sporting" means picking up
or tra«sporting waste tires for the puipose of storage or final
disposal.
(3) "Waste tires" means tires that a�•e no longer suitable
for their original intended puipose because of wear, damage, or
defect.
xisto�y: [1988 c 250 § 3.]
RCW 70.95.555
Waste tires -- License for transport or storage
business -- Requiremeuts.
A�iy peison engaged in the business of tra«sporting or
storing waste tires shall be licensed by the depat�t►vent. To
obtaiu a license, each applicant must:
(1) Provide assurances that the applicant is in compliance
with this chapter and the rules regarding waste tire storage and
transportation; and
(2) POSt 3 v0(1(I lR tI1C SUIl] Ot t211 tl1011S111d d0II3fS lll
favor of the state of Washington. In lieu of the bond, the
applicant may submit financial assurances acceptable to the
departivent.
History: [1988 c 250 § 4.]
RCW 70.95.560
Waste tires -- Violation of RCW 70.95.555 -- Penalty.
RCW 70.95.540
Cooperation with department to aid tire recycling.
To aid in the state-wide tire recycling campaign, the
legislature strongly encourages various industry orga�uzations
whicli are active in resource recycliug efforts to provide active
cooperation with the department of ecology so that additional
techuology can be developed for the tire rec}�cliug campaign.
xistory: [19s5 c 345 § 9.]
Related Leg�slatio�a
A�iy peison who transports or srores waste tires without a
license in violation of RCW 70.95.555 shall be guilry of a gross
misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished under
RCVU 9A.20.021(2).
Histoiy: [1989 c 431 § 95; 1988 c 250 § S.]
RCW 70.95
�
-2 :
RL 0
xCw 70.95.5G5
Waste tires -- Contracts with unlicensed persons
prohib�ted.
No business may enter into a contract for.
(1) Tra��sportation of waste tires wit0 an unlicei�sed waste
tire transporter; or
(2) Waste tire srorage with an unlicei�sed owner or
operator of a waste tire storage site.
History: [1g88 c 250 § 6.]
RCW 70.95.600
Educarional material promoting household waste
reduction and recycling.
The depa�•tment of ecology, at the request of a local
government jurisdiction, may periodically provide educational
material promoting household waste reduction and recyclii�g to
public and private refuse hauleis. The educational material
shall be distributed to households receiving refuse collection
service by local governments or the refuse hauler providing
service. The refuse hauler may distribute tlie educational
material by any means that assures timel�� delivery.
Reasonable expenses incurred in the distribution of this
material shall be coi�sidered, for rate-mal:iug pu�poses, as
legitimat : operating ea�peuses of garbage and refuse haule�s
regulated under chapter 81.77 RCW.
xisroiy: [1988 c 175 § 3.]
RCW 70.95.610
Battery disposal -- Restrictious -- Violators subject to
fine -- "Vehicle battery" defined.
(1) No peison may k�iowingly dispose of a vehicle battery
except by delivery to: A peison or entiry selling lead acid
batteries a person or entity authorized by the department to
accept the batteiy, or to a seconda�y lead smelter.
(2) No ownec or operator of a solid waste disposal site
shall knowingly accept for disposal used vehicle batteries except
when authorized to do so by the depa�tment or by the federal
government.
(3) A�ly peison who violates this section shall be subject to
a fine of up to one thousand dolla�s. Each batteiy will
constitute a separate violation. Nothing in this section and
RCW 70.95.6?0 through 70.95.660 shall supeisede the provisions
under chapter 70.105 RCW.
(4) For putposes of this section and RCW 70.95.620
througlt 70.95.660, "vehicle battery" means batteries capable for
use in a�iy vehicle, having a core consisting of elemental lead,
and a capacity of su or inore volts.
xistory: [1989 c 431 § 37.]
RCW 70.95.620
Identification procedure for persons accepting used
vehicle batteries.
The department shall estahlish a procedure to identify, on an
annual basis, those peisons accepting used vellicle batteries
from retail establishments.
xistoiy: [19s9 c 431 § 38.]
RCW 70.95.630
Requirements for accepting used batteries by
retailers of vehicle batteries -- Notice.
A peison selling vehicle batteries at retail in the state shall:
(1) Accept, at the time of purchase of a replacement
batteiy, in the place where the new batteries are physically
transferred to the purchaseis, and in a quantity at least equal
to the number of new batteries purchased, used vehicle batteries
from tlie purchaseis, if offered by the piu•chaseis. When a
purchaser fails to provide an equivalent used Uatte�y or
batteries, the purchaser may reclaim the core charge paid under
RCW 70.�5.640 by returning, to the point of purchase within
thirry days, a used batteiy or batteries and a receipt showing
proof of purchase from the establishment where the replacement
battery or batteries were purchased; and
(2) Post written notice which must be at least eight and
one-half inches by eleven inches in size and must contain the
univeisal recycling symbol and the following language:
(a) "It is illegal to put a motor vehicle battery or
other vehicle batte�y in your garbage."
(b) "State law requires us to accept used motor
vehicle batteries or otller vehicle batteries foi• recycling, in
eschange for new batteries purchased."
RG'W 70.95 Relaterl Legislation
n
LJ
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
R - 1 <:::
L 2
(c) "When you buy a battery, state law also requires
us to include a core charge of five dollars or more if you do
not return your old battery for exchange."
History: [1g89 c 431 § 39.]
RCW 70.95.640
Retail core charge.
Each retail sale of a vehicle batteiy shall include, in dle
price of the batteiy for sale, a core cha�ge of not less tha�i five
dollars. When a purchaser offers the seller a used batte�y of
equivalent size, the seller shall omit the core charge from the
price of the battery.
History: [1989 c 431 § 40.]
RCW 70.95.650
Vehicle battery wholesalers -- Obligations regarding
used batteries -- Noncompliance procedure.
(1) A peison selling vehicle batteries at wholesale to a
retail establishment in this state shall accept, at the time and
place of transfer, used vehicle batteries in a quantity at least
equal to the number of new batteries purchased, i� offered by
the purchaser.
(2) When a battery wholesalec, or agent of tlie wholesaler,
fails to accept used vehicle batteries as provided in this section,
a retailer may flle a complaint with the department a�ld the
department shall investigate any such complaint.
(3) (a) The deparhnent shall issue an order suspending
any of the provisioi�s of RCW 70.95.630 through 70.95.660
whenever it finds that the market price of lead has fallen to the
extent that new batteiy wholesaleis' estimated state-wide average
wst of transporting used batteries to a smelter or other peison
or entiry in the business of purchasing used batteries is clearly
greater than the market price paid for used lead batteries by
such smelter or person or entity.
(b) The order of suspension shall only apply to
batteries that are sold at retail during the period in which the
suspension order is effective.
(c) The department shall limit its suspension order to
a definite period not exceeding six months, but shall revoke the
order prior to its ea�piration date should it find that the reasons
for its issuance are no longer valid.
xistoiy: [19s9 c 431 § 41.]
xCw 70.95.660
Department to distribute printed notice -- Issuarice
of warnings and citations -- Fines.
The department shall produce, print, and distribute the
notices required by RCW 70.95.630 to all places where vehicle
batteries are offered for sale at retail and in performing its
duties under this section the depa��pnent may i«spect any place,
building, or premise govetned by RCW 70.95.640. Audlorized
employees of the agency may issue wa��iings a�id citations to
peisons who fail to comply with the requirements of RCW
70.95.610 tl�rough 70.95.670. Failure to coi�forn� to the notice
requirements of RCW 70.95.6.30 shall subject the violator to a
fine imposed by the department not to exceed one thousa�id
dollais. However, no such fine shall be imposed unless dle
department has issued a wai7ling of infi•action for the fiist
offense. Each day that a violator does not comply with the
requirements of *this act following the issuance of an initial
waiy�ing of ii�fraction shall constitute a separ offense.
xistoiy: [1989 c 431 § 4z.]
RCW 70.95.670
Rules.
The depat�tment shall adopt rules providing for the
implementation and ei�forcement of RCW 70.95.610 through
70.95.660.
xisto�y: [1989 c 431 § 43.1
RCW 70.95.700
Solid waste incineration or energy recovery facility --
Enviroiunental impact statement requirements.
No solid waste incineration or energy recovery faciliry shall
be operated prior to the completion of an environmental impact
statement containing the considerations required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c) and prepared puisuant to the procedures of
chapter 43.21C RCW. This section does not apply to a faciliry
operated prior to January 1, 1989, as a solid waste incineration
facility or energy recovery faciliry butning solid waste.
History: [1989 c 431 § 55.]
Related Legulat�on
RCW 70.95
�
:><: RL -
22
RCW 70.95.710
Incineration of inedical waste.
Incineration of inedical waste shall be conducted under
sufficient burning conditions to reduce all combustible material
to a form such that no portion of the combustible material is
visible in its uncombusted state.
xistory: [1989 c 431 § 77.]
RCW 70.95.720
Closure of energy recovery and incineration facilities
-- Recordkeeping requirements.
for, and feasibility of, composting systems for food and yard
wastes.
xistory: [1g89 c 431 § 97.)
RCW 70.95.900
Authority and responsibility of utilities and
transportation commission not changed.
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to change the authority
or responsibiliry of the Washington utilities and transportation
commission to regulate all intrastate carriers.
History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 27.]
The depa�tment shall require energy recoveiy and
incineration facilities to retain records of roonitoring and
operation data for a minimum of ten yeais after pei7uanent
closure of the faciliry.
xisroiy: [ 1990 c 114 § 4. )
RCW 70.95.800
Solid waste managemeut account.
The solid waste management account is created in the state
treasury. Moneys in the account may only be spent after
appropriation. Eapenditures from the account may only be
used to cany out the puiposes of *this act.
wsro�y: [199i isr sP.s. c i3 § 73; i9s9 c 43i § 90.�
RCW 70.95.810
Composring food and yard wastes -- Grants aud
study.
(1) In order to establish the feasibiliry of composting food
and yard wastes, the department shall provide funds, as
available, to local governments submitting a proposal to
compost such wastes.
(2) The department, in woperation with the department of
trade and economic development, may approve an application if
the project can demo«strate die essential parameteis for
successful composting, including, but not limited to,
cost-effectiveness, handling and safety requirements, and cun•ent
and potential markets.
(3) The department shall periodically report to the
appropriate standing committees of the legislature on the need
RCW 70.95.901
Severability -- 1989 c 431.
If any provision of this act or its application to any person
or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is
not affected.
xistoiy: [1989 c 431 § 107.�
RCW 70.95.902
Section captions not law -- 1989 c 431.
Captions and headings used in this act do not constitute any
part of the law.
xistoiy: [1989 c 431 § 108.)
RCW 70.95.903
Application of chapter -- Collection and
transportation of recyclable materials by recycling
companies or nonprofit entities -- Reuse or
reclamation.
Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a recycling company or
nonprofit entiry from collecting and transporting recyclable
materials from a buy-back center, drop-box, or from a
commercial or industrial generator of recyclable materials, or
upon agreement with a solid waste collection company.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting a
commercial or industrial generator of commercial recyclable
materials from selling, conveying, or arra�lging for
RCW 70.95 Related Legfslation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
R L-2
3
transportation of such material to a recycler for reuse or
reclamation.
History: [1g8g c 431 § 32.]
RCW 70.95.910
Severability -- 1969 ex.s. c 134.
If any provision of this act, or its application to a�iy peison
or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the
application of the provisions to other peisons or circ�ul�stances
is not affected.
Histoiy: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 28.]
RCW 70.95.911
Severability -- 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41.
If any provision of this 1976 amendarory act, or its
application to any person or cu•cumsta�lce is lield invalid, the
remainder of dle act, or the application of the provision to
other persoi�s or circumsta�lces is not affected.
Histoiy: [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 11.]
weGtrieud snviioremenrat C�ta93) -(cJ - rsxr-73ieve, tnc. (boo� s�s-4?55
Related Leg�slation RG'W 70.95
-4
RL 2
KING COUNTY CODE
TITI.E 10, SOLID WASTE
Chapters:
10.04
10.08
10.10
10.12
10.14
10.16
10.18
10.22
10.24
10.28
Sections:
10.04.010
10.04.020
10.04."30
10.04.040
10.04.060
10.04.070
10.04.080
King Counry Solid Waste Code
Solid Waste Sites
Disposal Sites - Hours and '1'ypes of Waste Accepted
Solid Waste Site Disposal Fee
Waste Reduction - Recycling a�ld Recovery
Recycled Product Procurement Policy
Collection of Household Recyclables a�id Yard Waste in Unincorporated King County
Policy Direction for Development of the King Counry Comprehei�sive Solid Waste Management Pla�i
Solid Waste Management Plan
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Chapter 10.04
KING COUN7Y SOLID WASTE CODE
Title of chapter.
Definitions.
Keeping and use of solid waste containeis.
Construction, maintenance and placement of
solid waste containers.
Separation of solid waste.
Removal or storage of swill.
Littering and unlawful dumping.
10.04A10 Title of chapter. This chapter sha11 be
known as the "King County Solid Waste Code," and is necessary
for the preservation and protection of public health, welfare and
safery. The terms, provisions, rules a�id regulatioi�s
incorporated herein shall be liberally construed for the
aforementioned purpose. (Ord. 8891 § 2, 1989).
10.04.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall
apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this title:
�
�
�
�
�
•
(updated 1/93) �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
A. "Agricultural wastes° means non-dangerous wastes
on farms resulting from the production of agricultural products
including but not limited to ma�iures and carcasses of dead
animals weighing each or collectively in excess of fifteen
pounds.
B. "Asbestos-containing waste material" means a�iy
waste that contains asbestos. This tei�n includes, but is not
limited to, asbestos waste from control devices, contaminated
clothing, asbestos waste material, materials used to enclose the
work area during an asbestos project, and bags or containers
that previously contained asbestos.
C. "Ashes" means the residue including any air
pollution control equipment flue dusts from combustion or
incineration of material including solid wastes.
D. "Bulky waste" means large items of refuse, such as
appliances, furniture, and other oversize wastes which would
rypically not fit into reusable solid waste containeis.
E. "Certified hauler or certificated hauler" means any
person engaged in the business of solid waste handling having
a certificate granted by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission for that purpose.
F. "Charitable organization" means any organization
which meets the following criteria: must be defined by the
KCC T'ule 10 Related Leglslat:on
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -2
5
Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 charitable organization;
must be engaged as a primary form of business in the
processing of abandoned goods for resale or reuse; and must
ha�e an account with the solid waste division.
G. "Clean soils and clean dredge spoils" mea�is soils
and dredge spoils which are not dangerous wastes or problem
wastes as defined in this chapter.
H. "Commercial hauler" means atry peison, firm or
corporation including but not limited to "certified hauler," as
defined herein, collecting or t�ai�sporting solid waste for liire or
consideration.
I. "Compacted waste" means a�ly solid waste whose
volume is less than in the loose condition as a result of
compression.
J. "Controlled solid waste" means a11 solid waste
generated, collected or disposed within the uninwiporated areas
of King Counry and a11 solid waste generated, collected or
disposed within any other jurisdiction with which a solid waste
utterlocal agreement, as defined herein, exists.
K. "Dangerous wastes" means any solid waste
designated as dangerous waste by the Washington State
Department of Ecology under chapter 173-303 WAC.
L. "Demolition wastes" means solid waste, largely inert
waste resulting from the demolition, razing or const�uction of
buildings, roads, and other man-made structures. Demolition
waste consists of, but is not limited tq concrete, brick,
bituminous concrete, wood and masonry, composition roofing
and roofing paper, steel, a�ld minor amounts of other metals
like copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plaster board) or any
other material that is likely to produce gases or a leachate
during the decomposition process and asbestos wastes are not
coi�sidered to be demolition waste for the puiposes of this
chapter.
M. "Designated interlocal focum° means a group of
representatives of unincolporated King Counry a��d of
incorporated cities and towns within King County designated by
the council of King Counry and by interlocal agreemeiit with
the cities in King Counry to discuss solid waste issues and
facilitate regional interlocal cooperation in solid waste
management.
Related Legulation
N. "Disposal° mea��s the discharge, deposit, injection,
dumping, leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any
land or water.
0. "Disposal faciliry" is a disposal site or interim solid
waste handling facility. This includes, but is not limited to,
transfer stations included as pa��t of the county disposal system,
landfills, incinerators, composting plants, and facilities for the
recycling or recovery of resources from solid wastes or the
conveision of the energy from such wastes to more useful forms
or combinations thereof.
P. "Disposal site" means a site or sites approved by the
council of King County where a�iy final treatment, utilization,
processiug or disposition of solid waste occurs.
Q. "Disposal system" meai�s the system of disposal
facilities, rules and procedures established pursuant to this title.
R. "Drop box faciliry" mea��s a faciliry used for the
placement of a detachable solid waste container, i.e., drop
boxes, including the area adjacent for necessa�y entrance and
exit roads, unloading, and turna�ound a�•eas. Drop box
facilities normally seive the general public with loose loads and
receive waste from off-site. Drop box facilities may also include
containeis for separated recydables.
S. "Division" meai�s the solid waste division of the
King County public works depa�•tment.
T. "Energy resource recoveiy" mea��s the recovery of
energy in a usable fonn from mass buining or refuse derived
fuel incineration, py�•olysis or airy other mea��s of using the
heat of combustion of solid waste that involves high
temperature (above 1200 degrees Fahrenheit) processing.
U. "Garbage" meai�s unwa�ited animal and vegetable
wastes and animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the
handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food, swill,
and ca�•casses of dead animals and of such a cha�acter and
proporUon as to be capable of att�acting or providing food for
vectois, except sewage and sewage sludge.
V. "Hazardous wastes" means a�ld includes, but is not
limited to explosives, medical wastes, radioactive wastes,
pesticides and chemicals which are potentially ha�mful to the
public health or the environment. Unless otherwise defined by
the King Counry boa�d of health, such waste sliall ha�e the
meaning as defined by the Washington State Department of
Ecology a�ld the Washington Administrative Code.
KCC 7itle 10
�
�
>: R -
L 2
6
;::.;:;
;::.;.::::. :.
:
::. :.. ;
::.:.: > > :: ..
,::
:.. .
;. : . :.:
;.:::.:. .::. ..:
;.;:::::.: : .::::> ::::...:. :: ..::::::::: : ::::.:: :: .:::
,:: . . . ::.: :
>.:>: ::: ....; ... . ....:: ::..: ::::..... ...:::
W. "Haza�•dous waste ma�lagement plau" means a plan
for managing moderate risk wastes, puisuant to RCW
70.105.220.
X "Health deparqnent" means the Seattle-ting County
health department.
Y. "Health officer" mea��s the ting County director of
public health, or his authorized agent.
Z. "Industrial solid wastes" meai�s waste by-products
from manufacturing and fabricating operatioi�s such as scraps,
trimmings, packing, and other discarded materials not
othe�wise designated as dangerous waste under Chapter 173-303
WAC.
AA. "Interim solid waste handling facilit��' means auy
interim treatment, utilization or pracessing site engaged in solid
waste handling which is not tlie final disposal site. Transfer
stations, drop boxes, baling a�id compaction sites, source
separation centeis, intenvediate processing Facilities, mixed
waste processing facilities and treatn�ent facilities are considered
interim solid waste ha�ldling sites.
BB. "Intermediate processing faciliry" means airy faciliry
that sorts mixed recyclables from source separation progra►ns to
divide them into individ�al component recyclable matecials or
to process them for marketing.
CC. "King Counry Solid Waste Advisoiy Convnittee"
means the committee foin�ed puisuant to �ing County
Ordinance 6862 and RCVV Chapter 70.95 to advise the counry
on solid waste management pla�uiiug, assist in the development
of progra►ns and policies concerning solid waste mauageivent,
and review and comii�ent on the pla�i and other proposed solid
waste management rules, policies or ordina�ice prior to
adoption.
DD. "Landclearing wastes" mea«s solid wastes resulting
from the clearing of land for new coi�struction and includes,
but is not Wnited to, stuinps and other vegetation, rocks, mud
a�id other pla�it or mineral wastes.
EE. "Landfill" meu�s a disposal site or part of a site at
which waste is placed in or on land and which is not a
la�ldspreading disposal faciliry.
FF. "Luidspreading disposal facility" mea��s a faciliry
that applies sludge or other solid wastes onto or incoiporates
solid waste into the soil surface at greater than vegetative
utilization and soil conditioners/immobilization rates.
KCC 7�tle 10
GG. "Liquid" mea«s a substa�lce that flows readily and
assumes the form of its container but retains its independent
volume.
I-�I. "Littering" means to accumulate, or place, throw,
deposit, put into or in a�ly land or water or otherwise dispose
of refuse including rubbish, ashes, garbage, dead animals,
industrial refuse, commercial waste and a11 other waste material
of every kind a�id description in a�iy manner except as
authorized by this chapter.
II. "Manager" mea��s the manager of the solid waste
division of the department of public works of King Counry.
JJ. "Medical waste" means all waste so defined by the
Kllig COUR� board of health rules and regulatio��s.
KK. "Mixed municipal solid waste" means waste
consisting of solid waste generated by residences, stores, offices,
and other generatois of wastes that are not industrial,
agricultural, or demolition wastes.
LL. "Mued waste processing" meat�s sorting of solid
waste after collection from the point of generation in order to
remove recyclables from the solid waste to be disposed.
MM. "1�4obile yard waste facility" means a yard waste
faciliry requiring no above-grade construction a�ld established
on a temporaiy basis. For the puiposes of Section 10.12.020, a
mobile yard waste faciliry shall be co«sidered to be a disposal
site without scales.
NN. "Moder�te risl� waste° means:
L a�iy waste that exhibits a�iy of the properties
of haza�•dous waste but is exempt from regulation under RCW
Chapter 70.105 solely because the waste is generated in
quantities below the threshold for regulation, and
2. a�iy household wastes which are generated
from the disposal of substulces identified by the department of
ecology as liazardous household substances.
00. °Multi-family structure" means any residential
structure designed exclusively for occupancy by two or more
fa�nilies living independendy of each other receiving solid waste
collection seivice as an entire structure or complex and the
st�•ucture or complex is billed for solid waste collection se�vice
as a whole a�id not by individual dwelling units.
PP. Noncommercial user" means any person not
engaged in the business of solid waste handling.
Related Legislation
r
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RI.-Z
7
QQ. "Operating hours" means those times during which
disposal facilities are normally open and a�ailable for the
delivery of solid wastes.
RR. "Person" means any individual, association, firm,
corporation, partnership, political subdivisiou, municipality,
government agency, industay, public or private coiporation, or
any other entiry.
SS. "Plan" means the coordinated comprehensive solid
waste management plan for the counry as required by RCW
Chapter 70.95.
TT. "Problem wastes" means:
1. soils removed during the clea�mp of a
remedial action site, or a dangerous waste site closure or other
cleanup efforts and actions and which contain ha�mful
substances but a�e not designated dangerous wastes, or
2. dredge spoils resulting from the dredging of
suiface wate�s of the state where contaminants are present in
the dredge spoils at concentrations not suitable for open water
disposal a�id the dredge spoils a�e not da�lgerous wastes and
a�e not regulated by the Federal Clea�l Water Act.
UU. 'Procurement policy" mea«s the development and
implementation of a policy which achieves the purchase of
produc� made from recycled and/or recyclable goods.
W. "Receive�s" means persoi�s who will reuse recyclables
and to whom source separated recyclables for which a market
dces not presendy exist can be delivered at little or uo cost in
order to a�oid landfilling the materials pending development of
economic markets.
WW. "Reclamation site" means a location used for the
processing or the storage of recycled waste.
XX. "Recyclables" means any material that can be kept
out of or recovered from solid waste and the resources therein
be tra��sformed and/or reused including, but not limited to,
mixed paper, newsprint, cardboard, aluminum, glass, plastics,
chemicals, oil, wood, compostable organics (food and ya�d
debris), ferrous metal, and inorganics (rubble and inert
material).
YY. "Recycling" means either source separation or the
processing of solid waste mechanically or by hand to segregate
materials for sale or reuse. Materials which can be removed
through recycling include but are not limited to miYed paper,
newsprint, ca�dboard, aluminum, glass, plastics, chemicals, oil,
Related leg�slat�on
wood, compostable organics (food and yard debris), ferrous
metal, and inorganics (rubble and inert material). Recycling
does not include combustion of solid waste or preparation of a
fuel from solid waste.
ZZ. "Refuse" means garbage, rubbish, ashes, swill and
all other putrescible and nonputrescible wastes, except sewage,
from all public and private establishments and residences.
AAA. "Regional approach° means the development and
implementation of a solid waste management program in
cooperation with municipalities in King Counry and with other
counties within the Puget Sound area.
BBB. "Regional direct" means any solid waste
transported to Cedar Hills disposal site by conventional long
haul transfer vehicles, transporting from solid waste transfer
stations solid waste generated and collected in King County.
CCC. "Reuse" means the return of a commodiry into
the economic strea�n for use.
DDD. "Rubbish" means a11 nonputrescible wastes from
a11 public and private establishments a�ld from all residences.
EEE. "Secured load" means a load of solid waste which
has been secured or covered in the vehicle in a manner that
will prevent any pa��t of the solid waste from lea�ing the vehicle
while the vehicle is moving.
FFF. "Self-hauler" mea��s all vehicles that are neither
passenger licensed vehicles nor vehicles used by solid waste
collection entities in their solid waste collection operations.
GGG. "Single fa�nily dwelling" means any residential
unit receiving solid waste collection service as an individual
unit and the dwelling is billed for solid waste collection service
as an individual dwelling.
H�I�I. "Solid waste" mea��s all putrescible and
nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, except wastes
identified in WAC 173-304-015, including but not limited to
garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and
construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
discarded commodities, sludge from wastewater treatment plants
and septage from sepUc tanks, woodwaste, dangerous waste, and
problem wastes. This includes all liquid, solid and semisolid
materials which are not the primary products of public, private,
industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations.
Unrecovered residue from recycling operations sha11 be
considered solid waste.
KCC 73'tle 10
; .>:.;::>::>:;:.: . : ..
RL - 28
III. "Solid waste collection entiry" mea��s every peison
or his lessees, receivers, or trustees, owning CORtCOIllllg
operating or ma�iaging vehicles used in the business of
transporting solid waste for collection and/or disposal for
compensation including all certified hauleis, or any city using
its own employees, or any company operating pursuant to a
contract with or franchise from a ciry perfoiming solid waste
collection seivices within the city.
,JJJ. "Solid waste interlocal agreement" means an
agreement between a city and the counry for use of King
County disposal system for solid waste generated or collected
within the city.
KIQ{. "Solid waste management" means the systematic
administration of activities which provide for the reduction in
generated volume, source separation, collection, storage,
transportation, transfer, recycling, processing, treatment and
disposal of solid waste. This includes public education and
marketing activities.
LLL. "Source separation" mea��s the process of
separating recyclable materials from material which will
become solid waste at its source.
MMM. "Suspect waste" means any waste the manager
suspects may be unauthorized waste.
NNN. "Swill" means every refuse accumulation of
animal, f; .ait or vegetable matter, liquid or othen�vise, that
attend the preparation, use, cooking, dealing in or storing of
meat, fish, fowl, fruit and vegetables, except coffee grounds.
000. "Transfer station" means a staffed, fixed,
supplemental collection and transportation faciliry used by
persons and route collection vehicles to deposit collected solid
waste from off-site into a larger tra��sfer vehicle for tra«sport to
a permanent disposal site. It may also include recycling
facilities.
PPP. "Unauthorized waste" means waste which is waste
not acceptable for disposal at any or a specific disposal facility
according to applicable rules and regulations or a
determination of the manager.
QQQ. "Uncompacted waste" means any solid waste in
an uncompressed or loose condition.
RRR. °Unincorporated urban service area" means a
geographical area of urban unincorporated King Counry
designated to receive solid waste, recyclables, and yard waste
COIIeCt10(1 SCTVICCS.
SSS. "Waste reduction" means reducing the amount or
rype of waste generated.
TIT. "Woodw�ste° means solid waste consisting of wood
pieces or pa��ticles generated as a by-product resulting from the
handling and processing of wood, including, but not limited to,
hog fuel, sawdust, shavings, chips, bark, small pieces of wood,
stumps, limbs and any other material composed largely of
wood which has no significant commercial value at the time
in question, (but shall not include slash developed from
logging operatioi�s unless disposed of on a different site), and
does not include wood pieces or particles wntaining chemical
preservatives such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or
copper-chrome-a�senate.
UUU. "l'ard waste" means a compostable organic
material generated in yards or gardens, including but not
limited to, lea�es, grass, branches, pcunings, and clippings of
woody and fleshy plants and unflocked Christmas trees, but
shall not include rocks, dirt or sod, concrete, asphalt, bricks,
landclearing wastes, demolition wastes, woodwaste or food
waste.
VW. "Yard waste facility" means a faciliry used by
county residents to deposit source separated yard waste. (Ord.
10018 § 1, 19�1: Ord. 9928 § 1, 1991: Ord. 9599, 1990:
Ord. 9484 § 1, 1990: Ord. 9271 § 16, 1989: Ord. 88g1 § 3,
1989).
10.04.030 Keeping and use of solid waste
containers. Each peison in possession, charge or control of
a�iy dwelling, flat, roominghouse, aparcment house, hospital,
school, hotel, club, restaurant, boardinghouse or eating place,
or in possession, charge or control of a�ly shop, place of
business or manufacturing establishment, or any place where
garbage, refuse or swill is created or accumulated sha11 at all
times, keep or cause to be kept portable solid waste containers,
for the deposit therein of ga�bage and refuse, and to deposit, or
cause to be deposited the same therein. (Ord. 8891 § 4,
1989).
KCC 7�tle 10 Related Legulation
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:::' RL - 2
9
10.04.040 Construction, maintenance and
placement of solid waste containers. Solid waste
containers shall be constructed in such a manner as to be
strong, watertight, not easily wrroded, rodentproof, ii�sectproof,
and sha11 ha�e adequate handles, and tight fitting lids. Such
containers shall be kept in a sanitary condition with the outside
thereof clean and free from accumulative grease and
decomposing material. Each container shall be kept in a place
accessible to the collector of garbage and refuse on scheduled
wllection days. The standards for receptacles for separated
recyclables may be established to meet the requirements of the
applicable recycling programs. (Ord. 8891 § 5, 1989: Res.
8778 § 5, 1943).
10.04.060 Separation of solid waste. The counry
may by ordinance require the separation of paper, yard and
garden waste or other component parts of solid waste and may
require the deposit thereof in separate cans or receptacles and
may prescribe the methods of handling thereof. (Ord. 8891
§ 6, 19g9)�
10.04.070 Removal or storage of swill. Swill may
be eliminated by use or may be sold by the peison producing
the same or may be removed by peisons; provided they receive
the approval of the health officer, and that the removal or
storage of the swill is carried out according to good sanitaiy
practice. (Ord. 8891 § 7, 1989).
10.04.080 Littering and unlawful dumping. A. It
is unlawful to place, throw, deposit or otheiwise dispose of
refuse other than in a receptacle provided for that puipose, in
any public place, public road, public park, on any private
property or in the waters within King Counry, except as
specifically authori�ed by this title or at the official solid waste
disposal facilities provided therefor by King Counry.
B. It is unlawful for the owne�s or occupants of private
property to deposit or accumulate, or to permit the deposit or
accumulation of refuse upon such private properry; provided,
howevec, that this shall not prohibit the storage of garbage,
rubbish, or recyclable materials in public or private receptacles,
or in solid waste containers or other approved receptacle, or in
Related Legislatron
securely tied bundles when such receptacles or bundles are for
immediate or approved periodic disposal; provided, further:
1. the use of a compost pile or bin shall not be
prohibited if the use and maintenance thereof is in such a
manner as to prevent the atri•action breeding and/or harboring
of insects and rodents;
2. nor sha11 any recycling operation be affected if
it is operating in accorda�ice with all applicable rules,
regulatio«s, laws or other pei7nit requirements. Any such use
permitted hereunder shall not be construed to permit a
nuisance as defined by state law.
C. Hauling restrictions. It is unlawful for any person,
firm or coiporation to haul refuse, garbage, rubbish, dead
animals, ashes, or any other waste material of the �ind defined
in this chapter on the highways and roads in King Counry
unless such ►naterials are properly stored, covered and otherwise
secured so as to prevent spillage or littering. (WAC
173.304.200). (Ord. 8891 § 8, 1989).
Chapter 10.08
SOLID WASTE SITES `
Sections:
10.08.020 System of disposal.
10.08.030 Acquisition of solid waste disposal facilities.
10.0�.040 Operation of solid waste disposal facilities by
wunry.
10.08.050 Use of county disposal facilities.
10.08.060 Establishment and operation of solid waste
disposal.
10.08.070 Exempt operations.
10.08.080 Recycling.
10.08.090 Solid waste disposal site permit - regulations.
10.08.100 Ei�forcement.
10.08.110 Penalties.
10.08.120 Severabiliry.
10.08.130 Interlocal agreements.
10.08.140 Reporting.
'[For statutory provisions regarding garbage disposal sites, see
xC�� 36.58.�
KCC 7itle 10
�
RL -
3
0
10.08.020 System of disposal. A. Under the
authority provided by the King Counry Home Rule Charter and
RCW 36.58.040, a system is hereby established for disposal of
all solid waste generated and/or disposed in unincoiporated
King Counry. Additionally this system shall include all solid
waste generated and/or collected in any other jurisdictions with
which an interlocal agreement exists pursuant to K.C.C.
10.08.130.
B. Disposal in King County. It is unlawful for any
peison to dispose of controlled solid waste except at disposal
sites and in a manner authorized Uy King Counry.
C. Disposal outside King Counry. Unless specifically
permitted by state law or specifically authorized by King County
orduiance, it is unlawful for a�iy commercial hauler or other
peison or entiry to deliver or deposit any controlled solid w�ste
outside the borders of King Counry unless it is authorized b}�
the adopted King County comprehensive solid waste
management plan. (Ord. 8891 § 13, 1�89: Ord. 7708 § l,
1986).
10.08.030 Acquisition of solid waste disposal
facilities. The counry may acquire by pucchase, lease,
contract with private parties or other necessary means, disposal
facilities which are needed for disposal of solid waste generated
and collected in King Counry and other jurisdictions with wltich
an interlocal agreement exists, puisuant to K.C.C. 10.0�.130.
Selection of such disposal facilities shall be consistent with the
King County Comprehensive Plan and all federal, state, and
local requirements, including, but not limited to, comprehensive
land use planniug, fire protection, water qualiry, air quality,
and the consideration of esthetics. To the extent practicable,
solid waste disposal facilities shall be located in a manner
which equalizes their distribution a�•ound the counry, so that no
single area of the counry will be required to absorb an undue
share of the impact from these facilities. More than one
alternative must be wnsidered and evaluated in the siting of
pla�ined solid waste disposal facilities. The county may acquire
disposal facilities on a continuing basis, as is required by the
volume of solid waste generated a�id collected within the
counry. (Ord. 8891 § 9, 1989: Ord. 8069, 1987: Ord. 7708
§ 1, 1986).
10.08.040 Operation of solid waste disposal
facilities by county. The division shall be the operating
authoriry for all solid waste disposal facilities owned or operated
by King County. Nothing herein shall prohibit the county by
ordinance from contracting with another entity, public or
private, to own, co��struct and/or operate a disposal facllity.
The council of King Counry shall establish by ordinance the
hours of operation of disposal facilities, disposal fees charged,
and rypes of waste for which each faciliry is intended. The
manager shall prepare operating regulations for solid waste .
disposal facilities, which shall govern all other matters necessary
to assure compliance with federal, state and Iocal regulations
applicable to such facilities. The counry reserves the right to
provide in said operating rules that certain solid wastes, such as
bull.y wastes, problem wastes and wood waste, based on source,
ty�pe or volume, shall not be accepted, or only conditionally
accepted, at facilities ovv�ied or operated only by the counry.
The operating rules for such facilities shall be consistent with
this chapter and no less stringent than regulations promulgated
by the board of health. (Ord. 8891 § 10 1989: Ord. 7708
§ 1, 1986).
10.08.050 Use of county disposal facilities, A.
Dangerous and hazardous waste. Under no circumstances shall
any peison deliver to any King County solid waste disposal
faciliry for disposal airy waste that is defined as "hazardous
waste" per the Federal Resource Conseivation and Recovery Act,
42 USC §6901-6991i, or rules or regulations thereunder, or
defined as "extremely hazardous wastes" or "dangerous wastes"
per Chapter 70.105 RCW or rules or regulatio«s thereunder
except:
1. in those specific cases where the counry has
expressly authoriaed the place, time, type and manner of the
delivery of such waste after full disclosure; or
2. at a time and place e�ressly specified for
dangerous a�ld hazardous waste collection.
B. No petson shall deliver any waste to any King
Counry disposal facility which has not been handled and treated
in the manner required by applicable operating regulations
adopted by the division and the King Counry board of health
rules and regulatiot�s.
KCC 7�tle 10 Related Legrslation
��
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL - 1
3
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,
no municipal corporation or agent thereof or any commercial
hauler shall deposit in any King County solid waste disposal
faciliry solid waste generated or collected within the boundaries
of a jurisdiction which has not entered into a written use
agreement with King Counry unless otherwise authorized use
through special rate class established by ordinance.* (Ord.
8946, 1g89: Ord. 8891 § 11, 1989: Ord. 8613 § 3, 1988:
Ord. 7891 § 1, 1986: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986).
10.08.060 Establishment and operation of solid
waste disposal. Pursuant to Chapter 70.95 RCW, no
disposal facility in King County, whether acquired publicly or
privately, shall be established, altered, expa�lded, improved,
operated or maintained without prior compliance with the
following:
A. The disposal facility a�id proposed method of
operation sha11 be wnsistent with the King Counry
comprehensive solid waste management plan and shall be
approved by the health department; and
B. The disposal faciliry sha11 be co►�structed, operated
a�id maintained in accord with tei�rns of permit from the healtli
depa�•tment and such other permits as are required by law.
C. All other federal, state and local laws, ordinances
and regulations shall be met.
D. In addition to other requirements imposed by laws,
all recycling drop box facilities shall display the name, address,
a�id telephone number of the owner/operator in an easily
identified place and the rype. of material to be accepted. These
facilities shall be regularly collected and/or emptied so the
material contents do not overtlow. (Ord. 9580, 1990: Ord.
8891 § 12, 1989: ord. 7708 § 1, 1986):
• 10.08.070 Exempt operations. A. Any solid waste
operation herein exempt from obtaining a permit under this
• chapter must be established, maintained, ma�iaged a�ld/or
operated in compliance with all other requirements of local,
�
�
�
�
�
�
* Ordina�lce No. 8613 which a�nended Section 10.08.050 has
a�i effective date of September 15, 1988.
Related Legzslation
state or federal health rules. Any exception allowed in this
chapter shall ha�e no effect on requirements of other laws,
ordinances, or regulations.
B. The following solid waste disposal operations or
facilities are hereby exempted from obtaining a permit under
this chapter to be established, maintained, managed or
operated:
1. Dumping or depositing solid waste generated
by a single family or household produced incidental to routine
household activities onto or under the surface of the ground
owned or leased by that family or household.
2. Wrecking automobiles and parts thereof
including storage and handling facilities.
3. Depositing less than 2,000 cubic yards of soll,
rock, gravel, broken concrete, and similar inert wastes onto the
surface of the ground whereby such depositing is to be
temporary in nature, graded, and otherwise worked to fill an
existing depression or low a�ea of ground.
C. Depositing agricultural solid waste onto or under
the surface of the ground when said waste is being utilized
primarlly for fertilizer or a soil conditioner, or is being
deposited on ground owned or leased by the person responsible
for the production of said waste; as long as depositing such
waste does not create a nuisa�ICe.
D. Depositing sewage and/or sewage sludge onto or
under the surface of the ground at a disposal site which has
otherwise been issued a pennit by a local, state or federal
agency to be operated, maintained or managed for that
puipose.
E. Depositing hazardous waste onto or under the
sut�face of the ground at a disposal site which has otheiwise
been issued a permit by a local, state or federal agency to be
operated, maintained, or managed for this purpose. (Ord. 8891
11, � 19s9: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986).
10.08.080 Recycling. A goal for King County's solid
waste management shall be to achieve maximum feasible
reduction of solid waste going to landfills and to other
processing facilities, co��servation of energy and natural
resources, and enviromnental protection. The division shall
develop plans and incentives for waste reduction through source
separation, recycling, packaging changes, and other methods
KCC Title 10
�
'<:: RL - 2 >
3
deemed effective by the division. Recla�nation sites for recycling
operations shall be designated as part of the county's disposal
system and shall be subject to permit requirements of the
health department. (Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986).
10.08.090 Solid waste disposal site per�nit -
regulations. The board of health shall adopt regulations
governing the establishment, alteration, expansion,
improvement, operation and maintena�lce of all solid waste
disposal sites. Such regulatio��s shall set proceduces, standards
a�id conditions for the issua�ice of solid waste disposal site
permits designed to assure that disposal sites and facilities are
located, maintained and operated in a ma�uier so as to
properly protect the public health, prevent air and water
pollution, and avoid the creation of nuisances. Sucll
regulations shall be coi�sistent with, but may_be more stringent
than, the minimum functional standa�•ds adopted by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (WAC 173-304). (Ord.
7708 § 1, 1986).
10.08.100 Enforcement. The director of tlie
Seattle-King Counry department of public health is authorized
and responsible to e«force or seek the e��forcement through the
prosecutor's office of K.C.C. 10.04.030, 10.04.040, 10.04.070,
10.04.08�!, 10.08.060, 10.08.070-.090, and any rules and
regulatioi�s promulgated thereunder pu�sua�it to but not
restricted to the enforcement and penalry provisions of Title 23.
1'he manager is authorized and responsible to seek the
enforcement through the prosecutor's office of R.C.C. 10.08.040,
10.08.050 C. a�id K.C.C. 10.08.020 a�id any rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder pursua�lt to but not
restricted to the enforcement a�id penalry provisions of Title 23.
Both the director of the department of public health and the
manager are authori�ed a�id responsible for enforcement of
KC.C. 10.04.0(0, 10.08.050 A and 10.08.050 B. and any rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder puisuant to but not
restricted to the enforcement and penalty provisions of Title 23.
(Ord. 8891 § 14, 1989: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986).
10.08.110 Penalries. Any person, firm or coiporation
which violates or refuses to or fails to comply with a�iy of the
provisions of this chapter or cegulations promulgated hereunder
and ocders issued puisua�lt hereto or who files or supplies any
false incomplete or inaccurate information in conjunction with
a�iy pennit application or pel�rnit renewal or in supplying any
other information requested by this chapter shall be deemed
guilry of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by
the court of not more tha�l 90 days or by fine in the amount
fixed by the court of not n�ore than $1,000 or both such
imprisonment a�ld fine. In addition, enforcement and penalty
provisions of K.C.C. Title 23 shall be applicable to any violation
of this chapter or regulations pcomulgated hereunder. Nothing
contained herein shall be coi�strued to exempt an offender from
any other suit, prosecution or penalry provided in the King
County Code or by other laws. (Ord. 7708 § 1, 1�86).
10.08.120 Severability. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause or pluase of this chapter is, for any reason,
found to be unconstitutional or otheiwise invalid by a wurt of
competent jurisdiction, sucli decision shall not affect the validiry
of the remaining portions. (Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986).
10.08.130 Interlocal agreements. A. By October l,
1986, the division shall request each city in the counry to
provide to the division by December 31, 1986, written
notification of its iutent to use counry disposal facilities. A�iy
ciry which does intend to use county disposal facilities shall
enter into an interlocal agreement with tlle counry by June 30,
1988. A�ly ciry failing to notify the division by December 31,
1986 of its intent to use county disposal sites or failing to enter
iuto a�i interlocal agreemeut with the counry by June 30, 1988
shall be prohibited from disposing its solid waste at any county
disposal site until or unless specifically so authorized by King
Counry ordinance.
B. These interlocal agreements sl�all provide for cities
to designate by ordinance the counry disposal system for
disposal of all solid waste generated within their coiporate
limits and sha11 grant to the county the authority to designate
specific sites for the disposal of solid waste generated within
their coiporate limits. Nothing in these contracts shall prevent
any ciry from implementing programs to achieve maximum
recycling of waste. All rates shall be as established by King
KCC 74t1e 10 Reuited Legislation
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -
33
Counry ordinance. (Ord. 8365 § 1, 1987: Ord. 7708 § 2,
1986).
10.08.140 Reporting. Effective July 1, lggl, all solid
waste wllection entities shall provide information to the
manager on their usage of King County solid waste facilities.
A No later than 15 days after the end of each month,
solid waste wllection entities sha11 report the amount of
residential and commercial tonnage hauled to each ting
Counry solid waste facility, and identify the cities, towns or
uninwrporated service areas from which each ton of waste
hauled by them originated.
B. Once each year, no later tha�i Ma�ch 31, solid waste
collection entities shall submit a�l annual tonnage forecast
wiiich estimates the total amount of residential and commercial
tonnage and the number of residential and commercial
accounts by ciry, town or unincoiporated seivice area for the
cunent year.
C. All information shall be reported on fonns provided
by d�e county.
D. Any significant cha�lges in patteiyis of usage of King
Counry solid waste facilities shall be reported to the manager
30 days in advance of the cha�ige. (Ord. 10018 § 4, 1991).
Chapter 10.10
DISPOSAL SI1'ES -
HOURS AND TYPES OF WASTE ACCEP'1'ED
Sections:
10.10.020 Operating houis.
10.10.030 Types of waste accepted.
1010.040 Effective date.
10.10.020 Operating hours. Operating hours at �ing
County solid waste disposal facilities shall be as follows:
A. Transfer stations sha11 be open from 8:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., Sundays through Saturdays. The Facroria transfer
station sha11 also be open at night from 5:30 p.m. to 1:00
a.m., Monday through Friday. Ya�d waste facilities shall be
located at the following transfer stations and shall be open at
the houts here specified:
Related Legzslation
Factoria Transfer Station....S:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday
B. The Cedar Hills Landfill shall be open from 6:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, 6:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Saturdays a�id Sundays. Cedar Hills shall not be open for
use by the general public.
C. All King Counry solid waste disposal facilities shall
be closed on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Years
Day.
D. King Counry landfills (excluding Cedar Hilis), drop
boxes, and ya�d waste facilities located at landfills shall be open
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., seven days per week during
Pacific Standa�d Time a�id from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven
days per week during Pacific Daylight Time. Yard waste
facilities shall be located at Hoba�t and Cedar Falls landfills.
E. Operating houis, dates of operation, and sites for
mobile ya�d waste facilities shall be detei�rnined and publicized
by the manager. (Ord. 9484 § 2, 1990: Ord. 8156, 1g87:
Ord. 8103 § 3, 19�7).
10.10.030 'I�pes of waste accepted. Types of waste
accepted at King County solid waste disposal facilities shall be
limited to the following:
A. Cedar Hills Landfill shall accept mixed municipal
solid waste from transfer stations a�id other sources in King
Counry, and demolition waste in small quantities incidental to
jurisdictional activities.
B. Rural landfills shall accept mixed municipal solid
waste from nonurban sources.
C. Transfer stations shall accept mixed municipal solid
waste, demolition waste in small quantities incidental to
jurisdictional activities and of a size and de«siry capable of
being handled by tra��sfer station equipment, and waste from
the general public, businesses, and route collection vehicles
collecting waste in King Counry.
D. Drop box facilities shall accept mixed municipal
solid waste in loads not to exceed five cubic yards and/or one
�011.
E. Yard waste facilities located at counry transfer
stations or landfills shall accept source separated ya�d waste
from counry residents.
KCC 7itle 10
�i
RL -
3
4
F. Mobile yard waste facilities shall accept source
separated residential yard waste from noncommercial useis in
loads not to exceed five cubic yards and/or one ton.
G. Other wastes, such as industrial waste, semisolid, or
liquid waste, and asbestos containing waste material, may be
accepted at sites as designated and approved by the manager.
H. Acceptance of any suspect waste may be denied
pending the health officer's approval. (Ord. 9484 § 3, 1990:
Ord. 8108 § 4, 1987).
10.10.040 Effective date. This chapter shall take effect
OR Jllly 1, 198]. ��l'd. g1�8 § 1, 1�8]�.
Chapter 10.12
SOLID WASTE SITE DISPOSAL FEES
Sections:
10.12.020 Fees for use of disposal sites.
10.12.022 Ciry o; Seattle withdrawal.
10.12.025 La�idfill management.
10.12.030 Collection of fees.
10.12.050 Exception to seivice fee.
10.12.055 Otller fees.
10.12.060 Ei�forcement.
10.12.065 Disposal of demolition and landclea�ing
debris.
10.12.020 Fees for use of disposal sites. All
peisons usiug counry-operated solid waste disposal facilities
shall pay the seivice fees set fortli in the following schedules:
A. Effective Janua�y 1, 1992 seivice fees for the use of
disposal sites with scales, excluding Cedac Hills, shall be:
1. Solid waste disposal:
Passenger licensed vehicles $ 9.25 per entiy
Other vehicles 66.00 per ton
Charitable organizations 43.00 per ton
Minimum charge 9.25 per vehicle
Charitable organizations,
minimum cha�•ge 6.00 per ent�y
�
�
•
�
•
2. Deposit of source separated yard waste at • I
disposal sites with yard waste facilities:
Passengec licensed vehicles 7.50 per entry
Other vehicles 58.00 per ton
Minimum charge 7.50 per vehicle
B. Effective Januar�� 1, 1992 service fees for the use of
disposal sites without scales shall be based upon the cubic yard
or fraction thereof as follows:
1. Solid waste disposal:
Passenger licensed vehicles $�.25 per entry
Other veliicles
Compacted wastes 19.00 per cubic yard
Uncompacted wastes 11.00 per cubic yard
Minimum cha�•ge 9.25 per vehicle
2. Deposit of source separated yard waste at
disposal sites with yard waste facilities:
Passenger licensed vehicles 7S0 per entry
Othec vehicles
Compacted wastes 17.00 per c�bic ya�d
Uncompacted wastes 9.50 per cubic yard
��iinimum charge 7.50 per vehicle
C. Effective January 1, 1992 setvice fees at the Cedar
Hills Landfill shall be:
Cedar Hills regional direct $43.00 per ton
Other vehicles 66.00 per ton
Disposal by other vehicles is at the discretion of the solid
waste manager. A�ly certificated hauler who has been disposing
solid waste at a rural landfill may be authorized by the solid
waste manager to dispose solid waste at the Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill on a temporaiy, emergency basis at the
regional direct fee.
D. Effective July l, 1��1, a moderate risk waste
surcharge shall be added to all solid waste disposed by non-
solid waste collection entities using counry operated disposal
facilities. The fee schedule is as follows:
KCC 7itle 10 Related Leglslation
��
r�
L
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -
3
5
For sites with scales:
Self-haulers $2.61 per ton
Minimum charge 1.00 per entry
Passenger licensed vehicles 1.00 per entry
2. For sites without scales:
� Compacted .76 per cubic yard
Uncompacted .44 per cubic yard
� Minimum charge 1.00 per entay
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Passenger licensed vehicles 1.00 per entiy
E. Effective January 1, 1992 a special waste fee shall
be cha�ged for special wastes including infectious waste treated
and handled pursuant to King Counry Board of Health Code
10.28.070, asbestos-containing waste material, bull.y waste,
problem wastes, and other additional wastes requiring
clearances pursuant to the King Counry Board of Healtli Code
Title 10 or pursuant to rules promulgated by the department.
Special Waste Fee $100.00 per ton
Minimum charge 13.75 per entiy
F. In the absence of exact weights or measurements,
the estimate of the manager shall be binding upon the user.
G. Special Service Fee. Solid waste generated and/or
collected within the boundaries of a jurisdiction which has uot
entered into a�i agreement with King County for use of King
Counry solid waste disposal facilities as provided by this chapter
may only be disposed of in a King Counry faciliry upon
payment of a special service fee of 3 times the applicable per
ton rate for facilities with scales and 3 times the applicable
cubic yard rate for compacted or uncompacted wastes for
facilities without scales. Payment of the special service fee in
this subsection shall be in lieu of payment of the fees in
subsectioi�s A-E. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the use
of King Counry facilities by any mm�icipal coiporation or agent
thereof or any commercial hauler for disposal of solid waste
generated and/or collected outside King Counry. (Ord. 10068
§ 1, 1991: ord. 10018 § 2,� 1��1: Ord. 9484 § 4, 1990:
Ord. 9271 § 2, 1989: Ord. 8613 §§ 1, 4, 1988: Ord. 7748
§ 3, 1986: Ord. 7012 § 3, 1984: Ord. 6177 § 2, 1982).
Related Leg�slation
10.12.022 City of Seattle withdrawal. In the event
that the City of Seattle withdraws from the King County solid
waste system prior to December 31, 1992, the King Counry solid
waste division shall prepare disposal fee recommendations for
consideration by the King County councll. Such disposal fee
recommendations shall be for a three year period commencing
with the date of the Ciry of Seattle's withdrawal. (Ord. g271
§ 14, 1989).
10.12.025 Landflll Management * Included in the
rate structure listed in K.C.C. 10.12.020 of this chapter is a
$15.08 per ton charge that shall be collected for each ton of
solid waste collected in the King Counry solid waste system
which shall be reserved to provide for the management,
replacement and/or recla�nation of King Counry operated
landfills in accorda�ice with K.C.C. 4.08.045. (Ord. 1064g § 1,
1992: Ord. 9271 § 6, 1989: ord. 7748 § 4, 1986: ord.
6177 § 4, 1982).
10.12.030 Collection of fees. A. All service fees
collected pursuant to this chapter shall be collected in cash by
site cashieis at the time of use; provided, that the manager of
the King County solid waste division, department
of public works may authorize a commercial or noncommercial
user to be billed monthly for a11 solid waste delivered to the
transfer statioi�s and/or final disposal sites.
B. The solid waste manager is authorized to adjust any
solid waste service fee for putposes of minimizing cash holding
requirements at solid waste facilities. The adjustment to the
calculated fee shall not exceed twenty-five cents nor shall it
have a significant impact on the revenue collected in the
proposed rate period.
C. Authorization of a commercial or noncommercial
user's monthly billing shall result from a request in advance
for such seivice by the commercial or noncommercial user.
* See K.C.C. 4.08.045 for La�idfill Reserve Fund.
KCC 7itle 10
�
>: RL - 6 >:>
3
1. No authorization shall be granted without the
posting of an irrevocable payment bond secured by the
commercial or noncommercial user in the name of the solid
waste division and in an amount which is equal to the larger
amount of the actual prior three months of user fee charges or
$2,500.
2. In the absence of the actual prior three
months of user fee charges, the inevocable pay�nent bond will
be determined by the larger amount of either a�l estimate by
the commercial or noncommercial user of three months of user
charges or $2,500.
3. The amount of such bond may be changed by
giving of thirty days' notice by the manager to reflect actual
usage.
4. The manager, shall upon request, relieve a
commercial user certified pursuant to Chapter 81.77 RCV✓ of the
requirement for an irrevocable payment bond if it has not been
delinqaent in the preceding 12 months.
5. When the monthly bill is delinquent by five
days the user shall post within thirry day�s of the delinquency an
irrevocable bond equal to the larger amount of three month's
actual user charges or $2,500.
6. The manager shall waive the irrevocable
payment bond for the following governmental noncommercial
useis: A s�mnicipal corporation, goverivnent�l depactment,
agency or commission or political subdivision when he approves
its monthly billing request.
D. All invoiced fees shall be received, payab(e to King
County, finance division, in monthly ii�stallments on or before
the twenry-fifth day following the billing date as listed on the
invoice. A late payment penalty equal to one and one-half
percent of the delinquent unpaid balance, compounded
monchly, shall be assessed on the delinquent unpaid balance of
those nongovernmental commercial and noncommercial
accounts in arrears. The manager, having given seven days'
notice, may suspend use privileges for a commercial or
noncommercial user who fails to tender payment by the end of
the billing month. Any invoiced fee or other service fee which
remains unpaid ninety days after its due date may be remitted
to a collection service agency which will exercise their best,
prudent and lawful efforts to secure collection. A�l
administrative fee of fifteen dollars will be added to all s�ch
unpaid account totals. This fee will be in addition to any late
payment penalry or fee imposed by counry ordinance.
E. Effective July 1, 1991, users not having charging
privileges and unable to pay disposal charges assessed at the
disposal faciliry shall be issued a one-time payment invoice of
dumping fees charged plus a ha�ldling fee of $5.00. Payment
on this invoice shall be due within 7 days of issue and late
pay�nent penalties shall be charged consistent with Subsection D
above.
F. A noncommercial user may be authorized by the
manager to be billed monthly for all solid waste delivered to
the transfer stations and for final disposal sites; provided, that
such noncommercial user is either: 1. A municipal
coiporation, governmental depart�nent, agency or commission
or political subdivision; or 2. A peison whose montl�ly service
charges exceed one hundred dollars.
G. Peisons authorized for monthly billings shall receive
one or more identification badges for the puipose of crediting
charges. A fee of twenty-five dollats shall be charged the
peison to replace a lost or damaged card. No fee will be
charged for replacement due to normal wear. (Ord. 10018
§ 3, 1991: Ord. 9271 § 13, 1989: Ord. 7012 § 4, 1984:
ord. 6461, 1983: ord. 2304 § 1, 1975: ord. 1985 § 2, 1974:
Ord. 900 (part), 1971: Ord. �00 § 3, 1971).
1012.050 Exception to service fee. Pa}�nent of the
selvice fee may uot be requiced of a user wlio is engaged in a
community� litter clean-up campaign; provided, that prior
authorization 11as been secured in writing from the manager;
and provided, that records of use a�ld volumes shall be
maintained for such. (Ord. 7012 § 6, 1984: Ord. 800 § 5,
1971).
10.12.055 Other fees. A. Peisons shall be charged a
handling fee of fifteen dollais for each check returned due to
ROR-Sl1ff1C1e11[ f11R(�S.
B. Persons lacking cash at the time of disposal shall
be billed for the amount due. A one dollar charge for
handling and processing shall be added to the original fee.
(Ord. 8539 § 2, 19g�: Ord. 7012 § 7, 1984).
KCC 7£tle 10 Related Legislation
<:;: RL -
3
7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a
10.12.060 Enforcement. The director of the
department of public works is authorized to enforce the
provision of this chapter, the ordinances and resolutioi�s
codified in it, and any rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder pursuant to the enforcement and penalry provisions
of Tide 23. (Ord. 2910 § 3(p�), 1976: Ord. 800 (part),
1971).
10.12.065 Disposal of demolition and
landclearing debris. A. The King Counry council hereby
finds that current conditions related to disposal of demolition
debris, such as limited remaining capaciry at the only major
landclearing and demolition debris landfill in King Counry,
expansion of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authoriry
burn ban to a larger geographic a�ea, may cause inappropriate
disposal of demolition and landclearing debris at King Counry
transfer stations and landfills. The council further finds that
severe operational and fiscal coi�sequences may result to Cedar
Hills landflll if large quantities of landclearing and demolition
debris wastes are diverted to that facility.
B. Landclearing waste and demolition debris delivered
in any commercial vehicle or any private vehicle with a load
capaciry greater than 1500 pounds are prohibited and shall not
be accepted at any King County solid waste handling facilities.
(Ord. 9271 §§ 15, 17, 1989).
Chapter 10.14
WASTE REDUCTION - RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
Sections:
10.14.020 County goals.
10.14.040 Development of recovery facilities.
10.14.050 County intent - reduce and divert waste from
landfills.
10.14.060 Five-year work program.
10.14.070 Budget request.
10.14.080 Annual evaluation.
10.14.020 County goals IC 1S Klllg COUIl� goal to
achieve maximum feasible reduction of solid wastes going into
its landfills and other processing facilities by diverting as much
Related Legislation
as possible from the waste stream. It is recognized that waste
reduction a�id recycling are the highest prioriry of the viable
solid waste .management options, and the counry hereby adopts
this policy which will be aggressively pursued. (Ord. 7786 § 2,
1986).
10.14.040 Development of recovery facilities. The
counry policy in the development of future energy recovery
facilities shall complement its waste reduction program. The
counry shall take its waste reduction and recycling goals and
objectives into account in determining the size of any energy
recovery facilities. Waste reduction shall have first prioriry, and
energy recovery second priority, as a means of reducing the
amount of solid waste disposed in landfills. (Ord. 7786 § 5,
1986).
10.14.050 County intent - Reduce and divert
waste from landfills. It is the intent of King Counry to
fulfill the following objectives in order to reach its goal to
reduce and divert waste from landfills.
A. Adopt an aggressive and regional approach to
finding solutions co solid waste problems by working
cooperatively with other cities and counties whenever it is
appropriate.
B. Provide technical assistance and support to
municipalities within King County who a�e interested in
developing waste reduction and recycling programs.
C. Educate and encourage citizens, businesses, and
ii�stitutions to reduce, reuse, source sepa�ate, and recycle solid
waste.
D. Encourage volunteer participation through outreach
and coordination of waste reduction and recycling efforts.
E. Encourage the private sector to increase recycling,
such as collection, processing a�ld marketing of recyclables.
F. Implement an in-house King Counry recycling and
waste reduction program, including the adoption of a
procurement policy for county purchase of recycled products by
June 1987, and other actions to encourage recycling and waste
reduction by counry government.
G. Encourage the development of markets for and
encourage use of recyclables.
KCC 74t1e 10
» R -
L
3
8
H. Annually project the an�ounts of waste being
diverted from county la�idfills. (Ord. 7786 § 3, 1986).
1014.060 Five-year work program. King Counry
shall adopt a five-year work program which will seive as a
guide for the development oF a three-phase pla�i relating to
governmental, private/business and public citizen actions which
will implement King County's solid waste reduction and
recycling program.
A. Phase I shall focus on government, emphasizing the
following programs:
developing a regional plan for waste reduction
and recycling;
2. evaluating rate structures that provide
incentives for waste reduction and recy cling by muuicipalities,
businesses, a�id individuals;
3. developing a system to quantifi� waste diverted
from county landfills as a result of ting Counry's waste
reduction efforts;
4. providing technical assistance to iuunicipal
public officials on waste reduction progra�n development and
implementation;
5. orgulizing IocaUmunicipal recycling action
committees (a coalition of citize��s businesses and government
officials) to plan and develop communiry waste reduction and
recycling programs;
6. developing and implementing a procurement
policy for recycled products in ung Counry;
7. setting an example for the public by reducing,
reusing, and recycling waste in county and municipal
govemment.
B. Phase II shall focus on business to develop the
physical capacity to collect, process and sell recyclables.
Programs in this phase include:
1. wor�ing with nonrecycling business and
industry to reduce and recycle wastes;
2. encouraging recycling businesses to e�pand
existing waste reduction and recycling setvices;
3. stimulating tlie development of new businesses
to recycle pa�•ts of the waste stream that a�•e not currently being
recycled;
4. developing markets for recyclables by using
direct ma�•keting approaches to encourage consumption of
recycled goods.
C. Phase III shall focus on the public to mobilize
pa�ticipation. Programs in this phase include:
l. developing a public education program using
mass media and direct ma�•keting to encourage widespread
pacticipation;
2. developing a�id implementing waste reduction,
including composting and recycling collection programs. (Ord.
7786 § 4, 1�86).
10.14.070 Budget request. The executive shall
annually prepare a budget request from the solid waste
operating fund to support the five-year work program described
in Section 10.14.060 of this chapter. The 1987 budget shall
include resources for development of the work program and the
1988 and subsequent budgets shall include resources for
implementing the work program. (Ord. 7786 § 6, 1986).
10.14.080 Annual evaluation. It is the wuncil's
intent to evaluate annually, in September of each year, the
effectiveness of the waste recycling and reduction progra�n in a
programmatic and quantitative manner, to ensure the program
is responsive and is meeting the solid waste ma�iagement needs
of the people of King Counry. The division sha11 submit to the
wuncil by Septeivber 1, of each year an annual report of its
pcogcess towa�d the goal of maximum feasible reduction of
waste going to the landfills and other processing facilities. This
report shall include a�mual projectioi�s of the amounts diverted
from landfills and sha11 describe progress toward the work
program outline in Section 10.14.060 of this chapter. (Ord.
7786 § 7, 1986).
KCC 7t'tle 10 Related Legr'slation
�
a
•
•
•
•
• Chapter 10.16
RECYCLED PRODUCT PROCUREMENT POLICY
<> R -
L
3
9
programs applicable to county departments and contractors,
thereby diverting materials from the solid waste stream. (Ord.
9240 § 1, 1989).
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Sections:
10.16.010
10.16.020
10. �6.030
10.16.040
10.16.050
10. �6.060
10.16.070
10.16.080
10.16.090
10.16.100
10.16.110
10.16.120
10.16.130
10.16.140
10.16.150
10.16.160
1o.i6.17o
10.16.180
10.16.190
10.16.200
10.16.210
Puipose.
Policies.
DefiniUons.
Designated products and recycled designated
products.
Requirements for purchasing contracts.
Rules a�ld regulations for procurement of
paper a�id paper products.
Rules a�ld regulations for procurement of
building insulation products.
Rules and regulations for procurement of
cement or cement concrete.
Rules and regulations for procureu�ent of
lubricating oil.
Rules aud regulations for procuren�ent of
tires.
Rules, regulatioi�s and procedures for
designation and procurement of recycled
plastic products, compost, and other recycled
designated products.
Procurement of recycled products.
Disposable food and beverage containe�s.
Capital improvement projects and construction
contracts.
Annual report.
Responsibilities and reporting requirenlents of
departments.
Respoi�sibilities of the solid waste division.
Responsibilities of the purchasing agency.
Exemptions.
Effective date.
Severabiliry.
�
� 10.16.010 Purpose. This chapter shall be l�lown as
the "King Counry Recycled Product Procurement Policy." Its
• purpose is to promote market development of recycled products
and recyclable products by establishing preferential purchase
�
�
� Related Legislat�on
�
10.16.020 Policies. A. All departments shall whenever
practicable use recycled products and recyclable products to
meet their needs.
B. The counry sha11 whenever practicable require its
contractors and consultants to use recycled products and
recyclable products in fulfilling contractual obligations to the
county.
C. In procuring designated products pursuant to this
chapter, the counry shall require recovered material and/or
post-consumer material content to be factors in determining the
lowest responsive and responsible bid in any competitive bidding
procurement process initiated puisua�it to state and counry law.
D. The counry shall promote the use of recycled
products and recyclable products by publicizing its prceurement
program and by disseminating ii�foimation about recycled
products. (Ord. 9240 § 2, 1989).
10.16.030 Definirions. The following terms shall ha�e
the assigned definitions for all puiposes under this chapter:
A. "Building ii�sulation" means a material, primarily
designed to resist heat flow; which is installed between the
conditioned volume of a building and adjacent unconditioned
volumes or the outside. This term includes but is not limited
to insulation products such as blanket, board, spray-in-place,
and loose-fill that are used as ceiling, floor, foundation, and
wall ii�sulation.
B. "Cement" means a powder-like manufactured
mineral product, often referred to as "Portland cement," used in
the ma�iufacture of cement concrete.
C. "Cement wncrete" mea��s concrete which contains
cement.
D. "Cement with fly ash or cement concrete with fly
ash" mea�is cement or cement concrete containing any amount
of t1y ash.
E. "Contractor" means any peison, group of persons,
consultant, designing a�chitect, association, partnership,
co�poration, or other type of business entiry which has a
contract with King Counry (including suppliers) or which serves
KCC 7ltle 10
•i
-4
RL 0
in a subcontracting capaciry with a�i entiry having a contract
with King Counry for the provision of goods and/or services.
F. "Departments"* shall refer to any department as
defined by King Counry ordinance or other applicable law a�id
shall include all county agencies not associated with a
department, the King Counry prosecuting attorney, the King
Counry assessor, and the King Counry council.
G. "Designated products" means all products that have
been or may be identified pursuant to Section 10.16.040 of this
chapter as products that can be procured with significant levels
of recovered materials.
H. "Designing architect" means any architect or
engineer performing architectural or engineering services for the
county in connection with a county construction project and
who is chiefly responsible for the project's design.
I. "Director" means the director of the department of
executive administration or the director's designee.
J. "End use" means an intended final use of a product
by a consumer which will not result in additional value being
added to the product.
K. "Fly ash" means the component of coal which
results from the combustion of coal and is the finely divided
mineral residue which is typically collected from boiler stack
gases by electrostatic precipitator or mecha�lical collection
devices.
L. "Lubricating oils" means engine lubricating oils,
hydraulic fluids, and gear oils, excluding marine and aviation
oils.
M. "Minimum content standards" meai�s standards set
by the counry specifying the minimum level of recovered
material and/or post-coi�sumer material necessaiy for
designated products to qualify as recycled products.
N. "Mixed municipal solid waste" means waste
consisting of solid waste generated by residences, stores, offices,
and other generators of wastes that are not industrial,
agricultural, or demolition wastes.
0. "Paper and paper products" means all items
manufactured from paper or paperboard.
* See K.C.C. 2.16 for department names.
P. "Post-consumer material" means only those
products generated by a business or consumer which ha�e
served their intended end uses, and which have been separated
or diverted from tlle solid waste stream for the purposes of
collection, recycling and disposition.
Q. "Post-consumer paper material" mea��s:
1. Paper, paperboard and fibrous wastes
including corrugated boxes, newspapers, magazines, mixed
waste paper, tabulating cards and used cordage from places like
retail stores, office buildings and homes after the point at
which they have passed through their end use as consumer
items; a�id
2. All paper, paperboard and fibrous wastes that
enter and are collected as mixed municipal solid waste.
R. "Purchasing contract° meai�s any contract which is
awarded by the counry for the purcliase of tangible goods.
S. "Recovered material" means material and
byproducts which have been recovered or diverted from solid
waste, but does not include those materials and byproducts
generated fro►n, and commonly reused within, an original
manufacturing process (such as mill broke or home scrap).
T. "Recovered paper material" means paper waste
generated after the completion of a papermaking process, such
as post-coi�sumer material, envelope cuttings, bindery
tcimmings, printing waste, cutting a�Id other converting waste,
butt rolls, and mill wrappets, obsolete inventories, and rejected
unused stock. Recovered paper material, however, shall not
include fibrous waste generated during the manufacturing
process such as fibeis recovered from waste water or trimmings
of paper machine rolls (mill brohe), or fibrous byproducts of
lia�vesting, extractive or woodcutting processes, or forest residue
such as bark.
U. "Recyclable product" means a product which, after
its intended end use, can demo«strably and economically be
diverted from the King County solid waste stream for use as a
raw material in the manufacture of another product.
V. "Recycled designated product" means a product
designated in or puisua�It to Section 10.16.040 of this chapter
that meets or suipasses (1) counry minimum content standards,
and (2) all other criteria for qualification as specified in this
chapter.
KCC 7ltle 10 Related Legzslation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
li
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
L - 41 >:::
R
W. "Retread tire" means a worn automobile, tivck, or
other motor vehicle tire, excluding airplane tires, whose tread
has been replaced.
X "Reusable product" means a product that can be
used several times for an intended end use before being
discarded, such as a washable food or beverage container or a
refillable ball point pen.
Y. "Solid waste" means all putrescible and
nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, except wastes
identified in WAC 173-304-015, including but not limited to
garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition a�id
construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
discarded commodities, sludge from wastewater treatment plants
and septage from septic tanks, woodwaste, dangerous waste, and
problem wastes. This includes all public, private, industrial,
wmmercial mining and agricultural operatioi�s. Unrecovered
residue from recycling operations shall be considered solid
waste.
Z. "User department" means a department that
purchases any amount of a given designated product, e�cept
when the department has made no purchase within the current
or preceding calendar year. (Ord. 9240 § 3, 19�9).
10.16.040 Designated products and recycled
designated products. For all puiposes of this chapter, the
products listed in this section or added puisuant to it are
designated as products that can be readily procured with
significa�it levels of recovered materials. Designated products
shall qualify as recycled designated products if they meet
minimum content standards established in this chapter.
Designated products sha11 include:
A. Paper and paper products.
B. Cement concrete.
C. Lubricating oil.
D. Tires.
E. Building i�tsulation products.
F. Other products, including plastic and compost
products, designated on a case-by-case basis as specified in this
chapter. (Ord. 9240 § 4, 1989).
10.16.050 Requirements for purchasing contracts.
A. Invitatioi�s to bid issued by tlie county after March 31,
Related Legulation
1990 for the purchase of designated products shall contain no
terms, requirements or specifications prohibiting or discouraging
post-consumer or recovered material content, unless a user
department provides the director or his designee with
satisfactory evidence that, for technical reasons and for a
particular end use, a product containing such materials will not
meet reasonable peiformance standa�ds.
B. In determining the lowest responsive and responsible
bid for the purchase of designated products pursuant to
invitations to bid issued after the effective date of Ordinance
9830 (March 18, lggl), the director or his designee shall use
the procedures and evaluation criteria specified in this chapter.
If a bidder, in response to any such invitation, offeis to supply
the county with one or more recycled designated products, or
recyclable products putsuant to K.C.C. 10.16.120, the purchasing
agency shall reduce the actual bid amount for each such
product by the applicable percentage factor as specified in this
chapter. The reduced bid amount for each such product shall
be used only for puiposes of determining the lowest responsive
and respoi�sible bid puisuant to this chapter and K.C.C. 4.18.
The actual amount bid shall in all cases be the contracted
amount. However, nothing contained in this chapter shall
preclude user departments from requiring post-coi�sumer or
recovered material content as a specification in invitations to
bid for a�ry products.
C. Each contractor supplying the counry with recycled
designated products puisuant to an invitation to bid process
initiated after March 31, 1990 shall provide certification
acceptable to the counry from all product manufactureis that
the products being supplied meet or surpass counry minimum
content standacds and shall agree to reasonable verification
procedures specified by the director or the director's designee.
(ord. 9s3o § i, i99i: o�d. 9240 § s, i9s9).
10.16.060 Rules and regulations for procurement
of paper and paper products. A. King County's recycled
paper procurement goal for user departments (expressed as a
percentage of the total volume of paper purchased) shall be:
1. Not less tha�i ten percent by 1990;
2. Not less than thirry percent by 1992;
3. Not less than sixry percent by 1995.
KCC 7itle 10
'` RL - 2
4
Each department shall be responsible for making its best
effort to meet or surpass these goals.
B. The solid waste division ma�lager and the director,
or their designees, shall jointly adopt minimum content
standards for recycled paper products by Januaiy 31, 1990. The
minimum content standards shall, at a minimum, be consistent
with standards promulgated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and found in 40 CFR Pa��t 250.21, unless the
solid waste division manager and the director, or their
designees, determine that a different standard would
significa�ltly increase recycled product availabiliry or competition
or would increase recycled content without advetsely affecting .
availability.
C. The direcror or his designee shall use a percentage
factor of fifteen percent in the process of determining the lowest
responsive a�id responsible bidder for paper a�ld paper products,
except for paper to be used for counry letterhead.
D. All imprinted letterhead paper and business cards
used by county departments shall be recycled paper.
E. Departments shall publicize the counry's use of
recycled paper by printing the words "Printed on Recycled
Paper" and a recycling logo as specified by the solid waste
division on all letterhead paper and on the title page of all
reports printed on recycled paper.
F. To reduce the volume of paper purchased,
depa�•tments shall use both sides of paper sheets whenever
practicable.
G. Requests for proposal or qualifications issued by the
counry after the effective date of Ordinance 9830 (March 1�,
1991) shall require all proposed contractois or consulta�its
submitting proposals to agree to the following as a precondition
to contract award:
1. All reports submitted to the counry by a
wntractor in fulfillment of contract obligatio«s, excluding
invoices and routine correspondence, shall use recycled paper
when it is available at a reasonable price. For purposes of this
paragraph, the price of recycled paper shall be co«sidered
"reasonable" if its cost is no more than 15% higher than the
lowest price offered for non-recycled paper.
2. Reports submitted to the counry by contcactors
shall use both sides of paper sheets whenever practicable.
3. Contractois who submit over ten reams of
printed or copied materials to the county in any given month
shall keep records of paper purchased for the county's purposes
and shall justify to the county any use of non-recycled paper.
Contractors shall submit such rewrds to the counry according
to procedures to be established jointly by the solid waste
division and the purchasing agency by the effective date of
Ordinance 9830 (March 18, 1991). Contractors shall be
responsible for maintaining and submitting these records for all
of their subcontractors. (Ord. 9830 § 2, 1991: Ord. g240
§ 6, 19g9) �
10.16.070 Rules and regulations for procurement
of building insulation
products. A. The solid waste division manager and the
director, or their designees, shall jointly adopt minimum
content standards for recycled building insulation products by
Ja�lua�y 31, 1990. The ►ninimum content standards shall, at a
minimum, be wnsistent with standards promulgated by the
United States Enviromnental Protection Agency, and found in 40
CFR Part 248.21 unless the solid waste division manager and
the director or their designees determine that a different
standa�d would significantly increase recycled product
availabiliry or competition.
B. All designing architects sha11 include as a design
consideration in all bid and construction documents they
prepa�e the counry's policy preferring the use of building
insulation products containing recovered materials.
C. Designing a�chitects sha11 select the rype of building
insulation to be procured and shall whenever practicable
procure the type with the highest post-consumer material
content.
D. Designing a�chitects sha11 provide to the counry a
written statement eaplaining the architect's selection of building
i��sulation types not on the counry's minimum content
sta�ldards list.
E. The purchasing agency shall provide deparhnents
with listings of vendors of building insulation products that
meet the counry's minimum content standards.
F. If tl�e selected rype of insulation is available
in products that meet minimum content standards, these
KCC Title 10 Related Legislation
n
u
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
< RL-4
3
standards sha11 be included in bid solicitatioi�s for construction
work
G. Prospective suppliers of insulation products for use
in counry funded projects sha11 provide the counry with
estimates of the percentage of recovered material of each
building insulation product to be supplied.
H. If minimum content standards for insulatiou have
been included in bid specifications, supplieis shall certify, prioc
to delivery or installation, that the building insulation products
provided meet or exceed these standards.
I. Departments administering contracts in which
building insulation is procured shall maintain recocds on the
amount of each type of insulation purchased; the percentage of
recovered materials in each; a�id reasons foc not procuring
insulation meeting minimum content standards. (Ord. 9830
§ 3, 1991: Ord. 9240 § 7, 1989).
10.16.080 Rules and regularions for procurement
of cement or cement concrete. A. Cement or cement
concrete containing any a�nount of fly �sh shall qualify as a
recycled product.
B. Each department that admuiistels construction
contracts is responsible for ensuring that all invitations to bid
issued by the counry after Ma�ch 31, 1990 contain specifications
that allow cement or cement concrete with fly ash �s an
optional or altenlate material for all coi�struction projects.
C. Where cement or cement concrete is purchased by
purchase order, contractois shall estimate in signed bid
documents the percentage of fly ash by weight, as well as the
total weight of fly ash to be supplied.
D. Where cement or cement concrete is purchased as a
component of a construction contract, the eugineer responsible
for the mix design shall maintain records of the peccentage of
fly ash (as a percentage of total cementitious material) and the
total weight of fly ash supplied. (Ord. 9240 § 8, 1989).
10.16.090 Rules and regulations for procurement
of lubrlcating oil. A. Lubricating oil with re-refined oil
content shall contain the ma�cimum practicable a�llount of
re-refined oil, but not less tha�i twenry-five percent of total
product weight.
B. The director or his designee shall use a percentage
factor of ten percent in the process of determining the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder for lubricating oil.
C. Each department that purchases lubricating oil is
responsible for ensuring that all invitations to bid issued by the
county after March 31, 1990 contain specifications that allow
lubricating oil with re-refined content. If lubricating oil with
re-refined content dces not satisfy warranty or performance
standards, the affected departments shall submit documentation
to the purchasing agency. (Ord. 9240 § 9, 1989).
10.16.100 Rules and regulations for procurement
of tires. A. All retread tires shall qualify as recycled
products.
B. All departments that purchase replacement tires
shall review specifications for tires by March 31, 1g90 to ensure
that specifications do not discriminate against retread tires.
Specifications shall be based upon specific performance
requirements, such as mileage warranties or speed ratings.
C. All departments shall procure retreading services for
their used tires to the maximum extent practicable before
obtaining replacement tires.
D. In response to invitations to bid, bidders shall be
required to certify the number of retread tires and the
percentage of the total tires to be supplied that will be retread
tires. (Ord. 9240 § 10, 1989).
10.16.110 Rules, regulations a�id procedures for
designation and procurement of recycled plasric
products, compost, and other recycled designated
products. A. A vendor of a product that contains recovered
materials, such as post-coi�sumer plastic or yard waste that are
not designated products, may petition the counry to qualify the
product as a recycled designated product on a case-by-case
basis. The vendor shall be responsible for providing sufficient
evidence to the wunty that the product is suitable for its
intended end use by the county.
B. The director and the solid waste manager or their
designees sha11 jointly determine on a case-by-case basis the
percentage factor to be used by the director or the director's
designee in the process of determining the lowest responsive and
respo«sible bidder for products qualifying as recycled produc�
Related Leg�slatzon
KCC Title 10
�
C�
RL
- 44
in this section; provided that the percentage factor shall be no
higher than ten percent
C. In determining product qualification and the
percentage factor, the solid waste division manager and the
director, or their designees, sha11 jointly develop evaluation
criteria, including but not limited to the following: effect on
solid waste stream reduction; product pei�formance a�id quality;
information provided by the vendor about product composition,
safety or durability; comparative post-coi�sumer material
content; and conformance with county, state and federal
standards.
D. The solid waste division manager and dle director,
or their designees, shall solicit the input of depa��tments that
are potential users of produc� under consideration in
evaluating product efficacy and peiformance.
E. Recycled designated products qualified under the
teims of this section shatl maintain their qualification for a
period of three yea�s, at which time qualifications may be
reviewed for renewal; provided that the counry may revoke
qualification at any time if products are found to be
unsatisfactory or unsafe, or if the recovered material or
post-consumer material content of the products decreases.
(Ord. 9240 § 11, 1989).
101C�,,20 Procurement of recyclable products. A.
A vendor may petition the county to qualify a product as a
recyclable product on a case-by-case basis. The vendor shall be
responsible for providing all infoimation requested by the
counry, including evidence that there is a�i existing market for
the product after it has served its intended end use a�ld that it
will be diverted from the solid waste strean�.
B. The solid waste division ma�lager and the director,
or their designees, shall jointly deternline on a case-by-case
basis the percentage factor to be used by the director or the
director's designee in the process of deter�nining the lowest
responsive and respo«sible bidder for products qualifying as
recycled products in this section. For recyclable products which
are also recycled designated products, the combined percentage
factor shall at no time be greater tha�i fifteen percent.
C. In determining product qualification a�id the
percentage factor, the solid waste division manager and the
director, or their designees, shall develop evaluation criteria,
including but not limited to the following: documented
marketabiliry of the recycled material and specific contractual
a�•ra�lgements for collection of materials after they have been
used by the counry.
D. Recyclable products qualified under the terms of this
section shall maintain their qualification for a period of three
yeais, at which time qualifications may be reviewed for renewal;
provided that, the counry may revoke qualification at any time
if the county determines diat the products are not in fact
recyclable products. (Ord. 9240 § 12, 1989).
10.16.130 Disposable food and beverage
containers. A. The county prefeis the use of reusable food
and beverage containeis when practicable.
B. When it is necessa�y to purchase disposable food
and beverage containeis, all departments and all wncessionaires
operating on counry property or on properry managed by the
county shall whenever practicable purchase recyclable products.
(ord. 9240 § 13, 1989).
10.16.140 Capital improvement projects and
construction contracts. A. The counry's preference for
the purchase and use of products wntaining recovered materials
shall be included as a factor in the design development of
county capital improvement projects.
B. Where the King Counry design commission is
required to review proposals for the design of a project, the
commission shall determine whether the proposals have made a
reasonable attempt to include products containing recovered
materials.
C. Specifications for materials in co«struction contracts
shall specify or encourage the use of designated recycled
products whenever practicable. Specifications shall not prohibit
or discriminate against the use of designated recycled products
unless the department issuing the contract provides the dicector
or the director's designee with written documentation that, for
technical reasot�s a�id for a particular end use, a product
containing such materials will not meet reasonable perfonnance
standards. (Ord. 9240 § 14, 1989}.
10.16.150 Annual report. The solid waste division
shall submit to the counry council each year in September,
KCC 7£t6e 10 Related Legrslation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
' L-4 <
R
5
• beginning in 1990, a report evaluating the procurement
program, including the following componen�s:
, A Quantities of designated products purchased by
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
departments;
B. QuanUties and types of recycled product purchased;
C. Prices and relative qua�itities purchased of cecycled
and non-recycled designated products;
D. A determination as to whether minimum content
standards should be changed or remain the same;
E. A summary of program promotional efforts;
F. An assessment of the effectiveness of the
procurement program and an evaluation of progi�a�n goals; and
G. Recommendations for clia�iges in procurement
policy, including designation of additional products. (Ord. 9240
§ 15, 1989).
10.16.160 Responsibilities a�id reporting
requirements of departments. All user departments are
responsible for:
A. Purchasing and using recycled products whenever
practicable;
B. Documenting any technical problems that preclude
the use of recycled products;
C. Providing written explanations to the director or the
director's designee for not purchasing recycled products;
D. Conducting comparative tests of the pei�formauce of
recycled products and non-recycled products, as specified by the
solid waste division and the purchasing agency;
E. Transmitting to contractois, upon their request,
recycled product and vendor lists prepared by the purclrasing
agency and solid waste division;
F. Collecting information from contractois about their
designated product purchases before contract expiration dates,
according to procedures established by the solid waste division;
G. Submitting a report on the purchase of designated
products by contractors to the solid waste division by� July 31
each year, beginning in 1991;
H. Informing the purchasing agency ot potential uses
of recycled products by contractors. (Ord. 9240 § 16, 1�89).
10.16.170 Responsibilities of the solid waste
division. A. Providing information and technical �ssistance
Related Leg�slation
to local governments, schools, colleges, and other public and
private organizatioi�s interested in purchasing recycled products;
B. Assisting depat�tments in resolving problems and
complaints conceining recycled product performance or
availability;
C. Preparing press releases and fact sheets publicizing
the successes of the program;
D. Preparing a report evaluating the procurement
progra�n to be submitted to the counry council each year in
September, bC�1RR1Rg lll Z��O and
E. Assisting the purchasing agency in fulfilling its
respoi�sibilities in connection with this chapter. (Ord. 9240
§ 17, 19g9>.
10.16.180 Responsibilities of the purchasing
agency. The purchasing agency is respot�sible for:
A. Revisiug or amending standard bid documents and
contract language where necessaiy to implement this chapter.
B. Collecting data on purchases by departments of
designated products on counry purchase ordeis, to be compiled
by the solid waste division;
C. Preparing bid invitations for cecycled products;
D. lYlaintaining a directoiy of recycled products a�id
local vendois;
E. Disseminating recycled product information to
departments;
F. Assisting the solid waste division in fulfilling its
responsibilities in connection with this chapter. (Ord. 9240
§ 18, 1989).
10.16.190 Exemptions. Nothing in this chapter shall
be construed as requiring a department or contractor to procure
products that do not perform adequately for their intended end
use or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable
period of titne. (Ord. 9240 § 19, 1�89).
10.16.200 Effective date. The provisions of this
chapter shall apply to all counry procurement processes,
including invitations to bid, and requests for proposals initiated
after March 31, 1990. (Ord. 9240 § 20, 1�89).
KCC 76'tle 10
�
r� �
> R -
L 4
6
10.16.210 Severability SIlOUId 311Y SCCtl0l1, subsection,
paragraph, clause or phrase of this chapter be declared
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, sucli decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this chapter.
(Ord. 9240 § 21, 19g9).
CHAI'1'ER 10.18
COLLECTION OF HOUSEHOLD RECYCLABLES AND
YARD WASTE IN UNINCORPORATED KING COUN'IY
Sections:
10.18.010
10.18.020
10.18.030
10.18.040
10.18.050
Minimum levels of residential recvclables
collection
Solid waste collection and recycling rates
County notification of �V[JTC tariff filings
Program promotion and education
requirements
Certificated haule�s customer seivice
responsibilities
10.18.060 Reporting requirements
10.18.070 County administrative fee
10.18.080 Counry notification of cectificated hauleis
10.18.090 Full prograan implementation
10.18.100 Severabiliry
10.18A10 Minimum levels of residential
recyclables collection. The minimum levels of seivice and
WUTC regulation of certificated hauleis, puisuant to RCW
81.77, shall continue for five yea�s from the eFfective date of
Ordinance 9928 (May 30, 1991). The ininimum level of
seivice for residential recycling programs in unincoiporated
urban service areas of King Counry, as defined in Attachment A
to Ordina�lce 9928*, shall include the following:
A. Single family recyclables collection.
1. Recyclables wllection se�vices shall, at a
minimum, be available to all single family dwellings in
unincorporated urban service areas of the county.
*Available in the office of the Clerk of the Council
voluntary.
�
�
�
�
�
Pat�ticipation in these programs sha11 be �
3. Materials. The following recyclable materia]s,
at a minimum, shall be collected from singie fan�ily dwellings.
a. Newspaper - printed groundwood
newsprint including glossy advertisements and supplemental
magazines that are delivered widi die newspaper.
b. Clear, aanber, a�id green empty, clean
glass containeis. Plate glass, ceramics, or mireor glass will not
be collected.
c. Clean tin-coated steel cans.
d. Clean almninum ca��s and foil.
e. Mixed waste paper, including most types
of clean a�id diy paper which fall into high a�id low grade
categories including glossy papeis, magazines, catalogs, phone
books, cards, laser-printed white ledger paper, windowed
envelopes, paper with adhesive labels, paper bags, wrapping
paper, pac�ing paper, chipboard such as cereal boxes and shoe
boxes, and glossy advertising paper.
f. Ca�•dboa�•d - clean coi�•ugated cardboard
and l�•aft paper, including unbleached, unwaxed paper with a
ruffled ("corrugated") inner liner. Cardboard does not include
chipboard such as cereal boxes a�ld shoe boxes.
g. PET plastics - clean and empry
polyethylene terephthalate bottles [Sociery of Plastics Industry
(SPI) wde 1], including clea�� 1- a�id 2-liter soda bottles, as
well as some botdes for liquor, liquid clea�ieis, and detergents.
h. HDPE plastics - clean and empry high-
densiry polyethylene bottles [Sociery of Plastics Industry (SPI)
code 2J inclnding ivilh, juice, and water jugs, as well as bottles
for laundiy detergent, fabric softener, and lotion.
4. Collection schedule. The recyclable materials
listed in Subsection A.3 shall be collected at least twice a month
on the same day of the week as solid waste collection.
a. The certificated hauler may request an
exception to this requirement for all or pa�•t of their service
acea.
b. The request must be submitted in
writing to tlie division a�id include, at a minimum, the
following i��fonnation: the location of the area affected; the
number of customeis affected; the altemative collection
schedule; a�id the reasons supporting the request.
KCC 7frtle 10 Related Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
::::::::' RL-4 >:
:::::::::>::>f:�:;::>::::::::::>:::::;:::':::::::>::::::::»::::>::>:::<;;«:�><:>::>:::::::<:�:::�:�:�:��:'>::;:'::::;:::::`::::>:::::::::<::` :::::::::::::::�:::»:�:::::<:::::::�:�>;::::;::<::::>:::::::<::::��:����::::::::<:::::;:;:<;;;;:<`::::;::::::::::::>�:':�:�<�����>::��:<::::::::::<:�:�:::�::�:�:�::::::::::>::::::::::::;; 7 ..::>'�;�:<:::
c. The division will determine whether to
allow the hauler's request based on demonstration that: the
number of customers affected is minimized; progran�
participation will not be adversely affected; substantial cost
sa�ings will accrue due to the alternative collectiou schedule;
and other information presented in the request.
S. Collection Containers. Containers for
recyclables storage sha11 be provided by certificated hauleis to
a11 single family dwellings. The containers may be provided by
the certificated hauler by delivering containeis to all single
family dwelling units in unincoiporated ui�ban areas.
Alternatively, collection containers may be provided on a sign-
up basis according to the notification requirements defined in
K.C.C. 10.18.040A. Delivery of containe�s to all single fa�nily
dwellings is preferable to a sign-up system.
a. The wntaine�s shall be sufficient in
number and type to hold all recyclables accumulated between
collections.
b. The wntaiueis must be made of durable
materials that will last a minimum seven yea�s under normal
use. Plastic materials used in the construction of recycling
containeis shall be durable, ultraviolet light stabilized aud
manufactured using recycled or post-coi�sumer materials.
Collection containers shall contain a minimum of at least ten
percent postwnsumer material unless the certificated hauler cau
demonstrate evidence to the division that such material is
unavailable. Plastic bags, or bags made of other n�aterial,
shall not be used as containeis.
c. All containe�s shall wntain ii�formation
about the proper preparation of materials and include the
telephone number and name of the certificated hauler.
d. A container delivery schedule shall be
provided to the counry at the initiation of the project to allow
for coordination of its promotional and educational efforts.
Containers will be delivered to program participants at least
seven (7) days prior to the initiation of collection.
B. Multi-fa�nily recyclables collection.
1. Recyclables collection seivices shall, at a
minimum, be a�ailable to all multi-family structures or
complexes in unincoiporated urban seivice areas of the counq�.
2. Participation in these progra�ns shall be
voluntary.
Related leg�sl�tion
3. Materials. At a minimum, all of the
recyclable materials listed in Subsection A3 shall be collected
from multi-family structures.
4. Collection schedule. The recyclable materials
listed in Subsection A3 shall be collected at least twice a month
on a regular schedule.
S. Collection containers. Certificated haulers
shall provide on-site collection containers for recyclables to
multi-family structures or wmplexes on a sign-up basis
according to the notification requirements defined in K.C.C.
10.18.040B.
a. The containers shall be sufficient in
number and type ro hold all recyclables accumulated between
collections.
b. On-site containers must be made of
durable materials that will last a minimum of seven yeais
under normal use. Plastic bags, or bags made of other
material, shall not be used as on-site containers.
c. All containeis shall contain information
about the proper preparation of materials and include the
telephone number and name of the certificated hauler.
d. Containers will be delivered to multi-
family structures signed-up for service at least seven (7) days
prior to the initiation of collection.
C. Single family and multi-family yard waste
collection.
1. Yard waste collection se�vices shall, at a
minimum, be available to all single family dwellings and
multi-family structures or complexes in unincorporated urban
se�vice areas of the counry.
2. Participation in these programs shall be
volunta�y.
3. Materials. Ya�d waste collected from single
family dwellings and multi-family structures or complexes shall
meet the following specifications:
a. With the exception of unflocked
Christmas trees, materials larger than two inches in diameter
a�ld three feet in length will not be considered yard waste.
Untlocked Christmas trees shall be accepted in three foot
lengths with no diameter restrictions.
4. Collection schedule. Yard waste shall be
collected from single family dwelling units and multi-family
KCC Title 10
:« RL - 48
�
�
�
�
�
�
structures or complexes at least twice a month during the
months of March through November, and at least once a
month from December through February. Single fa�i�ily yard
waste shall be collected on the same day of the week as solid
waste collection.
a. The certificated hauler u�ay request an
exception to this requirement for a11 or pa�•t of tlieir seivice
area.
b. The request must be submitted in
writing to the division and include, at a minimum, the
following information: the location of the area affected; the
number of customers affected; the alternative collection
schedule; a�ld the reaso«s suppoiting the request.
c. The division will determine wliether to
allow the hauler's request based on demonstration that: the
number of customeis affected is minimi�ed; program
pa�•ticipation will not be adveisely affected; substantial cost
saaings will accrue; and other ii�formation presented in the
request.
S. Collectioi� containeis. Certificated hauleis
shall offer to provide ya�•d waste containeis to si��gle faii�ily
dwellings a�id multi-family structures or complexes on a sigu-
up basis, according to the notification requirements in R.C.C.
10.18.040C.
a. Certificated liauleis may require that
customers use containers provided by the certificated hauler or
allow customers to provide their own containeis. A�i additional
fee may be charged to the customeis electing to lease a yard
waste container from a certificated liauler.
b. Plastic bags shall not be used as
containers.
c. Cei�tificated hauleis ma�� establish a
maximum volume of and/or weiglit of yard waste that will be
accepted for each collection.
D. AddiUonal minimum level of service provisions.
The following provisions shall apply to the collection seivices
described in Subsection A, B., a�id C.:
L If access to potential program participants is
restricted, due to impassable road conditions, alteinatives to
curbside recyclables collection, such as drop site collection, will
be provided by the certificated hauler. This exception shall not
apply to impassable road conditioi�s due to severe weather
KCC 7�tle 10
situations. 111e certificated hauler will report to the counry
those a�eas receiving altemative curbside collection services.
2. The certificated haulers shall designate and
ii�forin the county and program participa�its of the holidays
that it will obseive a�id the schedule that will be used when a
holiday falls on a regular collection day. The certificated
hauler shall designate a process for responding to missed
collections as a result of inclement or adveise weather
conditions.
3. Special recyclables collection se�vices shall be
provided for those households where there are handicapped or
elderly people who cannot move their recycling or yard waste
containeis to the curb. Households that qualify for this setvice
will be determined by the certificated hauler.
4. The certificated hauleis sliall retain owneiship
of all containeis distributed to program participants.
Replaceivent necessitated by normal use or by container
damage due to the certificated hauleis negligence shall be the
responsibiliry of the certi�icated haulee Replacement
necessitated by container daroage due to program participant
negligence shall be at the program participanYs expei�se.
5. The certificated hauleis shall use intermediate
processing facilities that have obtained all applicable local, state
and federal permits. Whenever possible, local ma�kets shall be
used to receive recyclables and/or yard waste for puiposes of
processing, lia�idling oc remanufacturing the materials uito new
products.
6. The certificated hauleis shall not under any
ciccumstances dispose of marketable recyclables or yard waste
by la�ldfilling or incineration. In addition, in no instance shall
unmarketable materials be disposed of at a landfill or other
disposal facility outside of hing Counry.
7. The division will discuss a��y proposed dianges
with the certificated hauleis prior to proposing any amendments
to the list of materials to be collected a��d/or the
unincoiporated urban seivice area boundaries. However,
nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a certificated hauler fiom
exceeding the minimum requiremen� by collecting additional
materials or providing collection services to a larger portion of
their fra�lchise area. (Ord. 10446 § 1, lgg2: Ord. 992g § 2,
1991).
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Related Legislation �
�
�
•
!
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -4
9
10.18.020 Solid waste collection and recycling
rates. Certificate holders under chapter RCW 81.77 shall use
rate structures and billing systems consistent with the solid
waste management priorities set forth under RCW 70.95.010
and the minimum levels of solid waste collection and recycling
services pursuant to the local comprehensive solid waste
management plan, as required by RCW 81.77.
A It is the counry's policy that the cei�tificated haulets
include the following elements in the tariffs sub►nitted to the
WUTC:
1. A mini-can (10-20 gallon container) rate to
reward people who reduce their level of solid w�ste collection
service.
2. A recycling-only rate for program participants
who decline solid waste collection seivice, but participate in
recycling programs. Certificated hauleis may include a fee to
administer billing for this seivice.
3. A yard waste only rate for program
participants who decline solid waste collection seivice, but
participate in a yard waste wllection program. Hauleis may
include a fee to administer billing for this seivice.
4. Billing that includes tlie cost of solid waste
and recycling collection services on the same statement, as
provided by chapter 81.77 RCW.
5. A rate structure designed to provide customeis
with adequate options and incentives to reduce their level of
solid waste collection se�vice as a result of their participation in
waste reduction and recycling programs.
6. A rate structure that distributes the cost of the
single family and multi-family recyclables collection programs
among all rate payers in the franchise area where rec��cling and
yard waste services are available.
7. A rate structure for single family yard waste
collection services that charges only those custou�eis subscribing
to the service. To encourage recycling, the cost of yard waste
collection shall be less than a comparable unit of solid waste.
8. The cost to produce and distribute program
promotion and educational materials to customeis, in
accordance with KC.C. 10.18.040.
9. A monthly administrative fee to compensate
the division for the costs of program management and
Related Legulat�on
promotional and educational programs. The monthly
administrative fee is specified in K.C.C. 10.18.070.
10. Reduced solid waste and recyclables collection
rates for eligible elderly and low-income program participants,
as permitted by the WUTC.
B. Certificated hauleis shall file tariffs, with an effective
date no later than July 31, 19g1, with the Washington Utilities
and Trai�sportation Commission (WUTC). It is the counry
policy that the rates include all elements specified in Subsection
A. of this section and be designed to encourage pa�•ticipation in
recyclables and yard waste collection programs, in accordance
with the plan.
C. Whenever certificated hauleis file tariffs with the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), it
is the counry's policy that the certificated hauleis include all
elements specified in Subsection A. of this section in the ta�iffs
and that an incentive solid waste collection rate structure be
used rather than a strict cost of se�vice rate structure. An
incentive solid waste collection rate structure is one that rewards
customeis who recvcle and includes substantial cost differentials
between solid waste collection seivice levels. The tariffs filed
shall uiclude the following percentages of increases between
levels of seivice: a minimum of sixry percent between mini
and one ca�i; a minimum of forry percent between one and two
cans or equivalent; and a minimum of twenry five percent
between two a�Id three cans or equivalent. These percentages
should apply to the combined charge to the customer for both
solid waste and recyclable materials collection. The WUTC is
strongly encouraged to approve tariffs that are consistent with
the policies set forth in this chapter, and that meet the
roinimum percentages specified in this section. (Ord. 10446
§ 2, 1992: ord. 992s� § 3, 199i).
10.18.030 County notification of WUTC tariff
filings. Whenever a certificated hauler files a proposed tariff
revisiou for solid waste, recyclables and/or yard waste collection
rates with the VV[JTC, the certificated hauler shall
simultaneously provide the division manager with copies of the
proposed tariff and all nonproprietaiy supporting materials
submitted to the �V[1TC.
KCC 7i'tle 10
l�
�
RL -
5
0
A. The certificated hauler shall transmit the proposed
tariff to the division manager at least thirry (30) days prior to
action by the WUTC.
B. The division will review the proposed tariffs to
determine their compliance with the pla�i and the provisions of
this chapter.
C. The certificated hauleis shall notify the division
within one week after their tariffs are approved by the �V[JTC.
The notification shall specify the rates approved by the VU[ITC
and the effective dates for the rates. (Ord. 9g28 § 4, 1991).
10.18A40 Program prmnotion and education
requirements. Certificated hauleis shall be responsible f'or
distributing promotional and educational niaterials for their
franchise area and for initial promotion of the programs.
Promotional and educational materials are those materials
prepared for the puipose of encouraging participation and
educa�ing residents about the county's recycling collection
programs. Materials shall include, but not be limited to, any
or all of the following: brochures; mailings; advertisements;
radio and television commercials or p�blic seivice
announcements; and displays.
A. Single family recyclables wllection. The certificated
hauler shall provide, at a minimum, the following notificatioi�s
to all single family dwellings within the portion of their
franchise area lying within an uniucoiporated urban seivice
area.
l. The fiist notification shall announce
availabiliry of seivice, provide a description of the program,
container delivery schedule, recycling hotline phone number(s),
and an explanation of the solid waste and recyclables wllection
rate structure and how program participants can reduce their
level of solid waste collection seivice by participating in
collection programs. An optional program sign-up card may
be included in the first notification.
2. A second notification shall include a schedule
of collection days and shall explain materials preparation
requirements detailing the required care and handling of
recyclables to make them acceptable for wllection by the
certificated hauler, including, but not limited to, cleaning,
sorting, and properly locating recyclables for collection.
Recycling hotline phone number(s) must also be provided.
This notification may be included with delivered containers.
3. Certificated haulers offering collection services
on a sign-up basis must continue to notify non-participants of
the availabiliry of service at least twice a year until 80 percent
or more of all si�igle fa�nily dwellings are signed-up for service.
4. The division may also promote the program
to residents of single family dwellings.
B. Multi-family recyclables collection. The certificated
hauler shall provide, at a minimum, the following notifications
to all multi-family building owneis and managers for the
portion of their franchise area lying within an unincoiporated
urban se�vice area.
1. The fi►st notification shall announce
availability of seivice, provide a description of the program, and
a sign-up card or phone number to call for seivice, and an
eapla�lation of the solid waste and recyclables collection rate
structure and how program participants can reduce their level
of solid waste collection se�vice by participating in collection
progra�l�s.
2. A secoud notification, included with container
deliveiy, shall include a schedule of wllection days and shall
eaplain materials preparation requirements detailing the
required ca�e and haiidling of recyclables to make them
acceptable for collection by the certificated hauler, including,
but not limited tq cleaning, sorting, and properly locating
recyclables For collection. Recycling l�otline phone number(s)
must also be provided.
3. Certificated hauleis offering collection se�vices
shall notify non-pai�ticipating building owneis and managers of
the availability of service at least twice a yea�• until 50 percent
or more of all multi-family dwellings are signed-up for service.
4. The division may promote the program to
both tenants and building manageis.
C. Single family and multi-family yard waste
collection. Tlie certificated hauler shall provide, at a
minimum, the following notifications to all single family
dwellings a�id multi-family structures or complexes within the
portion of their fra�ichise area lying within an unincorporated
urban service area.
1. The first notification shall announce
availabiliry of seivice, provide a description of the program, and
KCC T'ule 10 Related Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
�
RL - 1
5
a sign-up card or phone number to call for seivice, and an
eacplanation of the solid waste and recyclables collection rate
structure and how program participants can reduce their level
of solid waste collection service by pa�ticipating in collection
programs.
2. A second notification, included with container
delivery (if the hauler requires the use of their containeis),
sha11 include a schedule of collection days and shall explain
materials preparation requirements detailing the required care
and handling of yard waste to make it acceptable for collection
by the certificated hauler. Recycling hotline phone nu�vber(s)
must also be provided.
3. Certificated haule�s shall continue to notify
non-participants of the a�ailabiliry of single family yard waste
collection services at least twice a year until 60 percent or more
of all single family dwellings a��e signed up for seivice.
4. The division may also promote the program
to residents of single family dwellings and multi-family
structures or complexes.
D. All notificatioi�s provided by the certificated hauler
must be approved by the division. The division shall review
notifications for content and accuracy of i►�formation, and
consistency with materials prepared by the counry. Copies of
the notifications must be submitted to the division for its review
at least three weeks prior to their printing aud the division
shall return comments within that three week period.
E. King Counry shall periodically provide the
certificated haulets wit11 educatio�lal materials to be included
with a hauler's mailing or bill. These materials will be
designed to encourage participation in the collectiou programs
and to familiarize participants with general waste reduction and
recycling concepts. The division and the certificated hauler
shall mutually agree upon the iwmber and format of roaterials
to be included in the hauler's mailings. A�iy material prepared
by the division that will be distributed by hauleis will be
distributed to the haulers for their review three wee�s prior to
their printing. The hauler shall return a�ly comments on the
materials to the division within that three week period. (Ord.
10446 § 3, 1992: Ocd. 9928 § S, 1991).
10.18.050 Certificated haulers customer service
responsibilities. Certificated hauleis shall be responsible for
Related Legulation
all aspects of customer seivice. Customer service responsibilities
shall include, but not be limited to:
A. General program information provided by telephone,
brochures, and advertisements:
B. Program sign-up, container delivery and
replacement information.
C. Written notification sha11 be distributed at the point
of collection when collection is refused. The notification shall
include, at a minimum, an explanation of the reasons
collection was refused.
D. Response to complaints of missed collection. The
certificated hauler shall collect the uncollected recyclables within
one business day after the complaint is received azid verified.
E. Telephone and written response to service
complaints. The certificated hauleis sha11 maintain an
adequately staffed telephone hotline for their franchise area
setved by the progra►ns. This number shall be accessible to
residents for the puipose of providing program ii�formation, and
accepting seivice comments a�ld complaints.
1. The hotline must be capable of responding to
a large volwne of phone calls. Callers must be able to talk to
hotline staff or obtain information through recorded message or
an interactive communications system when the liotline phone
is not staffed. The calleis must also have the option of
spea�ing to hotline staff in less than three (3) minutes during
normal business houis. The hotline sha11 have the capability of
recording all calls received when the hotline is not staffed.
2. The hotline phone number(s) shall be clearly
shown on the collection equipment and all recyclables and yard
waste containeis provided by the certificated hauler, included in
all u�ailings, and other publiciry materials.
3. The counry may publisli the hotline phone
number(s) on other county materials as part of its education
and promotion of the collection programs with prior
notification of the certificated haulec (Ord. 992g § �, 1991).
10.18.060 Reporting requirements. A. The
certificated hauler shall submit a report to the division on the
fifth day of each month beginning May 1991 through July
1991. The reports will include an implementation schedule for
the program a�id a written summary of progress made to
implement the collection programs for the portion of theic
KCC T'�tle 10
�
RL - 2
5
franchise area lying within an unincorporated urban seivice
area. The implementation schedule a�ld report will address but
not be limited to: a description of container rype, status of
container and equipment order a�id delivery; container delivery
to program participants; status and content of tariff submittals
to the WUTC; and progress made in program promotion.
B. Certificated haulers shall, on a monthly basis,
provide the counry with information to evaluate the effectiveness
of the programs. The reports will contain monthly, quarterly,
and annual data in a format and medium determined by the
division. At a minimum, the manthly seivice reports shall
include the following information for each seivice area and for
each service:
1. Weekly and ►nontlily set-out counts by routes,
progra�ns and service area. Set-out count is the number of
dwelling units that make the contents of their recyclables
and/or yard waste collection wntaineis available for collectiou.
2. Average pounds of recyclables and yard waste
collected per set-out.
3. Summaries of tons of all recvclables and vard
waste collected, by material.
4. Location of intermediate processing facility(ies)
and materials types delivered to these facilities.
5. Summaries of tons of all recy clables sold, by
material.
6. Summary of to��s of contamivated recyclables
and yard waste disposed of at a counry solid waste faciliry, and
which solid waste facility received it.
7. For each fra�ichise area located within tlie
urban unincorporated areas, as defined by this chapter:
a. The total nuivber of single family solid
waste collection customers;
b. The total number of multi-family
complexes receiving solid waste collection seivice, and the
number of units within those wmplexes;
c. The total number of single family
dwellings receiving recyclables and/or yard waste collection
se�vices;
d. The total number of multi-family
complexes receiving recyclables collection services and the
location of these complexes.
KCC 7ttle 10
8. Summaries of tons of all solid waste collected
from all single family dwellings and multi-family structures
3Rd WI11C�1 Klilg COUIl� solid waste facilities received it.
9. A�ry significant changes in patteri�s of usage of
ting County solid waste facilities, to be reported to the manager
of the division 30 days in advance of the change.
10. Log of seivice complaints received by
certificated hauleis.
11. Location of areas receiving alternatives to
curbside recyclables collection due to inaccessibiliry as permitted
in K.C.C. 10.18.O1OD.1.
12. A map at a scale of one (1) inch equals two
hundred (200) feet, indicating the areas se►ved and the
collection days for each progiam.
C. Reports shall be subivitted to the division by the
fifteenth (1Sth) of each month and will be based on the
operation of the prograiiis for the previous month. In addition,
annual seivice reports shall be due within 30 days after the end
of the calendar year. [n addition to the year end swnmary of
the monthly reporting ii�formation, the annual report shall
include a summary of program highlights, problems and
measures taken to resolve problems and increase efficiency a�id
participation, an analysis of each program's effectiveness, and
an annual tonnage forecast which estimates the total amount
of solid waste tonnage for the cu«•ent year.
D. The certificated hauleis shall meet with a
representative of the solid waste division at a minimum of once
per month, beginning in May 19�1. All meetings shall be at
tlle disccetion of the division. (Ord. 9928 § 7, 1�91).
10.18.070 County administrative fee The county
hereby imposes a fee as pei7nitted by RCW 36.58.045, upon
solid waste collection se�vice on certificated hauleis operating
within the unincorporated areas of the counry to fund the
administration and planning expenses to comply with the
requirements in RCW 70.95.090. A monthly administrative fee
of twenry-two (22) cents per customer, or its equivalent, shall
be wllected by the certificated haulers to compensate the
division for the costs of program management and promotional
and educational programs. The revenue collected through the
administrative fee shall be remitted to the divisian on a
quarcerly basis on the following dates: April 30, for the quarter
Rel�ted Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -
5
3
of January through March; July 31, for the quarter of April
through June; October 31, for the qua�•ter of July through
September; and January 31, for tlie quarter of October through
December. A late payment penalty equal to one and one-half
percent of the delinquent unpaid balance, compounded
mondily, shall be assessed on the delinquent unpaid balance of
those accounts in arrears. (Ord. 10446 § 4, 19�2: Ord. 9928
§ 8, 1991).
10.18.080 County notification of certificated
haulers. A. The division hereby notifies the certificated
haulers operating in unincorporated urban areas of King
Counry's intent to exercise its authoriry to contract for soucce
separated recyclables and yard waste collection from residences
if the services specified in K.C.C. 10.18.010 are not fully
implemented for the portion of their franchise area lying within
an unincorporated urban service area by July 31, 1991.
B. In the event that the counry e�ercises its authoriry
to contract for the wllection of residential recyclables in
unincorporated urban areas the counry will select a recycling
contractor through a request for proposal process for single
family recyclables and yard waste collection and multi-family
recyclables collection for the portion of their franchise area
lying within an unincorporated urban seivice area.
1. Recycling contractors shall be selected on the
basis of a request For proposal that consideis, among other
factors, experience, qualifications, and costs.
2. The prevailing wage rate shall be paid to all
laborers under these contracts and shall be in accordance with
the applicable rules and regulations of the Department of Labor
and Industries. (Ord. 9928 § 9, 1991).
10.18.090 Full program implementation. A. The
King County executive shall notify the WUTC that the county
will exercise its authoriry to contract for the collection of source
sepaxated recyclables from residences of unincorporated urba�i
areas of the counry if it is determined that the programs
specified in this chapter are not fully implemented. The
programs shall be considered fully implemeilted when the
following conditions are met:
1. The certificated hauler has received approval
by the WUTC for its tariff filings for recyclables and yard waste
services; and,
2. The seivices are a�ailable to all who want
service. Customers must be able to receive containers within
twenry-one (21) days of a request and receive their first
collection within thirty-five (35) da� of a request. (Ord. 9928
§ l0, 1991).
10.18.100 Severability. If any section, sabsection,
seutence, clause or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason,
found to be unconstitutional or otheiwise invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validit}�
of the remaining portions. (Ord. 9�28 § 11, 1991).
Chapter 10.22
POLICY DIRECTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 'IY�
KING COUNIY COMPREHENSIVE SOL1D WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sections:
1�.Z2.�1� F1Rd1l1�,S.
10.22.030 Solid waste system alternatives.
10.22.040 Strategies for waste reduction and recycling
goals.
10.22.050 State legislation.
10.22.060 Vendo�s.
10.22.010 Findings. The King Counry council finds:
A. The Programmatic Fina1 Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on Solid Waste Management Alternatives issued
on September 30, 1988 is adequate for purposes of making
policy decisions about which alternative strategies shall be
included in the preparation of the 1989 King Counry solid waste
management plan (CSWNIP).
B. The Programmatic EIS is the first step in a phased
review of the 1989 King County CSWMP update. This phased
review assists in focusing on the issues that a�e ready for
� Related Leg�slation KCC 7�tle 10
�
' RL -
5
4
decision and excluding from coi�sideration issues already
decided or not yet ready.
C. The key issues that a�•e ready for decision based on
the Programmatic Final EIS ue:
1. The rypes of waste reduction and recycling
programs that should be implemented to provide maximum
reduction in King County's solid waste stceam
2. Whether some fonn of iucineration is a
necessary component of the county's solid waste management
progra�n; and
3. Whether other disposal options should be
implemented to reduce the a�nount of waste going to tlie Cedar
Hills La�idfill.
D. Further environmental review to the extent required
by SEPA will be peiformed for facility siting, faciliq� e�pansion,
a�ld the other issues included in the CSWMP but not addressed
in this chapter or in the Programmatic EIS.
E. This chapter will provide bcoad prog�ammatic policy
dicection under which the King County solid waste management
system shall be developed. Implementation of these policies
will be described in the CSWMP and the a�inual budget process,
and will include review by the Interlocal Forun� and the King
County solid waste advisoiy committee.
E The King County solid waste advisory committee, tlie
wuncil ad hoc committees and the desigiiated Interlocal Forum
on Solid Waste ha�e reviewed a�ld commented on the solid
waste issues facing ting County and the policies contained in
this chapter.
G. Waste reduction and recycling are now basic
elements of respoi�sible solid waste management systems. Each
citize« of the county must accept a commitinent to waste
reduction a�id recycling as a basic part of his/her social
responsibiliry.
H. Accomplishment of tlie waste reductiou and
recycling goals will require cooperation between the cities,
private recycling, waste disposal businesses, and the counry.
I. A goal of the system is to minimize the amount of
solid waste requiring disposal a�id to provide for disposal of the
remainder in a manner that miuunizes environmental risks
and impacts.
J. Programmatic choices, which affect individual
behaviors, a�e preferable to faciliry choices, whicll accommodate
existing behaviois. 1'his hiera�•chy should apply within recycling
altematives, as well as between solid waste management
altenlatives, such as recycling, incineration, and landfilling.
K. The public has e�pressed an interest in more
wnvenient recycling opportunities.
L. Passage of state legislation establishing policies and
clarifying va�•ious authorities related to waste reduction and
recycling is critical to the success of the waste reduction and
recycling progca�n.
M. Notice has been received from the Ciry of Seattle
that it will no longer be a pa�ticipant in the county waste
disposal system on or before January 1, 1993. (Ord. 8771 § 1,
1988).
10.22.030 Solid waste system alternatives. The
1989 wmprehensive solid waste management plui which is
being prepa�ed by the King County solid waste division for
review by the designated Interlocal Forum and approval by the
appropriate parties as set forth by state law shall include the
(ollowing policies:
A. A waste reduction and recycling goal of sixry-five
percent, to be achieved within twelve years. Interim goals of
thirry-five percenc within three yeais (1992) and fifty percent
within six yea�s (1995) are shorter range goals to measure
progress. At each of these checkpoints the recycling levels will
be assessed puisuant to section 10.22.040E. of diis chapter and,
if necessary, the waste reduction and recycling program will be
adjusted and prohibition of certain recyclables from disposal at
Ceda�• Hills landfill shall be considered in order to assure
achievement of the sixry-five percent goal. An annual report on
progress towa�ds the waste reduction and recycling goals will be
prepa�ed by the King Counry solid waste division pursuant to
K.C.C. 10.14.080.
B. Programs to reduce yard waste, including an
eatensive bachya�•d composting program, support for curbside
collection of yard waste, a neighborhood yard waste drop box
program, a�ld support for yard waste processing facilities.
C. Programs to reduce residential waste, based on
waste reduction and source separation of recyclables from solid
waste and including curbside collection of recyclables from a11
residents living in the urbanized portions of King County. The
counry will work with affected jurisdictions and service providers
KCC 7�tle 10 Related Legislation
�
> L-
_:: R
55
� ......................... .. .. .. .................. .... _......................................... ......................... .........
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
to facilitate provision of curbside collection of recyclables in
areas where housing density makes this practice feasible.
Containers or other systems to collect recyclables from
apartments and condominiums should also be provided, and
convenient and comprehensive drop box sites for collection of
source separated recyclables should be located in rural King
Counry.
D. Programs to reduce non-residential waste, based on
waste reduction and source separation of recyclable material
from solid waste and including a comprehensive technical
assistance program for the commercial sector that provides
waste audits and assistance in establishing waste ceduction and
recycling mechanisms, as well as facilitating collection of source
separated recyclable material.
E. Development of private sector recycling facilities
which complement the waste reduction and recycling program
emphasis on source separation of recyclables, including yard
waste processing and intermediate processing facilities.
F. Authorization for one privately owned and operated
mixed waste processing facility to which a portion of the
counry's waste stream will be designated to supplement source
separation and to evaluate the long-term benefits, costs and
risks of mixed waste processing in combination with extensive
source separation programs.
G. Authorization of out of counry landfilling as part of
the county's solid waste system.
H. If an out of counry landfill option is implemented,
King Counry shall continue a level of operation at Cedar Hills
landfill at least adequate to allow use of Cedar Hills as a
backup system for King Counry waste, excluding waste from the
Ciry of Seattle, if necessaiy due to an emergency or failuce of
the out of counry landfill alternative.
I. A�l energy/resource recoveiy faciliry shall not be
included as a waste disposal alternative in the 1989 CSWh4P
and shall not be wnstructed.
]. The Ciry of Seattle will plan separately for disposal
of its own waste, including commercial waste, special waste,
demolition and construction debris, as well as residential waste.
(Ord. 8771 § 3, 1988).
10.22.040 Strategies for waste reduction aud
recycling goals. The executive shall implement the following
strategies directed at the waste reduction and recycling goals
established in 10.22.030 of this chapter.
A. Rates.
1. The executive shall prepare a solid waste
financing study and rate proposal which provides for funding
the waste reduction and recycling programs needed to achieve
the goals established in Section 10.22.030A of this chapter as
well as funding to support ongoing operations requirements of
the King Counry solid waste division. The rate which is
proposed shall be a single rate for disposal of waste at Cedar
Hills Landfill or another final disposal site and a single rate for
use of counry tra��sfer statiot�s and rnral landfills. The
financial and policy implications of an increase in disposal
rates, and the effect it will have on recycling programs and
other system operations and programs, shall be fully analyzed.
In addition, the possibiliry of establishing a surcharge for
handling special wastes, such as asbestos, at Cedar Hills Landfill
should be analyzed.
2. The executive shall work with cities and the
W[JTC to support collection rates which involve higher rates for
higher volumes of mixed waste.
B. Promotion, education and public involvement. An
extensive 2-tiered promotion, education, and public involvement
effort shall be implemented to carry out the waste reduction
and recycling program. The goal of public education in King
Counry's waste reduction and recycling program is to provide
various audiences with information and technical assistance
which will change their attitudes and behavior about waste
disposal. The two distinct tieis should include: 1. awareness
building and 2. technical assistance. The following WR/R
education programs should be provided: resource center and
educational materials, technical assistance and training, school
progra�ns, and publiciry a�id demonstrations. The following
audiences should be ta�geted: ciry governments, commercial
and institutional sectors, schoolchildren, households, and media.
C. Market suppo��t. The executive shall submit to the
council an expanded procurement policy directed toward
stimulating demand for and use of recyclable materials
recovered from solid waste. Other municipalities and the
private sector should be encouraged to adopt procurement
policies that favor recycled a�id recyclable materials. In
addition, the division shall assist the private sector in identifying
�
�
�
�
Related Legislation
KCC 7�tle 10
�
RI. -
5
6
........ ............................. ......................... .................. . .............. �
�
�
�
�
receivers for recyclables for which markets do not exist but
which are under development
D. Marketing eouncil. King County will support state
legislation to develop a marketing council comprised of
government officials, business representatives, recycleis, a�id
others, to promote research and development of new uses for
recycled materials, match recyclers with persons interested in
purchasing their end-product, and keep apprised of the latest
developments in recycling markets. The executive shall develop
a local marketing council if the state does not create such an
entiry.
E. Monitoring. The executive shall establish an
annual monitoring program to measure waste reduction and
recycling levels and to provide information on where
improvements can be made. The progra�n should evaluate four
sets of information: the quantiry and composition of the waste
stream as generated, the sources of waste by waste sU•eam
component, the quantities and types of materials being recycled,
the quantities and rypes of waste being disposed, and the
amount of recycling that is occuiring in different sectois of the
economy. (Ord. 8771 § 4, 1988).
10.22.050 State Legislation. It is counry policy to
seek legislation, in addition to that referenced in Section
10.22.04C�J. of this chapter, which will accomplish the
following:
A Authorize the county to establish the minimum level
of recycling and mixed waste collection services to be provided
in unincorporated areas of the county and in any incoiporated
areas for which the counry has solid waste planning authoriry
or in which the city or town is not providing or contracting for
solid waste collection services.
B. Diswurage waste generation and encourage the use
of recycled materials, including establishment of disincentives
for unnecessary packaging incentives to encourage the
production and use of recycled materials, aud packaging
standards and labeling requirements to guide the development
of packaging and to inform consumers about the impacts of
their product choices.
C. Strengthen the state involvement in implementing
its waste reduction and recycling priorities by the establishment
of reporting or licensing requirements for entities that collect or
KCC 7£tle 10
process recyclables and also by monitoring per capita waste
generation rates.
D. Develop�vent of minimum requirements for new
construction to provide waste reduction and recycling
opportunities. (Ord. 8771 § 5, 1988).
10.22.060 Vendors. The executive shall use the �
following procedures to select the vendors referenced in Sections .
10.22.030 F. and G. of this chapter. A. Mixed waste
processing. The vendor to provide mixed waste processing shall ,
be selected through an RFQ/RFP and the plant shall be
coordinated with the county tra►�sfer system. The project RFQ �
shall include criteria to establish demonstrated vendor .
peiforma�ice, guaranteed level of waste reduction, costs
comparable to other disposal alternatives authorized in the �
CSWMP and marketable by-products from the process.
B. Out of county landfilling. The out of counry .
landfilling alternative which is designated must be selected i
through an RFQ/RFP process using the following criteria:
1. Landfill operations and transportation system �
must meet all applicable environmental standa�•ds.
2. There are assurances of host cominuniry .
receptivity.
3. There is assurance of long-term waste stream .
diveision from Cedar Hills Landfill (i.e., a minimum volume .
guaranteed for 10-20 yea�s), including guaranteed backup.
4. There are adequate assurances of vendor •
fina�icial and legal capabiliry to indemnify the county from
risks of liabiliry for out of county operations. •
5. There are penalties for non-performance by
the vendor. •
6. The life cycle cost of the proposal is •
financially competitive in compa�•ison to other disposal options.
Cost co«sideratio«s include: •
a. Direct and indirect costs of both the
proposal a�ld an�� additional King Counry operating a�id/or •
capital cos�; and
b. Effect of proposal on the following �
system costs:
contributions.
(1) A�lnual la�ldfill reserve fund •
�
�
�
Related Legislation �
�
r�
u
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r `1
�
�
�
�
L�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
>:> RL -
5
7
(2) Cedar Hills new area development
costs.
(3) Effect on E/RR reseive fund.
7. The proposal is feasible in tei7ns of its impact
on the wunry transfer system and other county operatious.
(Ord. 8771 § 6, 1988).
Chapter 10.24
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Secrions:
10.24.020 Responsibilities.
10.24.030 Plan contents.
10.24.040 Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
10.24.050 Solid Waste Management Plan Adoption.
10.24.020 Responsibilities. A. The division shall
prepare the plan and submit it to the council of ting Counry
on or before March 1, 1989, for adoption.
B. The division shall maintain the plan in a current
condition and sha11 propose necessary plan revisions to the
council at least once every three yeais.
C. The King County Solid Waste Advisoiy Committee
shall review and comment upon the proposed plan prior to its
submittal to the council for adoption.
D. The designated interlocal forum shall have the
following responsibilities:
1. Advise the King Counry council and executive
and other jurisdictions as appropriate on all policy aspects of
solid waste management and pla�uling. Consult with and
advise the King Counry solid waste division on technical issues.
2. Review and wmment on alternatives and
rewmmendations for the counry comprehensive solid w�ste
management plan a�id facilitate approval of plan by each
jurisdiction.
3. Review proposed interlocal agreements between
King County and cities for plamiing, recycling, and waste
stream control.
4. Review disposal rate proposals.
5. Review status reports on waste stream
reduction, recycling, energy/resource recovery, and solid waste
operations with interjurisdictional impact.
6. Promote i��foimation exchange and interaction
between waste generatois, local governments with collection
authority, recycleis, and county planned and operated disposal
system.
7. Provide coordination opportunities between
King County solid waste division, local governments, private
operatots and recycle�s.
8. Aid cities in recognizing municipal solid waste
responsibilities, incl��ding collection and recycling, and
effectively carrying out those responsibilities.
E. The council shall hold a public hearing on the
draft plan and another public hearing on the final pla�i prior
to adoption of the plan. A�iy ciry using county disposal sites
sliall be notified of these public hearings and shall be requested
to comment on the plan.
F. Until adoption of the plan by ordina�ice of King
County the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
prepared by the Puget Sound Coancil of Govertunents shall be
used as the solid waste management plan for King County.
G. Beginning in 1989 the division shall submit to the
council by September 1 of eacli year an anuual report of its
progress toward objectives identified in the pla�i.
H. Interlocal agreements between the county and cities
W1S�lllig t0 p1311 �011ltl}' Wltll C�le COUIICY OC l0 3UtIlOC17k tI1C
counry to plan for it shall identify which parry is responsible for
ciry solid waste operational plans, tonnage forecasts, and
rec��cling goals. (Ord. 8771 § 8, 1988: Ord. 8365 § 2, 1987:
Ord. 80�8 § 2, 1987: Ord. 7737 § 2, 1986).
10.24.030 Plan contents The plan shall include the
following: A. Goals for solid waste management in King
County, including a go�l to achieve maximum feasible
reduction of solid waste going to landfills and other processing
facilities, conse�vation of energy and natural resources, and
enviromnental protection. The plan shall include measurable
objectives for achieving this goal, including but not limited to
the following:
1. Annual tonnage projections;
Related Legislation
KCC 7ttle 10
�
': R -
L
5
8
2. Five, ten and twenry year plans for waste
reduction through recycling and waste reduction incentives,
packaging changes, source separation, and waste processing
alternatives, a��d other methods deemed effective by the division;
and
3. A�ialysis of altei�iative waste reduction aud
disposal methods showing the impact of each on landfill
capaciry, energy co��sumption, natural cesource consumption,
and environmental quality.
B. A detailed inventory and description of all e�isting
solid waste handling facilities including an inventory of any
deficiencies, including operating efficiencies and public seivice
needs, in meeting cun•ent solid waste handling needs.
C. The estimated long-range needs for solid waste
ha�idling facilities projected twenry yeais into the future.
D. A program for the orderly development of solid
waste handling facilities in a manner consistent witli the plans
for the entire county which shall:
1. Meet the minimum functional standards for
solid waste ha�idling adopted by the State of Washington
Depa�tment of Ecology and all.laws aud regulations relating to
air and water pollution, fire prevention, flood control, and
protection of public health;
2. Take into accouut tlie comprehei�sive land use
plan of each jurisdiction;
3. Cont�in a six year construction and capital
acquisition progra►n for solid waste handling facilities; and
4. Contain a plan for financing both capital
costs a�id operational ea�penditures of the proposed solid waste
ma�lagement system.
E. A progra�n for suiveillance and control.
F. A cuirent inventoiy a�id description of solid waste
collection needs and operations within each respective
jurisdiction which shall include:
1. A��y fra�ichise for solid waste collectiou
gra�ited by the utilities and tra��sportation commission in the
respective jurisdictions including the na�ne of the holder of the
franchise and the address of his place of busiuess, the area
covered by his operation a�id rates cha�•ged in comparison to
disposal costs;
2. A�iy ciry solid waste operational plan,
including boundaries and identification of responsibilities;
3. The population de�uity of each a�ea secviced
by a city operation or by a franchised operation within the
respective jurisdictions;
4. The projected solid waste collection needs for
the respective jurisdictioi�s for the next six years;
5. A�ialysis of operating economia, travel
distances a��d economically optimal locations of disposal sites;
G. A review of potential areas that meet the (siting�
criteria as outlined in RCW 70.95.165.
H. A�ry other requirements pcescribed by the State of
Washington.
I. A�iy other analysis which will be useful to fulfilling
the goals set forth in the plan. (Ord. 7737 § 3, 1986).
10.24.040 Hazardous Waste Management Plan. A.
Tlie division shall prepare a haza�•dous waste ma�iagement plan
for unincoiporated King County and submit it to the council of
King Counry no later than Jatmaiy 1, 1990 for adoption. The
hazardous waste management plan may either be incorporated
into the Plan or be prepared separately.
B. The executive is authori�ed to enter into interlocal
agreements with any cities in King Counry which wish to plan
jointly with King Counry for moderate risk waste management,
provided tliat such agreements require that any jurisdiction
wntracting with the counry for moderate risk waste planning
which must designate hazardous waste zones within its
boundaries pursuant to RCW 70.105.225 shall so designate by
April 1, 1988. A�iy jurisdiction wishing to pla�i jointly with
ting County must either include this pla�i in the terms of its
interlocal agreement puisuant to K.C.C. 10.24.020, K.C.C.
10.08.050 a�id K.C.C. 10.08.130 or submit a letter of intent to
the counry by October 1, 1987.
C. In prepai•ing the hazardous waste ma�lagement
pla��, the division shall coi�sider cooperative efforts with adjacent
counties uid shall prepa�e a regional plan to the extent
practicable.
D. The King County council finds the Seattle-King Counry
Loca1 Hazardous Waste Management Plan Fina1 Environmental
Impact Statement issued August 1989 is adequate for purposes
of making a decision to adopt the Local Hazardous Waste
Management Plan for Seattle-King Counry.
KCC 7�'tle 10 Related Legrslation
�
�
�I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i•
I•
•
•
i
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
RL -
5
9
E. The 1989 Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
for Seattle-King County as amended by the Plan Addendum of
the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Resolution 90-001, is hereby
adopted. (Ord. 9b97 §§ 1-2, 1990: Ord. 8098 § 3, 1987).
10.24.050 Solid Waste Management Plan
Adoption. The King Counry council finds the King Counry
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement issued July 14, 1989 is
adequate for purposes of making a decision to adopt the King
Counry Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Tlie
1989 King Counry Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Pla�l is hereby adopted as amended by Attacliment A of the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Resolution 8g-005. (Ord. 9471,
1990).
Chapter 10.28
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Sections:
10.28.010 Establishment.
10.28.020 Composition.
10.28.030 Scope and charge.
10.28.040 Membeiship.
10.28.OS0 Ad►ninistrative support.
10.28.060 Compensation.
10.28.010 Establishment. The King Count�t Solid
Waste Advisory Committee is hereby established to be compcised
of a counry-wide group of representatives of citizens, public
interest groups, business, the waste management industiy and
local elected public officials to provide for coordination and
infoi7nation exchange between the groups about solid waste
issues a�id to provide on-going public input and advice to �iug
Counry on solid waste ma�lagement issues. (Ord. 6862 § 1,
1984).
10.28.020 Composiriou Tlle Klll� COUIl� Solid Waste
Advisoiy Committee sha11 be composed of at least nine and not
more than fifteen membeis representing a balance of intecests
Related Legislation
among the groups listed in Section 10.28.010. (Ord. 9086,
1989: ord. 6862 § 2, 1984).
10.28.030 Scope and charge. A The King County
Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall advise and make
recommendatioi�s to the counry executive on matters within
their scope and charge.
B. The scope and charge of the King County Solid
Waste Advisoiy Committee shall be to:
l. Advise King County on all aspects of solid
waste management planning;
2. Assist King Counry in the development of
programs and policies concerning solid waste ma�iagement;
3. Review and comment on proposed solid waste
management rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their
adoption. (Ord. 6862 §§ 3-4, 1984).
10.28.040 Membership. A. Regular members shall be
appointed by the counry executive subject to co►�fii7nation by
counry council motion. The executive shall be able to appoint
non-voting ex-officio members who shall serve at the executive's
discretion.
B. Membeis may be reappointed to serve consecutive
terms. Reappointment shall be subject to coi�firmation by
county council motion.
C. Membeis shall se�ve a term of three (3) years or
uutil their successor is appointed and confinned as provided in
this chapter. The terms of office shall be staggered consistent
with the provisions of KC.C. Chapter 2.28.
D. A vacancy shall be filled for the remainder of the
term of the vacant position in the manner described ui the
initial appointment.
E. A majoriry of the committee shall elect one of its
membeis as chair. The term of the chair shall be for one
yeac (Ord. 6862 §§ 5-9, 1984).
10.28.050 Administrative support. Ongoing
administrative support to the committee sha11 be provided by
the solid waste division manager. (Ord. 6862 § lq 1984).
10.28.060 Compensation. Members of the committee
shall seive without coivpei�sation. (Ord. 6862 § 11, 1984).
KCC 71t1e 10
�
>` RL -
60
THE CODE OF THE KING COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH - TITLE 10
Rules and Regulations No. 8 as a�nended by Rules and Regulations No. 81
"King County Solid Waste Regulatioi�s"
Effective April 28, 1992
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
Table of Contents
10A4 CITATION AND PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.04.010 Citation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.04.020 Pu�pose aud policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.04.030 Applicabiliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.08 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.005 Applicabiliry--State definitions adopted ...... 65
10.08.010 Abandoned landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.015 Active area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.016 Acutely hazardous waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S
10.08.017 Adequately wetted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.020 Agricultural wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.025 Agronomic rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.030 Air qualiry standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.035 Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.037 Asbestos ......................... 65
10.08.038 Asbestos containing material . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.040 Asbestos containing waste material . . . . . . . . 65
10.08.045 Ashes .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
10.08.OS0 Balefill .......................... 66
10.08.051 Biomedical waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
10.08.052 Biomedical waste collectioi�/transportation vehicle 66
10.08.053 Biomedical waste generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
10.08.054 Biomedical waste storageltreatment operator .. 67
10.08.OSS Biomedical waste storage/treatment site ...... 67
10.08.056 Biomedical waste tra«sporter . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.057 Biomedical waste treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.058 Biosolids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.059 Biosolids utilization site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.060 Buffer zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.0�.062 Bull.y waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.065 Clean soils and clean dredge soils ......... 67
10.08.070 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.075 Collecting agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.0�0 Collectioi�/transportation vehicle . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.085 Conlpliance schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.090 Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.092 Construction, Demolition, Landclearing
(CDL) waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.08.094 Construction waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.095 Container ........................ 68
10.08.100 Contaminate ...................... 68
10.0�.105 Cover material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.110 Dangerous wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.115 Demolition waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.117 Deparhvent ... .. . . ........... ..... 68
10.08.120 Detachable containeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.125 Disposable containeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.130 Disposal or deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.135 Disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.08.140 Drop box facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.08.142 Empry .......................... 69
10.08.145 Energy recoveiy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.08.150 Existing faciliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.08.155 Expanded faciliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.08.160 Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
King County Board of Healtl� Code - Ti�tle 10 Related Legulatron
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
� I
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
L- 1
R 6
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
10.08.165
10.08.170
10.08.175
10.08.180
10.08.185
10.08.190
10.08.195
10.08.200
10.08.202
10.08.204
10.08.205
10.08.207
10.08.210
10.08.215
io.os.aao
10.08.222
10.08.225
10.08.230
10.08.233
10.08.234
10.08.235
10.08.237
10.08.245
10.08.250
10.08.2 S 5
10.08.260
10.o8.26S
10.08.267
10.08.270
10.08.275
10.08.280
10.08.285
10.08.290
10.08.295
10.08.297
10.08.305
10.08.31 S
10.08.320
10.08.325
10.08.330
Faciliry structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Final treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Free liquids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fumarole ........................
Garbage .........................
Groundwater ......................
Health officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Holocene fault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Household Hazardous Waste (�IIjW) . . . . . . . .
Human excrement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Industrial sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Indust�ial solid wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Industrial wastewater facility . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inert wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Infection control staff committee . . . . . . . . . .
Ii�fectious waste generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interim solid waste handling site . . . . . . . . .
Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land clearing waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landspreading disposal faciliry . . . . . . . . . . .
Leachate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Liquid .........................
Local fire control agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lower explosive limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1�4oderate Risk Waste (NIR�V) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Municipal sewerage sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New faciliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Noncoi�fonning site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nuisa�ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One hundred (100) year floodplain . . . . . . . .
Open burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peiformance standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Permanent Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
Collectio��/Storage Faciliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perivit ..........................
Peison ..........................
Pile ............................
Plan of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Point of compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
6g
69
69
69
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
�o
70
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
?1
71
71
71
71
7?
72
72
72
72
7?
72
72
7?
7?
72
72
10.08.335
10.08.340
10.08.345
10.08.352
10.08.354
10.08.355
�0.0�.360
10.08.365
10.08.367
10.08.370
10.08.375
10.08.380
lo.os.3�5
�0.08.390
i0.os.395
10.08.412
10.08.415
10.08.420
10.08.4? 5
10.08.430
10.0�.435
10.08.438
10.03.440
10.08.445
10.08.450
10.08.455
10.0�.460
10.08.465
10.08.470
10.08.475
10.08.480
10.08.482
10.0�.4�5
10.0�.490
10.08.495
io.os.soo
10.08505
10.0�. S 10
10.03.51 S
10.0�.520
Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Problem wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Process to furtiler reduce pathogens (PFRP) ...
Process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP)
Putrescible waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Py�olysis . ............ . ...........
Reclamation site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rese�ved . . . . .. . . .... . . ...........
Reusable containeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RUIlOff ..........................
RUIl-011 ..........................
Scavenging .......................
Septage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Small Quantiq� Generator (SQG) . . . . . . . . . .
Sole source aquil'er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solid waste handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solid waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Special putpose faciliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Steam sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stream ..........................
Surface impoundment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trausfer station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Twentv-five (?S) year storm . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Twenry-four (24) hour twenty-five (25)
year storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Upland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Used Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
litilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
Vadose zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Waste cecycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Waste reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water qualit� standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Woodwaste ........................
72
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
7S
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7S
7S
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
� Related Leg�slratioia Kir�g (,'ou�zi�� Bo�rrl of Her�ltb Go�e - Tidle 10
�
>: RL -
6
2
10.08.522 Yard waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.08.525 Zone of saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10.12 ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.12.010 Other agencies and jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . .
10.12.020 Ei�forcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.12.030 Exempted activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.12.040 Ii�spectioi�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.12.050 Nonco«forming disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.12.060 Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.12.070 Imminent and substautial dangeis . . . . . . . .
10.16 PERMITS FOR NEW OR EXI'ANDED
FACILITIES .. . . . .. . . . . .. . ....... .
10.16.010 Approval required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1016.020 AppI1C3C1011--F1Ill1� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.16.030 Application--Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.16.040 Renewal application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.16.050 Preoperational iiispection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.16.070 Reexamination fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
78
73
7�
78
79
�3
�3
�3
10.20 PERMII'S FOR VEHICLES AND EXISTING
FACILITIES ...................... 83
10.20.010 Permit required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,3
10.20.020 Permit application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . �3
10.20.030 Permit issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �3
10.20.040 Special pu�pose facilities permit . . . . . . . . . . �4
10.20.060 Closure permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
10.20.070 Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �4
10.24
10.24.010
10.24.015
10.24.020
10.24.030
10.24.OS0
10.24.055
�0.24.060
10.24.070
FEES........................... 84
A�uwal (new/renewal) operating permit fees .. 84
Pei7nit applicatioivplan review fees . . . . . . . . 84
Tonnage and volunie fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Pay�nent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Special inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �5
Solid waste variance fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �S
Special seivices--Authocih� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8S
Special Seivices--Ter�us and conditions ...... 8S
10.28 WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
10.28.010 Storage requirements generally . . . . . . . . . . . 86
10.28.020 Container coi�struction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g(,
10.28.030 Collection and transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
10.28.040 Garbage and rubbish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
10.?8.045 Approval of change of biomedical waste
treat�nent site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
10.28.050 Household waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
10.28.055 Yard wast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
10.28.060 Asbestos-containing waste material . . . . . . . . . 88
10.28.070 Biomedical waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
10.?8.085 Septage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g2
10.28.087 Human excrement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
10.2�.090 A�iimal waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
10.28.10o Coil�post . ... . .................... g2
10.?8110 Bull. waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
10.281�0 Excavated soil and fill material . . . . . . . . . . 92
10.32 I.00ATION REQUIREMENT'S . . . . . . . . . . 93
10.32.010 Location requireii�ents--Applicabiliry ... . . . . . . 93
10.32.0?0 Location requireivents--Designated . . . . . . . . . 93
10..3?.040 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
10.34 GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENI'S .... 94
10.34.010 Gene�al faciliry requirements--Applicabiliry .... 94
10.34.020 State and local requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
10.34.030 Plan of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
10.34.040 Recordkeeping ..................... 95
10.34.050 Reporting ........................ 9S
10.34.060 Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
10.34.070 Closure and post-closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
10.36 LANDFILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
10.36.010 Applicabiliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g7
10.36.020 Minimum functional sta�idards for perfonnance 97
10.36.030 Minimizing liquids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g7
10.36.040 Leachate systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g7
10.36.050 Liner designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g8
10.36.060 Small landfill designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
10.36.070 Floodplains ....................... 98
10.36.080 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
King County Board of Healtl� Code - 1��tle 10 Related Leglslation
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -
6
3
10.36.090
10.36.100
1036.110
10.36.120
10.36.130
1036.140
10.36.150
io.36.160
io.36. i7o
10.36.180
10.36.190
10.36.200
10.36.210
10.36.220
10.36.230
10.36.240
10.36.250
10.36.260
10.36.270
io.36zs0
�0.36.290
10.36.300
Gas control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Groundwater monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Weighing incoming waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Employee facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Sign ............................ 99
Fire protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Vector control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Unloading areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Approach and exit roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Office-site communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Operatiug plan co►�tormance . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Operating details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Boundaiy posts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Compaction and daily cover . . . . . . . . . . . : . 100
Seconda�y cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Final cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Monitoring systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Recycling required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Dangerous wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Closure and post-closure standards . . . . . . . . 100
Ahandoned landfill sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
10.44 SURFACE IMPOiJNDMENfS . . . . . . . . . . . 103
10.44.010 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
10.44.020 Design, construction and operation . . . . . . . . 104
10.40 BIOSOLIDS ..... . . .. . . . . . . . .. .... 101
10.40.005 Pathogen ceduction reqairements . . . . . . . . . . 101
10.40.007 Pennit reqtticements—Applicability . . . . . . . . . 101
10.40.010 Requirements gene►•ally--Permit . . . . . . . . . . . 101
10.40.020 Permit application contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
10.40.030 Practices—Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10?
10.40.040 Biosolids laudfill disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
10.42 LANDSPREADING DISPOSAL STANDARDS 10?
10.42.010 Applicabiliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
10.42.020 Peiformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
10.42.030 Locational standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
10.42.040 Minimum functional standard for design .... 103
10.42.050 Minimum functional standards for maintenance and
operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
10.42.060 Minimum functional sta�ldards for closure and post-
closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Rel�te�! Legrsl�t�o�a
10.48 STORAGE AND TREA1'MENT PILES ..... 104
10.48.010 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
10.48.020 Requirements generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10.48.030 Putrescible wastes or leachable wastes ....... 105
10.48.040 Tire piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10.52 INERT WAS1'E LANDFILLING . . . . . . . . . . 105
10.52.010 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOS
10.5�.020 Requirements generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10.56 WOODWASTE LANDFILLING . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.56.010 Applicabiliry . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.56.0�0 Requirements generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.60 TRANSFER STATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.60.010 Applicabiliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.60.020 Transfer stations, baling a�id compacting systems 106
10.60.030 Drop boa facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
10.64 INC[NERAT[ON AND SOLID WASTE
ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITIES . . . . . . . 107
10.64.010 Applicabiliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
10.64.020 Requirements generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
10.68 RECYCLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.68.010 Applicabiliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.68.020 Compliance by existing facilities . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.68.030 Requirements generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.68.040 Woodwaste and othec organic biosolids ...... 109
10.72 GROUND WATER MONITORING . . . . . . . 109
10.72.010 Applicabiliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOg
10.72.020 Standards ........................ 109
10.72.030 Corrective action program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10.72.040 Ma.�imum coutaminant levels . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Ki�ag Coza�zty Boar�l of Healtb Code - Title 10
RL - 4
6
10.76 METHANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10.76.010 Methane monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10.76.020 Construction standards for methane control ... 111
10.80 WAS1'E SCREENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.80.010 Da�igerous waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.80.020 Disposal site inspection a�id screening ...... 112
10.80.030 Notice requiring screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.80.040 Excavated material i��spection and screening .. 11?
10.84 iJNLAWFUL DUMPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.84.010 Prohibited . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 112
10.84.020 Identification of responsible peison . . . . . . . . 113
EFFECTIVE DATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
CHAP1'ER 10.04
CITATION AND PURPOSE
10A4.010 Citation. This title may be cited and referced
to, and shall be k�lown as the " Klllg COUIICY S011a WaSCe
Regulations."
10A4.020 Purpose a�id policy. A. Authorih� is
established under RCW 70.05 and WAC 173-304 for Solid 1Vaste
and RCW 70.93 and WAC 173 for Litter Control. This title
is enacted as an exercise of the Boa�d of Health poweis of Iung
Counry to protect and preserve the public peace, health, safety,
and welfare. Its provisioi�s shall be liberally coi�strued for the
accomplishment of these puiposes. This title governs solid
waste handling, storage, collection, t�a��sportation, treatment,
utilization, processing and final disposal of all solid waste
generated within King Counry, including issua�ice of permits
and enforcement.
B. It is ea�ressly the puipose of this title to provide for
and promote the health, safety and welfa�•e of the general
public, aud not to create or otheiwise establish or designate any
particular class or group of peisons who will or should be
especially protected or benefited by the terms of tliis title.
C. It is the specific intent of this title to place the
obligation of complying with its requirements upon waste
generatois, hauleis and/or operatois of disposal sites, and no
provision of nor term used in this title is intended to impose
any d��ty whatsoever upon King County or any of its officers or
einployees for whoro the implementation or ei�forcement of this
title shall be discretionary and not mandaro�y.
D. Nothing contained in this title is intended to be nor
shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability
on tlie part of King Counry, or its officeis, employees or agents,
for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any
peison subject to this title to comply with this title, or by
reason or in consequence of any act or omission in connection
with the impleii�entation or ei�forcement of this title on the pa��t
of ting County by its officeis, employees or agents.
10.04.030 Applicability. 77iis title applies to solid
waste ;�s that term is defined in section 10.0�.420. This title
shall not apply to the following solid wastes:
A. Overburden from mining operations intended for ret�rn
to the mine;
B. Liquid wastes whose discharge or potential discharge is
regulated under federal, state or local water pollution pei7nits;
C. Dangerous wastes �s defined by RCW Chapter 70.105
and WAC Chapter 173303;
D. Woodwaste used for ornamental mulch, animal
bedding, and plant bedding or road building puiposes;
E. Agricultural wastes, limited to manures and crop
residues, returned to the soils at agrono►nic rates; centralized
facilities used for the treahnent of agcicultnral wastes shall be
subject to this title;
F. Clean soils and clean dredge spoils as defined in section
10.08.065 or as othetwise regulated by Section 404 of the
Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217);
G. Septage taken to a sewage treahnent plant permitted
under RCW Chapter 90.48;
H. Radioactive wastes, defined by WAC Chapteis 402-12 and
402-19;
K'mg County Board of Healt/� Code - Title 10 Related Legrslation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:;;..: , .
;:;::. .
>:::::>:::::;::: .
;;;:::: . .
:> ::: :<:>:::<>:::::>::::>::.:.. : ;:: <;::::>::::>. .:. . . : ;:::>::; L
R '
_5
I. Wood debris resulting from the hatvesting of ti►nber and
whose disposal is per�nitted under RCW Chapter 76.04, the State
Forest Practices Act.
such that the available nitrogen is, at all times, less than or
equal to the nitrogen needs of t[ie crop under cultivation.
10.08.030 Air quality standard. "Air qualiry
CHAI'1'ER 10.08 standacd" means a standard set for maximum allowable
DEFINITIONS contamination in ambient air as set forth in WAC Chapter
173-400, General Regulations for air pollution sources.
10.08.005 Applicability--State definitious adopted.
Except as otlierwise specifically provided in this chapter, the
"definitions" set fortli in WAC 173-304 and WAC 17.3-303 are
hereby incoiporated by reference.
10.08.010 Abandoned laudfills. "Abandoned
landfills" means those sites completed prior to the requirement
of obtaining a closure pe�7nit.
• 10.08.015 Active area. "Active area" means that
portion of a faciliry where solid waste recycling; reuse,
� treatment, storage, or disposal operations are being, are
• proposed to be, or have been conducted. BufFer zones shall not
be coi�sidered part of the active area of a facilitr�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
10.08.016 Acutely hazardous waste. "Acutely�
hazardous waste" means dangerous waste sources (listed in
WAC 173-3�3-9904) F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, o�• F027,
and discarded chemical products (listed in WAC 173-303-9903)
that are identified with a dangerous waste number begiiining
with a"P" or that show an "X" or "A° in the reasoi� for
designation column.
10.08.017 Adequately wctted. "Adequateh� wetted"
means sufficiently mixed, saturated, or coated with water or an
aqueous solution to prevent emissions.
10.08.020 Agricultural wastes. "Agricultural wastes"
means wastes on farms resulting from the production of
agricultural products, including but not limited to manures,
and carcasses of dead animals weighiug in exc;ess of fifteen
(15) pounds.
10.08.035 Aquifer. "Aquifer" mea«s a geologic
formation, group of formations, or part of a fomlation capable
of yielding a siguificant amoi�ut of ground water to wells or
springs.
10.08.037 Asbestos. "Asbestos" means the asbestifoi7n
varieties of actinolite, amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite),
tremolite, ch�}�sotile (se�pentinite), crocidolite (riebec�ite), or
anthophyllite.
10.08.03g Asbestos containing material. "Asbestos
containing material" means any� material containing at least
one perceut (1%) asbestos as determined by polarized light
�uicroscopy using the Interim Ivtetllod of tlle Determination of
Asbestos in Bull: Samples contained in Appeodu A of Subpart F
in 40 CFR Part 763. This term does not include asbestos-
contaiuing tlooriug and roofing roaterials, regardless of asbestos
coutent, when the followii�g conditions are met:
A. The �sbestos-containing tlooring or roofing material is
in good condition and is not peeling, crac�ing, or crumbling;
and
B. 'I'he binder is petroleum based, the asbestos fibeis are
suspended in that base, and individual fibeis are still
encapsulated; and
C. The asbestos-containing flooring or roofing material
does not have a friable asbestos bac�ing or friable asbestos
layeis in between layeis of petroleum based binder; and
D. The bullding, vessel, or structure containulg the
asbestos-containing tlooring or roofing material, regardless of
the condition of the material, will not be deinolished by
�)UClilllg.
10.08.025 Agronomic rate. "Agronomic rate" ►neans
the rate of application of biosolids, manares, or crop residues
Related Legzsl�aliora
10.08.040 Asbestos containing waste material.
"Asbestos containing waste ►uaterial" means any waste that
Ki�ag Cot��iaJ�� Bo�r��d of Kenitb Co�ie - 7'itle 10
> :: RL -
6
6
contains asbestos. This teinl includes �sbestos waste froii�
control devices, materials used to enclose the work area during
a�i asbestos project, asbestos-containing materials(s) collected
for disposal, or asbestos-contaminated waste, debris, containe�s,
bags, protective clodiing or HEPA filteis. Asbestos-containing
flooring or roofing materials meeting the conditions specified in
10.08.038 shall not be considered asbestos-containing waste
material .
10.08.045 Ashes. "Ashes" means the residue including
any air pollution control equipment flue dusts froro combustion
or incineration of material including solid w�stes.
10.08.050 Balefill. "Balefill" meaus a landfill which
uses wmpacted bales of solid w�ste to form discrete lifts �s tlle
landfill is filled.
10.08.051 Biomedical waste. "Biomedical w��ste"
means:
A. Cultures and stoc�s of etiologic agents and associated
biologicals, including, without liinitation, specimeu cultures,
cultures and stoc�s of etiologic agents, wastes from production
of biologicals and serums, and discarded live and attenuated
vaccines; or
B. Laboratory waste which h�s come into contact with
cultures and stocks of etiologic agents oc blood specimens.
Such waste includes but is not limited to cultuce
dishes, blood specimen tubes; devices used to transfer, inoculate
and mix cultures; and paper and cloth which has coroe into
contact with cultures and stocks of etiologic agents; or
C. Sha�ps, associated with those instruments that are used
to puncture, cut, or scrape body parts that may, as a waste,
cause punctures or cuts to solid waste handleis ancVor the
public. Sach waste includes but is uot limited to hypodermic
needles, sy�inges witli needles attached, lancets, dental scalels,
and scalpel blades; or
D. Pathological waste, which means most human tissues
and anatomical parts which emanate from surgery, obstetrical
procedures, autopsy, and the laboratory. Pathological waste
does not include eatracted teeth, hair, toenails or fingernails; or
E. Human body fluids, including but not limited to blood
and blood products, seivm and plasma, cerebrospinal fluid,
King County Board of Health Code - 7"ule 10
sv�iovial fluid, pleural fluid, peritoneal fluid, pericardial fluid,
and a�vniotic fluid shall be considered biomedical waste when
they are:
l. In free flowing foin�, or
?. In fluid or absorbed form in any amount and not
packaged in a leakproof container; or
F. Wastes that have come into contact with human body
substances i«fected witli anthrax, smallpox, rabies, plague and
viral hemorrhagic feve�s such as Lassa fever and Ebole-Marburg
virus disease; or
G. As deterroined by and solely at tl�e discretion of the
biomedical waste geneiator's ii�fection control staff/committee,
w�stes that have come into coutact with human body
substances or other sources which may contain pathogenic
microbial agents or other biologically active materials in
sufficient concentrations that exposure to tlle waste directly or
iudirectly creates a significa�u risk of disease; or
H. A�iimal carcasses eaposed to h�unan pathogens in �
cesearch, tlleir beddiug, and otLier waste from such a�timals.
10.08.052 Biomedical waste
coliectio»/transportation vehicle. "Biomedical waste
collectioiUtransportation vehicle° meai�s a
wllectioiVttansportation vehicle used for the collection and
trai�sportation of biomedical waste over the Ilighway�s.
10.08.053 Biomedical waste generator.
" Biomedical waste generator" means any producer of
biomedical waste to include without limitation the following
categories: general acute care hospitals, s�illed nuising facility
or convalescent hospitals, intermediate care facilities, in-patient
care facilities for the developmentally disabled, chronic dialysis
clinics, community clinics, health maintenance organizatio��s,
surgical clinics, urgeut care clinics, acute psychiatric hospitals,
laboratories, medical buildings, physiciai�s offices and clinics,
veterinaiy offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, funeral
liomes, or other similar facilities. "Biomedical waste generator"
does not include residents that generate waste from self-
treatment. Home generated sv�inge wastes are excluded from
this categoiy if the containment and disposal requirements
specified in section 10.28.090.B.11(c) are followed.
Related Leg�'slation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
<! RL -
6
7
10.08.054 Biomedical waste storage/treatment
operator. "Biomedical waste storage/treatment opecator"
means a person who treats a�id/or stores biomedical waste and
is not a biomedical waste generator.
10.08.062 Bulky waste. "Bulky waste" means large
items of refuse, such as appliances, fi�rnit��re, and other oversize
wastes which would typically not fit into reusable or disposable
containeis.
10.08.055 Biomedical waste storage/treatment
site. "Biomedical waste storage/treat�uent site" �i�eans a
location where biomedical waste is stored for moce thau fifteeu
days or treated by a peison wlio is not a biomedical waste
generator. Sites such as incineratois, steam sterilize�s, and
other approved facilities will be considered biomedical waste
storage/treatment sites.
10.08.056 Biomedical waste tra�isporter.
"Biomedical waste transporter° means a pe�son who transports
biomedical waste over public roads commercially or one wtlo
transports in volwnes that equal or exceed one hundred (100)
pounds per ►vonth.
10.08.057 Biomedical waste treatment. "Biomedical
waste treatu�ent" means biomedical waste treated by processes
described iu section 10.2�.070(C) of this title or by a method
approved in writing by the llealth officer.
10.08.058 Biosolids. "Biosolids" means a treated
orga�iic product that is produced by wastewater treat�i�ent
processes and can be beneficially recycled.
10.08.059 Biosolids utilization site. "Biosolids
utilizatiou site" means a facility tLiat applies or incotporates
sewage sludge into the soil suiface in accordance with
°Municipal and domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines Best
management Practices," Department of Ecology 82.1? an acea
that has been treated witll biosolids at an application rate that
does not exceed the nitrogen utilization requirements of the
site's vegetation or crop. Different areas of the same project
site need uot be geographically coutiguous.
10.08.060 Buffer zone. "Buffer zone" means that part
of the faciliry tliat lies between the active area and the property
boundary.
Related Legzsl�tioia
10.08.065 Cleau soils and clean dredge soils.
"Clean soils and clean dredge soils" means soils and dredge
spoils which are not dangecous wastes or problem wastes as
defined in this section.
10.08.070 Closure. "Closure" means those actions
taken by the owner or operator of a solid waste site or facility
to cease disposal operations and to ensure that all such
facilities are closed in coi�tormance with applicable regulations
at the time of such closures and to prepare the site for the
post-closure period.
10.08.075 Collecting agency. "Collecting agency"
means any agency, business or seivice operated by a peison for
the collecting of solid waste.
10.08.080 Collectio»/transportation vehicle:
" Collectioi�/tianspoctation vehicle" means a vehicle, other than
a biomedical waste collectioiUtrausportation vehicle (see
10.08.052), used to tcansport residential and commercial solid
waste generated by otheis over the highways of King Counry.
10.08.085 Compliance schedule. "Compliance
schedule" means a written schedule of reqaired measures in a
permit iucluding an ei�torcement sequence leading to
compliance with this title.
