Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 2513 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION N0 : 2513 :r A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENDORSING THE 1982 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS the Washington State Solid Waste Management--Recovery and Recycling Act contained in Chapter 70. 95 RCW, requires all cities and all counties to have current comprehensive solid waste management plans , and WHEREAS the City of Renton agreed on May 9 , 1983 to participate with the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments in the joint preparation of a revised Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan under the provisions of Chapter 70. 95 . 080 RCW and has contributed to the financial cost of the plan revision, and WHEREAS, the King Subregional Council of Puget Sound Council of Governments , which functions as the Solid Waste Management Board with responsibility for comprehensive solid waste planning, has adopted the 1982 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the public health and safety of the residents of King County require safe and efficient handling and disposal of solid waste; now therefore THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I : That the above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . b r SECTION II : That the City of Renton does endorse the 1982 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as the policy guide for solid waste management in King County . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 13th day of June 1983 . Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 13th day of June 1983 . Barbara Y. S inpocMayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. WaYren, City Attorney 1 oFMCEOF TOE CM CLERK RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. 200 MILL AVE.SOUTH RENTON,WA 98055 i 1 1982 i KING COUNTY 1 COMPREHENSIVE 1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 PLAN i 1 1 i 1 Puget Sound Council of Governments id Management Sol Wast� Board ' Kft Subrapional Councl PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS President : Councilman Bill Reams , King County Vice-President : Councilman Jake Bujacich , Pierce County Executive Director: Mart Kask Division Director, King Subregional Council : Jim Williams Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 464-7090 King Subregional Council Solid Waste Management Board Membership - 1982 Councilmember Bruce Laing, King County, Chairman V' Chairman r George Benson Seattle, C Councilmembe ice g Councilmember Paul MallarY, Algona Mayor Bob Roegner, Auburn Councilmember Lewis Ford, Beaux Arts Councilmember Dru Briggs, Bellevue Councilmember Nan Campbell, Bellevue Councilmember Sue Walsh, Bothell Councilmember Roger Shaeffer, Clyde Hill Councilmember Bill Whisler, Des Moines ' Councilmember Jeane Baldwin, Duvall Councilmember Michael Stensen, Enumclaw Councilmember Darlene McHenry, Issaquah Mayor Isabel K. Hogan, Kent County Executive Randy Revelle, King County Councilmember Paul Barden, King County Councilmember Scott Blair, King County Councilmember Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Audrey Gruger, King County Councilmember Bill Reams, King County Councilmember Doris Cooper, Kirkland Councilmember Dick Rainforth, Lake Forest Park Councilmember Fred Jarrett, Mercer Island Executive Director Si Whitman, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Mayor John Dawson, Normandy Park Mayor Oscar Miller, North Bend Councilmember Doreen Marchione, Redmond Councilmember Robert Hughes , Renton Mayor Charles Royer, Seattle Councilmember Michael I;ildt, Seattle Councilmember Norm Rice, Seattle Councilmember Paul Kraabel, Seattle Councilmember Jeanette Williams, Seattle Mayor Darwin Sukut, Snoqualmie Councilmember Ed Bauch, Tukwila Councilmember Mabel Harris, Tukwila 1 1982 � KING COUNTY � COMPREHENSIVE � SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT � PLAN 1 1 1 ' Puget Sound Council of Governments ' xue °tea zum.o o..i^ Council The preparation of this plan was supported by a grant from the Department of Ecology under the provisions of Referendum 39 . t OFFICE OF THE CPPV CLERK RENTON MUNICIPAL'BLDG. 200 MILL AVE-SOUTH RENTON,WA 98055 TABLE OF CONTENTS KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Adoption Resolution 1 I . Executive Summary 3 II . Preface 9 III . Regional Goals 13 A. Organizational 14 B. Environmental 14 1 C. Service Level/Economic 15 D. Operational (Compiled from Operating 15 Agencies) IV. Solid Waste Management Strategies 21 ' A. Solid Waste System Management 21 1 . Designated Planning Agency 22 2 . Responsibilities of the Solid 24 Waste Management Board 3 . Designation of Operating Agencies 26 4 . Responsibilities of Operating Agencies 28 5 . Regulatory and Enforcement Agencies 29 B. Twenty-year Implementation Plan 31 I V. Revision and Amendment Procedure 35 A. Plan Adoption 35 B . Amendments and Revisions 36 C. Six-year Implementation Program Amendment 38 D. Annual Review 39 i VI . Appendix 41 A. History of Solid Waste Planning 43 B. Legislative Background and Legal Authority 49 C. Existing Baseline Conditions 59 1 . Area Background 59 a. Land Use 59 b. Transportation 62 c. Population and Employment 63 d. Systemwide Factors 69 , e. Climate 71 f. Air Quality 72 2 . Waste Generation 75 D. Solid Waste Management Structure 115 1 . Comprehensive Planning 117 2 . Operations 127 t a. Waste Reduction 129 b. Storage 137 1 c . Collection 143 d. Transfer 163 ' e. Long-Haul Transport 179 f. Final Disposal 187 g. Recycling and Resource Recovery 221 h. Energy Recovery 245 i. Financial Analysis 259 3 . Enforcement 269 E. Six-year Implementation Program 281 F. Adoption Resolutions of County and Cities - VII. Hazardous Waste Plan 289293 VIII. Operational Plans 295 IX. Glossary 299 X. Final Environmental Impact Statement 445 , XI, Minimum Functional Standards XII. Adoption Resolutions of Counties and Cities 465 J 5C O G Grand Central on the Park.216 First Avenue South• Seattle,WA 98104 • 206/464-7090 P Puget Sound Council of Governments 1;GIONAL COUNCIL A RESOLUTION 0..F THE KING SUBR.. 1 OF THE PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ADOPTING THE 1982 KING COUNTY C011PREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAC-EMENT PLAN WHEREAS , the King Subregional Council functions as the Solid Waste Management Board with responsibility for comprehen- sive solid waste management planning; and 1 WHEREAS , the King Subregional Council is the designated planning agency for solid waste under Section 4006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ; and 1 WHEREAS , prudent solid waste management practices and the Revised Code of Washington , Section 70. 95 , require a comprehensive solid waste management plan; and ■ WHEREAS , the public health and safety of the residents of King County require safe and efficient handling and disposal of solid waste ; and WHEREAS , the Citizen' s Advisory Committee and the Committee on Solid Waste have nrenared the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and recommend its adoption; NOW THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the King Subregional Council does adopt the 1982 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as the policy guide for solid waste management in King County. FURTHER, the King Subregional Council recommends adoption of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan by each local govern- ment in King County. r 1" February 10 , 1983 ~~ Councilman Fred Jarrett (Mercer Island) , Chairman King Subregional Council 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 The 1982 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan updates and replaces the previous Comprehensive Plan published in 1974. The revised plan was prepared under the guidance of a committee of elected officials of the Solid Waste Management Board with the assistance of a broadly based advisory committee . ' Need for a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan 1 State law, Chapter 70. 95 RCW, requires local government to prepare and adopt a comprehensive solid waste management plan. Each county , in cooperation with cities within the county, is required to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid waste management: plan. Each city has three options regarding preparation of the plan. 1 . Prepare their own plan and provide it to the county for integration into the comprehensive county plan; 2. Enter into an agreement with the county (or the Solid Waste Management Board in the case of the revised plan) to prepare a joint plan; I3 . Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. All participating jurisdictions entered into a joint agree- ment with the Management Board for revision of the plan. State law requires that the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan be kept current . The revision of the plan was done 3 I cooperatively by the Solid Waste Management Board. The primary responsibility for comprehensive planning is placed ! on counties ; in King County, this responsibility has been delegated to the Solid Waste Management Board.. The duties , of the Solid Waste Management Board are now being performed by the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments . Goals The plan establishes broad regional solid waste manage- ment goals to guide solid waste planning and long-range deci- sions . The goals promote coordination among interested entities (public and private) and consideration of interjurisdictional impacts . They seek to protect public health and welfare and the quality of the environment . The interests of the ratepayers ' are emphasized. The plan encourages consideration of short- and long-term impacts and associated risks of solid waste ' decisions . Cost-effective materials recovery and energy re- covery are encouraged. The plan also includes legislatively adopted operational goals for local operating agencies . The planning process examined the amount of waste in the county and existing facilities to handle the waste . The plan deals mainly with mixed residential and commercial waste which is in the publicly operated system. Hazardous wastes are not addressed in the initial revision and will be addressed in a second phase during 1983-84 . It is a negotiated document built on a cooperative approach to handling solid waste.. It recog- nizes the interdependency of entities in the solid waste system and the impact that one jurisdiction or decision may have on another . , i 4 Findings tThe plan identifies several significant factors for solid waste management. • There will be a significant increase in the amount of waste generated in all areas of the county , particularly on the Eastside . Waste volumes will grow by 45 percent by the year 2000 . • None of the disposal sites in the county currently meet the Health Department standards although all of the violations are relatively minor. • Many disposal sites will close in the mid-1980 ' s , leaving the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill as the pri- mary disposal site. • In general , the existing solid waste management system works well . Storage of waste meets health and safety standards ; the privately operated collection system functions efficiently, and public transfer stations and transport systems operate effectively but need continual replacement and improvements . j • Private recycling operations reduced the volume of waste requiring disposal by 14 percent in Seattle . Recycling is an active , ad hoc system which is a significant part of the solid waste disposal system. • Energy recovery is a preferred means of solid waste disposal . Public and private entities are actively interested in the potential of incineration with an energy recovE�ry system as an alternative means of disposal . Seattle and King County are about to com- mence the second phase of a joint energy recovery feasibility study , and private corporations are work- ing to develop economically feasible proposals . 0 Decisions affecting allocation of the waste stream ' among potentially competing users will significantly shape solid waste handling systems of the future . 5 • Comprehensive planning for hazardous waste will be done in a second phase , to be completed by .dune 30 , 1984 . , After a supplemental environmental impact statement , the hazardous waste section will be added to the plan ' through the amendment process . "Needs and Opportunities" The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan identifies "needs" that exist or "opportunities" to improve the present system. Operating agencies provided the principal identification of the , "needs" of the system. Several major points are included in the list of needs and opportunities . • Local government has limited control or influence over major means of reducing the volume of waste entering , the waste stream. • Littering and illegal dumping remain problems and are ' influenced by collection and disposal costs . • The City of Seattle transfer stations are about to be rehabilitated. i • Landfill improvements are recognized as necessary for compliance with the Minimum Functional standards . Capital improvements will include a long-range usage plan for Cedar Hills , and programmed closure of King County' s small rural landfills . • Additional information is necessary before deciding to proceed with an energy recovery system. Phase II of the Energy/Resource Recovery Project and joint or paral- lel private analysis will provide information and recom- mendations . • Assurance of continued availability of waste for al- ternative uses is necessary to provide a sound financial basis for continued recycling and the possibility of an , energy recovery component of the disposal system. 6 r _Responsibilities The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan reaf- firms the structure and responsibilities of the present solid waste management system. The responsibilities of all entities ' are directed at promoting the public health and welfare , providing g efficient service to the ratepayer , and meeting the overall goals of the system. Existing agencies are designated to con- tinue to perform those! functions . Solid waste management in King County is based on the di- vision of the responsibilities for comprehensive planning , operations , and enforcement . Comprehensive planning is con- ducted by the Solid Waste Management Board, whose responsibi- lities include joint planning and agency coordination. The functions of the Solid Waste Management Board are being carried ' out by the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments . The Solid Waste Management Board is charged with revision of the comprehensive plan, compilation of an annual list of system improvements , providing a forum for con- sideration of interjurisdictional impacts within the system and review and comment on proposed projects for consistency with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Solid waste operations are carried out by operating enti- ties , public and private . The responsibilities of the operating agencies are broadly construed . The operating agencies function under authority vested in them by the Revised Code of Washington , under implementation designations conferred under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act , permits granted by the Seattle- King County Department of Public Health, certificates of public convenience and necessity granted by the Washington Utilities I and Transportation Commission , or under licenses , franchises , or contracts from cities . Operational plans will be prepared by each operating agency as part of a second tier in the comprehen- sive planning process . Operating plans will be incorporated into 7 the appendix of the comprehensive plan by the Solid Waste Manage- ment Board. Enforcement of public health and safety standards pertinent to solid waste handling and disposal , is principally the responsibil- ity of the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Adoption , A review draft of the plan received wide circulation and review prior to preparation of a final draft for adoption. An environmental impact statement has been prepared as part of the plan revision process . t The plan will be subject to approval by the King Subregional Council functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board and , must be adopted by the councils of the county and each city in the county. The plan will be reviewed annually and updated as needed by the Solid Waste Management Board. Hazardous Waste The Solid Waste Management Board is committed to developing , a hazardous waste element for addition to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The hazardous waste element will parallel the original plan in scope and format . Greater detail will be pro- vided, to the extent that the information is available . A schedule for completion of the hazardous element is as follows : ' Task Scheduled Completion 1 . Review responsibilities , laws and April , 1983 regulations 2 . Complete and review existing data base June , 1983 3 . Secure waste generation information September , 1983 4. Describe existing system November , 1983 5 . Analyze capacity of system January , 1984 6. Identify needs , opportunities , and February, 1984 alternatives , March, 1984 7 . Propose recommendation 8 . Draft plan element March, 1984 9 . Prepare supplemental environmental impact April , 1984 statement 10 . Amend comprehensive plan June , 1984 8 i � j . 198.2 PREFACE IPurpose The purpose of the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is to provide long-range countywide guidance and coordination for the management of solid waste handling and disposal. The 1982 plan is designed as a process to assess the existing conditions , establish general goals , project future system-wide needs, and :identify opportunities to solve anticipated problems . The plan makes general recommendations regarding the future demand for waste handling and disposal facilities , service levels , environmental protection, information needs , energy and resource recovery, institutional arrangements and ' provides a basis for intergovernmental coordination, management and planning. ' The distinctions between the three major system elements , (1) comprehensive planning , (2) operating responsibilities and operational planning , and (3) regulation and enforcement , are maintained in the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The 1982 plan recognizes local operating entities , public Iand private, as the implementing and operating agencies with full and exclusive responsibility to manage and operate their respective solid waste functions . Solid Waste System in 1982 The public and private elements for the countywide solid waste system function well . Waste is collected, handled and disposed of in a generally satisfactory manner without undue risk to public health and welfare . The system elements will continue to be adjusted, improved, and replaced. The stage is set for possible significant changes in the future . 9 t 1 The last major examination of the countywide solid waste handling system occurred in 1972. Many of the recommendations of the 1974 River Basin Coordinating Committee' s plan, Environ- mental Management for the Metropolitan Area, Part IV : Solid ' Waste , have been implemented. A multijurisdict:ional manage- ment board has been established. Scale systems; have been , installed at all transfer stations . King Country built a new transfer station at Bow Lake. The leachate collection system , at Cedar Hills to serve the existing cells was completed. New areas used for solid waste disposal are being underlaid with collection pipes and tied into the leachate collection system before any waste is deposited in the new areas . Some of the nonconforming rural disposal sites and the Tulalip landfill have been closed. The rate of recycling has grown throughout the county and the City of Seattle has adopted recycling and waste reduction priorities and instituted programs to promote and encourage recycling , source separation and composting. Seattle and King County have jointly undertaken an Environmental Pro- tection Agency funded multiphase study to examine the possibili- ties for energy and resource recovery within the county. The private sector is also actively considering energy recovery options . Opportunities in 1982 Since 1974 , the legal requirements for solid waste plan- ning and handling have changed with the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 , and the development of Washington State Department of Ecology regulations on extremely hazardous and dangerous wastes , and guidelines on the handling and disposal of sewage sludge. The practical application of waste handling technology has improved substantially and the issues facing jurisdictions in King County have changed. Opportunities exist for improvement of the solid waste disposal s stem. New problems and issues need to handling and dis p Y tll 10 i be addressed in the context of the county wide system and by the individual operating entities . The countywide issues and pro- blems current in 1982 include waste stream ownership or control , intercounty transfer of waste, escalating public and private operational and disposal costs , declining landfill capacity, landfill closure costs , risk and liability, environmental de- gradation, and the obstacles and opportunities for resource recovery and hazardous waste disposal . The 1982 Plan The plan proposes the institutional arrangements desir- able to advance the level of sophistication and coordination in comprehensive solid waste policy planning and long-range management . The planning effort has examined existing condi- tions and considered technical , economic, and institutional arrangements . Alternative planning and management structures ' were actively and persistently examined. Operational issues , economic analysis, and fiscal matters are the responsibility of I local governments . They are synthesized on a countywide basis in the plan. The plan contains a compilation of local operat- ing recommendations and implementation programs . Operational plans prepared by local governments will be incorporated in the plan when approved by the Solid Waste Management Board. ' The document itself is intended to be as concise and direct as possible . Essential information, including goals and responsibilities , is presented in the body of the plan. Supporting material and analysis , such as existing baseline conditions , waste generation data, and examination of existing operations are treated as appendices . The appendix also includes information, recommendations , and planned improvements that are ' subject to annual revisions . The Environmental Impact State- ment and the Minimum ]Functional Standards are incorporated in the plan document to keep all the systemwide planning materials 1 11 p bound in g a single lace . Hazardous wastes will be considered , in a second phase of the planning process which will be com- pleted in 1984 . , This plan and the regional planning process are designed , to be flexible and dynamic vehicles subject to change as war- ranted by changing conditions and priorities . The plan is ex- plicitly designed to be revised annually to include changes in , operating agencies ' capital improvement programs . r t 12 �r REGIONAL GOALS ' The regional solid waste management goals constitute the broadest and most general objectives of the entire solid waste management system. The regional goals of the Compre- hensive Solid Waste Management Plan serve as a baseline for long-range planning and operating decisions . The responsibilities and strategies of the Solid Waste Management Board are derived from the opportunity the Board has to further achievement of ' the regional solid waste management goals and to support and assist in the achievement of the adopted operational goals of the implementation entities. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan assesses the existing conditions in the solid waste management system as a baseline from which to measure achievement of the regional goals . The continued attainment and future achievement of the regional goals is the responsibility of each operating entity in cooperation with the Solid Waste Management Board . The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan identifies "needs" which exist ir. each functional area of the solid waste management system. The plan suggests "opportunities" for meeting the identified needs which will aid in maintain- ing or meeting the regional and operating goals for the solid waste management system. The regional goals are divided into organizational goals , environmental goals , and service level/economic impact goals . operational goals were provided by public and private operating 13 entities . The operating goals of public jurisdictions are , adopted by the appropriate legislative body and are recorded in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan by the Solid , Waste Management Board. REGIONAL SOLID WASTE GOALS , ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS 1) Promote countywide coordination between agencies , including adjacent counties where appropriate , in solid waste manage- , ment policy development and planning. 2) Develop the King County Comprehensive Solid 4.?aste Management Plan allowing for coordination with other entities in the , region 3) Continue and encourage increased joint public and private participation in solid waste goal and policy setting , plan- ning , implementation, and operations r 4) Support timely adoption and review of solid waste plans ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS 1) Promote protection of the public health , safety, and welfare 2) Promote protection and improvement of the overall quality of the environment 3) Promote the handling and disposal of dangerous and extremely hazardous wastes in compliance with Federal , state and local laws , ordinances, and guidelines r 14 1 r r 4) Encourage reduction :in litter and illegal dumping 1 5) Encourage reduction :in materials entering the waste stream SERVICE LEVEL/ECONOMIC IMPACT GOALS 1) Consider the effect on the rate payers of programs or projects undertaken 2) Encourage a balance of short- and long-term considerations including risk when assessing the cost effectiveness of solid waste handling and disposal systems 1 3) Promote cost-effective materials recovery ' over 4) Promote cost-effective energy recovery from solid waste 5) Encourage utilization of existing facilities and sites to the fullest extent feasible within legal , regulatory „ economic , environmental, and technical considerations r ' OPERATIONAL GOALS : CITY OF SEATTLE Composting : ' 1) It is "the goal. of the City of Seattle to compost , or otherwise to put to productive use in landscaping or gardening , all yard waste generated in the City of Seattle . " "To achieve this goal , the City . . .actively encourage (s) and assist (s) its citizens to compost their yard waste in backyard , neighborhood , and centralized projects . . . . Rackyard composting is the pre- ferred approach , neighborhood composting is second in preference ; and centralized is third. "(Resolution 26277) r 15 i 2) ". . .Composting yard waste is preferred to burning the material to produce energy. In determining the size of the , City' s future energy recovery facilities , or the extent of the City' s participation in an energy recovery facility sponsored , by another agency , the City' s goal to compost all yard waste shall be considered. This could necessitate landfilling a fraction of the solid waste representing yard waste until the r composting goal is reached. " (Resolution 26277) Waste Reduction : 3) "The City (of Seattle) declares that one of its pri- orities in promoting the public health and welfare through solid waste management , is to encourage citizens and business to reduce the amount of waste they produce . Waste reduction refers to any action that reduces the quantity of waste, includ- ing, but not limited to , reuse , recycling , composting , and re- duction of the quantity of materials consumed (through improved , consumer buying habits and product design and marketing prac- tices) . " (Resolution 26559) ' 4) It is the City (of Seattle ' s) intent that energy re- covery facilities shall be implemented in a way that would not discourage waste reduction, including recycling through source separation. The City shall take these recycling goals , and the City' s desire to encourage waste reduction , into account in de- termining the size of any energy recovery facilities . Waste re- duction shall have first priority and energy recovery shall have second priority as a means of reducing the amount of material disposed of on the land. " (Resolution 26559) Recycling : 5) "It shall be the City' s goal to increase recycling of readily recyclable materials by approximately 50 percent , in- creasing the 1978 level of 14 percent of total wastes generated 16 to a 1986 level of 22 percent . The following recycling goals are established for each material , expressed as a percentage of the quantity of each material that is discarded in the resi- dential and commercial sectors : Recycling Goal " tMaterial or Product for 1986 Newsprint 70 Corrugated and paperboard 65 High-grade paper 65 Glass 30 Steel Cans 20 Appliances 95 Aluminum 70 (Resolution 26559) Energy Recovery : 6) "Establish an 'Energy Recovery Project ' for the purpose of planning , developing , and implementing an energy recovery program for the city" . . . . "The Executive should develop : a) de- tailed work plan and time schedule for an energy recovery faci- lity(ies) . The work plan should include market surveys , site selection, environmental impacts , and risk management . The work plan should specify additional Council check points as necessary. All significant changes in the work plan or time schedule should be reported to the Council . The Executive should develop an Implementation Plan , indicating the proposed markets , proposed sites , candidate technologies , risk manage- ment plan , procurement plan , financing plan , environmental impacts , energy impacts , waste sources and quantities , and other key elements . " (Resolution 25872) NOTE : Substantial detail and guidance is provided as to priori- ties for disposal or reuse , economics , size and capacity , cost comparisons , finance , risks , markets , siting , community impact , g ommunit iact intergovernmental cooperation . P ' 17 r t Environment: ++ , 7) The first priority goal shall be to minimize adverse environmental impacts . Action toward this goal should include programs to reduce the amount of refuse generated and the , amount that is ultimately landfill(ed) . The second priority goal is to minimize solid waste collection and disposal costs , r and to achieve equity among residential and commercial cus- tomers . " (Resolution 25601) Rates : 8) Refuse collection and disposal rates should be de- signed to promote rate equity between customer classes , pro- vide incentives to encourage conservation by waste: reduction , and generate sufficient revenue to pay existing contracts . , Rate equity exists when each class of Solid Waste Utility customers supply 1 approximately that amount of revenue neces- sary eces- sarytopy expense a the of the associated service . The Solid ' Waste Utility has three distinct customer classes : residential , commercial , and municipal users . Developing an equitable rate r structure requires an ongoing data base to work f1rom. As a minimum, this data base should include : accounting; records based upon uniform standards , budget documents , and manage- ment information such as tonnage , population densities , and , demographic changes . (Resolutions 25410 and 25601) 9) The City , under Ordinance 104472 as amended by Ordi- nance 109398 (Seattle Municipal Code , Chapter 21 . 76) grants utility credits for low-income elderly with eligibility mea- sured by annual income . Recently , utility credits have been extended to low-income handicapped individuals . The policy of the City has been to minimize the impact of utility rate in- creases on low-income elderly and handicapped individuals . The City executes this policy by exercising its authority to 18 operate public utilities as authorized by the City Charter , Article IV, Section 14.11 and RCW 74 . 38 .070. OPERATIONAL GOALS : KING COUNTY(1) Health and Safety : 1) "All King County solid waste operations are required to meet all applicable minimum functional health standards as approved by the Seattle-King County Board of Health." ' Planning : 2) "All King County solid waste operations are required to be consistent with the Solid Waste Management plan as required in RCL' 70. 95" (Ordinance 2918) . Operations : 3) "As approved by the King County Council , the King County Solid Waste Operating Fund is an enterprise fund which requires rthat it support all operational costs independently of any support from the County Current Expense (General) Fund." y 4) Under the King Count Charter the County Council is responsible for approving all budget appropriations including solid waste. This means that the King County Council in con- junction with the County Executive , is responsible for the County' s operation of all County transfer stations , rural landfills , and the 920-acre Regional Landfill at Cedar hills . In this regard the Council has historically chosen to approp- (1)By letter from Council Scott Blair to Councilman Fred Jarrett , Chairman, Committee on Solid Waste . June 22 , 1982 19 riate funds that provide the highest level of service at the lowest overall cost to the County user system." 5 "Prohibit the delivery of any public agency' s solid waste to county facilities without prior Council, approval. The Council views the issue of accepting public waste from outside King County as a major policy question that requires the active and official involvement of the County Legislative Branch." (Ordinance #6033. ) r 20 i SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: DESIGNATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ' � Solid waste management in King County is based on the L ' division of the responsibilities for comprehensive planning , operations , and enforcement . Comprehensive planning is con- ducted by the Solid Waste Management Board , which coordinates agency activities through joint planning and coordination. The duties of the Solid Waste Management Board are now being performed by the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments . State law, Chapter 70 . 95 RCW, requires local government to prepare and adopt a comprehensive solid waste management ' plan. Each county, in cooperation with cities within the county, is required to prepare a coordinated comprehensive ' solid waste management plan. Each city has three options re- garding preparation of the plan. 1 . Prepare their own plan and provide it to the county for integration into the comprehensive county plan. (If a city chooses this option, RCW 70. 95. 130 requires it to provide the disposal site within its own jurisdiction. ) ' 2. Enter into an agreement with the county (or the Solid Waste Management Board, in the case of the revised plan) to prepare a joint plan; 3 . Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. 21 The Solid Waste Management Board used the same options for f the plan. All participating jurisdictions entered revision o ' Board for revision into a joint agreement with the Management of the plan. The primary responsibility for comprehensive , and in King County, this planning is placed in counties ; responsibility has been delegated to the Solid Waste Manage- ment Board. operating enti- ' Solid waste operations are carried out by o p rivate . The operating agencies !`unction ties , public and p the Revised Code of Washington , under authority vested in them by ' under implementation designations conferred under the the Seattle Conservation and Recovery Act , permits grantedublic Kin Department of Public Health , certificates of p King County convenience and necessity granted by the Washington Utilities franchises , or and Transportation Commission or under licenses , franc ter plans are contracts from cities . Operational planning or masdone by the operating agencies . public health , safety, and Minimum Functional Enforcement of P and disposal is Standards pertinent to solid waste handling , County Depart- principally the responsibility of the Seattle-Kir , onsibi:lities of all went of Public Health. The systemwide resp promoting the public health and welfare , entities are directed at p and meeting the providing efficient service to the ratepayer , overall goals of the system. Designated Plan-nin& Agency overnment adopted Public Law 94-580 , In 1976 , the Federal g Act of 1976. Subtitle the Resource Conservation and Recovery ans"--require;s each state D--"State or Regional Solid Wastemanagement plan in accordance As p to prepare a state solid waste mparg of this process , states ' with guidelines in the actplanning regional solid had to identify "appropriate units for P uired to pro- ana management services ." States were also req planning , waste m g boundaries of each p mulgate regulations for identifying 22 area. The State Department of Ecology cited the provisions of RCW 70 . 95.080 as designating counties to prepare comprehensive ' solid waste management plans . The responsibility for providing adequate handling and "planning for solid waste handling by local government" is also found in RCW 70.95 . 020. The State , in concert with "elected officials of general-purpose units of ilocal government," identified which solid waste functions should be planned or carried out by the State and which should 'be planned for and carried out by regional or local authorities or a combination of regional or local and state authorities . " De- signees to carry out these functions are the planning and imple- mentation (or operating) agencies . The Washington State Depart- ment of Ecology proposed to comply with Section 4006 by confirming the arrangements set forth under RCW 70. 95 for solid waste planning and the division of state and local responsibilities . No changes from the existing program were envisioned ; local planning regions remained the individual counties . By that time , the Solid Waste Management Board had been formed in King County with the functions being performed by the King Subregional Council . Local elected officials in King County , acting through ' the Puget Sound Council of Governments , asked the State to de- signate the Solid Waste Management Board as the planning agency . The State Department of Ecology informed the Environmental Pro- tection Agency of the planning agency designation and interim implementing designation, with the understanding that development responsibilities could be delegated to individual governments within the planning area. The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan recog- nizes the comprehensive planning responsibilities of the Solid Waste Management Board as defined in the responsibilities of the Board contained in the plan. The regular planning , review, ' coordination, and intergovernmental functions of the Solid Waste Management Board should be funded as part of the regular per capita dues to the Puget Sound Council of Governments by parti- cipating jurisdictionsin King County . Special projects or 23 studies should be funded based on an independent financial plan for each special project undertaken. ' The Solid Waste Management Board may establish committees to conduct business on its behalf and may establish operating procedures and membership for such committees . Since the for- mation of the Management Board in 1977 , the business of the Board has been delegated to the Committee on Solid Waste of the King Subregional Council. Operating rules were adopted for the Committee conduct of business . The Committee makes recommendations to the King Subregional Council functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board. Responsibilities of the Solid Waste Management Board 1. Prepare , update and amend the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, by identification and articulation of regional goals through compilation, development , and adoption of the plan by all participating jurisdictions (per the Department of Ecology planning guidelines) . 2 . Annually compile capital improvement program projects and ' . p major operational changes and present as amendments to the regional plan (with appropriate notification and- opportunity for local jurisdictions to object) as the six- and 20-year implementation programs as required by RCW 70.95 .090. 3. Provide a forum for discussion about , and make recommenda- tions regarding areawide planning and goals J`or solid waste management. 4. Provide a forum for discussion of interjurisdictional impacts of proposed local actions (such as rate policies , waste flow control , intercounty waste transfers) . 24 5. Coordinate policy planning between cities , towns , and counties . 6. Provide a forum for discussion, and consideration of changes in the state-of-the-art of operation, technology , or management that could have systemwide effects . 7 . Review projects , grant applications , new facility permits , and development plans for consistency with the regional plan and regional goals . ' 8. Encourage when appropriate , waste reduction and/or recycling and/or energy recovery ; and encourage coordination with private sector, regulatory agencies , and the Department of Ecology. ' NOTE: Operations and operational planning remain the responsibility of local jurisdictions consistent with ' theg oals of the Solid Waste Management Plan. " Solid Waste Planning Advisory Committee ' The Solid Waste Management Board will maintain an advisory committee to assist in the maintenance and revision of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The Advisory Committee members should be appointed with due regard for the interests of the county and each city, the public , environ- mental interests , the refuse removal industry, recyclers , private operators and disposers of waste , Indian tribes , industry, agriculture , public health and state and federal agencies. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Planning Advisory Committee functions at the pleasure of the Solid Waste Management Board. The Advisory Committee should meet rnot less than four times per year. ■ 25 ■ Designation of Operating or Implementing Agencies s Completion of the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan provides an opportunity for the identification and designation of implementing or operating agencies in King County, consistent with the goals of the plan and the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act of 1976 . The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan recog- nizes the following entities as implementing or operating agencies for solid waste handling. r King County,Count , under powers and authority granted to it • by Article , 11 Section 11 of the Washington State , Constitution and by RCW 36 .58 , and such other statutes as may be applicable , shall have broadly construed authority to plan for the operation and implementation of such solid waste handling and disposal programs as it , may deem necessary , consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. , • The City of Seattle , under powers and authority granted to it by Article 11 , Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution and by RCW 35A.21 .150 , 35A. 70 , and such other statutes as may be applicable , shall. have broadly construed authority to plan for the operation of and t implementation lementation of such solid waste handling and disposal programs as it may deem m necessar , consistent with the , goals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The Cities of Skykomish and Enumclaw, which presently operate collection systems and the City Of. Carnation which operates a collection and disposal system, , under powers and authority granted to theta by Article 11 , Section 11 of the Washington State ' Constitution and by RCW 35A. 21. 150, 35A. 70, and 35.67„ and such other statutes as may be applicable , shall have broadly construed authority to plan for r 26 the operation of and implementation of such solid waste handling and disposal programs as they each may deem necessary, consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. ' � • Other cities not presently designated as implementing agencies , under powers and authority granted to them by Article 11 , Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution and by RCW 35A. 21. 150, 35A. 70, and 35 . 67 , and such other statutes as may be applicable , shall have reserved to them broadly construed ' authority to plan for the operation of and implementa- tion of such solid waste handling and disposal programs as they may deem necessary, consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. ' Other cities will be recognized as implementing agencies by amendment to the plan. • TheP rivate sector performs major and essential operating functions in the handling and disposal of all types of solid waste . Private sector operations are concentrated in the areas of collection, recycling, ' hazardous and special waste handling and disposal , but extend to all aspects of the solid waste system. Private sector operators having certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission under RCW 81 . 77 are designated as solid waste operatins entities . (Certificate holders are listed in the "Existing, Conditions : Collection" section of the plan. ) ' • Private operators permitted by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health under the Minimum Functional Standards are designated as solid waste operating entities , as consistent with the goals of P g the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan . 27 • Private sector entities operating under license , for the Sevision franchise or contract with cities solid waste handling f collection, recycling or ' ° � and disposal services are recognized as operating entities . • Recycling and resource recovery operators in the private ' sector, consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, are recognized as operating entities . Res onsibl lities of operating or Im lementin A enc r Operating or implementing agencies have all the responsi- uthorit available to them under state law and bilities and a y regulations and the Minimum Functional Standards tosolidprepare operational plans and acquire , manage , aoperate with , waste p programs consistent handling and disposal df Wasteties orManagementPlan. Collectively, the goals of the Soli , operating agencies have all responsibilities not assigned to the Solid Waste Management Board or the Seattle-Kiegciesunty Department of Public Health or other regulatory a€, g Operating agencies have the responsibility to cooperate ort , through the provision of data and information , in and to supp of the the comprehensive solid waste planning responsibility ement Board and the adopted Comprehensive Solid Solid Waste Mana g ort for the basic operations Waste Management Plan. Financial super capita dues to the Puget of the Board is through the regular p Sound Council of Governments . plans for inclusion agencies prepare operational p Operating g operating in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The should be prepared in consultation with the Washington ' plans operating plan:; are reviewed i Department of Ecology. The op State Dep Management for consistency with the Comprehensive a°and incorporated into Plan by the Solid Waste Management Boar 28 the plan by action of the Board. Consultation will take place between the Solid Waste Management Board and the Department of Ecology prior ricer to incorporation of operational plans into the g Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Cooperation and coordination between operational entities and the Solid Waste Management Board through the second tier planning will promote consistency between long-range goals and operational ' plans over time. Operational programs will not be subject to ratification by individual member jurisdictions of the Solid Waste Management Board, but consistency with the plan will be determined by the Board . Operating responsibilities are broadly defined with the ' stipulation that interjurisdictional impacts of operating plans and decisions should be called to the attention of the ' Solid Waste Management Board. The authority of operating or implementing agencies to execute the responsibilities are defined in existing state laws and regulations as described in the "Legislative Background and Legal Authority" section. Regulatory and Enforcement Agencies The solid waste regulatory functions are separated from ' the operating and planning functions. Regulatory functions , in- cluding enforcement, are divided among several entities . The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has the princi- pal responsibility for solid waste regulation and enforcement . ' Specialized regulatory functions are also vested in the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for air quality and emissions , the State Department of Ecology for dangerous and extremely hazardous waste , and the City of Seattle and other citiesfor litter , debris and unlawful storage within thecity The basis for the Seattle-King County Department of 29 1 Public Health's authority is found in RCW 70.95 and 173-301 095 ,17for solid waste and RCW 70.93 and WAC 173-310 for litter. RCW , the Solid Waste Management--Recycling and t ddevelop, adoptand eVery requires the Department of PublicHealth r administer standards relating to thehandling and disposal of - solid waste. Accordingly. the Department of Public Health has King developed the Rin County Minimum Functional Standards for Solid waste Handling (King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations VIII) . The standards assign responsibility for issuing permits for sites and facilities to the apply Seattle-KingDepartment of Public Health. The Minimum Functional Standardst: for Seattle . ' incorporated and unincorporated King County, except: The City of Seattle , by Resolution $25434 , adopted the Minimum , Functional Standards under its authority in RCW 35A. A.of The Minimum nim m Functional Standards are a baseline for the asses r the identification of problems in the comprehensive, planning process . Cities regulate litter within city limits . For example , the Bellevue Anti-litter Code , Bellevue City Code Chapter 9 :11 (Ordinance No. 2687) prohibits littering within the city limits, r sets standards for litter receptacles and declares violation Of the provisions of this chapter as a misdemeanor. r i r 1 r r 30 r 1 1 TWENTY-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLA14 The long-range improvement plan anticipates system' improve- ment may s which be made in the time-frame between six and twenty y years in the future . It is based on an extrapolation of ' present trends and assumptions over that period. System improvements which are contained in the twenty-year improvement plan do not represent commitments by operating agencies to make the investments necessary to implement those specific ' projects . Proposed projects in the six-to-twenty-year period are generally the staff recommendations of planners and do not have the approval of elected officials . These projects have not been subject to public processes , alternatives analysis , or feasibility studies . They do not constitute public policy . As a project is ready for near-term implementation , it is moved from the long-range plan to the six-year implementation program. The decision to move to a near term implementation. ' phase is based on the needs that exist at that time , the priority of the project to an operating agency , and the appear- ance of the project in the operating agencies six year capital improvement program. Private sector projects are identified g by the private operators and are treated in accordance with their proposed implementation schedules . As projects are placed in the six-year implementation program, they are evaluated for consistency with the goals in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 31 projects in the twenty-year improvement plan are based r j on the long-range planning of operating agencies including rant anticipated funding through the Washington Futures o ., Program. All project costs are estimated in 1982 dollars. Anticipated construction dates for projects scheduled t iwithin the next six years are included in the six year implementation Program. Anticipated implementation dates for projects in the long-range implementation program will . be included in the plan as local operational plans are ' completed. The King County Council Ordinance 6177 established a $1 . 50 per ton charge to be collected for each ton of solid waste entering the King County Solid Waste System. The fund is to be reserved for replacement and/or reclamation of King County , operated landfills . ' 32 , 1 LONG-RANGE JWLE ENTATION PROGRAM Operating Anticipated Cost ® Agency �I King County S.E. Area Transfer Station l 9,600,000 King County Bel/Red Transfer Stationl 23,600,000 King County Recycling System 2,100,000 King County Hazardous Waste Feasibility Studyl 550,01)0 King County Enumclaw Landfill Closure and Transfer Stationl 500,000 King County Cedar Falls Landfill Closure and Transfer Station 500,000 King County Hobart Landfill Closurel 700,000 King County Vashon Landfill/Modular Incineratorl 1,200,000 ' King County Upgrade and Rehabilitate Existing Transfer Stations King County Replacement of Cedar Hills Landfill ' King County Closure of Cedar Hills Landfill King County/ Energy/Resource Recoveryl 423,000,000 Seattle a Phase II (Detailed Feasibility Procurement Planning) e Phase III (Procurement, Plans, Specification) a Construction City of Seattle Midway Landfill Closure 10,420,000 City of Seattle Kent-Highlands Landfill Closure 10,695,000 Metro Enhanced Sludge Treatment Capability Private Energy/Resource Recovery ' Sector Facility(ies) Private Hazardous Waste Transfer Station, Sector Storage Facility, and Disposal System Private Demolition Debris Facility Sector Private Continuous Replacement of Sector Collection Equipment; Introduction and Use of Mechanized Collection ' Equipment ' lUnfunded pending County Executive Review 21982 Dollars ' 33 PLAN ADOPTION, REVIEW AND AMENDMENT IPlan Adoption: The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will be adopted at two levels : by the King Subregional Council , acting as the Solid Waste Management Board , and by each individual local ' government in King County. The plan is also subject to approval by the State Department of Ecology. The plan revision process provided ample opportunity for participation and input or review of the proposed plan elements by cities and King County . All interested parties had an opportunity to participate in the planning process and most chose to do so. Most operating entities were active in the ' staff working group and/or on the advisory committee and sub- committees. There was an extensive distribution and review process during the formulation of the plan and during two generations of review of the plan. Adoption b the Management Board : P Y g The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will be adopted first by the Solid Waste Management Board. The adoption will be preceded by recommendations from the Committee on Solid Waste and the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Planning t A y dvisoz Committee. 1 Adoption by Local Jurisidictions : The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared as a joint plan for all cities and the county in accordance with i 35 the provisions of RCW 70.95.080 ( 2) . The State Department of ' Ecology Solid Waste Planning Guidelines Chapter 03 ( 7 and 8) stipulate that all jurisdictions in King County should adopt ' the plan by council resolution. The supplemental environmental impact statement will cover the resolution of adoption by each local government and will meet the State Environmental Policy ' Act requirements for each city and county action in adopting the plan. t The adoption resolution or motion of each council will specify concurrence with the amendment procedure articulated in the plan. Jurisdictions that adopt the plan conditionally, will have their conditions treated as proposed amendment's to the plan. The Solid Waste Management Board will take note of the conditional adoptions and will seek to resolve differences . ' Unresolved conditions will be recorded in the plan. Amendments and Revisions : The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan , to to use- ful , must be a dynamic , contemporary document . As a guide to long-range solid waste planning and decisions , it must remain ' current and readily reflect changes made by the Solid Waste Management Board , operating agencies, or member governments . Regu- lar review and ease of amendment of the plan are appropriate . Annual revisions are called for to keep the six-year capital improvement programs current. The appendix of the plan contains the history of solid ' waste planning, the legal authority, existing baseline conditions , waste generation analysis , existing conditions in planning, operations, and enforcement ( including identified needs and ' opportunities) six-year capital implementation programs , supplemental environmental impact statement and the local adoption resolutions. Changes to these sections are not likely to represent policy changes and may be required fairly fre- quently. Revisons to the appendix may simply reflect changes 36 i 1 made by other authorities , such as changes in the Revised Code of Washington, which affect solid waste handling and disposal . Therefore, adoption of the plan by each local government will include an explicit delegation of authority to the Solid Waste Management Board for amending and keeping the appendix of the plan current. The delegated authority will be operative continuously unless specifically withdrawn as indicated below. TheT lan contains regional goals and strategies includ- ing the assignment of responsibilities , and the long-range , 20-year programs , which are not likely to change frequently. The Minimum Functional Standards and the operational plans prepared by operating agencies and found consistent with the plan by the Management Board, are incorporated in the ' plan but are not subject to the amendment process . The Minimum Functional Standards can be changed only by the ' Board of Health or the City of Seattle should the City exercise its legal prerogative to adopt Minimum Functional Standards independent of the Board of Health. Amendment Procedure : ' Amendments to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management ® Plan may be proposed by any jurisdiction or operating entity ■ including operators in the private sector. Upon receipt of a recommended amendment , the Solid Waste Management Board will ' refer the amendment to the Committee on Solid Waste for review and in turn to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan- ning Advisory Committee for their timely review. The Solid Waste Management Board shall notify all jurisdictions adopting the plan that amendments or changes to the plan are being con- sidered. The Board will determine if the proposed amendment is properly an amendment to the goals , strategies , or appendix. If the amendment is to the appendix, the Solid Waste Management Board will refer the amendment to the Advisory Committee for timely recommendation. The Solid Waste Management Board is responsible for dispostion of the proposed amendment. 37 An amendment to the regional goals or strategies section ' of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan or to the adoption and amendment procedures will also be subject to the , timely review and recommendation by the Advisory Committee. Each amendment recommended for approval by the Solid Waste Management Board will be circulated to each local government . All parties will have an opportunity to comment prior to action by the Solid Waste Management Board. All jurisdictions will be notified of the disposition osition of the amendment . Any jurisdiction taking exception to an approved amendment nt has the opportunity to submit a council motion or resolution with- in forty- days of notification of approval of the amendment . forty-five Y Amendments will not become the fort -five days effective until Y have elapsed . Upon receipt of a resolution objection to an , amendment , the Solid Waste Management Board and -the jurisdic- tion will seek to resolve their differences . Any affected operating agency will be included in the conflict resolution , process . Dispute resolutions will be subject to the approval of the Solid Waste Management Board. Unresolved disputes will ' be noted in the plan in the section with the adoption resolu- tions . ' Changes proposed in the plan after the adoption by the Solid Waste Management Board or during the adoption process by local government or conditions attached to approval of the proposed plan by council adoption resolutions will be treated as prop amendments . Six Year Capital Improvement Programs : The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan contains six-year capital improvement programs for operating agencies . Each year, as part of the local government budget process , the capital improvement programs are updated ; each update should be recorded in the plan to keep the six-year construction and capital acquisition program current per RCW 70 .95 .090 (3) c . The annual revision of the capital improvement programs of 38 1 operating agencies will be treated as an amendment to the appendix. The designation of implementing agencies assumes substantial latitude on the part of operating agencies to es- tablish priorities and capital improvement programs for solid waste projects . Additional Elements in the Plan : ' At the conclusion of the planning process in 1982 the major issues on the future of solid waste disposal through energy and resource recovery remain unresolved. The City of Seattle and King County , in concert with private enterprise , propose to examine resource and energy recovery opportunities . These studies are expected to provide detailed information on energy and resource recovery and may lead to policy and invest- ment decisions which may necessitate significant additions or new elements in the plan. Recommendations on the implementation of an energy recovery facility(ies) may be considered suffi- ciently significant to amend the twenty-year improvement program, ' the regional strategies and to add new implementation agencies to the designations . Annual Review: Many of the elements of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan are products of the local operating agencies . Examples include operational goals, changes in existing practices ' or conditions, operational plans or master plans for facilities and the identification of needs and opportunities of system 1 improvements. These elements may change during the course of a year. The capital improvement programs are updated annually 1 as part of the budget cycle. At a regularly scheduled point in March of each year, the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will be reviewed ' by staff to the Solid Waste Management Board and by the local operating entities . Information and facts contained in the plan will be updated and recommendations will be made to the Solid Waste Management Board and the Advisory Committee for 39 f amendments and revisions in the Comprehensive Solid Waste ' Management Plan. 40 1 ' APPENDIX 41 r r HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE PLANNING Comprehensive Plannine Reauired : Comprehensive solid waste management planning in King County dates from the passage , in 1969 , of RC17 70. 95 , the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act. In 1970, the King County Policy Development Commission recommended interim policies for solid waste disposal . The Commission considered recycling , incineration and burial and ended up recommending continuation of landfilling. During 1970 , the solid waste ' managers of the City of Seattle and King County proposed a joint comprehensive solid waste management planning effort. The proposed plan was predicated on funding by Washington Futures -- Referendum 26 monies . Matching funds for the Referendum 26 grant were not appropriated by either of the rprincipal jurisdictions . ' During 1971 , King County, operating under the authority vested in counties in RCW 70. 95.080, embarked on a unilateral r countywide comprehensive planning process . By 1972 there was a realization that participation of the City of Seattle , the major waste generating jurisdiction, was essential. to development of a realistic plan. A cooperative planning venture was encouraged by the Department of Ecology. By 1972 , a comprehensive solid waste management plan needed to be developed in order to comply with state law. Con- isideration of a new City of Seattle disposal site at Coal 43 r 1 Creek was delayed until the plan was prepared. The plan needed to consider whether both the sanitary landfill method and the Coal Creek site were the best alternatives available for solid waste disposal in King County. METRO - River Basin Coordinating Committee Stud At that time , the River Basin Coordinating Committee (RIBCO) was conducting environmental planning studies for Metro. The study topics included independent analysis of urban surface water runoff, water supply, and wager quality. Each of the studies was conducted under contract by a different consulting firm. At the request of King County, solid waste was added to the responsibilities of the River Basin Coordinating Committee by a Metro Council resolution . CH2M Hill , Inc . , a Bellevue , Washington consulting en;i- neerinofirm was selected as the primary consultant. The study hau a total project budget of $514 , 000 from the State Department of Ecology , the Environnental Protection Agency and local matching funds . The sty, ud which was divided into three major portions , began in 1973 . The major initial emphasis was on gathering technical information and assembling background Clata, alternative policies for comprehensive plan elements and potential implementation were considered. The second portion , from November 1973 to February 1974, involved intensive presentations to and discussions with the public and decision , makers in the county. The third phase of the study was development of recommendations and an implementation ' program for the study elements developed in the first two phases . The final step was the public-hearing process . The draft plan went through several different reports finally resulting in a document entitled Environmental Management for the Metropolital Area, Part IV : Solid Waste . 44 Metro Council Resolution 2328 modified and adopted the plan unanimously in August 1975. The 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan : The adopted Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan recommended formation of a multijurisdictional management rboard and eventual consolidation of solid waste functions . The plan recommended that the region study resource and energy recovery as the ultimate form of disposal . It in- cluded a list of capital improvements for the transfer III and disposal system. The Minimum Functional Standards were ' included aspart of the plan. Seattle , King County, and the Health Department jointly authored the environmental impact statement over a period of eight or nine months in 1976 . The legislative body of each local government was required to adopt the plans in order to comply with State Department of EcologyPlanning Guidelines and to make the area eligible for state financial assistance. An eight- month endorsement process culminated with approval from 28 of 29 jurisdictions . The City of Duvall declined to endorse the plan and five other cities (Seattle , Mercer Island , Bothell , Carnation, and Beaux Arts) gave qualified approvals . The planning and approval process had lasted more than seven years . The State Department of Ecology conditionally approved ® the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ■ on April 9 , 1977 . One of those conditions was the prompt formation of the management board recommended in the plan. Other conditions required a revision of current implemen- tation schedules and a review of the conditional endorse- ments by the five cities . The Department of Public Health 45 1 was required to revise the Minimum Functional Standards and implement a permit program. Eventually, eligibility for Referendum 26 funds was limited to projects enumerated , in the plan. I Formation of the Management Board: the count Solid waste management in y turned from planning to implementation. The Department of Ecology stipulated that the management board recommended in the plan should be created prior to the commitment of state funds to capital projects in the county. During the entire process , there was very little discussion about the composition of the management board. The plan did not specify membership or jurisdictional distribution of members . King County , feeling the greatest urgency for Referendum 26 funds , attempted to form the management boardwith two , representatives from King County, two from the City of Seattle and two members of the Suburban Mayors ' Association. The proposed arrangement was unacceptable to the City of t Seattle which recommended using an existing body to form the management board. In July of 1977 , County Executive John Spellman spoke to the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments and asked thE�ir assist- ance in forming the management board. In August of that year , the King Subregional Council agreed to serve as the Solid , Waste Management Board and appointed a Committee on Solid Waste to carry out the functions of the Management Board . , The conclusion of the planning process qualified King County and Seattle for Referendum 26 monies . Since that date , King County has received grants for $5 ,270 ,669 . The i projects funded by Referendum 26 and 39 monies were Cedar Hills fencing, Cedar Hills groundwater geology , Cedar Hills leachate collection, closure of the Duvall landfill , equipment purchases , 46 1 aeration equipment , Northshore transfer station studies , Sky- komish dropbox, Bow Lake transfer station and scales at trans- fer stations . The City of Seattle has received a grant for $64,863 for leachate collection facilities . The Puget Sound Council of Governments has received a grant for $15 ,000 to develop a computer model of solid waste flows in the region. Public Law 94-580 , the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 , provided for designation of planning and implementing agencies . The State indicated its intent to designate counties as the local planning and implementing agencies due to their responsibilities under RCW 70 . 95 . After the initial action of the State , local elected officials , act- ing through the Puget Sound Council of Government' s King Sub- regional Council, asked the State to clarify its designation. Since a Solid Waste Management Board had been formed in. King County, the State was asked to designate the Solid Waste Manage- ment Board as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act planning agency. The functions of the Solid Waste Management Board are being performed by the King Subregional Council . In March 1979 , Wilbur Hallauer , Director of the Department of Ecology , acting on behalf of the Governor , informed the Environmental Protection Agency of that designation. The King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Govern- ments , functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board. , was charged as responsible for all solid waste comprehensive planning within King County with the understanding that developmental responsibilities could be delegated by the Solid Waste Managment Board to individual governments within the planning area. The Solid Waste Management Board was also 1 assigned interim responsibilities for coordination of all solid waste implementation efforts of the King County Solid Waste Management Plan with ,the stipulation that operating activities were the responsibilities of individual government entities . i 1 47 4 Comprehensive ' Revision of the 197 C prehensive Plan The Solid Waste Management Board assumed the responsibility for revision of the 1974 Plan. The Management Board solicited com- mitments to revise the plan from King County and the cities in the county. Twenty-nine jurisdictions committed to participate and assist financially in the joint revision of the plan per , RCW 70 .95 .080(2) . In 1979 the Solid Waste Management Board commenced work on the plan revision through the Committee on Solid Waste. In 1981 a second assessment of jurisdictions greater than 15 ,000 in population was approved by the Manage- , ment Board to complete the revision process . The total sum from June of 1979 to December of 1982 to support the Solid Waste Management Board and revise the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan has been $132 ,000 A review draft of the revised plan was completed in June of 1982 , a. second draft in August and a final review draft in November of 1982 . 48 1 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND AND LEGAL AUTHORITY Solid Waste Management Act The Washington State Solid Waste Management--Recovery and Recycling Act as amended was originally adopted in 1969 , and codified as RCW 70. 95 . it assigned local governments the responsibility for handling the disposal of solid waste and provided for standards for the waste disposal system. The Solid Waste Management--Recovery and Recycling Act was amended in 1976 , to place new emphasis on recycling and resource recovery. The act assigned to local governments the responsibility for planning the disposal system. RCW 70. 95 encouraged regional providing a means of county-c:ity or systemwide Planning by p � cooperation. The act encouraged an integrated system closely planning, coordinating public and private activities with p facility construction operations and program development y enforcement. Local health departments are assigned the enforcement function subject to standards established by the State :Depart- ment of Ecology (Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling-Washington Administrative Code 173-301) or standards adopted by the local health department of equivalent or greater stringency. 49 Model Litter Control Act The Model Litter Control Act was passed in 1976 and provides for litter control measures and litter pickup along state highways , education, recycling promotion and enforcement . It is self-financed through an earmarked fund supported by a fee on container purchases . Washington Futures i State financial assistance has been made available for public solid waste handling and disposal facilities through Referenda 26 and 39 , passed in 1972 and 1980 , respectively. Referendum 26 funds have been expended. Referendum 39 priorities emphasize energy savings or generation through solid waste management . There is an earmark of $150 million for solid waste . The State Department of Ecology administers the Referendum 39 funds . Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580) became law in 1976 . As a federal act , it places requirements on the states . Subtitle C addressers hazardous waste , requiring identification of wastes , creation of a manifest system for life-cycle tracking of hazardous wastes, , and a permit process for handling, storage , treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes . The Washington State Department of Ecology adopted regulations in compliance with the Resource ' Conservation and Recovery Act in 1982. Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery , Act is designed to promote environmentally prudent landfill , practices , maximize resource recovery and encourage resource 50 r conservation. The act calls for an inventory of facilities for compliance with environmental standards and the closure of noncomplying open dumps . Each state must prepare a plan that identifies state , local , and regional responsibilities , shows the distribution of funds , and specifies the strategy for coordinating regional planning. The Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted in 1981 . ' Under Section 4006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act , the Governor has identified regions , state ' and local agencies and responsibilities for solid waste planning and management in Washington. The State Department of Ecology was designated by the Governer as the lead agency responsible for preparing and implementing the state plan in compliance with the Act . The King Subregional Council , functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board, was designated as the planning agency for the King County area. The countywide comprehensive plan designated implementing agencies . Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan There are two laws that direct the state to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan: the State Solid Waste Management--Recovery and Recycling Act and the Federal ' Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 . The State Department of Ecology has been assigned a key role in assuring, on a statewide basis , that solid wastes are properly handled from the point of generation to their ultimate disposal. The department accomplishes this through technical and financial assistance , public education measures , and direct regulation. The State Solid Waste Management Plan establishes broad . goals for the state solid waste management program that are : 51 e 1 . To manage all solid and hazardous waste:; in a manner which protects public health and the environment . , 2 . To recover those wastes that are produced by reuse , recycling, and energy production. , 3 . To reduce the production of wastes from manufacturing , processes , distribution and marketing systems , and commercial , governmental and private activities . Because of the estimated level of management needs in Washington State and limitations in state financial resources anticipated , the State Department of Ecology has set priorities and selected program activities based on those priorities . , The elements and waste types that will receive the greatest attention by the State Department of Ecology during the five-year period , ending in 1985 , are all aspects of the life-cycle of hazardous wastes , litter , the final disposal of major waste types , and resource recovery including energy recovery, materials recovery and recycling. Hazardous Waste The Washington State Hazardous Waste Disposal Act (RCW 70. 105) as amended, encourages the recvcline of hazardous wastes , establishes regulatory measures for storage , transport , treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, and provides for 1 the acquisition of a state-owned disposal site for extremely hazardous wastes . The 1980 amendments to the act transferred , the responsibility for the management of dangerous wastes from local governments to the State Department of Ecology for regulation of storage , treatment, and disposal . In compliance i with the Hazardous Waste Disposal Act and the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act , the State Department of Ecology has , 52 1 issued regulations setting standards and procedure e f or determi- nation nation of waste toxicity. The State Department of Ecology has defined two levels of toxicity in waste : dangerous and extremely hazardous. The standards are different from those developed 1 by the Environmental Protection Agency. The quantity threshold for definition as a dangerous waste is lower in the State of pounds Washington than in the federal standards ' ofOfederallyfdefineddangerous waste per month compared with 2 ,200 pounds hazardous waste per month. The Department has set standards and requirements for all generators , treaters , and transporters of dangerous and extremely hazardous waste, and has implemented ' a manifest system to monitor movement of the waste. These re- quirements and standards are included in Washington Adminis- trative Code 173-303 . The State Department of Ecology and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency have monitored inactive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites . Washington utilities & Transportation Commission The Washington utilities and Transportation Commission supervises and regulates garbage collection companies operating under franchises granted pursuant to RCW 81 .77 . The Cor=ission' s authority does not extend to city collection utilities or cities that contract directly with collectors . The Commission fixes rates and types of service and issues certificates of public necessity for the collection of waste ' statewide. ' City Authority Cities and towns possess a full range of authority under State laws RVW 35 or RCW 35A for solid waste management functions , including collection. Cities have the authority to own and 53 i operate unlit per er RCW 35A. 80. 010 and RCW 35 . 92. .010 , ' including all the significant rights , responsibil:ities, and rate-setting authorities unique to utilities . Cities have , the basic authority to perform all functions necessary to contribute to the general health and welfare of their pop- ulation. Cities also have general powers which affect the operation and location of solid waste facilities . Cities ' authorities include , but are not limited to : • regulation or operation of collection systems for all types of waste ; • design , construction and operation of solid waste handling and disposal ; • seeking and accepting state financial assistance ; • issuing revenue , general obligation or industrial development bonds to raise capital and assess fees ; • establishing operating rules ; • entering into agreements or contract with others for the performance of these functions ; ' • directing the flow of waste(l) Cities have the authority to develop independent compre- hensive plans and solid waste handling systems provided their disposal site is located within corporate limits per RCW 70 . 95 . 130 . The issue of flow control or waste stream control is not re- solved. The major national litigation on the subject , the f-Ivbud EauipmPnt v. the Cit of' Akron was re- manded to the Appeals Court with the stlperett►a been no Boulder Case precedent be considered . Th ntl recent litigation in Washington . Legal opinions , presently contested , offer divergent views depending on the specific issue and the facts and intentions in each instance . How- ever , cities may contract for solid waste collection and services and may stipulate point of disposal and all other essential terms and conditions associated with waste flow , control. 54 ■ i includes either the operation City authority in and/or , regulation of all solid waste functions : collection, handling t transfer, and disposal for all types of waste except extremely 1 hazardous and radioactive wastes . The transfer, storage and disposal of dangerous wastes designated in WAC 173-303 are not within the current responsibilities of the solid waste system of the City of Seattle or any other city. City authority does not extend to a waste generator hauling its own waste ror materials that may become waste, or disposing of that waste onsite with appropriate permits , except for the regulation of hazardous wastes and materials . Hazardous materials and ' hazardous waste transport through the City of Seattle is regulated by the City. Cities have several means of exercising authority in the area of collection. When a city chooses not to regulate refuse , collection would be provided by certificated collectors for the area under the aegis of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. A city may regulate certificated collectors through a city license including specifying details of the service provided. A city may contract directly with a collector outside the jurisdiction of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. A city may also operate a municipal collection system. County Authority King County has the authority to manage and operate a system of solid waste disposal. Specific county authorities include but are not limited to: • design, construction and operation of solid waste handling and disposal facilities ; • seeking and accepting state financial assistance; • issuing general obligation, revenue , or industrial development bonds; 55 • assessing and collecting fees for use of solid waste facilities; • establishing operating rules for disposal sites; e entering into cooperative agreements with other jurisdictions to perform similar operations . The countywide planning authority in RCW 70 . 95 . 080 is currently exercised by the King Subregional Council functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board . The County also exercises police power authority in , unincorporated areas to regulate the location of solid waste handling facilities through the unclassified use permit process . County ability to regulate the waste flow through the exercise of property rights or ownership of the waste occurs at the point at which waste arrives at a county facility . A county may designate disposal sites for all solid waste , collected in the unincorporated areas in accordance with the provisions of a comprehensive solid waste plan adopted pursuant 1 to RCW 70. 