Loading...
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 a