10.08.090 Composting. "Composting" means the
controlled degradation of organic waste yielding a product for
use as a soil conditioner.
10.08.092 Coustruction, Demolition, Landclearing
(CDL) waste. "CDL waste" means any combination of
cecyclable or non-recyclable construction, den�olition, and
landclearing waste that results from construction, remodeling,
repair or demolition of buildings, roads or other structures, or
Kiri.g Coi���atv Boarrl of He�d6h Code - 7ttle 10
«': RL-6
8
from land clearing for development, and requires removal fcom
the site of coi�sti�uction, demolition or land cleariug.
10.08.094 Construction waste. "Coi�struction waste"
means wood, concrete, drywall, masonry, roofing, siding,
structural metal, wire, insulatioil, and other building material;
and plastia, styrofoam, twine, baling a�id strapping �vaterials,
cans, buckets, and other packaging materials and containeis.
It also includes sand, rocks a�ld dirt, that are used in
coi�struction. In no event shall construction waste include
dangerous or extremely hazardous waste of any �ind, garbage
(as defined by 10.08.185), sewerage waste, animal carcasses, or
asbestos.
10.08.095 Container. "Container" means a device used
for the wllection, storage, a�ld/or transportation of solid w�ste
including but not limited to re��sable cout�ineis, disposable
containeis, detachable containers aud tan�s, fued or detachable.
10.08.100 Contaminate. "Contaivinate" means to
allow to discharge a substance into surface or ground water
that would cause:
A The concentration of that substance in the ground water
to exceed the maximum contamination level specified in WAC
173-304-9901 including the numerical criteria listed in Table l,
WAC 173-200-040(2), or an altei�iative e��forcement li�nit
established under WAC 173-200-040; or
B. A statistically significa�lt inccease in the couceutration of
that substa�ice in the ground water where the existing
wncentration of that substance eaceeds the maaimuro
contaminant level specified in WAC 173-304-9901, Table 1 of
WAC 173-200-040(Z), or aii alternative e��forcement limit
established under WAC 173-200-050, whichever is the most
stringent; or
C. A statistically significa�it increase above bacl:ground iu
the concentration of that substa�ice which:
1. Is not specified in WAC 173304-9901 Table 1 of
WAC 173-200-040(2) or a�i altei7lative ei�forcement limit
established under WAC 173-200-050; and
2. Is present in the solid waste, a��d
3. Has been deteitinined to present a substantial risk to
human health or the environment in the concentiations found
King County Board of Health Code - T'�tle 10
i
at the point of wmpliance by the health officer in coi�sultation
with the Department of Ecolog�� and the Departinent of Health.
10.08.105 Cover material. "Cover material" mea��s
soil or other suitable material that has been approved by the
health officer as cover for wastes.
10.08.110 Da��gerous wastes. "Dangerous wastes"
meai�s airy solid waste designated as dangerous waste by the
Department of Ecology under WAC Chapter 173303.
10.08.115 llcmolition waste. " Demolition waste
means coi�crete, drywall, �spllalt, wood, masonry, compositiou
roofing, roofing, sidii�g, structural inetal, wire, insulatiou, and
other materials found in demolished building, roads, and other
structures. It also includes saild, roc�s and dirt, that result
from demolition. In no event sliall demolition waste include
dangerous or exti•emely hazardous w�ste, liquid waste, garbage
(�s defined by section 10.08.185), sewerage waste, animal
carcasses, or asbestos.
10.08.117 Department. "Department" meai�s the •
Seattle-ting Count�� Department of Public Health.
10.08.120 Detachable containers. "Detacliable
containeis" meat�s reusable wntainets that are mechanically
loaded or handled such as a"dumpster" or drop box.
10.08.125 Disposable containers. "Disposable
containeis" means containe�s that are used to handle solid
waste such as plastic bags, cardboard boxes and papei• bags.
10.08130 Disposal or deposition. "Disposal" or
"deposition" means the discharge, deposit, injectiou, dumping,
lea�ing, or placing of any solid waste i«to or on any land or
water.
10.08.135 Disposal site. "Disposal site" mea��s the
location wliere any final treativent, utilization, processing, or
deposition of solid waste occuis. See also the definition of
interi►i� solid waste handling site.
Related Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
>::::>>:::>::>:<.C::: ' :::::r: .; . ;:::::;::::: :;; °;::::: .;>;;<::::. ;;»:;:;;:::::: . ..... :.:. .:. .
<:.:;:... ; RL
::::::::::::::::.:::.:. 9
10.08.140 Drop box facility. "Drop box facility"
means a faciliry used for the placement of a detachable
container including the area adjacent for necessaiy entrance
and exit roads, unloading and turn-around areas. Drop bo�
facilities normally serve the general public with loose loads and
receive waste from off-site.
10.08.142 Empry. "Empty" mea�ls all waste has been
removed that can be removed ❑sing tlle piactices commonl��
employed to remove materials frou� the t��pe container, e.g.,
pouring, pwnping, or aspirating. Additionally, containeis i❑
excess of 25 gallons must have at least one end reiuoved.
Containe�s which once held acutely hazardous waste must be
triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by �in
equivalent method to be considered empry. (Note: Household
hazardous waste is exempt from this requirement nnless
included by label directives - i.e., certain pesticides.) Contaiueis
which once held pesticides regulated under the Federal
Ii�secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act must be emptied
according to label ii�structions or tciple rinsed with an
appropriate solvent if the container beais the danger or warning
label. Cylinders of compressed gas ace empry when the
pressuce in the container is equivalent to atmospheric pressure.
Any rinsate �or vacuumed residue which results from the
cleaning of containeis or inner linets shall, whenever possible,
be reused in a manner consistent witli the original intended
puipose of the substance in the container or inner liner.
10.08.145 Energy recovery. 'Buergy recovery" means
the recovery of energy in a useable form from i»ass burni�lg or
refuse derived fi�el incineration, pv�olysis or an}� other means of
using the heat of combustion of solid waste tllat involves high
temperature (above twelve hundred degcees Fahrenheit
[1,200°F]) processing.
10.08.150 Existing facility. A. "Existing facilih%'
ineans a faciliry which is owned or leased, and in operation, or
for which construction ha� begun, on or before the effective
date of these Rules and Regulations and the owuec or operator
has obtained permits oc approvals necessa�y under fedeial, state
a�id local statutes, regulations and ordinances. A faciliry has
commenced construction if either:
Related Legislad�o�a
1. A continuous on-site physical construction program
has begun; or
2. The owner or operator has entered into contractual
obligations wllich cannot be caucelled or modified without
substantial fina�icial loss for physical construction oF the facility
to be completed within a reasonable time.
B. Lateral extensions of a landfill's active area on land
purchased and permitted by the health officer for the purpose of
landfilling before the effective date of this title shall be
considered existing facilities.
10.08.155 Expanded facility. "Expanded facility"
means a faciliry adjacent to an existing facility for which the
land is purch��sed and aPproved by the health officer aftec the
effective date of this title. A vertical expansion approved and
permitted by the health officer after the effective date of this
title shall be considered an expanded facility.
10.08.160 Facility. "Facility" means all contiguous land
(including buffer zones) and structures, other appurtenances,
and iivprovements on tlle land used for solid waste liandling.
10.08.165 Facility structures. "Faciliry structures"
iveans buildings, sheds, utiliry lines, and drainage pipes on tlie
facilit��.
10.08.170 Final treatmcnt. "Final treaUnent° means
the act of processing or preparing solid waste for disposal,
utilization, reclamation, or other a pproved method of use.
10A8.175 Frce liquids. "Free liquids" means any
sludge wllich produces me��surable liquids when the Paint Filter
Liquids Test, �lethod 9095 of EPA Publication Nurober SW-846,
is used.
10.08.180 Fumarolc. "Fumarole° means an opening in
the surface of a landfill from which smoke and gases arise.
10.08.185 Garbage. °Garbage" means unwanted
animal and vegetable wastes and animal and vegetable wastes
resulting from the handling, prepatation, coo�ing and
consumption of food, swill and carcasses of dead animals, and
Ki��g Cou�7�y Bonrd of He�lth G'a�le - 7�tle 10
�
RL -
7
0
of such a character and proportion �s to be capable of
attracting or providing food for vectois, except sewage and
biosolids.
10.08.190 Groundwater. "Groundwater" il�eans that
part of the subsurface water which is in the zone of saturatiou.
10.08195 Health officer. "Health officer" means the
Director of the Seattle-King County� Deparhvent of Public Health
or his/her designated representative.
10.08.200 Holocene fault. "Holocene fault" means a
fracture along which roc�s on one side have been displaced
with respect to those on the otlier side and that has occurred in
the most recent epoch of the quaternary period extending from
the end of the pleistocene to die present.
10.08.202 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW).
"Household hazardous w;�,ste" means any discarded.liquid, solid
gas or sludge, iucluding any material, substance, product,
commodity or waste, regardless of quantity, whiclt would meet
the characteristics or criteria for desiguation �s a State
Dangerous Waste or Extremely Hazardous Waste under IVAC
173303 except that it is generated at a residence and is
exempt. It includes, but is not lii»ited to: cleauing agents;
pesticides; solvents; motor fuels; crankcase oil; and chemicals
used for home repair and remodeling, auto, boat and
equipment maintenance, and hobb�� and recreational uses.
10.08.204 Human excrement. "Human eacrement"
operations, or other like methods, excluding biosolids and
municipal sewerage sludge.
10.08.210 lndustrial solid wastes. "Industrial solid
wa.stes" means waste by-products from manufacturing
operations such as scraps, trimmings, packing, and other
discarded materials not otheiwise designated as dangerous waste
under V✓AC Chapter 173303.
10.08.215 Industrial wastewater facility. "Industrial
w�stewater faciliry" ►i�eans all structures, equipment, or
processes required to collect, carry away, treat, reclaim, or
dispose of industrial wastewater.
10.08.220 Inert wastes. "Inert wastes" means
noncoinbustible, nondangerous solid wastes that a��e likely to
retain their physical and chemical structure under expected
wnditions of disposal, including resistance to biological attack
and chemical attack from acidic rainwater.
10A8.222 Infection control staff committee.
"Ii�tectiou control st;�ff/committee" means those
individuals designated by a biomedical waste generator or a
bio►vedical w�ste storage/treaqnent operator whose responsibility
includes but is not limited to developing and maintaining tlie
biomedical waste generator's or biomedical waste storage/treat-
ment opeiator' Biomedical Waste Management Plan.
[Section 10.08.223 Infectious waste. (See 10.08.051)]
[Section 10.08.224 Ii�fectious waste collectioivtransportation
vehide. (See 10.08.053)]
means human fecal material and urine.
10.08.205 Incineration. "Incineration" mea►�s reducing
the volume of solid wastes by use of an enclosed device using
wntrolled flame combustion.
10.08.207 Industrial sludge. "Industrial sludge"
means a semisolid substance consisting of settled solids
wmbined with varying amounts of water or solvent and
dissolved materials generated from industrial processes such as
spray paint booths, solvent recovery sy stems, metal plating
10.08.225 Infectious waste generator.
°Ii�fectious waste generator" means any producer of i��fectious
waste to include without limitation the following categories:
general acute care liospitals, s�illed nursing faciliry or
convalescent hospitals, intei�i�ediate care facilities, in-patient
care facilities for the developmentally disabled, chronic dialysis
clinics C0117I17ULi1Cy CIIRICS, Ilealtll R131(lt2(laI1C.E OI'g311LZ?C10C1S,
surgical clinics, urgent care clinics, acute psychiatric hospitals,
laboratories, ►nedical buildings, physicians offices and clinia,
veterinaiy offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, funeral
homes, or other similar facilities.
King County Boarr! of Healtl� Co�le - Titde 10 Related Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
,
�
!
�
i�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
>::: RL -
7
1
[Section 10.08.226 Ii�fectious waste storage/treatment
operator. (See 10.08.053)l
[Section 10.08.227 Infectious waste transporter. (See
10.08.054) ]
[Section 10.08.228 Ii�fectious waste treatment. (See
10.08.055) ]
10.08.230 Interim solid waste handling site.
°Interim solid waste handling site" means ai�y interim
treatment, utilization or processing site engaged in solid waste
handling which is not the final site of disposal. Transfer
statious, drop boxes, baling aud compaction sites, source
separation cente�s, and treatmeut facilities ace considered
interim solid waste handling sites.
10.08.233 Laboratory. °Laboratory" means a room or
building equipped for scientific e�erimentatiou, research,
testing, or clinical studies of specimens, tluids, tissi�es, cultures
or stoc�s of etiologic agents and associated biologicals or other
biologically active agents.
10.08.234 Land clearing waste. °Land clearing
waste" means natural vegetation and minerals such as stumps,
brush, blackbeny vines, tree branches, and �ssociated dirt, sand,
tree bark, sod, and roc�s.
10.08.235 Landfill. "Landfill° means a disposal facility
or part of a facility at which solid waste is permanently placed
IR OC OR IaR(I alld W111CI1 1S IIOL 3 IaR(ISpte disposal
facility.
Related Leg�slatio�a
10.08.237 Landspreading disposal facility.
°Landspreading disposal faciliry" means a faciliry that applies
biosolids or other solid wastes onto or incorporates solid waste
into the soil suiface at greater than vegetative utilization and
soil conditioners/immobilization rates.
[Section 10.08.240 Landspreading utiliaation site. Repealed.
(see 10.08.059)]
10.08.245 Leachate. "Leachate" means water or other
liquid that h�s been contaminated by dissolved or suspended
materials due to contact with solid waste or gases therefrom.
10.08.250 Liquid. "Liquid° meai�s a substance that
tlows readilv and assumes the form of its container but retains
its independent volume.
10.08.255 Local fire control agency. "Local fire
control agency" means a public or private agency or
co�poration providing fire protection such as a local fire
department, the Departivent of Natural Resources or the United
States Forest Seivice."
10.08.260 Lower explosive limits. "Lower e�cplosive
limits° means the lowest percentage by volume of a mixture of
explosive gases which will propagate a flame in air at
twenry-five degrees centigrade and atmospheric pressure.
10.08.265 Moderate Risk Waste (MRW). "Moderate
Risk Waste" means: A. Any waste that exhibits any of the
properties of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation
under the Dangerous Waste Regulations solely because the waste
is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation, or
B. A�iy household wastes which are generated from the
disposal of substances identified by the department as household
hazardous waste (see 10.08.302).
10.08.267 Municipal sewerage sludge. "Municipal
sewerage sludge" means a semisolid substance co«sisting of
settled solids combined with varying amounts of water and
dissolved materials collected in a municipal waste water
treatment plant.
hi��g Cou�aty Board of HeQlt/� Code - 7�tle 10
RL - 2
7
10.08.270 New facility. "New facility° means a faciliry
wliich begins operation or construction after the effective date of
this title (see also the definition of "existing facilit��").
10.08.275 Nonconforming site. "Noncoi�forming site"
means a solid waste handling faciliry which does not currentl��
comply with the faciliry requirements applicable but does
comply with a compliance schedule issued in a solid w;�ste
permit by the health officer.
10.08.280 Nuisance. "Nuisance" consists in unlawfully
doulg an act, or omittiug to petform a dury, which act or
omission either annoys, injures, or endangeis the comfort,
repose, health or safery of otheis, offends decency, or unlawfully
interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, airy lake or
na�igable river, bay, strea�n, canal, or basin, or auy public
park, square street or highway; or in any way rendeis other
peisons insecure in life, or in the use of pcoperry.
10.08.285 One hundred (100) year floodplain.
"One hundred year floodplain" �neans any land area which is
subject to one percent (1%) or greater chance of tlooding in
any given year from any source.
10.0�.290 Open burning. "Open burning° means tlie
burning of solid waste materials in an open fire or an outdoor
container without providing for the control of combustion or
the control of emissioi�s from the combustion.
10.08.295 Perfor�nance standard. "Pe�formance
sta�lda�d" mea�ls the criteria for the pei�toi7nance of solid waste
handling facilities.
10.08.297 Permanent Moderate Risk Waste
(MRW) Collection/Storage Facility. "Permanent MRVJ
CollectioNStorage Facility" generally means a�i enclosed
building, large container/cargo van or portable
collection/storage unit that is specifically built or set up at a
permanent or semi-permanent location to collect, store, transfer,
a�ld ship moderate risk waste.
10.08.305 Permit. "Permit" means an authorization
issued by the healtll officer wliich allows a person to perForm
solid waste activities at a specific location and which includes
specific conditions for sucll facility operations.
[Section 10.08310 Permit-by-rule. Repealed.]
10.08.315 Person. "Peison" means an indiyidual, firm,
association, copartneiship, political subdivision, gove��unent
agency, municipality, industty, public or private co�poration, or
any other entiry whatsoever.
10.08.320 Pile. "Pile° means any noncontainerized
accumulation of solid waste that is used for treatment or
storage.
10.08.325 Plan of operation. "Plan of operation"
iveans the written plan developed by an owner or operator of a
facility detailing how a facilih� is to be operated during its
active life and during closure and post-closure.
10.08.330 Point of compliance. "Point of
compliance" means that part of ground water that lies beneath
the perimeter of a solid waste facilities' active area as that
active area would e�ist at closure of tlie faciliry.
10.08.335 Post-closure. "Post-closure" means the
requirements placed upon disposal facilities after closure to
ensure their environmental safery for a number of yeais after
closure.
10.08.340 Premises. "Premises" ineans a tract or
parcel of land with or without habitable buildings.
10.08.345 Problem wastes. "Problem wastes" mea��s:
A. Soils removed during the cleanup of a remedial action
site, or a dangerous waste site closure or other cleanup effor�
and actions and wluch contain ha�mfiil substances above the
levels specified in the State Model Toxics Control Act Regulation
(V✓AC 173-340) for soils, but are not designated da�lgerous
wastes; or
B. Spoils resulting from the dredging of su�face wateis of
the state where contaminants are present in the dcedge spoils at
King Counly Board of Health Code - T'ule 10 Re%�ed Legr"slation
��
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
; ;
>:<:»::>::>::>�:::;::::.>:>::.: :.>::.::.;;::: : ;.;:. : >::>;:. :::;::;:::::::.::>::::>::>:.: L
>::>:> «:»::::>:: > : ::;: >:.: ::;::::>::::> ::: :. : :. . : : : . : . : : . . .. : : ::;::;::>:>:
;:.;:.:::. : ;: . .
R -
concentratio��s not suitable for open water disposal and the
dredge spoils are not dangerous wastes and are not regulated
by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217).
[Section 10.08.350 Processing. Repealed. (see Section
10.08.465)]
10.08.352 Process to further reduce pathogens
(PFRP). " Process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP) means
a biosolids treatment process from the following list:
Composting: Usulg the witlun-vessel composting
method, the biosolids are maintained at operating conditions of
55°C (131°F) or greater for three (3) days. Using the static
aerated pile composting method, the biosolids are maintained
at 55°C (131°F) or greater for three (3) days. Using tlie
windrow composting method, the solid waste must attain a
temperature of 55°C (131°F) or greater for at least fifteen (1S)
days during the composting period. Alsq during the high
temperature period, there will be a minimum of five (S)
turnings of the windrow.
Heat drying: Dewatered biosolids cake is dried by
direct or indirect contact with hot gases, and moisture content
is ceduced to ten percent (10%) oc lower. Biosolids particles
reach tempeiatui•es well in excess of 80°C (176"F), or the wet
bulb temperature of the gas stream i❑ contact witli the
biosolids at the point where ttiey leave the d�yer is in excess of
so°C (176°F).
Heat treatment: Liquid biosolids are heated to
temperatures of 180°C (356°F) for tttirry (30) miuutes.
Thermophilic aerobic digestiou: Liquid biosolids
are agitated with air or o�ygen to maintain aerobic conditions
at residence times of ten (10) days at SS-60"C (131-140°F),
with a volatile solids reduction of at least thirry-eight percent
(38/).
Other methods: Other methods or operating
conditions may be acceptable if pathogens and vector attraction
of the waste (volatile solids) are reduced to an extent equivalent
to the reduction achieved by any of the above methods.
Any of the processes listed below, if added to a process to
significa�ltly reduce pathogens, will further reduce pathogens.
Because the processes listed below, on their own, do not reduce
the attraction of disease vecto�s, they are only add-on in nature.
Beta ray irradiation: Biosolids are irradiated with
beta cays from an accelecator at dosages of at least 1.0
megarad at room temperature (ca. 20°C) (68°F).
Ga�nma ray irradiation: Biosolids are ii�•adiated
with gamma rays from certain isotopes, such as Cobalt and
Cesium, at dosages at least 1.0 ►negarad at room temperature
(ca. 20°C) (68°F).
Pasteurization: Biosolids are maintained for at least
30 �7�inutes at a minimuu� temperature of 70°C (158°F).
Other methods: Other ►i�ethods or operating
conditions may be acceptable if pathogens are reduced to an
extent eqaivalent to the reduction adlieved by any of the above
add-on methods.
10.08.354 Process to significantly reduce
pathogens (PSRP). "Process to significantly reduce
pathogens (PSRP)" means a biosolids treatment process from
the followi�lg list:
Aerobic digestiou: The process is conducted by
agitating biosolids with air or o�y to maintain aerobic
conditioi�s at residence times ranging from s�t�� (60) days at
1S"C (S9�r) to fort�� (40) da}�s at ?0"C (68'F), with a volatile
solids reductiou of at least thirty-eight percent (38%).
Air drying: Liquid biosolids are allowed to drain
ancUor dry on under-drained sand beds, or paved or unpaved
basins in which the biosolids are at a depth of nine inches
(9"). A minimum of three (3) ii�onths is needed, two (Z)
months of which temperatures average on a daily basis above
0°C (3��F)�
Anaerobic digestion: The process is conducted in
the absence of air at residence times ranging f�o�n sixry (60)
days at 20"C (6�F) to Fifteen (1S) days at 35-SS�C (95-131°F),
with a volatile solids reduction of at least thirry-eight percent
(38%).
Composting: Using the witliin-vessel, static aerated
pile or windrow co►nposting methods, the solid waste is
ii�aintained at minimum operating conditions of 40°C (104°F)
foc five (S) da��s. For four (4) houis during this period the
temperature esceeds SS (131°F).
Lime stabilizatiou: Sufficient lime is added to
produce a Ph of twelve (12) after two (2) hou�s of contact.
Related Legrsl�tio�z
Ki�ag Coti�tM� eor�rr� of Her�lth Code - T�tle 10
�
RL - 4 >::::
7
Other methods: Other methods or operating
wnditions may be acceptable if pathogens and vector attiaction
of the waste (volatile solids) are reduced to an extent equivalent
to the reduction achieved by any of the above methods.
10.08.355 Putrescible waste. "Putrescible w�ste"
means solid waste wliich contains material capable of being
decomposed by micro-organisms.
10.08.360 Pyrolysis. "Pyrolysis" means the process in
wluch solid wastes are lteated iu an enclosed device in the
absence of o�gen to vaporization, producing a
hydrocarbon-rich gas capable of being burned for recoveiy of
energy.
10 .o8.3G5 Reclamation site. "Reclamation site"
means a location used for the processing or the storage of
recycled waste.
10.08 Recycling. "Recycling" n�eai�s either source
separation or the processing of solid waste mechanically oc by
hand to segregate materials for sale or reuse. Materials which
can be removed through recycling include but are not limited
to mixed paper, newsprint, cardboard, aluminum, gl��ss,
plastics, chemicals, oil, wood, compostable organics (food and
yard/land clearing debris), ferrous metal, and inorganics
(rubble and inert material). Recycling does not include
combustiou of solid waste or preparation of a fuel from solid
waste.
10.08.370 Reserved. "Reseived" means a section
having no requirements and which is set aside for future
possible ►vlemal:ing as a note to tlie regulated communit��
10.08.375 Reusable containers. "Reusable
containeis" means containeis that are used more tlian once to
ha�idle solid waste such as garbage ca�ls.
10.08.380 Runoff. "Run-off' means any rainwater,
leachate or other liquid which drains over land from any part
of the facility.
10.08.385 Run-on. "Run-on" means any rainwater or
other liquid which drains over land onto any part of a faciliry.
10.08.390 Scavenging. "Scavenging" mea«s the
re�noval of materials at a disposal site, or interim solid waste
Ilandling site without the approval of the owner or operator
and the health officer.
10.08.395 Septage. "Septage" meai�s a semisolid
consistiug of settled sewage solids cou�bined with vaiyuig
amounts of water and dissolved materials generated from a
septic tank sy�stem.
[Section 10.08.400
10.0�.058)]
[Section 10.08.410
Sewage sludge. (Recodified as
Sludge. (see 10.08.267)]
10.08.412 Small Quantity Generator (SQG). "Small
Quantiry Generator" means a business that generates wastes in
ainounts below Federal and State hazardous waste regulatory
thresholds, generally less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste
or 2.2 Ibs of extremely liazardous waste per iuonth or per
batcli. SQG waste includes but is iiot limited to dyes, paint�,
thinneis, solvent, coolants, cleaning fluids, photographic
chemicals, adhesives, alcohols, iudustrial sludges, acids and
bases from businesses.
10.08.415 Sole source aquifer. "Sole source aquifer"
means an aquifer designated by the Environmental Protection
Agency puisuant to Section 1424e of the Safe Drinking Water
Act PL 93-5
10.08.420 Solid waste. "Solid waste" meai�s all
putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes,
including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial
wastes, biomedical waste, swill, demolition and coi�struction
w�stes, land clearing wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts
thereof, discarded commodities, or conta�ninated exca�ated
soiVfill material. This includes all liquid, solid a�id semisolid,
materials which are not the primaiy products of public, private,
industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations.
Solid waste includes but is not limited to: biosolids from
King Cou�zt�� Board of Healt/� Code - 7t'tle 10 Related Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;; RL -
7
5
wastewater treatment plan�s, septage from septic tanks,
woodwaste, dangerous waste, a�ld problem wastes.
10.08.425 Solid waste handling. "Solid waste
handling" means the management, storage, collection,
transportation, treatment, utilization, or final disposal of solid
wastes, including the recoveiy and recycling of materials from
solid wastes, the recove�y of energy resources froii� such w�.stes
or the wnveision of the energy in such wastes to more useful
forms or combinations thereof.
10.08.430 Solid waste management. "Solid w��ste
management" means the sy�stematic administration of activities
wluch provide for tlle collection, source separatiou, stocage,
trai�sportation, tiansfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of
solid waste. 12
10.08.435 Special purpose facility. "Special puipose
facility" means a method of solid waste llandling not othe�wise
provided for in ttlis title.
10.08.438 Steam sterilization. "Steam sterilization"
means sterilizing biomedical waste by use of saturated steam
within a pressure vessel at temperatures sufficient to �ill all
microbiological agents in the waste �s determined bv biological
and cliemical indicator monitoring requirements set forth in
this title.
10.08.440 Storage. "Storage" means ttie holding of
solid waste materials for a temporary period.
10.08.445 Stream. "Stream" means the point at which
any coi�fined freshwater body of surface water reaches a mean
annual flow of twenry (20) cubic feet pec second.
10.08.450 Surface impoundmeut. "Surface
impoundment" means a facility or part of a t�acility which is a
natural topographic depression, man-naade excavation, or dihed
area fo�med primarily of earthen materials (although it may be
lined with man-made materials), and which is designed to hold
an accumulation of liquids or biosoiids. The term includes
holding, storage, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, or lagoons,
but does not include injection wells.
10.08.455 Surface water. "Suiface water" means all
lakes, rive�s, ponds, wetlands, streams, inland wateis, salt waters
and all other water and water courses within the jurisdiction of
the state of Washington.
10.08.460 Transfer station. "Transfer station" means
a permanent, fued, supplemental collection and transportation
facility, used Uy peisoi�s aud route collection vehicles to deposit
collected solid w;�ste fcom off-site into a larger tra��sfer vehicle
for transport to a solid waste handling faciliry. Transfer
stations may also include recycling facilities and
compactioi�/baling systems.
10.08.465 Treatment. "Treahnent" meai�s the physical,
chemical or biological processiug of solid waste to make such
solid wastes safer for srorage or disposal, amenable for energy
or material resource recovery or reduced in volume. Treatment
includes metliods such as grinding, shredding, screening,
aerating, chemical oc biological altering, heating a�ld soi�ting to
render the waste useful as a recyclable (commodiry), fuel
source, approved fill material, other approved and useful item,
or prepare it for disposal. The treatment of inert wastes is
exduded from this definition.
10.08.470 1'wenry-five (25) year storm.
"Twenry-five (ZS) year storm" means a storm of a particular
duration and of such an intensiry that it has a four percent
(4%) probability of being equalled or exceeded in each year.
10.08.475 Twenty-four (24) hour, twenty-five
(25) year storm. " Twenry-four hour (24), twenry-five (25)
year storm" means a twenry-five (25) year storm of twenty-four
(24) houis duration."
10.08.480 Upla�id. "Upland" means land a�eas that are
not within any wetland or high water zone of any river, stream,
lake, or tidal area under the jurisdiction of the United States
Coips of Engineeis, W�shington State Department of Natural
Resources, or Washington State Department of Ecology and not
• Rel�xe�! Leg�s/ntio�a K�rg Co�s�a�� Bo�rr�! o�'He{rltl� Corle - TiJle 10
�
RL - 6
7
regulated under Section 404 of tl�e Federal Clean Water Act
(PL 95-217).
10.08.482 Used Oil. "Used Oil" means:
A. Lubricating fluids tliat ha�e been removed from an
engine crankcase, transmission, gearbox, hydraulic device, or
differential of an automobile, truck, bus, vessel, plane, heaw
equipment, or machinery powered by aR 1RteCR3I C01]I�pSC1011
engine; or
B. A�iy oil that has been refined from crude oil, used, and
as a result of use has been contaminated with pli��sic��l or
chemical impurities; or
C. A�iy oil that has been refined from crude oil and, as a
consequence of extended srorage, spillage, or contaivination, is
no longer useful to the original purchaser. °Used oil" does not
include oil to which hazardous wastes have been added.
10.08.485 Utilization. "Utiliaation° means consuming,
e�ending, or exhausting by use, solid waste materials.
10.08.490 Vadose zone. "Vadose zone" means that
portion of a geologic formation in which soil pores contain
some water, the pressure of that water is less than atmospheric
pressure, and the formation occuis above the zone of
saturation.
10.08.495 Vector. "Vector" n�eans a living animal,
ii�sect or other a�•thropod which n�ay transniit an ii�fectious
disease from one organism to another.
10.08.500 Waste recycling. "VJ�.ste recycling" �i�ea�ls
reusing waste materials a�id extracting valuable materials from
a waste strea�il.
10.08.505 Waste reduction. "Waste reduction" means
reducing the amount or type of waste generated.
10.08.510 Water quality standard. "Water quality
standard" means a standa�•d set for nla�cimum allowable
contamination in surface waters as set forth in WAC Chapter
173-201, Water Qualiry Standards for Watets of the State of
Washingron.
King Counly Board of Kealth Code - 74t1e 10
10.08.515 Wetla��ds. "Wedands° means those areas
tllat are inundated or satu�ated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of
vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally
saturated soil conditious for growth and reproduction. Wetlands
generally include swamps, ma�shes, bogs, estuaries, aud similar
areas.
10.08.520 Woodwa,ste. "Woodwaste" meai�s solid waste
consisting of wood pieces or p�irticles generated as a by-product
or waste from the manufacturing of wood products, liandling
and storage of raw ivaterials and trees and stumps. This
includes but is not limited to sawdust, chips, shavings,
discarded pallets, clean dimensional lumber, bark, pulp, liog
fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces
or particles containing chemical preseivatives such as paint
creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome-a�senate.
10.08.522 Yard waste. "1'ard waste" means waste
resulting froiu m�intenance or reii�oval of vegetation, including,
b��t not liinited to: bcush, brai�ches, prunings, grass, leaves,
tloweis, shri�l�s and small trees. �ard waste shall not include
animal e�crement, rochs, garbage, solid wastes other than yard
waste demolition debris, household hazardous waste,
bion�edical wastes, moderate rish waste, da��gerous waste, or
extremely hazardous waste.
10.08.525 7,one of saturation. " Zone of saturation
n�eans that part of a geologic formation in which soil pores are
filled with water and the pressure of that water is equal to or
greater than atmospheric pressure.
CHAPTER 10.12
ADMINISTRATION
10.12.010 Other agencies and jurisdictions. All
solid waste mailageinent shall be subject to the authority of
other laws, regulations or other agency requiremencs in addition
to this title. Nothing in this tide is intended to abridge or alter
the rights of action by the State or by a pe�son which exist in
Related Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
<;
>::: <:::>::::;::>::::: . . . .: ::>::;: >: :: . .
>::.. :;:;:::::.. .
>: ::<::.>::::>::::>::::>::::> >. . . ..;::.;::;:.: :::: . RL - 7
equiry, common law, or other statutes to abate pollution or to
abate a nuisance.
1012.020 Enforcement. The health officer shall have
the authoriry to enforce the provisions of this title in accordance
with Chapter 1.08 of this code (King Counry Board of Health
Rules and Regulations No. 7). The health officer is also
authorized to adopt rules not inconsistent with the provisions of
this title for the purpose of enforcing and canying out its
provisions.
10.12.030 Exempted activities. A. Permits are not
required for single family residences and single family farms
dumping or depositing solid waste resulting from their own
activities on to or under the surface of land owned or leased bv
them when such action does not create a nuisance, violate
statutes, ordinances, or regulations, including this title.
B. Pe�7nits are not required for corrective actions at solid
waste handling facilities performed by the State and/or in
conjunetion with the United States Environmental Protection
Agency to implement the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liabiliry Act of 1980 (CERCLA), or
corrective actions taken by otheis to comply with a state ancVor
federal cleanup order provided that:
l. The action results in an overall improvement of the
environmental impact of the site;
2. The action does not require or result in additional
waste beiug delivered to the site or increase the aivount of
waste or contamination present at the site;
3. The applicable facility standards are met; and
4. The health officer is i��'or►i�ed of the actions to be
taken and is given the opportunit}� to revie�v and comment
upon the proposed corrective action plans.
10.12A40 Inspections. A. Frequency. A�� inspection
of a solid waste disposal site, sewage treatment wor�s oc
collectio�Utransportation vehicle may be performed by the health
officer as often as such officer deems reasonably necessary, with
a minimum frequency of once per year.
B. Access. Eveiy peison operating a solid waste disposal
site or collection/transportation vehicle shall permit the health
officer, after proper identification to enter the site, sewage
treatment wor�s or vehicle during its nonnal business hours for
the puipose of making ii�spections to detennine compliance
with this title; and shall permit the health officer to examine
the operation and records of the establislunent to obtain the
ii�formation necessary to determine compliance.
C. Report.
1. Whenever an inspection of a solid w�ste disposal site
or collectioi�/transportation vehicle is made, the findings shall
be recorded on the inspection report form prepared by the
health officer.
2. The inspection report form shall summarize the
requicements of this title. Inspectional remar�s shall be written
to reference, by section mm�ber, the section of this title violated,
and shall state the date of the inspection.
3. A copy of the coropleted inspection report form shall
be furnisLied to the pe�son in charge of the site or vehicle at
the conclusion of the inspection or shall be mailed within five
(5) wor�ing day�s of inspection.
10.12.050 Nonconforming disposal site. When an
existing disposal site not fully meeting this title applies to the
health officer for a permit, a permit for a non-conforming site
mav be issued. The couditions of the pei7nit shall be itemized
by the health officer and shall include a schedule of
compliance or a closui•e schedule as appropriate.
10.12.060 Varianccs. A. Applicabiliry. A�ly petson who
owns or operates a solid w�ste facility may apply to the health
officer for a variance from anv section of this title. The
application shall be accompanied by such ii�formatiou as the
health officer may require. The health officer may grant such
variance, but onl} after due notice (or a public hearitt� if it
fittds that:
1. The solid waste handling practices or site location
do not endanger public health, safety or the enviromvent; and
?. Compliance with the regulation from which
variance is sought would produce hardship witliout equal or
greatec benefits to the public.
B. No variance shall be granted pu►suant to this section
until the health officer has considered the relative interests of
the applicant, other owneis of property likely to be affected by
the handling practices and the general public.
• Related Legzsl�rtiorya hing (,'ois�al�� Bo<r�•rl of llur/tb Corle - Title 10
�
�
>: RL -
7
8
................................................. �
C. A�iy variance or renewal may be gra�ited within the
requirements of subsection A of this section but with the
following limitations:
1. If the variance is granted on the grounds that there
is no practicable means l�lovv�i or available for the adequate
prevention, abatement, or control of pollution involved, it sllall
be only until the necessaiy means for prevention, abatement or
control become l�iown and available a�ld subject to thc ta�ing
of any substitute or alternative measures that the health officer
may prescribe;
2. The health officer may grant a variance conditioned
by a time table if:
a. Compliance witli this title will require spreading
of costs over a considerable time period; and
b. The time table is for a period that is needed to
wmply widi this title.
3. A��y variance granted pu�suant to this section may
be reuewed on terms and conditions and for periods which
would be appropriate on initial granting of a variance. No
renewal thereof shall be granted, un(ess following a public
hearing on the complaint or due notice, the health officer finds
the renewal is justified. No renewal shall be granted except on
application. Any such application sliall be made at least sixh�
(60) days prior to the expiration of the variance. Immediately
upon receipt of an application for renewal the health officer
shall give public notice of such application in accordance with
this title.
4. A�l applicatiou for a variance, or for tlie renewal
tliereof, submitted to the health officer shall be approved or
disapproved by the health officer within ninery (90) da��s of
receipt unless the applicant and the health officer agree to a
continuance.
5. No variance from WAC 173-304 shall be granted by
the health officer except with the approval and written
concui�•ence of the Department of Ecology prior to action on
the va�•iance by the health officer. Tlie health officer may grant
variances from this tide, without Department of Ecology
approval and written concurrence, for standards that are more
stringent dlan the standards of �VAC 173-304, or from
pcovisio«s in this title that are not contained in V�AC 173-304.
6. Public notice shall be given by mailing a notice of
the variance application to peisons who have written to the
health officer asking to be notified of all variance requests.
10.12.070 Imminent and substantial dangers.
Notwithstanding any provisions of this tide the health officer
may take iminediate action to prevent an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health by the improper
management of any waste irrespective of quantiry or
concentration.
CHAP1'ER 10.16
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
PERMITS FOR NEW OR EXPANDED FACILITIES �
10.16A10 Approval required. A solid waste disposal
site shall not be constructed, substantially altered or expanded
until plans and specifications for such constr alteration
or improvement have been submitted to and approved by tlie
liealtli officer, and a fee paid as set forth in this chapter. It i�
the responsibiliry of pe►sons operating, or proposing to operate
a solid w�ste faciliry to obtain all necessaiy peimits and
approvals, including those of other applicable agencies before
starting construction or operation. All new or expanded solid
waste handling facilities shall meet the requirements of:
Section 10.16.020 and the applicable sections of Chapter 1032
througl� 10.84, after the effective date of this title. _
10.16.020 Application--Filing. A. A�ly owner or
operator subject to the per�vit requirements who intends to
operate a facilit�� must apply for a permit with the health
officer. Filing shall not be wmplete until two (Z) copies of the
application have been signed by the owner and operator a�ld
received by the healtli officer and the applica�lt has filed a�i
environmental chec�list required under tlie State environmental
policy act rules, WAC Chapter 197-11.
B. Applications for a permit must contain the i«fonnation
set forth in section 10.16.030 hereof.
C. Once the health officer determines that an application
for a permit is factually coil�plete, he/she shall refer one (1)
copy to the appcopriate regional office of the Department of
Ecology for review and comment.
Ki��g Cou�al�� Borat•�! of He�t/t/� G'o�le Ti1le 10 Re(ate�l Leg�sladion
�
�
S
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
!
•
•
•
�
,
�
�
�
�
i
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
, ... , , ,
:. ;>:::>::;.
; :.: :: .. .:::.: .::..:... ..: : ... , .::: RL
_�
;:::>;::;:... ;::;.;:: '
, :;. .;.::::..
>:.: :::::::>::..:. ..:: ; 9
D. The health officer shall investigate every application to
determine whetl�er the facilities meet all applicable laws and
regulations, conforms to the approved King Counry
Comprehensive Solid Waste Handling Plan and complies with
a11 zoning requirements.
E. The Department of Ecology shall report to the health
officer its findings on each permit application within forty-five
(45) days from receipt of a complete application or ii�tocm the
health officer as to the status of the application. Additionally,
the Department of Ecology shall recominend for or against the
iss��ance of each perii�it by the health officer.
F. Wheu the health officer has evaluated all pertinent
ii�formation, he/she may issue a permit. Each completed solid
waste per►nit application shall be either approved or disapproved
within ninety (�0) days after its ceceipt by the healtl� otticer or
the applicant shall be ii�formed as to the status of the
application.
G. Except for applications specified in section 10.16.030(H),
eveiy pe��nit issued by the health officer shall be on a foril�at
prescribed by the Deparhnent of Ecology and shall contain
specific requicements necessaiy for the proper operation of the
permitted site or faciliry including the cequirement that final
engineering plans and specifications be sabmitted for approval
to the health officec.
H. All permits must be filed with tlie Department of
Ecology no more than seven (7) days after the date of issuance.
L The o�nier or operator of a faciliry shall appl}� for
renewal of the faciliry's permit annually. The health officer
shall:
1. Review the original application for compliance with
this title and req��ire such additional i��tormation as spelled out
in subsection D of this section.
2. Review ii�formation collected from inspectioils,
complaints, or l�lown change in the operation;
3. Collect the permit renewal fee;
4. Renew the permit; and
5. File the renewed permit with the Depactment of
Ecology no more than seven (7) da��s after the date of issu�nce
The Department of Ecology shall review and may appeal the
renewal as set forth in RCW 70.95.185 and 70.95.190.
10.16.030 Application--Contents. A. All permit
applications, except applications for inert waste la�idfills, special
pmpose facilities and recycling facilities, which are specified in
subsection H of this section, shall contain the following:
1. A general description of the faciliry;
2. The types of waste to be handled at the facility;
3. The plan of operation required by section 1032.030
4. The form used to record weights or volumes
required by section 10.32.�30
5. A�� inspection schedule and inspection log required
by section 10.32.030;
6. Documentation to show that any domestic or
industrial w�ste water treatment facility, sucli as a leachate
treatment s��sten�, is being reviewed by the Depachvent of
Ecology under WAC Chapter 173-?40.
B. Application contents for permits for new or expa�ided
landfill facilities. In addition to the requireiuents of subsection
A of this subsection, each landfill permit application must
contain:
A geohydrological assessment of the facility that
addresses:
a. LocaVregional geology and hydrology 111C�Ualllg
faults, uustable slopes aud subsidence areas on site;
b. Evaluation of bedrock and soil rypes and
properties;
c. Depths to ground water and/or aquifer(s);
d. Direction and flow rate of local ground water;
e. Direction of regional ground water;
f. Quantity, locatiou and construction (where
available) of private and public wells within a two thousand
foot (2,000') radius of site;
g. Tabulation of all water rights for ground water
and suiiace water within a two dlousand foot (2,000') radius of
the site;
h. Identification and description of all suiface
watets withiii a one-�uile radius of tlie site;
i. Bacl.ground ground and suiface water qualiry
assessment, and for eapanded facilities, identification of impacts
the existing facility has upon ground and suiface wateis from
landfill leachate discharge;
i. Calculation of a site water balance;
• Related Legrsl�tio�a hiitg Cou��l�� Bo�rrl of Health Code - 7ttle 10
�
7
� •�
�. Conceptual design of a ground water and
surface water moniroring system, including a proposed
installation method for these devices and where applicable, a
vadose zone monitoring plan;
1. Land use in the area, including nearby
residences; and
m. Topography of the site and drainage patterns.
2. Preliminary engineering reporbpla��s and
specifications that address:
a. How the facility will meet the location sta�idards
of sections 10.32.010 and 1032.020
b. Relatioi�ships of facility to tlie �ing Counh�
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the basis for
calculating the facility's life;
c. The design of bottom and side lineis;
d. Idei�tification of borrow sources for daily and
final wver aaid soil lineis;
e. Incerim/final leachate collection, treativent, and
disposal;
f. Landfill gas control and monitoring;
g. Trench design, fill methods, elevation of final
cover and botto►n liner, and equipment requirements; and
h. Closure/post-closure design, construction,
maintenance, and land use.
3. An operation plan that addresses:
a. Operation and maintenance of leadlate
collection, t�•eatment, and disposal systems;
b. Operation and maintenance of landfill gas
control systems;
c. Monitocing plans for ground water, surface
water, and landfill gases to include sampling technique,
frequency, handling and analyses requirements;
d. Safery a�id emergency accidenVfire plans;
e. Routine fillii�g, grading, cover, and
housekeeping;
£ Record systems to address weights (or volumes),
number of vehicles and the types of waste received;
g. Vector control plans;
h. Noise control;
i. Ha��dling solid wastes on-site during the active
life of tlie faciliry;
K'mg County Board of Health Code - 7ttle 10
•
�
•
•
•
j. Self i��spections including frequency and �
methodology;
k. Actions to take if there is a fire or explosion; •
1. Actions to take if lea�s are detected;
m. Corrective action programs to take if ground �
water is contaminated;
n. Actious to take for other releases (e.g., failure of
the run-off containment system), and
o. A plan for waste screening activities.
4. A closure plan that addresses:
a. Estimate of closure year and the schedule at
which partial sequential closure is to be impleivented;
b. Capacity of site in volun�e and estimated
tomiage;
c. ]'ear-to-year maiutenance of the active area
vetsus con�pleted, final coveiage acreage;
d. Closure cost estimates and projected fund
withdrawal inteivals of the associated closure costs from the
financial assurance instrumenr,
e. Estimated closure constructioii tiii�ing and
notification procedures;
f. Final inspection b�� regulatoiy agencies; and
g. Financial assuiance instrument as described in
WAC 173-304-467 and WAC 173-304-468 or as hereafter
amended.
5. Post-closure plan to address:
a. Estimated time period for post-closure activities;
b. Site monitoring of landfill g�s, ground water,
and suiface water;
c. Deed clause changes, land use, and zoning
restrictions;
d. hlaintenance activities to maintain cover ai�d
run-off systems; and
e. Identification and final closure costs including
cost calculations and the funding medianism for final
assurance, as described in WAC 173-304-467 a►�d WAC 173-304-
468 or as hereafter amended.
C. Application contents for new or expanded transfer
stations, drop box facilities, and baling and compaction systems
requiring a permit. In addition to the requirements of
subsection A of this section, each application for a permit must
Relaterl Legislation
�
�
il
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
�
�
- 1 >
RL 8
contain preliminary engineering reporVplans and specifications
that address:
1. The proposed faciliry 7Alllllg St2CL1S
2. The relationship to the King Counry Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan;
3. The area to be served by the faciliry; and
4. The facility design to address how the faciliry shall
meet requirements of chapter 10.60, including closure.
D. Application contents for ne�v or expanded surface
impoundments requiring a permit. In addition to the
requirements of subsection A of this section, each applicab(e
application for a permit must contain:
l. A geohydrological assessment of the faciliry that
addresses all of the factots in subdivision 1 of subsection A of
this section;
2. Prelimina�y engineering reporUplans and
specifications that address, where applicable:
a. How the proposed faciliry will meet the
locational standards of sections 10.3?.010 and 10.32.020;
b. The relationship of facility to the ting Counry
Comprehensive Solid �Vaste Management Plan;
c. The design of lineis and foundatiou to be
incorporated in the facilities design induding the design of
leachate collection and treatment systems;
d. The design of ground water monitoring;
e. The design of dikes including calculations of
dike stabiliry analyses under conditions of liner failure;
f. Other design details, including biosolids cleanout
and disposal, ovecfilling ala�ms and inlet design; and
g. Closure/post-closure design, construction
maintenance and proposed land use.
3. An operation plan that addresses:
a. Operation and maintenance of leachate
collection system, or ground water monitoring;
b. Operation and maintenance of overfilling
equipment or details of filling and emprying techniques;
c. Ii�spection of dikes a�id linets for integrity; and
d. Final it�spection by regulatoiy agencies.
4. A closure plan that addresses:
a. Estimate of closure year and cost;
b. Mediods of removing wastes, lineis and any
contaminated soils, and location of final disposal;
Related Legzsl�tio�a
c. Closure ti►i�ing and notification procedures; and
d. Final inspection by regulatory agencies.
C. Application contents for new or expanded piles requiring
a permit. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of
this section, each application for a pei�rnit must contain:
l. Preliminary engineering reports/plans and
specifications that address:
a. How the proposed facility will meet the
locational standards of section 10.32.010 and 10.32.020;
b. The relationship of the facility to the King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and
zoning requirements;
c. The design of the liner or sealed surface upon
which the liner rests, including an analysis of tlte linets ability
to withstaud the stress;
d. The design of the run-on and run-off system;
e. The design to avoid washout when the pile is
located in a one hu<<dred (100) year tloodplain; and
f. Maximum elevation and boundaries of the waste
pile.
2. A�i operation plan that addresses:
a. I�tethods of adding or removing wastes from the
pile and equipment used;
b. Inspection of the liner for integriry; and
c. Safery and emergency plans.
3. A closure plan that addresses:
a. Estiroate of closure }�ear and cost;
b. 1�-tethods of removing w;�stes, lineis and any
contaminated soils, and location of final disposal;
c. Closure tiroing and notification procedures; and
d. Final inspection by regulatory agencies.
F. Application contents for new or expanded energy
recoveiy and incinerator facilities requiring a permit. In
addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section,
each pennit application iuust contaiil:
1. Preliminaiy engineering reports/plans a��d
specifications that address:
a. The relationship of the faciliry to the King
Counry Comprehe«sive Solid Waste Management Plan and
zoning requirements;
b. "fhe design of the storage and handling facilities
on for incoming tivaste as well as t1y ash, bottom ash and
I��iiag Courall� Bo�rr�! of fie�l�h Corle - T"ule 10
:::: RL -
82
any other wastes produced by air or water pollution wntrols;
and
c. The design of the incinerator or them�al treater,
including charging or feeding systems, combustion air sy�stems,
combustion or reaction chambeis, including heat rewvery
systems, ash handling systems, a�id air pollution and water
pollution control systems. Instru►l�entation and monitoring
systems design shall also be included.
2. A�l operation plan that addresses:
a. Cleaning of storage areas as required by section
10.64.o2o(B),
b. Alternative storage plai�s for breakdowns �s
required in section 10.64.020(D),
c. Inspection to insuce compliance with State and
local air pollution laws and to comply with section 10.34.060.
The inspection log or suinmaiy must be submitted with tlie
application; and
d. How and where the fly ash, bottom ash and
other solid wastes will be disposed .
3. A closure plan that addresses:
a. Estimate of closure year and cost;
b. Methods of closure and metliods of removing
wastes, equipment, a�ld location of final disposal;
c. Closure tiu�ing and notification pcocedures; and
d. Final inspection by regulatoiy agencies.
G. Application contents for new or expanded landspreading
disposal facilities requiring a perinit. In addition to the
requirements of subsection A of this section, each permit
application must contain:
1. A geohydrological assessment of the facility that
addresses all of the factois of subdivision 1 of subsection B of
tlus subsection;
2. Preliminaty engineering reports/plans and
specifications that address:
a. How the proposed facility will meet the
locational standards of sections 1032.010 and 10.32.020,
b. The relationship of the facility to the King
County Comprellensive Solid Vi�aste Management Plan;
c. The basis for cakulating the facility's life;
d. Waste analyses and methods to periodicall}�
sample and analyze solid waste;
�
�
�
�
�
�
e. Design of interim waste storage facilities if such • �
facilities are not othe�wise pennitted by the health o�icer; ;
f. Design of run-on and run-off systems; .
g. A contour map of the active area showing
contouis to the nearest foot; �
h. A ground water and suiface water monitoring
program; and !
i. Access barrieis such as fences, and warning •
signs.
3. A�l operation plan that addresses: •
a. Operatiou and maintenance of run-off and
fUll-0R S)'SCeR1S;
b. Methods of ta�ing ground water samples and
for maintaining ground water systems;
c. Methods of applying wastes that meet the
requirements of section 10.40.030,
1) Estimated multiples of agronomic rates;
2) Frequency of discing; and
3) Avoidance of standing water.
d. The written contract required between
landow�leis, waste generatois and waste operatois.
4. A closure plan that addresses:
a. Estimate of closure seaso��/year;
b. Capacity of site in volume and tonnage;
c. 1'ear-to-year maintenance of the active area
veisus completed, final coverage acreage;
({. �IOSUI'C COIlS[CUCCIOR hRllilg 1Lld 110tIF1C3t1011
procedures, and
e. Final ii�spection by regulatory agencies.
S. A post-closure plan that addresses:
a. Estimated time period for post-closure activities;
b. Site monitoring of ground water;
c. Deed clause changes, land use, and zoning
restrictions;
d. Maintenance activities to maintain cover and
run-off systems;
e. Pla«s for food chain crops being grown on the
active areas, after closure; and
f. Identification of final closures costs including
cost calculations and the funding mechanism.
H. Application contents for new or expanded inert waste
landfills, solid waste treatment sites, pei�nanent MRW
King Cou�ady Borrr�i of He�ltG Co�e - 7��tle 10 Related Legislation
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL-8
3
collectio��/storage sites, special puipose facilities, woodwaste
landfills, and recycling facilities shall be on forms whose
content shall be specified by the health officer.
10.16A40 Renewal application. All owneis or
operators of existing facilities shall renew permits or application
fo�7ns specified in Section 10.16.030(C). Previous ii�focmation
submitted to the health officer may be referred to on the
application forms. Changes in operating me�llods or otlier
changes must be noted on the application in order to be
authori�ed by petn�it.
�
10.16.050 Preoperational inspection. Whenever
� plans and specifications are required by this chaptec to be
• submitted to the health officer, the health oFficer may inspect
the solid waste disposal site or facility prior to the start of the
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
operations.
[Section 10.16.060 Fees Generally. (see 10.24.015)]
10.16.070 Ree�nination fee. �Vhen plans and
specifications that have been examined are altered and
resubmitted, an additional fee for the re-examination of such
plai�s shall be assessed at the curcent cost of plan review.
Where a duplicate set of approved plans are submitted for
examination and approval at any time after a permit h�s been
issued on the original approved plans, a fee shall be charged at
the current cost of plan review for such examination and
approval. Where a comPlete redesign of a site is subii�itted
after one (1) design has been eaamined, a new review fee shall
be charged in addition to the review fee for the fiist design.
The examination of any further redesign shall be similarly
charged.
CHAPTER 10.20
PERMITS FOR VEHICLES AND EXISTING FACILITIES
• 10.20.010 Pcrmit required. It shall be unlawful for
any person to operate a collectioi�/transportation vehicle, an
� existing disposal site, faciliry, a biomedical waste
• storage/treat►nent site, or opeiate as an biomedical waste
transporter, without a valid permit issued by the health officer
�
�
• Related Legislntio�a
Permits shall not be tia��sferable and shall be valid only for the
peisou and place or vehicle for which issued.
10.20.020 Permit applicarion. Any peison desiring to
operate a collectioi�/transportation vehicle, a disposal site, a
biomedical waste storage/treatment site or operate as a
biomedical waste trat�sporter shall submit three (3) �pies of a
written application to tlte health officer, on a fonn to be
provided by the health officec The health officer shall refer
one (1) copy to the Washington State Depairtment of Ecology.
Such application shall include the applicant's full name, post
office addcess, and the signature of an authorized representative
of the applicant; shall disclose whether such applicant is an
individual, firm, cotporation, and, iF a partneiship, the names
and mailing addresses of all of the partneis; the address, legal
description, and type of the respective solid waste disposal site,
facility, collectioi�/transportation vehicle, or biomedical waste
collectio��/t�ansportation vehicle; and shall be accompanied by
the permit fee amount described in chapter 10.24. Applicants
for an biomedical waste transporter pei7nit shall also state the
legal description of the site(s) that the applicant is planning to
use to treat biomedical waste, and have a contingency plan as
described in 10.28.070.C.4 of this title.
10.20.030 Per�nit issuance. When ii�spection reveals
that the applicable requirements of this title have been met and
the applicable fee h�s been paid, a pei7nit shall be issued to
the applicant by the health officer. The health officer may
deiry the application if in liis/her judgement tlie operation of
the site or vehicle is likely� to result in a hazard to the public
health and/oc will not meet the requirements of this title. The
health officer ►nay also suspend or revoke a per►nit during its
term for noncompliance with couditio►�s of the pennit, the
permittee's failure to disclose relevant facts at any time, or if
the permittee's activiry endangers or manifests ii�esponsibiliry
concerning public health or the environment. The health
officer shall consider any relevant health and safery factors in
ma�ing this determination. If an application is denied or a
permit is suspended or revoked the health officer at the time of
the denial, suspei�sion, or revocation shall inform the applicant
in writing of the reasons for the denial or revocation and the
applicant's right to an appeal puisuant to RCW Chapter 70.95.
lii�ag Cotc�al�� Bo�rd of He�dtl� Code - 71t1e 10
�
:<:::: RL - 84 :::':; -
10.20.040 Special purpose facilities per,nit. When
the d�sposal site and operation utilize a new n�ethod of solid
waste handling or disposal not otheiwise provided for in this
title, a special purposes facilities pein�it may be issued. The
health officer shall detennine which items of this title sliall
apply to the disposal site on a case by case basis so as to
protect the public health and the environment and to avoid the
creation of nuisances. The terros and wnditions of the special
penvit shall be itemized in writing by tlie health officer.
[Section 10.20.050 Effective dates. Repealed]
10.20.060 Closure per�nit. When an owner/operator
plans to close a municipal waste laudfill CDL landfill, or
woodwaste landfill, a closure plan and application for closure
pennit must be submitted to the health officer. The health
officer sllall have the authoriry to require landfill opecato�s
and/or owners to submit closure plans for closed or abandoned
landfills.
10.20.070 Expiration. All pei7vits issued pu�suant to
this title shall expire on the December 31st following tlle date
of issuance, except permits for collectioivfru�sport vehicles and
biomedical waste transporteis wliich shall e�pire on the June
30th following the date of issuance.
CHAP7'ER 10.24
FEES
10.24.010 Annual (new/renewal)
operating per�nit fees. The permit fees for solid waste
disposal sites, collectioNtra«sportation vehicles, biomedical
waste tra��sporters, biomedical waste storage/treatment sites, and
sewage treatment works subject to the fee requirements of this
title shall be the annual fees set forth below:
A Municipal landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150.00
B. CDL landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150.00
C. Inert landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
D. Solid waste incineration and energy recovery ..$150.00
E. Compost . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $475.00
F. Transfer station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000.00
K�ag Counl�� Bo�rrd of He�ltl� Code - Tille 10
G. Permanent hZRW wllection and storage faciliry $750.00
H. Recycling:
1. Noncontainerized con�posting piles
fiist acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.00
2. Waste pile recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
3. Solid waste treatii�ent site . . . . . . . . . . . $250.00
I. Closed landfill site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
J. Drop bo� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75.00
K. Landspreading (land utilization of biosolids):
l. Sites with biosolids application rates
greater than or equal to four (4) diy
tons per acre, per acre
fitst acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150.00
2. Sites with biosolids application rates less
than four (4) dry tons per acre, per year .$150.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00
L. CollectioiVtranspoct�tion vehicle . . . . . . . $25.00 for
fiist vehicle
each additional vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.00
I�-L Bion�edical waste trausporter, up to 4 vehicles $100.00
each additional vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.00
N. Special puipose faciliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
0. Storage/treatmeut piles
fiist acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
eacll additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.00
P. Woodwaste landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250.00
Q. Surface impoundments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250.00
R. Biomedical waste storage/treatment site ....$250.00
10.24.015 Permit applicatio»/plari review fees.
Plaus and specifications shall be accompanied by a
non-refundable fee as follows:
A. I��lunicipal landfill, base fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . $600.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00
(total fee not to exceed $1,000.00)
B. CDL landfill, base fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $600.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00
(total fee not to exceed $1,000.00)
C. Inert landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200.00
D. Energy recovery and incineration . . . . . . . . $550.00
E. Recycling
Related Legzslation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�iiii::i::::iii:::;::::;::::;::::i>: >::i:2:i:::::::'::::;:::;::i::i::i::i:::i� ::::::;:::;;;:;::i::::i::::::::::;:�:
< RL-8
5
F.
� G.
• H.
I.
� J.
�
�
�
�
. K.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
L.
1. Non-containerized composting . . . . . . . . $100.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . $15.00
(total fee not to exceed $1,000.00)
2. Waste pile recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200.00
3. Solid waste treatment site . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
Transfer station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $220.00
Special-purpose faciliry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300.00
Closed landfill plan review . . . . . . . . . . . . . $550.00
Drop box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $110.00
Biosolids utilization sites:
1. Sites with biosolids application rates
greater than or equal to t'our (4) dry
tons per acre per year
first acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00
(total not to exceed $S00)
2. Sites with biosolids application rates less
than four (4) d�y tons per acre per year ..$150.00
Storage/treatment piles
first acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50.00
Woodwaste landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300.00
each additional acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00
(total fee not to exceed $500.00)
M. Surface impoundments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $?50.00
N. Permanent MRW Collection and storage faciliry $250.00
10.24.020 Tonnage and volume fecs. 1'he health
officer shall receive the following fee per ton and per cubic yard
of all solid waste entering a municipal landfill or CDL landfill
for disposal:
Sites Sites
Without Scales With Scalc�s
Landfills N/A
67 cents/ton
Inert/Demolition 35 cents/cubic yard 35 cents/ton
Landfills
10.24.030 Paymeut. All volwi�e oi� tonnage fees ace to
be forwarded to the health officer monthly on a form prescribed
Related Legislatio�a
by the health officer, prior to tile fifteenth (lSth) day of each
month.
10.24.050 Special inspections. Fees for inspection
seivice requested by the solid waste disposal site, collection/-
transportation vehicle management, biomedical waste
storage/treatment site or biomedical waste transporter, to be
peiformed outside regular departmencal wor�ing hours will be
charged at a rate equal to the cost of peiforming the service.
10.24.055 Solid wa.ste varia��ce fce. Where the
health officer is involved with official review and processing of
requests for variance from these regulations, he/she may grant
same as long as the action will not impair public health and
s��fery. The nonrefundable fee for review of a variance request
is �150.00.
10.24.060 Special services--Authority. 'fhe health
officer is also authorized to charge such fees as he/she may
deem necessaiy for the turnishing of special seivices or
materials requested that are not ordinarily provided under
permit or puisuant to statute. Such se�vices and materials to
he farnished may include bat ace not limited to the following:
A. Reproduction ancVor search of recocds and docuroents;
B. Examination, testing, or inspection of particular
products, materials, construction, equipment or appliances to
dete�•mine their compliance with the provision of this title or
their acceptabilit�� for use.
10.24.070 Special Services--Terms and conditions.
The health officer or his/her authori�ed representative shall
have full authoriry to specif'y the terivs and conditions upon
which such se�vices and materials shall be ivade available,
consistent with any applicable statutes and ordinances; provided,
that any fees imposed pu�sua��t to this authorization shall be
reasonably equivalent to King County's cost for furnishing said
seivices and ivaterials.
hrrtg Coun�� Bonrd of He�lth Co�le - Title 10
�_
�
RL -
86
CHAP7'ER 10.28
WASTE MANAGEM�N1'
10.28.010 Storage requiremeuts gencrally. The
owner a��d/or occupa�lt of any premises, shall be responsible for
the safe a�ld sanitary storage of all solid wastes accumulated at
that premises until it is removed to a disposal site. 'fhe storage
area and storage containeis shall be maintained in a clean,
safe, and �wisance free condition. Provisions shall be made for
safe a�id sanitary disposal of leakage and drainage froii�
sanitaty wmpactois drop boxes and from stoiage areas.
Materials shall be contained to prevent blowiilg. Additionall�
generatois should refer to sections 10.?�.040 through 10.38.150
pertaining to specific solid wastes handling requirements.
Dangerous waste handling and disposal shall be regulated by
tlie Department of Ecology puisuant to WAC 173-303 as
amended.
10.28.020 Container construction. The owner,
operator, or occupant of any premises, business establishment,
or indust�v shall store containerized solid wastes in containeis
that meet the following requiremeuts:
A. Disposable containeis shall be sufficientl�� strong to
allow lifting without breakage and shall be thirry-t�10 (3?)
gallons in capaciry or less where manual handling is practiced;
B. Reusable containeis, except for detachable containeis,
shall be:
1. Rigid and durable;
2. Corrosion resistant;
3. Nonabsorbent and water tight;
4. Rodent-proof a�ld easily cleanable;
S. Equipped with a close fitting cover;
6. Suitable for handling with no shaip edges or other
hazardous conditions; and
7. Equal to or less thau thirry-two (3�) gallons in
volume where manual ha�idling is practiced.
C. Detachable containers shall be durable,
coirosion-resistant, nonabsorbeut, noulea�ing and haviiig eittier
a solid cover or screen cover to prevent littering.
D. Containe�s shall be cleaned frequently to prevent
rodenbvector and odor nuisances. All waste water from
container cleaning shall be disposed of in a sanitary sewer
sy�stem unless othe�wise audlorized by the Ilealth officer. In
addition, the health officer may require disii�fection of any
container.
10.28.030 Collection and transportation. A. All
peiso«s collecting or transporting solid waste shall avoid
littering, or the creation of other nuisances at the loading
point, during transport and for the proper unloading of the
solid waste at a permitted traiisfer station, or other permitted
solid waste handling site.
B. Vehicles or containeis used for the collection and
transportation of solid w;�ste, except biomedical waste, shall be
tightly covered or screened where littering may occur, durable
and of easily cleanable construction. Where garbage is being
collected or transported, containeis shall be cleaned and kept in
good repair as necessaiy to prevent nuisances, odois and insect
breeding.
C. �'ehicles or containeis used for the collection and
transportation of any solid w�ste, e�cept biomedical waste, sllall
be loaded and moved in such a manner that the contents will
not fail, leak in quantities to cause a nuisance, or spill
therefrom. �Vllere such spillage or leakage does occur, the
waste shall be picked up immediately by the collector or
t�ansporter and returned to the vehicle or container and the
area otheiwise properly cleaned.
D. Biomedical waste shall be transported over public roads
ouly iu leahproof and fully enclosed container or vehicle
compartn�ent. Biomedical waste shall not be transported in the
same vehicle with other waste or medical specimeits unless the
bio►nedical waste is contained in a separate, fully enclosed
leakproof container within the vehicle coropa�tment.
Biomedical waste shall be delivered for treatment only to a
facility that meets all local, state, and federal environmental
regulations, as determined by the appropriate local, state and
federal agencies. Tlte transporter shall keep records of disposal
for a period of at least three (3) yeais, a�ld they shall be
available to the health officer upon request. Surfaces of
biomedical waste collectioi�/tra«sportation vehicles that ha�e
contacted spilled or leaked biomedical waste sllall be
decontaminated �s described in this title. Each biomedical
waste collectioiVtransportatioii vehicle shall cariti� a spill kit.
King Counly Board of He�/tl� Corde - T'�tde 10 Related Legaslatron
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
n
�
u
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;: RL -
8
7
E. Biomedical waste collectioi�/tra�lsportation vehicles used
by permitted bia�nedical waste transporteis shall have a
leakproof fully enclosed vehicle compartment of a durable and
easily cleanable constn�ction, and shall be identified on each
side of the vehicle with the name or trademark of the
biomedical waste transporter.
F. All peiso��s commercially collecting or transpocting solid
waste shall inspect collection and transportation vehicles
monthly, for repairs to containeis such as rrt�''ssing or
loose-fitting coveis or screens, lea�ing containeis, etc., and
maintain such inspection records at the facility normally� used
to pa�k such vehicles or such other location that maintenance
records are kept. Such records shall be kept for a period of at
least two (?) yeats, and be made available upon the request of
the health officer.
G. Vehicles shall be cleaned frequently to prevent
rodenUvector and odor ni�isances. In addition, the health
officer may require disinfection of a�1y vehicle. All waste water
from vehicle cleaning shall be disposed of in a sanitary sewer
system unless otheiwise authorized by dle health officer.
10.28.040 Garbage and rubbish. A. Storage.
Garbage sliall be stored in containeis which meet tlte
requiremenGs of Section 10.28.0?0. Rubbish shall be stored and
transported so as not to create a nuisauce or litter probleii�.
1. Where garbage is stored in combination with
rubbish, containeis for the storage of the muture shalL meet
garbage storage standards.
2. Containe�s shall be of a size and weight acceptable
to the collecting agency, subject to agreement with the health
officer, CI1C I111111ICIp3I1tV al1C� tI1C CUS10111CC.
3. Containeis shall be cleaned with sufficient frequency
to prevent nuisances.
B. Removal. Garbage shall be removed from the preroises
no less thau ouce per week, unless a different frequency is
approved by the health officer.
C. Disposal. Garbage aud rubbish may he disposed of at
any of the sites outlined in chapteis 10.42 througli 10.6�,
including facilities that recycle, incinerate, rewver energy or
la��dfill; except, garbage shall not be deposited at CDL landfills,
inert landfills, woodwaste landfills, or landspreading sites.
10.28.045 Approval of change of biomedical
waste treatment site. Should the holder of a biomedical
waste transpot�ter permit desire to transport biomedical waste to
a site other than the site listed in the cureent permit
application, the permittee shall first obtain written approval of
said site from the health officer.
10.28.050 Household waste. A. General. All
houseliold waste except for banned and restricted use pesticides,
wood treating preseivatives and used crankcase oils shall be
deposited with the waste stream, in accordance with Sections
10.28.010, 10.28.020 and 10.28.030.
B. Toxic. Bauned aud restricted use pesticides, wood
treating preseivatives and used crankcase oils shall not be
deposited in the household waste collection system, a public
sewer s}�stem, an on-site sewage system, the surface or ground
water, the surface of the ground or under the ground. Usable
pesticides and wood preseivatives shall be disposed of through
proper use a�id application in accordance with the
Environmental Protection Agency approved label requirements,
or should be disposed of at disposal sites approved by the
health officer. Substantially empry pesticide containe�s are
excluded from this section and should be handled as general
household waste.
C. Used oil
L Used oil shall not be deposited in the household
waste collection system, a public sewer system, an on-site �
sewage system, in suiface or ground water, onto the surface of
the ground or under the ground. Used oil shall be delivered to
a faciliry approved to collect used oil for recycling, treatment or
disposal s��ch as: transfer stations permanent MRW collection
sites, seivice stations, lube shops and auto supply stores.
2. The use of used oil for dust suppression or weed
control is prohibited.
3. Effective July 1, 1992, no peison may sell or
distribute ahsorbent-base �its, intended for home use, as a
means for collecting, recycling, or disposing of used oil.
4. No owner or operator of a solid waste landfill may
l�lowingly accept used oil for disposal in the landfill.
S. Used automotive oil filte�s sliall not be placed into
the solid waste collection system unless they have been
Related Legzsl�tio�r
Ka�rg G'oz�iz�� Bo�r�l of He�lth Code - Title 10
' .:
dloroughly drained of all tluid oil. 1'liis inay require having
the filters drain up to twenty-four (24) houts.
10.28.055 Yard waste. Yard wastes that have been
segregated from the waste stream for the purposes of recycling
at a centrali�ed facility shall be stored, and tra��sported in such
a way as to mi��imi�e the creation of odois and excess waste.
Effective January 1, 1994, plastic bags shall not be used to
store or transport yard wastes. Residential yard waste collection
companies shall reject pick-up se�vice of yard w;�stes that have
been stored in plastic bags. Rejected loads shall be tagged to
explain the reason for rejection. Solid w�stes other than yard
wastes shall not be disposed with yard wastes segregated for the
puiposes of recycling at a centralized faciliry. Residential yard
waste collection companies shall reject pick-up seivices of yard
wastes that are substantially contaminated with otller solid
wastes. Rejected loads shall be tagged to explain the reason for
its rejection.
10.28.060 Asbestos-containing wa.Ste material.
Asbestos-containing waste material. Asbestos .containing w�ste
shall be handled and disposed puisuant to 40CFR Part 61
Subpart M, WAC 173303, and A��ticle 10 of Regulation No. 111,
Article 4 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) as
follows:
A. Removal. Peiso��s removing asbestos containing w�ste
material shall provide advance notification to PSAPCA, which
enforces regulations concerning removal and disposal. Asbestos
containing waste material must be wetted down during removal
to reduce airboine emissio��s of particulate matter. The
adequately wetted asbestos wastes shall be sealed iilto a
leak-proof container. The container must be dust-tight, at
least 6-mil in thicl�iess, completely enclose the asbestos-
containing waste material and prevent solids or liquids froii�
escaping or spilling out. Such containeis include sealed plastic
bags, metal or fiber drums and polyethylene plastic sheeting.
Each container must be labeled with an approved asbestos
warning sign.
B. Disposal. Generators of regulated asbestos containing
waste material regardless of quautity, shall dispose of their
waste at a landfill approved by the Depai�tment. The generator
must notify the disposal site operator prior to transporting the
King County Boar� of HealtG Code - Trtle 10
asbestos w;�te to allow for adequate site preparation and staff
availability. The asbestos containing waste material shall be
covered with at least fifteen (1S) centimeters, six inches (6"), of
compacted non-asbestos containing waste material within
twenry-four (24) hou�s of disposal. Asbestos waste shall not be
disposed of at transfer stations unless separate provisions are
approved (by the health officer) and in place for receiving,
storing, monitoring and transporting the material to an
approved landfill.
I0.28.070 Biomedical wa.ste. A. Biomedical waste
management plan. Each biomedical waste generator (BWG)
and bio►i�edical waste storage/treatment operator (BWSTO) must
write an biomedical waste iiianagemeiit plan witli an internal
annual review. The plan shall include all asPects of the BWGs
or BWSTO's biomedical waste management. The plan must be
followed b�� tlle BWG or BWSTO. The plan must include a
listing of the B�VG or BWSTO IIIfCCtIOR COI1Cf0I
staff/committee member(s), phone numbe�s of responsible
individ��als, definiUon of wastes handled by the system,
department and iiidividual responsibilities, procedures for waste
identification, segregation, containment, transport, treabnent,
treatment monitoring, disposal, contingency planning,
staff/househeeping training for biomedical waste identification,
when applicable and compliance with biomedical waste
regulations. The plan must iuclude the chief executive officer's
endoisement letter. The plan shall be available for inspection
at the request of the hcalth office►•.
B. Storage and contaiiunent of biomedical waste.
1. Storage of biomedical waste shall be in a manner
and location which affords protection from animals, rain and
wind; does not provide a breeding place or a food source for
ii�sects or rodents; and is accessible only to peisonnel
authorized in the biomedical w;�ste generator's biomedical waste
management plan.
2. Biomedical w�ste shall be segregated from other
waste by separate containment at the point of origin.
3. Biomedical waste, except for slia�ps, shall be
contained in disposable leahproof plastic bags having a strength
to prevent ripping, tearing, brea�ing or bursting under normal
conditions of use. The plastic bags shall be appropriately
marked by the generator as containing biomedical waste. The
Related Legislation
�
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;:.; :.::. : : .. : . ..: ;:..
> : ;:..: ...
>::>;:::.::.>:::.;.. ;.: >::::,:: :::::;:;: ;:: RL -
;:::::.:: , :.:.: ...
;.:::
8
9
plastic bags shall be secured to prevent leakage or expulsion
during storage. NOTE: This shall not apply to biomedical
waste stored in rigid plastic, single use, or approved multiple
use marked containers
4. Sharps shall be contained in leakproof, rigid,
puncture resistant, break resistant containeis which are labeled
and tightly lidded during storage, handling and transport.
S. Biomedical waste held in plastic bags as described
in paragraph 3 shall be placed in other leak-proof containeis
such as disposable or reusable pails, drums, or bins for stoiage,
ha�idling, or tra��sport. The containeis shall be conspicaously
labeled with the international biohazard syrobol, and the words
"Bio►nedical Waste" or other words that clearly denote the
presence of biomedical waste.
6. Reusable containe�s:
a. Reusable containeis for biomedical waste
storage, handling or transport shall be thoroughly washed and
decontaminated by an approved method each time the�� are
emptied unless the surfaces of the containe�s have been
protected from contaminatio►i by disposable lineis, bags or
other devices removed with the w�.ste, separate from those
required in paragraph 3 of this section.
b. Approved methods of decontamination are
agitation to remove visible solid residue couibined with one of
the following procedures:
1) Chemical disii�fection - Chemical
disinfectants should be used in accordance witli the
manufacturer's recommendations for tubecculocidal and
viricida] (Polio rype 1 or 2, SA Rotovirus) hilling capacities or
by disinfectant concentratioivcontact times approved in writing
by the health officer.
2) Other methods �tpproved in writiog by the
health officer.
c. Reusable pails, druins, or bins used for
containment of biomedical w�ste sllall not be used for any�
other putpose except after being disinfected by procedures ��s
described in this paragraph and after the international
biohazard symbol and the words "Biomedical Waste" are
removed.
7. Trash chutes shall not be used to transfer
biomedical waste.
8. Unless otheiwise approved by the health officer,
biomedical waste, other than shatps, sliall be treated in
accordance with paragraph C or delivered to an biomedical
waste storage/treahnent operator within fourteen (14) days from
the generation of the waste. Shaips waste must be disposed in
accordance with section 10.28.070.B.11 or be trai�sported to a
storage treatment faciliry within ninery (90) days commencing
from the time the shaips container is sealed.
9. Biomedical waste shall not be subject to compaction
prior to treatment.
10. Biomedical waste shall not be placed into the
general solid w�ste stream prior to treatment.
ll. At no tiroe sllall treated shaips waste, except
incinerated sha�ps waste, be disposed into the general solid
waste stream, unless approved in writing by the health officer.
a. Treated shaips waste, except incinerated sha�ps
waste, shall be segregated froiu the general solid waste stream
in approved shaips contaiiieis for disposal at a n�edical waste
treatment faciliry or landfill approved by the health officer.
'1'reated shaips waste shall not be mi�;ed with the general solid
waste stream at anv time.
b. The transporter of treated shaips w�ste,
excludiilg incinerated shaips waste, must notify the disposal site
operator prior to tcansporting the shaips w�ste to allow for
adequate site preparatioil and staff availabiliry. The sharps
waste shall be covered with at least su (6) inches of compacted
waste material within twenty four (24) hou�s of disposal.
c. Horoe geneiated shaips are exempt from other
provisions of section 10.?�.070 if prepared for disposal by a
means that protects n�edical handleis, solid waste workers and
the public from injury. The disposal of home generated shaips
shall be limited to:
1. Depositing sha�ps at a medical facility which has
agreed to accept home generated shaips.
2. Depositing properly contained shaips at a pharmacy
that provides a program to dispose shaips waste that meets the
requirements of these regulations.
3. Acquiring a pichup seivice from an biomedical
wa.ste trausporter pecmitted by the health officer.
4. Depositing the shaips in the regular household
garbage, PROVIDED that the�� are contained in a manner that
• Related Legislatiora hin,g Cotur.� Borrr�l of Herrltl� Corte - 7itle 10
�.
>:: ;:.;:.;.:.
> >.:::. > :::. .. . .. ... . ..
RL - 0 ;; ;::::: <;::>::::: .. ;::;:::: >::>:::;. . > ... ..> :......... ...».......:;;.....:
9
protects solid waste workeis and the public. Such containment
shall be limited to the following:
a) Needle clippe�s approved b�r the health officer.
Such devices shall clip the needle from the syrinKe directly iuto
a crush proof container and render tl�e sy1•inge barrel harmless;
or
b) Two liter clear P.G.'f. plastic bottles wmmonly
used for soft drink containers. Sucli bottles shall be tightly
capped and taped to fui�ther secure the cap to the bottle. The
bottle must be labeled/marked "Warning: S�n•inges, Do \ot
Recycle." �
S. Other methods approved by the l�ealth officer.
C. Biomedical waste treatment
1. Biomedical w�ste shall be treated prior to disposal
by one or more of the following methods:
a. Cultures and stochs of etiologic agents and
associated biologicals (as defined in 10.0�.051): steam
sterilization, incineration, or other treatmeut method approved
in writing by the health officer.
b. Laboratory waste (as defined in 10.0�.0�1):
steam sterilization, incineration, or other treatii�ent metllod
approved in writing by the health officer.
c. Sharps (as defined in 10.08.051): incineration,
containment �s described in this title, or other treatment
method approved in writing by the health officer.
d. Pathological waste (;�.s defined in 10.08.051):
inciueratiou, intennent, or other treatment n�ethod approved in
writing by tlie health officer. Tissue of 0.5 cm oc less in
dia�neter may be disposed into an approved sewer s�5tem with
the approval of the local sewer authorit��.
e. Human body fluids (as defined in 10.08.0>1)
sliall be considered treated biomedical w;�,ste whe❑ the�� are:
1) Poured directly iiito ail approved sauitai��
sewer system.
2) Incinerated, or
3) Absorbed by ivaterials such ;�s bandages,
sanitaiy napkins, or commercial absorbeuts so that the fluid
will not be released from the material and/or become airborne
during normal solid waste handling practices.
£ Wastes that have come into contact with human
body tluids from patients diagnosed with pathogenic organisms
assigned to Biosafety Leve14 (�s defined in this title): steaii�
sterilization, incineration, or other treahnent method approved
in writing by the hea(th officer.
g. Other waste(s) determined to be i��fectious by
the generator's infection�control staff/committee, as defined in
10.0�.3�2: steam sterilization incineration, or other method
approved b}� the health officer.
h. A�iiinal carcasses exposed to pathogens in
research (as defined in this title): incineration or other
treatment ii�ethod approved in writing by tlie health officer.
2. Biomedical waste treatment and disposal shall be
conducted as follows:
a. Steaii� sterilization: stearo sterilization by
heating in a steam sterilizec so �s to �ill all microbiological
agents �s determined by chemical and biological indicator
monitoring requirements set forth in this section. Operating
procedures for steam sterilize�s shall include, but not be limited
tq the following:
1) Adoption of standard written operating
procedures for each steam sterilizer, including time,
temperature, pressure, rype of waste, type of container(s),
closure on container(s), pattern of loading, water content and
maximum load quantiry.
2) Check of recocding and/or indicating
therroometeis during each complete cycle to ensure the
attainment of a minimum teiuperature of two hmldred and
fll'ty degrees fahrenheit (2S0°F) or one hundred twenry one
degrees centigrade (121°C) for oiie-half (1/2) honr or longer,
depending on quantity and compaction of the load, in order to
achieve sterilization of the entire load. Theiynometeis shall be
cliecked for calibration at least annually.
3) Use of heat sensitive tape or other device for
eacli load that is processed to indicate that the load has
undergone the steam sterilization process.
4) Use of the chemical migiating integrator
Thermalog-S, or other chemical integrator meeting equivalent
time, temperature and steam indicator specificatioi�s, based
upon Bacillus stearothermophilus spore �ill steam sterilization
paran�eteis, approved in writing by the healdi officer. Tlie
chemical integrator shall be placed at the center load of each
cycle to wi�'irm attaimnent of adequate sterilization conditions
for each biomedical waste treatment cycle run.
Ki�ag Cou�at�� Bonrrl of He�rlt/� Code Trtle 10 Related Legrslatron
�
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
<> R -
L 1 :::::
9
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
5) Use of the biological indicator, Bacillus
stearothermophilus, or other biological indicator approved in
writing by the health officer, placed at the center of a load
processed under standa�d operating conditions at least monthly�
to wi�firm the attainment of adequate sterilization conditions.
6) Maintenance of records and procedures
specified in (1), (2), (4) and (S) for a period of not less than
three (3) years.
7) Development and implen�entation of a
written steam sterilization training progra�l� foc steam sterilizer
operatois. biomedical waste so treated shall be disposed into
the general solid waste strea�n provided it is not otheiwise
hazardous waste or non-incinerated shaips �vaste.
b. Incineration: Incineration shall be conducted at
a sufficient temperature and for sufficient duration that all
combustible material is reduced to ash; that no unburned
combustible material is evideiit in the ash. Operating
procedures for incinecato�s silall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
1) Adoption of a standaid wcitten operating
procedure for each incinerator that tahes into account:
va�iation in waste composition, wa�te feed �ate, and combustion
temperature.
2) Development and implementation of a
written incinerator operator training prog�am for incinerator
operatois.
3) Implementation of a progiam to test
incinerator ash for extractable heaw iuetals prior to disposal at
a licensed disposal site. Should the incinerator ash fail the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) anal��sis for
heavy metals, the ash must be haudled as a State Dangerous
Waste under WAC 173303.
4) Records of generator, quantities, and
destructiou shall be maintained by the incinerator
owner/operator for a period of not less than three (3) yea�s.
c. Interment of pathological waste shall be
conducted in sucli a manner so as to meet all federal, state
and local regulations.
3. Biomedical waste treated in accordance with this
section, with the exception of non-incinerated sha�ps waste,
shall be considered solid waste and may be disposable into the
general solid waste stream.
4. Contingency planning: Each biomedical waste
generator and biomedical waste storage/treatment operator must
have an alternative plan for the treatment of biomedical waste
to be used in the event that changes at the primary U•eahnent
facility result in that facility no longer coi�forming to the
requirements of this code.
D. Biomedical waste storage/treatment site requirements.
Biomedical waste storage areas must wmply with the following
requirements:
1. Unless otheiwise approved by the health officer, the
biomedical waste storage area must be located on the same site
as the treattnent facility.
2. The storage a�ea shall be kept locked and accessible
only to authorized pe►sonnel at all times.
3. The storage area shall be conspicuously marked
with a sign twelve inches by twelve inches (12" x 12") with the
words "Biomedical W�ste" and the international biohazard
symbol.
4. 'Che storage area shall be constructed of cleanable
materials, and kept in a sanita�y condition. A spill kit must be
available at the site.
5. 'I'he waste shall be stored in a nonputrescent state
using refrigeration when necessaiy.
6. The total combined time bioroedical waste can be
stored with the biomedical waste transporter and the
storage/treatment site, prior to disposal, shall be fifteen (15)
days unless otheiwise approved by the health officer.
E. Tcansfer of bioinedical waste. A��y biomedical waste
generator who produces ivore than one hundred (100) pounds
of biomedical waste per month that requires off-site biomedical
waste treatment shall have said waste transported only by an
biomedical waste transporter.
F. Inspection. The health officer shall have the authoriry
to inspect any biomedical waste generator (BWG) or hiomedical
waste storage/treatment operator (WSTO), at any reasonable
time for the pu�pose of evaluating the BWG's or BWSTO's
written biomedical waste manageiuent plan, to determine if the
BWG's or BWSTO's bioinedical waste is heing handled, stored,
treated and disposed in accordance with this regulation. The
health officer shall have the authoriry to inspect any biomedical
waste trai�sporter at any reasonable time, for the purpose of
determining if the provisions of this title are being met.
� Rel�terl Leg�rsl�tia� Kr��zg Co�rint�� Bo��•d of Headth Corle - 7itle 10
�
RL - 2 >':;
9
[Section 10.28.080 Sewage sludge. (Repealed. See Chapter
10.40)J
10.28.085 Septage. Septage must be disposed of directly
into a sewage treatment works licensed by the Department of
Ecology, or other facility as approved in writing by the health
officer.
10.28.087 Human excrement. [Reseived�
10.28.090 Animal waste. A. Dead animals. Dead
a�iimals shall be disposed of in a manner to protect the pablic
health and the environment. Their disposal shall be consistent
with local codes. A�iimals weighing fifteen (15) pounds or less
may be disposed with the general household waste. A�limals
weighing more than fifteen (15) pounds sliall be taken to a
rendering plant, a veterinary clinic, an animal shelter, pet
cemetery or can be disposed of directly at landfills or transfer
stations so as not to create a uuisance. Properry owne�s may
buiy dead animals on their property, so long as no nuisauce is
created.
B. Agricultural waste. Agricultural waste shal( be regulated
puisuant to RCW 70.95.
C. Dog droppings. Dog droppings shall be disposed of in
a mannes� sucli as burial which does not create a nuisance.
Dog droppings may be disposed of into the sewer if the system
is served by Metro or other large sewer treatment faciliry which
will accept such waste. This waste shall not be put into a
septic system.
10.28.100 Compost. A. Household. Composting of
household vegetative food waste, g��ass clippings and/or other
wmpostable material excluding fecal matter and ii�eadii�ilk
products, shall be maintained in a mauner which does not
create a nuisance, or attract rodents and/or other vectois.
B. Compost facilities. These facilities shall meet the
applicable faciliry sta�ldards found in chapter 10.6� and/or
chapter 10.48:
1. Generators of compost for retail sales shall suL�mit
chemical analysis and reports at a frequency to be determined
by the health officer to demoi�strate that the saleable product
dces not contain levels of chemicals or pathogens that could
King County Bo�r�l of He�ltl� Code - 7"ille 10
create a risk to the public healtli. Testing may include but not
be limited to the following paramete�s: Metals - aisenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercu�y, nickel, and zinc;
Organachlorine pesticides; Organophosphorous pesticides; PCB's;
PCP's; Fecal streptococci; and Fecal coliforms.
?. Generatois of biosolids compost must comply with
the standards and procedures established in the "Best
Management Practices for Use of Municipal Sewage Sludge"
developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and
40 CFR Part S03 upon final promulgatioii b�� the
Enviromnental Protection Agenc��.
3. Generatois shall provide written notice to the
compost user of the potential public health ris�s.
4. Odorous materials such as spoiled foods, blood and
slaughtertiouse wastes shall be immediately processed to prevent
odois.
5. The composted material shall not reheat upon
standing, shall be innocuous, and shall contain no sharp
particles which would cause injury to peisons handling the
compost.
10.28.110 Bulky waste. Bull.�� wastes shall be stored
and transported iii such a manner so :�s not to create a
nuisance or safeq� harard. t3ulhy waste should be recycled. If
recycli�g is ilot feasible, dtese wastes shall be taken directly to a
disposal site perivitted to accept ovetsir.ed waste. I.andclearing
hul{,�� waste such as tree stuiups, trees, portions of buildings,
and other waste shall he transported directly to a transfer
station or landfill designed to accept tllese bultiy wastes;
provided, that nothing herein shall prevent these wastes from
being salvaged and/or used as firewood.
10.28.120 Excavated soil and fill material. The
health officer shall llave the authoriry to inspect and screen any
excavated dirt, soil or. other material intended for use as upland
fill if tlle material is suspected of containing contaminants at
significant levels to endanger the public health, safery or the
environment. If the material is determined not to be a
dangerous waste, but still contains a significant level of
conta►ninants which could create a problem from: becoming
airborne (breathing or nuisance odor), s�in contact, leaching
into surface or ground wateis or entering the food chain, or
Relaterl Legzslation
�
r�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
•
�
�
;;::.;:.:...:.... .:. : .:;;;;;; ;:...:
,::>::>
>::::: : . :
>::>::>:;:::::; : :....::.;»>>::::::>..... .. . ;;;;;;:.:
;..: :.. .
;::::::;::::>:>:. : <::>
RL -
contains a level of contamination above that specified in the
State of Washington Model Toxic Conh•ol Act Regulations (WAC
173-340) for soils, the health officer can regnlate the material
as solid waste. (See section 10.80.040.)
CHAP'I'ER 10.32
LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
10.32.010 Location requirements--Applicability.
This sectioii shall apply to all new and e�pauded disposal sites,
including mixed municipal waste landfills COIISCCUC�IOl1
demolition, landclearing (CDL) waste landfills, woodw�ste
landfills, landspreading disposal sites, aud piles ��nd surface
impoundments that are to be closed as landfills. '1'his section
shall not apply to existing facilities or facilities dlat have closed
before the effective date of this title, interim solid waste
handling sites, energy recoveiy and incineration sites, pile and
suiface impoundments used for storage, utilization of biosolids
and other waste on land, inert landfill sites, and problem w��ste
sites.
10.32.020 Location requirements--Designated. All
applicable solid waste facilities shall be subject to the following
locational standards:
A. Geology. No facility sliall be located over a holocene
fault, in subsidence areas, or on or adjacent to geologic
features which would compromise the structural integrit�� of the
faciliry.
B. Ground water.
1. No facility sha]l be located at a site where the
bottom of the lowest liner is an�- less than ten feet (10') above
the seasonal high level of ground water in the upperii�ost
aquifer, or five feet (5') when a hydraulic gradient control
system or the equivalent has been installed to control groond
water fluctuations;
2. No landfill shall be located over a sole source
aquifer; and
3. No facility's active area shall be located closer than
one thousand feet (1,000 to a down-gradieut drinking water
supply well, in use and existing at the time of the county's
2(IOPt10R OF tI18 CARlpl �ehensive solid w�ste management plan
Related Legzslatio�a
unless the owner or operator can show that the active area is
no less than ninery (90) days travel time hydraulically to the
nearest down-gradient drin�ing water supply well in the
uppermost useable aquifer.
C. Suiface water. No facility's active area shall be located
within two hundred feet me;�.sured horizontally, of a stream,
lake, pond, river, or salt water body, nor in any wetland nor
any public land that is being used by a public water system foc
wateished control for municipal drin�ing water putposes in
accordance with WAC 248-54-660(4);
D. Slope. No facilit}�'s active area shall be located on any
hiil whose slope is unstable;
E. Land use. No facility shall be located:
l. Within ten thousand feet (10,000') of any aiiport
runway currently used by turbojet aircraft or five thousand feet
(5,000') of any aiiport runwa�� curi�ently used by only
piston-t��pe aircraft w�less a waiver is granted by the federal
aviation adroinistration. This requirement is only applicable
where such facilih� is used for disposing of garbage such that a
bird hazard to aircr��ft would be created;
3. In areas designated by die United States Fish and
Wildlife Seivice or the Depart�vent of Game as critical habitat
for endaugered or tllreatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife;
3. So that the active area is any closer than one
hundred feet (100') to the facility property line for land zoned
��s nonresidential, escept that the �ctive area may be no closer
th�n two hundred aud tifty feet to the properry line of adjacent
land zoned as residential existin� �t the time of the coanry's
adoption of the comprehensive solid waste management plan;
4. So ��s to be at variance with an�� locally-adopted
land use plan or zoning requiren�ent unless othe�wise provided
b�� local law or ordinance; and
S. So that the active area is any closer than one
thousand feet (1,000') to any state or national park.
[Section 10.32.030 Plan of operation. (see 10.34.030)]
10.32.040 Closure. A. Operational requirements. Each
owner or opeiator shall close the faciliry according to plans
spelled out in the plan of operation. Solid w;�.ste facilities shall
be restored by the owner or opeiator to be �s compatible as
possible with the surrounding environs following the closuce.
Closure includes but is not limited ta grading, seeding,
Rr�tg Cots�r.h� Bonrrl of He�ltG Co�le - Title 10
;: RL -
9
4
la��dscaping CARtOUClllg, alld SCL'CeRlllg. FOC 1R[Cfllll SOIid W3StC
handling sites, closure includes w�ste removal and
deconta�nination. Following the closure of a landfill or landfill
site, and inspection by the healdl officer, necessai�� maintenance
and repaiis shall be made by the owner and/or operator of tlte
site until the fill has been stabilized for a period of thirh� (30)
yeais or longer as required b�� tlie llealtll officer. Necessai��
maintenance includes leachate collection and treatment,
metha�ie testing and control, fumarole and suiface repaiis and
other couditions required by the health officer. '1'he owner
a�ld/or operator shall inspect the site on an approved schedule
as necessaiy to verify wnditions. A�inually, until die site has
been stabilized, the owner and/or operator of a closed disposal
site shall submit a report prepared b}� an approved engineer
statiug the conditions noted from the inspections of the site and
any alteiations from tl�e original closure plan, and �im�
recommended revisions. A�iv construction or excavation on a
completed landfill shall proceed onl}� after �vritten notification to
and approval by the health oft'icer.
B. Recordii�g with records division. b�laps and a stateroent
of fact concerning the disposal area shall be recorded as part of
the deed with the records division prior to approval of the fi�lal
closure plan. Records and plans speciti�ing the general nature
of the materials, location of the disposal areas, and periods of
operation shall be included on the recorded map. r�re�s used
for the disposal of w�stes shall not be sold or transferred
without prior notification of the health officer.
C. Surery bond additional cequii•ements. A surery bond
ii�ust be renewed annually after tlie completioil of any landfill
or inert/demolition landfill site until tlie fill Ilas been stabilized
for a period of thirty (30) yeais or as long �s req��ired by the
health officer.
CHAPTER 10.34
GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENI'S
10.34A10 General facility requirements--
Applicability. All solid w�.ste handling facilities shall meet
the requirements of this section, except for:
A. Waste recycling facilities, whose standards are spelled
out in Chapter 10.68;
B. On-site containerized storage, collection and
transportation facilities which are spelled out in Section
10.28.010 and 10.28.030;
C. Single famil�� residences a►ld single family fatms whose
}�ear round occupants engage in solid waste handling of the
single family's solid waste on-site.
D. Problem wastes as defined in Section 10.08.345;
E. Solid waste handling facilities that have eugaged in
closure and closed before the effective date of this title; and
P. Domestic wastewater facilities and industrial wastewater
facilities othen�vise regulated by federal, state, or local water
pollution permits e�cept for any portion that utilizes or engages
in landspreading disposal biosolids or solid residues directly on
the land.
10.34.020 State a��d local requirements. All solid
waste disposal facilities shall comply with all state and local
requiremen� such as zoning land use, fire protection, water
pollution prevention, air poilution prevention, nuisance and
aesthetics.
10.34.030 Pla�� of operation. A. Each owner or
operator shall develop, keep and abide by a plan of operation
approved as part of the permitting process in Chapter 10.16.
1'lle plan shail describe the facilities' operation and shall convey
to site opeiating peisonnel the wncept of operation intended by
the designer. The plan of operation shall be available for
inspection at the request of the health officer. The faciliry must
be operated in accordance with the plan or the plan must be so
modified with tlie approval of the health officer. Owners or
operatois of drop boxes may develop a generic pla�l of
operation applicable to all such drop boxes, owned or operated.
B. Each plan of operation shall include:
1. How solid wastes are to be handled on-site during
their active life; �
2. How tlie faciliry will be closed and, for land disposal
facilities, how post-closure will be carried out;
3. How inspections and monitorin� are conducted and
their frequency;
4. Actions to take if there is a fire or explosion;
5. Actions to take if lea�s are detected;
King Coun�y Bo�zr� of He�lxh Co�le - 7t!/e 10 Re%rtert Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;:.:..:. . ;::.; .:... ...::::::::..:.::. . ;,
; .: ., ;; . .:..>:>;: >.: .:
;::>::>; . . . . ..;;>::;;>; :;
>::::>::::>::::>::::>: :
;:» .: ::::::....::.::; .:. -
9
6. Corrective action programs to take if ground water
is contaminated;
7. Actions to take for other releases (e.g. failure of
run-off containment system);
8. How equipment such �s leachate collection and gas
collection equipment are to be maintained;
9. A safery plan or procedure; and
10. Other such details as required by the health officer.
10.34.040 Recordkeeping. Each owner or opeiator
5�1311 Illallltalll dally OpCC3t1(1� l'CCOC(�S OR [�le We1��1LS �OC
volumes), number of vehicles enteriug and, if available, the
types of wastes received. The annual report shall cover facilit��
activities during the previous year aud must include the
following ii�formation:
10.34.050 Reporting. Each owner or operator shall
prepare and submit a copy of au aunual report to the health
officer and the Department of Ecology by March lst of each
year. The annual report shall cover faciliry activities during the
previous year and must include the following ii�formation:
A. Name and address of the facility;
B. Calendar year covered by the report;
C. Annual quantity in tons, or volwne in cabic yards, and
estimated in-place density in pounds per cubic ��ard of solid
waste handled, by t��e of solid waste if available, for each type
of treatment, storage, or disposal facility, including applicable
recycling facilities; and
D. Results of ground water monitoring required in chapter
10.72.
10.34.060 Inspections. The o�vner or operator shall
inspect the faciliry to prevent ivalfuuctions and deterioration,
operator errois and discharges which may cause or lead to the
release of wastes into the enviroiuvent or a threat to huinan
health. The owner or operator must conduct these inspections
often enough to identify problems in time to correct them
before they harm human health or the environment. The
owner or operator shall keep an ii�spection log or sumii�aty
including at least the date and time of inspection, the printed
name and the ha�ldwritten signature of the inspector, a
notation of obseivations made and the date and nature of any
repairs or corrective action. The log or summary must be kept
at the facility or other convenient location if permanent office
facilities are not on-site, for at least three (3) yea�s from the
date of inspection. Inspections records shall be available to the
health officer upon request.
10.34.070 Closure and post-closure. A. Closure
perfoi�nance standard. Each owner or operator shall close their
faciliry in a manner that:
1. Minimizes the need for further maintenance;
?. Controls R]IR111117kS or eliminates threats to human
health and the environment from post-closure escape of solid
waste coustituents, leachate, landfill gases, contaminated rainfall
or waste decomposition products to the ground, ground water,
surface water, and the atmosphere; and
3. Prepares the faciliry for the post-closure period.
B. Closure plan and aivendment(s). Closure as defined in
section 10.08.070 includes but is not limited to grading,
seeding, landscaping CO11t0U1'lll�, 1R(I/Ol' SCCCeRIRg. FOC 1RC8CIIT1
solid w�ste handling sites, closure includes waste removal and
decontamination of the site.
l. Each owner or operator shall develop, keep and
abide by a plan of closure approved by the health officer as
part of the permitting process in chapter 10.16.
?. The closure plan shall project time inteivals at
which sequential partial closure is to be implemented, and
identif�� closure cost estimates and projected fund withdrawal
inteivals for the associated closure costs, from the approved
financial assurance instrument.
3. Each owner or operator shall not commence
disposal operations in any part of a facility until a closure plan
for the entire faciliry has been approved by the health officer,
and until a financial ass��rance instrument has been provided,
as required by applicable laws and regulatioi�s.
4. The health officer shall approve, disapprove, or
require amendment of the closure plan as apart of the
permitting process of chapter 10.16 in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations.
S. Each owner and operator shall close the facility in
accordance with the approved closure plan and all approved
an�endments.
C. Closure procedure.
, Relale�l Legzsl�Jio�r. hi�t,� Cor��il1� Bo�ard of Huilth Code - 7ttle 10
�
<<�'�:: RL -
9
6
1. Each owner and operator shall notify the health
officer and where applicable, the financial assurance i��strument
trustee, of the intent to implement the closure plan in part or
whole, no later than 180 (one hundred eighry) days prior to
the projected final receipt of waste at the entire facility unless
otherwise specified in the closure plan.
2. The owner or operaror shall commence
implementation of the closure plan in part or whole within 30
(thirty) days after receipt of the final volume of w�ste ancVor
attaining the final landfill elevation at part of or at the entire
faciliry as identified in the approved facilit�� closure plan unless
otherwise specified in the closure plan.
3. Waste shall not be accepted for disposal or for use
in closure except as identified in the closure plan approved by
the health officer, as required section 10.34.070.B.1.
4. When faciliry closure is completed in part or whole,
each owner and operator shall submit the followiug to the
health officer:
a. Faciliry closure plan slieets signed by a
professional engineer registered in the state of W�shington and
modified as necessa�y to represent as-built changes to fival
closure construction as approved in the closure plan;
b. Certification by the owner or operator, and a
professional engineer registered in the state of washington that
the site h,�s been closed in accord�nce with the approved
closure plan.
S. The health officer shall notify the owner or operator
ai�d the Department of Ecology of the date when the faciliry
post-closure period has begun, which period shall commence
when the health officer has verified the facilin� has been close
din accordance with the specifications of the approved closure
plan and the closure requirements of this section.
D. Post-closure.
1. Each owner or operator shall provide post-closure
activities to allow for continued faciliry maintenance and
monitoring of air, land, and water as long as necessaiy for the
faciliry to stabilize and to protect human health and the
environment.
2. Post-closure plan and amendment. For disposal
facilities; post-closure includes ground water monitoring; sui�face
water monitoring; gas monitoring; and roaintenance of the
faciliry, facility structures, a�id monitoring systems for their
intended use for a period of twenry years and any other
activities deemed appropriate by the health office.
a. Each o�cnier or operator shall develop, keep and
abide by a post-closure plan approved as a part of the
permitting process in WAC 173304-600. 7'he post-closure plan
shall address faciliry maintenancc and monitoring activities for
at least a twent��-year period or until the site becomes stabilized
(i.e., little or no settlement, gas production or leachate
generation), and monitoring of ground water, sui�face water,
and gases can be safely discontinued.
b. Tlie post-closure plan shall project time inte�vals
at whicli post-closure activities are to be implemented, and
identify post-closure cost estimates and projected fund
withdrawal inteivals from the selected financial a.ssurance
instrument, where applicable, for the associated post-closure
costs.
c. Each owner or operator shall not cominence
disposal operations in any part of a facility until a post-closure
plan f'or the entire facilit� h�s been approved by the health
officer, aud until a financial ;�.ssi�rance instruinent has been
provided where applicable, �s required by WAC 173-304-467.
d. Each owner or operator shall complete the post-
closure activities in accocdance with tlle approved post-closure
plan and schedule. Paciliry post-closure activities shall be
completed in accordance with the approved post plan or
tlle plan shall be so amended with the approval of the health
officer.
e. The health officer may determine that a facility
post-closure plan is invalid and require an owner or operator to
aivend the facility post-closure plan.
1) 'I'he health officer may direct facility post-
closure activities, in part or whole, to ce�.5e until tlle post-
closure plan amendment has received written approval by the
health officer.
2) �Vhen the healdl officer determines a faciliry
post-closure amendment is cequired, the health officer shall,
after consultation with the owner/opeiator, designate a
compliance schedule for submittal of the amendment and its
review and approval by the Deparhnent of Ecology.
3. Post-closure procedures.
a. Each owner or operator shall commence post-
closure activities after coiupletion of closure activities outlined
King County Boarrl of Health Cor�e - T'ule 10 Reladed Legrslation
i•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;: RL -
9
7
in subsection D.2.e.1) and 2) of this section. 'Phe health officer
may direct that post-closure activities cease until the owner or
operator receives a notice to proceed with post-closuce activities.
b. When post-closure activities are complete, the
owner or operator shall certify to the health officer signed by
the owner or operator, and a professional engineer registered in
the state of Washingron stating why post-closure activities are
no longer necessary (i.e., little or no settlement, gas production,
or leachate generation).
c. If the health officer finds that post-closure
monitoring has established that the facility is stabilized (i.e.,
little or no settlement, gas production, or leachate generation),
the health office may authori�e the owner or operator to
discontinue post-closure maintenance and monitoring activities.
E. Recording with records division. Maps and a statement
of fact concerning the disposal area shall be recorded as part of
the deed with the records division prior to approval of the final
closure plan. Records and plans specifying the general nature
of the materials, location of the disposal areas, and periods of
operation shall be included on the recorded map. A��e�s used
for the disposal of wastes shall not be sold or transferred
without prior notification of the health officer.
CHAP'I'ER 10.36
LANDFILLiNC.
10.36A10 Applicability. This cliapter applies to
facilities tliat dispose of solid waste in landfills including, but
not limited to, mixed municipal waste landfills, and CDL
landfills, and woodwaste landfills. This chapter does not apply
to inert waste landfills. Inert waste landfills shall be subject to
chapter 10.52 standards.
10.36.020 Minimum functional standards for
performance. A. Ground water. A�i owner or operator of a
landfill sha11 not contaminate the ground watec underlying the
landfill, beyond the point of compliance. Contamination and
point of compliance are defined in Sections 10.08100 and
10.0�.330, respectively.
Related Legulatiora
E3. Air qualiry and toxic air emissions.
1. A�l owner or operator of a landfill shall not allow
explosive gases generated by the faciliry whose wncentration
e�ceeds
a. 'I�venty-five percent (25%) of the lower explosive
limit for the gases in facility structures (eacluding gas control
or recoveiy sy�stem components);
b. The lower explosive limit for the gases at the
properry boundary or beyond; and
c. One hundred (100) parts per million by volume
of hydrocarbons (expressed as roethane) in off-site structures.
?. A�l owner or opecator of a landfill shall not cause a
violation of any ambient air qualiry standard at the property
boundary or emission standard from any emission of landfill
gases, combustion or any other emission associated with a
landfill.
C. Suiface wateis. �� owner or operator of a landfill shall
not cause a violation of any receiving water quality standard or
violate RCW Chapter 90.4� from discharges of su►face run-off,
leachate or any other liquid associated with a landfill.
10.36.030 Minimiring liquids. All owneis or
operatois of landfills shall minimize liquids admitted to active
are�s of landfills bv:
A. Covering according to this chapter;
B. Prohibiting the disposal of noncontainerized liquids or
biosolids containing free liquids in landfills unless approved by
the health officer;
C. Designing the landfill to prevent all the run-on of
su��face wate�s and other liquids resulting from a maximum
flow of a twenry-five (25) year stonn into the active area of the
landfill;
D. Designing the landfill to collect the run-off of surface
wate�s and other liquids resulting from a twenty-four (24)
hour, twenry-five (25) year storm from the active area and the
closed portions of a landfill.
10.36.040 Leachate systems. All owne�s or operato�s
of landfills shalL•
A. Install a leachate collection s��stem sized according to
water balance calculations or using other accepted engineering
methods cither of which shall be approved by the health officer,
K�in.g Co�i��rr.�� F3o�arrl of He�lth Cor�e - 7tdle 10
�
>::' RL -
9
8
B. Install a leachate collection system so as to prevent no
more than two feet (2') of leachate developing at the
topographical low point of the active area; and
C. Install a leachate treatment, or a pretreatment s��stem if
necessary in the case of discharge to a municipal w;�.ste water
treatment plant, to meet the requirements for permitted
discharge under RCW Chapter 90.48 and the Federal Clean
Water Act (PL 95
A. Comply with local tloodplain management ordinances
and WAC Chapter 508-60, administration of flood control wnes;
and
B. Design the landfill so that the landfill entrance or exit
roads or practices shall not restrict the tlow of the base flood,
ceduce the teiuporaiy water storage capaciry of the floodplain or
result in w�shout of solid w�ste, so as to pose a hazard to
human life, wildlife, land or water resources.
10.36.050 Liner designs. All owne�s or ope�atois of
landfills shall use liners of one (1) of the following designs:
A. Standard design. The liner shall be constructed of at
least a four feet (4') thicl: layer of recompacted clay or other
material with a permeability of ilo more thaii 1� 10 7 cm/sec
and sloped no less than two percent (3','0); or
B. Alternative design. The design shall have two (2)
line�s:
1. An upper liner of at least fifty (50) n�ils thicl��ess
made of s�nithetic material; and
2. A lower liner of at least t��o feet (?') thicl�iess of
recompacted clay or other material ��ith a permeabilit�� of no
nioce than 1� 10 cnvsec and sloped no less than cwo percent
( ol'
C. Equivalent design. Tlie design shall use alternative
metliods, operating practices and locational characteristics
which will minimize the n�igration of solid waste constituents
or leachate into ground or suiface watcr at least as effectively
as the lineis of subsections A and 6 of this subsection. (C)(3),
12-19-86)
10.36.060 Small la�idfill designs. Foc a landfill
whose design and permit allow a total capaciry at closure of
two hundred thousand (200,000) cubic yards or less, the need
for a liner and leachate collection system shall be determined
on a case-by-case basis by the liealth officer in consultation
with the Department of Ecology.
10.36.070 Floodplains. All owneis or operato�s of
landfills that are located in a one hundred (100) year
tloodplain shall:
Ki�ag Coun�y Bo�sirl of He<aIIJ� Corde - Tille 10
10.36.080 Closure. All owneis and operatois shall
design landfills so that at closure:
A. At least two (? ') feet of 1 x 10 cnvsec or lower
penneabiliq� soil or equivalent shall be placed upon the final
lifts. A�•tit'icial lineis may replace soil coveis provided that a
minimum of fifq� mils thich��ess is used;
B. The grade of suitace slopes shall not be less than two
perceut (?%), uor the grade of side slopes more tlian
thirry-three percent (33%); aud
C. Final cover of at least six inches (6") of topsoil be
placed over the soil cover and seeded with grass, other shallow
rooted vegetation or other native vegetation.
D. � Following the closure of a landfill or landfill site, and
inspection by the healtl� officer, necessaiy maintenance and
repai�s shall be made b}� the owner ancVor operator of the site
until the fill has been stabilized for a period of thirty (30)
��ea�s or longer as required by tlie healtli officer. Necessa�y
maintenance includes leachate collection and treahnent,
methane testing and control, fumarole and su�face repairs and
othec conditions required by the health officer. The owner
and/or operator sliall inspect the site on an approved schedule
as necessai�� to verify conditions. A��nually, until the site has
been stabilized, the owner ancVor operator of a closed disposal
site shall submit a report prepared by an approved engineer
stating the conditions noted from the inspections of the site and
any alterations from die original closure plan, and any
recommended revisions. Any construction or excavation on a
completed landfill shall proceed only after written notification to
and approval by the health officer.
E. Surety bond additional requirements. A surety bond
must be renewed annually after the completion of any landfill
or inerddemolition landfill site until the fill has been stabilized
Re%rle�/ Legislatio�a
• �
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
��
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
>::::::> RL -
99
for a period of thirry (30) yeais or as long as required by the
health officer.
10.36.090 Gas control. A. All owne�s and operatois
shall design landfills, ha�ing a pet7nitted capaciry of greater
than ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards per year, so that
methane and other gases are continuously collected, and
l. Purified for sale;
2. Flared; or
3. Utilized for its energy value.
B. Installation of a landfill gas sy�stem requires a permit
from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Collection
and handling of landfill gases shall not be required if it can be
shown that little or no landfill gases will be produced or that
landfill gases will not support co►nbustion; in such cases
installation of vents shall be required.
10.36.100 Fencing. All owncis and operatois of
landfills shall design landfills to be fenced at the pi•operh�
boundary or use other meai�s to impede entry by the public
and animals. A lockable gate shall be required at the entry to
the landfill.
10.36.110 Groundwater monitoring. �11 owneis and
operatois of landfills shall design landfills to monitor
groundwater according to Chapter 10.7?, using a design
approved by the health officer with tlie guidance of the
Department of Ecology. The healtl� officer ma�� also require
monitoring of:
A. Sui�tace wateis, including run-off;
B. Leachate;
C. Subsuiface landfill gas movement (see Chapter 10.76)
and ambient air; and
D. Noise.
10.36.120 Weighing incoming waste. All owne�s and
operatois of landfills shall design landfills to weigh all
incoming waste on scales for landfills having a permitted
capaciry of greater than ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards per
year or provide an equivalent method of ineasuring w�.ste
tonnage capable of estiroating total annual solid waste tonnage
to within plus or minus five percent (+S%).
Relate� Legzsl<ttiorr
10.36.130 Employee faciliries. Provide for employee
facilities including shelter, toilets, hand washing facilities and
potable dcinking water for landfills having the equivalent of
three or more full-time eivployee.
10.36.140 Sign. Erect a sign at the site entrance that
identifies at least the name of site, if applicable, the hours
during which the site is open for public use unacceptable
materials and an emergency phone number.
10.36.150 Fire protection. Provide on-site fire
protection as detennined by the local and state fire control
jurisdiction.
10.36.160 Vector control. Prevent potential rat and
other vectors (such as insects, birds, and burrowing animals)
harborages in buildiugs, facilities and active areas.
10.36.170 Unloading areas. Provide unloading
area(s) to be as sinall as possible, consistent with good trat�fic
patterns and sate operation.
10.36.180 Approach a��d exit roads. Provide
approach and exit roads to be of all-weather construction, with
tr�ffic separation and traffic control on-site and at the site
entrance.
10.36.190 Office-site communications. Provide
communication between employees working at the landfill and
manageil�ent offices on-site aiid off-site (such as telephones) to
haudle emergencies.
10.36.200 Operating pia�i conformance. All owners
or operatois of landfills shall maintain and operate the faciliry
so as to co«forro to the approved plan of operation.
10.36.210 Operating details. All owne�s of landfills
shall ope�ate the facility so as to:
A. Control road dust;
B. Perform no open burning unless permitted by the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency or the Department of
Ecology under the Washington Clean Air Act, Chapter 70.94
hing Cote�rlt Borarrl of He�rllh Corle - Title 10
�
>'''`: RL - 100 ::::::
RCW. Open burning of ga��bage or other materials placed in
landfill shall not be allowed.
C. Collect scattered litter as necessaiv to avoid a fire
hazard or an aesthetic nuisance;
D. Prohibit scavenging;
E. Conduct on-site reclamation in an orderly sanitary
manner, and in a way that does not inteifere with tlie disposal
site operation;
F. Insure that at least two (2) landfill peisonnel are
on-site with one (1) peison at the active face when the site is
open to the public for landfills with a permitted capaciry of
greater than fifty thousa�id (50,000) cubic yards per year;
G. Control insects, rodents and ottier vecto�s; a�id
H. Insure that reseive operational equipment shall be
available to maintain and meet these standards.
10.36.220 Boundary posts. All owneis or operato�s of
landfills shall clea�ly mark the active area boundaries
authorized in the pennit, with permanent posts or using
equivalent method clearly visible for inspection puiposes.
10.36.230 Compaction and daily cover. All owneis
or operato�s of landfills shall:
A. Thoroughly compact the solid waste before succeeding
layers are added; and
B. Cover compacted waste containing garbage fully with at
least six inches (6") of compacted cover material after each day
of operation. The health officer may allow for less frequent
daily cover if the owner/operator can adhere to mutually agreed
upon peiformance standards.
10.36.240 Secondary cover. After reaching the final
elevation of a given area of a site, the area shall be capped
with an equivalent of two feet (2') (0.61 metets) of compacted
soil or other impervious material and adequately graded to
allow surface water to run off. Such cover sliall be completed
within a time period approved by the health officer. If it is
anticipated that the time interval between secondary cover and
final surfacing shall exceed niue (9) months, the area shall be
adequately seeded with native grasses or other suitable
vegetation. Biosolids application may be approved by the
health officer to enhance vegetative growth. Slopes exceeding
King County Board of Health Code - Title 10
:.:�.
sit percent (6%) shall be mulched or adequately stabilized so
as to prevent or con�ect erosion.
10.36.250 Final cover. The finished suiface of the
filled area shall be covered with adequate tillable soil graded
adequately to allow snrface water run off, and adequately
seeded with native grasses or other suitable vegetation on a
schedule to be determined by the health officec Biosolids
application may be approved by the health officer to enhance
vegetative growth. Slopes exceeding six percent (6%) shall be
mulched or adequately stabilized in such a manner so as to
prevent or correct erosion. Final grades shall coi�for►n to those
specified in the approved design plan.
10.36.260 Monitoring systems. All owne�s and
operatois of landfills shall maintain the monitoring system
required in Section 10.36.110.
10.36.270 Recycling required. A. All owneis or
operatois of landfills at which the geileral public delive�s
household solid waste shall provide the opportunity for the
general public to recycle cans, bottles, paper and other material
for which a market exists and which has been brought to the
landfill site;
1. During the normal houis of operation;
?. In facilities convenient to the public (i.e., near
entrance to the gate).
B. Owueis or opecato�s ❑�ay deiuonstrate alternative �t�eans
to providing an opportuniry to the general public to recycle
household solid waste.
10.36.280 Dangerous wastes. Owne�s or operatois of
landfills shall uot l�lowingly dispose, treat, store, or othetwise
handle dangerous waste unless the requirements of the
dangerous waste regulation, WAC Chapter 173-303 are met.
10.36.290 Closure and post-closure standards. A
All owners or operatois of landfills shall close landfills in such
a manner as to comply with section 10.34.070.
B. All owneis or operatois of landfills shall close landfills
in a manner that:
1. Minimizes the need for further maintenance;
Rel�ted Legislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
R - 1 <:>:::
L 10
2. Controls, minimizes or eliminates to the e�tent
necessary threats to human health and the envirotul�ent from
post- closure escape of solid waste wnstituents, leachate, landfill
gases, contaminated rainfall or waste decomposition products to
the ground, surface water, ground water or the atmosphere;
3. Returns the land to the appearance a�id use of
surrounding land areas to the degree possible; and
4. Allows continued monitoring of all media (air, land
and water) as long as necessaiy for the waste to stabilize and
to protect human health and the environment.
C. All owneis or operatois of landfills must have a �v�itten
estimate, in current dollais, of the cost of closing the faciliry.
The closure cost estimate must equal the cost of closure at the
point in the operating life of the facility when the extent and
manner of operation would make closure the most expensive;
as indicated by the closure plan.
D. In addition, all facilities must ha�e a written
post-closure estimate, in current dollais, the cost of post-closure
monitoring and maintenance during the post-closure period.
E. Financial assurance for the closure peciod and the post-
closure period shall be provided as described or hereafter
amended in WAC 173-304-467 f'or public facilities and �VAC
173304-468 for private facilities. Financial assurance sliall be
provided for all la�tdfills, except that iuert landfills shall not be
required to provide financial assurance.
10.36.300 Aba��doncd landfill sites. All abandoned
landfills shall be maintained by the owner and/or operator so
as not to create a usk to the public health. The health ofticer
shall have the authoriry to require surface repaiis, methane
monitoring and control, sui�tace and ground water monitoring,
leachate cont�ol, and any additional ►neasures determined
necessary to protect tlie public health and the environment.
CHAPTER 10.40
BIOSOLIDS
10.40.005 Pathogen reduction requirements. My
biosolids distributed or marketed directl�� to tlle public shail fi�st
be treated by a Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP), as
defined in section 10.08.352. Biosolids that are not distributed
Related Legulation
or marketed directly to the public and are used for soil
improvement, agricultural applications, silvicultural application,
landfilling disposal, or application to a drastically disturbed
land shall first be treated by a Process to Significantly Reduce
Pathogens (PSRP) as defined in section 10.08.354.
10.40.007 Permit requirements--Applicability. 1'he
permit requirements of sections 10.40.030 and 10.40.040 shall
apply to sites that utilize biosolids treated by PSRP. Beneficial
re-use of biosolids treated by PFRP shall not be subject to the
permit requireroents of sections 10.40.030 and 10.40.040.
However, the facilities used to generate biosolids treated by
PFRP shall be subject to dle applicable sections of chapter
10.48 and chaptec 10.68. Facilities that distribute or market
biosolids directly to tlle public sliall comply with the "Best
Management Practices for Use of Municipal Sludge" developed
by ttie Washington State Dep�rtment of Ecology, and 40 CFR
Part 503 upon final promulgation by the Cnvironmental
Protection Agency.
10.40.010 Requirements generally--I'ermit. A.
Owne�s ancVor operatois of biosolids utilization sites shall
obtain a periuit from the health officer prior to utilization of
biosolids on the site. A land utilization of biosolids per►i�it
application detailing site characteristics and an operatio«s and
control plan must be submitted to the health officer foc review
and approval. 'I'he required penuit application contents are
described in section 10.40.0?0. 'I'he health officer shall
determine the degree of coropleteness of an application on a
case-by-case basis. The owner ancVor operator of the biosolids
utilization site shall annually renew the permit until the site
has been determined to be stabilized by the health officer.
B. Applications and renewals �uay be approved, denied or
conditioned by the health officer. Tlie decision may be based
on criteria established within the " Best Management Practices
Manual," and the "Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization
Guidelines" pul�lished b}� tlle �Vashington State Department of
Ecology, the final 40 CFR Part 503 regulations upon
promulgation by the Environroental Protection Agency, and so
as not to pose a risk to the public health or environment.
Biosolids shall only be applied to soil if the soil is capable of
assimilating the wastes and preventing the biosolids and
Kaizg Cotiir� Bonrr� of He�I�J� Code - 7title 10
�
<:: RL - 1
02
potentially hat7nful by-products fron� moving onto adjacent
la�id, into surFace wateis, and into ground watets.
10.40.020 Pcrmit application contcnts. The
application shall include :
A. Biosolids characteristics, including levels of pathogens,
heavy metals, PCB's and other contaminants. A description of
the biosolids treatment process is also required.
B. Soils, including permeabiliry, texture, structure, Ph,
cation exchange capacity and background heaw n�etals levels.
C. Relevant site characteristics including iainfall, ground
water conditions and deptli to bedrock.
D. Site map showing acreage, zoning, location of site to
wmmuniry, location of nearby residences, roadwa��s, properry
lines, etc. The location of streams, drainages, tlood piains and
other suiface wateis should be shown. General direction and
degree of slope mi�st be indicated. Any public or private
drin�ing water supplies within two thousand feet (?,000') of the
project must be shown.
E. The plan for tlie proposed inethod of operatious ai�d
general control of the site shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Site use, including intended crop usage.
2. Sufficient public access and controls to prevent the
public from being ezposed to potei�tial health and s��fen� �
hazards.
3. Biosolids application methods, iates and season.
4. Site monitoring.
S. Su��tace water monitoring.
F. Enviroumental Chec�list, or other evidence of
compliance with tlie environmental review requirei»ents of the
State F.nvironmental Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.21C.
G. Statement signed by both the owner of the property and
the operator of the project agreeing to abide by tLle terms of the
permit.
10.40.030 Practices--Monitoring. Application rates
and methods shall be in accordance with the "Best
Management Practices Manual," the "Municipal aud Domestic
Sludge Utilization Guidelines" published by the Department of
Ecology, a�id 40 CFR Part 503 upon final promulgation by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The health officer may
require site monitoring and surface water diveision after
application. The health officer �nay require the property owner
to record the permit for application of biosolids with the King
Counry records and elections office.
10.40A40 Biosolids landfill disposal. The following
requirements shall apply:
A. Trenching. Where a subsurface excavation at a landfill
or inerVdemolition landfill is used, biosolids shall be placed
entirely below the original gcound su�face. Trench width and
depth shall be approved b�� the healtli officer based upon
volume ueeded, depth to ground water, sidewall stability and
equipment limitations. Daily cover shall be required.
B. 6iosolids/soil miaing. Biosolids may be mixed with soil
as secondary or final cover over completed areas of refuse only
at landfills or inerbdemolition landfills. Such cover material
shall be spread in a n�anner which prevents hea(th hazards or
nuisances.
C. Other n�ethods. [3iosolids may be deposited at landfills
using other methods approved by the health officer.
CHAI'1BR 10.42
LANDSPREADING DISPOSAL S1'ANDARDS
10.42A10 Applicability. These standards apply to
facilities that engage in landspreading disposal of solid wastes.
These standards do not apply to:
A. Facilities utilizing biosolids, woodwaste or other
primarily organic sludges according to the Municipal and
Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines WDOE 82-11, specified
in sections 10.40.030 and 10.6�.040.
B. Agricultural solid wastes resulting from the operation of
a farm including farm animal manure and agricultural
residues; and
C. Inert wastes and demolition wastes.
10.42.020 Perfor�nance. Owneis or operatois of
landspreading disposal facilities shall meet the minimum
functional standards for pe��formance of Section 10.36.020 and
the general facilities standards of section 1034A10.
King County Boarrl of He�ldG Corle - Ti�le 10 Related Legtislation
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
- 1 1 >:::
>': RL 0
2. Controls, minimizes or eliminates to the extent
necessary threats to human health and the environment from
post- closure escape of solid waste constituents, leachate, landfill
gases, contaminated rainfall or waste decomposition products to
the ground, surface water, ground water or the atmosphere;
3. Returns the land to the appearance and use of
surrounding land areas to the degree possible; and
4. Allows wntinued monitoring of all media (air, land
and water) as long as necessary for the waste to stabilize and
to protect human health and the environment.
C. All ownets or operato�s of landfills must have a written
estimate, in current dollais, of the cost of closing the faciliry.
The closure cost estimate must equal the cost of closure at the
point in the operating life of the faciliry when the extent and
manner of operation would make closure the most espensive;
as indicated by the closure plan.
D. In addition, all facilities must have a written
post-closure estimate, in current dollais, the cost of post-closure
monitoring and maintenance during the post-closure period.
E. Financial assurance for the closure period and the post-
closure period shall be provided as described or hereafter
amended in WAC 173304-467 for public facilities and WAC
173304-468 for private facilities. Financial �ssurance shall be
provided for all landfills, except that inert landfills shall not be
required to provide financial assurance.
10.36.300 Aba�idoned landfill sitcs. All abandoned
landfills shall be roaintained b�� the owner ancVor ope�ator so
as not to create a risk to the public health. The health officer
shall have the authoriry to require suiface repai�s, methane
monitoring a�id control, suitace and ground w�ater monitoring,
leachate cont�•ol, and any additional measures determined
necessary to protect tlie public health and the environmeilt.
CHAPTER 10.40
BIOSOLIDS
10.40.005 Pathogen reduction requirements. t�ly
biosolids distributed or marketed directly to the public shall fiist
be treated by a Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP), as
defined in section 10.08.352. Biosolids that are not distributed
or marketed directly to the public and are used for soil
improvement, agricultural applications, silvicultural application,
la�ldfilling disposal, or application to a drastically disturbed
land shall first be treated by a Process to Significantly Reduce
Pathogens (PSRP), as defined in section 10.08.354.
10.40.007 Permit requirements--Applicability. The
pecmit requirements of sections 10.40.030 and 10.40.040 shall
apply to sites that utilize biosolids treated by PSRP. Beneficial
re-use of biosolids treated by PFRP sllall not be subject to tlle
permit requirements of sections 10.40.030 and 10.40.040.
However, the facilities used to generate biosolids treated by
PFRP shall be subject to the applicable sections of chapter
10.48 and chapter 10.68. Facilities diat distribute or market
biosolids directly to the public shall comply with the "Best
b2anageroent Practices for Use of Municipal Sludge" developed
by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and 40 CFR
Part 503 upon final promulgation by the Environmental
Protection Agenc}�.
10.40.010 Requirements generally--Permit. A.
Owneis ancVor operatois of biosolids utilization sites shall
obtain a per�uit from the healdi officer prior to utilization of
biosolids on the site. A land utilization of biosolids permit
application detailing site characteristics and an operations and
control plan must be submitted to the health officer for review
and approval. 'Phe required pern�it application contents are
described in section 10.40.0?0. '1'hc health officer shall
deterivine the degree of coiupleteness of an application on a
case-by-case �asis. The owner and/or operator of the biosolids
utilization site shall annually cenew tlie permit until the site
has been deter�uined to be stabilized by the health officer.
B. Applications and renewals ivay be approved, denied or
conditioned by the liealth officer. The decision may be based
on criteria established within the "Best Management Practices
Manual," and the °Municipal and Domestic Sludge [Itilization
Guidelines" published b}� the �Vashington State Deparhnent of
Ecology, the final 40 CFR Part 503 regulations upon
promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency, and so
as not to pose a risk to the public health or environment.
Biosolids shall only be applied to soil if the soil is capable of
�ssimilating dle wastes and preventing the biosolids and
Related Legislation
Kri�g Cotar�t� Boarrl of He�ltb Co�le - 7title 10
:::::: RL - 1
02
potentially hat7nful by-products from moving onto adjacent
land, into surface waters, a�ld into ground watets.
10.40.020 Permit application contents. The
application shall include :
A. Biosolids characteristics, including levels of pathogens,
hea�y metals, PCB and other contaminants. A description of
the biosolids treatment process is also required.
B. Soils, including permeability, texture, structure, Ph,
cation exchange capacity and background heav�� n�etals levels.
C. Relevant site characteristics, including iaii��all, ground
water conditioi�s and depth to bedroch.
D. Site map showing acreage, zoning, location of site to
communiry, location of nearby resideiices, roadwa}�s, propert��
lines, etc. The location of streams, dcainages, t1ood plaius �nd
other sui�face wateis should be sho�m. General direction aud
degree of slope must be indicated. A�ry public or private
drinking water supplies within two thousand feet (?,000') of the�
project must be shown.
E. The plan for the proposed roethod of operations and
general control of the site shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Site use, including intended crop usage.
2. Sufficient public access and controls to prevent the
public from being exposed to potenti��l health and safen� �
hazards.
3. Biosolids application methods, rates and se;�son.
4. Slte II10111tOC111�.
5. Su�face water monitoring.
F. Environmental Chechlist, or other evidence of
compliance with the environmental review requirements of the
State Enviroiunental Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.21C.
G. Statement signed by bodl the owuer of the properry and
the operator of the project agreeing to abide by the terms of the
permit.
10.40.03� �'racticcs--Monitoring. Application tates
and methods shall be in accordance with the "Best
Managemeut Practices Manual," the "Municipal and Domestic
Sludge Utilization Guideliues" published by the Deparhnent of
Ecology, and 40 CFR Pai�t 503 upon final promulgation by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The health officer may
require site monitoring and surface water diveision after
application. The health officer may require the property owner
to record the permit for application of biosolids with the King
County records and elections office.
10.40.040 Biosolids landfill disposal. The following
requireiuents shall apply:
A. Trenching. Where a subsurface excavation at a landfill
or inerUdemolition landfill is used, biosolids shall be placed
entirely below the original ground suiface. Trench width and
depth shall be approved by tlie Ilealtll officer based upon
volume needed, depth to ground water, sidewall stability and
equipment liroitations. Daily wver shall be required.
B. Biosolids/soil mixing. Biosolids may be mixed with soil
as secondary or final cover over completed areas of refuse only
at landfills or inerddemolition landfills. Such cover material
shall be spread in a manncr which prevents health haaards or
nuisances.
C. Otlier iuethods. Biosolids may be deposited at landfills
using other methods approved by the health officer.
CHAI'7'ER 10.42
I.ANDSPREADING DISPOSAL STANDARDS
10.42.010 Applicability. 1'hese standards apply to
facilities that engage in la�idspreading disposal of solid wastes.
These standards do not apply to:
A. Facilities utilizing biosolids, woodwaste or other
primarily organic sludges according to the Municipal and
Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines WDOE 82-11, specified
in sections 10.40.030 and 10.68.040.
B. Agricultural solid wastes resulting from the operation of
a farm including farm animal manure and agricultural
residues; and
C. Inert wastes and demolition wastes.
10.42.020 Perfor�nance Owne�s or operatois of
landspreading disposal facllities shall roeet the minimum
functional standards for pe�formance of Section 10.36.020 and
the general facilities standards of section 10.34.010.
King County Board of He�lt/� Corle - �itle 10 Related Legislation
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
>: RL - 1
0
3
10.42.030 Locational standards. Owneis or operato�s
of landspreading disposal facilities shall meet the locational
standards of section 10.32.020.
10.42.040 Minimum functional standard for
design. Ownets or operatois of landspreading disposal
facilities shall design landspreading facilities so as to:
A. Provide interim waste storage facilities that meet the
requirements of WAC 173-304-400 standards (i.e., for piles,
suiface impoundments, etc.);
B. Collect and treat all run-off fron� a 24 (twent��-four), 25
(twenty-five) year storm, and divert all run-on for the
maximum flow of a maximum 25 (twenty-five) year storm
around the active area;
C. Avoid standing water anywhere on the active area;
D. Avoid slopes and other features that will lead to soil
and waste erosion, unless contour plowing or other �ue�sures
are taken to avoid erosion;
E. Monitor ground water according to Chapter 10.72; and
F. Control access to site by fencing or other means and
erect signs.
10.42.050 Minimwn functional standards for
maintena�ice and operation. Owne�s or operatois of
l�ldspreading �disposal facilities shall maintain and operate the
facilities so as to:
A. Avoid any landspreadi��g disposal of garbage or ivedical
waste;
B. A�ialyze solid waste according to the requireinents
spelled out i�i the l�funicipal and Doniestic Sludge Utilizatio�l
G��idelines WDOE 8?-11;
C. Avoid applying wastes at r�tes greater than 10 (ten)
times agronomic rates using the proposed cover crop, or depths
greater than would allow for discing the soil bv trached
vehicles;
D. Provide discing of soils during the growing season aud
after each apPlication of waste to maintain aerobic soil
conditioi�s, minimize odots and lessen run-off;
E. Avoid applying waste to any active area having standing
water;
F. Coi�form to the operating plau and the requirements of
section 10.34.030;
Related Legzslation
G. Avoid food chain crops during the active life oF the
faciliry a�Id until demonstrated to be safe, after closure,
according to the closure and post-closure plans filed with the
plan of operation. Specific approval in writing from the health
officer is required for any landspreading disposal facility that is
used to raise food crops after closure. Any new owner or
operator of a closed landspreading disposal faciliry shall notify
tlie health officer within 60 (sixty) days of dte purchase; and
H. Provide for a written contract between landowners, waste
generatois, waste hauleis and waste operato�s requiring
compliance with rules as a condition of the contract.
10.42.060 Minimum functional standards for
closure and post-closure. A. All owneis or operatois of
landspreading disposal facilities shall close in such a manner
�s to comply with section 10.34.070.
B. Financial �ssurance. All owneis or operatois of
landspreading disposal facilities shall have a written estimate, in
current dolla�s, of the cost of closing the facility. The closure
cost estimate must equal the cost of closure at tlie point in the
operating life of the faciliry when the eatent and manner of
operation would make closure the ii�ost expei�sive, as indicated
by the closure plan.
In addition, all facilities sliall have a written post-closure
estimate, in current dollats, the cost of post-closure monitoring
and mainteuance during the post-closure period.
CHAP'I'ER 10
SURFACE IMI'OUNDMEN'1'S
10.44.010 Applicability. A. These standa�ds are
applicable to solid waste that are liquids, sludges, or biosolids
containing free liquids ;�s defined in cliapter 10.08 a��d
applicable under section 10.04.030 and are stored or treated in
surface impoundments;
B. These standards are also applicable to biosolids, sludges
and septage stored or treated in suiface impoundments; and
C. Tliese standards are not applicable to:
1. Su��face impoundments whose facilities and
discharges are otheiwise regulated under federal, state or local
water pollution pe��nits; and
King Cozs�aM� Bo�r�l of HaaltJ� Code - Title 10
- 1 4 >':
RL 0
2. Retention or detention basins used to collect and
store stormwater runoff.
10.44.020 Design, construction and operation. All
surface impoundments must be designed, constructed, and
operated so as to:
A Meet the perforn�ance standards of section 10.36.030.
B. Have an inplace or imported soil base/linec of at least
two feet (2') of 1 x 10 cn�/sec pei7neability or an equivalent
combiiiation of soil thicl�iess greater than two feet (?') having
a greater permeability in order to protect tl�e underlying
aquifeis or a diirty (30) mil reii�forced artificial liner placed on
top of a structurally stable foundation to support the line�s and
solid waste and to prevent settlement that would destroy the
liner; excavated natural soils shall be recompacted to achieve
an equivalent penneabiliry. Owneis or operato�s shall be
allowed to use alternative designs, opeiating practices and
locational characteristics which prevent migration of solid waste
constituents or leachate into the ground or surface wateis at
least as effectively as the lineis described in this subsection.
C. Avoid washout including the use of an extended liner or
dikes or restriction of flow in tlie one hundred year tloodplain
and to comply with local floodplain management ordinances
and Chapter 508-60 WAC, Administration of Flood Control
Zones;
D. Have dikes designed with slopes so as to maintain the
stcuctural integriry under conditions of a lea�ing liner and
capable of withstanding erosiou fi•om wave action;
E. Have the freeboar equal to oc greater than eighteen
inches (18") to avoid overtopping from wave action, oveifilling,
or precipitation;
F. Have either a ground water roonitoring s}�stem or a
leachate detection, collection and treatroent system, for surface
impoundments having a capaciry of more than two million
(2,000,000) gallons unless tlie health officec and the
Department of Ecology require either for smaller su�face
impoundments. For puiposes of this subsection, capaciry refeis
to the total capaciry of all surface impoundments on-site (i.e.,
two (2), one million (1,000,000) gallon sui�face impoundments
on one site will trigger tliese monitoring requirements);
G. Be closed in a manner which removes all solid wastes
including liners, etc. to another permitted facility a�id the site
returned to its original or acceptable topography except that
suiface impoundments closed with the waste remaining in place
shall meet the requirements of sections 10.32.010, 10.32.020
and 10.36.290;
H. The health officer ii�ay require that the liner be
ii�spected for wear and integrity and repaired or replaced by
removing stored solid wastes or otheiwise inspecting the liner or
base at any time. The request shall be in writing and cite the
reasons including valid ground water monitoring or leachate
detection data leading to such an inspection and repair;
1. Suif'ace iropoundmeots contaiiiing septage will also be
subject to the Department of Ecology's "Criteria for Sewage
lVor�s Design" DOE 78-5 revised 1985 used to review plans for
septage surface impoundments; and
J. Suiface impoundments that have the potential to
impound more than ten (10) acre-feet of waste measured from
the top of the dike and which would be released by a failure of
the containment dike shal( be reviewed and approved by the
daii� safet�� section of the Department of Gcology.
CHAI'7BR 10.48
STORAGE AND TREATMENT PII.ES
10.48A10 Applicability. A. This chapter is applicable
to solid wastes stored or treated in piles as defined in chapter
10.08 including but not liii�ited to: garbage, sludges, biosolids,
putrescible wastes (other than garbage) in place for more than
three (3) wee�s, other w�stes not intended for recycling in place
fOf I1101'e [I1311 CI1CeC I]1011CI1S, �Rd t0 t1PC �IICS WIICI'C II]OfC Cllail
eight hundred (800) tires are srored at one (1) faciliry.
B. Other solid wastes stored or treated in piles prior to
waste cecycling including compost piles of vegetative waste, piles
of woodwaste used for fuel, problem wastes or raw materials
are not subject to tliis cttapter but shall coi�form to chapter
10.68. However, if the health officer determines a facility is
subject to the criteria listed in chapter 10.68.030(C)(2), then
the standards of chapter 10.4� shall be applicable.
C. Waste piles stored in fully enclosed buildings are not
subject to these stai.ldards, provided that no liquids or biosolids
a��d sludges with free liquids are added to the pile;
D. Inert wastes are not subject to these standards.
King County Board of Health Code - 7�tde 10 Related Legulation
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
: :: .
.;:
>::::>::::>::::::::>::::::<:;»::>:<::..>::::>::::> ::::.. ..::: ...;::::>::;: ` RL - 10
>:::>::>:. .....
....................................:::::::.. ,:.:..,:::. ;;;;;;:
10.48.020 Requirements generally. All owneis and
operators shall:
A. Comply with the requirements of Chapter 10.32;
B. Design piles located in a one hundred (I00) year flood
plain to:
1. Comply with local flood plain management
ordinances and Chapter 508 WAC Administration of Flood
Control Zones; and
2. To avoid washout or restriction of tlow.
C. Remove all solid waste from the pile at closure to
another pei7nitted faciliry.
10.48.030 Putrescible wastes or leachable wastes.
A. Waste piles containing putrescible or leachable materials
shall be placed upon a surface such as sealed concrete, �sphalt,
clay or an artificial liner underlying the pile, to prevent
subsurface soil and potential ground watec contamination and
to allow collection of run-off and leachate. The liner shall be
designed of sufficient thicl�less and strength to withstand
stresses imposed by pile handling vehicles and the pile itsetf;
B. Run-off systems shall be installed, designed and
maintained to handle a twenty-four (24) hour, twenry-five (25)
year storm event;
C. Waste piles containing putrescible or leachable �uatcrials
ha�ing a capaciry of greater tlian ten thousand (10,000) cubic
yards shall have either:
1. A ground water monitoring system that complies
with sections 10.68.010 and 10.6�.020;
2. A leachate detection, collection and treatment
system.
For purposes of this subsection, capaciry refeis to the total
capaciry of all putrescible or leachate-geneiating piles at one
faciliry (i.e., two (2), five thousand (5,000) cubic yard piles will
subject the faciliry to the requirements of this subsection).
D. Run-on prevention systems shall be designed and
maintained to handle the ma�cimum flow fi•om a twenry-five
(25) yea� storm event; and
E. The health officer may require that the entire hase or
liner shall be inspected for wear and integrity and repaired or
replaced by removing stored wastes or otheiwise providin�
i��spectioi� access to the base or liue�; the reqaest shall be in
writing and cite the reasons including valid ground water
monitoring or leachate detection data leading the health officer
to request such an inspection, repair or replacement.
10.48.040 Tire piles. Owners or operatois shall:
A. Coutrol access to the tire pile by fencing;
B. Limit the tire pile to a maximum of one-half (1/2)
acre in size;
C. Limit the height of the tire pile to twenty (20') feet;
D. Provide for a thirty foot (30') fire lane between tire
piles; and
E. Provide on-site fire control equipment.
CHAPTER 10.52
INERT WAS1B LANDFILLING
10.52.010 Applicability. Tllese standards apply to
facilities that landfill more than two thousand (2,000) cubic
yards of inert w;�.stes as defined in chapter 10.08 including
facilities that use inert waste ��s a component of filL Inert
wastes used as road building n�aterials are excluded from this
section. These standards do not apply to asbestos containing
waste regulated under the Federal 40 CFR Part 61 Rules and
the Dangerous Waste Regulation, WAC Chapter 173303.
1052.020 Requiremcnts generally. A. Inert wastes
landfilling facilities shall not be subject to sections 10.32.010
and 10.3?.0?Q except section 10.32.0?0(D), slope.
B. Owneis or operatois of inert waste landfills shall
maintain a record of the weights or volumes and rypes of waste
disposed of at each site.
C. Owneis or operato�s of inert wastes and demolition
landfills shall eroploy mea.sures to prevent emission of fugitive
dusts, wlien weather conditions or climate indicate that
transport of dust off-site is liable to create a nuisance.
Preventative measures include watei•ing of roads and covering
the inert wastes.
D. Timbeis, wood and other combustible waste shall not be
accepted at an inert waste landfill.
E. Owneis or operatois of inert wa.stes landfills shall close
the faciliry by leveling the wastes to the extent practicable and
shall fill an�� voids posing a phy�sical hazard for peisoi�s �fter
Related Legislatron
hrng G'oii�t.l1� Bonrrt of H�altl� Co�le - Title 10
; :: RL -
1
O6
closure and to ►naintain an aesthetic appearance. A minimum
of one foot (1') of soil cover shall be used to close landfills.
F. Owne�s or operatois of inert waste landfilfs shall:
1. Obtaiu a pei7nit, as set forth in cllapteis 10.12,
10.16 a�id 10.20, from the health officer;
2. Meet the requirements of section 10.34.070.D,
recording with the records division;
3. Not accept any other form of w�ste except inert
waste; and
4. Prevent �mauthorized disposal during oft- houis b}�
controlling entiy (i.e., lockable gate or ban•ier) when dle facilit�-
is not being used.
CHAP1'ER 10.56
WOODWAS7'E LANDFILLIN(:
10.56A10 Applicability. 1'hese requirements apply to
facilities that landfill more than two thousand cubic vards of
woodwaste including facilities that use woodwaste as a
component of fill. Woodwaste is defined in Chapter 10.0�.
These standards are not applicable to woodwaste landfills on
forest lands reg��lated under the Forest Practices Act, RCW
Cllapter 76.09.
10.56.020 Rcquirements generally. A. �Voodw�ste
landfills are not subject to Section 10.32.010 and 10.3'.0?0,
eacept for Section 10.32.020(B)(3). Woodwastes ma}� be used
as a component of fill within a shoreline and associated
wetlands only if a demonstrated and proven technolog}� to
prevent ground and suiface water contamination is used.
B. Owneis or operatois of woodwaste landfills shall
maintain a record of the weights or volumes of waste disposed
of at each facility.
C. Owneis or operatois of woodwaste landfills shall not
accept any other wastes except woodw��ste.
D. Owneis or operato�s of woodwaste landfills shall prevent
run-on from a m�imum tweuty-five (2S) year storm.
E. All woodwaste landfills having �� capacit�� of greater
thau ten tliousand (10,000) cubic yards at closure shall eitlier:
1. Have a groundwater monitoring s��stem that
complies with Chapter 10.72 and the woodwaste landfill meet
the performance standards of Chapter 10.36; or
2. Have a leachatc collection a�ld methane gas control
sy�stem.
F. ONme�s or operatois of woodwaste landfills shall not
deposit woodwaste in lifts to a height of more than ten feet
(10') per lift with at le�st one foot (1') of wver material
between lifts to avoid hot spots and fires in the summer and to
avoid excessive build-up of leachate in the winter, and shall
compact woodwaste as necessa�y to prevent voids.
G. Owne�s or operatois of woodwaste landfills shalt prevent
unauthorized disposal during off-hours by control(ing entry
(i.e., lockable gate or barrier), when the faciliry is not being
used.
H. Owneis or operatois of woodwaste landfills shall close
the facilin� by leveling and coinpacting the wastes and applying
a compacted soil cover of at le��st two feet thiclaless.
I. Ow�ieis or operato�s of woodwaste landfills shall obtain
a permit as set forth in Chapteis 1012, 1016 and 10.20 from
the health officer.
CHAP7'ER 10.60
7'RANSFER STATIONS
10.60.010 Applicabiliry. All transfer stations, baling
and coivpaction systems and drop boxes receiving solid waste
from off-site shall meet the requirements of this section.
Facilities receiving solid waste from on-site shall meet the
requirements of Sections 10.25.010, 10.28.020 and 10.28.030.
10.60.020 Tra��sfer stations, baling and
compacting systems. 'I'ransfer stations, baling and
compaction s��stems shall be designed, constructed, a�id operated
so as to:
A. Be surrounded by a fence, trees, shrubbery or natural
features so as to control access and be screened from the view
of immediately adjacent neighbois, unless the tipping floor is
fully enclosed by a building;
B. Be sturdy and constructed of e�sily cleanable materials;
C. Be free of potential rat harborages, and provide effective
means to control rodents, insects, Uirds and other ve�7nin;
D. Be adequately screened to prevent blowing of litter and
to provide effective means to control litter;
King Coundy Boarrl of He�dtb Cor/e - Tit/e 10 Related Legislat�on
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;:;::::: RL - 1
0
,:::::::::
>:»::>::>::»;::::<:::::>:>::;::>::>::»»::»:::>:»:::>::>::>::;:::»><:»:<::>:>::>::»>:»::>::>:::::»»» >:»« «::::::;:»::::»»:>:>::»»»>:»::>:::>::»<::<::>::»::»::>:>:::>::»;:»:::>«:<::::::»»<<<:>::>::>::>::>::»»>::>::: � ::.:;.::.;;:.
E. Provide protection of the tipping floor from wind, rain
or snow other r,han below grade bins or detachable containeis;
F. Have an adequate buffer zone around the operating
area to minimize noise a�ld dust nuisances, and for transfer
stations, baling, or wmpaction systems, a buffer zone of fifry
feet (50') from the active area tQ the nearest properry line in
areas zoned residential;
G. Comply with local zoning and building co�les including
approved local varia�lces and waive�s;
H. Provide pollution control me�sures to protect surface
a�ld ground wateis, including run-off collection and discharge
designed and operated to handle a twenty-four (24) hour,
twenry-five (25) year storiu ai�d equipment cleaning aud
washdown water;
I. Provide all-weather approach roads, eait roads, and all
other vehicular aceas;
). Provide pollution control measures to protect air qualiry
including a prohibition against all burning and the
development of odor and dust control plans to be made a part
of the plan of operation in Sections 10.32.030 and 10.3?.040.
K. Prohibit scavenging;
L. Provide attendant(s) on-site during hou►s of operation;
M. Have a sign that identifies the faciliry and shows the
name of tlle site, and, if applicable, hou�s duciag which the site
is open for public use, what constituents materials not to be
accepted and other necessa�y information posted at the site
entrance;
N. Have coiumunication capahilities to immediately
summon fire, police, or emergency se�vice peisonnel in event of
an emergency; and
0. Remove all wastes at closure, :�.s defined in Chapter
10.08, from the permitted faciliry.
10.60.030 Drop box facilities. Drop box facilities, as
defined in Chapter 10.08, shall:
A. Be constructed of durable water tight matecials with a
lid or screen on top that prevents the loss of materials during
transpo�rt and access by rats and other vermin;
B: Be located in an easily identifiable place accessible by
all-weather roads;
C. Be designed and setviced as often as uecessaiy to ensure
adequate dumping capacity at all times. Stoiage of solid waste
outside the drop boxes is prohibited;
D. Comply with Section 10.60.020(M);
E. Remove all remaining wastes at closure, as de�ned in
Chapter 10.08, to a permitted facility, and remove the drop box
from the facllity.
CHAP'fER 10.64
INCINERATION AND SOLID WASTE
ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITIES
10.64.010 Applicability. These standa�ds apply to all
facilities designed to burn n�ore than twelve (12) tons of solid
waste per day, except for facilities buming woodwaste or gases
recovered at landfills.
10.64A20 Requiremcnts generally. A. Air pollution
standards. Incineratois and solid waste energy recovery facilities
shatl be designed and operated in a manner that coi�forms with
current federal, state, regional and local air pollution control
regulations;
B. Incineratois and energy recovery facilities sroring
putrescible wastes shall be co��fined to storage compartments
specifically designed to store wastes temporarily in piles, surface
impoundments tan�s or containe�s. The storage facilities sha11
n�eet the faciliry standards of Sections 10.28.010, 10.28.020 and
10.2�.030. Storage of wastes other than in the specifically
designed storage compartments is prohibited. Equipment and
space shall be provided in tlie storage and charging areas, and
elsewhere as needed, to allow peciodic cleaning as may be
required in order to maintain the plant in a sanitary and clean
condition;
C. All residues fron� eiiergy recove�y facilities or incinerator
facilities shall be used, handled or disposed of as solid or
dangerous wastes according to these standards or the standards
of the dangerous waste regulation, V✓AC Chapter 173-303;
D. Each owner or operator of an energy recovery faciliry or
incinerator facility shall comply with Sections 10.32.030 and
10.32.040. The plan of operation shall address altemative
storage, and/or disposal plans for all breakdowns that would
result in oveifilling of the storage faciliry. The pla�i shall be
made available for review by the health officer;
Rel�ted Legisl�Jro�r
Kt�ag CounM� Bortrrd of He�rltb Code - 7�1e 10
:'''::'� RL - 1
08
E. Each owner or operator shall close their energy recovery
facility or incinerator by removing all ash, solid wastes and
other residues to a permitted facility;
F. Disposal of process water. All water from the disposal
site shall be discharged into a disposal system approved by the
health officer and local sewer authority. The treated discharge
water shall not violate applicable water qualiry sta��dards;
G. Pre-use inspection and pei�formance tests. Upon
completion of the plant and prior to initial operation, the
health officer and Puget Sound Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) sha11 be notified. The health officer shall inspect the
plant both prior to and during the peifoi�nance tests. A report
covering the results of the perfonnance test with all supporting
data shall be certified by the design engineer of tlie project and
submitted to the health officer;
H. The owner or operator of an energy recoveiy faciliry or
incinerator shall be required to provide recycling facilities in a
manner equivalent to Section 10.36.270 and
I. Owneis or operatots of energy rewveiy facilities and
incineratois shall not knowingly dispose of, treat, store or
otherwise ha�ldle dangerous waste unless the requirements of
WAC 173303 a�•e met.
CHnr'i'Ex i0.G8
RECYCLING
10.68.010 Applicability. A. These standards appl�� to
the following recycling facilities:
1. NORCAR11111eC1ZQ(I CAIllpOSC1Rg 111 P1ICS
2. Accumulation of wastes in piles intended for
treatment, recycling or utilization;
3. Facilities used for the t�•eatment of biosolids or other
solid wastes. If the health officer detem�ines a faciliry operates
or is likely to operate according to criteria listed in chapter
10.68.030.C, then the standards of chapter 10.48 shall apply.
B. These standards do not apply to:
i. Single-family residences and single family farms
engaged in composting their own wastes;
2. Facilities engaged in the recycling of solid waste
containing garbage, such as garbage composting which are
subject to chapter 10.48;
3. Facilities engaged in the storage of tires which are
subject to chapter 10.48;
4. Problem wastes as defined in chapter 10.08. Also,
see section 10.80.040.
5. Facilities engaged in recycling of solid waste stored
in surface impoundments which are subject to chapter 10.44;
6. Utilization of biosolids on land for beneficial use
which are subject to chapter 10.40.
7. Buy-back recycling centeis.
10.68.020 Compliance by eacisting facilities. All
existing facilities recycling solid waste not in co«formance with
this section shall be placed upon a compliance schedule under
Chapter 10.20 to assuce compliance by november 27, 1987.
10.68.030 Requirements generally. A. All applicable
solid waste cecycling facilities shall apply for and obtain a solid
waste permit under chapter 10.1?, 10.16 and 10.20.
B. Applicable waste recycling facilities shall submit annual
reports to the healtli officer and the Department of Ecology by
March 1 of the following y�ear for which the data is collected
on forms supplied by tLte Depactment of Ecology. The annual
reports shall include quantities aud t}�pes of waste recycled for
puiposes of determining progress towards achieving the goals of
waste reduction, waste recycling, and treatment in accordance
with RCW 70.95.010(4). Such facilities may request and be
assured of coi�fidentialiry for tlieir reports in accordance with
RCW chapter 42.17 and RCW 43.21.
C. All facilities storing or treating solid waste in outdoor
piles or su�face impoundments for the puipose of waste
recycling shall be considered to be storing or disposing of solid
waste if:
1. At least fifry percent (SO%) of the material has not
been shown to have been recycled in the past tlu•ee yeais and
a�1y material has been on-site moce than five yeais; or
2. Ground water or surface water, air, and/or land
contamination has occurred or will likely occur under cureent
conditions of storage or in c�se of fire, or flood.
D. Upon determination by the health officer that subsection
C of this section is met, the health officer may require a permit
application and issuance of a permit under chapteis 10.12,
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
-1
>::::>: RL 0
9
E. Waste recycling facilities shall allow the healtli officer
and Department of Ecology representatives entiy for i��spection
purposes and to determine compliance with this title at
reasonable times.
F. All applicable waste recycling facilities shall not coi�lict
with the King Counry Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan required by WAC 173-304-01 l.
G. All waste recycling facilities shall comply with applicable
local, state and federal laws and regulations.
10.68.040 Woodwaste and other organic
biosolids. A. Facilities utilizing woodwaste not otheiwise
excluded under section 10.04.030 shall comply witl� these
recycling sta�ldards. Applying woodwaste and other primarily
organic biosolids, such as pulp and paper mill treatment
biosolids to the land, shall be in a manner consistent with the
"Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utiliaation Guidelines" WDOE
82-11 dated September 1982 or as hereafter amended. Only
agricultural or silvicultural sites where such biosolids a�e
demonstrated to ha�e soil conditioning or fertilizer valne shall
be acceptable provided that the woodwaste and other primarily
organic biosalids are applied as a soil conditioner or fertilizer
in accordance with accepted agricultural and silvicultural
practice. Facilities utilizing woodwaste or other primarily
organic biosolids on the land in a ma�iner not coi�sistent with
nor meeting the requirement of the guidelines are required to
meet the landspreading disposal standards of chapter 10.42.
B. Facilities utilizing woodwaste or other primarily organic
biosolids shall also comply with the standards of section
10.68.040.
CHAP'I'ER 10.72
GROUND WATER MONITOWNG
• 10.72.010 ApplicabiliTy. These requirements apply to
owners and operators of la��dfills, piles, landspreading disposal
• facilities, a�ld surface impoundments that are required ro
peifoi7n ground water monitoring.
i
�
�
i
•
�
�
10.72.020 Standards. A. The ground water monitoring
system must:
1. Consist of at least one (1) background or
upgradient well and three (3) down gradient wells, installed at
Relate� Legs'slation
appropriate locations and depths to yield ground water samples
from the upper most aquifer and all hydraulically connected
aquifers below the active portion of the faciliry. The health
officer may also require off-site monitoring of aquifers in cases
where on-site monitoring detects ground water contamination in
the parameteis indicated in subsection C of this section.
2. Up gradient wells must represent the qualiry of
background water that has not been affected by leakage from
the active a�•ea; a�ld
3. Down gradient wells must represent the qualiry of
ground water passing the point of compliance. Additional wells
ulay be required by the healtli officer in complicated
hydrogeological settings or to define the extent of
contamination detected.
B. All monitoring wells must be cased in a manner that
maintains the integriry of the monitoring well bore hole. This
casing must allow collection of representative ground water
samples. ��ells must be co«structed in such a manner as to
prevent contamination: (1) of the samples, (2) tlie sampled
strata, and (3) between aquife�s and water bea�•ing strata and
in accocdance with WAC Chapter 173-160, Minimum Sta�ida�•ds
for Construction and Maintenance of Water VUells.
C. 'I'est parameteis:
1. The ground water monitoring program shall be
made available for ceview by the health officer. The progra�n
must include, at a minimum, procedures and techniques for:
a. Decontamination of drilling and sampling
equipment;
b. Sarople collection; .
c. Sample preseivation and shipment;
d. A��aly�tical procedures and qualiry assurance;
e. Chain of custody control; and
f. Procedures to ensure employee health and safety
during well installation and monitoring.