95 . This authority is limited to the extent that it excludes waste disposed of on-site or waste that is collected by a certificated hauler operating in more than one a county.ount In the latter circumstance , an interlocal agreement between counties is necessary to exercise the authority to direct waste . ' Seattle-King County Department of Public Health ' The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health is the local regulatory and enforcement authority in solid waste. This author- ity includes all aspects of solid waste management pursuant to the Minimum Functional Standards enforced by the department . It issues permits for incinerator sites , transfer/drop-box stations , 56 landfill facilities , recycling operations , and collection/ transport vehicles, and enforces the conditions on those permits through routine inspections . It ensures that incidences of unlawful dumping are investigated and abated throughout the county. In 1981 , a hazardous materials screening program was established to monitor potentially dangerous/hazardous wastes proposed for local landfill . The original version of the King County Minimum Functional Standards , listed in the 1974 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan , was adopted in 1976 , under King County Ordinance No . 2918 . These standards were revised in 1977 , and - III adopted under King County Board of Health Rules and Regula tions VIII early in 1978 . Other Authorities Treaty Indian tribes possess a full range of powers and authorities regarding solid waste regulation, handling, and disposal, independent of other powers and authorities discussed in this section. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control A¢encv reculates air pollution discharges .es . Historically , the Agency' s regulatory program was one of the factors influencing termination of ram will play a g open burning. The Agency' s regulatory pro significant role in the location and design of an energy recovery facility. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has an "offset program" that allows an increase in 1 emissions in a nonattainment area as long as there is a net increase in ambient air quality through emission reduction elsewhere coupled to the new increase. Solid waste management is one of the latent functions of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle as per RCW 35. 58 . 050 . Exercise of the latent function would require a vote of the 57 people or concurrence of the legislative bodies of all ' general-purpose governments in King County as per RCW 35 . 58 . 100- 114. Metro, by vote of the Council , has gone on :record stating that it will seek authorization to excercise a latent function only through a vote of the people. r 58 EXISTING CONDITIONS: AREA BACKGROUND i � Land_ U s e ' Spacial distribution of waste g enerat ion is basically a function of the type and density of land use. The land use: pattern of f Kin County has been strongly influenced by the post glaciation topography . Beginning in the last century , urban axis stretching from proceeded along a north-southarom development 'nct bands of urbaniza- tion, are dish Tacoma to Everett . Today , water or generally occupying the ridges and separated by tion, gene Y bands of less developed valley lands . -most band is the oldest and most intensely - The western �� 10 � T full range employ- ment p ) western band contains a ful g developed. The w from office towers and huge went and housing land uses ranging homes . It is centered -dense t single-family factories to low Yercent of the on the City of Seattle , which is home to 40 p It also county' s population and 58 percent of its employment . includes the older suburbs of Highline and Shoreline and the young suburb of Federal Way. In total , the western band has ercent of its 60 percent of the county' s population and 67 p total employment . exception of Federal Way, has The western band , with the mand can only little vacant land remaining y ament . modate a limited amount of new growth without redevelop planning for the area indicates that redevelopment �'lec offinot c P1 office major factor except in downtown Seattle where large n 59 p buildings will replace smaller old buildings . Elsewhere , the existing land use pattern will remain largely unchanged . Housing ' and employment densities will gradually rise as new apartments , condominiums , office buildings and stores are built on the re- maining parcels of vacant land. Federal Way is the only part of the western band that is still in the early stages of development . It will continue to be one of the county' s most important areas for construction of new single-family and multifamily homes and will become an im- portant area of commercial activity. The changes; will result in the gradual conversation of most of the semirural lands in the eastern and southern parts of Federal Way to urban uses by the end of the century. The western band of development is separated from the second band by Lake Washington and the Green River Valley. Until about ' twenty years ago , urban development in the valley was restricted by floods to a few high spots along its east margin and its north end. Since then , flood and drainage control projects , new high- ways and thousands of acres of vacant land have combined to make the valley a prime location of new development . Today, the north valley is over fifty percent developed with commercial and industrial uses predominating. By the end of the century , , most of the remaining vacant land between Auburn and Renton will have been developed and the Green River Valley will be nearly entirely devoted to commercial or industrial activities and multifamily housing. Agriculture and open-space uses will be generally limited to a belt along the Green River , the western margin of the valley in Kent , and whatever land is required to provide storage for the water drained from the rest of the valley . The second major band of urban development in King County lies to the east of Lake Washington and the Green River Valley . , 60 Starting from the north in Bothell, the band includes Northshore , Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue , Mercer Island, part of Renton, and the Soos Creek Plateau. The area in and around the City of Bellevue torms the heart of the second band and has been one of the fastesti growing parts of King County during the last twenty years . use pattern is stabilizing and there will be few changes in the type of use for the remainder of the century. The most significant changes will occur in the Bellevue central business district where redevelopment projects will replace many existing ' low density uses with high rise office buildings , condominium towers and an enlarged shopping center . To the north and south of the Bellevue area , the construction of both single-family and multifamily housing will continue at a rapid pace. Commercial development will also continue , but is likely to be concentrated in a few major business and indus- trial parks located in North Creek , near Redmond' s downtown , in Kenmore , at Evergreen Highlands , Overlake , and at the Cabot , Cabot and Forbes' 1-90 Business Park in Bellevue. Although much vacant land remains in the second band , especially in :Northshore , ' Newcastle , and the Soos Creel: Plateau, it is expected to approach full development by early in the next century. Planning for the area assumes that it will eventually be almost entirely urban- ized. The second urban band is bordered on the east by the Sammamish River Valley , Lake SaTmamish, and Soos Creek. Beyond them lies a third band that is physically suitable for urban development but which is primarily rural or semirural today. This band includes Dear Creek, the Last Samamish Plateau, and Enumclaw Plateau. Substantial new' housingconsin truction at suburban densities is expected at severs places band during the next twenty years . However the third band is 61 I � likely to remain mostly undeveloped until sometime during the next century. Beyond the third band are rural and agricultural lands that extend into the Cascade mountains . Scattered through the rural area are a number of small towns and communities including Carnation , Duvall , Fall City , Snoqualmie , North Bend , Black , Diamond , and Enumclaw. Although some large company may choose one of these communities as the site for a major plant , it is unlikely that the rural area will receive significant urban development for the foreseeable future . Plans for the area generally con- ' tinue its rural status . Transportation Network King County' s surface transportation network is based on the thousands of miles of road which link every populated part of the county. The heart of the network is formed of the freeways eewa s and major highways that connect the large centers of , m to ent and commence in the county with each other , the e p ym county' s major residential areas , and with the rest of the region. Rail plays only a minor role in intra-county transportation , but rail lines do provide links to many parts of the county. The county is also linked to other parts of the region by water routes on Puget Sound. All solid waste in the King County waste stream is collec- ted, hauled to transfer stations , and hauled to :landfills via roads . No waste is currently moved by rail and none is moved by water. The situation may change in 1983 if a proposal to barge waste from Pier 35 in Seattle to a landfill in Kitsap County is implemented. 62 ' The roads used to move waste to the transfer stations and the landfills are adequate for that purpose. The major routes to the landfills are well established , used by all of the haulers and, except for rare periods , are without restrictions . No changes that alter the existing conditions are expected for the foreseeable future. Population and Employment King County has more population and employment than any other county in Washington. In 1980, 1 ,269 ,749 people and 647 ,723 jobs were located within its boundaries . King Country experienced an increase of 110 ,708 people and 219 ,173 jobs between 1970 and 1980 which shows that King County is continu- ing to attract large amounts of new urban activity. According to Puget Sound Council of Governments ' fore- casts , the county is expected to continue to grow at least through the end of the century. The population is expected to rise by 422 ,268 persons during the period to a total of ' 1 , 692 , 017 (33%) . Employment is expected to increase by 327 , 519 to 975 , 242 (51%) . iPresent distribution and forecast growth in population and employment are shown in Figures B-1 to B-4. The 1980 popu- lation distribution is shown in the map in Figure B-5 . The county' s population and employment are very unevenly ' distributed. The great majority are located in the western part of the county. Eastern King County and Vashon Island, in contrast, remain largely rural with a population of less than ' 20, 000 and only a few thousand jobs . The Council of Governments ' forecasts do not point to any change in this situation for the near future. Within the western portion of King County, several major concentrations of urban development can be identified. The ■ most notable of these is Seattle which has about 40% of the total county population and 58% of the employment. Seattle ■ y 63 is the oldest urbanized area in the county and also the most , densely populated. With little remaining vacant land, its potential for growth lies mainly in the development of additional office buildings and multifamily residential projects . The , PSCOG' s forecasts indicate that Seattle' s population will remain stable through the end of the century while employment ' within the city increases by 115 ,000 , mostly in the downtown. Although Seattle is still the dominant urban center in the county other centers have developed during the last thirty years . On the eastside of Lake Washington the cities and unincorporated communities have been developing rapidly since the early 1950' x . The city of Bellevue is now second only to Seattle in both population and employment . To the north of Bellevue , Redmond , Kirkland , Bothell and Northshore have also added large numbers of people and jobs during the last two decades . In addition , there are nearly 100 , 000 acres of undeveloped land east of these urbanized areas that may receive substantial growth during the next twenty years . , The PSCOG estimates the eastside ' s share of county population will rise from 21% in 1980 to 26% by 2000 and its share of ' • 18/o b 2000 . employment will increase from 12/o in 1980 to nearly y Other important urban centers include the Green River Valley which has the county' s second greatest concentration , of employment , the southwest county which includes the mature suburb of Highline and the fast growing suburb of Federal Way ' and the southeast county which is one of the fastest growing residential areas but as yet has little employment . Those three areas , along with the mature suburb of Skyway make up the ' southern half of the county and collectively had about 34% of its population and 28% of its employment in 1930. The PSCOG the century ' has forecast that this share will rise by the end. of t y to about 40% and 30% respectively primarily due to growth in , Federal Way and the southeast county during the period. 64 ' 1 FIGURE B-1 ' POPLZ,ATION DISTRIBUTION IN KING COUNTY 1970 - 2000 SO wrsT ZING COUNTY AMAI PoRECAST Local Planning Areas 1970 1160 1990 1000 3D00 Federal Wy ' WIS23 75,013 101.011 128.093 3700 SOL'" Ilio!ins 39.067 77.915 36.667 42.819 1900 horth mi hiine 72,450 64 061 63,670 64,3E9 TOTAL 164.D4D 176.969 203,648 235,301 PAA OF COUR7T MAL 14.45 14.ri 14.3% 14.35 OTEM RIVER VA:IEY Local Planning Artas 15.184 !9.762 36,400 44.600 31DO Auburn 3500 Rent 14,560 16,916 21,631 15.214 3600 Rent ludustrial 10,501 9.577 13.897 16,551 3900 Tokrila 3.177 3.505 3.909 3.938 41D0 Renton ?7,SSA 29,326 33,137 39,491 TDTAL 81.166 91.116 111.174 131.994 S" OF C0t1MTY TOTAL 7.25 7.45 7.65 6.01. ' >iDt:THEW KIK: COU y Local Planning Areas 3200 Enumclaw 9.148 12.843 15.506 !0.332 3300 Tahona/Karen Ikights 16.116 25,198 36.117 f1.692 ' 3410 Horth Soo& Cft*k 29.061 43.397 a.726 94.f86 3420 South Soo& tv"k 13.147 21.997 35.078 SC.%9 420c %"Kastle !6 183 31 973 43.191 19,743 TOTAL 91.755 135.396 1".619 !76.702 PAX OF COSIMTT TOTAL 9.15 10.95 14.01 1G.6i i fKr114Y Lout 91a+r+ln9 Ara 16,T01 t000 Sk3wy 17.001 1f.23D tf.412 S" OF COW" 1.fS .1.ts 1.T1L 1.45 t 65 FIGURE B-1 (Continued) , POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN KING COUNTY 1970 - 2000 ASTSIDE ACTUAI FORECAST Local Planning Areas 1970 1980 1990 200= 4300 ItsaQuah 4.2DO 6.328 7.470 7.59E 4400 Mercer Island 19.819 21.522 22.784 25,DD2 4500 Eastgate 15.265 23.016 27.090 32,19E 4600 East Sam mmish 6.978 12.673 22,015 36.888 4700 tear Creek 6.S39 6.909 13.724 19.714 48DO West telae rex 15,138 14.924 16.160 19,05E 4900 bcllevue CBD 374 1.010 2,831 4.797 5000 East tellevue 33.450 38,616 40,911 44.523 SIDD ►tint Cities 6,121 7.993 7.812 9.237 5200 tel-Red 2.036 3.123 4,103 4.752 6300 Kirkland 14.737 16.858 19,713 23,411 $400 Redmond 21.557 37.459 S3.3D5 70,60: 5500 Northshore 33.234 62,973 91,645 117,854 5600 botheil 6,945 8,444 IC'Ell 12.338 ' TDTALS 185.695 264,058 U D.174 429,9E5 UOK OF CDUNTY TOTAL 16.36 21.3% 23.9% 26.1% SKORE:INE 1 Local Planning Area 64DO Shoreline 64.532 62.067 62.054 63,14E SWORE OF COUNTY TOTAL 5.74 6.0% 4.4% 3.r. ' SF ATTL E Local Planning Area ' 5700 West Seattle 77.139 69.016 68.678 69,56: 58X Dwwamish-Karver Island 7.703 6,382 6.741 4.!587 690D Southeast Seattle 79.316 74.897 73.205 72.1113 6000 Dommtorn 9.805 10,4% 14.329 5110 central Seattle 75,748 72.094 70.682 70.395 ' 6120 Magnolia-Queen Am+e 62.010 60.672 60.502 49.218 6210 U-District 97.610 0.392 63,023 63.1555 6220 Northeast Seattle 15.630 79.803 79.929 80.627 63D0 Northwest Seattle 85,870 77.094 74 935 7Lt7t TQTALS $30.831 493.146 491.024 493.1695 SHARE OF ULWTY TOTAL 66.71 319.9& 51.5% 30.0% ' TOTAL KING COUKTY 1,135,730 1 238 7D4 1,427,45 1 645 504 (within the toren s orwad 66 II' FIGURE B-2 DISTRIBUTION OF ' TOTAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT WITHIN KING COUNTY 1961 - 2000 9mw51 911K t iry 9t7UA1 toaD4s1 ' �ect1 ►1• l Anls 196, 1o7D logo 1990 r0o' 3= Few &I W7 1.1/D 4.499 10,13] 13.113 Z3.iac rpp 059 a l"ghllow 4.of2 11.368 13.638 1!332 22,613E !$oo �e►th 1t1M tree 6.296 9.938 /6,076 13.978 22,10E lALzs-,�77 .703 k9E $bre K Cmmty Teul 3.21 L.9i 6.71 7.06 7.11 fgth t1YEe VALLTT Leut plan"A"a Areas )0.093 310o Aueur�+ 4.043 11,410 13,+68 16360 3900 9snt 1."7 3,496 7,017 11.95E 14,573 1.449 10.102 21.239 27.10] 33.9E2 3900 lent Ie4srstrttl !O6 4,035 11,742 31.353 40,811 III ' 3900 Tea.tla 4100 Qenty 99.)08 =2.168 19.935 45.51] 60.177 TOTAL 33,15] $1.313 106.901 114.985 199,01E she re of Ceyr+ti T•ul 10.ii 12.0% 16.71 17.51 17.51 w rMLts' 11m Calw-,' J'ect, flnr/ng Anti GrSIM 1.396 1.919 1,940 ).110 3200 clar 1.977 3.29: 3300 TOMItg 460 950 3110 ftrU $as Creek 164 1.193 2.102 4.089 G X5 111 41Sl 905 3.140 4.915 3620 iosrtn Seos Crstt 2.453 4,042 4200 91e�astle 900 l.ttd 1.409 701A, 2.699 6.215 8.)06 16.565 24,159 $tan of Cp+nt)Teta! .91 l.rt 1.)i 1." 2.51 li &oc.i 7lawwtee Arft 32.972 lf.)e4 !1.706 23.122 !1.764 X000 "y 4,h $tan N Canty Teul 9.99 19TSI0E 1 ►la�lae !.etas 696' 69'0 1fµ 11Y. . ?0++-- 4300 last an 1.146 1.165 1.716 7 aN 4.60E 1.917 4.198 $.321 &."16400 91orcer Meed n3 =ip $ 697 •.r71 12.139 X600 is ttvtt 1.961 1.429 4400 p 47 st S•Mr16% =07 7 999 4700 over Cwe► 407 45 441 1.040 t.34J ' 1.977 4.113 9.729 9.793 4900 wst Delles+sie 05"100 MllL30 649 M5 1.p7 1.941 1!.091 l23,690 31.10E 3,682 8.962 13,119 17,18` 05000 oast 8a11emn N] 1,165 $100100 9elet Cltistwras 8200 05•l.9ed 1.146 4.916 9.tz3 12.660 14,966 1.925 1.913 9.163 •.095 11.2µ )00 9 am .p !9,011 M00 8ee10nd 16 3,176 1!.616 10,1!7 $600 9brttMer• 1.676 3.165 7.147 10.085 14,171 8900 setsr1l 83) 1.192 2,193 7.141 12. ' 16.)70 36.019 A.))9 126.1t3: 17i.Y15 10TALi 11.76 wn et try Uul t.f1 8.21 12.91 16.51 67 FIGURE B-2 1 (Continued) DISTRIBUTION OF 1 TOTAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT 1970 - 2000 weal plarrino APea ' SAortl Me 1.023 t.ozs 12.!93 111.551 19.672 GADO fare of County total 1.ri Local rlarmi"I Area 10.!13 11,595 ' s7oo most Seattle 7.117 7.936 10.098 05.624 70.916 76.431 w 511 78,!5 WOO ps1ktth-MrWr island ,376 19.574 2.2.325 25,26E WOO Southeast Seattle 10.6"9 11,757 119.09: 1000 Oamt .1A6 90.603 111.926 113.000 orn 94.746 ' M,171 116,79D 19,28E 6110 �antTat Seattle =2.131 27.107 15.012 IIO,ODC 43.017 gn 6130 Meolle-Queen Anne 23.978 29.116 0 19,18E 15.235 !7.328 36.601 111,75. 6210 y-Otstrtct 25,425 1 11.06E 22,110 7tR.eYl9 6220 Yprthatt Seattle 13.272 !0,476 ilO.i51 23,!52 6300 Wrthmst Seattle 10.5" 13.953 =o3.1y1 274,617 132.0M2 494.6'^. TOTALS 233,128 .04 riMrs5C.7t Shen of Cwrniy lotat 7'D.ri K.ri 08 1 TOIL [iYg Cmmy 332 183 It7 451 645 759 ole 162 (within U* forecast area) t: 1Cu1Wre, farattry, fishing. •(E�otoy�er+t tyres Io riot iacide the followinguteforSet of aaDloyEe" N' •1n1ng and Construction.) soot r 1 i >C '1 anon 1 FIGURE B-3 LOCAL PLANNING AREAS USED FOR = 1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS ss: all 41, I '7 �= 1 3 : SIX 1 68 1 FIGURE B-4 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR KING COUNTY EXTERNAL DISTRICTS ' 970 2980 199D 2000 6900- CUMB E BLAND Population: 3,273 4,426 5.579 6,732 aouseholds: 974 1,443 1.912 2.381 Employment: 456 768 1.080 1.392 6910: EAST COLN'TY Population: 10.238 13.906 17.574 21,242 Households: 3,190 4,861 6.532 6,203 ' Employment: 2,159 2,715 3,271 3,827 6920: CARNATION Population: 3.284 5.336 7.386 9,440 Bouseholds : 1,016 1,822 2.628 3.434 Employment: 107 306 505 704 ' 6930: VASHON Population: 6,516 7.377 8,238 9,093 Households: 2,123 2,894 3,665 4,436 Employment: 609 1.175 1,741 2,307 TOTAL RING COUNTY ExTEMA.I. DISTRICTS Population: 23,311 31.045 38,779 46.513 Households: 7.303 11,020 14.737 18,454 Employment: 3,331 4,964 6,597 8,230 Systemwide Factors There are environmental , land use , geographical , and isocial phenomena that affect solid waste management planning; in King County. These phenomena may be divided into two ' types based on their relevancy to a regional policy plan: those that influence the nature of the entire system; and those that influence the location or operation of a specific facility. y 69 1 � FIGURE B-S ' 1980 POPUI.A?ION DISTRIBUTION�1� 15 •.t .•»y,'Tl•::i`�: ^•i ♦�y.K'i7` 'MCT^•• .a. t ":.;•. .Nr• • '�.• ••:gist•:• .:r:e�•;tic":• .. :Y •s 1:300.000 (l� Each dot-100 persona Sourc• U.S. Duraaw of the Crnsus 70 1 Site or facility decisions such as soils suitability, availability of topography, precipitation, drainage , water table , of cover, and air distribution, affect operational decisions . They are addressed as variables in the evaluation of specific projects , operation, plan , and/or environmental assessment , Since the lack systemwide impacts they or a new facility. s� y f lid II I Comprehensive So are not addressed in the King County Comprehe ' Waste Management Plan. al The variables that are of specific imp population ,to general solid waste system planning are principal) land use , p p or household and employment distribution, which govern waste Igeneration patterns . Per capita waste generation and the societal or cultural values that govern the potential for Iwaste reduction are outside the ability of a single county plan to influence . Climate and air quality may have some general influence on various systemwide planning or management ' choices . Trip distances or travel constraints within the service area of the system may influence sone systemwide manage- went decisions . Climate Sustained rainfall presents difficulties- in landfill ' action. Precipitation operation for cover and comp also increases the amount of leachate . Within King County attempts to locate landfills in areas of lower precipitation increase the conflicts between landfills and more urban uses . Sustained sub-freezing temperatures impare cover and compaction at landfills and may close roads to heavily-laden vehicles . IClimatic considerations are not significant , however, in the siting of solid waste facilities in the county when compared Ito other operational or locational considerations . I I 71 I I i Air Quality ' Current solid waste handling practices and disposal , options are affected by air quality standards . Transfer station and landfill operations may generate dust , gasses , ' odor, and windblown particulate matter. These contaminants are not monitored in a regular manner. in general these emissions do not come under the purview of the Puget Sound ' Air Pollution Control Agency unless a complaint is filed . Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Regulation 9 . 11(a) states that it is unlawful to emit an air contaminant or water vapor if such emission is detrimental to human health, safety , ' and welfare , or causes damage to property. Odor falls under the general provisions of this regulation. An individual must sign a formal complaint and be prepared to testify ' before the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency will enforce rule 9 . 11(a) . ' The air quality problems which attract regulatory ' attention occur as a result of particulate emissions from refuse incinerators . Particulate emissions are related to the ash content of refuse , incinerator design and operation , ' and to pollution control equipment . A typical municipal incinerator emits 15 pounds of particulates from the combustion ' chamber per ton of refuse burned. Three types of air pollution control devices have been used successfully on ' incinerators to reduce particulate emissions : electrostatic precipitators , bag filters , and high-pressure drop scrubbers . ' The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulates particulate emissions in Ring County. The Agency has ' established areas called attainment areas , where air quality standards have been met for particulates . Areas where the ' ambient air quality is worse than the current minimum air quality standards are called nonattainment areas . New 72 incinerators, refuse burners , or energy recovery plants located in attainment areas must be designed or have auxilliary systems to prevent significant deterioration of air quality if they are designed to charge or burn more than 250 tons per day, ' or emit more than 100 tons of particulate matter per year. The auxilliary air pollution control devices are required on 1 a case-by-case basis to meet "best available control technology ." ' New large incinerators and other particulate discharging facilities located in nonattainment areas are subject to more ' rigorous pollution abatement standards . Such facilities will be required to achieve the "lowest achievable emission rate . " Remedial measures to reduce pollution in one area to compensate for new particulate discharges in another area are known. as "offsets" and may need to be employed. Other pollutants are not regularly emitted in stack gasses in significant quantities from municipal refuse incinerators . If they occur specific measures may be ' necessary. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and certain toxic chemicals may be present and require a special control ' strategy. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency reviews each new facility on a case-by-case basis and requires appropriate controls to meet emission standards . 73 WASTE GENERATION ' All solid waste management decisions and options are a function of the volume and character of the solid waste stream... Waste is generally defined as consisting of those materials without economic value to their owners that enter the solid waste handling, treatment , recovery, or disposal processes. Only a fraction of the material of zero or negligible value actually enters the waste stream. Much potential waste material is d ofor is or otherwise used in a perfectly legal , p manner without entering the waste stream. Waste materials may be disposed of on the site of the generator consistent with public health and safety regulations The remainder is sold , recycled, converted, re-used, or given some other form of treatment . Potentially, all solid waste could enter the waste stream.; therefore , waste stye*4.7* an,=-lysis shiuld be-in -:ith ' examination of waste generation . ' Definition of Waste . Since nearly every human activity results in the produc- tion of some useless , unwanted , or discarded materials, the composition of the waste stream is extremely diverse . 'The Environmental Protection Agency defines solid waste as "use-- less , unwanted or discarded material with insufficient liouid content to be free flowinf." 75 The Revised .Code of Washington, Chapter 70. 95 .030 , defines ' solid waste as "all putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semi-solid wastes including but not limited to, garbage , , rubbish, ashes , industrial wastes , swill , demolition and construction wastes , abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and , discarded commodities . " There is a paucity of information about the total volume ' of waste generated in King County. Most of the reliable data on waste generation in King County is based on information t gathered by the public solid waste system operators at the time of transfer and disposal , and relates only to commercial and , residential wastes . The trend of the baseline data is not readily discernible because the scale system at King County' s ' urban facilities was not installed until 1979 . There are no scales at the rural land fills . There are four major types of solid waste . Each type is identified by source . The major types of solid waste are : ' 1. Residential or domestic wastes : these are produced in homes , , apartments and residential insitiutions . Residential and commercial wastes are generally known as mixed municipal solid waste . 2. Commercial wastes : these are produced by all the economic ' activities and services . Major components of the commercial waste stream are retail , services , wholesale , transport , ' communications , utilities , government , and education . Manu- facturing companies produce commercial wastes from that Por- , tion of their operations which are not industrial in nature . Commercial wastes are generally known as mixed municipal ' solid waste . 76 3. Industrial wastes : these are produced as the result of the manufacturing and processing activities that take ' vlace in factories, plants, refineries, and other indus- trial facilities . 4. Special wastes: these originate from all the above sources , but require special treatment for proper disposal . In- cluded are agriculture, non-hazardous chemical , wood wastes, automotive , construction and demolition, wastewater 'treat- ment sludges , pollution control residuals , and septic tank p umpings . ' 5 . Hazardous wastes : these are defined as dangerous or extremely hazardous in accordance with Chapter 173-303 of the Washington Administrative Code . Dangerous waste must be generated at a rate in excess of 400 pounds per month to fall under regulation by the Washington State Department of Ecology . Total Waste Generated Total waste generation may be arrived at through a process ' of estimation, compilation, and approximation. It should also be noted that much of the data used and analysis done does not readily distinguish between waste generated and waste at the time of disposal . Figure W-1 estimates total waste generated in King County in 1981 in comparison with ' total waste requiring disposal . ' Many of the commodities which have been historically considered solid waste have market value and never enter the waste stream. Two large-volume waste types , agricultural and ' wood wastes , are marketed , handled or used outside of the solid waste handling and disposal system. Waste material requiring, ' 77 disposal is the essential quantitive waste stream issue facing ' solid waste management in the King County area . FIGURE W-1 , ESTIMATED GROSS WASTE GENERATION IN KING COUNTY IN 1981 Generated in 1981 kequiring Disposal in 1981 , Mixed Municipal Waste 1,200,000 Tons 1,010,000 Tons ' (Commercial and Residential) 1.500,000 Tons 250,000 Tons Industrial Wastes 1,000,000 Gallons 300,000 Gallons 40,000 Cubic Yards 20,000 Cubic Yards ' 150,000 Tons 100,000 Tons 280,000,000 Gallons Special Wastes 10,000,000 Gallons 100,000 Cubic Yards 75,000 Cubic Yards 65,000 Tons 65,000 Tons2 ' Hazardous Wascesl 5 5,200,000 Gallons ,200,000 Gallons 30,000 Cubic Yards 30,000 Cubic Yards 2,915,000 Tons 1,385,000 Tons ' TOTAL 286,200,000 Gallons 15,500,000 Gallons 170,000 Cubic Yards 125,000 Cubic Yards 1Dan N. Kruger, "An Industrial and hazardous Waste InTentory of Washington Manufacturing Industries (1980)" ' Washington State Department of Ecology, 1981, p ge 25. 2Major industries only. The information contained in this draft of the solid ' waste management plan in regard to hazardous wastes (dangerous and extremely hazardous wastes) is preliminary information. The Solid Waste 21anagement Board will prepare an inventory of ' hazardous wastes as part of the second phase of the revision of the plan . The manifest systems in implementation of WRC , 173-303 will identify additional or currently unknown sources of industrial and hazardous wastes . , 78 RESIDENTIAL AND COPQLERCIAL SOLID WASTE: MIXED 11UNICIPAL ' SOLID WASTE Waste Generation: Combined residential and commercial solid waspublic o teconstitute' the bulk of the material passing through the �types of waste waste handling and disposal system. The two Y ' become mixed in many collection systems and are indistinguishable by the time they are weighed at the transfer statin ' The total mixed municipal solid waste generated in King County in 1981 is estimated to have amounted to 1 ,200 ,000 tons - Fifteen ifteen percent of the mixed municipal waste is recycled , leaving 1 ,010 , 000 tons that required disposal in 1981 . These figures were arrived at by subtracting estimates for the r*lixed industrial wastes which are disposed of at general purpose ' landfills . FIGURE W-2 21IXED MUNICIPAL- SOLID WASTE AT THE POINT OF DISPOSAL ' 1979 1980 1981 ' Landfill Tonna a a Tonna Tcjnna e 210 ,000 215 ,000 220 ,00 ' Kent-Highlands 570,000 660,000 750 .000 Cedar Hills 50 .000 50 .000 _40 .00.3 ' Rural Landfills 830,000 925 ,000 1 ,010 ,010 79 Distinctions between mixed municipal solid waste and the ' same components occurring in industrial waste is artificial . In- dustrial waste includes paper , cardboard , mixed metal scraps, and other material from the non-manufacturing and manufacturing processes which are highly similar to the composition of commercial waste . For planning, purposes , these waste streams , should be combined and treated identically since they are dis- posed of at the same facilities . , ed municipal waste plus small Figure W-.3 shows the mix p , quantities of industrial waste which reached disposal in King County over a three-year period . FIGUPF W-3 ' KING COUNTY VASTE REACHING DISPOSFL f1� 1979 1980 1941 General Purpose Landfills Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Kent-Highlands 220 , 198 243 , 047 240 215 ' Cedar Hills 621 , 083 714 . 891 804 , 352 Vashon 5 ,953 6 ,059 5 . 343 Enumclaw 9 . 165 9 775 9 , 996 Hobart 13 ,671 12 , 627 13 ,431 Cedar Falls 6 , 256 6 , 637 3 ,6 +6 ' Duvall(2) 19 ,450 19 . 72.9 8 S64 Carnation(3) 1 , 200 1 200 1 , 500 ' TOTAL 896 ,979 1 ,013 , 965 1 . 090 , 547 (1)2:easured in tons at the point of final disposal , (2)Ceased operations June 15 , 1981 (3)Estimated 80 ' Waste Stream Analysis ' s of landfill data presented in Figure W-3 The three year and transfer station thru-Dut volume data for the same period ' are the only available reliable measures of King County waste stream volume . Figures for 1977 and 1978 tonnages at King County facilities are available , but predate the installation of the scale system. Based on the landfill tonnage data , the size of the total county waste strean increased by twenty two percent between 1979 and 1981 . There are a number of possible reasons for the increased volume , It is possible that the average rate at which people and employees generate waste increased from 1979 -to 1981 . It is also possible that the landfill data is not accurate and waste stream growth for the period is overstated or understated . However , the most significant reasons for the growth in waste- stream volume were , almost certainly, the increases in county population, employment , and economic activity during the period . 1 From 1979 to 1981 county population increased by 81 ,000 and employment by 25 ,O00 . an increase of 6 6 percent and 3 . 5 percent , respectively . Together these would account for about 66 percent of the observed increase in the waste stream based on the generation rate estimates prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments . The contribuiton of new employment tto waste stream growth may have been even greater than the above figure indicates because the largest increases in employ- ment were in the commercial sector which is the major source of employment-related wastes in the waste stream for King County. discussed in this sub-section Other kinds of waste such as; construction wastes and demolition debris which are related to increases in economic activity contributed to the growth in the ' 81 r total waste stream. For purposes of this analysis , these wastes are ' discussed under the special waste section. Over the 1979-1981 period, per captia generation based r on the volume at general purpose landfills increased by nineteen percent , as Figure W-4 shows . The per capita rate r was calculated by dividing the mixed municipal waste at the point of disposal by the county' s population. This is r an estimate of the amount of residential and commercial waste generated per person. The per captia figures , indicate that the waste stream is growing at about twice the rate that the population is growing . If that ratio were to continue through the end of the century, the r s in county waste stream would be 60 percent larger than it was 1981 . r FIGURE W-4 ' KING COUNTY PER CAPITA WASTE MEASURED AT THE POINT OF DISPOSAL r 1979-1981 ' 1979 1980 1981 %Growth County population 1 , 228 , 311 1 , 269 , 749 1 , 309 , 800 6 . 6`' Per captia generation 1 ,460 lbs . 1 , 597 lbs . 1 , 666 lbs . 14 . 1'!. . A per capita generation rate might be adequate for a county- r wide analysis of present and future waste streams , but it ' cannot be used to prepare a waste stream analysis by subcounty area. A per capita rate assigns the total waste stream to population and assumes that changes in the volume of the waste r stream can be forecast by changes in the size of the popula- tion. A county wide per capita generation rate could only be r used at the subcounty level if the ratio of population to employ- ment were constant across the county and that is not the case r 82 �r in King County. For example , Seattle has almost as many jobs as residents while suburban areas like the Soos Creek Plateau ' have fewer than one job for every ten residents . A countywide per capita figure applied to Seattle would produce an under- estimate of its waste stream but , if applied to the Soos Creek Plateau, would produce an overestimate of its waste stream. Residential Waste : ' To produce reliable estimates of waste stream by subcounty area it is necessary to separate the waste stream into the ' components produced by residential activity and those produced by economic activity. Because waste measurements by operating agencies do not differentiate by type or source of waste , there ' is no countywide waste stream information by source available . It is necessary to build an estimate of the per capita genera- tion rate for residential waste and an estimate of the per employee generation rate for commercial and that portion of industrial waste which constitute mixed municipal solid waste . The only starting point for such an effort is the residen- tial waste generation rate data that can be found in the method- ology and subcounty data available in the 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan . That information is supplemented with information which can be derived from the annual residen- tial tonnage data compiled by Seattle . These two sources show that the weighted average per capita generation rate for ' King County was about 850 pounds in both 1972 and 1980. Based on the standard of 850 pounds of waste per capita per year, 556 ,665 tons of the 1981 mixed municipal solid waste ' (measured at the point of disposal) can be attributed to residen- tial sources . 83 ■ FIGURE W-5 KING COUNTY PER CAPITA RESIDENTIAL WASTE , AT THE POINT OF DISPOSAL 1980 Per Capita (1) , Residential ' % of Total Waste 1980 County Generation Population Population Rate Seattle 493, 000 38 . 8% x 831 Suburban 627 , 000 49 .4% x 895 , Rural 150 , 000 11 . 8% x 932 County 1 ,270 , 000 100. % 854. lbs . (2) , per year (1)1980P er capita estimates : Seattle was calculated by , dividing total residential tonnage by 1980 population. The percentage increase in the Seattle per capita rate from 1972 ' to 1980 was then applied to the 1972 rural and suburban rates to derive 1980 estimates . (2)This figure is higher than the weighted average of just ' under 800 pounds that was used in Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area to calculate the total—Kiixel municipal so i waste stream. The difference lies in the way suburban waste was treated in the calculations . Environmental , Manaement for the Metro olitan Area chose to ignore any waste w is was not pic e up by a certi icated hauler in their sample area even though it ultimately reached a transfer station or landfill . This analysis assumes such waste enters the waste stream and it is included in the mixed municipal waste totals . The weighted averagesued were 322 apounds per , year per person for Seattle , pounds and 110 for rural areas . Commercial and Industrial Waste in Mixed Municipal Waste : , The balance of the mixed municipal solid waste can be attributed to employment-related activities in the commercial , sector and industrial management. The nature of the mix of 84 ' the waste and the inability to segregate employment by type of waste generated within each industrial employment classifi- cation necessitates a composite waste generation rate per employee without distinguishing between commercial and industrial wastes . Therefore , a per employee average generation rate can be derived by dividing the remaining waste stream tonnage by total employment in King County for the same year. In 1980, this yielded an average of 1 ,750 pounds per employee per year measured at the point of disposal as shown in Figure W-6. FIGURE W-6 KING COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE WASTE r AT THE POINT OF DISPOSAL (1981) Total Waste Stream (1980) (1) 1 , 178 ,000 tons Less Residential Waste Stream 526 , 575 tons (850 lbs . per capita x 1 ,239 ,000) Employment Related Waste Stream 651 ,425 tons (1980) 744 , 600 Total Jobs Average Annual Per Employee 1 ,750 lbs/year Generation Rate (1)Does not include demolition debris deposited at special purpose landfills or the silica dust deposited at the Ravensdale landfill . Geo ra hic Distribution of Waste Generation: Subcounty generation areas were defined based on estimates of the areas that are tributary to existing transfer stations and landfills , as shown in Figure W-7 . This arrangement made it possible to compare the waste 1 85 FIGURE W-7 , RING COUNTY WASTE STREAM TRIBUTARY AREAS Jk IL j Iry �! ♦ -1 04, jr fw* _ l � :� �• 1'7 � f� � .� � r � • .sem ' o l f F 0 • ,i r sew t... dr s ) , 86 r stream estimates made for 1980 for each area with the actual waste volumes . Finally the 1980 population and em- ployment of each generation area was determined , using the Puget Sound Council of Governments small area forecasts , and the per capita and per employee generation rates were applied to calculate the waste stream volume for each ' tributary area. Figure W-8 shows the annual waste stream by generation rarea. Seattle was the source of almost half the total King County waste stream in 1980 . This finding is consistent ' with its share of the county' s population and employment which was 40 percent and 58 percent respectively in the same year . The Green River Valley and the southwest county ' provided the next largest share of the waste stream, over 24 percent . The Eastside was the source of 18 percent . i Waste Generation Forecasts : Forecasts of the waste stream through the end of the century ' were also made using the Puget Sound Council of Governments most recent small area forecasts as the source of 1990 and 2000 ' generation, area, population� and employment. The waste stream projections show that by the year 2000 the King County waste stream will increase by about 45 percent from 1980 levels to ' 1 ,642 ,3000 tons . Waste stream volumes are forecast to increase in all the generation areas . The largest increases are expected in those areas that will receive the greatest population and employment growth as shown in Figure W-8 . Waste also enters or leaves King County for disposal . Wood wastes which readh disposal leave King County. King County has ' agreed to accept a specified amount of mixed municipal solid waste Per year from Snohomish County for disposal at Cedar Hills . ' Intercounty transfers marginally affect the ability to forecast waste volumes requiring disposal. 