?. All facilities shall test for the following parameteis
at each monitoring well at least quarterly during the life of an
active area (including the clos��re period) and the post-closure
care period:
a. Temperature;
b. Conaucciviry,
c. Chloride;
d. Nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia as nitrogeil;
e. Sulfate;
Kt��g Coacn.t�� Bonrr! of He�ltl� Co�le - Title 10
. i
::::: RL - 1
10
.......... . .... ............... ... . ............. ....... . . . .......... ....... . ................... �
f. Dissolved iron;
g. Dissolved zinc and manganese;
h. Chemical oxygen demand;
i. Total organic carbon;
j. Total coliform;
k. Ph;
3. All facilities shall also test for the following
parameteis at each monitoring well at least annually during
the life of an active area (including the closure period) and the
post-closure care period. In addition, these paramete�s must be.
included in the required follow-up testing if contamination is
discovered in any of the quarterly testing paraii�eteis listed in
section 10.68.020(C)(2) per WAC 173-200.
a. Dissolved metals of lead, cadmiuu�, clu�omium,
copper and nickel;
b. Volatile Organic Compounds
1) Trichloroethylene
2) Carbon Tetrachloride
.3) Vinyl Chloride
4) 1,2,? - Dichloroethane
5) Benzene
6) l,l Dichloroeth��lene
7) 1,1, - Trichloroethane
8) Acrolein
9) l, l,?,2-Tetrachloroethane
10) Chloroethane
11) 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
12) Chloroform
13) 1,2 trans-Dichloroethylene
14) 1-2-Dichloropropane
15) cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene
16) trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene
17) Etliylbenzene
18) Dichloromethane
19) Chloromethane
20) Bromomethane
21) Tribromomethane
22) Dichlorobromomethane
23) Chlorodibromomethane
24) Tetrachloroethylene
25) Toluene
26) Acetone
27) 2-Butanone
28) Carbon Disulfide
29) 2-hexanone
30) 4 - Methy l-2-Pentallone
31) Styrene
32) Vinyl Acetate
33) o-xylene
34) Total Xylenes
c. Pesticides
1) Dieldrin
2) Lindane
3) Metho�ychlor
4) DDT
5) 2,4 D
6) alpha-chlordane
4. Evaluation:
a. The health officer in consultation with the
Departinent oF Ecology may specify additional or fewer
constituents depending upon the nature of the waste. Test '
methods used to detect the parameteis of this subsection shall
be those in EPA Publication Number SW-846 "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste - Ph}�sicaUChemical Methods" except for
total colifonn which shall use the latest edition oF "Standard
Methods for the Eaamination of Water and Wastewatec"
b. The grouud water moniroring program must
include a determination of the ground water surface elevation
eadl time ground water is sampled.
c. The owner or operator shall use a statistical
procedure for determining whether a significant change over
background has occurred. The health officer will approve such
a procedure with the guidance of the Depa�•tment of Ecology.
The owner or operator ivust express the ground water qualiry at
each monitoring well in a form necessa�y for the determination
of statistically significant increases.
d. The owner or operator must determine and
report tlie ground water flow rate and direction in the
uppetmost aquifer at least annually.
e. IF the owner or operator determines that there is
a statistically significant increase for parameteis or constituents
at any monitoring well at the compliance point, the owner or
operator inust:
1) Notify the health officer of this finding in
writing within seven (7) days of receipt of the sampling data.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
King County Board of Hea(.t/� Cor�e - Title 10 Related Legislation
�
�
r�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL - 111 `:::>:::
The notification must indicate what pa�amete�s or constituents
have shown statistically significant increases,
2) Immediately resample the ground water in
all monitoring wells and determine the concentration of all
constituents listed in the definition of contamination in chapter
10.08, including additional constituents identified in the permit
and whether there is a statistically significant increase such that
the ground water performance sta�ldard has been exceeded, and
notify the health officer within fourteen (14) days of receipt of
the sampling data.
10.72.030 Corrective action program. A�l owner or
operator required to establish a co��ective action program under
this section must, at a minimum with tlle approval of the
health officer:
A. Implement a corrective actiou pcogram that reduces
contamination and if possible prevents constituents from
exceeding their respective wncentration limits at the coii�pliance
point by removing tlie wi�stituents, treating tllem in place, or
other remedial measures;
B. Begin corrective action according to a written schedule
after die ground water peifoi7na�lce standard is exceeded;
C. Terminate corrective action measures once the
concentrations of constituents a�•e reduced to levels below the
contaminant limits as defined in chapter 10.08.
10.72A40 Maximum contaminant levels. Maximum
contaminant levels for ground water shall be those specified in
Chapter 248-54 WAC aS tIl@ PL'1I113CV dl'1L1�IR�+ W ater standards
(A�ialytical n�ethods for these contamivauts may be found in
the code of federal regulations 40 CFR Part 141) and iu the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed m�imum
conta�ninant levels found in "Standards for Volatile Organic
Chemicals in Drin�ing Water" Volume SQ Nuinber 219 of the
Federal Register, pages 46880-46933 or as hereafter amended.
CHAI''1'ER 1o.7G
METHANE
• 10.76.010 Metharie monitor�ng. All landfills except
inert waste landfills shall provide for adequate venting,
� collecting or redirecting of gases generated by solid waste. No
�
�
�
�
Related Legislation
methane shall be allowed to migrate to or beyond the property
boundary above or below tlie ground in concentrations greater
than the lower e�losive limit for methane, or in excess of
one-hundred (100) parts per million. by volume of
hydrocarbons (expressed as methane) in off-site sUvctures, or in
excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lower explosive limit
for gases in facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery
system components). It shall be the responsibiliry of the
landfill operator and/or owner to develop a sampling and
testing progran� to monitor gas produckion and migration.
Such program shall be approved by the health officer.
10.76.020 Construction standards for
methane control. A. Applicabiliry. This construction
restriction applies to all construction activities on/or within
one-thousand feet (1,000') of an active, closed or abandoned
la�idfill that has been documented by the health officer to be
generating levels of inethane gas on-site at the lower explosive
limits or greater levels. The distance shall be calculated from
the location of the proposed structure to the nearest property
line of the active or fo�n�er landfill site.
B. Requirements. All enclosed structures to be built within
the one-thousa�ld foot (1,000') landfill zone must be protected
from potential methane migration. The method for insuring a
structure's protection from methane shall be addressed in a
report submitted by a licensed civil engineer to the local
building department for approval. Such a report shall contain
a description of the investigation a�ld reco►nmendation(s) for
preventing the accumulation of explosive concentrations of
methane gas within or under enclosed portio��s of a building or
structure. At the time of final inspection, the civil engineer
shall furnish a signed statement attesting that the building or
structure has been coi�structed in accordance with his/her
recommendations for addressing roethane gas migration.
CHAP7'ER 10.80
WASTE SCREENING
10.80.010 Dangerous waste. The health officer may
screen atry wastes or fill material suspected of being a regulated
Dangerous Waste. The screening process may involve certified
testing, a disclosure of the waste constituen�s and waste
Kirrg Count�� Board of He�ltb Code - T'ule 10
�
>:>: RL - 112 <:>:::
generation process, and other additional ii�formation. If the
health officer determines that the waste is not a regulated
Dangerous Waste but still poses a significa�it threat to die
public health, safery or the environment, he/she may direct the
generator or transporter to transfer the waste to a specified
treatment or disposal site. If the health officer determines tliat
the waste is a regulated dangerous waste he/she shall notifi� tlie
Department of Ecology which shall have full jurisdiction
regarding ha�idling and disposal. The Dangerous Waste
Regulations WAC Chapter 173-303 shall be considered when
screening a�id ma�ing waste determinations.
10.80A20 Disposal site inspection and screening.
If during inspections of waste the health officer observes waste
suspected of being regulated Dangerous Waste because of
physical properties of the waste, he/she shall have tlie authoriry
to require the site operator to segregate and hold any such
waste. If the health officer determines that testing is required
to identify tlie waste, the generator shall be responsil�le for sucli
analysis and if the generator is not lulown, the site operator
shall be responsible for funding such analysis. The disposal
site operator and/or attendants shall ha�e similar authoriry not
to accept suspect wastes.
10.80.030 Notice requiring screening. When such
wastes a�•e identified as being suspect da�Igerous wastes tlie
health officer may issue a notice for requirement of screening.
This notice will specify require►nents wliich must be met to
satisfy the screening process and a schedule for compliance.
10.80.040 Excavated material inspection
and screening. The health officer shall have the authoriry to
inspect and screen any excavated dirt, dredge spoil, soil or otlier
material intended for use as upland fill if the material is
suspected of containing contamina�lts at significant levels to
endanger the public health, safery or the environment. The
health officer may require the suspect material to be tested to
identify th�e wntaminant(s) and/or tlie wncentration. If the
material is determined not to be a Da�lgerous Waste, but still
contains a significant level of conta�ninants which could create
a problem from: becoming airborne (breathing or nuisance
odor), skin contact, leaching into suiface or ground wateis or
entering the food chain, or contains a level of contamination
above that specified in the Washington State Model Toxic
Control Act Regulations (WAC 173 for soils, the health
officer can regulate the material as solid waste. Peisons
excavating soils in any areas of unincorporated King Counry or
the incorporated cities that encounter a significant quantiry of
suspect material - such as leaked or spilled fuel oil (Bunker C
or Diesel), gasoline, or other volatile (odorous) wmpounds,
slag, industrial waste, or other solid waste - shall contact the
health officer for determination of appropriate handling and
disposal.
CHAP1'ER 10.84
UNLAWFUI, DUMPING
10.84A10 Prohibited. It sliall be unlawful for any
peison to dump or deposit or permit the dumping or depositing
of any solid waste onto or wlder the suiface of the ground or
into the wateis of this State, except at a solid waste disposal site
for whicli there is a valid permit; Provided, that nothing herein
shall prollibit a peison f�om dumping or depositing agricultural
waste resulting from his/her own activities onto or under the
suiface of ground owned or leased by hinvher when such
action does not violate statutes, ordinances, or create a
nuisa�lce.
10.84.020 Identification of responsible person. A.
Whenever solid waste dumped in violation of this title contains
three (3) or more items bearing the name of one (1)
individual, there shall be rebuttable presumption that the
individual whose name appeais on such items committed the
unlawful act of dumping.
B. When the health officer investigates a case of unlawful
dumping and finds no ideutification in the solid waste, nor
other evidence, he/slie may tlien order the properry owner to
remove said solid waste from his/her land. Where this occurs
on private land the properry owner or occupant shall be
responsible for removal. Where this occuis on public land the
appropriate governmental agency shall be respoi�sible for
removal.
EFFECTIVE DATE. April 28 1992.
King Countv Board of Health Code - 1"'ule 10 Relatert Legul�tion
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C ,
J
L
-11
R
3
SOLID WASTE INTERLOCAL AGRE:EMENT
This Agreement is entered into between King County, a political subdivision of
the State of Washington and , a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "County" and
"City" respectively. This agreement has been authorized by the legislative
body of each jurisdiction pursuant to formal action as designated below:
King County: Motion No. 7143
City:
PREAMBLE
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW for the purpose of
cooperative management of solid waste in King County. It is the intent of the
parties to work cooperatively in establishing a solid waste management plan
pursuant to Chapter 70.95 and with emphasis on the established priorities for
solid waste management of waste reduction, waste recycling, energy recovery or
incineration, and landfilling. The parties particularly support waste
reduction and recycling and shall cooperate to achieve the goals established by
the comprehensive solid waste management plan.
The parties acknowledge their intent to meet or surpass applicable
environmental standards with regard to the solid waste system. The parties
agree that equivalent customer classes should receive equivalent basic
services.
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
"Basic Services" means services provided by the King County Department of
Public Works, Solid Waste Division, including the management and handling of
solid waste.
"Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan" means the comprehensive plan for
solid waste management as required by RCW 70.95.080.
"Designated Interlocal Forum" means a group formed pursuant to the Forum
Interlocal Agreement comprised of representatives of unincorporated King County
designated by the King County Council, representatives of the City of Seattle
designated by the City of Seattle, and representatives of other incorporated
cities and towns within King County that are signators to the Forum Interlocal
Agreement.
sol;d Wrute mterlocal �graeme�tt
�
RL
- 114
"Disposal" means the final treatment, utilization, processing, deposition, or
incineration of solid waste but shall not include waste reduction or waste
recycling as defined herein.
"Diversion" means the directing or permitting the directing of solid waste to
disposal sites other than the disposal site designated by King County.
"Energy/Resource Recovery" means "the recavery of energy in a usable form from
mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis of any other means
of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves high temperature
(above 1,200 degrees F) processing." (WAC 173-304-100).
"Moderate Risk Waste" means "(a) any waste that exhibits any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation under this
chapter solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold
for regulation and (b) any household wastes which are generated from the
disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household
substances." (RCW 70.105.010)
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid
wastes, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial
wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts
thereof, and discarded commodities but shall not include dangerous, hazardous
or extremely hazardous waste.
"System" means King County's system of solid waste transfer stations, rural and
regional landfills, energy/resource recovery and processing facilities as
authorized by RCW 36.58.040, and as established pursuant to the approved King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
"Waste Recycling" means "reusing waste materials and extracting valuable �
materials from a waste stream." (RCW 70.95.030) •
"Waste Reduction" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated but •
shall not include reduction through energy recovery or incineration.
"Landfill" means "a disposal facility or part of a facility at which waste is •
placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility." (RCW
70.95.030). •
�
solyd i�aste Inlerlocal �greemeitt
��
�
�
�
�
:::<:' RL - 11 :�
5
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the respective responsibility of
the parties in a solid waste management system which includes, but is not
limited to: Planning, waste reduction, recycling, and disposal of mixed
municipal solid waste, industrial waste, demolition debris and all other waste
defined as solid waste by RCW 70.95.030, and moderate risk waste as defined in
RCW 70.105.010.
III. DURATION
r�
�J
��
L�
n
u
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
This Agreement shall become effective on July 1, 1988, and shall remain in
effect through June 30, 2028.
IV. APPROVAL
This Agreement shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology
for its approval as to all matters within its jurisdiction. This Agreement
shall be filed with the City Clerk, with the Clerk of the King County Council
and with the Secretary of State of the State of Washington.
V. REVIEW AND RENEGOTIATION
5.1 Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of any provision of
this Agreement other than those specified in Section 5.2 below during the
six-month period immediately preceding the fifth anniversary of the effective
date of this Agreement and during the six month period immediately preceding
each succeeding fifth year anniversary thereafter. Such request must be in
writing and must specify the provision(s) of the Agreement for which
review/renegotiation is requested. Review and/or renegotiation pursuant to
such written request shall be initiated within thirty days of said receipt.
5.2 Review and/or renegotiation shall not include the issues of system rates
and charges, waste stream control or diversion unless agreed by both parties.
5.3 In the event the parties are not able to mutually and satisfactorily
resolve the issues set forth in said request within six months from the date of
receipt of said request, either party may unilaterally request the Forum to
review the issues presented and issue a written recommendation within ninety
days of receipt of said request by the Forum. Review of said request shall be
pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Interlocal Agreement creating the
Forum and pursuant to the Forum's bylaws. The written decision of the Forum
shall be advisory to the parties.
• 5.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in this paragraph to the contrary, the
parties may, pursuant to mutual agreement, modify or amend any provision of
• this Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement.
�
Solyd Waste Interlocal �graeme�u
�
<' :' RL - 116
VI. GENERAL OBLIGATION OF PARTIES
6.1 KING COUNTY
a. Manaqement. King County agrees to provide county-wide solid waste
management services for waste generated and collected within jurisdictions
party to this Agreement. The County agrees to dispose of or designate disposal
sites for all solid waste including moderate risk waste generated and/or
collected within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to King
County in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental
health laws, rules, or regulations.
b. Plannin4. King County shall serve as the planning authority within King
County for solid waste including moderate risk waste but shall not be
responsible for planning for haZardous or dangerous waste or any other planning
responsibility that is specifically designated by State or Federal statute.
c. Operation. King County shall be or shall designate or authorize the
operating authority for transfer, processing and disposal facilities, including
public landfills, waste reduction or recycling facilities and energy resource
recovery facilities as well as closure and post-closure responsibilities for
landfills which are or were operated by King County.
d. Collection Service. King County shall not provide solid waste collection
srrvices within the corporate limits of the City, unless permitted by law and
agreed to by both parties.
e. Supaort and Assistance. King County shall provide support and technical
assistance to the City if the City seeks to establish a waste reduction and
recycling program compatible with the County waste reduction and recycling
plan. The County shall develop educational materials related to waste
reduction and recycling and strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the
materials and will make these available to the City for its use. Although, the
County will not be required to provide a particular level of support or fund
any City activities related to waste reduction and recycling, King County
intends to move forward aggressively to establish waste reduction and recycling
programs.
f. Forecast. The County shall develop waste stream forecasts as part of the
comprehensive planning process and assumes all risks related to facility sizing
based upon such forecasts.
g. Facilities and Services. County facilities and services including waste
reduction and recycling shall be provided pursuant to the comprehensive solid
waste plan. All personal and real property acquired by King County for solid
waste management system purposes shall be the property of King County.
Solyd Waste Htterloca! �tent
�
�
�
i
r
•
•
�
�
�
�
w
�
�
�
�
�
RL -11
7
b.2 CITY
a. Collection. The City, an entity designated by the City or such other
entity as is authorized by state law shall serve as operating authority for
solid waste collection services provided within the City's corporate limits.
b. Disposal. The City shall by ordinance designate the County disposal system
for the disposal of all solid waste including moderate risk waste generated
and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City and shall authorize
the County to designate disposal sites for the disposal of all solid waste
including moderate risk waste generated or collected within the corporate
limits of the City, except for solid waste which is eliminated through waste
reduction or waste recycling activities consistent with the Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan. No solid waste generated or collected within the City
may be diverted from the designated disposal sites without County approval.
VII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES AND
OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL
� In establishing or amending disposal rates for system users, the County may
adopt and amend by ordinance rates necessary to recover all costs of operation
� including the costs of handling, processing, disposal, defense and payment of
claims, capital improvements, operational improvements and the closure of
� landfills which are or were operated by King County. King County shall
, establish classes of service for basic solid waste management services and by
ordinance shall establish rates for users of each class.
�
�
+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
VIII. LIABILITY
8.1 Except as provided herein, the County shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City and shall have the right and duty to defend the City through the
County's attorneys against any and all claims arising out of the County's
operations and to settle such claims, recognizing that all costs incurred by
the County thereby are system costs which must be satisfied from disposal rates
as provided in section VII herein. In providing such defense of the City, the
County shall exercise good faith in such defense or settlement so as to protect
the City's interest. For purposes of this section "claims arising out of the
county's operations" shall include claims arising out of the ownership,
control, or maintenance of the system, but shall not include claims arising out
of the City's operation of motor vehicles in connection with the system or
other activities under the control of the City which may be incidental to the
County's operation.
solyd Waste mrertocat qgre,emenr
�
>:: RL -
11 �
8
.. ............................................................................................................................... . �
�
�
�
�
8.2 If the County is not negligent, the City shall hold harmless, indemnify •
and defend the County for any property damages or personal injury solely caused �
by the City's negligent failure to comply with the provisions of Section 8.5.a. •
8.3 In the event the County acts to defend the City against a claim, the City •
shall cooperate with the County. In the event the City acts to defend the
County, the County shall cooperate with the City. •
8.4 For purposes of this section, references to City or County shall be deemed
to include the officers, employees and agents of either party, acting within
the scope of their authority.
�
�
8.5.a. All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of �
the City which is delivered to the system for disposal shall be in compliance
with the resource conservation and recovery act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et �
seq.), RCW 70.95, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8, and
all other applicable federal, state and local environmental health laws, rules �
or regulations.
The City shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of section
8.5.a. if it has adopted an ordinance requiring solid waste delivered to the
system for disposal to meet such laws, rules, or regulations and by written
agreement has authorized King County to enforce these within the corporate
limits of the City.
8.5.b. The County shall provide the City with written notice of any violation
of this provision. Upon such notice, the City shall take immediate steps to
remedy the violation and prevent similar future violations to the reasonable
satisfaction of King County which may include but not be limited to removing
the waste and disposing of it an approved facility. If, in good faith, the
City disagrees with the County regarding the violation, such dispute shall be
resolved between the parties in Superior Court. Each party shall be
responsible for its attorney's fees and costs. Failure of the City to take the
steps requested by the County pending Superior Court resolution shall not be
deemed a violation of this agreement; provided, however, that this shall not
release the City for damages or loss to the County arising out of the failure
to take such steps if the Court finds that the City violated the requirements
to comply with applicable laws set forth in this section.
8.6 City is not held harmless or indemnified with regard to any liability
arising under 42 USC § 9601-9675 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or as hereafter amended or
pursuant to any state legislation imposing liability for cleanup of
contaminated property, pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances.
Solid Waste haterlocal Agre�eement
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
>::`:; RL - 11
9
IX. FORUM
By entering into this Agreement, the County and City agree to enter into and
execute a Forum Interlocal Agreement. Such agreement shall provide for the
establishment of a representative Forum for consideration and/or determination
of issues of policy regarding the term and conditions of this Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement.
X. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
10.1 King County is designated to prepare the comprehensive solid waste
management plan and this plan shall include the City's Solid Waste Management
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 70.95.080(3).
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
10.2 The initial comprehensive plan prepared under the terms of this Agreement
shall be submitted to the King County Council and the designated interlocal
Forum by December 31, 1988. The plan shall be reviewed and any necessary
revisions proposed at least once every three years following the approval of
the Comprehensive Plan by the State Department of Ecology. From the effective
date of this Agreement until the 1988 plan is approved, the 1974 Solid Waste
Management Plan as approved in 1977 by DOE shall be used to meet the
requirements of RCW 70.95.185 as directed by the State Department of Ecology.
King County shall provide services and build facilities in accordance with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
10.3 The Comprehensive Plan will promote waste reduction and recycling in
accordance with Washington State solid waste management priorities pursuant to
chapter 70.95 RCW, at a minimum.
10.4 The comprehensive solid waste management plan will be prepared in
accordance with chapter 70.95 RCW and solid waste planning guidelines developed
by the Department of Ecology. The plan shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and facilities
required for handling all waste types;
b. Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies;
c. Policies concerning waste reduction, recycling, energy and resource
recovery, collection, transfer, long-haul transport, disposal, enforcement and
administration;
d. Operational plan for the elements discussed in Item c above.
10.5 The cost of preparation by King County of the Comprehensive Plan will be
considered a cost of the system and financed out of the rate base.
so[r'd i�aste hcrerlocal �graeme�u
- 12 '�:
RL 0
10.6 The Comprehensive Plan will be adopted when the following has occurred:
a. The Comprehensive Plan is approved by the King County Council; and
b. The Comprehensive Plan is approved by Cities representing three-quarters of
the population of the incorporated population of jurisdictions that are parties
to the Forum Interlocal Agreement. In calculating the three-quarters, the
calculations shall consider only those incorporated jurisdictions taking formal
action to approve or disapprove the Plan within 120 days of receipt of the
Plan. The 120 day time period shall begin to run from receipt by an
incorporated jurisdiction of the Forum's recommendation on the Plan, or, if the
Forum is unable to make a recommendation, upon receipt of the Comprehensive
Plan from the Forum without recommendation.
10.7 Should the Comprehensive Plan be approved by the King County Council, but
not receive approval of three-quarters of the Cities acting on the Plan, and
should King County and the Cities be unable to resolve their disagreement, then
the Comprehensive Plan shall be referred to the State Department of Ecology and
the State Department of Ecology will resolve any disputes regarding Plan
adoption and adequacy by approving or disapproving the Comprehensive Plan or
any part thereof.
10.8 King County shall determine which cities are affected by any proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If any City disagrees with such
determination, then the City can request that the Forum determine whether or
:.,�t the City is affected. Such determination shall be made by a two-thirds
majority vote of all representative members of the Forum.
10.9 Should King County and the affected jurisdictions be unable to agree on
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed amendments shall be
referred to the Department of Ecology to resolve any disputes regarding such
amendments.
10.10 Should there be any impasse between the parties regarding Plan adoption,
adequacy, or consistency or inconsistency or whether any permits or programs
adopted or proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the
Department of Ecology shall resolve said disputes.
XI. FORCE MAJEURE
The parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to
Agreement when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable
control of either party to this Agreement.
sotid Waste haterlocul �gre�ment
the terms of this
event beyond the
�
�
�
�
R L
- 121 <»::
XIII. WAIYER
No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be
deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of
any subsequent breach whether of the same or a different provision of this
Agreement.
XII. MERGER
This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representation
and/or agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this
Agreement and constitutes the entire contract between the parties except with
regard to the provisions of the Forum Interlocal Agreement.
XIV. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any
other entity or person except those expressly described herein, and no other
such person or entity shall be entitled to be treated as a third party
beneficiary of this Agreement.
XV. SEVERABILITY
If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid
or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and
effect.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
solid Waste lnterloca! �gr�ement
- 122 :::>::::>':»::: '''>::::> :>:: �:::::>::>::: ::>:::: :<:>'::::::>:::::>::::::<:' :>::>:::::>::::>:>:;::>:::::::�:>:::::::<::::::�:::<�::;:>:«:::>::::�:::�:::>:<:>::.;;;>:;';;';,`<<:::::�:`>:::`::�:<::�<':::�`�:'::>::`>:<'�`::::'::>::':::::>::::::��::>:::::>:::>;:;::<:::::�:<'>:::::::>:<�::':;:;:;:::::
RL :.:: ..: :.:..:.:.:::. :.::.::.::.:.::.::.:::::.::::.:.::::.:.:...::::::::::. ..:::: ...:::::::.. ..:::.::::.:...:.:. ...::.:::::::::::::.::::::::.�:::::: :::;:.:::.::::::.::.;:
XVI. NOTICE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date
set forth below:
CITY
KING COUNTY
MAYOR KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DATE:
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE N0.
DATE:
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE N0.
CLERK - ATTEST CLERK - ATTEST
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
CITY ATTORNEY KING COUNTY DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
UIS�#�
c33modelsw4
DATE:
solfd Waste tnterloca! Agreement
«<; RL - 12 >::
3
FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into between King County, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington, the City of Seattle, and the cities and
towns set forth below, all municipal corporations located within the boundaries
of King County, hereinafter referred to as "County" and "Cities". This
Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction
pursuant to formal action as designated on the signature pages.
I. PREAMBLE
This Agreement is entered into for the purposes of establishing a Forum
composed of representatives from the Cities and the County that will consider
issues of policy regarding terms and conditions of the Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement entered into individually between each City and the County.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the Forum and the terms and
conditions by which the parties shall discuss and/or determine policy and
development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
III. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective on July 1, 1988, and shall remain
in effect through June 30, 2028.
IV. APPROVAL
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
!
This Agreement shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of
Ecology for its approval as to all matters within the Department's statutory
jurisdiction, if any. This Agreement shall be filed with each City clerk, with
the Clerk of the King County Council, and the Secretary of State of the State
of Washington.
solyd Waste Interlocal �greement
�I
R L
- 124 >:
V. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
The scope of the responsibilities of the Forum is as follows:
1. Advise the King County Council, the King County Executive and other
jurisdictions as appropriate, on all policy aspects of solid waste
management and planning.
2. Consult with and advise King County Solid Waste Division on technical
issues related to solid waste management and planning.
3. Review and comment on alternatives and recommendations for King County
comprehensive solid waste management plan and facilitate a review and/or
approval of the plan by each jurisdiction.
4. Review subsequent proposed interlocal agreements between King County and
Cities for planning, waste recycling and reduction, and waste stream
control.
5. Review and comment on disposal rate proposals.
6. Review and comment on status reports on waste stream reduction, recycling,
energy/resource recovery and solid waste operations with
interjurisdictional impact.
7. Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators,
local government with collection authority, recyclers and County planned
and operated disposal systems.
8. Provide coordination opportunities between King County Solid Waste
Division, Cities, private operators and recyclers.
9. Aid Cities in recognizing municipal solid waste responsibilities,
including collection and recycling, and effectively carrying out those
responsibilities.
solid Waste haterlocal �greement
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
L
-12
R 5
VI. MEMBERSHIP
6.1 The Forum shall consist of a 12 member group of representatives of
unincorporated King County designated by the King County Council,
representatives of the City of Seattle designated by the City of Seattle, and
representatives of other incorporated cities and towns within King County that
are signators to this agreement designated by the Suburban Cities Association.
Members of the Forum shall be established on the most current population
estimates as published by the Washington office of Financial Management.
Currently, unincorporated King County composes 41 percent; Seattle, 36 percent;
and Suburban Cities, 23 percent of the total population. The calculations are
determined as follows:
Members
�
�
�
�
Unincorporated King County
Seattle
Suburbs
Total
12 x 41% = 4.92 5
12 x 36% = 4.32 4
12 x 23% = 2.76 3
12 + Chair
6.2 In calculating the number of representatives on the Forum, all numbers .5
and greater are to be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Proportional
representation of the Forum will be reviewed once every five years during the
life of this agreement and necessary revisions shall be made to the
proportional representation according to the formula set forth above based on
population change as established by the most current census.
6.3 In addition to the 12 members of the Forum, a citizen chair shall be
selected or removed by a majority vote of all members of the Forum. Each
representative shall have an equal vote on all Forum decisions. the Chair
shall vote only in the case of a tie on any vote of the Forum.
VII. MEETINGS
� Unless otherwise provided, Roberts Revised Rules of Order shall govern all
! procedural matters related to the business of the Forum. There shall be a
minimum of two meetings each year and not less than 14 days written notice
. shall be given to members prior to such meeting. Four or more members or the
Chair may declare an emergency meeting with 24 hours written notice to the
! members. The first meeting shall be held no later than March 1, 1988, and the
time, date and location shall be set by King County after consultation with the
� representatives of Seattle and the other cities and towns.
�
i
•
solid Waste haterlocal �graement
< RL-12
6
VIII. BYLAWS
8.1 The Forum shall, within sixty days after its first meeting, adopt bylaws
for the operation of the Forum. Such bylaws shall recognize that this Forum
shall function in the place of the Puget Sound Council of Governments Committee
on Solid Waste and the Solid Waste Management Board of the King Sub-regional
Council. This Interlocal Forum shall not report to nor have responsibilities
to or for either committee or council. The King County Solid Waste Advisory
Committee formed pursuant to RCW 70.95.165 shall continue pursuant to its
statutory functions and, in addition, shall advise the Forum on solid waste
matters.
8.2 The bylaws shall provide, among other things, that the Forum shall make an
annual written report to the public, and the parties to this Agreement on Forum
activities and the status of the solid waste systems in King County. The
bylaws may also provide for such other reports as deemed necessary.
8.3 The bylaws shall also provide for the manner in which the Forum will
provide its consultative and participatory advice regarding the solid waste
management plan.
IX. STAFFING AND OTHER SUPPORT
Staffing, supplies and equipment for the Forum shall be supplied by and
through the Puget Sound Council of Governments, its successor, or other entity.
Reimbursement to the Puget Sound Council of Governments for such staffing,
supplies and equipment shall be agreed upon and paid by King County from monies
collected from the solid waste rates and charges, after considering
recommendations by the Forum to King County. Tt�e Forum shall submit an
appropriation request to the County by May 31 of each year or such other
mutually agreed upon date. King County may, subject to approval by a
two-thirds vote of all constituted representatives of the Forum, terminate the
staffing with Puget Sound Council of Governments and provide such staffing,
supplies and equipment by other means.
so[id Waste lnterlocal �gre�merct
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -12
7
X. FORCE MAJEURE
The parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable event beyond
the control of any party to this agreement.
XI. MERGER
This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiation, representation
and/or agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this
Agreement and constitutes the entire contract between the parties except with
regard to the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement.
XII. WAIVER
No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall
be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or
any subsequent breach, whether of the same or a different provision of this
Agreement.
XIII. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit
any other entity or person, except those expressly described herein, and no
other such person or entity shall be entitled to be treated as a third party
beneficiary of this Agreement.
Solfd Waste Interlocal �grs,°ment
- 2 <
RL 1 8 >::
XIV. SEVERABILITY
If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal,
invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each party on the
date set forth below, pursuant to the legislative action set forth below.
CITY
Mayor
Date
Pursuant to Ordinance No.
Clerk-Attest
Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney
Date
KING COUNTY
King County Executive
Date
Pursuant to Ordinance No.
Clerk-Attest
Approved as to form and legality
K�ng County
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date
c33-forumsw.
so[id Waste Interlocal �greement
�
C� King County Public Rules
Public Rules and R ulations
- e9
- RL -129
Solid Waste Acceptance Policy PUT 7-1-2(PR)
KCC 10.04
_�=C3r!. .:�Pn��� . - PC .-- ..
- Department of Public Works/ Solid Waste Division ��� �ul"y�24,1992
%� i �' � ;i
1.0 SUBJECT TITLE: Waste Acceptance Policies for King County Solid Waste
Division Solid Waste Handling Facilities.
1.1 EFFECTIVE DATE
1.2 TYPE OF ACTION: Superseding PUT 7-1-1(PR).
1.3 KEY WORDS: (1) Solid Waste Disposal; (2) Waste Acceptance Policy; (3)
Solid Waste Facility Operation; (4) Clearance of Solid Waste
2.0 PURPOSE: To specify policies for the acceptance of waste at King County
solid waste facilities.
3.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED: Applicable to the Department of Public Works, Solid
Waste Division. Waste generators and transporters in King County are also
affected.
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
King County Code, Title 10, Solid Waste.
King County Department Policies and Procedures, PUT 7-3-2 (D-W).
King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR Part
61.
Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of November 14, 1990, 42 U.S.C. 7450-
7459, Title VI - Stratospheric Ozone Protection.
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Regulation III, Article 4,
Asbestos Control Standard.
King County Board of Health Code, Title 10, King County Solid Waste
Regulations.
Washington Administrative Code 173-303, State Dangerous Waste
Regulations.
Washington Administrative Code 173-304, Minimum Functional Standards
for Solid Waste Handling.
4.10 Clean Air Washington Act of 1991, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1028.
RL -130
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
5.0 DEFINITIONS
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
5.1 "Animal Waste" means carcasses or parts of carcasses, manures, and
waste by-products from rendering plants, fish processors, or animal
operations such as feedlots, poultry houses or dairies. The term also
includes dewatered sludge from pretreatment of wastewater emanating
from rendering plants, fish processors, or animal operations such as
feedlots, poultry houses, or dairies.
5.2 "Animal carcasses, exposed to pathogens" means waste animal carcasses,
body parts, and bedding of animals that are known to be infected with,
or that have been inoculated with, pathogenic microorganisms infectious
to humans
5.3 "Asbestos-containing waste" means any waste that contains more than one
percent asbestos by weight.
5.4 "Biomedical waste" means and is limited to carcasses of animal exposed
to pathogens, Biosafety level 4 disease waste, cultures and stocks of
etiologic agents, human blood and blood products, pathological waste,
sharps waste and other waste determined to be infectious by the
generator's infection control staff/committee.
5.5 "Treated biomedical waste" means biomedical waste that has undergone
treatment consistent with Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board
of Health� and is no longer considered capable of transmitting a
disease.
5.6 "Biosafety level 4 disease waste" means waste contaminated with blood,
excretions, exudates, or secretions from humans or animals who are
isolated to protect others from highly communicable infectious diseases
that are identified as pathogenic organisms assigned to Biosafety level
4 by the Centers for Disease Control, National Institute of Health,
Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories, current
edition.
5.7 "Bulky CDL waste" means dense, bulky materials typically resulting from
construction, demolition and land clearing activities. These materials
include but are not limited to asphalt, concrete, masonry, stumps and
rocks.
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL - 131
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
5.8 "Construction waste" means solid waste originating . from the
construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. Generally,
waste generated during construction consists of new materials and may
include, but is not limited to: concrete, brick, bituminous concrete,
wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles,
linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized or
plastic piping, sheet rock (also called drywall or plasterboard) and
plaster. Certain components of the construction waste stream are
considered to be inert and certain components are considered to be non-
inert. In no event shall construction waste include dangerous or
extremely t�azardous waste of any kind, garbage (as defined by K.C.C.
10.040.020), sewage waste, animal carcasses, chemical waste, petroleum
waste, or asbestos.
5.8.1 "Inert construction waste" means
construction waste including, but not
brick, bituminous concrete, masonry,
dirt, and gravel.
inert components of
limited to: concrete,
plastic piping, glass,
5.8.2 "Non-inert construction waste" means components of construction
waste which are not considered to be inert waste including, but
not limited to: wood, composition roofing, roofing paper,
shakes, shingles, linoleum, steel, copper, aluminum or
galvanized piping, sheet rock, and plaster. Some components of
non-inert construction waste can be composted, including non-
treated, non-painted wood.
� 5.9 "Container" means a device used for the collection, storage, and/or
transportation of solid waste including but not limited to reusable
� containers, disposable containers, detachable containers and fixed or
detachable tanks.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
5.10 "Contaminated soils" means soils containing contaminants at
concentrations greater than cleanup levels established by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) and which are not a
dangerous waste.
5.11 "Cultures and stocks" means wastes infectious to humans and includes
specimen cultures, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents, wastes from
production of biologicals and serums, discarded live and attenuated
vaccines, and laboratory waste that has come into contact with cultures
and stocks of etiologic agents or blood specimens. Such waste includes
but is not limited to culture dishes, blood specimens tubes, and
devices used to transfer, inoculate and mix cultures.
RL -132
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
5.12 "Dangerous Waste" means solid waste designated in WAC 173-303-070
through 173-303-103 as dangerous waste.
5.13 "Demolition waste" means solid waste originating from the demolition or
razing of buildings, roads, and other structures. Demolition waste may
include, but is not limited to: concrete, brick, bituminous concrete,
wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles,
linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized,or
plastic piping, sheet rock, plaster, pallets, asphalt floor tile, and
carpeting. Certain components of the demolition waste stream are
considered to be inert waste, and certain components are considered to
be non-inert. In no event shall demolition waste include dangerous or
extremely hazardous waste, liquid waste, garbage (as defined by K.C.C.
10.040.020), sewage waste, animal carcasses, chemical waste, petroleum
waste, or asbestos.
5.13.1 "Inert demolition waste" means inert components of demolition
waste including, but not limited to: concrete, brick,
bituminous concrete, masonry, plastic pipe, glass, asphalt floor
tile, dirt, and gravel.
5.13.2 "Non-inert demolition waste" means components of demolition
waste which are not considered to be inert waste, including, but
not limited to: wood, composition roofing, roofing paper,
shakes, shingles, linoleum, steel, aluminum, copper piping,
galvanized piping, sheet rock, plaster, pallets, and carpeting.
Non-inert demolition waste is not suitable for composting if the
wood fraction has been treated or painted.
5.14 "Drum containers" means rigid containers larger than 5 gallons made of
fiber, plastic, steel, or other nonferrous metal materials.
5.15 "Dusty materials" means material which may cause ambient air quality
standards for suspended particulates to be exceeded at the transfer
station during unloading or at the active area of the landfill during
placement, as specified in PSAPCA Regulations I, Section 11.03. Dusty
materials include materials such as sheetrock dust, silicone dust, saw
dust, fiberglass dust or any other loads which become airborne when
unloaded.
5.16 "Empty" means all waste has been removed that can be removed using the
practices commonly employed to remove materials from the type
container, e.g., pouring, pumping, or aspirating. For containers to be
considered empty under this Rule they must be treated in the following
manner:
RL -133
Solid Waste Division PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
Effective Date: July 24, 1992 KCC 10.04
■ Containers in excess of 25 gallons must have at least one end
removed.
■ Containers which once held acutely hazardous waste must be triple
rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by an equivalent
method to be considered empty.
■ Containers which once held substances regulated under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act must be emptied
according to label instructions or triple rinsed with an
appropriate solvent.
■ Cyl inders of compressed gas are empty when the pressure in the
container is equivalent to atmospheric pressure.
5.17 "Hazardous Waste" means solid waste designated by 40 CFR Part 261 and
regulated as hazardous waste by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
5.18 "Extremely hazardous waste" means solid waste designated in WAC 173-
303-070 through 173-303-103 as extremely hazardous waste.
5.19 "Health Department" means the Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health.
5.20 "Household hazardous waste" means all waste which would meet the
characteristics or criteria for designation as a State Dangerous Waste
or Extremely Hazardous Waste under WAC 173-303 except that it is
generated at a residence and is exempt. It includes, but is not
limited to cleaning agents, pesticides, solvents, motor fuels,
crankcase oil, and chemicals used for home repair and remodeling, auto,
boat and equipment maintenance, and hobby and recreational uses.
5.21 "Human blood and blood products" means discarded waste human blood and
blood components, and materials containing free-flowing blood and blood
products.
5.22 "Improperly handled waste" means waste handled other than in accordance
with PSAPCA Regulations III, King County Board of Health Code Title 10,
WAC 173-303, WAC 173-304, thi s publ i c rul e, or any other appl i cabl e
provision of local, state, or federal law.
�
.�
�
�
�
•i
RL -134
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 2�, 1992
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
5.23 "Industrial Waste" means by-products from manufacturing operations such
as scraps, trimmings, packing, sludges, spill residues and other
discarded materials not otherwise designated as Dangerous Waste under
Chapter 173-303 WAC. Industries producing industrial wastes include,
but are not limited to those providing the following products and
services: textiles, synthetic fibers, lumber and wood products, pulp
and paper products, plastic materials and resins, synthetic rubber
products, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, miscellaneous petroleum
and coal products, rubber and miscellaneous plastics, machinery and
mechanical� products, pipelines, printing and publishing services,
electrical services, petroleum refining, and wholesale petroleum
marketing. Also included in this definition is ash from incinerators
that burn waste products for fuel, such as waste-to-energy incinerators
or hospital incinerators.
5.24 "Inert waste" means nonhazardous, nondangerous solid waste which will
not dissolve, oxidize, or degrade under expected conditions of disposal
including saturation, anaerobic biological conditions, aerobic
biological conditions, varying pH conditions, exposure to leachate, and
temperature extremes.
5.25 "KCSWD" means the King County Solid Waste Division.
5.26 "Land clearing waste" means waste resulting from site clearing and
includes, but is not limited to: stumps, tree trunks, brush, other
vegetation, plant waste, rocks, mud, and other mineral waste. Most
vegetative land clearing waste may be composted.
5.27 "Liquid Waste" means any waste material that is determined to contain
free liquids by Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test), as described
in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical
Methods" (J.S. EPA Publication No. SW-846).
5.28 "Mixed municipal solid waste" means waste consisting of solid waste
generated by residences, stores, offices, and other generators of
wastes that are not industrial, agricultural, or demolition wastes.
5.29 "Official of the King County Solid Waste Division" means the Solid
Waste Division Manager or his/her designee.
5.30 "Pathological waste" means waste human source biopsy materials, tissues
and anatomical parts that emanate from surgery, obstetrical procedures
and autopsy. Pathological waste does not include teeth, human corpses,
remains, or anatomical parts that are intended for interment or
cremation.
•
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
�
�
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
RL -135
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
5.31 "Private vehicle" means a vehicle which is licensed to an individual
and which is not being used for hire or consideration.
5.32 "PSAPCA" means the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.
5.33 "Regulated refrigerant" means a class I or class II substance as listed
in Title VI of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
5.34 "Sharps waste" means hypodermic needles, syringes with needles
attached, IV tubing with needles attached, dental scalers, scalpel
blades, and lancets that have been removed from the original sterile
package.
5.35 "Sludge" means a solid or semi-solid material consisting of settled
solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved material
which contains less than 40 percent solids by weight and is not a
liquid waste.
5.36 "Total petroleum hydrocarbons" means the sum of petroleum hydrocarbons
as determined by current test methods approved by the State Department
of Ecology.
5.37 "Vactor waste" means waste collected in trucks equipped with a vacuum.
Vactor waste can be either wet (catch basin or storm drain cleanout,
etc.) or dry (loose insulation, soot, etc.)
5.38 "Waste Clearance Policy" means Public Rule PUT 7-2-1 (PR) or future
amendments of that rule.
5.39 "White goods" means major appliances, such as refrigerators, freezers,
air conditioners, stoves, water heaters, washers and dryers.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
5.40 "Yard waste" means waste resulting from maintenance or removal of
vegetation, including, but not limited to: brush, branches, leaves,
flowers, shrubs and small trees. Yard waste shall not include animal
excrement, rocks, garbage, solid waste other than yard waste,
demolition debris, moderate risk waste, biomedical waste, dangerous
waste, or extremely hazardous waste.
x1. -136
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.0 POLICIES: King County solid waste facilities are designed, constructed, and
operated primarily for the handling and disposal of mixed municipal solid
waste. Waste other than mixed municipal solid waste may be accepted without
conditions, accepted only under certain conditions, accepted only with waste
clearance authorization, or prohibited. A description of King County's
acceptance policies for various waste types is described below and are
organized according to the above listed categories. For an alphabetized
listing of waste types, see Appendix 9.1.
6.1 Accepted Wastes. The following types of waste are accepted at King
County solid waste facilities without restriction:
6.1.1 Mixed municipal solid waste.
6.1.2 Yard waste is accepted at any KCSWD facility. However,
composting of yard waste at home or at centralized facilities is
encouraged. Some transfer stations and rural landfills have
provisions for collecting segregated yard waste for composting.
Call 296-4466 for information on yard waste composting options.
6.2 Conditionally Accepted Waste. The following materials are accepted at
King County Solid Waste Division facilities only when conditions
specified below are met:
6.2.1 Aerosol cans or pressurized containers are not accepted in large
quantities. Ten or fewer containers mixed in with household
garbage are acceptable. Pressurized containers may also be
taken to the Household Hazardous Wastemobile. Call the Health
Department's Hazards Line at 296-4692 for information.
6.2.2 Individual dead animals weighing less than 15 pounds may be
disposed in the general waste stream. For dead animals weighing
more than 15 pounds, or dead animals disposed in quantity, see
Section 6.3.2 of this rule.
6.2.3 Human blood and blood products which are absorbed by materials
such as bandages, sanitary napkins, or commercial absorbents so
that the fluid will not be released from the material and\or
become airborne during normal solid waste handling procedures,
is accepted at KCSWD facilities. See Section 6.3.6 for free
flowing or fluid human blood and blood products.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Solid Waste Division
, Effective Date: July 24, 1992
RL -137
PUT J-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.2.4 Construction, demolition and land clearing waste, is accepted at
KCSWD facilities only as provided below.
6.2.4.1 Construction, demolition and land clearing waste will be
accepted at County facilities when delivered in a private
vehicle with a load capacity of less than or equal to
1,500 pounds. For the purposes of this section, vehicles
licensed for 8,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) or
less will be considered to have a load capacity of 1,500
pounds or less. Materials delivered under this paragraph
are subject to the following conditions:
a. Asphalt, concrete, masonry, stumps, rocks and other
bulky items must be no greater than two feet by two
feet by two feet in size and weigh less than 200
pounds.
b. All waste materials must be in lengths of eight
feet or less.
6.2.4.2 Non-inert construction and non-inert demolition waste are
not considered to be construction and demolition waste for
the purposes of implementing Tit1e 10 of the King County
Code and will be accepted at King County solid waste
handling facilities as provided below:
a. Bulky CDL waste must be no greater than two feet by
two feet by two feet i n si ze and wei gh 1 ess than
200 pounds.
b. All waste materials must be in lengths of eight
feet or less.
The provisions of paragraph 6.2.4.2 will be rescinded when
an ordinance is enacted which directs CDL waste to
specific facilities. Such an ordinance enactment is
expected no later than June 1, 1994 and may occur in early
1993. Notice will be provided at KCSWD facilities at
least thirty days before the enactment of such an
ordinance.
�
�
u
RL -138
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
PUT 1-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.2.5 Cultures and stocks of etiological agents, associated
biologicals and laboratory waste other than sharps are accepted
at King County solid waste facilities when treated according to
Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health.
Materials must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form
indicating that the waste has been treated.
6.2.6 Dusty material shall be disposed of in the following manner:
6.2.6.1 To the extent possible, dusty material shall be
separated from other types of solid waste. Dusty
material will be accepted at transfer stations and
landfills in mixed loads if it is the lesser
ingredient of the waste and does not create a
health hazard during unloading. �
6.2.6.2 Loads of dusty material shall be containerized in
plastic bags or wetted to the extent that they are
no longer dusty materials as defined in Section
5.15 of this Public Rule.
6.2.6.3 Dusty loads may be required to unload only at the
Cedar Hills Landfill if dust cannot be adequately
controlled at other solid waste facilities. Loads
delivered to Cedar Hills must be accompanied by a
Waste Clearance Decision Form.
6.2.7 Food products, including beverages, which are outdated, off-
specification or damaged and are in excess of one cubic foot
solids and/or 5 gallons of liquids, must be approved in writing
by the KCSWD prior to disposal. Waste clearance is required if
disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill is needed.
6.2.8 Household hazardous wastes other than motor oil, oil-based
paints, wood preservatives and banned or restricted-use
pesticides are accepted at Solid Waste Division facilities. The
Solid Waste Division recommends that materials be used
completely before disposing of empty containers. If materials
cannot be used, they should be disposed at a dedicated household
hazardous waste facility such as the Household Hazardous
Wastemobile. Contact the Health Department's Hazards Line (296-
4692) for more information on available disposal facilities.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
•
s
�
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -139
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC ]0.04
6.2.9 Human excrement shall not be deposited in the solid waste stream
for disposal. It should be disposed in a sanitary sewer or
approved on-site sewage disposal system. Disposable diapers,
adult incontinence products and other materials contaminated
with feces may be placed in the solid waste disposal system as
long as solid fecal material has been removed. This section
does not apply to facilities or institutions which are prevented
by state or county regulation from handling used diaper
products.
6.2.10 Insulation is accepted at any KCSWD facility unless the
insulation contains asbestos or fits the definition of dusty
material. See Asbestos-containing waste (Section 6.3.3) for
disposal of asbestos insulation. See Dusty material (Section
6.2.6) for policies related to the disposal of dusty waste.
6.2.11 Laboratory waste. See Biomedical waste (Section 6.4.3) or
Treated biomedical waste (Section 6.3.4) for waste from medical
laboratories. Other types of laboratory waste are regulated
according to the type of waste generated.
6.2.12 Medical waste. See Section 6.3.4 and 6.4.3 for treated and
unt'reated biomedical waste, respectively. Waste from medical
facilities which is not biomedical waste or treated biomedical
waste (i.e. office waste, cafeteria waste, etc.) is accepted at
KCSWD facilities.
6.2.13 Odorous waste. Loads of waste with highly offensive, irritating
or noxious odors may be required to be mitigated in some manner
or to be disposed directly at the Cedar Hills Landfill. Waste
clearance is required for materials disposed directly at Cedar
Hills.
6.2.14 Oversized materials. All materials disposed at KCSWD facilities
must be eight feet in length, or less. Oversized materials
which cannot be broken down or cut into lengths of eight feet or
less may be accepted at the Cedar Hills landfill with an
approved Waste Clearance Decision Form.
6.2.15 Polystyrene packaging material is accepted at KCSWD facilities
if bagged to prevent littering during transport and disposal.
� 6.2.16 Propane tanks are accepted if they are small and empty. Small
tanks are defined as those with a capacity of 10 gallons or
� less. Larger tanks, full tanks or tanks which could be refilled
may be taken to the Household Hazardous Wastemobile. Call the
� Health Department's Hazards Line at 296-4692 for information.
�
�
�
�
RL -140
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date:�July 24, 1992
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.2.17 Roofing material. See Construction, demolition and land
clearing waste (Section 6.2.4). If roofing material contains
asbestos, see Asbestos-containing waste (Section 6.3.3).
6.2.18 Tires. Up to four vehicle tires will be accepted from
noncommercial customers only. Tires may be taken to any KCSWD
transfer station or rural landfill. Call the Solid Waste
Division at 296-4466 for information on tire recycling and
processing.
6.2.19 White goods containing regulated refrigerants may not be
disposed at KCSWD facilities after July 1, 1992. Other white
goods are accepted at KCSWD facilities from noncommercial
customers only. Recycling of appliances is encouraged, call
296-4466 for information on recycling.
6.3 Special Waste. The following types of waste will be accepted only at
the Cedar Hills Landfill under the terms of an approved Waste Clearance
Decision Form as described in King County's Waste Clearance Policy,
providing that nothing in this rule shall prevent special waste
generated on Vashon Island from being disposed at the Vashon Landfill
when such disposal is indicated on an approved Waste Clearance Decision
Form.
6.3.1 Animal excrement is accepted at Cedar Hills only under the
following conditions: animal excrement which is mixed with
bedding material and which is not acceptable for composting and
cannot be disposed in a sanitary sewer system will be accepted
at 'the Cedar Hills Landfill when accompanied by an approved
Waste Clearance Decision Form.
6.3.2 Dead animals weighing more than 15 pounds, or dead animals
disposed in quantity should be taken to a rendering plant,
veterinary clinic, animal shelter, pet cemetery or buried on the
property owners property, so long as no nuisance is created. If
none of these methods are available, dead animals may be
accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill when accompanied by an
approved Waste Clearance Decision Form. See Section 6.4.1 for
policies related to disposal of animal carcasses exposed to
pathogenic organisms.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
RL - 141
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.3.3 Asbestos-containing waste shall be disposed of in the following
manner:
6.3.3.1 Asbestos-containing waste shall be accepted at the Cedar
Hills Landfill on Tuesdays and Fridays only, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Asbestos may be received
at the landfill on days other than Tuesdays and Fridays at
the sole discretion of the Solid Waste Division, depending
on staff availability.
6.3.3.2 Loads of asbestos-containing waste will be accompanied by
a PSAPCA Notice of Intent to Remove or Encapsulate
Asbestos. If the waste is not regulated by PSAPCA, a
' Waste Clearance Decision Form is required. Additionally,
all asbestos-containing waste must be accompanied by a
Waste Shipment Record as required by the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
6.3.3.3 Loads of asbestos-containing waste must be containerized
as described in the King County Board of Health Code,
Title 10 and Regulation III of the Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Authority.
6.3.3.4 Landfill officials shall require 24 hour advance
notification of all deliveries of asbestos-containing
waste material. Notification shall consist of a telephone
call from the generator, asbestos abatement contractor, or
hauler to an official of the KCSWD at the landfill,
providing the official with the name of the generator,
quantity of asbestos-containing waste to be delivered,
method of asbestos containment, and the date and time of
projected delivery.
6.3.3.5 Items which contain only nonfriable asbestos may be
unloaded mechanically. All other items must be unloaded
` by hand. During placement the hauler will:
a. Place the asbestos-containing waste in the trench or
container without rupture of the disposal bags.
� b. Place heavy containers and materials in an area of the
� trench or container dedicated to those materials. Heavy
containers and materials shall not be placed on top of
� plastic bags.
�
�
�
�
�
RL -142
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.3.4 Treated biomedical waste. See Animal carcasses exposed to
pathogens (Section 6.4.1), Biosafety level 4 disease waste
(Section 6.3.5), Human blood and blood products (Section 6.2.3
and 6.3.6), Cultures and stocks (Section 6.2.5), Pathological
waste (Section 6.4.11), or Sharps waste (Section 6.3.14).
6.3.5 Biosafety level 4 disease waste or other substances which the
biomedical waste generator's infection control staff person or
committee determines may create a significant risk of disease
wi 11 be accepted at the Cedar Hi 11 s Landfi 11 when treated i n
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of
Health and accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form.
6.3.6 Human blood and blood products which are in free flowing or
fluid form and which cannot be incinerated, poured via a utility
sink drain or toilet to an approved sewage treatment system, or
otherwise treated or disposed.in accordance with Title 10 of the
Code of the King County Board of Health may be accepted at the
Cedar Hills Landfill when packaged in a leakproof container and
accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. See Section
6.2.3 for human blood and blood products in absorbed form.
6.3.7 Catch basin residue and vactor waste must be dewatered to the
extent practicable. These wastes are accepted at the Cedar
Hills Landfill or other facility designated by the KCSWD when
accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. Waste Clearance
Decision Forms may be issued on a yearly basis for cleaning of
facilities in areas not likely to receive highly contaminated
runoff. Where contamination is likely, or if the generator or
hauler notices suspicious odor or coloration, a separate waste
clearance will be required for each such site. Testing of the
residue will be required and a special waste fee charged.
6.3.8 Containerized liquids
delivered to the Ceda
facility for disposal
Clearance Decision Form.
in excess of five gallons shall be
r Hills Landfill or other designated
and must be accompanied by a Waste
6.3.9 Contaminated soil will be disposed in the following manner:
6.3.9.1 Contaminated soil shall be accepted only at the Cedar
Hills Landfill and must be accompanied by an Waste
Clearance Decision Form. A completed Generator's Waste
� Profile Sheet and Generator's Certification of
Representative Sample must accompany the Waste Clearance
Application Form when requesting disposal clearance.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Solid Waste Division
Ef Date: July 24, 1992
RL -143
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.3.9.2 All deliveries of contaminated soil to the Cedar Hills
Landfill must be scheduled in advance with an official of
the KCSWD, providing the official with the name of the
generator, quantity of soil to be delivered and the time
of projected delivery. Landfill officials require a
. minimum 24-hour advance notification.
6.3.9.3 Oil-contaminated soils containing total petroleum
hydrocarbons in excess of 3 percent may cause damage to
equipment operation or environmental protection system
operation and may be denied entry.
6.3.10 Drum containers will be accepted only under the following
conditions:
6.3.10.1 Single drums which are empty as defined in Section
5.16 of this Public Rule, have lids removed and
holes punched in sides, and are generated and
transported by private individuals, may be disposed
at transfer stations. All other drums will be
accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill or other
designated facility, and must be accompanied by a
Waste Clearance Decision Form.
6.3.10.2
�
�
�
�
6.3.10.3
Full drums are regulated according to their
contents.
Whether empty or full, plastic, fiber and metal
drums must:
a. have at least one end removed, or
b. have been cut in half, or
c. have been crushed, and
d. be labeled non-hazardous.
� 6.3.11 Fuel tanks will be accepted for disposal at the Cedar Hills
Landfill only and must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance
� Decision Form. Fuel tanks must be empty as defined in Section
• 5.16 of this Public Rule. Tanks which once held acutely
hazardous waste must be accompanied by a receipt or
. certification from a hazardous waste handler stating that the
tank has been cleaned. Tanks must have both ends removed or be
� punctured with several holes prior to being transported to a
King County disposal facility.
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL -144
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
6.4
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.3.12 Industrial Waste shall be accepted only at the Cedar Hills
Landfill or other designated facility, and must be accompanied
by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. A completed Generator's
Waste Profile Sheet and Generator's Certification of
Representative Sample must accompany the Waste Clearance
Application Form when requesting disposal clearance.
6.3.13 Restaurant grease. Grease and fats from restaurants should be
disposed at rendering facilities. Materials not suitable for
rendering will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill and
must be accompanied by an approved Waste Clearance Decision
Form. Liquids must be minimized.
6.3.14 Sharps waste will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill
and must be containerized according to Title 10 of the Code of
the King County Board of Health. Sharps waste disposed at Cedar
Hills must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form.
The KCSWD strongly suggests that home-generated sharps not be
disposed with household garbage. Please consult your physician,
pharmacist or solid waste collection company for alternative
disposal methods for home-generated sharps.
6.3.15 Sludge from wastewater treatment plants may be accepted at the
Cedar Hills Landfill if accompanied by an approved Waste
Clearance Decision Form. The sludge must be in a non-liquid
state. See Industrial waste (Section 6.3.12) for industrial
process sludges.
6.3.16 Vactor waste. See Catch basin residue (Section 6.3.7).
6.3.17 Other waste. Other materials may be designated as special waste
by an official of the KCSWD due to special handling needs or
specific waste properties.
Not Accepted. The following loads will not be accepted at any KCSWD
solid waste handling facility under any circumstances:
6.4.1 Animal carcasses exposed to pathogens in research, including
bedding and other waste from such animals, should be treated
according to Title 10 of the code of the King County Board of
Health will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill and
must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form.
6.4.2 Banned or restricted-use pesticides.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July ?4, 1992
RL -145
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
6.4.3 Biomedical waste, untreated. Biomedical waste which has not
been treated in accordance with Health Department Solid Waste
Regulations is not accepted at King County solid waste handling
facilities.
6.4.4 Burning or smoldering material.
6.4.5 Explosives, including fireworks, detonators, blasting caps, and
ammunition.
6.4.6 Hazardous/dangerous waste. Including waste from small quantity
generators.
6.4.7 Non-containerized liquids.
6.4.8 Motor oil may be taken to the Household Hazardous Wastemobile or
other facilities which recycle used oil. For information on the
Wastemobile or on other options call the Health Department
Hazards Line at 295-4692.
6.4.9 Motor vehicles and vehicle parts. King County solid waste
facilities do not accept vehicles or vehicle parts for disposal.
Vehicles and parts may be taken to salvage or wrecking yards.
If a vehicle cannot be salvaged, a waste clearance application
may be approved. Proof of ownership must be provided.
6.4.10 Motor vehicle batteries, or lead-acid batteries, are to be
returned to retail outlets when purchasing a new battery. If
you do not need to purchase a new battery, call 1-800-RECYCLE
for information on collection centers.
6.4.11 Pathological waste.
6.4.12 Uncontaminated, or clean soil.
6.4.13 White goods containing regulated refrigerants are not accepted
at King County solid waste facilities for disposal after July 1,
1992.
6.4.14 Wood preservatives.
6.5 Site attendants, cashiers, facility supervisors, or officials of the
KCSWD may deny entry to incoming loads under the following
circumstances:
�
�
�
�
�
�
RL-146
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
Action
6.5.1 Loads suspected of containing waste which is regulated
hazardous/dangerous waste or any loads suspected of containing
improperly handled waste, burning waste or untreated infectious
waste may be denied entry until such time that a Waste Clearance
Decision Form is issued. Suspicious loads may be identified by
the following means:
■ Visible observation of regulated materials, or of
labeling, smoke, fumes, or the presence of liquids,
suggesting the presence of regulated materials.
■ Highly offensive, irritating or noxious odors which cause
discomfort to employees, customers or surrounding
residents or are otherwise indicative of regulated
materials.
■ Past problems have been identified with the waste
generator or hauler which have not been resolved.
6.6 Waste which may cause damage to the KCSWD solid waste handling
equipment or environmental protection systems may not be accepted for
disposal, at the discretion of the KCSWD staff, e.g., bulky waste, non-
containerized liquid waste or sticky, viscous materials.
6.7 The Director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee
shall have the authority to declare an emergency authorizing the
disposal of materials otherwise requiring conditions or clearance under
this rule, which could pose a threat to public health or the
environment if not disposed immediately.
6.8 The Director of the Department of Public
authorized and responsible to enforce er
prosecutor's office of this Public Rule
provisions of King County Code Title 23.
7.0 PROCEDURES
Action bv•
Generators/ 7.1
Transporters
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
Works or his/her desiqnee is
.
.C..�.cn rrilv.• �:::::i�'�.. ~:.. .....�i� VIIC
pursuant to the civil penalty
Determines appropriate disposal
facility for types of waste generated.
King County 7.2 Checks loads of waste arriving at King County solid
waste handling facilities. Denies access to or
gathers information sufficient to support
enforcement actions against persons with prohibited
loads.
�
��
Solid Waste Division
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
8.0 RESPONSIBILITIES:
RL -147
PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
KCC 10.04
8.1 Generators and transporters of waste are responsible for ensuring that
the waste is properly treated, handled, and disposed.
8.2 KCSWD is responsible for ensuring that King County solid waste
facilities are available for use by the residents of King County for
municipal waste handling and disposal, and that these facilities are
constructed and operated in conformance with applicable federal, state
and local regulations.
9.0 APPENDICES
9.1 Summary of King County Solid Waste Acceptance Policies
M2/put712.fin
August 2, 1993
�, King County Public Rule�
O Pubiic Rules and R ulations
e9 �
T �,,�� RL -148
Uocumern Coae No
Clearance of Solid Waste Disposal �PUT 7-2-1(PR)
King County Waste Disposal Facilities !KCC 10.10.030 ,
Depanmenulsswno Agen Etfecnve Date •
Depar�men� of Public Works/Solid Waste Division �
-- =`- .1��7 �� �n i oo�
Approved
1.0
SUBJECT TITLE: Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal at King County Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities.
1.1
1.2
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1992
1.1.0 File Date:
TYPE OF ACTION: Superseding PUT 7-2 (PR)
1.3 KEY WORDS: (1) Clearance of Solid Waste; (2) Solid Waste Disposal;
(3) Waste Clearance Policy; (4) Solid Waste Facility Operation; (5)
Health Department Solid Waste Clearance.
2.0 PURPOSE: To specify procedures for clearance of solid waste for disposal
at King County Solid Waste Division Facilities. Wastes affected by this
Public Rule include those types identified in Public Rule PUT 7-1-2 (PR)
and subsequent revisions as requiring clearance from the Solid Waste
Division for disposal at County facilities.
3.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED: Applicable to the Department of Public Works,
Solid Waste Division. The Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health, Environmental Health Division, and users of King County solid
waste disposal facilities are also affected.
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
:�:�
4.7
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Regulation III, Article 4,
Asbestos Control Standard.
King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
King County Code, Title 10, Solid Waste.
King County Department Policies and Procedures, PUT 7-3-2 (D-W).
King County Board of Health Code, Title 10, King County Solid Waste
Regulations.
Washington Administrative Code 173-303, State Dangerous Waste
Regulations.
Washington Administrative Code 173-304, Minimum Functional Standards
for Solid Waste Handling.
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal
King County Waste D�sposal Facilities
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
RL -149
PUT 7-2�1 (PR)
4.8 Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, more commonly known as the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC, Section 6901-
6991i.
4.9 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR
Part 61.
5.0 DEFINITIONS
5.1
5.2
5.3
"Container" shall be as defined by the waste acceptance policy.
"Contaminated soils" shall be as defined by the waste acceptance
policy.
"Dangerous Waste" means solid waste designated by WAC 173-303-070
through 173-303-103 as dangerous or extremely hazardous waste.
5.4 "Hazardous Waste" means solid waste designated by 40 CFR Part 261
and regulated as hazardous waste by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
"Health Department" means the Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health.
"Improperly handled waste" shall be as defined by the waste
acceptance policy.
"Industrial Waste" shall be as defined by the waste acceptance
policy.
"KCSWD" means the King County Solid Waste Division.
"Official of the King County Solid Waste Division" means the Solid
Waste Division Manager or his/her designee.
5.10 "PSAPCA" means the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.
5.11 "Special waste" means all wastes which require waste clearance, as
specified in the waste acceptance policy.
5.12 "Waste Acceptance Policy" means King County Public Rule PUT 7-1-2
(PR) or future amendments of that rule.
5.13 "Waste Clearance Application Form" means documen.tation provided by
the Health Department or KCSWD which, when completed by the
generator, provides information on the characteristics of the solid
waste load and specifications regarding an acceptable method of
disposal.
RL -150
Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal
King County Waste Disposal Facilities
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
6.0
PUT 7-2-1 (PR)
5.14 "Waste Clearance Decision Form" means documentation provided by the
KCSWD to generators based on information provided in the generator's
application. The decision form specifies conditions for disposal of
materials regulated under this public rule.
POLICIES
6.1 All incoming loads of special waste must be accompanied by a Waste
Clearance Decision Form.
6.2 Waste Clearance Decision Forms are issued by KCSWD after review of
a completed Generator's Waste Clearance Application Form. Copies of
the Generator's Waste Clearance Application Form are available from
KCSWD and the Health Department. A Generator's Waste Profile Sheet
and a Generator's Certification of Representative Sample are also
required for certain waste types specified in the waste acceptance
policy.
6.3 Forms completed by the generator are returned to the KCSWD or the
Health Department depending on the type of waste being disposed.
Instructions and addresses for returning forms are contained on the
forms.
6.4 Special waste loads may be subject to certain conditions which will
be specified on the Waste Clearance Decision Form. These conditions
include, but are not limited to:
6.4.1
6.4.2
A particular solid waste handling facility to which the
waste must be taken.
A disposal schedule to which the transporter must adhere.
6.4.3 An acceptable haul route to which the transporter must
adhere.
6.4.4 Conditions for handling or packaging the waste prior to
disposal.
6.5 Special wastes will be charged a special waste disposal fee as
specified by King County ordinance. The manager of the Solid Waste
Division, or his/her designee shall have the authority to make
exceptions to the special waste fee for a certain type of waste when
it can be clearly demonstrated that the waste type does not have
unique operational, administrative, public health or environmental
impacts.
6.6 The number of types of special waste loads accepted at the Cedar
Hills Landfill may be limited by weather constraints, such as frozen
ground, heavy rains or high winds, or by operational constraints.
Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal
King County Waste Disnosal Facilities
Effectiye Date: July 24, 1992
RL -151
PUT 7-2-1 (PR)
6.7 Available daily and yearly landfill capacity, in terms of both
nurrrbers of incoming vehicles and total tonnages, is restricted for
special wastes to quantities to be determined by the KCSWD. The
KCSWD reserves the right to allocate this capacity.
6.8 The generator will produce, at the request of the Health Department
of the KCSWD, laboratory test data from representative samples,
material safety data sheets, or other documentation that the waste
being disposed of is not a regulated Hazardous/Dangerous Waste or
otherwise being improperly handled. All such documentation will be
attached to the Waste Clearance Application Form.
6.9 The Generator's Waste Clearance Application Form should be submitted
to the applicable agency at least two weeks prior to the anticipated
start of disposal activities.
6.10 If material being disposed is generated at regular intervals and is
consistent in its composition, a Waste Clearance Decision Form may
be issued allowing disposal over a period of up to one year.
6.11 The Director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee
shall have the authority to declare an emergency authorizing the
disposal of materials otherwise requiring clearance under this rule,
which could pose a threat to public health or the environment if not
disposed immediately.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
6.12 Enforcement. The director of the Department of Public Works or
his/her designee is authorized and responsible to enforce or seek
enforcement through the prosecutor's office of this Public Rule
pursuant to the civil penalty provisions of King County Code Title
23.
7.0 PROCEDURES
Action bv•
Generator
Action
7.1 Determines if Waste Clearance is needed and obtains
application form from the KCSWD or the Health
Department. Returns completed application to the
Health Department with Generator's Waste Profile
Sheet and Generator's Certification of
Representative Sample if the waste is contaminated
- soil, or industrial waste. For all other waste
requiring clearance, the completed application is
returned to the KCSWD.
RL -152
Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal
King County Waste Disposal Facilities
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
�
KCSWD
Health
Department
KCSWD
Generator
Transporter
PUT 7-2-1 (PR)
7.2 Reviews Waste Clearance Application received from
generator. Completes Waste Clearance Decision Form
and sends to Generator. Keeps a copy of both forms
, in files.
7.3 Reviews Waste Clearance Application received from
generator. Completes Waste Clearance Authorization
Form and forwards to KCSWD. Keeps a copy of the
form in files. Sends copies of completed form to
Region 10 of the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency and the Northwest Regional Office of the
State Department of Ecology.
7.4 Reviews Waste Clearance Authorization received from
Health Department and Generator's Application Form.
Completes Waste Clearance Decision Form and sends
to Generator. Sends copies of completed form to
the Health Department, transporter and engineering
consultant, if any. A copy of the completed
approval form is kept in the KCSWD files.
7.5 Provides transporter with copy of Waste Clearance
Decision Form.
7.6 Presents Waste Clearance Decision Form to KCSWD
staff at cashiers booth with each load of approved
waste delivered. Retains form during unloading.
Loads of asbestos-containing wastes must also
provide Waste Shipment Records to the landfill
cashier.
KCSWD 7.7 Keeps records of cleared wastes entering landfill.
RESPONSIBILITIES
8.1 All those generating solid waste for ultimate disposal at KCSWD
disposal facilities are responsible for ensuring that the solid
waste is not being improperly handling and that, when required, a
Waste Clearance Decision Form accompanies the solid waste loads.
8.2 Transporters of solid waste to KCSWD facilities are responsible for
not knowingly transporting improperly handled waste, and for
presenting a Waste Clearance Decision Form as requested by King
County officials or facility attendants.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal
King County Waste Disposal Facilities
Effective Date: July 24, 1992
RL -153
PUT 7-2-1 (PR)
8.3 KCSWD is responsible for ensuring that King County solid waste
facilities are available for use by the residents of King County for
municipal waste handling and disposal, and that these facilities are
constructed and operated in conformance with applicable federal,
state and local regulations.
8.4 The KCSWD is responsible for requiring transporters to present an
approved Waste Clearance Decision Form at the disposal facility
prior to unloading materials covered by this Public Rule. The KCSWD
has the authority to check incoming loads to ensure that the waste
being delivered is consistent with the waste described on the Waste
Clearance Approval Form.
8.5 Officials at the KCSWD and Health Department are responsible for
processing Waste Clearance Application Forms and for maintaining
records of materials approved for disposal.
9.0 APPENDICES
9.1 Generator's Waste Clearance Application
9.2 Generator's Waste Profile Sheet
9.3 Generator's Certification of Representative Sample
9.4
Health Department Waste Clearance Authorization Form
9.5 Solid Waste Division Waste Clearance Decision Form
M2:put721.fin
June 15, 1992
r�
u
O
Volume II
August 1993
P�p�d by
King County Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
400 Yesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, Washington 98104-2637
�\I//
���
Sorting
It Out
7�iis enri�,e documenr is
Together prirlted on rec,�cled paper
Contents
Appendix A: Waste Generation Forecast Methodology
Appendix B: waste Char�,cterization study
Appendix C: Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan
Appendix D: Recycling Mark+ets Asses.sment
���• �
���• �
Waste Reduction and Recycling Prograrns
Resource Guide to Recycling Centers in King County
Appendix G : Resource Guide for Recycling and Disposal Alternatives
for Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Debris
Appendix H: Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis
���• �
APP�� J�
APpendix K:
Landfill Reserve Fund
Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste
WUTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment
0
APPENDIX A
ENERATION
ORECAST
ETHODOLOGY
xirig county
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
_����
�i��
SOrting
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
A-1
Appendix A
Waste Generation Forecast Methodology
A. OVERVIEW
To better understand solid waste generation, waste reduction and recycling (WR/R), and disposal, King County is continuing to
update and develop its methodology and data base to provide a genera.l picture of the quantities and composition of the waste
stream. The following sections describe the results of the mixed municipal solid waste (MMSVC� generation forecast methodology
presented in Chapter II.B.1.
B. FORECAST METHODOLOGY
i The County's estimate of MMSW generation quantities are derived by a plaiuiing forecast model developed in 1988. The
• primary objective of the planning forecast model is to obtain reasonable estimates of MMSW to be processed and disposed of at King
County facilities. Future MMSW quantities are required to plan facilities operations and maintenance requirements budgets, and to
� estimate capacities of e�sting and planned transfer and disposal facilities. Information obtained from the forecasting model can be
useful for other purposes. For example, the MMSW generation forecast minus known disposal tonnages allows the County to monitor
� annual county WR/R.
• Various methods are available to determine the quantikies of MMSW generation. Generally, statistical models are developed to
determine the best historical relationship between solid waste quantities and factors that increase or decrease the solid waste stream.
• The best model is used to forecast future waste streams.
The Counry's approach is to develop statistical relationships between historical waste generation and demographic and economic
� trends to predict future waste generation. For example, the quantitative relationship between population and solid waste quantities
was estimated historically and used to establish a model to project future waste generation based on a�ailable population forecas�.
� In addition, models of per capita solid waste generation and disposal were eacamined based on their relationship to various economic
• factors, such as income, employment, and solid waste disposal rates.
A number of models and e�lanatory factors were considered in developing forecasting equations. Waste generation growth
• patterns in King County have been affected by changes in population, employment, business activity, housing characteristia, income
level, the cost of waste disposal, and the value of recyclable materiat. In addition, waste generation patterns have changed as the
� County has become more urban and suburban, and less rural.
King Counry has developed and analyzed many different models to capture the impact Qf these factors. In 1g87, the Counry
� selected a model developed by R.W. Beck and Company for forecasting tuture MMSW generation. For more information on this
• analysis see Appendix B, Waste Stream Characteristia (King County Adopted 1989 Comprehensive Solul l�aste Management Plan).
The forecasting model was developed on a logarithmic transformation of the data using a linear least squares statistical
• technique. Model results are presented in the forecasting equation below, with the t-statistia in parenthesis under the ccefficients,
followed by summary statistia for the model as a whole. The equation is: .
�
�
�
Irl�..�
Append ��x A: Waste Generatron Forecast Methodology
•
A-2
1nGen =-26.44 + 2.12 * InPOP + 1.14 * 1nRPI
( (13.50) (3.79)
F statistic = 217, R-squared = .977
Standard error of regres�sion = .049
where InGen = Log of King County solid waste generation
InPOP = Log of population
InRPI = Log of real per capita personal income
This model was selected because of its ability to eacplain past generation patterns and because of the availabiliry of data for the
two explanatory variables: population and real personal income. Using these data, the model provides a good eaplanation of
historical changes in waste generation and is considere� a reliable tool for predicting waste stream quantities. Population growth
affects solid waste generation because more people and a coreesponding increase in employment ha�e increased waste generation
quantities. Changes in the level of real personal income represent a more complex phenomenon. Higher personal income would be
expected to lead to increased solid waste because people ha�e more money to spend on produca and services. Furthermore, real
personal income is considered a reasonable indicator of economic conditions.
Alternative models using employment, value of manufacturing output, household income, and disposal fees were examined, buc
did not e�,plain the historic pattern of solid waste generation as well.
C. FORECAST RESULTS
Forecasts of King County's solid waste generation were developed utilizing the assumptions presented in the forecast equation.
MMSW generation forecast results obtained from the low-, medium-, and high-growth scenarios are presented in Tables A 1 and A.2.
Long-term population growth is based on forecasts prepared for the Puget Sound Regional Council, which forecast population
growth for King Counry excluding Seattle to be an a�erage of l.g percent per year from 1991 to 20�, and .g percent per year from
2000 to 2010. Personal income is based on 1992 PSRC estimates for nominal per capita, pecsonal income from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and has been deflated by the Seattle Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
consumer price index.
The medium-growth generation forecast assumes personal income growth will grow at the rate of approximately 1.5 percent
annually from 1991 ttuu�ough 2010. Following the past five years of very high growth, King Counry MMSW generation is expected to
increase annually by about 4.7 percent during the 1990s and 2.7 percent for the decade beginning 2000. This results in a total
increase in waste generation of 107 percent over the period 1990 to 2010.
Considering that the average annual growth rate for estimated MMSW genera,tion over from 1985 to 1990 was approximately
9.4 percent, these projections may be conservative. These five years were a time of both high population and economic growth in
King County, however, and such a rapid growth rate appears to be unsustainable over the entire 20-year forecast period. Fxpectations
are for more moderate increases in both population and real per capita, personal income.
Appercdix A: Waste Ceneralio�t Forerast Methodology C. Forecast Results
A-
3
Table A1 ProjeCted Av�erage Mnual Growth Percent Increase
Rates for King County Real Personal MMSW
Population Employment Income Generation
1980-1990
actual 2.8 3.3 3.3 8.0
1990-2000
low 1.5 1.0 3.3
medium 1.9 2.6 1.5 5.7
high 2.8 1.8 8.1
2000-2020
low 1 2 1.0 3.0
medium 1.7 2.6 1.5 5.4
hig h 2.8 1.8 8.1
Table A2 King County
MMSW GeneTation ForeCBSt, Population Personal Income Generation
Base Growth Scenano Number % Change Amount % Change Tons % Change
1980 775,100 5.7 15,600 -5.7 602,600 2.2
1981 816,700 5.4 15,400 -1.5 638,500 6.0
1982 818,400 0.2 15,100 -2.0 667,400 4.5
1983 825,200 0.8 15,400 2.5 648,900 -2.8
1984 835,200 1.2 16,000 3.3 729,300 12.4
1985 853,800 2.2 16,500 32 805,500 10.4
1986 872,300 2.2 17,300 4.5 891,500 10.7
1987 892,100 2.3 17,800 2.9 989,400 11.0
1988 916,800 2.8 18,400 3.4 1,038,400 5.0
1989 947,600 3.4 19,100 3.6 1,176,200 13.3
1990 991,100 4.6 18,800 -1.6 1,269,800 8.0
1991 1,024,300 1.8 18,300 -22 1,326,800 4.5
1992 1,042,500 1.7 17,900 -2.4 1,339,600 1.0
1993 1,060,200 1.7 17,900 02 1,391,500 3.9
1994 1,078,200 1.7 18,100 1.0 1,458,600 4.8
1995 1,096,900 1.7 18,400 1.5 1,538,600 5.5
1996 1,115,900 1.7 18,700 1.5 1,622,900 5.5
1997 1,135,300 1.7 18,900 1.5 1,711,900 5.5
1998 1,154,900 1.7 19,200 1.5 1,805,800 5.5
1999 1,174,900 1.7 19,500 1.5 1,904,900 5.5
2000 1,195,300 1.7 19,800 1.5 2,009,400 5.5
2001 1,205,500 0.9 20,000 1.5 2,064,500 2.7
2002 1,215,700 0.9 20,100 0.8 2,121,100 2.7
2003 1,226,100 0.9 20,300 0.8 2,179,300 2.7
Compounded Annual Growth Rates 2004 1,236,500 0.9 20,400 0.8 2,239�000 2•7
Personal MMSW 2005 1,247,000 0.9 20,600 0•8 2�300�400 2'�
Population Income Generation 2006 1,257,600 0.9 20,800 0.8 2,363,500 2•7
2007 1,268,300 0.9 20,900 0.8 2,428,300 2.7
1981-1990 2.5% 1.9% 7.8% 2008 1,279,100 0.9 21,100 0.8 2,494,900 2.7
1991-2000 1.996 0.6% 4.7% 2009 1,290,000 0.9 21,300 0.8 2,563,300 2.7
2001-2010 0.996 0.8% 2.7% 2p10 1,301,000 0.9 21,400 0.8 2,633,600 2.7
A. Overuiem Appendix A: Waste Generation Forecast Methodo[ogy
�
�
� O
�
�
, APPENDIX B
•
. ASTE
•
c��zA�oN
.
' TUDY
•
� xin couri
� Comp rehen,sive
• Solid Waste
� Management Plan
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
•
�
�
•
•
• .
•
•
�
•
•
,�i�,
�mQ
SOrting
It Out
Together
� .................... .......................................... ........:::: ..: ......... v:::::::::::::: w:::::::: �•:: v.::::::::. :!'i^:i�:•:'}:ni '+h:n4:::: �:n•...... r :: ••:::.i+.::
::::::: w :..............:: .. . •x:::x::: •:::::::: •• ::nw::::.�::::::::::::::....:..::.�::::::.. .�.:: ........•:.•L: w:::: {....,...:::••: • ... i . ....{, rr ::•::<'•:ti:i:+:::':%r<y:+':?:':�': 'w
.,..:::�•:•:•?:.•:.....,.,..+�,,.'o....,,. . ..< ....-.,,,. ....,. :::..'w>:,:•;:::...:-::�:,�.;,.;v.AG+.::x:•?` �?•a'. � :Y. ' :&�s . . •`'•`'.,.,�„�',
. ... ..» .`r..�.... ;Ji %•: Y: :•�:'{� "%b:. � :......<.d .:.:...., . >'.'+.}5.�..��'.+'r .. +
. k .<,`.�S:v,.•.�.t .v. .. ..... .� ............. .....C.:.,..,... ............. ., . ^:::: ?•..,........ f/'�•::.�,'.....r. ♦ •::«........ .... .::., r:.. •.... ..
.:4.,r ...........<..:..r......v...t............t ............................... ..........: . .................................... .::t•........ . ..............� ::'•: :.;...........;.....: . r..n...
:::::::.........................................................:.................. ........,.::.::.:..:::.::.::::::.�.�:::::.�:::::... ,.:.,<.::..;::::::.:...::.�:::::.:. ,::r.,:.:..>.:�: - 1
... ....... :...:::.:..�.v.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:. :.: :.:::.,.:::::::::...:..:.:::.... >...........:...... ....::.�.:::. . , .::, . ,. . :< . : ..;.::::.:�. :: :.;. v .. B :>.�:i.
< ,•,•.>+r.....:::x.:::: ::..V...u..:;r.• . ...r ;.,. ' ,.?c5. .'•2!{"'.t'�,.',?'.'; .:fi�r'.�."••'¢.;R . w;• .����i,
........... . .....rr.: ••:.•
,,; :......�;.y''•r: 2'/' �.v:+ .... .. .....�::::. .. .. ..x+^+. .rS.,•:. .: ....:.........:� �+". t�.}::. .. ....:.o.�.�..:.:... F ....... ...... .
✓'�'irS::.,•:ir:r. .t•cc ?.w..;::;..:::.°''.�.::.�•:::a;;::?$.:.:: k.Sk•:::::.:•..••..:::..•::.:.. . . . ,,.:::�:: •: •.::�:�•: •...:...:...... Y{.:::::: �::t..t••'•:::• :::.................::•...
:.:: :............� 'Y� ............. ... ;, . •::.
Appendix B
Waste Characterization Study
Prepared foc
K�ng County Solid Waste Dlvision
King County Department of P�bllc Works
Yesler Building, Suite 600
400 Yesler Way
Seattle, Washington 98104
Prepared by:
SCS Bnglneers
2950 Northup Way
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(2()6) 822-5800
In association with:
RIS
Thomas/Wright Inc.
Herrera Environmental Consultants
Statisstia and Epidemiology Research Corporation
Datasolve
October 15, 1991
File No. 049002
Apperadix B: Wi�ste Cbaracterization Study
B-
2
� � �� :� � i•
This report was prepared by SCS Engineers for the King County Department of Publlc Works, Solid Waste Divisioa A number
of the King Counry staff deserve credit for the commitrnent they demonstraxed to the successful completion of this project. Jeanne
Marie Isola, the King Counry Project Manager, was an invaluable asset in conducting this project. She was supported by the Counry's
previous project manager, Theresa jennings, who continued to provide assistance in a number of activities. Other King County solid
waste and recycling staff who merit special menaon include jeff Gaisford and Geraldlne Cole.
A great deal of assistance was a]so provided by Gayle Starr and other King County personnel responsible for the operation of
the Counry transfer stations. Special thanks must be extended to the transfer station personnel at Bow Lake, Houghton and Renton
Transfer Stations.
Credit for the successful completion of this project must also be extended to the many waste haulers who cooperated by
identifying potential waste samples and by participating in the waste quantiry surveys.
This work was performed under contract to King County, Contract No. P01826P.
Certifica,te of Engineer
1'he technical material and data contained in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the
undersigned, whose seal to practice as a Professional Engineer is a8`uced below.
�ll�t� �°�.��t�
Philip G. Newton
Project Manager
Appertdix B: Waste cbaructerizatiort study
O�t . t S, i�19 �
Date
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.........................................................................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.� :.::::...:::::::::::::.:.:::::::::...............,-...: .,.:.•.•�:•�::«<..:>::<>r�:.;
.;,��w:.< .:.::::::........ ..>;.:..:>::.:�.::.: �::.
::; ;x:::
............ , •.....
.:. f•.:... :::::::::::
.................................................................:.................... .,•:::.::.:::. ,:..:::......:::.... ,. .. :..
. . . . . . . .. : : : : : : : : : : : : ...: : : : : : : : :.: : : : : : : : : : : : . : : . : : ; •;:::.: : : :.: .,: ..;.: : : : : : .;.: : : ::: : : :: : : : : : : : : : .: .: : .;:: .,: .: : . . . . . . . . . . . . :.> :: .:;: : : •;: : . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . •: ;. �. :.: .
...< .....................«<:...:.;.:,. ;:•;
:........ ... .......... ... . ... . :: . .. . ..
: ;: «.;:.: �:>:.;:.>;:.:; : : <:.: <•: : < . . . . . . .
. ,«:<.f;�•::.
...c.... . _
,�:;::��::::��:.::
:.:>�:,:::;
B
3
............. ....:::::::::::::::....................::: :..:...............:...................::::: ::... .......:....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . <:: ,� > > : :
.............:...
: : . � : . � : :: : .: ::.: :.::.:>: :.> :::::: :.::.::.::.:.: : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . . ... . . : : . � : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : .::: : : : . . . . . . . . . .
.......... , .::::::::.::.:::::::::::::.:::.::::::::::::::.::::::::.:::::.:�:::::.::::::::.:.::::::::.�:::........:.::::.:::.:::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.::::.::.>�.::.: :::::::.::.:::::::::.
:.:: :.:. � :::.:::::::.: �:. �. �::. �::: :.::...........................................:.................................:.:....................................................:...
:.: :.::::::.:.::: ::.::::.�.�:::::::: :.: :.::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::::::::::::::::: :.::::::::::::::: :::.:.:�:::::::::::::.�:::.�::::::::::::::.�:.::.:::::::::::::.::: :.:: :::::::::::<:>:�:r:r::.
w :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::m:::: :.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.: :.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::::::::::: :.:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.w:::::nw.Y.r.......vx::I:i =•
:� ::::�r:
�.
.�,:•�::
fr
>».:.....
Contents
C�
Ba�cv7rlvB s�RY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s - 6
SEC'1'ION 1. IlV'I'RODUC'lYON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 11
1.1 Purpose, Scope, and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 11
1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 11
1.3 Comparison to Past Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 11
1.4 Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 13
SEC'TION2. METHODS ......................................................... B-14
2.1 Overview .................................................................. B-14
2.2 Waste Quantiry Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 14
2.3 Waste Composition Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 15
SECTION 3. QUAN1TlY AND COMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDBNTIAL WASTE STREAMS .. B- 18
3.1 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 18
3.2 Residential Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 18
33 Nonresidential Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 19
SBCI'ION 4. COMPOSTI'ION OF SELECT NONRESIDE1V17AL WAS"l� STREAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Introduction ................................................................
4.2 Waste Composition Resul� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SECI'ION 5. CHARAC'I'ERIZATION OF SPBCIAL WAS"TB S1'REAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Introduction ................................................................
5.2 Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing (CDL) Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Wood, CDL, and Hazardous/Special Waste Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SEC1'ION 6. BO'I'IY.E ANll CAN COUN'1'S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 Introduction ................................................................
6 .2 Results ....................................................................
B-37
B
B-37
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
B-61
8-61
8-61
8-62
B-70
B-70
B-70
REFERENCES .................................................................B -76
GLOSSARY...................................................................B
ADDENDUM A METHODOLOGIES ...........................................................B
ADDENDUM B COMBINED CITY/COUNTY DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 99
ADDENDUM C CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 105
ADDENDUM D WASTE QUANTITIES BY MAIBRIAL TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 113
Append'�x B: Waste Chriracters:zation Sludy
o»::c:
•::o>:,..
B-4
<::>:::::;<><�:><:::�:::>:>::::::�:;<:::::<:::>:::::::::::�:::�::::<::::>::::;::::;::;:t::::<:::::>::::> :::::::::::::���::��::::>:::>::::>::>::;::��::<:::::;::;.:::::::::::::::;.::<:<:>::>::_:�:<::::::»:::::�:���:::::�:::::::::»::>::�._::��:�>:�::::::>::::::::>::;:�::<::>:�::::::>::>:�::::::::::::::::>::>:<::::::>:;::<:::::< <�;;::<;
List of Tables
Number
Page
E.1 Total Waste Stream by Type of Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 10
3.1 Waste Quanh�es by Generator Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 22
3.2 Unit Waste Disposal Rates in I{ing County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 23
3.3 Total Waste Stream by Generator 1 �'PQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 24
3.4 Resldential Waste Quan�aes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 25
3.5 Urban Single-Famlly Residential Waste Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 26
3.6 Rural Single-Family Residential Waste Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 27
3.7 Multifamily Residentialal Waste Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 28
3.8 Residential Self-haul Waste Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 29
3.9 Waste Composition, All Residential by Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 30
3.10 Waste Composition, All Residenaal by Generator Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 31
3.11 Nonresidential Waste Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 32
3 .12 Waste Composidon, Total CII by Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 33
3.13 Waste Composition, Nonresidenaal Self-haul by Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 34
3.14 Waste Composition, All Nonresidential by Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 35
3.15 Waste Composition, All Nonresidential Combined, Annual Figures by Generator Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 36
4.1 Waste Composition Resulis for Select Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 43
5.1 Composition of Consavction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 64
5.2 Wood, CDL, and Special Wastes by Subcategory, Residential Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 65
5.3 Wood, CDL, and Special Wastes by Subcategory, Nonresidential Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 66
5.4 Wood, CDL, and Special Wastes by Subcategory, Seled Nonresidential Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 67
6.1 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Residential Waste Streams, Dry Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 71
6.2 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Nonresidenaal Waste Streams, Dry and �et Seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 72
6.3 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Nonresidential Waste Streams, Annual Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 73
6.4 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Select Nonresidential Waste Streams, Annual Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 74
A2.1 Main Menu for R:Base System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 96
A2.2 Secondary Menu for Opdon 8, Printing Other Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 96
A2.3 Number of Samples per Generator Type per Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 97
A2.4 Number of Samples per SIC per Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 98
B.1 Waste Quantities, King County and Seattle Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 101
B.2 Waste Composition, King County and Seattle Combined, Residential Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 102
B.3 Waste Composiaon, King Counry and Seattle Combined, Residential Waste Saeam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 103
B.4 Waste Composlaon, King County and Seattle Combined, Residential Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 104
C.1 Lower and Upper Confidence Limits, Residentia( Waste Streams, Dry Season Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 107
C.2 Statistical Certainties, Nonresidential Waste Streams, Annual Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 108
C3 Statistical Certainties, Select Nonresidential Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - lOg
D.1 Weight of Materials, King Counry Residential Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 114
D.2 Weight of Materials, King Counry Nonresidential Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 115
D.3 Weight of Materials, King County Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 116
Apperulix B: i�a,ste cbiaracterixaeion Study
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
*
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
..: a• r �:.::.:o: •;: ..: • •. :?>:;.2::k••,•!+:i�i; :+:.:c:i:�
.<,�.... . . .�<
..:,.�::»�A«:«:::;».. ...�...
::::Nil!!�i''i4�:lO ...t.{+..Y....:.... .
:::f:'tri>.i:::2:::�:<:::::i::< �: '
+.::t�'i:+i:•li::•:i:ti::i:::?:::'n ...C...
.;;.,4.•tiviii:
;;:;:;i;:; g:;?;:::S:::i:
::�:•'.k:;:;::;:;'.;#;:.>::.>i: :.::•::•::•>:::•>i:;:•:::•>::•:;•r:•::•::•:;;::>
•:: • Y: : t ;: •: : •::; • i:; �:? �:'.• • i
<�?�:� ����t::;�::-:::;:;:;�; •
::•`•:'S:f'
, c: <•.:»:k...a.r>:.. •
v vvY : . 3 •rRxu.v:.. . .{{'{'?{K .5��. .....:
�y'�y{%rl'!:i:ti+: �:� ::{:J :;Y
n ...............: •:...:.:::::: ...... . ............
4::::: w ::::::::::::::::: •:: v.w: :•iiY t
....... vvw ::::::: :..... x:v.:.: . ..... ::::::::::.:'+'vi!•i:•ii:'i{::•
•:•i:�•.� :::. ....... .. v::.}•}:•::i:i$ijii:?:?ti�i'�i:::ri..:i'i:;:;::;::;.:;.y:::::i'•:::::::::i �'•. .......... .. . 4
, r.•r.•..:;r+..: �..:r::.x . ..r.:....>,.:%i:��:�3:3::'t?'t:•.,:<t�i:rr:••,:5:::.......a.......tt....::{,..#:t•::::::::.,. • :::::::::::.:• :v::: •.::�: ..
:.r.. {viry}}i{•: •Tn�.L�'. i}S.:S:}.::i�w;i.:{!{4n'{:^r.•iSh::v\l {......:::�.}: •::..f,..^....y::::
f . ..i :....:........ n..... .........v.....r...M1..... . •:nn:::::. m..... .....
::.:::::+F.v\4 ::..................ti.......M1............................n.x:.... ............ :::•:: .......... ........ :.: .;; .. .. ..... . ... . .
•...........4 ...................... v::::::::::::::: p�::. �:::::::::::::::: ::w:::::: ii:: ::w:::: iiiiiiiiiii:biiii::::: ii:i4iiiiiiii:ii4}ii:: i.i: •ii: ii:i•i:: iii}iri:ii:::.iii}i:ii{.ii:�iiii:i:.i: }i:�i:i::4i}F�ii: iiii:iv:iiv:
<:::�:�
_ '��:;
B
5
�'.��'J:
List of Figures
Number
E.1
E.2
E.3
E.4
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
A1.1
A2.1
A2.2
A23
Page
Waste quantities by type of generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 8
Waste composition of all raidentlal waste streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 8
Waste composition of all nonresidential waste streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 9
Waste wmposition of residential and nonresidential waste streams combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 9
Monthly waste quanaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 21
Waste Composition of SIC 20: Food and kindred products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 47
Waste Compositlon of SIC 24: Lumber and wood products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 48
Waste Composition of SIC 27: Printing and publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 49
Waste Composition of SIC 45: Sea-Tac Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 50
Waste Composition of SIC 50: Wholesale, durable goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 51
Waste Composition of SIC Sl: V�holesale, nondurable goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 52
Waste Composition of SIC 52: Bullding and garden supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 53
Waste Composition of SIC 53: General merchandlse stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 54
Waste Composition of SIC S4: Food stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 55
Waste Composition of SIC 58F: Fast food restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 56
Waste Composition of SIC 58S: Sit-down restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 57
Waste Composition of SIC 70: Hotels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 58
Waste Composition of SIC 80H: HospitaJs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 59
Waste Composition of SIC 80C: Other health services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 60
Transfer station survey data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 83
Field sort form, front page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 93
Field sort form, back page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - g4
Sampling schedule and locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B - 95
A,ppendix B: Wa,ste cGaracterixation Study
B-
6
Executive Summary
E.1 IN1'RODUCTION
This study was conducted to determine the quantity and composition of solid waste disposed in King Counry. The prirnary
reason for characterizing the Counry's solid waste stream was to develop a data base for monitoring the Counry's waste stream. In
addition, the results of this study will assist in focusing recycling efforts and other waste management alternatives, and will provide
data for general solid waste management plamiing purposes.
E.2 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH
The total waste stream in King Counry was divided into three waste streams based on current management and disposal
methods:
• Mixed municipal solid waste (MMS�, the term often used for general residential and commercial garbage that is collected by a
waste hauler, or is brought to a reansfer station or other disposal site by the waste generator.
• Construction, demolition and land clearing (CDL) waste.
• Special wastes, such as industrial or infectious waste that cannot be handled through a transfer station and must instead be
delivered to a landfill or other disposal site.
This study concentrated on the mixed municipal solid waste stream disposed at King County transfer stations and, through a
separate phase of this study, on CDL waste.
Since the composition of waste disposed by different types of waste generators varies, the mixed municipal solid waste stream
in King County was divided into six substreams:
• urban single-family
• rural single-family residential
• multifamily (apartment bulldings)
• residential self-haul
• general commerciaUindus�iaUinstitutional ("total CII")
• nonresidential self-haul
In addition, the composition of waste disposed by fourteen specific types of commercial, industrial, and institutional waste
generators were examined to provide information for future recycling efforts. The nonresidential waste streams examined were from
food manufacturers, lumber and wood manufacturers, publishers, Sea-Tac Airport, wholesale businesses (two types), retail businesses
@ullding materials, general merchandise, and grocery stores), restaurants (fast food versus sit-down), hotels, hospita.ls, and other
health senricess.
The quantities of waste disposed by the primary generators were determined through surveys conducted at the six King County
transfer stations. Waste composition was determined thmugh sampling and sorting wastes at three of the six King County transfer
stations: Bow Lake, Houghton, and Renton transfer stations. Over a one-year period, a total of 569 samples of waste were sorted,
including 96 samples of residential waste, 136 samples of general nonresidential waste, and 337 samples of select nonresidential
wastes.
Appercdix B: Waste C�aracterixatron Study Ezecutitae Summary
C�
�
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.::t.::.:::.::.::.::::. :::.::.::..:::.:::.:::::.::::::.:.:.::.:::::.::.::.:::..:::::.:::.::..::.::...::.::::::::: �::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::
B-
7
E.3 RESi1LTs
The results of the waste quantity surveys are summarized in Figure E.1. As shown in this figure, the residential sector
disposes of an estimated 60 percent of the total wastes dlsposed in King County annually. Figures E.2 through E.4 illustrate the waste
compositlon results for residential, nonresidential, and the total waste stream. All figures are for King County eacclusive of the ciry of
Seattle's waste streams.
Table E.1 shows the waste composition data (for King Counry without the city of Seattle) for the six primary waste generators
and for the King County waste stream overall. As shown in this table, there are signif'icant differences in the composition of waste
disposed by the different types of residential generators. For instance, there is a greater quantity of newspaper and yard waste
disposed by urban single-family msldents than by rural residents, despite the additional recycling programs that were available to
urban households during the period of tivs study.
Table E.1 shovus that substantial amounts of recyclable materials are still in the County's waste streams and could be
recovered to assist in meeting waste reduction and recycling goals. In the King County waste stream overall, there is 22.9 percent
recyclable paper (including mixed paper), 4.7 percent plastia (including PET and HDPE bottles, polystyrene and plastic film) 19.6
percent wood and yard wastes, 2.1 percent recyclable glass, and 5.3 percent metals, for a total of 54.6 percent recyclable materials.
In addition, there are portions of other materials, such as CDL waste and textiles, that could also be recycled.
Section Four of this report shows the waste composition results for waste disposed by the fourteen specific types of
nonresidential ("select nonresidential") generators. These data indicate the potential program results for additional recycling
programs targeting these types of businesses. Data on waste quantities disposed by these generators was not part of this study, but
tonnage estimates are available from other sources if needed.
Section Five of the report provides a summary of the waste quantity and composition data for the construction, demolition,
and landclearing (CDL) waste stream. These data are from a separate phase of thls study. The same section also provides data on
the composition of the CDL and special wastes ("household hazardous" and similar wastes) that were found in the samples for the
six pr9mary and fourtcen select nonresidential waste generators. In other words, these data show the composition of CDL and
hazardous wastes that were found in the waste streams brought to the Counry's transfer stations.
Section Six shows data on the number of bottles and cans found in the County's waste streams. These data may assist ln
recycling program planning or in the comparison of the results of this study to other studies and activities.
Addendum A provides additional detail on the methodologies used for determining waste quantities and composition.
Addendum B shows waste quantity and composition data for the city of Seattle and King County combined. Addendum C provides
tables which show the tonnages of materials being disposed by different types of generators. These tables will assist in projecting
results of residenual and nonresidential recycling programs. The confidence intervals for the waste composition results are provided
in Addendum D.
P.x�cutive Summary
Append'a B: Waste Claaracter�zalion Stttdy
FIGURE E.1
WASTE QUANTITIES
BY TYPE OF GENERATOR
RESIDENTIAI
Urban Single-Fan
191,200 Tons
Rural Single-Family
68,420 Tons
Multi-Fami
90,960 Ton
FIGURE E.2
)NRESIDENTIAL
To tal CII
257,500 Tons
onresidential
Self-haul
87,700 Tons
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
ALL RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
Plastics
l-r--� 7.9%
Paper
27.3%
Wood & Yard Wastes
� 20.8%
Misc. Inorganics
6.4%
Metals �/
5.6% `
Glass
3.4%
Other Organics
28.8%
Appenrlir B: Waste CbaracYenira�ion bYudy P.a�cutfae Summary
Residential Self-Haul
158,850 Tons
B-
9
FIGURE E.3
WASTE COMPOSITION OF ALL
NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
Plastics
PapE
32.9'
Misc. Inorg�
12.1%
FIGURE E.4
Wood & Yard Wastes
17.8%a
ther Organics
18.4%
WASTE COMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL
AND NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS COMBINED
Plastics
Paper
29.4%
Vood & Yard Wastes
19.6%
Misc Inorga.
8.7%
�er Organics
24.6%
Ezac�utiUe Sum�nary Aploeiid'�z B: Waste CE�tracle�zatiort SYudy
Metais ��
4.7°k 1.8�
Metals Glass
5.3% 2.7%
TABLE E.1
TOTAL WASTE STREAM BY TYPE OF GENERATOR
�
�' URBAN RURAL RESIDENTIAL
�? MATERIAL SINGLE-FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SELF-HAUL TOTAL CII
� � oACiANIC3 81.5 96 88A ':96
P.apet 35.2 ' 30.A ';
n Newspaper < 9.3 _ _ 8.5
Cardboerd 5.9 7.3
Office Paper 0.3 0.4
Computer Paper 0.1 0.0
Mixed 12.0 10.7
Other 7.5 5.9
Rlaetias ;, BA 10.7
c� PET Bottles 0.4 0.2
�' HDPE Bottles 1.0 1.3
� Polystyrene 0.7 0.8
Plastic Fim, Bags 3.5 4.5
Other Plastic Pkg. 0.9 0.8
Other 1.4 3.4
Wood a�d'Yard Wastea 12.8 8.1
- Wood _ _ 1.1 OJ
Yard Waetes 11.8 5.4
Qther OrgBnics 35.8 40.4'
Textiles 3.4 7.0
Food Wastes 9.8 13.1
Dispoeable Diapere 5.7 3.8
Fines 2.3 2.5
Rubber 2.4 0.3
Furniture, Mattress 0.4 0.0
Miecellaneous Organice 11.9 13.7
�
�
�
�
�
�c
INORQANICS 8.8 11.A '"
Gtae� ' 2.3 3.A
Clear Containers 1.5 2.0
Green Containere 0.3 0.5
Brown Containers 0.5 0.8
Other 0.0 0.3
Metal6 3.8 5.1'
Ferroue Cans 1.4 2.2
Other Ferrous 0.9 1.2
Aluminum Cane 0.8 0.8
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.2
Mixed Metals 0.9 0.5
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.3
Misceltaneoue (norganics 2.5 3.4
Haz./Special Wastes 0.3 0.7
Medical Waste 0.0 0.1
Ashee 0.7 0.7
Conetruction/Demo. Waste 0.7 1.4
Miscellaneous 0.8 0.5
NONRESIDENTIAL
SELF-HAUL
WEIGHTED �
AVERAGE (1) ,
88,6 4b '; 73.8' S6 88.9 .% 84.4 ! Afi 83:2; % p
3y.b t0A 39.8 1 i.6! 29A
10.9 2.9 2.2 0.5 5.0 .......
8.3 2.8 12.0 5.9 7.5
0.3 0.1 3.4 0.4 1.2 ''•�%<���,
0.1 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.4
14.5 3.0 8.8 2.2 8.8 ;;2:�;;:,'
3.4 1.7 11.3 2.4 8.5 ;:3;:;;:'•
i 7.3 8:8 10.6 17.6 9.6
0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.8 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.8 "''•'•'"`
0.5 0.3 0.8 2.8 0.8
3.8 1.5 3.7 2.4 3.2 ;�;;:;;;;�
0.5 0.4 1.4 3.3 1.1
2.0 3.8 4.8 8.4 3.8
•::•:�:;•
t0.t ,' 42.8 14.8 28.8 19.Q �:�s�;•:<;
„ ,
i?E::::a
5.4 18.8 12.2 20A 10.1 <<^
4.8 24.1 2.8 8.8 9.5
31.8 , 13.8 ' 21.8 8.3> 24.8 .:;'�;:;:
8.5 3.8 5.5 2.0 4.8
10.5 3.9 5.3 3.4 7.0
2.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.9
2.3 1.8 2.7 1.1 2.2
0.1 0.8 3.3 0.5 1.8
1.9 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.9
7.7 1.3 4.1 1.2 8.2 .....
13.4
i`4,8
: 2.9 _
0.8
0.8
0.0
3.2
1.4
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.1
5.8
0.9
0.0
0.2
3.0
1.8
28.2
4.Q '
1.2 :
0.3
0.8
1.9
9.4
0.6
4.5
0.7
0.5
2.6
0.4
12.8
0.8
0.0
0.5
10.8
1.0
12.9 35,7> 18.7 .
2.0 t.t!' <: 2,7 .
0.8 _ 0.5` 1.3
0.1 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.1 0.4
0.9 0.1 0.8
4.2 0.5; 5.3
0.5 0.1 0.9
1.9 3.3 2.1
0.3 0.3 0.5
0.1 0.1 0.2
1.2 2.4 1.4
0.2 0.3 0.2
8.7 28.2 8.7
1.0 1.1 0.8
0.1 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.4
3.5 26.8 8.4
1.9 0.3 1.2
TOTALS (2) 100.1 °i6 99.9 aib 100.0 36
NOTES: t. Weighted average based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1.
2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
100.1 �i6 99.8 �i6 99.8 �.b 100.0 4b
••�•��r�•�••••••!••�!•••!•i••��•��
�
•
, •
�
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
❑
�
�
�
�
h �q� ti���.:��i:ir.:::..:�.�.4:{f::��.;.,v,K..::�..w��..�}}w.yn}vy::::r.,..:::;w.};n•>.J,'•ii::}i:�:::��:::��:�i:i��r:i::ii'��:.'ii:i "'TL^'^i::ii:iii:{.�,nvn•v*:�'On"i:i:S\::i::v'�:Y�:�%�•.v:.�i.�:X4}::i:vm�x.;}uii:%
x':..•4}.,��,.','w,.•.l { 4. ti4''.i••;.•iv'{.�: ?. tii,f.$l•..h ..... ......:.i;:'i:'F.•":• : ;ti•{;
:.•r. r . . �'-:.
Yi'•'.�: 4: .. ..., . . ; •
...
:r:{:::r.:••:2��i.i :.•?..v:..:n.. ::::.:�:::;::.i+i%;;:;�iiii:}:•'':n }..:•.}:l,-,:•:.
. .\:. �:' :.; �:. k
.l. �'::i• :
....h.. y { n*}ri•n^'ri f ?6i
ri'L�'t�.v �..}
} .t . \
�i n w\... } ?.•::r::'.+�'
:::::k:::;::..: .,- . 'S >
k.c ....:o:.:•'.:: ..'�:a'�>s':#
:« � 3° �:',,'�.,:��: . . j:.:?:!�v::x.:.?:; c:...`r� � Y •.;• ::.:::::: ...<.•::. ? ..?•,?.,;:; ... ...
; ;t. .•:.',.',�'',.��,�..... •i:� :::::.....:: ::�•::..•�;.:.:.`•:•>x•::•>::.;�::::::::: ;+.•:4'�•:•��i"•:tt� . .: : :
.....�........... n......... n.... . ji?��i:( Cu�4n-ii• �:?:i'�i+:+}ir: i::iii�:�riiir'.•%..i
'�\�C'+ri:::•::::in::�i>:�iiiii�ii$i?iii:^�iii:
, :}i:::::�::::nn:::::..
' v ;: ..:.. x::::x �
•:v'vUn.}r........u...........�.........n....r.m�M1 ..................... . . ....... •
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND OBJECTIVES
B - 1.1
The putpc�se of ttvs study was to determine the quantiry and composinon of solid waste in King County. This information
will assist the Counry in planning future waste management prograrns and facilities, evaluating performance of existing prograrns,
and determining recycling levels.
The scope of this effort included waste disposed from incorporated and uninwcporated King County, but excluded the city of
Seattle because the Seattle Solid Waste Utiliry has previously conducted studies of their waste stieams. In Addendum B, the results of
a previous Seattle study have been combined with this smdy to generate countywide data.
This study concentrated on the mixed municipal solid waste saeam, which is handled through the County transfer stations.
Mixed municipal solid waste is a term often used for genera.l residential and commercial wastes. This waste stream was divided into
four raidential waste substreams and two nonresidential waste substreams. In the text of this report, these six substreams are often
referred to as the "primary generators" to distinguish them from the select nonresidential generators. The select nonresidential
generators are fourteen commercial and industrial waste generators that were chosen for separate e�camination of waste composition.
The specif'ic objectives of the King Counry Waste Characterization Study were to:
• Determine the quantity and composition of residential and nonresidential waste streams in King Counry.
• Determine the seasonal (wet and dry seasons) difference in quantiry and composiaon of the residential and nonresidential waste
streams in King County.
• Determine the composition of waste disposed by fourteen specific nonresidential waste generators.
• Provide information to the suburban cities on the methodology and results of this study.
1.2 BsACKGROUND
The 198g King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan identified specif'ic Counry programs and activities for
meeting established waste reduction and recycling goals. One such program is monitoring of the County waste stream to colled
information on quantities and types of materials being disposed and recycled. The identif'ication of current waste quantiaes and
composition by this study will provide the Counry with a basellne from which to measure progress in meeting waste reduction and
recycling goals. This informaiion will also assist in targeting certain materials for recovery and in targeting specific waste generators
for additional waste reduction and recycling programs for the nonresidential sector.
1.3 COMPARISON TO PAST STUDIES
This study supplements and/or supersedes the data provided by a number of previous studies. Shown below are the most
relevant of these studies, with a discussion of their methodologies and results.
Introdudion
Aplbendfx B: Waste CGaracterixatlon Study
:� �:'{�i:�
;:`.y:;�;;'•::;�:;:;:`;?ri5:�:�
:;;::: �i:;`.%;�::•'.:•,''v.S:;<�:�:'�::::::::: r::�:�3:'::�::5:2':• . S.. 2�,,� ? ��
.......... :::::;;;•:::::•>;r::: •::.r:•::;•i:;•+:>:. :•�:::::::. •:: ..
v:...... < . :..e: :.: •: . . i .; ..:::.: �:�:::i:%:::;`:<::<�'•;;,•'•'.,:' • ::::acc`:.
:.o.c•. •: ::::�.:•::::.<, :::';:,.';• :
t+.:<
::.::::::: ..n:..... . ":::.�.:::::::::.�:::::: �:.
.........::: ...: .................... .
� :�::> �:::.: ..,.>...... ::::: .,-... . ::.; .. .. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . : . . ..;: : .;., y . . . . : : : : :
�'�r:::%:: ,�.. �'••>�:�:: '
.. ............:>...a»c:7v•:.6e;;a;,....::•::.:..:::ar:::. hx;tno:.. :: •x..._....;....... ; .:::•:%::"'�'n ..•'#" �';
:: :.t....... ........ .:.:. .., .............................�t..:..:.;.,c•:r�'t;3°C::.::•:.:..:A..�.±rK......,..:.:d... ...•:::<:'#�+`.t`:.C�.. ... . . • fi}�C:'c:
.:..•:::: ..... .. ....: . .. . ..... }....
— :r: .; .. .v... ..... .: ::.::.; :•.:.;•.;•::.;•::::::•>?..; .;; •:::::.,, ............ ............. ..... .....:..:.:: ::. :; ...........r.............. ...:. .. .....:..v.f,`�;.; ..
8 12 .... .:.... .....�.,:.,.: �::: :«.:v.::...::.... ..............:: :.::: ,. .. ,...... ..........::::::::,:::::...::. ... � .. . ........ �:�' .
...•:::::..� .:. ti:.; .; ...' } . � .; �:,`.',$r'�,.3.T.. �; •::::.;
ii:,>.}yi:i• :n xm:: .. . .. v}, :. {i� • t+•.4.+r • 't
:xO:w:: .v:?•n'•r:iiii ::::: r.r: ......::.v.rF:: .,-:: •::::: v.�:.�:::: :?v.. .. . . ' .... r. x. /.::.v :?•:' �i•.:.• r'•. �
♦....Axr. . ..................v.... y
Yi:>t^ :::..•:�';:� ..:: 4v ...::: :�: � . :. •::: :. } .. .,-.; .{v.v L:.�: r:::::.:: •: •:. ..:: :hr• • +:.'i..:ii?':.ii:::::�::r::.•:::?:.i::.+rr ��.. •.
.::..::::: �.: i h;...:n.....:� v....M1
+::::::::: ..l..�.::::r.:.ri.r•nry:.G:ii?iiiii:?w: ?i ;;rf 7 ; k?P. �rY'.r..}'.^ �.:.'..3f. . n.. ... • It ?`.\+}.'d?h'>'{j.{ " �ij$'Ai4}<�v?. ••�{��f {'�
..4f.•}:•i::.. :.:.� ::::::.::::.:......W..:{..'�':v::..n >?.
Ksng Counly Solfd l�aste Da�ston [�aste G�aracterizalio�i S[uafy, February 1989.
Prepared by R. l� Beck and Associates.
The waste quantity projections and composition estimates provided by this previous waste characterization study were developed
using available data from published sources. Sources used included studies conducted for the city of Seattle, the Portland
Metropolitan Service Disnict, and the state of Washingtoa No �''ic waste composition data was available for areas of the County
outside the city of Seattle. Because of the differences in methodologies, the results of this previous study are not readily oomparable
to ttvs report.
Cily of S�ttle, l�aste Crnrqiasrtion Study, June 1989.
Frepared by the Mahrx Management Group.
Randomly selected loads of residential, self-haul, and commerclal waste loads were drawn from the city's North and South
transfer stations. A total number of S50 samples were takea The report provided detailed composiaon data for each substream as
delivered for disposal within the city of Seattle.
This study differs from the Seattle study by showing separate waste quantities and composition for single-family and
multifamily waste; categorizing glass by color instead of by use; and by showing addiaonal categortes of materlals (fines, furniture,
miscellaneous organics, miscellaneous inorgania, and medical waste).
B�st Management Fracticas (BMP) Analysrs frn Solyd l�aste, �olume 1, January 1989.
Prepared by the Matrix Management Grou�.
The BMP shows statewide waste composiuon data by generator rype, including residential, commercia.l and instltutional,
manufacturing, and self-haul generators, and by waste generation area (the state was divided into eight areas). A total of 429
samples were taken throughout the state of Washington and rressults were then applied to the indivldual waste generation areas based
on population and employment
For nonresidential waste generators, results of the BMP study are dIff'icult to compare to this study for a varlety of reasons.
Different categories of generators were employed by the BMP study, making direct comparison of results difficult �en for the three
select nonresidential generators (SIC's 20, 24, and 27) which were examined by this study and which match industrial generators
examined by the BMP study, comparison of results is not feasible beca.use the BMP sh�dy employed a signi�icantly different
methodology (surveys and visual inspections) to determine industrial waste composition. More importandy, the BMP study provides
waste composition results for a much larger area (the Puget Sound Waste Generation Area), whereas thls study concentrates on a
smaller area The composition of the nonresidential varies substantially from area to area due to differences in businesses present in
the area. Another significant difference in methodologies is the use of per-employee generation ra�es by the BMP study to project
overall composition for the nonresidential waste streams, versus the use of random sampling by tivs study.
For residenttal waste wmposiaon the BMP study again employed different categories of waste generators. The BMP study
sampled single-family and self-haul only, whereas thls study also sampled multifamily residences. In addlrion, the self-haul category
for the BMP study is a mixture of residential and nonresidential wastes, whereas thls study divided this waste saeam into tv� types of
waste generators.
By calculating additional weighted averages, comparisons could be made between the BMP's residential waste stream resul�
and this study's urban and rural single-family results. The additional weighted average that would be required is the annual average
for the urban and rural single-family results, although the fact that part of these results are projected (the vvet season waste
composition) makes thls comparison less meaningful. By calculating a weighted average for thls study's residential and
nonresidential self-haul waste streams, a comparison could also be made with the BMP's self-haul waste results. The varlance caused
�ie�tdix B: Waste cdaracterixation study fith�oduction
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
r
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
's»:::'s:;� �::<:>:::<;:<:<::::: �:<s:<>:3: <«
:;::k::::�:�:��:;'�:�r:���:::�::'�:':�::�: r`�•i.'•i.�:
•::•;:•:••:rr>:;•::•::•::•::•r:::�;:a::�:;:•::•:::•:::•::•::•r: r::•::•::•::•::•::•::•:r;:'•:: :::•::•r:•::•::: •. �::::::.• :::::::::::::::::::.:�;.;�::::::::::::::;�:.,:. ...... ..
..................................................... .............::.>:.:�::•::::::.,•:::::::::•::::::..:..:::::::::::::::..:.: .:,..,.....:;: �c,✓......,.. :::::..:.. ::
.......... ..................................,...........:,.....; ....:::::.....:: :•::::::.•:::::::::::::::::::::::: :•::::::::::::::::..,...... ..
::::: :::::::::::::.................................................: •:: �. • :•......................................... ............................... q ..,..::::,: :..,•.;;::: :•.: r:•: • ... .....,.........::::::::::: •
.......... .......................................: �: :v: ••: v: w.:..:.. . ... ................................. ...A.: v:::nv::::::::.xv::::::::r.F. vv.v.....�. �x.x:::... �ri:•iiii:.::: s::.t; .. r ..t .. .
..M..x ...................... ..\.. . ?Y,.:,^ � },:;i:<�:?�:
. ..... .... .v r: ..... v �v . :.: .: ........... .:.•::. n .... m .ti ..4 ......
...:M:ii:r.iiii.+q�:i:�:•:i:::::::: ;::it,L+
.titi�r:•.ti
....... .... �....:, :...........:......,....::�:;:: 1
iih�i�ii:•}i:i�+:viii:•:
B
:::::.�x:....:::::n:.. :...n:.�.� ::::::..:......................t.....y::::::::::::::::::::::::::. .. .... .......: :•: w:n�::. :w::::: • :.. :.:
: w:.�::::: •:::::::::.•:.� :.:::: •::::.�.�:{.i:.:i: iii:ti{ ::::::: . ..... vw:::::::::::::::nvw: r.i?i}}:i}iiii:?Jiiiii:::w:::: . :::: :v.:::::::::i: ::n.v.
............ .... ...............,....:. :... ....:::.:::..::........................::.............................::.::::::........... .:.;:..::.. .::.:.:.::.. 3 �:.:..
::...::.::>:>:::::::::.:::::::::::::.:::.:::::.::.::.::::::.:::>:.:.::::><>::>::::>::>::�:.::>::,.w::»:<:>:>::. »:::: �:<:�..
...................................... ....,.....:..... ..;.......::::: . .:..:.
....................:::::::::::::::::.:�:::::::..:::::::>::::::>:>:::�::.::::::......:.::::::::::::::::.:: . .. . ... .. . ..,.......�
by differences in business activities, which likely causes a substantial irnpact on the nonresidential self-haul waste stream, again
means that this comparison is not meaningful.
t�DOE 1989 i�ashington State Recyclang Suruey
Through a mail and telephone survey of the recycling industry, khis report collected data. on the quantity and typess of
materials being recycled in the state of Washington. Recycling information is presented for 26 categories of materials. The WDOE
survey differs from this report in that it estimates the amount of recycled material by recycling method rather than by generator. In
addition, no separa.tion is provided between city of Seattle and King Counry quantities.
1.4 ORGANI7ATION OF REPORT
This report is organized as follows:
• Section 2.0, Methods: This section provides a brief description of the procedures performed for both the waste quantity survey
and waste composition sampling. A more deta.iled desscxiption of the project methodologies is contained within Addendum A
• Section 3.0, Resulls: This section describes the resul�s for the six primary residential and nonresidential generators, including
both quantiry and composition for each waste stream.
• Section 4, q Results for the Select Nonr�lral i�aste Strea�ris: This section describes the waste composition results for the
fourteen select nonresidential waste streams.
• Seclron 5.0, Speclal l�astes Characterizatron: This section provides a brief description of the separate effort conducted for the
construction, demolition and land clearing (CDL) waste stream. It also provides detail as to the composition of wood, CDL, and
hazardous wastes found in the mixed municipal waste streams of King County.
• Seclzon 6.0, Bottle and Can Counts: This section identifies the amount and type of bottles and cans found in samples of King
County waste streams.
• Referenc�s: The references identify the technical sources and background information used in developing this repork
• Glossary: The glossary provides the definition for materials measured by this study.
• Addenda: The addenda provide specific information on su�vey and sorting procedures; combined King County and Seattle waste
characteriza,tion; the statistical meaning of the waste composition results; and quantities by type of material.
• Iniroduction
Ap�O�eridi� B: Wa,ste Cbiaracters'zatan Study
l�J
...,.�..•::. ;;.+:•:•,•: •.:. ..,•x:r,••:....,..�}•�c.f:; . :: . :,�. ,�
',',�.i, �r • .r•>. :� . ;c•i,.:..�:•:::+ f���. j .�.. • :..{: � f�...,�. • .
, '�TC?. 3 •.r',:: �t ,. i . '�;, ..,',k,�..'�:2r:; n. .c� , %3i'��i`3`� < `w.b. #�..:
. .�vk';� , ::::2: r, ':;i}i:f::::•:'•i:•,d....:�::r.v.�i:2:>.G::/'!.'+.'�.t�.'�.f.�Y}.•`+.•.•.::.'v •. ::},d;. :;F}:e.:•,..;. %+:`�?.::\}��}:rA.. ....�.�..�.,�`
.i� .
..�. . . ��'`.��..�.
..{c.h �sr. . t..... .. .. t. . t .
;; B - 14 w,� • . ���,+ ; ., .�;, i r� •,a+.>;:,.�,.`,.'r,;�., '". �x+• • 9: •rf, . •'�• :•:�t•: ., �..a:f � p . g . ��'•. .+
'if•. t .��.�..: .��� ?' i?'r,.';%•'r,.:•`:�:�Y;;.A�.�,A,.��,., }::. ...'�4��it:%'s';j , ..:fic;, ... . ..3.zGitt/f.. ..;,L''.;p<j . r.ic�.; .
, !
''.'��' •.�j • � �'.:.�}.,.,;�.�:•:. •.,.,.,.,�,,,,..,,:•.,
,' +
;.
.,:,
, .
Av.vvv �hi•.v. ♦ •.v.•::.�.n.n•:.:: tv'•.:�.�.�.v:n:vi.:vvbi:n4.vni•.::r.�:i:: :v:::.�:.�.:::v}x::::::.v:::i:::::::4::i4i:v:x:?:?•r: �•i:::iiiiih..l.r .............n?�6i'F.•:x......n.....n...v...�:.....r.•.: . eIX�
�Ct10ri 2
Methods
2.1 OVERVIEW
Thls section provides a brlef discussion of the proc�dures used to characterize the King County municipal solld waste stream.
Detailed information on the methodologies employed is provided in Addendum A
In order to characterize the King County municipal solid waste stream, separate methodologies were developed for waste
quantities and for waste oompasitioa For waste quantiaes, surveys were conducted at all six King Counry transfer stations. For waste
composition, sampling and sorting were conducted at the Bow Lake Transfer Station, the Houghton Transfer Station, and the Renton
Transfer Statioa Thus, the results of ttvs study characterize the waste stream as disposed at King County transfer stations. This
study does not address the waste handled by the rural landfills, wastes delivered directly to Cedar Hills Landfill, or wastes transferred
to Cedar Hills Landfill through transfer stations operated by waste hauling companies.
2.2 WASTE QUANTITY SURVEYS
Sun+eys were conducted quarterly a1 the six King County transfer stations to collect data on the waste quantities disposed by
different types of generators. Although the sucvey methodology varied slighdy, the surveys for all quarters were designed to be
combined with County weight records to derive the percentage of the total waste stream that was disposed by each type of generator
during the survey period. By dis-aggregating total waste quantity figures for longer periods, the survey results could be used to
determine seasonal and annual waste quantities for each type of generator.
In the tlrst quarter Uuly 1990), transfer station cashiers surveyed all vehicles for one week The information collected by the
cashlers included the rype of generator, truck rype, date, and site. Net weights for every load were provided by the County's records
for that day. The su�ey information and net weights were entered into a computer data base to ca.lculate percentages by type of
generator. The tivck types were used primarily to provide a"realiry check" on the survey data, by indicating the range within which
the net v�eight could be expected to fall for each load. Based on this verificaiion proc�dure and other considerarions, this approach
worked quite well. However, this approach c�equired an excessive amount of additional time and effort by the transfer station cashiers.
Hence, at the County's request, different approaches were employed for subsequent quarters.
The su�vey used in the second (September 1990) and third (December 1990) quarters was designed to collect information on
the number (not the weight) of loads from each type of generator. Net weight of the surveyed loads was not a concern because the
survey data were intended to allow prorating of waste tonnages within each of the four primary types of cuswmers that are currently
tracked and reported by the County's computer system. This approach failed to produce results with sufficient reliability despite
modificaitons made for the third quarter.
In the fourth quarter (March 1991), the original method was employed using temporary staff to suivey incoming trucks at
each of the s3x King Counry transfer staiions. MateriaLs used for the spring quarter survey are shown in Addendum A 1, including a
copy of the suNey form, definitions for the generator types used in the spring quarter, and a oopy of the map used in the field to
delineate betwcen urban and nual stngle-family residential waste.
Apperrdi� B: I�aste Cbaracterization Study M�s
i•
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
2.3 WASTE COMPOSITION SAMPLING DESIGN
B-1
5
� 2.3.1 Introduction
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
The methodology for determining waste composition in King County was designed to produce accurate data representative of
waste as it is disposed by residents and businesses in the County. Since the city of Seattle had already conducted studies of their
waste, this study was restricted to waste from areas of King County outside of the city of Seattle.
Prior to conducting waste sorting, SCS Engineers developed a Frocedures Manual that established methodologies, def'uutions
and a schedule for the study. Included in the Procedures Manual was a detailed sampling design, projected statistical validity of the
results, methods to enhance the statistical validity, list of rypes of generators to be sampled, sorting methodology, sorting locations
and schedule, and a description of the data base management system. A condensed version of the Procedures Manual is shown in
Addendum A
A Health and Safely Plan was also prepared prior to waste sorting in order to provide guidance in the field should an
accident or other incident occur. This Plan was also used as an educational tool for the crew members. All aew members were
required to read the Health and Safety Plan.
2.3.2 Types of Generators
For the purposes of this study, the municipal solid waste stream was divided into six primary substreams; four substreams of
residential waste and two of nonresidential waste. All waste generators were deflned to be in one of these primary substreams, so that
the results could be combined to provide data on the total residential waste stream, the total nonresidential waste stream, and the
total municipal solid waste stream.
In addition to the six primary waste substreams, the waste disposed by fourteen select nonresidential generators was examined.
The results for the select nonresidential wastes cannot be combined with the results for the primary nonresidential waste substreams,
due largely to differences in sample selection methods. For the general nonresidential waste streams, it was necessary to randomly
choose samples to ensure the sta,tistical validity of the results. For the select nonresidential waste streams, it was necessary to seek
out and even pre-arrange samples to ensure sufficient samples could be collected.
Samples of wastes from the following types of generators were examined:
• • urban residential single-family
• rural residential single-famlly
• • multi-famlly (apartment buildings)
• residential self-haul
• • total commerciaVindustriaVinstitutional (total CII)
• commercia]/industriaVinstitutional (nonresidential) self-haul
� • 14 select commercial and industrial waste generators
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
The two remaining solid waste streams of significance in King County are the construction, demolition, and land clearing
(CDL) waste stream and special wastes. These wastes are generally handled and disposed of separately from the municipal waste
stream, although a limited amount of both are delivered to the Counry's transfer stations and were measured by this study. The
quantiry and composition of the CDL waste stream was determined through a separate phase of this study. The quantiry and
composition of special wastes, most of which are industrial wastes that are delivered direcdy to the King County Cedar Hills Landflll,
are not included in this study.
Methods
Apperrd'tx B: Waste C�aracterir,�ttimt Study
B-1
6
2.3.3 Sorting Categories and Definitions
Waste samples from all of the rypes of generators were sorted into 35 primary categories and 35 subcategories. The sorting
form used for recording this information is shown in Addendum A2. Definitions for the sorting categories are shown in the Glossary.
In addition to data on the weight of each matedal in the sample, the number of tires, white goods, bottles, and beverage cans was
aiso recorded.
2.3.4 Sorting Locations and Procedures
For each season, sorting was conducted at two to three transfer stations, rypically for five days at each site. After visits to the
transfer stations and examination of vehicle usage data, it was concluded that the following three transfer stations were the best ones
for sampling and sorting purposes:
• Bow Lake Transfer Station
• HoughWn Transfer Station
• Renton Transfer Station
Bow Lake Transfer Station was chosen as a sampling location because it receives a variety of nonresidential waste loads and
had ample space a�ailable for sorting activities. The nonresidential loads received by Bow Lake include a relatively high amount of
loose and compacted drop-boxes (i.e., pure loads) that could be sampled for the select nonresidential waste saeams.
The Houghton Transfer Station was chosen because of the wide variery of waste that is received by this site. Working
conditions at this site were hindered by the lack of space, but the sorting crew was able set up under a tent that was placed north of
the bullding. At the Houghton Transfer Station, sampling of larger loads had to be done from the pit due to the lack of space on
the tloor. These samples were brought co the sorting area using heavy equipmenk Smaller vehicles at Houghton were directed to
dump their loads near the sorting work area Samples were placed on tarps to avoid loss of fines and contamination of the sample.
In wet or windy conditions, the samples were also covered with a protective tarp.
The Renton Transfer Station was chosen because a wider variety of waste was delivered there than to First Northeast or Algona
Transfer Stations, despite the fact that the Renton Transfer Station receives the least amount of waste out of the County's six transfer
stations. For instance, rural residentlal loads, which were diff�icult to procure at other transfer stations, were available at the Renton
Transfer Station Factoria was not available for sorting activities due to the severe space constraints that existed at that transfer
station.
Samples for the si�c primary waste generators were taken from vehicles that were randomly chosea For the select
nonresidential generators, any pure load meeting the criteria for that rype of waste was sampled, unless suff'icient samples of that
waste stream had already been taken at that transfer station. In all cases, the driver was inteNiewed as to the type of waste, the
loca.tion where the waste was collected, and whether there were any unusual aspects to the load.
2•3• Methodology for Projecting Wet S�eason Residential Waste Composition
After the fust two quarters (summer and fall) of waste sorting, it became evident that the composition of King Counry
residential waste did not vary substantially from residential waste composition data from other areas. To increase the c�st-
e�'ectiveness of the study, County staff requested that sorting of residential waste samples cease after the fall quarter. Instead, the
composition of the residential waste substreams in the wet season were projected based on the resul�s of the I�aste Stream
Compasition Study (Matrix et al., 198g) conducted for the city of Seattle.
Appe�td'cx B: Waste Cb�aracterixatron Study Metbods
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
B - 17 `$�`><:'<
:�4::.�::$
Trends in waste composition shown by the Seattle l�aste Stream Compasition Study for the dry season (summer and fall)
versus the wet season (winter and spring� were applied to the Counry dry season data to project wet season waste compositioa
Specif'ically, the ratio of Seattle's wet season percentages @y material) to dry season percentages was calculated and multiplied by
King County's dry season percentages to project wet season results for the County. Once wet season waste composiaon had been
projected, an annual average could be calculated for the County's residenUal waste streams. The annual average ls a welghted
average that is derived using the waste quantiry 6gures @y season) shown in Table 3.1.
To use the data from the Seattle Waste Composition Study, some adjustments were necessary due to differences in sorting
methodology and materials measured. These adjustments are desaibed below for each of the affected materials:
• Computer paper. The Seattle study found no computer paper in the dry season residential waste stream, whereas 0.1 percent was
discovered in the County's dry season urban single-famlly and multifamily waste sh�eams. Although the Seattle data indicate an
increase from the dry season to the wet season, a percentage flgure for this inaease could not be calculated and so the percent of
computer paper in the County's residential waste streams was assumed to remain the same in the wet season as in the dry seasoa
• Plastic film and bags. This study separated "plastic film and bags" from "other plastic packaging whereas the Seattle study
defined these as one material ("plastic packaging"). Hence, the seasonal trend for Seattle's plastic packaging was applied to both of
the counry categories (plastic film and other plastic packaging� to project wet season residential waste compositioa
• Recyclable glass. The Seattle study measured recyclable glass containers by the rype of beverage, whereas this study measured
recyclable glass by the color of the glass. For the analysis of seasonal trends, the Seattle data for different rypes of recyclable glass
containers were handled as one total amount and the trend for this figure was applied to all three colors of glass.
• Other ferrous meta/s. The Seattle study provided additional detail for this category, splitting it into bi-metal cans, white goods,
and ferrous metals. As with glass, these were totaled up and the trend applied to the single King County category of "other ferrous
metals."
• Due to differences in sorting methodology and definitions, a number of other materials measured in this study were not measured
in Seattle's study. These include fines, furniture, miscellaneous organia and miscellaneous inorgania. For the pu�pose of projecting
wet season waste composition for the Counry, the percentages were assumed to remain the same as in the dry season. 'This
procedure rypically led to a total composition slighdy in excess of 100 percent, requiring the wet season data to be decreased
(prorated) to add up to 100 percent.
Methods
Append#z B: Waste Cbiaracteri,zatran Study
;;:.<;:.:;:.:, ;::::::.�:::::: :..� :::.::::.;:.::::.;�:«::::<.;::.::::::.::::;;.;�::::::.;�: ::::::.........................................................................................................
. ::..;�.;�:..;�::;.;�.;�::: � :::.::::::.: ... :.... ...::.�..::...: :.::::.:. :.:::.<:;;;:::;.::<.>::��:;;:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::,..:::::::::::..... ................ ............... .. . ....................................
.:,f,::.:. : .<:.:: .,:: :.::::::,..
. ...... ........ ,...........:: :.: :.:.:::...:::::::...........::. ... ... ..........�.>,: .:::::...
......... ::::.:.:::.: :...:.::.........::::::........:....:::.�:.,,::.,.::: ::.:::::::::::::..:;:.:;::::::::::::.::.::.:;;:;:;.;..::.::.;:,:::::::::::,:::......... .. . .........:::..:::..... ... .k.....,,.
::::::.:�:
...f.. ..
.......... ......... . . .......................... ... ........ ........ �..........::::::.:::.::.:,.................f...::.,:..,::.......f.:::.:. ,.............
- '�:<:�<::<::::<:>:::?:<::?::::>:::;>:::>.:>,>>:�:::�::::::;:;:>:;:;>::<::>:<:::;::
B 1 .....:..:..::;.:;::.: ...... .
8
N n. <. w;:: <::w : «:: ::: : � � �>: �: : �: <:>: :: v �:: : : < :: � <::: �:; ::: �;:; :::>:::: <: :>: : <:;:: <.:.>: <;::
::::..... :::::::::::::.:.....
...::::.� ::::::::::::::.. .. .
. : : : : r : r. �. � : : .:: ;.: ..; :..: ..;.: : ;.;;.: : : r .: . : : : : : :.: : :.: :.::;.:: .;:: ::>:»: �:
...::
.:x:::.v: v.n '�'�: vr..�..� M1..W..�i..:...:...: ' v...Y kA:.v.;..M1x�..�. :::...y:.;G:;;rii�"':i:... ...
. . .. . n ::x::::n�:.,
........ . :v':':':•}':;n:'��::::::.:r�:.�.•::r:kv4::.;::n}v:}}:::r::::::::.�• :.; ...
........:. n....{•:.: ?:v ::......................... ... r:�:n....r.. •.
n�.�::::: ............................................. ...... .... . . .. ......nx::::::::::::: r.; nvi:tititivy. �i:.�:?:T,-. v �C+•),L•'fv'ivi:•.:.::;;h:.:i,.,'w,','1:;'r,ii\kt?.;+.;:4i;irr}i'ry;:..�.::i:i:i:
. . ..................y.............................::.. .... .. . . +nn.: �vi::::::: ...:...:.....�..r r.r:r.v..::.r.r.:..::�.�:::: v•.
Section 3
Quantity and Composition
of Residential and Nonresidential Waste Strea�ms
3.1 SiTMMARY OF RESULTS
3.1.1 Waste Quantities
Table 3.1 shows waste quantities by type of generator for the dry and wet seasons. The dry season was def'med as May
through (ktober, with the wet oomprised of the remaining six months (November through April). Waste quantity data for the period
of May 1990 to April 1991 were used (versus the use of a calendar year) because this period most closely matches the period of the
study.
As shown in Table 3.1, the total waste stream decxeased from 457,200 wns in the dry season to 397,430 tons in the wet
seasoa This decxease is caused primarily by a significant decrease in residential waste quantities during the winter months. The
deaease in total waste quantities during the wet season is typical for King County during recent years and is also typical of many
other municipalities in the United States.
Figure 3.1 shovus how monthly waste quantities at the transfer stations have varled during the period of the study. As can be
seen from this figure, the month with the l�vest tonnage during the study was December, whereas February has been the lowest
month in previous �ars. The depression of December tonnages is probably due to the severe bllzzard that occurred about mid-
December. This blizzard halted garbage collection seivices in most of King County for up to two weeks. It is interressting to note that
january tonnages do not appear to be unusually high, seemingly contrary to the expectation that a backlog of garbage had been
created by the interruption of garbage collection servlces.
In Table 3.2, the dry and wet season tonnages shown in Table 3.1 have been applied to demogra�hic data to derive unit
disposal rates for residents and employces of King County. These figures are exclusive of the ciry of Seattle. In Table 3.2, the
quantity of residential self-haul waste was not applied to a specific population because no data are available as to the number of
people who rely on self-haul for disposal. The nonresidential categories have also been wmbined due to the lack of data on their
respective populations.
3.1.2 Waste Composition
The ressults of the waste composition analysis for the six prlmary generator types are summarized ln Table 3.3. Additional
detail, such as seasonal variations for each type of generator, are shown in subsequent tables in this sectioa
A�perulix B: [�aste Cbriracterzzatron SYudy Reside�ztral and Nonreslde�atial Quanti�y and Compa�sitron �
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
: :.:,�::,�:::>:.w::.,:<.,�.>::,�::>:.>..>:.::.;::.;�:.;: »:.w,::.;:.;;;:.::::.::.;:
.,,, . . . ..:. ....::.,.: ..,,...,.:: .. .:... .:: ... :. .......,.:::,.>:.•:.:,•:..::.�:,.;:;:.::.>:::.::.:>::::.;:;.::::..�,.:,.:,,:::.�>:�::<.:;w:.: �:::.::.;.:::.;,,:.,:::.
. �.> ...»., :�:,;,,.: .:.,........,>...: .:...:3
...^:.. . •>:.»>;:.:::: :.::•::;•:
:k�:<�::;c•:;;.;:. �:�::••,••:::i::::::%�:::�;r:%
4:,;c:::
:.:i.:2�:x•:.:i:�i��i �::�::�;r'
.'':'f�:3::3::'r'r':r•'•`'.%,'•:'•'•.�:;•'::'::; .'•%•i::
.:z<:<:::,i�:::;:s: <;::«:>=::>,?:>...
::.:<.. � •<: o:<:.>;::.:;: :�•: •�:>:::;; ��..< . . r. ,.,..... ..> r••<;: ��>.,..... ... z..,,
:�:%t ;?::::�::�:2<:� ::<::>::::>.+•� :;•:o:•>::•:;• . .:: t
:::��''r.'•;•%�:�::�ir�:�:::::�'<`�: : .,� .. ,..�....)...
...i......, .
�.,C...+c........ . ::::'r:'•;:;;::;;
..>...........
•::a ::::::: :.:.. . ..>.:»:.`•:�::::::::::::.:•
<:�?�'::.4:<:'<•::•.,`.•`•::::::':::;:�::: i:'<'�: �'?:'ic:':�:'...,.,............. s......� ......................................................... ,..............::�ti:::::':::::::�: ���r:: �::;:;C::$:�::?'N: %:::�:c'!.:`•:: �::::::::;:::;:�:i:5::::::
3.2 RESIDENTIAL WASTE CHARACTERI7.ATION
3.2.1 Resid�ential Waste Quantities
;>:.::;:.>;:
:z::z:.:::>:::
B
-1
::?cx•:•:::
9
As discussed above, the residential waste stream changes substantially from the dry season to the wet season. This can be
assumed to be caused by a decrease in certain activities in the wet season and a reduction of specif'ic materials such as yard wastes.
Table 3.4 shows residential waste quantities by season, the seasonal distribution (the percentage that each season contributes
for each substream), the annual totals, and the amount (percentage) that each waste substream wntributes to the totat residentialal
waste stream.
As shown in Table 3.4, the degree to which the quantities of each waste subsheam varies seasonally (the seasonal distribution)
differs. For instance, multifamlly waste quantitles vary the least, being the closest to a 50-SO split between dry and wet seasons. This
is intuitively correct, based on the assumption that the lifesryles and activities of apartment dwellers would vary less than other types
of residen�al generators. For the other three residential waste generators, waste quan�ties vary signif'icandy between the seasons. For
residential self-haul wastes, the increased quantities in the dry season is likely caused by additional wastes from remodeling,
landscaping, and other activities with a seasonal nature.
Like residential self-haul, the variations in waste quantities for urban and rural single-famlly wastes are likely also caused by
activities that are seasonal in nature. Unlike residential self-haul, examination of the seasonal waste composition results for urban
and rural wastes indicates that yard waste contributes significantly to the seasonal variation.
3.2. Resid�ential Waste Composition
Tables 3.5 through 3•8 show the seasonal variations for specific residential substreams. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 summarize these
resul� by season and by generator, respectively. Data on the statistical certainty of these results can be found In Addendum C.
As discussed in Section 2, the wet season results for the residential waste sheams have been projected based on data from the
[�aste Slream Compasflron Study (MaMx et al., 1989) for the ciry of Seattle. Trends in waste compositlon shown by the Seattle data
for the dry season (summer and fall) versus the wet season (winter and spring� were applied to the county dry season data to project
wet season waste composition and allow the calculation of an annual average.
3.3 NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE CHARACTERI7ATION
3•3. Nonresidential Waste Quantities
Table 3.11 shows nonresidential waste quantities by season, the seasonal distribution (the percentage that each season
contributes for each subsheam), the annual totals, and the amount (percentage) that ea,ch waste substream contributes to the total
nonresidential waste stieam. As can be seen in this table, the nonresidential waste stream has less seasonal variatlon than the
residendal waste stream. This is wnsistent with the logic that business activity proc�eeds at a steadier pace, and is affected less by
seasonal changes than by economic fluctuation.
For nonresidential self-haul, it is likely that the observed fluctuation in waste quantities is the result of factors sirnilar to
factors which affect residential self-haul. In other words, nonresidential self-haul wastes are likely generated in part by activities with
a significant seasonal nature, such as construction and landscaping.
Resuleniral and Nonresidentyal Quarctrty and Co»�pas�tron
Appendrr B: Waste CLiaracter�ation Study
B-2
0
3.3. Nonresidential Waste Composition
Tables 3.12 through 3.15 provide data on the two general nonresidential waste saeams. Data on the select nonresidentlal
generators is shown in Section 4.
Tables 3.12 and 3.13 show the results of samples taken in the dry and wet seasons for the total CII and nonresidential self-
haul waste streams, respectively, and the weighted (annual) average for these waste streams. The weighted average was derived using
the tonnage figures shown in Table 3.1 for the dry and wet seasons.
Total CII (commercial industrial, and institutional) is used to refer to the nonresidential waste that is co(lected by a garbage
hauling wmpany, as opposed to being self-hauled by the generator. The two nonresidentia( categories taken together, total CII and
nonresidential self-haul, include every type of nonresidential waste generator in King County.
The annual averages for the nonresidential waste streams are summarized in Tables 3•14 (by season) and 3.15 (bY rype of
generator). The values shown in these tables are weighted averages calculated using the waste quantity data @y rype of generator)
shown in Table 3.1.
Appendrx B: Waste C{xlracten'zr�tion Sludy Resulentra! and Nonr�srdentia! Quantity and Corrtpositfo�t
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
90
80
70
TONS
(THOUSANDS)
60
50
40
30
I<----------- DRY SEASON -------------->I<----------- WET SEASON ---------------�
FIGURE 3.1
MONTHLY WASTE QUANTITIES
NOTE: Tonnages from King County transfer station records.
Source: Kfng County Waste Characterizatlon Study, 1990 - 1991.
�
N
�
.. i$4�i �:v'
May 90 June 90 July 90 Aug 90 Sept 90 Oct 90 Nov 90 Dec 90 Jan 91 Feb 91 Mar 91 Apr 91
�
�
�
�
GENERATOR TYPE
Residential Generators
Urban Single-Family
Rural Single-Family
Multi-Family Units
Residential Self-Haul
Subtotal, Residential Waste
TABLE 3.1
WASTE QUANTITIES BY GENERATOR TYPE
DRY SEASON
Percent (1) Tons
WET SEASON
Percent(1) Tons
23.9 �/0 109,400 tons
8.8 40,360
10.8 49,270
19.8 90,650
63.4 289,680
20.6 %
7.1
10.5
17.2
55.3
81,800 tons
28,060
41,690
68,200
219,750
PERCENT CHANGE (2)
-25.2 9/0
-30.5
- 15.4
-24.8
-24.1
�
N
N
�, Nonresidential Generators
Total CII 26.7 4�0 122,300 tons 34.0 9�0 135,200 tons 10.5
� Nonresidential Self-Haul 9.9 45,220 10.7 42,480 -6.1
Z
� Subtotal, Nonresidential Waste 36.6 167,520 44.7 177,680 6.1
TOTALS 100.0 9�0 457,200 tons (3) 100.0 % 397,430 tons (3) -13.1 9�0
NOTES: 1. Percentage figures based on the results of surveys conducted at the slx King County Transtet Statlons.
� 2. Percent change Is calculated as the Increase (rom the dry season to the wet season, ln tons, dlvided by the dry season tonnape.
� 3. From King County transfer statlon reCOrds, May 1990 - October 1990 for the dry season and Nwember 1990 - Aprll 1991 for the wet season.
Source: King County Waste Characterizatlon Study, 1990 - 1991.
••••••••••M•••i••••••
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
a
a
�.
�
�.
�
�
�
�'
�
�
�
TABLE 3.2
UNIT WASTE DISPOSAL RATES IN KING COUNTY
GENERATOR TYPE
Resldential Generators
Urban Single-Family
Rural Single-Family
Multi-Famify
Residential Sel(-Haul
Subtotal, Residential Waste
Nonresidential Generators
Total CII
Nonresidential Seif-Haul
Subtotal, Nonresidential Waste
TONS (1)
191,200 tons
68,420
90,960
158,850
509,500
257,500 tons
87,700
345,200
POPULATION (2)
590,800 peopie
57,700
356,400
NA (4)
1,004,900 people
UNIT DISPOSAL RATE
0.32 TPY/person (3)
t .19 TPY/person
0.26 TPY/person
0.51 TPY/person
TOTALS
854,600 tons
NA
NA
473,600 employees
0.73 TPY/employee
NOTES: 1. Tonnafle fiflures are from Table 3.1, for Kinp County excludiny Seattle.
2. Populatlon flpures from' 1991 Annual Orowth Report', Ianp County Parks, Planninfl and Resources Oept., June 1991. Mu1ti-(amlly
population and employment fipurea derNed from'Populatlon and Employment Fwecasts, 1988", PSC0f3. All flpures exclude Seattle.
3. TP1f - Tons Per Year.
4. NA � Nat AppliCdble.
Source: Kinp County Waste Characterizatlon Study, 1990 - 1991.
�
N
w
TABLE 3.3
MATERIAL
TOTAL WASTE STREAM BY GENERATOR TYPE
URBAN RURAL RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SELF-HAUL TOTAL Cil
;<gae::ae _
Newspaper 9.3 8.5
Cardboard 5.9 7.3
Offlce Paper 0.3 0.4
Computer Paper 0.1 0.0
Mixed 12.0 10.7
Other 7.5 5.9
PlestiOE 8A > 1Q.7
PET Bottles 0.4 0.2 _
HDPE Bottles 1.0 1.3
Pdystyrene 0.7 0.8
Plastic Fllm, Bags 3.5 4.5
Other Ptastic Pkg. 0.9 0.8
Other 1.4 3.4
Wootl ahtl Ya�d Waetes 12.8 8.1 '
_,
_ Wood _ 1.1 0.7
Yard Waetes 11.8 5.4
QtherOrganics 35.8 40A ,
Textiles >_ 3.4 7A' _
Food Wastes 9.8 13.t
Dispoeable Diapere 5.7 3.8
Fines 2.3 2.5
Rubber 2.4 0.3
Furniture, Mattrese 0.4 0.0
Miscellaneous Organice 11.9 13.7
10.9 . 2.9
8.3 2.6
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.0
14.5 3.0
3.4 1.7
, Z.3 8.8
0.2 0.4'„ _
0.8 0.4
0.5 0.3
3.8 1.5
0.5 0.4
2.0 3.8
10.1 42.9
5.4 18.8
4.8 24. t
< 3t.a 13.8 :
8.5 3.8
10.5 3.9
2.7 0.0
2.3 1.8
0.1 0.8
1.9 2.3
7.7 1.3
; 88.9 4b ;,
NONRESIDENTIAL
SELF-HAUL
__ _ _ __ ____
WEIGHTED �
AVERAGE (1) N
�
_ ;':; 83.2'' 96
2.2 0.6 5.0
12.0 5.9 7.5
3.4 0.4 1.2
1.1 0.1 0.4
9.8 2.2 8.8
11.3 2.4 8.5
_ 10.B 17.8>; 9:8
OA 0.0 _ _ 0.2
0.2 0.8 0.8
0.8 2.8 0.8
3.7 2.4 3.2
1.4 3.3 1.1
4.8 8.4 3.8
14.8 28.8; ' 19.8 :
12.2 20.0 10.1
2.8 8.8 9.5
2i.8 8.3' 24.8
5.5 2.0 . _ 4.8
5.3 3.4 7.0
0.2 0.1 1.9
2.7 1.1 2.2
3.3 0.6 1.8
0.7 0.0 0.9
4.1 1.2 8.2
`1NQRQANICS '' 8.8 ': 11.9 '' 13.4 26.2 ;< 12.8 35.7 '; 18.7'
�ila� 2.3 : 3.4 '4.E 4.0 : , 2A 1.0'; , 4.7'
Clear Containers 1.5 2A 2.9 _ - 1.2 > 0.8 0.6 '` 1.3
Qreen Containers 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3
Brown Containere 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.4
Other 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.1 0.8
Metals ' 3:$ b 1 , 3.2 8.4 ;, q.2 8.b' " 5:3
,:. ,
_.. , _ _ _
Ferrous Cans 1.4 2.2 1.4 O.a 0.5 0.1 0.9
Other Ferrous 0.9 1.2 0.9 4.5 1.9 3.3 2.1
Aluminum Cans 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.5
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 02
Mixed Metals 0.9 0.5 0.3 2.8 1.2 2.4 1.4
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2
M...'10Ce11�n9CU� Inorganlc8 2.5 3.a 5.8 12.8 , 8.7 28.2; ,; $.7
< , ,>
HazJSpecial Wasfes 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.8 1 A 1.1 0.8
Medical Weste 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4
Conetrucdon/Demo. Waste 0.7 1.4 3.0 10.8 , 3.5 28.8 8.4
Mfscellaneous 0.8 0.5 1.8 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.2
TOTALS (2) 100.1 46 99.9 �.6 100.0 % 100.1 46
NOTES: 1. Weighted average baeed on waste quantitiee shown in Table 3.1.
2. Some t�als do not add up to 100 percent due to �ounding.
99.8 % 99.8 96
100.0 %
Source� Kina Countv Waste Characterization Studv. 1990 -1991.
• • • � • � • • • • � • • • � • • • • • • � • • • � • • • • .. • •
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
a
�
�
�
Oo
�
�
TABLE 3.4
RESIDENTIAL WASTE QUANTITIES
GENERATOR
Urban Single-Family
Rural Single-Family
Multi-Family
Residential Self-Haul
DRY SEASON
Percent of
Tons 1 Substream (2)
109,400 tons 57.2 %
40,360 59.0
49,270 54.2
90,650 57.1
WET SEASON
Percent of
Tons 1 Substream (2)
81,800 tons 42.8 4�6
28,060 41.0
41,690 45.8
68,200 42.9
ANNUAI TOTALS
Percent of Total
Totai Tons Residential Waste (3)
191,200 tons 37.5 4�0
68,420 13.4
90,960 17.9
158,850 31.2
Total Residential Waste 289,680 tons 56.9 % 219,750 tons 43.1 9�0 509,430 tons 100.0 9io
NOTES: t. From Table 3.1.
2. Calculated as the percentape ot the total amount, lor that flenerator, that occurs in that season. For Instance, the amount of
sinflle-family urban waste that Is In the dry season (109,400 tons), divided by the total for that type of generator (191,200 tons).
3. Calculated as the percentape of the total amount ot residential waste (509,430 tons) that Is contributed annuatly by that penerator.
Source: Kiny County Waste Characterizatlon Study, 1990 - 1991.
�
N
�.Ii
?:�:<::?`•;E'•j#
, ::::::.: ::::::::.� ::::::::::::::.�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::............:.........:...................:...............::.�::::::::::::::::::::
::::: ...................
::v::>:<:�r;»:>:<:�><::::�::;.;<;�::r;;;:::.;:;:;::.;;:.;;:.;:.:;;;;��::.:�:::.::::::: �:.�::::;;:;;;;::;;;; ::::.:::::::::::::::::::.�
...<..:. :..:
.::r : :..:.... :.::..:.:::...
:»>:>;: ::<.><.>,.;:;::.;;;::::::: w:;:;-:>�:>�;:::;;.;;;:<>��::>:;:.;::;:.:>::»»:;:::>::
;:.>:<::::. ::.;:.;.::, ::::.::::.:.. ,...... . ,
.w... .
::::. ....,.::::: ::.:::.:-:................ ... :::::......,>:.;:.;;::�.::::.;:,.:::.�:,..:::.:.. , :.:::::..,,,......:.:::-::::.:��:.:: ..... ,,..... <,.v,.,.N..,
_ .::��<.:,N::.;;::<.;:<.:;:,.
:::::;:::;::::::::<::<::::;:;:>:<:»:>.::<:»:.;:;;.;:;.»:�:::::<:;;:.;>::;:=>:::�:::»;:>.::«:;� :.:.:.;:.;:.;�::;.;:.;:.:.;;:.:::::.::.;:::>;;;:.::.;:.:::.::.:;.:::��.�:.:;:.;;;:.:::::.:::.:;�:.� :.::.:
......................... ..;::. .
........................:::.: � :::..
::::::::. :::::::...:.::.�:::::::.�::::..:�:::;;:� ........ ��:.................... .........:,....:..........
�:::::. B 26 .......:::.:. .......................... .................... ......................
.
::.�.;�
>��
... . w:<��>�«k
:::.:;;::.>: :::::..... ...... .............. ..:�.
::::.:^:tt. 4 nw.. ...iy.�v:.;�x.wi}n.. ..yF"" ...:.. :x,:.ji:i:'v,"' »h.. :'':j:i: i::!'>.
.......... ryiY::: ?.�::.:..vm.:: w: ii:. :
....... ...........::: ......
....... .,-....... y ...::.v-: .
.........i................ ..'t::: :::t.'..::::..:.:`t%ti::o 'G:'t,;•:d �:::;�:
�:::::::::. ........• ..... :::�:::. :.�..?:::Rs:: . :.. .w..,.. ;.;:.,.. :.
.......; �: ;.;•::: ...
. ::::.� :•:: •. ::: ,:.
:....... ..:. . ........ :.....:.. ........ ....r..... .....: .�xxM;.;�: . ->.+.£'.�5%:=..... ..'.h�fie.:.:cG>. �
. .•.::.,�•::::::::::•>:.:
... ..................................:..................:.:. .......................... �>.?Y.fw:?�?-:i:.;c>T,?;a•.,:F::�<::.
TABLE 3.5
URBAN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION
WEIGHTED
MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON (1) AVERAGE (2)
ORGANICS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office PBper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
Plastics -
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polysryrene
Plastic Fitm, Bags
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes ; : :
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics :
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
91.8 %
33A
9.1
5.8
0.4
0.1
10.4
7.2
7.9
0.4
0.9
0.7
3.5
0.9
1.5
14.9
1.2
13.7
36A
_ ' 3.4
10.4
5.0
2.3
2.4
0.4
12.i
91.2 % 91.5 96
38.1; 35.2
9.6 9.3
6.1 5.9
0.1 0.3
0.1 0.1
14.1 12.0
8.0 7.5
8.0 8.0
0.4 0.4
1.2 1.0
0.7 0.7
3.5 3.5
0.9 0.9
1.4 1.4
9.9 < 12.8 ,
1.0 1.1
8.9 11.6
35.2 35.6 '
3.4 3.4
8.5 9.6
6.6 5.7
2.2 2.3
2.3 2.4
0.4 0.4
11.7 11.9
INORGANICS
Glass : _
Clear Containers
Green Containers
Brown Containers
Other
Metals =
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferrous
Aluminum Cans
Other Alum. Containers
Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscellaneous I�organics _
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
Construction/Demo. Waste
Miscellaneous
TOTALS (3)
8.4
2.3
1.5
0.3
0.5
0.0
3.9
1.2
1.1
0.6
0.1
0.9
0.0
2.2
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
100.2 %
8.8 ; : 8.6
2.3 2.3 ;;
1.5 1.5
0.3 0.3
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
3.6 3.8
� 6 1.4
0.7 0.9
0.5 0.6
0.1 0.1
0.8 0.9
0.0 0.0
2.9 2.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 OA '
1.0 0.7
0.8 0.7
0.8 0.8
100.0 �ib 100.1 %
NOTES: 1. Projected usi�g data from the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study.
2. Weighted average based on 109.400 tons in dry season and 81,800 tons in wet season.
3. Some lotals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: Kinp Countv �����ye Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
Appendiz B: Waste Cdr�racterxuubn SYudy ReslderetTal arrd Nonresfdentiril Quantuy and Comp�oisition
�
�
•
.
•
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
�
wnA+v�i: .':'v:::•�i:}:='r':iiiiii>i:i?i:ir?Y:;:iy
'� :•:4:•:::::.>::ifiTii'�: i+••:••>:•:+`•>••>x
v+A .
v� .t
���:w�:<::�:::::;`:�:�:�::���^�:.;;:: �:..',. ��..`..fir;.
.?;j:�:; �::;::::r:�::�:i<:::t::�:;:::::?:�::'�::%:::�?:'. x=35. ..
�:•:'a:c
::::::::.::::::. .... .. ... ... . .................... . .::: ................ .. : .
................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:
,x..Lv�MvT.v{:!•�:rr.vn?f�i}:4fF.�i . .: v�+12L+20'iLV: /.v?n�.n.vx�i:�: ?�i:ti:�wi:Si::ii?�:�i:i+:-::'2�'it�:�:'r�ikvi::i::::':::::;:v::�::� : ?�,4,:u:::�:�:•:{(f'.. . \... C:^.�.Sk: ?.�:i:iLLuL:i....vr ...{..
. r,o,�..°, . �r« .: .......................::::: ...........................:.:.............:.:�:':: ..r.. .
...�......�.,.....N . . �w.<:,::<.��.:N::>::»>:.::>:»><::>:�.�r;<::«�:��M:::
r.. ..viij
�>:�<::;:�f::
� i
B
2
7
#::��.::..x.
TABLE 3.6
RURAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION
MATERIAL
WEIGHTED
DRY SEASON WET SEASON (t) AVERAGE (2)
ORGRNICS' $8.2 % ' 87.7 < % 88:0 %<
PBper 28.7 ' 34.0 ; 30.9
_ Newspaper _ ; _ . . _ __ .: 6.3 _ : _ _ _ 6.9 6.5
Cardboard 7.0 7.6 7.3
Offioe Pspe� 0.6 0.2 0.4
Computer Paper 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mixed 9.2 12.9 10.7
Other 5.6 6.4 5.9
Piastics '!10.5 ' 10.9 1'0:7 :
PET Bottles 0.2 0.2 0.2
HDPE Bottles 1.1 1.5 1.3
Polystyrene 0.6 0.6 0.6
Plastic Film, Bags 4.5 4.6 4.5
Other Plastic Pkg. 0.6 0.6 0.6
Other 3.5 3.3 3.4
Waiod Snd YStdlN�istBS ; " ;: 7� °! 4.8 . ` 6:1
Wood 0.8 . > 0.7 0.7
Ysrd Waates 6.2 4.2 5.4
t�iiar Q►gaN�a 42A ; 38.1;;; +4E�;4
Textiles 6.9 7.2 7.0
FOOd Wastes 14.0 11.8 13.1
Disposable Diapers 3.3 4.5 3.8
Fines 2.7 2.3 2.5
Rubber 0.3 0.3 0.3
Fumiture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miscellaneous Organics 14.8 12.0 13.7
Green Containers 0.5 0.5 0.5
Brown Containers 0.6 0.6 0.6
Other 0.3 0.2 0.3
Met�t� . .:: ; 5.2 5.1 ? 5:1
Fenous �ans _ ;; : 1.9 _ _ 2:6 : _: _ _2.2 <
Other Ferrous 1.4 0.9 1.2
Aluminum Cans 0.9 0.8 0.8
Other Alum. Containers 0.2 0.1 0.2
Mixed Metals 0.5 0.5 0.5
Other Non-Ferrous 0.3 0.2 0.3
Mtscellaneous fnorganiC� > 3.1 3•8', 3:4
__ Haz./SpeCial Wastes _ _ _ 0.8 _ 0.6 OJ
Medical Waste 0.1 0.1 0.1
Ashes 0.4 1.1 0.7
ConstructioNDemo. Waste 1.2 1.7 1.4
Miscellaneous 0.6 0.4 0.5
TOTALS (3)
99.9 % 100.0 % 99.9 9�0
NOTES: 1. Projected usinQ data irom the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study.
2. Welqhted ave►aqe based on 40,360 tons In dry season and 28,060 tons In wet season.
3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to roundinfl.
SourCe: Kinp County Wasts Characterizatlo� Study, 1990 - 1991.
Resfde�t'ial and Nom�sidentiol Quantily and Gonrpaaitan
Aplo�erulac B: wasb cdia,wcAsrizarion SJudy
. .
TABIE 3.7
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIA� WASTE COMPOSITION
MATERIAL
ORGANICS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
Plastics
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Piastic Film, Bags
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes >;
Wood _
Yard Wastes
Other OrganiCs
Textiles :
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
DRY SEASON
86.7 �i6
. 35.1
10J
8.1
0.4
0.1
12.5
3.3
7.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
3.6
0.5
2.1
11.6
5.9
5.7
32.6 ;
6.5
1t.5
2.4
2.3
0.1
1.9
7.9
WET SEASON (1)
86:5 94
40.3 ;
11.2
8.5
0.1
0.1
16.8
3.6
7.3 ':
6.2
0.7
0.5
3.5
0.5
1.9
8.4
4.8 _
3.7
30.5
_ 6.5
9.2
3.2
2.2
0.1
1.8
7.6
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE (2)
86:6'`96
' 37i5
10.9 ,
8.3
0.3
0.1
14.5
3.4
7:3
0.2
0.6
0.5
3.6
0.5
2.0
' 10.1> : .
5.4
4.8
31:6
6.5
10.5
2.7
2.3
0.1
1.9
7.7
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
INORGANICS 13.2 ' 13.6 - 13:4
Glass ` 4.6 ; 4.5 ", 4.6;
Clear Confainers : 2.9 2.8 2.9
Green Containers 0.8 0.8 0.8
Brown Containers 0.9 0.9 0.9
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0
Metais '3.3 3.1 _ 3.2'; ,
Ferrous Cans 1.2 1.6 1.4
Other Ferrous 1.1 0.7 0.9
Aluminum Cans 0.6 0.5 0.5
Other Alum. Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mixed Metals 0.3 0.3 0.3
Other Non-Ferrous 0.1 0.1 0.1
Misceltaneous Inorganics 5.3 6:0 5:6' .
Haz./Special Wastes 1.0 0.7 0.9
MediCal Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.1 0.3 0.2
Construction/Demo. Waste 2.6 3.5 3.0
Miscellaneous 1.6 1.5 1.6
TOTALS
99.9 % t 00.0 %
NOTES: 1. Pro�ected using data from the Seattte Waste Stream Composition Study.
2. Weighted average based on 49,270 tons in dry season and 41,690 in wet season.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
�
�
�
�
�
100.0 % •
•
•
•
Ap�oerrdir B: Wa,ste Cbamcleriration Study Resxlent�il and Nonn�fdent�il Q�antily a�td Co»�po��ition �
�
�
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
::;>;:;:»':r: �;::::::::;:::::€::::�::::::><>�:�>`::>::��:�:
<:>: r�:::<:�::::>::`:::::::;:::;:::::::>�::::'s:::``:;r:<;:::;?::<::<`:�::`:;:�:::::>:::::<�:':«''>' :............:................................ _
B 2
9
TABLE 3.8
RESIDENTIAL SELF-HAUL WASTE COMPOSITION
MATERIAL
WEIGHTED
DRY SEASON WET SEASON (1) AVERAGE (21
OFiGANICS >75.1 % '72.3 % ;73.9 I96':
Paper 11.0 > 9.6 10:4 '
Newspaper _ < 3.6 2.0 2.9
Ca�dboard 3.1 2.0 2.6
Office Paper 0.2 0.0 0.1
Computer Paper 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mixed 2.7 3.4 3.0
Other 1.4 2.1 1 •7
_ ___
__ _ __ _ _
PlastiCS : ' S.0 ` 9.2 ' 6.8
PET Bottles 0.1 0.9 _ _, 0.4 _
HDPE Bottles 0.1 0.9 0.4
Polystyrene 0.3 0.2 0.3
Plastic Flm, Bags t.2 1.9 1.5
Othe� PlastiC Pkg. 0.3 0.5 0.4
Other 3.0 4.9 3.8
_ _ __ _
Wood and Yard Wastes .: 42.3 43.4 ?12.9 1'i:
Wood �8.4 , _. _... 19.3 __ ; 18.8
YBrd Wastes 24.1 24.1 24.1
Othe� Organics t6.6 _ 10.1 ;�3,8
Textiles 4.9 2.4 3.8
Food Wastes 5.5 1.8 3.9
Disposabie Diapers 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fines 1.6 1.5 1.6
Rubber 0.8 0.9 0.8
Furniture, Mattress 2.4 2.2 2•3
Miscellaneous Organics 1.4 1•2 1•3
_ _ Ctear Containers _ __ _ _ _ __ 1.5 _ __ _ _ 0.9 i.z
Green Containers 0.4 0.2 0.3
Brown Containers 0.7 0.4 0.6
Other 0.7 3.4 1.9
Metals 7.9 '11.9 ' 9.4 `
:; Ferrous Cans > 0.5 0.7 ._; __ ; 0.6
Other Ferrous 4.0 5.2 4.5
Aluminum Cans 0.3 �• 1 0 •�
Other Alum. Containers 0.3 0.8 0.5
Mixed Metsls 2.5 2•8 2•s
Other Non-Ferrous 0.3 0.6 0.4
Miscellaneous Inotganics : 13.9 11.4 1�•8 !
Haz./Special Wastes • OJ _ 0.5 0.6
Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.5 0.5 0.5
Construction/Demo. Waste 11.6 9.6 � �•8
MisCellaneous 1.1 0.8 � •�
TOTALS
100.2 % 100.0 % 100.1 %
• NOTES: 1. Based on data trom the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study.
2. WeipAted averaqes are based on 90,650 tons in dry season and 68,200 tons in wet season.
•
. Residerttla! and Nonresideritial Quantrly and Compasrtion AplDeridiz B: Was� Cd��a�a�vn Study
r�
L
7
B-
3
0
TABLE 3.9
MATERIAL
WEIGHTED
DRY SEASON WET SEASON AVERAGE
ORGANICS ': 85.0''9�6
PaPer 25.8 >.
Newspaper _ 7.3 ,.
Cardboard 5.5
Office PaPer 0.3
Computer Paper 0.0
Mixed g,2
Other 4.5
Ptastics ; T.2 "
PET Bottles 0.2
HDPE Bottles 0.6
Polystyrene 0.5
Plastic Film, Bags 2.g
Other Plastic Pkg. 0.6
Other 2.4
Wood ar�d' Yard Wastes : 21.8
_ :W� :. _ 7.3' _
Yard Wastes 14.5
Other Organlcs : '30.2
Textiles _ _ _ 4.9 ,
Food Wastes 9.5
Disposabie Diapers 2.g
Fines 2,2
Rubber � ,2
Furniture, Mattress 1.2
Mlscellaneous Organics 8.4
$4.0 %
29:1
7.2
5.5
0.1
0.1
11.1
5.1
8.6
0.5
1.0
0.5
3.1
0.7
2.8
19:4
7.3
12.0
26:9 `
4.2
7.0
3.6
2.0
1.2
1.2
7.7
INORGANiCS (t S.0 t 6:0°
Glass 3.i 3:7
Clear Containers 1,g �:g
Green Containers 0.4 0.4
Brown Containers 0.6 0.6
Other 0.3 �.�
Metais < 5.3 < 6.1
Ferrous Cans 1.1 1.5
Other Ferrous 2,p 2,�
Aluminum Cans p,g p,�
Other Alum. Containers 0.2 0.3
Mixed Metals �,2 �,g
Other Non-Ferrous 0.2 0.2
Miscellaneous Inorganic5 _ 6.6 6.2
Haz./SpeCial Wastes 0.6 0.5
MediCal Waste 0.0 0.0
Ashes p,4 0 �
ConstructioNDemo. Waste 4.5 4.2
Miscellaneous 1.0 0.9
WASTE COMPOSITION, ALL RESIDENTIAL BY SEASON
84J %
27.3 :
7.2
5.5
0.3
0.1
9.5
4.8
7.9
0.3
0.8
0.5
3.0
0.6
2.5
20:8
7.3
13.5
28:8
:: 4.6 ,
8.4
3.1
2.1
1.2
1.2
8.1
15.4
3:4
1.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
5.6
t.2
2.1
0.6
0.2
1.3
0.2
6.4
0.6
0.0
0.5
4.3
t.0
TOTALS 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.1 %
NOTES: 1. Seaspnal and weighted averaqes based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1.
2. Subtotals and totals may not add up exactly due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
A�jo�ndir B: l�a,ste C6iarac�rir�aAivn SludY R�sidentrat and Non�rsrdent�al puantity and Conr,pasitinn
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
B-31
TAB�E 3.10
WASTE COMPOS�TION, ALL RESIDENTIAL COMBINED
ANNUAL FIGURES BY GENERATOR TYPE (1)
•
i
�
•
•
�
�
�
•
�
•
•
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
MATERIAL
ORGANICS.
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
OftiCe Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
PlastiCs
PET 6ottles
HDPE Botties
Polystyrene
Plastic Film, Bags
Other Piastic Pkg.
Other
Wood and Yartl Wastes
_ _ Wood
Yard Wastes
Other:Organics .
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
URBAN RURAL
SINGLE- S�NGLE- MULTI- SELF-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY HAUL
91.b % - _ 88A' % 86.6'. %
35.2 30.9 37.5 ' .
9.3 6.5 10.9
5.9 7.3 8.3
0.3 0.4 0.3
0.1 0.0 0.1
�2.p �p,7 14.5
7.5 5.9 3.4
8A 10.7 7.3
0.4 0.2 0.2
1.0 t.3 0.6
0.7 0.6 0.5
3.5 4.5 3.6
0.9 0.6 0.5
i.4 3.4 2 •0
12.8 6.1 10.1
1.1 0.7 5.4
11.6 5.4 4.8
35.6 d0.4 31.6''
3A 7.0 6.5
9.6 13.1 10.5
5.7 3.8 2.7
2.3 2.5 2.3
2.4 0.3 �•�
0.4 0.0 �•9
11.9 13.7 7.7
73.9 %
10.4
2.9
2.6
0.1
0.0
3.0
1.7
6.8
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.5
0.4
3.8
42.9
18.8
24.1
13.8
3.8
3.9
0.0
1.6
0.8
2.3
1.3
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE (2�
84:7 %
27:3"
7.2
5.5
0.3
0.1
9.5
4.8
7.9
: > 0.3
0.8
0.5
3.0
0.6
2.5
20:8: '
7.3
13.5
'28.8'.
4.6
8.4
3.1
2.1
1.2
1.2
8.1
1NORGANICS 8.6 11.9 ' t3.4 26.2
Glass 2.3 3.4 4.6 _ 4.0
Ctear Containers 1.5 2.0 2•9 �•2
Green Containers 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3
Brown Containers 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.6
Other 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.9
Metais 3.8 5.1 3.2' 9:4
Ferrous Cans �•4 2'2 ��4 4.5
Other Ferrous �•9 �•2 �'9
Aluminum Cans 0.6 0.8 0.5 �•�
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0•2 ��� 0 • 5
Mixed Metals �•9 �•5 �'3 2'6
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4
Miscellaneous lnorg8nics' 2.5 ` 3.4 5.6 12•8
Haz./Special Wastes 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.6
Medical Waste 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.5
Construction/Demo. Waste 0.7 1.4 3.0 10.8
Miscellaneous 0.8 0.5 1.6 1.0
TOTALS (3)
100.1 °rb 99.9 °�6 100.0 °� 100.1 °�
NOTES: 1. Data for each generator is trom Tabies 3.5 through 3.8.
2. Weighted average is based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1.
3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
ResideritJril and Nonr�sident�al Quandiyl and Compasftion
15.4
:3.4
1.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
5.6`
_'1.2
2.1
0.6
0.2
1.3
0.2
: s:a
0.6
0.0
0.5
4.3
1.0
100.1 %
... ':i<i:ti
Append'er B: Wasta Cbar�on Sbud'y
�
3�
�
�
i5'
�
�
�
�
�
�
S
�
�
TABLE 3.11
NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE QUANTITIES
GENERATOR
Total CII
Nonresidential Self-Haul
DRY SEASON
Percent of
Tons t Substream (2)
122,300 tons 47.5
45,220 51.6
WET SEASON
Percentof
Tons 1 Substream (21
135,200 52.5 %
42,480 48.4
ANNUALTOTALS
Percent of Total
Total Tons Nonres. Waste (3)
257,500 tons 74.6 %
87,700 25.4
Total Nonres. Waste 167,520 tons 48.5 % 177,680 tons 51.5 % 345,200 tons 100.0 �k
NOTES: 1. From Table 3.1.
2. Calculated as the percentage of the total amount, tor that generator, thal occurs In thal season. For Instance, the amount of
total CII waste that is in the dry season (122,300 tons), divided by the total for that type of generator (257,500 tons).
3. Calculated as Ihe percentage ot the total amount of nonresldentiai waste (345,200 tons) t�at Is contrlbuted annually by that generator.
Source: King County Waste Characterizatlon Study, 1990 - 1991.
�
�
w
N
• • � • • . • • • • • • . � • • • � . • • • • • • • • • • • • • � •
:<:<:�:�:�>��
MATERIAL
ORGANICS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
PlastiCs
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Plastic Film, Bags
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
INORGANICS
Glass
Clear Containers
Green Containers
Amber Containers
Other
Metats
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferr4us
Aluminum Cans
Other Alum. Containers
Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
Construction/Demo. Waste
MisCellaneous
13.3 12•7
2.7 1.3
0.6 0.8
0.0 02
0.4 0.1
1.7 0.2
4.8 3.8
0.3 0.7
2.2 1.6
0.4 0.3
0.1 0.1
1.5 1.0
0.3 0.1
5.8 7.6
1.5 0.6
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.3
2.7 4.3
1.6 2.2
12.9
2.0
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.9
4.2
0.5
1.9
0.3
0.1
1.2
0.2
6.7
1.0
0.1
0.2
3.5
1.9
TOTALS (2) 99.8 % 99.7 % 99.8 %
NOTES: t. Weighted averages are based on 122,300 tons In dry season and 135.200 tons in wet season.
2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to roundinp.
so�►ce: ►u�e ca,�cy was�e cna�ac�e��za��o� sc�dy. �sso -�ssi.
TABLE 3.12
WASTE COMPOSITION
TOTAL CII BY SEASON
DRY SEASON WET SEASON
86.5 ''% 87:0 %
; 39.5 ' 40:2
2.2 : _ 2.1
12.4 11.6
4.6 2.4
0.8 1.4
13.0 7.0
6.5 15.7
10.3 10.6
0.0 0.0
0.2 0.2
0.6 0.6
4.3 3.1
0.9 1•8
4.3 4.9
19.6 10.2
15.8 8.8
3.8 1.4
17.1 26.0
1.4 9.1
5.5 5.2
0.4 0.0
2.3 3.1
3.0 3.6
0.2 1.1
4.3 3.9
B-
33
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE (1l
86.9 ' %
39.8
2.2
12.0
3.4
7.1
9.8
11.3
10.5
0.0
0.2
0.6
3.7
1.4
4.6
�a.a
12.2
2.6
21.8
5.5
5.3
0.2
2.7
3.3
0.7
4.1
Reridental and Nonresrde��t�ia! Quaretily and Comp�asition Append(r B: WasAs Cdarr�ni�'ativn Skudy
B-
3
4
TABLE 3.13
WASTE COMPOSITION
NONRESIDENTIAL SELF-HAUL BY SEASON
WEIGHTED
MATERfAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON AVERAGE (11
ORGANICS 69.6 ''% 58.7 46 84.'t' gb
Paper '9 2.8 10.6 ` a 1.5 :
_.__.: _ _.;. _> :
Newspaper 0.3 0.8 0.5
Cardboard 6.9 4.9 5.9
Office Paper 0.5 0.2 0.4
Computer Paper 0.2 0.0 0.1
Mixed 2.7 1.6 2.2
Other 1.7 3.1 2.4
PfastiCS :> y '1.2 24':6 : 't �.5 !:
_ .<.: , -
_
PET Bottles _ _ OA _ 0.0 _ 0.0
HDPE Bottles 0.0 1.3 0.6
Polystyrene 0.4 5.5 2.8
Plastic Film, Bags 2.2 2.7 2.4
Other Plastic Pkg. 0.3 6.6 3.3
Other 8.3 8.5 8.4
Wood and Yard V�lastes :36.� 76:� "26.8 !.
_ _ __
Wood 23.6 16.1 20.0
Yard Wastes 13.2 0.0 6.8
Other Or�antca ;' ' 9.3 .; 7:4 ' 8.3 :
Textiles 3.8 0.1 2.0
Food WBStes 1.3 5.6 3.4
Disposable Dispers 0.2 0.0 0.1
Fines 1.5 0.7 1.1
Rubber 0.9 0.2 0.5
Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miscellaneous Organics 1.6 0,8 1.2
tNOHGANICS :: 3Q.5 40:8 '!35.7 `
Giass !; `,�.? 4:3 1.D;
> __ _ _ ,
Clear Containers 0.7 0.2 0.5
Green Containers 0.6 0.0 0.3
Amber Containers 0.2 0.1 0.1
Other 0.2 0.0 0.1
Metata :' ; �'.6 S:0 6.5 >
Ferrous Cans 0.1 0.1 : : 0.1
Other Ferrous 3.3 3.2 3.3
Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.2 0.3
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.0 0.1
Mixed Metals 3.5 1.3 2.4
Other Non-Ferrous 0.3 0.2 0.3
Miscellaneous lnorgan[cs :21.2 35:5 28.2
Haz./Specisl Wastes : 1.7 0.4 ::: 1.1
Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction/Demo. Waste 19.5 34.6 26.8
Miscellaneous 0.0 0.5 0.3
TOTALS (2) 100.1 % 99.5 46 99.8 %
NOTES: t. Welflhted averayes are based on �5,220 tons in dry season and 42,480 tons in wet season.
2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to roundinp.
Source: Kinp Cpunty Waste ChareCterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
Appeitdix B: Waste CGaraderirrrliort SludY R�srdenriril and Nonr�sidentral Qua�tt�t'y and Comparitbn
C�
�
•
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
:.:w :::�::::::::::::::�: �::::::::::F:;::�: v ::::
:>:{:::�.::
. ........................ . .. .................. . ...:::::::...:.:.:::: :.::::::::::::::::: ::.::::::..:: :.: :.::::::::.:.: :::::..:::::.:...:.::::::::::::......:...
...........................................................
:::.t.::...:.....{ .....................
, :.: ::.: :::.: .::::. �:::::::.: �:::::: :.:: :.. �::: :.:::. �::::::::::::::::.:..::.:::::..::::::::::::. �::::..::.::::::::::::::::::::::: ::. ::.:::::::: :::::.::.:::::.: �::::::::::::.
:��:::::.::::::::;::�::::�;:�:.::::::::::::::.:::�::_:::�:.::{::.::::::::::::w:::;:.�::�:::::::.:::::::::ri::.:::::;::�::�:::::::::::::;:::::::::::�:::,:::;:;::::::::::: -
.:............:..............................
...........................................
..� .......................v. :.�.::.:::.::..
B
3
5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : L: <� � � �>::::::;:::: �::::;<: <:::: :: �::::;; t; <:::> `�::: { {>;> � `{: . .. . .
TABLE 3.14
WASTE COMPOSITION
ALL NONRESIDENTIAL BY SEASON
WEIGHTED
MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON AVERAGE (1)
OROANICS '82.t % 80.3" 9b 81:5 %
Paper;; 32.2 33.2 32.9;
Newspaper 1 J 1.8 1.8
Cardboard 10.9 10.0 10.5
Office Paper 3.5 1.9 2•7
Computer Paper 0.7 1.1 0.9
Mixed 10.2 5.7 7•9
Other 5.2 12•7 9• 1
PlBStics > 10.5 _ y 3.9 ; 12.4
, .> __
PET BOttles 0.0 0.0 0.0
HDPE Bottles 0.2 0.4 0.3
Polystyre�e 0.5 1.8 � •2
Piastic Film, Bags 3.7 3.0 3.4
Other Plastic Pkg. 0.7 2.9 �•9
Other 5.4 5.8 5.6
Wood and �(ard Wastes ' 24.4 : '11.7 _ 17.8
Wood , _ _ _ 18A _ 10.6 14.1
Yard Wastes 6.4 1•1 3•�
Other Organtcs 15.0 :21.5 ' 18.4<!:
Textiles 2.0 7.0 4.6
Food Wastes 4.4 5.3 4.8
Disposable Diapers 0.4 0.0 0•
Fines 2.1 2.5 2.3
Rubber 2.4 2•7 2•6
Furniture, Mattress 0.1 0.8 0.5
Miscellaneous Orga�ics 3.6 3.2 3.4
1NORGANICS 18.0'
Glass ' 2.5
Clear Containers 0.7
Green Containers 0.2
Amber Containers 0.3
Other 1.3
Metals 'S.5
Ferrous Cans 0.3
Other Ferrous 2.5
Aluminum Cans 0.3
Other Alum. Containers 0.1
Mixed Metals 2.0
Other Non-Ferrous 0.3
Miscellar�eous Inorganics ' 10.0
Haz./Special Wastes 1.6
MediCal Waste 0.0
Ashe8 0.0
ConstructioNDemo. Waste 7.2
Miscellaneous 1.2
TOTALS (2)
;19.4
�.t
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
', 4.1 '
0.6
2.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.2
14.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
11.5
1.8
1$.6''
t.8 :!:
OJ
0.2
0.2
0.7
' 4.7 !.
0.4
2.2
0.3
0.1
1.5
0.2
12.1"
1.0
0.1
0.1
9.4
1.5
100.1 % 99.7 % 100.1 %
NOTES: 1. Seasonal and weiphted averapes are based on data shown in Table 3.1.
2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to roundinfl.
Source: Kinp County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
� R�dential and Nonresidential ,Quantity and Conipasitiv�t AAO�tdac B: Was�e C6ianacA�niz�adon Srud'y
�
;.�.::««:>
,......... :::::.:� :::::::::::................................... ....:: :::::::..
:�:<:�,,;{::.:.:,.
B-
6
:::��:. .,>..
3
;>:�:�:�::>:
:.8:. ::
.. }.::5'ii>:: »>$?:
TABLE 3.15
WASTE COMPOSITION, ALL NONRESIDENTIAL COMBINED,
ANNUAL FIGURES BY GENERATOR TYPE
MATERIAL
NONRESIDENTIAL WEIGHTED
TOTAL CII SELF-HAUL AVERAC,E (1)
OAGANICS 86.9 96 : 64.1 % 81.5 :%
PaPet' . 39.8 1.1.5 32.8 :
: _
Newspaper 2.2 0.5 1.8
Car�oard 12.0 5.9 10.5
OffiCe Paper 3.4 0.4 2.7
Computer Paper 1.1 0.1 0.9
Mixed 9.8 2.2 7.9
Other 11.3 2.4 9.1
Plastics : 10.5 12.5 y2.4:
PET Bottles OA _ OA _ < ,OA'
HDPE Bottles 0.2 0.6 0.3
Polysryrene 0.6 2.8 1,2
Plastic Fiim, Bags 3.7 2.4 3.4
Other Plastic Pkg. 1.4 3.3 1.9
Other 4.6 8.4 5.6
wood and vard wastea . 1 a.8 ,' 2s. e � 7.8 ;'
Wood 12.2 _ __ 20A __ 14.1 ;
Yard Wastes 2.6 6.8 3.7
Oiher Organics 21:8 8.3 !:18.4 ;.
Textiles _ 5.5 _ 2A _ 4.6
Food Wastes 5.3 3.4 4.8
Dispos8ble Dispers 0.2 0.1 0.2
Fines 2.7 1.1 2.3
Rubber 3.3 0.5 2.6
Furniture, Mattress 0.7 0.9 0.5
Misceilaneous Organics 4.1 1.2 3.4
tNORGANiCS > :12.9 35.:7
Gtass 2.0 1.0'
Clear Containers 0.8 0.5
Green Containers 0.1 0.3
Brown Containers 0.2 p,1
Other 0.9 0.1
Metats 4.2 6.5
Ferrous Cans 0.5 0.1
Other Ferrous 1.9 3.3
Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.3
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.1
Mixed Metals �,2 2,q
Other Non-Ferrous 0.2 0.3
Misceilaneousinor9anics < 6.7 28.2 '
Haz./Special Wastes 1.0 1.1
Medical Waste 0.1 0.0
Ashes 0.2 0.0
ConstructioNDemo. Waste 3.5 26.8
Miscelianeous 1.9 0.3
TOTALS (2) 99.8 % 99.8 %
18.8
1.8
OJ
0.2
0.2
0.7
a.x :
0.4
2.2
0.3
0.1
1.5
0.2
12.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
9.4
1.5
100.1 %
NOTES: 1. Welghted averayes are based on 167,520 tons in dry season and 177,680 tons in wet season.
2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterizatlon Study, 1990 - 1991.
Ap�oendiz B: [�aste Cdamderixation ,SYtidy Reridentirrl and Nonressyde�ttfal Quantity and Compasi�iari
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
B - 37 �����
�;�:�
Section 4
Com osition of
p
Select Nonresidential Waste Strea�ms
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to provide the waste composition results, and interpretation of these data, for the select
nonresidentia.l generators. Detailed waste composition information of this nature will permit King County to design waste reduction
and recycling programs for specaf'ic business types.
The select nonresidential generators were chosen based on:
• Employment of a large number of people in King Counry, as an indicator that the business is a signif'icant waste generator that
may have substantial waste reduction and recycling potential.
• Special concerns or issues associated with the wastes disposed by the business.
• A lack of information on the waste composition for the business.
• Previous targeting of the business for future recycling efforts.
The select nonresidential generators are organized by Standard IndusMal Classlfication (SIC) oode, which classifies companies
and institutions by the type of activiry in which they are engaged. This approach assumes that companies engaged in sunilar
activities will generate simllar wastes.
Four of the SIC codes shown are special divisions created for this study. These ace SIC codes 58F, 585, 80C, and 80H. The
division between SIC 58F and SIC 58S was chosen to examine the difference in waste streams from "fast food" (58F) versus "s1t-
down" (58S) types of restaurants. Likewise, the split between SIC 80C and SIC 80H was chosen to examine the dlfference in special
wastes disposed by hospitals (80H) versus other medical-care facilities (80C).
4.2 WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS
In subsequent pages of this section, the information provided for each select nonresidential genera,tor includes a de6nition of
the generator and examples of the businesses sampled; an identif'ication of significant observations made during sorting; and a pie
chart identifying the major materials. Detailed waste composition data for the select nonresldential generators is shown in Table 4.1,
at the end of this section.
4.2.1 SIC 20, Food Manufacturing
Descriptron of Generator: Ttvs group includes establishments that manufacture or process foods and bevecages for human
oonsumption, such as meat packing plants, dairies, canneries, mills, bakeries, and bottling plants. Examples of buslnesses sampled
include a Coca Cola bottling plant, Vernells Candies, Continental Mills Bakery, Mills Brothers, a dairy, and cannerles.
Resulls: As would be expected, waste generated by food manufacturers is relatively high in food wastes. The food waste
found in thls study included spolled meats and produce, canned goods that apparently did not meet specifications (full containers of
Compasition of Sel�t Nonresidentral l�aste Strer�ms
Apperid'a B: Waste Cbarac�r�(rahon Study
�
B-
38
�::f:<�:
:::: �:: :::::>::::::> :::::::
soda were especially prevalent in one load), food that was past the expiration date (one load contained a large percentage of bagged
candy), and sirnllar wastes.
Other organic materials that were present included cardboard, wood (primarlly pallets), and plastic film, all of which are
wmmon to other manufacturing and wholesale operarions. A relatively high amount of inetals was also present, due largely to the
presence of a subsfantial amount of ferrous (tin) cans in about one-third of the samples.
The resulis for thls SIC show a signlficant amount of inedlcal waste and other hazardo�s/special wastes. 1'hIs Ls primarily the
result of one sample. The sample was from a dairy where apparendy some agricultural activities were occurring, judging from the
veterinarian and other farm-related wastes that were present The agricultural wastes are not defined to be part of this SIC group's
activities, but the primary acdviry of dus business meets the criteria for food manufacturing.
4.2.2 SIC 24, Lumber and Wood Products
IJ�escrrption of Cenerator: ThLs group includes businesses that manufacture cabinets, mobile homes, pallets, fencing, and
other products made from wood. Waste samples were taken from manufacturers such as the Woodtape Company, Western Cabinet,
Budget Tables, United Millworkers, and Lunstead Furniture Manufacturing.
Resul�s: Thls waste saeam wntained a great deal of saap wood generated from the manufacturing process. About two-tlurds
of the loads sampled for this group consisted of at least 75 percent wood waste. For many samples, the fines were primarily sawdust
Materials that were present In a high percentage of the samples included cardboard and ferrous metals.
4.2.3 SIC 27, Printing and Publishing
Descrrption of Cenerator: Ttvs group includes businesses engaged in printing or publishing (including publishing
newspapers, books, and periodicals even if the actual printing is done by someone eLse), and those businesses which perform services
for the printing trade, such as boold�inding, typesetting, and electrotyping. Businesses sampled included fums such as James River
Paper Printing and Valley News.
Resulls: The three samples for this group provide only very approximate results. However, the results appear to indicate that
there may be a substanttal amount of recyclable paper that 1s being disposed by thLs group.
4.2.4 SIC 45, Air Transportaxion
Description of Generator: This group includes airports, tlying fields, and terminals, but dces not include air courier services.
For this study, all waste loads were taken from the Sea-Tac International Aiiport, including samples from Continental Airlines, Alaska
Airlines, United Flight Kitchen, Delta Airlines, and Host Intemational.
ResulJs: In this group, it was quite apparent which loads were from airlines that practiced recycling and which were not
Aluminum cans were either nearly absent in the loads, or present in quantities of three to five percen� One load contained 7.6
percent aluminum cans.
The flight kitchens also appeared to be good candidates foc recycling programs, since these loads contained significant
percentages of ferrous (tln) cans. A variety of materlals were present In at least two-thirds of the samples, including newspaper,
cardboard, mixed paper, nonrecyclable paper, polystyrene, plastic film, plastic packaging, other plastic, textiles, food wastes, clear
glass, and other aluminum containers.
Apperul�x B: Waste c,�aractenfzatio�t study co»�po�sitiort of Selact Nonrr.stide�atial Wi�ste sh�ams
�
�
•
•
•
•
:�:<...:,,.
::?>,`.::k;i:::?<:;� ;5.•,:;:::h;c:c'.,;a�;,•....::;.;;<?;i.•:,:;:?<x.'; ¢.;??T,.,^.,.?
: � $ {, v i:"i::: ::::.'•:
— .:::Sr
: >: . ...f�'.':i: �:�:�`�. i:ith:....
.>. B
::<.>....,....:..
..�........
3
9
�:::<t:<::
::.:v::<:::<:.::::. :�.
� 4.2.5 SIC 50, Wholesale, Durable Goods
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
n
�
u
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
D�scriptron of Cenerator: This group includes wholesale operations for automoblles, furniture, lumber, hardware, machinery,
jewelry, auto wreckers, hobby supplles, and other product� with a long useful life. Some of the buslnesses sampled lncluded
warehouse operations for Greenbaum Home Furnishings, Sears, Consolidated Carpets, Silo, Keller Plumbing Supply, and National Auto
Parts Dlstribution Center.
Resulxs: 'This group demonstrates the potential value for commercial source-separation programs. Many loads for this rype of
business oontained large amounts of cardboard, plastic film, pallets, steel strapping, and/or other re.cyclable materlals. A recycling
program instituted at these businesses would be able to divert substantial quantities of thelr wastes. Alternatively, because the waste
stream for this type of business is relaatively clean, a materials recovery facility may be able to recover most of the recy�clable materials
without excessive cross-contamination by nonrecyclable wastes.
4.2. SIC 51 Wholesale, Nondurable Goods
D�scriptiorn of Cenerator: This group includes wholesale operations for paper products, drugs, clothing, food, animal feed,
:o
and other goods with a relatively short llfe span. Some of the businesses sampled for this SIC group included Safeway Beverage,
Northwest Grocery, Se�vice Paper Company, JC Penny Distribution Center, Orca Bay Seafood, Westem Distributing, an Amway
distributor, and Baxter Health Care Products.
Results: As with wholesale durable, this SIC group demonstrates the potential for source-s�aration programs tailored to the
speclfic needs of the generator. Almost all samples consisted of 25 peccent or more of a single material, lncluding v�rood waste, yard
waste, cardboard, plastic film or Packaging, mixed paper, food waste, and soiL The wood waste was typically pallets (see Table 5.4).
Many of the businesses sampled in this SIC group and the preceding group handle the same producis that are handled by
retail operations sampled as one of the next three SIC groups: bullding materials (SIC 52), general merchandise (SIC 53), and food
stores (SIC 54). However, the wholesale operations of SIC 50 and 51 generate a waste stream that is signif'icantly different than the
retail operations.
4.2.7 SIC 52, Building Materials and Garden Supplies
D�scriptiorn of Cenerator: This group includes retail facllities that sell bullding materials, hardware, glass, and/or lawn and
gardening supplies. Examples of businesses sampled included McLendons Hardware, Seattle Lumber, Furneys Nursery, Home Club,
BMC West, Pay'N Pak, Molbak's Greenhouse, and Emsk
Resulls, Thls waste stream has relatively more lnorgania than other waste streams, whlch was caused by the substantial
amount of construction and demolition (CDL} wastes. The high amount of CDL wastes was caused largely by the presence of
damaged goods. The presence of damaged goods was also a contributing factor to the relatively high amount of wood waste and
hazardous/special waste found in this waste stream.
A signif'icant quantity of cardboard Ls present in the waste stream of this group, although the amount Ls lower than other
retail groups.
Compasitiore of Sedact Nonresulential Waste Sh aams
Apperedix B: Waste cbiaracterixation Study
:-:}S:
- ?�'ti�f4+
ri ?fv:
B +n,C•>i
40
4.2.8 SIC 53, General Merchandise Stores
Descrrptron of Generator.• This group includes retail stores which sell a variery of inerchandise, such as dry goods, apparel
and accessories, and home furnlshings. Stores sampled in this category included variety and department stora such as Sears, Fred
Meyer, Bon Marche, K-Mart, Frederick & Nelson, Nordstrom, and Costco.
Resulls: The eessults for this group show a substantial amount of cardboard. An examination of the ressults for individual
samples shows that there was cardboard ln significant amounts in almost every load. For the few samples that did not contain
cardboard, it is not possible to tell if this was the result of recycling programs at that business or if it was caused by random
variation in the waste stream or in the sampling procedure.
Other materials that were present in most (75 percent or better) of the samples included newspaper, mixed paper,
nonrecyclable paper, polystyrene, plastic film, other plastic packaging, other plastic, food wastes, and aluminum cans.
4.2.9 SIC 54, Food Stores
Dsscrrptron of Cenerator: 'This group includes retail stores engaged in the selling of food for home preparaltion. Samples
were taken from businesse.s such as Safeway, Alberfson's, Thriftway, Larry's Market, Stock Market Foods, and QFC.
Resulis: The results for this group are especially high in organics. This is caused not just by spolled food (as could be
expected to be present) but also by paper materials (cardboard and nonrecyclable paper). Cardboard was present ln all samples, as
was food waste and plastic film. Materials that were present in a high percentage of the samples included nonrecyclable paper,
muced paper, polystyrene, other plastic packaging, other plastic, wood, clear glass, and aluminum cans.
The wood was primarlly (about two-thirds) crates from the shipment of food, and were often "contaminated" by cardboard
which was glued or stapled to the wood.
4.2.10 SIC 58F, Fast Food Restaurants
Desc►rption of Generator: This group is not a traditional division of the restaurant businesses, but was cxeated for this study
to test for suspected differences in the waste composition of this type of restaurant versus "sit-down" restaurants. Businessses sampled
for this group included Taco Time, McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, and Taco Bell.
Results: The relatively low number of samples for this group (14) yields ressulis that do not have the same level of accuracy
as other SIC groups (see data on confidence lntervals in Addendum C). The results Indicate that thls waste stream is highly organic
in composition, but would not be easlly composted due to the fact that a large amount of the organia are mixed paper and plastics.
The results aLso indicate that the amount of polysryrene in this waste stream is relatively hlgh compared to other select
nonresidential waste streams. Unfortunately, this is an area where the results of this study have become outdated, due to the
extensive movement away from the use of polystyrene conta.iners. Many of the major fast food restaurant operations (McDonalds,
Burger King, and others) ceased using polysryrene containers shortly after the last quarter of waste sorting was conducted. This
component of the waste stream has now been replaced by paper-based materlaLs.
4.2.11 SIC 585, Sit-Down Restaurants
Description of Generator: As with 58F, this group is not a traditiona( division of the restaurant businesses, but was created
for ttus study. This group differs from SIC 58F by the average length of time the customer 1s on the premLses, and by the perception
Appendix B: Waste Cbiaracterization Study Composihbrc of Sel�t Nonresfdent�a! Waste Straams
�
�
�
�
�
.....................................::.::........................,..:.�::::::::::.;�..,.::::.;:::::::.....:.:,,., ..... ,.._:...:...:. -:
....................................:.: �::..•::::....................................:.,.. .;.;:..:.:......,.:: •::.r ..•. :.,. .:.R•4• .'fi'..y'''::,":dY3R�Y.{�;Fnc: ,,.. .
:::h.:.,,.<:.,..<o:>x;.,;;i?i�::;•iiSt:�:: �..:... •...'.... .:T.«.:: :..,..Pc.::�.�,. ..�`.v.•::::: :?::,..; :�
.; ..:::?.;> ::..::........:...� v.,!;;�.. .:....>,v,�...: :.,..a:;:a•r>;.s:: :!t:.::..:>ax+:.;...,.:!:!:...
:.,<........,.. :::o:.:>:., ,.c.... .Y.:.......:y,.:5 ..:............6......:...:. f:.::::::.::::::::::::::::..........................................::...........: ,,.: •:: •�tt...
.............:o.... ... .>.... ...,.::........................................... ......:::::::::::.......................................................•................ •:::::: •:; ��•.
......... .......: .�::.+.�:::: :?•:::::.............................................................. .... \...; .. . � :•:{•:?r:
..........v...... . .............................................y:::::: :v.v:x:: :•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :w:::::::::: :•:::: :•:,:........... ...;i•:: .;••::......v •:: •
::.<:::��....<>«,. x«..;x::�.;:f:�;..f<>�: B 41 <��
::::> :,:«v: «<.:: .:.x....:�.:�:�.. .<�..
:�: ................................................................. ..........
�
• that fewer disposable goods and packaging materials are d� by sit-down restaurants. Businesses sampled included Carlllon
Polnt Restaurant, Black Angus, Anthony's Homeport, TGIF's, and Seattle Inn Restaurant
� Resulls: There was a relatively higher amount of food waste present in ttus waste stream than in the waste stream for fast
food restaurants. Sit-down restaurants also had signlficantly more recyclable glass, consistlng of nearly equal amouNs of all three
� colors. Compared to fast food restaurants, sit-down restaurants had less paper and plastic materlaJs.
• In additton to glass and food waste, materials that were present in a high percentage of the samples for sit-d�vn restaucants
included cardboard, other paper, HDPE bottles, polystyrene, and ferrous (tinn) cans.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
4.2.12 SIC 70, Hotels
D�scription of Cenerator: Th1s group includes commercial and instltutional establlshments engaged in furnishing lodging
and meals. Businesses sampled included the Silver Cloud Motel, Seattle Inn, Sea-Tac Red Lion Hotel, the Airport Radisson Hotel,
Olympic Four Seasons Hotel, Marriott Hotel, and the Redmond Motor Inn
Resullr: For some materials, the results for this type of generator are more rypical of residential wastes. For instance, this
waste stream contained a signif'icant percentage (10.6 percent) of nevvspaper.
Materials that were present in most (75 percent or more) of the samples included cardboard, office paper, mixed paper,
nonrecyclable paper, HDPE bottles, polystyrene, plastic film, other plastic packaging, textiles, food wastes, each of the tt►ree colors of
glass, ferrous (tin) cans, other ferrous metals, and aluminum cans.
Computer paper was present in over half of the samples.
4.2.13 SIC 80H, Hospita.Ls
D�scription of Cenerator: This group includes establishments engaged in furnishing dlagnosac services, emergency care, and
oontinuous nursing services. Ttvs group is the same as a standard SIC subdivision (SIC 806) of the Health Se�vices Group (SIC 80).
Samples taken for 80H included �ergreen Hospital, Overlake Hospital, Riverton Hc�spital, Saint Francls Communlry Hospital and
Highline Hospital.
Resulls: The results for this group show that a large amount of inedical waste is being disposed as part of the regulac waste
stream from hospitals. However, it should be noted that the def'uution for medical waste used by this study was very broad. Only in
some samples did the materials measured as medical waste actually meet the stricter definition for infectious or problem waste. In a
few cases, syringes were discovered in the hc�spital waste, which is a clear violation of rules which prohlbit these materials from going
to the transfer stations. However, these and other problem wastes generally appeared to be tlie result of accidental dLspc�sal rather
than the result of a systematic vlolation of dlsposal rules.
The broad def'uution for medlcal waste used by this study was to protect the sorting creuv members, slnce protearve gear and
other facilities available In the fleld were not suff'iclent to protect workers from blahazardous wastes. For this study, anything that
had potentially been in contact with bodlly fluids from a patient, eaccept for things such as disposable "diapers" and bed sheets, was
classified as medical waste. In some cases, entire garbage bags of waste were classlfied as medlcal waste if blood or other suspect
materials could be observed in the bag.
4.2.14 SIC 80C, Clinics
Descriptro�a of Generator: This group was defined to lnclude all of the remaining establishmenls in SIC 80 that were not
included in the previous group (SIC 80H). This includes clinia, nursing homes, and the offlces of physicians, denasts, and
Compasitfon of Sele�! Nonres�rlentral Waste Straa�ns
�p�bendfx B: Waste Cbiaracte►YZation Slu�y
�
B
- 42
`>�:;
......... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................::;�:�;<::::::
chiropractors. Businesses sampled included the Valley Gardens Medical-Denta.l Building, Forest Glen Nursing Home, and Lakevue
Gardens Nursing Home.
Resula� The relatively low number of samples for this group (14) yields resul� that do not have the same level of accuracy
as other SIC groups (see data on confidence intervals in Addendum C). However, the results for this waste stream indicate that there
may be a significant percentage of inedical waste co-disposed with solid waste from these faciliaes, although lesss medical waste was
found than for SIC 80H. Like hotels (SIC 70), this waste stream also displayed some results that are more rypical of raidenhal
waste streams, especlally for samples from nu�ing homes.
Other materials that were present in over 75 percent of the samples included neuu�s�paper, cardboard, office paper, mixed paper,
nonrecyclable paper, all of the plasdc categorles except PET bottles, textiles, food wastes, ferrous (t1n) cans, and aluminum cans.
Appendix B: Waste Charactet�ixrttion Sludy Cornpasitiorc of Sel�ct Nonresrdentral Wrrste Streams
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
:«.;:
B-
�:�:<>:r:<'��:_�;::'':`:�:�:�:�<:�:::�::::�:�::<:':::::�::�::::;`` <:::::; 4
.................................... 3
TAE3LE 4.1
WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SELECT BUSINESSES
SEA-TAC
FOOO MFG. WOOD MFG. PRINTING AIRPORT
MATERIAL SI 2 SIC 24 SI 27 I 4
ORGANICS ' 89.5 ' 96 90.9 %< 79.8 4b ": 90.2 96
Paper 30.4 11 A 61:5 48.2 <
New�Pef _ 0.7 1.4 " 22.5 > � 3.8`
Cardboard 15.5 3.5 4.1 8.6
Office Paper 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.9
Computer Paper 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.7
Mixed 8.1 1.7 27.5 11.6
Other 5.1 3.7 6.3 t 1.6
Plastics 15.5 > 4.0 )2.7 12.4 '
PET Botties _ ..> _ > 0.1 _ ' 0.0 _ 0.0 < 0.1
HDPE Bottles 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.2
Polystyrene 0.3 0.1 0.1 3.2
Plastic Film, Bags 10.6 2.1 3.6 5.7
Other Piastic Pkg. 2.4 0.8 8.4 1.8
Other 0.8 1.0 0.3 1.4
Wood and Yard Wastes > 7.t ! 87.8 0.T': '' 4.Q <
Wood _ :: 5.1 `67.6 >0.7 ' 2.7
Yard Wastes 2.0 0.2 0.0 1.3
Other Organics 36.5 8.4 4:9 z5.6 '
Textiles _ 0.3 : 2.1 3.5 -< 2A °
Food Wastes 33.0 0.3 0.4 15.1
Disposable Diapers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Fines 0.9 3.4 0.3 1.5
Rubber 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1
Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Misc. Organics 2.2 1.9 0.2 6.7
__ _
_ _ __
INORGAWICS 1Q.5 ; '8.7
Glass 0.6 ` '0.3
Clear Containers 0.4 0.2
Green Containers 0.0 0.0
Brown Containers 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.1
Metets ' 8.6 ' S.t
Ferrous Cans ` 6.7 0.0
Other Ferrous 1.4 3.8
Aluminum Cans 0.2 0.1
Other Alum. Containers 0.0 0.0
Mixed Metals 0.3 1.2
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.0
MisCellaneous inOrg8niC5 1.5 ; 3.3
Haz./Special Wastes 0.6 : 0.2
Medical Waste 0.9 0.0
Ashes 0.0 0.0
Constr./Demo. Waste 0.0 3.1
Miscellaneous 0.0 0.0
TOTALS 100.0 % 99.6 %
NOTES: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Figures shown are mean values for all samples in that SIC catep�xy.
Source: Kinq County Waste Characterizatfon Study 1990 - 1997.
CompasYtion of S�I�t Nonri�ideittral Was1e SYreams
20.� ' a.� '
0:5' 4.5 :
0.4 2.0 .
0.0 1.7
0.1 0.5
0.0 0.3
17.9' : 3.8 :
0.0 0.5
17.7 0.7
0.1 1.7
0.1 0.8
0.0 0.1
0.0 0.0
1.7 1.4 ,
1:3 0.6
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.6
0.4 0.2
99.9 % 99.9 %
AApcmdir e: Waste Cd�a�izaJivn Study
B
� ::�:\i:\iiiiiiiiiiii::}�:
::::::. �::. �::::::::. �:. � ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ::::::::::.: �::::::::::::. �:::::::::::::::::. _::. . �:::::::::::::.: �:::::.: �::. �. _:::::::::::::::::::::::::. �::. �:::::::::::::::.
44
.... ... .............................................................................................................................. .. ::::>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::: <:: <::::: �::>:>. <::: �:> �::: �:: ::::: . . .
i ABLE 4.1 (continued)
WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SE�ECT BUSINESSES
Page 2 of 4
WHOLESALE WHOLESALE GENERAL
DURABLE NONDURABLE BLDCa. MTL. MERCHANDISE
MATERIAL SIC 50 SIC 51 SIC 52 SIC 53
ORGANICS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Camputer Paper
Mixed
Other
Plastics
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Plastic Film, Bags
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Misc. Organics
INORGANICS
Glass
Clear Containers
Green Containers
Brown Containers
Other
Metals
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferrous
Aluminum Cans
Other qlum. Containers
Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscetlaneous Inorganics
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
Constr./Demo. Waste
Miscellaneous
81.7 96 91.1 ' 9b 75.8 %> 89:6 '%
30.0 34.f ! 19.6 48.8
0.7 _ 0.9 � � _ 2.2
17.2 15.2 9.9 19.8
1.5 0.6 0.4 1.8
1.0 0.6 0.6 1.9
4.2 7.4 3.0 9.7
5.4 9.4 4.0 11.4
14.4 ` 22.5 : 10.2 18.4"
0.0 0.0 : OA _ 0.0
0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3
0.9 3.6 0.4 1.5
3.8 8.9 5.6 8.0
3.4 5.6 1.9 3.2
6.2 4.2 2.2 3.4
19.� :I 16.4 : : 34.6 12.8
18.9 14.2 > 25.2 _ " 12J
0.1 2.2 9.4 0.1
18.3 :iB.1;; 11.4 13:6<
10.9 _- 0.6 2.6 _ 2.5`
1.2 15.0 0.9 4.3
0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
0.9 1.4 6.0 1.1
0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5
2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
2.6 1.1 1.7 3.7
18.3 " 8.8 ;' 24.2 10.5
0.5 1.8 ! 0.6 0:9 .
0 3 : 1.1' : 0.3 _ 0.4
0.2 0.1 O.t 0.1
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.6 0.2 0.4
10A 1.9 6.5 6:4 <
0.3 0.6 : 0.1 0.4
5.8 0.9 5.7 3.2
0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
3.8 0.0 0.2 2.1
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1
7.8 ' 5.0 : 17:1 3:2 i:
0.9 0.3 ., 3.6 0.2
0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.3 4.2 11.7 2.4
3.4 0.3 1.8 0.6
TOTALS 100.0 46 99.9 46 100.0 9�6
NOTES: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to roundlny.
Fipures shown are mean values for all samples In that SIC catepory.
Source: King County Wast� Chuecterizatlon 3tudy 1990 - 1991.
100.1 %
Ap�Derrdir B: t�aste Cbaracterizatlon Study Co»:pa�sKion ojsel�z Non�sidentral � SY�aims
B - 45 ������`°
vv<,:;
TABLE 4.1 (continueci)
WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SELECT BUSINESSES
Page 3 of 4
FOOD FAST FOOD SIT-DOWN
STORES RESTAURANTS RESTAURANTS
MATERIAI IS C 54 IC 5 F SIC 58S
HOTELS
SIC 70
ORGANICS ' 95.9 % 9X.4 % 86.8 % 84.3 %
Papee,. 30.2 : 60.5 ; 20.2 38.2 :
_ Newspaper 1.3 2.0 _3.0 10.6
Cardboard 17.3 11.6 7.0 8.9
Office Paper 0. 0 . 2 0.5 �
Computer Paper 0•2 �•� �' �'�
Mixed 2.8 5.7 2.9 7.7
Other 8.2 31.0 6.4 9 �
__ . ... �s::
HDPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Plastic Film, Bags
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other
Wood
Yard Wastes
0.5
1.3
6.2
2.1
1.4
1.7
0.5
3.9
7.5
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.4
2.7
0.4
0.4
1.2
0.9
0.8
3.7
1.0
1.0
3.1
Green Containers 0.3 u.� °." -
Brown Containers 0.3 �•� 3.2 2.a
Other 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5
Me�tBts 7!'.3 1.�> . 2.4 ! i g.3 :i'
Ferrous Cans ' 0.3 0.5 ` 2.0 2.1
Other Ferrous �•s �•� �'�
Aiuminum Cans 0.2 0.2 0.3 �•�
Other Alum. Container 0.1 �• �'� ���
Mixed Metsls 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0 • 0 ��� � 2
Miscellaneous IrwfgeniCS < 0.4 0.3' ' 0.2 ', �.'� ''
Haz./Special Wastes 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Constr./Demo. Waste 0.0 �•� ��� ���
Miscellaneous 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2
TOTALS 100.1 % 99.8 % 100.2 46 99.6 %
NOTES: Some totafs do not add up to 100 pe►cent due to rourWinq.
Fipures shown are mean values fot all samples fn that SIC cateqory•
Source: Kiny County Wasts Chancterizetion Study 1990 - 1991 •
Crnmpasit�nn of Salect Nonr�sidential Waste Sh�»is AAoend'sz e: t�e CGarac�nizadun SYudy
TexU�es �• � "' 26.0
Food Wastes 40.2 23.0 50.9 0.3
Disposable Diapers 0.4 �•� 1.4
Fines 0 . 9 1.6 0 0.3
Rubber 0. 0.0 0 0.0
Furniture, Mattress 0.0 a•� 5.1
Misc.Organics 4.1 7.8 4.5
;:;�;:::::<::::::�:::::>:«':::<:> �::;'::s»>:'�<::>: �;:::::::::::::::>:�»:<>::<'::::::>::»:<:'::::::::>::<:>'>::>�:>:><:�:>:;:;::>`:::::<:»>:::::::::::::::>::>::::::>:;<'.>::::::>>::>:<::> :::::>::::::»::s::»::>:::::�:::>::::;::::<:»>::::;;::>::>::::: _: »:<:s»:::::::»>:<:::;:::�>:<:::ss»::>::
.......... .: �:::::::
..�..
_ :.>::
:�.sr'.�'::�.::::':y...::::: •:::::;:::?
B 4
6
..... .....
..::.::.� :.. .::::....» .......::. ...
.. �......:. :::.:::,::::. �::
TABLE 4.1 (continued)
WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SELECT BUSINESSES
Page 4 of 4
MATi ERIAL
OTHER
HOSPITALS HEALTH SERVICES
SI 8 H SIC 80C
ORGANICS: 71.8 96 <: 90.4 %
Paper 28.6 40.4
Newspaper : _ _ , 1.4 _ _ 4.0
Cardboard 3.8 6.4
Office Paper 2.9 1.5
Computer Paper 2,g p.2
Mixed 6.4 8.6
Other 11.3 19.7
Plastics 13.5 ! 11.3;;'
PET Bottles 0.0 0.0
HDPE Bottles 0.3 0.4
Polystyrene 1.3 1.8
Plastic Film, Bags 6.1 5.3
Other Plastic Pkg. 2,3 �,g
Othe� 3.5 2.0
Wood and Yard Wastes 3.0 ! 7.T;
Wood : OA 0.3
Yard Wastes 2.6 7.4
Other Organics : 26.7 = 31.0''
Textiles 6.2 1.8
Food Wastes � 2,g � �.q
Disposable Diapers 0.7 9.5
Fines 0.8 1.2
Rubber 0.6 1.2
Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0
Misc. Organlcs 5.6 5.9
INORGANIGS ; 28.g ' 9 ',
Gtas� > ` 1.2 D.9:'
Clear Containers 0.6 0.6
Green Containers 0.1 0.1
Brown Containers 0.0 0.1
Other 0.5 0.1
M8t818 ' 2.4 ' 3.7 `
Ferrous Cans �,q ' 2,y
Other Ferrous 0.6 0.3
Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.5
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.2
Mixed Metals 0.0 0.0
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.0
Miscellaneous Inwganics 2a.6 : 5.0-
Haz./Special Wastes 0.03 : 0.03
Medical Waste 22.67 3.37
Ashes 0.0 0.0
Constr./Demo. Waste 1.7 0.4
Miscellaneous 0.2 1.2
NOTES:
TOTAIS 100.0 % 100.0 allo
Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to roundinp.
Fipures shown are mean values for all samples fn that SIC catepory.
Source: Kinp County Waate Characterization 3tudy 1990 - 1991,
Appe�uliz B: WasJe CbiamclerLzaAffon Sludy Co»ipasition of Sela� Non�;siden�al WasAs St�ims
«!i<;�ii::iTiiiSiiiiii::�:ii::::i:;i:::Li::::•i!:iikriiiii::i:y;iiiiiiiii:riiiiii:L:i::i:4::ii:::;{:ii�'�iiiiii}iii%iSi::+�� !::i�:�;:j;�;��;iff.ii'::i'��'�Y':iF'�?iS:tivii:i�:ti
::::>:�::<:::<:::::::::� »::::::>::>:�::>:::�=::::�::::::>::;:::
FIGURE 4.1
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 20: FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
nt ��.;,.�
Misc.
Inorganic
1.5%
Me1
8.6�
AddiHonal Details:
Paver
Cardboard
Mixed Paper
Plastics
Plastic Film dz Bags
Other Organics
Food Wastes
Metals
Ferrous Cans
Wood & Yard
Wastes
7.1%
Pap�
30.4
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 24
155%'0
8.1%
10.6°k
33.0°k
6.7�
Source: King County Wast�e Characterization Study,1990 -1991.
B - it:iiYtiry:
4
7
Compa�titron of Selar� Nonr�sidential Waste SYr�ams A�jbend'sz B: [t�aste Cd�zrader�rlbn Srudy
u.4 i° Organics
36.5%
FIGURE 4.2
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 24: LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS
Misc.Ino�^�^;
Metals 5.
Glass 0.3%
Other Organics
$.1%
Paper Plastics
11.0% 4.0%
�od & Yard
stes
3%
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 35
Additional Details:
Paper
Cardboard
Plastics
Plastic Film k Bags
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Other Organics
Fines
Mekals
Other Ferrous
3.5°�
2.1%
67.6%
3.4�
3.8%
Source: King County Waste Characteri�aHon Study, 1990 -1991.
�ppendzr B: Wa,sle C�arac�enizaAron Sh�dy Conrpasrtbn of Sel�c7 Nonr�side�atlal Wasle Sh�nms
�
�
•
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
FIGURE 4.3
Paper
61.5°l0
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 3
AddiHonal Details:
Paper
Newspaper
Mixed Paper
Plastics
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other Organics
Textiles
MeWs
Other Ferrous
B - 49
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 27: PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
22S%
27S%
8.4%
3S�
17.7%
Source- KinR County Waste Characterization Study,1990 -1991.
Compas�tron of Selacx Nonresyde�ttial Waste Stre�ms
i & Yazd Wastes 0.7%a
her Organics 4.9%'0
Glass 0.5%
Metals
17.9%
�,anics
Ap�aerJd'tr B: Waste Cdara�rixal�t Sludy
Plastics 12.7%
B- �
5
FIGURE 4.4
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 45: SEA-TAC AIRPORT
Plastics
12.4%
Additional Details:
Paper
Newspaper
Mixed Paper
Other
Plastics
Polyscyrene
Plastic Film k Bags
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Other Or nics
Food Wastes
Glass
Clear Conhainers
Metals
Aluminum Cans
Paper
48.2%
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 33
13.8%
11.6%
11.6%
3.2%
5.7%
2.7�
15.1%
2.0%
1.7%
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study,1990 -1991.
ood & Yard
astes
I%
Other
Organics
25.6%
AppelldxC B: W/,�ste Clz�racte►'t'z1►lioft Slu
d1' Con�pasil�on ojSelax luonr�sident�Eril waste str�ms
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Misc.Inorganics Metals
1.4% 3.8%
..jj: •,: Lu i'?L' :"v'i:-?i::u:i:i,i.,-n..; i::.�..�....... n:t.:'.vv.:'n}�txi:':::�i i :-::{r :L:niii'-:i:v:::':4:iiv�
.�v �T}'}ti'jti$;iiii.:•:.:?:u.:%K•ti:i:�rii:v:�:•"i:�•i:iii�ii�'uvii:
':C:::::•:•:^��'�:^}'�::2::•:iTiiiS�:iJ:L:Wi�i'...'+' .nl} ... ...
v ................... n ' l !.. n..::......... u;., w: { :CV:. v: r: :^: :.: :h :.:??: }:: x :w::: v �.,v;J,r,.�: .:v.tt i:4iTtiv:iiin.. n :v,�},:}: n}:: i}.w: �iri �::! � . ...{..... .:$: �: "{i
:; .::: .... ............. .:::::....: �<.;::::.::�..::::: : :. � :: :.: . ,...::::::: . :.:: ..;::: . :w::::: .::: ...: :. :..:::::::: :.: ::::: :....::.:.;:.;.. ::.:::: :.;:::::::.::.... :.....: .. . :.. :. : ,.:: : ��. �::::;::>:<:::>::::>:;.: �<.;.<.:>:>:. :.�:: ;
::::. .. :.. . . ... .. .. .. ,::.:
:::.�::::::>::<:: >::>::�<.<: .; .: � � �, �::>:: � :::: .: . .:: .;:::::.::::.:::;.;;.:.;.::.: :::::.:::::::::.::::.:::: .:.::.::::::: : :.:;::::: :.::: ::::::: .;:.:.: �:>::>:.::«:::>:::::::::::;:.>:;;:.: ;:.>:>;::;:<.:>::.:.::;.:::::,::: :::::.>.::.<::.::: .;.::
<•..:`.i ti k%•'�,•,:y:; •;::•::3::��%���•:`:.i,5 . <•k�:::•.; ••s;>t:�.'+.'cS>..:i:
��::;�: ::::::::::.::........:. ?.;.....;•:::..:.rf�£tr.:::.::•'.. .��s:cvii:��...........
FTGURE 4.5
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 50: WHOLESALE, DURABLE GOODS
Plastics
Misc.
Inorgani
7.8%
Additional Details:
Paper
Cardboard
Plastics
Plastic Film & Bags
Wood and Yard Waste
Wood
Other Organics
Textiles
Metals
Other Ferrous
Pap
30.0
Wood & Yard
Wastes
19.0%
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 30
17.2%
3.8�
18.9°�
10.9°Ao
5.8°6
Source: King County Waste CharacteriTation Studv,1990 -1991.
'�i}��i
- 1 �:`::::::::€::::
B ........
5
Compa�fAiort of Selac� Nan�sirle�Jlir�! 1� Slrna»xs A,pjO�r B: 1� Cdr�ar,krizahinn S�udy
10.0% Glass ��er
0.5% �'$�cs
18.3%
.4::+LV:4:�};::'�i'i:i%'r::::::i�.�.�:
B-
5
2
..................................... ::::<:::::<:>::::=::<:::::>:�<»<;:<:::::><::::::;
FIGURE 4.6
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 51: WHOLESALE, NONDURABLE GOODS
ics
�
Pap
34.1
Misc. Inorganics 3.i
AddiNonal Details:
Paper
Cardboud
Mixed
Plastics
Plastic Fim & Bags
Wood and Yard Waste
Wood
Other Organics
Food Wasbes
Metal
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 29
15.2%
7.4%
8.9�
14.2%
15.0%
Source: King County Wasbe CharacteriTation Study, 1990 -1991.
Wood & Yard
Wastes
17.7%
Apperuliz B: waste Cbiaraclertiration srudy compasition ojS�x 1von�srdenhal waste Slrpnms
1.9% Other
Organics
18.1%
�;; :��::;:: :::>::>:�><�:<�:�:�:�;��:;
''i'if>.,+.::Li:'i,':�:>Li>�ii:�ii'�ivi:i::i<'v>Si?::::i:�i:'r�}:i'ti?
::::;:::><:::::�:::::>:�v>:.�:<>::.::<:::::<:ri<:::<�:>::::>:«>::�::::.:::::>:::::::::>:<:>::::>.:<:;<:<:::::�:::::::::::>:::<::»:::;::::::�>::>:>:<:::::>:::::::�<::::::::::::<::::::::::::�..::::... .., ..:: ::.:.:............:: .....
FIGURE 4.7
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 52: BUILDING AND GARDEN SUPPLIES
P� ncr
Misc.
Inorganics
17.1%
Additional Details:
P.�
Cardboard
Piastics
Plastic Flm d� Bags
Wood and Yard Waste
Wood
Other Organics
Textiles
Fines
Metals
Other Ferrous
Misc. Inor ag nia
CDL Wasbes
M�
6.°
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 24
9.9�0
5.6%
25.2°h
2.6%
6.0�
5.7�
11.7°6
Source: King County Wasbe Characterization Study,1990 -]991.
Plastics
10.2%
Wood & Yard
Wastes
34.6%
N ,: .
:.:�,�
.::<:.:::
� �::.4�
...}.
..rfA
B ::::.......
5
3
....;�:ri:
Compoaupft of S�ferl Non�sidenAral Waste Str�a»�s �diz B: {17�e G�lioa Sb/dy
Glass p�er
0.6% Organics
11.4%
B- 4
5
FIGURE 4.8
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 53: GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES
Paper
46.8%
Wood & Yard
Wastes
12.8%
ter
;anics
i%
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 26
AddiHonal Details:
Paper
Cardboard
l�iixed
Plasacs
Plasdc Flm & Bags
Wood and Yazd Waste
Wood
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wasbes
Metals
Other Ferrous
Misc. Inorp.�anics
CDL Wasbes
19.8%
9.7�
8.0%
12.7%
2.5%
4.3�
3.2�
2.4%
Source: King County Waste Characteri7adon Study,1990 -1991.
Plastics
Ap1Aenda B: l�aste C ,SYudx Compa�Aron ojS�ls7 Nonresrr1er11ial WruAs Sh�aa»u
�usc. Metals "__,,,,
Inorganics 6.4% 0.9%
3.2%
FIGURE 4.9
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 54: FOOD STORES
Plastics
„ ��
Misc. Inorganics 0.4%
Metals 1.3%'0
Glass 2.5%
Organics
46.3%
Additional Details:
P�
Cardboard
Pias 'cs
Plastic Flm 6c Bags
Wood and Yard Waste
Wood
Other Or ics
Food Wasbes
Vood & Yard
Vastes
'.9%
Pap�
30.2'
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 32
17.39b
6.2R6
6.2�
40.2°�O
Source: King County Waste Characteriution Study,1990 -]99].
B-
5
5 :��:::«:>�
Compa�sihon Of S�ler,7 Non�denl�iaJ IGaste Sh�ns Ap�Aenda B: Waste Cdara�ahinn ,S�ttdy
8-56
FIGURE 4.10
Plastics
13.6%
Wood & Yazd Wastes 0.3%
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 58F: FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS
Paper
50.5%
Other
Organics
33.0%'0
Additional Details:
Paper
Cardboard
Other
Piastics
Polystyrene
Plastic Flm dz Bags
Other 'cs
Food Wasbes
( � Glass 1.1%
Metals 1.0%
Misc Inorganics 0.3%
NUMBER OF SANiI'LES =14
11.6°do
31.0�
3.9%
7.5°b
23.0%
Source: King County Waste CharacteriTation Study, 1990 -1991.
Appe�utiz B: t�a,ste C6iaracterizr�tion Stu�y Compasitron of Se%rt Non�srdenlrhl Was1e S�raams
::::.:::
FIGURE 4.11
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 58S: SIT DOWN RESTAURANTS
Paver
Misc. Inorganics 0.2%
Metals 2.4%
Glass
10.8%
�.,_ _ � e .,__d Wastes 1.8%
�ther
�rganics
i0.2%
Additional Details:
P�
Cardboard
Plastics
Plastic �lm dc Bags
Other Or�anics
Fooa wastes
Glass
Qear Containers
Green Containers
Brown Containers
Metals
Ferrous Cans
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 23
7.0�
2.790
53.9°k
3.9�
3.3�,
3.2°�b
2.096
Source: King County Waste Charactetization Study, 1990 -1991.
Plastics
4.6%
B-
5
7
Compacftion of S�led Nonr�sidentral Was�e Sh�ams �jo�enda B: 1� C6�r��+tinn S�udY
B-
5
8
FIGURE 4.12
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 70: HOTELS
Pape�
38.2%
Plastics
��% Wood dz Yard
-•- ,
Other
Organics
35.0%a
Misc. Inorganics
Additional Delails:
Pa�gr
IVewspaper
Cardboard
Mixed
Plastics
Plastic Film & Bags
Wood and Yard Waste
Yard Wastes
�Yhe! �I'�n1CS
FOOd wdSt2S
Glass
Clear Containers
Metals
Other Ferrous
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 28
10.6%
8.9%
7.7°r6
39%
3.1 %a
26.0�
4.0%
2.1 °�6
Source: King County Wasbe Characterization Study,1990 -1991.
A�Oenda a: waste cGamr,terzraann study conrpasrtron of s�►a� Nonr��rden�! was� SY�tms
...«....�
5.3%'o Glass
9.6%
FIGURE 4.13
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 80H: HOSPITALS
Plastics
17 AOl
Additional Details:
P�
Mixed
Od�er
Plastics
Plastic Flm 6t Bags
Other Or�
Textiles
Food Wasbes
Misc. Inorganics
Medical Waste
B-
5
9
od & Yard Wastes 3.0%
Papi
28.5�
Other
Organics
26.6%
Mis
Ino:
24.6 ,�
NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 22
6.396
11.3�,
6.0%
6.2%
12.7�0
22.7�
Source: King County Waste Characteri7ation Study,1990 -1991.
Co»�pasition of Sel�+Ct Nonrasrderitial Wa,ste Straams �jo�ender B: Waste G�d�izatfon StudY
Metals 1.2%
2.4%
`' B -
60
FIGURE 4.14
WASTE COMPOSITION OF
SIC 80C: OTHER HEALTH SERVICES, CLIIVICS
Plastics
� i �%
Pap
40.4
'uod & Yard
'astes
7%
�ther
�rganics
L.0%
Misc. Inorga�
Additional Details:
Paver
Cardboard
Iviixed
Other
Plastics
Plastic Film & Bags
Wood and Yard Waste
Yard Waste
Other Organics
Food Wasbes
Disposable Diapers
Metals
Ferrous Cans
Misc. Inorganics
Medical Waste
NiJMBER OF SAMPLES =14
6.4%
8.6%
19.7�
5.3%
7.4%
11.4%
9S%
29%
3.4%
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991.
Ap10erul�r B: Waste Cbaracterix.ation Study Compasitron ojS�l�1 Nonn�rlentral Wasle S�ms
.�.a��
3.7% 0.9%
:.::;;?<..;>•.?:.:;<;•::::•>2`::.:::C::•;:.'•:�::k:::::?.:::.:^ci,•:::>.r:::w::.`.•`.•:::::::;:�:::. �;,
::::::: .. .............. •
. w....} E\ •.:�..;.`.....:.:::.. .t.<:...<..:.:•.:...: ::.t 33,2?}:f:^:t::>•.�:..:•:.t•:..:..:.T.�::.,,•
;'.,t:»,::;'3'^%i�i:•:,::$'G.:.... . .....:... ,..., .»�. .....
:<.>n.... ...... . ..5:.. 6 :...::............ . .6.:L:..::..:%••: �•::> .:..... .:::::•:. .,:::.�:::: :...; .... .. • ...::::r5�,:;:
....... .:...... ...... . .
..f•:::::•>:•>:�:::: .+. ..
.. .......................... .......... .........r...:.::::::::•..:....::.::•::�:::: ... ' .•:::+•:••>:�:::::: •:::•:�'•:.:::::::::.: a. .... ......... • �::,,.•::::::::::::
..a..:.C..••:::
• !.•.+ . _
. <.. 1
<.�>::::r.:>::<:::::::..�.. B 6
:>x , . :•.�,;.r• ::... ......: ....... .....,,w�
::::yiii::it�:i.i::::}::%:�:�i::?>:`:Y:`:>?;i:i::! '::'[i;.'.;•.v
?:•`::w'::;:::�:�:::�3"� .t :a»:................,r::::•.:, .
......... .............:............ :::::::::::........:::.... ,........
::<.:::.:. .......... .... .... ..
i:i�> t•'.�' :�:i..... n... n A:M. .... fi n
i::.::: .....i•i:4iii:i:i.; ....w:::. ........iiii:b:.... ...,
........�v..........n ......................
Section 5
Characterization of Special Waste Strea�ms
5.1 INTRODUCTION
. .. .,,,,
�
�.
.�� .�
�r...
�> r
�
This sedion of the report provides waste quanrity and wmposition data on two separate but related waste streams: the entire
wnstruction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste stream; and the CDL waste that was included in the wastes brought to the
King County transfer stations. The entire CDL waste stream is rypically addrased separately because only a portion of this waste ls
handled by regular solid waste facilities. Instead, most of the CDL waste stream is brought to disposal facilities dedlcated to CDL
waste or to recycling facilities that procce,sss concrete, wood and other CDL matertals.
5.2 CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING (C�DL) WASTE
5.2.1 Background
In a separate phase of the Waste Characterrization Study, the composition and quan�ty of the CDL waste stream was
determined by examining the characteristia of the three substreams: construdion waste, demolition waste, and landclearing waste.
5.2.2 Methodologies
This report utilized data wllected by waste characterization studies conducted ln Portland, Oregon, ln die period 1986 through
1990. The studies consisted of seasonal sor�s which determined the wmposttion of the total waste stream in the Portland Metro
region. Field sort forms for loads of CDL wastes were organized into CDL substreams (conshvction waste, demoli�on waste, and
landclearing waste). The composition of each substream was calculated as a simple average of the composltion for all sarnples that
were included in that substream.
The materials measured for CDL loads in Pordand difler somewhat from +h� list of materials used for the King County Waste
Characterrization Study. Fhst, a wider variety of materials are shown as being prE���t because the loads, although primarlly
consisting of CDL wastes, often contained a variety of the same materials that could be found in other solid waste streams. Spectfic
differences betwcen the tv� studies are as follows:
• Magazines were separately measured by the Portland studies, whereas magazines �re included wlth mixed paper for King County.
• Plastia were categorized in the Portland studies based on the usage of the plastic product, versus the rype of plastic for King
• County.
• p�vnings were separately measured in Portland, whereas these were combined with yard waste (based on the alterla used for
� current yard waste collecaon programs) for King Counry.
• • For glass and metals, many differences exist, with the Pordand studies again concentrating on product usage and container types
more than the King County study.
. • Lasdy, what is combined into a general CDL waste category for King County was split into miscellaneous organia (asphalt
pavement and roofing wastes) and miscellaneous inorgania (rocks, soil, conaete and fiberglass) by the Portland studles.
�
,
�
�
�
cdaracterization of Spacial Waste Sh�ertms
�pp�end'rr B: Waste Cbaracterization Study'
:�:: B - 2 ���
6
Information regarding the quantity of each CDL waste subsheam was derived from the King Counry Construction, Demolition,
and Landclearing Waste Quantiry Fstunates Memorandum (CDL Memorandum) February 12, 1991, by Herrera Environmental
Consultants. The CDL Memorandum indicates that the CDL waste stream in King County is composed of approxunately 10.5 percent
construction waste, 58.6 percent demolition waste, and 30.8 percent landclearing waste.
5.2.3 Results
The wmposition of each substream and the entire CDL waste stream is shown in Table 5.1. Compared to municipal solid
waste, many materials are low or oompletely absent in the CDL waste streams, including materials such as mixed paper, plastic, and
food wastes. Other materials are prressent in a much larger amount, such as wood, dirt, rock, and brlck.
Corrstruction i�aste.• 1'his waste stream is generated as a result of the construction of residential dwellings, commercial
establishments, and lnfrastivcture such as bridges and roads. Cons�vction waste 1s ryplcally "cleaner" than demolition waste since it
has not been previously used and therefore has not been painted or combined with other materials. In addition, construction waste
is distinct from other CDL wastes in that a much wlder variety of materials 1s present, including materials such as paper and plastic,
that are more rypical of municipal solid waste.
I�ernodi�ion i�aste; This waste stream is generated from the demolition of homes, offices, and other structures. This waste
stream differs from construction waste in that materials are rypically combined or contaminated with other materials.
Modern demolition relies on mechanical methods and size reduction prior to collection. The result Ls to further commingle
materials prressent in this waste stream. Demolition waste ls distinct from other CDL wast�s in that fully SO percent of the waste
stream is composed of wood.
Landclearing t�i�ste.• This waste saeam �s generated as a rressult of clearing sites, generally in preparaatlon for the consavction
of buildings or u�frastructure. Landclearing waste may be from either undeveloped land or land that has been previously developed.
Landclearing waste may contain small quantltles of demolition wastes or other ma2erlals that were dlscarded at the site, but this
waste stream rypically consists of naturally occurring materials, such as brush, stumps, dirt, and rock.
1'he data derived from the Portland metropolitan reglon may differ from the actual composition of landclearing waste In King
County due to the relatively greater need for removal of glacial till or hard pan from construction sites in King County. As shown in
Table 5.1, landclearing waste is estimated to contain primarily brush and stumps (75.4 percent).
Combined CDL l�aste Slream.� Only rarely is CDL waste generated and delivered to disposal sites as a mixed materiaL
However, for pu� of understanding the nature of the material and for planning for facilities that may be developed specifically
for CDL waste, a weighted average of the three CDL waste saeams was developed.
The King County CDL waste stream is projec,ted to be composed primarily of woody material (56.8 percent). The largest
component present in CDL waste is oons�uctlon lumber at 32.2 percent, followed by miscellaneous inorgania at 19.8 percent As
noted above, CDL waste has less variety than municipal solid waste. Many categories are relatively absent, such as paper (1.5
percent), plastia (2.9 percent), other organla (7.1 percent), and glass (0.1 percent). Other categories are much more prevalent,
such as yard waste at 23.9 percent
5.3 WOOD, CDL, AND HAZARDOU�SPECIAL WASTE SUBCATEGORIES
5.3.1 Introduction
During �ield sorting for the King County Waste Characterization Study, additional detail was recorded on the rype of wood,
CDL waste, and hazardous/special waste that was found ln the waste streams dellvered to the King County transfer stations. The
Appe�tdtix B: Waste cfaaractert:zalrbn stu
�1' Cfxiracterization of Sp�ya[ Waste S1reAms
. ........... . ..... . ..................... ........... .......... .......... .... ::::::v :v:: ........:::::::::.::.�.:�::::: •v: :.::: .::: v: x . ; ..:: ..y..�:: v:xv:::.ii:h':::::: .............: .: ....fLNt:.i: �
•.AA•n •n n:..:.:..... . x•F{.:: :::..... .:}r:F.•; ^y..r; + n}Y.T,.::::vr. m.:�}`ei'::ti
iu.,..., .n..� ...�.. ..�:. ... }rr Fiii} . . .......� ^rr,.v:rr: :.;n:: .. �..; .:::::::r..........
x :v:::::::::•:}:::?v.x.w::::i ::r{.:Lb •!:?}, :�i,•:: •:n{:�{:�•:......{....M1L�:::......n.M1 .`�.^C.,.`�.C.-?•it
•�. N r r. :.::: J...r...x ...:'.....r n Y. • ::... ....... . t... �...rl..
... ..v. ..{nv.........i.........n..{•.w::::..+.......... nn ..n.::: ?t�iiri'r'i:iii:nv:•::.:i.......... .
..1 v ...{ .�i:i. . ........................}:::::::::::::::::x::::.i:•ii::i::}iii::::::::::::::........::::n...................; .n..... ..... .....n::::::::::::::.
...\�k...r... .. .::.W.ti4:ti^:w:::ii}ii:ti4iii:i::i}iiiiiih;w.::.Y:'4%ti•:
..........:::n n.......... ..� nv v:: w: ....; ........::::::::::::::.:�.:�:::n�:::::::::::::::::::::::: :v.�::::::.::�.�n�.� •• �
..... ... v\?{.y'v':{n:•::•:::i+::." x:v:x ........... ............ ................. ..: •: w::: .: ............ �n':.h4'v: v..: .. .;; ..; .;,:.....
..:�. . 'y.v y:.{•.::::.?:::.+;:::: nK1: +:?.•::::: {:•:'•:v •:.:.::.; ••; y: �y�
......... . . .�.�.:.x,>.,.w.:� .�>:>r..<�.>k.>. v.,. .. B 3
:.
:::.. •;h,. x. >.. > � a.e.,:+� > o Y "C � \� h4+Yi ��v..., ; . .
JT. . r....TixrY.:xxn....r........�9';.::n:. " �'.�::. n..n.. v ....:...\:.:. �:.1...vx:�:::::�..y:'F,.;?.;{;r;i$i7n'•ifi�4f;•;.5�.:::::::{{rpy:iii: .Y,
.. . ?•.x..... �t r .,r ... ................/...............:..??? S�•?::tiv�iv.v:O::i•......::..:::n: M1 ..............::........ .::: .. •
.. C�',c�.�`.t�S?..........: • ::::.....:...................... ...............:............................. �::. �:::::::::::::::::::.............................................::.:.:.::..............:..........:..::?:: •.t;� •::y
..............::: :•:: ::::•.:................................ r......................................................... ;...............................................................; .: .............................: ...
•::i•:>::•:>?:::• ::::::::::::.:: �:::::::::::::::::::::::. �::::::::::::::::.: �::::::::::. �:: :•:::. �:::::::::. �:. �:. �:::. �:.:::::::::::::. �:::::::::. �::. �. �:::::.�::. �::::::: •::::::::::.::.:.�:::.::::: :•.:::. �:.: �:..::..... ....t,.....
results are presented here to provide some data, on the breakdovm of these categorles, but these data do not have the same level of
accuracy as the results for the primary cdtegories of materials due to the lower quanti�es and the greater variability of the results for
these materials.
5.3.2 Results
The addiaonal information on the breakdown of wood, CDL, and hazardous and special wastes is shown in Tables 5.2, 5.3,
and 5.4 for the residential, nonresidential, and select nonresidential waste streams, r�Cttvely.
These tables shovv figures that lmply significant digits in the range of thousandths of a percent, whereas this ls adually v�ell
below the minimum limit for statisticatly meaningful data. Despite their lack of statisacal meantng, these values are shown in order
to provide an indication of the quantlty in whlch a material was found.
cbiarac�e�zation ojSpe�ral Waste stnaams App�errdir B: [�a,ste cbaraderizatrore Study
B-
64
TABLE 5.1
COMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND-CLEARING WASTE
CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION LAND-CLEARING ALL CDL
MATERIAL WASTE (11 WASTE (11 WASTE (1) WASTE (21
Paper 8.7 % 1 A'% -- 0.0 % 1.5 %
Cardboard 5.7 OA 0.0 0.6
Newspaper 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Office Paper 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Magazines 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.4
Mixed 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.4
Plastica 8.4 4.4 , OA _ 2.9
Jugs __ 0.0 OA - 0.0 0.0
Non-Food Container 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.3
Durable 1.1 3.8 0.0 2.4
Films and Bags 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Food Container 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
Sryrene Foam 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Yard Debri� ' 4.1 O:d 75:4 23.J
Prunings < 2.1 ; . , 0:4 _ 34.2 < :: 1 � , :
Bulky WOOd 0.6 0.0 41.2 12.8
Leaves and Grass 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
YVOOd . < 29.6 50.9 0:0 33:0 <!
Consiruction Lumber 27.4 50.2 0:0 32�3
Packaging Lumber 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.7
Misvellaneo�s �rganics 1�t .7 3.7 11.9 7.1 ;
Textiles __ 3.1 1.8 OA _ i.4
Food Wastes 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diapers 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 8.3 1.9 11.9 5.6
�18ss : : 0.5 0.0 0:0 D.1 !'
Recydable Glass _ >°, 0:0_ _ > 0.0 '; < 0:0 0:0
Non-Recydable Glass 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1
Alnmfnc�m. . ` 1.0 `0.6 0:0 >0.5
>. -
Food Container 0.0 _ _ 0.0 "'0.0 : OA
Other 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.5
;Ferrous Meta! z 8.7 14:9 . !O:D !'�.4
_ Food Container _ - ' 0.0 , , 0.0 _ ; > 0.0 : 0.0
Other 6.7 14.9 0.0 9.4
0ther Non-Ferrous 1.6 0.2 0.0 ' 0.3
'Misc.lnorganics 32.2 24A 7.8 19.9
Other ;> 0.4 OA <4:9 1:6
White Goods oA 0.0 _ 0.0 OA
Other Appliances 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Furniture 0.3 0.0 4.9 1.6
Household Hazardous 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Medical 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTALS 100.0 9�0 100.0 9�0 100.0 % 100.0 9'b
NOTES: t. Composition figures from Portland Metro COL Waste Compositlon Data Sheets, 1987, 1989 and 1990.
2. •All CDL Waste" is a weighted averaqe of the three COL waste streams, based on construction waste � 10.53
percent, demolition waste � 58.65 percent, and land-clearinq waste � 30.8 percent. These values were
derived from the King County CDl Waste Ouantiry ProJections, by Herrera Erwironmental Consultants,
assumfng mfd-range values from Table 1-A, and assuming equal densities fa all three substreams.
Sou�ce: Kinfl County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - t991.
Appendir B: wasle CGaracrenixativn study Cbanaclenizadvn oj,S�aa�l Waste Sh�ms
:::i:y:::�.i�::�+:: :;:} k`:`.�;:; ".:Ss,:
. ..... :x:::. ::.
.:...... �:: n �::::: :w:::. .... K 'y��
�iT\'�:i . �{.,M,•,C.. . ...'�::..L2�..: . :..K.'.k�....... .. ..v, �l...{.;}},v,-0:y,. :wi:J}?: r::::S:•iiii:ti^
:..:�..::.;......: „a'"���...,'�.".,'.','�,.....�... �:;.::;.::.:::::.:<;.:�:.;>;:;:::;::.::.:; ::: :.:.::.::.::::::::.::.::»;:.::::>::.::.;:.,.......;:.:::::....: r -:::::....:
>::::�;;.
' �'< :5+3�'ti:;I{S: •• '4'v:ii;'i'.iiti:::'��'�.'�:L:'i:��:: i
'�<:LiC.2'4:::' " .}.
.v.. �:.:::::
:.::... :..............:::i :v.
:;:::f �. ..f •: •:::'J.?;ci�:..r::::::: •::�::�F:s:.:,,t �Fr}:<•
:::.;.;
:::...
:::.:. , .:,:::::: ...•:.:::.� .....'A... • . �.......r}........ .. . ...:`•:.t ........................:........t... ..
:::::.;::::::::::: � • :::::: ......:?'�.:::•:k�:at:b:::•.�:•:::: x•::•; �.:,: ;..; •:.:.; •::::: „ C :.:. ...
TABLE 5.2
WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY
AVERAGE PERCENT, DRY SEASON WASTE STREAM
KING COUNTY RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
MATERIAL
WOOD < :
Dimension Lumber
Treated Wood
Roofing
Contaminated Wood
Stumps
Bulky Wood
Pallets
Crates
Misceilaneous
Subtotal
��:�
.<:::�.,
..4
�:�....�
B-6 vv""
5
ii:�:ti!•:R:
URBAN RURAL MULTI- TOTAL RES.
SINGLE- SINGLE- FAMILY SELF- WASTE,
FAMILY FAMILY DWELLINGS HAUL WEIGHTED AVG.
0.14 9�0 0.25 4�6 2.25 % 15.34 �i6 5.27 9�6
0 0 0.002 0.98 0.31
0 0 0.51 0 0.09
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1.09 0.34
0 0 0 0 0
0.03 0.08 0 0.71 0.24
0 0 0.02 0 0.004
1.06 0.44 2.88 0.93 1.26
1.23 % 0.77 �ib 5.662 % 19.05 % 7.52 9b
CDL WASTES .
Ceramics
Rocks
Concrete
Soil
Gypsum
Fiberglass Insulation
Other Fiberglass
Roofing Waste
Asphalt
Linoleum
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
0.25 9k 0.01 % 0.02 %
0 0 0.06
0.003 0 0
0 0 0
0.16 0.42 1.45
0 0 0
0 0 0
0.03 0.39 0.98
0 0 0
0 0 ' 0
0.16 0.33 0 _
0.60 % 1.15 96 2.51 %
HAZARDOU5/SPECIAL WASTES
Latex Paint 0 %
Oil-Based Paint 0
Solvents 0.06
Adhesives 0
Cleaners 0.04
Pesticides/Herbicides 0
Medical Waste 0
Gasoline 0
Motor Oil 0.08
Car Batteries 0
Household Batteries 0
Antifreeze 0
Animal Excrement 0.11
Animal Carcasses 0
Hair Spray Aerosol 0.02
Misc. Aerosols 0,05
Miscellaneous 0.04
Subtotal 0.40 9�0
0.20 % 0.04 9k
0.07 0.03
0.03 0.08
0 0
0.04 0.02
0.03 0.23
0.11 0.01
0.02 0
0.04 0.21
0 0
0.03 0.05
0 0
0 0.13
0 0
0 0.006
0.02 0.01
0.10 0.15
0.69 �Yo 0.97 %
MOTE: Data is for dry season (summer and fatl quarters) only.
Source: Kinq County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
Cbiaraclerization of Spe�aa! Wasle Straams
0.14 % 0.14 %
0.08 0.04
0.03 0.01
1.76 0.55
2.41 1.13
1.21 0.38
OJ2 0.22
3.56 1.35
0 0.00
0.06 0.02
1.73 0.64
11.70 % 4.48 %
0.20 %
0.004
0.20
0
0.05
0.007
0
0.002
0.02
0
0.03
0
0.06
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.63 �ih
0.10 %
0.02
0.10
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.003
0.08
0
0.02
0
0.08
0
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.61 %
AAp�iddc B: tt�asle C6�na�k'aAinn SYudy
B-
66
TABLE 5.3
WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES
WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF TOTAL
KING COUNTY NONRESIDENTIAL
BY SUBCATEGORY
WASTE STREAM
WASTE STREAMS
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL
MATERIAL TOTAL CII SELF-HAUL WASTE, WEI6HTED AVG.
WOOD
Dimension Lumber 5.1 % 5.86 % 5.29 9�6
Treated Wood 0.87 2.67 1.33
Roofing 0 7.07 1.80
Contaminated Wood 0.06 0 0.04
Stumps 0 0.06 0.02
Bulky Wood 0 0 0 .
P8118t8 4.38 0.82 3.48
Crates 0.05 0 0.04
Miscellaneous 1.6 2.97 1.95
Subtotal 12.06 % 19.45 % 13.94 96
COG WAS7E5
Ceramics ; 0.035 % -> _ 0 % _ 0.03 % _ _
Rocks 0.08 0.75 0.25
Concrete 0.28 0.05 0.22
Soil 0.04 0 0.03
Gypsum 1.96 14.61 5.17
Fibergtass Insulation 0.19 1.424 0.50
Other Fbergiass 0.13 0.14 0.13
Roofing Waste 0.03 6.84 1.76
Asphalt 0 0 0
Linoleum 0.32 0 0.24
Miscellaneous 0.36 1.09 0.55
Subtotal 3.43 % 24.90 96 8.88 %
NAZAR60f1SJSPECIAL WASTEB ::
>: ; : „::
_ _ <:
Latex Paint 0.0003 96 0.21 % 0.05 %
Oil-Based Paint 0.123 0.26 0.16
Solvents 0.046 0.03 0.04
Adhesives 0.365 0.005 0.27
Cleaners 0.005 0.05 0.02
Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0.003 0.001
MediCal Waste 0.151 0 0.11
Gasoline 0 0 0
Motor Oil 0.195 0.2 0.20
Car Batteries 0 0 0
Household Batte�ies 0.008 0.01 0.01
Antifreeze 0.013 0 0.01
Animal Excrement 0.01 0 0.01
Animal Carcasses 0 0 0
Hair Spray Aerosol 0.004 0 0
Misc. Aerosois 0.011 0.07 0.03
Miscellaneous 0.19 0.21 0.20
Subtotal 1.12 % 1.05 % 1.10 %
Source: Kinp County Wasle CharaCterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
Afi�1CJ1dfC B: l�Cb4le C�IR7CJL�IiZQliOti Sltldy
•
Cdaracterizntfon of ,S�ecirrl t�asks Sri�ems �
�
�
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
•
�
�3 ::;�::::�:>:>::>::»>::»>r::<:::>ri<>:>:«:::»:<:»>:>:::::<:;::;:::>;:<;:::::>:>::::::>:<>:<::<::<:::>:<�:<:::>::<::»:>::::�:>::>�::»::.r�> :<>:k.:<:<::::;:::::;:<:>::::>::<::«>�::>:::<
't,.<:� .::x.:;::::.::;::.::::.;::<.:x<;::::::.;:<::;:;:::.:::::::..;:.;:.;:.;:.;:«;:�::a:.;;;::.;;:�;:.;:.::.;:.;:;::.:;.;;:::;;;:.r;� ; �: :<i r,:::::.:::: ..
:;:;'t%.::�::�i::;::;:; �::::;:::;:::>i::::
TABLE 5.4
WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY
AVERAGE PERCENT OF TOTAL WASTE STREAM
KING COUNTY SEIECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
B-6
7
FOOD WOOD SEA-TAC WHOLESALE
MFG. MFG. PRINTING AIRPORT DURABLE
MATERIAL SIC 20 SIC 24 SIC 27 SIC 45 SIC 50
_ _ ___. ___.. _ .
WOpD
Dimension Lumber 0.47 % 27.94 % 0.61 % 0.18 46 8.88 %
Treated Wood 0.27 20.70 0 0.01 0.21
Roofing 0 0 0 0 0
Contaminated Wood 0 0 0 0 0
Stumps 0 0 0 0 0
Bulky Wood 0 0 0 0 • 0
Pallets 3.13 1.98 0 2.33 4.54
Crates 0.05 0 0 0.21 0.17
Miscellaneous 1.20 16.85 0.04 0.03 4.74
Subtotal 5.12 % 67.47 % 0.65 % 2.76 % 18.64 %
cai�wAS�`�s _
: __
Ceramics 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.87 %
Rocks 0 0 0 0.64 0.003
Concrete 0 0 0 0 0.33
Soil 0 0 0 0 0
Gypsum 0.01 2.50 0 0 0.07
Fiberglass Insulation 0 0.24 0 0 0.63
Other Flberglass 0 0.39 0 0 0
Roofing Waste 0.002 0 0 0 0.005
Asph8lt 0 0 0 0 0
Linoleum 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 1.36
Subtotal 0.01 9�0 3.13 % 0.00 % 0.64 % 3.27 %
_ ._ _
HAZAAD�IlS/SPECIAL WAST�S'
Latex Paint > _ 0 ° 0% 0% 0 94, 0.01 %:
Oil-Based Paint 0.004 0.01 0 0.003 0.01
Solvents 0.01 0.005 0 0.09 0.12
Adhesives 0.07 0 0 0.06 0.03
Cleaners 0 0 0 0.10 0.36
Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0 0 0 0
Medical Waste 0.90 0 0 0.01 0
Gasoline 0 0 0 0 0
Moto� Oil 0.02 0.02 0 0.08 0.27
Car Batteries 0 0 0 0 0
Household Batteries 0 0.01 0 0.15 0.003
Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 �
Animal Excrement 0.17 0 0 0 �
Animal Carcasses 0.29 0.19 0 � �
Hair Spray Aerosols 0 0 0 0 �
Misc. Aerosols 0.004 0 0 0•04 �
Miscellaneous 0 0.001 t.32 0.02 0.09
Subtotal 1.47 % 0.24 % 1.32 % 0.55 46 0.89 46
Source: Kinp County Waste Characterization Study. 1990 - 1991.
CGarac�izariore of ,S�Dacirrl 1� Slr�a»s
�poenda B: [�aste CGa�iv� SAudy
r�
��
. .
TABLE 5.4 (continued�
WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY
Page 2 of 3
WOOD
Dimension Lumber
Treated Wood
Roofing
Contaminated Wood
Stumps
Bulky Wood
Pallets
Crates
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
CbL WASTES !:
Ceramics
Rxks
Concxete
SOiI
Gypsum
Rberglass Insulation
Other Fberglass
Roofing Waste
Asphalt
linoleum
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
WHOLESALE BUILDING GENERAL FOOD
NONDURABLE MATERIAL MERCHANDISE STORES
SIC 51 SIC 52 SIC 53 SIC 54
1.13 % 9.32 % 2.56 % 0.14 %
0.07 4.08 1.47 0.03
� 0 0 0.04
0 0.07 0 0.28
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 p
� 1•77 6.53 6.93 0.06
0.42 0 0 4.02
1.02 5.20 1.68 1.73
14.41 % 25.20 % 12.64 % 6.30 % •
0% 0.06 94, 0.02 % 0%
0 0.44 0 0
0 2.43 0 0
3.03 0 0.47 p
1.20 7.40 1.89 0
o.o� o.n o 0
0 0 0 0
0 0.38 0 0
0 0 0 0
� 0 0 0
0 0.16 0 0
4.30 % 11.64 9�6 2.38 % 0 9�0
HA7AROOLiS/SPECIAC WAST�S .
,
Latex Paint _ 0_ 46 0.26 46 0% ' 0 g6
Oil-Based Paint 0.01 0.40 0 0.007
Solvents 0 0.08 0.02 0
Adhesives 0 0.03 0.12 0
Cleaners 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02
Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0 0 0.01
Medical Wasie 0.19 0 0 0
Gasoline 0 0 0 0
Motor Oil 0 0 0.003 0
Caf 88tt@fl@3 0 0 0 0
Household Batteries 0.001 0 0.03 0.02
Antifreeze 0 0 0 0
Animal Excrement 0.06 0 0 0
Animal Carcasses 0 0 0 0
Hair Spray Aerosols 0 0.01 0.005 0.003
Misc. Aerosols 0 0.01 0.003 0.01
Miscellaneous 0.20 2.85 0.01 0.01
Subtotal 0.47 % 3.65 96 0.22 96 0.08 ai�o
Source: Kinq County Waste Characterization Study, 199p - 1991.
A�o�endfr a: waste cdarac�rar�nn ,SYuuay cdanadertrar�nii of S�fal iRasAs sri�ams
�
�
�
�
a
• TABLE 5.4 (continued)
WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY
* Page 3 of 3
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
: ��
FAST FOOD SIT-DOWN OTHER
RESTAURANTS RESTAURANTS HOTELS HOSPITALS HLTH. SERV.
SIC 58F SIC 58S SIC 70 SIC 80H SIC 80C
WOOD . ;
,
_ ..::: :. :
Dimension Lumber 0.02 9�0 0.03 % 0.21 % 0.37 % 0.06 %
Treated Wood 0 0.03 0.04 0 0
Roofing 0 0 0 0 0
Contaminated Wood 0 0 0 0 0
Stumps 0 0 0 0 0
Bulky Wood 0 0 0 0 0
Pallets 0 0 0 0 0
Crates 0 0.05 0.20 0 0
Miscellaneous 0.01 0.46 0.03 0.004 0.26
Subtotai 0.03 % 0.57 9b 0.48 % 0.37 % 0.32 %
CDL WASTES :'::
_ _ : ,,. _ _
Ceramics 0% 0% 0.02 % 0
Rodcs 0 0 0 0
Concrete 0 0 0 0
Soil 0 0 0 0
Gypsum 0 0 0.11 O.Q4
Fiberglass Insulation 0 0 0.01 0.003
Other Fiberglass 0 0 0 0
Roofing Waste 0 0 0 1.34
Asphalt 0 0 0 0
Linoleum 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0.30
Subtotal 0% 0% 0.14 % 1.68
,:
% 0 9�0
0
0
0
0.07
0
0
0.06
0
0
0.31
% 0.44 9�0
tiA7_AROOl15/�f��CIAL'WASTES
> _
Latex Paint 0% 0% 0 9b 0% 0%
Oil-Based Paint 0 0.02 0 0 0
Solvents 0.01 0 0.01 0 0
Adhesives 0 0 0 0 0
Cteaners 0 0.01 0.13 0.02 0
Pesticidea/Herbicides 0 0 0 0 �
Medicat Waste 0 0 0 22.89 3.35
Gasoline 0 0 0.01 0 0
Motor Oil 0.05 0 0 0 0
Caf BsttAfle8 0 0 0 0 0
Household Batteries 0 0.003 0.02 0.001 0.01
Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0
Animal Excrement 0 0 0 0 �
Animal Carcasses 0 0 0 0 0
Hair Spray Aerosols 0 0.01 0.02 0 0
Misc. Aerosots 0 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03
Miscellaneous 0.01 0.01 0.004 0 �
Subtotal 0.07 % 0.08 % 0.21 9�0 22.92 % 3.39 %
Source: Kiny Counry Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
c,barc�ahon of ,Spaaal waste str�ims
A�pendiz B: Waste G6�ac�zaaion Sludy
�
B-
7
0 �:;::<':>:`��:<::�;:
Section 6
Bottle and Can Counts
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This seaion identifies the occurrence of different types of beverage bottles and cans as observed during waste sorting. Tliis
information was oollected to provide data for recycling program planning and evaluation.
6.2 i�su�.1's
The number of bottles and cans per ton of waste was derived by dividing the total number obseNed in the samples by the
tota.l sample weight for that category of generator. The combined categories of "all residential" and "all nonresidential" are weighted
averages based on the estimated seasonal or annual total waste quantities. The presentation of the results on a per-ton basis was
chosen to allow calculation to total bottles and cans for larger amounts (tonnages) of waste.
6.2.1 Resid�ential Bottle and Can Count
Table 6.1 presents the per ton number of beverage bottles and cans in all categories of the residential waste stream (dry
season only). Wet season residentlal samples were not analyzed. As shown, soda and beer cans are substantially more prevalent
within resldential waste than glass and PET containers.
6.2.2 Nonresidential Bottle and Can Count
Table 6.2 presents the number of bottles and cans, per ton, in the nonresidential waste stream by season and generator.
Table 6.3 presents the annual averages for per ton bottle and can counts by nonresidential waste generators. These data are weighted
average based on the seasonal waste quantities shown in Table 3.1. As with residential waste, soda and beer cans were the most
prevalent type of containers found.
6.2.3 Select Nonresidential Bottle and Can Count
Table 6.4 shovus the number of bottles and cans, per ton, in the select nonresidential waste streams. 'The result� show a
relatively high number of soda cans within aiipor�, hotels, hospitals, and cllnia. Also prominent is the relatively high beverage glass
count for all colors observed wittun waste disposed by sit-down restaurants.
Ap�bendix a: i�aste c,daracterizaran study aotde anrt can counks
�
�
�
�
�
!
•
•
•
!
�
�
•
�
�
•
�
`
�
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•••••••i••�•••••••�•••i•i•�•••••••
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
TABLE 6.1
NUMBER OF BOTTLES AND CANS PER TON
RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, DRY SEASON
URBAN SINGLE-FAMILY RURAL SINGLE-FAMILY
SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER
BOTTLES 43.1 16.4 136.1 30A 24.4 125.3
Clear Glass 17.7 1.7 332 15.8 1.7 325
Green Glass 1.3 3.4 3.9 1.3 3.0 5.1
Brown Glass 2.2 9.5 3.0 0.0 19.7 3.8
PET 21.6 i.7 12:9 12.9 0.0 7.3
HDPE 0.4 0.0 85.0 0.0 0.0 76.5
CANS ; 157.8 ' 64.2 6.0 ' 130.7 76.2 6.5
Aluminum 157.8 64.2 3.0 130.7 75.8 6.5
Bi-Metal 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
SELF-HAUL
SODA BEER OTHER
BOTTLES 10:3 46.4 39.6
Clear Glass 5.3 10.5 17.2
Green Glass 0.0 1.0 5.9
Brown Glass 0.0 34.9 t.2
PET 4.9 0.0 3.7
HDPE 0.0 0.0 1t.6
CANS 66.8 44.2 0.8
Aluminum 66.8 44.2 0.4
Bi-Metal 0.0 0.0 0.4
MULTI-FAMILY
SODA BEER OTHER
35.5 ` 46.4 168.8
20.2 15.1 49.4
1.7 5.8 12.5
0.0 22.6 5.3
13.7 2.7 12.3
0.0 0.0 89.2
192.0 77.3 19.9
192.0 77.3 3.9
0.0 0.0 i6.0
ALL RESIDENTIAL
SODA BEER OTHER
29J : 32.0 110.7
14A 6.7 30.8
0.9 3.0 6.1
0.8 21.1 3.0
t3.8 1.1 9.2
0.2 0.0 61.6
NOTES: Ali figures are expressed as the number of containers per ton.
Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding.
Atl Residential is a welghted average based on figures in Table 3.1.
5ource: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
131.3 61.9 6.8
131.3 61.8 2.8
0.0 0.1 4.0
�
V
�
?<.�;::;;:;;
:<�:::>:a>:
�
�-
�
�
�
�
�.
�
��
a
�
�'
�
^
�
�
�
�
TABLE 6.2
NUMBER OF BOTTLES AND CANS PER TON
NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, DRY AND WET SEASONS
DRY SEASON
NONRESIDENTIAL SELF-HAUL TOTAL CII ALL NONRESIDENTIAL
SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER
80TTLES , 15.4 126 11.9 ; 15.6 10.1 < 27.7 15,5 10.8 23.4
,: _ __,
Clear Glass 9.2 5.1 4.t 11.3 1.5 10.8 tOJ 2.5 9.0
Green Glass 3.1 1.0 6.8 0.9 1.2 0.5 1.4 1.1 2.2
Brown Glass 0.3 6.5 0.0 0.2 7.4 0.9 0.2 7.1 0.6
PET 2.4 0.0 0.3 3.3 0.0 2.6 3.0 0.0 2.0
HDPE 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.1 0.0 9.6
CANS 92.8 20.5 0.0 99A 18A ' 2.2 ' 9T.3 18.7 °1.6
_
Aluminum 92.8 20.5 0.0 99.0 18.0 2.2 97.3 18.7 1.6
Bi-Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
WET SEASON
NONRESIDENTIAL S0.F-HAUL TOTAL CII ALL NONRESIDENTIAL
SODA BEER OTHER OOA BEER THER DA BEER OTHER
_ __ _ _ _.._ _
BOTRES 11:8 1:6 ia.5 ' 23.9 < 2.2 '23.2 21A 2.1 :, 20.2
Clear Glass 9.9 0.0 0.7 19.7 1.3 t 1.5 17.4 1.0 8.9
Green Giass 0.3 0.0 0.7 2.1 0.3 t.t 1.7 0.2 1.0
Brown Glass 1.3 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6
PET 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.5
HDPE 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.3 0.0 9.2 0.2 0.0 9.2
CANS 58.9 44:1 '0.3 90.7 ` 5.4 1.6 83.1 14.T' 1.3
>: _
Aluminum 58.9 44.1 0.3 90.7 5.4 1.6 83.1 14J 1.3
Bi-Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NOTES: All (igures are expressed as the number of containers per ton.
Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding.
All Nonresidentlal is a wefflhted average based on figures in Table 3.1.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - t991.
�
N
• • . • • • • � � • • � • • • • • • � • • • • � • . � . • • • • • •
•••i•••••••••••••••••••�••••••••••
�
�
�
�'
�
TABLE 6.3
NUMBER OF BOTTLES AND CANS PER TON
NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, ANNUAL AVERAGES
NONRESIDENTiAL SELF-HAUL TOTAL Cil ALL NONRESIDEMIAL
SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER ODA BEER OTHER
�
�•
�
�
n
�
`�'
BOTTLES 13.7 ;' 7.3 14.3: �.0 : 6A ?.5.4 ' 18.4 . 6.3 '' 21.8
- _..._.... _ .:::. __:
: Clear Glass 9.5 2.6 2.4 15.7 1.4 11.1 14.1 i J 8.9
Green Glass 1.7 0.5 3.8 1.5 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.7 1.6
Brown Glass 0.8 4.1 0.0 0.3 3.8 0.8 0.4 3.9 0.6
PET 1.4 0.0 0.2 2.3 0.0 1.6 2.1 0.0 1.2
HDPE 0.2 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 11.0 0.2 0.0 9.4
__ _ _.. _
_ _ _ .__. _
CANS 76.4:: . 3y.9, 0.2; 94.6 11.4 '1.9 <! 90.0 „: y6.6:; 1.5
Aluminum 76.4 31.9 0.2 94.6 11.4 1.9 90.0 16.6 1.5
Bi-Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NOTES: All figures are expressed as the number of containers per ton o} sample.
Numbers may not add up exaCtiy due to roundi�p.
All Nonresidential is a weighted average based on tipures In Table 3.1.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study,1990 - 1891.
td
�
w
�::: ��>>::
;.;''s.:,:::°.
�
B -4
7
TABLE 6.4
NUMBER OF BOTTLES AND CANS PER TON
SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, ANNUAL AVERAGES
SIC 20 SIC 24
FOOD MANUFACTl1RING WOOD MANUFACTlJRING
SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
sic r� �
PRINTINC3 � PUBUSHING •
SODA BEER OTHER
BOITLES _ �y.8 '' O.Q : 93.5 ' 5:� 0:9 ' 5.2 > 24.1 .' 4.t 2t.6
: _ ,
Clear Gtass 8.3 0.0 51.6 4.5 0.0 2.6 12.4 0.0 a.1
Green Glass 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brown Glass 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 4.1 0.0
PET 9.2 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
HDPE 0.0 0.0 40.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 11.6 0.0 17.4
CANS ' 54.b > 1.3 `: t.3 ;' 26.1 7:8 f.3 ; 49.8 <$.3 ! 4.1 "
Aluminum 54A 1.3 1.0 26.1 7.8 1.3 : 49.8 8.3 4.t
Bi-Metat 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SIC 45 SIC 50 SIC 51
AIRPORT3 VYHSL. DURABLE GOODS WHSL. NONDURABLE GOODS
SODA BEER OTHER S A BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER
_, _ _.. ___ __ _ _ ___.. ___ __ _ _ ___ _ _
BOTRES 45.9 : 49.4 :104.4: lfi4 0:3 121 '13.G '' 2t 37.7'
Clear Glass 37.1 2.9 42.9 7.8 OA 1.8 10.2 OA 22.5
Green Glass 2.7 32.2 24.2 0.5 0.0 2.1 0.3 1.9 1.3
Brown Glass 0.2 14.3 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.0
PET 5.7 0.0 15.5 1.8 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.3
HDPE 0.2 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 13.6
CANS 600.0 ; 51.4 ' 46.3 ' 40:7 2.1 1:1
Aluminum 599.3 51.4 46.3 40.7 2.1 1.1
Bi-Metal 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NOTES: All figures are expressed as the number of containers per ton.
Numbers may n� add up exactly due to roundinfl.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
��nda B: Wasie Cd�ac�nirat�v,i study
: 59.6 - 46.8 0.3
59.6 46.8 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
•
Bo�le and can counts �
C�
�
::��<:: :�::�::<::�_`�`:�::�:�;:>;::;���::>`:'<:::>::::::><::<::::�`::<:�:::::>::<:::::`;::<::�<�::>`:::<:>:
::><::: ...........
TABLE 6.4 (continue�
NUMBER OF BOTTLES AND CANS PER TON
SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, ANNUA� AVERAGES
Page 2 of 2
B-
75 :::
SIC 54 SIC 58F SIC 583
FOOD STORES FAST FOOD RESTAURANT3 SIT-DO�WN RESTAURANTS
SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER �, A BEER OTHER
BOTI'LES ' 49.2 >' 0.0 :'. 34.5 ' 'IS:S 7.0 39.2 ` 55.0 ':150.8 113.2'
Clear Glass 37J 5.1 10.9 12.4 1.9 9.9 25.4 15.8 47.9
Green Glass 6.4 1.2 2.4 0.6 1.t 4.0 7.1 35.4 32.2
Brown Glass 1.0 5.6 0.3 0.6 4.0 0.0 20.9 99.7 6.8
P� 1.8 0.0 2.1 2.3 0.0 1.1 1.6 0.0 1.9
HDPE 2.3 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 0.0 24.4
CANS 69.3 9.5 t.5 ': 4�;6 t3.5 4.8
Aluminum 69.3 9.5 1.5 41.6 13.5 1•8
Bi-Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SIC 70 �C �
HOTELS HOSPITALS
SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER
25.7 10.6 1.0
25J 10.6 t.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
SIC 80C
pTHER HFJILTH SERVICES
SODA BEEN OTHER
BOITLES 83.g < 121.5 122.3:` 10:2 ` 0.4 39.< 10.7 '! 0.0'; 71.1
Clear Glass 62.3 7.5 44.7 7.4 0.0 t2.3 9.6 0.0 13.3
Green Glass 14.5 10.6 27.1 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.2
Brown Glass 2.8 103.4 7.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2•2
p� 4.2 0.0 10.6 2.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0
HDPE 0.0 0.0 32.7 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 53.3
CANS 191.1 ' 69.Q 5.Q ' 11T.T 8.4 > 5.9 193.3 '' S.2 3.0
Aluminum 191.1 69.0 5.0 117.7 8.4 5.9 193.3 5.2 3.0
Bi-Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NOTES: All figures are expressed as the number of containers per ton.
Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterizatlo� Study,1990 - 1991•
Botlle and Can Counts Ap�end'tr B: Waste Gda�iralio�t SYudy
' i 'r f ' i'. : : 4 } : : : : : : i Y �
B-
7
6
G:Ni'•.%i'>+��'��'�
References and Glossary
REFERENCES
King Counry Parks, Planning and Resources Department. 1991 Annual Crowth R��ort, June 1991.
Matrix et al. 1989. Matrix Management Group, Herrera Environmental Consultants, R.W. Beck, Fernandes Associates, and Gilmore
Research Group. i�aste Stream Compasition Study, for the City of Se�tttle, June 1989.
OMB 1972. Office of Management and Budget Standard Industriul Cla�sifrcation Manual, 1972.
PSCOG 1988. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Population and Emplcy»terat Frnacasls, June 1g88.
SCS 1987. SCS Engineers, l�aste Stream Characterization Stu�y, for Portland Metropolatan Ser�nce District, December 1g87.
GLOSSARY
The following definitions were used for the materials measured in the King County Waste Characterization Study. The
definitions appear in the same order as they are on the original field data sheets and subsequent tables of results.
Primary Categories
Each sample of waste was sorted into 35 primary categories of materials. These definitions are presented below. Additional
data. were collected on some of these categories, such as wood, construction, and demolition waste, and hazardous waste. The
definitions of the subcategories for these materia.ls are presented after the definitlons of the primary categories.
Paper Categorles
Cardboard Kraft liner cartons with corrugated inner liners, as rypically used to ship materiaJs. Does not include waxed cardboard
or paperboard (cereal boxes, microwa�e, and simllar food boxes, etc.), but it does include kraft grocery bags.
Nemspaper Printed groundwood newsprint Includes glossy ads and Sunday edition magazines that are delivered wlth the newspaper.
High grade Includes ryping, copy, oomputer, bond, and ledger paper and envelopes that are clean and white or very llght In wlor.
Computer Paper Continuous-feed computer printouts and fornis of various types; does not include multiple-�opy carbonless paper.
Mzxed P�ier Other types of paper that may be recycled but do not flt into the above categorles, including junk mail, magazines,
paperback books, paperboard (noncorrugated cardboard), and colored printing and writing papers.
Other Paper Types of paper that are not recyclable, including carbon paper, tissues, paper towels, paper plates, waxed papers, frozen
and microwa�e food containers, hardcover books, and composites that are primarily paper.
Plastfc Categortes
Plastia were characterized by the rype of plastic or the usage (as in the case of film and bags). In the field, the plastia were
identified by their phy�ical characteristia, application (usage) or the Sociery of the Plastics Industry's (SPI) Voluntary Container
Coding System. The preferred method was the SPI code, where plastic products are marked, rypically on the bottom, wlth a
numerical code and the recycling symbol.
Ap,oendix B: Waste Cbiaraderixation Study Boale and Can Counts
I•
•
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
•.>;>:::.,,;,,.,.,:�.y.;..y,•;••••::at•r •�:a:•�:.::^.'+.'t;<»7:?:•;,•:+.;:'.�f :.:2�::°,;a>sr{,.:�;",r,:,,�YiC4:>F:..�'iJ.�'SFy;•,;sx�,7,.,Yr'.N,.rrYR.�;;}r.'• t>;:�r{;s:
•.......:�::::..:.::•�::•;:t•.. »u:..y,..:.•;;: ;:>+,•.:•;:..'?.:;:::•`.•`.'t2Yr;:`::�i::t:?>..'t:•...............�.X ..............7.?>...r..i......... . ..::••::: •?. ..
:..•: :!f•::::.>.•..........':t':?z�. �3 '2�;,., . .............:......................:: ....,.::..:...................... .,......., � ..m.,. ,,... •n•r•n:;' , :.r :h :
•i•S::t�:�::':•:i:S�:::+;:'+.•::... ..;�:.,v,v,:.:.:::�•:•a,x`..`•5::�::iix•t.'c,;:.a�r,•.:?•.. �.; �,+ryy: ,:.� 'J : •�;.:
•k:i.•,. ..; ..: ,. . ...;; . .:o::.:l:: ; ; ..'�,�.�,. '+: • •,� . �:, x ? . r : � r �a . ..6.' 3 S" YS�. — :*��
.:�.;:.::.:.A,:.:;.>:.:::::.;::v;�� ...., :«.:;<.: . g
�:rtt::r�;d!•:�t'i;i:).:�.,•,f.�._ , ,3.r..fCM.'�::;rr:..}:. , .•.;�. ,..#,..:: ?s:;�.�'f','�i✓;�t,,!ma?t:`•.?.:$rr„1ys,.<:.,.,t&.,,.,`�.. /�
^,.s...i. . �r.. }. �:#x w�y:.>wt. .; t,/f,.?;....fS.?�).'�.. . .. c............r�::x •• .....
., ;;t��r:;y.{:•r:•::,••,`• :•.'•:f: �::•::•::yt:t:.•:: • •::�::•: �;.;• :.::.:.:...:: f:.:;•r+�::•:r:� ..,>••::::::::: .. .. . .. r::::...:• :• :•.:r.u•:::: r.r:: ��.,...�,...v...v .r.n...f., :•::�; :�;`::;:
: ............... . ...
r:�::;'t� :•.. :: .4.......•::.:�:... .: • : :.r ::•r::::v�.r:.:;': ,; . ..
...... . .. . . . .. .:... ....: :
•.a.r:ss....; ..c�aus>...:wss:.. iY'J..: ritvA.+.OW%:.•si:L15%1+'f.�.SJ'ir:4CYW'v+i%tJ:�:4:t.i:'v}};{.X.:H:IJYI!!f.{hYM.>'.�� �bYYJlN:K :ba`:.�•:•;:�:�
.+�a»>:,,cr.af;tt�s...::::...,,..,.cwxo-::�:.:w�a:•:as• :.::.:.::.: ......o;:.:..•.'•: • .......
PE7' All bottles and other containers made from pol}�thylene terephthalate (PE1�, oonsistlng of pop, oll, llquor, and other types of
bottles. For pop bottles, no attempt was made to remove the �IDPE base cups, nylon or metal caps, or the wrappers, although
these other materlals �re categorized separately if recelved s�arately. The SPI code for PET (or PE1B) is 1.
HDPE Bottles and other containers made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) such as milk, Juice, detergent, and other bottles. The
SPI oode for HDPE is 2.
Podystyrene Inctudes expanded and rigid packaging, examples of which are the 'clamshell" conta,iners used for hamburgers and
harder products such as yogurt containers and disposable tableware. The SPI oode for polystyrene (PS) 1s 6.
Plastic Bags Includes bags of various types. Many of the bags are low polyethylene (LDPE), but this category also includes
HDPE bags.
Other Plastic Packaging Includes rlgid and flexible plastic packaging that dces not fit into the above categortes, such as polyvinyl
chloride (V, SPI code 3), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, SPI code 4), polypropylene (PP, SPI code 5), and others.
Other Plastic Types of plasticx and applications which do not fit into the above categories. This category includes plasticx used ln a
varlety of applications, such as toys, housewares, video and audio cassettes, and producls made from 6berglass resins.
Product5 made from fiberglass ceslns that are part of the CDL waste stream will be categori�ed as such
Wood and Yard Waste
� [�oal Includes stumps, branches over four Inches in diameter, large and small pieces of lumber and other wood, and products
. made predominandy of wood (except furniture, see below). See also the definitions of wood subcategories, below.
Yard i�aste Includes leaves, grass clippings, garden wastes, and brush up to four inches In diameter.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
Otber Organfcs
Texti/es Used clothing and scxaps of cloth made of natural and manmade materials, including ootton, weol, silk, nylon pol}�esteis,
and leathec 11�1s r,�tegory includes clothing, rags, curtains, carpets and leather products such as shoes; �egardless of
wndition unless contaminated by more than one-half of the total welght by foreign materlals.
Pood l�astes Wastes from food preparrAtttion and leftover food that was not consumed. Includes food in the original or another
container when the container wetght Is less than hatf of the total weight Also includes vitamtns, although medicatlons are
included under medical wastes.
D�spasable I�apers Dtapers and simllar products made from a combination of fibers, synthetic and/or natural, and made for the
purpc�se of a single use. No attempt will be made to separate the diaper into its component parts. Diapers that are all cloth
and not origlnally intended for a single use, but that may be found In the waste, will be classl�ed as a texxtille.
Fines Material less than one-half inch in diameter that falls through the bottom screen during sorting. Inorganic 6nes, such as ash
and dirt, will be kept separate from this category to the extent posslble.
Rubber Items made of natural rubber, including tires, door mats, foam rubber, and other products.
Purniture and �lattre.�ses Furniture and mattresses made of varlous mateetals and in any condltloa
Miscellaneous Organux Material that remains on the sorting table after all the materials thai can practically be removed have been
sorted out This material is prlmarily organic, but may wntain small piece,s of inorganics, such as broken glass.
Class Categorles
� Clear Glass Containe►s Includes bottles and jars that are clear, and vwere used for food, soft drinks, beer, and wlne.
• �raen Glass Contafners Includes bottles and �ars that are green In color and were used for food, soft drinks, beer, and wlne.
Broum Glass Containers Includes bottles and jars that are brown in color and were used for food, soft drinl�s, bcer, and w1ne.
�
�
� R�'erences and Clacsary AppEnd'cr B: I�aste C,daracter�ization SAudy
•
B-
8
7
;;;;.;;;:.;::.:;.;;:.::.;:.;>:.;;:�;:.>:�;:�;:.:;:.;:.::<.::;.;::.::.;:.;:.;:::.:.:.:;;.;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:::<;.;:.:::::.�:.� :::::: :.:::::::::::::.�:::::::::: :.......................................... �
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... �
�
Other Glass Includes window glass, mirrors, light bulbs, and other glass which is not recyclable.
Metal Categortes
Ferrous Ca�ts Includes tinn-plated steel cans (food cans), dces not include other bi-metal cans, paint cans or other types of steel cans
Other Ferrous includes various iron and steel alloys that contain suff'icient iron such that magnets will adhere to them. Includes
mixtures that are predominandy (over 75 percent) ferrous. Dces not include aerosol or other types of cans that may contain
hazardous resldues. Includes appliances (white goods) and bi-metal cans (cans composed of an aluminum top and a steel
body).
Aluminum Cans Beverage cans composed of aluminum only.
Other Aluminum Containers Other types of aluminum containers such as foil and pans.
Mrxe� Meta/s Items that are at least 50 percent metal, but contain a mixture of inetals, such as motors, small appliances and other
products.
Other Nonferrous Nonferrous materials other than the above categories, including products that are predominantly made of copper,
lead, brass, tin, and other metals. Also includes aluminum siding and other non-conta.iner aluminum.
Miscellaneous Inorganfcs
Hazardous i�asles Wastes that are classified as hazardous due to their nature or characteristics, including amounts that are too
small to be regulated. Includes aerosol cans, solvents, some paints, cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, compressed gases, various
petroleum products, car batteries, and other materials (see def'uutions of subcategories, below).
Ash Material remaining after the combustion procass, present in the waste stream as ash from fireplaces and wood stoves, used
charcoal from grills, and simllar materials. Vacuum cleaner dust was also placed in this category due to the similarity of
characteristia (chiefly inorganic, finely divided material). The results shown for this category are primarily from vacuum
dust
CDL i�aste Construction, demolition, or landclearing waste that cannot be placed into one of the above categories, such as drywall,
concrete, plaster, rocks, gravel, bricks, shingle, and insulation of various rypes (see definitions of subcategories below).
Mrscellanenus Materials thai do not fit into any of the above categories and are predominantly inorganic.
De6nitions of Subc�egories
Additional data were recorded during the field tests for the following materials. These data include the weight of wastes by
subcategory and, where appropriate, the number of items found.
Wood Subcategorles
Dlmension Lumber Wood commonly used in construction for framing and related uses, including 2 x 4's, 2 x 6's, and sheets of
P
7�'eated l�ood Wood tceated with preservatives such as creosote, including dimension lumber if treated. Dces not include painted or
varnished wood. Thls category may also include some plywood (especially "marine plywood"), strand board, particle board
that is used, and other wood.
Contaminated l�ood Wood contaminaxed with other wastes in such a way that they cannot easlly be separated, but consisting
primarily (over 50 percent) of wood. EZCamples include sheetrock nailed to wood or �les glued to wood.
�
�
�
�
��
��
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Appendix B: [�aste Cbiaracterization StudY Refererec�s and Cla�sary •
�
�
•
r
•
w
... ..... ....... ................................................................. . ........ :.: .: ..: ............................................�v::::::::::.�:: i:::....... :w::::::::: ::v::::::
...�?.
i •i'F.Ji:�::•s.
•iiY•i:i.i:+ii.iiiii:•i: i: iiv
; r,+.;. .i{x>.titii�•.':::�;;::i�;ii>iii:;�:�:i:i�::•.':i
.. .......... .: ::�:::: .:.:•:•.:::::::. .• ::..... ......
?'r . . ..... . : ::::...:::::::::•:::::•:••::+:ti.::•::�:>:... • ::::::::::..::.�::::.�:
.....,..o� ::::::........... ....., ..........:::::::::............................: :.::::. �.: ........::::::::::::::::::::::.::.� �.::. : •.,:::::::::.r::�•.�.�.; •::::::;•;:'t�iS::% ..........
vv�•... .
v: .{ •},v,•ii.'6iii}i:i4iii:}:�i:8iii:�Y.i.iii:4>S»:::•iii:•iiiY:
n.�.... ..... .......
..\..... —
rr.{•:i:iiii:i::Li�i:i�iiY�iii:��:�:�i:�:�iiii:�i::i: i:: i:::i�:ti�:�:i�ijj; ::;ry : :::}};:}:�:i�iii:�iiijii{ii:jti�iiiii::'r:v:::ii'.':::: ;i:;'r:ti'{.:iti•'..::.ti;:ti; r';:
::n....... n . r.v:i:::.. .....
::n iiiiiiti�:{•'r'•.:... � ::.�:::::::: n.... :v.
i:'!.+•Y�'
B
::,.;: � �:>::::::><:>::::::>:::<::::::: <::>:<;�::>::>::»>::>::>::>::>:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: r:.:: :..,., .;....::::.::.::::::::::.;..;.: .:
:.:....... .�:::::; :::::::::::.::.:::. � :::::::.:.
. �.:::: :<.::..
: <: <:> �: ::> �::::> �:: <<: �:<:>::::>::>::::>::::::::
9
:>�:: ..........
�. .......:::� �::::::�:::<.::::::::>::;::>:�:�:::::::::>:.::::::::>::>::>:::>�:>:::::::>::::<::::<>:::::>::::::»:>:�:::::::::<::�::::::::°:::::::::»::�::»>:::::::<:<A:::<:<::<:::::<:::<:::>::>::<::::<::::::::>::::::� <:::::::>::>::»>........... ..........................................
•
• Roofrng and Srding Includes wood from demolition or construction wastes that is commonly used for slding or roofing of buffdings.
This category includes only v�od products, such cedar shingles or shakes; and roofing or siding made from other materials
�, was classified under CDL subcategories.
Stumps Stumps of trees and shrubs with any adhering soil.
� Bulky l�ood Other natural woods, such as logs and branches over four inches in diameter (four inches Is the Illnit used for
• defining prunings as yard wastes).
O�ier i�ood Other types of wood that do not fit into the above c�ategories.
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
`
`
�
�
�
�
�
Constractlon, Demol#�onon and Zand Ckartng (ml) Waste Subcategorles
Ceramus, Porcelai�a, and China Used toilets and sink� were placed in tivs subcategory. Non-CDL ceramia, such as dishes, were
categorized under "miscellaneous inorgania."
Roc�s and Brick Includes rock, gravel, and bricks of various types and sizes.
Concrele Includes cement (mixed or unmixed), concrete blocks, and similar wastes.
Soil, Dirt, and Nondfstinct Fines T'his category Includes soil, sand, dirt, and similar materials, where these were able to be
recovered separately from the fines measured as part of the normal sorting procedure.
Gypsum Board Used or new gypsum wallboard, sheetrock, or drywall present in recoverable amounts or pieces (generally any piece
above one-inch square is recoverable).
F3ibergdass Insulation Does not include other types of insulation or other fiberglass product�.
Other Fiberglass Fiberglass products such as shower stalls and bath tubs. Small, non-CDL fiberglass objecis were categorized with
"other plastia."
Roofing t�astes Includes asphalt and flberglass shingles, tar paper, and simllar wastes from demolition or installaaon of roofs. Dces
not include cedar shingle or shakes (see the "roofing and siding wood subcategory") or roofmg tile (see "rocks and brick CDL
subcategory").
Aspbalt Restricted to asphalt paving materials only.
Haxardous a�d Spectal Waste Subcategrirfes
For hazardous and special wastes, the additional detail that was recorded included whether the waste was in an aerosol can.
Aerosol cans, paint cans and other containers that are empty or have only a small amount of residue were categorized by the type of
waste that the can originally contained.
Latez Paint Water-based paints and simllar products.
Oid-Based Paint Solvent-based paints, varnishes, and similar products.
Sodvents Various solvent�, including chlorinated and flammable solven�, paint s�ippers, solvent� contaminated with other produc�
such as paint�, degreasers, and some other cleaners if the primary ingredient is (or was) a solvent, and alcohols such as
methanol and isopropanol. Liquor (ethanol) will be included under food wastes or under the rype of container, if empty or
neazly empty.
A�resives and Glues Glues and adhesives of various sorts, including rubber cement, wood putty, glazuig and spackling compounds,
caulking compounds, grout, and joint and autobody fille�.
Cleane►s and Corrasives Includes various acids and bases whose primary purpc�se is to clean surfaces, unclog drains, or pedorm
other actions.
Referencss and Glassary
Apperulix B: Waste cbiaracteriizalron Study
� .
. .1
::::: :.::: :.: :.: ::.::::::::::: :.::.:.:.;�::::::.�::::::.::::::::::::: :::.::::::::: :.::: ::.:::::::: :.::::::::: ::::::.:: ::.:::::::,::::::: :.:.:.:.....::........ ..... . . .... ...... .... . ...... .... . �
::.<,:::..<.:...:<..,,:.,>....<.......,...., .
.>;:.;::.>:.;:.>::.::.:: : � :.;: ;;:.; :;;:: : : : : : : . : . � : : : : : : : : :.: : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :.: : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :. . : . : . : : :.. . :.: :.: : : <.: :
,:: f ...<: .«««<,>.:..
:.>.:>,:<:
.: �;;.�: �:: >: : <:: ::::;::::;:;::::;>: :::>; ::, :
�:�.f..
> N,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,
: :«<«; .�.:
.:.�,.;:
..>...
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... �
Pesticrdes and Herbicides Includes a variety of poisons whose purpose is to discourage or kill pests, weeds, or microorganisms.
Pests include insects, slugs and snails, rodents, and other animals. Fungicides and wood preseNatives, such as
pentachlorophenol, are also included.
Car Batteries Includes car, motorcycle, and other lead-acid batteries used for motorized vehicles.
Household Batteries Includes batteries of various sizes and types, as commonly used in households.
Gasoline and Fuel 4il Includes gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oils.
Motor Oil Used or new lubricating oils primarlly used in cars, but including other types with similar characteristla.
Antifreeze Includes automobile and other antifreeze mixtures based on ethylene or propylene glycol. ALso brake and other fluids if
based on the same compounds.
Med'u�al l�aste 1Aastes related to medIcal activities, including syringes, IV tubing, bandages, medications, and other wastes. Thls
subcategory was not reshicted to those wastes classified as pathogenic or infectious. A broad def'uution for this rype of waste
was used in the interest of worker (field crew) safery.
Animal Carcasses Carcasses of small animals and pieces of larger animals, unless the waste was the result of food storage or
preparation. For example, fish or chicken entrails and raw, plucked chickens would be classlfied as food, not as an anlmal
carcass.
Antmal Excrement Feces from animaLs. Bags of used kitry litter, if relatively free of actual feces, were classified as"miscellaneous
inorganic."
Other Spacral l�aste Includes asbestos-containing wastes if this is the primary hazard associated with the waste; gunpowder, unspent
ammunition, picric acid, and other potentially explosive chemicals; radioactive materials (but smoke alarms were classlfied as
"other plastic' ; and other wastes that do not fit into the above categories.
Otber Subcategorles
7ires Whole tires from automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and other vehicles.
t�hite Goods Large appliances, such as stoves, refrigerators, water heaters, and others appliances that are generally made prlmarily of
enameled ferrous metals.
Appe�tdix B: Waste C�iaracterYUttio�t StudY References and Classary
I�
•
�
�
�
.
•
•
�
•
�
} Cti:;:. •iv '�i.'•5'r . {t„ 9.,}:0• Y . �e
.. ,� .,.i •.�.�p• • p� {y
.,'�', �'f.. .?�:;+;.�� �'::�'��}%Sao- +'�:kr��•;�{ .t••'. L ?
'••s�`•:.. �'.•:.., .n. �,,..,.:. .' '�e t �; },.: .:,;s':•`::i� /� �x4 , f '' . :;•:. t .;f >.
:�i';'•.''f r. `c v''' i�i'''M1 `y' : �;:: y'.,,.�,.,�`�. ` 3;'a&�•; �; '• }`�„
.;.��.�,.3`.��,��.��.c�•!� ..4:•�:.� »..; �'•���.,:. . .:C£{� ?. h
:•....4Y•: �.v.•:.�: �•h•:::::: �:.vv<.�.vr:e.}..}{....{......�.�....v.vM1.�...`i"}..�.�.. ... . :.
Addendum A
Methodologies
A.1 WASTE QUANTITY SURVEY MEI�IODS
� A.1.1 Introduction
_ • Y{
B 81 {: : r
! Ttvs addendum describes the methodology used to conduct the waste quanaty survey at King County transfer stattons ln March
1991 which was the most recent survey period. The methodology used for the suivey in July 1990 is not descrlbed, but that surwey
� was conducted in a similar fashioa
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
A1.2 Descrip�ion of Survey Forna and Usage
The survey form (Figure A 1.1) was used at all six transfer stations to gather informaiton on the Inooming vehlcles. As
shown, this form was used to record information such as the date, site, generator type, and truck rype. The informatton on truck
rype was used ln some cases to verify generator types. The net weights for each vehicle were provlded by the County's transaction
record for that day. The Count�s transaction records show net welghts according to transaction numbers, which are unique,
sequential numbers assigned to each transaction or customer. The "Comments" column of the suivey form was used for recording
occasional transaction numbers; to allow the su�vey data to be matched up with the transaction record; and to reoord commems,
such as the source of the load.
The surveyors were provided with def9nitions for the generator rypes, a collection of pidures which lllustrated tcuck types, and
a map whlch delineated urban and rural areas for the purpc�ee of classlfying single-famlly resldential waste generators.
1'he deflnitions of generator types used for the spring quarter su�vey were:
• Urban R�sydentral, Singde family: More than half of the waste originated from single-famlly homes wlthin the urban portlons
of King County (see map), and was delivered to the Iransfer station by a garbage hauler.
• Rural R�tial, Single famrly: More than half of the waste originated from single-family homes outside the urban portions of
King County (see map) and was delivered to the transfer station by a garbage hauler.
• R�srdeiatraal Self-haul.• Residential waste delivered to the transfer station by the generator (including home�vners, renters, and
landlords). �
•�art�ner�ls: More than half of the waste originated from mulufarnily dwellings. A multifamily dv►�lling is a strudure with four
or more apartment units ln the same bullding. Note that duplexes and triplexes were included with single-family homes.
• Nonreridentral Self-hauk Nonresidenaal waste delivered to the �er staation by the same company whtch generated the waste•
• Retail.• More than half of the waste orlginated from retail buslness.
• O,,�ce.• More than half of the waste originated from offices, excluding government offices (see Insatuhonal, below).
• l�holssale: More than half of the waste orlglnated from wholesale buslnesses, where one buslness �s selling goods or producls to
another business.
• Institutional.• More than half of the waste odginated from instltutions such as schools, unlversities, hc�spitals, and government
o�ices.
Adrlerulum A: Metbodologi�s �ppe�ul'cr B: T�aste Claarar,terizahon Sludy
B- 2
8
......... ......................................................................................................................... :=:::k�:`::
• Industrial.• More than half of the waste originated from an industrial or manufacturing establishment, rypically described as
plants, factories, or mllls where some ob�ect is being made.
• Constrr�ction/Demolilion: More than half of the waste originated from a construction or demolition activity. The waste could
have been delivered by consavcuon wmpanies or regular garbage haulers, and could have been from the construction or demolition
of any rype of savcture (residential or nonresidential buildings, bridges, parking lots, etc.). Homeowners or other residential
generators who brought in remodeling and simllar waste were counted under Residential Self-hauL
• Other/Mrxed Nonresrderitral [�astes: Nonresldentlal waste from a type of business not shown or from a mixture of businesses.
• Mix�d ResrdentraUNonresrderitral: A load of waste which consisted of equal or nearly equal amounts of both residential and
nonresidential waste, or one in which the driver was not sure how much of either was in the load.
The above list of generator types contains additional businesses, such as retail and office, that are not one of the slx prlmary
waste generators. These were included to test the abiliry of the su�vey to collect waste quantiry and generation data for specific types
of nonresidential generators. It was concluded that this was not an acceptable method to determine waste quantities for these types
of generators, due largely to the inability to characterize mixed loads. Since a high proportion of the waste produced by these
generators is mixed with other wastes as it is collected by waste haulers, total waste volumes for these generators cannot be
determined through surveys at disposal sites. Additionally, the diff'iculty in gathering data on these generators (i.e., number of
employees and the length of tune associated with the accumulation of a given load) prevents the calculation of per-employee
generation rates.
App�ertdfx B: [�aste Cbiaractert:zatlon Study AdderiClum A: Methdologiss
...... ........................................ ..:..:.... :::.u•.w r . :: •: :. :.�...�vi�....:.:...:: � :::::::x: ::::. �:.vn:.r.:.x:...:.M1'N�Kh'!•:?'.... �'��'ti :?:i.:::t:?•i::£w::{ v.w::::::x:N.•i:•'f0',-:{;+-F
h.a:?.... ....,..<c........ .c.... . ...<..:::.,•:.�5:::: > .:: ...: .......,. :•:k::. �.:f•::�8:;.::•f•:::�s:•::•:::,:::;::;..::•:4
....... ................::.::.:�:•::�•>::: :.>:.:.::. . Sf .5..... :.. ,#•:?..•w:t.»;?:::. .. ..
::..�: :..r.:..::� ::<•>:.>:: :.::::.. ... ,... ;. ... ....::::: .... ::::: ::::::::.. .' �.... ... ... .. .. ..:::...:.. ... . . .......:...:. ::::::.::::.::•s:::•::: s.•:.;•:..?•:x•.. .: : ::..:.'
:;:.�;::.%?t
i:%icG:::�::::`-::::::::::':
:::<::l�ii;c':v
;::''3::><;v. .c i
..:::.:................................................. , ........ • . ..... ..:: ::::•:::: •
....................................................... :::........:::.:::::::::::::::.:.:::.....:::::::.:::::r.ti.. . .....,
........................................................: :::::.:..........................
::•ii:i'<•�i:-:: :::::;:::::::•.,: �':k::::::;� ,. k.'•.:<•:a��r':;.....:... >.:":<'s't?::%��':::•`:?.izv::� ::�::':::::6::' ::E�3`#`0�''6�:..:..:..>:o:.;s::a:;:•>:}.; ....:.
..... ............................
�;;:ii.f....a. . � £c ro:.......:......... ?.::.::::::sti.4::.:'rc::S:�f:�:;� .
......... ......>::::.....:..r.... .....T.......... .... ::............:..: :: f.. ; ......:........................ ...;.•.:.:. ....
FIGURE A.1.1
TRANSFER STATION SURVEY OATA
SITE:
DATE:
SURVEYOR:
PAGE OF
I 1 •
� •
GENERATOR TYPE
Residential Wastes:
0 - Urban Residential, Single-Family
1 - Rural Residential, Single-Family
2 - Residential Self-Haul
3 - Apartments
No�-Residential Wastes
4 - Non-Residential Self-Haul
5 - Retail
6 - Offices
7 - Wholesale/Warehouse
8 - Institutional
9 - Industrial
10 - ConstructioNDemolition
11 - Other/Mixed Non-Residential Wastes
12 - Mixed ResidentiaUNon-Residential
TRUCK TYPE
0 - Rear Packer
1 - Front Packer
2 - Side Packer
3 - Loose Drop Box
4 - Compacted Drop Box
5 - PiCk-Up TruCk
6 - Dump Truck
7- Small Other Truck (less than 2 ton capacity)
8- Large Other Truck (more than 2 ton capacity)
9-Car
10 - Other (identify under Comments)
���� • -
0_-_
0___
0---
�___
�_-_
0_-_
�_-_
0___
m�_�
�___
�___
�_-_
m_-_
�_--
m_--
m_-_
�_--
�_-_
�_-_
�_�-
�_-_
�___
m_-_
���� ' ` ■
�_-_
m___
�_-_
�---
m_-_
�___
�_-_
�_-_
0_-_
m_-_
�-
m_-_
�_-_
m___
m_-_
m___
�_-_
m___
m_-_--
m -_--
�_-_
Ad�le�rdum A: Melbodologiss �di�c B: ���t�iivn S�ud'y
RURAL
ADDENDUM: METHODOLOGY
URBAN
�
�
•
•
s
�
•
:,:.d..., �:..::.;:
..:f : ...<.....
.,�;:
:<:f,.
:::>f::::: >::>::>::>:<:;>::>::;:::::::::: <>::»>:::::»::>::>:: �:;>::;:: >::> ;:»:;::::::>.�::: »>::>:>.«::::;>:<;<:::»>::>:«:»:>:>;:.::»::::<>;»::>::;>:::;:>::>::=:;:>::>:<::>.::h::>:::�:��:.
::>:;::>:>:><:;::: �:: ; � :.:: <::::; �:::::;s;::;:;::::{;;:,, :;: :�:;<:::.:: ::::<.::
,.... .
»>,,.. .��r.,:« . ��:x:::
::rh:3:t>. .�.;s .r..�•�.�>sr3
:>�::;:�'s;:::;:::i_:::::'::;r;: ,.ss:. ...r s:� .�t........
..>....:<:....... �. .'.�....W'.`....�...........
•::f.... ..#. .
: '%3::;:'•:%:�:#�
..?.::: • • :•.
?:�f� :;:;;%r
..............,......::i
A.2 WASTE COMPOSITION PROCEDURES MANiJAL
� A.2.1. Introduction
<:::�,,:
: ,,�.
.�. ..
B-8 �
5
�
i;.:�....,,
� The primary puipose of the Frocedures Manunl was to establish methodologies, def'uutions, and a schedule for the study that
were acceptable to King County staff, SCS Engineers, and subcontractors.
� The following waste streams were examined:
`, • Residential single-famlly urban
• Residential single-family rural
� • Apartment bulldings
• Residential self-haul
� • Total commerciaVindustriaVinstitutional (CII);
• • CommerciaVindustriaVinstitutional self-haul
• Select nonresidential categories
� The effort to determine the composition of King Counry waste was undertaken exclusive of the city of Seaule. Since Seattle
has conducted a number of its own studies, there was no need to duplicate its efforts. Instead, it was dec;ided to combine the results
� of this study and previous Seattle studies to generate countywide data (see Addendum B).
� A Health and Safety Plan was also prepared prior to conducting any field work. The intent of this plan was to provide
guidance in the field should an accident or other incident occur. This plan was also used as an educational tool for the cxeav
+ members. The aew chief reviewed the plan with the sort crew at the start of each quarter and with new aew members before they
were allowed to work. In addition, crew members were required to read the entire Health and Safery Plan.
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
A.2.2 Waste Composition Analysis
A2.2.1 General Approach
The approach was designed to produce acxurate data that is representative of waste as it is disposed by resldents and
businesses in King Counry. Since the ciry of Seattle had previously performed studies of its waste, this study was reshided to waste
from areas of King County outside of Seattle. This approach is consistent with the waste handling system used in King County and
Seattle.
This study ls designed to show seasonal varlation in waste composition and the difference in compositton of waste produced by
a variery of generators. The seasonal variation that this study was designed to address is the difference between wet (winter and
sprin� and dry (summer and fall) seasons. For the rypes of generators, the entire waste stieam was divided lnto six prlmary
substreams; four substreams of the residential waste stream and two nonresidential waste streams. All generators were defined to be
in one of these six substreams so that the results for these substreams could be combined to provide information on the Counry's
total residential waste stream, the total nonresidential waste stream, and the total waste stream (residential and nonresidentialal
combined).
In addition to the six primary waste substreams, the waste disposed by fourteen select nonresldentlal generators was examined.
This effort was conducted to assist with targeting future recycling efforts and to address specif'ic issues such as the presence of special
wastes. The results for the select nonresidential wast�s cannot be combined with the results for the general nonresidential waste
streams due to differences in sample selection methods. For the general nonresidential waste streams, it was necessary to randomly
Addendum A: Methodologr�s
Append'�r B: Wa,ste c�daracterization SYudy
: .�
choose samples to ensure the statistical valldlty of the resulCs. For the select nonresidential waste streams, it was necessary to seek
out and even pre-arrange samples that were representative of the targeted category.
The general process for the waste composition field work involved sampling and sorting for one week at each of two or three
transfer stations. This was done for a total of three weeks (one week at each of three transfer stations) for the two quarters of the
dry season. With the elimination of residential waste samples for the two quarters of the wet season, it was necessary to sample and
sort for only two weeks (a week at each of two transfer stations in the wet season). This schedule led to a total of 569 samples of
waste sorted over the period of one year. Of this total, g6 samples of residential waste, 136 samples of general nonresidential waste
and 337 samples of select nonresidential wastes were sorted.
A2.2.2 Sampling Design, Statistical Analy9s
The goal of the sampling and sorting procedures was to provide waste composition results with a reasonable level of accuracy.
Achieving this goal was contingent upon a number of factors, including:
• Random sampling of loads (for the six primary generators).
• The transfer stations where sampling was conducted are representative of the entire Counry.
• The inherent variabiliry of the waste stream.
• The desired degree of detail and divisions (i.e., number of generators and quarters versus seasons).
• 1'he desired level of confidence (i.e., 90 percent, 95 percent, or other).
• The desired size of confidence interval (the +/- range associated with each result).
• The number of samples taken for each type of generator and each season.
Some of thesse factors were directly addressed through the procedures employed ln the study. In addition, some factors were
interdependent on other factors and were addressed together in the development of the study design. For instance, the desired
confidence level and the size of the confldence interval, taken together with the lnherent variabiliry of the waste stream, determined
the number of samples nceded for each generator and season. Any change in the number of divisions, such as an inaease from two
seasons to four quarters, caused a proportionate increase in the total number of samples needed for the study. The increase in
sample numbers may have been in excess of the budget for the study, causing a reduction in the number of generators (or other
detail) that could be sampled. Thus, the design of a waste composition study was a process of adjusting numbers of generators and
seasons, together with adjustinng targeted contidence levels and inte�vals, to derive a sampling strategy that reflected the goals and
priorities of the Counry.
As a result of the proccesss outlined above, the number of generators and seasonal categories was adjusted to provide accurate
results for six primary waste subsaeams for two seasons, and not to sort the additional samples required to provide data on a
quarterly (four season) basis. Based on the local cllmate, the two seasons chosen for thls study were the wet and dry seasons. These
seasons were defined to be of equal length (six months), and the months included in each season were based on mean monttily
temperatures and ratnfall in King Counry.
An important element of the study design was the random sampling of loads for the six categories of primary generators.
Although the numbers of samples at each ��ansfer starion were predetermined and the choice of transfer stattons was llmited by
practical considerations, the actual loads which were sampled were randomly chosen from the incoming vehicles that met the criteria
for specific types of generators. The number of samples at each station was initially established based on the amount of waste of
that rype estunated to be delivered there.
The inherent variability of the waste streams was determined by examining raw data from a recent study done in the Portland
area Based on the Portland data, the number of samples to achieve the desired level of accuracy for each of the waste streams was
Appendir B: Waste Cb�aracterixation Sludy Addendum A: Me�idologr�s
�
•
•
•
�
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�..• :.i{N.ti' ':.C itit '�ifii :••;vq�y �i�' i<'f •
•.\�f�y:+:.��.i.� A:•x�fk �vi...:n�F,•:.vw•.i\\•hv`�.•:tivti.;..ti.l.�/,.,•.•r.;jSCS::Y;n�. .. \.}�...,, ::C:�:A, n.\;.•?i'. �..:;r: p •.
� .+.',\..,•..{.,..;;.:.; . ..>;...:.:•:� i:i�';:.r.{i:ti'��iS}:r::+?+i: } ii•v;};,Y.,v;:•{:.:.•.::':+\.. { ;•,�.v; {, •: ;..�...'}:hv:.�.•:t.'v,:r..: {...+F�..''�. 4:.. � �. JJ�i.
r \ • ,�.. . ....: . f : .. t . . : . ..: .. . t t.� .,..,, , , .r ... rl , , .. .. �, k� �`..'}' •' � r . .. M ..
,�. �L. �'LS.�>. , • :.t;.?.,:.k`:.°•::;Zn;;f)r,;s•.,,.,•:i:;�;t';;"',�,«'°°°t,:�jfj>r,w°,r,r,$2?C,�+.;::�'i5;�5:2�;2'�t,E;Ytt.,�0�',S,w�!:k�.,.`•9??;.,,.,`�i,�.,',�cc#c�R;.''t��'�;:,•�+C,',�{.�?i2.:�,f�„ B O�
...�::.�. . : x.�:.:�',:� .Fs�. ..?� ............................. .
�<..<� � .:� . �. ..:::,.
... .�«:�.... .. ..,>..... . .:,,�:::r:::..
..4.. ;n>::: ::•........ .r:n::::!. •::w•:: +•..:::::.
.. t ..........
>:: •: •, .. .. , • •: : :•,..•. •:::... .::: •:::.: �:;:>:::: ....... ;..:.::.::. ...•: :•:::: ... • •... . . .
..t.. .. .../i.a:....
. . ..t...•..:........•f:::::...,..•:.�.:..�::::s::<:�a:r.• :.... ................::::.::..:: •• :::....... ...k,.�.�:
... �:;.,.;:.ti.::
•:�`.•:+.5::. :::::.....:::: t,..::.:: k:::::::.: �::..•:::::.......f.......t.....,...............,........................... .
ini�ally set at 20 samples per seasoa Analysis of the results from the first quarter of sorting led to the oonclusion that additional
samples were necessary for residential self-haul and for total CII to achieve the desired level of accuracy.
For the fourteen select nonresidential waste streams, the number of samples was chosen to provlde results with statlstical
se
ac.cuuracy only on an annuai basis. The number of additional samples required to determine ff a difference exists betvveen wet and
dry season waste composition for these generators was considered to be eaccessive. For the select nonresidentiaal generators, the initial
target was 30 samples spread throughout the year. This is a larger number than the prlmary generators because the results must be
able to stand alone. The data for the prlmary generators will be combined in varlous ways to provide increasingly more precise
information about the entlre ressidential, nonresidential, and total county waste streams.
A.2.2.3 Residential Samples
Samples from the following substrearns of residentlal waste were sorted:
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
�
• Single-family urban
• Single-family rural
• Apartments
• Self-haul
These substreams were sampled during the dry season (summer and fall quarters) only. Due to the simllarity of the results
for King Counry compared to other areas, county staff decided that it was not necessary to conduct further sampling of the residential
waste streams during the wet season
The division between urban and rural was based on new (1990) information from King County. This division was of
particulaz importance to King County due to its responsibility to provide many of the basic services in the unincorporated (rural)
areas. Self-haul was restricted to residential generators who haul their own waste to a transfer station, including landlords cleaning
up rental properry. Homeowners hauling oonstruction and demolition waste from remodeling and other projects at residences was
a.Lso included in this category.
A.2.2.4 Nonresidential Samples
The following subsaeams were sampled and sorted:
Genera.l commercial, industrial, and institutional ("total CII")
CII self-haul
Fourteen select nonresidential generators
Compositlon data were collected for the wet and dry seasons for the two primary waste substreams: the general commercial,
industrial, and jnstitutional ( "tota.l CII "), and nonresidential self-hauL The total CII waste stream is the waste collected from
nonresidential generators by garbage haulers and other third-party transpoctecs. T'hese two substreams, with quanaty information on
the same basis, provide data on the wmposition of the County's entire nonresidential waste stream. The select nonresidential
generaiors were a separate effort and were not examined at a level of effort required to provide data on seasonal variations.
The list of select nonresidential generators, and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code to which the businesses
belongs, is shown below:
• 20 - food and klndred producis
• 24 - lumber and wood products
Adderadum A: Metbodologies
Ap�iendix B: Waste Cbiaracterrizatfon Study
� ..
• 27 - printing and publishing
• 45 - air transportation; airports, flying fields, and terminals only
• SO - wholesale, durable goods
• 51 - wholesale, nondurable goods
• 52 - bullding matedal and garden supplies
• 53 - general merchandise stores
• 54 - food stores
• 58F - "fast food" restaurants
• 58S - "sit-down" restaurants
• 70 - hotels and other lodging
• SOC - health seivices; clinia, o�ices, and nursing homes
• 80H - hospitals
The sampling procedure for the select waste streams depended upon finding "pure loads" from which samples could be taken
Samples for some rypes of generators were difficult to procure beca,use they are almost never �llected in the form of a pure load that
wuld be sampled easily. This problem especially lmpacted 58F (fast food restauran�) and 80C (clinics). Most of the businesses ln
these two categories are small generators who have their waste collected by the same truck that collects from other businesses, thus
resulting in a mixed load that could not be sampled for the select nonresidenpal generators.
To alleviate the problems associated with relying on pure loads, a local waste hauler was engaged to deliver small loads from
select nonresidential generators. In July, nineteen dumpsters were individually brought to the Renton Transfer Station to supplement
the samples that had been collected through pure loads. Later it was concluded that this approach was unnecessary (and
prohibitively expensive) due co experience that was gained the first quarter in locating appropriate samples.
A.2.2.5 Sorting Categories and Definitions
Waste samples from all of the types of generators were sorted into 35 primary categories and 35 subcategories. The sorting
form used for reoording this lnformation is shown in Figures A2.1 and A2.2. The front side of this form (Figure A2.1) shovus the
35 main categories. The entire sample was sorted into these categories. As shown on the back side of the sorting form �Figure
A2.2), additional u�formation was wllected for wood, CDL wastes, hazardous and special wast�s, tires, white goods, and other wastes.
In addition to data on the weight of a material in the sample, the number of tires, white goods, bottles, and beverage and
aerosol cans was aLso recorded. It should be noted that the accuracy associated with some of these data is quite low. This is
especially true for the hazardous and special wastes, and for other materials that occurred infrequently. However, it was felt that
these data would still be of some interest despite the low level of accuracy.
Def'uutions for the sorting categories are shown in the glossary.
A2.2.6 Sofing Methodology
SCS staff arrived on site at approxirnately 7:45 A.M. each day to organize and set up the waste-sorting equlpmenk Equipment
consisted of the following:
• Sort Ba�. A box of plywood construction (approximately 6 ft x 3 ft x 1 ft deep) with a wire mesh faLse bottom that has 0.5-inch
openings. The wire mesh allows fines to fall through onto the plywood bottom for easy wllectioa Most waste was put into thls box
for sorting, but some samples were "floor-sorted" because they consisted primarily of large, bulky items or "pure loads" that were
easily separated without using the box.
Appe�tdix B: Waste CGaracten:zalio�t StudY Adde�ulum A: M�bdo%gi�s
�
�
.
�
�
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�i ,�} . ' t .:., +�,/:r;•• ;•.r.;:; ,,., ^.'c<c'w�S»tiCi:C.:•. :YYs ;'�,... • ::?�.'•9F9iir?1r9k;5.^,.^,c;v',::.�;2 :2?: �:x;�.;;Y;; ;.�::Y;?:}:,:.:o2{<t±;'+C.:':� ' • ;'h'n+.;, •%:�{`':i�Yf,wc?<:;+;;g+.`�S,,yWY y,:
:�2.. !+: �.$..t..,...�,.. �..fir ' S r k. ^ . � .. • i0�t '
..... w..:� . :.. ......... k,,, :..:•:+x;•:• •• •:•;•� • .::..•: :.:: .. . •; • r• • r.:> �:•,.•;::•::•>.,+::. •• :•::::: �:•:4� ..f. . .:,::::. :.�`.'�•t::•: ' :?kK::ot r:.,•. � �'k2 ;t... p f ,,
:: ::?•!.}••:: {hv�i:::{•::•i%�'•:}::n•:ir. r .x;., w: :f •A.v •. �:::?r. •: •:x:.:'::: • v;.;•rr:. •.'�-.v..:+:n.;v .,..?;:;.• 4;r.:.:: 4• .... . . Y 4 �
• :.f•.t�'�,o, ,'.t y. : ..: k:•: �r.'•i�: x.:::+}.,,.: ... a{ • � : T' k?? .:•f; :.., .,.,L�t`. �.. vnc4�' .:t?�:?:r t:.�, , t .wv'<;� ti C.rr� :} •:
:<:;�:<:<�.::,:.:r�<..;:::,��. ��;::�<>,<.... �...,; :f . �. .�..�..v�:. ....:r:�:;�::«.._.�::..�.,� n�..:�..:��::..., �...��.�:.�:..: . .:�. ..... B
:h..:::: �:?•.r.v ..v....frl.•Y..........CnFirvv:�:�:}"�i+Y.��:::::.v.:':??;?+iP:tr:if.v • . \\ :v .:............ . ...'..C''v .x 4 ::�.�y:.:::
\ ................ �.� :
..• .............�...?.............::...::•::::r............:.............:....................::::::...,.....:::::........:....:;.•::..:::::::.:•r:::•::::..t•t.....: . � :;t;.
.......vv:v.:� :::::::::::::n.f..nv.}r..;;{..;.;......vw::x::::::::.i•:x:: •: ••v: w::: •{Giw:...........;..v.�:::::::}�::+x: :v:.•:: �`.:•.v�. •:::x::v...x.::..}. �
tiSi:}ii::? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::n.x..:x.n::::�.•.•......................nnvv.n....n ...xm:::::.. .........r . xx. { .... �.n�t........r.r........r.•::::v.•.•:.•.•.i..v.r. .... n::
• 7tcn Scales. One scale had a lo�r range, 0 to 20 pounds, and read in smaller increments (ounces) for weighing the waste
materiaJs present in smaller quantities. The other scale had a larger cange, 0 to 100 pounds by quarter-pound lncrements, and
lower accuracy, about +/- 0.5 pounds under fleld conditions, for wastes present in larger quantitles.
• Approxinsately 50 Plastrc ?3�ash Cans. These cans seNed as containers for the different categories of waste sorted from each
sample. 1�vo sizes were used: 30-gallon conta,i�ners for the larger quantl�es of matertais and smaller wntainers, 2.5 gallon in slze
for wastes found in smaller quantities. Tare weights were measured at the start of sorting, and then periodically cher�ed during the
sorting period.
• Si.�ovel and Push Broom. Used for site cleanup.