87 The Eastside has the fast growing waste stream. The two , Eastside analysis areas waste streams are forecast to increase from about 208 ,000 tons in 1980 to about 384 ,000 tons by the end of the century. This represents an 85 percent increase for the ' period. FIGURE W-8 i ANNUAL WASTE STREAM IN TONS Generation Areas 1980(1) 1990 2000 ' 1 . Shoreline/Juanita 700 Kirkland 55 ,745 66 ,700 76 , ;2 . Northshore/Redmond/ ' Bear Creek/Snoqualmie Valley 106 , 750 155 , 100 206 , 100 3 . Bellevue/EastunSaaa wish 101 ,438 138 , 600 178 , 300 , 4. Upper Snoqualmie , 6 , 637 8 ,400 10 , 100 Valley 5 . Renton/Newcastle 51 , 694 61 , 700 73 , 800 6 . Soos Creek/Tahoma 16 ,627 627 24 , 600 34 , 000 ' 7 . Enumclaw 9 , 775 12 , 600 16 , 700 8 . Federal Way/Auburn 64 ,977 91 ,700 114 , 200 9 . Highline/Tukwila/ t Skyway/Kent 158 , 202 222 ,800 266 , 700 10 . Vashon Island 6 ,059 6 , 800 7 , 500 ' 11 . Seattle 549 ,966 602 ,700 658 , 200 TOTAL 1 , 127 , 870 1 , 391 , 700 1 , 642 , 300 tons tons tons (1)No attempt was made to account for the 50 ,000 ton difference between the actual 1980 King County waste stream (1117S , 000 tons and the estimated 1980 waste stream (1 , 127 „ 870) . tonnage volumes forea ltheetransferestations andhlandfillshe athat tonnage o ' serve the generation areas . 88 ' Large increases in waste stream volumes are also expected in the southern county where the greatest growth is forecast for an area which includes Highline , Skyway, Tukwila, Kent , and a part of the Soos Creek Plateau. The volume will rise from 158 ,000 tons in 1980 to 267 ,000 tons in 2000 . Over the same ' period the waste stream from Federal Way and Auburn is forecast to rise from 65 ,000 tons to 114,000 tons . Other, smaller increases in waste stream volumes are expected elsewhere in the southern county . The waste stream from Seattle is forecast to increase from 550 ,000 tons in 1980 to 658 ,000 tons by 2000. The waste stream growth in Seattle will be due entirely to the expected growth in employment within the City. Seattle' s population and resi- dential waste stream are expected to remain nearly constant at 1980 levels through the end of the century. Seasonal Variations in Waste System Volume The waste stream in King County varies with the seasons . Volumes decline through the fall and then begin to rise again in late winter . Peak volumes are reached in May or June , and volumes remain high through September before declining through ' the autumn and winter . This is consistent with observations made in other U . S . urban areas . Figure W-9 , which shows monthly volumes at Seattle ' s two transfer stations from 1978 throueh 1981, illustrates this pattern. Figure W-10 which shows monthly volumes at King County ' s six transfer stations for the Fame period is distorted by the year-to-year growth in waste volumes that took place in those years . The affect of the distortion is to push the peaks into late summer . To remove much of the distortion an average daily rate was calculated for each month for the entire four- year period (Figure W-11) . It reveals that county volumes , i 89 like those in Seattle , peak in early suammer. a FIGURE W-9 MONTHLY TONNAGES AT SEATTLE' S TWO TRAlISFER STATIONS 1978-1981 Toe. (000) 50 . o '0 0 �0 • o o � 30 • re..t .ec •o.cn..�� 0 0 IO • , e 0 0 10 • 0 0 0 0 0 ~ J F N A M J J A 5 0 N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A N J J A S O N D J F II A N J J A S O N D 1979 1974 1950 19111 90 1 1 ' FIGURE W-10 MONTHLY TOTAL TONS OF WASTE AT THE SIX KING COUNTY TRANSFER STATIONS 1978 - 1981 40 e • ,rte ' 30 • y,.��y e' 0 e • 20 0 0 0 ' o 10 • 0 e 0 0 J ► M A M J J A S O M D J F M A M J J A S O M D J F M A !I J J A f O M D 1961 M A M J J A S O N D 1978 1979 1960 FIGURE W-11' MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY TONNAGE ' 1977-1980 AT THE SIX KING COUNTY TRANSFER STATIONS ' Ave re to Tone/Dey 1200 1100 1000 - - - - - - - - - - - f00 X00 100 i00 S00 600 X00 !00 100 Js. Feb. Ver. April Iley June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Doc- ' 91 om ositian: ' Waste The physical components of the waste stream have an ' important influence on the ease with which the waste is successfully handled , transported and disposed . The stemstream, and prohibits the ' handles the waste entering the waste disposal of unmanageable waste such as liquids , sludges , ' oversize timbers and auto bodies . Waste composition information is an important i 1 consideration for analysis of resource recovery and energy recovery operations . General waste composition ' information may be adequate for general planningpur- poses . Specific resource recovery and energy recovery ' technologies may have different degrees of tolerance or efficiency for various waste composition ' composition study should be undertaken based on the system configuration(s) under consideration as part of a feasibility analysis for energy recovery . ' Figure W-12 shows a compilation of recent analyses ' done on waste composition in the King County area . It should be noted that all entries in the table predate ' the extensive level of recycling that presently exists in King County . A composite waste composition can be estimated for mixed municipal solid waste : ' Glass 8�° Metal 40% Paper 10'o/G0 ' Yard waste S Plastics 30% Miscellaneous ow a slightly National waste composition surveys and wastes, in the higher percentage of glass , metal and y ' 92 1 waste stream than in Seattle . Wood products and paper goods are more prevalent in the local waste stream than ' in the national averages . A compilation of national waste stream composition information is shown in Figure W-13 . Future waste composition is not expected to change significantly between 1980 and 1990 . The proportion of ' glass and metal are expected to decline slightly . Paper and plastics are expected to increase. None of the pre- dicted changes exceed one percent for any commodity in the waste stream. INDUSTRIAL WASTES Industrial wastes constitute the greatest area of uncertainty in quantifying the waste stream. The problems in obtaining information on industrial wastes from the manufacturing sector are complex and involve the follow- ing factors : Inconsistent definitions of solid waste and application of the definition to ' generation or disposal. Manufacturing operations , even those with similar products , may produce different wastes or quantities due to different management or manufacturing practices . Vaste data is viewed as proprietary information. 93 ■ FIGURE W-12 1 SEATTLE-KING COUNTY WASTE STREAM COMPOSIT10N INFORMATION ' oosTardMo� « s+.e « K•e � ' TTsnod Ur129 uT psaTa .'&aanossy p&ddraun u�t &as&h PTToS &,aTa»aS„ ^ s Tisnod UsTap K k I r iq „'sTaassS ;o (ZTD sya so; y TeTauaaod SUT126a&g pue MrsaaS �, ■ I � &asrm TeTauspTssg sya )o LpnaS„ c ' i s � E 6pnaS (3TTTQT•••d i p � UoTaraS as)su&sy ysTMOAAAS , P O V ¢ e e e v Telaasnpuj pie TeTaas®off � N — N s o TsTauapicag r L e c 1161 •62rnurp '68O10D3 ;o auamaaedap aaeaS UO2lUIy5rr ao; „aasen pTTOS Moa; 68aau3 K z • Pur sleTaaaeH psasnoaag ;o sisdTruy aa:{aM, '117H WHD S e &MODUS 49Ty Pur 'sIPPTM ' •LoT__spooyaogyPTau TeTauap N c v _Tsai ( ;0 BuTTdmrS A37TTa1 — —_ • &asp-y PHOS •vUTa2aujfU3 ;o to e auamaardaQ 'sTaaraS ;0 6aT� c _ v ESUITD6Dag U07739110Dis r`o m u &MCH uoTarardoS sDanoS N ^ • a s AaeaunToA uo ApnaS aoTTd _ :aaa[oad BUTTa,081 •TaaraS c - x r K E:T eT a a rnPu I/TeT as s®off c c I l L (1161 '&TaaesS sssn) urTd o 2uaMa9WUWW aaser pilo$ snisUsy _sadso:) Launoo fUTM TrTauspTsay • _ ` __ ' t V I D 1161 M of 04 I S •MraBoad fuTTdarS aTaaesS )o LaT3 ^ J a — `c C • < % • 0 r C ► C , Y == Y • C • p �• F tp O ■ L L •�,`� H V C O J 1.7 Sc Id C V r j 47 t y V Y:z R K .O I 1c, C. C p m v 5 ✓ C C •J ■ N J V: • C C • 7 ■ C CY• O 7 Y7^ ■Y:L N G3 ��`�3.] L r E C • c1t r i t • QQ a yNy�� CCp •.i{� �•U 9 U pC IN V O `� CCS V� I Z R✓ Ut V �6iUOCL=ssl-� U 3 s 94 ' FIGURE 13 NATIONAL WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION ESTIMATES 9161 1A 9OjfoTovy»l aT0T3T))o '^ w ^ • -. IT T• DpTno -* I SO&O T` 3s1 3vrT• La•woar11 034ne9ry � ` y • I y ` ` • — 4O0OO961 .��q•L n � I . ••so, 9vTaOOu;3u3 Lsn3vs� •-n e • e w _ « •« ` ."rTLs9W •9so.13199 •TTT)Pvr7 ��-•� p � � _ « « -*AV w2fuluuad 3r •aano0 DiOuO _ y • • ' w we gn TTTjpvrl )o 00739RT9A2„ _ •• CCC « y M ^ • -iTdsl•{ a Su H V a.Aco.y ssdad *Coco ! • = e TeT3wPts•11., Sol) (Trjs3sf+PvT •!a a ! • =- - 9uTpnja:.-- sod f •9011) t'A c 9113 vT voT3sasvO� O]nn T►dT Tvn►i _ TTTH i:ZH� 4 P0]ao sa a .n v* '[L61 '9z-Zl ti Tk - arafoad _ o o faTTd.rS - swfOap •Pvr13aod ^ r ^ « Y •3aTa]ria •aµas5 sr]TTvdoa3sH • c 0 0 r, 0 0 0 'I ' b eaOA� •3n3T39vI �TtO]arp ^ ! • . r r - • a Lq pOavdsad rfra•AV L313 VZ ^ e _ "; « • • CD a • • La•ADa911 « .aanos911 10} s93vOTrnoT3rN ^ so � a o • i � s • 4 � - • V G — — —n ..•oT3anp•11 �_ •3as� put La•noasy O3anosO11 � • • ^«a! •, • .. ! ^ OssOafuoD os %sodOI, 42inod„ •` .w s . . ^ :LauOfy 9073o0302d Tr2uwuoll"3 _ r =P ! • s s j C O ' „CfotovyaO1 La0A05O-6 022noss11,. '- e e o 0 0 o e :LauOfv uoT]aO]oad T97tN91DOitAII11 r Ct w 4D .0 0 •p r+ « ^ __ E „La3rRpvl s9drd 043 Pvs 39.assrvrw Ct _ I •snA PTToS. •9O3rTwry .TT+IsRad .. « _ • "_ • i r Is .01 ' • • J S Y V � Z to w � i rnv �� 5 •� I v � c� PcZ-v 6,ot t SS � = V = • ` .1 1 � � J 7 7 t G � ILL • �_ PSI Or 95 1 • Reluctance t g o divulge information which 1 may indicate failure to comply with 1 pollution or health regulation. 0 Seasonal or cyclical fluctuations . 1 • Tendencies to underestimate volumes and/ 1 or tonnages . • Sale of surplus or waste materials to 1 p other users or recyclers . 1 • Inadequate or inaccurate records . 1 �1 Definitional issues in regard to industrial waste are significant. Industrial waste is sometimes defined 1 as all waste products generated by economic activity 1 classified as manufacturing by the Standard Industrial Classification code . The classification method aggregates all employees and all waste under the major product , even 1 those employees and wastes which are administrative or service in nature . An alternative definition includes 1 solely byproducts of manufacturing processes . The definition of the byproducts as waste finds to include 1 marketable and recyclable materials which do not require disposal . Some subsets of industrial wastes are considered ' separately as hazardous or special wastes . 1 Industrial wastes may be calculated in several ways . Techniques may be based on waste generation ratios , popula- tion and employment ratios , waste generating surveys , recycling and disposal rates . Rudimentary calculations 1 96 1 1 � ' of waste generation can be made but suffer from defintional problems and data base inadequacies . The exclusive reliance ' on a single method of estimating waste generation, particu- larly for industrial wastes , results in significantly different results . Industrial Waste Survey The Washington State Department of Ecology used the survey approach in identifying and quantifying industrial wastes . The principal motivation of the study was the ' identification of hazardous wastes as part of the development of a statewide program. Waste types and industries which generate industrial wastes not likely to include hazardous wastes were excluded from the inventory due to time and resource limits experienced by the Department of Ecology.. ' Those manufacturing industries generating little or no hazardous waste such as food products , tobacco, clothing , ' furniture , stone-clay products , and measuring instruments were not included in the Department' s inventory . ' Statewide , 500 industries were inventoried by mail . Data was solicited on all aspects of waste manage- ment . Over 70 percent of the industries responded. The respondents included all the large industrial waste genera- tors . The inventory used three units of measure ; tons , cubic yards and gallons . The inventory identified waste ' generated and queried respondents on the location of waste treatment , storage , disposal and recovery. The inventory identified three major industries which generate most of the industrial waste in King County; primary metals , chemicals and allied products and transportation. The amounts of industrial waste (including hazardous wastes) generated in King County by the major 1 97 1 L industries responding to the Department of Ecology' s survey are shown in Figure W-14. The data is shown by the industry type of the waste generator and the unit: of ' measure (tons , gallons or cubic yards) in which the waste was reported . Tonnage figures are usually associated with solids , gallons with liquids and cubic yards with sludges . ' FIGURE W-14COUNTY( ' INDUSTRIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED IN KING BY INDUSTRIAL TYPE IN 1980 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF CUBIC NUMBLk OF , INDUSTRY TONS INDUSTRIES GALLONS INDUSTRIES YARDS INDUSTRIES Wood Products 21,625 1 46,750 2 4,650 1 , Paper and Allied 643 3 --- - Products 1,206 I 95, Chemicals 55,827 8 1.229,550550 11 3,370 3 Petroleum -- - 2'500 1 ' (tubber and 3 4,000 1 Plastics 27 2 6I0 --- - Leather I 1 --- S00 1 Primary Metals 91,384 4 165.585 3 ' Fabricated 3 60,470 7 2.000 1 Metals 364 Non-Electrical 2 30,850 2 Machinery 3.542 3 55.232 ' Electrical 6 800 1 Machinery 8 5 2'379 4 Transportation 31,324 6 3,788,285 8 2.104 Scientific - 800 2 --- - ' Instruments -- TOTAL 205,308 34 5.447,804 48 48,274 13 1Dan Kruger, An Industrial and Hazardous Waste Inventory of Washington's Manufacturing Industries (1980). , Washington State Department of Ecology, 1981, page 20. The Department identified the industrial wastes which meet the dangerous waste standards in WAC 173-303 from general industrial waste. Figure W-15 shows the , hazardous waste generated by industrial class and Figure W-16 shows the nonhazardous industrial waste generated by industrial class . ' 98 ' FIGURE W-15 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED IN KING COUNTY BY INDUSTRIAL TYPE IN 1980 CUBIC INDUSTRY TONS GALLONS YARDS ' Hood Products 21,600 15,000 r_ Paper and Allied Products 606 46,093 Chemical and Allied Products 5.796 1.165,900 750 ' Petroleum and Allied Products 2,500 --- lubber ~Rubber and Plastica 60 Leather Manufacturing 1 Primary Metals 21.853 160,055 Fabricated Metals - 37 60,470 M --- Mon-Electric Machinery 31,845 27,500 Electrical Machinery 5 1,976 Transportation 12,166 3,704,013 504 Scientific Instruments --_ 800 ' TOTAL 62,064 5,188,712 28,754 ' (1) Ibid., page 24-25 FIGURE W-16 INDUSTRIAL (EXCLUDING HAZARDOUS WASTE) GENERATED IN KING COUNTY BY INDUSTRIAL TYPE IN 1980 CUBIC INDUSTRY TONS GALLONS YARDS Wood Products 25 31,750 4,650 ' Prepared Allied Products 600 49,550 Chemical and Allied Products 50,031 63,650 2,62== 0 Petroleum and Allied Products --- Rubber and Plastics 27 550 4.000 ' Leather Manufacturing --- -_- Primary Metals 69.531 5.530 500 Fabricated Metals 327 2,000 c Ion-Electrical Machinery 3.542 23,387 3,350 Electrical Machinery 3 403 800 ' Transportation 19.158 $4,272 1.600 Scientific Instruments TOTAL 143.244 259.092 19,520 (1) ibid., page 20, 24-25 99 Emp .oyment Based Waste Generation ' Many of the most recent studies to estimate and ' forecast solid waste have been based on solid waste: genera- tion per employee by type of industry . National norms , are established for per employee waste generation. ',1) Figure V-17 shows the King County employment by major industrial classification codes and the tons of waste generated per ' employee per year. These two factors are used to calcu- late industrial waste for 1980 and to forecast waste ' generation for 1990 . ' Enplin& I The 1972 study by CH2MHill for the 1974 Comprehensive nsive Solid Waste Management Plan was based on Theastudyeir►cluded analysis of sample waste generators . commercial and industrial operations . of the 30 , 600 ' commercial and industrial firms listed in King County , 154 ste were selected for interviews . D1nfthenStandardes in alndustrial generation practices were based o ' Classification code . tastes passing through the transfer stations and the Marine Disposal barge operation were , monitored for a two-week period and extrapolated. The 1972 study identified two millionindustrial ' waste generated per year with 122 ,000 tons reaching final disposal in 1972. , (')David Gordon Wilson, Opsit., page 467 , 100 c o O ✓ p � � � '° 888 � oN88 � 8 � a8 O P C m a %D d N d d �- n P N a P d~ . . . 4 �' �+ d w N .•• n a N N �C a A A C N ON C P dc A s � Z � Q c O GO •c 8 8 8 0 8 CLn Le, 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O Q r-1 s. �D �D n O A N a .•• N �G n ✓, n m p — — — � J .-• v� N .p P n rn p p � a n A �[ O � L 7 L � E 1 H U � z Z ? L R 3 � c cc L E ^ A p p n p N p p p p p p I N Y L = U. ¢ > N n J ¢ P O C N i d O > L a n O O Or f — W n Y C ` _ E r L. c 3 cps CQNN8888 88888Cc, 8nnCc, c >_ 1+ �c A P o C C N N 0-4 N N •t 3 r ✓ T • v .T C ✓ C � s T 94 w _ C CV �. _ I E S rl i. .�+ i ►• P V V C P. C C e41 w � ✓ D ..r ✓y(� � C V v w �Vp ✓ r. .= E R R P. � ► ►' � � 7 6 • S V Z A 7 V �+ C w u p L �1 C C • V w ►• R C L _✓CC w E p _ `C d .~i M d A ..Vi C C ►. {t7 u CG V v N P a L [ r, C w p K 1 p V a i 7 R n �c p pp ii p M. F� ..i i d 6 i� L V d Or L LL7 F � v p.Cq t ^ �• 101 � 1 l SPECIAL WASTES , Demolition Wastes s include not only ' Demolition waste y the residual from the destruction of buildings , but other nonputrescible ' wastes . Bulky items , to large or to heavy for efficient and economical disposal through the municipal system are included as are stumps , furniture , appliances (white goods) pallets , dirt and rock, pilings, and construction and demolition debris . Cardboard and paper products are usually included , in small amounts . Demolition e segregated separate debris se re ated for disposal ' at special waste facilites in King County include asphalt , ' brick block, brush, clay , concrete , dirt , lumber, paper , plasterboard , plastics , stumps and wood. Disposal of demolition debris at specialized facilities is estimated , to have exceeded 75 ,000 tons in 1951 . The disposal at special sites probably amounts to two-thirds to three- ' quarters of the total demolition debris generated in the county. The balance of demolition debris enters the system ' through conventional means in small loads or even through the collection system. It is accounted for in disposal tonnages recorded at transfer stations and landfills . , Wood Wastes : t Most of the waste material from the wood products ' industry is left in the forest or burned as slash at the logging sites . The logging and wood products industry ' generates more waste by volume than any other major . industrial group. Forest wastes , estimated at from 0.75 ' 102 ' to 1 .0 tons per 1000 board feet of finished lumber are comprised of slash, cut logs and brush. (') Recent increases ' in pollution control and secondary markets for wood pro- duct residuals have reduced the amount of waste. Historically , sawmills and milling have generated almost as much wood ' waste as they produced finished product of milled lumber . Approximately 45% of the harvested wood ended up as waste. ' The residual consists of 34. 5% bark, 15.4% sawdust, 8. 5% planer shavings , 21.9% chippable waste residue and slabs „ ' and 19 . 6% dry trim. ' There are three significant lumber mills located in King County. Two of them are the White River Mill near Enumclaw and the Snoqualmie Mill at Snoqualmie , both operated by the Weyerhaeuser Company . Wood waste generated at those two mills amounts to 240 ,000 cunits(2) per year. The waste is ' marketed as usable raw material for other products or processes or as hog fuel . Yard waste residuals which include organic wood debris and soil from log handling yards is disposed of on site as a fill material. The Seaboard Lumber Company is the other large mill. in King County. It generated 25 ,000 tons of residual ' wood products in 1981 . All the residual wood products were marketed as usable connodities . Sark products were sold as garden mulches and cedar bark was used as matting in the road beds for new roads . Sawdust was sold to Grocc Inc . in Kent as the base for composting Metro sludge . Shavings are sold to agricultural markets for use as absorbant bedding for livestock and then reused as fer- tilizer. Wood chips are used as the raw material for the manufacture of paper products . Other wood product GordonWilson, ed. Handbook of Solid Waste (J)David om an Management, Van Hostrand Rein o P y� (2)A cunit equals 100 cubic feet 103 residuals such as mixed sawdust , shavings and tri=ings or chips , including those which have become contaminated are sold as hog fuel to fire the boilers of pulp and paper mills in Tacoma and Everett. There are no waste wood products . ' Other small milling and wood processing operations ' in King County also have markets for their residual materials . In the case of some small operators , portions of the wood ' processing residual may enter the waste stream. There is no documentation on the timing or amounts of intermi- tent entry of wood waste into the waste stream. ' Agricultural Tastes : The principle agricultural waste generated in King ' County is manure . Based on estimates made by the Soil Conservation Service , there are approximately 250 million , gallons or 225 ,000 tons of manure generated annually in King County. The 150 large dairy herds in the county , account for 219 million gallons of the total . Small horse and beef operations produce in excess of 25 million gallons per year . The beef and horse manure is much more concentrated since it is not mixed with the dairy wash water . About three-quarters of a million gallons per year of pig manure ' and an even smaller quantity of chicken manure originates in King County each year. ' Programs and studies have been developed to aid dairy farmers in collection, storage and field application of manure. Most dairy , beef and horse manure is returned , to the land as a soil additive . Most applications avoid wet and frozen periods of the year. Sophisticated manure handling operations separate the solids from the liquid ' 104 ' 1 portions . The solids are used as a bedding supplement or sold to topsoil firms . Fluid volumes of liquified ' manure are being reduced through diversion of clean water from the manure collection areas . One dairy operation in King County uses manure to generate methane which powers ' he milking and processing equipment. The methane genera- 1 g tion process enhances the agricultural properties and re- duces the offensive odor r of the manure that is returned to the soil . Chicken manure is not generated in large e Y asil marketed as a soil quantities in the county but is additive . Chicken manure is high in nitrogen, dry and easy ' to handle . Food Processing Wastes Wastes typical of the food processing industry are plant refuse , shipping wastes and processing residuals which are typical of the food product being processed. Major processers in King County include seafood products , j pickles and malt beverages . The organic nature of food processing wastes and its putrescible character generally provides for an obnoxious waste . Food processing wastes ems . The are subject to seasonal one to vector robl y are pr P variations although the beverage residuals and wastes are normalized throughout the year. Hops , the principal P component of brewery food processing waste do not reach the solid waste disposal system and are typically disposed of by various methods of returning the residual to the soil or within the agricultural sector . Farmans Pickle Company is the only major agricultural processor in King County. The company generates a highly variable amount of waste products which are disposed of at the Enumclaw landfill operated by King County . The 105 generation rate varies between one and fifteen truck loads ' per week. Specific records of waste generation are not kept . Liquid residuals of the pickling process are treated on site with a pre-treatment process that neutralizes the , pH, creates the brine residual , and controls solids with the use of a anerobic digester . The digester has been in operation for four years and has not generated any sludge . One and one-half million cubic feet per year of effluent ' from the pickling operation enter the sewer system for treatment at the Enumclaw waste water treatment plant. ' Fish wastes resulting from the principal food', stuff processing in King County are typically disposed of by a , public disposal system. Between 39 and 78 tons of peanut chaff" (the inner ' husk) are produced annually by food processing operations ' in King County . The chaff is sold under a United States Department of Agriculture license to a contracted purchaser for use as a high protein feed supplement . Used Oil : The used-oil haulers claim that they can sell all the used oil they obtain. it is a highly volatile and fluctuat- ing business and market . Market-share estimates and ' annual volumes are considered proprietary by most operators . Used oil can be re-refined and used again as a lubricating oil of equivalent quality to virgin oil . Used oil also ' can be reprocessed and used as a heating oil or be burned as a fuel . There are no re-refineries in Washington ' State so most of the used oil collected by the approxi- mately two or three dozen used-oil haulers is sold to be , burned as a fuel by such companies as Weyerhaeuser. A small percentage of used oil is probably used to oil , 106 � 1 ' roads as a dust-control measure on private lands . Road oiling has been discontinued by most governmental bodies ' due to the resulting migration of the oil off the roads and into water bodies . ' In excess of 70 percent of the oil that is recycled is from the industrial and commercial sector . The ' estimated percentage of used oil collected nationally for each sector is : retail including gas station toperations--22 percent , commercial--55 percent , industrial-- P 29 percent. (') A 55 percent recovery for the commercial. sector is close to the estimated maximum for recoverable ' oil after consumption and use in engines . There are P (2) no organized efforts by government to increase the a of used oil returned b the industrial sector gill ' percentage y p g in King County or Washington State . The marketplace will probably be the driving force behind increased oil recycling for the industrial sector. III ' Hospital and Pathological Wastes : ' Hospitals in King County autoclave or chemically neutralize the infectious wastes generated onsite . Autoclaves and chemical neutralization processes are periodically inspected by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health,. �i After autoclaving or chemically neutralizing, the wastes are incinerated at permitted incinerators . Sterilized wastes are usually consolidated and transported to one of the major hospital incinerators for disposal . Hospital incinerators are included in Figure D-9 in the disposal section of the plan. (1)"Washin ton State Lubricatin -Oil Consum�U -n - c1t and is osition, p , in Report o u ricating Oil Sales , National Petroleum Refiners (2)Ibid. 107 The University of Washington Hospital operates four ' autoclaves . The divisions of the University hospital dispose of their waste separately. Autoclaves are operated , by the Clinical Laboratories , the Pathology Departpent , and the operating room. Typically, urine is disposed of in the sewer system. Blood , stool samples , body tissues and all paper , vessels , and other paraphenalia that has come in contact with the potentially contaminated specimens , is autoclaved. The decontaminated residual from the auto- clave process is compacted and disposed of by Environmental ' Health and Safety at a University-operated disposal site . Records of quantities are not maintained . ' The University is a state institution and subject ' to the regulatory control of the State , not the King County Minimum Functional Standards . Municipal Wastewater Treatment Sludge ' Wastewater treatment in Green and Cedar River basins , which constitute most of urbanized King County , is the , responsibility of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle . Metro is the major generator of sewage sludge in the ' county . Metro' s sludge treatment and handling is centra- lized at the West Point treatment plant. Sludge is the result of conventional anaerobic digestion to stabilize ' and reduce the quantity of volatile solids . The digested sludge is then dewatered to achieve a sludge cakes that contains about 18 percent solids . ' The quantity of sludge produced by Metro on a daily basis is highly dependent on weather conditions , ' treatment requirements and procedures , and level of treatment. Sludge produced by the Metro system has gradually increased over the past several years . Since 1974 , when ' 108 r Metro produced 23 dry tons of sludge solids per day, the average daily tonnage of solids has increased at a rate ' of four percent per year. The 1979 production rate was 27 .9 dry tons per day and the 1982 rate was 31.6 tons per day. Sludge production is expected to reach 77 .6 dry tons per year by 2000 . The total quantity of digested sludge produced from 1982 through 2000 should equal approx- imately 460,350 dry tons . ' The use of alum and other chemicals to improve the treatment process at West Point during dry weather periods has already resulted in a substantial increase in the 1979 sludge production and is expected to result in even greater ' quantities over the next few years . The eventual removal of Renton' s waste-activated sludge from the West Point ' waste stream will result in improved solids capture at both plants and will increase the annual weight of sludge produced. These actions , plus the sewage flow increases resulting from the expected continuing population growth in Metro' s service area , mean that there will be a signifi- cant increase in sludge production between 1980 and 1985 . After that time , sludge increases should level off to an annual growth rate of between one-and-one-half and two- and-one-half percent through 2000. The total quantity of solids produced over the next 20 years should average about 51 , 250 dry tons per year . The amount to be actually disposed of will depend on the sludge stabilization, concentration, and/or volume reduc- tion methods ultimately selected for solids processing at both treatment plants . Elements contained in Metro sludge influence its potential use and/or disposal . Nutrients , chemicals (trace elements , heavy metals and toxic organics) and 109 pathogenic organisms are of particular importance . Nitro- 1 ,gen is the principal nutrient . It is water soluble and may cause problems through leaching but its nutrient ' value is reduced through dewatering . Metro sludge exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency standards for 1 cadmium concentrations in sludge which is used for agricultural applications . (1) _ 1 FIGURE W-18 ' METRO DIGESTED , DEWATERED SLUDGE PRODUCTION 1980-2000 1 Tonser Da Tons per Year 1 P Y West Point Renton Total West Point Renton Total 1 1980 31.6 -- 31.6 11,500 -- 11,500 1985 28.8 27.1 55.9 10,500 9,900 20,400 1 1990 34.7 32.1 63.8 11,600 11,700 23,305 1 1995 34.9 35.9 70.8 12,700 13,100 25,855 2000 38.0 39.6 77.6 13,000 14,400 26,300 1 Metro sludge averages 1 . 6 mg of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB' s) per dry kilogram; well within the Environmental Pro- 1 tection Agency standard of 10 mg/dry kg for food crop applica- tions . Pathogens in Metro sludge are reduced through digestion by greater than 99% with subsequent significant post applica- tion die-off occurring between three months and two years depend- 1 ing on the time of year, site location and weather conditions . (1) The EPA standard is 2 mg/dry kg on soil with a pH ' of 6 . 5 Metro sludge typically contains cadmium con- centrations of about 50. mg/dry kg. 110 1 1 s ' FIGURE W-19 METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN METRO SLUDGES1 mg/kg dry weight ' WEST POINT RENTON1 ELEMENT (Dewatered)2 Primary Secondary Zinc 1780 1100 970 Lead 720 470 470 Copper 1160 520 900 Chromium 390 330 420 Nickel 155 69 87 ' Cadmium 46 30 39 Mercury 6 . 2 7 . 7 8 . 5 ' 1Average contents ba on sed sampling conducted from July through mp g ' October, 1980. 2Average contents based on sampling conducted from September to October, 1980. King County has several sewer systems which are not tributary to the Metro system. Each of these systems runs one or more wastewater treatment plants . The wastewater treatment sludge generated by each operator and its disposition is shown in Figure W-20. Septage There are approximately 90,000 septic tanks located in King County. The vast majority exist outside the u� sewer service area in eastern and southeastern King County . I� . Current State of Washington health regulations effectively prohibit community septic systems on any significant a� scale. Although there has been pressure for change in 111 FIGURE VI-20 ' GENERATION OF WASTE WATER TREAT11ENT SLUDGES OUTSIDE THE METRO SYSTEM 1981 Sludge ' Production Disposal Des Moines 240 tubi yardsper Sold at $2 per Sewer District year (25ti dry aolids) yard to private ' parties City of Duvall 2000 gallons per Trucked by tanker year by the City of Monroe for dis- posal in Snoho- mish County City of Enumclaw 500,000 gallons per Distributed to ' year (4% solids) farmers for agricultural(1) application ' Lakehaven Sewer 211.5 cubic yards Distributes District per year (36%(2) sludge to pri- solids) vate parties at , no cost for garden use North Bend 1,000 pounds per Buried at a waste year (dry solids) site on city-own- ' ed property on Ed8 ewick. Road Snoqualmie 9 tons per year Containeditheff-luent from ' treatment facility, discharged into the Snoqualmie River Southwest Suburban 255 cubic yards per Sold to home owners Sewer District year (30-35% solids) at $2.00 per pick- up load for home use exluding vege- table gardens (1)Demand exceeds supply. Sludge is expected to be sold next year. ' (2)The Lakehaven Sewer District has programed a sludge management study for 1983. Current projects under con- struction will reduce sludge generation through the! addition of clarifiers. The Lakota treatment plant produced lbb.5 ' cubic yards of sludge in 1981. The Redondo plant produced 2.3 cubic yards of sludge in 1981. t 112 septic tank regulations and permitted technology, sub- stantial regulatory change is not foreseen. Typical capacity of a septic tank is 900 gallons under the present code and 750 gallons under the code en- forced before 1972. The Metro 208 Study indicates that one in eight septic tanks is pumped annually. Septic tank pumping is anaerobic and normally consists of 1 to 2 percent solids . These characteristics adversely affect the wastewater treatment system ability to absorb and treat septage . About 9 . 3 million gallons of septic sludge were treated in 1980 . A slight increase in community septic systems with management programs by 1990 and 2000 is expected to decrease the interval between pumping and thus slightly increase the per-household sludge sub- ject to disposal . Tank pumpings from recreational vehicles , portable toilets and boats enter the wastewater treatment system at numerous points . These wastes add sludge and chemicals to the total waste to be disposed of as sludge through the Metro treatment system. 113 _ 1 1 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN REGARD TO WASTE GENERATION 1 l) There is insufficient information available on the type , 1 amount , location, and nature of solid wastes particularly acute King County. The data base deficiency is 1 acute for industrial wastes , special wastes, and hazardous wastes . A comprehensive inventory of i dustrial and The Solid Waste 1 special wastes needs to be developed. Management Board has undertaken a survey of industrial rvey 1 waste generators . Material collected in that be used to revise the waste generation section of the p prior rior to adoption. , 2) A manifest system has been established bythe Washington State Department of Ecology under WAC 173- for the 303 1 monitoring of generation, transport and disposal of extremely hazardous and dangerous wastes . The manifest 1 system, when fully implemented , will provide the basic data for an inventory of hazardous waste generation in 1 y King County. An inventor of hazardous wastes generated in, shipped through , treated, or disposed of in King County 1 will be prepared as part of the hazardous waste revisions to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in 1983 . 3) There is an absence of recent information on the compos'- 1 - tion of mixed municipal solid waste in King County. Com oP 1 sition analysis is not essential for comprehensive solid waste management planning or conventional sol id waste operations . Should an energy recivery facility(ies) be 1 undertaken, an assessment should be madeat tl tthattimendertaken for whether a composition analysis needsto bof the waste . 1 the purpose of determining the BTU content 1 114 1 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE Solid waste management within King County is based on a division of the functions of comprehensive ensive P Tannin , operations , and enforcement . Comprehensive planning is conducted by the King County Solid Waste Management eme nt Board . The Board was created Comprehensive Solid 'Waste as a result of the 1974 King County Com p Management Plan which called for the creation of a "regional mana ement board" to coordinate agency activities through joint g planning, policy establishment and demonstration programs . each RCW 70.95 . 080 vests planning responsibilities in eac county within the state . upon request by the King County Exe- cutive , the Puget Sound Council of Governments' King Subregional Council organized and was subsequently designated as the Solid Waste Management Board for King County. In King County, the Solid Waste Management Board has undertaken the primary re- sponsibility for countywide comprehensive solid waste planning . The Management Board also serves as the local planning agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 , (Public Law 94-580) . Solid waste operations are carried out by operating enti- ties , public and private. The operating agencies function under authority vested in them by the Revised Code of Washington, under implementation 'designations conferred under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act , permits granted by the Seattle- King County Department of Public Health certificates of public 115 necessity granted by the Washington Utilities and Transpor- tation Commission or under licenses , franchises , or contracts ' from cities . Operational planning or master plans are done by the operating agencies . , Enforcement of public health and safety standards pertinent to solid waste handling and disposal is principally the responsi- bility of the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. II FIGURE M-1 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ' COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING OPERATIONS ENFORCEMENT ' • Comprehensive Plans (Implementation) Seattle-King County Depart- Coordination ment of Public Health • Regional Goals • Minimum }unctional Standards ' Enforcement Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ' • Air nuality • Ordor Seattle and Cities • Litter • Road Use State Department of Ecology • Hazardous Wastes PUBLIC PRIVATE Cities, County • Collection (Cities only) • Collection (Certificates of • Transfer Necessity, Franchises , or ' • Disposal Contracts) • Resource Recovery • Transfer • Operational Plans • Disposal • Grant Awards • Resource Recovery • Capital Improvement Plans • Recycling, ' • Operational Plans i :........... • PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 116 EXISTING CONDITIONS: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING The 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan proposed creation of a management board which would be responsible for coordina- tion of agency activities through joint planning , policy establishment, and demonstration programs . The regional plan- ning and coordination responsibilities and functions suggested in the 1974 Plan are carried out by the King Subregional Council i functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board. Solid Waste Management Board The King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments currently functions as the Solid Waste Management Board . The King Subregional Council is organized to represent the general-purpose governments of King County on a basis pro- portional Board is ion. The Solid Waste Management portional to populat subject to the membership and operating rules of the King Sub- regional ional Council . Responsibilities Waste Management The 1974 Comprehensive Solid Plan recom- mended that the Solid Waste Management Board have a range of responsibilities including some implementation responsibili- ties . Comprehensive planning, including periodic revision of �I the 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan , project and grant review and comment , and coordination between operat- ing jurisdictions have been the essential responsibilities II executed by the Solid Waste Management Board. it 117 Committee on Solid Waste The Board created a Committee on Solid Waste and delegated specific duties to the Committee . At the time of the revision ' of the 1974 Plan, the duties of the Committee on ;Solid Waste , acting on behalf of the Solid Waste Management Board , included but were not limited to the following : 1 . Coordination of solid waste management activities through joint policy planning , goal establishment ' and provision of a common forum for discussion of issues . ' 2 . Administration , maintenance , and revision of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. , 3 . Review and comment on projects , grant applications , permit applications , and local plans for consistency ' with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan . 4 . Advise and comment on issues brought before the Management Board or Committee by any member for discussion or dispute resolution. Committee Membership In 1982 , the Committee on Solid Waste has fifteen members . Seven members are specified by King Subregional Council rules , and designated by individual jurisdictions . There are two re- presentatives from King County, one each from the executive and ' legislative branches ; two representatives from the City of Seattle , one each from the executive and legislative branches ; one representative from Bellevue and two representatives from ' other suburban jurisdictions , one each from north and south of Interstate 90 , chosen by a caucus of representatives of those ' jurisdictions to the King Subregional Council . The other eight members were added to the Committee on Solid Waste by petition ' to the Committee by persons eligible for committee membership 118 under Subregional Council rules . Concurrence of the Committee and of the King Subregional Council functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board is required. The Committee may also include ex-officio nonvoting members . Advisory committee The committee on Solid Waste created an advisory committee to participate in the revision of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The Solid Waste Management Planning Advisory Committee consists of representatives of collectors and haulers , recyclers , private interests , waste generators , the environ- mental community , citizen groups , local government , state government , power generators and financial institutions and members of previous advisory committees . Advisory Committee ointed b the chairman of the committee on Solid members are app y Waste . The Advisory Committee created seven subcommittees, to assist in the revision of the 1974 Comprehensive Plan. The subcommittees were steering , regional goals and policies , management ,na ement , sy stems review, finance , energy recovery/resource recovery and hazardous waste . Comprehensive Plannin P S The Solid Waste Management Board' s comprehensive plan- ning activities have been funded by two assessments of local jurisdictions . Staff support is provided to the Solid Waste Management Board by the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments through assessment of member jurisdictions , dues to the Council of Governments , and grant funds . Significant portions of the planning activity have been ' conducted by a local staff working group consisting of repre- sentatives from the local operators and interested jurisdictions . The Board' s comprehensive planning responsibilities were initiated through the revision of the 1974 Comprehensive Solid ' Waste Management Plan. Regional goals were established and the 119 responsibilities for the Board were defined. ' The data base was revised to provide 1981 information . Significant portions of the basic information were drawn from 1 the files of the operating entities through the local staff working group and the Systems Review Subcommittee of the Ad- visory Committee . The revised data base has been used to analyze existing conditions and to predict future waste flows . ' A waste flow model was developed to predict future waste flows and allow tests of alternative handling and disposal scenarios . The comprehensive planning process has employed the co- ' operative efforts of interested parties , public and private , to identify needs and opportunities for improvement in the ' solid waste management , handling and disposal systems . Six- and twenty-year improvement programs have been compiled from ' local capital improvement programs . ' ll Operational Plans General operational plans , prepared by operating agencies , ' will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan to promote consistency between long-range goals and ' operational plans . Operational plans will not be subject to ratification by individual member jurisdictions of the Solid Waste Management Board , but consistency with the comprehensive , plan will be determined by the Board. , Metro is preparing a systemwide sludge management plan under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act (Public: Law 92-500) , as part of the wastewater facilities planning process . Upon completion of the sludge management plan, Metro will contact ' the Solid Waste Management Board to assure that the results of the planning process are coordinated with the Comprehensive ' Solid Waste Management Plan. Metro' s program will include specific information on sludge planning and operations . ' 120 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES ITIES TO IMPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND SYSTEM MANAGEMENT FUNCTION: 1) The 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was not revised or updated in the six years from its adoption in ' 1976 until 1982 . There have been questions about which projects and programs were included in the plan. The com- prehensive planning activity would benefit from being 1 structured to assure regular annual revision and updating of the plan. This need may be met by maintaining the comprehensive solid waste planning function of the Solid Waste Management Board on an ongoing basis and following ' the revision and amendment procedures specified in that section of the plan. 2) Long-range comprehensive solid waste planning needs to be continued on a regular and cooperative basis . Cooperation and coordination can be achieved through use of the multi- jurisdictional forum provided by the Solid Waste Management Board and through the multiple interests represented on the t Solid Waste Management Planning Advisory Committee . 3) Systemwide waste generation analysis and forecasting is an essential part of comprehensive solid waste management plan- ning which has not been conducted on a regular or systematic basis . Waste generation figures and forecasts need to be checked annually and revised as necessary. At a minimum, revision should be coincident with those of population and employment forecasts . There is a need to regularly check ' projected waste generation against actual waste flow and to check facility adequacy on a systemwide and waste-shed basis against anticipated waste flows . Operating agencies will benefit from the capability to test alternative sites and capacities for proposed facilities against anticipated waste generation. ■ 121 1 I 4) Comprehensive long-range planning by the Solid. Waste ' Management Board should include a long-range perspective of solid waste issues including but not limited to waste , generation predictions , flow control project reviews , periodic comprehensive plan revisions , coordination be- ' tween operating entities including needs assessment by operating agencies , compilation of capital improvement , programs and establishment of areawide solid waste manage- ment goals . ' 5) The Solid Waste Management Board has been financed by local government dues to the Puget Sound Council of Governments , ' by two assessments of jurisdictions in King County to revise the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and by Ref- erendum 39 grant monies from the State Department of Ecology . ' In the future , regular planning , review, coordination and intergovernmental functions of the Solid Waste Management ' Board should be funded as a part of the regular per capita dues to the Puget Sound Council of Governments by partici- ' pating jurisdictions in King County. Special projects or studies should be funded based on an independent financial plan for each special project undertaken. 6) Many of the solid waste functions are conducted by the pri- vate sector . Private operators should be represented in , the comprehensive solid waste planning process . The pro- cess of coordination between the public and private sectors is enhanced by having an ongoing working relationship in- cluding an equal and open exchange of information and advice. ' The Solid Waste Management Planning Advisory Committee pro- vides an opportunity for joint public and private cooperation in comprehensive planning. The Advisory Committee members should be appointed with due regard for the interests of the county and each city, the public , environmental interests , ' 122 private opera the refuse removal industry , recyclers , tors and p disposers of waste , Indian tribes , industry, agriculture , public health and state and federal agencies . Members of the Advisory ' Committee should be appointed by the Solid Waste Management Board. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Planning L , Committee functions at the pleasure of the Solid Waste Management Board. The Advisory Committee should meet not less than four ' times per year. The Solid Waste Management Planning Advisory Committee should continue with explicit responsibilities . a) The Advisory Committee should have an opportunity to review and give timely advice on any regularly scheduled ' action items before the Solid Waste Ma:.agement Board which deal with the following: • changes , revisions or amendments to the Comprehen- sive Solid Waste Management Plan, specifically in the goals or responsibilities sections . ' of interpretation or consistency of a • questions P proposal with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. • deliberations on any of the major policy issues ' considered in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan but still pending resolution when ' the plan was adopted, e.g. flow control and energy recovery. • provision of information and data of use to the Solid Waste Management Board in revising or inter- preting the plan. i 123 it b) The Advisory Committee should identify and study issues _ and bring its recommendations to the Com:nittee on Solid Waste or the King Subregional Council/Solid Waste Manage- ment Board. c) The Advisory Committee should assist in coordination ' between comprehensive planning and operational planning including the development of capital improvement plans contained in the six-year program. d) The resources of the Advisory Committee and Advisory ' Committeeee members should be used to provide data , in- formation and analytical skill to the Solid Waste Manage- , ment Board , public operating entities and any others , public or private , responsible for the final treatment or disposal of solid wastes . 7) Intercounty coordination and cooperation should be encour- aged to include comprehensive planning which will take cognizance of the interjurisdictional nature: of the waste stream. The possibility of enlarging the planning area , to include the entire central Puget Sound area and waste- shed should be considered as am option. 8) The line between systemwide management planning for and operation of a solid waste system is at times hard to de- ' fine. Decisions made by operating agencies can impact the short- and long-range goals and plans adopted in the ' Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. Operating agencies should inform the Solid Waste Management Board about their major , operating decisions and how they help fulfill or impact the goals of the plan. The timing should be such to allow for adequate review and consideration by both the Board and the ' Advisory Committee . 124 , ' 9) General operational plans will be prepared by operating agencies for incorporation in the Comprehensive Solid Waste ' Management Plan. The Council of the City of Seattle has directed the Engineering Department to prepare a solid waste operational plan for consideration by the Council by October 15 , 1983 . The operating agencies should consult with the Department of Ecology during the preparation of 1 the operational plans . Operational programs will not be subject to ratification by individual member jurisdictions of the Solid Waste Management Board , but consistency with the plan will be determined by the Board. ' 125 EXISTING CONDITIONS: OPERATIONS The examination of the solid waste handling and disposal system in King County describes the status of the system in the spring of 1982. The most recent and complete data available is ' for calendar year 1981 . The reader should note the dynamic nature of the solid ' waste handling and disposal system. The industry and the technology employed for solid waste handling and disposal are rapidly changing. Existing operations and facilities are P Y g being retrofitted. The principal constraint on the rate of ' change is the high cost of equipment and facilities. The Exising Conditions : Operations section of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan considers each aspect of the II' solid waste system sequentially : waste reduction, storage, collection, transfer, long-haul transportation, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal. Waste generation was considered in the preceding section. ' The section on solid waste handling operations considers each of the basic types of waste individually, since waste types are frequently handled separately through one or more steps in the disposal process . The waste types considered are mixed municipal solid waste , including residential and commercial wastes , ' industrial wastes , and special wastes . Hazardous wastes will be considered in a second phase of the planning process which ' is scheduled to be completed in 1984 . 1 127 Operational Plans , General operational plans , prepared by operating agencies , will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan to promote consistency between long-range goals and operational plans . Operational plans will not be subject to ' ratification by individual member jurisdictions of the Solid Waste Management Board , but consistency with the comprehensive ' plan will be determined by the Board . ISI 128 , 1EXISTING CONDITIONS: WASTE REDUCTION Waste reduction describes any action or strategy that reduces the quantity or generated,enerated, or prevents waste from generally is y entering the waste stream. Waste reductiong differentiated from recycling or resource recovery, both of which contribute to waste reduction. Recycling intercepts waste and materials as they are about to enter the waste stream. Resource recovery extracts usable materials from the waste II ' stream. There is some definitional overlap. For example , use of recyclable containers could be defined as waste reduction, and recycling. Most waste reduction takes place outside the solid waste management system. Waste reduction is likely ito be a manufacturing, processing, packaging or procurement activity. Waste reduction may be accomplished by a variety of means. The most promising long term approach to waste reduction is through individual and cultural behavioral change. In the short term, new and/or different products or processes may be developed that generate a smaller volume of waste through use ' of less material. Products with longer life cycles contribute to waste reduction as do products that are recyclable or are ' used over and over. The principal benefits of waste reduction occur in material and resource savings. Reduction of the amount of material entering the waste stream reduces the total cost of handling and disposal at all steps of the process. Unit costs for handling and disposal may increase when averaged over a 129 II smaller number of tons in the waste stream. Typically the greatest cost savings from waste reduction occur through prolonged landfill ' life due to lower annual volumes or when waste flows are kept at a level that does not require higher plateaus of expenditure , for major new handling or disposal systems . Waste reduction ;is not seen as counterproductive to energy recovery. ' Waste reduction is the stated goal and a priority in the waste management policies of the United States , the State of Washington, the City of Seattle , and numerous public: and private groups , particularly in the environmental sector. However, ' there has been little successful implementation of waste reduction programs and policies . An analysis by the City of Seattle, identified four reasons for the notable lack of success . l , • "What limited resources there are have been directed ' to solving problems that represent asniimmediate thremproper at to public health and safety, such of chemical wastes . " ' • "Governments tend to avoid programs where it is difficult or impossible to predict or measure results . Government has so little achievemeasurableresults. " econtrol waste ition ' that it is difficult t • "The economy is so complex (materials are used for so , many different reasons and materials use decisions are made at so many different levels ) that broad government programs are difficult to design and administer, while programs that are targeted at a few products are labeled as discriminatory and are difficult to justify. " • "Industry encourages consumption patterns that result ' in increased--not reduced--waste generation. " Additional reasons are also noted. ' � have � a Governments in generalnot felt that they should ' dictate consumer preferences or reduce avenues for competitive opportunity . , s McMahan, "Proposed Recycling and Waste Reduction 1Segy for the Robert Lowe and JCity of Seattle, Volume Two. Background Information," , January 7, 1981, page 67. 130 ' • Solid waste handling and disposal systems often operate below the point of increasing marginal disposal cost. Additional volumes of waste are encouraged to reduce the unit cost. Disposal facility replacement costs ' are not part of the financial analysis. • Private industry has shown an interest in reducing its ' own internal waste although often motivated by material cost savings rather than waste disposal cost reductions . Private industry's profit is not directly affected by externalities such as the depletion of resources or, increased disposal costs . These externalities are costs that must be borne by the consumer. Public Waste Reduction Programs : There are two public waste reduction programs operating in King County. SEATTLE: In July, 1980, the City of Seattle adopted a ' variable can rate, in part, for the explicit purpose of encour- aging waste reduction (Ordinance 109130) . The City of Seattle adopted waste reduction goals and policies in Resolution 26559 on .June 15, 1961• The reader should refer to Resolution 26559 for the full and complete language stating Seattle. waste reduction goals and programs . The legislative program for waste reduction in the City of ' Seattle contains elements that are also appropriately included under collection and recycling and/or energy recovery. The ' legislative base for the entire program is discussed in this section. Implementation activities are described in later ' sections under the appropriate waste handling operation. Resolution 26559 declared one of its public health and safety priorities to be the reduction of the amount of solid waste III ' produced by its citizens and businesses. Reuse, recycling, composting, and reduction of the quantity of materials consumed through changes in consumer buying habits, product design and marketing practices were all deemed to be appropriate strategies for waste reduction. 131 The City of Seattle is committed to a long-range (five- year) recycling and waste reduction plan that will encourage its citizens to reduce the amount of waste they produce and to Increase the recycling of readily recyclable materials from the , 71978 level of 14% of total waste generated to a 1986, level of 22%. The City of Seattle established recycling goals for each ' material in an effort to increase recycling of readily recyclable materials by 50x• ' FIGURE WR-1 SEATTLE RECYCLING GOALS ' Recycling Goall Material or Product for 1986 Newsprint 70 Corrugated and paperboard 65 High-grade paper 65 Glass 30 , Steel Cans 20 Appliances 95 Aluminum 70 1) Expressed as a percentage of the quantity of each material that is discarded in the residential and commercial sectors . I I' Resolution 26559 stated that, "Waste reduction shall have first priority and energy recovery shall have second priority as a means of reducing the amount of material disposed of on the land." It stated that the City shall take these recycling goals, and the City's desire to encourage waste reduction, into account in determining the size of any energy recovery 'I facility, so as not to discourage waste reduction, including recycling through source separation. �I The City of Seattle prefers a voluntary approach to waste reduction instead of government regulation or government- �I provided collection of recyclables. The City sees its role as utilizing and assisting businesses , individuals , volunteer organ- �I izations and others, to build on the established recycling system abiding by existing market forces : However, the City 's collection services and regulatory authority will be held in �I 132 reserve. The City recognizes both public and private roles are appropriate to reduce waste in Seattle . The City will demonstrate its leadership in encouraging waste reduction by: ' (1) its policies , such as zoning code amendments recycling centers in neighborhood business zones ; e (2)2) the example it sets by its own actions , such as paper procurement er rec clip , practices and office-pap (3) the services it PTO- vides , vides , such as information, technical assistance , and planning; and (4) promoting waste reduction through education and pursua- sion to achieve voluntary changes in residential- and business-waste generation habits . ' The City encourages the private sector to meet waste reduc- d recycling goals by : (1) organizing volunteer labor to tion an Y gularly scheduled provide multimaterial home collection on a re ' basis ; (2) developing equipment to reduce the cost of collecting and handling recyclable materials ; (3) establishing drop-off Te- cycling centers as a complement to buy-back centers until home collection programs develop ; (4) increasing recycling of' com- rade office paper, corrugated) through mercial materials (high-grade privately operated , existing channels ; (5) providing a system of p Y P regularly scheduled , multimaterial home collection and buy-back i voluntarily recycling centers for residential recycling; and (6) ' modifying product designs and marketing practices to reduce waste through reuse , recycling, and design for end-use marketability . The City of Seattle has established an education program ' that is designed to promote bored understanding of the oppor- tunities and advantages for waste reduction throughout the ' city. Target et groups include school children, the general Popu- lation, business groups , and community groups . Groups are ' advised of the opportunities and techniques for waste reduction in their industry or neighborhood. The education program stresses tions serves recognition of achievements of educational ntsH�durecruitement in house for curriculum developm e as a clearg of teachers for waste-reduction education in Seattle' s school i 133 system. The curriculum outline is designed academically to acredit students for taking a course for a full semester or quarter . The course will enable students , teachers , and lay persons to in- struct others within the realm of the City of Seattle' s recycling and composting strategies and be knowledgeable of the total spec- trum of solid waste management and energy resource recovery . The City of Seattle Recycling Project provides assistance to volunteer organizations in the development of home collection. programs . It provides technical assistance to operating recyclers and to businesses that are interested in developing programs and incentives to reduce waste. The City is also committed to use the Recycling Project to consider new waste reduction t ideas . ' Composting is a priority of the City of Seattle. It is an element of the City ' s program for solid waste management in- cluded in Resolution 25672. The City ' s composting strategy , tails for composting of all City yard waste per Resolution 26277 . A centralized composting facility is an option that is being examined . A feasibility study for centralized facilities , will be conducted in 1982-1984 . It is estimated to be a 24-month program costing approximately $70, 000 to study . ' The City of Seattle also contributes to waste reduction through its program for purchasing products made with recycled ' materials . REDMOND: The City of Redmond has adopted goals and policies that support waste reduction. They read„ in part, as follows : Redmond Goal : "To design as workable system to motivate citizens and businesses to increase recycling for purposes of reducing the waste stream. " Redmond Policy : ' "The City shall promote programs and practices that reduce solid waste and increase source separation of recyclable materials ." 134 �' r i ' i NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE WASTE REDUCTION i1 ) Composting of yard waste is a prime option as a means of reducing the amount of waste that would normally rrequire final disposal at a solid waste site. Public support for such a program is evident in the City of iSeattle. The feasibility of mass composting of yard wastes on an urban scale requires further technical , program operation, public health, and management i am work analysis . It is essential that such a program r well from its inception. 2) The greatest opportunity for waste reduction is in changing the behavior of the American consumer or in changing the way in which the consumers ' behavior is molded. It is difficult to gain control or influence ' over the waste generation aspects ; materials , packag- ing, design, and other indirect waste generating idecisions are made in innumerable arenas. Government. , particularly local government , has had negligible in- fluence over waste generation or consumer behavior . Broad government programs are unspecific and unwieldy ; specifically focused programs or regulations are gener- ally viewed as discriminatory. The optimal role for local governments in waste reduction is to provide iencouragement to those who wish to pursue independent waste reduction objectives . Governmental utilities ' can restructure their purchasing policies to 'encourage the use of recycled materials wherever feasible . Pub- lic programs in recycling , energy and resource recovery are treated under their specific sections of this plan . 135 i 3) Increased use of materials made from recycled products will enhance the market for recyclable materials and will increase the incentives for waste reduction t through recycling. I i NI 136 '! ' EXISTING CONDITIONS: STORAGE ' Onsite storage at the point of generation is the first step in the solid waste handling and disposal system. Waste is stored after generation to allow accumulation of amounts large enough for efficient and economical collection. Wastes are normally stored in containers of two types--the individual ' container, better known as the garbage can, and the detachable container, commonly used for commercial or multifamily waste storage . The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Minimum Functional Standards specify that garbage be stored in: ' Individual or detachable containers as approved by the Health Officer which are durable, corrosion-resistant, non-absorbent, ' watertight, rodent-proof , and easily cleanable with a close- fitting cover and which are suitable for handling, with no sharp edges or other hazardous conditions ; or other types of containers acceptable to the Health Officer which conform to the intent of this regulation. (Rules and Regulations 17111 , Article 4 .0l .A.1 a and b, Minimum Functional Standards ) The Minimum Functional Standards also specify that storage of putrescible wastes should not exceed seven days , a ' period coincident with the fly-breeding cycle. ' RESIDENTIAL WASTE STORAGE The Minimum Functional Standards specify a maximum 80- ' pound gross weight and a 32-gallon volume for containers. Local agencies are free to impose additional standards , if they do not conflict with the Minimum Functional Standards. Typically, ' cities in King County specify maximum loaded weights of 70-80 pounds and volumes of 30 to 32 gallons for individual storage ' containers. Individual city requirements are summarized in Figure S-l. 137 1 FIGURE S-1 RESIDENTIAL SOLID HASTE STORAGE Weight Volume Descriptionl Algona 30 gal. watertight, rodent '{ proof, not easily corrodible {1 Auburn 700 30 gal. MFS Beaux Arts 600 32 gal. MFS ' Bellevue BOof 32 gal. MFS Black Diamond Boll 32 gal. MFS ' Bothell 75A 30 gal. watertight, tight lid, two handles Carnation 50# 32 gal. MFS I Clyde Hill Boll, 32 gal. MFS Des Moines 60" 30 gal. MFS2 Duvall 80n 32 gal. MFS 'I Enumclaw 70': 35 gal. Metal or plastic cans Hunts Point BOor 32 gal. MFS Issaquah 65P 32 gal. MFS 75� 32 gal. MFS Ken_ 4 cu ft. King County 80° 32 gal. MFS Kirkland 60" 32 gal. Cylindrical, watertight sheet metal Lake Forest Park goof 32 gal. MFS Medina 80or 32 gal. MFS 32 gal. Impervious, raised bottom BO0 �I Mercer Island 4 cu ft. tight lid, two handles3 Normandy Park 800 32 gal. MFS North Bend 800 32 gal. MFS Pacific 800 32 gal. MFS Redmond 65A 32 gal. Handles and tight lid Renton got 32 gal. Compatible with contractors' colle.tior. egci--er.t BOA 32 galRound, watertight sheet . I Seattle metal, raised bottom 11 guage metal or equivalent, Skykomish 500 32 gal• close fitting lid, 2 handles Snoqualmie 800 32 gal. MFS i Tukwila BOA 32 gal. MFS Yarrow Point BOA 32 gal. MFS IAll containers must meet or exceed the Minimum Functional Standards. 2Collection units are permitted with a maximum of 12 cubic feet and securely tied; lift by 1 person, dimension 3 feet. 32 uil plastic bags or bundle are permissible collection units. &.Box, carton, securely fastened or one small shrub or tree are each permissible units. 138 1■ Variations in standards and practices exist. Most this ordinances require cleanliness of contairenforcementpractice, provisions is largely up to individual owners because are lacking. Inspectors from the City of Seattle's Solid waste Utility have authority to condemn physically de as containers, in addition to investigating such complaints littering by collection crews. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health regulates storage in unincorporated areas, mostly on a complaint basis . tial solid waste , which emaye Nonputrescible residen ' storage capacity of the usual number of garbage containers , be stored in bundles , boxes , cartons bags or other containers of specified sizes ; these are referred to as bundles or "units . " ' Storage containers and practices will be influenced by any trend toward mechanized collection or source separation and home t collec- tion materials . tion of recy l Apartment buildings in the City of Seattle arepermitted to use either individual residential containers or detachable containers but not both. illl � COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE STORAGE Most commercial and industrial establishments, and some i c onta.iners. store solid in detachable apartment buildings , lid was e of one to ten These containers may be the direct service typ cubic yards that are mechanically emptied by collection vehicles. They may also be "drop boxes" removed from the collection site for disposal . Drop boxes range in size from ten to 50 cubic yards. All containers storing garbage must meet the Minimum Functional Standards requirements quoted at the beginning of this section. Many older commercial and industrial buildings in the county have inadequate space ' available to allow proper housing and servicing of solid Waste storage containers and their associated equipment. 139 i SPECIAL WASTE STORAGE I Special wastes , by their very nature, do not: lend themselves to containerized storage. Many waste types such as white goods, tires , wood wastes, and derelict automobiles tend .. to be stored in an unacceptable manner at the point of origin. There are abatement ordinances in King County and the City of r Seattle for removal of different types of waste goods stored on site. Duration of storage is often longer than for residential or commercial wastes. Most special wastes are non.-putrescible and do not contribute to the fly breeding cycle. On-site storage, when contained, usually occurs in drop boxes rented from a commercial collection company. Agricultural waste, particularly manures , may constitute seasonal storage problems due to leaching in wet weather and odor during hot weather. Leachate from manure piles is cited as a frequent water pollution source in the Metro 206 water quality study. HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE Dangerous and extremely hazardous waste storage may occur at two points in the handling and disposal process . Storage in the sense in which it is used in this pian occurs at the point of origin. Due to the uncertainty of some waste contents and N appropriate recycling and treatment methods, dangerous wastes are occasionally retained by a generator or a hazardous waste treatment facility for extended periods of time. 1 I NI it 140 NII e NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE SOLID WASTE STORAGE SYSTEM ula tion should be a local option within 1) Storage reg he countywide Minimum Functional the guidelines of t Standards. Comprehensive and effective enforcement programs for 2)' storage practices should be instituted by cities with adequate funding to assure their continue existence. Such a program is available to all County Department cities through the Seattle-King sing the Health Department Cities u of Public Health. for storage ordinances as their enforcement agency ect to pay the costs of the service provided should ex P to them. building plan review process should be maintained 3) A b h the enforcement arm of the Seattle County Department of Public Health. This process means of assuring adequate consideration a i is ial/ storage needs in co comer c of solid waste st g unction building designs, and should be done in coni with the building permit approval process. I' should be sponsored p) p public awareness program County Department of jointly by the Seattle-King ro ram Public Health and local entitThe te health and I' should continue to alert citizensPractices and to safety aspects of poor storage t P their responsibilities for proper container mainte- nance* ainte- nance. 141 i EXISTING CONDITIONS: COLLECTION MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION: 1 Collection service is available to all residents of the urbanized area. This service provides the usual point of contact between the public and the solid waste system. The Minimum Functional Standards state that garbage should be removed from the premises no less than once a week to break the fly breeding cycle. Collection is the most visible part of the solid waste handling system. Historically , it has also been the most costly element of the system. The proportionately high expense of the collection portion of the system is due to its high labor-intensive nature. Collection, under the conven- tional rule of thumb, accounts for up to 70% of the cost of disposal . In the City of Seattle, the collection contracts account for 40% of the total solid waste disposal cost ; a decline from 60% in 1972. Collection costs decreased as a ® portion of the cost in recent years due to the increase in ® disposal costs. The methods of collection, the kinds of service available , and the nature of the service vary throughout the county. The collection industry has moved toward more mechanized equipment ' in the last decade. Even more rapid changes are expected in the next few years. The collection industry has changed in its or In the last decade. The number of completely independent companies operating residential collection businesses under 143 certificate of public necessity issued by the Washington Utili- ties and Transportation Commission has been reduced from 28 to nine through the purchase of certificates of public necessity. Some of the remaining companies hold certificates in other parts of the state. The result has been a decrease in the number of surviving firms and an increase in the efficiency of those firms All certificated companies operating in their certificate area must file a tariff with the Washington Utilities and Transpor- tation Commission. All rates charged are subject to tariff approval by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commis- sion. Some residential collection companies exist and operate without the benefit of certificates of public necessity. Companies operating under contract with a municipality do not 1 require certificates of public necessity from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. General Disposal ' Company, which has had the collection contract for half of the City of Seattle and the City of Renton, is a prime example. United Disposal, an independently held company, is another example. At the present time there are no national solid waste companies operating collection services in King County. Residential Collection Residential collection consists of the removal of waste from individual residences and the transport of that waste to transfer stations or disposal sites . Home owners and occupants P may exercise the option of hauling their own waste to transfer ' or disposal facilities . Direct haul also occurs as part of the recycling process since there are few residential collection 'll programs for home generated recyclables. The low level of complaints about residential service is �I indicative of a satisfactory level of: service . Most of those complaints accompany rate increases and tend to reflect cost of service rather than quality. 144 ' There are four basic types of collection systems provided ted ion for under Washington State Law:I certractacollection tand or franchises , licensed collection, con municipal collections . Certificated collection countysystems andare four operated in the unincorporated portions cities under certificates issued by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to serve a particular franchise area. Cities have the option, under state tolaw, oflicensing solid waste collection systems , entering in ts for the collection of solid waste, or directly providing a collection service as a municipal function. If a city do t i ercise any of these options,s, the franchise of the certificateded hauler for the area prevails . A summary of the residential collection service available in each Jurisdiction is shown in Figure Certificated Collection (Franchise) All unincorporated King County is served by certificated collection service. These collectors operate under certificates of public necessity issued by the Washington Utilities and 1 Transportation Commission. Certificate holders have the exclusive territorial right to collect the stipulated type of solid waste within their franchise areas. Th territorial the right is not exclusive where service areas overlapped state law passed in 1961 . Certificates of public necessity have been issued for all of King County. The certificated haulers collect waste in the incorporated portion of their franchise areas under regulation by the Utilities and Transportation Commission and in the Cities of Redmond, Clyde Hill, and North Bend. The franchises In King County are shown on a map in Figure C-2. Rates are established for various types of collection service for each franchise by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission based on the collectors filings with the Commission. 11 145 FIGURE C-1 RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SERVICE SUMMARY - i Form of License or Collection Can Location Variable Contract , Jurisdiction Regulation) Mandatory City Billing For Collection Car. Rate Er-;:ratic-, Algona Contract Yes Yes Curb Yes 1/1/87 Auburn Contract Yes Curb Yes 19EE Beaux Arts License No No Curb Yes N: set date Bellevue Contract No 5' from Curb Yes 1: E3 Black Diamond Certificate No Not Specified Yes NA Bothell Contract Yes Yes 25' from Curb No 6.'1/E3 Carnation City Yes Convenient Clyde Hill License No No 25' from Curb 2 ; E: Des Mcines Franchise No No 25' from Curb Yes 5 6 Duvall Certificate No 25' from Curb Enumclaw Citv Yes Yes Accessible Yes Hurts Point License No 25' from Curb Issaquah Certificate No No At right-of-way edge Yes �= Kent Contract Yes Yes Curb Yes 1_ 3: 83 Kirkland Contract Yes Yes Accessible N= 1 1 E: Lake Forest Park License No No 5' from. Curb Yes 1- -- Medina License No 25' fror. Curb Mercer Island License No No Accessible Ye` 6 -....:`s n::i;e ' fro= Curb }es , Normandy Park Certificate No No 25 _ North Bend Franchise Yes 75' from Curb Yes 3 3- Pacific Pacific Contract Yes Curb or Alley Redmond Franchise No No 5' from Curb Yes Annual W l) Yes 0-25'. 25-60'. + 60'fro= Yes Renton Contract Yes curb 1: 31 '63 Seattle Contract Yes Yes Accessible Yes Skykomich City Yes Yes Close to street Nc Snoqualmie Contract Yes No 35' from Curb Yes Tukwila Certificate No No 25' from Curb Yes NA Yarrow Point License No 25' from Curb , Unincorporated Varies with King County Certificate No Collector Yes NA ,some cities distinguish between a certificate and a franchise. , 2Munitipal collection utility. 146 r FIGURE C-2 { RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE AREAS 1 1 1 n 1 a � O � - J —r } _ t t W - O J O f/f Z W a OO O C t r p G Z O d Z I ' H O w. _m 3 W -1c _ !N t wig < = W 1 10Q Q J V ° 147 Certificates exist in perpetuity for the franchised area, however, failure of a certificated collector to adequately serve its franchise area offers the opportunity for a potential competitor to petition the Utilities and Transportation Commission �I to serve that area. Certificates are also issued for collection of different types of waste and may overlap certificated areas Y (franchises ) for collection of mixed municipal solid waste. N! The certificates have market value and may be purchased from the existing holder. Since 1974 , the number of independent r certificated residential haulers doing business in King County has declined from 28 to nine, principally due to acquisition by other certificate holders . A list of certificated collectors is shown in Figure C-4 . , Licensed Collection Systems ' Cities have the option of issuing licenses for the collection of mixed municipal solid waste. The licensing provisions vary from city to city and may take forms that are similar to another city option, a contractual agreement for the SII collection of solid waste. In a licensed collection system, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission certificates for serving the area are augmented by city licenses which allow the municipality additional regulatory control over collections. Licenses also permit the municipality to generate revenue through additional fees although the base rate is established by the city or the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission depending on the provisions of the license. Municipal license holders generally do their own billing. Cities that license haulers Include Beaux Arts , Lake Forest Park, Yarrow Point, Hunts N� Point, Des Moines , and Medina. 148 11 _.t_ 'i.:isr'.r.....4iJi...N.n_0.=......u.:u ^.ss..>.....:..r iv.. ......._.... v.. .._.;_......0 ., .._iY. H`.nW..lM.a. v.... ._... _+uv ...... _. Contract Collection Systems Cities are entitled to enter into contracts with private haulers for the collection of residential and commerical waste. The contracted hauler does not need to hold a certificate of public necessity or a franchise for the area. Contractual arrangements permit detailed municipal control of collection operations and rates and allow municipalities to specify the disposal site for wastes collected under contract. Seattle . Bellevue , Kent , Algona , Yarrow Point , Renton , Auburn , Bothell , Kirkland , Pacific , and Snoqualmie all contract with haulers for collection of municipal solid waste . Municipal Collection Systems j Municipalities have the option of operating their own collection system. The typical approach is a solid waste utility using city employees and equipment . The cities of Carnation , Skykomish and Enumclaw operate municipal solid waste I utilities . Counties are for- collection systems as municipal bidden from operating collection systems . A summary of the types of collection systems and their characteristics are shown in Figure C-3 . Figure C-3 COLLECTION SYS: CHARACT, SMCS Certiricate Ilcensel Contra^t 1 MArilcipe: Collector Private Private Public I� Review of Utilities 1 VW-delpality M4micipallty RX'aclpa:ity I� operating Trans, or utilities Conditions cawm.ssicn mission l� Approvaa Utilities E city or Utili- "inicipality MAmicipallty Rates Trans. Com- ties Trans. mission Commission ming collector collector Miunicipality ftrAcips:.1ty or Private (1) Licenses And contracts take various form in different cities and are not sivays readily distinguishabie as categories. 