• Safety Equrpment. Safety equipment present at the site at all times during the sorting period included a 6rst-aId kit, 8re
extingulshers, hard haLs, orange vLsibillry vests, gloves, eye protection, and dust masks. New glrnes and dust masks were issued to the
sort-crew members at the start of each day and replaced throughout the day as necessary.
Vehlcles were randomly chosen for the six general categories of waste generators. For the seled nonresidential generators, any
pure load falling within the desired category was sampled, unless sufficient samples had already been taken in that category at that
transfer station. In all cases, the driver was interviewed as to the type of waste, the location where the waste was collected, and
whether there were any unusual aspects to the load.
At two of the transfer stations, incoming vehicles with loads to be sampled were directed to a special dpping area, At the
Houghton Transfer Station, sampling of larger loads had to be done from the dumping pit due to the lack of space on the floor.
Smaller vehicles at Houghton were directed to dump their loads near the sorting area.
Counry personnel and equipment were used to procure a sample (200 to 300 pounds of the load) and place it onto the floor
or ground near the sort area Where a hard surface was not available at the site, plastic sheeting was placed below the sample to
maintain sample integrity.
Actual waste sorting proceeded as follows:
• Discrete items, such as bags of yard waste or large pieces of carpeting, were removed and weighed d'u�ectly or placed lnto a
conta.iner for weighing. �
• The remaining sample was picked up and placed in the sort box until the box was full.
• Plastic bags of waste placed into the sorting box were torn open and crew members segregated each item of waste, placing it in
the correct plastic garbage can.
• The above steps were repeated until the entire sample was sorted. The crew used their best efforts to retain and sort all of the
sample, including fines that might otherwise be lost on the tloor.
• At the completion of sorting, all sorted wastes were weighed using the appropriate scale.
• Weighing was acc:omplished by one cxew member placing the garbage cans on a scale while the sort-cxew leader read and
recorded the gross and tare weights of the garbage cans on the SCS Field Sort Form (see Figures A2.1 and A2.2). Calculation of net
weights were conducted later, in the office, and not in the field. After each garbage can was weighed, it was emptied into the
dumping pit
• While the containers were being weighed, two aew members removed the �ines that fell through the sc,reen, placed them in a
garbage can for weighing, and then prepared the sorting area for the next sample.
T'he sorting procedure was repeated for up to 12 samples each day. In addition to the health and safety training that they
received, a�ew members were provided with training on sorting materials and the definitions being used for materlals, the site layout,
the value of working as a team, and the step-by-step process for sorting each sample.
Addendum A: Metbodologi�s Apperulir B: Wa,ste C6r�racteri.zation Stur,�y
n
u
� '1
�
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... �
�
�
A.2.2.7 Sorting Locations and Schedule
Sorting was conducted at two to three sites for five days each site. In the dry season, sorting was done Tuesday through
Saturday to encompass one day of the weekend. This was done to enable representative sampling of residential self-haul loads, which
are the primary user of the transfer stations on weekends. In the wet season, when residential samples were no longer being sorted,
the schedule was changed to Monday through Friday to allow a better selection of the commercialloads.
After visits to the transfer stations and eacamination of usage data by rype of vehicle and generator, it was concluded by SCS
Engineers that the following three transfer stations were the best ones for sampling and sorting purposes:
Bow Lake Transfer Station
Houghton Transfer Station
Renton Transfer Station
Bow Lake Transfer Station was chosen as a sampling location because It has the most room for working under the canopy
and receives a variery of oommercial waste loads. 1'he work area for sorting was the north corner, on the commercial vehicle side.
The Houghton Transfer Station was chosen because of the large amount and the variety of waste that Is recelved at this slte.
1�orking conditions at this site were hindered by the lack of space, but the sorting crew was able to set up north of the bullding
about 50 yards away. A tent was used for covering the work area. Samples were brought to, and sorted materials removed by, a
front-end loader or backhce. Samples were placed on tarps laid on the ground, to avoid loss of fines and/or contamination of the
sample. In wet or wlndy conditions, the samples were also covered wlth a tarp.
The Renton Transfer Station was chosen because it is the best option out of the remaining three available stations. Space at
the Algona Transfer Station is more limited. The Fust Northeast Transfer Station has lesss available space than Renton due to higher
usage, and it receives a mix of vehicles that is heavily biased toward privately licensed vehicles.
Renton receives the least amount of waste of all of the County's transfer stations, but a better mix of vehicles gces to Renton
than to Fust Northeast or Algona transfer stations. Renton aJso receives some rural residential loads that were diff cult to find
elsewhere. The sorting work area is northwest of the southernmost pit. No heary equipment was necessary at this site, since the
proposed work area Is adjacent to the pit, and the grappling claw was able to grab and place samples as needed.
Figure A23 shows the sampling schedule that was used for all four quarters at all transfer stations. As can be seen in this
figure, the schedule varied from quarter to quartec These variattons were created in part by differenca in sampllng needs for each
quarter and in part by experience that was gained in discovering what rypes of generators used which transfer stations more hea�+ily.
The initial sampling strategy was based on an analysis of the vehicle usage of each transfer station where sorting was to take
place. Data available from King Counry indicated the number of privately licensed vehicles, the number of larger self-haul vehicles,
and the number of garbage trucks. Based on the percentage distribution of these vehicles, samples were assigned to the three transfer
stations. For instance, the distribution of residential self-haul was based on the counry data for privately licensed vehicles. Other
assumptions that were made to prorate the samples are shown on the table.
A.2.3. Data. Base Management S�stem
A.2.3.1 Introduction
For data base management and calculations, an R:Base program was employed. The use of R:BASE SY�TEM V provided a
number of advantages, Including:
Appeitdix B: Waste Claaracterizatio�t stud`y
Addendum A: Me�bdologi�s
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
... .:.... .. ..•...........;; ..;; ....; .; .:...........:..:...:: ..;:.... .. ......... .::::r:::::r•: :...:.. :..•: :.._:: - .,-...•: v:: •: •: •: ::.: •: •::::.� :::.� ............:.......\::.}}v..r ....{L'.:•:'v'Jr,:'fir':G:L�' L{ t t?:;�j
�.v,J.A• x •.LLL..YC.» {�.. ��:{ {{{��v::.v: • � •:�Sj ��v.v. �r:�::n�?��},ii::n ':f:++.-.•::.
�$>ii�'i'. . $ }�riai:K v. �i 3i:4:{�i�'.�f.w:x^::u,�.,�r,•.',.�,'.�,'.,�',{{{:.�.:::1..:::::::�•iii.S�•xSL'njr'.� ..\. ;yv::;i :......:: .... .
....... . k.Y�.�M' '.�.{��+.,.. .:... \\.. v.::
.."4:Xf ..........�. . : ..r. ::rr:r,:r.....: .x. :v.:.. �.:..x:�....:: ...�:..... . . .
+i}}i::i::iii:::i:�::�
..... . .. ...v.....v6::Fw.w :::::::::::::m::: :v:::::::::::::::::::::::: w::i:::Tii::i:.�:.�:::::::i:-i:::0iiiiiiii:::::::::::i:::::.�::::::::i:::::::: 4}iii::..v...:.. :i4i:•::•:i:
:r J �
?:i}�:i�::��''%Ch..::v: i:i}rii:i:ti:
:�i.�$:•i: v:?v?�n�:L. 'tiJ:
......... ?vnvvw::::. •• ...........................................................v.......
�:4J �:i::::i::u�
;•;,}v, ;; ............ . . . . . ..............
.•:•::.::•:::::.::.:�:�:�:::•:r!x::.:::<...::.�:::?•:.,:::::•::o:•:•co-:••:o:>:>r:•::cr.::?::.>:.::.::.;:>:a::.::;.:•�:::•>::�•:4::�':•::::�::�::?:::.':::::.:;.::::;:•:::•:: 4.. .....t .rx ..r...... . •.}t
..<..<�.t::..::...:«;,..:�:.:,..:<.r.:.::.:.:.....::.<.::::::::...,:<w:::>... :::::.:::.:.....,. ..:,::::::::.::.:::.:::::::,: ..:}r.,:.::::.:.:::::::..r::.,: B 1 ..,{..��.
:.::<.:,.,.: n:.<.,t.��... � ....................,..............::.....................:.:::::.:::.::.::::ry:.::.::>.::..................... �v :..�..>:.:....:�.:...,..:. 9
..........::::. :>. >...
..n.
• .. .......
;•
•
!
�
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
• Its availabllity due to prevlous work done by SCS in the Portland area The Portland program only needed minor modiflcations
for it to be used for King County, thus reducing program development costs for the County.
• Its abllity to handle the requlred calculations and the large amount of raw data.
• Its flexibility in selecting, manlpulating, and reporting the data based on variable data selection aiteria
A.2.3.2 Basic Operations
All data for thls project were managed wlthjn the R:BASE system. A menu-driven R:BASE applicatton was used to enter, edit,
select, and report the waste characterization data. Table A2.1 shows the main menu for this program. For most of the options
shown in the main menu, subsequent menus allowed choices such as new input versus revislons to e�sting data.
Option 1 allovus the data to be managed by season. The next level of this menu option allows the user to choose to input
new data or to change/delete existing data. To choose either, the next level of this option requests the user to def'me a time period
(rypically one to tWro months) which corresponds to a particular quarter and season. The defu►ition of time periods allows the
sample data, added later through other menu options, w be automatically categorized for quarter and season based on its date.
Option 2 establishes the SIC codes for the select nonresidential samples. The first level of this option (after the main menu)
allows the user to choose w input new or change/delete existing data. For new data, users start with a blank table to fill in. For
changing or deleting existing data, the user is allowed to modify the e�sting list of SIC codes by adding or deleting codes and
descriptions (such as 58F = fast food restaurants).
Option 3 allows the user to establish the numerical codes used for vehicle rypes. With thLs option, the rype of vehicle from
which a particular sample was wllected needs only be entered (see options 4 and 5) using a number from 0 to 9, and the R:Base
system will automatically print out the name of the rype of vehicle (i.e., "loose drop or "rear packer") along with the other
sample data.
Option 4 of the main menu is for inputting sample data. The first level of this menu option requests complete information
for each sample. Data includes: sample identif'ication number (the number SCS assigned to the sample for accounting purposes);
the date the sample was taken; the site where it was taken (two-letter abbreviation for the transfer station); the rype of vehicle the
sample was taken from (numerical c�de from 0 to g); and additional comments on the source of the waste.
Option 5 provides the flexibiliry of modifying or deleting data entered thmugh option 4.
Option 6 allows the user to enter data on the total weight of waste from a specific generator for a spec�ic quarter (e.g.,
residential self-haul for the summer season). The R:Base system uses this information to calculate weighted means for different waste
streams and/or different quarters; it is also used for calculating the weigh�s of di�erent materials and the percentage distribution of
materials in different waste streams.
Option 7 allows the user to print sample data in several different wa}�. Options available for printing sample data lnclude all
samples, all samples for a specific quarter, one sample only, or a specified range of samples.
Option 8 leads to a variety of cholces for printing reports. Choosing option 8 from the main menu leads to a secondary
menu (see Table A2.2) that represents the primary output of the R:Base system. In subsequent levels of this option, the user can
choose the desired oombination of seasons and waste streams.
Option 9 returns the user to the DOS operating system for the computer.
Addendum A: Metbodologies �ndix B: Waste CGaracterixr�tiort Study
B - 92
A.2.4. Resulti.ng Sample Numbers Per Generator
A.2.4.1 Introduction
Table A2.3 shows the number of samples collected for each of the primary generators and the total number sortQd for the
select nonresidential generators. To summarize, a total of 569 samples of waste were sorted, includtng:
• 96 samples of residential waste
• 136 samples of general nonresidential waste
• 337 samples of select nonresidential wastes
A.2.4.2 Select Nonresidential Generators
The sampling procedure for the select nonresidential waste streams depended upon finding "pure loads" from which samples
could be taken. Pure loads are loads of waste that are from a single buslness or single type of business.
The results of this study are potentially biased towards the larger generators for each of the categories, since the waste
produced by smaller generators is rypically collected along with waste from other types of generators and ls not available in the form
of a pure load. Thls problem especially impacted 58F (fast food restaurants) and 80C (cllnlcs). Most of the businesses in these two
categories are small generators who have their waste oolleded by the same truck that collects from other buslnesses, thus resulting in
a mixed load that could not be sampled for the select nonresidential generators.
The difficulty in finding pure loads prevented the target number of samples from being achieved for some generators. For
instance, only three samples were taken for SIC 27 (printing and publishin�. SIC 27 was initially chosen as one of the categories to
be sampled, but early in the first quarter it became evident that it would be difficult to locate samples for this category and so it was
replaced by SIC 24 (wood and lumber products). In the winter quarter, the opportuniry to procure two addltional samples for SIC 27
presented itself so the samples were taken to provide approximate data for this category.
Shortly after the start of waste sampling, it was decided that SIC 45 should be solely Sea-Tac International Ai�port. Although
samples from other airports could have been taken, it was determined that this category should focus on Sea-Tac Ai�port to provide
good information about this one facllity, rather than attempt to characterize many small aiiporls along with the one maln airport.
The number of samples taken for each of the select nonresidential generators is shown in Table A2.4. As discussed above,
samples were difficult to find for some of the categories. The low number of samples for SIC 27 (printing and publishin�, SIC 58F
(fast food restauran�) and SIC 80C (other health senriccess), causes a wider confidence interval (higher level of uncertainty) to be
associated with their results. This problem varies from material to material for these waste streams, depending upon the frequency of
occurrence of the material and variability with which it occurs.
�pertddx B: Waste C�baraderizatlon Study Adderulum A: M�ogi�s
:.}v{•:rr i:ti?•::;:; �:ir:;: >�ii:•:=i:�i:�i: i:iiS;i:itiii'riii.'•:�i:�i:iiS�i::f:J+�:i�:i�:i_:'•i>5: iiii::'rii'ri:�i:}::�iii:L�:`v':S�iii'r'ri:�i:'v�iii:�i:'vii'rii:'L�ii'i.'i�iii:L�: ir:i:� �i';i:�:j;iii:j
•:`2ri:ui;v;:'{''.Yj:,'�iti,v,i'r,::?.:>.i<>.i^`:>.i�i'r'i:i'r
,<v:% «WN:;;:: � y;:; �:::;M:;i:::.i;:;:#z::;<;;:?.'iic:;,:.:�:�:` r::::;;:�;::<?z::i:,:;;<�:::#�:?;:'::�? :.::......: ...:..: .:.........::::: .: .....: .....::::: .::::: .
...:!:o:::...,............................,...v. .............u......
FIGURE A.2.1
KING COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
FIELD SORT FORM
SAMPLE ID:
SITE DATA
Date Time
Recorder
Site
VEHICLE DATA
Type:
Company:
LiC. No.
Other:
SOURCE (CIRCLE ONE;
Res
Self—Haul
Singfe—Family, Urban
Single—Family, Rural
Apartment
Source:
Census Tract:
COMMENTS
BOTTLE AND CAN COUNT
BOTTLES Soda Beer Other
Ctear Glass
Green Giass
�Amber Giass
� PEf
HDPE
� Aluminum
' Bi-Metal
Adderulum A: rNe,�bodologl�s
Commercial/Ind/Inst
Self-Naui
Total CII
Select:
+.�<iL
� :>i.'•}.:�i .
B
9
3
1. Provide additional detail on the back of this form for these wastes.
2. Provide further detail on these materials under Comments.
3. Show bottle and can count by contents.
�ppeudir e: Wa�sA� Cbama�lxalYnn Study
B- 4
9
FIGURE A.2.2
ADDITIONAL DETAIL
KING COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
A�ppendir B: Waste Cbrwac�errratan S1udy Addendum A Meldrlol
�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�
�
a
3
�
�
�
FIGURE A.2.3
SAMPLING SCHEDULE AND LOCATIONS
NOTES: Fewer days are shown for the wet season because less sampling was conducted, due to eHmination of residential samples.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
�
�
�
; B-
9
6
TABLE A.2.1
King County Waste Characterization Study
Main Menu for R:Base System
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
��)
�
�
SEASONS DATA
SIC DATA
VEHICLE TYPES DATA
INPUT SAMPLE DATA
CHANGE/DELETE SAMPLE DATA
QUARTERLY WEIGHTS DATA
PRINT SAMPLE DATA
PRINT OTHER REPORTS
EXIT SYSTEM
TABLE A.2.2
(1)
�2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
��)
King County Waste Characterization Study
Secondary Menu for Option 8, Printing Other Reports
NON-ZERO SAMPLE COUNTS
UNWEIGHTED MEAN REPORT - 1 SEASON/ALL RES/COMM
UNWEIGHTED MEAN REPORT - MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE SIC
WEIGHTED MEAN REPORT - MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE STREAM
WEIGHT SUMMARY BY MATERIAL - 1 SEASON/ALL RES/COMM
BOTTLE/CAN COUNT - MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE STREAM
BOTTLE/CAN COUNT SIC - DETAIL/MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE SIC
A�rdEr B: I�aste Cbaradenzado�t Study Adderrdum A: Metbrlologiss
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
a
�
�
a
�'
�
�
�
TABLE A.2.3
NUMBER OF SAMPLES PER GENERATOR TYPE PER QUARTER
GENERATOR TYPE
Residential Generators
Urban Single-Family
Rural Single-Family
Apartments
Residential Self-Haul
Subtotal, Residential
Nonresidential Generators
Total CII
Nonresidential Self-Haui
Subtotal, Nonresidential
Select Nonresidential (2)
(1UARTERLY TOTALS
DRY SEASON SAMPLES
Summer Fall Subtotal
WET SEASON SAMPLES
Winter S rin ubtotal
TOTALS
10 10 20
10 9 19
10 11 21
17 19 36
47 49 96
14
12
26
91
164
32
8
40
76
165
46
20
66
167
329
NOTES: 1. No residential waste samples were taken in winter or spring.
2. For detail on number of samples by SIC code, see Table A.2.4.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
0 (1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 17 47
13 10 23
43 27 70
77 93 170
120 120 240
20
19
21
36
96
93
43
136
337
569
Cd
�
x:}i :t:v:
��'� .:.:
x`:�:z•`•.
co
�
�
�
�
TABLE A.2.4
NUMBER OF SAMPLES PER SIC PER QUARTER
SELECT BUSINESS
SIC 20; Food and Kindred Products
SIC 24; Lumber and Wood Products
SIC 27; Printing and Publishing
SIC 45; Sea-Tac Airport
SIC 50; Wholesale Durable Goods
SIC 51; Wholesale Nondurable Goods
SIC 52; Building and Garden Supplies
SIC 53; General Merchandise Stores
SIC 54; Food Stores
SIC 58F; Fast Food Restaurants
SIC 58S; Sit-Down Restaurants
SIC 70; Hotels
SIC SOH; Hospitals
SIC 80C; Other Heatth Services
TOTALS
Summer Qtr.
9
5
1
8
7
9
7
6
8
6
7
6
8
4
91
Fail tr.
6
11
0
7
8
5
5
4
6
3
4
8
6
3
76
Winter Qtr.
3
8
2
8
6
7
4
7
9
2
7
7
3
4
77
Snrins� Gltr.
6
11
0
10
9
8
8
9
9
3
5
7
5
3
93
NOTES: 1. These categories, with less than 20 samples, may have less accuracy associated with the waste composition results.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
TOTALS
24
35
3 (1)
33
30
29
24
26
32
�4 (i)
23
28
22
14 (1)
337
,
• • � • • • • • • • � • • • • . • � • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • �
C �
�
��
•
•
a
s
•
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
::.�w�v:t.
�:::.�:::z:�,::
:.:� ::::.::::.::.:::::.:.:.:::::.::.:.::.:::::.:::::::.::.::::>.:;:::.::.::::.::.::::::,:::::::;� :;::.::::::.:;.::.::.::::.:::::.::.::::.:::::.:::::::::.::.:.::.:::.::.,.::::::.:::.::::::.::.:::.:.::.::;..:.;:.:.;.:::::: :.;:::::.;;..;.: .
::.�>:..:<zb:>:;::�:.:.:<o:<z<:;.'w�,�:...::+;:;<t:?�3.... -. . :.: :.:
::.:. .... •
���:�:�.:.<,�.��� f.:v> : 4 ;;;,.>,<:: ;::>:: � :>;::><:::::::�::�::>:�::�:::.:;.:::> ::::::::::::::: »�::::<»:>:, ::»>:<:::>:::<:� ::>::;:>:::> ::::>:: >::::,:: ; ::>::>:::; �;<::><::::: :<:�:;.:;.:: ::.>::;.:: : <;>.�. .. ...: ..: .. : .
.,: ,.:;:;; : : : : : : < : : . .
:. > > : : : : ..: : : : : : � : : : : : :.. _ : .
:�:>�� :.:;..: :::>:::::>�.:;:>
«::.:���>:::::
:«<: �::::.::.:::.::.;>:.;::;:.:::>::>:::;:.;:.:;::.::�;:.;>::.<.::.;:.>:::::::.>:<.;::::»::::<:><:<:;:::;::::;:::>:::>::>::>:::<::«:;:::;::>:::::::<:::>::>::::::>::::>::�<�:>;:::<:>:::;::<::<;>:::::�:::«:::»::>:::::;>::::::;::<:> , „�,;.:�:>.
..,..,. ,:r:...
iii::.;;:�;'�'r,.`.;:<::if.:.+;:fiia:��::'<i::;r;::.Yv:;�:2:;:::%:4.:::;:;!;rg;+'r,.:::;:;e; � ..................:4';.':'y''::':"::''.':.'.':'::::':..'::
Addendum B
Combined City/County Data
:�.::
�.�::
�::
:n�....
B-
99
r��:
B.1 IlVTRODUCTION
The puipose of this addendum is to combine data from the Seattle Waste Stream Compositlon Study (Matrlx et al., 198g)
with the result� from this report to derive estimates of the countywide waste quantities and composiuon.
B.2 WASTE QUANTITIES, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED
Based on previous studies conducted for the ciry of Seattle (Matrix et al., 1989), waste quantities in King Counry inclusive of
the city of Seattle were derived and are shown in Table B.1. No rural residential waste is shown for Seattle because the entire city is
defined as urban.
Since the Seattle data dces not separate residentlal waste quantities produced by single-family residential from multifamlly
(apartment) waste generators, the data for King County had to be adjusted to combine multifamlly data and single-famlly data This
was done by proraiing the waste quantities for multifamily units into the County's urban and rural single-family categories based on
the estimated percentage of multifamily housing units in each area It is estimated that 81.5 percent of all multifamlly units are
located in urban areas versus 18.5 percent in rural (PSCOG, 1g88). 'I'hls approach assumes the same waste generation rate for each
person in an apartment regardless of the urban or rural location of the apartment building.
Table B.1 also shows the percentage that each type of generaror contributes to the indlvidual waste saeams of King Counry
and Seattle. For instance, urban residential waste (including the prorated portion of multifamily waste) repressents 31.0 percent of the
County's total waste stream, exclusive of the ciry of Seattle. In Seattle, urban residential generators (again including multifamlly)
dispose of 36.0 percent of the city's waste.
The third column for both King County and the ciry of Seattle shovus the percent of that rype of waste that is contributed by
each municipality. For instance, Table B.1 shows that urban residential waste generators in King County dispose of 59•6 Percent of
the total amount of urban residential wastes. By defuution, waste generators in the ciry of Seattle dispose of the remaining 40.4
percent As mentioned above, the city of Seattle is shown as disposing of no rurat residential wast�s because the entire city is detlned
as an urban area.
B.3 WASTE COMPOSITION, KING COUNTY AND SEATTI.E COMBINED
Tables B.2, B.3 and B.4 combine the waste composition data for King Counry with the results of a waste wmposltion study
conducted for the ciry of Seattle (Matrix et al., 1g89) to provide data on the counrywide residential, nonresidential, and total waste
stream waste composition. The waste wmposition data for both King Counry and Seattle were determined through sampling at thelr
respective transfer stations. The data in both cases are "as disposed" figures, eaccept that the Seattle self-haul data include recyclable
and oompostable materlals brought separately to the ciry's transfer statlons.
A number of adjustments were necessary to allow King County and Seattle data to be combined. These adjustments include
the following: �
� Addendum B: Combin� City/County L1ata Appe�ul'xx B: Waste Cdaracten:ratror� Study
�
�:�:::: B - 100
• Plastic film and other plastic packaguig were not separately measured by the Seattle study; however, the defuution for plastic
packaging used for the Seattle study 1s essentially the same as for these two materials combined. Hence, the values for King County
for plastic film and other plastic packaging have been combined into a single category ("plastic packaging") in Tables B.2, B3, and
B.4.
• The Seattle study measured recyclable glass oontainers based on the rype of beverage or food for which they had been used, while
the King County results are shown by color. All of these categodes have been combined as"recyclable glass" ln Tables B.2, B.3, and
B.4.
• Some materials measured by the Seattle study have been combined to yield categories oomparable to this study. This was done
for "other ferrous" (which combines Seattle's bi-metal cans, white goods, and other ferrous), and wnstcuc�tioNdemolltion waste
(which combines six categories from the Seattle study).
• Other materiaJs not measured by the Seattle study are simply shown as "NA" (Not Available). These materials lnclude fines,
furniture, miscellaneous organia, and miscellaneous inorgania.
The weightsd composition averages shown in Tables B.2, B.3, and B.4 are based on the waste quantities shown in Table B.1.
Append�r B: Waste Cfaaracterization Sludy Addeiidum B: Comba�d Crly/County Iaata
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�
�
�
�
�
�
00
�
�
TABLE B.1
WASTE QUANTITIES, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED
KING COUNTY (1) SEATTLE (2)
GENERATOR TYPE Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
Tons Countv's Waste Waste Stream Tons Citv's Waste Waste Stream TOTAL TONS
Residential Generators�
Urban Residential 265,400 tons
Rural Residential 85,300
Residential Self-Haul 158,900
Subtotal, Residential Waste 509,600
Nonresidentiai Generators
Total CII 257,500 tons
Nonresidential Self-Haul 87,700
Subtotal, Nonresidential Waste 345,200
TOTALS
31.0 %
t 0.0
18.6
59.6
30.1 %
10.3
40.4
854,800 tons 100.0 �/o
59.6 �/0 180,000 tons 36.0 9�
100.0 NA 0.0
74.1 55,500 11.1
68.4 235,500 47.1
52.7 9io 230,800 tons 46.2 %
72.5 33,300 6.7
56.7 264,100 52.9
NA 499,600 tons 100.0 �/o
NOTES: 1. From Table 2-2, with apartment waste prorated into urban and rural singie-family waste streams based
on distribution of apartment unfts amonfl urban (81.5%) and rural (18.5%) areas (PSCOG 1988).
2. Based on data (rom the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study, June 1989.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
40.4 %
0.0
25.9
31.6
445,400
85,300
214,400
745,100
47.3 9�0 488,300
27.5 121,000
43.3 609,300
NA 1,354,4�0
�TJ
�
O
�
z>:.`::;;S;E:
�:::••,•<;::;:
;r:. � x::•:
;: ::j:::�Y:::•:i::i::i::%�:i::i;i:i;i:
B-1
02
TABLE B.2
WASTE COMPOSITION, KICJG COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED
RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
MATERIAL
ORGANICS
PSper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
Ptastics
PET Bottles
HOPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Plastic Packaging
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
KING COUNTY SEATTLE (1)
84.T % 77.2 %
27.3 : 26.0 ,
7.2 SJ
5.5 5.0
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.0
9.5 11.1
4.8 3.9
7.9 `6.9
0.3 0.2
0.8 0.2
0.5 0.4
3.6 4.4
2.5 1.6
20.8 25.1
7.3 5.9
13.5 1 g.2
28.9 19.3
4.6 3.7
8.4 13.2
3.1 1.9
2.1 NA
1.2 0.5
1.2 NA
8.1 NA
INORGANICS
Glass
Recyclable Glass
Other
Metals
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferrous
Aluminum Cans
Other Alum. Containers
Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
ConstructioNDemo. Waste
Miscellaneous
15.4 ; ;22J
3:4 5.4
2J 5.1
0.6 0.3
5.6 ' 6.6 : .
1.2 1.5
2.1 1.7
0.6 0.5
0.2 0.1
1.3 2.5
0.2 0.2
6.4 10.8
0.6 1.0
0.0 NA
0.5 0.3
4.3 9.5
1.0 NA
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE (21
82.3 tYo
26.9
6.8
5.3
0.2
0.0
10.0
4.5
7.6
0.3
0.6
0.5
3.9
2.2
22.2
6.9
15.3
25.8
4.3
9.9
2.8
1.4
1.0
0.8
5.5
17.7
4.0
3.4
0.5
5.9
1.3
1.9
0.6
0.2
1.7
0.2
7.8
0.7
0.0
0.5
6.0
0.7
TOTALS (3) 100.1 % 100.0 % (4) 100.1 %
NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et al 1989).
2. Weighted average based on 235,500 tons per year of residential waste in Seattle and
509,600 tons per year o( residential waste in King County.
3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
4. Seattle data prorated to total 100 percent instead of 98.9 percent.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
Ap�oendiz B: t� C�oc�r,atinn Srudy Addendum B: Co�nbbrad Ciey/County Lbta
�"�:Lti+r
.' • i : ' L ' < :. `• i � : � .' • i ' � �+ � :
':ijti:::Cu�:i:?i:2:i':>?ii �<i'r
.:�:::.vw ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :w:::::::: :v::: :v:::.�:::.�::::::::::.:�::::::::::::.:�:::::::::::::::n�::::::::::::: :•:::::::.�::: :•
: :::::::::::::::::::::::.�.�::::::::::::::::::::: :w::::::::ni': :v:::::::::::::::::::: :w:::: :•::::::.�::::::n�::::::::::::::: :v:::: :v:::: ::v:
...$........... ::::::::.:.:::....:..::.. �
:::
...
:.: :v:::::.�:::: .:.:}ii:iii:::i:::i.i':L::::::ny::::.ti::n�:::..::i' ::::: .......................: ..: .. .......... ::J,n.
.... ...... ..... .. .. . .. . ...v.vn •:::::::::.:�: w.v{ii.i:b:itv'L:J}iii:::.rii�.::v:ii:::::i:�::ij}iiij:•,'v,'r,:iiiii:�i� `Tiiiiiiii"�i$�iS:i:: ;................. . .... . ::n::...:
4 n}.... ..
.... . ..... ... 1
.::�.�:...: 0
B
3
<:>�
MATERIAL
ORGANICS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
Plastics
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Plastic Packaging
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
WASTE COMPOSITION, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED
NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
�
INORGANICS
Glass
Recyclable Glass
Other
Metals -
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferrous
Aluminum Cans
Other Alum. Containers
Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
Construction/Demo. Waste
Miscella�eous
TOTALS (3)
TABLE B.3
KING COUNTY
81.5 96
32.9
1.8
10.5
2.7
0.9
7.9
9.1
12.4
0.0
0.3
1.2
5.3
5.6
17.8
14.1
3.7
18.4
4.6
4.8
0.2
2.3
2.6
0.5
3.4
18.6
1.8
1.1
0.7
4.7
0.4
2.2
0.3
0.1
1.5
0.2
12.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
9.4
1.5
100.1 %
19.4
2.1
1.8
0.2
6.4
0.4
3.3
0.5
0.1
2.0
0.1
11.0
0.4
NA
0.1
9.6
NA
100.0 %
W EIG HTED
AVERAGE (21
81.1 9�0
31.3
2.3
9.8
1.9
0.7
7.6
9.0
9.7
0.0
0.3
0.9
4.9
3.6
21.7
17.5
4.2
18.5
3.4
7.0
0.3
1.3
1.7
0.3
1.9
19.0
1.9
1.4
0.5
5.4
0.4
2.7
0.4
0.1
1.7
0.2
11.6
0.7
0.0
0.1
9.5
0.8
100.1 %
NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et al 1989).
2. Weighted average based on 264,100 tons per year of nonresidential waste in Seattle and
345,200 tons per year of nonresidential waste in King County.
3. Some totals do not add up to t00 percent due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - f99i.
Addendum e: Comba�ad Crty/County G1ata
SEATTLE (11
80.6 Wo
29.1
2.9
8.9
1.0
0.4
7.2
8.9
6.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
4.4
1.0
26.7
21.8
4.9
18.6
1.9
10.0
0.5
NA
0.5
NA
NA
App�endtx B: Waste Cdaracterization Sk�y
>' B - 1 4 ;::
0
TABLE B.4
WASTE COMPOSITION, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED
TOTAL WASTE STREAM
MkTERIAL
ORGANICS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
Plastics
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polysryrene
Plastic Packaging
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
INORGANICS
Glass
Recyclable G{ass
Other
Metals
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferrous
Aluminum Cans
Other Alum. Containers
� Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
Construction/Demo. Waste
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
NOTES:
KING COUNTY
83.2 %
29.4
5.0
7.5
1.2
0.4
8.8
6.5
9.6
0.2
0.6
0.8
4.3
3.8
19.6
10.1
9.5
2a.6
4.6
7.0
1.9
2.2
1.8
0.9
6.2
16.7
2.7
2.0
0.6
5.3
0.9
2.1
0.5
0.2
1.4
0.2
8.7
0.8
0.0
0.4
6.4
1.2
100.0 %
SEATTLE (11
79.0 %
27.6
4.2
7.0
0.6
0.2
9.0
6.5
6.5
0.1
0.2
0.4
4.4
1.3
26.0
14.3
11.6
18.9
2.7
11.5
1.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
21.0
3.6
3.4
0.3
6.5
0.9
2.5
0.5
0.1
2.2
0.2
10.9
0.7
0.0
0.2
9.6
0.0
100.0 %
1. F�om the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et al 1989).
2. Weighted average based on 499,600 tons total waste per year in Seattle and
854,800 tons per year of total waste in King County.
SourCe: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE (2)
81.3 %
28.6
4.7
7.3
1.0
0.3
8.9
6.5
8.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
4.4
2.7
22.5
12.0
10.5
22.0
3.8
9.0
1.6
1.2
1.2
0.5
3.4
18.6
3.1
2.6
0.4
5.8
0.9
2.3
0.5
0.1
1.8
0.2
9.7
0.7
0.0
0.3
7.8
0.7
100.0 %
A�uliz B: Wa,ste Cbiaracter�ration � Addendum B: Combin�d Cily/Cou�1y L�ala
�
� �
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
....................................................:.::..::::::::.::::::::::::::::::: :.:::.:.r: •::.::,::: ..:... ,. < .:,::..::: .�.:; ..:�:;
.. ,..:�.....::••::•»,'•nr: r.r.b•,"� ..E# o:�.�f?..::.°•>''a;i3i:Y�. `.c �
• \5:�:•Y?S'^{,x,y t�t! r\vl:x..:},+:^:r. .. ...::::.:.:..:•.�:.......... , t.��j,,•t��,•��n
i:cft.�.i'fS::'�'3�::::r:n...,...xt..5 ................t,...R3.?...............,...'J' ...:..,....<.;;.;;•.:
............. .. ............................................................::::::::........:•:::.:....:.:.........:::.......... . .,:t�:.••:•:•�rtr::•.;••n;•;••,.;;,.;
::E:F:•:::. • _
.....................:.:.-::.... . ..... ........
:::::::::... .:::::::..:.:.....:�:;:.;;<::;.;..;:.:::::::::::::.,..,.:::.,.:::::::...:..:::........::..:............:::.......::::::::::.�::::.;;:.::>�::;::>:.::.::-:::::.::.::.::.;:.;.:::�>::::..., ..........., B 1
..... ... . ... . ............... ... . . .....:.::::.:.�: :....:.::::�.;:.::...::::.::;::.;::::;:::.:�.::.;��.:..::::.:::.:�.::<.:::::.::::�::.:�.:..�...:.:::.�..:.:;,.. ..»:��.�..,,...: }. . . .��. ::,>:��. <:�.,�z�� 5 �..
i�:k:•'.:;{+•:}}S: •.;:ai2{ti:d$;:;;r,:::$r`.:?�:$•?:o?c:G.^-.^;:;:^;;`.iC{:,v,ws?. x:::::S:::r?::�:?'•:'•':'¢?;::•::{b?. t�:::�:�::'+:+::����x:S:`••.'.:'t i�
:..
:..• :...::::...... . .........;; ..... '�.
Addendum C
Conf idence Intervals
for Waste Composition Results
C.1 INTRODUCTION
This addendum contains the tables showing the lower and upper limits of the 90 percent conf'idence inteNal that is associated
with the waste composition results.
C.2 DESCRIPTION OF TABLES
Tables C.1 through C.3 show the mean percentage for each material, and the lower and upper oonfidence limit associated
with that mean, for residential, nonresidential, and select nonresidential waste saeams, respectively. The lower and upper oonfldence
limits are based on the standard error of the simple mean (or standard error of the weighted mean), muldplied by a fador taken
from a table of Student's t-Dlstribuaon values.
The simple mean is the average value of the percentages for each material for all samples within one quarter for one
generator (for the six prlmary generators) or for all samples throughout the year (for the select nonresidential generators). The only
simple means that are shown in this report are for the select nonresidential, since the quarterly for the primary generators is not
shown.
The standard error of a simple mean was calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the results by the square root of the
number of samples. The standard error of a weighted mean was calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each slmple
mean squared times the proportion of the slmple mean squared. The proportion is the fraction of the total waste sneam that ls
contributed by the generator who also provided the simple mean.
The value taken from the Student's t-Disaibution table was based on the desired oonfidence 1nteNal (F = 0.95 for the 90
percent confidence inteNal) and degrees of freedom (n = number of samples minus one).
The width of the confidence inteNal is strongly affected by the number of samples taken and varlabllity of the results. As the
number of samples increases, one can be more and more certain that the results are truly r�resentaiive of the waste stream.
Unfortunately, to create a significant impact on the confidence intetval requires a change in sample numbers that Is orders of
magnitude in size. In other words, to decrease a confidence inte�val from +/- 10 percent to +/- 5 percent may require a change
from 20 to 100 samples. Hence, the design of this study was based in part on the nced to balance precision of results against
excessive sampllng costs.
To illustrate the impact on confidence intervals caused by the variability of sample results, the lower conf'idence limits for Sea-
Tac Airport (SIC 45) and food stora (SIC 54) can be compared (the upper confidence limlt for bod� is 100 percent). The results for
Sea-Tac Airport and food stores are based on a simllar number of samples (33 and 32 samples, respectively) and the amount of total
organia ls similar (90.2 and 95.9 percent, respectively). However, the lower confidence llmit for Sea-Tac Airport is substantizally lower
(34 percent less than the mean percentage for total organia) than it is for food stores (21.9 percent less than the mean percentage).
The difference in lower limits for Sea-Tac Airport and food stores indlcates that the samples for Sea-Tac Ai�port vvere
considerably more variable in the amount with which the organic materials were presenk For SIC 54, an examination of the field
Addendum C.• Confidence htterca�s for Waste Compasft�on Results �'�r a: wacre c,daracterizar;on s�u�y
:>:::; B - 106
data for those maierials that contributsd substantially to the percentage of total organics shows that there were some materials
(cardboard, plastic film, and especially food waste) that were present in every sample in signif'icant quantities.
Ap�endix B: Waste CGaracteri,zatimt Study Addendum C.• Conftdertce Intenxrls for Waste Corrtj�osftio�t Resulls
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
TABLE C.1
LOWER AND UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMITS
RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, DRY SEASON ONLY
MATERIAL
URBAN SINGLE-FAMILY RURAL SINGLE-FAMIIY MULTI-FAMILY
CONFIDENCE LIMITS CONFIDENCE LIMITS CONFIDENCE LIMITS
MEAN LOWER UPPER MEAN LOWER UPPER MEAN LOWER UPPER
Newspaper 9.1 6.1 12.1 6.3 4.0 8.6 10.7
Cardboard 5.8 4.4 72 7.0 5.5 8.5 8.1
Office Paper 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.4
Computer Paper 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Mixed 10.4 9.0 11.8 9.2 7.0 11.4 12.5
Other 7.2 5.6 8.8 5.6 4.5 6.7 3.3
RI2StiC5 '' 7.9 5.7 !f0.1 10.5';' `` 7.4 ' t3.8 ' 7;4
PET Bottles 0.4 _ 0.3 0.5 0.2 ` 0.1 _ 0 3 _ 02 _
HDPE Bottles 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.5
Polystyrene 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5
Plastic Film, Bags 3.5 2.9 4.1 4.5 3.8 5.2 3.6
Other Plastic Pkg. 0.9 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.5
Other 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.5 1.7 5.3 2.1
Wood and Yard V;laste ta.s ' s,o! :z�.s �.o'' ' a.6 e.s �t>.s
> Wood » 1.2 0.3 > 2.1 0.8 0.5 1.1 5.9
Yard Wastes 13.7 7.7 19.7 6.2 4.0 8.4 5.7
�th9C Qf93t11CS `` '' 36.0 25.5 '46,5 42A ' ''32.8 ' 51.2 ' 32.6
Textiles 3.4 2.4 4.4 6.9 4.5 9.3 6.5
Food Wastes 10.4 8.7 12.1 14.0 11.6 16.4 11.5
Disposable Diapers 5.0 3.7 6.3 3.3 2.3 4.3 2.4
Fines 2.3 1.6 3.0 2.7 2.3 3.1 2.3
Rubber 2.4 0.0 5.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.1
Furniture, Mattress 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9
Miscellaneous Organics 12.1 9.8 14.4 14.8 12.0 17.8 7.9
INORGiANI�$ '' 8.4 3.4 ''93.4 11.7' ' 5.3 ' 18.1 '
Glass ' 2.s >> �.a a.2 s.al ' 2.� a.� '
Clear Containers 1.5 1.1 1.9 2A 1.5 : 2.5
Green Containers 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.9
Brown Containers 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8
Other 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5
MBtdIS i ': 3.S 1s5 '' 8.3 5.2'' ' 2.5 ' T.9 <
Ferrous Cans 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.5 2.3
Other Ferrous 1.1 0.6 1.6 1.4 0.3 2.5
Aluminum Cans 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.1
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3
Mixed Metals 0.9 0.0 2.2 0.5 0.0 1.3
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4
Miscellaneous inwga�nics , 2.2 Q:5 < 3,9 3.1 ' 0.7 5.5
Haz./Special Wastes 0.4 0.1 OJ 0.8 0.4 1.2
Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Ashes 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.8
Construction/Demo. Wa 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.3 2.1
Miscellaneous 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.6 0.0 1.3
TOTALS (2) 100.2 �h 99.9 �.6
NOTES: 1. Weighted average is based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1.
Source: King Counry Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991.
12.9
10.8
0.7
02
15.1
4.5
9.2.
0.3
0.8
0.7
4.0
0.8
2.8
t7:4
8.7
8.7
44.6
9.3
14.6
3.3
2.8
0.2
4.8
9.5
RESIDENTIAL SELF-HAUL
CONFIDENCE LIMI
MEAN LOWER UPPER
3.6 1.4
3.1 2.1
0.2 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.7 1.5
1.4 0.9
1 5.0 ' 2.2.
0.1 _ > _ 0.0
0.1 0.0
0.3 0.0
1.2 0.8
0.3 0.1
3.0 1.2
42,5 '' 25.4
18.4 10.8
24.1 14.8
18.6 4,9
4.9 2.8
5.5 2.7
0.0 0.0
1.6 0.0
0.8 0.0
2.4 0.0
1.4 0.8
��.9;V G.V V:J '��.�� J.J �FA �.
2.9 1.9 3.9 1.5 0.8
0.8 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.1
0.9 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0
3.3 i.8 > 5;U < 7.S 2.3 ';
1 2 0.9 : 1.5 0.5 0.2
1.1 0.5 1.7 4.0 1.7
0.6 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
0.3 0.0 0.7 2.5 0.4
0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0
_ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _
5.3 1.3 >.` 9:3 <13,8 5.3 '
1.0 0.3 1 J 0.7 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0
2.6 0.3 4.9 11.8 4.8
1.6 0.7 2.5 1.1 0.3
99.9 �h 100.2 46
2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
5.8
4.1
0.4
0.0
3.9
1.9
7:8
0.2
0.2
0.8
1.8
0.5
4.8
59i6
28.2
33.4
28s3
7.0
8.3
0.1
3.2
1.8
5.9
2.2
2.2
0.7
1.2
1.8
13.5
0.8
8.3
0.5
0.7
4.8
0.7
22:5
1.1
0.0
1.1
18.4
1.9
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (1)
CONFIDENCE LIMITS
MEAN LOWER UPPER
7.3
5.5
0.3
0.0
8.2
4.5
7:2
0.2
0.8
0.5
2.9
0.8
2.4
21,8:
7.3
14.5
30.2:
4.9
9.5
2.8
2.2
1.2
1.2
8.4
5.9
4.8
0.2
0.0
7.4
3.9
5':$
0.2
0.5
0.4
2.7
0.4
1.7
t$;7
4.9
10.9
23;7
4.0
8.3
2.3
1.8
0.1
0.0
7.4
8.8
8.3
0.4
0.0
9.0
5.1
_ _ ...... .......
8:f�
0.3
0.7
0.7
3.2
0.8
3.0
__.
27;9
9.8
18.2
_ .._
�;3
5.8
10.7
3.3
2.8
2.3
2.4
9.4
1.8
0.4
0.8
0.3
__....___
5.3
1.1
2.0
0.6
0.2
12
0.2
8,6
0.8
0.0
0.4
4.5
1.0
100.0 9b
MEAN
TABLE C.2
STATISTICAL CERTAINTIES
NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
ANNUAL FIGURES
TOTAL CII NONRESIDENTIAL SELF-HAUL
CONFIDENCE LIMIT CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER MEAN LOWER UPPER
ALL NONRESIDENTIAL
CONFIDENCE LIMIT
MEAN LOWER UPPE
� Newepaper > _ '"°2.2 _ 1.7 . 2J - 0.5 _ _ _ _ 09 __ 1.8 1.4 2.2
Cardboard 12.0 9.1 14.9 5.9 3.0 8.8 10.5 8.2 12.8
Office Paper 3.4 1.7 5.1 0.4 0.0 0.8 2.7 1.4 4.0
Computer Paper 1.1 0.6 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.5 1.3
Mixed 9.8 8.8 12.8 2.2 0.9 3.5 7.9 5.7 10.1
Other 11.3 8.8 13.8 2.4 1.3 3.5 9.1 7.2 11.0
PlastiCS 1D.5 7.2 13.8 17.5 1.8 33:2 i2:4 7:5 17�3 .;
PE76ottles oA ' oA _ ' OA _ _ OA p.0 _ 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0
HDPE Bottles 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.5
Polystyrene 0.6 0.5 0.7 2.8 0.0 7.0 1.2 0.1 2.3
Plaetic Film, Bags 3.7 2.8 4.6 2.4 1.3 3.5 3.4 2.7 4.1
Other Plastic Pkg. 1.4 0.8 2.0 3.3 0.0 8.7 1.9 0.9 2.8
Other 4.8 3.0 6.2 8.4 2.5 14.3 5.6 3.7 7.5
1Nood and Yard 1lVastes '' 14.8 9.9 19.7 ' > 26.8 � 3:8 39.8 17:8 12:9 22; 7
yypod 12.2 9A 15.4 20A 12.8 27.2 14.1 11.1 17.1
Yard Wastes 2.8 0.9 4.3 6.8 1.0 12.6 3.7 1.8 5.8
Other OrganiCS : 21.8 11.3 32.3 8.3 0:0 17:1 18:4 10:1 26:7
textiles 5.5 2.5 8.5 2.0 0.0 4.8 4.6 2.3 8.9
Food Wastes 5.3 3.0 7.6 3.4 0.0 7.7 4.8 2.8 8.8
Dispoeable Diapers 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3
Finee 2.7 1.5 3.9 1.1 0.5 1.7 2.3 1.4 3.2
Rubber 3.3 t.t 5.5 0.5 0.1 0.9 2.8 0.9 4.3
Furniture, Mattress 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0
Miecellaneous Organics 4.1 3.1 5.1 1.2 0.4 2.0 3.4 2.8 4.2
_ _ _ _ _ .. ____ .......
INORGANICS ' 12,9 ' 6.0 >>19.8 35.7 18.8 52,6 y8;6 11::3 25:�
Glass '2A ' 0.7 ' 3.3 1.0 0:0 2:1 1;8 0:7 2:9
Clear Containers 0.8 0.8 1 A 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.9
Green Containers 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.3
Amber Containers 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3
Other 0.9 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 1.4
Metais 4.2 2.4 6.0 6.5 1:1 11;9 4:7 2;7 6;7
Ferrous Cans 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.1 OA 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6
Other Ferrous 1.9 1.3 2.5 3.3 1.6 5.0 2.2 1.8 2•8
Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Mixed Metals 1.2 0.8 1.8 2.4 0.0 5.3 1.5 0.6 2.4
Other Non-Ferrous 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.3
?Misce(laneous Inorgant�s 6.7 3.0 '>10.4 28.2 17:$ 3$;6 12!:1 7:9 16:3
,
__. __ _
Haz.lSpeClal Wastes i A 0.3 1 J 1.1 0.1 2.1 1.0 0.5 1.5
Medical Waste 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Ashes 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Construction/Demo. Waste 3.5 1.8 5.2 26.8 17.7 35.9 9.4 8.8 12.0
Miscellaneous 1.9 0.8 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 1.5 0.6 2.4
TOTA�S 99.8 °r6 99.8 % 100.1 %
NOTE: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Charaeterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
• • . • � . • . • • . • • � • • • � � • • • . � • . • • • • • • • .
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
TABLE C.3
STATISTICAL CERTAINTIES
SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
MATERIAL
SIC 20: FOOD MFG. SIC 24: WOOD MFG. SIC 27: PRINTING & PUBL.
MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
ORGANIGS 'ss.s �w ' s2s ioo.o > so.a � <. s2.a !: �oo.0 7s:s � o.o ; ioo;o.
Paper '3o.a 17.3 43.5 ' 11.0 3.1 18.5 81:5 0.0 100s0,,
Newspaper 0.7 0 0 1 4 1.4 0 0 3.3 22.5 0.0 87.8
Cardboard 15.5 9.3 21.7 3.5 2.5 4.5 4.1 3.2 5.0
Office Paper 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Computer Paper 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.0 2.8
Mixed 8.1 4.7 11.5 1.7 0.3 3.1 27.5 0.0 81.2
Other 5.1 3.0 7.2 3.7 0.4 7.0 6.3 0.0 23.1
f IdStICS ' 15.5 7.8 ' 23.2 4.0 0.8'' 7.2 12:7 OA ' 45.9
PET Bottles 0.1 OA 0.2 OA OA OA OA OA 0.0
HDPE Bottles 1.3 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9
Polystyrene 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3
Piastic Film, Bags 10.6 6.6 14.6 2.1 0.3 3.9 3.6 0.0 12.5
Other Plastic Pkg. 2.4 0.7 4.1 0.8 0.2 1.4 8.4 0.0 31.0
Other 0.8 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.0 1.2
WOOd 8Qd Y3fd'WdStBS 7.1' 2.9 11.3 87.8 58.6 77A ' b'J 0.0 '' ' 2.3'.
Wood 5.1 2.9 7.3 67.6 58J 76.5 0.7 0.0 2.3
Yard Wastes 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
�th9f �fg2111CS < 36.5 24.6 48.4 8.1 0.3 ' 15.9 4:9 0.0 18.5'.
Textiles 0.3 0.0 0.6 2.1 OA 5.0 3.5 0.0 11.1
Food Wastes 33.0 23.1 42.9 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 1.7
Disposable Diapers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fines 0.9 0.5 1.3 3.4 0.8 6.0 0.3 0.0 0.8
Rubber 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 2.0
Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miscellaneous Organics 2.2 1.0 3.4 1.9 0.6 3.2 0.2 0.0 0.8
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ .._ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ __ __
__ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __
INQRGANICS ! io.s <�.s �a.i ` a.7 i.a, ie.o 2o':i o.a �.a:
Giass o.a o.2 o.s ' o.s o.o '' o.� o;s o.o ; 2.a
Clear Containers , 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 : i J
Green Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brown Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
_ _ __ _ . __
_ _ _ _ _ _._
MBtdIS 8.6 2J 14.5 5.1 2.3 7.9 17.9 0.0 '' 60.6
Ferrous Cans 6J 2.6 10.8 OA OA 0.0 0.0 OA 0.1
Other Ferrous 1.4 0.0 2.8 3.8 2.5 5.1 17.7 0.0 59.9
Aluminum Cans 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3
Other Alum. Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3
Mixed Metale 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
.MISC811fl�180US InOf93f11CS ' 1,5 ' OA 4A 3,3 OA: 7.4 1:7 0.0 ! 8.8
Haz./Specia(1Nastes 0.8 oA 1.2 0.2 OA 0.5 1.3 0.0 5.2
Medical Waste 0.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction/Demo. Waste 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miscellaneous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.7
TOTALS 100.0 �h 99.6 36 99•9 °Po
NOTE: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
SIC 45: SE A-TAC AIRPORT
MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER
90.2 :?iti 58.2 f00:Q .;
d8.2 :: '32 6 83:� '
13.8 9.5 18.1
8.6 6.3 10.9
1.9 0.8 3.0
0.7 0.3 1.1
11.8 7.4 15.8
11.6 8.6 14.8
_. _ _ __ _ _. __.
12.4 ' : 9.1 15.7
0 . 1 .< _ _ 0.0 ____ 0.2
0.2 0.1 0.3
3.2 2.2 4.2
5.7 4.9 8.5
1.8 1.3 2.3
1.4 0.5 2.3
___ __ _ _:.
2.7 0.0
1.3 0.0
_ _ _ _ _ ...
25.B ' '15i8
2A 1.0
15.1 9.6
0.2 0.1
1.5 0.9
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
6.7 4.2
_ _ .....__ ._ _ _
_ ..... __. __
_ __ __._
9.7 > >I 4i0
4.5 ' ! 2.3
2.0 1.0
1.7 1.0
0.5 0.1
0.3 0.1
3.5
20.6
0.3
2.1
0.2
0.0
9.2
2.4
0.9
0.5
0.5 0.2 0.8
0.7 0.2 1.2
1.7 1.1 2.3
0.8 0.4 1.2
0.1 0.0 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.2
99.9 �i6
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.7
0.0 0.4
TABLE C.3 (continued)
STATISTICAL CERTAINTIES - SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
PAGE 2 OF 4
MATERIAL SIC 50: WHSL. DURABLE SIC 51: WHSL. NONDURABLE SIC 52: BUILDING MATERIAL
MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
Cardboard
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
__ __....._........ __.
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Plastic Film, Bage
Other Plaetic Pkg.
Other
_ _ . __ _.. __ __
rd 1IY�stes <
wood _
Yard Wastes
_ _.__ .__....__ _. _
:3 :
TexEiles
Food Waetes
Diepoeable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattrese
Miacellaneous Organice
17.2
1.5
1.0
4.2
5.4
14:4
0.0
0.1
0.9
3.8
3.4
6.2
19.0
18.9
0.1
18.3'
10.9
1.2
0.3
0.9
0.4
2.0
2.8
12.5
0.2
0.4
2.5
3.1
21.9
2.8
1.6
5.9
7.7
0.2
1.4
5.3
6.1
10.7
26:7
26.5
0.2
32:2
18.3
1.9
0.8
1.4
0.8
5.3
3.8
15.2
0.6
0.6
7.4
9.4
22:5
0.0
02
3.6
8.9
5.6
4.2
16.4
14:2
2.2
181
0.6
15.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.1
10.0
0.2
0.0
3.7
3.7
8.fi
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
2.1
0.8
5:5
6.7
0.0
7.4.
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
20.4
1.0
1.2
11.1
15.1
36;9
0.0
0.4
7.2
12.8
9.1
7.6
2?.3
21.7
5.6
28.8:
1.5
23.3
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
1.7
9.4
11';4
2.6
0.9
0.0
6.0
0.2
0.0
1.7
24:2
�>6..
0.3
15.6
0.7
1.1
4.2
5.7
18.7
0.0
0.2
0.8
8.5
3.8
3.8
5E.1:
34.3
17.9
22.2
8.2
1.5
0.0
11.8
0.5
0.0
2.4
SIC 53: GEN. MERCHAN
MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER
19.8
1.8
1.9
9.7
11.4
13.3
0.4
0.9
8.0
8.4
9:2.
0.0
0.1
0.9
5.5
0.5
2.2
s;a
7.0
0.0
4.4
0.5
1.7
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
2.3
28.3
3.2
2.9
13.4
14.4
23.6
0.0
0.5
2.1
10.5
5.9
4.6
!,�.r
18.4
0.3
22:8.
4.5
8.8
0.5
1.5
3.9
0.5
5.1
Green Containers 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2
Brown Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.9
11A8t411S 10.0 t f7 ' 18.3 1.9 0.0 <', ' 4.3 6;5 3.1 `` 9.9 8i4 2.1 10.7
__ _ __>
_;
Ferrous Cans : 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.6 OA 1.5 0.1 OA 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.8
Other Ferrous 5.8 1.3 10.3 0.9 0.0 2.1 5.7 3.0 8.4 32 1.7 4.7
Aluminum Cans 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4
Other Alum. Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6
Mixed Metals 3.8 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 2.1 0.0 4.2
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.2
MiSC811dR80US Iri0fg8111GS;: 7.8 ' 0';0 '' 16,4 '' S.0 0.0 ' '11.2 1�;1 3.2 '< i' 31.0 3:2 d,0 i 8 5
__ : HaZ./Special Wastes _ 0.9 _ 0.2 1.6 : 0.3 0.0' - 0.6 3.6 0.0 - 8.0 0.2 0.0 _ _ 0.4 '
Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Conetruction/Demo. Waste 3.3 0.3 6.3 4.2 0.0 9.6 11.7 4.9 18.5 2.4 0.0 4.8
Miscellaneous 3.4 0.0 8.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.8 0.0 4.5 0.6 0.0 1.3
TOTALS 100.0 �ib 99.9 o.b 100.0 0 .6 100.1 oib
NOTE: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
• • � • • • � • • • • • • • • • . � � • • • • � . � • • • � . • • .
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
TABLE C.3 (continued)
STATISTICAL CERTAINTIES - SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
PAGE 3 OF 4
MATERIAL
SIC 54: FOOD STORES SIC 58F: FAST FOOD REST.
MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
Cardboard 17.3 14.8 19.8 11.6 6.6 16.6
Office Paper 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.5
Computer Paper 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mixed 2.8 1.7 3.9 5.7 0.0 11.5
Other 8.2 5.8 10.6 31.0 24.4 37.6
PlasCics > ' ».s ' > s.2 �a.a ' �a.s : s.5 fs.�
_ _ PET Bottles OA , OA 0.0 OA OA _ 0 0
HDPE Bottles 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.8
Polystyrene 7.3 1.0 1.8 3.9 2.0 5.8
Piastic Film, Bags 6.2 5.0 7.4 7.5 5.6 9.4
Other Plastic Pkg. 2.1 1.3 2.9 0.9 0.2 1.6
Other 1.4 0.7 2.1 0.8 0.4 1.2
1Nood and Yard Wastes 'I ' �,s '' ' a.a i 1';a o.a o.o o.a'
_ Wood _ 6.2 , ' 3.9 ' 8.5 OA - OA 0.0
Yard Wastes 1.7 0.5 2.9 0.3 0.0 0.8
�thBC Ofg8t11CS '' ' 46.3 ` 38.7 53:9 33A ' 24.6 42.0'
Textiles 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.9
Food Wastes 40.2 35.3 45.1 23.0 17.6 28.4
Disposable Diapers 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2
Fines 0.9 0.5 1.3 1.6 1.0 2.2
Rubber 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miscellaneoue Organics 4.1 2.5 5.7 7.8 5.3 10.3
iNORGANICS ,> ' a.2 ' i.a s;5 z.a , ' o.i a.�
GI1SS ' 2.5 '' 1.4 3'.6 t.1 0.1 21''
Clear Containers 1.8 1.1 2.5 0.8 0.3 1.3
Green Containers 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4
Brown Containers 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2
Other 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
M218�S 'r 1.3 ' 0.5 2':i 1.Q r; 0.1 1.8
Ferrous Cans 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.9
Other Ferrous 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Aluminum Cans 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7
Mixed Metals 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
MisceUaneous Inorganics o.a ': o.o o;a o.3' o.o o.z
Haz./Special Wastes 0.1 OA 02 0.1 OA 0.2
Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ashes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction/Demo. Waste 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miscellaneous 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5
TOTALS 100.1 4b 99.8 ��
NOTE: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
SIC 58S: SIT-DOWN REST. SIC 70: HOTELS
MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER LOWER UPPER
7.0 5.4
0.5 0.1
0.4 0.0
2.9 1.7
6.4 4.5
46 3,1.
0.1 0.0
0.6 0.4
0.4 0.2
2.7 2.0
0.4 0.2
0.4 0.2
t .a a,o
o.s _. o.o
1.2 0.0
53.9
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
4.5
45.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
3.3 2.3
32 2.2
0.4 0.1
>s 2.4 1.1
2A 1.2
0.1 0.0
0.3 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0
100.2 46
8.8 8.9 8.3
0.9 1.2 0.8
0.8 0.7 0.2
4.1 7.7 5.0
8.3 9.1 7.1
6.1 <' 7.5 S.t
0.2 . - ai a�
0.8 0.9 0.4
0.8 0.8 0.4
3.4 3.7 3.1
0.6 1.0 0.5
0.8 1.0 0.8
2.8 3.1
71.8 '' '35.0!
1.7 1.9
82.3 26.0
0.2 0.3
1.1 1.4
0.0 0.3
0.0 0.0
8.5 5.1
18.6 >15i3
14.4 > 9.6
5.1 ; _._< 4.0
4.3 2.3
4.2 2.8
0.7 0.5
0.2 2.1
0.7 0.7
0.0 0.1 '
0.0 0.9
0.0 0.2
_ __ __ ...__. .___ _.
Q.4 ik.A
0.2 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
0.2 02
99.8 9b
11.5
1.8
1.2
10.4
11.1
9:9
:
1.4
1.2
4.3
1.5
1.4
8:9
0.9
6.0
31.7
0.5
1.8
0.7
0.0
8.8
2.8
4.0
1.0
1.7
4.2
0.9
0.2
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.2
25.4
0.7
20.3
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
8.1
8,7
3.2
1.8
1.6
0.0
1.5
0.9
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
d,C'.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TABLE C.3 (continued)
STATISTICAL CERTAINTIES - SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
PAGE40F4
MATERIAL
SIC SOH: HOSPITALS SIC 8C
MEAN CONFIDENCE LIMIT MEAN
LOWER UPPER
Cardboard 3.8
Office Paper 2.9
Computer Paper 2.8
Mixed 8.4
Other 11.3
_.... __ _. __ _ _
plastics �a:�
PET Bottles 0.0
HDPE Bottles 0.3
Polyetyrene 1.3
Plaetic Film, Bags 8.1
Other Plastic Pkg. 2.3
Other 3.5
Wood �n� Yard Wastes : s:o
_ _ _ wood>; _ _ 0.4
Yard Wastes 2.6
Other Organlcs 2s;z
Textiles _ 8.2
Food Wastes 12.8
Disposable Diapers 0.7
Fines 0.8
Rubber 0.6
Furniture, Mattress 0.0
Miscellaneous Organice 5.6
2.4 5.2 6.4
1.3 4.5 1.5
0.8 4.8 0.2
4.1 8.7 8.8
7.8 14.8 19.7
_ . __ ... . _ ___
7.2 '' 19.8 11'.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.4 0.4
0.9 1.7 1.8
4.5 7.7 5.3
1.4 3.2 1.8
0.2 6.8 2.0
0.0 5.8
4A '' 39.4 '
1.9 10.5
8.1 17.5
0.0 1.8
0.8 1.0
0.0 1.4
0.0 0.0
3.8 7.4
: V��aa7 ::a�.c ��.�:�:c,-.
Clear Containers 0.6 0.2 1.0
Green Containers 0.1 0.0 0.3
Brown Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0
Othet 0.5 0.0 1.2
__ __ _ . _ __ _
__ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _.. _ . __
Metals 2:a oa > >:a:i
Ferrous CBns 1.4 0.8 2.0
Other Ferrous 0.8 0.0 1.4
Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.2 0.4
Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.0 0.2
Mixed Metals 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Non-Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.1
'HER HEALTN SERV.
CONFIDENCE LIMIT
LOWER UPPER
�.a :> �oo.�o
_ ____.... . ___
__ _ _. __ .
_ _ .... ._. __.. _. .
i ?2.9>; 57.9 `.
_ _ _ : ... ___. _ ......_ .
_____ __ __..._ _ _. __.. . .
_ _ ___ __._ . ..__.
1.7 6.3
32 9.6
0.3 2.7
0.0 0.4
4.0 13.2
13.7 25.7
_ _ _ _ ___ ..
8.3 > I78.3 ;'
o.o ` o.o
0.3 0.5
1.1 2.5
4.0 8.8
0.4 3.2
0.8 3.4
7.4 0.0
31.0 10.8
1 8 0.8
11.4 4.9
9.5 0.3
1.2 0.8
�.2 �.�
0.0 0.0
5.9 3.9
15.4
17.9
18.7
1.8
2.3
0.0
7.9
0.6 0.3 0.9
0.1 0.0 0.2
0.1 0.0 0.2
0.1 0.0 0.2
_ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ . __ _.__.
3J 1.5 '' 5.9
2.7 1.4 4.0
0.3 0.0 0.7
0.5 0.3 0.7
02 0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0
Medical Waste 22.67 14.7 30.8 3.37 1.3 5.4
Ashes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction/Demo. Waste 1.7 0.0 4.t 0.4 0.0 1.0
Miscellaneous 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.0 2.7
TOTALS 100.0 9b 100.0 96
NOTE: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991.
. • • • • � • • • � • � • • • • • • � • • � � � • • • � • • • • • •
. . ........................................................... :...vv ::v:::::::::: :y:: :.::x::::::: :.::::::::::::::::: .....; ..:�:::::.�.:::v:Cii ::.::•�::::Ln:}'::�.ii ir{{7r�v �i y : � �.
..L /.+.. fi
i��' �:�ii•:
'�' :{{+'� �:�.ti : :::�r $ii ;�_i �'?
- ��
:�
rf ..�
.....................
4ii:::::: ::v.:w ::: ...................................................... . . .... . ................:.... ...
�:i�ii. . }r.....+.�..:�%�.:.fk.
::::::j:•r�:':�:'r,:iii:•ii�:
..., ...::.:... ...................................:::::::::::::.::,:::::.:::::<;:<.::.>.:::::: �:.>:.:::.:::.::.: .... ......::.......... B 1
....:.:...:...:::::::.........::::::.::.:......... .......
...............,
: : : . : : : .: . . . . . . : . : . � : . .;..: . . . . . :.: : : : : : : ;.: : . . . . . : . : : . . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . : . : : : : . . . . . . . . . . : . . . : : : . � : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : . . . . : :.: :.. ;: ;:.: :.;: :.: : . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :.. : : : :.: : : .: � : . :
::::: ::.:�<:.�::::::::.:..;;..� ::::::::::... ::::.:::::::::::::::::::�::.:�.�:::::::::::: ::.:.:�:::.� :..::.:::::::::::: ::.::::::::::::.:::.;>.::::.::;.>;.: :::::.;:.
..... . ........
:.:�:::::.::.::::.:�.::.::.>:::::.::.::.:::;;.;;;:.;:::::.::.:;:.;:.:�.::.> :.::.:::::::.::.<;:.;:.:.:::<:»;::::.::.:.:::.�:::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::...:.... .... ..: :.;: �.�.:
.... .. .. ............................ ..... ........� ::.:.::::.,.::::.:�.::.>.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.;::.::::>:»:::>:::��:::....:......
. ...........:..::::::::::::::::..: :....................................................:........... ..... .... 3
.. ............. .............................. . � ...,:..............:. :....::..,..
................................:.::..:.......... .....: ............. .. .... .....::.:....
. ............... .. ...........:.......:................. ....:::::. �:.:: :.:::.:::.::.:::.::>: �:;;;;.:;:.:::.::::::.:.::;;.;::.:.:;.:.:::.;:.::.:.;::.;:.::.::::.>:.:;:.::.:::::.;:.:::.:::.::<.>:::.:::..:::::.::::::::::::.::: : :�.:>�:..
...............................:.>::.:::::. :;><,h:..
Addendum �
�aste Quantities by
�
�
�
��
D.1 INTRODUCTION
Material 'I�ype
At the request of King Counry staff, the following tables were produced to show the wtal quantities by weight of materiaJs in
the various waste streams. These data show the total tons of recyclable and other materials that are currendy being disposed by
counry residents and businesses.
The data are also useful for planning and design purposes, especially if the focus is on a particular material, by showing the
distribution by weight of materials in the different waste streams. For lnstance, the data show what percent of the total amount of
disposed newspaper is in the various waste streams. Thus, if recycling additional newspaper is being examined, one could deterrtilne
which waste stream(s) should be targeted to capture the most additional newspaper.
These figures were derived from waste composition data (for King County without the city of Seattle) and solid waste quantity
data from county transfer stations.
D.2 RESULTS, WEIGHT OF MATERIAIS IN KING COUNTY WASTE STRF.AMS
� Table D.1 provides the requested data on the weight of materials disposed by different types of residential generators in King
� County (exclusive of Seattle). Also shown is the percentage of a given material contained in each of the individual waste streams.
For instance, urban single-famlly waste generators are estimated to be disposing 17,90� tons of newspaper per year, this amount
• represents 48.6 percent of the total amount of newspaper disposed by residential generators in King Counry.
Tables D.2 and D.3 are similar to Table D.1. Table D.2 shows the weight of materials disposed by the two rypes of
� nonresidential generators and the percentage of each material contained in the individual waste streams. Table D.3 summarizes die
• previous two tables, showing total residential and total nonresidential quantities by weight; the percentage that each of these streams
contains of each of the materials; and the sum of these two waste streams.
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Addendum D: Waste Quanhtles by Material Type
Appertdix B: Waste Cbaracters:zation Study
��
TABLE D.1
WEIGHT OF MATERIALS, KING COUNTY RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
URBAN SINGLE-FAMILY RURAL SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SELF-HAUL
MATERIAL �� of Material, of % of Material, of �� of Material, of �� of Material, of
Tons Total Res. Waste Tons Total Res. Waste Tons Total Res. Waste Tons Total Res. Waste TOTAL TONS
ORGANICS
Paper !67,300 48:4
Newspaper 17.900 48.6
Cardboard 11,400 40.8
Office Paper 550 42.4
Computer Paper 190 62.2
Mixed 23,000 47.5
Other 14,400 59.3
Plastics 15,200 37.8
PET Bottles 780 44.0
HDPE Bottles 2,000 49.8
Polystyrene 1,400 52.5
Plastic Film, Bags 6,700 43.6
Other Plastic Pkg. 1,700 53.5
Other 2,800 21.6
Wood and Yard Wastes 24,600 23.2
Wood 2,100 5.7
Yard Wastes 22,200 32.2
Other Organics 68;100 46.4
Textiles 6,500 28.0
Food Wastes 1 H,400 43.0
Disposable Diapers 10,900 68.2
Fines 4,300 40.6
Rubber 4,500 72.9
Furniture, Mattress 760 12.4
Miscellaneous Organics 22,700 55.0
INORGANICS
Glass 4,400 25:6
Clear Containers 2,900 32.9
Green Containers 570 26.4
Brown Containers 1,000 32.3
Other 0 0.0
Metals < 7;300 25:7
Ferrous Cans 2,600 41.1
Other Ferrous 1,800 17.0
Aluminum Cans 1,100 34.6
Other Alum. Containers 160 14.4
Mixed Metals 1,600 24.2
Other Non-Ferrous 0 0.0
Miscellaneous Jnorganic, ';4,700 14:4
Haz./Special Wastes 570 18.6
Medical Waste 0 0.0
Ashes 1,300 48.9
Construction/Demo. Waste 1,300 5.9
Miscellaneous 1,530 30.0
TOTALS 191,300
21,100 :
4,500
5,000
300
0
7,300
4,000
7,300
140
870
420
3,100
410
2,300
4,200
510
3,700
27,600
4,800
8,900
2,600
1,700
210
0
9,400
15.2
12.2
17.9
23.1
0.0
15.1
16.5
- 18.1
7.9
21.7
15.8
20.2
12.8
17.8
4.0
1.4
5.4
18.8
20.7
20.8
16.3
16.1
3.4
0.0
22.8
34.100 2d.5 16.500 <' >] 1.9 139.100:
9.900 26.9 4,600 12.5 36.800
7,500 26.8 4,200 15.0 27,900
250 19.3 200 15.4 1,300
90 29.5 0 0.0 310
13,200 27.3 4,800 9.9 48,400
3,100 12.8 2,700 11.1 24,300
6,600 16.4 1U,800 26.8 40;200
180 10.2 670 37.8 1,800
510 12.7 670 16.7 4,000
460 17.3 430 16.1 2,700
3,300 21.5 2,400 15.6 15,400
450 14.2 600 18.9 3,200
1,800 13.9 6,000 46.3 13,000
9,200 8.7 > 68,100 ' 84.2 T06.100
4,900 13.2 29,900 80.5 37,200
4,400 6.4 38,300 55.6 68,900
28.700 19.6 21,800 14.9 146.700
5,900 25.4 6,100 26.3 23,200
9,600 22.5 6,200 14.5 42,700
2,500 15.6 0 0.0 16,000
2,100 19.8 2,500 23.6 10.600
90 1.5 1,300 21.1 6,200
1,700 27.8 3,700 60.5 6,100
7,000 17.0 2,000 4.8 41,300
2,300 13.4 4,200 24:4 6,400 37.2 12,206
1,400 15.9 2,600 29.5 2,000 22.7 8,800
340 15.8 720 33.4 530 24.6 2,200
410 13.3 800 25.9 920 29.8 3,100
180 5.7 0 0.0 3,000 95.5 3,100
3,500' 12:3 2,900 102 14,900 52.5 28,400
1,500 23.7 1,200 19.0 1,000 15.8 6,300
820 7.8 820 7.8 7,200 68.2 10,600
580 18.2 500 15.7 1,000 31.5 3,200
120 10.8 0 0.0 830 74.6 1,100
330 5.0 260 3.9 4,100 61.9 6,600
170 18.5 70 7.6 670 73.0 920
2,300' 7.1 5,100 ]5.6 ' 20,306 '; '62.8 ' 32,604
480 15.7 820 26.8 950 31.1 3.100
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
460 17.3 150 5.6 770 29.0 2,700
1,000 4.5 2,700 12.2 17,100 77.4 22,100
350 6.9 1,500 29.4 1,600 31.4 5,100
68,400 90,900 158,900 509,500
NOTES: Based on waste composition data from Tables 3.5 through 3.8, and waste quantity data from Table 3.1.
Some numbers may not add up exactiy due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
• • • • • • . • • � � • • • • � • . • • • • • � • • • • • • • • • •
':�:4``. ;:$i:�:;%::�:::�i:�:::::;:::':::::;:::2;;:2;
:::::::::::::::::::::: ::•:::. �:::::: :•:: :•:::::::::::::. � ::•::::::::::..;p•. �: ;::::::. � :•::::::::::: :::•:: ....:::::: :•: :::•::::::::::: :•::: :•::::::::::::::: :•::::::::::::::. �::::.
.•::.... :::::::: :.
:r:i::::�i:S<:f:: •:::�R�::iS:�:::%�:�::`::::;:5:: c:i::::;::5::�:::::::a:::: :•:::i:�%i::::<::::::::::::�:i:%::::::::;:;;::::::::�i:�: �<::; 2;:?:::::::;:%::';::;i::;:
:::::..>•::.>�:._::::ti:::::::::. .:�::..;.,-.
4: :ii:{:: :i.�:ii:: i:ii: ?fiii'�. ..... ..v...r ..... ......v......... 4 . .v. v: .:n ..................n: :.. ... . .. .. . ......... v?:v...:.
.. .....u...... .� ....:. . ..................... .... :.:.:::::::::::.ii}:i:ii:i:.�::::i::::::: ....: ::w:::::::: •: i:::n........:.:.. .::}iiii:i
B
-11
5
�::>N .........
::�x:>: ................................
TABLE D.2
WEIGHT OF MATERIALS, KING COUNTY NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS
TOTAL CII NONRESIDENTIAL SELF-HAUL
MATERIAL % of Material, of % of Material, of
Tons Nonres. Waste Tons Nonres. Waste TOTAL TONS
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
ORGANiCS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Compute� Paper
Mixed
Other
Plastics
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polysryrene
Plastic Film, Bags
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Fumiture, Mattress
Miscellaneous Organics
�NORGANICS
Glass
Clear Containers
Green Containers
Brown Containers
Other
Metals
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferrous
Aluminum Cans
Other Alum. Containers
Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
Construction/Demo. Waste
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
102,500
5,700
30,900
8,750
2,800
25,200
29,100
27,000
0
510
1,500
9,500
3,600
11,800
38,100
31,400
6,700
56,100
14,200
13,600
510
7,000
8,500
1,800
10,600
5,100
2,100
260
510
2,300
10,800
1,300
4,900
770
260
3,100
510
17,200
2,600
260
510
9,000
4,900
257,500
90.2
91.2
85.2
93.5
91.2
92.5
92.6
63.2
0.0
45.6
37.0
81.2
55.5
61.4
62.0
64.5
52.5
88.4
89.2
82.4
85.4
87.8
95.1
100.0
89.0
82.9
85.2
49.5
85.4
96.3
66.2
93.6
63.5
81.5
74.6
59.5
66.2
41.3
74.6
100.0
100.0
27.8
94.5
10,100
440
5,200
350
90
1,900
2,100
15,300
0
530
2,500
2,100
2,900
7,400
23,500
17,500
6,000
7,300
1,800
3,000
90
1,000
440
0
1,100
900
400
300
100
100
5,700
100
2,900
300
100
2,100
300
24,700
1,000
0
0
23,500
260
87,700
8.9
7.1
14.3
3.7
2.8
7.1
6.7
35.9
0.0
46.6
58.8
17.9
44.5
38.2
38.3
36.0
46.8
11.5
11.0
18.0
14.6
12.2
4.9
0.0
8.9
14.1
18.1
50.5
14.6
3.6
34.9
6.4
37.6
27.8
25.4
40.5
33.8
59.2
27.9
0.0
0.0
72.4
5.1
113,600
6,200
36,200
9,400
3,110
27,300
31,400
42,800
0
1,100
4,200
11,700
6,500
19,300
61,400
a8,700
12,700
63,500
15,900
16,600
600
7,900
8,900
1,800
11,900
6,200
2,400
520
600
2,400
16,300
1,400
7,700
950
350
5,200
780
41,800
3,500
260
510
32,400
5,200
345,200
NOTES: Based on composition data from Tables 3.12 and 3.13, and waste quantity data from Table 3.1.
Some numbers may not add up exacdy due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, �990 -�991.
Addendum D: l�aste Quand� bY Ma�al TfgDe
A�iulfr B: Wa� �alion S�rta'y
::> B - 116
�
�
�
�
TABLE D.3
WEIGHT OF MATERIALS, KING COUNTY WASTE STREAMS
MATERIAL
ORGANICS
Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Computer Paper
Mixed
Other
Piastics
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Polystyrene
Plastic Film, Bags
Other Plastic Pkg.
Other
Wood and Yard Wastes
Wood
Yard Wastes
Other Organics
Textiles
Food Wastes
Disposable Diapers
Fines
Rubber
Furniture, Mattress
Misceltaneous Organics
INORGANICS
Glass
Clear Containers
Green Containers
Brown Containers
Other
Metals
Ferrous Cans
Other Ferrous
Aluminum Cans
Other Alum. Containers
Mixed Metals
Other Non-Ferrous
Miscellaneous Inorganics
Haz./Special Wastes
Medical Waste
Ashes
Construction/Demo. Waste
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
RESIDENTIAL WASTE
% of Material, of
Tons Total Waste
139,100
36,800
27,900
1,300
310
48,400
24,300
40,200
1,800
4,000
2,700
15,400
3,200
13,000
106,100
37,200
68,900
146,700
23,200
42,700
16,000
10,600
6,200
6,100
41,300
55.0
85.6
43.5
12.1
9.1
63.9
43.6
48.4
100.0
78.4
39.1
56.8
33.0
40.2
63.3
43.3
84.4
69.8
59.3
72.0
96.4
57. 3
41.1
77.2
77.6
17,200
8,800
2,200
3,100
3,100
28,400
6,300
10,600
3,200
t ,100
6,600
920
32,600
3,100
0
2,700
22,100
5,100
509 , 500
73.5
78.6
80.9
83.8
56.4
63.5
81.8
57.9
77.1
75.9
55.9
54.1
43.8
47. 0
0.0
84.1
40.6
49.5
NOTES: Some numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding.
Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991.
NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE
% of Material, of
Tons Total Waste TOTAL TONS
113,600
6,200
36,200
9,400
3,110
27,300
31,400
42,800
0
1,100
4 , 200
11,700
6 , 500
19,300
61,400
48,700
12,700
63,500
15,900
16,600
600
7,900
8,900
1,800
11,900
45.0
14.4
56.5
87.9
90.9
36.1
56.4
51.6
0.0
21.6
60.9
43.2
67.0
59.8
36.7
56.7
15.6
30.2
40.7
28.0
3.6
42.7
58.9
22.8
22.4
252,700
43,000
64,100
10,700
3,420
75,700
55,700
83,000
1,800
5,100
6,900
27,100
9,700
32,300
167,500
85,900
81,600
210;200
39,100
59,300
16,600
18,500
15,100
7,900
53,200
6,200
2,400
520
600
2,400
16,300
1,400
7,700
950
350
5,200
780
41,800
3,500
260
510
32,400
5,200
345,200
26.5
21.4
19.1
16.2
43.6
36.5
18.2
42.1
22.9
24.1
44.1
45.9
56.2
53.0
100.0
15.9
59.4
50.5
23,400
11,200
2,720
3,700
5,500
44,700
7,700
18,300
4,150
1,450
11,800
1,700
74,400
6,600
260
3,210
54,500
10,300
854,600
�
�
�
A�endfr B: Waste Cdarac�riaat�vn Slu�y Adc�eildum D: Was�e Qua�ddss hy AbA�hl Typs
�
�
. o
.
.
� APPENDIX C
•
• OLID WASTE
.
ACILITY
•
• ITING L,AN
•
� King County
� Comp rehensive
� Solid Waste
� Management Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,���,
�i►�'
S01"�lllg
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
�
•
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
�
Appendix C
Solid '�Taste Facility Siting Plan
Prepared by
R. W. Beck and Associates'
Table of Contents
A
B.
C.
Q
E.
C
-1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 3
1. Organiza,tion ................................................................. 3
2. Siting and Facility Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. About the Siting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
BACKGROUND .................................................................... 5
1. Description of Faciliry Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Relationship to Other Faciliry Planning Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Siting Location Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SITINGCRI'PER1A ................................................................. 8
1. Introduction .................................................................. 8
2. Mixed Waste Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Incinerator Ash Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. Transfer Station/Recycling Processing Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Energy/Resource Recovery Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Equitable Distribution of Solid Waste Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Detailed �aluation Criteria and Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Tf� SITING PROCESS .............................................................. 31
1. Goals of the Siting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2. Overview of Siting Proc�ss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3. Steps in the Siting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND INVOLVEMINT PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
' June 1988; Revised Febniary 1989; Revbed June 1989; Revised by King County Solid Waste Division, March 1992; King County Compieh� Solid Waste Management
Plan, Vohttne II, Appendix, july 1989
Appendix C: Solid Waste Facrlity Siti�tg Plan
C
-2
List of Figures
Figure C.1
Figure C.2
Figure C3
Figure C.4
Figure C.5
Figure C.6
Figure C.7
Figure C.8
Figure C.9
Figure C.10
Figure C.11
Figure C.12
Site evalution processs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 4
SEPA elemenis of the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 10
Subsidence hazard areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 12
Generalized geologlc map of King Counry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 13
Surface water aquifers, and groundwater withdrawal areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 15
Publlc watecsheds and surface water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 17
Mean annual precipltation in inches, King County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 20
Airport e�cluslon areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 22
State and national parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 23
Air quality nonattainment areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 25
Composite of regulatory exclusion areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 27
Existing waste facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C - 36
Appendiz C.• Solyd i�aste Facilrty Srting Pdan
�
•
!
•
•
•
•
A. INTRODUCTION
C-
3
!� This solid waste facility siting plan was prepared by R. W. Beck in conjunction with other elements of the 1989 King County
Comprehensive Solyd t�aste Management Plan (the Plan). It has been updated as part of the 1992 Plan to reflect changes in
� legislation and regulations. The siting plan addresses requirements of the King Counry Council Motion 6862 for a nonsite-specific
• siting plan to guide future solid waste faciliry siting impacts. It also addresses the facility siting requirements set forth in RCW 70.95
and the Solyd i�aste Management Planning Gurdelines (WDOE 90.11).
�
•
�
�
�
�
C�
1. Organization
This report is organized in five major sections.
1. Section A�urpose and scope
2. Section B—background
3. Section G—siting criteria
4. Section D—the siting proccesss
5. Section E--public involvement
2. Siting and Facility Implementation
� Selection of a site for a solid waste faciliry is often the most public and controversial step in the overall facility development
process. However, the other steps in this process are also vitally important. Figure Gl outlines the steps in implementing a solid
� waste facility. The siting process is preceded by at least two steps. First, the Plan establishes the service needs and identifies the area
• of intended service, whether local or regional. Then, the Counry makes budget decisions concerning the scope and schedule of the
project
n
u
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
3-
a
About the Siting Process
Why and how often must King County find solid waste sites?
Under state and federal law, King County is given solid waste management planning authority. In addition to the facilities
provided by private operators, the County may develop its own facilities to meet solid waste management needs identified through its
planning efforts. Sites may be needed both for new types of facilities that do not exist in King County's solid waste management
system (e.g., waste e�ort transfer facilities) and for replacing current facilities that may be operated at or beyond permitted site
capaciry (e.g., older hansfer stations and landfills that must be closed).
Facilities such as transfer staiions and energy resource recovery (F✓RR) facilities may be upgraded to meet changing needs.
Sit.es of suff'icient size can be designed to serve indefinitely if land use and transportation patterns persist
b. Why have facilities been so di�icult to site?
Solid waste is generally an unwanted artifact of life. Although practices are rapidly changing, solid waste has been thrown or
dLsposed "away," for health and aesthetic reasons. The publlc ls aware of the highly publicized problems that have arisen with some
older waste management practices, and there is often litde distinction drawn between the problems of solid waste and hazardous
waste facilities. The public also seems generally aware of issues facing modern waste management: increasing waste quantities,
�
�
• A. Introduclion
�
Appendix C: Solld Waste Faaluy Siting P/an
C-4
POTENTIAL SITE IDENTIFICATION
CpITICAL CRITERIA SCREENINa
_-�-------------------�---------
N
W
H
N
�
O
�
w
m
�.
z'
n
z
h
a
w
s
V
W
�
J
H
W
C
�
O
J
w
>
w
J
�
Z
N
a
w
�
U
Z
BROAD BASED SCREENIN(3
CRITICAL CRITERIA SCREENINO
-----------------------
COMPARATIVE
EVALUATION
COMPARATIVE
EVALUATION
EIS
Fgwe C.1 Site evaluatlon prooess. '
newer stringent environmental regulations, and land development pressures that limit the extent to which so�id waste facilities can be
sited "away." It is not di�icult to understand why, to the public, these solid waste handling and disposal facilities are considered
socially unacceptable land uses. In the spirit of protecting their community, groups may organize and vigorously fight efforts to site
such facilities.
Elected officials who are charged with the difficult task of explaining that a particular facility is necessary for the good of the
general county population may face angry, hostile citizens. Local residents may agree in principle that a faciliry is needed, however
the response usually is "site it somewhere else, not here." The "not in my backyard"--or NIMBY syndrome as it is called�vill often
lead to intense opposition to siting efforts. In the past, local government has opted, in certain cases, w keep the siting process low
key in hopes of disturbing as few people as possible as late in the process as possible. Such efforts ha�e sometimes appeared secretive
to the public. This has led to public mistrust of the procedures and results of siting efforts. This goes directly against the public
desires to be involved in the decisionmaking that affects the quality of life in the community.
Initially stimulated by site- and process-spec�c concerns, discussion often widens to encompass questions about the
fundamental policies and concepts upon which the solid waste management system is based. These questions include:
• Which solid waste management alternaave ls or should be given higher prioriry?
• Is a facility is actually needed?
• Why not wait unW later to site a faciliry?
Appercdix C: Solid Waste Facrlity Srting Plan A. Gthtiductron
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
� ..........................................................................
C-
5
r,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
•
•
These program-related concerns, along with concerns about the siting process and about specif'ic sites, have caused many
facility siting projects to end unsuccessfully.
c. Why is a siting plan needed and what should it do?
Solid waste facilities are each unique in setting and function. Although the fundamental process used to find sites for these
facilities is fairly well established, individual siting processes employ different procedures. A general siting plan can unify the
management approach to the siting process and help ensure that it attains the standards set by the Counry.
The public must be given an opportunity to understand and participate in the process. This will be made easier if the process
conforms to a recognizable pattern.
Elected officials, who must make decisions, will hear heated opposition to the siting of a facility. A plan will allow
differentiation between criticism of the siting process and concerns about a specific site.
In summary, the purpose of the siting plan is threefold.
1. It serves as a guide for the Solid Waste Management Division as it conducts facility siting efforts.
2. It provides a reasoned and evenhanded process to be used in selecting sites for what are often locally very unpopular facilities; it
also shows where and how the public can provide input into the siting process.
3. For elected officials the plan communicates policy guidance to county staff and provides a tool for asssessssing the quality of
individual siting recommendations that are developed.
d. How speciGc should the plan be?
In the ne� 20 years, the solid waste management system may site a variety of facility types and sizes throughout King
Counry. In the near term, the Plan recommends siting of several transfer stations. This plan outlines the siting process as it would
apply to other solid waste facilities, including processing facilities, municipal solid waste landfills, incinerator ash landf'ills, and
landfills for the disposal of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste (CDL). Current local law sta,tes that energy/resource
recovery (FJRR) will not be an option for solid waste management (KCC 10.12). If this changes, this siting process also would apply
to E/RR facilities and incinerator ash landfills.
These facilities present unique siting problems due to their disposal and handling processes, site size requirements, and
potential impacis. The general facility plan must also apply to faciliry siting efforts that will be carried out over a number of yeais.
These factors emphasize the need for the plan to focus on those elements of facility siting that can and should be common to all
solid waste siting efforts.
B. BACKGROUND
1. Description of Facility 1�pes
� This section brietly describes the major features of the solid waste facilities for which this siting plan has been developed. It
dces not attempt to address all features or potential impacis of these facilities, which would be addressed in deta.il in the
� environmental review process associated with a facility-specific siting study.
�
�
�
�
. B. �� Append'�x C: Solid Waste Facility Silrizg Plan
�
C-6
a Transfer Stalion/Materials Reo�very Faalities
A transfer station is used to combine the solid waste loads of many smaller-capaciry vehicles into a smaller number of large,
highly compacted loads for transport to a disposal site. Recycling processing may also occur at a transfer station. Recyclables may
be separated from waste or may be prepared for market At a materials recovery facility, various parts of the waste stream are
separated out for recycling, and the remainder is either disposed or further processed—�or example, to produce refi�se-derived fuel
(RDF). A transfer station or materlals recovery faciliry may also incorporate facilities for composting the organic portion of the waste
stream.
Truck and car traffic is the dominant impact of a transfer station or materials recovery faciliry. Passenger cars, light trucks,
and collection packer vehicles deposit waste into a covered receiving pit or direcfly into a large transfer trailer. The trailers are then
pulled by truck to the landf'ill for ultimate disposal.
b. Energy/ReSOUroe Reoovery Faality
The most common type of E/RR facilities ac:cept unprocessed or preprocessed mixed solid waste and through incineration
produce an energy product, usually steam or electricity, which is used by a utility or industry. The primary purpose of this facility is
to reduce the volume and weight of waste and to alter the characteristia of the waste by oxidizing it This process produces air
emissions and an ash residue, which must be disposed of in an inclnerator ash landfill. High-efficiency air cleaning equipment is
provided to filter the air emissions.
c. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
At a m'uced waste landf'ill, unprocessed municipal solid waste is delivered in trucks, compacted, and buried in cells between
layers of earth. The organic components in the solid waste undergo biological and chemical decomposition and further compaction.
Gas and liquids are released and inorganic compounds may undergo chemical decomposition. Many components, such as plastia,
undergo decomposition at very slow rates. Leachate collection and disposal is provided as is a system for controlling gas emissions.
At closure, the facility is capped to reduce rain infiltration and a long-term monitoring and maintenance program begins.
d Inanerator Ash Land611
M incinerator ash landfill accepts only processed waste in the form of bottom and fly ash from an F✓RR facility. After
incineration, the bottom ash organic fraction may be less than S percent and consist mosdy of carbonates and oxides. Fly ash
contains a greater proportion of inetals and other trace contaminants removed through the air cleaning process. Metals and other
constituents may be leached from the ash under certain conditions of Ph and alkalinity. Leachate collection and disposal as well as
dust control systems are provided. An ash landflll will generally be smaller than a mixed waste landflll and will ha�e little odor and
gas emissions. Some chemical reactions occur in an ashflll; however, its major role is as a long-term storage and disposal
operation.
e. Construdion, Demolition, and Land clearing Waste Landfill
A CDL landfill accepts waste mainly from land clearing, demolition, and construction activities. In addition to brush, stumps,
and other inert land clearing waste materiaJs, wood, plastia, drywall, roofing, and other construction materials may be present This
rype of landfill may qualify as an inert landfill under the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) if materiaJs that
produce leachate, such as sheetrock and plaster, are not accepted.
�
�
i
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
Appercdix C.• Solyd Waste Faality Slting Plan B. Backgyound •
�
i•
�
•
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::;::; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: � :: � ::: ::::::: ::r.::
::r.::::::.:;
...............................:.....:. ..........................::.:::.::::.;.::::::::::.::::::::::..::::::::...:
.:.:::::.:. ..:.::.::..:::::.:�:::.:::.::.:..........::_::. :::... ...... . ..... ..
N: �.:: �v.::: :: ::::::::.:: : :.::
�-
�
.:.,::;...:�:.::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::�:�:�:::���:�:�:�:�:�::��.:.:::::::::::.::::.:;.:::.:::�::�:�::�:�::�:_:::.:::::::.:.:.::.::.::.::.::.:.:.:.::.:::�::�::�::.::.::.::.::.::::�::�:�:::..::.:.::,:.:::�:�::�:��::�:�:�:�::::::::.::::::.::.::::;::.::::::�::��:�:::�::::::.:.:_: .........
Once deposited and buried, compaction and deaomposition occur in which small amounts of gas and leachate are likely to be
generated. A leachate collection and disposal system will be required. Heavy diesel trucks and some lighter weight trucks will haul
waste to the site and this rype of landflll will have traff'ic impacts similar to those of a mixed waste landfill. However, odor
associated with waste decomposi�on should be substantially less.
2. Relationship to Other Facility Planning Studies
In May 1g87, in anticipation of the closure of the Newcastle CDL landf'ill, the King County Council requested the Executive to:
". .. develop a plan for loca.ting sites for each of the solid waste disposal facilities (FJRR facilities, demolition debris
landfill(s), ash landf'ill, transfer stations, and any other needed facilities) anticipated within the 20th Century. This
plan shall provide for identification of multiple site alternatives for each faciliry, comparison of the alternatives through
an EIS a proccesss for public review of the alternatives and EIS findings, and recommendations to the Council,
including equltable distribution of these disposal facilities within the Counry." (King County Councll Motion 6862)
In June 1987, the King County Solid Waste Division issued a final FJRR management plan and a declaration of significance
and scoping notice for the siting of one or more 2,000-ton-pec-day F1RR facilities within the County. M extensive site screening and
selection process was initiated at the same time the scoping notice was issued. That process eventually resulted in the naming of
seven alternative sites as potential locations for the FJRR faciliry. In response to concems expre.ssed during scoping, the County
reevaluated the course of the F✓RR program.
On January 15, 1988, in Motion 8383, the King County Councll requested the Fxecutive to pursue environmental analysis and
mitigation studies of an FJRR facility and other solid waste management programs to serve King County. The resulting
Programmatic EIS on Soltd i�aste Management Alter�aatiues provided the basis for an Executive recommendation and a Council
decision regarding the County's desired solid waste management programs (King County Code [KCC] 10.22).
3. Siting Location Constraint
The siting of a solid waste faciliry site is governed by both the location of the identified secvice area and by specif'ic siting
location constraints imposed by the Counry. The se�vice area determination recognizes a solid waste management nced within a
specific area A siting area constraint is a policy decision that limits the area in which a prospective facility site ls to be located.
Siting constraints for smaller local service facilities are usually functions of service need, land use and transportation pattems,
zoning, and land availability. For example, a transfer station will serve best if it can be located within its intended service area If
it cannot be located near the center of waste generation, use may be inconvenient and the faciliry may be underutilized.
For large regional service facilities�uch as landfllls and F✓RR—legal, political, and cost issues form the basis of site location
constrain�s. The location of a landfill may be restricted to a portion of the regional service area or outside of the service area
entirely.
The County has the greatest degree of legal and political control in the unincorporated area of the County. Within
incorporated areas, the Counry has the abllity to arquire property through adverse condemnation and to obtain land use permits from
the host jurisdiction.
Without an interlocal agreement in place, the Counry is severely limited in its ability to site and permit a solid waste facility
outside the County. A jurisdiction in another counry or a private developer could perform the siting and permitting functions for the
County. However, before the County could transport waste to the facility, an interlocal agreement with the host community would be
necessary.
�
�
� B. Bac,�ground
�
Appendix C.• Solid Waste Facility Sitircg Plan
_ >:':<:r`��::s>:=:::::<;:;:;:::::
:::::::::. >:.:.::.;:.;;:.:;:.;;:.:::.;:;.;:.;:.>;;;;:<;;:.:;:.;:.;:.;:.;::;;:>:;;:.;;;;::.;:.;:.:;;.;:.;::;:.;:.;:.;:.;:;;;:.;;:.;:.:.;:.;:.;:::::;.:.::.:.:;.:�;:.;;::.;;:.;:.;:.;;;:;.::.;:.:;;. ::.::::.:::.::.::.:::.::.::::<:;:.>:.:.:.;;:.;;:.;;:;.;:.;:.::.;:;;:.;
...« .
C g .<::f�;
Based on experience gained eLsewhere, it may be anticipated that the solid waste faciliry siting process for major disposal and
handling facilities will likely generate independent site offers from outside the seivice area Thus, a siting process that is initially
constrained to a local service area or to the County as a whole can evolve into a process of negotiatlr►g for solid waste facility
capaciry in a facility outside of the Counry.
C. SITING CRITERIA
This section defines siting criteria and dessceibes how they are developed for use in facllity-speclfic sitlng studies. General
criteria categories are discussed for each rype of faciliry included in the siting plan, as called for in the State Solyd l�aste Planning
Guidelines (WDOE 90.11.) Regulatory exclusion criteria for disposal sites such as mixed waste and ash landfllls are discussed in
detail, and�vhere applicable�-maps are provided that depict the exclusion areas on a regional level.
1. Introduction
When solid waste facilities are sited and consavcted there may be unavoidable adverse impacts on the natural and bullt
environments. A goal of the siting process is to select sites that allow impacts to be reduced, eliminated, or mitigated. Sites are
sought that achiwe the above sta,ted goal by virtue of their setting and onsite features. Solid waste siting criteria are developed to
serve as the t�est� by which potential sites are analyzed to determine their suitabiliry. The impac� and requirements of the different
types and sizes of solid waste facilities vary significandy. Those of a rural drop-box faciliry can be substantially different from those
of a complex waste processing and incineration faciliry. The criteria used in judging the suitabiliry of a site will therefore be different
for each faciliry rype. The purpose of siting criteria is to allow differentiation between sites, to distinguish those sites that are more
suitable, and to help identify those that are unacceptable. The siting criteria will usually set forth a standard of acceptability and
measure divergence from this standard positively or negatively.
There are many desirable features of an ideal site. Most of these would not, if absent, constitute a reason for rejecting a site.
They may be made up for by other attributes of a site or they simply may indicate that the site is not perfect. These features form
the basis for developing relational criteria to compare different sites. Regulatory exclusionary criteria are criteria that Indicate
selection of a site would require a variance from an established regulatory standard. Such sites would not be selected unless feasible
alternatives were unavailable. Physical exclusionary criteria are criteria that define conditions under which it would be impossible to
construct and operate a faciliry.
a Siting Criteria Categories
The process of developing facility-specific siting criteria will involve development of tests that identify desirable features of sites,
differentiate between sites, and identify features that make a site unacceptable. To help direct the development of these tests, aiteria
may be organized into categories. One example of the various framework systems that can be utilized is the class�ication of
elements of the environment set forth in the State Environmental Policy Act (Figure C.2). Subcategories could be comb�ned and
further breakdown added where appropriate.
Appertdix C.• Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criterra
�
�
�
�
�
i
r
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
•
��
•
�
•
�
�
•
•
•
�
•
�
�
•
�
•
.
•
•
.
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:::«>:: >:::>:::;::::::>:::::;::««<;.;:::::
........................ :.:: .: ...... � .:: ..... :............. :.: :.: ...... :...............:: ........................................................ :. ::.: ... ::.
�.>f<�.:`:�s:i
;<:;
>;�NN»r.
C-
wN��;`.»
+ �'vt.
9
..{.M
.:>�.:
::`:s>�::%�:�?:;:::>`:�::� :::::::::::::::>:;::::;':::::`::i:::.`:'��:�:::��:`�':�::y:::<:5:�::?`':>.:':.`':?:�:�>::;:?`�:................................................................................ `};<i;:%<;.<:;.::::;;.;;�;;:> <�>•....»:� ..........
(1) Natural Environment
(a) Earth
(� Geology
(ii) Soils
(iii) Topography
(iv) Unique Physical Features
(v) Erosion/Enlargement of Land Area (Accretion)
(b) Air
(i) Air Quality
(ii) Odor
(ii) Climate
(c) Water
(i) Surface Water MovemenUQua�tity/Quality
(ii) Runotf/Absorption
(iii) Floods
(iv) Groundwater MovemenU�uantity/Quality
(v) Public Water Supplies
(d) Plants and Animals
(i) Habkat for and Numbers or Diversiry of Species
of Plants, Fish, or Other Wildlife
(ii) Unique Species
(iii) Fish or Wildl'rfe Migration Routes
(e) Energy and Natural Resources
(i) Amount Required/Rate of Use/Efficiency
(i) Source/Availability
(ii) Nonrenewable Resources
(iv) Conservation and Renewable Resources
(v) Scenic Resources
(2) Buik EnvironmeM
(a) Environmental Heakh
() Noise
(ii) Risk of Explosion
(ii� Releases or PoteMial Releases to the
EnvironmeM Affecting Public Heakh, such as
Toxic or Hazardous Materials
(b) Land and Shoreline Use
(i) Relationship to F,cisting Land Use Plans and to
Estimated Population
(ii) Housing
(ii� Light and Glare
(iv) Aesthetics
(v) Recreation
(v) Historic and CuRural Preservation
(vi� AgricuRural Crops
(c) Transportation
(i) Transportation Systems
(ii) Vehicular Traffic
(iii) Waterborne, Rail, and Air Traffic
(iv) Parking
(v) MovemenUCirculation of People or Goods
(v) Traffic Hazards
(d) Public Services and Utilities
() Fire
(ii) Police
(iii) Schools
(iv) Parks or Other Recreational Facilities
(v) Maintenance
(vi) Communications
(vii) WatedStormwater
(vii� Sewer/Solid Waste
(ix) Other Governmental Services or Utilkies
Flguie C.Z WAC 197-11-444: SEPA elements of the envlronment.
The Solid Waste Management Recovery and Recycling Act (RCW 70.95.090) lists the following categories of criteria for sitlng
solid waste disposal facillties:
• geology • cover material
• groundwater • capaciry
• soil • climatic factors
• flooding • land use
• surface water • toxic air emissions
• slope • all other factors as determined by the Department
The King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Tide 10) set specific locational standards for these categories. The siting
criteria apply to all new and expanded dlsposal sites, Including landfills and landspreading dlsposal sites. They do not apply to FJRR
or transfer stations and most inert or demolition waste sites.
C. Siting CriterYa Append'xx C.• Solyd t�aste Facrlfty Siting Plan
�
-1
C 0
The State Solyd [�aste Planning Gurdelines (WDOE 90.11) specify that plans must discuss these disposal faciliry siting
standards and any other siting criteria or policies developed by the local governments. In addition, maps are to be provided, as
approprlate, to illustrate each criterion and a composite of the regulatory exclusion criteria
Section 10 of the Special Incinerator Ash Disposal Act (Substitute Senate Bill 5570), passed at the SOth Legislative Regular
Session, directed the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to develop and submit ash management rules for legislative review. The
Special Incinera.tor Ash Management Rules (WAC 173306) became effective in May 1990 and contain criteria that apply to the
location of incinerator ash disposal facilities.
For the purposes of this nonfacility-specific site plan, criteria categories are reviewed using the framework of the siting criteria
system set forth in RC1A 70.95 and KCBOHC Tide 10.
This section will review the siting considerations of waste handling and disposal facilities. It will focus first on mixed solid
waste landfills for which regulatory exclusionary criteria have been developed through KCBOHC 10.36. Following this will be a
discussion of ash landf'ill siting based on the published ash management standards. Following this will be a discussion of siting
considerations for the other facility types: CDL waste landfills, transfer stations, and F✓RR facilities. After discussing siting
considerations, an example of a detailed evaluation criterion will be presented and discussed.
b. General Criteria Review
For mixed waste landfllls, each of the locational criteria categories is discussed in terms of the requirements in the MFS and
the applicability to the Counry at a regional scale as required in the planning guidelines. The review included in the Siting Plan is
general and intended to be a guide for initiating a full-scale siking study for a specific facility. Some of the locational standards
discussed require evaluation of very detailed or widely dispersed information and are not appropriate for evaluating the County at a
regional scale. These criteria are site-specific and would be used when evaluating sites during a facility-specific siting study. Other
criteria can be evaluated at the regional scale. Both regional and site-specific criteria are discussed, with emphasis placed on
regional criteria. Mapping opportunities for the locational standards are listed and maps included when readily a�ailable.
The Siting Plan also addresses criteria that are important to solid waste facility siting in King County, but which are not
addressed in state regulations.
After a discussion of each of the locational standards, local siting issues are addressed. This is followed by a summary review
of the regulatory exclusionary criteria identified in the previous discussion.
2. Mixed Waste Landfills
a Regulatory Criteria Review
(1) Geology and Soil
• Regulatory Standard. "No facility shall be located over a Holocene fault, in subsidence areas, or on or adjacent to geologic
features which could compromise the structural integrity of the faciliry." (KCBOHC 10.32.020) This locational standard refers
primarlly to geologic hazard areas. Such areas include potentially active (earthquake producin� fault wnes, landslide areas, and
subsidence areas. Mitigation is normally not possible, and such criteria are considered e�cclusionary. This criterion can be used on a
regional basis, to a limited degree, to exclude areas for consideration for siting a disposal facility. Figure C.3 shows areas mapped by
King Counry as probable coal mine subsidence hazard areas. These and other data that must be applied on a site-specific basis are
contained in the sensitive areas inventory mapping by King County.
Append� C.• So[rd Waste Facility Sittrag Plan C. Siti�ag Criterya
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i^:4%ti:•:i::iiiiiiiiiiiiii:i�i::}i?i::v:J^nv
•:i\•i}:•}:+'•::•i:•::ii:•n4+:i::•:i•ii:•i:•i:•i:i':•i:.;v :,+.:4tii;:•:•:'
•:r•. ��:.::.vx::::::::.vx:::n.::::{i{i^}:::•ii .'!?:::�i:iii%v:iiii..; .. • ::::::::::: ......xw::::::i•i}iii:i:in}•.v:::: v::.};r.iii:•
..n.v ........ ..................... . ...............n............................................::::::::::::iTiiii:;:::r::::::..........n::nwn......v: :w::: •v: wny::n:�::::4i:•i'�tiYv•i::}:•i'•: }.:.:r:::::
}i:{ti?4}i:•i:i:•i:Liiii:ii::::ii}••; >
v: :v.�:: ...r....... rv:: }i}}�.v.}••y:::.}v::: :v.::v.•: v: w::::n •: ••: w::::::niiiiii ::::::::::::::::::m::::: ................. :..; . . .. .. . .. .':: . . rn, f . �i •.
...........:: .... w w: .... ;.............. . .. .:: .. r• : ... •
•: ? •. �..••.�:::.. . .4 . r: >i:}::4w :: ...:.......::.i':-iihiiii'i ... ..T:).. ll..:.r •.{f.ttC+•}}. Xri'i: : .00 �:.. � � ::r}Oti'i.
}: v::. . . n • x: Y.:.};:: .; .::: iv'•i':r •: v: ::r •Y?. .. "vr: : �.: :� l +T$,.l;,.rx. �. �'fi'
� ...., . t.S. S.•.?� .a. < .... s..:..a .,tt<;..y:......,.... 11
.:} :.:........:../., r},>.P*C•:{}::::.�:::.•x•at.'�.':xn:.::::::::w..........n.x. ':ti�:: �
Y.�S:,. ...:::>.'•.'»:x�:? ............ .. . ........ .......:...:. %....::..
...........................�`...:.::.............::..................:..................::: ::•.:..: •: :•.::::::. ....... . ..:............:...................:: ...:::..:•::::•. f::t�u,:•:
........'��' .�.°'�" :..... . ....................... .................................................................: .............: r:::.:::::::::;:::; ...............;,..; ...........:.:::....; :::::: ...
.. n:::::: •.:••;••:••>: :.. ;.�;. :rr:aw>:
. � ..'•:ii:it;:>:�,..�
......M1 ...t•::•+`.•i:?•::•::•::ta:r::.:�:.::::::::::;.;•.;•.;•:.>:•:Sr:t�:;::;.;•:::::::: ;� :::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::..:.:::::::.. .....
:::.'4'.`.:�..... . .
� ....E.usSS
•
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
• Surfu7al C�ology. This category defines broad geologic settings based on the glacial and nonglacial geology thai exists in the
Counry. These geologic units rypically exhiblt material properties that either decxease or inaease the potential for groundwater
contaminatioa Fractured or otheiwise permeable bedrock increases the potential for leachate migratioa Other conditions relate to
the distance from fault zones, aeating buffer wnes around these geologic hazards. Preferably a site would be located in till, or other
consolldated sed'unents. Less desirable would be areas of bedrock within close proximiry to a major fault or fradure wne. Some of
this uiformation is available on the Generalized Geological Map, Figure C.4. To some extent, these criteria, can be considered on a
regional basis.
• Geologrc Materials. This category addresses the earth materlals beneath the site and wnsiders the permeabillty of the materlals
and the propensity for contaminant attenuation. This is a site-specific criterion, which would be used for evaluating candidate sites
against one another. The data requiremenis for making thls evaluation are much greater than for the category dlscussed above. M
C. Sitirtg CritQrra
Appendiz C: Solyd Waste Faality Srttir�g Plan
Figu�e C3 Subsldenoe hazard areas.
��: C - 12
I i
i
\
<
- �
TpTb �
�
r
4a:: ALLUVIUM
�
� OSCEOLA MUDFLOW
TpTb
a GLACIALANDNONGLACIAL
DEPOSITS, UNDIVIDED
� aT BEDROCK
� VASHON DRIFT GLACIAL DEPOSITS
��
� OUTWASH DEPOSITS
: _-
> t[eAt:.: I `:, . ILL D
:::::: � EPOSITS
:: .. .
. I
;:�:.�i; y i . � .
:;:;�:•: �> : � � � . .. �'��:.' � .
H
�'� Source: UnNetl States Geobgical Survey, 1975.
� .:�.:�.: . ".; ..
I � I ���. n ei nq CouMy. Washington (topographic map�. United
�. ._�,:..
i N
� I �
,
z s e uua
TpTb ,33oo.uoo
i a>;;>:
�
)
a ��"
� x
-�. \
S S 11J
� �
\ i � �
P1gu�e C.4 Generalized surfaoe geologic map of King County. _�
unconsolidated coaise-grained material (e.g., gravel) would ha,ve a high permeabiliry and little or no capacity for attenuation
contaminants (e.g., sorption, cation exchange, capacity, etc.). A fine-grained material, such as clay or till, would retard the
downward movement of water and attenuate selected potential wntaminants, particularly heavy meta.ls.
• Soil Characterrstres. Soil and other onsite earth materials are used in landf'ill wnstrucction and operation for bottom liners, caps,
final cover, daily and intermediate cover, dikes, and roads. The availabiliry of these materials on site influences the oost of site
development and operation. Fine-grained materials (silt and clay) are useful for liners and caps, while coatse-grained materials
(sand and gravel) are useful for gas venting and ba�'ill for leachate collectton systems. Bec�wse soIl and onsite earth materlals
characteristia are also important for oover material, the discussion applies to cover material as we1L
Sites underlain by sllt and clay solls would generally be superior to other sltes because of the groundwater proteaton provided
by thesse soils. Sites with only sand and gravel would be less desirable, because these sites would require excensive engineering to
Ap�Dercdix C.• Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Sfling Criterya
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�:�;�:»
�'`���:�
:::,.: ��>�:;> ��y.
�:;�,:;,.a.;;�:i:
;>��. <'.��:���� .:::��ss�.«.�< -
+ M.../k...��.
:�':iGiT+in "$..S}.�L?.L :4 f�`:v
4i>i� n$.+ ...�i..
iii+;:::}ii
4�:}..
C
1
<};,><
:::>
3 :::,
.F.
'v�i:G}r
..:: .......: ....: ... .v:::::.Ti::.ii:.:••:::: .: .....�: .... �:�:.Y: :r::r....•.: :n: .r�.... :.>::��:�::::! : r:....... ....... ......F..... .... ...
:.: x::.niR�$.i,`r:; •? ::.:::... ....:n . : :.w...n:::piiii'f•i:� .. .. ...�n�. . ....... .. . ... ..... . . .
•i:i:iiiii:: •. . ......... {..i :: ......:::: .....:.. :v.:::::: ................... .........::::: ... :......................; ..... :.........................; ..;; .......; .; ........... .. �i h
:....
• :•::::: n �: i: } i{4i:::.:''':: :••i 4iiiiiii:'ii::tivi. �:'!i'tiJi:::::'::: {ti4Y: i}}:::::::':':titiv4iiii:'i:''liii::b::::.':'i: iirii::::::":4i:Gi:::'i:':':viii::':':'i:bi:::::titiw:::::bi:•?i::'ii:v'4ii:i•i::• v •i::i•:•i}::::titititi4i:•:•i'•i:::::::J::•.;.' . .......
:::L3?ti-::;�i'r?i:::•:t: . i}:<iir:.xri,v,'i,�;:;ii::ti�:�i>l.::i.
provide the same level of groundwater protedion. Sites with both coaise- and fine-grained materlals v�uld be better than either of
the above, depending on the amounts and the layering of the materials. The sequential order in which the dtfferent layers of
material are laid down can be extremely important from an engineering perspective. Coarse-grained materlals layered above
fine-gra.ined materials could be desirable because the upper layer could be excavated for roads and daily cover, leaving the $ne-
grained materials in place for groundwater protection. In a slting study, the soll survey �nformatton would be supplemented by fleld
studies to evaluate soil characteristia.
(2) Groundwater
• Regulatory Standard. "No facility shall be located at a site where the bottom of the lowest liner is any less than ten feet above
the seasonal high level of ground water in the uppermost aquifer, or five feet when a hydraulic gradient wntrol system or the
equivalent has been installed to �ntrol ground water fluctuations ..."
"No landfill shall be located over a sole source aquifer, and ..."
"No facility's active area shall be located closer than one thousand feet to a downgradient dru�king water supply well, in use
and existing at the time of the County's adoption of the comprehenslve solid waste management plan unless the owner or
operator can show that the active area is no lesss than 90-days' travel time hydraulically to the nearest downgradient dru�king
water supply well in the uppermost usable aquifer. (KCBOHC 10.32.020)
Of these exclusionary criteria, only the second one�ole-source aquifer designation—�an be applied on a regional basis. In
North King County there is a portion of the aoss valley aquifer that has been designated as sole source 1n the F�rkral Regfster. In
central King County, the Cedar Valley aquifer has been destgnated. A map of sole-source aquifers is Included as Flgure C.S.
• Croundwater Flow Systems. The position of a site with respect to groundwater flow systems increases or decxeases the potential
for exposure to groundwater contamination Hydrologic gradient or potentiometric surface effects provlde a basis for assessing such
eacposure potential when considered in consort with groundwater recharge/discharge area relationships. Preferably, a disposal site
would not be located in the discharge area of a local or regional aquifer. Locating above a sole-source aquifer cecharge area vvould
be an exclusionary criterion
This information is, for the most part, not readily available at a regional leveL The groundwater flow system alteria are
most appropriately considered on a site-specific basis.
• t�ell Den,sities. A majority of King Counry residents rely on surface water sources for their domestic and industrial needs.
Because of the relative lack of demand on the groundwater resource, little Wormation is currendy available on the status of King
County aquifers. Several municipalities and water districts in King County either supplement thelr surface water supply wlth
groundwater, or rely on groundwater as their prlmary water source. In rural areas of the County, individual wells are used for
residential water nceds. As can be seen ln Figure C.S, most of the major groundwater withdrawals are located in the central and
southern areas of the County. Ec;ology records waier wells drllled in each sec�on of the County. However, 1n many areas report�
wells represent less than 25 percent of the actual number of wells. Surveys will be nceded to confiim distance to adive r�lls for each
candidate site.
• Croundwater De�bth. The depth to the water table is important from the standpoint of potential gmundwater contamination
The deeper the groundwater, the greater the opportuNty for contaminant attenuation in the unsaturated wne. The water table, whlch
is referred to in this category, is the areawide water table or the seasonal high level of groundwater in the uppermost aqulfer, and
not groundwater seasonally perched in shallow surf'icial soils. As mentioned under Regulatory Standard above, siting a landflll where
the depth to the uppermost aquifer is less than 10 feet requires a hydraulic gradient control system oc equivalent This �ndition
cannot be �nsidered an exclusion because of the engineering altematives allowed for mitigatioa This is a site-specif'ic siting
criterion, which requires detailed data on specific sites. Maps on a regional basis are not avallable.
C. Siting Criteria Append'a C: Solid t�aste Faalrty Siling Plan
-1
C 4
:<:,<:�:::::::::>::
i � � ;:: --�--�
�
ic
i � � � ;>I
•/ ::�:C ii'ii::.. �. ,J i
ti ':::::?i:;�:::':';::::
;:: t: �:: ;;.,
�: 5:;;::•;{1 :
a l` � �'S:�::�:%:%i?�:�>�,,
�c� .:::»:;:;>:;;;':::>:;`::. °:<:t, �
yy :: ...:::: `...
o m ::�:E�3�A 1�........
SEATTLE 3 �>:::;F � •
C #:.:.:.;: �,e
� e :;:. .
oe :i?;>_': F
� Q J �� . � �S ...
f
m
' � f:'i 'i<:
4 �"\, .
� ��
� ;.' V _ :;�, '
.
,;:.;: _ _...,
-
.... \ -�..i_' / `� s4y4 �.\...` .
� � �:
,� � v. i : _
� i�.i ....��.� .. ..,
,O'
.. ......._� . _.. - '
� s � � ._ .__ �,, 'ry:: ., . _
��:::-.n �"_. —..,-• .. �s R�(ve� �
,o
�
':� `"' ,...._ - ..�.. SKY�fCOMISW 1
i m?:r.' �'` `�� � i
;� •� SNOQUALMI-E � � ' ` �.
-a ��AIVER _ i
`:m :...:::.� '..� BASIN ' `:'`.�
. .. •' il �', i /'
> ' 9 �
�` -�--• �•.
�`m R I V �R� . _ .. : `� " _ �i
.. _ ,
''`'. " . , � ._ �
� �~::� . ': : � :y.:::: . ;�.; :....
/ • '� ";. �" .
i dt:�._� �;..�`:::::;::>� �RIVER
% �"`�i`t;. •, i
i
� � :;;:�i::;:<:.: ,\
; � '�; `>:>:':';';','' _ e
I
i i:;:�:;:���:«�� ``,.
/ �'��'....��.�.'��.��� •_ .
<?:>:��E:EEN .�:� � .�,
� :.';� :>S:ii::�:i::ii'.. � .� � �' ` .i
� VASHON � ��;;;;;::::::�:: :
I ISLAND
U �� •, . _ .. �,
. ... ,. ,
:: i: , .
ii # �
,��•--�./� `<>�:: � • RI V E R. ��. :
..:.::: .. .;.;;::
:
�::.. ;:.;:.;::
..� ,,�:::;:
`':`"`?"';`:;`'`: :::;�.::: . ._ . ,.,
t >>::;>:•:.;..: . �
`:;':`:�;: �\;. _ _ .� .
t 'i;:;:;:<;: :., :�.;;...._ "�--�-^� � :, �._..
�:;:�:�: :;�:{�}�'�:�:�: � �: n R ' i v
o->:a
.�.�: �.�:�.�.�::�:�:.:�:.�
� BASIN
�iRIV
5 0 5 \,
— l
Mi�s �•� BA S 1 N
�` --
' �r' .., � � 3r .i
,B�ASIN� " � V
.. - - _., '. . -_ ,/ _�•�r
'. \ ,, � r
\.
, { f �
�,. -, ;
_ :.�''.. _ \ _� �.. J
\ " :a
fY� a �..9 `
�< `
r.._ B , ,
, ; `�,._...
._ _ �
\. \ �/
�
f '
`'�- - ..._ .
G r a 'a� l.
n-.. � �
� .'.'�...._ -' �\
� e � '1
1..,,� �� Sols source aquifer �
\ �•-- I
�� �\ • Areas of major groundwater withdrawalsl
��� for public water supplies
� Urban boundaries '
Figu�e C.5 Su�face waoer aquifers, and groundwaper withdrawal aneas. `
• t�ater Table Gr�tdieitt and DireCtrori. The water table gradient directly influences the rate of groundwater flow. The greater the
velocity, the greater the potential for cbntaminants to move off site and impact nearby wells. This is a site-specif'ic aiterion and can
be applied only after detailed site invesagations.
• P►arimity to l�ells. The contaminarion of drinking water wells by waste disposal operations is unacceptable; therefore, the
greater the distance such sites are from existinng, active drinking water wells, the more favorable the site. Where drinking water wells
are located adjacent to a large site, adequate setbac.ks could be designed into the site plan and mainta.in protection of water supplles.
An invenwry of wells and beneficial use survey �uld need to be conducted to acquire this information This criterion would apply
to specific candidate sites.
• Groundri�ater Hydrologic Boundarie.s/Benefrcial Use. Hydrologic boundaries tend to intercept shallow or dcep groundwater tlow
and inc(ude: rivers, sloughs, lakess, ditches, cesstric�ve layers of sediment or bedrock, and groundwater divides. Groundwater tl�v
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�Aeruiir C.• Solid Wa,ste Facility Siting Plan C. Sitrieg Criteria •
�
�
�
�
�
�
C -1
5
•
. boundaries minunize potential contamination of downgradient wells or springs by intercepting or directing groundwater flow. This is
a site-specific criterion, which would be used to evaluate sites against one another.
�
�
(3) Flooding
• Regulatory Standard.
� "All owners or operators of landfills that are located in a 100-year floodplain shall• Comply with local tloodplain
• management ordinances and chapter 508-60 WAC, Administration of flood control zones; and ... Design the landf'ill
so that the landfIll entrance or exit roads or practices shall not restrict the flow of the base flood, reduce the temporary
. water storage capacity of the floodplain or result in washout of solid waste, so as to pose a hazard to human life,
wildlife, land or water resources.° (KCBOHC 10.36.070)
�
�
U
Other than local floodplain management ordinances, this standard dces not pose a specific exclusionary standard in siting a
landfill with regard to flooding. However, location within a 100-year floodplain would require extraordinary flood protection
measures.
• • Floorting. The potential impacts to the public health and water resources associa,ted with tlooding at a solid waste disposal site
are very serious. For this reason, location within a 100-year floodplain is considered an exclusionary criterion. Figure C.S shows
� 100-year floodplains throughout the County.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
(4) Surface Water
• Regulatory Standard. "No faciliry's actn+e area shall be located wittun 200 feet measured horizontally, of a stream, lake, pond,
river, or saltwater body, nor in any wedand nor any public land that is being used by a public water system for watershed control for
municipal drinking water pucposes in accordance with WAC 248-54-660(4)" (KCBOHC 10.32.020).
The distance of a potential site from surface water is an important consideratioa Without carefully controlling design and
operation, surface water bodies can be contaminated by surface water runoff and/or groundwater originating from a solid waste
disposal site. Therefore, the farther a site is from water bodies, the less potential for contamination and the more suitable it is for
disposal. Surface water bodies include perennial streams, lakes, rivers, wedands, and maishes as defined in Chapter 90-58 RCW, the
Shoreline Management Act The locahonal standard also specifies that public land included in watershed control for a public water
system be excluded from landfill siting consideration.
Sites located adjacent to perennial surface water require significandy more complex design, management, and operation to
protect against runoff, washout, and groundwater/surface water contamination.
Surface water bodies are easlly identified on most maps of the Counry. Public water system watershed boundaries are not as
easlly defined. No composite map exists. Public water system operators (involving major surface water supplies) were contacted to
determine if watershed control was exercised. The su�vey results were generalized and included on a map as Figure C.S. This level
of analysis is appropriate at the regional sca(e. However, site-specific information on watershed control and location of surface water
bodies and a review of the King County Shoreline Management Use Regulations will be necessary when looking at individual sites.
(5) Slope
• Regulatory Standard. "No faciliry's active area shall be located on any hill whose slope is unstable;" (KCBOHC 1032.020). Site
� topography is important from both environmental and operational viewpoints. Steeply sloping land has a greater potential for slope
• stability problems and can result in increased runoff, which could carry contaminants off site, and potentially jeopardize ground- or
surface water quality.
�
�
� c. srting crirerra
�
Appendir C.• Solyd i�a.sle Facility Srli�tg Plan
.::.,::.�;;:<.;;:;:.;:.;:::.:
:<.�:.:�:�>:;::;,.,,::._::.: ,.
:::::::. ..:: :.....................:::.:::::. .... ,.::::: ..... .....,..:::.::::::
:.....:: :::..:::.� ::::::............;:«::.;;:.:::;::;>:;;;:<.:::;.;::.;:.;:::;:::.:>:.;;;:;«.:<;::::«::.;:.:........;.>::<.>;;:::.:::.;:: ..... ...........{.:::.:;:::;.::;.:.:;.;::,
C
-1
6
:<:,<:::,:�>:><:',:::€:.. � :::::::.::::::::::;'::;
..... ...............................................:.::.........................................................................:.:.:........:..:: ::•:::: ::•:::.:�::::: :::::•:::;•�:x:•
..<...:..: • .:.:..................
• Slope. Site topogrdphy can have both positive and negative impacts for the development of a solid waste disposal site. Because
of the engineering problems involved, it is good if the actual disposal area presenis a gende grade. Access roads have minimum
grade constra�nis for avck and equipment access; however, disposal areas hidden behind hills may have lesss vLsual impacx. In
addition, a site located in a natural depc�ssion or valley may be preferable because eaccavarion operarions would be limited. However,
this may be impossible to achieve due to ground- and surface water problecns in such deprresssions.
Topography maps are available from the U.S. Geological Su�vey (USGS) on quad sheet�. Converting the topography
u�formation to percentage slope and generalizing the information w the regional scale needed for this preliminary siting analysis
would be time consuming. In addition, the generalization that would, of necessiry, take place would remove information and
possibly misrepresent a potentially suitable or unsuitable area King Counry Placuiing has slope maps available in its Ser�r�e Areas
Map. They are not included here because of the detail, size, and number of maps involved.
(6) Cover Materta[
Information on cover material was provided in Subsecxion (a) Geology and SoiL
��� �p��J'
• Regulatory Standard.
"Small landfill designs. For a landt"ill whose design and permit allow a total capaciry at closure of two
hundred thousand cubic yards or less, the need for a liner and leachate collection system shall be determined on a
case-by-case basis by the jurisdidional health departrnent in consultation with the depardnent" (KCBOHC 10.36.060)
"All owne� and operators shall design landfills, having a permitted capaciry of greater than ten thousand cubic
yards per year, so that methane and other gases are continuously collected, and (A) Purified for sale; (B) Flared; or
(C) Utilized for its energy value. (KCBOHC 10.36.090)
"Weigh all incoming waste on scales for landfills ha�ing a permitted capacity of greater than ten thousand
cubic yards per year or provide an equivalent method of ineasuring waste tonnage capable of estirnating total annual
solid waste tonnage to within plus or minus flve percent;" (KCBOHC 10.36.120)
"Insure that at least t�ro landfill personnel are on-site with one person at the active face when the site is open
to the public for landfills with a permitted ca�acity of greater than flfty thousand cubic yards per year." (KCBOHC
10.32.210)
The regulatory standards quoted above specify various landfilling standards that are applied based on size. Any new municipal
solid waste landfill sited in King Counry can be anticipated to be of such size that all capacity-dependent standarcls would apply.
Capaciry needs are an important criterion for siting a landfill because the capacity needs determine the size of a parcel needed.
These needs would be established in conjunction with decisions on other waste management options.
(8) Cl�matic Factors
• Regulatory Standasd. "See WAC 173-304-400 such as WAC 173-304-460, LandfiWng Standards, (for standards appllcable to arid
climates;" (WAC 173304-130[2)[i]). The standards applicable to arid climates refer to "locations having less than twelve inches of
precipitation annually ..." (1�AC 173304-460[3j (c) (ivD. A�u►ual rainfall in all areas of the oounty exceeds 12 inches annually.
• Prec7pitation. The principal operahonal concern associated with precipitation is leachate generatioa Ideally, the lower the
annual precipitation level, the smaller the amount of leachate generated. This criterion can be evaluated regionally with data from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Weather Bureau. This map is included as Figure C.6.
Appendix C: So[id Waste Facrlity Siting Plan C. Sitmg Criterra
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:�::i�>::�i:i�::;:::::i
:;;:;
;::: 3 ..
} �! .. Y.
:.:::::::::::::.�.�::::.::�:: ..........: ..::::::::.}w::.�.i•::._::: ::::: :.::.:_::::::::::::::::.:_v:i'ii'v?i:{;i:;iiiv:;:�j::4i:i}ii4i:i}i}i}i::�iiiiiiiii:i�iiii:4i}iiiiiiiiiiii:jiyi:i;p;i:;�ji;:i�::i: ..........
...i....
C-1
:<'t<:>:><:�:`::::"�:�: 7
:<:><�:>:,;:<:>
..�. .:>........
.............................. .......................................................... ....... �::.x:�:
(9) land Use
• Regulatory Standard. "No faciliry shall be located: "Within ten thousand feet of any airport runway currendy used by turbojet
aircraft or five thousand feet of any aicport runway currendy used by only piston-type aircraft unless a waiver is granted by the
Federal Aviation Administration. This requirement is only applicable where such facility is used for disposing of garbage such that a
bird hazard to aic�craft would be created;
"In areas designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Sen�ice or the Departrnent of Game as critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife;
C. Siti�ag Criteria Append'�r C.• Solid [�aste Faalrty Sitrrcg Plan
r�gu�e c.o mean annua� precrp�tanon �n inct►es, King County. Souroe: U.S. Weather Bureau, 1992.
LJ
-1
C 8
"So that the active area is any closer than one hundred feet to the facility properry line for land zoned as nonresidential,
except that the active area may be no closer than two hundred and fifty feet to the properry line of adjacent land zoned as residential
existing at the time of the county's adoption of the comprehensive solid waste management plan;
"So as to be at variance with any locally adopted land use plan or wning requirement unless otheiwise provided by local law
or ordinance; and
"So that the active area is any closer than one thousand feet to any state or national park" (KCBOHC 10.32.020)
Each of these restrldions places regulatory exclusions based on land use. These are discussed below.
• Airporls. The Federal Aviation Administration has stipulated that landfllls cannot be located near auporls unless a waiver is
obtained. Granting of this waiver is dependent on the la�c of a bird problem. Birds that are attracted to landfills pose a hazard to
aircraft.
The location of airports is accurately indicated on the Seattle Sectional Aeronautical Chart, published by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. Mapping of these criteria is possible and is included on Figure C.7. All aiiports are mapped with a
10,000-foot radius for two reasons: all publlc airports will accept jet-powered aircraft, and a minimal runway (1,800 feet) can
accommodate some of the newer jet aircraft
• Crilzca! Haintat. Areas deslgnated as critical habitat by the referenced agencies are considered regulatory exclusions for landf'ill
siting. At this time there are no areas designated as such in King County. However, sites may be designated in the future, so this
criterion should remain in the Sitlng Plan
• Rssiderttral Neighbors. Landfills are generally considered to be incompatible with high-densiry residential areas because of
impacts such as noise, birds, traff'ic, and odor. From a pracxical point of view, population density is directly related to land values
and lack of available tra� of land in the size rypically required for a landfill. At the time of actual siting, population densiries
would be assessed. Guiding and exclusionary criteria would then be established
• Zoning. The e�sting King Counry Zoning Code requira an Unclassified Use Permlt for landfills in any zone. Landfill operations
not consistent with permit res�ictions/conditions would be considered exclusionary.
• State rn National Parks. 1fie active area of a landfill can be no closer than 1,000 feet of any state or national park
(KCBOHC 1032.020). 'fhis information is available on most maps of the Counry and from state and national agencies. Figure C.7
illustrates the locations of these parks and the bu�'er wne.
(10) Alr Emtss�ons
• Regulatory Standard. An �vner or operator of a landt`ill shall not allow explosive gases generated by the faclliry whose
concentration exceeds:
"(A) 'It�venty-frve percent of the lower explosive limit for the gassess in faciltry structures (excluding gas control or
recovery system componenls); (B) The lower explosive limit for the gases at the properry boundary or beyond; and (C)
One hundred parts per million by volume of hydrocarbons (expressed as methane) in off-site savctures.
"An owner or operawr of a landfill shall not cause a violation of any ambient air qualiry standard at the
properry boundary or emLssion standard from any emission of landf'ill gases, combustton or any other emission
associated with a landfill." (KCBOHC 10.36.020)
The standards that are ceferenced in the locational standards refer primarily to design and operation of a facillty and do not
direcdy relate to site characteristics before landfilling.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
S
�
�
Appe�utir C.• Solid Waste Facylrty Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria �
S
�
• .............. ...........................
»�:::<:��:::��:«;:;�::;;<:'�;�:::::::;::: <:::;
C-1
9
<���i
'� _ o
�
�� ..� , ,
*���� �
� � � �
I�!:
% i�
'•'�. � j� �
s;s.i.� /�e
� �✓�
������
s�
� �� �
�+
m
'. � !
o j
� '�
- --( ;:.
� ;;
8
���
'" ' >:::'�:.� ';;::::::
� , ,.;:.
�
��,�
� ' %�%��,�%
v
�
'��'��"",�,� �
' ;-��.. ; .
~ L�•� 1 ' �,�� ���'� � Regulatory exclusion areas
• \
�•` _ —•—•�. � Airport exclusion areas
• _ State and national parks
�gune C.7 Composioe of regulatory excluslon a�as ai�port exclusion areas and state and natlonal parkc.
�
�� Air Quality. If an area is already in a nonattainment area for specific air pollutants, such as particulates, this can be used as a
• iscriminating factor for siting. Air qualiry nonattainment areas are shown in Figure C.8. This is not considered an exclusion
riterion.
• >. Lo�l Siting Issues
� In addition to the siting criteria discussed above, there are disposal facility siting issues and concerns that are specific to
• �nditions in King Counry and that are not contained in any regulations. These issues are recommended to be considered in any
• �ciliry-specific siting effort, although no specific cxiteria guide is offered.
�
�
� : S�ting Criteria
�
Apbend'�r C.• Solfd Waste Faalfty Siting Plan
C-2
0
(1) Zoning and land Use
Existing zoning regulations do not directly address the siting of solid waste disposal facilities and allow landfills tluough
Unclassified Use Permits. Zoning and land use issues related to landflll siting that may be considered by King Counry during a
facility-specif'ic study include:
• Preference for a site with preferred zoning on adjacent properties to ensure that development is compatible with the landflll.
• Preference foc sites where utilities and public services aze available or planned for the pro�OSed site.
Appendix C.• Solid Waste Facrlu� Srting Plan C. Silertg Criteria
Fgwe CS Air quality nonaualnment are�. Source: Puget Sound Nr Polludon Conaol A9ency, 1991.
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
r�
�
�
u
C - 21 �;;:�<>:
(2) operationallssues
Operational issues pertain to site characteristia that a�ect the deslgn of the landQll with regard to gas wntrol, leachate
management, accessibility, transportation, and daily operations.
• Gas Control. Gas control system requiremen�s at a landf'ill will vary depending on a number of fact�ors, including topography,
underlying geology and soils, acceleraxion of decomposition processes in the landfill, and distance to adjacent land uses/buildings.
Preference should be given to those sltes where gas control requirements are minimlzed.
• L�achate Management. Requirements for a leachate control system will vary depending on a number of facxors, including
underlying geology and soils, precipitation, and access to leachate disposal opaons. Preference should be given to those sites where
leachate management system requirements are minunized.
(3) Transportatfon
w • Localion in Relalrort to l�aste Source. Haul costs will constitute a substantial portion of total disposal oosts. Potential landf'ill
sites should be located as close as possible to the center of waste generation.
• • Access Road Development. Acc.�ss refers to the road system to be used in transporting solid waste from collection points to the
landfill site. If County roads are used, then any required improvements to bring the roads up to required capacity and safety
� standards must be included as project costs. Proximiry to a state highway system would potentially reduce road improvement costs
and would be preferable.
� • Tra�J'u Impact. This criterion category should compare possible sites in relation to the potential impact which the transport of
• the solid waste from the transfer stations and/or areas of collection would have on areas through which trucks would be required to
traveL It is anticipated that the transport of wastes could have potential secondary impacts on safery, air quality, and noise. The
• most desirable site in this category would be one that would be accessed through low-density areas.
• Daily Operatio�ts. Climatic conditions—such as high wind speeds, extreme cold or snow conditions, and high rainfall—�lace
� burdens on operations at a landfill. Preference should be given to sites with low wind speeds, low rainfall, and milder temperatures.
�
�
i
s
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
c. Exclusionary Criteria
The exclusionary criteria that can be applied at the regional scale as descxibed above are summarized below:
• Crounduiater. Sole-source aquifer recharge wne.
• Flooding. Within a 100-yeaz tloodplain.
• Surface l�ater. Less than 200 feet from major surface water bodies or public water system watershed boundary.
• land Use. Sites within 5,000 feet of an auport seNing propeller-driven aic�craft or 10,000 feet from an ai�port se�ving jet-
powered aircraft; areas designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Deparbment of Game as aitical habitat for
endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife; areas where landf'ill operations are excluded based on overlay or other
wning restrictions; within 1,000 feet of any state or national park
To summarize, the following indlvidual maps have been prepared to illustrate some of the siWg aiteria for disposal sites
discussed above: subsidence hazard areas; generalized geological map of King Counry; sole-source aquifers, major well fields, public
watersheds, and surface water, annual precipitation, auport exclusion areas, state and national parks, and composite of exclusionary
criteria air quality nonattainment areas.
The final map, Figure C.11, is a composite of the regulatory exclusionary criteria that can be mapped readily at the regional
scale, and includes the exclusions shown on the other maps.
C. Siting Criterra
Ap�Dend'tr C.• Solfd Waste Faaliry S�ting Plan
�
�1
U
C i - GZ
d. Constivdion, Decnolition, and Land Clearing (CDL) Waste Land�ills
The Newcasde Landfill, the primary permitted facility for CDL waste in King County, closed in 1990 after reaching the
maximum allowed capaciry under the Unclassified Use Permit approved by the County Council in 1987. In anticipation of the closure,
the 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan recommended that the County develop programs to incxease
waste reduction and recycling of CDL materials and contract with one or more private vendors to provide waste handllng setvices for
CDL waste. Since 1989, the County has actively promoted CDL programs and has selected two vendors to begin handling CDL wastes
(See Chapter V, Secxion D, CDL Waste).
In previous years there has been a substantial difference between the regulatory approach to che permitting of CDL landfills
and that used for mixed waste landfills. With the development of the new King Counry Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Tide 10),
the distinction betoveen the two has decreased. Although the regulations for siting "inert and demolition waste" landfills are less
stringent than regulations for siting mixed waste landfills, inert landfills may not accept sheetrock, plaster, or other demolition wastes
that might produce gases or leachate. (KCBOHC 10.52)
The King Counry CDL waste stream appears likely to contain amounts of waste that do not qualify as "inert" waste under
KCBOHC Title 10 (1991 King County [�aste Characterization Stu�y, Appendix C). Private developers of new CDL disposal facilities
could institute a waste screening program in order to ensure that only waste that qualifies as inert is acceptsd, or they could choose
instead to site and build a landfill to the mixed waste standards. For thc purposes of this study, a conservative approach is to
assume that a new CDL landfill would be sited under the Locational Standards applicable to mixed waste landfills set forth in
KCBOHC 10.32. Further, it is anticipated that a new site would have a liner and conform to the requirements for leachate collection
and groundwater monitoring requirements. Should the County enter into the siting of a CDL faciliry siting process, the locational
criteria covered in this plan under mixed waste landfills would be applicable.
3. Incinerator Ash Landfills
a
b.
Regulatory Loc�ional Standa�s
Siting of incinerator ash disposal facilities is regulated under the Incinerator Ash Disposal Standards (WAC 173-306)
Lo�l Siting �ues
In addition to the siting criteria discussed above, there are ash disposal faciliry siting issues and concerns that are specific to
conditions in King County and which are not contained in the ash management regulations. These issues are recommended to be
considered in a facility-specific siting effort, although no specif'ic criteria guide is offered.
(1) Zon�ng and land Use
As for mixed waste landf'ills, King County wning regulations do not direcdy address the siting of ash disposal facilities and
allow these facilities through Unclassified Use Permits. Zoning and land use issues related to ash landfill siting that may be
considered by King Counry during the development of detailed faciliry-specific criteria are the same as for mixed waste landfllls:
• Preference for a site with prefecred wning on adjacent properties to ensure that development is compatible with the ash landf'il1
• Preference for sit�s where utilities and public services are available or planned for the proposed site.
Appercdix C.• Solid t�aste Facility Srting Plan
C. Siting Criterra
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
w
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
❑
�
� ...........................
�
�
�
�
C - 23 :::
• (2) operationallssues
As for mixed wasce landfills, certain operational issues pertain to desired site characteristicx that a�'ect the design of the
S landfill: leachate management, accessibility, and daily operations.
• • L�achate Management. Requirements for a leachate control system will vary depending on a number of fadors, including
underlying geology and soils, preclpitation, and acce.ss to leachate disposal options. Preference should be given to those sites where
� leachate management system requirements are minimized.
• Acr,essibility. Over the life of a faciliry, haul costs can make up a signif'icant porrtion of FJRR ash dispc�sal costs. Potendal land-
� fill sites should be located as close as pracxicable to the F1RR facility and where the existing road system will not be adversely
� affected.
• L�aily Operations. Climatic condiaons such as high wind speeds, extreme cold or snow conditions, and high rainfall place
• burdens on operations at an ash Iandfill Preference should be given to sites with low wind speeds, low rainfall, and mllder
temperatures.
�
� c. Exclusionary Criteria
A map of oomposite regional exclusion criteria for incinerator ashfills would be very similar to that developed for mixed waste
� landfills. They would differ in that areas around airpoits would not be excluded for ash landfills due to the absence of bird hazard
• near the facilities. Mother smaller di�'erence is the exclusion of the 500-year floodplain for ash landfills. The S00-year floodplain is
not mapped regionally so it would be considered on a site-specific basis.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4. Transfer Station/Recycling Processing Centers
Solid waste transfer stationslrecycling processing centers are not subject to the siting criteria set forth in RCW 70.95.165 and
in KCBOHC Tide 10. These facilities are interim solid waste handllng facilities that are sited based on determination of local service
area needs. Because transfer stations and recycling processing centers are not subject to the broad regulatory locational constraints of
landfills, and since local conditions and needs drive the siting of such facilities, counrywide or regional mapping of siting cxiteria is
not fcuitfuL The approach will be to discuss, for each cat�egory of criteria listed previously, the features that will tend to make a site
more suitable for development Throughout the discussion, when the term transfer station is used it refers to a transfer
statioNrecycling processing center combination facility or to a separate recycling processing center.
a Geology and Soil
The geology of subsurface materiaJs is important in determining foundation stabilities for roadways and building structures.
Sites with unstable foundation materials will be very difficult and expensive to develop for transfer station use.
b. Groundwater
(1) Water Tabk Depth
Sites with shallow water tables have a high potential for flooding waste pit and transfer truck loading areas. Shall�v water
tables may be diverted with underdrains in some areas. If diversion is impossible, the entire building structure may require
consavction on a large manmade embankment Sites with deeper water tables would be more desirable than sites with higher water
table levels.
C. S�ing Criteria Appendix C.• Solyd Wa,ste Faalrly Siting Ptan
:�:«::
�:.�:>:�::;;�.;;:::
C-24
<:: �: . .. . .. . . . . >;;:: :.>
:�::<:..>:�:.<»<>;::>:::::<::::
c Flooding
The flood hazard category is important for solld waste transfer operations. Since floods can produce excesslve amoun� of
debris requiring disposal, it is important that waste disposal faciliaes remain operable. Sites within the 100-year tloodplain are less
preferable to sites located outside of it
d. Surfaoe Wat�r
As local se�vice facilitles, transfer stadons are located where seivice need dictates. With the rare exception of facllltles requiring
accesss to barge haul, facilities do not require sitinng within close proximity to surface water bodies. It is also true tha,t a transfer
station can be sited within proacimiry to water bodies if shoreline management designations pennik
e. Site CaQacity
(1) Site Sfze and Sbape
The size and shape of a site will deteRnine the layout of transfer station facilities, such as buildings and roads. A potential
site must be large enough to contain all facilities and also small enough to reduce wasted land area. Parcels that are 1Regularly
shaped are more difficult to develop than those that are rectangular.
Required parcel size will depend on the planned vehicle and tonnage capacities, bu�'er requirements, onsite queueing capacity
and onsite recycling and processing facilities.
f. Slope
Site topogra�hy is important because of excavation-to-fill ratios and site access. Sites on flat terrain may have good access for
truck traffic but require excessive filllng for cons�vction. Sites locat�ed on hillsides may have excellent excavation-to-fill ratlos but
have grades too steep for �vck access. For such conditions, eaccavation-to-fill ratios and access must be considered together for each
site.
g. Cover MatErial
This criterion is not applicable to transfer station siting.
h. Climatic Facto�
A transfer station may be a partially enclosed faciliry depending on climatic factors. Facilltles generally are not subject to
siting constraints due to wind, rain, snow, and freezing weather conditions. However, a site must be seNed by an all-weather road.
i. Land Use
(1) Crtt�cal Hab�tat
The nature of terrestrial habitat on or adjacent to a potential site is an important consideration because it is an indication of
the extent of potential impacts on wildlife. The least preferable situation would be a site where transfer station construdion and
operation could significandy impact high-value habitat supporting endangered or threatened species. A better situation would be a
faciliry site within an area of low-value habitat.
Ap�be�a�lix C.• SoGd Waste Facrlity Slling Plan C. Siting Criteria
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
.
J
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.::.w.;;:.::.:::.:;� ::::.>:.>:.::.;:...:
..::....::.:::::.�::::.:::::::..::.: :.:..:::.:�.�::::::.:�:::::::::::::: :.::........:::::.�::.�:::::::::::::.�:::.;�:::::.::�:::.;: .... :::.�:.
...,:r:::;�:: �::.;:>;:::�;:::�:<�:� :::::.;::<.;::.::
.:..:..... . �:;:�r;.�::.:
+)'C?:•iri�::.Stii;•}v{{•{ Sn�tn �{ ++:v
..l.Y
�
+Si'.L^i�:tii:::S::•,:S:ii:•:it: �:•S:ii:k:::L;ti:':•:i}.}}.:iv
• ..........
..... . ..... ..::::: ......:::: :..:::.�::::: ....y :':v: ' ::... ... . :.•an:�tyr...,v,....,
......... 2' 3. 5. ::.:v•:•+::.
............::::::..:.....:......::.:.:....:............:::. �........t............................s..>.n.................�.,......... v.....:.o.....`.5:... '.''
::::::::::: ::.::.�.�::: :.:::::::: :.::.�:::: ::.::::.:.�:: :.. ........ ..... :•::: :•:: ......v. :.� 5.:
�i::::;:i:�i>::: ::: :::::::::: �:::::::iiii>:: i:::Si: �::::>::::j::.::>:�»: is:.:.T:.»:::i.::.>: �::.:::i.;>i:.T:.::.::.::{::.::::: ::.::::::.: �. �:::::: ::.. �::::::::::::: :.::. �. �:::::::::. �. �:: �:::::. �:::::.�::�.�:. �::::::.�::....... ......... (� .. ry`.�...
�:
:':o:i
���:',::i;i:: :::i:S
:.�•:
:;:•5+•t:�:•:>+ _
S'? ::'v.'::s V
'"$:::: ..o•:.; '.::$.::% i''i:'�%.it•::> ��'y'�G'�' �
,....::::::::::::::;tt :::::.::::::::::::.::!:: r:.::.::r: . .,.............. ...........:::. . ............ ::
..k:::�fi�:: ::w. :oi::::'6�''� �'��itfl':' ,:<:.•
,'�.�'�>':�m�,:'•:� .':%' � :'•i%i`' ;u
......... :.: ......
.::::....:.:::::.:: ...:.:...� ' .. ::o::, :..
......: .. : ....
, .........
.: �:•:.
.:.�..:.:.:::�,;5 .:.. .,,..:;.;.:. : %%�:<?.r.. ,. ,eK:�;....f.'qa,�. ds
............. . ..,a�3..
� . ..........................................................
•
•
•
•
• Areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Washington Department of Game as critical habitat for
threatened or endangered species of plants, fish, and wildlife should be considered an exclusionary siting aiterioa At this time there
• are no such areas designated in King County. However, sites may be designated in the future.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
(2) Zoning
The most advantageous situation would occur if the use of a site for a transfer station were consistent with that site's zoning.
Consistency with zoning would increase the probability of obtaining necessary land use permits and minicnize land use impa�.
In most jurisdictions transfer stations are considered an unclassified use because they are sited infrequendy. However, �ransfer
stations are most compatible with light industrial or commercial uses and least compatible with residential uses.
(3) State or Nat�onal Parks
As for disposal sites, transfer stations should be located no closer than 1,000 feet to any state or national park
(4) Resldential Neigbbors
A transfer station is a light industrial or �mmerciat rype of use and has substantial transportation-related needs. Transfer
stations have been located in many types of seuings, most commonly in commercial, industrial, or rural areas. Depending on land
use patterns, these areas may be in proximity to residendal areas.
Viciniry land use is an important consideration because some land ussess are associated with activities that are more susceptible
to impacts from a �ransfer staUon than others. M industrial land use would be most wmpatible with a transfer station. The least
compatible land uses would be residential land; land uses with sensitive receptors, such as schools, nucsing homes, on c��spitals; and
recreational land. The type of recreational use that would be sensitive in this context is activiry-ociented recreation with concentrated
use patterns.
• Access Road Deuelopment. Access refers to the road system to be used in transporting solid waste from collectlon poinCs to the
transfer station. If County roads are used, then any required improvements to bring the roads up to required capaciry and safety
standards must be included as project costs. Proximity to a state highway system would potentlally reduce road improvement costs
and would be preferable.
• 73'a„�ic Impact. This criteria category should compare the potentlal traffic impacis from wllection trucks. It ls anticipated that
the transport of wastes wuld have potential secondary impacts on safery, air qualiry, and noise. The most desirable sites in this
category would be those that would be accessed through low-densiry areas.
j. Air Emissions
The major air quality concerns of a transfer station will relate to tra�'ic-generated air emissions and their impacl� on areas
through which solid waste is transported. Preferable sites would be situated in such a way as to reduce both the level and impa� of
such emissions.
5. Energy/Resource Recovery Facilities
As interim solid waste handling facilities, F/RR faciliaes are not subject to the locational standards set for�h in K(�OHC
Tide 10. The approach hereln is to discuss, for each category of criteria listed previously, the features that will tend to make a site
more suitable for FJRR developmenk
C. Sitirtg Critetia
Apperidi� C.• Solid Wa,sle Facility Siting Plan
n
u
�
....... ............................�::::::::............�._:::............................... .... .
`::::;� �::`.:��>`:::::>::::>:>'>::`:`;:;:
-2
... ..................
C 6
........ ..............................................................................................................................................................................................;<:>:::::::>:::����:��>>:<:;::::;:_
a Geology and SoiLs
Soils and geology of potential sites are considerations, because they affect faciliry design and, therefore, c�st The equipment
and s�vctures of an F/RR facility are usually heavy, requiring stable soils for foundations. SoiJs with inadequate bearing capacity to
support the large s�vduress and heavy equipment loads require the construction of pile foundations. 1fie best situation would occur
if existing soil conditions were suitable for the foundation of the facility. 1fie worst situaations would be where substantial bedrock or
subsurface drainage, high earthquake potential, landslide, or coal mine hazards exist
b. Groundwat�
(1) Water Table Deptb
Sites with shallow water tables have a high potential for tlooding the waste pit Shallow water tables may be diverted with
underdrains in some areas. If diversion is impossible, the entire building structure might require construction on a large manmade
embanl�nent Sites with deeper water tables would be more desirable than sites with high groundwater levels.
c. Flooding
The tlooding aiteria category is important for E/RR faciliry operations. It is important that an F/RR faciliry remain operable
during tloods. Sites located outside the 100-year floodplain would be more desirable than facilities within the floodplain.
d Surfaoe Water
E/RR facilities are industrial rype activities and may be located next to major water bodies if barge access is desired.
Shoreline management master programs can have a significant effect on the length of tirne required to obtain permits for facilities.
Some shoreline areas are protected from industrial types of use. With the exception of barge acccesss there appears to be no overriding
need to site an F�RR facillty withln close proximiry of surface water bodies. There aLso appears to be no reason w avoid lndusaial
sites close to water bodies if shoreline management requirements can be mek
e. Slope
While some slight slopes are acceptable and can be accommodated in the design of a resource recovery facility, a tlat site is
most desirable for ease of constivctlon and operatioa Excessively steep slopes would make the development of such a facility
infeasible. Some large sites may have very steep slopes and not be dropped from consideration if there is sufficient flat land that is
appropriately shaped for the facility. Thus, site topography must be evaluated in conjunction with site size and site shape in order to
determine if the site has an appropriately shaped flat area that is large enough to �ciendy accommodate the structures and
activities at the FJRR facility.
f. Capacily
(1) Stte S�xe and Sbape
The size and shape of a site will determine the layout of facilities, such as building and roads. A potential site must be large
enough to contain all facilities and also small enough to reduce wasted land area Site parcels that are irreguiarly sha�ed are more
di�icult to develop than those that are square to rectangulaz. Required site size will depend on the FJRR facility's tonnage capacity,
Apbendir C: Solyd Waste Facrlfty Srting Plan C. Sittrcg Crrterra
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
S
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
c-2
....... .... �
the specific equipment utilized, onsite vehicle queueing, and staging, buffe�, and public access for visiting and for waste dcop-0ff
facilities, if provided.
g. CWnatic Fadors
In the Pacific Northwest, an E/RR faciliry would be totally enclosed. The only sibng constraints that would apply to such a
facility would apply to the transportation system that delivers solid waste to the facility. Based on the need to mainta.in delivery of
solid waste under all conditions, sites subject to exce.ssive snow and freezing weather would be less preferable than sites without such
constraints.
h. Land Use
(1) Alrports
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed criteria that def'me situations in which a structure would pose a
potenttal hazard to navigatloa Given a maximum structure height for an F/RR faciliry, these criteria can be converted into criteda
based on linear distance to runways of various lengths. If a site falls within one of these distance criteria, the FAA considers that a
potenual hazard to aircraft navigatlon exists and eacamines the specific situation in greater detail to determine if an acxual hazard
exists. Although the FAA has no specific regulatory authority in this regard, such a determination that a hazard exists would re�uce
the likelihood that permits for the facillty would be approved.
(2) Critical Hab�tats
The nature of terrestrial habitat on or adjacent to a potential site is an important consideration because it is an indication of
a the extent of potential Impacts on wlldlife. The least preferable situation would be a site where F1RR facility constivctlon and
• operation could significandy impact high_value habitat supporting endangered or threatened species. A better situation would be a
facility site within an area of low-value habitat.
� Areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen+ice or the Washington Departrnent of Game as critical habitat for
threatened or endangered species of plants, fish, and wildlife should be considered an exclusionary siting criteria. At this time there
� are no such areas designated in King County. However, sites may be designated in the future.
�
�
�
(3) Restdential Ne�gbbors
E/RR facilities are IndusMal In nature and have substantlal transportation-related needs. F�RR faclllaes have been located in
industrial and heavy commercial business areas. Depending on land use pattems, these areas may be in proximiry to residential
areas.
• Vicinity land use is an important consideration because some land uses are associated with activities that are more susceptible
to impacts from an E/RR facility than othe�. M industrial land use would be most compatible with an F1RR faciliry. The least
• compatible land uses would be residential land; land uses with sensitive receptors, such as schools, nursing homes, or hospitals; and
recreational land. The type of recreational use that would be sensitive in this context is activiry-oriented recreation with concentrated
, use patterns.
�
�
i
•
(4) Zoning
The most advantageous situa�ion would occur If the use of a site for an E/RR facility is consLstent with that site's wning.
Consistency with wning would lnaease the probability of obtaining necessary land use permits and minirnlze land use Impac�. In
� C. Siting Criteria Appeitd'a C.• Solid Waste Faalrly Siting Plan
�
C�
c-Zs
some jurisdictions, an E/RR facility is considered an unclassified use and can potentially locate in any wne. However, E/RR facill�es
are most compatible with heavy industria! uses and least compatible with residential uses.
(S) State or Natlonal Parks
As for disposal sites, E/RR facilities should be located no closer than 1,000 feet to any state or national park
(6) Tra,,�'fc
• Locatiort in Relalion to l�aste Source. Haul oosts will constitute a substantial porrtion of total disposal costc. Potentizal F✓RR
sites should be located as close as possible to the center of waste generatioa
• Access Road I�iielopment. Access refers to the road system to be used in transporting solid waste from collecxion points to the
F�RR facility. If counry roads are used, then any required improvements to bring the roads up to required capacity and safery
standards must be included as project cbsts. Proximiry to a state highway system would potentially reduce road improvement costs
and would be preferable.
• Tra�'ic Impact. This aiteria category should compare sites in relation to the potentiat lmpact that the transport of the solid
waste from the transfer sta.tions and/or areas of oollection would have on areas through which �vcks would be requic�ed to traveL It
is anticipated that the transport of wastes could have potential secondary impacts on safety, air quality, and noise. The most
desirable site in this category would be one that vNOUId be accessed through low�ensity areas.
i. Air Emis�ions
(1) A�r Quallty
• Terrain. Air quality impacts are gready influenced by terrain. The proxicniry of terrain either above or at the final plume height
(stack height plus plume rise) of a faciliry may result in air quality impact modeling predictions far higher than for a site 1n Qat
terrain. Sites without elevated terrain nearby would be preferable to sites with such adjacent terrain.
• Attainment Status. If a site were ln or near an area recognized by air quality permitting agencies as not meeting air quality
standards (nonattainment areas) obtaining a permit for the FIRR faciliry could be more di�cult
• Availability of Data. A PSD permit for an F/RR facility will require considerable detailed data on local meteorological
conditions. Because these data are time consuming to gather, sites with suitable data would be more desirable than sites without
data
6. Equitable Distribution of Solid Waste Fa,cilities
This section addresses the distribution facilities and impacts in King Counry. Various means of attempting equitable
distribution are discussed.
The King County Council, in Motion 6862, requires that the Siting Plan provide for equitable distribution of solid waste
facilities throughout King County. Equitable means jost and fair, reasonable, not extreme. It is important to note that equitable
distribution dces not mean equal distributioa Although the term equitable distribution of faciliaes is used in the Council mo�on, the
motion also indicates that it is the Council's goal that the impact� associated with solid waste facilities should also be equitably
distributed. 1fie Preamble to King Counry Council Motion 6862 states:
". .. in the interest of equity these disposal facilities should be distributed around the County in a manner which
assures that no single area of the County will absorb an unfair share of the impacts from these facilities."
•
!
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
S
�
Appendix C.• Solyd lGa,ste Faality Siting Plan C. Sit�tg Criterrri �
r�
L
�
•
�
•
�
<::;;:;'::;::::::'
>::»�;<>;;: >;;;; :::� :.
,.»::.
C-2
9
.............................................................................................................................. . ..................................... . ::::>:
...... . ...............N......................�.... ...:�:>,>
�
� The potential impacts of the various rypes of solid waste disposal facilities can be quite different Tra�ic and aesthetia are
often primary concerns when siting a solid waste transfer station. In addition to these concerns, development of a landfill entails
� complex water and air qualiry issues and land use compatibiliry concerns. M F/RR facility will often present air quality issues that
are unique.
� The siting constraints of solid waste facilities aLso di�'er substantially. A transfer station will require a small site
• (approximately 20 acres) and require location in an urban or suburban service area. A landfill may requlre hundreds of acres and
serve the entire County. The pucpose of a transfer station will didate that it be sited near where solid waste is generated, often in the
� more densely populated areas of the County. Transfer stations will, by their nature, be distributed within the County, but that
distribution will be heavily weighted to the more developed areas. Landf'ills, on the other hand, are sited where land is available and
� where geological and hydrological conditions permit This will usually be in the less developed areas of the Counry. There is little
, possibiliry of locating a landflll within the more heavily populated urban and suburban areas of the County. Other facllltle.s, such as
transfer stations, are less highly constrained by population, availability of large parcels, or geological conditions. These facilities tend
, to be urban and lndustrial in nature, but can be situated in rural areas as well if transportation and other utiliry systems allow. To
attempt equitable distribution, the Council could choose to limit the area in which a required FJRR faciliry could be located. They
i could ensure that two facilities would not be located within a specified number of miles of another facility. Such a pollcy could
prove extremely difficult for the Council to develop.
� More logically, the siting criteria can be consavcted to give advantage to sites that are distant from other waste handling and
disposal facilities. See Figure C.9 for the location of existing solid waste, hazardous waste and sewage treatment facilities.
� Correspondingly, scoress can be decreased for sites located wittun proximity to a waste facility. However, this procedure would not
• ensure equitable distrlbutlon of facilitles or lmpaccts, since many factors would be reflected in the aiteria.
Focusing strictly on facility distribution as a means of achieving equitable distribution of solid waste faciliry impacts in King
• Counry is limited in that it addres� only part of the solid waste management system, the handling and dLsposal. It dces not
address the generation and collection elements.
� lfiere exists an example of systemwide distribution of impacts associated with solid waste management in King County. In
a establishing a policy of equal disposal rates throughout the Counry, the County Council distributes the economic impacls of solid
waste management equally throughout the system. �en though the unit cost of seNice for smaller rural facilities may be higher
• than that foc larger urban transfer facilities, custome� in each area of the County pay the same for solid waste disposal at all
locations. Through this policy, urban area residents help offset the economic impacts brought about by modern solid waste disposal
� pcactices.
The participation of urban and suburban area raidents and businesses in waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) programs is
� an example of a systemwide program that can help achieve equitable distribution of impacts. 1�R/R activities in the urban and
• suburban areas result in a reduction of impacts created when facilities are sited elsewhere in the County. However, the link belween
urban/suburban action and ressulting dea�ease in impacts eLsewhere will be delayed in time and will be somewhat di�icult to quantify.
a
•
�
�
,
i
•
•
�
7. Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Rating
Detailed siting criteria drawn from the general criteria presented in Section IV form the basis by which prospective sites are
tested to evaluate their suitabiliry. A rating system is developed to record the degree to which a site meets specific criteria Since not
all criteria will be of equal importance, there must be a way to inco�porate their relative value in the scoring procas.
�. S� ��
Append'a C.• Solyd Wa,ste Faality Siting Plan
C-
3
0
�� F��Sc :;:..
I � Ave NE �
�C
%�
�
~ Seatde North
■
H
� SEATTIE
C
? Third &
o � Lander
astmont ■ �� �
� � South 4
/ `�
%
�
% �
� Vashon
% �
� VASHON
I ISI.AND
U
.
i
�� \
� . � � '
� \�\
i:
, l Skykomish
' � � ..�., ..` ,
.. .. (..
�
,\ ' l
\ � \ _ 1 •1
,,, .., ��._ �., . .. \,'��.
� _,, ._
�� �
:.>�: �\�.. - �� �
.. _. �
`�; ' .i
" . �:i;.. l �... � �.J
\ i;i;i..,�. �� ^ S'
aiVan . %
i v
, , ;< + �
-. � .:. � '-..�_� ' �
...:':.;.... . . . .... � •
, ..�" �'__ ... � ��
�� �� � Cedar Hilis � Cedar Falls � ^
, _ c
;_, . � __ ;.%^
� Hobart� J .. _.. .. _ .
_ .
,< � � . . � ,
� : ■ /%tgec� „
i . _�
:. ��,
� ,.
� --- - -..
5 o s 1.` � Enumclaw
'�:
MILES ��.� �
�•�. .% ''^�. �,` i� Mixed waste landfill
�� � �.�,^ J �.....+' •�,, !
� y■ Solid waste vansfer sta6on
�� ... _.�.�.\ �! . �, � Drop-box
\` r I. � ^ � i� CDL transfer station
Figute C.9 Existing waste factlitles.
a Criteria Development
Criteria must relate to the type of facility being sited. Evaluation categories should match the purpose of aiteria. Criteria
scoring of a site must be able to be accomplished with aauracy and with a reasonable amount of effott Lasdy, although some
overlap in criteria is acceptable and to be expected, the criteria should not measure the same thing.
b. Numerical Sooring System for Site Comparison
A numerical scoring system will usually be developed to compare sites. The scoring system will often use two separate
numerical indica.tors for each critedon: a site characteristic rating and a criterion weighting. The site characteristic rating is used to
Al�riendir C: Solyd Wa,ste Facilily Siting Plan C. Srting Criteria
�
C - 1
...................... 3
• ................................................................................... . .. .
�
•
�
�
• numerically compare alternative sites in relation to a single criterion. The criterion weight is used to compare the importance of a
given criterion in relation to other criteria
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
(1) Slte Cbaracterlstic Rat�ng
Specific criteria are proposed to evaluate how well sites are naturally suited for their use as facility sites. F.ach detailed
criterion includes a range of characterisaa that are given numerical scores. The characterisaa that are the best for a facility have a
high rating, while the features that are not as good c�ceive a lower rating. The ratings may range from "10" for the best raring to
"1" for the wo�t rating. Different ratings are assigned to each site for each criterion, based on how well the site is suited for a given
type of facility.
Each cxiterion would have a description of di�'erent features and a rating to these features. For some criteria, it is impc�ssible
for ranges of acceptability to totally describe all possible site situations. It might be neccesssary in these cases to interpolate between
the defined site ratings during site evaluation. As an exampte, where ratings of 4 and 6 are defined for a certain criterion, a rating
of 5 might be given ro a site where it is felt that the actual site condition falls between the described ranges of acceptability for the 4
and 6 ratings.
(2) Crlteria Weigbttng
Giving more weight to some criteria than others would be a way of showing that some criteria used for siting are more
important than other criteria Criteria are considered most important when they are related to significant environmental impa�ts that
could be irreversible or difficult to miUgate. For example, in the siting of a landfill, groundwater contarnination has a significant
environmental impact that is very hard to reverse should contamination begin. Therefore, groundwater criteria would be assigned a
high weight
D. TI� SITING PROCESS
1. Goa1s of the Siting Process
• The primary goal of the solid waste faciliry siting pcncess is to provide policy makers with a choice of sites from among
candidates that are environmentally acceptable and feasible from an engineering peispective. Secondary goals are: (1) to reduce the
• chance of ha�ing to go back and repeat steps in the siUng pcncass; and (2) to produce site alternatives that can be permitted within
a reasonable time frame.
�
•
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
2. Overview of Siting Process
The siting proc�,s will be subject to tlme and budget constraina. Since a great deal of information must be developed and
processed, a stepwise process should be employed to make efficient use of resources by focusing time and energy on sites that present
a greater likelihood of being selected.
The process begins by developing facility-specific site saeening criteria, as outlined in Section III. Possible sites are then
identified and undesirable sites are dropped from consideration. This leads to detailed feasibility and environmental evaluation of a
reduced number of sites that hold a greater chance of becoming recommended alternatives.
D. 71�te Suircg Process
Ap�oendix C: Solid Wr�ste Faality Siring Plan
�
`: � - 2
3
a. Role of the EIS in Siting Decisons
Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Counry must conduct an environmental review before recommending
siting actions. In the case of new �olid waste disposal and handling facilities, this will usually require development of an
environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS ls an excellent vehicle to use in developing and presenting the environmental
information needed to assess the comparative merits of sites. Selection of several candidate sites, which can then be evaluated
through the EIS procass, will occur during the fust steps of the siting process.
3.
��
Steps in the Siting Process
c��
In general, the approach is to evaluate identified sites using those criteria that pertain to general characteristia of the sites,
eliminate the inappropriate sit.es, and then apply the more site-specific criteria to the remaining sites. Overall, there are six steps in
the siting process:
• Step I�ite Identification
• Step 2—Broad Site Screening
• Step 3—Focused Site Screening
• Step 4--(',omparative Site Evaluation
• Step 5—EIS Process
• Step 6--('.ounty Decision Making
The first three steps in the siting proce.ss deal with identification and screening of potential sites using site selection criteria
specifically developed for locating a particular rype of solid wastc faciliry in King County. Once Steps 1, 2, and 3 are completed and
potential sites have been ranked, the highest ranking sites (the top six or eight) then can be assessssed on a comparative basis in Step
4, and the most desirable sites identif'ied for investigation in Step S. The fifth step involves detailed site review through the EIS
process, and the final step is the decision making leading to selection of a site by the County. The steps are summarized in Figure
C.1.
The overall process is designed to be an objective evaluation of potential sites. Numerical ranking of sites is a key feature in
the site selection process. Low ranking can lead to a site being eliminated from furrher consideratioa The objective and comparative
ranking procedure allows for inclusion of the next highest scoring site as an additional (or substitute) site alternative at each step in
the analysis.
b. St� I�ite Identificaztion
The pu�pose of this step is to produce a number of possible sites with which to begin the site screening and selection process.
The level of effort will depend on the size and rype of facility being sited, as well as the nature of the secvice area The concepts
presented as examples will presume a large faciliry se�ving the entire Counry. Smaller local sen�ice facilities may not require such
measures in order to develop a list of possible sites.
A considerable effort should be made to inform county citizens that the County is looking for a new facility site and that the
Solid Waste Division will be accepting nominations for possible sites. In particular, the following actions may be taken to solicit site
nominations:
• Advertrsements. Advertisements can be placed in county nevvspapers.
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Append ��r C: Solyd Waste Faality Siting Plan D. 7be Siting Process
�
•
•
•
•
: ::: t ::::>::: {:::::: :::>?': .::: # �>::»':: i?:::::: ::::::::::?:: :::»>: � � �>::::::>::>::> �;:
.......................................:........................:......::::.:::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.::::: :.: :.::::: :.::::::::::::::.
::::::::::%`:�:':�:i:::::::::'�:�:�:�::%:':�::�::::i:i:�:f�:'�:����;�;:;:::�: `:�:::"� �:':::':::�:::<�::::::::::::::;::::�::�:;::�::::::::::::;:';:;::::::::::::': �::::;�::
�`?2
..........................:.:.:::::::::::::::.
..:::
C - 33 ���::;��
...........................................................................................................................................................................,........................................... ...:<:>�;
•
• • Letters. Lette� of inquiry can be sent to persons or firms on the County Assessor's list of major taxpayers or other lists that may
be appropriate. Letters of inquiry can be sent to county taxpayers with individual land parceLs of a specif'�ed number of acres as
� appropriate, or carrying a speciftc zoning designation. Letters of inquiry and a site-selecaon criteria report can be sent to real estate
firms identified as dealing in parcels of the approximate size in the area of seNice nced.
� • Diract Contact. Dlrect contacts can be made with major landholde�, including the County, the citles, the state, and ma�or
• commercial enterprises.
• Other Sources of Potentral Sites. These are site alternatives from previous sidng studies, former and present solld waste sites,
, aerial su�eys and inventories, and oounrywide listings of sites and parceLs. This step should culminate in a list identifying potential
sites.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
s
�
c. Step ?�Broad Site Screening
The pucpose of Step 2 is to identify those sites that for one or more reasons are not appropnate for development as a site for
a particular rype of facility. These reasons may include regulatory, environmental or developmental constraints, or other situationat
problems associated with a site. During the initial screening step, the stirrategy is to evaluate sites using basic descxiptions of the site
and the siting criteria available for the general area Exclusionary criteria of criacal significance should be considered fust so that
any sites that do receive disqualification ratings can be eliminated from fur�her analy�is.
During Step 2, the County will produce a Ilst of disqualified sites and a prioritized list of remaining sites. Depending on the
distribution of weighted scores, a decision may be made to drop the lowest rated group of sites from subsequent (Step 3) �Y��s,
since they will be the least appropriate sit�s at this stage.
d. Step 3-�ocu,sed Sit,e Screening
Step 3 is designed to produce a llsting of sites ranked by ability to meet the basic locational requirements for development of
a particular rype of faciliry. Some regulatory considerations, such as the presence of endangered species and cultural resources, are
also part of the Step 3 evaluation. Finally, Counry locational constraint pollcy directions for waste management facilltles vwould be
included in the evaluation. As in Step 2, the general approach is to examine sites for exclusionary ratings before doing any in-depth
site evaluations. Those sites that do not pass the exclusionary criteria test wrould be eliminated from furrher consideratioa Only the
top ranked sita (perhaps the six or eight sites with the highest scores) need to be carried fonuard into the Step 4 analysis.
e. Step 4--(',omparative Site Evaluation
The pu�pose of Step 4 is to assess sites from a comparative perspective, especially with respect to their ability to satisfy
operationai requirements for a particular rype facillry. In addition, criteria that focus on potential impac�s on the surrounding area
from operation of the project facility would be included in the factors to be eacamined. Site visits are an integfal part of the
evaluation in this step.
Step 4 is somewhat more subjective than the two prior portions of the analysis. Once the sites have been evaluated and
ranked numerically, the highest rated sites should be re�acamined in an interdisciplinary team setting to do a final feasibillty
appraLSal from environmental, operatlonal, and policy perspectives. At this point the aiteria should not be evaluate� lndlvidually.
Instead, the cumulative and interactive impacts not explicidy measured by the criteria would be assessed. This final porrtion of Step 4
would consider envi.ronmental, operational, and policy attributes togethec Based upon this analysis, several slte alternatives wID be
chosen for analysis in the EIS. Step 4 fom�s a transition betwcen the numerical-driven site scxeening process and the non-numerical
environmental analysls process of the EIS.
D. 7be Silmg Prbr,ess Ap�Dendiz C.� Solyd Waste Fadliey Siling Plan
�
C -4
3
......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................:.>.<`;:::.;'.<>..:::
f. Step 5-�IS Proaess
This step includes detailed evaluation of each of the candidate sites according to SEPA During preparation of the EIS, a
preferred alternative would be identified and recommended to the Counry Executive.
g. Step 6—�',ounty Decision Malcinng
The County Executive reviews the reoommendadon and approves, modifies, or rejects the recommended site. County acxion
may iniaate negotiations leading to purchase of a site or, alternatively, initiatton of adverse condemna�on proceedings. If the site is
owned by another jurisdiction, the County may begin negotiation of an interlocal or site lease agreement Various state, local, and
federal permits are required for solid waste facilities. A difficulty in obtaining a permit could arise during the site screening,
acquisition, and permitting processes. If a site is unobtainable, then the second or tturd alternative can be pursued. For sites located
in the unincorporated area the County Council would issue a Use Permit after a hearing is conducted by a hearing examiner. The
decision would likely be appealed to the County Council so that the Council would sen+e as the ultimate decision-making body
regarding the acceptabiliry of the site. Inside incorpocated jurisdicxions, the decision making would be more wmplex and would
include the legislative body of the �urisdictlon as well as the County Councll.
E. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Derieloped by Panf' rc Rim, Reviserl by Kmg County
A sound public information and involvement program is vital to succe.ssful siting e�'orts. The elements of the prograrn are
early notification regarding siting plans and procedures, regularly updated information about the siting process, and ample
opportuniaes for public input in all phases. The objectives of a public involvement program are as follows for the siting steps:
• Site Identifrcatron. Ensure that all feasible sites are identified and the public has an opportuniry to assist in identifying them.
• Site Screening. Ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed.
• Comparalive Site Evaluatio�t. Incorporate local issues into evaluative aiteria and provide for public input in establishing those
criteria.
• Environmental Rer�iew. Identify all community impacts, create broad public awareness, and provide diverse opportunities to
participate in the review a��d to provide wmmunity input to mi�gaation measures.
• County Drcision Making. Give wmmunity stakeholders adequate notice and opportuniry to e�r�ss their opinions and
preferences.
There are three major componenls to public involvement and information:
1. Info»natiort Gathering and Issue Identifuatio�t. Activities wuld include review of literature; inteNiews with community leaders
to gather baseline information, summarize key issues, and identify groups to be invotved; sun+eys to quantify public preferences (e.g.,
random sample telephone surveys, random sample or communirywide mail su�veys, or handout questionnaires at meetings); focus
groups to obtain more in-depth qualitative information about public perceptions and opinions.
2. �nfo�»ration Disseminatior�. Elements could include medla relations activities (e.g., news releases, press conferences, press
packets); dissemination of targeted information to elected o�iciaJs, public agency staff, community organi�.ations, individuals,
neighbo� or neighborhood organizatlons, and busln�sses; and dLssemination of general information through brochu�es and fact
sheets, adverasements and publlc noaoes, public seNiae announoernents, newspaper inserts, and wmmunity organizations.
3. Publrc Involriement and Consensus Buildirig. These activiaes oould include enlistinng the senrices of citlzzen advisory committees
and task fo�es; encouraging dialogue through community leader forums; conducting community workshops; employing structured
consensus building processes when nePded (e.g., ttvrd parry mediarion); and holding public input forums to allow individual
comment for the record, (e.g., public meetings and hearings).
Aj�bendix C.• Solyd Wa,ste Faalit� Srting Plan B. Publrc lnfornration and Im,nluen�ent Pbgram
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
APPENDIX D
CYCLING
TS
SSESSMENT
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
_v�,
.���
Sorting
It Out
Together
D
-1
Appendix D
Recycling Markets Assessment
Section D.1 Prepared by C Group, Inc.
Section D.2 Prepared by Synergic Resources Corporation
Contents
SECTION D.1 RECYCLABLE MATERIAI.S MARI�1'S ASSESSMEN'1' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D - 2
A
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
)�
K
Summary.................................................................... D-2
Paper...................................................................... D-4
Plastia..................................................................... D-12
Textiles..................................................................... D-18
Glass ...................................................................... D-20
Metals ...................................................................... D-23
Batteries.................................................................... D-2g
Polycoated Paperboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D - 32
Tires ....................................................................... D-33
Food Waste ................................................................... D-36
Sources ..................................................................... D-37
SEC'I'ION D.2 MARI�T ASSESSMENT FOR YARD WAS'I'E AND WOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D - 46
�lppendix D: Recy+cling Markets Assessme�tt
�
D-
2
s::z:;<:':::::i:>�:::`:::�:�:::'::��::>'�:���>::::��:�::::::>::s;;:::::#�: �::;�:>::::::»:'
::. ...:::::::::::.� :.:: ::..............:::::::::::::::::...................................:.....:s:�:::s::�:.::•:.�:::::.:::»:'�:�::+:::::::::.>:::::.:::;�+:x.:::
... :::..................... ::.:::::.�:::.................::::::::::::::::::.�:.�::.:;�>+»>::.:: ::.:.............::::: ::.......:...:...: ;.. :...::.:.....:......
:::::. �::::: :::•::. � :::::::::::.::: �: :•::. � ::. �.::: �:::. �::::::::::::::.: � ::::. � ::...:...:::::::::::::: :•::. �::. � :::::::::::::::. �.::.. :.::::::::::::::::: :.:
.............................................. ..............................................................................................................
..t..
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... •
•
•
•
•
Section D.1
Recyclable Materials Markets �ssment
A. SUMMARY
To improve markets for recycled materials, the most important task ahead in the next 10 years is to incxease the demand for
recycled products. King County can set an example by purchasing recycled products and promoting their use by the private sector
and the public. Minimum content standards for glass should be established at the state level and the County can aggressively pursue
testing and use of products which can be made from recycled cullet To ensure the quality of materials collected for recycling,
commercial paper recycling programs should focus on source separaxion by grade; plastia collection systems should emphaslze source
separation; colledion programs should conduct continuing education to decxease contamination; and efforrs to increase volumes of
textiles should not dlsplace the exLsting infrastructure of collectors, sellers, and processors.
The recycling markets assessment that follows contains current and projected recycling volumes and commodity prices;
assessment of current and potential new markets; and discussion of the impact of recycling programs on the market infrastrudure.
For each material, key points are summarized below, followed by detailed analysis.
• P�er Neu�ajier, Htgh grade D�tGe Plt�Jer, Mix�d i��ste Pl�jle% In 1gg0, about 39 percent of the 427,600 tons of
waste paper generated in King County were collected for recycling. In the next decade, the volume of recycled paper is eacpected to
increase an average of g percent annually to 255,400 tons in 1995 and 333,300 tons in 2000. The ablllty of the recycllng markets to
handle this increase varies by grade. Newsprint recycling capacity in the Northwest is expected to surpass local supply by mid-1993,
while mixed paper will continue to be e�orted to Pacific Rim oountries. Markets for mllced waste paper are not expected to come
into balance until 1g94-1996. Cardboard should remain fairly stable, while the market for higher grade office paper should decluie
in 1992-1994, or until new domestic capacity comes on line.
• P/aslrr,s�El; HDPE, P[�C, LDPE, PP, PS, Mi.x�d p/astres. Approximately 930 tons of all types of plastic (see Sedion C for
plastics definitions) were collected for recycling in King County in 1990, just less than 1 percent of the 85,400 tons of plastics
generated. With new household collection programs coming on line, and wlth HDPE containers (especially milk and juice bottles)
becoming a standard material in many household collection programs, volumes are expected to expand signif'icantly by 1995.
Recycled volumes of LDPE plastla are projected to grow steadlly, but at a lower rate because of d�e cleaning and sorting required
and the associated low market value. The key link in the marketing of recycled resin is the reprocessor. Recent studies and a survey
of the industry reveaLs at least six processors currently operating in the Northwest that either process or have the potentlal to proccesss
post-consumer plastic generated in King County.
• T�xtiles. M estimated 3,000 tons of textiles were collected and marketed in King Counry 1n 1990, almost 7 percent of the 43,300
tons generated. In King County, excluding Seattle, there are approximately 20 organizations/locations that collect and sell used
clothing, including Goodwill Industries, the Salvation Army, Value Village, and the Sk Vincent de Paul Society. About 20 percent of
the material collected for recycling is sold as used clothing tlu�ough these organizations. The remaining 80 percent is sold to
processors at a price of $120 to $200 per ton: about 40 percent is absorbent rag grade material, which is cut, repaackkaged, and sold
to machine and automotive shops at up to $1,200 per ton; about 45 percent is reusable clothing that is exported, prLnarily to Africa
and India; about 5 percent is wool or synthetic material that can be exported for reuse in new clothing; and the remainu►g 10
percent is disposed as waste. Processors focesee a stable market with plenty of capacity for e�ansion to acxommodate increased
collection efforts.
Aj�fiendix D: Re�ling Mark�s Ass�ssme�tt S�ort D.1: R�y�lable �faterials Markea Asse�s�nent
�
I
•
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
....:...:..:::::..........::::.::.::.:..:.::....:.:.,..:...: :..:: :::.. v.., ... .:.::::..:...:.::.:::: :�:<.::�.>::.:.::::�<.>...:: ..:::�.,...,..::.:;,�::,..,,....:�:;:;;:»�.. .;; � .:.....>::.:.<.:�:., ,. .. _:�.
.:x•:w:..v•:s: •:.r.: •r.o.4• C;....r. . ,-,a,..t�.:�::: :..,�:::. ;.� , : k��::+'. x. ,.,3,.?,,.:".£'.,l.,�J.. :i:?�i3..:
::•:ir,•.:::�5:'.:<o;:.M........ ..r`......rr'.?or...... ..:...::.:.:.•:n::: . �..{.:::•:.,:!1:••.•>).•. k:�''t•`:•:.`•;:....: •�
�.,.::�::•::...�. T
h:•:x•:::;•::a::n :+:.�... .
...o...s.... ..,.f.:::x.?:t
:ni:..::•::ta::•r:a••:.n>:•r:.::• :o>+:• +. •: . . g 1,
:.........:... ...., ,.... ,:,:: . ..;
:.�:::::::.•.v .'.: vh:r •. . i: •5::+'v'v
:::::v•vv�::..� ............... ....n..�.... .......vv.M1 ti.a........::::::::ni'�hi ...}r.ryi'l.�r•:ti�.. .n. r:l.4r � 2 •{,.
:: �F:r{. ;.;; :: .'�iL:.::� :4•:: {}rrY�.. {•:'•:L� .. 2 } r4.. : •{.:•r: ::.\::: y�. �{v:: n. r.. {r . '•::v!C}:.i}iiii�. vv} "j$i::i '�.M:•:�'rii:' :,+.' . A� iv. }:.fi •r •:: � fri xy; +/ �: \+t:
.>..... .ss h.d}S}i.:.}.'n.it}�:>r:{T}S.}.r:Y{}rC•;xf{,0;�...r.vtC,.;»:� .,,�i... ...{ • ✓ '),.••ff•:::
•:.. ...?•:.?.#'•%.'••'t•:::, ....; .; ;.. ..::..: ..:: ..:::..:,. ..1.:........ .
........................................................................................................................................................................:........ .....:::x�i::::•>:•>:•:::.:...;::if::i:l:� ..........
• Glass--�lint, Amber, Greera. In 1990, about 13,000 tons of glass were collected for recycling in King County, 35 percent of over
37,30� tons generated. With the irnplementation of new household colledion programs, it is esti�nated that by 1995, recycled glass
volumes in the Puget Sound region will reach 77,000 tons per year and will exceed 100,000 tons per year by 2000. Current
consumption by one of the two glass container manufacturers in the region, Ball-Incon, is e�ected to reach its 36,000 ton per �az
ceiling by early 1992. At that point, green cullet will be the first to be turned away. The market for green glass is already
saturated, and the market for amber or brown glass may soon beoome d�ressed as well. Thus, wntinued e�anslon of glass
recycling in King Counry will depend on the use of cullet for products and applications other than container manufacturing. At this
time there are no plans by local manufacturers to increase cullet use. Potential new markets are discussed ln the full repork
• Whi1e goods. In 1990, appmximately 2,500 tons of white goods, light ballas�s, and appliances were recycled in King County. White
goods are processsed and recycled by several private companies in King County. Ecology has lssued a regulation, effec,tive july 1992,
that will require all processors to capture chlorofluorocarl�ons (CFCs) when preparing white goods for the scxap metal markek The
future for processing white goods ls expected to be stable, but the current � metal market is depresssed due to the depr�ss� world
economy.
• Aluminum Cans. In 1990, approximately 2,800 tons of aluminum cans were colleded for recycling-4U percent of the 6,450
tons generated. Beverage can companies buy the recycled aluminum and produce new beverage containers. Currendy, the market is
on a downward trend but poses no threat to the industry or the recycling programs that supply ik
• Aluminum Scrap and Other Nonferrous Metals, An estimated 11,100 tons or 79 percent of aluminum scxap and nonferrous
metals generated in King Counry in 1990 were collected for recycling. Fifteen to SO percent of the scrap proc.�ssed by the 25 King
Counry area processors is sold to the local market, and 50 to 80 percent gces overseas. Market prlces vary from month to month
with higher prices generally paid by overseas buyers. Current market conditions are depressed due to an increase in supply caused by
domestic smelters producing at or above capacity. In addition, the former Soviet republlcs are dumping virgln materials onto the
market in return for hard currency to stabilize their economies.
• 7in Cans. M estimated 3,100 tons of tin cans were collected for recycling in King County in 1990, almost 28 percent of the
10,900 tons generated. Processors chemically remove the tin and bale and sell the steel. MRI, the only processor of tin cans ln King
Counry, has recently upgraded its machuiery and probably won't reach capaclty until 1995. The market for tln cans is currently
depressed, but the steel market is well-established worldwide and recycling programs are not expected to have a significant impact on
processors, end users, or commodity prices.
• Other Ferrous Meta/s. In 1990 appro�maiely 70,400 tons of ferrous scxap metal were recycled in King County, 79 percent of the
total tonnage generated. Ferrous metals contain iron as a major component There are about tvv� dozen processors of ferrous
metals in the area, whlch sell scrap metal to domestic and foreign foundries and smelters. The current market ls stable but the price
is lower than normal due to low prices on the international steel markek The value of ferrous scrap purchased by the steel lndustry
depends on iron content, conslstency from one load to another, density and lack of nonferrous contaminants.
• Household Batterics. Most of the approximately 2.9 million household batteries purchased in King County each year are disposed
as trash, with less than one percent recycled. Alkaline batteries, which make up 70 percent of household batterles used, are not
recyclable. Some jewelry and camera stores in the area colled button cell batteries and sell them to a reprocessor in New York
None of the jurisdictions that collect household batterles in Washington State have found an eoonomically and environmentally sound
outlet for recycling them.
• Lead-Acrd Batteries. Nationally, approximately 85 percent of the lead-acid batteries (automotive) are recycled. In King Counry,
5,000 tons were collected For recycling in 1990, a recycling rate of 100 percent Markets for automotive batterles as a secondary lead
source are very strong due to increased environmental regulations that make it more expensive to mine for lead.
• Polycoat� Paperboard. There is llmited collection, processing, and markets for polycoated paperboard in King Counry. 7�vo
processors handle an estimated 50 tons per year being recycled in the County.
Sectio�a D.1: Re�y+clable Mate►yrtls Marke�s Acs�nertt �pend'cr D: R�y�ling �Vfark�s Assess»�erit
.......... .iiUi}Yr:i•::i;n}:.i:::.iYi:L+•ii:}iiii?}:t•ii:iii::iiii'ir}ii:'•:i::S:Y�iTir.i::::.:'.Y: .:.:.: .:::: v.:� •:.vnv.� ••::.�:::::::.::�.� . ..:: ... ............. .............. ........ ... ..
{.n . . ..................... . ...\..................:. :.?nt :•::::�•: :?•:::::: : rv. .ny: w::::r:
r�x. w:.�:::::.�.+.•::}::ii:.?:.iiiiiii:iti?v :.:r v..:r}::f.:+v:i:h:}ii:iiY.{v::•r.:::.iv: �::::.
:v v .... v::: {.}}::w::: n.
..... xxi: w::.•:::.•:::::x.l6ii::::n�.� :::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::.�.�.i, :.ti•i:•......................:............. :v:?::::: .. ;..... n.vv.......n. .................v... ::^::::.
— �ii:!i>�'i+�iii:ii: �:J'Jiiii'i.:::�I�:::'i'•::::ti'v:iv:v:i�:v:•i'•iii'r'�:ti'?i}t::tiG::4i::?:{?ti�'•i:�:vi$n�iii:�iii:i�:ti�iiii:i:�i:?�i:•:ii>iiiii:i{::}i
..:.:..... ... a ...................................................
::n�:.�n ::w:::.iwi:ii?•i:i•iiiiiii:w:n .::.w:::::v :........:::::::::.�:n�::.:
...... ::::::::.i .::: .............ti•r.,v,:: �•i' ..; ..; .... ...'�i'•ii:::...................'.: ..... .. rr .v. : .4. M1...... :..i::::..n.\. ..............r..r...v :... ............................ ...........
t;:;<:; :;i:j {.: rrr�r,..�r.. r :.\v: •:x>.uv.. .
D 4 ....,...::::.� ::............:...... ....
...�:.
...<..<..
:...:. :::::.....v ..>.:.:,:: � ......::::...:::::::::.:.::::...............:.............. ..:.:...k.>.::<:::.�.:::..:.::::.: :..:::::. ............:::::: :....:......:::: :.:::.:::.::.:;.:::<.::.::
.:.�: ..::.�..:w..�..:::.�... �.......... .:::::.:................................ .....,.........<.,.....<..................
............ ..... ..... .:...............::.::::::::....::.::::................ ,.,.,..:::..::::::::::::.:::::.<......
• 7�res. In 1990, an estl�nated 1,114,600 tires were recycled ln King County, about 23 percent of the total number of tires
generated. Tires are sent to processors and end users throughout Washington and Oregon. New recycling technologies are being
developed at a rapid pace and severa( facilitles are projected to come on llne over the next decade.
• Food [�aste. To date there have been no significant efforts made to recycle foodwaste. Most of the area wmpost proczssors have
experimented on some level with adding foodwaste to yard waste during decomposltioa Food waste Is seen as a potentially strong
market if processing issues such as odor, contaminants, oost, and other concerns can be resolved.
• Yard [�aste and i�ood. Over the next few years, oollection programs will probably produce a glut ln the yard waste processing
industry, aeating compc�st stoc(cplles and dl�icult market wndltions. However, there should be sufficlent processing and demand to
ensure long-term sustainable markets. The products will be primarily topsoil, mulch, and wood fuel.
Sections on each material are organized acoording to the following information:
• Current and projected recycling volumes
• Analysis of current market
• Impact of rc�cycling programs on lnfi�astructure
• Estimated commodity prices
• Potenrial new markets
• Reoommendations
Throughout the market assessments for each commodiry, recycled quantities are taken from the 1990 I�ashington State
Recycling Suruey published by the D�artment of Ecology. Disposed tonnages are based on the 1990 King County [�aste
Characterdzation Sttu#y by SCS Engineers. Annual generation is calculated by adding recycled and disposed tonnages.
� �, � �
This section addresses general issues and oonditions for all paper grades, then examines individual pa�er grades in more
detail. Paper recycllng in King County wnslsts of fairly well-developed systems for the wllection of old corrugated cardboard (OCC)
from businesses and mixed waste paper (MWP) from the residential sector, as well as a developing commercial office paper collection
system. Markets for dlfferent grades of paper span the range from excellent for source-separated computer printout paper (CPO) to
poor for MV�P. During the 1990s, demand for recycled paper is expected to increase, which will help to expand the domestic market
for post-consumer papec
• Current and Project�d Reiyclmg �olumes. As the number of recycling progrdms In King County incxeeases, the volume of paper
collected for recycling continues to grow. In 1990, an estimaled 165,500 tons of paper were collected for recycling in King Counry.
1'hiss acoounts for about 39 percent of the 427,600 tons of waste paper generated in King County in 1990. In the next decade, the
volume of paper recycled annually is expected to incxease an average of 9 percent per year to 255,400 tons in 1995 and 333,300 tons
in the year 2000.
Cwrent and Projected Recyding Volumes for All Grades of Paper
Year 1990 19� 2000
Tons recycled 165,500 255,400 333,300
The abiliry of recycling markets to handle the growth in volume of paper varies by grade. Nevusprint recycling capacity ln the
Northwest is expected to surpass local supply by mid-1993 as new mills come on line. The markets for MWP are not expected to
come lnto balance until 1994-1996. OCC wlll remain fairly stable, while the market for higher grade office paper wlll decline in
�pend�r D: R�cycl'm,g A�arke�s Assessrirent Sa;tfo�t D.1: R�yrlable Materrrt(r Mar�efic AsseSrnleitt
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
>::>:�:: >::»::>::: ::»::::;>::>:
...................................,.::::::::::::::.: �:::::::. �:::::::::::::: .....:::::::.: �::::.<..:::::::.:>::.:;::>.:::;:::::. �;:;::.; �;:::.;::: .::::::.::::,.::. �.: �:::::::::::::::::. �:::::::::::.:;:<>
:: <:>:::'::>::`:::<:::>:::�:: -
D
5
1992-1994 or until new domestic capaciry comes on line. Markets for MWP are not expected to be sufficient to meet the growing
supply of MWP during the rest of this de�ade.
• Analysrs of Current Market. Several grades of paper are recovered from the municlpal waste stream. Nevvspaper, cardboard,
high office paper, and mixed waste paper are the most common. However, with new de mills coming on line in
Washington and Oregon, magazines and phone books will increasingly be separated from other mixed waste paper for recycling at a
higher value. Paper collected in King Counry is sent to paper mills from British Columbia to Oregon, and as far east as Montana
Thus, markets for paper must be addressed on a fairly large scale. Currently, however, 90 percent of the paper collected for recycling
in King Counry is exported to Pacific Rim countries. Expansion of domestic markets is crucial in order to maintain long-term
stability. At the local and national level, markets for all gracies of paper are depressed. Since the Northwest has the advantage of
pro�mity to Pacif'ic Rim markets, local prices have not been as severely affected as those in other parts of the country.
• Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure. A substantial barrier to developing domestic markets for paper is the large
ca�ital investment required. With equipment costs ranging in the millions of dollars, the industry is hesitant to wmmit large oudays
of capital in this time of depressed markets and economic uncertainty. Before making these investments, the paper industry must be
conf'ident that there is sufficient demand for their product Very few companles have been willing to make such investmenis during
the past two years. Hence, the vast majodry of all grades of paper collected for recycling in King County continues to be shipped to
Asia where the markets are less particular about the quallty of paper that is used. Quality control issues affect all types of paper
recycling programs and the markets for recycled paper.
• Recommendations. The most irnportant task ahead in the next 10 years is to increase the demand for recycled products. To
encourage this, King County can set an example by purchasing recycled products and promoting the purchase of recycled products by
the private sector. Development of commercial paper recycling programs should focus on source-separated programs by grade of
papec In addition, continuing education to decrease contamination is encouraged.
1. Old Corrugated Containers
a. G�n�ent and Projected Recycling Volumes
Old corrugated containers (OCC) make up aLnost 30 percent of the paper available for recovery. In King County in 1990,
about 62,000 tons of OCC were collected for recycling, which is 49 percent of the estirnated 127,400 tons generated. The vast
majority of OCC, or cardboard, Ls found in wmmerclal waste, where lt ls falrly easy to separate from the waste saeam for recycling.
Businesses often accumulate cardboard in speclfic places, thus making separation and collection easier. The quantities and market
price ha,ve historically made OCC collection profitable for private collectors of all sizes, from the lone hauler whose proceeds benef'it a
church to large recycling companies. The projected growth rate of OCC is 4.6 percent per year.
Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Old Corrugated Cardboard
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons Recycled 62,000 82,100 102,800
Se�ction D.1: Racy�dable Materrals Marke�s Ass�snse�tt
Append'�r D: R�c}acling Mark�Xs Assessment
�
D-
6
b. Analysis of Cun�ent Market
The following Northwest mills accept OCC for recycling:
Mill Pro
Weyerhaeuser, Longview, WA Boxboard, tubestock
Longview Fiber, Longview, WA Linerboard, unbleached kraft
Container Corporation (Smurf'd), Tacoma, WA Boxboard, tubestxk
Georgia Pacific, Toledo, OR Kraft bags, linerboard, corrugating medium
Keyes Fiber, Wenatchee, WA Molded fruit tray pads
Michelsen Packaging, Yakima, WA Molded fruit tray pads
Sonoco Products, Sumner, WA Boxboard, tubestock
The markets for OCC have been depressed since late 1988, with the current price 40 percent lower July 1g87. However, OCC is
perhaps the most stable of all paper producis. Since a large volume of recycled OCC is exported, prices paid for OCC fluctuate with
foreign demand as well as the domestic economy. The American Paper Institute (API) predicts an ongoing demand for OCC because
of a worldwide shortage of fiber.
c. Impact of Rec,ycling Prograras on Infrastruc�u�e
OCC collected in King County is shipped to mills throughout the Northwest for manufacture into boxboard, linerboard, fruit
trays, and corrugated medium. Statewide in 1990, about 273,000 tons of OCC were collected for recycling. About 62 percent of this
material is used by domestic mills, the remaining 38 percent is exported.
Only two mi1Ls have plans to expand their OCC capacity before 1995. Weyerhaeuser's Sprin�eld plant will expand to handle
approximately 90,000 tons per year. Longview Fibers will double i�s capacity from 300 tons per day to 600 tons per day (or 131,400
tons per year) by mid-1992. This will bring the Northwest's OCC capaciry to over 430,000 tons per year by 1995. With this
additional capacity, all OCC oollected for recycling in King County will go to Northwest mills. No mills in the Northwest have firm
plans for expansion of OCC capacity beyond 1995.
d Fstimated Commodity Prioes
A su�vey of local brokers put the current price of OCC at $70 to $80 per ton. This price is expected to remain fairly stable
through 1995, and will rlse as the value of other lower grades of paper rises. By the year 2000, the price for OCC is expected to be
around $120 to $140 per ton.
Curnent and ProJected Price per Ton for Old Corrugated Cardboard
Year 1990 1995 2000
Dollars/ton $70 to $80 $70 to $80 $120 to $140
e. Reoommendations
The mazkets for OCC are stable through 1995. H�vever, careful monitoring of the markets should be maintained to avoid
future market diff'iculties.
Appe�tdix D: Re�y�Cling Markels Ass�snrent S�clan D.1: Racyrlable Mater�als Marke�s Ass�ssment
n
u
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
•
��
•
•
•
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
:�:<:>� -
::���:};'
D
7
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................::::,:;.::.:;;:.;: ,.k r;.;::
2.
a
Newspaper
Cunent and Projecred Recyding Volumes
In 19g0, appro�mately 56,000 tons of old newspa�r (ONP) were collected for recycling in King Counry, which represents
nearly 56 percent of the 100,500 tons generaied. Most ONP collected for recycling wmes from the residential waste stream. 'I�vo
new newsprint mills came on llne in 1991, both of which will ac.cept ONP. The addition of Inland Empire in Mlllwood, Washington,
and NORPAC in Longview, Washington, increased the NorthwesYs ONP capaciry by 261,000 tons per year. With the e�ected addition
of four new mills by 1995 adding 394,550 tons per year of capacity, the Northwest will ha�e a total capaciry of almost 750,000 tons
of ONP each year. These Northwest mllls will ha�e the capaciry to accept more ONP than the region produces. Thus, the Northwest
is e�ected to import ONP from Midwest states for recycling. 'I'he projected growth of the recycling rate for ONP is expected to be
13.2 percent per year.
Current and ProJected Recycling Volumes for Old Newspaper
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 56,000 104,100 193,500
The following mills are expected to come on line between 1992 and 1995:
Miil Product Capacity (tonslyear)
Diashowa, Port Angeles, WA NewspriM 33,200
Boise Cascade, Tacoma, WA
News Tech, British Columbia, Canada
Total New Capacity
Newsprint 98,550
Newsprint 147,825
279,575
b. Malysis of G�nent Market
While most ONP is currendy sold to Pacif'ic Rim countries for recycling, new mills are coming on line in the Northwest,
which will ellminate virtually all exporting of ONP. The main product made from ONP is newsprint, but a small percentage Ls used
to make bo�oard, corrugated medium, tubestnck, and fruit tray pads. The following mills accept ONP for recycling:
Mill Product Capacity (tonstyear)
Existing Washington and Oregon Milis (approximately) Newsprint 160,610
Inland Empire, Millwood, WA Newsprint 41,000
Northern Pac'rfic (NORPAC) Newsprint 220,000
The market for ONP in the Northwest has probably reached bottom and will begin to rise during 1992. This is partially a
result of the minimum content legislation in California (AB 1305), which required 25 percent recycled nevvsprint by January 1, 1992,
and 50 percent by the year 2000. This has pushed the paper industry to make the necessary investment to equip their mills using
recycled newsprint as feedstock Recycled content legislation in other states, such as Oregon, will continue to positively affect the
domestic markets for ONP.
c. Impact of Rec,yc�ing Progr� on Infra.�trudure
. The increasing number of curbside recycling programs in the Northwest has rapidly increased the supply of ONP. This
increased supply, combined with a reduced demand for newsprint as ne�wspaper readershlp declines, has created a surplus supply of
• ONP, as well as low market prices. Market prices have also been negatively impacted by the voluntary shutdown of Pacific Rim mills
and an oversupply of virgin material.
�
�
� Ser.tiort D.1: Re�y�clable Materials MarkeRs Asse�sme�tt
�
Appe�td'�r D: Reicyrlmg Marke�s Asssssm�tt
D-
8
(1) Esttmated commodity Prtces
According to local mills, the price paid for ONP is currently $45 to $50 per ton. As new mills come on line, the price for
ONP is expected to stablllze at approximately $60 per ton through 1995. By the year 2000, the price paid for ONP should be around
$60 to $70 per ton.
Current and ProJected Prlce per Ton for Old Newspaper
Year 1990 1995 2000
Dollars/ton $45 to $50 $50 $60 to $70
d Potential New MarkeL�
In addition to the paper markets for ONP, new markets are being developed in some parts of the country. In Iowa and other
states, agricultural exper� have been experimenting wlth using ONP as animal bedding. Tests show shredded ONP to be significantly
superior in bacteria suppression capabilities to straw, pine, and cedar sawdust, sand, bond paper, mulched ONP, and two types of
ltmestone. In addition, studies conducted at the Unlversity of Mlnnesota and ln a Wlsconsin agricultural field trial concluded that it
tak�,s only 80 percent as much paper as dry straw to maintain the same levels of cleanliness. The cost savings by using ONP are
substantial: $50 per ton for chopped ONP compared to �100 per ton for straw.
The Homasote Company in West Trenton, New Jersey, has been making building products from 100 percent recycled ONP since
1909. Its product llne includes underlayment for cacpeting and concrete construction, structural board for noise deadeNng, fireproof
roofing panels, insulation, subflooring, and roof decking. Its one-million-square-foot oomplex employs 250 employees and uses
appro�mately 350 tons of ONP per day.
A pilot project in Sydney, Australla will test the development of caskets from ONP. ONP mulch and a polymer binding will be
molded into the shape of a co�'in. A veneer finish will then cover the molded ONP. Each coffin will use 20 pounds of ONP.
e. Reo�mmendabions
Encouraging residenaal oollecxion systems that minimize contamination of nevu�spaper will be important as domestic markets
develop in the next two years. A high-qualiry material will be demanded by the new mills. Smurfit and Weyerhaeuser do not
currendy accept ONP from oommingled residential colledton programs because of the contamination levels. V�tule the collectors have
responded to tivs message by modlfying their collec�on systems and processing equipment, continued encouragement of
oontaminaiion minimization techniques will be important to maintain a high-quality product and to increase market developmen�
3. High-gra�d�ee Paper
While the prices for white and oolored ledger and computer paper (CPO) have dropped relative to prlcss for other grades of
paper, they have maintained a fairly high value compared to mixed waste paper. Historically, the value of ledger paper has made it
an excellent target for recyclers. Hov�ver, as the value has fallen with the ove�upply of material on the market, wmmercial
collecxion of high grades has beoome less profltable.
More recently, buslnesses are more wllling to pay for recycling services due to dramatic inaeases in disposal fces. Recycllng a
material in King County can cost about 30 percent less than disposing of that material as garbage. As a result, recyclers are seeing
an enormous increase in their businesss from the commercial sector. One local company reports that their commercial recycling
business is currendy incxeasing by 10 to 15 percent each month
Appendix D: Racyr.lrng �rk�s Assess»te�tt Se+ctiort D.1: R�cy�clable Materrals Man(�s Assessme�tt
i•
I•
•
•
•
•
� a. Curnent and ProjecCed Recyclir►g Volumes
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
u
�
�
D - 9 «:fi�:<::
An estimated 10,500 tons of high-grade pa�er were collected for recycling in King County in 1990 out of approximately 25,100
tons generated. Ttils represents a recycling rate of 42 percenk In 1995, appro�mately 14,000 tons of paper will be collected for
recycling; in the year 2000, that number is projected to grow to 18,700 tons at a 6 percent projected rate of growth per year.
Current and ProJected Recycling Volumes for High-grade Paper
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 10,500 14,000 18,700
b. Analysiss of G�irnent Market
Domestic mills that accept waste paper for recycling will accept only ledger and CPO (domestic mllls wlll not accept MWP
collected in curbside prograrns). While the market potential for producing tissue and toweling from high-grade office paper is
substantial, domestic markets for recycled ledger and CPO have been slow to respond to the nced for increased capacity. This slow
response, coupled with an increasing supply and a depressed economy, is expected to push the price of ledger and CPO down during
1992 and 1993.
Consumer demand for products that are manufactured from recovered high-grade paper will improve the markets for these
materials. These products include consumer goods such as tissue paper, packaging papers, printing, and writing pa�ers. According
to local mills, the current market philosophy is that quality and cost are more important than the presence of recycled content
c Impac;t of Recycling Pro� on Infra.�trudure
• As the value of lower grades of paper increases, the domestic markets for office paper will also increase. Recyclers are
increasingly e�erimenting with "mix-pack" grades of paper, or office paper that is made up of several different types of high-grade
• paper, such as whi�e and colored ledger and CPO. Whlle the value of a mix-pack grade is not as high as CPO or source-separated
white ledger, the volumes are much greater and the recyclers can guarantee a fairly constant mix to the mills. For example, a mix-
� pack from Boeing will have a consistent blend of a few different grades of paper, so the mill knows what to expect from that
particular mix-pack
� V�hile Weyerhaeuser and Smu�it collect source-separated high-grade o�ice paper, Recycle America is experimenting with m1x
• packs. James River's Halsey plant is considering accepting mix packs. They antici�ate paying $60 per ton for this mixed office-grade
paper. Mix-pack-grade pulp will be recycled into paper and wrlting paper or tissue and toweling paper products.
• One local processor separates ONP and OCC from their mixed waste paper (MWP). They then mix higher grade office paper
collected from oommercial businesses with residential MWP to increase the value of their 1�P. This MWP product is then marketed
� in Asia
• d. EShtII� COIT1tnOdlty Pi1�2.S
� According to the October 1991 issue of 7he Paper Stock Re�xirt, current prices of high-grade office paper range from $70 to
• $80 per ton for colored ledger, to $235 to $240 per ton for CPO. While these prices may drop in the next few years, they are
expected to rise as the value of lower grade paper rises. It is estimated that the price of office paper will be about the same as
• current values in 1995, with an increased value ranging from $130 per ton for colored ledger to over $300 per ton for CPO in the
year 2000.
�
�
�
�
�
S�tio�a D.1: Racyclable Materials Markets Ass�ssme�tt
Appendix D: Rer,y�ling Markea Assessment
^:Giiii:�}iiii:i4:: ::Oiii'.i:!•iii:�i:�iii�W:iiiiiW:::::x:
D-1
0
Current and Pro)ected Prlce per Ton for High-grade Paper
Year 199 1995 2000
Colored ledger $70 to $80 $80 $130
White ledger $95 to $120 S95 to $120 $120 to $150
CPO $235 to $240 $240 to a250 Over 5300
e. Pot�ential New MarkeL�
There is substantial potential for growth in the amount of high-grade paper used to make tissue and toweling products.
There are currently no other planned new markets for high-grade paper.
f. Reoommendations
Perhaps the two most important things that the County can do to enwurage recycling of high-grade office paper are:
1. Encourage the use of recycled paper in offlces.
2. Encourage source-separated collection of high grades of paper to increase the value of the o�ice paper that is recycled.
The number of collection programs implemented ln o�ices wlll increase as the value of the paper increases. Domestic
markets for high grades have high potential for the manufacture of tissue paper, paper''towels, and even printing and writing paper.
A consistent source of high-grade paper, combined with customer demand will accelerate the'development of these markets.
4. Mixed Was�e Paper
Mixed waste paper (MV�P) consist� of mixed paper collected in cu�fiside programs, as well as paper left over from other
collection programs after the higher grades of paper have been removed. Two major weal�esses of the material wllected are hlgh
contamination levels and lack of consistency in product quality. These wealmesses have prevented local mills from accepting
significant quantities for recycling into new paper products.
a. G�nent and Projected Rec�nding Volumes
M estimated 37,000 tons of MWP were collected for recycling in King County in 1990. ThLs is 32 percent of the estimated
114,800 tons generated. Domestic use of MVVP may increase someuvhat as the price of virgin fiber increases, but no mills have fum
plans to make the equipment changes w recycle MWP. Therefore, there will be insuff?cient domestic mill capacity to handle the
region's projected volumes of MWP for the foreseeable future. A potentially serious oversupply will exist as soon as late 1992.
Cwrent and Projected Recycling Volumes for Mixed Waste Paper
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 37,000 74,000 147,500
b. Analysis of G�in�ent Mark�eet
In 1990, 76,000 tons of MWP were wllected in Washington State, with only 6,000 tons wnsumed by the region's mills. The
surplus of 71,000 tons (93 percent of the total MWP oollecxed ln Washington) was exported to Paciflc Rim countries for recycling.
The current glut of MWP is expected to get worse before it gets better. As new curbside programs come on line, incxeasing quantiaes
of MWP will flood the market Northwest broke� are particularly worried about the effect that Califomia's mandatory curbside
Append'�x D: Racyrling A1ark�s Asssssment
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
S�on D.1: R�y�dable MateriaLs Markeis Asse�sment •
�
�
I •
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��;.t>:::;:�:�{;:::�::�«::::«�«:»::;:.;>;::r:::::::: �::;f•::>�
::>�;N::::.::::«::;��«. ;:<s>:.:>:<:
ni�Yr
v ::::::::::::::::::::::: :.: ..................................:::::::: ............................................................. ..
.........x::: v:x:::::: :.:i}i:.i}ii: :: :v:{!:::::nii:::iY.'/in.:: .. : vw .ir�'. �'.'��'+:ii::i.;,�� . .. . ........................: .
x::::x.....� .......................::::m.x:::: . .x. •:n^ rf{nn.h :.: ..{N:i::�Y..�ff::i}ii:: v.vh:{n....n........\.................f.�0...{ vi u...{.....
.../.}n}...ry•:'x:« •:::::::::::: •::::::} ::::::::::::::�::.•....... ...}..
'i,i:;y4:•: _
�:�iti�iiiii�:ti•'.:
: {. .
.:.<.«<> ::.:::::..::.::.:<:.;::.>:<.>:::..< .
D 11
�:.F . n H.:%• :iC�': ''r';:>W'':<
............................................................v...........r..............t............................................�Lti<L:::}:d:?i+r:.•.•.1..•....?.+.tJy...M1'�:......�.�..................{....�...�.... .. }...{ .�.....;.
recycling law (AB 959) ��ve on MWP markets. MV�P collected in California will be competing for the same export markets that
the Northwest cunendy ussess. The potentlally large volumes of MWP collected in I.os Mgeles, for example, v�ould oveiwhelm an
already limited MWP markek
Commercial paper recycling Is sensltive to the market prlce for MWP. As MWP prices ha�e fallen, recycling of MWP at
commercial businesses has dropped as much as SO percent since 1988. This is due to a decline in sorting of commercial waste to
recover MVOP. As the market prlce of MWP falls in the next one to three years, It ls expected that few new oommercial recycllng
programs For MWP will be implemented.
A few bright spots in the MWP market are the development of marl�ets for magazines and phone books. Phone book
recycling is an example of the power of consumer influence. The phone book industry was presssured by the public to make its
product recyclable and recycled. The phone books have now been changed to make them more recyclable. 7�vo large mills that are
coming on line by mid-1992 will accept phone books, so that all phone books and most magazines generated in the Northwest wlll
have markets. Diashowa, in Washington, will accept phone books for recycling. In Oregon, Smurfit currently takes magazines for
recycling. Demand for thes� specif'ic paper products will drive up the prlce, leading King Counry recyclers to separate the phone
books and magazines from other MWP. The ciry of Portland's new curbside recycling program includes source-separated magazine
collection, similar to King Counry's curbside newspaper collection.
Michelsen Packaging in Yakima periodically buys large quantities of phone books from King County. It finds that the phone
books are a consistent source of fiber that works very well in its fruit aay manufacturing process. When James River comes on llne
in mid-1992, the Northwest will be a net importer of phone books.
c. Impact of Recycling Program on Infrashuchu+e
Market development for MWP will be crucial as the collected volumes continue to increase, while e�sting markets remain
sevecely limited. At the present time, no local markets exlst for manufacturing MWP into recycled products, and no domestic mills
ha�e plans for accepting MWP.
d F.stima�ed Commodity Prioes
The price of MWP has ranged from -$2.50 to $15.00 per ton over the past 4 years, with current value at $0.00 per ton. MWP
is low in value because it regularly contains such contaminants as hot-melt glue, laminates, plastia, bindings, wax and foil coatings,
and pressure-sensitive labels. The high cost of sorting MWP precludes most separation attemp�, so it is generally sold commingled at
a low value. The value of MWP is expected to remain low through 1995, then to rise to $10 to $15 per ton by 2000.
Current and Pro)ected Price per Ton for Mi�ced Waste Paper
Year 199 1995 2000
Dollars/ton $0.00 $0.00 $10 to 320
e. Potential New Markets
Products currently made from MWP include paperboard, chipboard (used for packaging such as cereal and shce boxes), and
roofing paper. Potential nonpaper markets for M�P include compost and ethanol. A pllot pro�ect in Orondaga County, New York,
involved composting 107,000 phone books (180 tons) with brewer sludge at an Anheuser-Busch facility. Samples of the compost are
currently being analyzed for quality and marketabiliry. Ethanol is a fuel produced from cellulose products, such as MWP. This is a
low-end use for paper that has quite a bit of future potential. The advantage of fueUethanol applications is that a plant can be built
to use a variety of feedstocks. When the price of paper Is low, the plant can use ethanol for fuel. When the prlce of paper rLses, the
plant can change to another, le,s,s expensIve fuel source. Technology exists to build furnaces that can use ethanol and wlll meet all
Sectio�t D.1: R�cyrlable Materra�s Markea AsseSSment Append'�x D: R�cy�ling MarkeRs Ass�nent
�
.......... ...... ..... ..............:.....,............::........ .. .
.: > �: _ :;::. � :.;:::: : .: : : . � . � : : : . � : : : .,.:
.�::::>:::,::>...::::::::.�:.:,.::.:� •>::.:::•:::.::.;:.:: �.;:.;>::.�::.;;::;;::<.><::::::::>:>::>::.;:.::.::.;;;;;:�.:.:;.;:.;::.::.:
. . . . . . . . : : >: : : . � : : . .: . . . . . . . : >: <.::.;;:.;>::::.>::.»::.>;:>:: ;:.»;:.:.:.:;:.: :.;:.: ;:.:::.;:...;:.::.:: � : >;;> :..,.: : : .
— �'••::>'>'•:':�:::�>';<?�E::<::s':::��<>::>:<'::;�:>�:::>:::; �::: �::��::>::;::::s:::<::s::ii:
.......... ...... .
:::::::::. ......:.:::::::,::: ::•.: _:.�..... ;::•: ;:tt •:.: �:.::::,+:::.:...,.....:::: '. i ::::::::. :; �"':::::::::::::::.;•.::.;,::. �::: i i :•" :Yi: i :•::::::>
:::::::::. :; :::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::: ..... .. . ...:::.: �....: ...,.. :•: �::::: ................ .................... .... .......... .... .. ................ ...
:.;;:.;:::•• :.: •.::., •: ti ::.;�.;.::::: :•::: :.:.:;: ::: -::.�:::.::.::: <.:: �:::::.,:::+::s: •:::.•,•:::::::..;::;:::•:::.:: »::•:i•::;.:::::::}::a::::.?•::po-::•:::::::;:::i::::::::::•,••:::::::: i :;;�;::
>
<:.::.:::.::� •::::::::>::::.-:•:::•::::fi:•:::::+.: ... ........ . .........
.......... ..................... ..t............... ..o.................... ::....::>: •::..•::x�:>:s:s::tt:::: :.::...:>•:::::::..:a::o>:>::::::::a>:ns»:::::::r:•:::•::.:::.:::: •.:.. :::.::.�.�.:...:.:.::. :.::::::::::..�..:
D 12
air emission standards. Separation of higher grade paper from MWP may Increase as markets develop for these higher grades and
markets for MWP become overburdened.
f. R�eo�mme.ndations
To encourage market development and to help minimize the worsening glut of MWP that will most likely occur in 1993 when
King County's curbside prograrns have been lmplemented, it is recommended that the County:
• Encourage high-grade paper wllection systems with source separation of grades whenever feasible.
• Encourage the public and private sector to buy recycled producls (one of the barriers to bringing new mi1Ls on line is low
demand for recycled products).
• Encourage the public and private sector to recycle.
• Encourage opportunities for new products and applications of recycled paper, such as molded pulp, compost applications, and
composite applicatlons.
C. PLASTICS
The Society for the Plastia Industry (SPI) has developed the coding system shown below for the plastic resins most commonly
found in household and industrial waste:
SPI
Code Abbreviation Resin Name Typical Application
1 PET Polyethylene terephthalate Bottles for soda, liquor, cleaners
2 HDPE High-density poyethylene Bottles for milk, juice, laundry detergeM, motor oil; corrtainers for yogurt, sour
cream, etc.; high-strength bags and wraps
3 PVC Polyvinyl chloride Bottles for cooking oil, mouthwash, etc.; 'blister pack' used for hardware, toys,
etc.; and pipes
4 LDPE Low-densihr polyethylene Grxery bags, bread bags, trash bags
5 PP Polypropylene CoMainers for yogurt, shampoo; rope and strapping; battery cases
6 PS Polystyrene Hot drink cups, food trays, packing 'peanuts,' plastic cutlery
7 Mbced/other plastics
The coding system Is lntended to assist in the idenbfication and sorting of resin rypes for recycling. This market assessment
treats plastia as a whole whenever possible, and breaks out specific resin types as necessary, using the SPI code and abbreviation to
identify indlvldual resins.
1. Curnent and Projected Recycling Volumes
Approximately 670 tons of all types of plasac were collected for recycling in King County in 1990, which repmsents less than
one percent of the 85,400 tons of plastla genera�ed in the County. The Department of Ecology Recycling Survey divides this recycling
tonnage into PET bottles, I-IDPE bottles, LDPE film, and other plastia, as shown below.
�ppertdkr D: R�y�lfng Marb�s Assestimertt S�clio�t D.1: Re�Jable Mate►yaLs Markds Assessme�tt
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
* �
��
��
�
�
•
�
�
i
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
f
�
�
.
•
:::> r � ::v: r:':: :"::: : � :` <:
�� �<::: ::>::::<�:<<:�:�>:�<::>:«�>;�::<:<:::::::::::€::::::::><<::� ::;;::: � �:
;:::�::»:;
.�
Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Plastics
Year 1990 7995 2000
PET bottles 176 300 to 500 500 to 700
HDPE bottles 133 700 to 900 1,000 to 1,200
LDPE plastic 145 250 to 350 600 to 800
Other plastics 218 400 to 600 850 to 1,000
AII plastics 672 1,65010 2,350 2,950 to 3,700
D-1
3
`::;»`::::'::s>
• The 176 tons of PET bottles recycled is about 10 percent of the 1 ,750 tons generated. With new curbside collection programs
coming on line, the volume collected is expected to grow substantially in 1992 and 1993. 'rhe 133 tons of �IDPE bottles recycled are
� about 3 percent of the S,S00 tons generated.
• With HDPE containers, especially milk and juice bottles, becoming a standard material in many curbside programs, this
volume is e�ected to expand substantially by 1995. The 145 tons of LDPE plastia recycled represents less than 1 percent of the
• estimated 27,800 tons generated. The recycled volumes of these plastia is projected to grow steadlly but at a lower rate because of
the necessiry of cleaning and sorting and the associated low market value.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
�
�
2. Analysis of Current Market
Recyclable post-consumer resins share a substantial and growing common infrastructure of collectors, processors, brokers, and
manufacturers. The rypical recycling loop for plastic materials includes residential, commercial, and industrial sources that generate
waste plastic; a collector who picks up or accepis at a drop-off facility the waste plastic, and who may sort plastic types and bale
plastia for shipping to processors; a reprocessor who converfs sorted plastia into flake or pellets; and a manufacturer who makes a
product using recycled resin as a full or partial substitute for virgin resin.
The fhst important feature of this loop is the collection system design and the resin rype or mixture of resin types that the
system produces. Fxisting collection systems in King Counry include both source-separated and commingled approaches. Most
commingled collection systems rely on later sorting into single resins; others feed mixed-plastic processing systems that manufacture
plastic lumber-rype products.
The key link ln the marketing of recycled resin is the reproccesssor. Reprocesssors perform cleaning, sorting, grinding, and
pelletizing functions, which determine the markets into which the collected plastia can be sold. A review of recent studies and a
survey of the industry reveals at least six reprocessors currendy operating in the Northwest, which either process or have the potential
to process post-consumer plastic generated in King Counry. These flrms are listed below with a brief description of the resins they
handle and the applications for their products.
Se�ctio�t D.1: R�c�clable Materia�s �tarkets Assessment
�5perulix D: R�cy�l'rng Markels Asssssme�tt
�
D � :.`:'{'r,::
14
capaciy
Processor and Location Resins Handled (tons/y� Applications
Denton Plastics PET, H/LDPE PVC, 25,000 Pelletizes resins for sale to manufacturers; handles post-consumer
Portland, OR PP, PS and post-industrial resin.
Sepco Recycling PET, HDPE 10,000 Cleans and sorts; specializes in post-consumer scrap; plant
Spokane, WA opened August 1991.
Rainier Plastics HDPE, LDPE, PP 7,500 to Handles only industrial scrap; no capacity for cleaning or sorting.
Yakima, WA �p,ppp
Partek
Vancower, WA
McConkey
Sumner, WA
Interstate Plastics
Vancower, WA
HDPE
HDPE, LDPE, PP
LDPE
3,000 Handles bottles only; aorta iMo natural and colored; sells to Phillips
Petroleum for manufacture iMo non-food bottles.
2,500 Handles industrial scrap only; manufactures nursery pots and
trays; has larger plaM in California which also handles PS.
1,200 Handles clean and baled industrial scrap only; planning to double
capacity in coming year.
In addition to these fums, some smaller local firms, such as Recycled Products Marketing (RPM, Bellevue, WA), act as brokers
of locally collected plastia and marketers of end-products containing recycled ressin. M undetermined but substanaal quanary of
plastic collected for recycling in King Counry is processed in California and other states. Supply of, and demand for, recycled resins
can be of such a regional and constantly changing nature, that it often pays to ship baled plastics long distances for pmcessing and
manufacturing.
The implementation and evolution of the SPI coding system wlll contlnue to play an important role in plastic recycllng.
When they were introduced, the codes were adopted voluntarily by the majoriry of plasac oontainer manufacturers. Since then, it has
become clear that the ooding system is Wnited in its ability to handle the complex arra.y of plastic rypes and appllcations. Plastia
reclaimers often require more detailed sorting than is addressed by the voluntary coding system. For example, I�PE blow-molded
containers (narrow-necked wntainers such as milk jugs and detergent bottles) and HDPE injection-molded oontainers (wide-mouthed
t�bs and jars such as yogurt and margarine containers) are both labeled as #2, but they ha�e significandy dlfferent properties when
heated and are therefore of greatly Wnited value when mixed together.
Because of this limitation, some manufadurers, reprocessors, and collectors have begun to move away from the coding system
toward brand names and generic product rype descriptions. Some manufacturers may soon remove the codes from their products on
the grounds that they ca,use more confusion than they prevent More specific, product-oriented sorting of plastic grades ls likely to
impmve the markets for the collected materiaLs, but will place an added burden on the collection and preprocessing systems to
separate materiaLs. I.ocal markets for plastla have recendy become much more selective about oontamina�ion.
At the same time, the initial success of the SPI cbding system has led to its adoppon by segment� of the plastia industry
beyond the rigid container market for whlch It was intended. Many plastic film products already use the codes, and it was recendy
reported that the Mazda Motor Corporation is planning to wde its plastic automobile parts using the same system.
3. Impa,ct of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure
From the perspective of the plastia manufacturing industry, the volumes of recycled resins used are relatively lnsigniflcant and
therefore have not had a major impact on that infrastructure. Much of the industrial scxap recycling has been happening for many
years and seems poised to continue and possibly lncorporate Wnited volumes of post-consumer reslns.
From the perspective of the recycling industry, however, the low denslty of pc�st-oonsumer plast�a will cause these materlals to
have an incxeasing impact on wllection and processing systems. The addition of PET and I-Il)PE bottles to cuctiside routes has been
Appe�tdix D: Re�yrlritg Mark�r Ass�rrte�tt S�tron D.1: Reryr,lable Materia�s Mark�s AsseSSment
C �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
.
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
. ..................................................................... ::..:.:::::.�:::::::::.::::::.v:::::::.::::..::::::.:....�:::::.:::::::::::�:.:.�:.:..::.,.::.:::.:::.:::::..:... ..........
:,:::::::::.
;::}::::
..{......
.................................. ..
:::�:.:::::::::::::.::.::�:�:::::::::::�:>:::::::::<.:::::::. _
.::.::::::.:::.:: �:::::.:::: :::::.::::.::::::::::::: :::.:: � �:::::::::::::.:::.�::.::::::.::.::.::.::::::::.:::::...:::::.::::::. �. �::::::: :.:::::::::::::::::::::::.::...........:....:
.........
::::,�.............. ..,,..... .� :.�.::.:
................:........................:....................................:.:...........................................................................� :..::
: : : : : : : : : : : : . � : : . : : .:: .;.: :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : . � : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . . : : : : : . � : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .;.: : : : : : : .;..: : : : : : : : : : : . . . . .
.............................................................................::::.. .................. ...: r
::::::: ::.::.�.�:::.:. :..:::::::::::::::.::..�...::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.::.::::.:::::::::::.......::.:.r::::.:...:.::::::::::::::::.:.:.::..::.::.::.::.�:::.:::.:: �
..:>:: .>;..::.;:.::.:::::::::>:;f�:,. D 1
::::::.:::::::::.:...:�.::::.;.:::::...:::::...<.:.�:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.>::::.::::::::. :.... ..::::::::::::::::::>.:.::;:.: . 5 r......
manageable wlth e�sting equipment, but the cumulative effect of expanslon to other types of plastic may ove�vvhelm the capaciry of
existing trucks. Some collectors are currendy e�erimentiing with on-truck dens�'iers as a possible solution to this problem.
4. Estimated Commodity Prices
The current and projected prices for recycled plastia are shown below by resin type. Reprocessors and manufacturers appear
optimistic about continued demand for separated recycled resins of all rypes; post-consumer resins that require expensive cleaning and
sorting are e�cpected to remain at a relatively low value for the foreseeable future. Recently, low market prices for virgin resin have
caused a reduction in competing prices for recycled resins, but these prices are expected to stabilize and perhaps regain some ground
in early 1992•
Current and ProJected Prlce Per Ton for Plastics (Based on Clean, Baled Sa�ap)
Year 19 90 1995 2000
PET $180 to $280 $200 to $400 $200 to $400
HDPE $110 to $210 $200 to $400 $200 to 5400
PVC $300 to $400 $400 to $600 $400 to $600
LDPE $100 to $400 $200 to $400 $200 to $400
PP $100 to $400 $200 to $400 $200 to $400
PS $200 to $600 $400 to $600 $400 to $G00
It is important to understand that the prices shown are for clean, baled plastic scra�, which is usually obtained from
industrial sources. The collection and pre-processing costs to bring post-consumer materials up to this marketable standard is
currendy pmhibitive for most resin types. For example, post-consumer HDPE and LDPE film from retail bag collection programs
generally has a �ero or negative market value because of the required sorting and cleaning.
5. Fxisting and Potential New Markets
The markets for each rressin type are discussed below.
a. PET
Cureent markets for recycled PET are in manufacturing of carpets, fiber insulation, and other fiber appllcations. Most PE1' is
cleaned, reground, and shipped to California or the Southeastern United States for remanufacture. A huge new market for PET is
beverage containers. Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola ha�e each recently received FDA approval for bottles made from 20 to 30 percent
repolymerized post-consumer PET. They have both announced plans to expand their current marketlng of these bottles. Hoechst
Celanese Fibers and Film Group in Charlotte, North Carolina, is currently the main producer of repolymerized resin. Eastman
Chemical Company recendy began producing the malerial also at its SO-mlllion-pound-per-year facility in Kingsport, Tennessee.
b. HDPE
Post-consumer I-mPE is currently used 1n numerous consumer and lnstitutional products, lncluding compost bins, sign pc�sts
and sign blanks, and non-food packaging. These markets are reported to be strong with potential for growth. A potential new
market for recycled HDPE is ln food packaging. Some industry sources expect FDA approval of post-consumer HDPE ln food-grade
applications by 1995. 'Inis market would greatly e�and the demand for post HDPE.
Section D.1: Reryr,lable Materrals Markels Assassmertt
Append'tr D: R�cy+cling �rkels Ass�ne�tt
�
D-1
6
A recent development in the recycled I-IDPE market is the start of a program sponsored by Procter & Gamble in which it has
guaranteed a price for most rypes of HDPE bottles wllected for recycling in Washington State. The company has guaranteed for one
year a price of $240 per ton for materials delivered to selected handlers in the State. After the first year, the price for all bottle rypes
will be equal to the price paid for scxap milk jugs. To qualify for the program, bottles must be sorted into three color groups: (1)
natural, (2) a yellow-red-orange m1x, and (3) a blue-green mix Black, brown, and gray bottles or any bottles that contained
hazardous materials (such as motor oil or hazardous household cleaning produds) are not accepted.
c. PVC
PVC is used in a wide range of products, from pressure pipes to clear food packaging, such as cooking oil bottles. Currendy,
the small amount of PVC wllected for recycWig Ls used in low-performance pipe and tubing products. No plans for expansion of
recycled PVC markets were r�orted, but expansion is feasible given the prices paid for scxap bottles. Systems are being tested that
wlll automatically sort PVC bottles from PET bottles. If these systems are proven to be cost-effective, collection and recycling of PVC
bottles could expand oonsiderably.
d LDPE
Most post-consumer LDPE is currently recycled back into bag applications. Most of the markets for the post-consumer saap
are manufacturers of the producis and are set up on the basis of existing purchase wntracts between a manufacturer and a
retailer/oollector. The markets and technology exist to recycle the bags, but the economia currently do not provide any incentive for
the collection and recycling of these bags. The retail bag collection programs that are operating in King Counry are powered by
public relations benefla rather than oost savings.
On a national level, interest in post-consumer polyethylene film recycling seems to be growing. Advanced Environmental
Recycling Technologies, of Rogers, Arkansas, has recently patented a proeesss that removes wntaminants from LDPE bags and other
film praiucts. It has formed a partnership with Dow Chemical to further develop and oommercialize this technology. It currendy
m�ces the recovered scxap with wood fibers to produce composite bullding materiaJs. Dow Chemical is also working with
Rubbermaid to test use of post-consumer shrink wrap in Rubbermaid's produds.
No local reprocessors or manufacturers reported any plans for expansion ln thelr post-consumer LDPE activlty in the next few
years. Source-separatian of bag types (some are also HDPE) would improve the market wnditions for these materials.
e. Polypropyl�e
Polypropylene (PP) is very resistant to chemicals and fatigue, and therefore finds application in food packaging, bottle caps,
automotive batteries, and automoblle bumpers. Recycled PP 1s used in the manufacture of new battery cases and in assorted
consumer products, such as wheels for barbecues and lawn mowers.
Potential volume of existing markets is reported to be large and easily expanded for clean, well-sorted scrap. Innovative
markets include the automobile industry's current e�'orts to use reclaimed scrap to form new bumpers or splash shields. Mazda and
Volkswagen are both experlmenting with systems for collecting scrap bumpers, removing the paint, and using the recovered materials
in new paris.
� � �:l�►�
Currendy, recovered polysryrene (PS) foam is recycled lnto a wlde range of products, lncluding foam egg packaging, office
produc�, and vldeo cassette cassess. Expanslon of exlsting markets is expected in the near future, partly through incxeased levels of
Appenda D: R�cy�l'mg �rke�s Assesmleitt SerXiait D.1: Racyraable hfaterk�s �arke�s Assessmeret �
�
i•
......... ..... .. ............ ... ........... ............... ........... ..........::..:...:::: :.::::...:.:::.......:.:::....:::.::.:...::.:::: ::..::....:: :.:... ..::: :...:: v ... ..:::::::..::::......
..+5.:::i.:. � :r.:: �::::::. :..r:h :.v..:.:0:�:.. .. ..l.. . ...},v,.l..: r htY�iJiii?:y::3.•,,x,.: ^:n�i'�:�'�i::i::?:i..r. .:,T,• y:{ti0%;:}:
�.1 i:':: :>.. :.n ..}.. ..>.: ..\�..v. �..... � x:.p • ::.Kn:l.: ,'.i}i:?::r: .r.J•:•iu..........$ .....................r.
•i:titiQ\ .....1. vv.xf....::�l.....�T:,r,.:::n....x.........rr......}.$T.:rn:.:....�}�i:i.::....nx.n}.........::?.}i:^iii::i:•:iiii::. . .:::n..�r�:...:
:::/:::.;
: ; : ti(i: • ,:i:t•i:::�i 'ii:ti•:•:"t;''}'�} �
1
D
................... ,.,... :::::::...................................................................:........................................::::........ �
�::::r::;::::;:::::<:;::::»::::::>:<;:;::<::::::;;:<::::::>::�:<::�::::>:<:::>�::<;:�::::<:::
.,>.:
::::: ::.:::::::. �::::::::..... .............................................
...............
�:;>: x:;: < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: ..
� ..... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... .........
�
�
�
�
� recycled content An innovative new applicatlon c�lled Polymer Impregnated Cement (PIC) is being tested by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. PS foam "peanuts" are embedded in cement to form a lightweight composite building materiaL
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
,
r�
L�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
g. Mixed/Other Plastics
Mixed plastic resins are currendy processed into plastic lumber and similar applications, such as parking bumpers and picnic
benches. These markets have potential for development, but in the past year or two have not expanded as strongly as expected. The
low throughput of current mixed plastics processing equipment has led to high cos� and subsequent diff'iculty competing with
traditional wood producL�.
New markets for mixed plastia include their use in drainage Wes and in a recycled�ontent asphalt product called "recyphalt"
The asphalt produd has been developed by a Massachusetts company and is available in the Puget Sound area from Rainbow Cullet
of Redmond, WA The product reportedly uses a wide variery of inorganic materlaLs, Including mixed rressln scrap plastla, as
aggregates. Potential volumes and economics are as yet undetermined.
Another recent development in mixed plastics processing is a solvent-based resin separation system developed at Rensselaer
Polytecnic Institute and commercia.lized by M. W. Kellogg of Houston, TX This process uses selective solvents to dissolve and separate
one polymer type at a time from a mlxed plastic batch. M W. Kellogg is currently assessing the technical and economlc
performance of the technology.
Polyurethane (PU) resin, which is used in fle�cible and rigid foam products, such as building insulation, paddtng/filler, and
packaging, makes up a significant component of the mixed plastics waste stream. The Society of the Plastia Recycling Industry has
joined with 15 private companies to form the Polyurethane Recycling and Recovery Council (PURRC) which will sponsor research
into recycling technologies for this resin type.
� ': � i • �, �
The key strategies for King County to pursue in improving market� for recycled plastics fall into three categories: (1)
facilitating the design and implementation of source-separated, contamination-free wllection systems; (2) buying products that use
recycled plastic and encouraging similar purchasing behavior on the part of the cities and the public; (3) educaang the public about
buying products made from recycled post-consumer plastia.
In pursuit of the first strategy, the most effective approach might be to focus on aggressive, countywide public education which
works to clarify common misconceptions and confusion about the plastic recycling, addressing issues such as whlch rypes are and are
not recyclable in certain programs and which contaminants are most common and most detrimental to the recycling process. In
addition, the County should work through the cities and with the franchise haulers in the unincorporated areas to standardize the
types of plastia that are recycled in curbside and drop-off programs and the preparation requirements for these plastia. The
combined efforts of standardization and education would help improve the cost-effectiveness of the plastia recycling programs and lay
the groundwork for expanded markets and expanded types of plastia recycling in coming years.
In the second strategy, the County should continue to play a leading role in state and regional effor�s to identify and procure
recycled products. Through the Purchasing Agency, the Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, and other avenues, the
Counry must identify viable products made from recycled plastia, make an extra effort to test their performance where necessary, and
give preference to these products over wmparable produc� made from nonrecycled materials. In the area of recycled plastic,
products that appear to be appropriate for purchase by the County include compost bins, sign posts and sign blanks, all types of
plastic bags (such as trash bags), park benches, marina pilings and decking, and other outdoor lumber applications. As a
Sectron D.1: Re�ckrble Materials Markea Assessmeitt Appendix D: Recy�ding Markek Assessme�tt
�
�
D-
1
8
.;:« :.;,<,:,..,,: ,:.
.;:.:::�:::>:<:<.:;:::::::; <:::;:::.:<.::::::::::�:>:::'�:::::<<:::::::>.:«::>::::;::>::::::;:::;�:::::::�::>�:>:;>';:::::�:::::�::<::�::<>>��::::>::;:<::��:�:::<�;:::<::<;:; {�::>:�:::�:::::::`:`:���:::::�::::::<:::<><:€����:::>::::`::::`:>::»»
complement to all purchasing efforts, a plan for outreach to the clties, buslnesses, and indivldual consumers of the County should be
implemented to highlight county successes in recycled product purchases and opportuniaes for similar purchases by other groups.
D. 1'ExI'ILES
l. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes
��s�� 3,� tons of textiles were collected and marketed in King County in lgg�approximately 7 percent of the
43,300 tons generated. Historically, the volume of textiles collected has increased at 5 to 10 percent per year, driven primarily by
population growth. Recently, more aggressive solicitation and collecction efforts ha�e caused an additional increase in the quantity of
materials collected for recycling. Processors have indicated an interest in expanding collection further, perhaps through regular
curbside collection of textiles.
Current and Pro)ected Recycling Volumes for Textiles
Year 199 1995 2000
Tons recycled 3,000 4,830 7,800
2. AIl��'SlS Of Clll'l�Ilt M��t
Currendy, textile recycling in King County consists of four primary components:
1. Collection and sale of used clothing by thrift stores and charitable institutions.
2. Processing of non-saleable cotton clothing into rags.
3. Export of non-saleable but stlll wearable synthetic textiles.
4. Export of non-saleable �ol for reuse in new v�rool gannents.
In King Counry, excluding Seattle, there are approximately 20 organizations/locations that collect and sell used clothing,
including Goodwill Industiies, the Satvation Army, Va1ue Village, and the St Vincent de Paul Sociery. Approximately 20 percent of
the material collected for recycllng is sold as used clothing through these organizations. The remaining 80 percent is sold to
processors at a price of $100 to $200 per toa
About 40 percent of the material handled by the King County processors is absorbent-rag-grade materlal(prlmarlly cotton
fiber), which is cut, repackaged, and sold to industrial users (e.g., machine, automotive, and paint shops) at up to $1,200 per ton
About 45 percent Ls reusable clothing made from synthetic materials and is exported, primarlly to Africa. and India, at prices from
$40 to $400 per ton. About 5 percent is wool or syntheac material that can be ea�orted for reuse in new clothing. The remaining
10 percent is disposed as waste.
Processors and graders that serve King Counry lnclude Barco and Buffalo Industries in Seattle and Norrhwest Textiles In
Tacoma Representatives from these firms belleve that current domestic markets for used clothing and rags and export markets for
used clothing have the potenaal to greatly expand. They are limited by the supply of raw materlals and, to some degree, by current
processing capacity. Northwest Textiles is planning to move into a new facility in the �irst quarter of 1992, which will double the
company's processing capacity. Other processors report the ability to expand promptly in response to increased supply of textiles.
Appienda D: Re�cl'mg Mark�s Assessmeitt
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
��
�)
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
S�lion D.1: Re�y�Clable Materlals Mark�s A�sessment •
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
:>:;:::<:,>::>
D-1
9
� 3. Impact of Recycling Prog�cams on Infrastructure
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
New programs to increase recycling of textiles could have a major impact on the e�sting infrastructure, depending on how
the programs are designed and implemented. With no action on the part of the Counry, the existing collectors and processors would
likely continue to e�and their volumes gradually and maintain their present roles in the system. There has been a trend in recent
years toward involvement of for-profit enterprises in the primary collection activiry, which has historically been dominated by
charitable organizations. Existing collectors, both for-profit and nonprofit, could be threatened by the development of a new
collection system, not so much because market prices would drop but rather because their supply of raw materiaLs could be
diminished. New recycling programs should seek to facilitate increased collection, then perhaps deliver the collected materlals to
existing handlers and sellers of used clothing or otheiwise help maintain their share of the processing market.
4. Estimated Commodity Prices
The price that might be paid for raw textiles is difficult to determine, because most sellers of used clothing are also collectors
and therefore do not pay another organization for their raw materials. The clothes they are unable to sell are marketed to secondary
processors and therefore har+e an established market price. The prices shown below are for "preprocessed" textiles, which consist of
used clothing and rags from which the saleable clothing has been partially or completely extracted.
Current and ProJected Price per Ton for Preprocessed Teactiles
Year 1990 1995 2000
Dollars/ton $100 to $200 $120 to $220 $150 to $250
Processors foresee a stable market with plenty of capacity for expansion to accommodate increased collection e�orts. Current
market strength is indicated by the fact that private organizations can justify intensive phone solicitation and door-to-door collection
programs to increase collected volumes. A sudden increase in collected volumes may cause a slight drop in prlce but the market
should stabilize quickly as outlets are identified and e�anded.
5. Potential New Maxkets
� Because current markets for textiles are strong, there has been little incentive for development of new markets. Use of textiles
• made of natural fibers as feedstock for a composting operation has been discussed, but no information on actual performance is
a�ailable.
n
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
6. Recommendations
In the case of textiles, County involvement in market development does not appear to be necessary. Instead, efforts should be
focused on developing collection programs that capture increased volumes of textiles without displacing the current infras�vcture of
sellers of used clothing and processors of non-saleable textiles.
Sect�on D.1: Recycl�ble Mater�ls Markets Assessment
Append�x D: R�cling Markets Assessment
�
-2
D 0
E. GLASS
Glass containers ha�e been recycled into new glass containers for over 100 years. During the past 10 years, however, the
increasing use of plastia has led to a decline of the glass manufacturing industry. 1'his decreasing demand for glass containers,
coupled with increasing collection of glass containers for recycling, has created a serious market imbalance for glass throughout the
United States.
1. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes
In King Counry, the volume of glass collected for recycling is increasing at an average rate of 10 percent per year. In 1990,
about 13,000 tons of glass were collected for recycling in King County, which represents 3S percent of the 37,300 tons generated.
With the implementation of new curbside programs, it is estimated that by the year 1995, recycled glass volumes in the Puget Sound
region will reach 77,000 tons per year and will exceed 100,000 tons per year by the year 2000. At this time there are no plans by
local manufacturers to increase their cullet use. Unless economicaily feasible export markets are developed, or new end use mukets
for cullet are developed there will be a large over-supply of cullet in the near future.
Current and ProJected Recycling Volumes for Glass Cullet
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 13,000 20,900 33,800
2. Analysis of Current Market
Markets for manufacturing glass containers in the Northwest are extremely limited. Ball-Incon in Seattle and Owens-Brockway
in Portland are the only glass container manufacturers in the region. Glass cullet from the Puget Sound region is taken to Ball-
Incon, while cullet from the rest of the state gces to Owens-Brockway.
Ball-Incon has the capacity to use up to 36,000 tons of cullet per year. Their cureent consumption ls 30,000 tons per year.
With new curbside programs starting in unincorporated King Counry, it is expected that Ball-Incon will reach its 36,000 tons per year
ceiling by early 1992. As Ball-Incon approaches its capacity for accepting cullet, green cullet will be the first to be turned away. The
market for green glass is already saturated, and the market for amber @rown) glass may soon become deprresssed as well. Thus,
continued expansion of glass recycling in King Counry will depend on the use of cullet, specifica(ly green glass and mixed color
cullet, for products and applications other than container manufacturing.
In the fall of 1990, Fibres International opened its glass benefication plant in South Seattle. Ball-Incon accepts glass only
from this plant. The Fibres plant processes all recycled glass in the Puget Sound area, removing contaminana and preparing the
cullet according to Ball-Incon's specifications. The plant is built to handle twice the volume that Ball-Incon accepts. Fibres is
seeking ovetseas marke� for the cullet, however the cost of exporUng glass is extremely high. At this time Fibres is selling cullet
only to Ball-Incon.
Ball-Incon reports using 30 percent cullet in their flint batches, SO percent cullet in their amber batches, and 80 percent cullet
in their green batches. The higher the percentage of cullet used, the greater the volume of glass that can be recycled. However, with
poor markets and customers who demand a high-quality product, glass manufacturers are demanding high-quality loads, with no
contamination. For example, Owens-Brcekway has informed its customers that "one major contaminant, such as a ceramic dish, is
cause for rejection of the entire load." As volumes of cullet increase and demand decreases, quality control will be increasingly
critical.
Append� D; Re�cycling Markets Ass�ssment Sactron D.1: ReCyclable Materials Markels Ass�rnerct
D
-21
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a. Flint
'I�vo-thirds of the domestic container production is flint glass. Approximately 40 percent of the glass processed at Ball-Incon
is flint-colored, or clear glass. The markets for flint cullet are fairly stable, since the demand for flint containers is expected to
remain higher than the supply of flint cullet and flint can aLso be mixed with other colors when necessary.
b. Amber
Amber @rown) glass is the smallest percentage of glass collected for recycling, at approximately 20 percent While amber
glass does not face the enorrnous over-supply problem that green glass does, demand is e�ected to decrease over the ne� one to
three years, causing prices to drop below the cureent $40 per ton to as low as $10 per ton. A significant amount of the region's
amber glass is currently recycled through refillable beer bottle programs. Rainier Brewery in Seattle and Henry Weinhard's Brewery in
Portland accept amber beer bottles for refilling. However, the number of bottles being refilled is limited by the growth of curbside
programs. Processors of recyclables collected in curbside programs cannot process beer bottles for return to breweries due to the large
volume of materials that they handle. Refillable beer bottles are more readily collected at buy-back centers, but thesse, too, are
declining in number as curbside programs come on line.
c. Green
Green glass faces the most difficult market conditions of the glass recycling industry. The United States is a net importer of
green bottles (mostly from imported beer and wine). Thus, glass plants receive large quantities of green cullet but ha�e few
customers buying green containers. In the Puget Sound area, local wineries are potential buyers of green glass, but Ball-Incon
reports that the wineries demand bottles made of virgin materials.
An Emergency Glass Task Force was formed by the King Counry Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials in 1991 to
address a backlog of green glass at Fibres. This Task Force has continued to meet in order to address future markets for glass culle�
� 3 . Impact of Recycling Prog�rarns on Infrastructure
• Fxisting infrastructure cannot handle the increasing volumes of glass cullet. Not only is the processing capaciry severely
limited, but demand for glass containers is not sufficient As volumes of glass cullet increase, green glass will cause the greatest
• market difficulties, with amber also in over-supply. Flint is e�ected to maintain a stable market with stable prices.
�
•
�
�
.
•
•
•
•
•
�
4. Estimated Commodiry Prices
Fibres cureently pays $40 per ton for flint. This price is e�cpected to remain fairly constant through 1995. Amber currendy
brings $40 per ton at Fibres Glass Plant, however, local recyclers expect that this price will decrease to below $10 per ton by 1995.
The price of green glass is currently $10 per ton, but is expected to drop to $0 per ton in 1992•
Current and Pro�ected Prtce per Ton for Glass Cullet
Year 1990 1995 2000
Flint $40 $40 $40
Amber $40 $10 $10
Green $10 $0 $0
Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Ass�ssment
Appendix D: Recy�clrng Markets Ass�ssmerct
•,::�:4ii::}:�:::i':::i�::
:::l.w::::: v:.
D-22
::: ; <:: :�: <::;::: � ::::::>::::> �: �:>::::: <�:::>::::::: »;:;::: <::::
5. Potential New Markets
New markets besides remanufacture into glass containers are being developed to handle the mounting stockplles of green and
mixed cullet The Washington State Department of Trade and Eoonomic Development has established a 1995 goal that 50 percent of
the glass recovered statewide be used in glass containers, 15 percent be used in fiberglass insulation, 5 percent exported, and 25
percent used for other purposes.
Two new ophons for recycllng bottles are attrading attention as the glass recycling industry appmaches a crltical situation;
acrylic-coating glass and refilling wine bottles. Brandt Manufacturing recendy introduced an acxylio-coated glass technique, wherein
bottles are dipped into a clear or wlored acxylic coatinng, which is heat-cured to a hard finish. Using this tectuiique, tlint cullet can
be used to create "the container," while the coating wuld provide "the color" of the bottle. Ttus system elimina�es the need for color
separation, but the glass industry currently considers the cost of the coatings, at one cent per bottle, to be prohibi�ve. ALso, it is
unclear how the transition to this system, which uses only flint cullet would be implemented.
A wmpany in California, Encore!, has been washing and selling wine bottles back to wlneries for reuse. Wlth King Counry's
growing wine industry, this may be a viable option. The major barriers to this process are convincing wine manufacturers of the
desirability of reflllable bottles and establlshing a system to separate and return the bottles w the wlnerles.
Other uses for mixed-color, green, and amber cullet are described below. These applications could use large volumes of
cullet, but may need more testing before achleving widespread acceptance. Tesis have been performed by New York Clty and some
eastern states on the use of glass cullet in the repaving of roads. New York Ciry has experimented extensively wlth cullet as an
aggregate in asphalt and has found its performance to be on a paz with sand. Tests performed in Taooma and elseuvhere indicate
that glasphalt is best suited for pavement in situations where volume, tonnage, and �eed are low. The City of Baltimore has used
glasphalt for aesthetic reasons for many years. By testing glasphalt and adopting specifications that would allow for glasphalt as an
asphalt replacement, King Counry could substantially incxease the amount of cullet used. A local firm, Ra.inbow Cullet, is interested
in supplying mixed-asphalt-containing glass that could be used to repave King County bicycle paths.
Glass aggregate is considered to be an effective dralnage material; lt is cleaner than soll and as efflcient as stone or sand.
The National Standard Plumbing Code has recently included avshed glass as an acceptable aggregate in storm drau�s. The low
market value of mixed cullet makes it a vlable substit�te for stone or sand. King County ls considering tes�ng mlxed cullet as a
gravel substitute for road maintenance and constivction. A preliminary estimate by the King County Public Works Department is that
approximately 5,000 to 10,000 tons of cullet could be used by the County for dralnage aggregate per year. The Glass Aggregate
Corporation, in Grand Rapids Michigan, has developed two products using crushed glass aggregate, an underdrain unit and an
erosion control unik Both have been tested and approved for use �n Mlchigan.
Glass beads are micro-sized spherical glass particles that are mixed with paint to give retlective properties for use on highway
signs and pavement lines. The glass used in glass beads must be flint-oolored and wntaminant free. Recycled plate glass is
currently the most common material used for glass beads. ltus is a low-volume use for glass cullet
The potential volume of glass particles used as abrasives in sandblasti�►g material Is high. As a blasting matedal, cullet
compet�s with sand and metals. Glass ls considered healthter than sand because it reduces the emission of slltca particles lnto the
air. In Madison, Wisconsin, an established sandblasting market pays $10 per ton for mixed cullek
The fiberglass industry has resisted the use of mixed cullet in the manufacture of fiberglass. The Industry has very high
�ecifications and inslsts that they need a high quality of fcedstock, such as plate glass cullet However, there is a possibiliry of a
fiberglass plant opening in the North�st ln the next �ve yeus wlth the intentlon of using oontainer cullet in their manufacturing
process.
Foam glass (used for insularion) can be made almost entirely from recycled cullet of any wlor or compositioa However, the
building and construction industry Is reluctant to use alternative bullding materlaLs.
Appenda D: R�yrling Markek Assessyne�tt Sar,tfo�t D.1: Re�yrlable Mate►rals Marke�s AsseSSyne�tt
�
�
.
•
•
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
.. ::...: .. :............: ..: .......: ................. .: .: ............ :..: .: .:: ............. :. :.: ...........................................................
:�:.�::::::>::<r€
<:s:<.`:<;:�::::<::::<`<;�::
:���;<::
;>;a>� : .>:..:. :::.� ..
: : . . : : . : : : :.: :: ;.;:. � : : : . : : . : : ;;.;.: .: �:: ;.;.: : : : : : : : : . : . . : . : : : : .;:.;:: : : : : . : . : :: . . : : : :: ;;.:: : .:;: : . : . . .;:: ;.;:: .;:: : .;:.:: : : : : : : : : : : : •: : .: : : : : : : : : : .;.: : : : : : : . � .:;: : : . � . � : .: :;.;..::.;.: : .
.:�.:� :::.:..:...:.:.�.�:::.:..::.:.:..:�::.:�::::::.:::�::�....:�::::::::.::::::::.,::.:.:�:::::..:...;..::...:::.�:::::::::::::::::::.:�.:�::::.�:::..:�::.:�.�....:.:.:�::. :::�::� ::>:�:::
..�,. ..::�:<:: -
<::<�:;:::::r>;::;::::;:<:;:.:;:.::::>::>:::<<<::>:�::::>::>::;>:.; .:.�::v�r.:::
D 2
3
r ::i:F:i'��i:it^:�:�:�i:{<^:?it��i%::{:::}i;ii i:Y;iii::i:i:j�:�uii:�•,':�::?:}?��i:�$ii:�::i::i`: :Orr"},Li}(:
Several local companies use recycled glass cullet to make aquarium gravel (a gravel substitute ln 6sh aquarlums). Rainbow
Cullet in Redmond obtains their cullet from Spectrum Glass, a local maker of colored glass. They obtain the cullet at no oost, soct
it by size, tumble it, and sell it for $400 per ton. Rainbow cullet uses tvvo tons of cullet each month. It is estimated that the
aquarium gravel market has a potential to use 480 tons per yeaz of glass cullet
6. Recommenda.tions
Increasing the markets for cullet wlll be a ma�or challenge for the publlc and the prlvate sectors. King County should
encourage the establishment of minunum content requirements at the state level using models from other states. Oregods SB 66
requires each glass wntainer manufacturer to use 35 percent recycled glass in the manufacture of wntainers by 1995 and 50 percent
by 2000; California's AB 2622 requires a 15 percent minimum recycled content of glass containers by 1992 and SS percent by 2002.
Small increases in the percentages of recycled content make a large difference in the amount of cullet used. In addition to
minimum content legislation, new applications for glass cullet, �ially grcen and mixed color, must be developed rapidly in order
to avoid a crisis in the glass recycllng industry. King County should Identify producls it purchases that can be made from recycled
cullet and aggressively pursue testing and use of these produc�.
F. METALS
• In addition to unique market conditions for each of the specific meta.l goods categories, the metals market in general ls
currently depressed. During the Persian Gulf war, prices dropped and have not yet recovered. Independent republics thai were part of
� the former Soviet Union are dumping huge amounts of product onto the market in an effort to bolster their economies. Ttus has
• affected all metals markets, some more than others. A positive note ls that Chlna's Inaeasing participation in the world market is
e�cpected to stimulate metals markets, since Chlna should be a large consumer of scxap ferrous and nonferrous metals.
�
�
�
�
�
•
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��� 111
a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes
In 1990, appro�mately 2,500 tons of white goods were recycled in King County. White goods include light ballasts, washers,
dryers, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, microwave ovens, conventional ovens, and air conditioners. These materials are currently
not accepted for recycling at King County transfer stations.
Current and ProJected Recycling Volumes for White G�oods
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 2,500 3,750 5,625
b. Analysis of Current Market
V�hite goods are recycled by several private companies in King County: Seattle Iron and Metal, Cedar Grove Recycling Center,
and Arrow Metals. The end markets for processed white goods are the domestic and export scrap metal markets. The current
market for saap metal is depressed, as are all metal markets, due to the depressed world ec:onomy.
To prepare white goods for the scxaQ metal market, the potentially harmful elements oontained in them must be removed by
trained staff. The compressor motor must be removed from refrigerators and freezers, the insulation must be removed from water
heaters and freezers, and the running c�pacitors must be removed from any appliance that uses this type of capacltor. The metal is
Ser,tio�t D.1: Racyrlable �faterruls �fark�s Asse�mreitt
Appe�tdcx D: Recy�'mg Markds Assessment
;��:'y,:? �:=Lii:iii :?<ni:L.i::::ii:vt?4:ii:iiii:tY.:::: �.:':::::::::::.�:.�: •: w:.� �.:�:::.� w: v::::::.�::::::::: v.
.......... �.•: v..�: v.n,v :::.:::.::.:.:
...b.. . f,.i.fi::: i: }in: :: v. fv?::v : n....... r.
— f•:iJit
:::.:::..: 24 :. � ............ ... . .
D
:.. .: : .: : : : : : : : �: : : . >: : : : : : .;.: : .; :.: : : .: : .:;: : : : : : : :
......... . .::::::::::::..:.:::::�:��;:.;:.:::.::>:::;::::.::.;::>�:»::::::::;::;:::>::>:>
..... . ..>:.....:.......:.... . z..<. .......:.::: ::.::>.::::::..•• :<:zti::`>;ti :::,•.:::::::::>:>_:::>:::�:a:::::::::::::::::::::zz?�:<:':::>�>::::.
.:.:.::........:.::::::::::.:::.:::::. :•..::::::.::� :•::::::.
.. ..... : ..............................: .............................
..:.....:. ; ..:::::::.�::.:� ::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.>�:::.:�.::�::: ...:.•..t<..
..}.:v:.� ...................... �w::::.�:::e:::::hw.n....�........................... v
valuable, but the process to remove harmful materials and items from the appliances ls oosdy and difflculk In this region, the city
of Seattlle accepts white goods at thelr transfer stations, removes the capacitors and compressors, and drains the oil from running
capacitors thai may contain PCBs. Since some of these materlals may be hazardous or harmful, all of them need to be treated as
harmful waste. The Department of Eoology has lssued a reguladon that will require all processors to capture CFCs by July 1992•
Processors will nced to purchase equipment or contract with seivices to capture and recycle the CFCs.
In 1990, Arcow Metals alone processed and recycled approxtmately 9,000 to 12,500 tons that were classified as white goods
and that originated from both inside and outside of King County's boundaries. They have e�anded their faciliry and are able to
process 2.5 times more than they are currendy processing, or 22,500 to 31,250 tons per year. With this additional capaciry, the
future for processing white goods for the saap metal market appears to be stable.
c. Impact of Recyding Prog�rams on Infrastiudure
V�hite goods recycling is not a part of any exisGng curbside recycling program. Residents and businesses have limited access
to recycling sen+ices for white goods. They can self-haul to the few processors In the County, pay to have the whlte goods picked up,
or haul them to transfer stations. The Counry does not currendy have the trained staff, equipment, or space at transfer stations to
remove the potentially harmful elements contained in most whlte goods. White goods received at these facilities are landfllled.
d F.stimated Commodity Prioes
Currendy, Seattle Iron & Metal has a oontract with the ciry of Seattle to recycle the processed white goods that are collected at
the transfer stations. It also pays residents for processed white goods. Cedar Grove Recycling Center charges a fee to handle washers,
dryers, conventional and microw�ave ovens, unprocessed freezers, water heaters, and refrigerators. Arrow Metals will pick up appliances
for a fee, will provide Free dump sernice for residents who self-haul to their faciliry, and will pay for large volumes of appliances from
businesses. The information for the following table was based on an lndustry suNey.
Current and Pro)ected Prloes for White Goods
Year 1990 1995 2000
Prxessed items (per ton) s0 to S15 SO to S15 SO to S10
Unprocessed kems (per item) $0 to �25 s0 to -535 $10 to �350
e. Potential New Markets
Due to the longeviry and stability of che scxap metal market, the metals industry has not had an incentive to aeate new
marke�.
f. Reo�mmendations
In recovering white goods, the challenges seem to lie not in market development but in oollection and processing systems,
which must address the following issues:
• 1'he nced to remove the potentlally harmful oomponents of the appllance, namely the CFCs, wmprresssors, and runNng capacitors
that have oil that may wntain PGBs.
• The lack of locations and space to remove these elements.
• The lack of trained staff to properly and safely remove and dispose of or recycle these elements.
• The lack of clarity regarding the regulation of the capture and recycling of CFCs.
�,bendix D: Reryrling Marbe�s Assessmen! S�clio�t D.1: R�cy�clable Mater�als Marke�r Assessment
�a
� a
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
:�� ri'd:"i:;�:�::�:�:fc::;::::`tk
D
_ �
5
These issues could be addressed by having special recycling centers, upgrading current and future transfer stations, and by
giving the private sector incentives to handle these items.
2. �llI711I111Iri CaI]S
� a. Current and Projected Recycli�g Volumes
• In 1990, approximately 2,800 tons of aluminum cans (used beverage containers or UBCs) were collected for recycling in King
County. 1'his is 40 percent of the 6,450 tons of [JBCs generated in the Counry in 1990. The national recycling rate for 1990 was
• 63.6 percent as reported in the October 1991 issue of Resource Recycling. The table below shows the current and projected recycling
volumes as predicted by the aluminum industry.
�
•
Current and ProJected Recycling Volumes for UBCs
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 2,800 3,500 3,800
i
• b. Analysis of G�rrent Mark,et
The aluminum can processors for King Counry are Alcoa, Kaiser, Alcan, and Reynolds Aluminum. Beverage can companies,
� such as American National Can, Golden Aluminum, and Budweiser, buy the recycled aluminum and produce new beverage
containers. Aluminum has traditionally been the most profitable commodity for small recycling processors, but cureendy the market
� is on a downward trend. The glut of [1BCs and virgin ingots at the present time ha�e depressed prices and may force some of the
• smaller processors out of business.
Unlike most materials, curbside recycling programs do not seem to significantly a�ect the number of (JBCs recycled. The
• price paid for [JBCs seems to affect the recycling rate more than the convenience of curbside programs. When the prices are high,
people are selling cans to buy-back centers. When prices are low, they either store them and wait for a better price, or recycle them
� at the curb.
� c. Impact of Recycling Prograrns on Infra.strudure
� Curbside recycling programs along with drop-box and buy-back centers hade supplied a steady stream of iJBCs to the
• aluminum processors. The recycling of UBCs has been an active industry for over 20 years. Processors and end users ha�e been
gearing up during this time and are prepared for the increase in supply that recycllng programs may provide.
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
d Fs�mated Cotnmodity Prioes
The table below shows the cunent and projected prices for UBCs based on price trends during the last ten years.
Current and Pro)ected Prices per Ton for UBC
Year 1990 1995 2000
Dollars/ton $640 to $1,020 $800 to $1,200 $1,200 to $1,400
e. Potential New Markets
The UBC market is already established and no new mazkets are planned in the foreseeable future.
Se+ctiort D.1: R�yiclable Materral,s Marke�s Asse�sment
Apper�d'tr D: Racy�cling Markels Asse�sme�tt
si
.................................................................
::;}::.:::;. :::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::: ::::;::;;:::::;:::.:.:::.. �::::::::::::::.::::::.::.:.::::::.::.::::::::::::::::::::::A:: �� :::� :.::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::..::::::,r .::::::::
.::.::.:::::. ::::.:� .:.:::::::.:::.::.:::.�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�:::::
..:...:::. ....... .:::::::
:::::::.::..::...:..::::::::::::::.:..:.....::....:::::::........ . .
^iiii ::::v. ;;x::.:�.y:::::.}::v ........ . ... ... ...................::n.n...............l.r... ......... ... .. . . Wn .. ...�....�.r. . . . ::::. .vm::
iiii ..::::::r.:.:wn:x;;^}iiii::v: ::w :::::: ............. . r..........v..::::::.v: ?:v: : W..n........�..NA:.fxl...... ......
� v. �::::: n{..: �: . {..: ...,
::.;:.;:;>:.: D ::<::;::::::.:<:::>;.;::.;;»>:.;>:.>;:.;;:.;::.;:.;:.>;::::.>:.:::;:.::.::.::;:.:.;:.::.;:.;:.:.:;>::::>:::::< ::::::.:::::::>::>:;»:»»:«<::>::>::>:>:>;.::»::>;>�;::;:.;:.::.::.:.:.::;:.:;:.:;;:.;:.::::::::::._::::::::::::::::::.::.:;:;.;>:;:.;:::::.;........... ......
26
.......... i
........................................................................................................................................................ ::::,:::::::::::::::�:�::
•
•
f. Reoommendations
The UBC recycling industry shows no evidence of needing assistance at this time.
3. Aluminum Scrap and Other Nonferrous Metals
Other nonferrous metaLs include copper, brass, lead, nonmagnetic sta.inless steel, and non-container aluminum scrap.
Aluminum is used to make many products other than beverage conta.iners, including wire and cable, lawn furniture, aluminum
siding, cookware, auto parrts, awnings, wlndow and door frames, drain plpes, and household and lnstltutional foll.
a. Current a�d Projected Recyding Volwnes
An estimated 11,100 tons of aluminum scxap and nonferrous metals were oollected for recycluig in King County in 1990.
This represents approximately 77 percent of the aluminum scxap and nonferrous metals genera�ed ln King County that year.
Current and ProJected Recycling Volumes for Nonfermus Metals
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 11,100 12,200 13,500
b. Analy�is of G�n�ent Market
There are approximately 25 processors for aluminum scxap and nonferrous metaLs in the King County area, including Seattle
Iron & Steel, Non-ferrous, Inc., Arrow MetaLs, Cedar Grove Recycling Center, E.I.R. Recycling, Seaitle transfer sta,tions, and Puget
Sound Iron & Metals. Fifteen to 50 percent of the scrap is then sold to the local market, with SO to 85 peccent going overseas.
Market prices vary widely from month to month with higher prices generally paid by overseas buyers. Current market conditions are
depressed due to an increase in supply caused by domestic smelters producing at or above full capacity.
c. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastruch�ne
Cureendy, some cu�fiside recycling programs colled scrap aluminum foil, but there are no programs in King Counry tha,t
collect other scrap aluminum or nonferrous metals at the curb. Recycllng programs have inaeased the recycling awareness of
residents and businesses, which has resulted in a slight increase of scxap aluminum and nonferrous metals being reoovered. Most of
these commodities had already been recycled by businesses and residents in the pask The processors can handle more product, but
currendy the market is depressed and processors may not be able to pay much for the oommodities, which could discourage
businesses or resldents to deliver material to processors for recycling.
The saap aluminum and nonferrous metal market ls so dependent on the international market that its major weakness right
now is the lack of stability and the weak economic situation of the world markek
d F.stimat�ed Commodity Prioes
The current and projected prices in the table below are based on a survey of local processors. Projected prices are very
uncertain as they depend on the state of the world economic markek
Apperulix D: R�cy�l'mg Markels Assessynerct Saaion D.1: Re�y�lable Nlaterktls Marke�s Assesrment
•
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
<i{:iii:•:::::•::l:ii::ii:i�i:}i:'�iii}?+,ii:t':;iiiiiiiii:iii$ii:::::i:;
`:;:�:;;::::;• :::::::.:..:::�:.�.�.�.� �:•::.�: r:o:::.�::::.:�:.�:.:�.::�::>.:
Current and Projected Prlce per Ton for Nonferrous Metals
Year 1990 1995 2000
Aluminum scrap $240 to 3500 $0.00 to 600 3300 to 51,000
Copper $1,400 to $1,700 31,600 to $1,900 $1,600 to $1,900
Brass $700 to $1,200 $600 to $1,200 $600 to $1,200
Lead $200 to $240 $200 to $300 $200 to $300
Nonmagnetic stainless steel $360 to $400 $360 to $500 $360 to 5500
n
u
�
�
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
e.
f.
$it � .`•r.
D-
2
7
Potential New MazkeL�
The nonferrous metal market is already established and no new markets are planned in the foreseeable future.
Reoommendations
The aluminum scxap and nonferrous recycling industry shows no evidence of needing assistance at this time.
4. Tin Cans
a. Cun�ent and Frojected Recycling Volumes
An estimated 3,100 tons of tin cans were collected for recycllng in King County in 1990. Th1s represents about 28 percent of
the 10,900 tons of steel cans generated in the Counry that year. The Steel Can Recycling Institute estunates a an can recyciing rate
of 66 percent by the year 1995 and 75 percent by the year 2000.
Current and ProJected Recycle Volumes for Tin Cans
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons Recycled 3,100 5,640 6,410
b. Analysis of G�unent Market
MRI Corporation is the only pmcessor of tin cans in King County. It chemically treats the cans to remove the tin and bale
the steel and sell it to Salmon Bay Steel, Cascade Steel, and some foreign markets. Half as many tin cans �re being processed by
MRI in 1g85 as in 19g0. MRI has upgraded Its machlnery, and with lts current equipment probably won't reach capaclry until
1995. The tin can market is currendy dep�, with the price for tin cans between $S and $10 per gross ton. 1'his is due in part
to changes in the processing capabilities of the local end mazkets. Salmon Bay Steel has merged with Seattle Steel, resulting in a
temporary shutdown of one of the mills for four months and a reduction in combined capacity of 20,000 tons per month. Cascade
Steel has added a new state-of-the-art furnace rated at 50,000 tons per month to replace its tvvo smaller furnaces, which oonsumed
about 15,000 tons per month each. Cascade Steel's start-up was significandy behind schedule and is only now up to speed, which
caused a temporary decrease in local demand for steel.
c. Impact of Recycling Prograrns on Infrastruchu�e
The steel market 1s a well-atablished worldwide markek Recycling programs are not expected to have a signigcant impact on
the processors, end users, or commodlty prices.
Se�tion D.1: R�y+dable Materials Markets Ass�ssmerat Append'a D: Recy�clmg Marke�r Ass�nent
�
+.{+{;;'{': �YiC.ti:<�:ti4:�?:}
.......... ..................... :...::: •: •:::::::::: .y...
i::: i}i}?i i ti:+:'t : itii�: r t�i:+�:::�i:!?S?i:tititi iii::•<i':::''v': ... $ ............. n.. n.. n... x...: ...:. ..
v:::::::: ......$r.........f ................. . . :vn::::+:....................................n �. : ............ . .{iv:::i:::.:�:.�:::::::::::::::::::.�:::::::::::::ii:.�::::::::::.�i:::::::::i:i::�:iiiiiiiiiiii}i:?i:
-2
D 8
d Estimated Commodity Priaes
The price for saap steel in the last year ranged from �30 to $55 per gross ton and is currently ai the low end of this scale.
The projection of this market depends on the economy, which is currently depreSSed. Consumers are not buying products that
contain significant amounts of steel like cais and tivcks. The table below was composed of estima�es based on trends in the
economy and potential markets for the future.
e. Potential New Mark�is
The steel market is well-establlshed. The only potential new market for steel that could have an effect on the national market
is the introduction of bimetal cans. Bi-metal cans have tin-coated steel sides, with aluminum on the top and bottom. This type of
can is being tested in the eastern part of the United States as an alternative to aluminum beverage containers. I.ocal experts do not
foresee this rype of can being used on the West Coask
Current and Pro)ected Prtce per Gross Ton for Tin Caas and Scrap Steel
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tin cans $5 to $10 $5 to $10 $10 to $30
Scrap steel $30 to �55 $35 to $60 S35 to $60
f.
5.
Fw
' : � � � i u�,�-• -' � ��,
Local experts do not believe that the County can do anything to help this particular market as it is a world markek
Other Ferrous Metals
G�rnent and Projeded Rec.yrling volumes
The scrap metal recycling business has been in existence for over 100 years. In 1990, appro�mately 70,4Q0 tons of ferrous
scrap metal were recycled ln King Counry. This ls 69 percent of the 101,4()0 tons generated in King County in 1gg0. Ferrous metals
are metals that oontain iron as a major oomponenk These metals are attracted to magnets so they are easily separated from other
metaJs on pick lines at processing centers and scxap yards. Ferrous metal ls often a major component in the following items:
hardware, construction material, metal casting, car bodies, metal shavings from machine shops, appliances, and miscellaneous pieces
of inetal. For the pucpc�ee of this study, car bodies were not included as ferrous scrap metal as they are recycled at a high rate and
do not impact landfllls.
Current and ProJected Recycle Volumes for Ferrous Metals
Year 1990 1 9 9 5 2000
Tons recycled 70,400 77,440 85,200
b. Malysis of G�rra►t� Marl�
There are approximately two dozen processors of other ferrous metals in the area, including Seattle Transfer Stations, Pacific
Iron and Metals, Seattle Iron and Metal, Noble Metals, Cedar Grove Recycling Center, and Arrow Metals. The processors receive the
materials from a wide range of sources, including oonstruction companies, recycling companies, machine shops, small recyclers and
the general public. Thesse processors sell the saap metal to both domestic and foreign foundrles and smelters, including locally to
Appeitd� D: ReCy�cling Marke�s Assessmeitt S�ctfon D.1: Racy�lable Mate�s Markels Assz�nertt
<i: t: : � 5:::::: :: <':': :.;. •'.:': •+'''
:?::3�Y�.::::
�i::it:>•;;::3:'::�:;:::•::::;:j:::•:::;i:ii:�:5<:::::
............:......................: .......................................... ....,-..........,-...... ..................... ,
:: •: v: wn v.w:::::. �.�::: ;{:.;:.: iiii•:• �::::': iG}v. ..::::::: �: { wniiii4v, •v:::•.i•i?iiY4T:v: n, v: • • : n• v. �:.vw:: n��.•.w:..: �
..\.. . ...}:.$}:.�..... . t.� .::}:::.<•:L•:: :.:::.... .�.,Y,.}L�:::.::n::.:i,'v,:4ii:•:n:N::�
::}.J::S:... ..n:: v::::: . ......x:.•::: •ii.xJTrS\•:•:v .... . .... . x: •::Mi•:::: r,:v: :.:: {i? •r.n..rr.�..:: •i:{: ... :..v:.u....... x:.,-•T ::}:..:::...:r
• L ...u.•. :. • •$.>r'.t?•:: .::: •:. •r .4..r...... . r },.. ...t ..: .M::A:::.:...n •::ff ..............:ii:.�::•:
::::::m n� v . ..n..n.}.l...........nr::::3x:^::.•:v.r....:.•.:1::?.�...Trr:x:^..... :.:.:..... n.:.::: :.�.:.:�...
........\...... .�...v}... . . . . . ............................................{...................2................:::::::::..i..:::::J.::::tii�itijiiii:4iiiiii:•::........ ::::::::::
..{ .....: .: ........ . �
...............::>:::... ..::::::....:.�::......:.:.:..:..,,.::::::..::::::......�..:.�.,.:::::.,.:...........::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:�.�.�:::::.:�::.�:::::::. .:::..:. ...
:::�w:::>:::>:::
D 2
9
«:>: N: �: .::: �. . . . . . . . .
...... .::::::.......:.: �.:: ..
.::>:::.: :: : : :: :: . :: :.::.: � .:: : : ::.::: .::.: . : .: .>:::;> ::: :::::::: w, <: >::: <x:>:::::::. :
...... .:.:....:::.......:........:::::::: ::..:.:.:...... . ....... ....::.:::.:::: :...:.:....
:::.::::..�:::t� ...:::::..:::::::....::: ..:..:.:......:..v::r.::.::.::..:..:.::.::.::.:..:.:..:::�<.v.::>:..,..:: v:n..:. ...... �:,,
.....:.:....... <.. .... .�.... ,:: ::... ..�....... :<�..:.. <... :•.. ...::::>:<..
..>... ..k.>. .��. .w�...ry.. ...>.:.:>::.:�:>.>:.:�:;:.::.:�:<<.::::::>v.:::. :.�.::::::..�:..:.::::::.:<.:::.:�.::.>:::.: .....
::.:,::....... .,.....,..::h,:.:;>��.......� ...:.........x>::.�;<,>::.f<::.:>......,...,..,,.,<x.,,,..,.::: �.::::.......,..... ..... .. :::...:...... ,�
........,.:::.,.......... ...... . :..:.:::::.
::::::::....::.,•::::::::::::::•::::::::.: �:::::::::::::::.�::::::::::. �.::_::.�:.�:::::......::::::::::::::::::::::::::.a:::::::::: :•:::::::::. �::::::::::::.,•::::: :•;:;•:•::•::•::•;::�:::::::::::::........::::::::::..:...... ::.:.
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
•
•
Salmon Bay SteeL The ferrous scrap metal is then remelted and remanufadured into metal products. The current market is stable,
but the price is lower than normal due to generally low prlces on International steel markets. The value of ferrous scxap purchased
by the steel industry depends on iron o�ntent, consistency from one load to another, density, and lack of nonferrous contaminants.
Some larger and established scxap metal dealers/proces,sors would like the County and ci�es to look to the people who have
been recycling for years for advice when designing recycling programs. They believe that some recycling programs ha�e created the
opportunity for "get-rlch-qulck" smaller processors, who often do not have the experience or the same level of qualiry of processed
malerial, which drives the price of scrap metal dawn.
Impact of Rec.yding Progratns on In6astruc�ure
There are no curbside recycling programs for scrap ferrous metal in King County at this tirne.
Fstimated Commodity Prioes
G
d
Scxap ferrous prices vary acc:ording to the amount of iron present in the metaL Each load of scrap ferrous metals that comes
into a processors yard is assessed for iron wntent, then a value ls determined.
Current aad Projectcd Price per Ton for Scrap Femous MetaLs
Year 1990 1995 2000
Dollars/ton $20 to $80 $25 to $100 $25 to $100
Potential New Markets
The scxap metal market is stable and therefore has not had an incentive to aeate new markets.
e.
Reoommendations
The stability and longeviry of the scrap metal market shows no evidence of needing assistance at this time.
f.
G. BA7TERIES
1. Household Ba.tteries
, Household battery curbside collection programs have been implemented in several communities in this state, across the
country, in Japan, and in several European counaies. However, there are no recycling collection prograrns for household batteries in
• King County at this time. Some batterles are wllected separately by the King County Wastemobile, but currently most of these are
landfllled, elther at Cedar Hills or at a hazardous waste landflll In Arlington, Oregon.
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a G�n�ent and Projected Recycling Volumes
Most of the approximately 2.9 million household batteries purchased in King County each year are placed In the trash and
disposed of in the Cedar Hills Landfill, with less than one percent being recycled. Without signif'icant public sector efforls to collect,
process and transport batteries to either a recycling facility or hazardous waste landfill, there will likely be only minimal growth in
Ser.tio�t D.1: R�cy�clable Materials Markets Assessment
Appe�td'tx D: Recy�cling Markets Assessment
�
:�> D - 30
household battery recycling 1n the County. Most oollectton programs for household batterles have been implemented 1n �urlsdictions
with solid waste incinerators because of potentlal air pollution and ash contaminaation by meta,ls found in these batteries.
b. Analysis of Current Market
None of the juc�sdietions that collect household batteries in Washington State have found an economically and environmentally
sound oudet for recycling these batteries. Most of the household batteries colleaed ln Spokane are dlsposed of at the hazardous waste
landfill in Arlington, Oregoa Some of the button cell batteries are shipped to Mercury Ref'uung Company for recycling. The
Spokane Regional Solid Waste Authority recendy disposed of 15.5 tons of household battedes at a cost of $10,000, or appro�clmately
$645 per ton.
G
d
Impact of Rec,ycling Programs on Infi�x�re
There are no current or planned household batteery recycling programs.
F.stimatsd Commodity Prioes
Button cell batteries are collected by some jewelers and camera stores in the King County area These batteries are sold to
Mercury Refining Company, Inc. in Latham, New York, which Ls the only reprocessor of household batteries identified by this study.
Mercury Refhiing buys button cell and lithium batteries. It buys the button cells at 5 percent over the spot silver price, currently
about $4.20 per pound, and recovers the silver wntent of the batteries. It charges $6.00 per pound to accept lithium batteries, which
it "deactivates" and sends to landfills.
Although alkaline batterles make up 70 percent of the household batteries used, they are not recyclable. Rechargeable nickel
cadmium batteries, found most often in household appliances, are recycled by Inmetco in Pennsylvania. Inmetco charges $250 per
ton, plus shipping and handling. SNAM, a processing facility in France, aJso accepts nickel cadmium batteries. The Bronx 2000
project, as well as MERECO ln New York, wlll soon ship nickel cadmium batterles collected in the UNted States to SNAM in France.
Current and ProJected Prlces per Ton for Household Batterles
Year 1990 1995 2000
Mercury buttons a500 3500 3500
SiNer oxide cells $26,000 1.05 x spot siNer price 1.05 x spot siNer price
Nickel cadmium $625 $780 to $1,250 $975 to $2,510
Lithium $625 $780 to $1,250 $975 to $2,510
Alkaline a625 3780 to -s1,250 $975 to -52,510
Carbon-zinc $625 $780 to �1,250 $975 to $2,510
e.
f.
Potential New Markets
There is a lack of feasible markets for recycling household batteries, and there are no planned new markets.
Reoommendations
Given the lack of feasible markets for household battery recycling, reduction and elimination of waste batteries may be a more
practical and productive strategy for King County to pursue, at least in the short term. One example of thls strategy is promotion of
rechargeable batteries. Harding Energy Systems of Grand Haven, Michigan, has recently begun production of AA- and Gsize nickel
hydride batteries as a replacement for the rechargeable nickel cadmium batteries. Nickel hydride batteries are reported to last twlce
Append(x D: R�yrleng �fark�s Assess»=e�tt Serlioft D.1: R�yrlable Materia[s Marke�s Ass�ssntent
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
D - 1
3
� ............................................................................ .........
�
�
�
�
, as long as nickel cadmium and, by eliminating use of cadmium, should ha�e a reduced environmental impact as well. Typical
applications for nickel hydride batteries include pagers, radio transmitters, communications equipment, diagnostic test equipment, and
� laptop computers.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
2. Lead Acid Batteries
The most common rype of lead-acid battery is the typical automotive battery, but this type of battery is also used in boats,
motorcycles, and other motorized vehicles. Markets for lead-acid batteries are currently very strong. The secondary lead market
remains strong because of increased environmental regulations that make it more expensive to mine for lead sources. Beneficial
Recycling Inc. has announced plans to open a lead-acid battery recycling plant in the Seattle area with the ability to process up to
2.5 million batteries each year. The faciliry will be able to process batteries from the greater Northwest area.
a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes
Nationally, approximately 85 percent of the lead-acid batteries are cureendy recycled. In King Counry in 1990, approximately
5,200 tons of vehicle batteries were collected for recycling, which is a recycling rate of 100 percent as no lead-acid batteries were
found during the King County Waste Characterization Study (Appendix B).
Current and ProJected Recycling Volumes for Lead-Acid Batteries
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 5,200 5,980 6,900
b. Analysis of Current Market
The lead-acid battery industry has had tight environmental regulations placed on it in recent years, especially in the
transportation arena. Because the shipping regulations are more stringent, there are fewer junkyards shipping batteries, and retailers
are back-hauling more used batteries to manufacturers. Manufacturers ship the batteries to secondary lead smelters for recycling.
The export market is strong in the Pacific Northwest, especially to such countries as the Philippines, Indonesla, and India There are
only a few secondary lead smelters on the West Coast, with two large smelters located in the Los Angeles area and one in Vancouver,
British Columbia. The Vancouver smelter has a relatively small capacity and handles a small quantity of batteries from King County.
King County has a strong market for used batteries at this time. Batteries are delivered to manufacturers, such as Budget
Batteries and Interstate Batteries, then sold to smelters. Smelters and processors that handle batteries from the King County area
include RSR Corp (City of Industry, CA), GNB, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA), and Metalex and Trail Corp (Vancouver, BC). With Beneficial
Recycling Inc.'s new recycling plant opening in Seattle, plastic chips, liquid for fertilizer products, alloyed metal ingots, and
containerized lead carbonate will be able to be recovered.
c. Impact of Recycling Prograrns on Infrastructune
Recycling of lead-acid batteries in Washington State was stimulated by the enactment of the $S core charge in 1989 as part of
HB 1671. The core charge serves as an economic incentive to individuals to return their used batteries at the time of purchase of a
new battery.
S�ction D.1: Reryclable Materi�ls Markets Asse�sment Append'cr D: Re�ling Markea Ass�nent
•
�
D-32
d Estimat�ed Coromodity Priaes
The market for secondary lead remains strong and ls expected to remain so in the next ten yeais. Sources of virgin lead are
either too expensive or unavailable because of restridions on m1Nng activity. The secondary lead smelters are not currendy running
at full capaciry and can absorb more volume in the near future. Indivlduals, businesses, recycling centers, and junk dealers receive
from $0.50 to $1.00 per battery from battery manufacturers such as Budget Battedes and Interstate Batteries. These companies
receive about $.OS to �.OS per pound for the batteries from domestic smelters.
Current and ProJected Prices for Lead-Add Batteries
Year 1990 1995 2000
Battery Recyclers/Per Battery $0.50 to $1.00 $0.25 to $0.50 $0.00 to $0.25
Smelters/Per Ton $100 to $180 $100 to $180 $100 to $180
e. Potential New Marl�s
The industry dces not have any new markets planned, but the processors are shiftlng from junkyards and drop-off centers to
retailers of batteries. The retailers have the advantage of being able to back-haul the batteries, therefore saving on transportation
costs and adding wnvenience to the customer.
f. Reoommendations
King County should continue to work wlth the state to lmplement the $5 core charge on lead-acid batteries. According to the
state, the public dces not yet understand and use the program and some batteries are still being abandoned. The Counry could work
with retailers to place signage on the premises to encourage lead-acid battery recycling.
H. POLYCOATED PAPERBOARD
1. Curnent and Projected Recycling Volwnes
Appro�mately 50 tons a year are currently being recycled in the County. This includes the city of Issaquah curbside program
and a number of nonresldenYal establishments. M esti�nated 10,000 tons of milk cartons and drink boxes are generated in
Washington each year. l�ding all other polycoated paperboard generated in the state brings the estimate to 40,000 tons per year.
There are strong end-use markets for this entlre volume ff the material can be reclaimed into the highest possible usage. For ttvs to
occur a new faciliry will be required with an operating capacity of 800 tons per week
Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Polya►ated Paperboard
Year 1990 1995 2000
Tons recycled 50 3,000 8,000
2. Analysis of Curnent Market
Currendy there ls limited oolledion, processing, and markets for polycoated paperboard in King County. The city of Issaquah
is collecting milk cartons and drink boxes at the curb, the two major dairies in King County are recycling all of their returns and
production waste, seweral retailers are recycling mllk cartons and ooffee cups, and some majon c��spitals and a variety of schools and
other insatutions are recycling milk and )uice cartons.
App�erul'a' D: R�yrl'mg Mar'k�c Assessmeitt
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
Sar�iort D.1: Recy�lable h�faterkiLs Marke�s Asse�sme�tt �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
C�
•
•
•
�
�
:;:€:::
D-
33
:�:�:<:�::::<:<::::::<:>::>�::::�:::
::::<::::� �:>:::::::::::<::::>:::::::>:::<:>::.:�:�::::<«<::<::<<:::;:::::<:::>::>::>::::::<:::::,>:>:�::
>
::::::::::::. �::::::. �:::::::::::.: �:::::::::::::::::.:..:..................... .. ....... .........................
<
>
>
..............................................,.::::::.......:.:.:::::::::::::::.::.::�.::::::::.::....:::::::::::::::::.�::::
::.:: ...........................:.............. ...�:::::....:::,.:.......::.............
.....:::::... .......... .. ...............::::::::..:.. ..; . >:::>:»::>:
..........::::: ::.::.::..::::: :.>:>::.:::::..:««::.:::::::::.,.�:.>:.»:::.:.::.::::«::<.::>::::::.::.>::<.>::.::>;>:<:::::::::>.::::>::::: . .....
::. ..................
Waste Management Inc. and Fibres International are the two processars handling the material. They bale the cartons and
ship them to Weyerhaeuser in Longview for hydrapulping. Both Flbres and Waste Management plan to collect and process more
material within the next few years. Weyerhaeuser can handle 30 tons per week with it� existing equipment By upgrading its
equipment, at a cost of �1.5 mllllon, Weyerhaeuser will be able to handle 200 tons per vveek
3. Impact of Recycling Prograrns on Infrastructur�e
The existinng infrastructure can absofi between 30 to 200 tons per week. New processing capacity will need to be developed as
volumes exceed 5,000 tons per year.
a. F.S�IIDl� COIDI�OdII)1 PrlOES
Weyerhaeuser has guaranteed a market for the material through January 1, 1994, at $150 per ton dellvered to Longview. In
1995, prices should remain at that level, but by the year 2000 the price is expected to be $180 to $200 per toa It is anticipated that
as more polycoated paperboard is collected, the market will be stimulated to build the requlred capaciry since the end-use potential is
very strong for this commodity. Reclaimed polycoated paperboard pulp can be wortt► $400 to $600 per ton.
Current and ProJected Price per Ton for Polycoated Paperboard
vear 1990 1995 2000
Dollars/ton $150 $150 $180 to $200
4. Potential New Markets
The reclalmed pulp is used in corrugated medium and the polyethylene and aluminum are converted to energy for operating
the plank The reclaimed pulp is underutilized in the corrugated medium. It can be used for tissue or writing paper. Upgrades for
volume increases wlll need to consider the higher level usage.
� 5. Recommendations
• At this point, the County can assist the development of the market for polycoated paperboard by participating in collection
programs, especially those that provide further information about exact volumes, collection strategies, and economia of proce,ssing
� and handling the materials.
� I. 'I'IRES
� All of the scrap tires generated in the County go to a vast array of processors and end-users throughout the Pacific Northwest
or are landf'illed. The pcocessors and end-users include tire jockeys, retreaders, granulators, chippers, pyrolysls plants, rubberized
� asphalt companies, and marine bumper and crab pot manufacturers. The tire recycling industry is still relatively young, with new
• te.c�hnologies developing at a rapld pace. During the 19gOs, demand for used tires is expected to increase enough to reduce and
possibly ellminate the state's existing tire stockpiles.
�
�
�
�
�
S�cti�t D.1: R�cy�clable Materials Marke�s Assess»ie�tt
Appeitdix D: Recy�cling Marke�s Asssssme�tt
r
::>:w::`:::;:«:::::� ::::::::>::::::<:: ;::::s:>:::=:::::<:; �:::<:>-»>::<`:<:�� r;>; ���
.......... ...................................................... . ......:...;::::.:........:.........................:.�:::::.::.....:.:
:=:=:<::::::::::::�:<:::>::::>::.::�::�::�::::�::�::.>.:::;>:::::<:::�:: : �<�.:«:::K::::<:<.;:>::::;:>:>::»:<:>.::>:�:<>«:::;N;: :..:.;:;::;::�;>::<::::: <ri:::::::><N::¢»::::>::::::<.«:�:
......... :::::: :..:
< �>
..� . . �..
<�
D- 4
3 :::::ti:>.:::�:>A:::>.>::>:::::::<::«:>.t<<'.>;`:::.:.;::.>:.�.:�.�°»<:.:.:,:>::::::::::::>:::<>::�;::::>:::::>.;:<�:�:.»>:::'.<:::<:>::::::::::..:>
.......... .....................................................:..�..........
:::.«:::<:<::::::.::.::::>:::<:�::.r:�. . ...:. .
.......... ................................................................................................................................................................::�:�>:::��::: .>:.;<:<.:<.:>?�::::;;.:;.:.:{.<..{�;:.::;:::>::>:>::t:::
1. Curnent and Projected Recycling Volumes
There are no legal tire stockplles In King Counry. In 1990, an estimated 1,114,600 tires were recycled 1n King County. Thls
accounts for appmximately 23 percent of the total number of tires generated in King County in 1990.
Curnent and Projected Recycling Volumes for Tire Processors
Tires per Year 1990 1995 2000
Retreaders 120,000 144,000 180,000
Granulators 120,000 210,000 234,000
Chippers 600,000 780,000 960,000
Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Tire Bnd
Tires per Year 1990 1995 2 000
Crumb rubber 12,000'� 60,000 120,000
Marine products 90,000 120,000 180,000
Pyrolysis 600,000 1,392,000 2,760,000
* Used mostly as rubberized asphak.
2. AI1�.ySlS Of CL1I7eIlt MaTkCt
Tires collected in King County are sent to processors and end users throughout Washington and Oregoa Therefore, markets
for tires must be addressed on a regional level. Approximately 70 percent of the waste tires recycled in King County are used by
granulators and ct►Ippers, mosdy located outside of the County. Retreaders account for approxirnately 15 percent of the used tire
market; marine bumpers and crab pots account for 5 percent; and rubberized asphalt, athlehc �, and pyrolysis all account for
about 10 percenk
Tire-derived fuel, or TDF, is currendy the largest end-use for scrap tires in the state, capturing approximately 75 percent of the
used tire stream. TDF will most likely maintain its position in the industry unless a new technology replaces it, such as an improved
alternative fuel soucce.
The Department of Ecology is currentty focusing on cleaning up the 30 million tires that are stockplled around the state. At
the completion of the first year of the $1 per tire surcharge pcngram, the state has cleaned up 16 million tires. Approximately 13.8
million tires were removed on paper (because of prior stockpile size miscalculations) and 2.2 million In actualiry. T'he state has
awarded many of its cleanup projec,� to TDF producers, beca.use this technology can move the largest numbers of tires at the least
cosk Firms such as Waste Reoovery, Tire Recyclers, and Tire Shredders have been awarded tire stocl�pile cleanup oon�acts, but may
be forced to readjust their capacity in llne wlth current scxap tire generation once the stock plles are cleaned up.
3. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure
It is estimated that the markets will be able to handle the volume of both the existing stockpiles and the current tire tlow
over the next decade, mainly because new recycling technologies are being developed at a rapid pace and several facilitles are
projected to come on line.
Append'xx D: R�cy�cl'mg Markets ASSSSSment Ser�ioft D.1: Racy�Clable Materra�s Mark�s Asssssmertt
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
.
•
�
.
•
•
i
�
r
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
<.:><>:':;::;:;::::«::«�<:<:::::�:�<:�::<::::::::;::�;:'<?::'::>�::::::�::::>::::>:::<<<::::;::<;��:;::::::>:::::::::::::<::::;:::::;><::� :»>
::::,::::
r�.>:::,::.�::;.F<:,:{::::.'.< ::::�<::�<:
�'`:�:'::;::�#:�::�:;':;:::'; � �:::::::::::::r:::::;;;:;:::: :::::::::::::ti <:::::: .,.. .�;:,>::":`:�:>,:.Y:v�:�r.::%::t Sii:::;;;:'.:
..................................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . .
.................................. ....
.................................... . .,.. ....; . �.. . ... . ......::::...... ... ..
t'' ............ ................. . ..........
.:: • • ....., . . . .
:::::::..> ::::::.. :::::::..;;::..:::::::. •..•::::..�::., .....;
..::....... ::::::::::::: :.::::::;.t,::::..^.?:;2 .. .. .�.....:�.,:� • �•� •�:.>•.::.::•.::::.::::.:: :.::. � .: : ... ... ::...
�� �� � � ��� � �h
D-
3
5
.::::'>`•:'�::;
• Industry sources report an acxoss-the-board 10 to 25 percent lncrease 1n tirre dpping fces betwcen 1991 and 1995. Processors
and end-users charge approximately $0.45 to $0.50 per tire at this tune. By 1995, bpping fces will be as high as $0.50 to $0.75 per
� tire. By 2000, fees will again lncrease by as much as 25 peccent; from to $0.70 to $1.00 per Ure.
�
•
•
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Current and Projected Prices (Dollars/IYre) Tire Processors Charges
Year 1990 1995 2000
Retreaders $0.45 $0.60 $0.70 to $0.75
Granulators $0.45 to $0.50 $0.50 to a0.75 $0.75 to $1.00
Chippers $0.45 $0.50 to $0.75 $0.75 to $1.00
Current and ProJected Prlces--End-Users Charges
Year 1990 1995 2000
Crumb rubber (per ton) $200.00 $225.00 $250.00
Marine products (per tire) $2.50 $2.75 $3.00
Pyrolysis $0.50 to $1.00 30.75 to $1.00 Over $1.00
5. Pot�ential New Mark�ets
Several new markets for scrap tires are on the verge of major growth in Washington State. Pyrolysis as an alternative fuel
source may soon develop into a viable markets in the Northwest within the next five years. Up to this point, the byproducts of oil,
gas, and carbon have not been marketable, and the expense of handling the byproducts has not been eoonomical. At this tlme no
tires from King County are being used for pyrolysis purposes.
Process Fuels, Inc. in Spokane, WA has a permit and will soon bulld a manufacturing plant that will utillze the entire 6-
million-tire Spokane stockpile in two years. The byproducts of this process are gas cogenerated for elecaicity, oll, and ash to be sold
to the state highway system for use in production of recycled plastic sign posts. Process Fuels is lnterested ln siting and bullding a
manufacturing facility on the west side of the Cascade Mountains. In addition, O�ord Tire Recycling in California is actively seeking
tire suppliers ln King Counry for its 51-megawatt power plant soon to be bullt in Nevada Rubberized asphalt, currently a small user
of scrap tires, could expand gready with support from state and local government agencies. A mandate to use rubberized asphalt in
construction and repaving projeca would provide an opportunity to demonstrate the performance and cost effectiveness of the product
The Wayne Technology Corporation in Rochester, NY has developed a new technology for converting mixed waste, including ares and
plastic film, into a reusable oll product through a process called thermolytic distillation. This process is still in the experlmental
stage, but appears to have promise for recycling of tires.
1 �: 1 I I' 1, 1
King County can assist the state in improving scrap tire markets by implementing aggressive procurement pollcies for used
tires. The rubberized asphalt industry would greatly benefit from an lntercounty procurement program for rubberized asphalt The
marine products industry would benef'it if port authorities and govemment agencies prioriti�ed the purchase of recycled products. In
addition, the King County procurement of non-emergency recaQped tlres for government vehicles and tire-derived fuel for government
buildings would signif'icantly stimulate the private sedor.
� Se�ctio�a D.1: Re�y�dable Materials Marke�s Assessme�tt AplAend'tx D: Racy�cling Mar�s Assessment
�
:{{{•ti+.•%:t"•:i::itii4i:titi•iiiiiiiiiiii:?i:4ii:+'•::4'i:{i.:i?:tiryii}i:}ii7i:�:ti!iti{•:
.......... .....:: •v::.�.� ............�:::'�:
„ . ..........:.::::::::::::: : .. ...... ............... ............... .... . . .. .... ....
{. r.:ii:in.::v.�:vi:�•i'•'r'•i++ . ... •:: • •::• :::.;..,..;; . . .:..... ........e...'.i':nwn'iii::v._::•:.v: .}'w{x.,:ySi::
.�o «•.t.. . ,<:::k'�'"::::x';•�#'<';'<'�::;:::::::•�::2��::::'<''::•:::`::::;�i�:�:::'�`i'�.••>:�:��'�;,#...x..,:..,:..
...ia:.`. :o;:�`::>'r•r:.#" '^ . v r. 3 ,>,Y„i�ba{:+S.;f�:4;?o:R:k�`. i .:`.t<w•::: 3 �far,4.fS}.;C;• , ,,,;.;;,;;,�? 3 ,r,>,k:.•:'.:,n,`r:.`•::::::.¢+.#t•'.?>,2#::?•::•:::??x:::..>.:,r,•:.>:•tr,:.n;..::•:::..5 ..:...:...:.::.S ..r...............
:;;>za.... ...f.�,?:...t.".«�a` . ...............,. . :�::: ....
— :::%t ri<�:ii:%:�:Sr:;S :�::i:S:e:�:2�i:-::�::;�:$:i�iiS:�i::�::�i#i<::•::•::•:::?%
D 6
:::::�:::>��::::<;<::>::<�::::�::::::::;:�>::>::>::>:::�:�::::::����::::::� ::�:::::>:<:�>::::A::>:�::::«:::�:.::::<_:;::::::::><»»<:<:>:n»�
3 :.:r,.�..::.r.:::.::.::.:::::.::.:..�:::::.::::::.�::.r..,
.....,.... ....,......
:.;::;.<:>::: .�:::.::.: ::: :.:: ::.:::::;.:.�.;:::::. .... .... ... :::::.:;.:.
....
.::::<�::�<:.>::::::�;:::>�. .,.�. . ..x:.: � . . ...<... :..<: :..:.:.:.::.:;::>:::>::>:::.......
.:.:... :::::... .. ,,...
..,. . ..�>�:..::::.... . ..,...,..�,>. .:..:.:::...........,::..:............ r.�;:.�:;:::<::::>:::
.:.::::.. ..:::,. .....,:::.<.::::.:... .. .. ...:.:...�..:..::::
:.: ::.:>.: .::.:<.:::.: ................:r:<t..:..:�.::><>.::.:»::<::::::.::::::::.::....:....x ...............................................:::: :.:..::::::::::::::: <.<>..:>:<..::.«.::.::.::<:.:.�::.�:.�:::::::.,..............
::::.::�:. .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
J. Foon w�
1. Curnent and Projectsd Recycling Volumes
In King County, 44,600 tons of residential food waste and 16,600 tons of nonresidential food waste are disposed of annually
through the Counry's solid waste system. In additlon, the nonresidential generation rate for food waste is estirnaied to be signif'icantly
higher than indicated by disposal and cec,ycled figures since many supermarkets and restaurants grind their food waste and dispose of
it via the sewer system.
To date there have been no significant efforts made in recycling food waste, although some is collected for rendering purposes.
The Washington Departrnent of Ecology 1990 Recycling SurUey reports 15,439 tons of food waste recycled in King County. This
amount represent� quanhaes r�orted from two oompanies operating in the County. One firm collects grease from restaurants and
food processors for rendering. The other wllec,ts mea.t byproduct5, also primarily for rendering.
Curnent and Pmjected Recycling Volumes for Food Waste
Year 199 1995 2000
Tons recycled 15,439 17,000 25,300
Additionally, a number of restaurants are working with food banks and shelters to distribute their edible food remains, and
there have been a few pilot onsite wmposting programs developed at grocery stora and restaurant� dubugh the Counry's Master
Composter/Recycler efforls. Some residents compost their food waste In their backyarcls. It is estimated that as many as 7 percent of
the County's urban single-famlly households handle part of thelr food waste in thls mannec Rural residents are aJso llkely to either
compost their food waste or feed it to anlmals. However, the majority of food waste generated in King County is either landfilled or
put down the sewer.
Without sig�uficant public sedor effocts, it ls estimated that only minirnal growth in food waste recycling will occur through
1995 and 2000. The public sector efforts that w�ould have an impact are the development and delivery of collection programs, bans
on food waste at the landf'�1 or in the se�r system or both, or financlal lncentives to the generators or haulers w reduce their waste
streams further.
2. Analysis of Curnent Market
There are two broad categories of food waste: waste from food processing plants and oonsumer food waste, which Includes
grocery store spoilage, restaurants, and the residential stream. Aa:ording to the Washington Compost Market Assessment conducted
for the Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development, the Seattle metropolitan area includes 10 food processors out of
a total of 57 in the state. In addition, there is the subcategory of food reprocessors that are one step removed from the agricultural
food produd. Repr�essors tend w locate near the ma�or population centers. It is estimated that there are a significant number of
these 6rms operating In King County. These usually smaller, diverse wmpanies are genecally not part of industry associations and
are di�icult to identifyfy.
Most of the area wmpost proc�ssors have experimented on some level with adding food waste to their yard waste during the
deoomposition pmcess. To date, the amounts are insigi�ificant Hovvever, local prooessors are gaining some, if limited, experience at
handling the food waste materlal. There is definitely interest among the local processors in beginning to process food waste. Food
waste is seen as a potentially strong market and addition to their business if the processing issues can be resolved. These issues
include odor, rype of bulking agent, rype of system (windrows, In-vessel, or other), regulatory requirements, (especlally health
d�artinent regulations), potential vectors, type and strength of end-market, capital and ongoing costs, impact on yard waste markets,
and source-separation from other recyclables to prevent contamination.
Appendix D: R�'rng Marke�s Ass�ssment S�tlo�t D.1: Re�lable Materials Markets Asse�smer�t
•v} •+
. k::
? ��}, • �� i{ .'. } '+;v}+ .(i � i :: ii .::Y:ii::i�:t.�:<�:�:�i:i:t�.'•ii::j::::::j:t{i:�<(:j:�ii:ri::^>��iiT''r ,: ::i':{�.:ii:'i:��iii'�'�i'�'�': : : : ii:;ijji�L?
D-
......: ....-.w::: ••iirr::L.::.i:v::.•:::::r•: viiiiY{•• :: ••: v:r
::::n :::::......::: r.+.;{;L ....r .:..�...
............y::::.�::::::::::}iii:::::: ......n};::::::w::::::.fi::::: :
37
�
u
�
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
3. Impa,ct of Recycling Prograrns on Infrastructure
With the exception of a limited number of pilot programs, there are no current or planned food waste progiams. However,
large-scale recycllng of food waste would slgniflcantly impact the exlsting infrashvcture. There are no exlsting facilitles tha,t can
handle food waste without major operational and/or regulatory changes. The collection system would also require signif'icant
modiftcauons both in �vck and collection contalner destgn. Yard waste markets would also be linpacted by the added volume of
material to be utilized.
4. Estimat�ed Commality Price.s
Slnce there has been so llttle food waste composting either in the County or across the nation, it 1s impossible to accurately
project what the value of large amounts of compc�sted food waste would be. Most experls, however, project that the value of food
waste compost would equal or exceed the value of yard waste wmpost
Curnent and ProJe�ted Price per Ton for Food Waste
Year 1 1995 2000
Dollarslton $0 $10 $5
5. Potential New Markets
Other than the curcent pllot programs and potential new processing facilities, there are no new markets planned for food
waste recycllng at this time.
1 �: 1 I I' 1. 1
The County and the city of Seatde will be participating in an assessment of food waste collection, processing, and markets
through a�oint Department of Ecology grank The results of these studies wlll provide valuable information on the potential
compostability of food waste in King Counry and is the most valuable market development assistance the County can provide at this
time. The County can aLso improve the potential markets for food waste by using oomposted yard waste in all applications that
previously used nonrecycled products, such as peat and sand.
K. SOURCES
Persons and publications that were consulted in developing the Recycling Markets Assessment are organized by material
categories and by private sector contacis, public sector contacts, and publications.
1. Paper
Frlvate Sector Contacts
Andresen, Wayne, Inland Empire Pa�er Mill, WA
Armstrong, Mark, Scott Paper, Everett, WA
Boddle, Connie, Weyerhaeuser, North Bend, OR
Campbell, Ken, Boise Cascade, Tacoma, WA
� S�tio�t D.1: Rery+clable Materials Marke�s Ass�sme�at Aplberul'tx D: Racyr,ling Markexs Assessment
�
1 '
Chmekliuskas, Al, Macmlllan Blcedel, Vanoower, BC, Canada
Evans, Susan, Longview Fiber, Longview, WA
International Paper, Gardiner, OR
Kaxchetorian, Sara Lee, Boise Cascade, WA
Keyes Fiber, Wenatchee, WA
MicheLson Packaging, Yakirna, WA
Paisons, Bill, Georgia Pacif'ic, Toledo, OR
Peterson, Shawn, Grays Harbor Paper Co., WA
Sherman, Ed, James River Clatskanie, OR
Sonoco Products, Sumner, WA
Spence, Steve, Rabanco Companies, Ltd., Seaitle, WA
Tisdale, Jim, Smurf'it NewSprint, Newburg, OR
Womball, Glen, Waste Management of Norrh America, Seattle, WA
Fubl�c Sector Contacts
Hoffman, Ray, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA
Horne-Brine, Preston, Washington Depk of Trade and
Economic Development, Seattle, WA
Publlcat�ons
Apotheker, Steve. Animal Bedding-A Capital Idea Resource Rerycling. July 1990, p. 42.
Beck, Patty and Pete Grogan. Minimum Content Legislation: M Effective Market Development Tool. Resource Recycling. September
1991, P• 9�•
Biocycle. New Firn�s Create Markets for Recyclables. November 1991, p. 52.
Biaycle. Recycled Phone Books Find Home in Breu�ry Sludge. November 1991, p. 62.
Bruening, John. Newsprint Recycling Starting to See Lighk ReCycling Today. October 1991, p. 64.
Combs, Susan. House RCRA Draft Includes Minimum Recycled Contenk Re�ycling 7fimes. October 22, 1991, p. 1.
Franklin Associates, LTD. Nalional 0�Q'ice Paper R�cycling Project.� Supply of and R�cycling Demand for O,�ue [�aste Pa�ier, 1990
to 1995 (Final Report). July 1991.
Frey, James A Newsprint Production, Consumpdon, and Recovery: Switchuig to Recycled Fiber. Resource Recyding. July, 1991 p. 33.
Gallaway, Matt. States on the Cutting Edge of Market Development Resource Re�cycling. July 1991, p. 77.
Kacandes, Tom. Market Development in New York: A Report from the Field. Resource Re�cycling. September 1991, p. 53.
Matritc Management Group. Mi.za� I�aste Paper Market Asssssment. Washington Dept of Trade and Economic Development,
December 1990, Seattle, WA
Meade, Kathleea Nced foc New, 'hvo-Tier Recycted Paper Standard Debated. ReCycling 7�rnes. June 4, 1991.
Meade, Kattileen. RAC Passes First Paper Recycling Reoommendatlons. Recycling 7tines. May 7, 1991, p. 7.
Meade, Kathleen Recycled Fiber Use oould Save U.S. and Canadian Mills Money. Re+cycling 7t�ises. April 9 1991.
Meade, Kathleen. Washington Tackles Mixed Waste Paper Recycling. Recycling 7tmes. Aprll 9 1991.
Misner, Michael. Advertising Drops Affed ONP. Racycling 7fines. September 10 1991.
Misner, MichaeL O�ice Paper, OMG Lead Waste Paper Markets. Recycling 73im�s. June 18, 1991.
Misner, MichaeL Poor Prices Depress Dealers. Racycling 7�rnes. August 27, 1991.
Appeitdlx D: Racy�lfng Marke�s Asssss»tent Ss�ion D.1: R�kible MateriaLs Marke�s Assest»te�tt
�
•
•
•
•
«::�; :;::::
<::::;,::;
'>:t::::::::<:;:<;:>:,�;;::�;;:,;;:;:;: �:.::::;>:::;;::<�::>:'>'::�;t:;<:::>`>:::::;:�:>:.:::::>::>::;::`«:::::::>::::::::;<::::::<:<':<��`� :'::n:�<� ::;<;����:>�:�:>�:;::w::>;:>r�:::>>s<.�...�.::� :r :�.: ,:::
.........................................
......................................... ..�:�::�:::
:s>f:';:^:�:'�:'>'.::s:: .:: . .:W::::: :::.:::....::: ::•>.:::::.>: .. �:.: ..
.::c:•;:::>::;?;;s:::::::::. :•:::::.;..:; •. �:•>:•;::•;s:•::;::::?:'•::;`:`:�:.;:•:::::.;•;
:�i:•':�:• •.;•;::•:::•:: •::�<:�;:�:::;�. •r:%;:,;.;?;r::::•::•>:•>:f::;:;::�:`;:•:;:::;•.;.�:::'r:;��i�s:i•':•`:`:r`:i:?�;�• •••:�::••:::�;•t.;;::x::;;:;';;:�:;:::•`:.i::::;:+:;�::::f;`�r::`::;:;;::•:
. . ...............v................:•;'i::::2:i�;::::::;i.'•:•; .... :. ....... .... . .... `�.•J.� ::r''r.'i•;'3:?•'..:::..:::.3..:::::>;x.•n.:::.•:.c•.Ffs,:.,.:9.`zu'.$
��>f;:u:;
_ ....z....
D
3
9
::i:i: £-:Y•:
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Recycle 71rfs Neuasletter. Inland Emplre Paper Mill on Line with Deink October 1991.
Recycling 7£mes. Old Phone Books Could Make New Yellow Pages. October 8, 1991.
Resource Recycling. Paper Recycling MarkeLs. May 1991, p. 52.
Resource Recycling. Paper Recycling Markets. June 1991, p. 82.
Resource Rrccycling. New Recycling Markets. September 1991, p. 28.
Resource Recycling. Paper Recycling Markets. October 1991, p. 84-5.
Ramsey, David. ONP Makes Better Bedding, Midwest Research Shovus. Recycling 7l�rrses. September 10, 1991.
Sandoval, Daniel. Paper Industry Meeting Focuses on 40 Percent Recycling Today. p. 64.
Solid 4�aste and Pouaer. Brlefly. December 1991, p. 72.
Strickman, Al. The Recycled Paper Cycle in Thailand. Resource Recycling. July 1991, p. 109.
7be Pa,per Stock Re�ort. October 21, 1991.
Ward, Mark. Who's Buying Paper. Recycling Today. May 19g 1, p. 52.
t�astelines. Paper Procurement on the RAC. September 1991, p. S.
Washington State Depardnent of Ecology. Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan: Markets for Recyclable Maxerials. Issue
Paper No. 7. July 1990. Olympia, WA
Watson, Tom. Scate Market Development The Tried, The True and The New. Resource Re�ycling. September 19g1, p. 47.
2. Plastics
Prlvate Sector Contacts
Bissell, John, Recycled Plastia Marketing, Bellevue, WA
Burks, Don, Rainier Plastia, Yakima, WA
Buder, Bernie, McConkey Plastia, Sumner, �AA
Cote, John, Sepco Recycling Systems, Spokane, WA
Denton, Dennls, Denton Plastics, Portland, OR
Gaudet, Robert, Partek Plastia, Vancouver, WA
Kwon, John, Interstate Plastia, Vancouver, WA
Newman, Christopher, Rainbow Cullet, Redmond, WA
Perkins, Ron, The Councll For Solid �aste Solutions, Washington, DC
Spence, Steve, Rabanco Companies, Ltd., Seattle, WA
Publfc Sector Contacts
Luboff, Chris, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA
St Germain, Susan, Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development, Seattle, WA
• Fublfcatlons
Brewer, Gretchen. Plastic Bottles Close The Loop. Resource R�cycling. May 1991, p. 88
� Combs, Susan. New Clorox Bleach Bottle Will Contain 20 Percent Recycled HDPE. Recycling 73imss. Dec. 3 1991•
Combs, Susan. CS1AS Funds Development of AIC Plastia Sorting Technology. Recycling 7kmes. Dec. 3 1991.
� Combs, Susan. Plastics Recycling Had a Tumultuous Year in '91. Recycling 7limes. Ock 22 1991.
• Combs, Susan. New Oregon City Plant Will Target Polysryrene and LDPE. R�c}�cding 7�ntes. Dec. 31 1991.
Combs, Susan. Michigan Co. Opens Plant to Recycle LDPE FiLn Bags. Re�ccycling 7�mes. Ock 22 1991.
�
�
� S�tion D.1: Recy+cJable Materials Marke�s Assessme�tt
Appertd'rx D: Racy+cl'rng Marke�s Assessment
�
::•;:•:ti:•:::•r:•>:•::•:;:::<•>:::�:•:::::::;•:•::•t:;;:•::•:::•::•>•:;•;:•;:•::•::•:•:::•:>:;•:; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.>::.:.;�.:.:::::::::::.. �::::::::::::::::: :•::::::::::::.: �:::::.
D - 40
Combs, Susan. PennsylvaNa Plas�a Recycler Will Concentrate on HDPE. Recycling 7linte.s. Ud. 22 1991.
Engel, Stephea Controlling Plastia Recycling CollecHon Costs. Resource Re�cycling. May 1991, p. 78.
Meade, Kadileea CSWS Study Shows Plas�a Recycling Up. Recyclsng 7tmes. Dec. 3, 1991.
Meade, Kathleen Firm Finds Niche Producing Quality Post-Consumer Resin. Recycling 73anes. August 27, 1991.
Misner, MlchaeL Wayne 1'urns Tires, Plastla to 011. Rerycling 7�rnes. Dec. 3, 1991.
Misner, Michael. Nissan and Honda Try To Recycle Painted Plastic Car Bumpers. Recycling 7�rnes. Dec. 3, 1991.
Misner, MichaeL Most Markeis Hit the Bottom Line ln 1991. Racycling 7tmes. Dec. 31, 1991.
Misner, MichaeL Plastia, Paper, iJBCs Dreary. Reiccycling 7�rnes. Ock 22, 1991.
Perkins, Ron. Collecdon Economics For Plastla Rec,ycllng. Resource Recycling, May 1991, p. 66.
Plastia Recycling Update. October 1990-December 1991.
R�cycle 7hfs Neu,rletter. McDonald's Dcops PS. November, 1990.
Re+cycle 7hfs Neu�letter. Pay'N Save Has Recycle-Mania November, 1990.
Recycle 7fiRS Neu�sle�er. PET Recycling Plant Opens. November, 1990.
R�cycle 7brs Neuasletter. Al�on Zoo Creates Plastic Park December, 1990.
Recycle 7fx's Neu,�s/etter. Sona:o & Mobll Collect Plastic Bags. December, 1990.
Recycle 71rrs Newsletter. Trash Bags Made Of Recycled Plasdc. December, 1990.
Recycle Thrs Nerusletter. Green Cross Gives Seal To Peanuts. April 1991.
Recycle 7hr's Newsletter. New Washington State Fllm Closes Seattle's Loop. May 1991.
Recycle 71ris Newsletter. Plastics Industry Recycling Campaign. May, 1991.
Recycle 7hfs Neu�sletter, Truck Grinds Plastla. July, 1991.
Re�cycle 7firs Newsletter: Procter & Gamble Enters IVW Plastia Markek August, 1991.
Recycle 7hfs Neuhsletler. Plastic Lumber MIll Planned. January, 1991.
Recycling 7�mes. The Markets Page. October 19g0-December 1991.
Resource Recycling, Market Update: Plasaa. October 1990-December 1991.
Resource Recycling. Plasac Film Collected From Residences. December 1991, p. 18.
Solid l�aste � Pow�er, New England Polystyrene Shipped To New Jersey. October 1991, p. S0.
Washington Department of Trade and Fmnomic Development, Plastics Recycling in Washington and the Northwest An Asssesssment of
Market Opportunities, Seattle, WA
i�astedines. Tetra Pak and Superwood Strlke a Deal. September, 1g90.
i�astelines. The Return of Retumable Milk Jugs. September, 1990.