149 w O , _ ~'gi m C^W' Ecr Z ec O �: .9C W G E- c x c •�� • a. _ ��a c .. o ir. , ►. o as -a°1c � v v ►• '� -.,"' � o a- 'fl W V .r V h U dt W V w w w-d V 3+ V 7"'� V �. r+ W 401 Gr !aL O O .rte Oc a `7 V 0 �..pil O k 10 O tYJ� y� V� U) V V 4+ V V ..�Z ,N .� M A y t y t 'O C u w 0! w > 4Y+ O 'C u fj A w 0= r � a N y .�, C.0. -, 4 w 19 '4 4 N � y O W.., r y C O d m .40 u -4 A. § a � 66 ..a .-+ CZ�G v or NW .p p' C f, 4c � O 'O r me Z V p V do mr C to '"C IO C e w G lam• r a- d r u ^ t .dr at+ + x v 1 E - p V i V O C t - t a, 07 Z ~w d W p dc A N Z N n+{t ayL 00 W � 4Jm pp . a. oDu L pW60 pC va.Amo Qon M•rl 0 V 9i VJ 4d > y y >.r 5 W v X c W W t O L�- COdo O E y C y W a.+wyCT ' Ai 01 E 0 d L 01 C.r O Q 0+ 6 d Z V .0+ p 01�a G d C C C G r C C C CO E oL c a u G C C U C Z 7 Q6 .r L. Ad t-r, �. G Z Z ° t4: Lr V. < cr 3 0 s O u o , C, O �, U d ^ L bc _ G 1 r- bc r, ip d W W W a . oCI < 0 Wv R N a c G L c6 0 926 ycc Ad 4.j O G O G C w L Ii Li. Aj A .r h ►. = y W C C r X V " I. { 'D y v ; d Oi v ip Z if. d p� •.+ 6+ ..+ r W p V; N N p 1 =V) fj ftD a P - C a C a F p O U v V t= c -4 iv v W m r -• V ►>. .. «C. in j V "" � O a W ° -4 Y n V h W O ++ to S M ..+ L a h ..� o W - p V to w d v = O r r V rcc z oo o+ o a ►T. to N .0 N � O W O i-d W Z v V = 'p JD ►v. Z N S tl a N V O ao V ~ O A N {V t1 eq V1 .Nr N O d `� V N 1 AJ V V V V tr Z 150 v � •v -�A-4 �o v � w .+tn r y 'o E Ad c w cr 0 - O C v O Mr JL g .+ - N G .r u O - p Ac u u V A C d 3 V �..i W Qep c u be .p y c 916 W v,� o �� s a a z i > az c s, eo 0-4 >, y ° yam>� V c'Cad ° O ° O C7.0 Q y 0 i R•.V+ y G 6i O^+ t0 .r E ro u c .Li 0 V G L+' U Ld E v' O w o.u > L d a � a, .• ao •, ycLyoy v v -•r-+ v c u cr C C C L p K L a+ Q R 1- . & c u & O O a R a U o c w d a p a.� of w -• —+ •.• G R I L O w O 4 a O 6+ a z " .pry a v R vai 7 to a V W O � a � L c O CDC R fr V a � r" C R 3R R L E' .0 M _ .•Gr SOD ol t 0 V V G d M b U .r G i0 b ° r+ d > t �' 7 40 0 u OD O V A u N a c a C6 °a c v - A o ., «• c o s, � � -. �q a A n C S 1+ u /O .vi tb C JL V A N �+ h ►°. ..Ci be �.. >.�0 u 'C N C ►. C r O a d C N k' r+ � N V V Y N A O go C ..+ O ^ N .r ^ .fir ynlr r .fir P% -d n �C O• .r ' V 6.0 151 d w .r < " Ai -.4 t U U u 60 OD oC oC CZ , t 00 00 t a C p � .ti Go it�L Z iL 'fL �C �[ Y ia. ac bg 69 a , 4 4 a a o w L t a K L v a 6+ w W ..yi ft w ar 17wV W ar ►. K u �+ y, V .Ci� ema �• E � Oa G go -+ 000•v-+ I+u' a m V.r 1+ •r+ a7'C L >.V 'C C u w 6•.+ tp K -A 0 r tJ w of C -4 d �+ t0 yo u+4 ++ u W to 1+ ^„� w y tr. C •. _ _ t E O G s ►+ 1. E a+ ar-4 d W 0 to I. W. d N .0+ m y u G d 4 m �fn .p .ti+�+ We-� G >r -+ r i OC y C P, 9 � y r t0 y n w y U L C CJ W y V y C d y G.,r C CL t O 'C $ KddO+ 'O K .� mW r^ _ O .,. G u 4 a, o to.+c M.0 - v o y E y Aj E €`- = Eyefls. u..+.D d wL�iGyCp ►� _c C C- - 3 3 W C V G V iv1 < bc I--I w c I - - > x rte. cJ" 3 y, u - cc �' > °a C F re m U I t=LC v, Z v _ .C. re a.r N: i C m Y O m O L zz ty � y ..r (•. OC - N u C �C V. C U v - W C u C v41 —d r 1E K Ot V 4 d u ► v T ` 3 Ute.+win t ,"', E C •- w to w o = uc v� is c z OImm N F sm C C M r' p O so ^ s cc WN 7 96 t t U V V V V M 152 Personal Disposal - Self Haul Individual waste generators can dispose of their waste directly . Private parties depositing waste at Seattle's transfer stations accounted for 454,000 visits to city transfer stations in 1981 . Of this total, 227 ,000 trips were by passenger cars . City residents accounted for 200,000 of those visits . The City of Seattle does not charge city residents using the transfer station in passenger licensed vehicles , and therefore does not weigh self-haul loads in passenger vehicles . It is estimated visits of this type, direct self-haul disposal , acounted for 36,000 tons of residential waste in 1981 . Similarly, King County disposal sites do not weigh self haul loads brought in passenger licensed vehicles . A minimum flat-rate fee is charged. Also, for non-passenger licensed vehicles that are weighed and charged based on tonnage, there is a minimum charge equal to the flat fee paid by passenger licensed vehicles. In 1981 , there were 500,563 minimum rate uses of King County transfer stations . Since these vehicles were not weighed, reliable tonnage estimates cannot be made. It is only possible to "back out" figures by subtracting all known weights . This produces an unreliable estimate since the minimum-rate tonnage now includes all the weight added from water used for dust control while loading trailers for long-haul. With this in mind one could estimate that the 500,563 minimum rate uses of the King County transfer stations brought in 66,472 tons of waste in 1981, for an average of 266 pounds per vehicle. The average vehicle load in Seattle was 317 pounds . The Massachusetts Street transfer station operated by Evergreen Disposal received a negligible quantity of self-haul disposal waste that was not specifically recyclable newsprint or corrugated cardboard. The total waste being personally collected and arriving at facilities in 1981 , was 102,472 tons or '10 percent of the mixed municipal solid waste stream. 153 r Self-haul personal disposal in passenger cars may be ex- pensive to the consumer in the King County system. A minimum �I tipping fee equal to 270 pounds is charged while the average :Load was approximately 134 pounds for automobiles when last ' analyzed in 1975 . Customer surveys conducted by King County indicate that self-haul disposal is largely a stratagem to avoid collection costs . The social event of going to the landfill or transfer station is also a frequently cited reason for self-haul disposal . Most personal self-haul disposal transfer station ,I visits are made by repeat users . Collection of Recyclable Materials Collection of recyclable materials occurs prior to the material entering the waste stream. Separation of recyclable ' materials at the source is a prerequisite for the separate O1 ' lection of recyclable materials . In turn, home storage C separation is implied. Home Collection: There were six home collection services , operating in Seattle in 1982 . Sno-King Garbage Company conducteu a 50-house six-month test of home collection in Redmond in 1982. Two private recycling operations report home collection service in limited areas of suburban King County : Maple Valley Metals and Karen York Recycling. Pacific Iron and Metal also provides home collection as well as their commerciELI or wholesale collection service. The nature of home collection can vary from an ad hoc , on-call type of service, to a regularly scheduled collection ' route separate from residential solid waste collection to a combined solid waste and recyclable collection system operated by a certificated, licensed, or contract collector,. The frequency of scheduled home collection of recyclabies is less than the regular residential collection service --usua11. once a month. The types of waste collected are generally those that can easily be handled and for which there is is reasonable 154 ■ r r immediate market value. Most collectors require minimum quantities ' before they will make a special home pickup. There are some very special operators in the home collection sector. Figure C-5 shows home collection services and the recyclable materials they will pick up. r FIGURE C-5 rHOME COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS r rTYPES OF MATERIALS V V V V A �[ V -• C C - O to G I RECYCLERS Corsmunity Recycling Service (Seattle) r • • • • I i Fremont Recycling Station (Seattle) • I � Joanne Lussier Pick-up Service (Sea. ) • 1 • • • Maple Valley Metals (Maple Valley) • • • ` • Pacific Iron and Metal (Seattle) • • • • Sno-King Garbage Co. Test (Redmond) • • • • • r i � St. Catherine's Church (Seattle) • Union Gospel Mission (Seattle) • • • • • • 1 � � • I Karen York Recycling (Bellevue) r Fremont Recycling operates an extensive home collection service. Fremont Recycling conducted an experimental study of household recycling in 1976 , under a State Department of Ecology contract , and has continued , to this day , home collection at various levels and areas. i 155 r The SORTro ram--the acronym stood for "separate our P g recyclables from trash"--was designed by the City of Seattle to develop reliable cost estimates on the feasibility of home col- lection of recyclable materials and the variable can rate. The contract was awarded to Seattle Recycling and collection was begun Y in June 1979 . Service Levels The collection system in King County meets the Minimum i Functional Standards . The Seattle-King County Hearth Department has received very few complaints and has not taken any enforcement actions to issue citations on collection by commercial haulers . i There were a total of seven complaints in 1980, three in 1981 , and none in the first half of in 1982. Most collection problems are handled through the solid waste utility in Seattle and between residents or businesses and the contracting hauler in other areas of the County , including municipalities . The minimum frequency of service is mandated by the �I Minimum Functional Standards , which states that, "Garbage she".i � be removed from the premises no less than once per week or more often at the direction of the health officer." I Mandatory Collection Mandatory residential collection is an option that may be exercised by municipal ordinance . Figure C-1 includes infor- mation which shows those jurisdictions that have mandatory col- lection. King County can form mandatory collection districts under RCW 36. 58A, although the collection would be done by the franchised haulers with rates established by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Mandatory collection has been adopted in highly urban areas to protect the public health and to reduce litter. 156 ,�' Variable Can Rate �I The variable can rate exists in most tariffs filed by certificated collectors with the Utilities and Transportation �I Commission. Different fees are charged for different levels of service provided based on the amount of waste collected. at each pickup point . The variable can rate has been promoted to encour- age recycling and to be consistent with waste reduction policies of a sliding rate scale is imposed which increases as'I theituniof tsSeattle aste for disposal increase . The experience of the y w indicates that a variable can rate complicates the billing process and costs because customers must individually subscribe to a cer- ain service level . Variable can rates are perceived as promoting „ equity within the user class based on waste generated. The dif- ferential charge between one and two cans does not necessarily ,I equal the marginal cost of the service differential . showedExperience ton- with the variable can rate in the City of Seattle nage arriving at city transfer stations remained constant although the number of collection units declined. During the same year , 1981 , there was a 25 percent increase in the passenger car use �I of transfer stations and waste appearing in the recepticals in city parks increased twofold. Observations by enforcement offi- cials indicate a slight increase in the amount of illegal dump- ing or littering since the advent of the variable can rate in ,I Seattle . Most of the county operates under a rate testturein which fees vary with the number of containers collected. jurisdictions with variable can rates are shown in Figure C-1 . 'I 'I Mechanized Collection New types of services are provided by some collection �I systems . For example , Eastside Disposal is testing the "mobile tote system" on Merc er Island. Customers may lease an 85-gallon ! r s wheeled container from Eastside Disposal . These containers are designed for a mechanized collection system. 157 Other Services I� Some companies provide unlimited services on special occa- sions such as neighborhood cleanup programs . The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health manages a neighborhood clean- I! up and pickup program in the Central District of Seattle . The program is designed to encourage removal of rodent harborage . II COLLECTION OF COMMERCIAL WASTE I! Collection of Recyclable Materials I! Several major recycling , manufacturing, or material handl- ,I! ing firms engage in collection of recyclable materials on a commercial basis from commercial operators or operations rather than homes . The eleven firms reporting a commercial collection u service are shown in Figure C-6 indicating what. materials they ' recycle . It should be noted that these firms may not collect on a commercial basis , all the materials that they recycle . such as Boeing Major waste generators s g and PACCAR write concessions into their collection contracts for recyclable materials . N it 158 !I It a� TIGM C-6 COMMRCIAL COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE ?MATERIALS TYPES OF MATERIALS � r J so 4 c A L � ►. V G � � w d V � � v � v � s r � � • � M i G = C 6 r y � Y � C � � V c " a C �► RECYCLERS _r K r =e .c < < U Conbela Associates (Seattle) Fibres International (Bellevue) • • • • • Ideal Paper Stock (Seattle) • • o • • • Independent Paper Recycling (Seattle) • • • • • • • Liquid Waste Disposal (Seattle) Pacific Iron and Metal (Seattle) Reynolds Aluminum Recycling (Kent) • • • ! Thermoguard Insulation (Seattle) • Washington Company (Lynnwood) • • Weyerhaeuser (Kent) r i 1 1' 1' 159 1► NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE COLLECTION SYSTEM, , 1 ) The collection system in the unincorporated portions of ' King County operates without identified functional problems. A recognized central contact point for persons seeking new service would be beneficial. However, there are no signi- ficant problems with the ad hoc "ask a neighbor" system or referral by the certificated collectors which is the present operating procedure. 2) Self-haul personal disposal at the transfer stations is expensive to the consumer and to the system. At King County , facilities , the per unit tipping fees are higher because of the minimum charge than the cost to the consumer for , commercial collection. The system costs are higher for all parties because of the capacity which must be designed into ' each facility to accomodate self-haul personal disposal vehicles. Delays occur for vehicles operated by c:ertificatei and contract haulers in spite of the provision of exclusive lanes. Consumers need to be made aware of the full capital, and operating costs incurred by the system and by the individual user for self-haul personal disposal . littering and illegal , 3;) The amount and rate of lett g al dumping has in- creased. creased. The complaint rate to the Seattle-King County De- partment artment of Public Health for illegal dumping, littering , and , illegal storage of bulk waste on premises has increased from 500 complaints in 1980 to 683 in 1981 , and a projected level , plain , of 780 in 1982 . Litter control programs are inadequate . Illegal dumping takes place with relative impunity. There is a need for increased enforcement of illegal littering and disposal , even though 41 percent of the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health budget is allocated to enforcement. There is an oppor- tunity to use mandatory collection, fixed-rate collection for unlimited service , or a high-waste quantity-service threshold 160 r for the basic rate to reduce the incentive to engage in illegal dumping or littering to avoid collection costs . 4) Place Placement of private household waste in commercial dumpsters , public litter receptacles, and containers has increased. Household waste appearing in trash cans provided for public use by the Seattle Parks Department has been the major contributor to a doubling in the amount of solid waste generated in Seattle parks. Collection practices and costs may need to be reviewed to see how they may have influenced this change in behavior. II' It i, i 1 ,s t �I EXISTING CONDITIONS. TRANSFER Transfer stations are intermediate operations between collection and long haul of solid waste to the disposal site. Transfer is the operation which consolidates waste from contract haulers , collection vehicles, and private parties into efficient over-the-road long-haul transport trailers to reduce the cost of getting waste to the final disposal site. Transfer stations serve as the last point of public access to the solid waste system which allows the major final disposal sites to be designed (� and managed to accommodate a limited number and type of vehicle . RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE The transfer station system which operates in King County generally serves both the residential and commercial waste components of the waste stream. The Evergreen Disposal transfer station at Pier 35 in Seattle presently handles principally commercial and industrial waste. Waste is consolidated and compacted at transfer stations prior to long-haul transport to disposal sites. Transport labor costs and the number of trips are reduced, thereby increasing system efficiency . The transfer station system generally pro- vides intermediate disposal sites for private self-haul vehicles which are convenient to the user. Transfer stations reduce con- gestion and simplify design considerations at final disposal ' facilities. They also minimize safety problems at final disposal facilities by reducing user interaction at the disposal site . 163 1 The locations of existing transfer stations in King County ' are convenient , providing service within six miles of all citi- zens in the urbanized portion of the county and within three miles of 80 percent of the population. Figure T-1 is a map which indicates the location of the existing transfer stations . Three separate sets of transfer stations exist in the county; those operated by King County, Seattle , and private operators (the Evergreen Disposal Co. and Bayside Disposal) . KING COUNTY : King County operates seven transfer stations which handled a total of 509,680 tons of waste in 1981 , and exper- ienced 890,789 customer visits . One of the seven is the SkykoTish drop box which opened in 1981 . Refuse from the Skykomish drop , box is presently disposed of at the Cathcart landfill in. Snohomish County. An additional transfer station, in the Northshore area, is in the final preconstruction phases . The :street addresses for each of the transfer stations operated by King County are as follows : :First N.E. Transfer Station North 165th and Corliss North: , Seattle Bow Lake Transfer Station South 188th and Orillia Road Seattle Algona Transfer Station 35315 W. Valley Highway (#181 ) Algona Houghton Transfer Station Northeast 60th and 116th N.E. , Kirkland Factoria Transfer Station 13800 Southeast 32nd Bellevue Renton Transfer Station 12225 Southeast 128th Renton Skykomish Drop Box 74324 N.E. Old Cascade Highway Skykomish Northshore (Proposed) 164 ■ ' FIGURE T-1 TRANSFER STATIONS IN KING COUNTY ' til\ - - _' .�..�.�� •r-�` -;------------ Is TON •7 a - SEATTL '� ✓i >< .,• •mss., $' moi. -'',+ �. , � ,• BAY61 "- SEATTLE SO — _ LIZ ie _: v vh I dr �- t mow•••- . - �..-. �. ■ SEATTLE KING COUNTY A PRIVATE 165 ■ All King County-operated transfer stations are in full compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards . the 1950's has The transfer station designprevalent been replaced with a surge pit design for the new Bow ',Lake transfer station and the proposed Northshore facility. The new facility design is generally adequate to serve large modern collection vehicles now operating in the urban Northeast, and Houghton area- The Factoria, Algona) Renton, First which makes maneuvering and transfer stations are of a designLarge vehicles are unab- e unloading large vehicles difficulrectl -to discharge their entire load directly at one dumping stall . They must interrupt the discharge of waste to allow the the backhoe mov operator to spread and compact itritseloadck One-half of the another stall to finish discharging s who ' bays at each facility are reserved for contract ler made 73 ,043 of the visits to the facilities l9gln County transfer Recycling facilities do not exist at King stations . The transfer stations designed prior to to Bow Lake facility do not have space for containers . At t se facilites were built there was negligible demand for recycling capability at transfer stations . The county encourages the use ' of private recycling outlets as an alternative to instituting its own program. liquidstires , The transfer stations will not ac�rphazadous'waste as demolition debris , flammable materials ervation and Recovery defined by the Resource Conssci ° ncapac�ty as amended. Drop boxes greater than 40 cubic yard are taken directly to the Cedar Hill landfill. The county transfer stations are operated seven days a hours per day from 6:00 AM to 5 :30 PM except Thanks- giving, ten They are staffed by a giving, Christmas, and New Year' s Day single shift of employees working seven days on and seven day's off. The Factoria transfer station remains open until 1 : 30 AM 166 Monday through Friday, to serve the needs of contract haulers . The Factoria and Houghton transfer stations are typical of the older style design transfer stations in the King County system. They have a theoretically estimated design capacity of 69 tons per hour, or 1 ,650 tons per 24-hour day under ideal �I incoming waste flow conditions . As a practical matter, these facilities are operating near capacity as they handle 220-250 tons per day in a single ten hour shift. The 1981 throughput was about 275 tons per day. Efficiency decreases as tonnage increases because of queueing times which are unsatisfactory to private self-haul and contract haulers alike. As the through- put increases, compaction and efficient loading for long-haul i� to final disposal sites decreases , increasing the cost of that part of the operation. �t SEATTLE: The City of Seattle operates two transfer stations which handled 332,226 tons of waste in 1981 • The transfer stations are buildings of similar architectural design , partially enclosed for lighting, air circulation and noise control. The transfer stations are located in urban areas , with minimal natural buffer zones. Aesthetic impact or appearance is an important factor in proving them acceptable to the neigh- borhood. The Seattle transfer stations are located at: South Station 2nd South and S. Kenyon Street Seattle North Station North 35th and Carr Place North Seattle The South transfer station is open 24 hours per day, seven days a week. The North transfer station is open 8:00 a .m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9: 00 a.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. on Sundays. Both transfer stations are closed on Christmas Day . 167 t Both Seattle transfer stations accept garbage, refuse , street sweepings , small quantities of demolition debris, white goods , and putrescible wastes . They do not accept industrial waste, agricultural wastes , manures , waste oil , large timbers, vehicles , hazardous wastes, liquids, or dead animals greater than 15 pounds in weight. Passenger cars can deposit up to four tires free of charge and pay a fee of 25 cents per tire for additional tires . Commercial vehicles may dump tires for tonnage charges plus a fee of 25 cents per tire. The two Seattle-operated transfer stations have facilities for separate disposal of recyclable materials. At each station, , 20-cubic-yard drop boxes are provided to collect metals , glass , and paper for recycling. "White goods", such as refrigerators and stoves , are also handled separately. Salvaged materials of , this sort are sold locally in a fluctuating market. Surplus in revenues beyond expenses are contributed to the Seatt.Le Solid Waste Utility Fund and reduces system revenue requirements from other areas . In 1981 the City of Seattle generated about t $68,000000 from the sale of recyclable material deposited at he transfer station receptacles . This amounted to 1 ,500 tons of ' metal , 240 tons of glass , 300 tons of newsprint, and 4.5 tons of aluminum. , Each station has two bays each with the capacity for four primary collection trucks which are reserved for "packer" collection trucks . The primary collection vehicles empty , directly into transport trailers located under the station floor. A mobile clamshell backhoe is used to distribute loads in these trailers . The other part of the unloading or tipping level at each station is an open pit where solid waste from commercial collection vehicles , hand-dumped and loose-load vehicles is dumped, crushed by a crawler tractor, and "bladed" into another transport trailer. A water spray is used for dust control . Both City of Seattle-operated transfer stations are in full compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards. 168 r The estimated theoretical design capacity of Seattle's ® stations, assuming an even flow of waste, is approximately 2 ,000 N1� tons per day ( 83 tons per hour) , based on a 24-hour day. The North Transfer Station is operating at 25 percent of daily � capacity based on a 24 hour day or 65 percent of theoretical I capacity during operating hours. The South Transfer Station is operating at 21 percent capacity ( 18 tons per hour) . The maximum tonnage handled by the South Transfer Station in a single day was 1 ,052 tons on April 30, 1979. The North Station ' s highest volume day was 987 tons on May 14, 1979. Peak vehicular traffic occurred on the same day, May 3, 1970, at both transfer stations , when 1 ,843 vehicles passed through the South Station and 1 ,963 visited the North Station. Weekend tonnages are relatively low, although the weekend volume of private cars and trucks swells vehicle loadings 25 percent above weekday loadings . Of the waste handled by these stations in 1981 , 53 percent was brought in by contract collectors 36 percent cane from commercial and city vehicles and small trucks, and 11 percent was delivered by private cars. The City of Seattle transfer system levies a direct charge on users at the transfer stations, and diverts a portion of the combined utility billing of 811 residences within the city to finance operations. Because of utility residential billing, city residents in passenger vehicles are not charged a dumping fee. Revenue generated from utility billings is also used to pay the disposal costs for the two residential collection contractors in the city. These contractors are then allowed to ' use the transfer stations without charge for residential wastes . User fees at the Seattle transfer stations are structured so ' that each class of user pays its proportionate share of transfer station costs. 169 1 Fi zo c a, .e ., a u ., ., ., •• I vs wNo T. m u, a s a Q c Q a c pc, a ac 6. r Ln In In en W X OG O O r In r r r P- r- r N N N N m a, v n � a- o �:D H [••a T O In n n rl ofLr) S .r e�1 N ."� fH r+ fN�1 F 0 _ In r W W y In T CD In J C O C , H tJ Z 0. r N CO M J .-+ a v, o �rN Ln w V)O F N O to to to r H �a } � W Z Y � O c W ✓� . u. un In o Z V,F,:3: ko �D OJ Q N E'+ ' a c w - 7 a < `o o c °0 ' c c t- O G o, o, a, 0, o 0 0, Cl m ec , 0-4 I,,,•I - •r. cc P N Cc O tD Q G7 r cc p, L,) V., O J Y - In J JIx w L LC -� r O O N .p. F E E rj cG N w r c0 O o0 J — - J 7 O &ncc '••'CJ^� P'1 N J O` N en� J I7'1 N N !•1 J N W N co -4 Ln co 3t 3t C J E ,cc t N O ^' O 6m en J C a` E•I - w a o N o > > _ C y L C 6 � C C Y Y U U R G R R W O O Z .ro E' ac cc c A.+ a.+ OI N O c tv Q H UID r 7 S S J u v d �� d O In W In c c .. .. G CA N G J O < t O WWW v G T R R R v L L u u t2 d d U t •• r r T R R R T P. 7 ^ C aid W " W 170 , COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES Vertical integration within the industry achieves econo- � commercial disposal through the use of the I� mies available for come P �I privately operated transfer station. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission regulations allow certificated haulers to pass through the tipping or disposal fees to the �I residential , commercial and industrial waste customers . The most cost-competitive transfer opportunity is used. Total costs are a composite of tipping fees , travel times and cost and queueing or turnaround time . Although much of the commercial I' waste generated in the county passes through publicly operated transfer stations , a relatively small amount of the residential waste is handled at the transfer station operated by Evergreen Disposal . II EVERGREEN EN DISPOSAL: The Evergreen Disposal Company, Inc . oper- ates a transfer station at 9 South Massachusetts Street in Seattle . The transfer station is at the site of the Marine DisposalCompany ,Com an Inc . barge facility on Pier 35 . It shares the site with the Ideal Paper Stock Company recycling operation . ' All three companies are owned by RABANCO, Inc . The Evergreen Disposal transfer station handled approxi- mately 234 ,000 tons of waste in 1981 . The majority of the waste , 158 ,000 tons , was commercial in origin. The tlzroughuut of the transfer station also included 52 ,000 tons of general industrial waste and 24 ,000 tons of demolition debris . Ever- green Disposal does not make an operational distinction in the handling of industrial waste and commercial waste . The com- mercial waste arriving at Evergreen Disposal consists of paper ' goods , wet wastes , restaurant waste , and residuals from stores and offices collected by private haulers using two- to eight- cubic-yard dumpsters picked up by front-end load trucks . The principle haulers using the Evergreen Disposal trans er-station--- 171 i are Seattle Disposal , R. M. Halffman , Bayside , and the general public . Industrial waste passing through the transfer station - consists of packing waste , heavier materials , debris , discarded parts and a small amount of paper. It is largely nonputrescible waste . The industrial waste typically arrives at Evergreen Disposal in 25- to 40-cubic yard drop boxes . The facility does , not accept hazardous waste , liquids or flammiables . The Evergreen Disposal transfer station operates 24 hours , per day , Monday through Friday and Saturday until 4 :00 p .m. It is open to the public at all times . The unloading turnaround , time is about five minutes ; the unloading bays are used on a first-come , first-served basis , and there are no problems with , queueing. Five trucks can unload into the surge pit at any given time . A catepillar tractor compacts the waste and loads the transport trailers directly from the surge pit . A tamper is ' available to distribute the load in the trailers . The theo- retical design capacity of the facility is 1 ,800 tons per day based on limited pit capacity. The facility does not have the space to significantly enlarge the surge pit . At twice the present volume , and at a level roughly equal to the handling capacity of the surge pit , traffic flow, turning movements on ' Alaskan Way and queueing problems would create additional opera- tional limitations . The Evergreen Disposal transfer station is in compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards . Recycling operations takeP lace at Ideal Paper Stock Company which shares the site . BAYSIDE DISPOSAL: The Bayside Disposal Company is preparing to operate a private transfer/recycling facility at 7201 West Marginal Way S.W. in Seattle . The facility will be operated on a private basis with Bayside Disposal as the only user of the facility. 172 The Bayside transfer and recycling station will handle approximately 6 ,000 tons per year of mixed commercial and industrial waste. The volume is expected to increase to 12 ,000 majority tons per year by 1992. The �j y of the waste , approximately 80 percent of the tonnage is expected to be of commercial origin. The Bayside Disposal Company does not distinguish between the operational handling of commercial or industrial wastes. The wastes arriving at the Bayside Disposal transfer/recycling fa- cility it will consist of selected loads collected by Bayside Disposal . The loads will be chosen for their high paper , card- board and mixed metals content. The facility will consist of conveyor systems which facili- �' ort containers tates sorting the waste materials into large transp for each type of recyclable and waste destined for the Cedar Hills landfill for final disposal . The theoretical design capacity of the proposed facility exceeds the projected 1990 volume of 12 ,000 tons per year . Operating hours are expected to vary in accordance with the scheduling of the Bayside col- lection operations . The facility does not have a Health Department permit at lication process has been completed this time . The permit app P and the permit will be issued at the time of occupancy . HAZARDOUS WASTE Dangerous or extremely hazardous wastes , as defined daby WAC 173-303 , are not permitted for transferdisposal any publicly operated transfer stations or disposal sites in King County or at the Evergreen Disposal transfer station. None of the public facilities have applied for interim status as transfer , storage or disposal sites for dangerous or ex- tremely hazardous wastes . 173 11 The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has developed a system for monitoring potentially hazardous waste ' arriving at transfer stations and rural landfills . The Health Department closely coordinates the screening and ' identification of potentially hazardous waste arriving at solid waste facilities with the Northwest Regional Office , of the Department of Ecology. Wastes which are determined to be dangerous in accordance with WAC 173-303 and exceed ' the 400 pound monthly threshold are referred to the State Department of Ecology for processing by designated interim status transfer , storage or disposal operators for dangerous , effective in keeping appears to be e wastes . The screen system pp dangerous wastes from entering transfer stations . Extremely ' hazardous wastes are denied entry to the transfer or disposal facilities and are referred to the State Department of Ecology for proper disposal . There are no extremely hazardous waste disposal sites in the State of Washington. Landfill and transfer station personnel for both Seattle and King County continuously screen waste materials , arriving at the facilities . Site attendants have been trained by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health to aid ' in recognition of potentially hazardous materials in the waste stream. Waste haulers having questionable materials , such as paint , paint wastes , solvents , pesticide containers , inks , tank-bottom sludge , dusts or chemicals are intercepted at the gate or while unloading. Haulers , without prior and specific clearance for , disposal of the questionable material are requested to con- tact the health center for disposal approval . 174 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM: �I 1) The City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility maintains -one transfer IIII station in the Fremont area (north) and a second station in South Park (south) . These stations need extensive rehabili- tation. The north station needs restoration of the tipping IIII II' and compacting areas , construction of concrete stairways , and pavement resurfacing. The south station needs I' compaction pit restoration, stairway construction, trans- former and pump relocations , roof T-beam repairs , and I' scalehouse expansion. 2) The King County transfer station system is a highly effective part of the solid waste management and disposal system. It is King County' s policy to maintain an effective transfer ' station system as part of its solid waste disposal program. Continuation of population and employment growth in the ' suburban and unincorporated portions of King County may lead to the need for changes in the King County transfer ' station system. a) King County should continually evaluate the need for new or upgraded transfer stations . ' b) The needs evaluation; when including site selection , should be an open participatory process . c) King County should attempt to site new transfer stations ' as close as possible to the population centroid of the desired service area. Transfer stations should not be ' located in heavily residential areas . d) New transfer stations should be of adequate size to ' handle waste levels that will occur over a 20-year period. This requires that they be sized to handle 175 existing service area population plus have reserve ' capacity for predicted growth or be easy to modify to add extra capacity. ' e) King County' s small , rural landfills should 'be closed ' as they reach the end of their economically useful life . The solid waste formerly handled by the closed landfills will be absorbed by the transfer station ' system (with the probable exception of Vashon Island) . Appropriate changes to the transfer station systen , should be made as needed. 3) As King County considers alterations or additions to its transfer station system, factors to consider in determining the need for a new or upgraded transfer station should t include : ' a) Minimization of operational costs to system users ; ' ' b) Convenience of service to area citizens and system users ; ' c) Existing transfer station system; ' d) Population densities ; e) Service area boundaries ; f) Transportation system; g) Continuity of service ; ' h) Accommodation of the unloading requirements of large state-of-the-art collection vehicles anticipated in the future . process . i) =,.volvement of potential host communities in the 7 1 6 �i �I 4) In the immediate future , King County should take action IIon or conclude the following pending programs : a) Build a new transfer station in the Woodinville area IIIto serve , in general , the Northshore Community plan- ning area. IIIb) The usage levels at some of King County' s old, direct dump style transfer stations exceed design capacity. Overusage I' may result in long waits and inconveniences for users . Large , state-of-the-art collection vehicles are not always able to I' discharge their entire loads directly at one time. Unloading operations may have to be interrupted to allow spreading and compaction by the backhoe operator or changing of transfer containers . In light of these problems , King County will : i ) Evaluate each old direct-dump style tranfer station. for efficiency and productivity. ii ) Based on the evaluation, develop alternatives to improve efficiency and productivity where warranted. �I iii) Develop plans to implement the selected alternative(s) . The selected alternative will take into account the factors 'I outlined under number 3 above. 5) The cities of Carnation and Duvall have identified a need 'I for a transfer facility in the Lower Snoqualmie Valley. I� When the Duvall landfill was closed there was the explicit assumption that it would be replaced by the Northshore trans- fer station. Every effort should be made to provide transfer I� and/or disposal facilities to serve the Snoqualmie Valley. 6) The City of Enumclaw has identified a need for a transfer facility to replace the Enumclaw Landfill when it reaches capacity. Every effort should be made to locate the trans- fer facility on the Enumclaw Plateau to provide reasonable service to residents of the Enumclaw area. ' 177 7 The City of Duvall identifies an urgent need. for an interim transfer system pending completion of the Northshore trans- fer station. The city notes the unforeseen delays in con- struction of the Northshore transfer station, the disposal and littering problems in the Northshore community planning area and an estimated minimum three- to five-year period before the Northshore facility may be completed. ' 178 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS. LONG- HAUL TRANSPORT I' Long-haul transportation of solid waste is the aspect of solid waste handling that occurs between collection and (' disposal . Large volumes of waste consolidated at transfer stations and large drop boxes are transported to the final ' disposal sites . Long-haul transport by truck is expected to continue to be ' the most cost-effective means of moving solid waste from col- lection or consolidation points to the site of final disposal . The long-haul system has noise, air pollution safety, traffic 1 congestion and road operating and maintenance impacts along the haul routes . Haul routes used by each operator are shown in ' Figure H-1. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE TRANSPORTATION KING COUNTY: King County' s transport system is the result of several years of development. Goals for the system include maximum waste hauled (payload) , minimum turnaround time , dur- ability, ease of maintenance , and appearance of vehicles . 1 The county' s transport operation uses a system of diesel tractors and trailers , each with a legal payload capacity of 1 20 tons. Each trailer carries two 41-1/2 cubic-yard containers . At the landfill , a modified backhoe lifts these containers from the ' trailer one at a time by means of geared lugs and rotates them for emptying. This process takes eight minutes--including time 179 FIGURE H-1 ' /• • TYPICAL LONG-HAUL ROUTES i 6 Seattle t LM CEDAR '/t1I ' LANQFJLL�--- AL t 'foK&T. HL ?S NDS L •— KING COUNTY - • • • • SEATTLE EVERGREEN BAYSIDE L 180 spent traveling to the discharge point at the landfill site . I� Two site attendants and one forklift operator are employed. The unloading system does not require driving on the landfill �I surface ; access is on a graded haul road. The average payload of each long-haul tractor trailer combination varied slightly from transfer station to transfer station. Payloads for 1981 average 16. 36 tons per trip up !' slightly from 15. 90 tons per trip in 1980. The maximum legal payload is 20 tons . I� Travel times from transfer stations have not changed ' much since 1974. New, more powerful trucks make better time up the grade to the Cedar Hills landfill which compensates for the increased traffic and travel time in the urban areas . FIGURE H- 2 KING COUNTY LONG HAUL TRANSPORT SUMMARY Transport 1981 Transport Time in Transfer 1981 Average Mileage Minutes ' Station Tonnage Payload (Round Trip) (Round Trite Algona 71 ,066 14.68 41 .4 87 Bow Lake 126 ,166 18. 22 31. 8 76 Factoria 99 ,095 15 . 85 30.4 88 1st Ave . N.E. 63 ,543 15. 53 71 . 4 129 Houghton 98 , 363 16 . 17 43. 0 98 ' Renton 51 ,447 17 . 35 22. 