3. Textiles
Prlvate Se�ctor Contacts
Beneua, I.arry, Buffalo Industiies, Seattle, WA
Barber, Fred, Barco Industries, Seattle, WA
Eastman, John, Northv�st Textiles, Taooma, WA
Jones, Jill, Goodwill Industrles, Seattle, WA
�jbendfz D: Recy�ling Manf�s Assessment S�lron D.1: Recyr,lable Materrals MarkeXs Assessment
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
::>:<:>::<:>:<:<:>:::;;:::�:::::::::<:>:::::>:<::«:::<}:::.::>rr: ::::��>::::>::::::::::>::<:<::::
<-::}� :::::>��:��;>::<:<::�::<:>::::«;r:::: :::::<:«>:::>:::::::>:::;::::::::::;r>:::;`:::.>::::>:�:<��>::::>:::::::>:;<::
............::::.:.......:::... ........................... . . .
>::Y:<:€�:�:<:w:�:::>f:ff:4:::�:::�:::.'�..:..«Y,,::>:: :;;• .i;�:>:::::::�:::::: >:�.::`:;!: ,:.: Y.: .<..::: ....>..:.: ::>:;:::>:::>.::5::.:;<:<:::<::::;::::�:<:��:::»::::::;:<::�::a�::9
.. .................................: S'::�::::�:::�i;S:::<:•':::�:o:.............................................................................................................................................
4. Glass
Prlvate Sector Contact
Dolphin, Bob, Owens Brockway, Portland, OR
Newman, Christopher, Rainbow Cullet, Redmond, WA
Eland, S1d, Sid Eland Distrlbuwrs, Seattle, WA
Skerbeck, Marilyn, Waste Management of Seattle, Seattle, WA
Spence, Steve, Rabanco Companies, Ltd., Seattle, WA
Publlc Sector Contacts
Hoffman, Ray, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA
D _ :`::>'
41
Publlcatfo�u
� AOR Newsletter. Weyerhaeuser to Supply Paper to James River Mills. June 1991.
• Apotheker, Steve. Glass Containers: How Recyclable Will They Be in the 1990's? Resource Recycling. June 1991.
Barcikowski, Deborah Glass Recycling Continues Populariry with Consumers. Recycling Today. August 1991.
� Bottle/Can Recycling Updates. Aprll 1991-September 1991.
C2S2 Group, Inc. Market Assessment for Use of Recycled Tires, Oil, and Glass. The Washington State Departrnent of Trade and
� Economic Development October 1990.
• California AB 2622 Relating to Recycled Content in Recycled Glass.
Emergency Glass Task Force. Technical Literature Abstracts. Waste Management Inc. September 1991.
• Galoway, Matt. States on Cutting Edge of Market Development Resource Recycling. July 1991.
Glass Recycling Update. Ball and Fibres International. August 16 1991.
� Kacandes, Tom. Market Develc�pment in New York: A Report from the Field. Resource Recycling. September 1991.
King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials. King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials Repor�
� 1991.
• Mattheson, Greg. Letter w Glass Suppliers. Fibres Internatronal. July 19g1.
Meade, Kathleea Brewing Companies Refill Bottles with a Recycling 'I�vist Recycling Today. June 1991.
• Meade, Kathleen. Green Glass Oversupply Increases Across the U.S. Waste Age's Rscycling Times. July 16 1991.
Meade, Kaihleen. National Plumbing Code Adds Recycled Glass to Drain Spec. Recycling 7tmes. September 10, 1991.
� Meade, Kathleea Recyclers Turn to New Markets for Green and Mixed Cullet Recycling 7tmes. August 13 1991.
OR Senate Bill 66 Relating to Recycled Content in Neuvsprink
� Recycle America. Recycle America Fact Sheet Fall 1991.
• Recycle 7firs Nerasdetter. Glass Recycling: Getting the S000p on Cullet July 1991.
R�cycle 7tirs Neu�sleller. Crash! It's the Price of Green Glass. Spokane, WA, August 1991.
• Recycling 7�rnes. Mexican Factory Could Take U.S. Cullet to Make Glassware. September 24 1991.
Resource Recycling. Market Development Case Study: Brandt Manufacturing. September 1991.
� Rissell, Carol J. Letter to Recyclers. Owens Brockway. Apri13 1991.
Trombley, Jeanne. Developing Non-Traditional Glass Market�. Resource Recycling. (ktober lggl.
� ward, Mark �vho�s suying G1ass. ne�y�ing ro�y. March i99i.
• l�ashinglon State Recycling Assoc7alio�t Nerusletter. Green Glass Price Drop. August 1991.
�
�
�
�
Sactfon D.1: Rac,y�lable Materials Markek Asse.csme�tt
Appendir D: R�yrling Markets Assassment
D-42
5. Metals
Prlvate Sector Contacts
Arrow Metals Corporation, Woodinville, WA
Cedar Grove Recycling Center, Maple Valley, WA
Force, Jack, MRI Corporation, Seattle, WA
Guthrie, Reid, Alcoa Recycling, Renton, WA
Sidel, Alan, Seattle Iron and MetaJs Corporation, Seattle, WA
Simons, Norm, Joseph Simon & Sons, Tacoma, WA
Stead, ]ack, Salmon Bay Steel, Seaule, WA
Steel Can Recycling Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
Urbick, Sara,, Skagit River Steel and Recycling, BurlingWn, WA
Publlc Sector Contacts
Belt, Laura, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA
Brooks, Karen, Seattle, Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA
Lorch, Craig, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA
Monk, Marilyn, King Counry Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA
Ornes, Maria, Seattle Solld Waste Utility, Seattle, WA
Starr, Gayle, Cedar Hills Landfill, Maple Valley, WA
Publ�cations
Apotheker, Steve. Aluminum: The times are changing. Resource Recycling. November 1989, p. 20-24.
Apotheker, Steve. �eryone wants the aluminum can. Resource Recycling. October 1991, p. 60 - 70
Bottle/Can Recycding llpdate. UBC Expor(s. April through September, 1991.
BottlP/Can Recyclmg (Ipdate. UBC Market Malysis. Aprll through September, 1991.
Bottle/Can Recycling Update. Steel Can Recycling News. April ttuough September, 1991.
Creel II, James M. The maturing market for aluminum foll and foll products. Resource Recycling. October 1991, p. 52, 53, 56, 58-
59.
Force, Jack. Recycled Tin Can Market-199. MRI Corporation for AO.R. Conference in OR. 19g1.
Misner, Michael. Aluminum used beverage can prices. Recycling 7l�nes. Aug.-Nov., 1991.
Powell, Jerry. Household aluminum scrap: Thcowing the baby out with the bathwater. Resource Recycling. March 1991, p. 72, 75
Powell, Jerry. �e can, says the scxap industry. Resource Recycling. February 1991, p. 18, 20, 23> 2S.
Recycle 7fir's Neturletter. Price of Cans. September through November, 1991.
Recycle 7hfs Netus/etter. Reynolds, Alcan cut aluminum productioa November 1991.
Recycle 7tx's Nerusletter. Can recycler wlll also process slag. November 1991.
R�cyc�ing Today. Scxap Managed Bettec March 1991 pg 33.
Re.source Recycling. Market Update: Metais/ferrous. July 1991, p. 122-123.
Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/ferrous. September 1991, p. 127-128.
Resource Racycling. Market Update: Metals/ferrous. November 1991, p. 90.
Resource Recycling. Market Update: MetaJs/non-ferrous. July 1991, p. 123.
Resource Re�cycling. Market Update: MetaJs/non-ferrous. September 1991, p. 128.
Appeiad'tx D: Racy�ling Marke�s Asse.ssme�tt Sa;limz D.1: Racyr,lable �faterials MarkeXs ASS�ssment
❑
•
�
�
�
..................................................................... :....:..::::.::.:: v..::.:.........::..:::...........:.:::::: .:.:.::............: ............ .:...:.::.:: rv:::.,.::::.: �..:..,��.: .......
.�.{:tr{.::+.^:pii� ��'.v:Y!::Htii•.:Ffu::iii: . ...Y.w:::.�N::K..:$...::j::..:,T,.. � {i;:t M1vj
:::x:v ::::::::::::::r..:::::::�r0::{ii!::i:i::p}•J,v,ryr}iiiu;•;•T:t•\•ii:4::.:::,r,.�tv. {•n C{{xxnn,x,v ry,N!•i'r�"lii.:..'.....�.....n.....�....r....r..,>,".... $. ..�:h•.
..;{�::::::xn.......r. ...}.}..,- :�:(wi:::n:::: .J.. .. ..:;•::v:.:w :::::::: .....................
:::::::nv:::::::nvn . ...................::.+.{•:-0nv.?w:n�:::::y:::::::::::k.. . ..... ....:::: w:::. .... n.x:::n... '
� "v.�
. )C{v
::::,«::.::>::::�:» :::>...
D 4
::::::::::.:.::::.�::::::::.........................,....... ..... . ............. . ::.:......:..... . ..:. ....
...................
.......... ...............................................::::::: ::.: :.:.....:.::::::::.;:::::::::::: :.>:.::;.>::;:.<:>:<.:>:.::.>:: <::;:.;:.;:.:;:.>;::.::;.:.::.:::;::.::::: ��:>:�: ��:<:�>:�: ::.
...................... „ ,. .
.....................:..::::::::::::.;.::.�:::.:�:.�:::::: :::.:.�:::::::::::::.�::.........: :.>::.::.::.:::.:�.r.::.::.....:..::::.:::.�:.::..::.:::�;>::::::.:.«::.::.>::.:.:::<.�::::<:.,. . ...f...........:.......... ......:.�.
.:::::::::.::.::.::::::.::::. .:.::::... .:.::.::::.:::::....:.::: :.:::.�::::..::..:...�:::<::�: �:.�:.............. .......... .. ...: .. ...........................f. .. 3
�:�:�:::�:::::::�::�::�::��:�:��:��:::�:��:::�::::��:::::.:v..:».:::::::::A ...............................:.>.::.:�........................................................................................ ...,.....
•
• Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/non-ferrous. November 1991, p. 91.
73Je Soft Drink Recycler. Recycling Fxceeds 50 Percent! Summer 1991.
� Seattle Solid Waste Utility. Study on White Goods Disposal. Seattle, WA
Ward, Mark Commodity Fceus-Who's Buying SteeL Recyclmg Today. July 1991, p. 68 - 74.
� l�ashington Slate Recycdsng Assoc7atiort Ner�sletter. Can, Can. October 1991.
� 6. Ba�,teries
•
�
�
�
�
�
Prlvate Sector Contacts
Allen, Tom, Interstate Battery, Lynnwood, WA
Clark, Ken, GNB, Inc., I,os Angeles, CA
Deetjen, Larry, Harding Energy Systems, Grand Haven, MI
Dillman, Glen, Burlington Envlronmental, ChemPro, Seattle, WA
Enumclaw Recycling, Enumclaw, WA
Fisher, Carl, RSR Corporation, City of Industry, CA
Meucci, Lisa, Recycling Coordinator, ReComp, Bellingham, WA
Monzelowski, Roger, Budget Batteries, Seattle, WA
� �bt� s�� ccon�r�
Boge, Rick, Skagit County Publlc Works, Mount Vemon, WA
� Barrett, Steve, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
• Dubois, Annette, Spokane Regional Southwest Dlsposal Project, Spokane, WA
Recycling Hotline, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
• Sieberger, Donaki, Solid and Hazardous Waste, Department of Ecology, Bellevue, WA
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Publicattours
Apotheker, Steve. Batteries power seoondary lead smelter growth. Resource Recycling. February 1990, p. 46-47, 92•
Apotheker, Steve. Dces battery recycling need a)ump? Resource Recycling. February 1990, p. 21-23, 91•
C2S2 Group, Inc. Household Battery Projed. King County Solid Waste Division. 1989.
Furtfiu�orks Neuu�sletter. Household Batteries Collected. October 1991.
Gitlin, Lisa. Batteries Not Included. Recyclmg Today. March 1991, p. 58-59.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Household Battery Recycling and Disposal Study. June 1991.
Rutlinger, Nancy and Dan de Grassi. Household battery recycling: numerous obstacles, few solutions. Resource Recycling. Aprll 1g91,
p. 24-29.
Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development New Battery Recycling Plant To Open In Washington. Re Marketable
Neu�s. Dec. 1991, p. 5.
'1 1, :1 ', 1' 11, 1
� Private Sector Contacts
Augenstin, Russ, Te�a Pak, Vancouver, WA
� Echick, James, Paperboard Packaging Institute, Washington, DC
�
�
� Ser�io�t D.1: Rer�lable Materials Mark�s Assessmeitt
Append'cr D: Re�cling Markets Asse�cme�tt
�
:: :::�ti�;;:::::?2?'t�::2?}}.::�:�;:::.;:;:;:::::��::i%:2�:�i:::::;<$::;::'t�;::�:?:::�:::i:2::::::::;�:::�::t�::�:ff:�:f::t?::�:�:fR�::;:�: ;�:;�::;;;::�::::;5;:�::�::�:::%�:�i:�i:�:�i`;:�::;5:;;:�;:�::::�::�::�::�:�::�::�:
�if .:::::::.::::: :.::::. �:. �::::::::::::::::::::. �::::.;a:: :t:: u::::: :•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. �::::. _:::::: :.:::::::::::::::::::::::: :::.:. �:::: •:::::::: •::::::.
' �
:::::::.::•::•:::
D
::::;>:;:::::::::::::::?:>:::<;:�:::;:<;�<::<::::::::::::`::::::>::::`>::;::;::::;::::>::>:<:::::::;_;:�:<<::>::;>:<::::>:::::<::::<::<::::<:�;�>»::>::>::>:::>::::::>::::::><:::::::::::�::::::€::::«:::::;:::::::«::<:>::>::>:;:;::<:;< ::::::::::::::::::€<::�w�::>:::::<:>::
Haines, Ed, Tetra Pak, Vancower, WA
IQien, Ed, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA
Lapic, Greg, Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, WA
Moon, Jeff, Ponderosa Fibers, Augusta, GA
Mounsey, Clark, Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, WA
Priano, Lieve, Tetra Pak, Vanoouver, WA
g. Z 1PeS
Prtvate Sector Contacts
Bolser, Tom, Al Bolser Tires, Inc., Seattle, WA
Bridges, Phil, Conrad Indus�ies, Centralia, WA
Bmwn, Carol, Pavetech, Seatde, WA
Chryst, Milton, Rubber Granulators, Lynnwood, WA
Daley, Pete, Waste Recovery, Portland, OR
Freeman, Jim, Tire Recyclers, Wlnloch, WA
Hope, Mark, Waste Recovery, Portland, OR
Howard, Soott, Holman, Inc., Seatt(e, WA
Keller, Dale, I.es Schwab, Prineville, OR
Kerber, DeNs, Schuyler Manufacturlc►g, Woodinville, WA
MaThew, Mitch, P.C. Casing, Kent, WA
Munger, Jce, Pmcess Fuels, Inc., Spokane, WA
Wright, Sonny, Tire Shredders, Goldendale, WA
Sco�eld, Bob, Dorian Metals, Seattie, WA
Publfc Sector Contacts
Clark, Dale, Washington Department of Eoology, Olympia, WA
Thung, Mellna, Seattle Solid Waste Uttilllty, Seattle, WA
Publlcatfmis
Biocycle. The bumpy road to tire recycling. May June 1991, p. 28-37.
Blumenthal, Mlchael Using saap tire rubber for asphalt Biocycle. Oct. 1991, p. 47.
C2S2 Group, Inc. Market Assessment for Use of Recycled Tires, Oil, and Glass. The Washington State Department of Trade and
Economic Developmenk (ktober 1990.
Misner, MichaeL Wayne Turns Tires, Plasac To OiL Recycling 7tmes. Dec. 3 1991.
Powell Jerry. All types and slzess avallable: Recent scrap tlre recycling leglslatloa Resource Recycling. December 1990 p. 60
SCS, ECO Northwest and C2S2 Group, Inc. Feasibility Study To Site and Operate a Tire Recycling Facility in Washington State. 1989.
Sikora, Mary. A llttle retreading gces a lot of mlles. Resource Recycdsng. December 1990, p. 50, 52-58.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�De�tdix D: R�cyicling Man�s Asse�sm�tt Saclio�t D.1: Reryr,kible Materrals Markexs Asssssme�tt •
�
••:�:••:;•:;
........
::.:a••:••::::::•::.»�::::•::•>:•r.:::::::.::;:::::;:.:::•::•:r.:::: ••:.::: r::::: •,:'::::•::•::::::::::: r iS::�::�SS:?'<:i:'<�! �:::':•::::::::i:�i:::;%'t't�>::::a::ii:::,+:.
5:•:t.. ..
..t::..:..�::.....
............ ... ........
�v»::>�::>�:::::::>:::�:�>:::<:<::>:<:>:::»:<:.�:::<�::::::::::;:::;:�:>:::>::::::::»::::>._<::::::>:::>::::��::::>::>::>::::::<>>:::�>::>::::.>::>:;:::::>:<::>::�::: :::::�::>:::::::><.::::::;:««<:::::::>:�:»:::::<:>:<>:
......
:.::: .::::::::::::.......:.: �:::::.:
....:::::::::: :.::::.::::::.:�::::. .:::.:>:.:;:.;:.::..::�h:::::::::
»;.. .:f:::..:..
9. Food waste
Prlvate Sector Contacts
Iddings Laura, Iddings, Inc., Kent, WA
Klick, Dave, Northwest Food Processocs Associaiion, Portland, OR
Prenguber, Br�ce, Northwest Economic Associates, Vancouver, WA
Skumatz, Llsa, Synergic Resources Corporaation, Seattle, WA
Pwblic Se+ctor Contacts
Vu, Tuan, Department of Eoology, Olympia, WA
�iS:::{{i:i:<
D -4 �
5
Ser,t�orc D.1: Recyraable Materrrtls Markets Assessment �ppend'xx D: Re�ling Markets Ass�srnerct
�
•iiY.4i:•i::�i
::':'f.:i::�{: �.';::i:?�:�i::�i:�::ti�ii:
D-4
6
Section D.2
Market A��sessment f or
Yard Waste and Wood
A. SUMMARY
This report summarizess the current conditions of the markets for recycled or composted yard waste and wood products, based
on a phone survey of industry professionals and an evaluation of previous studies. Wood is primarily composed of unprocessed v�od
debris, such as stumps, roots, trees, and branches removed from landscaping, development and land clearing sites. Yard waste
consisa of grass clippings, leaves, and small branches from residential and commercial landscaping. Wood is processed for use as a
mulch, while yard waste is processed for use as a soil amendment or mulch.
Yard waste and wood composting is a new industry, and che evolving markets do not reveal defined parameters. A few
important market conditions will continue to intluence market development, however.
• New cufiside collection programs may create a glut of yard waste compost over the next two years.
• Demand will continue to expand, but will require the timely process of gaining consumer acceptance and confidence.
• Demand for yard waste and wood products may be assisted by rising prices of timber byproducts.
• Long-term demand should be suff'icient for all yard waste and wood supplies.
• Total procassing capacity for King Counry yard waste will be 250,000 to 350,000 cubic yards for 1992•
• Diversion through existing programs in King County is projected to reach 99,000 tons per year by the year 2000.
The markets for yard waste product5 are in the middle of a aitical period of rapid expansion and development ln King
Counry. The input market for unprocessed yard waste and the product markets for composted materials and mulches are all being
inundated by unprec�dented expansions of supply. The dramatic increase of curbside collection prograrns concentrated over the last
few years and continuing into 1992 will continue to provide inaeasing quantities of yard waste. The markets for selling wood have
been developed over a longer period and haee achieved more stable footing. There will also be some increases 1n the supply of wood
to recyclers, but they already have secured successful channels into the mulching and hog fuel (wood fuel for power generators)
markets.
According to this study and previous market analysis, there should be suff'icient processing and demand capacity in existing
markets to ensure long-term sustainable markets for yard wastes and wood. The products will be primarily absorbed in the topsoll,
mulch, and wood fuel markets. The shrinking supplies and rising costs of timber byproducts should allow successful marketing of
yard waste and wood products without displacing other important recycled composts from animal and sev�r products. Over the next
few years, however, wllection programs will probably produce a glut in the yard waste processing sector, aeating wmpost stocl�iles
and difficulties in marketing. Supplies of wood will not be as strongly affected, and wood product demand will stay healthy as bark
mulch prices continue to rise and more hog fuel plants come on line.
The competitive market of yard waste processing and praluct supply is locally contained, with most input and output sources
within 30 miles of Seattle. There are excellent opportunities for King County and other public agencies to play an effedive role in
supporting a bulging market The County can assist other agencies in establishing product specification and certification procedures,
providing consumer education and publicity, and establishing wunty contract specif'ications for procurement of wmpc�st products.
•
�
�
•
•
�
•
•
�
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Appendfx D: Re�cling Markets Asse,ss�nte�tt S�clion D.2: �Yfarket Assessn�rl for Yard Waste and tGood •
�
i•
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
:,::::�:r�::
D-
4
7
::t::..:::::
.:��f��ir<
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
B. METHOD
This market assessment combines previous relevant market research with a current phone survey of yard waste and wood
processors and users in King County. The phone survey contacted about 10 yard waste processors, 15 other soll processors or
distributors, 15 commercial users, and 10 public agencies. The framework for the survey was based on the Washington Department of
Ecology market assessment guidelines for local solid waste managemenk The abbreviated sun+ey format, combined with lack of
precise answers from respondents, allowed for few exact quantitahve resul�. The survey dces provide valuable consensus of
parameters, issues, and considerations in the eacpanding marketing of yard waste and wood products.
Previous compost market assessments have encountered similar problems with accurately predicting market value and capacity.
Actual estimates generated previously have been primarily based on impressions of contacls in the soil industry. Previous market
assessments have been conducted for Washington State (NEA 1990) Snohomish County (NEA 1988), Seattle (Pope 1988), and
Portland (NEA 1g86, CRS 1988). In all cases, they concluded there were good indications that soil products markets could absorb the
additional products from full-scale yard waste composting pmgrams. King Counry Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials will
be conducting a countywide market assessment under a Deparhment of Ecology grant beginning in January 1992.
C. MARKET SUPPLY
1. Waste Generation
Yard waste and wood now account for 20 percent of the solid waste generated in King Counry (SCS, 1991). The following
generation estimates were provided by SCS Engineers based on data from King County and the Washington State Department of
Ecology. The portion of wood that is bulky wood and stumps ("natural" wood as defined in the King County l�aste Characlerizatio�t
Study, Appendix B) is included in the figures.
• Diversion through
Year Yard Waste Generation Current Programs
• 1990 149,700 tons per year 57,200 tons per year
1995 175,000 tons per year 86,000 tons per year
n
U
•
2000 192,000 tons per year 99,000 tons per year
2. Source-separaxion Diversion
� Yard waste and wood represent large components of the solid waste stream that can be source separated and processed lnto
useful products using fairly simple procedures. Wood has been diverted for many years by commercial operations (construcKion and
� land clearing�, but only recently have attempts been made to divert and process a signlf'icant amount of yard waste In King Counry.
• Small quantities of yard waste have been diverted for years through commercial self-hauling to topsoll processors and wmmercial
and residential self-composting. Between 1989 and lgg2 almost all communities in King County intmduced household yard waste
• collection for single-family residents, in response to increased solid waste tipping fces, heightened environmental ethia, and, most
importantly, countywide requirements. The 1989 Ksng County Comprehen.sive Solyd i�aste Management Plan required that all
� residents be served by yard waste collection programs. Household collection was encouraged for urban areas.
• In the spring of 1989, three cities in King County began household yard waste collection pmgrams. By the spring of 1992, 24
of the remaining 2g suburban cities and all urban uninco�porated areas had begun their own programs. A number of cities ban yard
• waste from the mixed waste stream. In most areas the service is provided by private haulers, primarily Rabanco and Waste
Management subsidiaries, under either franchise or contract agreements. Almost all programs are voluntary and charge a service fee
�
�
� Se�tion D.2: Market Ass�ssmerit for Yard Waste and Wood Appertd'a D: Racyr,l'mg Marke�s Ass�ssrnent
�
::; :.:: «:.:: <.>:.: : :.: : :.>;;;;:.
�
-4
D 8
:::: >: <::::::::: `:::>:: €::: :;
.......... ... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... �
�
�
�
�
to the customer. Rates vary between $2 per month to approximately $6 per month Actual subscription rates range from only small
percentages ln new programs to two-thirds of the households in established prog�rams.
King County Areas Offering CurbsIde Yard Waste Collection
1988 none
1989 Seattle, Bellevue, and Rertton
1990 Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, IGrkland, Medina, Mercer Island, Redmond, Yarrow Point
1991 Auburn, Bothell, Dwall, Issaquah, Normandy Park, North Bend, SeaTac, Tukwila, unincorporated IGng County
1992 Algona, Des Moines, Federal Way, Enumclaw, Lake Forest
(Source: 1991 King County Mnua/ ReporQ
Fstunates for diversion levels are provided by SCS Engineers in the previous table. Diversion levels and program tonnages
began to increase dramatically during 1991 as earlier programs achieved high levels of participation. New 1991 programs have only
begun to acquire customers. In many of the franchise areas there is little financial incentive for customers to subscribe to yard waste
collection. Rate regulation by V�[JTC has kept the c�st of an additional garbage "can" increment at only $2 or $3 per month, while
yard waste subscription is at about $6 per month for les,s frequent service.
3. Wood Generation and Diversion
Recyclable wood is generated primarily by wmmercial operations. The wood recycllng lndustry developed as a response to the
inaeasing disposal costs facing land development companies. Recycling efforts have been focused on diverting land clearing
stumpage, wood debris, and clean, untreaied lumbec Recyclers accept the wood for a tipping fee and grind it up to be used as
mulch, ground cover, and hog fuel. Diversion levels of wood are fairly high. Wood recyclecs processed an estimaxed 150,000 cubic
yards of wood in the Puget Sound area in 1991.
The significant supply of timber mill byproducts is not considered in this analy�is. Timber processing mills produce large
quantities of scrap, which is ground or chipped, producing sawdust, mulches, and fuels. Wood recyclers compete directly in with these
sizable sources.
� 1 :.r ' 1. f.
Processing yard waste is a growing industry, with new firms trying to capture the growing supplies and associated tipping fees.
Processors charge between $3.50 and $10.00 per cubic yard ($15 to $30 per ton) for accepting yard waste and wood, with qualiry
(clean) yard waste drawing a lower fee and mixed wood generally requiring a higher fee. A composting facility requires a large
available land base, grinding and screening equipment, turning equipment, and a distribution or sales network. Data from the phone
survey indicate that processing costs, including indirect and financing costs, are in a range of $20 to $40 per ton. Previous estimates
from other sources ha�e estimated processing costs between $10 and $SO per ton (NEA, 1g90). This compares to tipping fee revenues
of $15 to $30 per ton, requiring $0 to $25 in additional revenues from compost sales to cover costs (not including profits).
Wood recyclers have been able to atta.in lower processing costs than yard waste processors. Wood recyclers produce a lesss-
reflned product (mulches and fueLs), requiring less screening and composting. There are only a few wood recyclers in the region,
each with established large-scale operations. These large and proven facilities allow the recyclers to maintain low operating costs.
Tipping fees for v�od are aLso higher than yard waste, which provides offsetting revenues that support lower product prices.
Appendix D: RacyClrng Markexs Ass�ssment S�tio�a D.2: Market A�ss�ssment for Yard Waste and Wood •
�
�
•
•
•
•
D -4
9
•
� 5. Distribution and Geographic Area
� All proce5sors dlstribute their products primarlly by bulk truck loads to both retail and wholesale customers. Yard waste
compost ls primarily marketed as a soil amendment for topsoll applications. Most processors sell both straight compost and their own
� topsoil blend. Yard waste processors market extra wood debris and saeened-out debris as mulch products. Wood processors market
. both mukhes and hog fuel, depending on the qualiry and chip size of the produd. Users acquire the products directly from the
processors or through lndependent distr�ibutors. Almost all product sales are in bulk quantities, with a few distributors producing
• bagged products for homeowners.
At pmsent, there are seven primary yard waste proccessssors in Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties. Competitive yard waste
� tipping fees and transportation costs have kept the markets for yard waste and yard waste products contained in fairly local areas.
Most King County yard waste is processed and distributed within 30 miles of Seattle, not extending beyond southwest Snohomish
� Counry and norrhwest Pierce Counry. King County wood is also processed and distributed locally, except for hog fuel users in Tacoma.
• King Counry markets will not be affected by the major program expansions of Portland Metropolitan District's curbside yard waste
collection because the regional compost markets are too far apart (150 miles) to interact
� �
J
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
Local Yard Waste Processors in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties
(also accept some wood)
Company Amount of Business from King County
Basset-Western, Woodinville & Arlington 4096
Cedar Grove, Maple Valley 10096
Iddings, Kent 100%
Land Recovery, Puyallup 0%
NW Cascades, Puyallup 10%
Pac'rfic Topsoil, Bothell 30%
Valley Topsoil, Algona 3096
Total potential capaciiy for the region: 750,000-800,000 cubic yards/year
Total poterrtial capacity serving King County: 250,000-350,000 cubic yardstyear
Note: Most prxessors expect to operate at 70 to 90 percent of capacity in 1992.
• Puget Souad Wood Processors
(also accept some yard waste)
• NW Wood Recyclers, 2 facilRies: Woodinville and Kent
Total wood capacity in IGng County: About 250,000 cubic yards/year
• Note: Total processed wood was 200,000-300,000 cubic yards in 1991.
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
D. MARKET DEMAND
l. Product Markets
The oost and characteristia of yard waste compost are best suited for marketing as a topsoil amendmenk Compost products
have been prlced ln the high range of topsoils and composts. 1'he physical and chemical composition of yard waste compost make it
a valuable product as a soil amendment Compost adds important nu�ient levels, moisture retention, and other beneficial
characterLstia for topsoiL Composts can also be used as mulch or top dressing, especially the coacser products.
Sertion D.2: Mark�t Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood
App�end'rr D: Racy�dritg Marke�s Assess�nent
D-50
Yard waste products are too expensive and structurally undesirable for uses as low-qualiry fill or in farming or wood fuel
applications. Varlous fill dirfs can be acquired for free from land development projects and provide a more stable and compact base.
Farmers can oonvert their own manure supplies into compost sprays. Wood recyclers wlll continue to produce cheap wood fuel
products. Yard waste compost is also not cheap enough for significant agricultural uses in King County.
Topsoll 1s primarily used In landscaping applicatlons by a variety of users, Including wmmercial landscapecs, nurserles, public
agencies, and homeowners. Users may employ good native soil at the site of application and add compost, or they may purchase
topsoil mixes. Topsoll recipes vary, but all include a majority of sand, dirt, loam, and/or other soils mixed with one or more organic
composts derived from yard wastes, sewage sludge, manure, stall cleanings, peat, sawdust, and/or barks. Most proccesssors suggest that
the best application of yard waste compost is ln a mix using a number of different oomplementary amendments, producing a soil
that maximizes the attributes of different compos�. Most successfully marketed topsoils include a variety of ingredients to achieve
desired moisture retention and nutrient content It is also important to recognize that other soil amendments are often waste
composts from other industries (sewer, dairy, etc.), which have already established a share of the markek
Soil processors have already begun cazving a significant niche in the topsoil market for yard waste compost Previous
estimates of soil market� have loosely estimated that sales of all barks, sawdust, and soils are in the area of 3 million cubic yards
per year in King and Snohomish counties, including 1.S million cubic yards of topsoil (NEA, 1990). Exact numbers for any of the
soll markets are very diff'icult to establish. It is important to remember the market for soil amendments and composis is less than a
fifth of overall market for soils and soll mixes.
Below are the current price ranges for various organic products. Prices listed are for bulk, wholesale purchases, picked up by
the customer (retail prices are $2 to $3 higher and delivered prices depend on distance).
1991 Bulk, Wck-up Prices (per cubic yard)
Topsoil mbces $7$14
Sawdust $2-$7
Sand $2-$4
Fiil dirt $2 to +$3 $7$14
Barks (all types) $11-$14
Mulches $6$12
Hog fuel $1$3
Yard waste composts and soil mixes are priced at the high end of their respective ranges ($10 to �12 per cubic yard). Yard
waste product sales have been successful at these prices, but many potential users indicated that price may be a barrier to increased
consumption of yard waste products. Wood mulches are priced in the lower range of mulches ($6 to $8 per cubic yard) and are very
competitive with more expensive bark mulches. Both yard waste and wood products should benefit from decxeasing timber mill
production and decxeasing supply of mill byproducts.
Z. Curnent and �.iture Demand Potential for Yard Waste Products
1fie major potential users of yard and wood waste products include commercial landscaping and land development businesses,
nurseries, public agencies, and homeowners. Some commercial landscaping agencies and homeowners have begun using yard or
wood waste products, but all market sectors have room for increased compost sales. Responses to the phone survey indicate that
many potential users are not familiar with the qualiry and availabiliry of yard waste compost products.
Appendix D: Racy�ling Mar�s Ass�ne�tt Ser�ion D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood
i•
• ..........................
�
�
�
�
� a. Cornrneraal Landsc�ing
D- 1
5 .........
• 1'he most significant and easily accessible potential users of yard waste and wood compost are commerclal landscapers. These
firms are already the primary users of yard waste products on the market and reprressent the largest customer segment for soll produd
• distributors. Lancisscapers in King County use hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of soil products per year, which they acquire
through soil processors and distributors. Most surveyed landscapers were generally open to incorporating oompost producls if they are
� economical, since price is a primary consideration in their product selection.
, Reaction has been mosdy positive to product qualiry, with isolated incidents of product diff'iculties. Most respondents were
satis�ed with yard waste compost as a partial soll amendment mixed with other composts (sludge, manure, etc.). Soll processors have
w found that strengths and wealmesses of the di�erent composts complement each other for a more balanced produc�t. Landscapers often
rely on soil processors for information on alternative soil products. Continued success of yard waste compost application should
i encourage increased sales, but price may become a limiting factor for many appllcations.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
b. Commercial Nucseries
Nurseries are the other major commercial users of soil products. Nurseries, however, ha�e higher demands for product
consistency due to more stringent requirements foc fertile soils that are free of disease organisms and wced sceds. Nurseries have
been more hesitant to purchase yard waste wmpost due to uncertainry about quality control and product consistency. Yard waste
processors are now producing products of sufficient quality to meet some nurseries' needs, but must still convince most nurseries and
dispel past myths. Yard waste composts may soon be suitable for outdoor nursery application, but their use in indoor operations w111
be minimal until additional test results demonstrate an acceptable level of product quality for this rype of application. As promoters
of landscaping materials, nurseries would become excellent channels for educating residential consumers about the use of compost
Some nurseries have already begun carrying small quantities of yard waste compost for retail sale.
c. Public Sector
Many local soff processors look to public sector operations for having the most under-realized potential for purchasing yard
waste products. City, county, and state agencies have recently been making considerable efforts to move toward inaeased procurement
of recycled products. The Washington State Procurement Act was passed in April 1991, containing speci�ic requirements for compost
product purchases (set-asides) by Departrnent of General Administration, Department of Transportation, and ciry and Counry highway
projects. King Counry's recently passed procurement act dces not yet contain specific compost goals or asslstance, and the City of
Seattle is deciding on its own procurement language. Actual implementation and procurement may be a difficult challenge, requlring
education and creativiry to overcome stivctural resistance to change. It is also important to recognize that procurement ordinances for
compost products may also favor recycled sludge and manure composts.
The market potential for purchases of compost products by the public sector is not substantiaL All purchasing Is performed by
individual departments and amounts to only about a few hundred cubic yards of soll products per year per department for Seattle
and King County. Relevant public agencies include roads, parks, light and water, schools, solid waste, and zoo departments. Seattle
has established a blanket contract with Cedar Grove to facilitate agency purchases.
All significant capital lmprovement projects (CIPs) for mads, bulldings, or parks are performed by �ntra�ctors with commodity
purchases specified by the relevant agency. The rypes and sizes of projects vary from year to year, but generally involve up to a few
hundred thousand cubic yards of soll products per year for Seattle or King Counry. Historically, contract specif'ications have
encouraged only use of a narrow spectrum of soil products, depending on the appllcation. The biggest contracts Involving soils for the
city and Counry are for landfill cover. Seattle Solid Waste Utility is negotiating with Cedar Grove to specify 16,000 w 32,000 cubic
Sectio�a D.2: Market Assessme�tt for Yard Waste and Wood �ppend'�x D: ReCy+cling MarkeRs Assass�nent
�
D-52
yards of oompost and mukh for the Kent Higlilands cover. King County Solld Waste Division is also working on Inoorporating
wmpost soils into iL� landfill covers. The Counry currendy has a wntract with Northwest Wood Recyclers for hog fuel as a temporary
road cover at Cedar Hills.
Washington Departrnent of Transportation (DOT� oversees CIPs of considerable slze, involving hundreds of thousands of cubic
yards per year. Historlcally, DOT has spec,if'ied a soll mlx of 75 percent sand and 25 percent ground bark or sawdusk V�hen needed,
ni�ogen Is added for su�cient nutrlent wntenk Bark mulch is usually specifled as a covering. The largest DOT project ln King
Counry has been die I-90 oompletion, involving 200 acxes and acquiring nearly 900,000 cubic yards of soll mix. Most of the soil mix
was specifle� as sand and ground bark and covering as bark mulch. DOT ls now establishing compost specifications and invesagating
how to meet die new procurement requirements. DOT had one King Counry contrarx in 1991 that specified a switch to a yard waste
compost mix for 2,000 cubic yards.
d. Homeowner
Individual homeowners also represent important potential yard waste compost customers. In 1991, Cedar Grove marketed a
bagged yard waste produd throughout the Seattle area for residential use. So fac, sales are at about 100,000 bags or 3700 cubic
yards in 1991. Many of the other soil amendment produc�, including manure composts, are also packaged for the retail market, and
expansion will require emphasizing its appeal as a recycled product to the customer.
3. Current and �ture Demand for Wood Products
Wood is primarily marketed as a mulch or hog fueL The finer wood is marketed in bulk to landscaping agencies and larger
pieces are sold as hog fuel Wood is already cheaper than bark mulches and many users have found the darker color appealing
(wmpared to the reddish fir bazk mulches). Some users have reported loss of darkness due to sun bleaching. The hog fuel market
will stay s�ong as a major cogeneration plant is now on line in Tacoma In addition, reduced hog fuel supplies from other sources,
such as tunber byproduds, should ensure a steady demand for wood.
The wood market has been established over time and ls not facing any major shifts in supply. Wood and yard waste recyclers
conduct a significant amount of business related to bullding construction and sales and are dependent on a healthy economy to
support oontinued sales.
E. Market Analysis
Most of the yard waste processors in King County believe there will be a surplus of collected yard waste in 1992• There appears
to be sufficient capacity to accept and process the waste, but processors may be experiencing increased stocicpiles of oompost products.
Proccesssors may respond to the rising input supplies with increased tipping fees, which collectors can pass on to the consumer and
inhibit the success of collection prograrns. Higher tipping fees would allow the proces,sors to unload their su�plus product at an even
lower pdce.
There is no clear indication of how high tipping fces wuld go, or if they will rise at all. Cureendy, however, there is still
plenry of competitlon among processors for collected yard waste, keeping tipping fees down. Increased supplles over the past few years
have not produced any signif'icant changes in wmpost pcices or in tipping fces. Intensified competition may also thin the field of
processors, with only a few yard waste processors sun�iving.
Most proccesssors feel it will become increasingly difficult to sell all of their compost products over the next few years. According
to this study and previous market assessments, there should be enough demand in the substantial soil products market for all yard
Apperrdcr D: Rc�yr,l'mg Mar�s Assessme�tt Seclion D.2: Mar,(� Asssssmertt for Yard l�a,ste and A�ood
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
•
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
•
•
D-
5
3
:<:>:::::::::::'
waste and wood produds, but it may take a few years to achieve the nceded produd confidence and recognition from the consumer.
Many soll processors are already feeling a saturated topsoll market
Producers feel that yard waste compost can be best introduced as a complement to other soil amendments, rather than
replacing manure or sludge composts. Yard waste composts should have more oppoctonity to dLSplace timber byproduc�s as milling in
Western Washington is reduced and byproducts become less avallable and more e�ensive. Currently, yard waste wmpost products are
succe�fully o�mpedng at the hlgh end of topsoll and wmpost prlce range. Future stocicplles may requlre processsors to drop prlces,
also putdng pressure on increasing tipping fces. Most of the su�vey respondents were oonfident that demand v�ould eventually be
sufficienk
Incxeasing supplles of wood products will aJso be posiaoned to undercut any lncxeases in timber byproduct prices. Wood
products are marketed over a narrower range of �ses than yard waste, but producers have already developed somewhat dependable
channels of distribution. Low market price should mainta.in a steady demand for wood in the mulch and hog fuel markets. A weaker
economy, however, with less construction and building development, would constrid the commercial landsr�ing market, and reduce
the market share available to both yard waste and wood products.
The markets for chipped or composted wood and yard wastes are just now evolving and defy precise predictions, but most
sources indicats a sustainable long-term development All previous regional market assessment� and pcncessing operations in other
areas of the wuntry have provided evidence that large-scale yard waste and wood markets will continue to find sustainable demand.
F. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The markets for the inputs and outputs of the yard waste and wood operations are all within a few miles of the King Counry
borders allowing for dired support by local public agencies. All processors agree that the pmcessing and marketing of these wastes
should remain private enterprises, but that the County could assist in market developmenk The Counry could cooperate with other
public agencies to provide qualiry testing and certification, consumer education and awareness, processing regulation, and open
channels for procurement by counry agencies.
Produd standards have begun to be developed by private processors and public agencies, including the Washington Depariment
of Ecology, D�artment of Transportation, and the Seattle Solid Waste Utiliry. The next step is to wnsolidate and refine these
standards and oonsider certification prograrns for different waste products. Processors are concerned about incxeased government
regulation, but quality control was a major limiting concern in the prioriry markets of commercial landscaping and nursery
businesses. Consumers must be convinced that products are safe and consistent Increased regulation could hinder eff'icient product
development, but should be enforced at some level to maintain an honest markek High tipping fees can inspire collection facilities
that fundion as little more than private, unmonitored landfills.
Most processors are hoping government agencies will become major consumers of yard waste and wood products. The most
significant opportunity for county procurement may be in contracts for landf'ill cover, but the Counry should attempt to introduce
compost procurement in other agencies to at least symbolically support an industry that its programs have created. Fstablishing
blanket contracts and CIP specif'ications for yard waste and wood products will encourage increased use in counry projects. The fust
step is to ensure that purchasing and contracting procedures do not discourage waste product procuremenk
The Washington Department of Ecology has awarded a s250,000 grant to the King County Commission for Marketing
Recyclable MateriaLs for work beginning in january 1992. The grant work will focus on market development, including a market
assessment of compost products, establishing standards and a certification process, and expanding public procurement The
Commission will provide a draft for revising the County Procurement Ordinance and provide field demonstrations for public agencies.
Sectio�t D.2: Market Asssssment for Yard Waste and Wood Ap[�endir D: Re�cyrling Mar�s Assessmer�t
�
D- 4
5
The County may also want to reconsider what role to play in rate recommendations. Current rate levels do not encourage, and
may even disoouc�age, voluntary subscriptions to curbside collection prograrns. The County will have to assess whether oollection
programs are achieving desic�e� diversion levels.
G. SOURCES
1. Reference,s
Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. 1988. Portland Metropolitan Area Compast Pfroduc�s Market Sludy.
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1990. Draft City of Seattle Soil Use Inventory. Prepared for Seattle Solid Waste Utillry.
King County Solid Waste Divisioa 1991. Annual Report 1991.
King County Solid Waste Division. 1989. Adopted 1989 Comprehensive Solyd i�aste Management Plan.
Northwest Economic Associates. 1990. [�ashington Compast Market Asse.�sment. Prepared for Washington Department of Trade and
Economic Developmenk
Northwest Economic Associates. 1988. Market Analysis of Snohomish County Yard Debris Compost Products. "
Northwest Economic Associates. 1986. Market Analysis of Portland Metropolitan Area Yard Debrls.
Pope-Reid Associates. 1988. Yard Debrrs Compasting Program Design. Ciry of Seattle.
SCS Engineering. 1991. Ktng Counly i�aste Characterizalron Study.
2. Respondents to Surveys and Interviews
Advanced Sand and Gravel
Bassett-Western, Woodinville and Arlington
Burien Bark
Carpinito Brothers Farm, Kent
Cedar Grove Compost, Maple Valley
Clean Washington O�ice, DTED
Dowell Company, Seattle
Evergreen Bark and Topsoil, Kirkland
Evergreen Topsoll, Kent
Iddings, Inc., Kent
Land Reoovery, Inc., Puyallup
Lloyd's Sand and Gravel, Federal Way
King Counry Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials
King County Parks
King County Public Works
King County Purchasing
King County Solid Waste
McCann Wayne Trucking and Excavating, Kirkland
IVW Cascades, Puyallup
N1�V Wood, Woodinville and Kent
Pacif'ic Topsoils, Bothell
�
�
�
App�endix D: Racyr,ling 1Vfarkets Assessment
S�tio�t D.2: Market A,s�sment for Yard t�a,ste and i�ood •
�
: :; ; :: ; :> ; :::: :::>:v r::>::;:>::<:::::<:::�>::;>:»:»»»»»:�::::::»:�>:::»:«:><:<::<:><::;<;««<;>:<:><::<><>:::�:�:;:>::;:«<:>::><:<::<::::<:�:;:<:>:«<:»<::»»>:<:»::»>:::::»;>;::<::«<;:»»>:«<:>:::>::>::>:::::;:«<::>>::;:<:<
<{�:;:::::;r:::::::'.<:�:'::>:::<:::::::;:::::::;;:::::::::::::;:<;:;:::;;::::<:�::���::�::>:��:�;:«::�<>`:>:::>:<:`>:`:>::>:::>::>:?::::'>:::::::::<:;::::<:::<::�::<:::;::::::>::>_::::;:::::>:€:::::>:::::<::::>:`;>:::<�:<`�::�:::::>:>>::::::>:::�<::>:�:<:::::::>;::::;€:::>::>::::>:::::::�::<::<:::»:::`::::::::>:::::�:
Palmer Coking Coal Company, Maple Valley
Re�-E Topsoll, Re�mond
Renton Sand and Gravel, Renton
S and B MateriaLs, Seattle
Savudust Supply Company, Seattle
Seatt(e Solid Waste Utrlltty
Soils, Inc., PuY��P
Superlor Soils, Woodinvllle
Unlversity of Washington Pack Forest, Eatonville
Valley Topsolls, Algona
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Departrnent of General Accounting
Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development
Washington Department of Transportation (Olympia, District 3, and I-90)
Washington Organic Recycling Council
D-
55
Seclion D.2: Mark� Ass�sment for Yard Waste and Wood Append'�x D: Racycling Markels Assessment
0
APPENDIX E
ASTE REDUCTION
D RECYCLING
ROGRA�MS
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
` v�,
����
SOI'�111g
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
E-1
Appendix E
Waste Reduction and Recycling Progra�ms
The following are descriptions of King County program achievements from 1989 to 1992 that fulfill the requirements set forth
in the 1989 Plan. In many instances, counry achievements ha�e surpassed the basic requirements.
� A. WASTE REDUCI'ION
� 1. Public Awareness Education
Because waste reduction is a primary goal of the County, all public awareness efforls and school programs developed by the
� Waste Reduction and Recycling Section include waste reduction components.
�
�
�
�
�
a King County Home Waste Guide
Distributed to residents throughout the County since its first printing ln 1g89, the King County Home l�aste Guide offers 'bne
stop shopping" for waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) information for counry residents. It includes a"Home Waste Quiz," which
offers WR/R tips that can be used in every area of the home; a Resource Catalog, which lists contacts for more detailed information
on waste reduction; and a"Waste Reducer's Checklist," which explains ways to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost waste. These
suggestions include buying products in bulk when possible, buying products made from recycled materials, and selecting reusable
versions of such items as plates, utensils, cigarette lighters, and razors.
� b. 1991 "Shop Smart C���
� Under a Waste Reduction Public Education Grant, the County purchased bus panels, posters, canvas bags, radio and TV PSAs,
and a video on shopping smart that ha�e been used to promote selective shopping to reduce waste. The grant also provides partial
� funding for a brochure developed by the King County Nurses Association on diapering alternatives. The brochure compares the cost,
• convenience, and health and environmental factors associated with cloth versus disposable diapers. It will be distributed through
health care providers in the Northwest.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
u
�
�
c. Master Recycler/Composter (MRC) Program
This program enlists volunteers to increase and sustain community involvement in WR/R, backyard composting, and household
hazardous waste management through outreach activities. Since its inception in 1989, the MRC Program has included waste
reduction practices as part of the volunteer training. The manual for the 1991-1gg2 tra.inings was revised to expand waste reduction
information contained in previous editions. The MRC Program is further described in this appendix under Section D.3.
A. Waste Reduclion Aj�perad'rx E: Waste Reductioye and Racycling Programs
E
-2
d. School Programs
1'he school programs provide many opportunities for students to learn and practice waste reduction strategies. For example,
fact sheeCs for elementary school teachers pmvide tips for reducing waste at school in daily activities and when planning special
events, such as carnivals. A lesson kit for middle school teachers includes lesson plans and materia.is for such activities as worm
composting and debates on packaging issues. A video featuring words and music written and performed by high school students
focuses on the themes of reduction and reuse.
e. Commeraal, Retail, and Industrial Education/Technical A�istanoe
Waste reduction education for businesses is included as part of the Counry's Technical Assistance Program (TAP), which
provides waste audits and guidance in developing recycling programs. Waste reduction education offered by the TAP includes general
ideas applicable to many rypes of businesses, as well as techniques tailored to fit specific establishments, such as offices, restauran�s,
and industrial plants.
f. Finanaal A�istanoe Program
This program provides funds to businesses to implement waste reduction projects and secvices that could significantly reduce
the waste stream if the project were replicated countywide. In exchange for this assistance, participants will report their results to the
County regularly for up to two years. Financial Assistance Program projects will assist the County in assessing the effectiveness of
various waste reduction strategies, both in terms of their impact on the waste stream and their economic effect. F.�camples of
organizations receiving funding include a nonprofit food bank supplier that will vermicompost unusable food; a hair salon that will
dispense hair care products in bulk; a major retailer that will replace disposable plastic bags with durable ones to cover ca.rts of
clothing; and a high school that will replace papeRVOrk with an electronic mail system and open a reuse center for students to reuse
school supplies that would otheiwise be discarded.
g. Variable Garbage Can Rates
An effective tool to encourage waste reduction is the use of variable rates for garbage collection. There are many different
approaches, but the one used in King County sets a base rate for minunum service, the so-called "mini-can." Subscribers can
arrange with their haulers for extra cans for an additional fee. In King County, the average 1992 rate for a mini-can is $7.50 per
month; the a�erage rate for one full-sized can is $11.01, or an inaease of 51 percenk The monthly fee for two cans is $14.9g, 36
peccent more than that charged for one can. The County plans to propose adjusting the rate structure to further increase cost
differentials between solid waste collection senrice levels.
h. Procurement Progra,m
Ordinance 9240 the King County Recycled Product Procurement Policy, establishes policies and procedures to increase King
Counry governmenta.l use of recycled products and promote their use throughout the County. Three counry agencies play major roles
in promoting procurement of recycled produc�s.
1. The Purchasing Agency promotes in-house procurement by county agencies and contractors.
2. The Commission for Markeking Recyclable Materia.ls promotes procurement by the private sector.
3. The Solld Waste Division evaluates the In-house program, recommending policy revisions, and providing technical assistance to
suburban cities in developing of their own procurement policies.
Appendix E; Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs A. Waste Reduction
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Other major achievements of the King County Procurement Pmgram include the following:
E-3
• A full-time recycled product procurement coordinator was hired by the Purchasing Agency in mid-1990 to take the lead in
implementing the in-house procurement program.
• An Executive policy containing recycled product procurement guidelines and procedures for county agencies was issued in July
1990.
• Contract language requires vendors to use and report the use of recycled paper in counry projects.
• A regional "Buy Recycled" conference, co-sponsored by the Marketing Commission in February 1991, drew SO vendors and over
500 attendees.
• An inventory of products purchased through the Purchasing Agency that could contain recovered materials was completed in late
1990.
• Recycled product procurement was promoted before several audiences, including product wholesa(ers, contractor associations,
teachers, and suburban cities' representatives.
• The Solid Waste Division's Recycled Product Yendor Directory was distributed widely in King Counry and incorporated into
Department of Ecology (Ecology) promotional materials.
i. Food Waste Composting
Food waste generated at the 1gg0 King County Fair was collected and composted to determine whether a compost of consistent
qualiry could be produced. The goal was to obtain information useful for developing programs to compost food waste on a larger
scale. While composting was actually conducted off site, the compost product was used on site.
All analyses indicate that a usable compost was produced. Vegetables and flowers were planted on the fairgrounds in beds
utilizing the food waste compost. An educa.tional exhibit at the 1991 King County Fair featured the demonstration plant beds, posters
depicting the process and the results of the food waste composting pilot project, and a display of the composting process using an in-
vessel composter. This food waste composting project received a 1991 Recycling Award from Ecology for the "Most Innovative
Approach or Program for Recycling."
Research on food waste collection, pmcessing, and testing will be conducted under a grant received from Ecology in 1991.
Working jointly with the Seattle Solid Waste Utiliry, King Counry will test collection and processing of commercial food waste, develop
a waste generator study, test composted end-products, and conduct growth trials. King County will also test the feasibiliry of backyard
food waste composting and onsite nonresidential food and yard waste composting.
j. Baby Diaper Pro�ecc
• In 1991, this pilot project provided reusable cotton diapers through a diaper service to 2501ow-income families for six months.
In addition to promoting waste reduction, the program provided educa,tional workshops and opportunities to improve infant care. At
• the end of the subsidy period, 83 percent of participating families surveyed reported that they would continue using cloth diapers and
would either wash their own diapers or pay for diaper service. The project was renewed for 1992. A six-month subsidy will be
� provided to about 400 participants throughout the Counry.
� k. Product Packaging Prohibitions
� The King Counry Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, which was established to enhance local markets for recyclable
goods, has developed voluntary packaging and labeling guidelines for companies doing business in the County. They are intended to
� reduce wntamination created by misleading recycling labeling and to maintain the integrity of the terms "recyclable" and "made
�
�
• A. Waste Reduc!!on Append'�x E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
�
�
E
-4
.................................................................................................................... .... . r
�
�
�
�
from recycled content" by establishing standards for clear recycling language on product labels. In the absence of state and federal
standards on this matter, King Counry has taken a first step to e�and the consumer's abiliry to make informed choices on
purchases.
The guidelines are as follows:
• If a manufacturer ussess the term "recyclable" or othecwise claims recyclabillry on any product or packaging distributed for sale in
King Counry, the recycling option for a"recyclable" product shall be available to the majoriry of King County residents through
curbside recycling programs or conveniently located drop-sites. The population served by a recycling drop-site is considered to be the
number of people living no farther than one mile from i�
• If a manufac�urer of a product or package distributed for sale in King Counry uses the terms "recycled," "contains recycled
material," "recycled content," or any other like term, the manufacturer shall include information regarding the percentage of post-
consumer material by weight for that product or package.
l. In-house Program
King County has a thorough in-house waste reduction program, which is exemplified by the Model In-house Recycling
Program. The model program, developed for the new offices of the Department of Public Works, is detailed in Volume I,
Chapter III.B. It incorporates reusable dishware, worm bins for composting, double-sided copying, re-use of paper, and other
techniques for reducing waste in the office. The model program will offer ideas for other counry facilities and the private sector.
Tours of the offices are a�ailable.
m. Awards/Reoognition
Recycle Week, an annual event since 1g89, consists of eachibits, toucs, and other activities that include information on and
recognition of waste reduction e�orts. In particular, the Achievement Awards ceremony during Recycle Week recognizes outstanding
contributions in waste reduction. During Recycle Week '91, there were 23 award recipient�, 3 of which were groups specifically
commended for their waste reduction efforts:
l. Clark Elementary School, Issaquah, eliminated 21,600 cardboard lunch trays from its yearly waste, at a savings of $2,592.
2. Puget Consumers' Co-Op's bag rebate program has grown to include 30 percent of all transactions.
3. Gift Wrapper, a business in Bellewe Square, uses recycled packing material pmvided by consumers and businesses in the mall,
efforts that reduced the company's waste stream by 50 percent.
B. COLLECTION PROGRAMS
The 1989 Plan charges King County to implement programs that meet or eacceed minimum service levels for collecting
recyclables and yard waste in unincorporated urban and rural areas of the Counry. Unincorporated rural areas are served by drop-
sites at King County's four rural disposal sites; yard waste collection is offered at two of them. Additional collection programs will be
established near Issaquah and in the Snoqualmie Valley under a grant from Ecology. The remaining rural areas not served by these
programs are targeted for service under this plan update.
1. Urban Single- and Multifamily Household Collection
In May 1991, King Counry adopted an ordinance (KCC 10.18) that resulted in franchised solid waste haulers providing
recyclable collection services for the 450,000 residents of urban unincorporated King County. Newspaper, cardboard, mixed waste
Apperad� E: Waste Reduction and Rac��cling Programs
B. Coller.tion Prrograms
�
�
�
u
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
E-
5
paper, glass containers, aluminum foll and cans, tin cans, and PET and HDPE plastia are collected from both single- and
multifamily residences. Landlords must enroll their buildings for multifamlly collection service. Yard waste collection is offered to all
urban single-famlly residences and some multifamily complexes for an additional charge. The Counry is developing promotional and
educational materials to encourage participation in the program.
2. Rura1 Collection Prograrns
In accordance with the 1989 Plan, counry solid waste facilities in designated rural areas collect source-separated recyclable
materials and yard waste. The Hobart, Enumclaw, and Vashon landf'ills, and the Cedar Falls drop-box accept aluminum, glass,
cardboard, mixed paper, newspaper, tin cans, and PET and HDPE plastics. The 1g89 Plan a.lso requires that counry solid waste
faciliUes in rural areas include opportunities for the collection of yard waste. Yard waste is collected at the Hobart Landfill and the
Cedar Falls drop-box. The new Enumclaw Transfer Station, scheduled to open in late 1993, will also take yard waste. A pilot project
is under consideration for co-composting yard waste and sewage sludge at the Vashon landfill.
Rural collection programs are also planned under the King Counry Waste Not Washington Communities Program funded by
Ecology. During the second quarter of 1991, the County negotiated a portion of a$1.47 million grant from Ecology to fund
collection programs in and near some rural communities. The County's program allocates appro�mately $1 million to
comprehensive recycling efforts in Issaquah and the surrounding area The remainder of the Counry's grant provides recycling
services to Snoq�almie Valley cities (North Bend, Snoqualmie, Carnation, and Duvall), nearby unincorporated areas, and the outlying
communities of Skykomish and Snoqualmie Pass. Implementation of the Issaquah portion began in March 1991, and the
Snoqualmie Valley portion began in early 1992.
C. SUPPORT SERVICES
The 1989 Plan specified the following support services be implemented by the County.
1. Rate Incentives✓Disincentives
• Variable can rates for garbage collection have been established throughout unincorporated King County to encourage
participation in recyclable collection programs. This strategy fa�ors waste reduction and is included in the discussion under Section A
� of this appendix.
�
•
�
2. Procurement Policy
King County has adopted procurement standards that encourage waste reduction and fa�or the use of recycled or recyclable
products. These standards are also discussed under Section A
� 3. New Construction Requirements
• The Counry is developing standards for onsite space for storage and collection of recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential
projects. The standards address the need to ensure that new construction incorporates the space needed to store recyclables prior to
� pickup and removal by haulers. The requirements will apply to all new residential and nonresidential construction in unincorporated
King Counry, except single-family detached houses. They include design and location guidelines that can be used both by builders to
� develop effective waste management systems in their projects and by appropriate counry staff to review development proposals. Draft
�
�
� C. Support Programs
�
Appercd�x E: Waste Reductioyc and ReLy+cling Frograms
E-6
standards were distributed for comment in the fall of lggl. They will be finalized and incorporated inro the King Counry Zoning
Code in 1992.
4. Monitoring
The County Eacecutive prepares an annual report to the County Councll on the progress toward meeting established WR/R goals.
a. Multifarnily Dw�ellings
The 1989 Plan reoommended that the Counry develop a list of options and implementa,tion strategies for cities to use in
developing collection programs for multifamily residences. King County prepared a draft manual and distributed it to cities in the
spring of 1991.
D. REGIONAL PROGRAMS
The following programs, implemented over the last three years, ha�e provided collection, education, and assistance to waste
generators throughout the Counry.
1. Yard Waste Progr�rns
Regional yard waste programs in the 1989 Plan include the Backyard Composting Program, the Master/Recycler Composter
Program, the Christrnas Tree-cycling Pmgram, nursery composting demonstrations, and a yard waste disposal penalty fee. The first
four programs ha�e operated successfully for the last three to four years and will be continued. The 1g89 Plan scheduled the yard
waste disposal penalry fee to begin in 1993. In addition to the above programs, mobile collection sites for yard waste were provided
to a number of communities.
a. Bacicyard ComposrinS
The Backyard Composting Program diverts yard waste from landfill disposal by encouraging residen� to compost their leaves,
grass clippings, and prunings. Yard waste compost bins are distributed to King County residents at a subsidized cost and technical
assistance is provided through an information phone line. The program is a great success locally and has been presented at national
conferences, featured in a major trade journal, and received awards from the National Association of Counties and the National
Recycling Coalitioa More than 41,000 subsidized compost bins have been distributed by the County through its home delivery system
since the program started in June 1989.
Initially, residents were offered one bin choice, a cedar slat bin at the subsidized price of $8.75. Beginning in Spring 1992, a
variery of bins will be distributed directly to residen�s at events held on rotating weekends at one of eight Fred Meyer stores located in
North Seattle, Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland, and Renton. The bins offered will include some made from
recycled plastic.
b. Community Yard Waste Collecction
Since 1g89, mobile collection sites have been provided to a number of oommunities where other yard waste collection
alternatives were not available. With the inaeased a�ailabiliry of household collection of yard waste in urban areas, the program will
be discontinued in 1992. Collection was provided, with staff'mg, at sites in Woodinville, SeaTac, Shoreline, and Federal Way one
Appendix E: �i�ste Reductio�a and ReCy�cling Programs D. Regwnal Frograms
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
E-
7
weekend per month from April through October. 1'he County charged $4.00 per car or $5.25 per cubic yard for trucks. The material
collected was delivered by county staff to a private composting faciliry. In addition to mobile collection services, the Counry began
providing yard waste collection during weekday evening hours at Factoria Transfer Station and during regular operating hours at
Hobart Landf'ill in July 1990. Yard waste collection during regular operaking hours was added to the Cedar Falls drop-box in October
1gg0. The materlal collected is delivered by private contractors to private composting facilities. Fmm July 1gg0 to June lggl, 1,g20
tons were collected from these facilities.
c. Christrnas Tree-cycling
Christmas trees are collected at no charge at King County transfer stations and rural landfills for two weeks following
Christmas. Since its inception in 1g87, this program has seen yearly increases in tonnages collected. After Christmas 19g0, 700 tons
(over 13,000 cubic yards) of trees were collected and hauled to a composting facility, representing a 133 percent increase from 1989.
The goal of the Christmas Tree-cycling Program is to divert the trees from the waste stream and to ensure that they are recycled. In
the past, the trees have been chipped and the mulch used for such purposes as road stabilization and traction aid at the Cedar Hills
Landf'ill and other Department of Public Worl�s projects.
�
� 2. Nonresidential ProgramS
Programs in this category that were specified in the 1g89 Plan include nonresidential technical assistance, trade fairs, in-house
� recycling services, the Business and Industry Recycling Council, WR/R consultation training, � and a waste exchange. The
• Nonresidential Tectuucal Assistance Program (TAP) was developed in 1990 and continues to be a major factor for increasing WR/R
among businesses. King County helped establish the Business and Industry Council and works cooperatively with other agencies to
• organize the annual Northwest Waste Information Expo, a major regional trade fair. The Counry continues to expand its in-house
recycling program begun in 1g87. The King County Industrial Materia.ls Exchange (INEX) continues to be operated and funded by
� the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health.
� a. Nonresidenrial Technical Assistance
� The Nonresidential Technical Assistance Program (TAP), begun in )uly 1990, includes services to help businesses and
• institutions to develop and implement WR/R programs in the work place. In its fust year, the program provided over 270 businesses
with onsite waste consultations and telephone assistance, and conducted workshops and presentations attended by nearly 1 SO
• businesses. In 1991, the program received a recycling award from Ecology for "Best Large Government Program." A Business Waste
Reduction and Recycling Handbook, developed in August 1gg0, has been distributed to over 2,500 businesses. It provides practical
• information on setting up a WR/R program, obtaining recycling services, and finding where to purchase recycled products. The
Counry also produced i�atch Your l�aste, a motivational video to show at County-sponsored events and in the business communiry.
� A comprehensive information center was developed to disseminate int'ormation on recycling resourccess and programs throughout the
Northwest.
� Several pllot projects are being conducted to determine the most effective ways to help small businesses obtain recycling
. sen�ices. The Cooperative Collection Program, initiated in Tukwila in July 1991, succeeded in setting up recycling collection services
for over 110 businesses. In this voluntary program, inspired by a simllar program in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a single hauler works
• with a group of businesses to determine pickup schedules and dumpster sizes and locations. The combined output of recyclable
material is picked up regularly from a central location convenient ro all businesses in the area. In its first two months, this
� program resulted in collection of more than S tons of paper and S.S tons of glass, aluminum, and plastia, a diversion of 26 percent
�
�
� D. Regional Programs Append'xx E: Waste Reductron and Recy�cling Programs
•
E-8
�
�
�
�
�
�
by volume.
Services are a�ailable to businesses throughout the Counry, except those in Bellewe, Auburn, Redmond, and Mercer Island.
These cities ha�e chosen to provide services direcdy with funds provided by the County through the Ciry Optional. Program. Under
this arrangement, cities may choose to receive counry funds to implement their own programs in lieu of receiving wunty services.
b. Northwest Waste Information F�po
King County works cooperatively with Metro, the Waste Information Network, and other government agencies to organize the
Northwest Waste Information Expo, which has been presented each fall since lg8g. The Counry provides funding for promotion and
marketing, staffs a booth, and organizes WR/R shop talks. The Expo consists of two days of shop ta.iks and panel discussions on
WR/R practices targeted at small- and medium-sized businesses, as well as exhibits by vendors and government agencies. Expo '91
included a special series of seminars on solid waste issues.
c. King County In WR/R Serviaes
The In-House Program provides King Counry employees with opportunities to practice WR/R in the worlq�lace. The program
goals are to increase employee participation and eacpand the types of recyclables collected. The Model In-House Recycling Program,
designed in lggl for the Department of Public Works, integrates a�ailable technology with employee practiccess to develop high WR/R
standards for the offlce environment The o�'ices are equipped with a convenient source-separated recyclable collection system,
reusable dishware, cloth roll towels, and worm bins, which produce compost from employee food waste. Beginning in 1992, this
program will be used to illustrate office recycling techniques to the public through written materials and office tours.
The quarterly Recycling Matters newsletter informs King Counry employeeess of the progresss of the In-House Recycling Program,
provides useful t�R/R information, and maintains visibiliry of the program and its goaJs among employees.
3. Promotion and Public Involvement
This program aims to raise the consciousness of the general public regarding WR/R. Specific elements described in the 1989
Plan include promotion through such activities as "Recycle Week"; general WR/R education through brochures, nevusletters, and
information lines; and public involvement through volunteer training, participation in public evenis such as the Home Show, and
development of a speaker's bureau. With the exception of the speaker's bureau, all activities are established components of the
County's promotion and public involvement efforts. Requests for speakers on WR/R topia are accommodated as eessources allow.
a Recycle Week
Since its inception in 1g89, Recycle Week has provided an opportuniry for the County and cities to publicize recycling efforts
and to involve more people in WR/R programs. Recycle Week includes such activities as special exhibits, tours of recycling facilities,
and special collection events. The highlight of Recycle Week is the annual Achievement Awards ceremony and luncheon, which in
1991 was attended by over 150 people. Awards and recognition are given to groups and individuals for outstanding contributions in
waste reduction, recycling, and market development foc recyclable materials.
Each year, thousands of citizens participate in other Recycle Week activities sponsored by King County or by the suburban
cities. During the third annual Recycle Week, held in October 1991, recycling efforts were publicized in seven counties in the
Northwest in cooperation with Ecology. King County's Recycle Week, the fust of its kind in the nation, has provided the inspiration
for simllar programs in California and Oregon.
Appendfx E: Waste R�uctron and Racy+cling Programs D. Reglonal Programs
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r�
u
E-
9
b. Master Recycler/Compo�er Prog�ram
The Master Recycler/Composter Program enlists volunteers to increase and sustain community involvement in WR/R, backyard
composting, and household hazardous waste management through outreach activities. Master RecycledComposter volunteers receive
over 40 hours of training in exchange for 40 hours of communiry outreach in the County. By training Master Recycler/Composter
volunteers and providing outreach opportunities for sharing their lmowledge, the program creates a core of citizens committed to
serve as a communiry resource.
The training program, which is continually updated, began in 1990. Approximately 70 volunteers are trained annually.
Among their activities are providing uiformation at home composting demonstration sites at local nurseries. They have aLso built
compost demonstration sites in Bellevue, Redmond, and Kent, with an additional site planned in Lake Forest Park in 1992•
c. Recycling and Composting Information Line
The Recycling and Composting Information Line was established in 1989. It provides quick responses to citizens' questions
about waste reduction, recycling, and yard waste composting. Counry staff respond to more than 25,000 telephone inquiries annually.
d. Information and Promohonal Mazerials
The Counry has developed brochures, reports, and promotional materials that provide information on waste reduction, recycling,
and composting strategies and programs. Approximately 150,000 brochures are distributed annually to individuals and organizations.
As a waste reduction measure, materials are sent on request rather than in mass mailings.
The following list gives titles of brochures and other materials produced by King County:
• Composting
Home Compasting
� Worm Bin Design Sheet
3-Bin Sysdem Compast Bin
� Portable l�ood � [�'�re Compast Bin
• Compasting Food and Pet l�aste
Resource Cuide to Compasting
• Mulches from Yard l�aste
Money Grown on Trees Order Form
� Demonstration Bin
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Recycling
Home l�uste Guide
Recycling Centers in King Counly
Recycle at 7�ansfer Stations and Landfills
Recycle at [�ork
Recycled Froducls Directory
Recycling Businers Manual
Recycling Pl�rslics Resource
D. Regional P'rograms
Hazardous Waste
Household Hazardous Products
Hazardous i�aste l�heel
[�aste �lobile Schedule
Promotional
Children's Coloring Poster
Buttons
The t�aste Paper
Other
Annual R�iort, 19g9, 1990, 1991
1989 Comprehen,siue Plan, Volumes 1 and 2
Eacecutive Summary
Waste Acceptance Policy
Resource Gurde to CDL
Append'�x E: Waste Reduclron and Rerycling Programs
�
C�
E
- io :::
The l�aste Pr�er, the Solid 1Aaste Division's bimonthly newsletter, which began in 1988, provides information about solid waste
issues and related WR/R prograrns and services to over 40,000 individua.ls and organizations.
4. School Programs
In accordance with the 1989 Plan, programs have been developed and implemented at the elementary, middle/junior, and high
school levels.
a. Flementary Schools
Elementary school prograzns are centered on assembly presentations at the schools that introduce school children to WR/R
habia they can use the rest of their lives. "Follow the Recycling Road," the fust of these presentations, was performed at 85 percent
of King Counry public elementary schools in 1989 and 1990 and was seen by over 81,000 students. A new program launched in
academic year 1990-91 called "The Wiz Kids of Waste" focuses on waste reduction in school assemblies and in teacher training and
curricula
b. Middle Schools and junior High Schools
Since 1989, the County has worked with the Pacific Science Center to develop the "Waste Busters" programs, specifically geared
toward junior high and middle school students. Almost 70 percent of these schools in King County ha�e received the program since
its inception in March 1990. Waste Busters has four components:
1. An e�ensive lesson kit for teachers.
2. Student-teacher camp-ins at the Science Center, where participants can learn intensively about waste reduction issues.
3. School assemblies targeting the "Four R's"—Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.
4. A technical liaison who visits the school to help set up or improve school recycling programs.
c. High School
WR/R programs for high school students take a different approach than that used for younger students. The intent is to
enable studenis to actively participate in their communities. Students are enwuraged to use their knowledge of issues to create
change at their school and in their communities. Creative and innovative approaches to WR/R are explored and encouraged. At the
same time, the curriculum attempts to take a globat perspective; recycling and waste are viewed as more than a science or
environmental subjecG In the lggl-1992 school year, high school programs centered around three major events: an orientation in
November 1991, a follow-up meeting in February 1992, and a student summit and awards ceremony on Earth Day in April 1g92.
d. Teacher Training
Since August 1990, the Counry has conducted several workshops, providing about 100 elementary teachers with information and
strategies for promoting WR/R in the classroom. In October 1991, a workshop provided up-to-date information on WR/R to
educators, administrators, and maintenance staff of elementary, middle, and secondary schools.
Append�z E: Waste R�uchbn and Re�cy�cling Programs D. Regional Frograms
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
r�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
� .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
w
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
❑
E-11
e. School District Support
The Counry assLsts schools and school districts interested in setting up recycling pmgrams. The elementary school recycling
collection program, begun in 1g89, resulted in collection of 24 tons of paper by mid-1990. In addition, over 7,000 classroom
recycling containers were distributed to schools and school districts counrywide.
f. Pre.school/Kindergar�en
In late 1991, a letter of request was mailed to local writers, illustrators, publishers, and consultants regarding the creation of a
children's book on WR/R. The County hopes to print and distribute it in 1992.
5. Zone Coonlination
In january 1990, King County established the Zone Coordination Unit in the WR/R Section. The Counry was divided into four
geographic service areas with a zone coordinator assigned to each one. Zone coordinators become familiar with local programs and
issues and provide liaison between the Counry and communities in their areas. As cities have established basic collection services, the
Unit's original focus of assisting in program implementation has evolved into a more facilitative role. Recent activities include
working with ciry recycling staff on a variery of issues through meetings and workshops.
a. Community Outreach and Technical Assistanoe
Zone Coordinators have worked with city counciLs, community groups, recyclers, haulers, and members of the business
communiry in pmviding outreach and assistance. Since 1989, Zone Coordinators ha�e organized an annual technical assistance
workshop for cities. Initiated by the Counry in 1g88, the workshops provide information and assistance on such WR/R issues as
collection, composting, rate setting, and public education. Zone Coordinators will also be involved in the adminLstration of a$3
million grant program that will provide funding to cities in unincorporated areas for multifamily and nonresidential collection
programs.
b. WR/R Matching Granis to Cities Program
• The grants pmgram pmvided funding assistance to cities within King Counry to plan and implement recycling programs that
would achieve results consistent with the County's overaLl WR/R goal of 65 percent. The County distributed 17 grants from 1988
• through lggl to assist 23 cities with planning and implementation of WR/R programs. Funds have been applied toward developing
residential and nonresidential collection, yard waste, and public education programs. Table E.1 summari�es city activities and
• programs accomplished under this program.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
E. CITY PROGRAMS
1. Algona
a. Collechon Prograras
Algona plans to implement voluntary household collection of recyclables and yard waste in the ficst half of 1992•
� D. Regwnal Programs Append'�x E: Waste Reductio�a and R�cy+clriag P►•ogra�ns
�
E-12
Table E.1 Summary of City Grant Programs
City
Auburn
Bellevue
Black Diamond
Bothell
Des Moines
Enumclaw
Federal Way
Issaquah
Kent
Lake Forest Park
Point Cities
Mercer Island
Normandy Park
North Bend/ Duvall/
Carnation/ Snoqualmie
Pacffic
Redmond
Renton
SeaTac
Tukwila
Total Grant Grant-funded Programs
$ 28,000 Hired consuftant to conduct public education programs and prepare reports on existing
conditions, WR/R options, public input, WR/R program recommendations.
$ 70,000 Hired recycling coordinator to work on curbside, yard waste, muRifamily, nonresidential, and
public education programs.
$ 35,000 Hired consukant, improved existing drop-ske, established used-oil drop-site, purchased
clean-burn waste oil furnace and equipment for printing WR/R materials.
$ 34,264 Implemented waste oil project, Christmas tree recycling, temporary drop-box. Developed
request for proposal (RF� for household collection of recyclables and yardwaste.
$ 35,057 Studied existing conditions, set up in-house recycling, prepared cily WR/R plan, developed
educational displays, set up composting of city-generated landscape waste.
$ 55,000 Hired consukant to prepare recycling action plan and related RFP, design variable can rate,
conduct surveys, evaluate and set up yardwaste collection.
$ 35,000 Hired consukant to plan recycling program. Implementation expected in 1992.
$ 35,000 Hired recycling coordinator, impiemented household collection. In conjunction w�th nnE
grant, developing village theme at recycling center.
$ 40,000 Implemented single-family household collection, offset cost of residential coliection,
conducted household hazardous waste collection, spring clean-up and Christmas tree pick-
up, and funded public education.
$ 6,850 Hired recycling coordinator, heid recycling fair, set up recycling cart in mall, developed RFP
for solid waste and recyclables collection.
$ 20,025 Hired recycling coordinator, conducted WR/R public education and promotion.
$ 8,435 Surveyed recycling activities and attitudes as basis for planning.
$ 50,000 Prepared recycling action plan, hired recycling coordinator to implement plan.
$ 90,000 Hired recycling coordinator, implemented household collection in North Bend, Snoqualmie.
Developing drop-skes in Duvall, conducting public education in Carnation.
$ 35,000 Paid for part-time recycling coordinator, implemented residential drop-site collection, drafted
procurement policy, printed educational materials, purchased related equipment.
$ 19,054 Hired recycling coordinator/assistants to develop in-house recycling program, conduct
collection events, provide staff support for curbside/commercial programs.
$119,500 Paid for solid waste utility coordinator, consuRant and support staff, developed RFP,
negotiated contract for household collection of recyclables and yardwaste, conducted public
education and promotion, developed WR/R study/plan, purchased equipment.
$ 35,000 Hired recycling coordinator to develop recycling plan, in-house program, community drop-
box. Household collection expected at the end of 1991.
$ 85,500 Studied existing conditions, conducted pilot recycling programs for muRffamily, businesses
and in-house programs. Made recommendations on solid waste and recycling programs.
Append'rx B: Waste Reduclion and Re�c[ing Prograyns B. City Programs
�
�
•
•
�
...............................................................................................................................................: ........
�::;>::;>::>::»:<:>;: �;:;:>::»:::>�:>::> :;>::>:::::;::>:<:>::: ;:>::<>;;:>:>:�:>::>:::
«>:.:::> ::<::>:::;::::::.::.::::r:.:;<;:.::::r:.;<;:.;:.;:.;:;::<:::::::>�>:::>::>:::::::>:::::<:>;n:>:::<:;»;»<::»»:«::<:::::::::::>::>�:>:;..
::>:<:::::>;::<:;:::::>:::<::<:;<::::::::::::::<:::::>:::::�::>:::::::::>:�;::�:�:�::�>>:��:n::::<:�:�>:r:::�»;:::>::�:::::�:>:�:�:::::>:<:.<::::::<:<:::�>;<.:::::::::::<<::�::::::n:�<:::<;:�::::<:�>:>::>::;<:_::<:`�.:
.................:�»: �.....:�:�::......................................................................................................................................................................................
•
� b.
�
� �
�
•
�
2.
a.
Support Prograim
Algona has variable can rates for garbage collectioa
Other Prograt�
The city produces a monthly newsletter, which often includes WR/R information.
Auburn
Collection Progru�
E-1
3
Auburn has developed thcee recycling programs: (1) drop-box collection of aluminum, glass, newspaper, tin, PET and HDPE
� plastia, and corrugated and mixed paper, (2) household yard waste collection by the haulers for a fee of $4.50 per month, with
. 38 pick�ps a year; and (3) voluntary commercial collection of commingled newspaper, aluminum, tin, cardboard, #1 and #2 plastia,
mixed paper and untreated scrap wood. Plastia collection will be added as soon as the markets for those materials improve.
� On july 1, lggl the household yard waste and commercial commingled collection programs were implemented. The ciry-
sponsored drop-box program began on June 1, 1991, although the ciry's hauler has operated this program since 1983. The drop-box
� program serves the residential sector, including multifamily dwellings. Each also has the opportunity to ha�e drop-site collection, and
most schools currently recycle some materials.
� During an annual spring cleanup, white goods are collected, which are recycled by the hauler when possible. Christmas trees
• and greenery are collected at two drop-sites located at the city fire stations for two weeks each year in January. Christmas trees may
also be recycled in the ciry yard waste household collection program if oollection specifications are met
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
b. Support Serviaes
Auburn has a 10-, 20-, and 30-gatlon can rate to provide incentives for garbage customers to reduce and recycle waste. If a
resident requests more than one 30-gallon can, each additional can costs $7.50. Auburn has an informal policy of purchasing its
letterhead, tollet paper, and paper towels made from recycled paper. All ciry divisions have been asked to purchase recycled products
whenever feasible. The Ciry Council plans to develop a formal policy soon.
c. Other Prograr�
All Auburn schools have in-house paper recycling programs, and city o�ices participate in an in-house recycling program. Oil
and batteries are recycled from the ciry vehicle and equipment fleet. Park and right-of-way prunings are chipped and used as mulch
in municipal parks and projects. Fallen trees are cut up for and distributed free to residents as firewood, and fall leaves are collected
and stored in a central pile for residents to pick up for use as mulch.
The ciry has developed the Auburn Resideratial Recycling Cuide, which describes its program, lists drop-box locations, and
provides instructions on preparing materials for recycling. Aubum promotes its program through continuous advertising in a local
monthly newspaper. In lgg2, the city plans to provide more information on yard waste programs.
E. City Programs
ApAe�tdix E: Waste Reduction and Re�cycling Programs
•i
E
- 14 :�:
�
�
��
Under the CIty Optional Program, Auburn has received counry funding for its Nonresidential Technical Assistance Program
(TAP). The city conducts waste audits, distributes the Auburn Nonresuleritral l�aste Reduction Curde, offers waste reduction
workshops and procurement information, and promotes nonresidential collection service offered by the ciry's contracted hauler.
3. Beaux Arts
a. Collecrion Prograt�
Aluminum, tin, and glass containers, paper, and yard waste are collected at curbside by the hauler. All program costs are met
thmugh the fee paid to the hauler by the resident
b. Support Programs
The ciry has variable can rates for garbage collection.
4. Bellevue
a Collection Prograr�
Household collection of recyclables in Bellevue began in October 1g89. A survey conducted in the summer of 1gg0 indicated
that approxunately 80 percent of eligible households participate in the program, well above initial projections. Participation in the
yard waste collection program has increased steadlly since the program started in July 1989. Over 63 percent of garbage customers
participate. The ciry also holds special wllection even� for residen� to recycle materia.ls such as scrap meta.l, tires, batteries, and
household goods. Bellevue assists businesses and multifamily complexes in establishing recycling collection and education programs.
In March lgg2, the ciry Lssued a request for proposa.ls (RFP) to provide collection services to multifamily residences.
b. Support Serviaes
The rate structure for solid waste collection provides a variable can rate with a significant incentive for residena to reduce their
waste and recycle, including a$5.00 "mini-can" rate. The ciry has adopted a procurement policy that fa�ors the purchase and use of
recycled and recyclable producis.
c. Other Programs
Bellevue has promoted WR/R with education programs, brochures, workshops, and participation in events such as Earth Day.
A commercial recycling guide brochuce has been developed to assist businesses with their recycling programs. The guide is distributed
as part of the city's Nonresidentia.l TAP funded under the City Opttonal Programs, which provides waste consultations, workshops, and
educational materials.
Aj�endix B: Waste Redudio�a and Rery�ling Programs E. Cily Programs
E-15
r�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
5. Black Diamond
a Collection Programs
Drop-box recycling has been available since 1g73 through the Fire Association. Within the last year, Black Diamond has
upgraded drop-box services. MateriaJs collected include cardboard, mixed paper, newspaper, aluminum, and glass. In 1g92 the city
plans to add tin, and PET and HDPE plastia. Black Diamond's garbage hauler has agreed to provide a drop-site for recyclables at
the tra.iler park, which houses appro�umately one-third of the city's residential population. The ciry recendy acquired a chipper,
which is used on yard waste cqllected seasonally on designated days. In 1992 the city plans to establish an ongoing drop-site for
yard waste at its shop, and also plans to collect and chip Christmas trees.
b. Support Programs
The city has variable can rates for garbage collection.
c. Other Prograt�
The ciry recycles mixed paper and aluminum through an informal in-house program and a]so stores and recycles used oil on
site. 1AR/R information is distributed through the city newsletter.
6. Bothell
a. Collection Programs
Household recyclables and yard waste collection began in January 1991 in Bothell. Glass, aluminum, nevvspaper, tin, and
some PET and HDPE plastic containers are collected. Yard waste is collected weekly March through October, and monthly from
November through February. Residenis participate in a yearly spring event to clean up the communiry and collect recyclable
materials. A pllot program for multifamily and commercial recyclables and yard waste collection began in July 19g1, and the
permanent program is expected to begin in 1992•
b. Support Services
Ra,tes for solid waste collection are based on volume: residen� with lower volumes of solid waste are billed less than those
with high volumes. There is no additional charge for recyclable or yard waste pickup. New multifamily and commercial
developments can be required under SEPA regulations to provide onsite space for recyclables collection. Bothell is in the process of
establishing this requirement for developments within ciry limits.
c. Other Prograt�
Bothell provides WR/R information through brochures and other printed materials and has conducted recycling education
projects involving high school students and senior citizens.
E. City Progra�ns
Appercd'�x E: Waste Reduction and R�cy�cling Programs
�
•i
E-16
7. Carnation
a Collection Prograras
Carnation established a yard waste drop-box collection program in July 1990. Yard waste is accepted weekly at the drop-box,
which is located ac the high school and tended by studen�s. A privately owned newspaper drop-box is located at the Communiry
Centec Under the Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, Carnation will expand recycling opportunities through
additional drop-boxes. A drop-site for mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard, aluminum cans, container glass, tin, PET and HDPE
plastics, and yard waste is plaiuied at the municipal maintenance shop for 1992•
A special cleanup event was held in August 1991. Materials collected were motor oil, antifree�e, tires, batteries, scrap metais,
reusable household goods, and PET, HDPE, and polystyrene plastia. The neact cleanup is scheduled for July 1992. A one-day
Christmas tree collection was held in January 1992.
b. Support SeNiaes
Carnation implemented a variable can rate in April 1gg0 and will �stablish a procurement policy in 1992 that favors the
purchase and use of recyclable materia.ls. An effort will be made to establish requirements for onsite space for recycling in new
construction.
C. Ot�leT PfOgCaII1S
A variery of programs will be implemented under a Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, including waste
consultations; establishment of an in-house recycling program; promotion of recycling opportunities for schools, residents, and
businesses; distribution of Home l�aste Guid�s; and use of a mobile chipper for yard waste collection. The ciry will aiso explore the
possibiliry of siting an oil recycling center.
8. Des Moines
a Collection Progran�s
Des Moines is preparing a franchise agreement for the voluntary collection of recyclables, yard waste, and garbage from a11
residential and nonresidential properties. Materials to be collected include cardboard, glass, tin, aluminum, mixed paper, PET and
HDPE plastia, and yard waste. The program will begin in lgg2 under service standards developed by the City Council.
The Ciry Council is expected to adopt an ordinance pmhibiting placement of yard waste in garbage containers. Under the
proposed franchise agreement, the hauler will provide two seasonal cleanups. The ciry hopes to provide a&ee drop-site for Christmas
tree collection. The plan is to ha�e the trees chipped by ciry staff and to use the chips in city parks.
b. SUpport Serviaes
The draft franchise agreement requires incentive-based rates as approved by the Washington Utilities Transportation
Commission. The ciry manager recendy adopted a procurement policy, which is based on the King County Model Ordinance.
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Appendrx E: Waste Reduclion and ReCy�cling Programs E. City Programs •
�
n
�J
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
:::t::�>:<::::..:
.:.<::
E-
1
7
c. (�her Programs
Des Moines has an in-house collection program and composts its plant wastes for use as mulch throughout its parks.
Educational and promotional materials about city collection programs will be developed by the hauler under the proposed franchise
agreement The city has requested Coordinated Prevention Grant funds to establish a waste oll program.
9. Duva11
a Collection Progr�uns
Duvall is implementing a citywide household recycling program along with variable can rates for mixed waste in 1992. The
program includes yard waste drop-box collection. Collection of recyclables from multifamily resldences and businesses will aJso be
a�ailable in 1992.
The ciry held a special cleanup event in October 1991. Materials collected lnclude motor oil, antifreeze, tires, batteries, reusable
household goods, and PET HDPE and polysryrene plastics. A similar event is planned for 1992.
b. Support Serviaes
The ciry has variable can rates for garbage collection. Duvall plans to implement a formal procurement policy in lgg2 and
will also formalize requirements for new construction that will require onsite space to accommodate recycling.
c. Other Progra�
Under a Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, the city will conduct waste consultations; provlde a chipper for
use at its yard waste collection events; promote area recycling and yard waste programs; and purchase bins and balers for drop-sites.
Other plans include producing a�R/R newsletter, establishing a classified ad column for waste exchange, and distributing Home
l�aste Guides.
10. Enumclaw
a Collection Programs
Enumclaw has two drop-boxes for collecting recyclables. Containers are available for glass, newspaper, mlxed paper,
cardboard, and aluminum. The city is considering providing curbside collection of yard waste and recyclables for residents. If some
level of drop-box collection continues, the materials collected will be e�cpanded to include tin and some plastics.
b. Support Progratns
The city plans to implement a variable can rate.
E. City Progra�ns
Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Racyrling Programs
�
_:' E - 18 :<:
11. Federal Way
a. Collection Prograrns
Federal Way recendy developed a recycling plan. Implementation of the residential portion of the plan, which includes
household collection of recyclables and yard waste, is eapected to begin in the spring of 1992. The plan also includes technical
assistance and oollec�tion programs for businesses. The ciry encouraged recycling in the interim with summer yard waste collection at
city properry on the fourth weekend of every month and a Spring Clean event coordinated by the Federal Way Community Council.
b. Support Prograrr�s
The ciry has variable can ra,tes for garbage collectlon. Untll a procurement policy is adopted, Federal Way abides by an
informal procurement policy.
c. Other Progran�s
The city's recycling plan includes residential technical assistance, program promotion, and a"buy recycled" campaign.
12. Issa,quah
a. Colledion Programs
In July 1991, Issaquah began a comprehensive recycling collection program consisting of: (1) single-family household recycling
and yard waste collection, (2) multifamily onsite collection of recyclables, and (3) commercial and institutional collection. Under a
Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, periodic moblle drop collection in lieu of weekly household collection will be
tested at thcee multifamily complexes in 1992. Collection by "Can Do Kids," an organization for youths wanting to earn money from
recyclables, will be tested at slx oomplexes. Moblle drop-box service for secondary recyclables will also be provided quarterly. (See
Volume I, Table III.10 for definitions of primary and secondary recyclables.)
b. Support Serviaes
Issaquah has a variable can rate with strong WR/R incentives. The ciry has a five-year "phase in" procurement policy for
paper and non-paper products with recycled content In the first year the policy was in effect, second-year goaLs were reached.
Issaquah is currently working on drafting requirements for onsite recycling space for new multifamlly and commercial construction.
c. Other Ptograir�s
An in-house program operates in all city offices. A block leader program recruits voluntsers to organize recycling efforts in
some Issaquah neighborhoods, and plans are undenvay to develop a neighborhood waste exchange. The city will conduct a yard
waste reduction and oompost program at a minimum of three multifamlly complexes in 1992. Mulching mowers will be tested and
composting will be encouraged. Discounted home composting bins will be available to single-famlly residents.
Under Waste Not Washington Communiaes Program grana, the city will support the upgrade and expansion of services at a
private recycling center, provide a chipper for use by single-famlly households in selected neighborhoods, and develop waste reduction
school ki�.
Appendix E: Waste Redudio�a and Rery�cling P►•ograms E. City Programs
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
E-19
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
��
13. Kent
a. Collec�ion Pro�
In ]anuary 1989, Kent initiated a recyclables collection program for newspaper, mixed paper, glass, and cans. The ciry has
subsidized the program using a portion of the utility tax, so there are no direct costs to residents. Participation has been high.
During the year, Kent offers a spring and fall cleanup as well as pickup of Christmas trees at no cost to the customer. The
cleanups allow residents to dispose of their extra garbage, trash, and yard clippings. The ciry hopes to implement a chipping
program in the spring and again in the fall. Kent is evaluating household collection of yard waste and onsite multifamily collection
for possible implementation in 1992•
b. Support Services
Since Kent residents are now receiving recycling collection services at no cost, there are no substantial rate incentives, though
the city does have variable can rates. However, it is possible that with the e�ansion of the residential recycling program, other
alternatives for financing will be explored. The city currendy dces not have a formal procurement policy. However, the Purchasing
Department does purchase recycled paper for all copying machines, and the printing shop uses recycled paper.
c. Other Prograrns
Kent has adopted a resolution stating that all its employees will recycle in-house. The ciry promotes special collection days
through flyers and has recently compiled a list of all sites for used motor oil collection in the area. If a grant can be obtained from
the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, waste oil collection days will be established. The ciry also plans to develop
additional educa,tional and promotional materia.is.
14. Kir�land
a. Coll�tion Prograr�
Kirkland's recyclables collection program began in April lggl, with household collection of materials offered as a voluntary
component of mandatory garbage service. Materials collected are newspaper, mixed waste paper, aluminum, glass, tins cans, and
PET and HDPE plastic milk and beverage containers. Yard waste collection is part of the basic garbage service for single-family
residents and is included in the city's flat-rate monthly garbage bill.
� b. Support Servioes
• Kirkland does not presendy offer rate incentives to encourage citizens to recycle. The city wishes to continue to offer unlimited
household solid waste collection, which it established in 1973 to minunize illegal trash dumping, a practice that occurred previously
, under the variable can rate savcture. The ciry attempts to favor the purchase of recycled or recyclable materials and plans to
formalize a procurement policy. Although it dces not currently have code requirements for space to accommodate recycling
� containers in commercial and multifamily uni�, this is an issue that is scheduled to be addressed by the Ciry Council.
�
�
�
�
� E. cily Programs
Append'cx E: Waste Reduction and Re�cy�cling Programs
�
E-20
15. Lake Forest Park
a Collection Prograrns
Lake Forest Park has a household collection program of commingled recyclables, which began in early 1gg0. The hauler
collects newspaper, mixed paper, glass, tin cans, and aluminum from single-family residences. Lake Forest Park has negotiated a
new contract for solid waste, yard waste, and recyclables (including PET and HDPE plastia) collection. Recycllng and yard waste
collection service will also be available to multifamlly residences and the commercial sector. The new contract includes a variable
can rate.
b. Support Seiviaes
The ciry has a variable rate structure to encourage WR/R. As an added incentive, the cost of recyclables and yard waste
services is embedded in the garbage rates paid by all citizens. Lake Forest Park has an informal procurement policy based on cost
comparisons of products made from virgin materials and secondary materials. All else being equal, the city buys recycled content
materials. The city adopted a formal procurement ordinance in 1992.
c. Other Prograrns
Lake Forest Park provides recycling information to its citizens through a recycling information cart and a monthly newsletter,
and has sponsored two recycling fairs.
16. Mercer Island
a. Collec6ion PrograR�s
Mercer Island began hauler-provided household collection of commingled recyclables in October 1989. In Aprll 1990 the city
initiated household collection of yard waste from single-family residenccess. Collection occurs twice a month during spring, summer,
and fall, and once a month during winter. The ciry has passed an ordinance making it illegal to place yard and garden waste in
residential garbage cans.
b. Support Serviaes
Mercer Island has a differential rate structure with moderate incentives built in. The rate includes garbage removal, household
recycling, and household yard waste collection. The city is formulating a written procurement policy. For the past few years, Mercer
Island has adhered to an unwritten procurement policy that stresses the use of products made from recycled materials whenever
financially feasible.
The ciry has no formal code requirements for onsite space for recycling in new construction. However, under a new system the
city is informed of new projects before plans are finalized, then it contacts the appropriate businesses and owners to discuss recycling
and related space needs inside and outside new buildings.
c. Other Prograrns
The Mercer Island Recycling Center is a popular drop-site used by many Island recyclers. The Committee to Save the Earth, a
student group at Mercer Island High School, operates the center. Unlike the household program, it accepts PET and HDPE. A
Appendix E: Waste Redur,tion and Recy+cling Frograms E. City Programs
�
�
�
�
�
E-21
�
� sizeable percentage of the Recycling Center's materia.ls comes from collection prograrns at Mercer Island's three elementary schools,
one middle school, and one high schooL Through the Ciry Optional Program, Mercer Island receives counry funding to provide
• nonresidential technical assistance. The ciry conducts waste consultations, provides telephone assistance, and distributes printed
materials to businesses interested in developing WR/R programs.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
17. Normandy Park
a Collection Prograins
The recyclables collection program in Normandy Park began in November 1991, with voluntary service provided on the same
day as scheduled garbage collection. Participation goals are set at 65 percent after one year and 85 percent of total households after
five years. The city collects the full range of recyclable materials through the program. The household yard waste program and
multifamily onsite recycling collection also began in November 1991, with participation goals set for 50 percent after one year and 85
percent after five years. A recyclables drop-box is provided at Ciry Hall for newspaper, magazines, and a(uminum.
b. Support Serviaes
• Wlule the ciry has variable can rates, a secvice level ordinance with more substantive rate incentives will be considered after
household programs for recycling are in place. A procurement policy has been drafted and more information on prices and
• a�ailabllity of produc�s is being sought before the council is asked to act on implementing a city policy.
� c. Other Programs
• Normandy Park has an e�tensive in-house recycling program at Ciry Hall and has worked closely with the one elementary
school to set up an in-house recycling program. Public meetings have been held with the Metrocenter YMCA on sound gardening
� and hazardous waste, and the city has also sponsored a commercial waste reduction mini-workshop for interested businesses.
�
•
18. North Bend
a. Collection Prograros
� North Bend and Snoqualmie have cooperated to set up joint programs for collecting household recyclables for single- and
multifamlly residences and onsite collection of commercial recyclables. The programs, which began in February 1991, exceed the
� minhnum levels of recyclables collection for rural cities required by the Counry and state. The programs ha�e a high level of
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
participation.
In September 1989, the North Bend and Snoqualmie Recycling Drop-Box Collection program started as a King Counry pllot
program. It later was operated by Lawson Disposal and is now run by the Mk Si Senior Center. The drop-boxes are located on ciry
property and the public works crew maintains the site. The drop-boxes serve counry as well as ciry resident� and remain popular
even with the availability of household recycling. The yard waste drop-box collection program started in June 1991. Yard waste will
be collected on the second and fourth Saturdays of the month from March through November, and monthly from December through
February.
E. Cily Programs
Appendix B: Waste Reduclrma and Racy�clmg Programs
E
- 22
b. Support Serviaes
North Bend implemented a variable can rate in january lggl. A procurement policy for the city is planned for 1992. Letters
are sent to builders or contra,ctors requesting building permits, informing them that onsite space for recycling is required in new
construction.
19. Pacific
a Collection Programs
Pacl�c provldes bins for residents at one site for the collection of newspaper and aluminum, and at a second site for cardboard
tin, newspaper, glass, and aluminum cans. The ciry plans to implement a curbside collection program for Christmas trees, and will
develop a yard waste curbside collection program. In 1991 the city purchased a chipper for yard waste. The businesses in Pacific
are all located in one area, and the city is working with its solid waste hauler to establish a drop-site for recyclables for this sector.
b. Support SeNiaes
The hauler offers rate incentives, including a 10-gallon mini-can at a lower rate, and a number of residents have taken
advantage of it The ciry has an informal procurement policy to buy recycled products, and is drafting a formal one. No
requiremen� ha�e been established for onsite space to accommodate recycling. The ciry will recommend to the Plamling
Commission that this condition be included in the site plan review process.
c. Other Progruns
The ciry produces a newsletter on WR/R issues and information every month or every other month depending on need.
20. Point Cities--�Iunts Point, Medina, Yarrow Point, Clyde Hill
a. Collection Prograrns
1'he cities of Hunts Point, Medina, Yarrow Point, and Clyde Hill offer their residents household collection of recyclables and
yard waste. Mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard, glass, tin and aluminum cans are commingled in a g0-gallon toter and collected
every two weeks. Yard waste is collected every other week by the hauler from spring to fall and once a month in the winter.
Ordinances in each ciry prohibit disposal of yard waste with garbage.
b. Support Serviaes
The cities have variable can rates, and as an added incentive household recycling is included in the base rate for garbage
collection. The Point Cities have not seen a need to establish onsite space for recycling since all new consavction is single-family
homes.
c. Other Prograr�
WR/R information is included in city newsletters.
Aj�e�tdix E: Waste Redudforc and Re�y�l'mg Programs E. City Programs
E-23
�
,
�
�
�
�
�
21. Redmond
a. Collec�ion Progr.uns
Redmond's household collection of recyclables and yard waste began in March 1990. Redmond also provides collection services
to all multifamily residences that are not served ttuough the single-famlly program. Participation in both recycling programs is
high Cleanup and recycling day events are held twice a year providing residents with regular and convenient opportunities to drop
off a variety of materials that are recyclable, reusable, or compostable. MateriaLs collected at these events include used oll and yard
waste that is too large for household pickup.
b. Support Serviaes
Redmond has established variable can rates for garbage collection, passed a resolution directing city use of recycled paper, and
developed requirements for developers to provide space for recycling and garbage storage in new construction.
c. Other Progr�ns
Redmond has an in-house recycling program, provides technical assistance to businesses, and develops public information on
WR/R based on its study Public Perc�tion of Recycling lnfor�na�ion Sources. The ciry provides technical assistance to businesses
and backyard composting to residents with county funding assistance through the Ciry Optional Program.
22. Renton
�. Coller�on Programs
Renton's household collection program began in August 1989 and serves single-famlly, duplex, and moblle homes. Mixed
waste paper, cardboard, bottles and cans, and newspapers are placed in bins at curbside for collection on the same day as yard waste
and garbage collection. Household collection of yard waste is available for single-family residences only. The hauler supplies 90-
gallon toters for the twice monthly collection. Christmas trees can be collected in the city's curbside yard waste program if collection
specif'ications are met
In 1992, Renton will focus on multifamlly collection and education with implementation scheduled for the third quarter of the
year. The city sponsored its fust special collection day for items such as bulky items, scrap metal, automotive batteries, plastia,
reusable household goods, and tires. Renton plans to operate this program in the spring and fall. Plans also include the collection
of motor oll and antifreeze.
b. Support Serviaes
The city's current rate structure includes a 10-gallon mini-can with a senior citizeNlow income rate. All regular 32-gallon
cans are available with an incremental increase for each additional can. While the city prepares to draft a procurement ordinance, it
is making efforts to procure (and requires all consultants to procure and use) recycled content paper. Some departments purchase
other recycled content products as well.
E. Cuy Programs A�erad'�x E: Waste Reducnon and Recyclrng Programs
E
- 24 <:
c. Other Prograrns
1'he ciry's in-house recycling program collects tin, aluminum, glass, nevuspaper, and mixed paper at all locations eaccept the
Community Center, which presently recycles only aluminum. �9R/R educational materials are provided to the general public thcough
advertising and through brochures and articles in the community and city employee newsletters. Displays ha�e been created on the
ciry's WR/R Program, altematives to household hazardous waste, and home composting. M annual yard waste calendar lists some
of the Dos and DON'Ts of yard waste recycling. With CPG funds, the ciry plans to establish waste oll recycling and hire a consultant
to examine nonresidential collection issues. The city aLso plans to expand the materials accepted in its collection programs to
include PET and HDPE.
23. Sea.Tac
a. Collection PrograR�s
In November 1991, SeaTac began implementing a comprehensive voluntary household collection program for single-family and
m�ltifamily residents and the nonresidential sector. Materials collected include newspaper, cardboard, and mixed paper; tin, glass,
and aluminum containers; PET and HDPE plastia; and yard waste. The ciry continues to ha�e a drop-site at Ciry Hall. SeaTac
plans to implement a chipper service, which will operate twice a year. Residents will bring yard waste to a drop-site, where it will be
ct►ipped and transferred to the Southwest Suburban Sewer District for use as a bulking agent for sludge. Christmas treeess will be
accepted at the drop-site.
b. SuppoR Serviaes
SeaTac has variable can rates. Other rate incentives will be addressed when the service level ordinance gces before the W[JTC.
In the service level ordinance, incentive rate setting practices ha�e been requested as well as discounts for senior citizen,
disadvantaged, and low-income discounts. The service level ordinance will establish procurement policies for building materiais and
office supplies, and will encourage practices such as two-sided copying, reusable utensils, and reduction in use of nonrecyclable
utensils in city offices.
c. Other Prograr�
An in-house program for ciry employees provides opportunities to recycle mixed paper, high-grade white paper, aluminum, tin,
cardboard, and PET and HDPE plastics. The ciry is working with the Highline School District to promote WR/R and will work
specifically with Valley View Elementary School on a food waste pllot project The city will provide technical assistance to multifamily
residents and businesses interested in participating in WR/R programs. Assistance will include onsite consultations and educational
and promotional materials on WR/R and city programs.
SeaTac produces a newsletter rivice yearly on its WR/R program. To promote the new program, the city produced a flyer for
door-to-door distribution by the hauler. In 1992 the city plans to stencil storm drains to discourage improper disposal of used oil
and other hazardous wastes and expects to set up two used oil collection sites in 1993.
Apperad'� B: Waste Reduction and Re�cy�lrng Frograms
�
E. City Programs �
�
i•
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
24. Snoqualmie
a. Collechon Programs
E-2
5
In February 19g1, North Bend and Snoqualmie cooperated to set up joint programs for household collection of recyclables for
residential, multifamily, and commercial customers. The two cities ha�e chosen to exceed the minirnum levels of recyclables
collection for rural citles required by the Counry and the state. Snoqualmie and North Bend also jointly sponsor a recyclables drop-
box collection program, which began in September 1989 �s a counry pilot program. The drop-boxes, located in North Bend, are
managed by the hauler and the Mt Si Senior Center. Participation remains high, even with implementation of the household
programs. The yard waste drop-box started in July 1991 and operates monthly from July to October. In April 1991 Snoqualmie held
a yard wastelspring cleanup day; two and a half tons of yard waste were collected.
b. Support Serviaes
In January 1991, Snoqualmie implemented a variable can rate. The city plans to implement a procurement policy and
establish requirements for onsite recycling space for ne�T construction.
25. Tukwila
a. Collection Programs
Tukwila implemented residential household recycling and yard waste oollection in August 1991. Service is also available to
multifamily dwellings. MateriaJs collected include cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper, aluminum and tin cans, glass, and PET.
b. Support Sen�ices
The ciry has variable can rates for garbage collection. While there is no official procurement policy in place, Tukwila
purchases some products with recycled content Tukwila is revising multifamily design standards to require space for recycling
containers.
c. Other Prograrr�s
The ciry's residential recycling program has been promoted through newsletters and articles in the communiry newspaper. A
tlyer providing information on waste reduction, setting up a recycling program, materials exchange, and haulers and county resources
was distributed to all businesssess. A speaker's bureau will be developed that will include slide show presentations on single-lamlly,
multifamily, and commercial recycling programs.
Technical assistance is provided and informational brochures are distributed to multifamlly complex managers. Training is
provided for "recycling capta.ins" recruited at apartment complexes. Award certificates recognize eacemplary recycling efforts of
multifamlly residences. An in-house recycling program operates in all ciry offices. Employees are encouraged to participate tlu�ough
a"good recycling ideas" contest, brown bag presentations, and a bulletin display on WR/R and other environmental issues.
E. Cily P►rograms Appendix E: Waste Reductio�t and Recy�clmg Programs
�
0
. ��� �,►� �
SOURCE �UIDE TO
CYCLING CENTERS
N KING COUNTY
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
_�� :
�I►�
SOrting
It Out
Together
�
�
O
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
�
�
�
�
�
Department of Public Works
King County Solid Waste Division
RESOURCE GUIDE TO RECYCLING CENTERS IN
KING COUNTY
July 27, 1993
This list is to be used as a guide for a�ailable seivices. It is compiled from information provided to the King Counry
Solid Waste Division. It may not be all inclusive and we recommend that you refer to the phone book for additional
sources. We also recommend that you contact the individual companies for more specific information. We make
every effort to keep our lists up-to-date, so please feel free to contact us at 296-4466 to update this list. For business
recycling, please call 2g6-4356. Vendois are a�•ranged alphabetically by suburban ciry/area.
Information regarding additional plastics recycling, tire recycling, household hazardous waste disposal, and yard waste
acceptance at Iung County and private facilities is listed at the end of this list. Resource guides for recycling plastics;
used motor oil; appliances; and constiuction, demolition, and landclearing debris (includes yard waste and
concrete/asphalt) are also available by calling 2g6-4466. A recyclable in italics indicates that the v�dor buys that
recyclable.
KEY
hi-gra high-grade paper (computer paper, white ledger office paper)
newsp newspaper
cardb corrugated cardboard
mag/mix magazines/mixed paper/junk mail
glass glass jars and bottles, rinsed
beerb beer bottles
alum aluminum
tin tin/steel food cans, rinsed, labels removed
ferr ferrous metal (iron)
non-ferr non-ferrous metal (copper, nickel, lead, etc.)
batt (lead-acid) car batteries
HDPE High-density polyethylene: HDPE is opaque or translucent (off-white milk jugs and
juice containers, shampoo, detergent bottles). Look for recycling symbol with #2.
PET Polyethylene terephthalate: PET bottles are clear and have a molded injection point on
the bottom (not a seam}. Includes soft drink, some water, liquor, wine, and fruit juice
bottles. Look for recycling symbol with #1.
poly Poly-coated containers (milk/juice cartons)
�
�
• �;n� Sorting It Out Together
� r�,�c�a «, x�yc��a r�r
United Methodist Church 29645 - 51 st Ave S
839-9220 / Open 24 hours Auburn, WA 98001
Albertson's 1510 Auburn Way S
1-800-228-2525 Auburn
10-1 Tues-Sat
Auburn Recycling Salvage 2906 A St SE
939-5309 Auburn, WA 98002
9-5 M-Sat
K & M Recycling
939-5732
9-5 M -Sat
Hogan's Market
Open 24 hours
38104 Aub-Enum Hwy
Auburn, WA 98002
2900 Auburn Way S
Auburn
7-Eleven
Open 24 hours
Brandon Park
Open 24 hours
White River Mobile Park
Open 24 hours
Fred Meyer
Open 24 hours
Buddhist Temple
Open 24 hours
St. Matthew's Church
Open 24 hours
Safeway
Open 24 hours
Auburn Eagles Open
24 hours
1539-21stSE
Auburn
28th & M St NE
Auburn
4200 A St SE
Auburn
8th & Auburn Wy NE
Auburn
8th & Auburn Wy NE
Auburn
2nd NE & L St
Auburn
2nd & Auburn Wy S
Auburn
2nd & Auburn Wy S
Auburn
hi-gra alum
newsp
cardbmix
alum
alum
tin
ferr
non-ferr
batt
alum
non-ferr
nwsp glass
cardb alum
mag/mix tin
HDPE
PET
nwsp glass
cardb alum
mag/mix tin
HDPE
PET
nwsp glass
cardb alum
mag/mix tin
HDPE
PET
nwsp glass
mag/mix alum
tin
nwsp glass
cardb tin
mag/mix
nwsp glass
mag/mix alum
tin
nwsp glass
mag/mix alum
t i n
nwsp glass
mag/mix alum
tin
nwsp glass
mag/mix alum
tin
Computer paper. Accepts phone books,
no magazines or paper with glue, i.e.,
envelopes.
Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
and scrap aluminum.
Accepts car parts.
Drop box
Drop box.
Drop box.
Drop box.
Drop box.
Drop box.
Drop box.
Drop box.
Drop box.
Page 2
Factoria Transfer Station
296-4466
&ta.m. M-F,
8:30-5:30 SaUSun
Crossroads Shopping
Center
1-800-228-2525
9:30-5 Tues-Sat
Lunch 1-1:30
13800 SE 32nd St
Bellevue
156th Ave NE & NE 13th
Place
Bellevue
alum
Recyling bins are located inside the
cashier area. Ask for recycling pass if
only dropping off recyclables.
Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
and scrap aluminum.
Fibres International, Inc. 1533 - 120th Ave NE hi-gra glass Recycling drives and drop boxes are
455-9811 Bellevue, WA 98006 newsp beerb available. Charges for magazine/mixed
8-5 M-F, 9-3 Sat cardb alum paper. Western beer bottles buy-back,
mag/mix tin other glass accepted (white, green,
HDPE brown). Provides pick-up recycling
PET services with a minimum volume.
P bottles only.
�:::::::::::;:::::::>::>::::>::>:::::>:: `: :`:'' :::>' :::>:::::>:::::::;:: ':::i:::>:::::<::::::::;:: ::::::;:::::::;::::
::.;: .:.:::: . .
:: " .. :.>::>::::;: :::. :. ;. .: . :.,.: :.. . ,..;::>:
>:::>:::: " ;: : : : ;: : : ;: : :>.>:::;.> .. . ;;.::.:';::: . `:.>`�L������ .��tl 1�1�F. .
Age of Aluminum 68th Ave. NE & Bothell alum Recycling truck is located in the Kenmore
Recycling Wy Marketplace parking lot.
487-ALUM Kenmore, WA
Nov-Mar 10-4 Sat;
Apr-Oct 10-5 Sat
Bu�ien Recycling Center
246-2346
9:30-6 M-F, 9:30-5 Sat
Fred Meyer Store
1-800-228-2525
9:30-5 Tues-Sat
Lunch 1-1:30
Stillwater Recycling
Center
788-1356
3-5 W-Th-F
8 Sat, 12 Sun
Carnation Recycling
Cenier
333-4192 (City Hall)
12-4 W-Th-F 10-4 S/S
16043 First Ave S
Burien, WA 98166
14300 First Ave. S
Burien
11530 320th Ave NE
Carnatio�, WA 98014
Corner of Myrtle &
McKinley
Carnation
hi-gra
mag
newsp
cardb
HDPE
PET
hi-gra
newsp
cardb
mag/mix
HDPE
PET
newsp glass
cardb alum
mag/mix tin
HDPE
PET
glass Accepts magazines in boxes, no
beerb catalogues, phone books or other mixed
alum waste paper; accepts books; also accepts
tin car radiators and other parts. HDPE-
ferr flattened milk jugs only. Call for fund
non-ferr raising for schools, churches and other
batt commu nity groups.
alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
and scrap aluminum.
glass Drop boxes lolcated at Stillwater
alum Elementary School. HDPE and PET
tin bottles only.
newsp glass
cardb alum
mag/mix tin
HDPE
PET
Located at the City Maintenance Shop.
PET & HDPE bottles only.
Page 3
Cherry Valley Recyling
Center
788-1356
3-5 W-Th-F
8-noon Sat, 12-4 Sun
MD Pharmacy Valu Vila
1-800-228-2525
2-5 Tues-Sat
Enumclaw Recycling
825-4720
10-5 M-Sat
Enumclaw Recycling &
Transfer Station
296-4466
8:30-5
I.O.O.B. Club
Open 24 hours
Safeway
825-5541
Open 24 hours
K-Mart
1-800-228-2525
9:30-5 Tues-Sat
Lunch 1-1:30
Neighborhood Recycling
Center
952-6002
10-5 Tue-Fri, 10-4 Sat
26701 NE Cherry Valley
Rd
Duvall, WA 98019
750 Highway 410
Enumclaw
44110 - 239th Ave S.E.
Enumclaw, WA 98022
1650 Battersby Ave E
Enumclaw, WA 98022
44011 - 244th Ave SE
Enumclaw, WA 98022
152 Roosevelt Ave
Enumclaw, WA 98022
1207 S. 320th
Federal Way
34300 Pacific Hwy. S
Federal Way, WA 98063
hi-gra glass
newsp alum
cardb tin
mag/mix
HDPE
PET
alum
alum
non-ferr
newsp glass
cardb beerb
mag/mix alum
HDPE tin
PET
glass
beerb
alum
newsp glass
cardb alum
alum
hi-gra glass
newsp beeib
cardb alum
mag tin
PEf
Drop boxes located at the Cherry Valley
Elementary School. HDPE and PET
bottles only.
Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
and scrap aluminum.
The new (4/5/93) facility is located across
the street from the old (now closed)
Enumclaw Landfill--one-quarter mile east
of the intersectin of SE 440th St and 284th
Ave SE. Recyling bins are located outside
of the cashier's booth.
City of Enumclaw maintains bins through
RST Recycling.
Drop box.
Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
and scrap aluminum.
Flatten tin cans. Accepts magazines,
catalogues and phone books, no mixed
paper/junk mail. Buys back Rainier and
Weinberg beer bottles.
CEI Recycling Buy-Back 970 - 7th Ave NW hi-gra alum a* Buys back computer paper. Also
Center Issaquah newsp ferr accepts clean aluminum foil (does not
391-0650 cardb non-ferr buy-back foil).
9-4 M-Sat Mailing address is 690
NW Junipe
City of Issaquah Drop Box 970 - 7th Ave NW HDPE glass PET and HDPE bottles only.
Center Issaquah PET alum
391-1004 poly tin
Open 24 hrs. ferr
Hobart Landfill 24041 276th Ave SE newsp glass
296-4466 Hobart, WA 98025 cardb beerb
S-5 PST 9-6 DST mag/mix alum
HDPE tin
PET
Page 4
Miller Brands
872-2600
9-12 Mon & Tue
Weyerhaeuser
682-1035
&4:30 M-F, 8-3:30 Sat
Reynolds Aluminum
Recycling
872-6700
9-4:30 M-S
Fred Meyer Store
1-800-228-2525
9:30-5 Tues-Sat
Lunch 1-1:30
6030 S 196th St
Kent, WA 98032
19621 - 77th Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
7855 S 212th St
Kent, WA 98032
Benson & 240th
Kent (East Hill)
Houghton Transfer Station 11724 NE 60th St
296-6542 Kirkland, WA
8-5:30 7 days a week
Data Destruction NW
828-4769
9-5 M-F
Meyers Distributing
Company
828-6511
10-2 M-F
Age of Aluminum
Recycling
487-ALUM
Nov-Mar 10-4 Sat
Apr-Oct 10-5 Sat
Post Office Box 2265
Kirkland, WA 98083
10822 - 117th Place NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
11849 - 98th Ave N
Juanita, WA
Cedar Grove Recycling
Cemer
432-3133
9-6 M-F, 9-5 Sat 9-3 Sun
18407 Renton-MV Road
Maple Valley, 98038
alum Aluminum cans only.
hi-gra glass Provides pickup recycling services with
newsp alum minimum volume. Scales open 8 a.m.
cardb Charges for mixed paper.
mix
newsp a/um Accepts all aluminum (in addition to cans).
non-fen Brass and copper.
alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
and scrap aluminum.
newsp glass Recycling bins are located outside the
cardb alum cashier's booth.
mag/mix tin
HDPE
PET
hi-gra Destroys confidential paper documents
on-site (fee).
alum Aluminum cans only
alum
newsp alum
cardb tin
ferr
non-ferr
batt
Mercer Island High School Located on City of Mercer hi-gra glass
Drop Box Island property at the newsp alum
236-3334 intersection of SE 32nd St cardb tin
Open 24 hours and 77th Ave SE mag/mix
Mercer Island, WA 98040 PET
Hallmark Precious Metals, 3011 - 80ih Ave. S.E.
Inc. Mercer Island, WA 98040
232-0472
8-5 M-F
Recycling truck is located in the Juanita
Marketplace parking lot.
On Highway 169. Buys old cars; accepts
appliances (fee charged).
Buys precious metals: jewe/ry, gold, silver,
platinum, and coins.
Page 5
Cedar Falls Drop Box 16925 Cedar Falis Rd SE
296-4466 North Bend, WA 98045
8-5 PST 9-6 DST
Mounf Si Senior Center 411 Main Ave N
Open 24 hours North Bend, WA 98045
E.I.R. Recycling Post Office Box 844
Rick Hoffmaster 392-8990 Redmond, WA 98073
newsp glass
cardb beerb
mag/mix alum
PET tin
HDPE
newsp glass Drop box.
alum
hi-gra
newsp
cardb
mix
alum Provides pick-up recycling services with
ferr minimum volume
non-ferr
::.: . . .: ..: ,.:.;:.:>:,.;::.
;::.:>::::>::;::;:: : :.:>::;::>:: ::::..;.:. :.:::::::>::::>::::>::::;;::: .: ;.;;:.: ;::.; ..
;: . .: ..> ..� .: '
Keppler Feed and 16442 Rntn-Iss. Rd* hi-gra glass Accepts computer paper only in the high-
Recycling (Sunset Blvd. N� newsp beerb grade category. Rainier beer bottle buy-
226-5239 Renton, WA 98056 cardb alum back only. Non-ferrous buyback on
9:30-5:45 daily PET non-ferr copper, brass and radiators.
Fred Meyer Store
1-800-228-2525
10-5 Tues-Sat, Lunch 1-1:30
First NE Transfer Station
296-4466
8-5:30 7 days
18325 Aurora Ave. N
Seattle
2300 N 165th St.
Seattle
alum
newsp glass
mag/mix alum
HDPE tin
PET
Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
and scrap aluminum.
Recycling bins are located outside the
cashier's booth.
Age of Aluminum 6914 NE 204th St alum Recycling truck is located in the
Recycling (mailing) Albertson's parking lot.
487-ALUM 145th & 15th Ave NE (site)
10-4 Sat Seattle
Medalia Salvage 1112 N 98th St alum Located east of Aurora Ave. Buys back
523-8835 Seattle, WA 98103 ferr copper, brass, lead.
9-6 M-F, 10-2 Sat non-ferr
North Seattle Community 9600 College Way N newsp alum Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
College Seattle glass tin picked up by Fibres International.
285-1489
Open 24 hours
Price Choppers 85th & 3rd NW alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans
1-800-228-2525 Seattle (Greenwood) and scrap aluminum.
9:30-5 Tues-Sat
Lunch 1-1:30
Saint Catherine Church 8524 Eighth Ave NE newsp alum Suggest using drop box after school hours
525-0581 Seattle to avoid children at play.
Safeway 7400 Lake City Way NE newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
285-1489 Seattle alum picked up by Fibres International.
Open 24 hours tin
Puget Consumers' Co-op 6504 - 20th Ave NE PET HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown
525-1450 Seattle, WA 98115 or grey bottles, no hazardous waste
Open 24 hours containers, no non-bottles or polystyrenes,
diapers, paper or plastic mixes, or motor
oil containers.
Page 6
QFC Roosevett
285-1489
Open 24 hours
Safeway
285-1489
Open 24 hours
Shilshole Bay Marina
285-1489
Open 24 hours
Ballard Recycling Center
784-6302
9-5 M-F, 9-4 Sat
Noble Metals, Inc.
783-6321
9-5 M-F, 9-3 Sat
Sun West/Ame�ican Recy
789-5498
8-5 M-F
eudget Batteries
922-3737
9-6 M-F, 9-5 Sat
6600 Roosevelt Way NE
Seattle
3902 Stoneway N
Seattle
7001 Seaview Ave NW
Seattle (11 sites at the
end of docks.)
1509 NW 49th St
Seattle, WA 98107
1415 NW Ballard Way
Seattle, WA 98107
1501 Elliott Ave W
Seattle, WA 98109
newsp
newsp
hi-gra
newsp
cardb
hi-gra
newsp
cardb
mag/mix
glass
alum
tin
glass
alum
tin
glass
alum
glass
beerb
alum
non-fen
alum
fen
non-fem
glass
beerb
alum
tin
batt
Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
picked up by Fibres International.
Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
picked up by Fibres international.
Nuts & Bolts drop box.
Provides recycling services for
businesses. Rainier beer bottles only.
928 NW Leary Way
Seattle, WA 98107
Drop sites at apartments; newspaper drop
boxes elsewhere. Provides pick-up
recycling service with minimum volume.
Call for when they will be accepting new
customers.
Only accepts lead-acid-type batteries. Six
locations in Seattle, 11 in Western
Washington. Picks up large quantities.
Seatile North Recycling N 34th & Carr Place N newsp glass PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown
and Disposal Station Seattle, WA 98103 cardb beerb or grey bottles, no hazardous waste
684-7600 mag/mix alumtin containers, no non-bottles. Accepts
8-5:30 M-F, HDPE ferr appliances; no furnaces or boilers.
8-7 Sat, 9-6 Sun PET non-ferr Remove insulation between jacket and
batt core from water heaters.
University Village Safeway 3020 NE 45th St
Seattle
Phinney Neighborhood 6532 Phinney Ave N
Center Seattle
HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown
PET or grey bottles, no hazardous waste
containe no non-bottles.
HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown
PET or grey bottles, no hazardous waste
containers, no non-bottles.
Lynn Street E. Lynn & Fairview Ave E. newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box.
285-1489 (SW corner), Seattle alum
Open 24 hours tin
Central Co-op 1835 12th Ave., Seattle glass Nuts & Bolts drop box.
285-1489 (Parking lot off Denny) alum
Open 24 hours tin
Safeway 2100 Queen Anne Ave N newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
285-1489 Seattle (Upper QA) alum picked up by Fibres International.
Open 24 hours tin
Sateway 516 1st Ave W newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
285-1489 Seattle (Lower �A) alum picked up by Fibres International.
Open 24 hours t in
Nuts 'N' Bolts 2533 Westlake Ave N cardb glass Pick-up only from establised accounts.
285-1489 Seattle, WA 98109 alum Services food and beverage
. establishments; also provides pick-up
services with minimum volume (north ot
Yesler Way), and drop boxes.
Page 7
Safeway
285-1489
Open 24 hours
Roger's Thriftway
285-1489
Open 24 hours
Recycling Depot
Michael Shearn
325-7288
Skoor Enterprises
935-9841
8-5 M-F
Pacific Iron and Metal Co.
628-6232
8-4:30 M-F, 8-12 Sat
Rabanco Recycling
382-0480
8-4 M-F, 8-3:30 Sat
AI's Junk & Scrap Metals
324-2890
7-4:30 M-F
Bloch Steel
763-0200
7-3:30 M-F
Pacific NW Recycling
431-8109
8-3:30 M-Sat
Sea-Dru-Nar
467-7550
5-4:30 M-Sat
Seattle Barrel Co.
622-7218
7-4:30 M-F
Puget Consumers' Co-op
723-2720
Open 24 hours
NW Cooperage Co.
763-2345
8-430 M-FU
Seattle South Recycling
and Disposal Station
684-7600
6am-11 pm daily
1410 East John newsp glass
Seattle (Capital Hill) alum
tin
1126 MLK Jr. Way newsp glass
Seattle (Madrona) alum
tin
851 Rainier Ave S hi-gra glass
Seattle, WA 98144 newsp beerb*
cardb alum
tin
non-ferr
95 S Atlantic
Seattle, WA 98134
2230 Fourth Ave S
Seattle, WA 98134
2733 3rd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98134
21 st & S. Massachusetts
St
Seattle, WA 98144
4580 Colorado Ave S
Seattle, WA 98134
hi-gra
mag/mix
hi-gra
newsp
cardb
hi-gra
newsp
cardb
mag/mix
alum Also buys precious metals; a non-ferrous
non-ferr shop. Provides pick-up recycling services
with minimum volume for commercial
accounts only.
newsp glass Recycling drives and drop boxes are
cardb bee�b available. Provides pick-up recycling
mag/mix alum services with a minimum volume.
PET
Post Office Box 84412
Seattle, WA 98134
3844 1 st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98134
4716 Airport Way S
Seattle, WA 98108
5041 Wilson Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118
7152 First Ave S
Seattle, WA 98108
alum
ferr
non-ferr
alum
ferr
non-fen
alum
alum
Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
picked up by Fibres International.
Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper
picked up by Fibres International.
10-5 M-Sat
Accepts phone books (in small amounts).
Provides pick-up recycling services with
minimum volume (hi-gra paper and non-
ferrous only). *Buy-back for beer bottles
is for Rainier and Henry's only.
Pickup service for offices.
Buys large quantities.
Provides pick-up recycling services with
no minimum volume.
Provides pick-up recycling services with
minimum volume.
New and used steel and poly drums,
bought, sold, reconditioned.
HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown
PET or grey bottles, no hazardous waste
containers, no non-bottles or polystyrenes,
diapers, paper or plastic mixes or motor
oil containers.
Buys and sells steel drums. Plastic drums
are accepted with a service charge.
2nd Ave S. and S. Kenyon newsp
Seattle, WA 98108 cardb
mag/mix
HDPE
PET
glass PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown
beerb or grey bottles, no hazardous waste
alum coniainera, ��c non-bottles. Accent�
tin appliances; no tumnc.>,> _. __...- �
ferr Remove metal jacket and insulation from
non-ferr water heaters.
batt
Page 8
Smurtit Recycling
Company
723-4490 ,
7-5 M-F, 8-12 Sat
City Junk
763-3024
9-5 M-F, 10-4 Sat
Seattle Iron & Metals
Corp.
682-0040
8-4 M-F, 8-11:30 Sat
Non-Ferrous Metals, Inc.
624-8414
8-4:30 M-F
West Seattle Recycling
Center
935-4255
9:30-5 M-Sat 9-7 Thu
Puget Sound Iron &
Metals
767-5179
8-4 M-F, 8-11:30 Sat
MRI Corporation
767-4337
Open 24 hours
Triple A Recycling
246-5412
CMX Corporation
623-4483/656-1269
8-4 M-F
Bow Lake Transfer Station
296-4466
8-5:30
Costco Wholesale
575-9191
10-8:30 M-F
9747 M.L.K. Jr. Way S
Seattle, WA 98118
4915 S 124th
Seattle, WA 98178
2955 - 11 th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98134
2905 - 13th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98134
2964 SW Avalon Way
Seattle, WA 98126
hi-gra a/um
newsp
cardb
mag/mix
PET
hi-gra
newsp
cardb
mag
HDPE
PET
2955 11th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98134
6000 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle, WA 98106
�
;<'�U�C1�.
4455 S 148th St hi-gra
Tukwila, WA 98168 newsp
cardb
6601 S. Glacier St
Tukwila, WA 98188
18800 Orillia Rd S
Tukwila, WA 98168
1160 Saxon Dr
Tukwila, WA 98168
newsp
cardb
mag/mix
HDPE
PET
hi-gra*
HDPE
PET
Recycling drives and drop boxes are
available. Provides pick-up recycling
service with minimum volume.
alum Buys generators and starters,
non-ferr transmissions, electric motors. No
appliances. Closed from 12-1 p for lunch.
alum Provides pick-up recycling service with
ferr minimum volume. Also buys generators,
non-ferr starters, alternators, car bodies, and some
appliances. No crushed oil fikers or oil,
tires, freezers or refrigerator motors.
Closed 11:30-12:30 for lunch. (Located on
Harbor Island).
non-ferr Foundry, buys back lead, zinc, and alloys.
(Located on Harbor Island).
glass Accepts magazines, no junk mail, phone
beerb books, catalogues. Specializes in
alum fundraising for schools, churches and
tin community groups. Provides pick-up
ferr recycling service with minimum volume.
non-fen (located near Seattle Steel, turn left on
batt A v a lon from Spokane St.)
alum Provides pick-up recycling service with
tin minimum volume. Container drop service
ferr free for commercial accounts.
non-ferr
tin Provides recycling services for businesses
only. 1000 Ib. minimum.
Provides pick-up recycling service for
businesses.
Buys used litho and x-ray film. Accepts
and may pickup used fixer.
glass
beerb
alum
tin
glass
alum
batt
Recycling bins are located outside the
cashiers booth.
*Computer paper only. See plastics sheet
for additional plastics.
Page 9
�
Vashon Landfill 18910 Westside Hwy SW newsp glass Recycling bins are located outside the
296-4466 Vashon Island, WA 98070 cardb beerb cashier's booth.
8-5 PST 9-6 DST mag/mix alum
HDPE tin
PET
Waste Mgmt NW/Recycle
America
487-1006
10-5, M-F
Permagas
483-8002
8-5 M-F
6225 - 233rd St SE
Woodinville, WA 98072
7605 - 222nd St SE
Woodinville, WA 98072
newsp
cardb
PET
beerb Just north of the King County border in
alum Snohomish County. Turn left off Hwy. 9
(67th Ave. S.E.) at 233rd Place S.E.
Western beer bottles only. Brown
cardboard only, no staples. Bundle or
sack newspaper. Soda pop and liquor
bottles, remove caps and crush plastic
bottles. Cans only. Cut cardboard in 1 or
2 feet square.
In Snohomish County. Accepts used
propane tanks (25 gallon or larger) as
donation only.
Arrow Metals Corp.
481-1828
8-4:30 M-F, 8-1 Sat
6014 - 237th Place SE alum (Located just north of the King County
Woodinville, WA 98072 tin border in Snohomish County.) Accepts all
ferr types of scrap metals, automobiles to
non-fen lawnmowers.
Page 10
Bolser Tire
763-9313
Schuyler Manufacturing Company
488-2255
P.C. Casing
872-2255
5530 Evergreen Way
Everett WA
98203
16901 Woodinville-Redmond Road
Woodinville, WA 98072
21838 - 84th Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
Accepts tires including solid rubber tires
and other rubber items such as tubes,
flaps, hoses. Also sells products such
as mats made out of old recycled tires
and/or other recycled rubber. Please
call first for acceptance.
Accepts only bias ply tires size 825 x 18
and larger.
Charges $1.00 per tire.
Tire Recyclers, Inc. 583 N Military Road Accepts tires for a fee. Rims accepted
(206) 785-4495 Winlock, WA 98596 for additional fee.
1-800-828-3961
>::>:>::>::>:� ::;::>:<:::>:::::::z:::<: :»:; :::;::::::>::::::>::::>::::::>:::<:::'::::::::::>::::::::>::::::::>:
': :' :';:::::�:I� : �c�
<:»»>::>::>::>::>:< :< <:» > >::» >::>:<:>::»::>::>::»::»::>::>::>:>:: ;» <::<:«;;:<::<::;:<::>::: <> >:>::>::; : ><;::» »::»:::>::<:;::;:::::>::<:
>::><::>::>::>::>::::: > > »:»::>:>:>:<:>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::: : > «:> <: < > >:<:::>::>: >:
<::<:::>::::>::::>::: < :> »>::::>::::>::::>::::>::::>::;:>::::::>::::::>:>::>:<:> > ::>; >::::::>:<:>::����i`di�?��: ;> ::��#� ..
;:;;:�:.;:.;<.;:«.; ;:;;;;;;:.;:.::.»:. ::.:.::.:::.::.:::::::::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:<: ;::;:;;;;:.:::.;;:;;;:.;:.
(Call the Seattle/King County Health Department Hazards Line at 296-4692 for additional information on disposing of
hazardous materials.
Household Hazardous Wastemobile Waste Mobile travels around King Bring pesticides, paints, thinners,
(HHN� County. Call the Hazards Line at 296- solvents, hobby chemicals, cleaning
NW Enviroservice, Inc.
622-1090
Open 24 hours
Amalgamated Services, Inc.
854-6643 8-5 M-F
Burlington Environmental NW
223-0500
4692 for schedule and location.
1700 Airport Way S
Seattle, WA 98134
21318 - 103rd Place SE
Kent, WA 98031
734 S Lucile
Seattle. WA 98108
products, motor oil.
Service fee for pick-up of hazardous
wastes, acids, bases.
Service charge for pick-up only of oil,
waste solvents, acid.
Page 11
POLYSTRENE (#6j
Reuse clean and dry polystyrene packaging peanuts (and molded polystrene blocks where indicated) by donating to
mail services. Check yellow pages for packaging and mail services in your area. See partial list below: Or call 1-800-
828-2214 (Mail Box Etc. Hotline).
Packaging Cartons & peanuts
Things 364-9105
10710 - 5th NE, Seattle
Packaging Cartons & peanuts 327 - 108th, Bellevue
Things 454-9336
EXPAC, 628-0607 peanuts 20412 - 87th S, Bidg I, Kent
Pony Express,641-6551
Mail Boxes, Etc.
1-800-818-2214
Packaging Store
747-4220
Price Ragen Co.
329-8155
peanuts
peanuts
peanuts
molded blocks
peanuts
thin sheets
4038 - 128th Ave SE, Bellevue
Kent, Renton, Tukwila, Federal Way
13500 Bel-Red Road, Bellevue
113 4th Ave S, Seattle
517 E. Pike St., Seattle
Call first.
Costco Wholesale all #6 (food containers and 1160 Saxon Dr
575-9191 packaging mate rials) Tukwila, WA 98168
Recycle clean polystyrene (#6) food containers at drop boxes at these QFC's: (bins are located outside, open 24
hours).
Gateway, 542-3117
Roosevelt 525-5731
Bot , 485-7548
Lake Hills, 746-3361
Pine Lake,391-4680
18300 Midvale Ave N., Seattle
6600 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle
18921 Bothell Way NE, Bothell
549 - 156th SE, Bellevue
12902 - 228th Ave SE, Issaquah
Manhattan, 243-9340 17847 - 1 st Ave S., Seattle
Check local grocery stores for acceptance of clean dry polystrene egg cartons.
OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS
At the following Thriftway Stores recycle these plastics : PET (#1), HDPE (#2)--bottles only, plastic shopping &
produce bags (#4), and clean polystyrene food containers (#6). Check below for acceptance/dates)
Kirkland #1, #2, #6 10611 NE 68th, Kirkland
822-9211 Last Sat 10-4
North Bend #1, #2, #4, #6 330 Main Ave S, North Bend
888-1700 Sat 10-4
Page 12
Vashon #1, #2, #4, #6 Downtown Vashon Island
463-2100 Last Sat 10-4
�
��
I�
�
�
�
s
•
•
•
•
>::>::>::::<:;::;::;:::::>::>::>::>::: _:<: <: :::;:<,<::;::>::>::>::>::>:::;:::>::>::>::>::>::>:>::>:::»::>::>::;::;::>::>::>:::::>::>::>::>::>::»::::::»»>::>::>::>::>::>: <:>;;::>::>::>::>::>::>::>:>::>::»::>::>::>:::::»::>:::<:::<:: :»::>:
,:::::>:>::::;te' ::>::::::::>::::>::::::;::<:<<:>`<`::;:;;>:>:;:>:::::::<:::;>:«<:::>;<:>'«:
<;::>::>::>::::>::>::::>::::»>:: : :>:::<:::>::»:>::::>::::>
:::::::>::>'::����f::::�N��±�::>�t�[Ie�t�rs::::��::<��t ` :;'�i�riu�t�"::>::�����.�t.:::: 5 :::::::::::::::::::.:::::.::::..:.::;;:.::;;:;::.::.;::.::.::.:
>::::>::>::::>::::>::::>::::>::>::»:::>::::«:>::>::>::::::> :.:::............................................. ......................................... � �...:......:.....................................................................
Yard Waste recycling is now available at several King County disposal facilities. Organic wastes will be diverted
from the county's landfills and composted into a valuable product. Leaves, grass, brush, clippings, prunings
and branches under 4 inches in diameter and 8 feet in length will be accepted at a reduced rate. No stumps,
lumber, rocks, dirt or sod, demolition debris or plastic will be accepted as yard waste. Containers used for
transport must be emptied and taken home for disposal or reuse, including plastic bags. If loads are mixed with
other debris other than yard waste, the higher garbage rate of $66.00 per ton plus tax ($71.77), $10.75 minimum,
will be charged. Loads should by secured by covering with a tarp or tied dow
Cedar Falls Drop Box
7 days a week
9:00 am - 6:00 pm (PS�
8:00 am - 5:00 pm (DS�
16925 Cedar Falls Rd. SE
North Bend
$7.41 per passenger licensed vehicle or
$9.50 per cubic yard uncompacted,
$17.00 per cubic yard compacted ($7.41
minimum).
Enumclaw Transfer & Recycling Station 1650 Battersby Ave E $7.41 plus tax per passenger licensed
7 days a week Enumclaw, WA 98022 vehicle or $58.00 per ton. ($7.41
8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. minimum)
Factoria Transfer Station 13800 SE 32nd St $7.41 per passenger licensed vehicle or
Monday-Friday Bellevue $58.00 per ton ($7.41 minimum)
6:00 p.m. -1:00 a.m.
� Hobart Landfill
7 days a week.
9:00 am - 6:00 pm (PS�
• 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (DS�
24041 - 276th Ave SE $7.41 per passenger licensed vehicle or
Hobart $58.00 per ton ($7.41 minimum)
; : : : : : ::::: �"�11::: : :::i': : :i::i'� ��i:::: '.": : i:::i : : :::i': : ::::'::::f� ". :lli' : :i':ii'"�i::::i::::::i::::::i::::::i::::i::::::i::i:::::
::ii::i:::. .�
�":. ' .1: . i::i::ii::::i :::::::.:.:
�t�: >::
: > r..
;;;,;,;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<.;;;;::.;;:.;:.::_ :;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; :.;.;:;.:.: ; :;;. ;::;;;;:::::::. : ..:_: _._::::: :::: : : ; ;.;; ;>:.:<.:<;:;:.;:.:::;;;
;:::«:»::>:»<:»:<::<::>:::>::: < «;::><>: >;...;:>�: : :;;:::;:;>:;..::>: . ,; ;,.: ;::<;:...<>:> .:;:;:<; :.::::>:>::::;:;::>; ::P:�v� ;:``>:::�` #� �..t8� .................. :.. . .
;>;:;:::::>::::>:_>;:;:::<:::::>;:<><:> ; < :>: >`: . .: : : ::>.<.� >:::'::: :�:�: :� f �::$ ��.....�1�`�..�..�. ....� ....
• ��rd.:.�::�1(��ad �s�e .�a e. �: �: #.:::::::::: : #� : ::.:............... :::::.:::: . :::::::: :.: : .: :.:: : ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:: :::::: ::.
• Iddings, Inc. 27525 Covington Way SE Accepts yard waste (grass clippings,
630-0600 Kent, WA 98042 leaves, weeds). Also accepts sod.
• 9-5 M-F
9-4 Sat, 10-4 Sun
•
�
�
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
Rainier Wood Recyclers
630-3565
8-5 M-F
Valley Topsoil
939-0886
7:30-5:30 M-Sat
9-3Sun
Lloyd Enterprises
874-6692
7a-3:30p M-F
Redmoor Resource Recovery
885-9416
7:30a-4p M-F
Center Nursery and Recycling
762-9245
7a-5p M-F
City of North Bend
Mount Si Senior Center
888-1211 (City Hall)
10-2 2nd & 4th Saturday, Mar-Nov
27525 Covington Way S.E.
Kent, WA 98042
35019 West Valley Highway
Algona, WA 98001
80 5th Ave
Milton, WA 98356
Woodinville Processing Facility
6211 234th St SE
Woodinville
Issaquah Frocessing Facility
6200 E. Lk Samm Rd SE
Issaquah
Seattle Processing Faciliiy
3425 - 26th Ave SW
Seattle
Auburn Processing Facility
32300 148th Ave SE
Auburn
9354 - 4th Ave S
Seattle
411 Main Ave North
North Bend, 98045
Accepts clearing debris, stumps, and
brush.
Accepts yard waste, no stumps, rocks
up to 3" diameter mixed wkh yard
waste, and horse/cow manure.
Newly permitted facility accepts
yardwaste, brush, stumps, prunings,
and clean unpainted woodwaste.
Accepts clean wood waste for
remanufacturing into particle board:
Untreated wood products, pallets,
crates, dimensional lumber, plywood,
particle board. No creosoted or treated
wood. Also provides pick-up service.
Stumps and logs accepted at Issaquah
and Auburn facilities.
Accepts brush and yard debris up to 4
feet long and 4 inches in diameter.
Accepts yard waste from North Bend
residents only - must show utility bill.
Page 13
City of Snoqualmie
888-1555 (City Hall)
10-2 ist Saturday, May-Oct
Carnation Recycling Center
333-4192 (City Hall)
1-6 DST
12-4 PST Wed-Fri, 10-4 Sat/Sun, Mar-Nov
Stillwater Valley Recycling Center
788-1356
10.2, Sat
Cherry Valley Recycling Center
788-1356
10-2, 1 st & 3rd Sat, Mar-Nov
Lloyd Enterprises
874-6692
Dick's Chipping Service
743-9640
Preferred Brush Chipping & Recycling
Contact: Todd Jones, 271-6908
RESGUIDE\002VEND:JuIy 29, 1993
Riverview Park
Snoqualmie, WA
Corner of Myrtle & McKinley
Carnation, WA
(located at elementary school)
11530 320th Ave NE
Carnation, WA
(located at elementary school)
26701 NE Cherry Valley Rd
Duvall, WA 98019
80 5th Ave
Milton, WA 98356
Accepts yard waste from residents only -
must show utility bill.
Located at the City Maintenance Shop.
Accepts yard waste from Carnation
residents only - must show utility bill.
Please enter from Big Rock Road.
Bring grass, leaves, brush and
branches, max. 2" diameter and 3' in
length. No commercial loads.
Accepts yard waste from Duvall
residents only - attendant checks utiliiy
list. Bring grass, leaves, brush and
branches, max. 2" diameter and 3' in
length.
Newly permitted facility accepts
yardwaste, brush, stumps, prunings,
and clean unpainted woodwaste.
17316 North Rd Mobile chipping service for brush, tree
Bothell, WA 98012 limbs, etc., up to 6 inches in diameter,
will haul or leave chipped material.
P.O. Box 53182 Mobile chipping service for tree
Renton, WA 98058 branches and brush up to 3 inch
diameter, will haul larger pieces. Will
haul or leave chipped material.
Page 14
�
APPENDIX G
SOURCE GUIDE FOR
CYCLING AND DISPOSAL
ALTERNAT:�i'ES FOR
CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION
> >
AND L,AND C NG DEBRIS
King County
Comprehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
�v�,
.���
Sorting
It Out
Together
0
Department of Public Works
King County Solid Waste Division
Directory of Recycling and Disposal Alternatives for
Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Debris
This directory tists facilities which are available for recycling CDL materials. This list serves only to present you with
options and does not reflect facilities recommended by King County.
Please call any of the facilities listed in this directory to verify their acceptance policies, to abtain additional
information on fees charged, and to confirm that they have the capacity to accept your materials.
For help regarding this list, call 296-4466.
Concrete, Asphalt, Rock, Brick, and Dirt
For locations to accept clean fill dirt, contact the King County Department of Building and Land Development at
296-6110.
Palmer Coking Coal Co.
886-2841 or 432-3542
Renton Concrete Recyclers
772-2278
Stoneway Rock & Recycling
226-1000 (office)
623-1414 (site)
31407 Highway 169 Accepts rock, dirt, sand, gravel, etc., concrete
Black Diamond, WA 98010 (without rebar and prefer pieces 6 inches or underl,
asphalt.
14001 68th Ave S
Renton, WA 98055
6808 S 140th
Renton, WA 98055
Metals
Arrow Metals Corp. 6014 238th Street SE Accepts non-ferrous and ferrous metal, including
481-1828 (Snohomish Co.) Woodinville, WA 98072 appliances. Compressors must be removed.
Auburn Recycling/Salvage
939-5309
Bloch Steel Industries
763-0200
Cedar Grove Recycling
and Surplus
432-3133
City Junk, Inc.
763-3024
2906 A Street SE
Auburn, WA 98002
4580 Colorado Ave. S
Seattle, WA 98134
18407 Renton-Maple
Valley Rd.
Maple Valley, WA 98038
Accepts concrete with and without rebar, brick,
concrete, asphalt, anything with aggregate content.
Does NOT accept asphalt shingles or metals.
Accepts concrete with and without rebar, asphalt.
Rents 10 and 20 yard trucks for hauling, may pick-
up.
Accepts non-ferrous and ferrous metat. No
appliances removed.
Buy-back and drop-off site for ferrous and
non-ferrous metals. Collection service available.
Accepts all ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including
appliances.
4915 S 124th Accepts copper, insulated copper and all other forms
Tukwila, WA 98178 of copper. Buys brass, clean aluminum, iron, lead,
poly-tri wire and stainless steel. Collection service
available.
:;� Sorting It Out Together
rr�c�a on x«y�t� r�r
Ed's Metal Express 13818 Hwy 99
743-3288 Is���eh co.1 Lynnwood, WA 98037
Independent Metals Company 747 S. Monroe
763-9033 (South Park) Seattle, WA 98108
Jon's Recycling
763-2520
222 South Holden
Seattie, WA 98108
Medalia Salvage
523-8835
Noble Metals Recycling
783-6321
Non-Ferrous Metals, Inc.
624-8414 IHarbor Is.1
Northwest Metal & Salvage
Service
525-0814
Pacific Iron & Metal Company
628-6232
Recycling Depot
325-7288
Riverside Salvage & Metal
Company, Inc.
932-7262
Seattle Iron & Metals Corp.
682-��4� (Harbor Is.1
Simon Joseph & Sons, Inc.
838-1993 �P�e��g co.►
1 1 12 North 98th St.
Seattle, WA 98103
928 NW Leary Way
Seattle, WA 98107
2905 13th Ave. SW
Seattle, WA 98134
9607 Aurora Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103
2230 4th Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134
851 Rainier Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98144
2316 Harbor Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98126
2955 11th Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98134
2202 E. River Street
Tacoma, WA 98421
Accepts non-ferrous metais. Please call first.
Accepts all non-ferrous metals, specializing in
insulted wire.
Accepts ail terrous and non-ferrous metals.
Accepts ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
Accepts non-ferrous metals, eg., copper, brass,
aluminum, mercury, bronze, stainless steel, zinc,
lead.
Accepts lead, alloys, tin, and zinc.
Accepts all non-ferrous metals. Pick-up service
available.
Accepts non-ferrous metals.
Accepts various ferrous and non-ferrous metals,
electrical wires and brass radiators.
Accepts all metals. Pickup & container service
available. Specializes in processing insulated wire.
Accepts ferrous, non-ferrous metals, including
appliances. Compressors must be removed.
Collection services available.
Accepts all non-ferrous and most ferrous metals,
including insulated wire and electric motors.
Tacoma Metals, Inc. 1919 Portland Avenue Accepts all non-ferrous metals.
627-1440 IP�e��e co.l Tacoma, WA 98421
Land Clearing Debris, Clean Wood, Pallets
Check Yellow Pages listings for chippers and shredders under "Lawn and Garden Supplies."
Beal Excavating, Inc. PO Box 2009 On-site mobile chipper. Small diameter brush. Call
463-3655 Vashon, WA 98070 for additiona� information.
Carpinito Bros., Inc. 1 148 N. Central Accepts clean topsoil, sand, gravel, log yard
854-5692 Kent, WA 98032 clean-up, and chipped brush. Hauling service
sometimes available.
Center Nursery and Recycling 9354 4th Avenue South Accepts brush and yard debris up to 4 feet long and
762-9245 Seattle, WA 4 inches in diameter.
Corbett Logging, Inc. 12105 53rd Street Mobile on-site chipping for land clea�ing debris. Will
863-4061 or 863-9644 Sumner, WA 98390 clear stumps and trees.
(Pierce Co)
Custom Crating & Recycling 3419 W. Marginal Way SW Accepts clean lumber and wood. Please call first.
938-2216 Seattle, WA
CDL Recycling and Disposal Directory Page 2
CWRR-Commercial Waste 528 Rainier Ave S. #43 Collection service for pallets & crates.
Reduction & Recycling Renton, WA 98055
772-4745
D4 Care Co�struction &
Recycling Enterprises
774-3740 or 669-3668
3900 180th Place SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Mobile grinding services for wood waste,
landclearing, and demolition debris. (Serves Vashon
Island.)
Iddings, Inc.
630
Northwest Stumpage and Marysville, WA Will haul or grind on-site. Stumpage, roots, yard
Wood Handlers waste, brush, pallets, crates, demolition, wood, ties,
658-1616 ISnohomish Co.) poles, fencing.
Palmer Coking Coal Co. 31407 Highway 169 Accepts topsoil, other soils, rocks, gravel, and
886-2841 or 432-3542 Black Diamond, WA 98010 excavation fill materials. Atso asphalt and concrete
without rebar in 6 inch or smaller pieces. Also
accepts sawdust, some fine wood particles. Material
should be free of stumps, branches, limbs, woody
debris, and other contaminants.
Preferred Brush Chipping and
Recycling
271-6908
Purdy Topsoils
857-5850
Rainier Pallet Corp.
872-8543
Rainier Wood Recyclers
630-3565
27525 Covington Way SE Accepts rocks, dirt, sod, grass, leaves, and
Kent, WA 98042 landclearing debris.
5819 - 133rd St. NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
28430 - 80th Ave., Kent
4402 B St NW, Auburn
27529 Covington Way SE Accepts land clearing debris, stumps, brush, pallets,
Kent, WA 98042 crates, and new construction wood waste. Mobile,
on-site chipping available.
Mobile brush chipping of material up to 4 inches in
diameter. Larger may be hauled.
Accepts land clearing debris and yard waste.
Accepts reusable pallets in selected sizes. Please call
first.
Redmoor Resource Recovery Issaquah Yard: Accepts industrial wood pallets, crates, etc., stumps,
885-9416 6200 E. Lk Sam Pkwy logs, dimensional lumber waste. Does NOT accept
Auburn Yard: demolition waste, compostable brush, dirt or
32300 148th Way SE concrete. Offers mobile, on-site grinding of stumps,
demolition and landclearing waste. Pick-up available.
TWF Construction
852-3053
18805 SE Wax Road
Kent, WA 98042
Can handle up to 8 inches in diameter of any woody
material. Larger may be hauled.
Valley Topsoils
939-0886
35019 West Valley Hwy
Algona, WA 98001
Accepts grass, leaves, branches. Does NOT accept
sod, stumps, branches greater than 4 inches in
diameter or 5 feet long.
Drywall Plasterboard
Gypsum Depot Recycling 8625 - 219th SE
486-2761 (Snohomish Co.) Woodinville, (Maltby)
New West Gypsum 1321 54th Ave. East
922-9343 IP�e►oe co.l Fife, WA 98424
Accepts gypsum scrap and drywall.
Accepts gypsum drywall scraps and drywall related
waste (mud boxes, tape, cornerboard). No drywall
with lead-based paint or asbestos laden material.
Rents containers.
CDL Recycling and Disposal Directory Page 3
Carpet Padding
Sea Tac Recycling & Dist. Co. 1027 Andover Park East Accepts upholstery foam, new and used
575-1808 Tukwila, WA polyurethane foam carpet padding, new carpet. New
carpet must be 18" x 24" or larger. Carpet must be
rolled and tied. No rubber padding, felt, or jute.
Corrugated Cardboard
AAA Recycling
246-5412
Burien Recycling
246-2346
Community Enterprises of
Issaquah
391-0650
Fibres International
455-9811
4455 S 148th
Tukwila, WA 98168
16043 1 st Avenue S
Burien, WA
970 7th Avenue NW
Issaquah, WA 98027
1533 - 120th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98005
Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue,
and staples accepted. Pick-up only.
Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue
and staples accepted. Flattened.
Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue,
and staples accepted. Flattened. No phone books or
junk mail.
Accepts dry uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape,
glue, and staples accepted. Drop-box and pick-up
services available.
Keppler Feed & Recycling 16442 Renton Issaquah Rd Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. No tape or
226-5239 Renton, WA 98059 staples. Glue acceptable. Flattened. Self-haul only.
Rabanco Recycling Company 2733 Third Avenue S Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue,
725-1700 Seattle, WA and staples accepted. Drop-box and pick-up services
available.
Redmond Grean Survival
885-4004
Sam's Recycling
776-6265
Sea-Dru-Nar Recycling
467-7550
Smurfit Recycling Co
723-4490
16501 NE 80th
Redmond, WA 98052
Bothell, WA
3844 1 st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98124
9747 MLK Way S.
Seattle, WA 98118
Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. No staples.
24 hour drop-box. Self-haul only.
Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue
and staples accepted. Flattened. Drop-box and pick-
up only.
Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue,
and staples accepted. Drop-box and pick-up services
available.
Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue,
and staples accepted. Flattened. Drop-box and pick-
up services available.
West Seattle Recycling Center 2964 SW Avalon Way Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue
935-4255 Seattle, WA 98126 and staples accepted. Flattened. Pick-up services
available.
Commingled CDL Disposal
Regional Disposal Company 2733 Third Avenue South Accepts all commingled, non-hazardous CDL waste
725-1700 Seattle, WA for disposal.
CDL Recycling and Disposal Directory Page 4
�
�
�
APPENDIX H
I�;ED WASTE PROCESSING
EASIBILITY ANALYSIS
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
,���,
.���
SOI'�ll1g
It Out
Together
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
H
H
�
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
ii:0i:i^iiiii:•r•iii:rr.;},v,nii:i::{^:^lii::i•::4iiii::?^i'F.?ii:i.ii:�t�i'b:.i:•i:i.:::: ::::i::i::{.:�::::t,:':•::v:::::xSi{+•i
. Y . :
::,
nw.vwn .... v : ........................... v:: �.: • ..::::::.::4:iti::: ...•.•:..•..:: . :.v::
iii^�4ii:: •:
}:'(• ti• •.vvf:
..3. 4i};:niiii::•};.}•i.ii4ti•i i}v. •:
...f.
�:vv�vv '�
....{
ry .. . ............................ .... . .. . ..
.. �.. >nv:
...t4 w:::::: ......w::::.� ..:.vi :::::: ....::::.::.::.:::.�i.....�.. n;w:: 'v:::::v}�.�: :v: :•.�:::.�::.:�::.:-:::`ti'rii:::::::i::y:`:`:'::::::�:::::'::}::'{':i':
•... M1..\4...^i:•iT:•i:•ii+:0.'•i'+•iii:•ii:::::::i:•i:•i:•i:.t::ii:•'�.'i:iiiiiiiiiii):�:.:::::::+•:•i:�i:�i:•i:{•:i:.;j;:};:::;:j:i�i:�i:�ii?i:�:i�:4:-ii:�ii:0i::::ii.•:+:::.:•:..•Ti:•iiiiiii:}i.•.•n��.
. v �{.,+.}
•ihtiGii:•i'•iii'r'i'r'•iiiiii}::'• :J}•.i:i::�i^iii}i:+•��}i'•ii:.}i:i}}::vi•i}�iii��' �
1 {;'::jiii:
:., .v
vihti'r'ri;:,'v,:iij..........�...l..r.........:�}.... . ..................v:::::::::::::nx:.::::: ..................................w::::nv:::::: .................: ....... :.
H i
: . ..,:.
... .... ................................... ... ............................................................................................. :.;:;:v.: :: :>,::<:<:.�;
Appendix H
N�ixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' ��.•
In response to shrinking U.S. landfill capacity, many communities are turning to facillaes that proce�s mixed municipal waste
into marketable end-products and reduce the amount of waste landfilled. King County pollcy prioritizes programmatic choices, which
affect individuat behaviors, over facility choices, which accommodate e�sting behaviors. However, King County also authorized the
wnstruction of one privately owned and operated mixed waste processing facility (MWPF) to evaluate the long-term costs and benefi�
associated with mixed waste processing in combination with extensive efforts to separate recyclables at the source.
To ensure that the proposed facility is compatible with the goals of the Counry's solid waste management system, the Solld
Waste Dlvision identified several facility constraints, consistent with King County policy. In March of 1991, the Solid Waste Division
hired a technical wnsultant w assist in writing the faciliry Request for Proposal (RFP). After reviewing the facillty constraints, the
consultant recommended that we not issue the RFP unless certain faciliry constraints could be modi�ied.
The purpose of this issue paper is to evaluate both the need for an MWPF in King County and the constraints placed on the
successful development of a feasible RFP for the facility. To address these issues, this evaluation focused on three questions:
• What are the key pollcy constraints impacting on the issuance of a viable MWPF Request for Proposals, and can these constraints
be modified?
• Dces King County need to construd and build a privately owned and operated facility in order to evaluate mixed waste processing
in combination with source s�aration of recyclables?
• Will the constivction of an MWPF in King County have a negative impact on source-separation goals and ob�ectives?
2. Ba,ckground
MWPF's process mixed municipal solld waste into recoverable producis, reducing the amount of waste landf'illed. This type of
faciliry differs from Intermediate Processing Facilities and Material Recovery Facilities because in addition to sorting recyclable
materials for processing, M1APF's develop a marketable product from the waste remaining. Although MWPF's usually remove a small
portion of recyclable materiaLs from the waste stream for direct recycling, up to 60 percent is processed inw one or more usable
products, and d�e remainder ls landf'illed. The quality and wnsistency of the resulting end-product depends upon the wmposiaon of
the incoming mixed municipal waste. Markets for mixed waste compost are Wnited due to the lack of control over d�e inooming
waste stream, which dictatss the end-products' oonsistency and qualiry. Currently, numerous mixed waste processing facilities are
either operating or under oonstruction in the United States. Many oommunities are combining mixed waste processing with efforls to
s�arate recyclables at the source, raising concerns about the effect of source separation on the composition of the waste stream
processed. Additionally, solid waste managers are concerned that implementing mixed waste processing oould undermine efforts to
separate recyclables at the source by modifying individual behaviors.