0 67 TOTAL 509 ,680 16.36 King County' s transport system is designed to conform ' with the Minimum Functional Standards . Vehicle covers are tight , minimizing litter; vehicle construction is durable 181 and vehicles are regularly maintained. The vehicles; are , designed to prevent leakage and facilitate cleaning. Transport routes from transfer stations to disposal at _Cedar Hills are shown in Figure H-1. These routes represent the shortest and most efficient routes . There are no con- , straints to the passage of the long-haul transport trailer ,rigs at the legal weight limit with the exception of occasional ' :imposition of post-thaw weight limits . SEATTLE: Seattle ' s transport system consists of long- haul tractors and trailers . The trailers are open-top stain- less steel vans with actuated beds and rear doors . Payloads are slightly in excess of 20 tons . Emptying is accomplished by an active bed of flight bars which draw the waste out the rear ' of the trailer . The unloading mechanism on the Seattle long- haul trailers allow for self dumping. In practice , the tractor-trailer rigs are driven on the landfill surface to unload without complex unloading equipment . The transport trailers operated by the City of Seattle are designed to conform with the Minimum Functional Standards . Seattle ' s haul routes are shown in Figure H-1 . CARNATION : The City of Carnation hauls its waste fron, the city to its landfill in a five-ton open Ford 600 dump truck . The haul route is 1-1/2 to 2 miles south along State Highway 158 . EVERGREEN DISPOSAL: Evergreen Marine Disposal " s transport system in 1981, consisted of 10 tractor-trailer rigs which make the trip from Evergreen Disposal' s private transfer station at Pier 35 to the Cedar Hills landfill. The trailers are 45 feet long and are a chain-operated self unloading design. The average payload is 19 tons with a legal capacity of 40 tons (gross vehicle weight) for the long-haul tractor-trailer rigs . 182 li p The round tri time from the Evergreen Disposal transfer station to Cedar Hills including unloading is two hours and covers 52 miles. The typical haul route is south along Alaskan Way to Spokane Street , then to southbound I-5 to 1-405 �I and then through Maple Valley to Cedar Hills . The tractor- trailer rigs meet the Minimum Functional Standards. BAYSIDE DISPOSAL: Bayside Disposal' s proposed long-haul itransport system will consist of three tractors and seven trailers . The trailers will be 65-yard packer trailers with I� hydraulic rams for unloading. The trucks will be new in 1983 and will meet the Minimum Functional Standards . The average payload is expected to be 18 tons . The pro- jected round-trip travel and unloading time from the Bayside Disposal transfer/recycling facility to the Cedar Hills Land- fill is two hours . The typical haul route is expected to be south on SR 99 (West Marginal Way S.W. ) to SR 599 and southeast to I-405 . From I-405 the long-haul vehicles are expected to travel through Maple Valley to Cedar Hills as shown in Figure H-1 . The average number of round trips per day is projected ' to be three . In addition, approximately three trips every two days will be made from the facility to the purchaser of the recycled materials. rMARINE DISPOSAL: Barge haul by Marine Disposal was discontinued in 1979 . Marine Disposal is negotiating with the Port Gamble Klallam Tribe for development of a balef ill ' p disposal operation on tribal lands . If the discussions reach p fruition, Marine Disposal expects to commence operations in 1 1983. The King County terminus of the barge-haul operation will be located at Pier 35 on the Seattle waterfront. A ' shoreline permit and a building permit for redevelopment of the Pier 35 site have already been issued by the City—of-Seattle. 183 i r i -SPECIAL WASTES TRANSPORTATION i Sludge Underwatered, anerobically treated waste water treatment , sludge , is transported from the Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach treatment plants to centralized treatment at West Point . Raw r sludge is transported by truck from the Renton treatment plant to West Point . Treated sludge is hauled from West Point to Cedar Hills . Sludge is transported from the West Point Treat- i ment Plant to GroCo, Inc . in Kent by O'Neill and Sons . ' Se to e r Septage is hauled from the point of collection to the point at which it enters the treatment system by registered i collection vehicles . Each septic-system pumper must specify the number and type of vehicles used. r 1 r r r r 184 r r NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO IZIPROV E THE LONG-HAUL TRANSPORT SYSTEM If 1) The City of Seattle tractor-trailers are nearing the end of �I their useful life expectancy and in some cases have exceeded their projected life. With the anticipated closure of the Kent Highlands and Midway landfills , the long-haul rigs will be subjected to more severe driving conditions, including 11 the steep grade necessary to reach the Cedar Hills Landfill . During the time that Seattle was hauling waste to Cedar Hills, King County personnel noted that the City of Seattle ' trucks were underpowered for the grade and generally slowed operations for King County long-haul vehicles . The amount ' of time necessary to complete a round trip from either City of Seattle transfer station to Cedar Hills is longer than the current round trip haul time. Additional vehicles will be necessary to compensate for the increased average travel time per trip. In addition, the first of the five floor trailers acquired are now approaching the end of their useful ' life . 2) King County has found its system for transporting solid ' waste from transfer stations to the final disposal site efficient and effective. King County will continue to use and upgrade its current system. ' a) As long-haul equipment reaches the end of its useful. life , it should be replaced with new equipment. Such replacement should be scheduled in advance , to the greatest extent possible. ' b) To ease the impact on rates caused by the need to re- place worn equipment, King County should continue to make yearly dollar deposits into its Capital Equip- ment Recovery Fund created by Ordinance No. 5482. 185 I . 1 c) King County should continue to pursue an aggressive 1 maintenance program for its long-haul equipment . All long-haul equipment and its maintenance should meet the Minimum Functional Standards . d) Appearance of the equipment to the public should be 1 an important consideration of the maintenance program. At a minimum, a truck washing facility should be built 1 at the Cedar Hills Maintenance Shop . 3) The Ford 600 used by the City of Carnation for its col- 1 lection and long-haul transport is nearing the end of its useful life and needs replacement . 1 4) Pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington, Section 36 . 58 . 080 , King County should continue to mitigate 1 impacts which are directly attributable to the operations of its transfer station system and long-haul transport system. i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 186 1 . 1 I EXISTING CONDITIONS: FINAL DISPOSAL Burning dumps and landfills have been the historic means of final disposal . All burning dumps have been closed. Diversions from the waste stream for recycling and materials reuse ; volumetric and weight reduction occuring through incineration and waste reduction reduce ' the amount of waste subject to final disposal. Waste disposal throughout the system is becoming more specialized. Higher levels of technology are being applied to sensitive waste types to insure greater safety in their disposal . Wastes are also being segregated by type in accordance with the degree of care necessary in their rdisposal . There is no single facility in the county that accepts all types of waste. Hazardous wastes receive special treatment. Mixed municipal solid waste , which con- stitutes the bulk of the waste stream, is not permitted at some facilities due to the decomposition of putrescible materials in the waste . ' Special final disposal sites have been developed to receive building demolition and land clearing wastes , certain ' commercial wastes , and other special , non-putrescible wastes . Figure D-1 shows the type of waste accepted at each facility ' in the county. 187 FIGURE D-1 ' SOLID WASTES ACCEPTED FOR DISPOSAL AT LANDFILLS I d i :c WASTE TYPES V 0 p G a ! ar ✓C r i ' --, :t= v. IL LA.IDFILLS ! i ► I s a,:,, Y KI::G COt�iTT ' Cedar Falls • • i • • I • � • I I ! Cedar Hills 1 ' • • � • i • ! I ( t • En wTc 1 aw ' Hobart • i • i • I • I I • Vashon • ! • • • i CITY OF SEATTLE Kent-Highlands 0 0r Midway I • ► • SMALL ML"%ICIPALTTIES ! Carnation • • • ' PRIVATE ' I Newcastle 0 ' Ravensdale • i Kt. Olivet Cenetary • • 188 I � I MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Closed or Abandoned Final Disposal Sites As the urban areas have grown and public health and I' techniques and have chap Q safety standards h ed, disposal L locations have changed. The increased awareness of the 11 environmental impacts of solid waste facilities and the Washington State Solid Waste Management--Resource Recovery Act , precipitated major changes in the location and manage- ment of final disposal sites . Closed and abandoned facilities from prior eras are located throughout the urbanized portion of the county. A partial listing of identified , closed and abandoned disposal sites is shown in Figure D-2 . Potential environmental problems , particularly contin- uing methane generation , leachate , and residual from, hazar- dous wastes may continue long after closure of a site . Physical phenomena associated with the prior use of the ' site for waste disposal such as settling, may preclude certain subsequent urban uses . In general , the older the site , the fewer the problems ; particularly for those sites that were in use before the advent of modern chemical ' processing and the widespread use of organic chemicals . The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and 24etro are active in monitoring old sites . Recognition of the potential hazards associated with ' closed and abandoned disposal sites lead to the requirement imposed in 1972 , that deed restrictions be attached to the 1 title for all landfill sites closed after that date. 189 .��•� My �� , �` iNg ILI ..SLlilt �.►, Mill WIN NEI ` �I City of Seattl!e: Kent Highlands Landfill The City at Seattle Solid Waste Utility operates the Midway and Kent-Highlands landfills , both of which are located in the City of Kent. The Kent-Highlands landfill serves as the final disposal site for the City of Seattle' s residential waste. It also accepts waste from the City of Kent. Total waste entering Kent-Highlands in 1981 , amounted to 240 ,215 l� tons . The Kent-Highlands landfill is located at : ' 23200 Military Road South Kent, Washington The 100-acre site is in a small canyon along the west wall of the Green River Valley. The soil on the site is Alderwood, a gravelly , silty sand. Cover material is not a- available on the site . The site is leased to the City of ' Seattle by its private owner. The Kent-highlands landfill does not comply with the Minimum Functional Standards . The Seattle-King County Depart- ment of Public Health found violations of the Minimal Functional Standards during its 1982 permit review. Problems identifies ' were areas of insufficient intermediate cover , leachate entering storm drains and then flowing into the Green River , the presence of wind blown litter in isolated areas and the absence of plans for monitoring surface and ground- water. A compliance schedule or correction of the deficiencies has been developed. Figure D-3 shows the compliance of all disposal facilities with the Minimum Functional Standards . 191 FIGURE D-3 ' LANDFILL COMPLIANCE WITH KING COUNTY MINIMUPI FUNCTIONAL STANDARDS SECTIONS OF THE o r C MINI" u ■ "o. o v o • rY M CTIONAL y c r .. v = ■ > STANDARDS C O ■ Y t c J s c • r w c C p , C O • �[ Y u 9 w �c 7 L C C: � r O Z • u � v u Z : r u � C � d .+ C r � r . r Y•+ C ■ N r O • � O V • r C r v Or R L C � Y r ► r � R Y C � -- I C > C y O • 3 V O O /0n V C % C tell C 9 N N 1C 'O Vi y • C V ^ l i law • r L = C J r ` C ! f. • • ^ • E K O ^ Y I R I C LANDFILLS p KING COUNTY I ' Cedar Falls • • Cedar Hills i • • • 1 , Enumclaw I � Hobart Vachon , CITY OF SEATTLE • Kent-Highlands I Midway SMALL MUNICIPALITIES • • • Carnation i � I PRIVATE • • • ' • • ' , Newcastle Ravensdale {unlavful site at time of inspections Mt Olivet Cer*tar ) �I� • - Site Deficiency Based on Seattle-King County Health Department Inspections - November, 1981 - April, 1982. Vehicular traffic at the site during 1981 amounted , to 13,827 usages; 7 ,575 were City of Seattle long-haul transport vehicles and 6 ,252 were contract collection , vehicles disposing of waste from the City of Kent. Private vehicles are not permitted on the site . Kent-highlands , 192 operates weekdays from 8:00 am to 4: 30 pm, excluding 'j Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years Day. al rate and waste composition, the At the present disposas a disposal site is Kent-Highlands useful life expectancy forecast to be exhausted by 1985. The city has employed a tIonsultant to analyze the conditions that make forecasting c landfill life expectancy so difficult . Kent-Highlands rninate is subject to settling and waste compression a t an rate , thus gradually increasing the capacity of the site J' before final contours are reached. Figure D-4 ' Seattle Residential Landfill Sumanary Table 1982 1981 Compliance Vith Average Forecast(l) 'Minimum DailyFunctional 1981 Vehicular Site Site Life Standards Tonnage Traffic (Acres) Expectancy Kent- 100 1985 No Highlands 240 ,215 53 (1')Assump tions : present waste composition , volur.�e , and technology Kin Count : Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Cedar Hills is the landfill .Dperated by Kin- Coualty oa ' land under a long-term lease from the Department of Natural Resources . Cedar Hills is located on an elsvated rolling plateau b h drainages . Cedar between the Cedar River and Samma The site includes the Hills consists of a 920-acre site . The Center is Alcoholism Treatment Hills Alcoh e Cedar Hil `,,,a Th Ce operation by a roadway.separated from the landfill open hts-of-way for Cascade 920-acre site also includes thePower Authority Natural Gas pipelines and Bonneville transmission lines. 193 1 � Figure D-5 King County Regional Landfill Summary Table 1981 1982 , Average Compliance With Daily Forecast (2) , 1981 Vehiculal) Site Site Life(2) Functional Tonnage Traffic (Acres) Expectancy Standards Cedar Hills 804 , 852 132 920 1999 No (1) 86 of the average daily vehicular trips are King County , long haul transport trucks . (2)Assumptions : present waste composition , volume , and tech- nology. The lease stipulations , requirements for buffers and topography leave 452 acres for actual disposal under present conditions . However , the ming County Solid Waste Division is considering submitting an application for a revision of the special use permit . Improvements to the site as part of the ' landfill operation include perimeter fence , scales, a leachate collection system consisting of barriers , reten- tion and aeration ponds and pump stations to a Metro inter- ceptor . The material used for cover at Cedar Hills is currently hauled from onsite excavations . Predominant soils at the site are Alderwood and Barnston , which are principally gravelly , silty , sand with stones . These soils were derived from glacial drift and , provide good cover during dry weather; however, the soils can be difficult to work during extremely wet periods . Final cover is ' supplemented by digested waste water treatment sludge--to enhance -- --- - 194 vegetation growth. Continuing evaluation of existing landfill practices and future federal . state and local regulations es in guidelines by the Health Department may result i g g curzent practices and may cause potentially significant fiscal impacts on the operating agency. 'I Cedar Hills serves as a direct-haul destination in lieu of a transfer station for certificated collectors in the III Issaquah and Black Diamond areas . Cedar Hills is not open to the general public . There is a cashier on duty for direct haul accounts and to operate the scale system daily from 7 : 30 am II� to 5 : 00 pm except Thanksgiving , Christmas and New Years Day. A few King County long haul trucks may bring in their last load after the cashier is off duty. Delivery of Metro waste water treatment sludge at Cedar Hills occurs infrequently at unpredictible hours depending largely on the availability of alternative sludge use sites . I' Cedar Hills is the only currently operating landfill that has the capacity to serve as a final disposal facility through- out the time frame necessary to bring new facilities on line . -It has identified long-term capacity and has acted as a system- wide safety valve . Cedar Hills accepted waste from the City of Seattle through Marine Disposal in 1980, when the Tulalip disposal site was closed, and from Snohomish County in 1981 ,. when the Cathcart landfill was closed for repairs . King and Snohomish Counties have entered into a long-term agreement to ipermit disposal of a stipulated annual amount of Snohomish County waste at Cedar Hills . The present lease agreements between the County and the De- partment of Natural Resources provide for the operation of the ' facility through the year 2023 , at a lease rate of 50 cents per acre per year . Cedar Hills is forecast to reach capacity no ' sooner than 1999 , if present waste composition, volume and dis- posal technology are assumed. The King County Solid Waste Di- vision plans to construct berms to increase the capacity and i 195 longevity of the Cedar Hills Landfill . The earthen berms will ' increase the landfill ' s capacity 17 percent over the existing remaining capacity. The berms will serve as visual and noise ' buffers . Cedar Hills does not meet the Minimum Functional Standards ' at present. The Seattle King County Health Department has identified violations of the Minimum Functional :Standards ' in its annual disposal permit review for 1982 . The violations identified included inadequate cover in an area formerly used ' by Seattle Disposal , site access and lack of screening in the vicinity of the Alcohol Treatment Center. There are ' continued negotiations between the Department of Public I:ealtt. and I:ing County to arrive at a formula for daily cover of ' the working face . Control of site access and screening are currently budgeted projects . The Seattle-King County Depart- ment of Public Health has developed a compliance schedule . A table of all landfill disposal sites in compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards appears in Figure D-3 . ' King County : Rural Landfills , King County also operates rural landfills on Vashon Island , and at Hobart ,. Cedar Falls , and Enumclaw. Their locations are r shown in Figure D-6 . The street addresses for each of the landfills are as follows : ' Cedar Falls Landfill 16901 Cedar Falls Road Southeast , Hobart Landfill 23421 Issaquah - Hobart Road Enumclaw Landfill 29000 Southeast 440th Street Vashon Landfill 18850 - 130th Avenue Southwest ' The Duvall landfill was closed in June , 1981 . All rural landfills are open from 9 :00 a .m. to 6 : 00 p.m. , seven days a ' week except Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years Day. The landfills accept all wastes except liquids , demolition debris , ' flammable materials and hazardous wastes as described by Public 196 FIGURE D-6 'I KING COUNTY RURAL LANDFILLS ol -� If ( -vows Ndw !- _ GED of .01 074, ar All S 7_ •','� 1. IT- � ,• � :. �; �- '- _ / s �•� s4 I •�j�� -` � - -.,.•-"' ENUMCALAW iJ 197 r Law 94-580, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended and the Washgington Administrative Code 173-303 . The rural landfills do not have scales so all tonnage figures are estimates . The service lives of existing I:ing County rural landfills are limited. Many will reach capacity by the mid-1980' s . The rural landfills are not in compliance ' with the Minimum Functional Standards . They are deficient in day-to-day operations and need capital improvements . Compliance is addressed in both daily operations and long-range capital ' improvements within given budget constraints . The 1982 opera- tional budget addresses the Minimum Functional Standards at ' the current level of compliance and the existing and proposed capital improvement programs propose environmental elements ' to bring all rural landfills into compliance with the Minimus:, Functional Standards . A table showing the compliance status of all landfill final disposal sites appears in Figure D-3 . A summary of the King County-operated rural landfills is , shown in Figure D-7 . Figure D-7 King County Rural Landfill Summary 1981 1982 Average compliance With Daily Forecast(l Y.ini...u- 1981 Vehicular Site Site Life Functional Tonnage Traffic (Acres) Expectancy Standards ' Vashon 5 , 343 65 141 .44 2015 No Enumclaw 9 ,996 91 38 . 98 1984 No Hobart 13 ,431 217 51 . 38 1986, No Cedar Falls 6 ,646 74 82. 34 1995 No Duva112 8 , 864(2) 160(2) Closed June 15 , 1981 composition , , Assumptions . Present waste compos , volume and technology 2January 1-June 15 , 1981 198 r The isolation of Vashon Island from the balance of the �I system presents special problems for waste disposal. A transfer and haul system using the ferries and providing the same service as a landfill would have an excessive annual cost when compared with a similar solution elsewhere in the county. r� City of Carnation : Rural Landfill it The City of Carnation operates a small landfill in unincorporated King County outside the corporate limits of the city. The Carnation Landfill is located on Langlois Road east of State Highway 203 , the Fall City-Duvall Road , approx- imately one and one-half miles south of the City of Carnation. The site is approximately 11 acres and is owned by the city. II The disposal facility serves the area within the city I' limits of Carnation and a portion of the Snoqualmie River Valley from Griffin Creek to the Stossel Fill Road. The population of the service area is 1 ,200. The service area is expected to have a 1990 population of 4,000 served by this facility. The current equipment consists of one five-cubic yard rdump truck and a small bulldozer and backhoe operated part- time by a two person utility crew. The site is covered on ' Tuesdays at the end of two days of operation per week. The facility receives waste on Mondays and Tuesdays , It is open to the general public of the City of Carnation. The Carnation landfill receives fourteen five-yard dump truck loads of waste from the city per week. The volume is estimated at 3 ,700 cubic yards (or 1 ,500 tons) per year. ' Other waste figures available predict 5 ,000 cubic yards per year during 1982-1983. ' 199 T rates under a permit from the Seattle-King The landfill operates County Department of public Health. It does not conform to the Minimum Functional Standards . It is under a compliance schedule for the following deficiencies : an agreement for provision of employee facilities , a reduction in the slope , of working faces , increased cover thickness , and provision of additional information regarding use of a well for monitoring , water quality . The City of Carnation has taken direct steps to com- ply with the Minimum Functional Standards and obtain a con- tDe- partment ' forming disposal permit from the Seattle-King County De- partment of Public Health. The Carnation landfill consumes an opened area of less than one acre of the eleven-acre city- , owned tract designated as a disposal site. The first cell was recently completed. It is the city' s plan to makE� the final cover in segments considerably larger than this first cell on the basis that revised cover operations will comply with the Minimum Functional Standards . Closure of the first cell appears , to comply with the Minimum Functional Standards . Water service with a hose bib is in operation on the site , and it is suitable for washing and cleaning that may be needed. A letter from a neighbor located within 300 feet of the site grants permission for use of their facilities for employee facilities . Groundwater monitoring offsite in August 1982 indicated water quality suit- able for drinking. There are no reliable estimates about the life expectancy of the site. The City of Carnation and the City of Duvall have both expressed an interest in seeing a new county-operated 1 facility in the area. r 200 ' Figure D-8 City of Carnation Rural Landfill Summary Table 1982 1981 1981 Compliance Vlith Average Forecast(2) Minimum Daily Site Site Life Functional 1981 Vehicull) (Acres) Expectancy Standards Tonnage c 2002 No Carnation 1 ,500 4 11 IC (1) erating hours one and one-half days per week During op volume and technology (2)Assumptions : Present waste composition, I I' Incineration Incineration of mixed municipal solid waste onsite I' ies operated in accordance with occurs in small facillt p' County Department of permits issued by the Seattle-King disposal public Health. Incinerators are also used for t the disposal of special wastes , frequently in combination the same facility- of mixed municipal solid waste gby incineration are Facilities with permits for disposal shown in Figure D-9 . ' COMMERCIAL WASTE DISPOSAL ' City of Seattle : Midway _Landfill Seattle' s Midway landfill serves as the disposal point for "rubbish" or nonputrescible wastes from the city' s transfer stations and areas south of Seattle almost line. t6 the Pierce The 55-acre site opened in 196 County way ravel pit on the plateau between landfill is located in a large g 201 r • ✓ r e ,Y C — U C C P� C _ L C< G ✓ �✓ .Y. r C Y— T y S T y t T y� > Y R S � ! ' C_ w C • C Y v � .■+ _ • O � !� r � EO r� f �' ? r � rc G V ' ✓N y > • L O Y f - f--� c ✓ s , s — - C C a R • — — - • IC,.� E u Y C • ■ Z Z O K r � � _ ^► c c e c - N� G ■ w R R S O a T a T i = = r • = _ O a a La G = P d = ✓ It Z ✓ r _ t • � C T ■ _ i ✓ p L i a ) _ po DD pp O � C Y S .CO.y N N ✓ a � � G .. V O 3 n L Y ✓ 1L Y! C C 7 D.. ■J G ►= Y O r ■�'� �' 7 N . •� y Y � r p we S r V ✓ r ✓ • ✓ C ✓ .� ✓ CO J ✓ i V V O 1R�O _ ��.41 i O y■r t0 V YJ awae� ws: ■ y V p p r _ _ 0 O S i � i ► i V 202 the Green River and Puget Sound. The soil consists primarily of silty sand called Alderwood soil , derived from glacial �I drift. Cover material is not available onsite . The Midway II landfill is located at: Ii �I 24800 Pacific Highway South �I Kent, Washington The land use permit for -use of the site as a landfill �IProhibits the disposal of putrescible wastes . The site accepts commercial wastes , demolition and building wastes . Total tons .The site is not in compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards . The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has identified violations in the Minimum Functional Standards in its annual disposal permit review for 1982. The deficiencies I identified were the lack of a site work plan for a) surface I' and ground water monitoring , b) leachate collection and disposal , c) methane migration analysis and interception II' and a final cover plan. A compliance schedule has been developed to achieve compliance by November 1982 . (I The Midway landfill is open from 8: 00 am to 4: 30 pm week (� days except Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years . ' Figure D-10 Seattle-Midway Landfill Summary Table 1981 1982 AverageCompliance With Daily Forecast(') Minimus, ' 1981 Vehicular Site Site Life Functional Tonnage Traffic (Acres) Expectancy Standards Midway 149 ,773 36 55 19852) No Landfill ' (1)Assumptions : Present waste composition, volume, and technology (2)Three or more years from mid 1952 203 1 SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL Autoclaves at Hos itaIs , Hospitals in King County are required to autoclave or to chemically neutralize the infectious wastes generated onsite . Autoclaves and chemical neutralization processes are period- , ically inspected by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. The University of Washington Hospital operates four auto- , claves . The University is a state institution and subject to the regulatory control of the state , not the King County Minimum ' Functional Standards . After autoclaving or chemically neutral- izing, the wastes are incinerated at permitted incinerators . ' Sterilized wastes are usually consolidated and transported to one of the major hospital incinerators for disposal . Hospital i incinerators are included in Figure D-9 . ' Palmer Coking Coal Co . : Newcastle Landfill ' Palmer Coking Coal Company operates a landfill for the ' disposal of nonputrescible wastes at a site located Within Sections 26 and 27 , Township 24 North , Range ' landfill lies approximately 1 ,100 feet south of the Newcastle- Coal Creek Road and west andeast surrounded by land owned Of 148th Avenue S .E. (if extended) . The site is entirely 'ills portions , by the Pamer Coking Coal Company . The operation f P of the Bagley Pit of an abandoned coal strip mine and related ' subsidence areas associated with surface and subsurface mining activities. The site is 75. 0 acres . , Palmer Cg ol:in Coal Company' s Newcastle Landfall is allowed ' to accept lumber , building rubble and demolition mat Tial , brick , broken concrete , paper , plasterboard , g , 204 'I asphaltic roofing waste , rubber , soaps , fabrics , plastic , �I fiberglass , stumps , tree trunks and brush for disposal. The following materials are specifically prohibited from being dumped: toxic wastes of any kind, putzescible garbage , �I sewerage waste , animal wastes , hospital wastes , animal carcasses , chemical wastes , petroleum wastes or liquid wastes . II� The 1976 Unclassified Use Permit authorized the receipt of 40 ,000 cubic yards of material per year. The estimated annual volume in 1980 was 32 ,000 cubic yards per year , or � z depending on variations ea p g approximately per Y app Y 26 ,000 tons in the composition of the waste. There is a wide range in volume-to-weight ratios for demolition debris . The life expectancy of the site extends until 1990 based on existing II waste composition and volumes . However, demolition and i construction wastes are particularly susceptible to fluctua- tions based on the economy. p The hours of operation are 7 : 00 am to 7 : 00 pm on weekdays . The average daily level of truck traffic at the site amounts to 35 to 40 vehicles . Approximately 60 percent of these trucks are of the six-wheel type , 15 percent are rated at less than 28 ,000 pounds gross weight and 20 percent are I� semitrailer rigs with 20- to 35-yard capacities . Access to the Palmer Coking Coal Company Newcastle Landfill site +' from the urbanized part of the county is via Newcastle Road (80 percent of the users) and 158th Avenue S.E. (20 percent ' of the users) . tThe soils available on the site were disturbed during the mining era. The material used for cover consists of Beausite and Alderwood soils and overburden removed during the mininS. ' operations. it is more susceptible to erosion than cover materials containing forest duff. The use of the site is hampered by subsidence , secondary erosion in the subterranean tunnels and of pillars in cave areas associated with the mine t 205 workings . The Newcastle landfill operates on an unclassified use ' -permit from King County. The permit was first issued in 1970 and reissued in 1976 and again in 1981 for a period of five ' Figure D-11 Palmer Coking Coal Co. : Newcastle Landfill Summary 1982 ' (2)compliance With Average Forecast: Minin,-ar, ' Daily Site Life Functional 1981 Vehicular Site Expectancy Standards Ex Tonnage Traffic (Acres) P 25 ,600(1) 38 75 1990 ivO ' ',Newcastle yards estimated by ' (I)Estimated ; records are kept in cubic cubic yards with a Est 000 was 32 , operator (1980 volume cubic and for mixed o e per cu Y the s P d n ou P estimated weight of 1 ,600 p ' construction debris . ) volume and technolo v (2)Assumptions : Present waste composition , g. The site is not in compliance with the Minimum Functional years . Th Department of Public Health ' Standards . The Seattle-King County Functional. Standards in has identified violations in the Minimum The deficiencies its annual disposal permit review for 1982 • ' identified included the presence of fumeroles at the stump- coverage site , incomplete water sampling and analysis , uncon- due to scavenging or wind and bird harborage • trolled littering A compliance schedule has been approved. ' Mt . Olivet Cemeter /Pacific Land Reclaimation: osal of ' Mt . Olivet Cemetery operates a landfill for 1_he d1SP non utrescible wastes through its subsidiary , Pac:ific Land Re- p 206 �I claimation. The disposal site is located east of N.E. 3rd Street �I in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue N.E. in Renton. The City of Renton zoning of the site is GS-1 , a general classification district with a minimum lot size of 35 ,000 square feet. The 'I zoning of '-the surrounding areas is also GS-1 , S-1 and four dif- ferent residential densities (R-1 , R-2 , R-3 , and R-4) . The �I Renton Comprehensive Plan specifies the site as "Public/Quasi- Public . " �I The Mt. Olivet Cemetery has been engaged in a landfill opera- tion for demolition waste adjacent to its cemetery since 1974. The Mt . Olivet Cemetery is reclaiming a gravel pit and excava- tion site for future use as a cemetery. They have been operating II' without a Health Department disposal permit . The Mt. Olivet Cemetery projects that it will complete its I� landfill operation within 18 to 24 months . The ten-acre site will become a "permanent greenbelt to the City of Renton. " Materials currently being landfilled at the site are tree stumps , asphalt , concrete , brick block, dirt , clay, building debris , wood , brush and other materials associated with demolition such as I' sanitary landfill or fill material consisting of plastics , car bodies , refrigerators , stoves , or other similar bulk items per- mitted on the site. Annual tonnages disposed of at the site are unknown. Site users include : Alia, Inc . City Transfer of Kent Baugh Construction Concrete Coring & Cutting Bayley Construction Continental Dirt ' Blakley & Sons Delta Rail Boulevard Excavating Fruhling Trucking Briere' s Bulldozing Grice & Sons ' Briere Excavating H. & B. Trucking Harmond-Sword Construction Santana Trucking Hos Brothers Segale ' Iconco of Washington Severson Lige Dickson Construction Stonway Concrete McCann Trucking Sunset Demolition Meridian Excavating Tri-State Construction, Inc . ' Meridian Paving Valley Cement Merlino Westcoast Electric Pacific Rim Western Electric ' 207 Pitardi Trucking Whitescarver Bros . & Ace Bull- ' Renton Concrete dozing Rhine Wilson, Trucking & Excavating Robinson Trucking Wolford ' The site is quite irregular in topography with large depres- sions as much as 30 feet below the existing level of the platted ' portion of . the cemetery. The soils are Everett gravelly sandy loam with 5-15% slopes. Runoff is slow to medium and the ero- sion hazard is slight to moderate. A gravel pit covers much of the easterly portion of the property. There is very little I vegetation on the site consisting of scrub grass and some blackberries . Hydrological reports on the site provided by the operator indicate that the site has no apparent surface water ' problems in spite of previous and continued disruption and ur- banization in the area. , Operating hours are 9 : 00 a.m. to 3 : 00 p .m. Monday through Friday. ' Closure plans have been developed for conversion of the landfill to a cemetery upon completion of the final lifts ' and cover. The Cemetary has been placing five feet or more of clean dirt above the final lift. This clean material permits ' the construction of contour berms and other landscape features , which will remain on the site as greenbelt until such time as ' the Cemetery installs lawn crypts for human remains . At the time lawn crypts are installed, the earth is levelled and con- crete crypts from three to seven feet in height are placed to ' cover the site. An additional two and one-half feet of earth material , topsoil, and sod cover these crypts . The actual fill , material utilized to reclaim the site will be 11 to 15 feet or more below the surface of the Cemetery. The method has been ' used since 1974. 208 FIGURE D-12 'II Mt Olivet Cemetery's Pacific Land Reclamation Slmmary 1982 Average (2) Compliance With Daily ForecastMinimun 1981 Vehicular Site Site Life Functional uu Tonnage Traffic (Acres) Expectancy Standards Mt . Olivet Unknow1)Unknown 10 1984 No(3) 7Mr . James Colt , President , Mt. Olivet Cemetary Company, 1) declines to divulge information on volumes or tonnages . He states that "material coming onto Mt. Olivet Cemetery' s I' property is measured by the size of truck: in example , demolition trailers are 45 - 65 yards , dump trucks are 10 yards , dump truck and trailers are 18 yards . These I' trucks are recorded by size of truck and not by the number of yards of debris in the truck. " 2) Assumptions : Present waste composition , volume and tech- nology. 3) Mt . Olivet Cemetery does not have a permit from the Seattle- King County Department of Public HEalth to operate a land- fill . Application has been made for a disposal permit . Compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards will be ' determined at the time a complying or noncomplying permit is granted. Industrial Mineral Products : Ravensdale Silica Sand Mine ' Industrial Mineral Products operates an industrial waste landfill disposal site at the Ravensdale Silica Sand Mine at ' 2600 Black Diamond-Ravensdale Highway (one-half mile west of Ravensdale , one-half mile south of Ravensdale-Black Diamond Highway) . The Industrial Mineral Products disposal site accepts only inorganic , noncombustible cement kiln dust from the Ideal Cement Company. Daily quantities average 200 tons ' and seldom exceed 300 tons . The annual volume in 1981 was 120 ,000 tons for a partial year of operation. It is projected ' 209 to increase to 600 ,000 tons by 1991. The kiln dust is highly ' alkiline (12. 4 pH) . An analysis of the waste provided by the -operator shows the waste does not exceed Environmental Protec- tion Agency standards for maximum concentration of contaminants and is therefore not considered a hazardous waste. Two commercial/industrial trucks are used to transport the kiln dust from the Ideal Cement Company in Seattle to the , Industrial Mineral Products site . Each truck makes five to eight trips per day, six days a week. ' The Industrial Mineral Products site is not in compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards . The Seattle-King ' County Health Department has identified violations in the Minimum Functional Standards in its annual disposal permit , review for 1982 . A compliance schedule has been issued for control of effluent from mixing of the flue dust and coal mine drainage. ' FIGURE D-13 ' Industrial Mineral Products : Ravensdale Silica Sand Mine 1981 1962 ' Average Compliance With Daily Forecast(2) Mininlx ' 1981(1) Vehicular Site Site Life Functional Tonnage Traffic (Acres) Expectancy Standards Ravensdale 120 ,000 7 2000 No ' (') Initial year of operation, started in mid-year ' (2)Assumptions : present waste composition volume and technology 210 ' �I ■I Waste Water Treatment Sludge Disposal �I In the mid-1960' s Metro implemented a sludge IIIdisposal method which involved deep-water marine disposal into Puget Sound through the West Point outfall. Metro' s sludge treatment and handling is currently centralized at the West Point treatment plant. Under-watered , anaezob- ��II ically digested sludges from both the Carkeek Park and Richmond All Beach plants are transported to West Point . Raw, primary p treated and waste activated sludge from the Renton plant is pumped to West Point for disposal . West Point' s three anaerobic digesters have an eight-million gallon capacity and are designed to operate at 970F with a residence time of from 9 to 15 days . The digestion process results in a 50 to 60 percent reduction of volatile solids . Digested sludge is then dewatered with the aid of polymer floculents to achieve a sludge cake that contains about 18 percent solids . The residual is then transported to a dis- posal or reuse site . Secondary digested sludge from the c. Alki plant is currently hauled directly to the Cedar Hills landfill for disposal . I Metro' s current sludge output , with the exception of the !' 300 dry tons per year from the Alki plant , is processed at the West Point plant. At the present time , the only method I' of transporting sludge to a disposal or reuse site is by truck. The treatment plants contain little or no sludge 11 storage capacity so that an empty trailer must always be ready. Water is a key factor in the sludge-management process . After digestion, but before dewatering, Metro' s sludge ' currently contains from 1.5 to 12 percent solids (though most ' 211 typically 3 percent) , making it highly liquid . Sludge is dewatered in order to reduce volume and consequently trans- ' portation costs . Sludge disposal and reuse analysis during the past 15 years have been oriented toward examing the advantages and ' disadvantages of alternative methods for disposal . The methods examined have included deepwater disposal , soil rehabilitation , ' crop fertilization, energy recovery, sanitary landfill disposal , forest land fertilization, and reclamation of massively disturbed strip mining soils . FIGURE D-14 EXISTING WEST POINT SYSTEM ' SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS SLUDGE FROM TRUCK TRANSPORT , _ SPS 1 (SEMI-SOLID) I LANDFILL TE*TORARY STORAGE ' MON 1 TORI27 G RE SLUDGE SPR FOPEST SITE TRHA DLING AND TRUCK APFLICATIO'; TEISPORARY STORAGE TRANSPORT TO FOREST SITE MONITORING SITE VEGETATIVE ' RECLAMATION SITE SITE DISCING C0%'ER SEEDING DIRECT APPLICATION MONITORING 212 'I Metro has sponsored, financed or otherwise investigated �I disposal and reuse methods falling into two basic categories : fertilizer and soil improvement including reforestation which have focused on land application for the purpose of 'I improving soil quality and vegetation growth. A series of projects have consistently demonstrated that sludge is highly 'I effective when used in this fashion. These projects have also revealed a variety of site-specific problems including the potential for groundwater contamination and high site- management costs . �I Metro is in the process of developing a 20-year system wide sludge-management plan. Two critical constraints influence the planning: the requirement for a systemwide design and anticipated future treatment of waste activated sludge ex- clusively at the Renton facility. Other factors taken into account in evaluating alternative sludge management systems include sludge characteristics and quality , legal (or regula- tory) requirements , and area characteristics . ' Septage Septage consists of the residual from septic tanks , ' cesspools , grease traps , seepage pits , vault privies , chemical toilets , or other receptacles of human sewage. it is unlawful f cleaning to engage in the business o g facilities and collecting septage , transporting , or disposing of Septage without a registration and inspection certificate from the Seattle-King ' County Health Department. There are 41 septic tank pumpers authorized to operate in I:ing County. Disposal of septage is permitted only at sites and in a ' manner approved by the Health Department. The only disposal site for septic system sludge is the Metro treatment plant at 213 Renton. Septic tank pumping is anaerobic and noroially consists of one to two percent solids. These characteristics adversely affect the wastewater treatment system sibility to absorb and treat septage . Septage disposal is not permitted at city or county transfer stations . Disposal of septage at landfills is also prohibited . ' King County has several sewer systems which are not tributary to the Metro system. Each of these systems runs one ' or more waste water treatment plants . The waste water treatment sludge generated by each operator and its disposition is shown , in Figure D-15 . Sewage Sludge Composting , GroCo Inc . ' GroCo operates a 3 . 