A. Ba�utiue Summary Append'a K Mix�d i�aste F►ticessing F�sfbrlrty Anal,yasfs
H-2
3. Results in Brief
Although counry legislation authorizes the wnstruction of an MMPF, the decision to do so conflicts with the County's choice of
programmatic over facility approaches to waste reducpon and recycling. T'hrough programmatic strategies alone, King County plans
to reduce the waste stream 65 peccent by the year 2000, with interim waste reduction and recycling goals set at 35 percent in 1992
and 50 percent in 1995. Three key facility constraints, wnsistent with King Counry policy, place such a heavy risk on the vendor that
the County could be perceived as not seriously supporting the project. These wnstraints include: (1) no guarantees of waste
tonnage, (2) no guarantees on the waste stream wmposition, and (3) vendor responsibility for siting the faciliry.
Although a facllity oonstructed prior to the year 2000 might contribute to the successful recycling of 65 percent of the County's
waste sheam, delaying the decision to build an MWPF will not significantly impact the Solid Waste Division's abllity to fulfill its
mission and successfully dispose of the County's municipal solid waste in a safe and effective manner. Since numerous U.S.
communities are combiNng facility and programmatic recycling strategies, King County dces not nced to build a MWPF itself to
evaluate the long-term costs, benefits, and risks associated with mixed waste processing in combinarion with programmatic
approaches. If source separation is successful, the County will be able to avoid negative reactions related to the "Not in my
Backyard" aspect of constructing and operating an MWPF.
4. Principal Findin�s
a Ni�ed Waste Prooessing Could Compete with Programmatic Strategies
King County's waste reduction and recycling goal is one of the most aggressive goals In the United States. Until waste
reduction and recycling programs have been fully implemented it is impossible to determine the success of programmatic strategies.
Premature constivction of an MWPF might undermine source-separation efforts. Additionally, experts have indicaied that faciliaes
constructed prior to the implementation of sou�e-separation programs may be affected by the change in the waste composltion and
be unable to continue producing compost of the same quality. Since the composition of the waste stream used to develop the
compost is critical in determining its qualiry and marketability, it makes sense to ensure that waste composition information provlded
to prospective vendors be as accurate as possible. After King Counry has Implemented all waste reduc�on and recycling programs, it
will be in a better position to provide aaurate waste composition information to a prospective vendor.
b. King County Can Evaluate Other Communities' Effor�s
to Combine Progratnmatic and Faality Choioes
Many U.S. communities, faced with e�reme landflll shortages, have accepted the risk of cons�vcting an MWPF in
combination with implementing source-separation programs. Over the next few years, these communities can provide King Counry
with critical information about the success of MWPFs in combination with source separatioa Delay in issuing the RFP would allow
the Counry time to evaluate the success of these communities' efforts to combine MWPF with source-separation programs, and the
success of mixed waste processing in general. The uncertainty surrounding the quality and marketability of mixed solid waste
compost Indicates that a significant percentage of the compost might ultimately be landfilled. The numerous questions surrounding
the quality and marketabllity of mixed waste compost make it difficult at thls time to determine the true effectiveness of such a
faciliry.
Appendi� K Mia�d Waste Proce�sing Fa7sibituy Analystis A. H�cutiue Summary
�
::>:�:>.>.:;..
s: �r��»>•.`•>:�i>:;>
,. o!::,,.:;::::»:s::�:<:::::::; r::::,
`::''
Y.
':;:k:a::':�:� �:#�::;::�:::::''.::'•;:;+::;:;:;{ :;;`::�:�: �:�:..
f
:;:;>;�<:
• . ...............................................................................,,.............
•
•
�
•
�
e
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
c. Reoonsideration of Curnent Faality Cons�raints is Needed
''»
::;:�
H - 3 r
::,>;;;.::
. f.::.
Reconsideration of "make or break" wnstraints appears critical to issuing a viable RFP. Key constraints impading the
development of a viable RFP (no tonnage guarantees, the lack waste stream wmposition guarantees, and vendor responsibllity for
faciliry sitin� clearly reduce the risk to the County. However, just successfully constructing and operaiing an MWPF requlres the
vendor to take on a significant level of risk Although the constraints cited above protect the Counry and are consistent with oounry
policies, vendors wuld perceive these constra,ints as a lack of counry support for the success of the projecx. Dlscussions wlth the
technical wnsultant have Indicated that if the County wuld provlde some type of tonnage guarantces, vendors would probably be
willing to take on the siting and waste composltlon rlsks. However, if issuance of the RFP is delayed, advances in technology may
preclude the need for changing these constraints.
5. Recommendations
It is likely that a great deal of controversy would surround a decision to construd a MWPF. Addlttonally, the uncertain�es in
composting technology and the limited informaiion on the long-term impact of MWPFs on pmgrams emphasizing extensive source
separation make the decision to move ahead with construction of a M\APF a risky choice. Whlle King Counry may be criticized for
delaying the RFP for a processing facility and delaying consideration of a potentially e�'ective recycling option, the dsk associated with
mixed waste processing as a recycling soluGon is great enough to justify a cautious approach. By 1995, King County will have fully
implemented the majority of its waste reduction and recycling programs, and will be in a better position to evaluate the success of its
source-separation strategy. Given the available landf'ill capacity and the Counry's desire to emphasize programmatic over facillry
choices, it is reoommended that the Solid Waste Division:
• Delay the decision to issue an RFP for a mixed waste processing faciliry until 1995.
• Monitor the success of other efforts to combine mixed waste processing with extensive source separatioa
• Reevaluate the succcessss of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforls in 1995 to detecmine if an MWPF is nceded to meet
King County recycling and waste reduction goals.
Delaying the issuance of the RFP will allow the Solid Waste Division time to fully implement its residential recycling programs
and reevaluate the succes.s of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts. At that ti�ne, the Solid Waste Dlvlsion oould
compare its success to areas where an MWPF contributes to the recycling rate achieved.
Solid Waste Divlsion staff further reoommend that if and when a decision to issue an RFP for an MWPF is made, key policies
impacting on an MWPF be rea:�s�ssed. King County could provide a limited tonnage guarantee that v�uld minimlze the rlsk to the
Counry while ensuring the County's support of the faciliry's success. Additionally, in 1995, the County will be in a better position to
provide informaiion on the anticipated waste composition. Additionally, the Division should reconsider the policies on sitinng and waste
composition. In 1995, the Solid Waste Division expects to be recycling SO peccent of the total waste stream. The composiaon of the
waste saeam at this time would provide a reasonable reference for vendors to use and could be included in the RFP, and d�e County
could provide some preliminary siting assistance.
Although numerous cities and counties throughout the U.S. are turning to mixed waste processing as a solutlon to their waste
recycling requirements, these communities' abiliry to successfully combine mixed waste proce�ing with source sepaaraztion remains to
be seea Once extensive source separation is fully implemented, mixed waste processing wuld further reduce the amount of waste
that must be landfilled. Over the next few years mixed waste processing technologies will continue to advance and more markets for
the processed produd should exist Additionally, sufficient time will ha�e passed for the County to evaluate the long-term success of
mixed waste processing combined with source separation in other U.S. communities. In the interim, the County can focus full
A. E�a�tir�e Summary �d ��r fl Mi�aed Waste Proce.�shtg F�srbility Artal,ysxs
H-4
attentlon on changing indtvidual behaviors and reducing and recycling 65 percent of the waste stream by separatir►g recyclables at
their source.
B. IlVTRODUCTION
1. Increasing Interest in Mixed Waste Proce�ing
As U.S. wmmuniaes wntinue to expedence reduced landf'ill capaciry, there has been increasing interest In processing mixed
municipal solid waste into marketable end-products. MWPFs reduce the amount of solid waste Iandfilled by processing it into
products such as fuel or compost While mixed waste processing is not a new concept, It has yet to obta.in widespread acceptance In
the United States. However, declining landfill capacity and the success of many European countries in processing signlficant portions
of their solld waste have led U.S. communides to take a second look at mixed waste processing as a solution to their solid waste
management problems.
Despite increased interest, lndustry efforts w implement mixed waste processing in the United States ha�e been slow. Problems
with product quality and public fears about product safety and sanitation have caused a great deal of controversy about the tive
"succe.ss" of mixed waste processing. Additionally, solid waste managers question whether mixed waste processing ls consistent with
recycling efforts, which seek to separate recyclables at the source by modifying individual behavlor. Environmental experts have also
raised concerns about a system that processes the entire waste stream, rather than attempting to recycle and reuse specific materials
in their original form, such as paper and glass. These experts argue that the value of recycled material is best protected through
separate collection and processing, rather than processing the entire mixed waste stream into a low-quality compost or fuel produc�t.
2. Washington Sta.te and King County Policy on Mixed Waste Processing
Both Washington State and King Counry have passed legislation that establishes waste reduction and source separation as the
fundamental strategy for waste managemenk However, both the state and the County consider mixed waste processing a recycling
alternative. �oording to Washington State priorities for the colledion, handling, and management of solid waste, it should be
implemented prior to energy re�very, incineration, or landf'illing. Although King County plans to meet aggressive waste reduction
and recycling goals by educaang county residents to separate the recyclables from their solid waste, it has also authorized the
construc�tion of a privately owned and operated MWPF to evaluate the wmbination of mixed waste processing with extensive effort to
separate recyclables at the source.
King County plans to reduce the waste stream 65 percent by the year 2000, with interlm waste reduction goaJs set at
35 percent in 1992 and 50 percent in 1995. Despite the authorization of one privately owned and operated MWPF, the County has
emphasized that in reaching these goals, prioriry should be placed on programmatic choices that affect individual behavior, rather
than facility choices that accommodate exlsting behavior. To ensure that the proposed faciliry is compatible with these goals and the
overall King County solid waste management system, the Solld Waste Division identifled several facility constraints consistent with King
County policy; these constraints negadvely impact the Division's ability to develop a feasible RFP for the facility.
3. Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The primary ob�ective of thls issue paper ls to evaluate the feasibility of issuing an MWPF RFP, given key pollcy constraints
placed on the facllity. A seoondary ob�ective is to asssesss the nced to construct one privaiely owned and operated mlxed waste
�pbendir K Miz�d Waste Proc�si�ag Fa�sibilily Analystis B. fntrodudion
❑
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
H - 5 ::<::::::.:
proccessssing facility in King County for the purpc�ee of evaluating the combination of mixed waste processing wlth extenslve source
separation. Consequendy, the guiding evaluation questions throughout this issue paper are:
• What are the key policy constraints impacting the issuance of a viable request for proposal for an MWPF and can these
constra�n�s be modified?
• Does King County need to construct and build a prlvately owned and operated facility in order to evaluate mlxed waste processing
in combination with source separation of recyclables?
• Will the oonstruc�on of an M1APF in King Counry have a negative impact on source-separation goals and ob�ecxives?
The approach taken to answer these questlons involved researching available literature on mixed waste processing technology,
end-product markets, and facilities in the United States and Europe. Additionally, Solid Waste Division staff interviewed lmowledgeable
King County and Washington State officials, environmental consultants, and solld waste officials in eight U.S. communi�es with
mixed waste processing facilities. Because existlng King County pollcy dces not support incineration, the production of Refuse Derlved
Fuel (RDF) was not included within the scope of this paper. The paper first provides an oveiview of mlxed waste processing in the
United States, explores d�e proposed system and the key constraints placed on an MWPF, reviews alternatives to these wns�raints, and
evaluates the lmmediate and future feasibility of mixed waste processing in King County.
C. OVERVIEW OF MI��D WASTE PROCESSING
• MWPFs process mixed municipal solid waste into recoverable products and reduce the amount of waste landfllled. These types
of facilities differ from Intermediate Processing Facilities and Material Recovery Facilities because, in addition to sorting recyclable
� materials for processing, MWPFs develop a marketable product from the waste remaining. Although MWPFs usually remove a small
portion of recyclable materials from the waste stream for direct recycling, the majority is proc..�sssed, with up to 60 percent being
� converted into one or more usable products and the remainder being landfilled. The quality and consistency of the resulting end-
• product depend on the composition of the incoming mixed municipal waste.
Mlxed solid waste compost would be the most likely end-product produced by an MV�PF construcxed in King Counry, since the
• production of RDF fuel would conflict with existing Counry policy against incineration. Markets for mixed waste compost vary
depending on produd quallty, which again depends on the composition of the incoming waste. Currently, numerous MWPFs are
� either operating or are under construction in the United States. Many communities are combining mixed waste processing with
• efforts to separate recyclables at the source, raising concerns about the effect of source separation on the composition of the waste
stream processed.
��
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1. Mixed Waste Processing Technology Is Still Evolving
Mixed waste processing is still a relatively new technology in the United States. Although processing mixed municipal solid
waste could potentially produce a variety of products, the majority of existing facilities manufact�re compost and RDF from incoming
municipal solid waste. Although many experts view mixed waste composting as representing the future in solld waste management,
compost produced by long-standing facilities in Europe wntinue to have unacceptable proportions of inorganic materials and heavy
metal concentrations. A recent trend in Eumpe is to source separate organic waste prior to composting in order to reduce the
wncentration of inorganic materials in the resulting oompost Inaeasing demand for qualiry compost has focused effor�s on
removing contaminants from the existing process to provide a higher qualiry of compost, which is compatible with the production of
food for direct human �nsumption.
Washington State is developing mlxed waste oompost quality standards and plans to issue these standards by June of 1992.
Some state governments have lnstituted standards for compost qualiry, however a trade-off exists between the quallty of the oompost
C. Oi�err�ieru of Mir�d i�aste Prnce�sing �end'a H.• Mia�d Waste P►•ocsssing Feraslb�lity Analy,s�s
�
H-
6
�
: : . , . : : : : : . : .: .: : . : : . : : : . : : : :.: .: : : : : . � : : : : . . . : : : : : . .
•::li.v::: � vi:i4•••;{4 •
.M1fi'::'•:
..f •
...+li.�..r ti,:i:
.{�:;f}:::i::;:}:tiJ.tii;;;•'!/{i.
.j�i;'i,''f,''r:Y:•,:<?iSi_.',+%y:;:};::M1i
..�. �.
..�C.v
. ................. ...................................................... •
....... . .. .......................................................................................... . S:�l+f.'
•
•
.
•
pmcessed and the amount of residual waste that must be landfilled. High-quality wmpost generally means high percentages of
residual waste. While it is possible that a source-separation program might contritute u, u�►�,:���+ �... _-�. .;.�., �_ ..,,ll;nq out
inorganics and plastic, source-separation programs also pull out paper produds, which are aitical ingredients for succes,sfui m�.
waste compost
2. End product Markets Unstable
Currently, limited markets for mixed solid waste compost exist Consumers are fearful of the quality of compost developed
from solid waste. While the concerns are not unjustif'ied, the development of compost qualiry standards and incxeased consumer
education should assist in alleviating these concerns. Companies producing compost generally anticipate giving the produd away
initially in order to build oonsumer confidence in the produc�t. For example, the Reidel facility in Pordand, Oregon has set up
agreements to supply farmers and nurseries with the fust three years worth of compost produced. After that tune, Reidel hopes to
start selling the compost
Many different levels of compost quality exist and MWPFs can adjust the amounts of different quality compost produced to
meet the market demand. However, the main determinant of compost quality is the incoming solid waste from which the compost ls
derived. MWPFs have had problems ensuring product consistency from a waste stream with an uncertain oompc�sition. Too much of
certain metaJs or glass can render the compost worthless. Additionally, the compost must be cured for a long enough thne to break
down all of the material in the compost completely. Othetwise it will compete with the plants it's supposed to fer�lize and end up
killing them rather than assisting in their growth.
3. Other Communities Combine Source Separation and Mixed Waste Processing
As of late 1990, nine f�ll-scale, operating, mixed waste composting facilities existed in the United States. These facili�es are
located in Minnesota, Florida, Delaware, and Wisconsin. Minnesota leads all other states with five operating facllitles and fifteen In
the development phases. Most of the areas where these facilities are loca,ted also have source-separation programs--usually residential
curbside recycling. For example, one counry in Minnesota wllects recyclable materials separately ttuough a curbslde progracn and
also separate "wmpostable" waste, such as food waste and contaminated paper products. Compostable waste is fed into the
processing machine, and nonprocassable waste is landfllled.
In the Northwest, two mixed waste proc.essing facilities are under development one near Bellingham, Washington and one
near Portland, Oregon. Both of these facilities will operate from waste streams that will be exposed to extensive source separatioa
The Portland metropolitan area is pursuing a solid waste management plan that wmbines e�ensive source separation with mixed
waste processing. The following case study discusses Portland's planned waste reduction and recycling system, which will be
coordinated with its mi�ced waste processing goals.
4. Waste Stream Composition Critical to Processing Mixed Solid Waste
The waste stream wmposition directly impact� on an MWPF's ability to divert waste from the landfills. Some experts believe
that source separation and waste reductton programs could have severe economic impacts on the profltability of mlxed waste
processing and the quantity of processable materials in the waste stream. Most facilities remove 5 to 15 percent of the waste for
direct recycling. The remaining waste is processed into either compost or RDF. After the material is processed, residual waste ls
landfilled. This residual can represent 25 to 65 percent of the initial waste stream.
�perulix K.• Mi�ed [�aste P�ocessing Fer�sibrlily Artalysls C. Oc+eruieui of Miard � P►ncssstrtg
�
:•:{:v r :i:1�•:�'
�'�:+iti+�:�:i:':,v, � !.>.. ;/.•J. •;•.;.Y,
ii:fi:f f �v'�i:�i'rii: iir:i:ti�:i'r,T: {:;:;`}:;:;:;;:ti;:;i:�>::�i:ti>.:jj::Y:{'?:;+;�:;+:�;: i?
:•':�i�:ti:•
.........................................................................
. }T 'r'Y:`;,••ii:•.'•: : :?:y;�`£•,•'. i ':r..` : { ? >•.'•i:••.'•.'•'.yir : . {
..ms....r....u..�...
...................... :........ .::::.......•:::::::::.
..t ..t................
::.:::::::::::.�:::::::. :.:::..•...:: ...: . . r..:::: •
...............................::.::•:.�:::::.::�:......; ...... �...::
::.......• :::::::: . :...:::::::::::: ::•.::::•::•::;
.......
................. :.. :.......::: �:: ........ � •;.
.... +..
•:.:::::.::• :::::::::::::....:...:..: :�::: :•::::.:......::::::::::: :�: :::::•. .....,..::..: :.::. :::.; .::::..::.:::.:.,...::::.:;..: '
.......:::. :::::: ::::..::::::::::::::::::::?::: :.,:..,: ..,.>:::•s:•�:•::•>::•::•:::::�::•:::..: x.:.:.::.>.»>::: o-::•::::•:::................ r:... •:......... ...... v....... ..., G?y:�
•
;:;.}j;:ir:•>;�
. . . . . . . . . . . ;:; ;: ,. . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . .... . . . . . . . . . ..� . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
�
�
•
•
�
�
.
�
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Although it would be difficult to guarantee waste
composltion, one vendor we spoke with lndicated that if King
County met its aggressive recycling goals, it vvould be very risky
to assume that sufficient organic material was available to
process the mixed waste Into any kind of end-producK. On the
other hand, the following chart lllustrates an economic model
in Washington State Department of Ecology's "Best Management
Practices," which indica�es that lf Washington State recycles SO
percent of its solid waste at the source, there would still be
suff'icient processable material in the waste stream to reduce It
an additional 35 percent
A preliminary review of available materials in King
County's current disposed waste stream indicattess that in
addition to the current 32 percent recycling rate the County
could recycle an additiona133 percent of the disposed waste
stream and still have significant amounts of organic material
remaining in the form of paper, yard and wood wastes, food
wastes, textiles, disposable diapers, and miscellaneous organia
to process mixed solid waste composk However, this review
encompassed the entire waste stream and dces not account for
regional differences within the Counry that might impact on the
percentage of organic material in the waste received at a facility
seiving only a small portion of the entire waste stream. It
would be risky to assume that the portion of the waste received
by one facility would resemble the entire waste stream, glven
the changing waste stieams and users of each faciliry.
D. PROPOSED SYSTEM
King County Ordin�nce 8771 states that the mixed waste
processing facility could be sited in lleu of a transfer station,
and designates a portion of the waste stream. The Solid Waste
r.�.
� h�r
�
\..
� 7 �},�v,v
H / �.�< �
;�,..�;
Figure H.1 Case Study: Portland-Meh�o Facillty
Waste received this year [1991] at Portland's
Reidel-Metro maed waste prxessing facilily will have
approximately 32 perceM of the recyclables removed through
source separation. The Portland metropolitan area
encompasses parts of three counties and is pursuing an
extensive source-separation effort, planning to reduce the
waste atream by 50 perceM in the year 2000 and 56 percerrt
by the year 2010. The Reidel moced waste processing faciliy
has been constructed to operate in combi�ation with Metro's
extensive source-separation efforts.
From the waste received, Reidel is required to
withdraw an addkional 5 percent of recyclable materials;
compost a minimum of 60 percent, and landfill a maximum of
35 percent. The agreemeM between Metro and Reidel
guaraMees Reidel 185,000 tons of waste annually (40 percent
of tha annual waste stream) Under this guarantee Metro must
pay Reidel 'rf this amourrt is not delivered. The contract also
guarantees a waste composition wkh s�cieM organic
materials to process compost. Metro has initiated flow cordrol
legislation to restrict any waste other than residential from
entering the facility. This is because residential weste is less
likely to be contaminated with moderate risk and hazardous
waste, and is more likely to have high levels of organic
material. In the future, Portland-Metro aiso plans to direct
waste generated from food manufacturers and restaurartts to
tne fao�iny.
Portland-Metro represeMatives indicated that extensive
source separation could actually improve the weste received
at the facility by pulling out a large percentage of the
inorganic materials. The facility has begun operation, but has
not, to date, met the performance requirements. Problems
include removing 5 perceM of the recyclables, and meeting
Oregon's Department of Ecology compost qualily
requiremeMs. Reidel reprasentatives indicated tl�at the
problem may be ralated to the waste atream composition.
Reidel has agreemeMs with compost users, who will be given
the compost free for the first three years of production. Later,
Reidel hopes to sell k for a profit.
Division identif'ied tl�ree potential areas where the vendor could
site the facility. These areas, and the projected annual tonnage capacity (maximum), are as follows: Northeast Lake Washington,
550,000 tons; South Green River Valley, 350,000 tons; and Middle Snoqualamie Valley, 175,000 tons. The King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan identifies these areas as the planned locarions of future transfer statlons. The Solid
Waste Division's current strategy is to allow mixed waste processing vendors to bid on any one, or all three, of the areas ldentifled.
To ensure that the proposed facility was compatible with the overall solid waste management system, the Solld Waste Divislon
imposed certain constraints on a mixed waste processing faciliry constructed In King County. Under these constraints, an interested
vendor would be requireci to:
• Finance and implement the facility siting effork
• Accept the rlsk of not covering the fixed faciliry cost, since the County will not provide any guaranteed tonnage levels.
D. P'ropased System
�ppendix H.• Mix+� i�aste Pfrocessing Fa�sibilft�' Anal.ys�is
�
H-8
125,000 Urban Residential Single Family Households
(Based on Economic Model)
i00%
90�
80�
70%
60�
50�
40�
30�
Percent
Recovered
86.0%
35.4� Mixed 1Nas1e Procesaing
' for Recyclables'and
Recovery of Gompostablas
50.6%
21,$% Source $eparated Lawn and Gerden Waste
Collectan and ReCOVery (bi-Weekly)
20% 18.4ti Sourca Separated Aecyclables
Coqeciion end Recovery (Weekly)
10�
n.9� 9.4% Privale Drop-box/Buy-Back Syatem
07 —
$0 $5 $10 $15 �20 $25 �30 $35 $40 $45 �50 $55 $60
Disposal Costs
($ per ton)
Figure H.2 Effect of disposal oost on recovery methods and total recovery rate.
• Identify a marketable end-product manufactured from waste which has 65 percent of the recyclable materials removed.
• Produce an end-product with a consistent quality from a waste stream whose compasition is not guarantced.
• Allow the County to control the cashler booths of an otheiwise privately owned and operated faciliry.
1. "Make or Break" Constraints
In March of 1991 the Solid Waste Division hired a technical consultant w provide assistance in developing the project RFP.
After reviewing the project oonstraints, the consultant identified three Solid Waste Division policies that would seriously hinder vendors'
abiliry to submit a qualiry proposal for the construction of a mixed waste processing faciliry. The three constraints identified are as
follows:
• No tonnage guarantces.
• No guarantees on anticipated waste composition.
• Vendor responsibility for siang facility.
Appertdix H.• Mi�ed [�aste P►ticessing Fer�sibility Analysis D. P►opased System
ri:}iiiii}iiiiiiiii:Y..i:::ii:}iiii:i:•r.i::{•::: w ::::::::::::::::.v:
......� .. :::::::::: :...v::::::: ��v:.::.v:.v::{::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::::::::::.:r::.�.:� i:::i::•::•:•i::r:::.::•:�i::•�i�i:: i�:i'/.:::x::r.m•llv :::: .:.vv.�v
iL:•:•:::::.v v: ••:::: ........ • .r....... ... " ... :.. . . } ........... ...{.... }.......f.
... . . �.......
.......... A...vv...: v: :.: : rt::::: w::: :w:i:ii::: w::: �::.:iLiiiiY•i:?�}ii}i}:i.}i:::i'4}iii�:C:L: ::::::::::.:::: :v::::::::::::::::._::::.�.�:::.�::::::.:?......... ....... .... ................. . .........
:: }:::. •.
n.....�........ �....... r .....:. ............................ . xx:m::::: xv.::::. �::rv::: xx::: .....\'6}; :.r.w::x
:•iYr}: w::: }::.
H-
9
�
�
u
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
Potential vendors would incur significant costs merely to submit a proposaL Additionally, it would be very difflcult to
compare vendor proposals for facilities with different tonnage processing capacity; different assumptions for waste stream oompositton,
and different faciltty sites.
According to the consultant issuing an RFP under these constraints would be risky. Vendors may perceive the ". .. Counry as
being on a"flshing expedition" and not being serious about the project." Additionally, the consultant indicated that Lssuing an RFP
under the constralnts sited above could create ". .. ill will among potential vendors (some of whom may be exlsting haulers and
recyclers) by asking them to spend significant amounts of money to propose on a projed that may not actually be implemented."
Ultirnately, they recommended that the County not issue an RFP unless these wnstraints could be modified.
2. Fewer Constraints Placed on Other U.S. Mixed Waste Proce�ing Facilities
King Counry authorized a privately owned mixed waste processing faciliry. Wtule ttvs is similar to some U.S. facilities, others
are both owned and operated by the Counry or owned by the Counry but operated privately. 'I�vo rypical characterisaa of private
vendor contracts include guarantees on the amount of tonnage the facility will receive and information or guarantees on the waste
stream wmposition. Tonnage guarantees can be provided either through legislated flow control, legally binding haulers to take their
waste to specified facilities, or through put or pay agreements, guaranteeing vendors a pre-set tonnage leveL Generally, private
vendors rely on some kind of tonnage guarantees to ensure that they can at least cover their fixed facility cost Information on the
reference waste stream composition is aLso important, assuring vendors that suff'icient processable material exists in the waste stream.
Again, this is crittcal to vendors' assessment of the risk involved in constivcting such a facllity.
To compare the constraints placed on other U.S. facilities, the Solid Waste Division staff informally suNeyed six operating
facilities and two Northwest facilities under development The purpose of this survey was to determine simllarides and differences
between the facility slze, contractual arrangements, products, amount of source separation, and residual. Solid Waste Division staff
aLso identified whether these contracts included "put or pay" agreements and if the area was pursuing source separation in
combination with mixed waste processing. The following chart illustrates the information obtained.
Table H.i Survey of Eight U.S. Mixed Waste Compost Facilities
Annual Tons Source Residwl
Location Processed Product Tonnage Guaranteea Separation Landfilled
Dade Courriy, Florida 249,600 Compost Yes - Put or Pay Yes - 12% 3096
Whatcom County, Washington 80,300 Compost, RDF, Recyclables Yes - Fiow Control Yas - 25% 1096
Portland-Metro, Oregon 450,000 RDF, Compost Yes - Put or Pay Yes - 32% 35%
and Flow CoMrol
St. Cloud, Minnesota 36,500 Compost Yes - Put or Pay Yes - 25% 3096
Fillmore, Minnesota 2,400 RDF, Compost Receives 10096 waste Yes - 25% 4096
in county
Pennington, Minnesota 10,000 Compost Receives 10096 waste Yes -< 1% 15%
in county
Delaware Reclamation Project 220,000 RDF, Compost, Recyclables Yes - Flow Control Yes -< 1% 35%
Portage, Wisconsin 10,000 Compost Receives 10096 waste Yes - 25% 15%
in county
D. Proposed System �bend[z H.• Mi�d Wi�ste Aor�sir�g Falsibility Ar�all}�sis
v:.f
H-1
0
3. Communities Sutveyed Combine Processing with Source Separation
All of the areas surveyed combine source separaration with mixed waste processing, recycling up to 25 peccent of their waste
saeam. All eight areas suNeyed have or plan to implement curbside recycling. Several indicated that they were increasing thelr
emphasis on source separation and planned to meet state recycling goaJs aimed a2 reducing the waste stream 30 to SO percent
thmugh source separation. Of the eight facilities su�eyed, local governments owned three. Only one of the facilities was county
owned and operated. All of the facilities have tonnage guarantees, including the five privately owned facilities. This was achieved
either through "put or pay" agreements and/or legislation regulating the flow of solid waste going to the facility. Three of the
facilities received 100 percent of the waste generated by the area they se�ved. These facilities generally exported the residual waste to
out-of-state landf'ills. Residuals ranged from 10 percent to 40 percent of the incoming waste. Facilities achleving lower resldual ra�es
combined incineration with wmposting.
4. Land�'ill Capa,city Represen�s Key Difference
A major difference betr�en the areas sun+eyed and King Counry was the available landfill capacity. Representatives from each
area indicated that these facilities were constructed in response to rapidly decluung landf'ill capacity. Most facilities in Minnesota had
no local landf'ills open, relying completely on the MWPF to handle the majority of their solid waste disposal requirements, exportinng
the residual waste to out-of-state landfills. In Minnesota, the shallow depth of the water table prevents landfill expansion within the
state. In contrast, King County is not faced with the same landflll or geological constra.ints as Minnesota.
E. ALTERNATIVES
Guaranteeing vendors waste tonnage, identifying and/or guaranteeing the anticipated waste stream composlaon, and assisting
the vendor in sitinng the facility would greatly inaease vendor response to a project RFP. In fact, the County's consultant indicated
that it is the combination of these constraints that renders the RFP infeasible. However, from the County's perspective there are risks
related to each of these scenarios, individually as well as combined.
1. Providing Tonna.ge Guarantees
Providing tonnage guarantces either through "put or pay" agreements (ie., the Counry either provides the vendor an agreed-
on tonnage or pays the vendor for tonnage not delivered) or internal flow control (where regulations require certain haulers to use
the facility) is standard in simllar facilities around the country. Guaranteed delivery of wnsistent amounts of solid waste Is essential
to support financing of a recycling and oompostinng facility. Tonnage guarantees allow the vendor to ensure coverage of the facility's
fixed costs. Although King County has no formal system for controlling the flow of solid waste within the County, the Solid Waste
Division can provlde information on the pro�ected waste tonnages for each of the slt�s identified for the projed. Despite these
estimated tonnages, providing a"put or pay" clause is risky without a system for designating waste flow. In fact, the County could
incur significant costs if they had to pay for tonnage that was not delivered. On the other hand, if a"put or pay" requIrement was
not met, the Solid Waste Division could re-route waste delivered from another transfer station to the MWPF.
Ordinance 8771 states that the facility would be "designated" a portion of the County's waste stream. Addltlonally, the Solld
Waste Divlsion stated that it will not build any competing facillties ln the area where the MWPF ls wnstructed. The County could
choose to provide a put or pay clause and initiate legislation to control the flow of commercial and residential solld waste. This
would ensure that the vendor receive the contrachially guaranteed amount of tonnage. However, this wuld place a heavy monitoring
Appertd'cr H.• Mix�d l�a,ste Processing Fa�slbility Analysis B. Alterrratftrs
�
�
�
�
�
.„,:
:•:•:4� 'a'r
�:�ih'f.�<�i}:;�i:�iti�}:..h. .i�'M1M1 e�'.�v{?v
............................. . ..... ................................................ ... ................................ ............. ... ... ..................rr:::::.:
:�i:2�i:�i:�i}i:?�iiii'r:ii:�iii:�i:�::�i:ii::'.::::i� :�:�i'ri:•'.�i:�ii'r:�iiiiiii:�:`v>:�i:�i:t�iiiiii:•::i:�i:'+.'4i:i�ii�j:i:�i:?�i:�i::<�i:�:ti:j:ti::iiiii:ii'�j'�i$+ii:�:•'.� . >'ti�
4i'w::::::.�::::::::::: v.::� vi :};; .,-:.,-; . ..
..: }::: n:::: �:::::::::: �•.:: � �::+.'::..•.:• ;n• �.� . r
:......................................: :.:'.:......................................:............: v ............................................ ::. y .......... y ::.....,
taM • /�.r .
. r}.....v . rA�
. .... . .... .... k . ..
::: :w: :•.�.�:: ;:::niii:?i^iiriiiiiiiii::ir'•ii::::i:i4}iii:ii:ii:v:}i:bi::�i::•:}iiiriii:?•iiiii•i:iiii:4i:X:�}:ii:ii::i•:iiiiiiiiiiiiii:Y. : : •:x
� :%{::�.
::::::::::::::::.::::.......................n....... n...... . . ............. ............ ....... :: :: wn: :;N•.:......
i:iiF �'��� 4'f.
.::,.::.:::.::<:::>:<:::::>r:::>.<:::::;�;;.<::>:<::::::<::>::<:<:::::::::>.:::>::<:;>:.::: � N.:<.�.:f.::,�.:«:::....:n........ H 11 �.::f�
<:«:<.<<::::::::.:<.::«... :�.�,.:
.........................................,................................:::f:::... .....r,...
�
• burden on the County, ln additlon to the papenvork involved in legislating where county cltizens and haulers are atlovwed to dtspose
of their waste. Another option would be to provide a minimum or maximum put or pay clause repressentlng a fradion of the total
� waste anticipated at the facillty site. This would minlmize the risk to the County. If ai some polnt there was insu�cient tonnage to
cover the agreement, as dlscussed above, the Counry could have the waste from a transfer station routed to the MWPF rather than to
� Cedar Hills.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Z. Providing Information/Guarant�ees on Waste Stream Composition
Although the Solid Waste Division ls directed to "designate" a portion of the waste stream to the proposed faciliry, it ls di�cult
to measure the impact of source separation on that portioa If signlficant amounLs of recyclables have been removed from the
County's designated portion, the remaining waste may not be of the composition necessary to produce a quality end-produd
According to the Counry's technical consultant, vendors would ha�e a difficult time proposing on an RFP that could not provide
information on the anticipated composition of the waste stream brought into the facility. Through the waste monitoring prograrn,
King County has current information on the composition of its municipal solid waste steam. However, given the County's main
emphasLs on "extensive source separatlon," the current data on the Counry's waste composition could be obsolete wlthin a few yea�s.
A review of the current waste saeam composition indicates that up to 21 percent of the organlc waste would probably not be
recovered through source-separation efforls. Material contributing to this figure includes textiles, food wastes, dlsposable diapers,
tissue, paper towels, furniture, mattresses, and miscellaneous organic material However, it would be difficult for the Counry to
guarantee that the vendor would receive a sufficient percentage of these organic materials in the waste receiv�ially if there are
no guarantees of tonnage to begin with Vendors would be accepting a double risk, with no surery of ineeting thelr flxed oosLs
through put or pay and no guarantces regarding the oomposition of the waste that is delivered to their facility.
3. Siting the Fa,ciliry
The tturd "make or break" constraint involves vendor responsibility for siting the faciliry. The process of siting any waste
management facility in Washington State is both costly and time consuming, with no guarantee of success. Solid Waste Divislon staff
rypically anticipate that a successful siting effort will take approximately two to five years. A vendor bidding on this wntracx must
incur the up-front slting oost, recog�iizing that the facility may never be successfully sited.
According to the consultant, placing the siting responsibillty on the vendor may serve to dlscourage many potentlal vendors
from submitting a bid. Consequently, the Counry may miss out on certain technologies offered by vendors unwilling to take on the
siting process. Most other mixed waste pmcessing RFP's have an identified site pmvided by the County. In King County, the Solid
Waste Division oould evaluate tliree potential sites as required by the State Environmental Policy Act, and then narrow the selection,
requesting vendors to submit proposals on a single "preferred site." Although the vendor is still responsible for wmpleting the sidng
requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act process, identifying a"preferred" site clarifies the land use lssues and removes
some of the uncertainry and risk. Though it dces not guarantee a successful siting, the chances of the proiect succ�eding would be
gready increased.
It would be difficult for the County to assume the responsibility of siting and permitting the facility for the vendor. Although
the Counry would be responsible for siting a transfer staaon bullt on one of the three sit�s, the County ls not suffidently
knowledgeable of speciflc requlrements a selected MWPF might have, such as facility oonfigurations and geotecluiical requlrements. If
the Counry did site the facillty, it takes a risk that the properry it sites might ultimately be unsuitable. Consequently, the Counry has
levied this responsibility onto the vendor. Additionally, it would be difficult for the County to asslst the vendor in the sitinng processs
since the vendor actually has more frcedom to negotiate wlth host communities and smooth potential facility sidng problems.
E. Alternatit�es Append'tx K Mixad Waste Pra�sing Faasibflity An�lysis
n
U
:::< H - 12 `:::
F. PROPOSED SYSTEM VS. ALTERNATIVES
Changes in county pollcy related to the "make or break" constralnts would allow the County to issue a more feasible RFP.
Potentially, changing one of the constraints listed above would create an environment in which a realistic proposal could be
submitted and lmplemented. The following para,graphs evaluate the key changes in current policy recommended by the consultant
Additionally, it evaluates the advantages and disadvantages to constructing an MWPF given the Counry's current waste management
system.
1. Key Policy Changes
According to the Solid Waste Division's technical consultant, under the current policy constralnis the risk is too heavlly
weighted toward the vendor. In order to issue a viable and reasonable RFP the County needs to provide some kind of support for a
minimum tonnage received at the facillty. With a put or pay clause, vendors could probably accept the risk involved with siting the
facility and utilizuig the current waste stream oomposition information. Providing some type of tonnage guarantee appears to be a
critical factor in oon� of this type, mainly because of the risky nature of the venture. It allows the vendor to ensure that fixed
facillty costs will be covered and aLso assists the vendor in assessing the other financial dsks such as siting the facility and receiving
a post-source-separated waste stream.
It would be difficult for the Solid Waste Division to provide the vendor with a site, and current policy does not include County
agreement with a put or pay clause. Although the Division could provide waste stream composition information on the current waste
stream, it is aLso not in a position to guarantse the composition of the future waste stream when county recycling programs are fully
instituted. Only SO percent of the suburban cities have implemented curbside collection, and the County just recently implemented
curbside collection for unincorporated areas in the County. Additionally, planned programs for collecting recyclables from the
nonresidential sector have not yet been implemented. Once these planned programs are operating, King County expects signiificant
changes in waste stream composition. It would be very difficult to estimate the specific effect these changes would have on the
organic and inorganic waste stream compositioa
2. Advanta.ges to the County's Current System
The major advantage of King Counry's current solid waste management system is that the County is not under any pressure to
implement both source separation and mixed waste processing�wo potentially conflicting methods of recycling solld waste. Because
Cedar Hills Landf'ill has significant remaiNng capaciry, King County can fully implement, monitor, and evaluate the success of
extensive source separa�on before committing to an MWPF that could potentially compete with source-separation effort�. Although
King County's solid waste management system focusess on extensive source-separation efforts, the current estunated recycling rate of 32
to 34 percent has been achieved with few of the planned programs fully implemented. Until the County has lmplemented the
majority of planned recycling programs, the success of extensive source separation cannot be fairly evaluated.
3. Construction of a Mixed Waste Processing Facility
Could Inhibit Source-separation Success
Construction of an 1VIWPF prior to the full implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs could lnhibit the
County's abiliry to monitor the success of its programmatic efforrs, and possibly undermine efforts to modify individual behavioc In
1988, the Solid Waste Division Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement for Solld Waste Management Alternatives stated
Appendir H.• Mia�d Waste Prna�sseng Fer�sfbrllty Analysis F. Anpas�d System us. Alternati�s
�
�
�
•
•
H - 13 '����
:Y>.���:
.,<..
'i.•i.'•:t�i..
�
• that ". .. delaying the oonstruction of large processing facilities, including mixed waste processing facllihes, vwould allow d�e County
to monitor the effectiveness of waste redudion and recycling prograrns that require less land and have lower potentizal for
� environmental impacts before deciding that a large processing facility is needed." Addltionally, facilities designed and wnstructed
before source-s�aration prograrns have been lmplemented are especially vulnerable to adverse effects of source separatioa Thls is
� due to the Fact that source separation potentially reduces the amount of material available for processing lnto wmpost, lmpacting on
• the facili�es profit margin and ability to meet their fixed costs.
King County is under no speclfic or exa�eme time constraints to reduce the landf'illed waste. Although current estimates of
+ Cedar Hills expected life assume that the County wlll meet its 65 percent goal, Solid Waste Division staff estimate that even �f the
County can only mainta[n the present level of recycling (32 to 34 percent) Cedar Hills would have an estimated capactty of 20 �ais.
� Other counties that have implemented miaced waste processing have not had the luxury of long-term landfill capaclty. In effect, King
County has sufficient ti�ne to fully lmplement, monitor, and evaluate the success of programmatic waste reduction and recycling
� effor� before any alternatives nced to be wnsidered.
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4. Mixed Waste Processing Has �.iture Potential
Ultimately, mixed waste proces.sing could be used as a secondary waste treatment after extensive source separation has
occurred. M economic study in "Best Management Practices" found that mixed waste can be processed into compost eoonomlcally,
even after over 50 percent of the recyclables have been removed from the waste stream. However, individual attitudes nced to be
taken into accounk Removing 65 percent of the recyclables through source separatton will require extensive "rehaining" of county
citizens. Construction of an MWPF prior to implementing and promoting all possible source-separation efforts might undermine the
County's potential w acxually remove 65 percent of the recyclables through source separatioa Additionally, after the recycling
programs have been fully implemented and evaluated the Counry will have the necessary information on the compc�sition of the post-
source-s�arated waste stream and vendors can determine if they can process the waste remaining into a marketable end-produd.
Given the problems associated with mixed waste composting, delaying efforts to initiate mixed waste processing in King Counry
would provlde time to evaluate other communities success in combining mixed waste proccessssing with source separatioa The delay
will provide tirne for improvements in mixed waste processing technology, and the development of solid markets for the resulang end-
products. Given the landf'ill capacity available to King County, the Solid Waste Division is in a unique position to fully implement
and evaluate the success of waste reduction and recycling pmgrams without committing to the construdion of an MWPF.
5. Disadvantages to the Curnent System
The main disadvantage in delaying the construction of an MWPF is that the County will remove a potentially effective
recycling alternative from consideration for a period of time. Delay in issuing the RFP would focus all of the County's effor� on
source separation as the sole means of reaching its 65 percent recycling goal. However, it will also el'uninate a recycling alternative
that could either further increase recycling beyond 65 percent or contribute to whatsver source-separated recycling rate Ls achieved if
King County dces not meet its 65 percent goal. Although Solid Waste Division staff would argue that an MWPF wuld just as easlly
undermine the County's ability to succe.ssfully meet lts source-separation goals, by not reachuig those goals and delaying an MWPF,
the Counry may be criticized for essentially landfilling waste that could be recycled through mixed waste processing. At a later date,
some critia might question the reason for delaying the construction of a faciliry that could make a significant contrlbutlon toward
reducing the amount of waste landf'illed.
F. P,+opa�d sytem us. A[rernatiues
Append'tx K Mered l�aste Proc�ssfng Fer�srbilfly Afral,�srs
�
H-14
G. CONCLUSIONS
Although County legislation authorizes the construction of an MWPF, the decision to do so may conflid with the County's
choice of programmatic over facility approaches w waste reduction and recycling. King County dces not nced to bulld an MWPF
itself to evaluate the long-term costs, benefits, and risks associated with mixed waste processing, since numerous communities in the
United States are wmbicung these two strategies. Although a facility constructed prior to the year 2000 might wntribute to the
successful recycling of 65 percent of the County's waste stream, delaying the decision to build an MWPF will not sigNficantly lmpact
the Solid Waste Division's ability to fulfill its mission and succ.essfully dispose of the County's municipal solid waste in a safe and
effective manner. If source separation ls successful, the Counry may be able to avoid negative reactions related to the "Not in my
Backyard" aspect of constructing and operating an M�APF.
1. King County Needs to �lly Implement Programmatic WR/R Choices
King County's waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) goal is one of the most aggressive goals in the United States. Until
waste reduction and recycling programs have been fully implemented it is impossible to determine the success of programmatic
strategies. In 1995, King Counry plans to have all residential recycling programs implemented and be recycling SO percent of the
waste stream. By the year 2000, the Counry will have implemented additional nonresidential programs and plans to be recycling 65
percent of the waste stream ttunugh source separation alone. Premature construction of an MWPF might undermine sou�e-
separation efforts. Additionally, experts have indicated that changes in waste oomposition after MWPFs are oonstructed may
significandy impact the end-products' wnsistency and quality. Since the composition of the waste stream used to develop the
compost is critical in determining its quality and marketabiliry, it makes sense to ensure that waste composition information provided
to prospective vendors be as accurate as possible. After King County has implemented all waste reduction and recycling programs, It
will also be in a better position to provide accurate waste composition information to a prospective vendor.
2. King County Can Evaluate Mixed Waste Processing
Success in Other Communities
Many U.S. wmmunities, faced with extreme landfill shortages, have accepted the risk of constructing an NIWPF In
combination with implementing source-separation programs. Over the next few years, these communities can provide King Counry
with critical information about the success of MWPFs in combination with source separahoa Delay in issuing the RFP would allow
the County time to evaluate the success of these communities' effor� to combine an M�APF with source-separatton prograrns, and the
success of mixed waste processing in general. The uncertainty surrounding the quality and marketability of mixed solld waste
compost indicates that a signi�icant percentage of the compost might ultimately be landfilled. The numerous questions surrounding
the quality and marketabiliry of mixed waste compost makes it difficult at this time to determine the true effediveness of such a
faciliry.
3. Reconsid�eration of Key Constraint� Important
Reconsideration of "make or break" wnstraints appears critical to issuing a viable RFP. However, if issuance of the RFP is
delayed, advances in technology may preclude the need for changing these constraints. At this tlme [1991], the key constralnts
impacting the development of a viable RFP involve the decLsion not to provide put or pay, the lack of a reference waste stream and
the stipulation that the vendor take full responsibility for the faciliry siting. �c�ording to the County's techNcal oonsultant, the
App�end'tx H.• Mxred Waste Processing Feasibrllty Analysis C. Conclus�mas
i•
................ .................................................. ................................ ....::..::::::::::::::::: ::.:::::::..:.::::: :.:::::.�::::::::::::::::: :.::::::::::::::::::.::.:.:::.:.::::::::::::::::.: ...::.:,.::
::.�. f
:..}.
.................................................................... ........ ....................... ...
:%��i•,`•;r::i%:�::%<:>: , t
...{{ �'<4' �� 3..
�• r
7..'•;: �:'u'•,i{i:3Yti:�:�i'•: _
�..{.tiY%+ti
..{
H 1
5
...:�:.
:..:.�.:
..... ............................ ... .....
�
:::>:::::::::<:::>�:�:;>;>'�::�:::::::�:<:�>::�:::::::>::<;<:�:��:;::::<:<:�::::�:< :::::::::::::::::<:::::::,::>:��:�:<r���<<::::>:;::::<::::>:::::::::�<:::;:::>:::::::::�:�::<:::�:�:::::::::�:>::>:>:::::::>:::::<:::::<:�:�;<�:
::.:}.N: .,; ,:: <
......:.� :: :...:................. ..........::::
.::.: :.:::::::.::::.::.::.:;.:<;.:::;;.::.;: ::v::.:::.:.:
...........................::.:.: ..;� .
::::::::.�._:::::::::.� :.::...:..: .. �:.....
. . ................::�:�:........... ::..�::::.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
,
�
�
�
r�
L
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
w
•
•
•
�
•
current combination of these three constraints places such a heavy risk on the vendor that the County wlll be perceived as not
seriously supporting the pmject. Discussions with the technical wnsultant have indicated that if the County wuld provlde some rype
of tonnage guarantees, elther through a put or pay clause, or internal flow control legislation, vendors would probably be willing to
take on the siting and waste composi�on risks.
H. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is likely that a great deal of controversy would surround a decision to consavct an MV�PF. Addltionally, the uncertain�es
in composting technology and the limited information on the long-term impact of MWPFs on programs emphasizing extensive source
separation makes the decision to move ahead with construction of an MWPF a risky choice. While King County may be aiflcized for
delaying the RFP for a processing facility and delaying consideration of a potenrially effective recycling option, the risk associated with
mixed waste processing as a recycling solution is greai enough to justify a cautious approach. As a result of this anatysis, it is
recommended that the King County Solid Waste Division:
• Delay issuing an RFP for a MV�PF un�l 1995.
• Monitor the success of other efforts to oombine mixed waste processing with extensive source separation.
• Reevaluate the success of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts in 1995 to determine if a mixed waste processing
facility is needed to meet King County recycling and waste reduction goals.
Delaying the issuance of the RFP will allow the Solid Waste Division time to fully implement the County's residenti�al recycling
programs and reevaluate the succcesss of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts and compare their success to areas where
a mixed waste processsing facility contributes to the recycling rate achieved.
Solid Waste Division staff further reoommend that if, and when, a decision to Lssue an RFP for an MWPF Ls made, the key
policies impacting on a mixed waste processing faciliry be reassessed. Potentially, King County could provide tonnage guarantees
representing a fraction of the anticipated wuntywide waste stream. This would minimize risks to the County whlle ensuring iL�
support of the facility's success. Additionally, the Division should reconsider the policies on siting and waste compositioa In 1995,
the Solid Waste Division expects to be recycling SO percent of the total waste stream. The composition of the waste stream at this
time would pmvide a reasonable reference for vendors to use and could be included in the RFP. County asslstance in narrowing the
specif'ic location of the facility may aJso be considered.
Although numerous cities and counties throughout the United States are turning to mixed waste processing as a soluaon w
their waste recycling requirements, these communities' ability to successfully combine mixed waste processing with source separarion
remains to be seen. Once eactensive source separation is fully implemented, mixed waste pmcessing could further reduce the amount
of waste that must be landf'illed. Over the next few years mixed waste processing technologies will contlnue to advance and more
markets for the processed product should exist Additionally, suff'icient time will have passed for the County to evaluate the long-term
success of mixed waste processing, combined with source separation in other U.S. communities. In the interim, the County can focus
full attention on changing individual behavior and reducing and recycling 65 percent of the waste stream by separating recyclables at
their source.
H. Re�ommertdations App�endix H.• Mi�ed Waste Proce�sritg Fer�sibility Attalysis
�
• i::%?:iiiiRti�.`•:tii'j :{ ::} : i>.{�:`?":ti�iii'ti�i.'•ii:C'.�iiiii$iii>i::i};•i''i}?'j'i'�'iry' : i', > . ' v:iiii}iiiiiii':`ii i i : iii:viii:�f)i.'•.'•:•'i�•�^3ii'>.i:iiiii::Yi��'r'?�'�i:�iiiiii:iS�i?}}:i�':�:�:�:�: ' v::�:�: 5 '' : i$' > . : i'�. ' •:�i'r?iiii:�Y�k > �'�:�'�:�i±% �'rii::i�i%<�i:
H-1
6
I. REFERENCES
IPrinen sources
Biocycle, June 1990, European Models for Organic Waste Composting, Page 31
Biocycle, August 1990, MSW Compost Standards In The European Community, Page 60
Bi�xyc%, July 1990, Composting Record Diagnosis and Prognosis, Page 64
Bfocycle, December 1990, Positive Climate for Project Development, Page 48
Biocycle, August 1990, Expanding Compost Markets, Page 54
Biocycle, December 1990, Minnesota Facilities Meet MSW Composting Challenges
Environmental Action Foundation, Solid Waste Action Paper #4, MSW Composting: WhaYs In the Mix?
King Counry Solid Waste Division, Adopted 1989 Comprehenssive Solyd i�aste Managemerat Plan.
King Coundy l�aste Characterizatiort Study, SCS Engineers, August, 1991.
King County Solyd l�aste Management Alternatrries, Executive Report, October 1988.
King Counry Solid Waste Division, Programmatic Firtal Environmental Impact Stutemerat, Solul [�aste Management Alternatives,
Volume 1, September 1988.
Metropolitan Service Disaict of Portland, Oregoa Request for Qualifications/Information for Mixed Waste Composting Facility, Ma�h,
1986.
Metropolitan Service Distrid of Portland, Oregoa Mass Composting Facility Secvice Agreement, July, 1989.
Washington Departrnent of Ecology, Best Management Praclices Analysis for Solut l�nste, Statewide Findings and
Recommendations, Volume III, January 1989.
Washington State Department of Ecology, l�ashington State Draft Solyd l�aste Management Plan, November 1990.
Interu�ew Sources:
Terrill Chang, Camp Drressser and McKee, Environmenta( Consultants, (313) 963-1313.
John Chorlog, Dade County Solid Waste Division, Solid Waste Engineering, (305) 592
Lisa Meucci, Recomp Mixed Waste Processing Facility, Bellingham, Washington, (206) 676-0120.
Steve Clayton, Waste Redudion and Recycling, Metropolitan Service District, Portland Oregon, (503) 221-1646.
jerry johnson, Tri-County Solid Waste Management, St Cloud, Minnesota, (612) 255-6140.
Rick Nordhagen, Pennington Counry, Minnesota, (218) 681-2407.
John Lyman, Delaware Solid Waste Authoriry, Delaware, (302) 5773457.
Herb Jones, Solid Waste Division, Portage Wisconsin, (608) 7423445.
Steve Diddy, Washington State Departrnent of Eoology Compost Program, (206) 438-7877.
Rick Hlavka, SCS Engineers, Seattle, Washington, (206) 855-5800.
Sam Chandler, Metropolitan Se�vice Area of Portland Oregon, (2Q6) 221-1646.
Appendix fL• Mf�d t�aste Pbr,e�sing Fer�sibility Analystis 1. R�'e►�encss �
�
�
p
�
APPENDIX I
DFILL
King County
Com rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
RESERVE FUND
_���,
�i►�
Sorting
It Out
Together
•
APPENDIX I
DFILL
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
RESERVE FUND
,��,,
�i..
Sorting
It Out
Together
:::•! iiii? nii:: � 5::.: i:'v': : '•i:
:.:+lfn'•i
�i\•i: r:i. i:iv'.: r v.
r?>
I-
1
Table I.1 Landfill Resecr�e Fund Contribudon
Cedar Hilis Accoums
New Area Development
Faciliiy Relxation
Closure
Post-Closure Maintenance
ReplacemeM Landfili DevelopmeM
Rural Lendflll AccouMs
Vashon New Area Development
Enumclaw Closure
Hobart Closure
Vashon Closure
Vashon Post-Closure Maintenance
Landfill Reserve Fund Charpe
$3.19
$0.60
$5.33
$129
$227
s, z.sa
$0.07
$0.69
$1.51
$0.25
$0.13
t2.65
s� s.�
This is e calculation of the LRF coMribution using
revised tonnage and expendkure forecasts.
Apperulir L• landfill Resenae Fund
�
I-2
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... �
�
�
�
�
Table IZ Long-ranae Disposal Forecast •
�
Cedar Hills Rural Total System •
L.andfill L.andiills Disposal
1992 901,700 23,150 924,850 •
1993 888,650 17,700 906,350
1994 876,515 4,580 881,095 •
1995 844,211 4,492 848,703
1996 840�366 4,480 844,846 •
1997 833,249 4,458 837,707
1998 822,493 4,427 826,919 •
1999 807,701 4,383 812,084
2000 788,442 4,327 792,769 •
2001 831,272 4,445 835,716
2002 876,428 4,565 880,993 •
2003 924,037 4,689 928,726
2004 974,232 4,817 979,049 •
2005 1,027,155 4,948 1,032,102
2006 1,082,951 5,082 1,088,033 •
2007 1,141,779 5,220 1,146.999
2008 1,203,803 5,362 1,209,165 •
2009 1,269,196 5,507 1,274,703
2010 1,338,141 5,657 1,343,797 •
2011 1,410,831 5,811 1,416,641
2012 1,487,470 5.968 1,493,438 •
2013 1,568,272 6,130 1,574,402
2014 1,653,463 6,297 1,659,760
2015 1.743,282 6,468 1,749,750 •
2016 1,837,980 6,644 1,844,624
2017 1,937,823 6,824 1,944,647 •
2018 2,043,089 7,010 2,050,098
2019 2,154,073 7,200 2,161,273 •
2020 2.271,086 7,395 2,278,481
2021 2,394,455 7.596 2,402,052 •
2022 2,524,527 7,803 2,532,329
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
. •
Appendix /.• IundfiU Resercie Fund `
�
I-3
Table 13 Landfill Reserve Fund Account Balanoes
,Jaewr�r � ,
1992
Cedar Hills Accounts
CH New Area Developmerrt
CH Facility Relocation
CH Closure
CH Post-Closure Maintenance
ReplacemeM Landfill Development
Rurai Landflll Ac�ourrts
Vashon New Area Development
Enumclaw Closure
Hobart Closure
Vashon Closure
Cedar Falls Post-Closure Maintenence'
Duvall Post-Closure Maintenance *
Enumclaw Post-Closure Maintenance
Hobart Post-Closure Mair►tenance
Vashon Post-Closure Maintenance
Totai - All LRF AccouMs
2.218,402
2,400�902
(12,372,431)
6,808,841
9,253,905
1,317,233
426,148
(649,213)
(� �����)
3,203,441
1,592,623
4,956,257
7,092,138
1 �569,469
26,111,690
* Funds for post-closure mairrtenance at closed landfilla
will be transferred to Fund 1040 in 1992.
�ppe�ulir L• land�ll Resen� Fund
I-
4
::> w : <� �::: <: <::>:>:::::> <::»::
Table I.4 Landftll Rese�e Fund Contributlon, 1992-1994 (updated March 1992)
Total Landfill
Reserve Fund
revenue
3.00%
real irnerest
rate in 1992$ _
expenditures
( 1992$ )
balance
4.58
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
$13,549,053
$13.278,028
$12,908,048
$11,873,355
$10,602,814
$10,513,221
$10,377,836
$10,191,657
$9,949,255
$10,488,241
$11,056,466
$11,655,517
$12,287,067
$12,952,881
$13,654,818
$14,394,840
$15,175,015
$15,997,521
$16,864,658
$� �,ns,sa8
$18,100,468
$19,081,753
$20,116,290
$21,206,971
$22,356,842
$23,569,119
$24,847,189
$26,194,626
$27,615,195
$29,112.867
$30,691,830
Average rate
t /92 - 1 y94 =
$274,270
$461,408
$744,666
$938,777
$t ,037,197
$1,038,050
$1,114,073
$990,422
$743,668
$536,819
$477,390
$655,163
$838,371
$859,040
$�i s,sn
$609,891
$797,581
$1,289,096
$1,819,465
$2,268,813
$2.547,794
$2,941,917
$3,251,319
$3,169,468
$3,160,449
$3,296,195
$3,572,355
$4,154,095
$3,682,007
$2,319,464
$18,590,880
$6,063,257
$7,119,995
$13,288,674
$11,566,785
$11, 566,785
$6,332,144
$24,708,897
$13,863,147
$21,851,644
$4,728,613
$7,086,597
$5,952,482
$19,586,262
$i 8,2n,00s
$18,277,008
$82,481
$8,243,384
$13,635,079
$2,367,860
$22,087,177
$31,195,479
$19,308,540
$23,888.540
$12,709,500
$6,694,413
$86,896,091
$68,032,216
$91,673,165
$15.33
$26,111,690
$21,344,133
$29,020,311
$35,553,030
$35,076,488
$35,149,714
$35.134,200
$40,293,965
$26,767,148
$23.596,923
$�2,no,�s
$19,575,582
$24.799,665
$31,972,621
$26,198,280
$22.292,068
$19,019,792
$34,992,388
$52,279,005
$70,880,647
$82,684,924
$89,698,107
$109,353,917
$110,634,349
$103,815,309
$110,024,060
$113,000.834
$128,710,879
$152,365,186
$96,766,297
$60,166,412
$75.614
Ap�D�enrla L• landfrll Resenae Fund
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
•
•
•
�
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
�
.
•
�
�
ii:S:•'•i:•i:-:-:{;xi::!:: 'iC:.
I � '<>��i(�:;
5
Table I.4 LandAll Reseive Fund Contributlon, 1992-1994 (upda�ed March 1992) (Condnue�
r 1
w
�
�
LJ
•
•
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
r Hilis Accounts
rate in 1992$ _
3.00% expendftures
revenue real irrterest ( 1992$ )
$11,209,182
$10,984,962
$10,678,877
$10,286,280
$10,239,530
$10,153,007
$10,022,261
$9,842,461
$9,608,364
$10,128,883
$10,677,639
$11,256,165
$11,866,076
$12,509,077
$13,186,964
$13,901,631
$14,655,074
$15,449,399
$16,286,825
$17,169,692
$18,100,468
$19,081,753
$20,116,290
$21,206,971
$22,356,842
$23,569,119
$24,847,189
$26,194,626
$27,615,195
$29.112,867
$30,691,830
$242,986
$408,748
$643,283
$846,707
$978,828
$967,078
$1,030,235
$893,497
$634,810
$439,840
$391,679
$573,148
$758,602
$763,906
$604,315
$480,463
$649,072
$1,120,112
$1,629,758
$2,169,343
$2,547,794
$2,941,917
$3,251,319
$3,169,468
$3,160,449
$3,296,195
$3,572,355
$4,154,095
$3,682,007
$2,319,464
$11,629,326
$6,845,700
$1,844,387
$11,566,785
$11,566,785
$6,332,144
$24,708,897
$13,774,703
$20,230,174
$4,666,752
$5,952,482
$5,952,482
$19,586,262
$18,277,008
$i s,2n,00s
$743,731
$13,635,079
$2,367,860
$22,087,177
$31,195,479
$19,308,540
$23,888,540
$12,709,500
$6,694,413
$86,896,091
$68,032,216
$91,673,165
$12.68
$12.12
balance
$8,309,620
$8,132,462
$19,526,172
$24,002.632
$33.291,232
$32,942,806
$32,496,105
$37,216,457
$23,243,518
$19,711,989
$10,050,539
$16,453,105
$22,329,937
$29.002,133
$22.685,854
$18,203,125
$14,308,211
$29,612,357
$46,181,868
$64,098,451
$82,693,756
$89,706,938
$109,362,748
$110,643,181
$103,824,140
$110,032,891
$113,009,666
$128,719,710
$152,374,018
$96,775,129
$60,175,244
�
•
•
�
�
�Aeru!#r L• land�ll R�serue Fund
:.>..;;::.: � ;:.::.;;
I-
6
Tabfe 1.4 Landfill Reserse Fund Contribudon, 1992-1994 (upda6ed March 1992) (Condnued)
Rural Landfill Accourrts
revenue
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
3.00%
real interest
rate in 1992$ _
expenditures
(1992$1
$2,165,490
$1,105,000
$274,295
$4,352,149
$88,444
$1,621,470
$si,ss�
$1,134,115
$82,481
$7,499,653
$2.46
balance
$955,612
$1,161,276
$2.402,001
$4,458,261 I
$1,785,256 i
$2.206,908 '
$2,638,095
$3,077,508
$3,523,629
$3,884�934
$2,719,800
�, � 22,an
$2,469,729
$2,970,489
$3,509,426
$4,088,943
$4,711, 581
$5,380,030
$6,097,137
$6,782,195
($8,832)
$2,339,871
$2.293,066
$2,229,171
$1,587,075
$363,284
$360,214
$355,575
$349,196
$340,891
$359,358
$378,827
$399,352
$420,991
$44.3,804
$467,854
$493,210
$519,941
$548,122
$577, 833
$609,156
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
$31,284
$52,659
$101,383
$92,069
$58,369
$70,972
$83,838
$96.925
$108,858
$96,978
$85,710
$82,015
$79,769
$95,134
$111,663
$129,428
$148,508
$168,985
$189,706
$99,470
$2.65
�pperrda L• landfrll Reserue Fund
I _ / ':;� fa
Tabie I.4 Landfill Resene Fund Contributlon, 1992-1994 (updaied March 1992) (Condnue�
CH New Area Development
rate in 1992$ _
3.00% expenditures
revenue real interest ( 1992$ )
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
$2.820.793
$2,764,368
$2,687,341
$2,588,544
$2,576,780
$2,555,006
$2.522,104
$2,476,857
$2,417.946
$2,548,935
$2,687,030
$2.832.616
$2,986,100
$3,147,911
$3,318,502
$3,498,348
$3,687,952
53,887,844
$4,098,582
$4,320,756
54,554,986
�4,801,926
55,062.268
$5,336,738
S5,626,103
�S.S31,173
$6,252,799
$6,591,882
�6,949,368
$7,326,258
$7,723,604
$88,724
$155,023
$241,449
$300,165
$185,483
($78,980)
($267,241)
($538,325)
($730,555)
($696,80�
($728,011)
($826,345)
($942,429)
($1,231,865)
($1,435,711)
($1,376,529)
($1,310,031)
($1,235,695)
($1,152,969)
($1,072,424)
($1,187,143)
($1,286,930)
($1,183,302)
($1,179,298)
($1,160,990)
($1,022,461)
($870,375)
($703,816)
($521,812)
($323,332)
($107.2841
$1,342,665
$1, 844,387
$11,566,785
$11,566,785
$5,903.144
$16,633,544
$1,255,861
$4,666,752
$5,952,482
$5,952,482
$17,592,406
�743,73i
$13,635,079
$381,798
$7.383.714
$3.05
balance
52,218,402
$3,785,253
$6,704,644
$9,633,434
$10,677,757
$1,873,234
($7,217,525)
($10,865,806)
($25,560,818)
($23,873.42�
($23,277,160)
($25,984.893)
($29�931,104)
($33,839,915)
($49.516,274)
($47,633�483)
($45,511,665) I
(�43,133, 744) �.
($40,481,594)
($37,535,981)
($35,031,380)
($45,298,616)
($41,783,620)
($38,286,451)
($41,512,726)
($37,047,613)
($32,138,901)
($26,756,47�
($20,868,411)
($14,440,855)
($7,437,928)
$3.19
Appe�utfr I.• IandfrU R�e Fund
I-
8
TaMe I.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribudon, 1992-1994 (updabed Match 1992) (Continued)
CH Facility
Relocation
revenue
rate in 1992$ _
3.00% expenditures
real iMerest ( 1992$)
$0.57
balance
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
$527,165
$516,620
$502,224
$483,761
$481,562
$477,493
$471,344
$462,888
$451,879
$476,358
$502,166
$529,374
$558,058
$588,298
$620,179
$653,790
$689,224
$726,581
$765,965
$807,486
$851,260
$897,409
$946,063
$997,358
$1,051,436
$1,108,449
$1,168,556
$1,231,925
$1,298,734
$1,369,170
$1.443.428
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
$79,935
$97,989
$13,526
($73,964)
($61, 703)
($49,168)
($42,846)
($135,732)
($230,674)
($312.488)
($390,590)
��
($382.128)
($376,396)
($369,561)
($361.538)
($352.239)
($341,569)
($329,428)
($315,709)
($300,300)
($283,078)
($263, 919)
($242,685)
($219,234)
($193,412)
($165,060)
($134,004)
($100,064)
($63,048)
$6,845,700
$429,000
$6,612,000
$360,750
$5,560,360
$0.60
$2.400,902
$3,008,001
$3,622,610
($2,707,339)
($2,297,542}
($1,877,683)
($1 �449,358)
($1,449,860)
($7,734,704)
($7,874,250)
($13,270,739)
($13,159,163)
($13,016,623)
($12,840,693)
($12,628,791)
($12,378,173)
($12.085,922)
($11,748,93�
($11,363,926)
($10,927,390)
($10,435,614)
($9,884,653)
($9,270.323)
($8,588,178)
�$�����)
($7�001,304)
($6,086,26�
($5,082,771)
($3�984,850)
($2.786.180)
($1,480,058)
($59.3811
A��Oerulir L� �andfill Resenae Fund
I-
9
Table I.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contributlon, 1992-1994 (updated March 1992) (Conanue�
CH Closure
rate in 1992$ _
3.00% expenditures
revenue real imerest ( 1992$1
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
t /92 - 12/94 =
$4,716,735
$4,622,385
$4,493,587
$4,328,385
$4,308,713
$4,272,305
$4,217,288
$4,141,630
$4,043,123
$4,262,154
$4,493,066
$4,736,505
$4,993,151
$5,263,721
$5,548,970
$5,849,696
$6,166,739
$6,500,985
$6,853,367
$7,224,871
$7,616,534
$8,029,451
$8,464,776
$8,923,725
$9,407,582
$9,917,699
$10,455,500
$11,022,491
$11,620,255
$12,250,464
$12.914.879
($454,722)
($482,577�
($360,314)
($238,794)
($116,402)
$8,822
$136,430
$243,957
$150,887
($122,426)
($195,980)
($63,415)
$80,627
$206.991
$71,328
($303,862)
������
($229,07�
��
$174,470
$402,325
$613,567
$518,289
$111,908
($256,570)
($553,644)
($554,284)
($274,396)
($203,796)
($322,162)
($189.5031
$10,286,661
$1,463,353
$13,413,953
$13,413,953
$1.993.856
$18.277.008
$18,277,008
$2,367,860
$21,705,379
$23,811.765
$19,308,540
$19,308,540
$1,710,228
$15,677,091
$15,677,091
$5.10
balance
$5.33
($12,372,431)
($18,397,079)
($14,257,270)
($10,123.998)
�$s�����
($1,842,095)
$2,439.031
$6,792,750
$9,714.983
$495,040
($8,779,185)
($4,482,098)
$190,991
$5,264,769
$8,741,625
($3,915,085)
($16,646,259)
($10,886,40�
($4,614,499)
$2.203.233
$9,602,574
$17,621,433
$23,896,590
$11,174,275
($3, 601, 85�
($13,759,385)
($23,703.870)
($13,802,653)
($4,764,786)
($9,025,418)
($12,774,20�
($48.8311
Apperuliz L• landfill Reserr�e Fund
I-
1
0
Table I.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribudon, 1992-1994 (updaeed March 1992) (Conflnued)
CH Post-Closure
Mairrtenance Collection
revenue
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
$1,137,566
$1,114,811
$1,083,747
$1,043,905
$1,039,160
$1,030,379
$1,017,111
$998, 864
$975,106
$1.027,931
$1, 083,622
$1,142,334
$1,204,231
$1,269,486
$1,338,281
$1,410,809
$1,487,272
$1,567,885
$1,652,871
$1,742,469
$1,836,929
$1,936,515
$2,041,505
$2,152,193
$2.268,887
$2,391,916
$2.521,621
$2,658,365
$2,802,532
$2,954,524
$3,114,765
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
3.00%
real interest
$221,329
$261,754
$302,585
$.'i43,578
$385,131
$427,728
$471,272
$515,650
$560,729
$607,596
$657,497
$710,612
$767,129
$827,248
$891.182
$959,154
$1,031,400
$1,108,169
$1,189.726
$1.276,347
$1,368,329
$1,465, 980
$1,569,630
$1,679,624
$1,796,329
$1,920,131
$2,051,438
$2,190,681
$2,338.315
$2,494,820
$1.285.607
rate in 1992$ _
set aside
( 1992$1
$91, 673,165
$1.29
balance
.23
$6,808.841
$8,167,735
$9,544,300
$10,930,633
$12,318,115
$13,742,406
$15,200,513
$16,688,896
$18,203,410
$19,739,245
$21,374,772
$23,115,891
$24,968,837
$26,940,196
$29,036,930
$31,266,393
$33,636,356
$36,155,028
$38,831,081
$41,673,678
$44,692,494
$47,897,751
$51,300,246
$54,911,381
$58.743,198
$62,808,414
$67,120,461
$71,693,520
$76,542,566
$81,683,414
$87,132,758
Apperulir 1.• landfrl[ R� Fund
................................................................................................: ..: ....................................: .. :.: .....
:•i:{•i:•::O}'n:•i:+F.� •i::.:'�i {+•:+::\K.i•:.�.•.v: nv
:<::<:;::::::::: ,:::.
.. ; r� 4'ir:i:ii•::ir�:i: �•i:::
:i{�4:{{±i;,iff??;::^:;\•i'v::i:}:iYi:i
ii:t>�'i�??'�+::�
........................................................................ ...... . ...... . . . ..... ........................................x........................r..�.......::.pi:x....
Table I.4 Landfill ReseRe Fund Contributlon, 1992-1994 (updaled March 1992) (Condnue�
Replacement
Landfill
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
revenue
$2,006,925
$1,966,780
$1,911,977
$1,841,685
$1,833,315
$1,817,824
$1,794,415
$1,762.223
$1,720,309
$1,813,505
$1,911,756
$2,015,336
$2,124,537
$2,239,662
$2,361,032
$2.488,988
$2,623,887
$2,766,105
$2,916,040
$3,074,112
$3,240,760
$3,416,453
$3,601,679
$3,796,958
$4,002,834
$4,219,884
$4,448,713
$4,689,962
$4,944,305
$5,212,452
$5,495,154
3.00%
reai irnerest
$307,721
$376,558
$446,036
$515,722
$586,319
$658,676
$732,620
$807,948
$884,424
$963�964
$1,048,762
$1,139,131
$1,235,403
$1,337,928
$1,447,076
$1,563,239
$1,686,829
$1,818,284
$1,958,065
$2.106,659
$2,264,582
$2,432,378
$2,610,621
$2,799,919
$3,000,913
$3,145,582
$3,110,636
$3,075,629
$2,169,365
$533,185
rate in 1992$ _
expenditures
( 1992$1
$4,580,000
$12,709,500
$4,984,185
$71,219,000
$52,355,125
$2.27
$2.17
balance
$9,253,905
$11,568,551
$13,911,888
$16,269,902
$18,627,310
$21.046,944
$23,523,443
$26,050,478
$28,620,648
$31,225,382
$34,002,850
$36,963,368
$40,117,835
$43,477,775
$47,055,365 ,
$50,863,473 I
$54,915,701
$59,226,417
$63,810,806
$68,684,912
$73,865,682
$79,371,025
$85,219,855
$91,432,155
$98,029,031
$105,032,779
$107,818,244
$102,668,092
$105,449,498
$41,344,168
($5,265,320)
?:{+i.
};.;�f�
I- 1
l i
�::<
}?i:'k.�vk
..?
ApjAeitdfr L Iar�ll Reserue Fu�d
:' I-
12 ':
Table I.4 Landfill Rese�ve Fund Contribudon, 1992-1994 (upda6ecl March 1992) (Contlnued)
Vashon
New Area
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
revenue
$64,740
$63,445
$s�,sn
$59,409
$59,139
$58,639
$s�,esa
$56,846
$55,494
$58,500
$61,670
$65,011
$68,533
$72,247
$76,162
$80,290
$84,642
$89,229
$94�066
$99,165
t rate in 1992$ _
3.00% expenditures
real ir�terest ( 1992$1
$40,488
$27,050
$13,164
$15,375
$17,615
$19,910
$22,255
$24,643
$25,741
$2,575
($19,868)
($18,564)
($17,11�
($15,519)
($13,759)
($11,825)
($9,705)
($7,388)
($4,861)
($2,108)
$1,105,000
$88,444
$1,621,470
$0.07
$0.07
balance
$1,317,233
$1,422,461
$407,956
$482.796
$557.581
$634,334
$�i zsss
$793,023
$874,512
$867,303
($693,093)
($651,291)
($604,843)
($553,427)
($496,699)
($4.94.295)
�����)
($209,053)
($119,848)
($22,791)
Appendir 1.• landf�l[ Itesenae Fund
{?{ry.� :
I-13
Table I.4 Landfill Resen�e Fund Contribudon, 1992-1994 (updaied March 1992) (Condnue�
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
$0.69
Apperulir L• IandfiU Reserue Fund
I-
14
........ ............. �::>x:
Table I.4 Landt`ill Resene Fund Contribudon, 1992-1994 (updaled March 1992) (Conanue�
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
1 /92 - 1 y94 =
$1.51
Appendir 1.• Iandfrll Resenae Fund
I - 15 �;::�.
.::<:::«v
Table I.4 LandCill Reseive Fund Contribubon, 1992-1994 (updaBed March 1992) (Condnue�
Vashon
Closure
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average rate
1/92
revenue
$221,964
$217,524
$211,463
$203,689
$202,763
$201,050
$198,461
$194�900
$190,265
$200,572
$211,438
$222,894
$234,972
$247,704
$261,128
$275,280
$290,199
$305,929
$322,511
$339,994
rate in 1992$ _ $
3.00% expenditures
real irrterest ( 1992$1 balance
($47,911)
($42,756)
($37,604)
($32,505)
{$27,383)
($22,148)
($16,820)
($11,424)
($5,989)
($306)
$4,937
($6,340)
($16,673)
�$
($2,599)
$5,369
$14,012
$23,375
$32,265
$19,251
$0.25
$61,861
$1,134,115
$82.481
�1,512,149
($1,708,026)
($1,533,974)
($1,359,206)
($1 �185,34�
($1,014,164)
($838,784)
�$���)
($478.241)
($294,765)
($110,489)
$89,777
$244,291
($673,269)
($454,971)
($217,200)
$41,329
$321,978
$626,190
$955,493
$1,227,789
$74,885
Apperulfr 1.• landf�ll Reserue Furul
I-1
6
Table I.4 Landfill Resene Fund Contribution, 1992-1994 (upda�ed March 1992) (Conanue�
Vashon Post-closure
Mairrtenance Collection
revenue
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
$110,982
$108,762
$105,731
$101,844
$101,381
$100,525
$99,230
$97,450
$95,132
$100,286
$105,719
$111,447
$117,486
$123,852
$130,564
$137,640
$145,100
$152,964
$161,256
$169,997
Average rate
1 /92 - 12/94 =
3.00%
real irrterest
$48, 749
$53,507
$58,330
$63,194
$68,138
$73,211
$78,403
$83,705
$89,105
$94, 710
$100.641
$106,918
$113,559
$120,586
$128,020
$135,884
$144,201
$152,998
$162,302
$82,327
rate in 1992$ _
set aside
( 1992$ )
$5,987,504
$0.13
$0.12
balance
$1,569,469
$1,729,200
$1,891,470
$2,055,531
$2,220,569
$2.390�088
$2,563,824
$2,741,457
$2,922,613
$3,106,851
$3,301,846
$3,508,207
$3,726,572
$3,957,617
$4,202,056
$4,460,640
$4, 734,164
55,023,465
$5,329,427
$5,652,985
($82,195)
Appereda 1.• Iandfil! Resera�e Fund
I -1
7
Table I.5 Projeceed Landfill Resenre Fund Expenditures (March 1992)
Cedar Hills New Are� Dwelopment:
South
Stormwater Total
and Leachate Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 New Area
Year Pump Stations Development DevelopmeM Development Development Developmerrt DevelopmeM
1992 1,342,665 $ 1,342,665
1993
1994
1995 617,852 1,226,535 1,844,387
1996 5,663,641 5,903,144 11,566,785
1997 5,663,641 5,903,144 11,566,785
1998 5�903,144 5�903�144
1999 16�633,544 16�633�544
2000
�1 1,255,861 1,255,861
�2 4,666,752 4,666,752
� 5,952�482 5�952,482
2 � 5,952,482 5,952,482
�5 17,592.406 17,592.406
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 743,731 743,731
�� 2 13,635,079 13,635,079
2013
2014 381,798 381.798
2015 7,383,714 7,383,714
2016
2017
2018
2019
106,421,61 S
Apper�diz L• Landfrll Reserue Fund
I-
1
8
Table I.S Projected Landfill Rese�e Fund Expenditures (March 1992) (Contlnued)
Cedar Hflls Closure:
Southwest Totel
Area y3 Main Hill Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Closure
Year Closure Closure Ciosure Closure Closure C l o sure C l os ure Co
t992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
200�
2ooa
2oos
2oio
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
5,723,272 4,563,389
1 �463,353
13,413,953
13,413,953
1,993,856
� s,2n,00s
� a,2n,00s
2,367,860
21,705,379
21,705,379 2,106,386
19,308,540
19,308,540
1,710,228
15,677,091
15,677,091
$ 10,286,661
1,463�353
13,413,953
13,413,953
1,993,856
� a,2n,00s
i e,2n,00a
2,367,860
21,705,379
23,811,765
19,308,540
19,308,540
1,710,228
15,677,091
15,677,091
s 196,692,286
Apperidix /.• Iandfrll Rese�r,+e Fund
�
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
I-1
9
Table I.5 Projected LandAll Resenae Fund Expenditures (March 1992) (Contlnued)
Vashon New Area Dwslopmsnt:
New Area Leachate
Year Development Storage Ske Plan Total
1993 1,055,000 50,000 1,105,000
2000 88,444 88,444
2001 1,621,470 1,621,470
Vashon Closura:
Final Cover Final Cover
Year Existing Area New Area Total
2002 61,861 61,861
2003 1,134,115 1,134,115
2010
2011
Enumclaw Closure:
1992 2,165,490
Hobart Final Cover:
1994 274,295
1995 4,352,149
Cedar Hilis Facility Relocation:
1994
1998
1999
2000
2001
82,481 82,48'1
1,512,149 1,512,149
6,845,700 Leachate pretreatment
429,000 BPA line relocation
6,612,000 BPA line relocation
360,750 O&M facility
5,560,360 08�M facility
AAbend'a L• l�ndfiU Reserue Fund
0
APPENDIX J
RI L RAL
G CU TU
ASTE AND
OODWASTE
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
�v�,
.���
Sorting
It Out
Together
:::.: .... ......::: ��:.,�:::.,..: :.:...,....,. , ::..,>;.:�.,:.:::.:;:.;.;:............,...: :. . ..........:�.:�.:;:•: � .,,.
,.,.t•:•' ., t<�.t: .. :, r.t...o-:o>:.). �•: ...a.•.:.... < ..:... ........u.:•: <•xo:< x<•.c.•�kw:. ; :;;•;v,,k:f<?:'c`5?'?q:ici�:?c�?),.:ik;::i�#�'?.�''i:�`6:�3:'•.....Y'{: ;,- xt�?f3
•.o-Y.....,` ."•>:i;•:3 ::...:::::::::...??x: •: •:: •::.2•::::: 4::::::::::.'t•::::::/.•::::::::: t:+.•:: {::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :•:::. . ..,t... .,,,' . ��.�.........
:•: :• .::.......................... ....:::... ..... :•::....:. •..:........................................ r............................. ......... .. ::•:::.......::•:: r::::: :::• ::•:::::::::+a:�:•:i•::,•..t,
...t.. ......,. _
ii}ii'•:::>.•iii:•ii'r' i•:y::::.:4:::4:4ii::i};::i•:•:>.L{.}}i:i•i:•`.^:•`.G:v
•:: }:1v:: •r: r •:.
'ti �:�?:i�:. .... .
:.;:.;.:.,:.;:::.;;:<.::::::.::.::.: ::..:.:: :.:::::.. ,r � .:.;.::::::.::::::::::::::::::.;;;r.:::: .:.:............... . 1
.'F'.£:v.n. .L...v .. �}. }:.;�:.;..
.;.r..;,+.r...,...•.3:... .�, »t�
•.:'i"?:�:�:�:;;;;::� '<+::oSr.�r.., .m
.. ::...;.. :.. : ::. :..::::.:.:... .. ...: . ....: ::::.: :.: :..:::.:•:::::..;nyy. ....:
..... •'•
..:.:f........ ..>....... . . ,r...x•.•r . •..:>.:::::::::;.:::.:;;�:�:::.:.y;.;�::,+.,+.:�i::`�: ..r.......... .:�..`::•� �•` .. 9'•'F...� ...k'i
.:. ....... �::
::..::.. .................. ..:....: :+..� .... .... .... .... .... .........:::::::::::. �:::<�5::?�::'t•: r:..
.........: •� t�.:t.;..;�:::.{�::....•:.x.;;...... t.'
:::::::. ........ ..... r.,.. ., .;•. .....
P::::::.:� ::::::..........................::::: •:::::::i:i::.................:::n........\vn.....::::::.:. ..,-......: ..::::.�ii:n '........... .................r.�::: ::v: �':. w:::: •.:�:.: f .. ... .....
¢• •
w4::.vv .
i: ::}v:GXp'•iiF•i:iGii:ii?:]:•i'•ii':i•i'•i'•i'r4ii:iLii}i:vi::i:�i:::i:}i}hi}i};.ii}}}i}iiiiiiii}i}iii}i}i}}ik+w::::.�.:.::.�::nn�:::.iiiii}iiiiiii::n::::::: :v:+::.:.�v.�::.�:::::: w: v: v: w:::.t. v .; .+�v.,
.x :.:.....:..................r..l...r..M1.n................................................................w:::::::::.�.�::.:�:: :..v.............nM1...............................v..r...�..r....... ..........:.v. : ..i?�...n+.
Appendix J
Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste
R. W. Beck and Associates
Revised by King County Solid Waste Division, 1992
n
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
This characterization of agricultural waste and woodwaste was prepared by R.W. Beck in conjunction with other elemenls of the
1989 Kzng County Comprehe�zsive Sodrd l�aste Management Plan. It has been updated by the Solid Waste Division staff as part of
the 1992 Plan.
A. AGRICULTURAL WASTE
1. Introduction
Agricultural waste has not been a problem from the standpolnt of solld waste management ln King County. The management
of animal manure, while not posing a solid waste problem, does appear to have potentially signif'icant surface water quality
implications. Although not the direct responsibility of King Counry, the County should work with appropriate state and local
environmental and water qualiry agencies to assure proper management of this waste.
Agricultural waste is defined in the State Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) as:
". .. wastes on farms resulting from the production of agricultural products including but not limited to manures, and
carcas,ses of dead animals weighing each or collectively in excess of fifteen pounds."
The MFS and the King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8 do not apply to agricultural waste which is
.. limited to manures and crop residues, returned to the soils at ergonomic rates. This appendix descxibes aop processing
wastes, animal manure, and animal carcasses. ry
2. Quantity
Virtually all agricult�ral waste generated in King Counry comes from outside the city of Seattle. There are no projections
a�ailable on future agricultural waste generation, but continued development of agricultural land for other purposes will likely result
in reductions in agricultural waste quantities.
a Crop Prooessing Wastes
There are currendy no estimates available on the quantiry of cxop processsing wastes generated in King County because aop
wastes are returned to the soll at the end of the season.
b. Animal Carcasses
� The numbers of agricultural animal carcasses in King County per year has not been estimated, nor has the percentage of
carcasses processed or discarded IDegally. There are three rendering plants in Washington State: Seattle Rendering Works and Pacific
� Rendering in Seattle; and Puget Sound Byproducts in Tacoma. Seattle Rendering Works maintains that it processes the majorlty of
�
�
� Append'tx J�gricultural Waste and Wooduaste A. �gricultural Waste
�
J
-2
the carcasses in the state, about 5,000 tons per month. It is believed that the carcasses not processed at one of the three rendering
plants may be discarded illegally (personal communication, W. Hammond, Seattle Rendering Works).
c. Manure
Table J.1 below shows the tonnage of manure produced per day for King County. Tota1 manure production is 1,500 to 1,615
tons per day.
Table J.1 Number of Mlmals and Tonnage of Daily Manure Productlon in King Counry in 1990
Animal
Mature dairy cattle
Immature dairy cattle
Beef cattle ,
Horses
Hogs
Sheep
Chickens
Totals
Number of Dafly Production
Animais per Animal (Pounds)
Low High
15,000 70.00 74.00
15,000 35.00 38.00
4,000 55.00 64.00
20,000 43.50 43.50
1,500 4.00 21.00
3,500 4.00 4.00
250,000 0.23 0.23
309,000 211.73 240.73
Total Tons
per Day
Low High
525 555
262 285
110 128
435 435
3 16
29 29
1,364 1,448
Source: Woody Bernard, King County Cooperative Extension
3. Current Disposal Methods and Problems
a. Crop Prooessing Wastes
According to the Cooperative Extension Service, crop processing wastes are not a major source of concern in King Counry. Most
of these wastes are retumed to the soll at the end of the season. Current practices do not result in waste requiring disposal, and
there is no identified pollution problem associated with current management practices (personal communication, W. Sheer, Pierce
County Cooperative Extenslon).
� , w. � :,
Farmers and slaughter houses can contract with rendering plant� for disposal of animal carcassess for a fee. The market for
the products of rendering plants, namely pet food and animal feed, has declined drastically in recent years (personal communication,
W. Hammond, Seattle Rendering Works). Therefore, the fees charged for haullng have increased. Carcasses not processed at one of
the three rendering plants in Washington State may be discarded illegally, creating a potential pollution hazard to groundwater and
pathways for spreading disease (personal communicatlon, W. Sheer, Pierce County Cooperative Extension).
c. Animal Manure
According to the Soil Conservation SeNice (personal communicatlon, J. Henry, �ashington Department of Agrlculture), dairy
manure processing consists of collection, storage, and application. Throughout the entire process, it is handled in a liquid state. The
typical mature dairy cow produces 15 gallons per day of manure and requires 7 gallons per day of manure wash water. The wash
A. �gricultural Waste �pendfx J• �grict�ltural Waste and Wooduaste
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
r�
�
�
�
U
�
�
�
�
:::��.
_3
�:.{
J
«,� `
..{
water and the manure are then handled together.
For collection, the manure is scraped into underground tanks. In the ideal situation, the manure and wash water are
transferred to long-term collection facilities like a lagoon (pond) or an above-ground tank. 1'here are only three above-ground
collection tanks in King County, due to their high price compared with ponds or lagoons. Long-term storage tanks can hold from
13,000 to 40,000 gallons of manure and wash water, which—ideally—are stored for six months during the winter months, generally
from October to March, then applied during the growing season. Long-term srorage ls complicated by rainfall entering the storage
facilities. Six months of storage is rypically required to ensure some degree of stabilization and to ensure that manure is applied to
unsaturated soil. Application to saturated soil promotes r�noff of pollutants to surface waters rather than infiltration and nutrient
uptake in the field. The manure liquid is pumped out of the pond or storage tank, or from a"honey wagon," through a pipe with
a one-inch nozzle. Approximately g0 to 95 percent of the dairy farmers in King County apply manure to their own farms. Pig
manure is aLso handled as a liquid: again, some farmers may not store it long term.
Beef cattle manure is handled as a solid and stored in a covered concrete bunker or "dry-stack area" for six months and
applied during the growing season. Some farmers collect and store it for a short period on an open concrete slab. Chicken manure
is another solid form. It is usually applied by the farmer to a large field because of its high nitrogen contenk Horse manure is aLSo
a solid form, used as bedding or topsoil or sold in its raw state.
The major concem for manure processing and application is surface water contamination. Problems may result from
inadequate long-term storage prior to application. According to the Soil and t�ater Connection Newsletter, only 14 percent of King
Counry dairies ha�e adequate long-term storage for their manure (King Counry Conservation District, 1g88). Surface water
wntamination is the responsibiliry of the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), which investigates existing manure practices
and enforces proper application. If improper practices are observed, the landowner is given time to solve the problem. The Soll
Conservation Se�vice also makes recommendations to farmers, assisting them in developing new manure processing methods.
4. Opportunities for Reuse, Recycling, Storage, and Disposal
a Crop Process�ing Wastes
Cmp residues�sta(ks, stems, leaves, roots, cull fruit, and prunings left after a harvest—are rypically used for soll enhancemenk
They are commonly introduced into the top layer of soil of the fields where they fall. Some residues must be roughly reduced first,
but all can be plowed or disked into the soil. Less frequently, residues may be removed and composted. More exotic approaches to
crop residue management represent an additional cost to farmers and must be as cost effective as possible. Burning produces
significant smoke and haze pollution and is not practiced in King County to any significant extent.
The key challenge in crop residue management is the need to return the fleld to production as soon as possible. Applying of
crop or animal wastes to fields can upset the balance of chemical compounds that serve as a nutritional resource for crops, requiring
cosdy time, fertilizer supplements, preburning, or composting to stabilize the mix.
Farmers are most concerned about maintaining a proper carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. Because crop residues take time to break
down in the soil, there is a period when the normal ratio is imbalanced by high carbon counts. Farmers can introduce synthetic
nitrogen to maintain balance, but thls Ls expensive and produces a less satisfactory growing medium. Outside King Counry, burning
is used to reduce carbon content of crop residues before they are disked into the soil. While it shortens the time to replanting, smoke
from the fires introduces a second waste management concern. Mobile incinerators have proven too expensive for all but the most
high-priced crops, and most farmers cannot wait For optimum conditions to minimize smoke. Again, this has not been a problem in
King County. Off-field composting is gaining increased attention as a means of stabilizing chemical content of residues. Composting
of crop residues to produce commercial soil enhancers has not proven cost effective unless very large volumes of residue are available.
Append'�x J.• �gricultural Wirste and Woodu+aste A. �grrcultural Waste
�
J
-4
�
•
•
•
•
•
Finally, some farmers have developed planting saategies that work around the biodegrading cycle of residues by planting cxops
that mature quickly. Fast maturation allows the fanner to plant later or harvest earlier, extending the time available for the raidue
to stabiliae in the topsoil. Because yield from these crops are lower, the farmer must still weigh the economic trade-offs.
b. Animal Manure
The primary objectives when managing or disposing of animal wastes are:
• Managing the wastes to prevent health and safery hazards to humans and animals.
• Controlling odor, dust, and tlies.
• Controlling ground- and surface water pollution.
Land applications include directly applying raw, wet manure on local crop land; direcdy applying liquefied waste from retention
lagoons; and composting wastes to reduce raw manure to a more manageable soil enhancer.
c. Options for Collecting, Storing, and Proaess�ing Manure
Options for handling manure are all based on the objectives of controlling the manure's moisture content to control fly
breeding, odor, and dust, and to keep manure out of ground- and surface water. These objectives must be pursued ln all
management stages, from collection, storage, and processing to the final application. Because manure is a low-valued commodity,
economy and efficiency also limit management options for livestock wastes. Because land application is only possible at certain times
and in certain quantities, storage is inevitably involved in most management systems.
Composting allows controlled natural processes to reduce and stabilize the manure. Stockpiled manure is gaining acceptabiliry
as a means of stabilizing biological activities, decreasing volume, and producing a more versatile and easily handled fertilizer
product. Options for applying processed manures on land can be limited by soll saturation limits, transportation requirements, and
available marke�s. Some of the same chemical characteristia that make manures valuable as soil fertilizers also limit how much
can be applied at one time. This limitation increases the pressure to store manure or increase the acreage to be treated. Both
pressures increase costs of manure management by requiring more e�ensive storage systems or increasing transportation cosis to
oudying croplands. As described earlier, manures are considered a low-value commodiry and must compete with low priced, moce
easily managed synthetic fertilizers. Thus, markets tend to be limited to local livestock operations, restrlcting the gross amounts of
wastes that can be deducted from the stockpiles. Composting manures can be more competitive and offers some prospects for
expanding available markets.
d. Animal Carcasses
Management of animal carcasses is a well-developed industry, centered on rendering plants that derive useful product5 from
animal remains. Depending on demand, rendering facility operators may pay for the animal remains, haul away the carcass for
free, or charge for disposal. The hauling sen�ice is, in itself, valuable because untended carcasses can be a threatening source of fly
maggots and disease, as well as an odorous nuisance.
In an innovative approach to carcass management, a New Zealand firm is exploring composting of slaughterhouse wastes with
bark and tly ash from the slaughterhouse boilers. In the first phase, static piles of this mix are mechanically aerated. During a
final curing phase, the material is tended in windrows that are regularly turned. The final product is packaged and marketed to
horticultural facilities.
A. �grrc�cltural Waste Apperedtz J.• �gricr�ltural Waste and l�oodri�ste
i•
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
`
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
:::: � ::::>:::::::> <:: �: <:::::: :::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . :::.;.:::>:::>::: ::: ::: :. : :: :::::
B. WOODWASTE
1. Introduction
Woodwaste is defined in the MFS as:
J _ �:::}:
5
". .. solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by product or waste from the manufacturing of
wood products, handling and storage of raw materials, trees and stumps. This includes but is not limited to sawdust,
chips, shavings, bark, pulp, hog fuel and log sort yard waste, but dces not include wood pieces or particles containing
chemical preservatives such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome-usenate."
Disposal of woodwaste is being handled by the privaie sector. Woodwaste is a very small component of the mixed municipal
solid waste stream and, unless conditions change significantly, is not anticipated to become a solid waste disposal problem within the
plamling period.
The l�ashington State Forest Products 7�ade Directory pmvides a comprehensive listing of lumber industries, ports,
transportation services, trade and promotional organizations, consulates, and government agencies. This directory was used to identl[y
potential woodwaste generators in King County. For a discussion of vegetative material disposal and composting in construction,
demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste disposal, see Chapter V, Section D.
2. Quantaty
There are seven lumber and wood producers (four sawmills and three shake/plywood mills) located in King Counry (exclusive
of Seattle), which are potential woodwaste generators. Five log e�ort businesses are headquartered in Seattle, but ship their products
from ports outside King County. There are also seven manufacturers of "premanufactured wood structures" located in King Counry,
but they produce very little woodwaste because they purchase finished wood products.
Of the lumber and wood producers listed in the i�ashington State Forest Froducts Trade Directory, all reported that production
residues were sold or given away to pulp and paper producers, compost operations, or landscaping companies.
Historically, woodwaste generation has been closely tied to the level of activity in the forest productss industry. Woodwaste
quantities are generally reduced during an eoonomic recession and rise again with recovery. Short-term fluctuations aside, woodwaste
quantities are e�ected to increase by 1 to 2 percent per year over the long term. As is the case today, it is expected that virtually all
woodwaste will be reused in some manner rather than disposed.
The King County solid waste system receives an insignificant amount of wood byproducts as woodwaste, and it is usually due to
contamination of the byproduct with another r:�aterial, e.g., sawdust mixed with oil. No estimates are made of woodwaste generation
because these byproducts are reused and not foreseen to be a problem for the system.
3. Current Disposal Methods and Problems
The "unused" portion of mill byproducts are likely either landf'illed or stocl�iled for potential use. This category is extremely
small and the situation is not expected to change. Woodwaste disposal problems are not anacipated in King Counry.
4. Opportunities for Reuse, Recycling, Storage, and Disposal
Currently, virtually all woodwaste generated in King Counry is recycled or reused for topsoil production and beautification or for
fuel and pulp production. Described below are some general categories of woodwaste handling options.
Apperul'�x L• �gricultural Waste and Woodwaste
B. li�oodux�ste
J
-6
a. Management of Woodwastes
Wastes can be generated by milling, processing, and handling of raw wood and vary greatly according to the processes involved.
Commonly, wood industries produce bark, sha�ings, slabs, rejected products, and sawdust Options for disposing or reusing
woodwaste depend, in part, on the flnal configuration of the waste and the nature of any chemical residues in it (for example, wastes
from veneer plants may be saturated with chemical glues). Proximiry of mills and manufacturing facilities to secondary mazkets will
determine if a reuse or recycling alternative is cost effective. Alternative reuse or recycling applications include energy recovery,
secondary market products, fu�place fuel, charc:oal, and compost additives. Burial and burning have been common final disposal
approaches, but no generaiors in King County report burial or burning of woodwaste residue. It is all used or given away.
b. Energy Reoovery
Bark, product rejects, and wood trim or slabs are often burned on site as fuel in a boiler to generate electrlclty and/or steam
for the mill or processing facility. These products may also serve as fuel supplements in boilers seiving other facilities near the mill
or manufacturing plant In some boilers, wood can represent up to 100 percent of the total fuel inpuk Wood pieces may be further
reduced to rough chips, or "hog" fuel, for this application.
c. Seoondary Markefs
Bark and chipped wood may also be applied as landscaping products, such as plant bedding additives and decorative mulch, as
well as animal bedding. These applications require that the wastes be free of chemical contaminatioa Chipped wood is often
conveyed from lumber mi1Ls to nearby pulp mi1Ls for manufacture into paper, fiberboard, or other products. In a related process,
sawdust and wood chips are compressed to produce artificial tlreplace logs. Unreduced wood slabs and trim are used to produce a
myriad of fabricated products from laminated lumber to cutting boards. The volumes of woodwastes reused in this fashlon will
necessarily be limited by the aesthetic requirements of the end products and by the production limitations of the fabricators.
d Firew�ood and Charooal
Mill blocks or mill ends can be roughly reduced and sold as fuel for home stoves or fin�pla.ces. These waste products are
becoming more competitive as the oost of freshly cut firewood increases. Though most charcoal is produced overseas, hardwood mill
wastes and wood debris from land clearing can be economical feed stock for local charcoal operations.
e. Cor�ost Additive
Bark, sawdust, and chipped wood are all excellent bulking agents for composted products. In municipal sludge composting,
wood chips are used during compostinng to reduce air circulation and absorb some of the heavy metals from the sludge material. In
this application, chips that have not decomposed during the process are removed before the sludge compost is marketed or applied.
Composted soll conditioners featuring woodwastes can improve the moisture retention and permeability of treated soils. Partially
composted bark can also serve as a direct soil conditioner.
£ Disposal, Buryi�g, or Burning
Aside from the loss of usable materials and landf'ill space, burial of wood debris and woodwastes dces not present serious
problems. However, incinerAting them (along with other mixed municipal solid waste) poses potential air pollution problems.
B. Woodu�aste Aj,pend'xx L• �gricr�ltural Waste and Woodu�ste �
�
•
�
APPENDIX K
UTC
OLID WASTE
OST ASSESSMENT
King County
Comp rehensive
Solid Waste
Management Plan
,���,
����
SOI'�lllg
It �ut
Together
:::•}:::•
i:•fvt
K
-1
Appendix K
WUTC Solid �Uaste Cost A;�sessment
1. DEMOGRAPHICS
,992 ,994 ,99�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
1.1 POPULATION
1.1.1 Total population in county (including Seattle) 1,565,000 1,606,000 1,673,000
1.1.2 Population of jurisdiction area (exciuding Seattle) 1,043,000 1,078,000 1,135,000
1.2 HOUSING
1.2.1 Residentisl properties in jurisdiction 422,000 441,000 469,000
122 Single-family dwellings 280,000 292,000 311,000
1.2.3 MuR'rfamily dwellings 143,000 149,000 158,000
12.4 Average persons per single-family dwelling 3.11 3.08 3.05
12.5 Average persons per mukffamily dwelling 1.20 1.19 1.18
1.3 BUSINESS
1.3.1 Commercial businesses in jurisdiction 59,000 67,000 78,000
References and As�umptions
1.1.1 References 1992, 1994 and 1997 King County jurisdictional population (excluding Seattle) estimates from the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Popula�an and Employment Forecast July 1992 Update. 1992 ciry of Seattle population and
growth rate estimates from the PSRC, Population and Employment Forecast, October 1992 Update.
Assumptions: King County's total population is the sum of Seattle's population plus the jurisdictional population. The
city of Seattle's 1992 estimated population growth rate of 0.6% remains constant through the planning period.
Calculatlons: lgg2 Seattle and County populations are given and are referenced above. 1994 and lgg7 populations
are calculated by projecting Seattle's population from 1992 using the lgg2 growth rate and then adding this projection to the given
jurisciictional population referenced above.
1.1.2 References �992 1994 and 1997 King County jurisdictional population estimates from the PSRC Population and
Employment Forecast July 1992 Update.
Assumptions: N/A
Calculations: N/A
Appercd'xx tC lt�lr/�' solyd Waste cast Ass�.csment
�
K-2
1.2.1 References: 1991 Households from the King County Annual Growth Diatabook 1992. 1990 and 2010 Households
from the (ktober 1992 update (unpublished) to the Kzng Counly Annual Grow�i Databook 1992.
Assumptions: Residential properties are assumed to grow at the same rate as residential households.
CalculaHons: Average annual total growth for the period 1gg0 to 2010 is interpolated from the October 1992 total
forcecast households -- this figure approximates 9,36g households per year. 1992, 1994, and 1997 households are projec�,�d by
adding the annual growth of 9,36g households to the 1991 estimated households presented in the 1992 Growth Databook
1.2.2 References: 1991 single-family households from the King County Annual Growth I.lsatabook 1992. 1990 and 2010
Total households from the October 1992 update (unpublished) to the King County Annual Growth D�aatabook 1992.
AssumpNons: Single-famlly dwellings include properties with 1 to 4 units as well as mobile homes and trailers.
Grovuth in single-family dwellings is assumed to correspond to growth in total number of households.
Calculations: Fstimate what percent of the total number of households that single-famlly households account for using
the 1991 estimated households presented in the lgg2 Growth Databook -- approximately 66%. 1992, 1994, 19g7 Single-family
dwellings are estimated as a percentage of the total number of households calculated for each planning year in 1.2.1 above.
1.2.3 References: 1991 Multifamily households from the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. 19g0 and 2010
Total households from the October 1992 update (unpublished) to the King Counly Annual Growth Ikatabook 1992.
Assumptions: Multifamily dwellings include properties with more than 4 units excluding moblle homes and trailers.
Growth in multifamlly dwellings is assumed to wrrespond to growth in total number of households.
Calculations: Fstimate what percent of the total number of households that multifamily households account for using
the 1991 estimated households presented in the 1992 Gmwth Databook -- approximately 34%. 1992, 1994, 1997 Multifamily
dwellings are estimated as a percentage of the total number of households calculated for each planning year in 1.2.1 above.
1.2.4 References: Persons per single-family residence from the 1gg0 US Census. 1992, 1994, and 1997 jurisdicUonal
population from 1.1.2 above. 199Z 1994 and 1997 Single-famlly dwellings from 1.2.2 above.
Assumptlons: Single-famlly dwellings include properties with 1 to 4 units, as well as, moblle homes and trailers. The
percentage of persons per single-famlly residence remains constant relative to population throughout the planning period. Based on
the 1990 US Census approximately 84% of persons live in single-famlly residential dwellings.
Calculations: (1) Fstimate the number of persons living in single-famlly dwellings for 1992 1994 and 1997 by
multiplying the 1990 single-family residendal percentage by each plaiuwig year's jurisdictional population. (2) Calculate the average
number of persons per single-famlly dwelling for each planning year by dlviding the yearly estimate of persons living in single-family
dwellings from (1) by the number of single-family dwellings from 1.2.2 above.
1.2.5 References: Persons per multifamily residence from the 1990 US Census. 1992, 1994, and 19g7 jurisdictional
population from 1.1.2 above. 1992 1994 and 1997 Multifamily dwellings from 1.2.3 above.
Assumptions: Multifamily dwellings include properties with more than 4 units excluding mobile homes and trailers.
The percentage of persons per multifamily residence remains constant relative to population throughout the planning period. Based
on the 1990 US Census approximately 16% of persons live in multifamily residential dwellings.
Calculadons: (1) Estimate the number of persons living in multifamily dwellings for 1992 1994 and 1997 by
multiplying the 1990 multifamily residential percentage by each planning year's jurisdictional populatioa (2) Calculate the average
Append'�x K WU/�' solid Waste cast Assessment
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
K-
3
number of persons per multifamily dwelling for each plaru�ing year by dividing the yearly estimate of persons living in multifamily
dwellings from (1) by the number of multifamily dwellings from 1.2.3 above.
�
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1.3.1 References: 1gg0 Number of covered employer uni�s from Washtngton State Employment Securiry, Bmployment and
Payrol/s in l�ashington State by County and Industry 1990 Published Feb. 1992• 1990 and 2010 Employment from the October
19g2 update (unpublished) to the K'mg County Annual Growth D�atabook 1992.
Assumpdons: Growth in number of businesses is consistent with growth in employment through the planning period.
Number of businesses ls conslstent wlth the number of covered employers under the Washington Employment Securlty Act -- Covered
businessc� account for more than 85% of the state's employment and excludes certa.in family employment, self employment, casual
laborers, and commission only workers.
Calculations: Calculate an annual employment growth rate for the period from 1990 to 2010 -- approxunately 0.072%
linear growth from 1990. Project 1992, 1994, and 1y97 number of businesses by applying the growth rate from (1) to the 1990
number of covered businesses.
Append �xx K WUI�' solid Waste casr Ass�nenr
K-4
2. WAS1'E STREAM GENERATION
1992 1994 1997
2.1 Tonnage Recycled
Residential 112,000 157,000 229,000
Commercial 269,000 376,000 549,000
Self-haul 88,000 123,000 180,000
469,000 656,000 958,000
2.2 Tonnage Disposed
Residential 240,000 221,000 208,000
Commercia! 361,000 333,000 313,000
Residential Self-haul 144,000 132,000 124,000
Commercial Self-haul 125,000 116,000 108,000
870,000 802,000 753,000
Reference.s and Assumptions
2.1 References 1992, 1994 and 1g97 Waste generation and diversion tonnages from King Counry Solid Waste Division
tonnage projections, March 1993 update (unpublished). Residential, commercial, and self-haul percentage components of the recycled
material stream from the 1990 Washington State Department of Ecology Recycling SurUey Resulls. 19g2 Actual curbside recycling
from monttily hauler reports supplied to King County by certificated haulers operating within the County. 1992 Estimated total
diversion of 35% from the King County Solid Waste Division reduction and recycling projections, March 1993 update (unpubllshed).
Assumptlons: 1'he recycled material stream allocation percentages remain constant through the planning period --
residential 23.9%, commercial 573%, self-haul 18.8SG.
Calculations: Recycled tonnages for each sector are estimated by mutiplying the percentage allocations for each sector
by the estimated total diversion tonnages from above. The projected 1992 curbside residential recycling tonnage estimate includes the
1992 ��� �ecycled tonnage from the hauler reports and the estimated reduced tonnage from the Solid Waste Division reduction and
recycling projedions.
2.2 References: 1992 tonnage disposed from King County Solid Waste Division billing records. 19g4 and 19g7 Tonnage
disposed from King County Solid Waste Division tonnage projections, March 1993 update (unpublished). Residential, commercial,
and self-haul percentage components of the total waste stream from King Counry Solid Waste Division waste stream alloca,tion
estimates (unpublished), which were based on 1992 billings, hauler reports, and facility surveys.
Assumptions: The waste stream allocation percentages remain constant tt�rough the planning period -- residential
27.6%, commercial 41.5%, residential self-haul 16.5%, and commercial self-haul 14.4%.
Calculatlons: Disposed tonnages for each sector are estimated by mutiplying the percentage allocations for each sector
by the total disposal forecast above.
A�Dendi� K l�v/C solid Waste casr asseSrn:enr
•
•
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
K-
5
�
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
3. SYSTEM COMPONENT COSTS
1992 1994 1997
3.1 WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
3.1.1 Waste Reduction Programs See Plan, Chapter III
3.1.2 Waste Reduction Costs
988,000 1,059,000 1,174,000
3.1.3 Funding Mechanism tipping fees, grants, collection rates, and general fund
3.2 RECYCLING PROGRAMS
3.2.1 Recycling Programs See Plan, Chapter III
3.2.1 a Waste Recycling Costs 3,952,000 4,234,000 4,694,000
Marketing Commission Costs 585,000 627,000 695,000
Total Costs 4,538,000 4,861,000 5,389,000
32.2 Urban Recycling Programs
3.2.2.1 Curbside Eligible Households
Singie-family Households 223,000 233,000 248,000
Mult'rfamily Households 59,000 187,000 205,000
3.22.2 Diversion Rate (Ibs/household/mo.) 34 46 63
3.22.3 Percent Collected by WUTC Haulers
Single-family Households 100% 100% 100�0
Multifamily Households 100% 100°� 100%
3.2.2.4 Net Cost for Urban Recycling Included in 32.1 a
3.2.2.5 Funding Mechanism grants, collection rates, and general fund.
3.2.3 Rura/ Recycling Programs
3.2.3.1 Curbside Eligible Households
Single-family Households 199,000 208,000 221,000
Multifamily Households n/a n/a n/a
3.2.3.2 Diversion Rate (Ibs/household/mo.) 34 46 63
3.2.3.3 Percent Collected by WUTC Haulers
Single-family Households 100% 100% 100�0
Multifamily Households n/a n/a n/a
3.2.3.4 Net Cost for Urban Recycling Included in 3.2.1 a
3.2.3.5 Funding Mechanism tip fees, grants, collection rates, general fund.
3.2.4 Commercial Recycling Programs
3.2.4.1 Curbside Eligible Businesses 59,000 67,000 78,000
32.4.2 Diversion Rate (Ibs/business/mo.) 760 935 1,173
3.2.4.3 Percent Collected by WUTC Haulers 39% 39% 39%
3.2.4.4 Net CosUCommercial Recycling Included in 32.1 a
3.2.4.5 Funding Mechanism grants, collection rates, general fund.
3.2.5 Drop-off/Buy-back See References and Assumptions
3.2.5.1 Diversion Rate Tons/Month 0 0 0
3.2.52 % Operated by WUTC Haulers 0% 0% 0%
3.3 Composting
3.3.1 Diversion Rate (Ibs/household/mo.) 24 36 53
3.3.2 Percent Coliected by WUTC Haulers 100% 100% 100%
3.3.3 Funding Mechanism tipping fees, collection rates, generai fund.
Appendi� K WUCC Solyd Waste Cast Assessment
K-
6
References and Assumptions
3.1.2 It is assumed that 20 percent of county and suburban cities waste reduction and recycling program costs are dedicated
specifically to reduction progra,ms and/or recycling programs that include a waste reduction component, such as educa,tion programs.
For the years lgg4 and 1997 the costs are inflated by 5 percent per year. For detailed information on recommended reduction
programs, see Volume I, Chapter III.
3.1.3 Waste reduction programs are funded as follows:
1992 1994 1997
Tip Fees 61% 47% 62%
Grants 6% 2096 6%
Collection Rates 26% 26% 26%
Surcharges 6% 6% 5%
General Fund 1% 1% t%
3.2.1.a Fstimated 1992 oosts include all costs incurred by the Counry and suburban cities that are directly attributable to recycling
programs. Fstimated costs for 1994 and 1997 are based on 1992 costs inflated at 3.5 percent per year.
3.2.2.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Residential households from Section 1.2.1 above. Urban/Rural households from the
Ka'ng Counly Annual Crowth Databook 1992. 1992, 1994, and 19g7 Tonnage recycled from Section 2.1 above. lgg2 Yard waste
from hauler reports.
Assumptlons: The urban/rural percentage split remains constant over the pla�uiing period.
Calculatlons: Calculate the percent of urban households from the figures presented in the Annual Growth Databook --
appro�mately 53% of households are urban. Fstimate curbside eligible households by multiplying the percentage of urban
households by each planning year's projected number of households.
3.2.2.2 References: 1992, 1994, and 19g7 Households from 3.2.2.1 above. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Tonnages recycled from
Section 2.1 above. 1992 Curbside yard waste from hauler reports.
Assumptions: 1'he non-yard waste percent remains constant through the planning period.
Calculanons: Calculate the percent of curbside non-yard waste from the hauler ceports and the total recycled tonnage -
- approximately 78',6 of the curbside tonnage is non-yard waste. Fstimate curbside non-yard waste diversion for each planning year
by multiplying the above percentage by each planning year's total diversion. Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the non-yard
waste estimated diversion for each planning year by the urban households and by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000
pounds per ton.
3.2.2.3 References: N/A
AssumpNons: All curbside programs reporting to the Solid Waste Division are operated by certificated haulers.
Therefore, 100% of the diversion is attributable to these haulers.
Calculations: N/A
Appendix K.• WUI'C Solid Waste Cast Assessmen!
�
�
�
�
�
r
•
•
�
�
�
•
•
•
.
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
3.2.2.5 Urban recycling programs are funded as follows:
1992
Grants 18%
Collection Rates 78%
General Fund 4%
1994 1997
18% 18%
78% 78%
4% 4%
K-
7
3.2•3•1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1g97 Residential households from Section 1.2.1 above. Urban/Rural households from the
King County Annual Growth I�tabook 1992. Assumptions: The urbaNrural percentage split remains constant over the planning
period.
Calculations: Calculate the percent of rural households from the figures presented in the Annual Growth Databook --
approximately 47% of households are rural. Fstimate curbside eligible households by multiplying the percentage of rural households
by each planning year's projected number of households.
3.23.2 References: lgg2, 1994, and lgg7 Households from 3.2.3.1 above. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Tonnages recycled from
Section 2.1 above. 1992 Curbside yard waste from hauler reports.
Assumptions: The non-yard waste percent remains constant through the planning period.
Calculatlons: Calculate the percent of curbside non-yard waste from the hauler reports and the total recycled tonnage -
- approximately 78'�6 of the curbside tonnage is non-yard waste. Estimate curbside non-yard waste diversion for each planning year
by multiplying the above percentage by each planning year's total diversion. Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the non-yard
waste estimated diversion for each planning year by the rural households and by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000
pounds per ton.
3.2.33 References N/A
Assumptions: All curbside programs reporting to the Solid Waste Division are operated by certificaied haulers.
Therefore, 100% of the diversion is attributable to these haulers.
Calculations: N/A
3.2.3.5 Rural recycling programs are funded as follows:
1992 1994 1997
Tip Fees 64% 73% 83%
Grants 1996 10% 0%
Coliection Rates 16% 16% 16%
General Fund 1% 1% 1%
3.2.4.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Businesses from Section 1.3.1 above.
Assumptions: N/A
Calculations: N/A
3.2.4.2 References: 1992, 1994, and lgg7 Tonnages recycled from Section 2.1 above.
Assumptlons: N/A
Appendix K WUI�' Solid W�ste Cast Assessment
K-8
Calculations: Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the estimat�ed diversion for each planning year by the number of
businesses and by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000 pounds per ton.
3.2.4.3 References: 1992 Tonnage collected from the hauler reports.
Assumptions: Percentage of the total diversion that the haulers account for remains constant through the planning
period.
Calculations: Calculate % collected by dividing the 1992 tonnage collected from the hauler reports by the total
estimated diversion in 2.1 above.
3.2.4.5 Commercial recycling programs are �unded as follows:
�992
Grants 18%
Collection Rates 78%
General Fund 4%
� 9sa � ��
18% 18%
78% 78%
4% 4%
3.2.5 Drop-boxes are a component of each of the recycling programs described above and are discussed in each area, i.e., urban
single-family programs, rural programs, etc.
3.2.5.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 19g7 Self haul tonnages recycled from Section 2.1 above. 1g92 Aubum 3,000 tons
recycled from Department of Ecology.
AssumpHons: N/A
Calculatlons: Tota1 diversion is estunated by summing the self haul tonnage from Section 2.1 and the reported Auburn
dropoff station tonnage. Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the estimated diversion for each planning year by 12 months in
each year then multiply by 2000 pounds per ton.
3.2.5.2 References: N/A
AssumpNons: The curbside hauler companies for the most part do not operate buyback centers. For those companies
that do, the buyback businesses are independent from the curbside hauler operations and, therefore, cannot be directly attributed to
any curbside operation.
Calwlatlons: N/A
�
3.3.1 References 1992, 1994 and 1997 Households from Section 1.2.1 above. 1g92 Actual tonnage from the hauler reports. •
1992, 19g4, and 1997 Curbside tonnages Section 2.1 above.
AssumpNons: Growth in curside yard waste collection is consistent with growth in total curbside collection from 3.2 �
above.
Calculatlons: (1) Calculate the diversion rate for 1992 by dividing the reported yard waste collected by the number of
lgg2 households by 12 months the year. (2) Calculate the annual increase in curbside collection for lgg4 and 1997 by dividing the
difference between each of the two planning years by the starting year tonnage estimate -- 0.006 increase to 19g4, 0.009 increase to
1997. (3) Calculate the diversion rate for 1994 and 1997 by adding the annual increase in (2) for each planning year to the
preceding year's diversion ra.te.
�� K � So« ��� ��r��
�
�
�
'�
i
•
•
•
K-9
33.2 References: N/A
Assumptions: All curbside programs reporting to the Solid Waste Division are operated by certifica,ted haulers.
Therefore, 100°6 of the diversion is attributable to these haulers.
Calculatlons: N/A
3.3.3 Yard waste collection programs are funded as follows:
1992 1994 1997
Grants 18% 18% 18%
Collection Rates 78% 78% 78%
General Fund 4% 4% 4%
Appertd'tr K WIPI'C Solid Waste Cast Assessntent
K- 10
T�le 3.1 Div�ersion Potentlal and Cost� for Recommended Programs
Residential Programs
Single-family Primary Recyclables
Multifamily Primary Recyclables
Secondary Recyclables
Buy-back Centers
Wood Waste
Co nstruction/Demolition
Drop Sites (Primary Recyclables)
Clean-up Events
Nonresidential Programs
Nonresidential Recycling
Wood Waste
Co nstruction/Demo lition
Yard Waste Programs
Single-family Collection
Multifamily Collection
Self-haul to Transfer Stations
Nonresidential Collection
Roll-off Services
Drop Boxes
Waste Reduction Programs
Residential Programs
Nonresidential Programs
1992 Costs and Results
Total % Waste Cost per Cost per Implementation Funding
Tons Stream Household' Business' Responsibility ** Sources **
64,200
5,100
12,100
6,100
1,000
0
1,400
900
90,800
303,500
1,000
0
304,500
20,600
0
1,800
100
0
28,300
50,800
12,300
10,600
22,900
4.79°,6
0.38°�6
0.90%
0.46°,6
0.07°,6
0.00°�6
0.10°,6
0.07%
6.78%
2.92
1.30
0.02
N/A
0.02
0.00
0.24
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.65°,6 0.45 2.14
0.07°,6 0.01 0.07
0.00°,6 0.00 0.00
22.72%
1.54°,6 3.50 0.00
0.00°,6 1.25 0.00
0.13% 7.41 0.00
0.01 % 0.01 0.07
0.00°,6 N/A N/A
2.11 % 0.00 0.00
3.79%
0.92°,6 1.26 0.00
0.79°,6 0.00 7.75
1.71%
Total Diversion 469,000 35.00%
Total Waste Disposed 871,000 65.00%
Total Waste Stream 1,340,000 100.00%
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
C/Co
P
Co
Co
Co
C/Co
P/C/Co
Co
Co
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
Co
P/Co
P
P
C/Co
C/Co
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
C/Co
P
T
T
T
C/T
P/C/T
T
T
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
T
P/T
P
P
C/T
C/T
NOTES
* $ per month *' P= Private, C= City, Co = County, T= Tip Fee
1. Nonresidential program costs are for educational programs.
2. The unit cost for seif-hauling yard waste to transfer stations is the minimum charge for PLV-licenced vehicles.
3. The public cost for yard waste drop box depots in 1994 represents a one-time-only expenditure to assist the private sector
in establishing a depot system as part of the implementation of the planned yard waste disposai ban at County transfer stations.
Appendz� K.• WU!'C Solut Waste Cast Assessment
::: K - 11 ::
Diversion Potentlal and Cosis for Recommended Pmgrams (Condnuec�
1994 Costs and Results
Total % Waste Cost per Cost per implementation Funding
Tons Stream Household * Business' Responsibility" Sources **
Residential Programs
Single-family Primary Recyclables
Multifamily Primary Recyclables
Secondary Recyclables
Buy-back Centers
Wood Waste
ConstructioNDemolition
Drop Sites (Primary Recyclables)
Clean-up Events
Nonresidential Programs
Nonresidential Recycling
Wood Waste
Construction/Demolitio n
Yard Waste Programs
Single-family Collection
Multifamily Collection
Self-haul to Transfer Stations
Nonresidentiai Collection
Roll-off Services
Drop Boxes
Waste Reduction Programs
Residential Programs
Nonresidential Programs
95,700
19,300
16,500
9,300
10,000
1,500
2,800
2,100
157,200
6.56°,6
1.32°,6
1.13°,6
0.64%
0.69%
0.10%
0.19°,6
0.14°,6
10.77%
352,900 24.19°,6
15,100 1.03%
4,900 0.34°k
372,900 25.56%
31,200 2.14°,6
2,500 0.17°,6
6,100 0.42%
1,000 0.07°,G
700 0.05°,6
42,400 2.91 °,6
83,900 5.75%
23,800 1.63°k
19,500 1.34°,6
43,300 2.97%
Total Diversion 711,000 45.05%
Total Waste Disposed 802,000 54.97%
Total Waste Stream 1,459,000 100.00%
3.13
1.39
0.02
N/A
0.02
0.10
0.01
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
C/Co
P
Co
Co
Co
C/Co
0.44 1.95 P/C/Co
0.01 0.06 Co
0.00 2.63 Co
3.75 0.00 P/C/Co
1.34 0.00 P/C/Co
7.41 0.00 Co
0.01 0.06 P/Co
N/A N/A P/Co
0.12 3.12 Co
1.32 0.00 C/Co
0.00 7.11 C/Co
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
C/Co
P
T
T
T
C/T
P/C!T
T
T
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
T
P/T
P
C/T
C/T
NOTES
' $ per month " P= Private, C= City, Co = County, T= Tip Fee
1. Nonresidential program costs are for educational programs.
2. The unit cost for self-hauling yard waste to transfer stations is the minimum charge for PLV-licenced vehicles.
3. The public cost for yard waste drop box depots in 1994 represents a one-time-only expenditure to assist the private sector
in estabiishing a depot system as part of the implementation of the planned yard waste disposal ban at County transfer stations.
Appendix K.• WU7C Solid W�ste Cast Assessment
- 2
K 1
Diversion Potentlal and Costs for Recommended Pmgrams (Contlnued)
Residential Programs
Single-family Primary Recyclables
Multifamily Primary Recyclables
Secondary Recyciables
Buy-back Centers
Wood Waste
Construction/Demolftion
Drop Sites (Primary Recyclables)
Clean-up Events
Nonresidential Programs
Nonresidential Recycling
Wood Waste
Construction/Demolitio n
Yard Waste Programs
Single-family Collection
Multifamily Collection
Self-haul to Transfer Stations
Nonresidential Collection
Roll-off Services
Drop Boxes
Waste Reduction Programs
Residential Programs
Nonresidential Programs
1997 Costs and Results
Total % Waste Cost per Cost per Implementation Funding
Tons Stream Househoid * Business * Responsibility'* Sources *•
148,500
42,100
24,000
14,500
24,400
3,900
5,000
4,100
266,500
8.67%
2.46°,6
1.40°,6
0.85%
1.43%
0.23°,6
0.29°,6
0.24%
15.57%
3.24
1.44
0.02
N/A
0.02
0.10
0.01
0.71
445,900 26.05% 0.45
37,500 2.19°,6 0.01
12,500 0.73% 0.00
495,900 28.97%
49,000 2.86°,6 3.88
6,500 0.38% 1.39
6,000 0.35°,6 7.41
2,300 0.13% 0.01
1,800 0.11 % N/A
73,000 4.26% 0.00
138,600 8.10%
31,900 1.86% 1.47
25,800 1.51 % 0.00
57,700 3.37%
Total Diversion 959,000 56.00°h
Total Waste Disposed 753,000 43.98%
Total Waste Stream 1,712,000 100.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
C/Co
P
Co
Co
Co
C/Co
1.80 P/C/Co
0.06 Co
2.45 Co
0.00 P/C/Co
0.00 P/C/Co
0.00 Co
0.06 P/Co
N/A P
0.00 P
0.00 C/Co
7.83 C/Co
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
Co
P
T
T
T
C/T
P/C/T
T
T
P/C/Co
P/C/Co
T
P!T
P
P
C/T
C/T
NOTES
` $ per month " P= Private, C= City, Co = County, T= Tip Fee
1. Nonresidential program costs are for educational programs.
2. The unit cost for self-hauling yard waste to transfer stations is the minimum charge for PLV-licenced vehicles.
3. The public cost for yard waste drop box depots in 1994 represents a one-time-only expenditure to assist the private sector
in establishing a depot system as part of the implementation of the planned yard waste disposal ban at County transfer stations.
Appendi� K• WUI�' Solui Waste CastAssessment
K -1
3
3.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
3.4.1 Regulated Solid Waste Collection Firms
1992 1994 1997 1992 1994 1997
L.awson Disposal (G-41)
Residential Customers
Residential Tons
Commercial Customers
Commercial Tons
Coniaine� Hauling (G-12)
Residential Customers
Residential Tons
Commercial Customers
Commercial Tons
Eastside Disposal (G-12)
Residential Customers
Residential Tons
Commercial Customers
Commercial Tons
Sea Tac Disposal (G-12)
Residential Customers
Residential Tons
Commercial Customers
Commercial Tons
Kent Disposal (G-12)
Residential Customers
Residential Tons
Commercial Customers
Commercial Tons
Meridian Vailey (G-60)
Residential Customers
Residential Tons
Commercial Customers
Commercial Tons
8,400 8,700
6,100 5,600
700 800
7,800 7,200
0 0
0 0
N/A N/A
38,100 35,100
48,200 49,800
40,700 37,500
3,500 4,000
48�000 44�300
19,100 19,800
14,700 13,500
2,700 3,000
47,200 43.500
4,900 5,000
4,100 3,700
700 800
12,500 11,600
Nick Raifo Garbage Co (G-16)
9,100 Residential Customers 9,200
5,300 Residential Tons 9,200
900 Commercial Customer 1,300
6,700 Commercial Tons 38,900
RST Disposal (G-185)
0 Residential Customers
0 Residential Tons
N/A Commercial Customers
33,000 Commercial Tons
Tri-Star Disposal (G-185)
52,400 Fiesidential Customers
35,300 Residential Tons
4,600 Commercial Customers
41,600 Commercial Tons
SnaKing Garbage (G-126)
20,800 Residential Customers
12,800 Residential Tons
3,500 Commercial Customers
40,900 Commercial Tons
Rainier Disposai (G-63)
5,300 Residential Customers
3,500 Residential Tons
1,000 Commercial Customers
10,900 Commercial Tons
22,300 23,100 24,300
18,700 17,200 16,200
800 900 1,100
19,200 17,700 16,600
9,500 10,000
8,400 7,900
1,500 1,800
35,900 33,700
8,300 8,500 9,000
8,000 7,300 6,900
1,300 1,500 1,700
32,100 29,600 27.900
0 0
0 0
1,400 1,600
46,700 43,100
36,500 37,800
37,100 34,100
2,600 2,900
69,200 63,800
0
0
1,800
40,500
39,800
32,100
3,400
60,000
26,500 27,400 28,800
24,300 22,400 21,100
1,500 1,700 2,000
47,000 43,400 40,800
Wasie Management - Northwest (G-43)
Residential Customers 7,800 8,100 8,500
Residential Tons 6,700 6,200 5,800
Commercial Customers 400 500 600
Commercial Tons 12.400 11.400 10,700
Federal Way Disposal (G-35) Island Disposal (G-32)
Residential Customers 13,900 14,400 15,200 Residential Customers N/A N/A N/A
Residential Tons 11,400 10,500 9,900 Residential Tons 200 200 200
Commercial Customers 900 1,000 1,100 Commercial Customers N/A N/A N/A
Commercial Tons 27,200 25,100 23,600 Commercial Tons 600 500 500
Append'� •K.• W(17C Solyd Waste Cast Ass�ssment
K-
14
3.4.2 Nonregulated Solid Waste Collectio� Firms
1992 1994 1997
Eastmont Development Corp.*
Residential Customers n/a n/a n/a
Residential Tons 20,700 19,000 17,900
Commercial Customers n/a n/a n/a
Commercial Tons 97,400 89,800 84,300
*(Owned and operated by Waste Management, Seattle)
3.4.3 Collection Costs
City of Enumclaw Only $773,000 $812,000 $853,000
Moderate Risk Waste 1,918,000 2,055,000 2,278,000
3.4.4 Funding Mechanism Household hazardous waste surcharge, collection rates
References and Assumptions
3.4.1 References: lgg2 Tonnages and customer counts from King County Solid Waste Division billing records and hauler
reports. 1994 and 19g7 Total tons from Section 2.2 above. 19g4 and 1997 population and businesses from Sections 1.1 and 1.3
above.
Assumprions: The ratio of each hauler's tonnage and customer counts to the overall system totals is assumed to
remain constant through the planning period.
Calculations: Project the growth for 1994 and lgg7 of each hauler's tonnage and customer counts relauve to the
overall system totals using the figures presented in Sections 1.1, 1.3, and 2.1 above. Add the projected growth to the 1g92 and lgg4
figures to estimated the lgg4 and 1997 respective values.
3.4.2 References lgg2 Tonnages from the hauler reports. 1994 and lgg7 Total tons from Section 2.2 above. Customec
counts N/A
Assumprions: The ratio of each hauler's tonnage to the overall system totals is assumed to remain constant through
the planning period.
Calculations: Project the growth for lgg4 and lgg7 of each hauler's tonnage relative to the overall system tota.ls using
the figures presented in Section 2.1 above. Add the projected growth to the 1992 and lgg4 figures to estimated the 19g4 and 1997
respective values.
3.4.3 Costs for 1992 were provided by the ciry of Enumclaw and are disaggregatsd as follows:
Operations salaries $172,000
Uniforms 1,000
Supplies 500
Other services 23,000
Rentals 85,000
Apperrdz�e K WUI'C Solfd Waste CostAss��sment
Machinery and equipment 15,000
Operating transfers 6,000
Total collection costs $303,000
Total disposal costs 470,000
Total Costs $773,000
Actual collection costs for the 1992 Moderate Risk Waste Program are provided as follows:
Household collection $1,825,000
Targeted waste collection 22,000
SQG compliance 72,000
Total collection costs $1,918,000
Collection wsts for 1994 and 1997 were estimated by intlating the lgg2 figures by 3.5 percent per year.
K-1
5
3.4.4 Enumclaw colleckion costs are funded by collection fees. Moderate cisk waste collection costs are funded by grants and by a
moderate risk waste surcharge imposed by the Seattle—King Counry Department of Public Health. Projected costs are a function of
the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan budget
Appendix K WU7C Solyd Waste Cost Assessment
K-1
6
3.5 TRANSFER/LONG-HAUL PROGRAMS 1992 1994 1997
3.5.1 Transfer Programs
3.5.1.1 Transfer Costs Operating 12 497 000 13 193 000 14 357 000
3.5.1.2
3.5.1.3
3.5.2
3.5.2.1
3.5.2.2
3.5.2.3
3.6
3.7
3.7.1
Capital 15,302,000 18,044,000 1,100,000
Equipment 1,892,000 0 * 1,882,000
Final Disposal Facilities Cedar Hills Regional LandBll
Funding Mechamism Tipping fees, bonds, Landfill Reserve Fund, Capital Equipment Replacement Fund
Long-haul Programs
Tons Per Year 120,000 500,000 550,000
Long-haul Costs 0 0 0
Funding Mechanism Tipping fees, surcharges
ENERGY RECOVERY 8� INCINERATION (ER8�1) PROGRAMS - n/a
LAND DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Land Disposal Facilities
Cedar Hills
King County Solid Waste Division
King County Solid Waste Division
King County Solid Waste Division
City of Enumclaw
627,000 578,000 544,000
800 700 700
0 Closed Closed
3,561 Closed Closed
237,000 219,000 204,000
6,300 5,600 5,600
10,384 Open'/� yr. Closed
2,561 Closed Closed
King County Solid Waste Division
King County Solid Waste Division
King County Solid Waste Division
King County Solid Waste Division
Hobart
Enumclaw
3.7.2 Tons Disposed/WUTC Haulers
Cedar Hills
Vashon
Hobart
Enumclaw
3.7.3 Tons Disposed/Non-WUTC Hauters
Cedar Hills
Vashon
Hobart
Enumclaw
3.7.4 Landfill Operating Costs
Cedar Hills Operating 5,309,000 5,490,000 5,694,000
Capital 28,294,000 0 0
Equipment 1,703,000 0 1,844,000
Vashon Operating 379,000 406,000 421,000
Capital 336,000 0 0
Equipment 63,000 0 38,000
Hobart Operating 379,000 203,000 Ciosed
Capital 2,993,000 2,739,000 Ciosed
Equipment 63,000 0 Closed
Enumclaw Operating 379,000 Closed Closed
Capital 2,746,000 Closed Closed
Equipment 63,000 Closed Closed
3.7.5 Funding Mechanism Tipping fees, bonds, Landfill Reserve Fund, Environmental Reserve Fund
` The $0 contribution for equipment in 1994 is a one-time adjustment due to development of a new
replacement model, fleet downsizing due to tonnage declines and replacement schedule revisions.
Aj�percdir K WUI�' Solid Waste Cast Assessment
K- 17
n
U
I •
References and Assumptions
3.5 Transfer/Long-haul Progra,ms
3.5.1 Transfer Programs
3•5.1.1 Elements of the 1992 operating budget that are directly attributable to waste transfer are indicated in Table 3.2. Fstimated
costs for 19g4 and 1997 are based as follows: fuced costs are based on 1992 costs and are intlated by 3.5 percent per year; variable
costs, which are defined as wsts directly related to the amount of tonnage transfereed, are allocated on a per-ton basis each year.
Elements of the 1992 1994 and 19g7 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are based on the six-year CIP project schedule,
which is funded through 1987, 19g9, 1992, and 1995 bonds; the Landfill Reserve Fund; and the Environmental Reserve Fund (see
Table 4.3 for detailed transfer projects).
Please note that the yearly expenditure projections may be overstated because multiyear projects may be budgeted in one year.
Elements of the 1992 1994 and 1997 equipment budgets are based on the results of the Solid Waste Division's "Capital
Equipment Replacement Program" model. The model is designed to calculate the amount of money needed to be transferred from
the Operating Fund to the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund in order fully fund equipment replacement at the end of its useful
life. The model assumes that approatimately 50 percent of the equipment purchases each year are directly related to transfer station
activity.
Table 3.5 Capital Equipment Replacement Program Fund, 1992-1997
1992 1994 1997
Beginning Fund Balance 9,834,000 11,187,000 9,928,000
Revenue - Interest 817,000 708,000 517,298
Salvage value 545,000 256,000 1,364,000
Expenditures (4,788,000) (2,562,000) (7,771,000)
Transfer from Operating Fund 3,785,000 1,028,000 3,763,000
Ending Fund Balance 10,243,000 10,617,018 7,801,000
3.5.1.2 All mixed municipal solid waste transferred from County transfer facilities is disposed at the Cedar Hilis Regional Landfill.
This is not expected to change during the six-year planning period.
3.5.1.3 Transfer costs are funded as follows:
1992 1994 1997
Tip Fees 28% 36°,6 82°k
Bonds 67% 64% 5%
CERP 5% 0% 13%
* See 4.3.1 for project-specific detail.
Appendi� K WU7�' Solid Waste Cast Assessment
r1
U
K- 18
3.5.2 Long-haul Programs
35.2.1 The Counry will consider waste eacport as an alternative for future mixed municipal solid waste disposal needs. However,
present landfill capaciry is more than adequate to serve the Counry through the six-year planning period and beyond.
The County is in the process of contracting with a private company or companies for the disposal of construction, demolition,
and land clearing (CDL) waste and plans to begin out-of-counry disposal of CDL in 1993. The 1992 disposal figure of 120,000 tons
per year is based on that portion of the CDL waste stream generated in King County that is currently being transferred out-of-county
by a private hauler (Rabanco). Projections for lgg4 and lgg7 are based on the CDL project Final Environmental Impact Statement
estimates of 600,000 tons per year minus 5 percent for anticipated recycling activity.
3.5.2.2 The CDL faciliry will be owned and operated by the private companies (Rabanco and Waste Management). The County will
incur some administrative costs, which are 100 percent reimbursable from the contractor to the County. Therefore, the net cost
impact should be zero.
3.5.2.3 The private vendor(s) will impose a per-ton tip fee to recover cos�s. The Solid Waste Division will impose a per-ton
administrative surcharge to the CDL faciliry owners to cover administrative costs incureed by the Division.
3.6 Energy Recovery and Incineration Programs
No waste-to-energy facilities are under consideration for implementation in King Counry during the planning period.
3.7 Land Disposal Programs
3.7.1 Cedar Hills is owned by King County. The Washington State Deparpnent of Natural Resources previously owned the faciliry.
Transfer of ownership occurred on June 22 1992.
3.7.2 Based on the Solid Waste Division's internal records, approxirtiately 73 percent of the overall tonnage delivered to Cedar Hills,
and 11 percent of tonnage delivered to the Vashon Landfill is transferred by W[1TC-regulated haulers. No waste delivery to Hobart is
done via W[ITC-cegulated haulers (see Section 3.4.1).
3.7.3 Based on the Solid Waste Division's internal records, 100 percent of the tonnage delivered to the Hobart Landfill, 89 percent of
tonnage delivered to the Vashon Landfill, and 27 percent of tonnage delivered to Cedar Hills is transferred by contributors other than
W[JTC-regulated haulers.
3J.4 Elements of the 1992 operating budget that are directly attributable to landfill disposal are indicated in Table 3.2. Fstimated
costs for 1994 and 1997 are based as follows: fixed costs are based on 1992 costs intlated by 3.S percent per year; variable costs,
which are defined as costs directly related to the amount of tonnage received at each landfill, are estimated on a per-ton basis for
each year.
Append'xx K il�U7C Solid Waste Cost Assessment
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
K -1
9
Elements of the 1992 1994, and 1997 CIP are based on the six-year CIP project schedule, which is funded through 1g87, lg8g,
1992, and 1995 bonds, the Landfill Reserve Fund, and the Environmental Reserve Fund (see Table 43.1 for detailed landfill projects).
Please note that the yearly CIP expenditure projections may be oversta,ted because multiyear projects may be budgeted in one year.
Elements of the 1g92, lgg4, and lgg7 equipment budgets are based on the results of the Solid Waste Division's Capital
Equipment Replacement Program Fund (CERP) model (see 3.4). The model assumes that approximately 45 percent of the
equipment purchases each year are direcdy related to Cedar Hills Landfill, and 1.66 percent of all equipment purchases are allocated
to each rural landf'ill.
The 1g94 Hobart operating and CERP wsts are based on six months of operation.
3.7.5 Funding Mechanism
19 92 1994 1997
Tip Fee 14% 43% 32%
Grants 0 3 0
Bond 9 0 0
Landfill Reserve 70 53 56
Environmental Reserve 3 2 3
CERP 4 0 9
3.8 ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
1992 1994 1997
3.8.1 Management Administration Cost $33,769,671 $31;880,996 $33,629,867
3.8.2 Costs Components fund transfers, administrative staff and related administrative costs
3.8.3 Funding Mechanism tip fee, collection rate, surcharge, general fund, grants
3.9 OTHER PROGRAMS - n/a
3.8 Administratlon Prograin
3.8.1 Includes costs for the Counry and the suburban cities.
3.8.2 Elements of the lgg2 operating budget that are directly attributable to administrative costs are indicated in Table 3.2.
Estimated costs for 1994 and 19g7 are based on 1992 costs inflated by 3•5 percent per year.
3.8.3 Administrative costs aze funded as follows:
1992 1994 1997
Tip Fee 95.0% 95.096 94.0%
Collection Rates 4.0 4.0 4.0
Surcharge 0.5 0.5 0.5
General Fund 02 0.2 0.2
Grants 1.0 1.0 1.0
3.9 Other Programs - Na
Append'sx IC WUTG' Solid Waste Cast Assessment
K-2
0
Table 3� Solid Waste Division Operaring Expenditure Projectlons
Detail 1992 1994 1997
3.1.2 Waste Reduction 988,000 1,059,000 1,174,000
3.2 Recycling 4,538,000 4,861,000 5,389,000
3.4.3 General Collection Costs 303,000 325,000 360,000
3.4.3 MRW Collection Costs 1,918,000 2,055,000 2,278,000
3.5.1.1 Customer Transactions 1,498,000 1,605,000 1,780,000
3.5.1.1 Transfer Operations 3,630,000 4,536,000 5,029,000
3.5.1.1 Transportation 3,753,000 3,350,000 3,527,000
3.5.1.1 Shop Costs (Transfer) 3,615,000 3,702,000 4,021,000
3.7.4 Shop Costs (Landfill) 1,551,000 1,617,000 1,724,000
3.7.4 Cedar Hills 5,309,000 5,490,000 5,694,000
3.7.4 Rural Landfills 1,138,000 813,000 421,000
3.7.4 LFG/Wastewater 525,000 563,000 624,000
3.8.1 Administrative Transfers
Overhead
LTGO Bonds
CERP
Landfill Reserve Fund
3.8.1 Administration
3.8.1 Legal
3.8.1 Engineering Services
3.8.1 Program Planning
3.8.1 Fiscal Services
3.8.1 Operations Administration
3.8.1 MRW Admin/Educ
Total Operating Budget
King County
Suburban Cides
977,000
7,686,000
3,785,000
14,749,000
4,227,000
191,000
1,362,000
693,000
745,000
895,000
95,000
64,171,000
60,599,000
3,572,000
1,046,000
7,712,000
0
12,186,000
4,528,000
205,000
1,459,000
742,000
798,000
959,000
t 02,000
59,712,000
55,886,000
3,827,000
1,160,000
7,712,000
3,763,000
12,700,000
4,696,000
227,000
1,618,000
823,000
885,000
1,063,000
113,000
66,781,000
61,961,000
4,243,000
Summary
3.1.2 Total Waste Reduction 988,000 1,059,000 1,174,000
King County 661,000 708,000 785,000
Suburhan Ci6es 327,000 350,000 388,000
3.2 Total Recycling 4,538,000 4,861,000 5,389,000
KingCounty 2,645,000 2,833,000 3,141,000
Marke6ng Commission 585,000 627,000 695,000
Suburban Cibes 1,307,000 1,401,000 1,553,000
3.4 Total Collection 2,222,000 2,380,000 2,639,000
KingCounty 1,918,000 2,055,000 2,278,000
Suburban Cities 303,000 325,000 360,000
3.8.1 Total Administration 35,404,000 29,737,000 34,759,000
King County 33,770,000 27,986,000 32,818,000
Suburban Cities 1,634,000 1,751,000 1,941,000
3.5.1.1 Total Transfer 12,497,000 13,193,000 14,357,000
3.7.4 Total Disposal 8,523,000 8,483,000 8,463,000
64,171,000 59,712,000 66,781,000
Appe�tdix K WU7�' SOlid Waste Cast Assessment
<: K - 21 <'
4. FUNDING MECHANISMS
4.1 TIPPING FEES
4.1.1 Facility Names
Landfills Transfer Stations Drop-boxes
Cedar Hills Algona Cedar Falls
Vashon Bow Lake Skykomish
Hobart* Enumclaw
Factoria
First Northeast
Houghton
Renton
* Hobart Landfill is scheduled to close in 1994
4.1.2 Revenues See Table 4.12
4.2 GRANTS
4.2.1 Grant Detailed Information
Name Provider Amount
Coordinated Ecology $ 2,000,000
Prevention (CPG)
Food Waste Ecology 302,000
Waste-Not- Ecology 1,035,000
Washington
City Optional King County 994,000
WR/R King County 3,000,000
Year
92-93
92-94
92-95
92-95
92-95
Purpose
Enumclaw landfill closure ($500k); WR/R
programs
Testing of collection & processing methods for
food waste
To provide WR/R services to Snoqualmie Valley,
Skykomish, Issaquah & Snoqualmie Pass
Non-residential technical assistance
Start-up costs for commercial, multifamily & yard
waste collection programs
TOTAL: S 7,331,000
4.3 BONDS
4.3.1 Bond Summary Iniormation
Year Type Life Value Purpose x
1987 LTGO 20 $42,000,000 Cedar Hilis mitigation
1989 LTGO 20 $16,900,000 Enumclaw Transfer Station
1992 LTGO 20 $13,900,000 Customer service improvements, transfer station
upgrades/replacements
1995 LTGO 20 $30,000,000 New facilities (N.E. Lake Washington and new Auburn
Transfer Stations)
" for detailed bond i�formation see Table 4.3
4.4 RATES Please refer to Volume I, Chapter IV
4.5 OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS See Table 4.5
4.6 FUNDING MECHANISM SUMMARY See Table 4.6.1
Appe�adix K.• WUTC Sol�d Waste Cost Assessment
K-22
Table 41.2 Revenue Forecast by Facility
1992 1994 1997
Tip Avg. Tip Avg. Tip Avg.
Revenue Fee load Revenue Fee Load Revenue Fee Load
Tonnage (millions) fTan Charge Tonnage (millions) �Ton Charge Tonnage (millions) fTon Charge
General Use Facilities
Transfer & Drop Box Stations
Factoria
Houghton
Renton
Algona
Bow Lake
First NE
Cedar Falls Drop Box
Enumclaw
Hobart
139,000 9.174 66 73.41 116,000 7.682 86
178,000 11.148 66 81.23 153,000 10.111 66
60,000 3.860 66 59.63 48,000 3.155 66
127,000 8.382 66 76.53 107,000 7.088 66
173,000 11.418 66 74.80 144,000 9.517 66
89,000 5.814 66 41.62 71,000 4.686 66
3,000 .198 66 13.39 3,000 .185 66
10,000 .686 66
22,000 1.478 66
73.41 110,000 8.335 76.05
81.23 148,000 11.233 76.05
59.63 43,000 3.232 78.05
76.53 102,000 7.757 76.05
74.80 135,000 10.267 16.05
41.62 64,000 4.867 76.05
13.39 3,000 .190 78.05
30.63 9,000 .115 76.05
18.53 22,000 1.635 76.05
834,000 48.231
closed
21.94 4,200 .319 76.05
closed
4,200 .319
638,200 48.550 76.05
4,200 .210 64.31
642,400 48.820
79.65
90.24
81.09
83.75
80.69
43.23
13.75
31.92
20.50
1 769,000 50.754 676,000 44.590
Rural Landfills
Enumclaw 6,100 .404 BB 30.63 closed
Vashon 7,100 .472 66 21.94 4,400 .290 86
Hobart 10,400 .685 66 18.53 closed
2 23,700 1.561 4,400 .290
3 Total Gen. Use Facilities Refuse 792,800 52.327 66 680,400 44.880 66
4 Total Yard Waste 1,800 .103 58 2,800 .162 58
5 Total General Use Facilities 794,600 52.430 683,200 45.042
24.13
Cedar Hills
6 Total Regional Drcect 119,300 5.132 43 575.70 109,300 4.700 43 575.70 102,700 4.896 47.67 599.71
Special Waste 5,600 .558 100 767.59 5,900 .580 100 767.59 6,400 .710 110.81 923.71
Commercial 15,700 .676 43 362.90 12,900 .555 43 362.90 12,100 .577 47.67 377.29
7 140,700 8.367 128,100 5.845 121,200 6.183
8 Total Cedar Nills 909,800 57.121 804,100 50.435 755,200 54.414
9 Grand Total Refuse Disposed 933,500 63.826 808,500 50.725 759,400 54.733
10 Grand Total - System 935,300 63.929 811,300 50.887 763,600 55.003
RowB-row7+row1; row9=row3+row7; rowl0=row9+row4
Append� K.� WUlC Solid Waste Cast Assessment
K-2
3
Table 43 Six-year CIP Plan
Rsvi:ed 1993•9B Estimatsd
Project Pra 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Projsct
No. Project Description gram Budpet Budget Budget Budget Budgst Budget Budpet Budpet Co:t
Fund
3030 SW Construction 1987
013093 CH Leachate Head Reductio CH 599,081 3,598,240
013095 CH Active Gas Collection CH 1,088,862 21,847,643
013097 CH RetentionlDetentian CH 431,285 1,100,005
013098 CH Maple Valley Force Main CH 290,157 3,845,880
013108 CH Pump Station I Const CH 84,882 1,586,082
2,494,227 31.877,850
003114 Cedar Falls Landfill Closure RLF 42,280 �•Z22•��8
003115 Enumclaw Landfill Closure RLF
003118 Hobart Landfill Closure RLF
003117 Vashon Landfill Closure RLF
013100 TIS facility Upgrade TS
D10729 Solid Waste Const•1987 ZZZ
Subtotal Fund 3030
2,245,567
8,408,594
(55) 4,459,998
42,225 16,336,835
1,453,408 2,572,702
(623,343) (247,809)
3,366,515 50,539,478
Fund
3140 SW Construction 1989
003125 CH Water Supply CH 1,468,522 2,308,021
003128 CH Pretreatment Facility CH 220,000
003157 CH Master Facility Plan CH 250,000 250,000
003158 CH Expanded Aquifer Mon CH 354,016 355,270
003159 CH Eastside Lchate Sys Imp CH 1,004,175 15,835 15,835 1,020,335
1,608,181 15,835 15,835 4,153,828
003156 NPDES S�W Permits NPDE 222,143 228,000
003119 Habart TIS TS 548,801 837,025
003120 Factoria TIS TS 1,304,752 1,793,124
003122 South King County TIS TS 32,982 33,000
003124 Enumclaw TIS TS 9,805,353 280,182 260,782 11,795,760
003138 Houghton Queuing Improve TS 698,030 707,000
003137 Algona TIS Slope Remediat TS 325,428 365,000
003144 Renton TIS Sewer Upprade TS 38,771 40,000
003146 Bow Lk TIS Water Main Rpl TS 78,024 78,870
003148 Algona TIS Study TS 40,529 92,900
480,752 280,782 280,782 15,743,879
003128 Trnsfr to CX•BIC ZZZ 51,988
003130 Transfer to Fund 3030 ZZZ 301,698 301,898
D10722 SW Constr 1989 • Default ZZZ 38,324 495,332
340,022 848,998
Subtotal Fund 3140 18,307,548 278,581 276,597 20,972,301
A�ercd� K WUI'C Solid Waste Cast Assessment
K-24
Table 43 Six-year CIP Plan (Contlnued)
Reviasd 1993-98 Estimatsd
Project Pra 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Project
No. Project Description grem Budpet Budget Budget Budget Budget Budpet Budget Budpet Cost
Fund
3831 Envirormental Reserve
003180 PuyalluplKit Corner ALR 552,490 28,529 28,529 581,019
003181 Houghton Aband LF Remed ALR 552,490 28,528 30,050 58,579 811,069
003182 Administration•Env Res ALR 306,608 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,500,000 1,806,606
003183 Bow Lake • Aband LF Rem ALR 326,470 340,555 68J,025 661,025
Subtotal Fund 3831 1,411,586 307,058 280,050 250,000 250,000 578,470 590,555 2,254,133 3,865,718
Fund
3901 SW Construction 1992
003143 NE Lake WA TIS TS
003147 Household Haz Waste TS
003160 Hoban TIS TS
003181 Factoria TIS TS
003162 South King County TIS TS
003164 1st NE Noise Barrier TS
003165 Alpona TIS I F're Hydrant TS
013088 Middle Snoqualmie TIS TS
013088 Bow Lake Expansion • MFP TS
013090 1st NE Expansion • MFP TS
380,000 3,420,000 10,081,000
003163 Repay Fnd 3140•Enum TIS 22Z 3,850,147 3,850,147 3,850,147
003191 Repay Fnd 3910' ZZZ
003193 1% for ArtlFund 3901 ZZZ
Subtotal Fund 3901 9,752,500 6,068,753 23,572,104 19,992,570 23,841,000 715,000 5,255,000 79,244,427 88,996,927
Fund
3910 Landfill Reserve
003129 CH Area 2I3 Final Cover CH
003138 CH Pretreatment Facility CH
003140 CH•Area 5 Oevelopment GH
003142 CH SW Main Hill Cove� CH
013103 CH Leachate Nead Red • Ph CH
013105 CH Surface Water Control CH
013107 CH Site Dev PIanIEIS Reissu CH
013111 CH Maple Valley Hiway Wid CH
013113 CH Area 4 Construction CH
013114 CH Master Electr, Emerpenc CH
013132 CH•Area 5•StormwaterlLeac CH
1,226,535 5,903,142 5,903,142 5,903,142 18,935,961
901,000 5,771,104 6,450,270 12,221,374 13,122,374
7,552,000 1,774,606 15,993,000 4,066,300 15,000 21,848,906 29,400,906
954,500 1,428,000 6,056,000 13,100,000 20,584,000 21,538,500
290,000 290,000
55,000 55,000
445,000 115,000 5,255,000 6,415,000 6,415,000
222,000 222,000 222,000
222,000 222,000 222,000
9,752,500 2,218,606 23,572,104 19,992,570 23,641,000 715,000 5,255,000 75,394,280 85,146,180
7,188,218
5,998,889
8,272,747
863,860
1,282,232
150,000
22,722,864 1,013,860
13,881,000 13,881,000
863,660
150,000
611,852 5,883,843 5,883,639 11,945,134
1,844,387 11,588,785 11,588,781 5,903,142 31,894,755
8,339,800
8,005,000
1 B,935,981
8,037,187
883,680
21,800,098
150,000
11,945,134
77,078,950
Appendzx K t�(TI'C Solid Waste Cast Assessment
K-2
5
Table 4.3 Six-year CIP Plan (Continued)
Rsvised 1993-98 E:timetsd
Project Pro- 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Projsct
No. Project Deacription gram Budgst Budget Budpet Budget Budgst Budgst Budpst Budgst Co:t
003132 Vashon LF NAD RLF
003145 Vashon LF FC RLF
013115 Enumclaw LF Closure RLF 2,745,815
013116 Hobart LF Closure RLF 2,992,878 (1,028,0421 2,739,000
013117 Vashon LF Closure RLF 335,874
016111 Vashon Site Dev Plan RLF 50,000
017117 Vashon Leachate StoragelP RLF 1,051,000
023116 Hoban Temp Gover SW Imp RLF 220,000
6,014,587 292,958
2,988,739
1,110,958 4,974,008
406,853
50,000 50,000
1,051,000 1,051,000
220,000 220,000
2,739,000 9,888,600
003102 Transfer to Landfill PG Fund 222 4,895,615 5,000,000 7,100,000 12,100,000 16,995,615
003182 Loan To Fund 3901 ' ZZZ
D10727 Landfill Reserve Default 2ZZ 237,221 9,806,760
5,132,836 5,000,000 7,100,000 12,100,000 26,802,375
Subtotal Fund 3910 33,930,281 6,306,818 9,839,000 1,844,387 11,568,785 11,588,781 5,903,142 47,028,113 113,587,925
GRANO TOTAL 84,768,416 12,959,026 33,691,154 22,088,957 35,457,785 12,858,251 11,748,897 128,801,870 271,742,350
Note: Does not reflect activity in projects closed out in 1992
' interim financing amount and timing t.b.d.
Appendix K.• WUTC Solid Waste Cast Assessment
x - 26
T�le �5 Other Funding Mechanisius (in � millionsj
1992 1994 1997
Beginning Fund Balance 10.164 6.835
Prior Year Carryover 2.905
Tip Fee Revenue (Table 4.1.2) 63.929 50.887 55.003
Health Dept. Charges -.540
76.998 57.182 55.003
Other Revenue
Moderate Risk Waste 2.222 2.380
Interest .610 .600
Grants .066 .754
WR/R Revenues .321 .300
E/RR 3.000
FEMA Reimbursement .300
Insurance Refund .110
6.329 4.334 11.846
Total Revenue 83.326 61.516 66.849
Total Expenditures (Table 3.3) 60.599 55.886 61.961
Ending Fund Balance 22.727 5.630 4.888
Less: 45-day Cash Reserve Requirement 4.780 4.721 4.888
Undesignated Fund Balance 17.947 .910 .000
Appendzx K.� WU7C Solul Waste Cost Assessme�at
K-2
7
Table 4.6.1 Funding Mechanism (in Percent)
Tip Landfill Env. Collection General
Component Fee Grant Bond Reserve Reserve CERP Rates Surcharges Fund Total
Waste Reduction
1992 60.74 6.05 26.07 5.93 1.21 100.00
1994 47.17 19.96 26.07 5.57 1.21 100.00
1997 61.84 5.79 26.07 5.08 1.21 100.00
Waste Recycling
1992 64.35 6.72 22.71 5.17 1.06 100.00
1994 53.99 17.39 22.71 4.85 1.06 100.00
1997 66.76 5.05 22.71 4.42 1.06 100.00
Collection
1992 13.66 86.34 100.00
1994 13.66 86.34 100.00
1997 13.66 86.34 100.00
ER8�1
1992
1994
1997
Transfer
1992 28.15 66.83 5.02 ��•�
1994 35.89 64.11 100.00
1997 82.77 4.74 12.48 1 �.�
Land Disposal
1992 13.74 9.11 70.31 2.93 3.92 ��•�
1994 42.91 2.69 52.89 1.51 100.00
1997 31.94 56.13 2.80 9.13 ����
Administration
1992 95.13 0.81 3.63 0.27 0.17 100.00
1994 94.51 0.91 4.09 0.30 0.19 100.00
1997 94.24 0.95 4.29 0.32 0.20 100.00
Total
1992 58.10 0.69 31.52 4.03 3.07 2.46 0.13 100.00
1994 64.37 2.13 27.01 3.53 2.81 0.15 100.00
1997 83.32 0.99 1.04 5.50 5.00 3.93 0.21 100.00
Appendzx K.• W�ITC Solut Waste Cast Assessment