1 acre site in the City of' Kent for the purposes of composting Metro sewage sludge . GroCo Compost is produced by composting Metro' s dewatered , digested sludge frog. , the West Point Treatment Plant in fir and hemlock sawdust. GroCo uses a sawdust to sludge ration of 3 : 1 to 4: 1. The sawdust and sludge are combined in a "mixing area"' and piled , for initial composting. After three to four weeks , it is shredded and piled into a large windrow. The material in the ' windrow is mixed to subject all portions to the heat of com- posting. Finally , the material is piled in a large storage ' pile for marketing. The product , GroCo Compost is marketed as plant food and soil conditioner. Records of sales are ' kept . All customers are advised of precautionary notes regard- ing usage . , The GroCo , Inc . composting operation is located at the Kent facility of Sawdust Supply Company. The facility' s , 214 FIGURE D-15 DISPOSAL OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT SLUDGES OUTSIDE THE METRO SYSTEM 1981 Sludge Dic osal Troduction �_— f' Des Moines 240 cubic Yards per Sold at $2 per p Sewer District year (25% dry solids) pard to private parties 2000 gallons per Trucked by tanker City of Duvall year by the City of !Monroe for dis- posal in Snoho- mish County City of Enumclaw 500,000 gallons per Distributed to pear (4% solids) farmers for agricultural(l) ' application Lakehaven Sewer 211.5 cubic yards' 11 Dludrebtoes ri- District got ds)z (36L(2) vategparties at no cost for garden use 1,000 pounds per Buried at a waste North Send year (dry solids) site on city-own- td property on Edgewick Road ' 9 tons per year Contained in eff- Snoqualmie luent from the treatment facility. ' discharged into the Snoqualmie River ome rs Southwest Suburban yeare(30-354rsolpds) ater id to$2.00hper pick- ' Sewer District 7 up load for home use exluding vege- table gardens (1)Demand exceeds supply. Sludge is expected to be Gold ' next year. (2)The Lakehaven Sewer District hall programmed a sludge management study for 1983. Curr nt ' poJectsdercon tructwill reduce sludge g ughdit ion $f clarifiers. The Lakota treatment plant produced l6b.5 o 2u3icyacds of sofdse in ludgclin119Eilhe Redondo plant produced 215 address is 7401 South 202nd, Kent . , GroCo, Inc . receives a maximum daily volume of 150 cubic ' yards of Metro 18 percent solids sludge. The annual volume does not exceed 3 ,000 cubic yards . Future volume's are un- known because of the experimental nature of the composting , project. The total volume of Metro sludge in the experiment is 18 ,000 cubic yards (15 ,000 tons) . The frequency of sludge ' delivery to the site is irregular and occurs on demand by GroCo or at the convenience of Metro. ' GroCo. , Inc . operates under a sludge composting permit , from the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. GroCo does not currently meet all the pertinent require- ments of the Minimum Functional Standards . The site de- ' ficiencies and correction schedules are noted : the available sewer hookup is to be utilized by December 1982 , to direct ' contaminated surface water , presently flowing offsite , into a sanitary treatment system and proper identification is to ' be provided at the site entrance . The Health Department expects GroCo to be in the compliance by the end of 1982 . 216 it NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE FINAL DISPOSAL SYSTEM 1. Given currently known solid waste disposal technology, there is a continued need for sanitary landfill as a disposal technique. To the extent that the need for long-term land- fill disposal capacity exists , whether as a primary disposal technique or backup/residue disposal technique for an energy recovery system, Cedar Hills Sanitary Landfill is the long-term landfill for King County. To improve Cedar Hills' ability to provide long-term disposal capacity ' for King County, a Long-Range Usage Plan (including a closure plan) should be funded and carried out. ' 2 . All King y o Count landfills will be operated in compliance with the Minimum Functional Standards . Major improvements to ' upgrade facilities to current or revised Minimum Functional Standards should be provided through capital improvement ' programs . ' 3. King County' s small , rural landfills should be closed as they reach the end of their economically useful life. The solid ' waste formerly handled by the closed landfills will be absorbed by the transfer station system. Appropriate changes to the transfer station system should be made as needed. 4. Vashon Island is currently served by a small landfill located on the island. Access to the island is only by ferry service . Therefore , it may not be feasible for the transfer station system to handle solid waste from ' Vashon Island. A feasibility study should d be done to investigate alternatives for reducing the amount of waste that needs to be landfilled on the island, thus extending the remaining useful life of the Vashon Island landfill . Modular incineration energy recovery is one such alternative . 217 1 5. ) The availability and ease of application of soil cover material at the Cedar Hills landfill during the wet season will require continuing evaluation by the Seattle-King Department of Public Health. This seasonal concern may require the need for additional or alternative cover con- trols such as the use of offsite cover material and/or establishment of an energy resource recovery facility. Cedar Hills is quickly evolving into the prominent land- fill site in King County. The closure of King County' s small rural landfills and Seattle' s Kent Highlands and Midway operations will result in an associated :increase of solid waste tonnage entering the Cedar Hills site . This could accelerate the demand for added coves- controls . , 6 . ) Analysis by Metro has recommended a preliminary sludge management program. The intermediate reco=endations allow certain general conclusions for processing, handl- ing and disposal of sludge . a) In-plant processing - where stabilization is required , anaerobic digestion at both plants is the most cost- effective approach available. The alternative concen- ttation methods which would be considered depend on the ultimate disposal option selected but will involve ' either belt or pressure filtration. b) Silviculture - both of the management options which in- volve the use of sludge as a forest soil and plant amendment appear to hold exceptional long-term promise . ' This conclusion is based on the results of the cost- effectiveness analysis , previous Metro research , and currently growing interest on the part of private timber companies . t c) Soil improvement - utilizing sludge as a soil improve- rs to have significant poten- went amendment also appea tial. Land for this purpose appears to be available , 218 within Ring County, which would generally mean reduced transport distances. This is a need for coo coordination of soil applications with land use planning and growth management policies , existing and propsoed. d) Composting - while this option also possesses strong potential , it would probably work most successfully on a relatively limited basis . This is based on the fact that Metro's sludge contents would result in composted product which would be eligible only for restricted and on the very modest success GroCo , Inc . has enjoyed to date in marketing a composted material using Metro sludge . 219 �w ■ ■ EXISTING CONDITIONS: RECYCLING ■ Resource recovery is the general term used to describe the extraction of economically usable materials from waste . ■ Resource recovery may take place on the premises of the waste generator or it may take place after the waste leaves the control of the generator and enters the waste stream. The specific forms ■ of resource recovery discussed in this section are recycling an reuse , regardless of the point of extraction. Conversion of waste ■ to energy is sometimes considered to be a form of resource recovery but it is discussed in a separate section. ■ In recycling, economically valuable material is separated from other waste and processed into usable or marketable material. The ■ resulting material can then be used to produce a variety of products . Its use is not limited to the production of the productsfrom which ■the recycled material was obtained. Materials most frequently ex- tracted from waste for recycling are glass , aluminum, steel bulk- grade paper (newspaper and corrugated) , the high-grade office paper (computer paper , office paper , etc . ) . ■ In reuse , a product is separated from the waste , cleaned , graded and put back into use . The most common example of reuse ■ is the returnable beverage bottle. Other products that are often extracted from the waste stream for reuse include tires , clothes and furniture. � The mainline recycling of readily recyclable materials pro- ■ vides an estimated 300 direct fulltime jobs in King County. The 221 ■ the waste stream, the amount recycled, and the amount making ■ its way into the general waste stream for disposal . ■ RESIDENTIAL MATERIALS RECYCLING The citizens that recycle, tend to do so in diverse patterns . ■ The most common pattern is donations to church, clubs , schools , and recycling centers . Recycling for cash at a recycling center amounts to about one-quarter of the recycling visits of the general population. ■ Materials Recycled The materials with the highest rate of recycling by the ■ general population are , in order, "white goods" (large home appliances) , newspapers , aluminum cans , and glass . ■ About 90 percent of all white goods in Seattle are recycled . The high rate of recycling is due to the relative ease of recycl- ■ ing compared with other disposal opportunities . There are inde- pendent operators who will collect white goods for reuse or recycling. City of Seattle provides for white goods recycling ■ at its transfer stations . The rate of recycling of white goods is probably lower in the unincorporated portions of the county ■ because of the absence of convenient recycling facilities for white goods and the opportunities to dump white goods illegally . ■ Newspaper is the next most frequently recycled material and is the number one material in terms of total tons recycled by the general population. From 31 to 38 percent of the newspaper in Seattle was recycled in 1978 . (2) The current 1982 rate of news- ■ paper recycling approaches 50 percent . The high rate of newspaper recycling is attributable to the ease of recycling and the variety ■ or convenience of recycling options . Newspapers are easily segre- gated and stored pending recycling. Habits involved in recycling newspapers are more deeply engraved because of traditional "paper w drives" by charitable organizations . ■ Ibid. P. 33 (2) Ibid. p. 7 ■ 224 In Seattle , all aluminum (cans and foil) was recycled at a rate of about 35 percent in 1978 and constituted virtually all of the aluminum being recycled by the general population. Alumi- num cans are recycled at a rate of 52 to 55 percent . - Glass , in the form of beer bottles or as glass for cullet , is ' the other commonly recycled item from the home. Approximately 16 percent of the glass was recycled in 1978. Changes in purchase ' arrangements have been designed to increase the reuse of glass and have supported an increase in glass recycling. ' Other materials are recycled in relatively insignificant quan- tities . Two-liter plastic bottles have arrived in the market too ' recently to provide sufficient data for analysis . Recycling used motor oil by the general population occurs at a low rate . Of the fifty percent of the people who change their own oil , less than ten percent acutally recycle their oil by returning it to a gas �. station or used-oil depot. Oil which is not recycled usually enters the environment at widely dispersed points , where even small. quantities of oil can be detrimental to aquatic resources . Recycling Oonortunities ' The general population typically recycles by delivering re- cyclable materials to either a full-service or specialty recycling center. Recycling facilities identified in the 1982 Solid Waste ' Management Board survey , from the State Department of Ecology hot- line , and from Previous reports are listed in Figure R-2 . The figure shows materials received by each recycling facility. ' Full-sere recycling cling centers are those that accept three Y or more types of recyclable materials. Specialty centers accept: fewer than three types of materials . Either type of center may purchase recyclable materials , in which case it is considered to be a retail center. Full-service centers have the potential to provide longer hours and more complete staffing for buy-back ' 225 FIGURE R-2 ' RECYCLING FACILITIES IN KING COUNTY Page 1 Metals Glass Paper Other ' m d m m C L rl Ld L u V m — 0 m U o a+ a m u c G 7 W oM to 1p OU U - u �. 7 H .r- t Q d 6 w m 4 G w ti d 19 L Po. O Z U {•. O O U G O Age of Aluminum Recycling • i Allied Paper Products • • Arrow Metals and Supply • • 11 Ballard Recycling Center • • • • • 1� Bethlehem Steel Corp. • • Blackwatch Drum & Bugle Corp. • ' - I 1 Boomerang Ciothin Bothell Sea Scouts* • • • • Boy Scout Troup 41270 • r C b B Distributors • • Cascade Coors • Central Seattle Recycling Center • • • Committee to Save the Earth Community Enterprises of Issaquah • • • • ' Co=unity Recycling Service • • Conbela* Consolidated Beverage • ' Eastside Recycling* —' • • • • • " Fibres International* Fremont Recycling Center • • • • • ' Friends of Youth • Glass Depot • Ideal Pa ez Recycling Co.* • • • • • • • 3w IE • • • wh Independent Paper Stock Co.* • • 5 • • • iil Keppler Feed and Tack* King Co. Fire District 4120* • • • f ' • Lake Washington High School • Lion's Club Drop-off • 'Joanne Lussier Pick-up Service *Verified, PSCOG Survey 5 6 'Car batteries; *Verified ZPaper Bags: 3Magazinesip4Scrap Paper: 1A11 types oflmetals; 13Grea books; $Recreational equipment; talc; i6 pewriterUsed lribbons; 1 Engines; "Appliances; bottles; stic POP 2OSilver; bottles; 15Non-ferrous metals; Typ 21Propane tanks. 226 I' FIGURE R-2 ' RECYCLING FACILITIES IN KING COUNTY Page 2 ' Metals Class Paper Other i, V G u u 6 o r A I U t d 101, .., o w o 0 Maple Valley Metals* • • • 5 • McDonalds Book Exchange 7 • • • • • Midway Recycling • Mike's Rec •clin * • ' Mono Therm Northwest • 3 Mount Si Recycling • • • • • • 715 MRI Corporation • i National Can Co.* • • ' • • 1 • • • • • aI6 1 Neighborhood Recycling Center � Nortih King County Coors* • • Northwestern Glass Co.* • • Northwest Chemical Service 20 • 1`i Northwest Metal Rec clers ' • 1 • • • Northwest Reclamation • • Northwest Tank Service 1 Nothing New ' Oi pic Rec clin Or anization for Change Unlimited • Pacific Fibres ' PCC East Co-op Pete Edgar Used Pallets ' Premium Distributin • • Propane Service Co. uemetco Inc. 14 Rainbow Recvclin Rainier Brewing Co. • • 5 711 Recovery Processors* • • • • • • Recycling Depot* • • 5 • • • • • • —_ • • • • Redmond Green Survival • *Verified, PSCOG Survey 4 S s of setals: 6Phone books; 7Car batteries; 1Cloth*s; 2Paper gags: 3Magazines• Scrap Paper; All type _ BRecreational equipment; 9books• i4sed Pallets; 11Radiators: 12i8TeLliances•s1�Wine bottles bottles; ' bottles; 15Non-ferrous setals; 16Typevriter ribbons; Fa�gines; App 21Propane tanks. 227 FIGURE R-2 ' RECYCLING FACILITIES IN KING COUNTY Page 3 Metals Glass Paper Other ' m , y m m O1 u � ►+ v i m C 7 m V u u 6 E c i Reynolds Aluminum* • Roosevelt Recycling Station • • • • • • ' Sacred Heart Church • • • • i Safeway Stores • i � Salvation Army a ' Seadrunar • • • • • • Gary Sears Drop-off Centers • Seattle City Solid Waste Utility • • • 5 • • • 19 • • 3;2 Seattle Recycling • • • • j Seattle Times Variety Club • • - Six-Pack City • • • • Sno ValleX Recycling • 15 • • 7 South Count Recycling • • SPRUCE St. Catherine's Church* • • 15 S'ternoff Metals Corp... Thermo uard Insulation* • ' Thomas Trotter • • • Union Gospel Mission • • 5 • • • • • • 3 U. W. Student Drop-off • U.W. Transport Service* • • • • Valley Metals and Steel Supply • • 5 • I 1~ 7 Value Rec7clin • • • • I J. Washington Co. • • _ I Western Word Processing* • I West Seattle Recycling Center (YMCA)* • • • 5 • • • • • 3 6 • • • • 4 i We erhauser Company* 20 X-Ray Chemical Service 1? I Karen York Recycling *Verified, PSCOG Survey 1Clothes; 2Paper Bags; 3lfagazines 4Scrap Paper; 5A11 types of metals; 6Phone books; liar batteries: BRecreational equipment; 9Books; iOUsed Pallets; "Radiators; 12Tires 13Grease; 1`2-liter plastic Bop bottles; 1 Non-ferrous setals; 16Typewriter ribbons; j7Engines; 1BAppliances; 19Wine bottles; 2 Silver; 21Propane tanks. , 228 services as retail recycling centers . Full-service retail re- cycling centers are identified in Figure R-2 by the diversity of materials accepted. ' Full-service drop-off centers operate like retail centers but with some exceptions , do not pay the recycler for materials delivered. Some full-service dropoff centers will pay for a single material , such as beer bottles , and accept all other re- cyclable materials . Dropoff facilities typically provide spe- cialty recycling services for one or two materials . Stationary dropoff recycling centers use conveniently located containers for one or more materials . They are frequently located in park- ing lots . Some full-service recycling centers operate satellite ' dropoff facilities . Unattended dropoff facilities typically use detachable containers , 55-gallon drums , or small sheds for the ' deposit of recyclables . Oil recycling opportunities for the general population are limited. Oil is not accepted by many of the full-service re- cycling centers. Most gas stations are cooperative about accept- ing used oil from the public since the gas stations can receive ' seven to ten cents a gallon or more for used oil. In 1980 , monies appropriated by Environmental Protection ' Agency through h the Salmon Enhancement Program were used to fund g an oil-recycling program in Bellevue. Approximately half of the gas stations (25) in the city agreed to participate in the pro- gram by posting signs notifying the public of their willingness to accept used motor oil . Volunteers , such as the Boy Scouts , distributed posters to participating service situations and flyers to stores that sell oil . The program continues without federal funding. The number of gas stations participating in the program has increased to include almost all the stations in the 48 city .( ) Major end users of recyclable materials sometimes accept materials directlyfrom the general public. The dynamic nature 229 I of the recycling"-system has produced a variety of types and combi- nations of facilities and services which suit the needs of recyclers tion. The different facilities test and the general popula t the mar- ket suitability of a variety of approaches . Home collection of recyclable materials is discussed in the collection system. 1 COMMERCIAL MATERIALS RECYCLING The commercial sector recycles a far greater percentage of its waste than the residential sector . Several of the materials ' which make up the bulk of the waste generated by commercial acti- vities have recycling rates of about 50 percent. In Seattle , for example , from 44 to 47 percent of all corrugated containers and from 42 to 47 percent of all high-grade paper were recycled in 1978 . The countywide ide rate of bulk commercial sector recycling ' of corrugated and newspaper increased to approximately 50 percent of the available waste in 1981 in spite of the depressed market . Most of the corrugated being recycled originates in the com- mercial sector . It is either separated and baled by waste gener- ators such as department or grocery stores , collected by independent operators , or is sorted from the general waste. Ideal Paper Recy- cling Company culls the waste at the Evergreen Disposal transfer station for recyclable materials . Bayside Disposal is planning to , operate a transfer and recycling facility which will sort selected loads of commercial waste for corrugated and metals . Bayside Dis- posal. expects to extract 500 tons per month of corrugated from the waste when it commences operation. In 1978 the Seattle Recycling and Waste Reduction Project estimated that 40 ,000 tons per year , or slightly less than half of the corrugated in the waste stream was being recycled. The Puget Sound Council of Governments survey indicates a similar level of recycling in 1982 when 36 ,000 to 38 ,000 tons were reportedly recycled by the survey respondents . The market prices were depressed for corrugated in 1981 . The price level was sufficiently low that the 1981 recovery tonnage , i . , p. 7 230 is indicative of a base level of recycling. Theaslevel inis sustained in part by avoided cost of disposal . Increases dis- posal cost are expected to raise the amount of recycling which is ■ not sensitive to the price paid for the recycled commodity. Commercial-sector paper goods in the form of keypunch cards ■ and computer printouts have traditionally been recycled. Office recycling of post-consumer white ledger has increased significantly in recent years . Major recyclers have actively stimulated in-office • recycling. In 1978 , approximately roximatel 14,000 tons of white ledger , manila cards and printouts were recycled ; approximately 45 percent ■ of the amount discarded. By 1981 the total annual tonnage had reached 26 , 500 tons ; approximately 15 ,000 tons of office ledger ■ and keypunch cards and 12 ,000 tons of computer byproducts . In excess of 70 percent of the oil that is recycled is from ■ the industrial and commercial sector. The estimated percentage .of used oil collected nationally for each sector is : retail in- cluding gas station operations--22 percent , commercial--55 percent , industrial--29 percent(2) A 55 percent recovery for the commer- cial sector is close to the estimated for recoverable oil ■ after consumption and use in engines.3There are no organize efforts by government to increase the percentage of used oil re- by the industrial sector in King County or Washington State . The marketplace will probably be the driving force behind increased ■ oil recycling for the industrial sector. INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS RECYCLING ■ Industrial wastes are recycled through the Evergreen Disposal Company transfer station and Ideal Paper Recycling at Pier 35 . ■ Approximately 52 ,000 tons of general industrial waste pass through the Evergreen Disposal Company transfer station per year . of that ■ total , 2 ,000 tons per year are recycled by Ideal Paper. Recycled Li p�, S��e (2) ashin ricatin -Oil �Conum t1�3 nd Dis osiational orton . catia es , . ci P• Petroleum Refiners (3) Ibid. 4 '■ 231 ■ In the past , local price fluctuations have been largely dependent on the forest products industry. Figure R-4 shows the recyclable materials markets in the Seattle area. ■ FIGURE R-4 RECYCLABLE MATERIALS MARKET-PURCHASERS OF o READILY RECYCLABLE MATERIALS ■ l(ETALS CLASS PAPER OTHER ■ a q e 'o m q u Y u q .ti q e v o a m i q ■ „F., tl■ y � �I c L 6 V q • W L e E L f. C U ao Bethlemen Steel 1 a • 1 • Bloch Steel Industries* • • ■ Chemical Processors, Inc. • • • i Conbela* • • • • • • • • Fibres International* • • • • a ■ Ideal Paper Co.* • a • a s a • • a Independent Paper Stock Co.* a a • • J. Washington Co.* a Liquid Waste Disposal Co. a ■ Maralco Aluminum* • MRI Corp. • Northwest Steel Rollin Mills • Northwestern Glass Co.* • Pacific Iron 6 Metal Co.* • Premium Distributors* a Rainier Brewin Co.* a ■ Reynolds Aluminum Recycling Co. • a Reynolds Metals • Seattle Iron 6 Metal* • • ■ Sternoff Metals Corp.* • • Thermoguard Insulation Co. a Weyerhaeuser a • ■ *Also accept quantities from the general public. Compiled by the City of Seattle Recycling and Resource Recovery Program (1980), and the King Subregional Council/Solid Waste Management Board (1981). ■ 234 ■ The receptivity of the marketplace in Seattle to the readily recyclable materials and the processing and use of those materials by end users was thoroughly described in the City of Seattle' s Proposed Recycling and Waste Reduction Strategy. The strategy ' report is drawn on heavily for the market for recyclable materials . Deletions have been made to remove dated material and new infor- mation has been added. Newspaper The demand for newspaper is determined by its three primary end users : the overseas market , de-inking, and insulators . Much ' of Seattle' s news is sold to overseas markets in Japan and Korea , where it is used in the manufacture of fiberboard and newsprint . The volume of the export market makes it a major factor in the price of local newspaper. Tranportation costs and disruptions affect the supply to the Far East . Newspaper can be repulped , 'de-inked, ' and made into fresh newsprint . Publishers Paper Cor-- poration near Portland operates two mills which, after modifica- tion, will use up to 450 tons per day of old newspaper. use otic mills require a steady supply of raw materials . The use ikof recyclable paper by local mills varies inversely with fluctua- tions in the availability of wood fiber. Labor strikes in mills land transportation also affect the amount of recyclable fiber used. Cellulosic insulation is manufactured from shredded newspaper . IThe insulation business has experienced tremendous growth because of rising energy costs . Insulation is expected to continue to provide a market for old newspaper in the future. Insulators re- quire more newspaper in the winter as the demand for insulation increases . In off months , manufacturers may cease buying or may sell their excess supply to their recyclers. Two other factors are important in newspaper recycling. The inventory of paper kept by large end users tends to mitigate the effects of short-term demand variations and insulates these users ' (1)Robert 1)Robert Lowe and James McMahon, "Proposed Recycling and Waste Reduction Strategy for the City of Seattle, Volume Two , back- ground round Information," January 7 , 1981, pp. 37-41. 235 1 from extreme market fluctuations . End users may stockpile large amounts of paper ; and then, when newspaper prices are very high , , they can reduce their purchases allowing the market to adjust to supply and demand. There are no major stockpilers of newspaper in the northwest . The other factor is that the use of waste paper as a feedstock is increasing, although the overall recovery rate is decreasing because of increases in total mill output. Corrugated Old corrugated is used in the manufacture of a variety of paperboard products , such as boxboard (e. g. , cereal boxes) , liner- ' board, the components of corrugated, and tube , can, and drum stock. The demand for old corrugated is expected to increase with increased production of products manufactured from recycled corrugated. The primary recovery mechanism for corrugated in Seattle :is by either hand picking from mixed commercial waste or by baling at the point of use. Baling is done by larger retail stores and has increased significantly in the last few years . As a result , nearly all corrugated that is generated in large quantities is recycled. Until recently, recycling opportunities for small generators of ' corrugated have been inconvenient or too expensive. Several re- cyclers now provide pickup , baling and recycling. Pickup services are available on a scheduled or on a request basis . ' High-Grade Paper The market for high-grade paper is a function of the price and availability of wood chips and/or market pulp . When the sup- ply of wood chips increases , the demand for recyclable ;paper tends to decrease . Old white ledger paper is used primarily :in the manu- facture of tissue and printing or writing papers . The use of high-grade paper in the production of tissue is expected to in- crease . The use of high-grade paper in the production of print- ing and writing paper is expected to remain constant at 1980 levels . The demand for old high-grade paper is expected to increase slightly depending on the use of high-grade paper by local paper mills . 236 Mixed Paper Mixed paper is used in the manufacture of roofing material cores and tube stock. Some major recyclers offer special rates ' to commercial accounts for separate collection of mixed paper but the impact on the market or reuse rate is not known. Facili- ties exist , and another is planned, that allow hand separation of mixed paper from the waste stream. ' Glass Cullet (crushed glass) . Northwestern Glass Company is the only local market for cullet . Owens Illinois backhauls some cullet to Portland. Northwestern specifies that cullet must be separated by color and free of contaminants . Cullet has for many years been a stable but low-priced commodity. North- western has experimented with using increased amounts of cullet , and may be able to double their use of cullet from 12 , 000 to 24 , 000 tons per year. Northwestern Glass Company has experi- mented with several price and incentive structures to increase and stabilize their supply of cullet . Current purchases of cul- ' let still average about 12 ,000 tons per year . The market is expected to remain constant at about this level . The market cannot accommodate 100 percent recovery of the approximately 60 , 000 tonsYer year of cullet available in Seattle' s waste stream or P additional amounts available in the balance of the county. Beer Bottles . The local breweries , Rainier, Olympia, General (Lucky Lager) , and Blitz-Weinhard in Portland, buy back the bottles in which their beer was sold. These bottles are washed and re- ifilled. When the buy-back program began in the early 1970 's , recovery rates were modest. The breweries worked with a few ' private recycling firms to establish retail prices (for the pub- lic) and wholesale prices (for recovery operations dealing in larger quantities) . As the number of recycling centers in the le , Olympia state increased, so did recovery levels. For example , Brewery now claims to recover about 75 percent of all the glass 237 containers it distributes in the state . Rainier claims a 55 per- cent recovery rate of its 11-oz. nonrefillable and 90 percent of the standard stubby tavern bottle it distributes . What. started. , as a public relations program is now part of the supply system for the breweries . The cost of used bottles , even after deduct- ' ing breakage and handling costs , is less than the cost of new bottles . The breweries will purchase all of the containers meet- , ing specifications that are returned to them. Plastic . Small amounts of commercially generated plastic ' have been recycled in the Seattle area. Post-consumer recycling is limited to two-liter plastic soft-drink bottles . The bottles are baled and sold to Plastics Research and Development Corporation , a San Francisco broker , which is selling the material to recyclers overseas . Steel Cans . MRI Corporation in Seattle , a subsidiary of provides the only market for steel cans American Can Corporation, p Y in western Washington. The detinning plant is part of a nation- ' wide network intended to provide a market for scrap from can manu- facturing plants . A clean product is shipped from can makers to MRI , where the material is treated chemically to separate the tin ' from the steel . The steel is sold to a local steel manufacturer as high-grade scrap . The tin is made into ingots and :sold. The remaining sludge-like residue contains metal in low concentration and is exported. , The post-consumer steel-can market has been marginal for private recyclers . Old food cans are bulky, light-weight and costly to store and ship. Improperly cleaned cans provide vector harborage. Steel cans must be reasonably clean and have the labels removed because paper absorbs the tin removed from the cleaning solution. Food residues degrade the solution. Cans which are not flat take up more space in the process equipment. Cans that have one end collect and waste the detinning solution. Historically, the price received for the material has been 238 too low to stimulate much interest in post-consumer recovery. IRI has increased the price they pay for material meeting certain specifications . The price varies with the market value of steel. ' Between 1976 to 1979, prices more than doubled, while tonnage nearly quadrupled. These volumes are insignificant , however, when com- pared to the amount of unrecovered material . This market could consume all of the post-consumer steel-can scrap in Seattle' s waste stream. ' Bi-Metal Cans . Bi-metal cans are tin-plated steel cans with ' aluminum 'pop' tops . They generally are used to contain carbonated or malt beverages ; they are also used to package certain goods , such as peanuts . Bi-metal beverage cans are difficult to recycle in Seattle because the aluminum is a contaminant in recycling the steel , and the market value is not high enough to cover the cost of preparing and shipping these cans to markets in other areas . 'Bi-metal cans amount to only about one percent of Washington' s can market and are continuing to decline in importance. Aluminum Cans and Foil . Historically, the recovery of alumi- num has been primarily by the large aluminum companies and recyc].- ing centers . Cans , containers , and packaging products account for ' 20 percent of aluminum used nationwide. The demand for aluminum can scrap can be attributed in part to the fact that it is directly substitutable in production facilities (after proper preparation.) 1 for the raw material , alumina . Using recycled aluminum saves 95 percent of the energy required to convert bauxite to alumina and then to aluminum. An increase in the cost of energy or bauxite results in an increased demand for can scrap. The tolling program 1 begun by Alcoa has also increased the demand for aluminum scrap . Companies which purchase sheet stock from Alcoa can receive a dis- count by trading recycled aluminum cans for sheet stock in accord- ance with pricing formulae. Aluminum-can recovery, at about 55 percent in 1978 and 60 percent in 1981 , demonstrates the results of an overwhelming de- mand for material. The other 40 percent of aluminum products ' 239 remain in the waste stream. Foil makes up an estimated 15 percent of the aluminum in the waste stream. Public awareness is exten- sive and the industry actively promotes aluminum recycling with paid advertising in all media. As the price continues to rise , recovery rates will increase . , Used Oil . The used-oil haulers claim that they can sell all the used oil they obtain. Reprocessed oil sells at approximately ' one-half the price of virgin oil . Used oil can be re-refined and used again as a lube oil . Re-refined oil can be just: as good as L virgin oil . Used oil also can be reprocessed and used as a heat- ing oil to be burned as a fuel. There are no re-refineries in , Washington State so most of the used oil collected by the approxi- mately two or three dozen used-oil haulers is sold to be burned , as a fuel by such companies as Weyerhaeuser. The growth of the oil re-refinery business depends somewhat on the success of the new technology. A new re-refinery process is being developed by Phillips 66. Mohawk of Canada' s plant in Vancouver' B .C . , using this process , is finished but has yet to work out all the "bugs in the system." The success of the process depends on reducing some of the problems extant in prior technology with air pollution and waste byproducts . If the Phillips 66 process is successful as the backers claim, it will be a major break- through for the oil re-refinery industry in the United States . , A small percentage of used oil is probably used to oil roads as a dust-control measure on private lands . Road oiling has been discontinued by most governmental bodies due to the resulting migration of the oil off the roads and into water bodies . I'I 240 ' 11 1 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE RECYCLING AND RESOURCE SYSTEM: 1) Direct reuse of materials is generally believed to be more resource and energy efficient than energy recovery from solid waste and to have less potential for enviromental degradation. Solid waste disposal strategies should en- courage recycling and reuse of materials . 2) Recycling and reuse provide an opportunity to reduce the ' amount of solid waste which requires disposal through other means such as landfilling or incineration. The conserva- tion of disposal capacity is an important objective for the countywide solid waste system. Goals and standardized measurement techniques should be established to measure potential solid waste diverted from the waste stream by recycling and reuse. A program or cost differential could ' be devised to support or compensate for materials diverted from the waste stream and not requiring disposal. 3) Continued availability of recyclable materials is essential to assure a sound financial basis for continued resource recovery operation just as continued availability of solid waste is essential to an energy recovery facility. Assurance of continued availability of recyclable material should COn- sider the potentially competing interests of different parties and alternative uses for the material. A task force involving all interest would provide an opportunity to consider groups wou alternatives and make recommendations . 4) The Puget Sound Council of Governments survey of recyclers indicates that industry respondents feel the recycling sector is operatingerating well as a private enterprise and will not t bene- fit from major government Support programs. However, public programs may assist in some areas : a) Public policy in the form of recycling goals is desirable. 24 b) Rate incentives may provide long-term benefits through increased recycling. A "zero can rate" has not been demonstrated to increase household recycling; but allows ' rate equity for those who choose to voluntarily recycle. c) Public education on the advantages of recycling is beyond the cost-effective capability of individual recyclers , and is therefore a suitable opportunity for public support of the recycling system. Publicly sponsored workshops on the formation or operation of recycling centers could ' be offered. d) Publicly supported or encouraged demonstration projects provide an opportunity to establish or increase the demand for specific types of recycling. Access to those materials for future levels of recycling should be pre- served. e) A program of public compensation could be developed to encourage diversion of materials from the waste stream long-term capacity of which will serve to increase the the disposal sites . f) Transfer station recycling provides an identifiable opportunity for public entities to encourage and pro- at the last cg , hap e in the disposal system. mote recycling Publicly or privately operated recycling facilities should be encouraged at all transfer stations . avail- 0 opportunities should be made Multi- material recycling PP Special pro- able at publicly accessible landfills . SP visions should be made to encourage recycling of white goods . ial home collection of recyclables appears 5) Although multimater uneconomical at this time , encouragement should be to be given operators or jurisdictions which wish to develop or conduct programs . Current economicanalysis is based on �- 242 1 conventionally used assumptions for solid waste rate setting. A major increase in domestic recycling could result from economically feasible multimaterial home collection and/or an increase in the cost of disposal. The feasibility of multi- material home collection of recyclables should be evaluated ' at the time of renewal of each collection contract. ' 6) Zoning codes should be reviewed to assure that they do not unreasonably exclude neighborhood recycling facilities and ' centers . Short-term use of existing buildings should be en- couraged without necessitating zoning changes . 1 7) Public recycling programs--except for the provision of drop- off recycling facilities at transfer stations--should not directly compete with privately operated programs . Public programs should be operated on a demonstration basis to test the market response to particular strategies . Public pro- grams can provide leadership and should be used as an incentive and employed if the private sector is not meeting a demon- strable need. It should be noted that private operators also ' have the ability to operate demonstration programs and provide leadership . Public programs may take the form of waste diver- sion credits for reduction of the volume of solid waste requir- ing disposal , information, and public-awareness programs . 8) Complaints made to the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and observations made by health officers in- dicate a need to monitor the health-related performance of large recycling operators . Vector nuisance, wind-blown litter , dust , and air pollution have been identified as problems . Permitting and monitoring recycling facilities above a specified size should be directed at issues of health significance and consistant with the Minimum Functional Standards . 243 I 9) A strong commitment to encourage recycling exists in King County and the City of Seattle . The City of Seattle has , established recycling goals for readily recycled material . The establishment of goals will aid in achieving desired recycling objectives by providing measurement points and articulating a commitment to achieve specific levels of recycling on a countywide basis . The following goals , , identified as a percentage of the waste available by type , are adopted as the expressed intent of the Solid Waste Management Board for recycling in King County. RECYCLING GOALS Seattle Seattlel Regional Percentage Percentage Percentage Recycled Recycling Goals Recvcling Goals 1978 (1986) (1986) Paper Newspaper 31-38% 70% 60% ' Corrugated 44-47% 65% 55% High Grade 42-47% 65% 55% (white ledger and , manila cards) Glass (bottles and 16% 300 20% cullet) Aluminum 35% 70% 60% , Steel Tin Cans 1% 20% 50% White Goods 91% 95% 90% TOTAL, All Waste 14% 22% 20% 10 Operational plans should be developed by recyclers which P will outline strategies to improve the efficiency of re- cycling and assist in achieving the recycling goals . Public operators should take the recycling and resource recovery goals and opportunities into consideration as a means of reducing solid waste requiring disposal when developing operational plans . P 244 i EXISTING CONDITIONS: ENERGY RECOVERY Energy recovery from solid waste is a technique for aid- ing reduction of the volume of solid waste requiring final' dis- posal . Most energy recovery systems are based on incineration , which reduces the amount of waste requiring final disposal . In- cineration can reduce the volume of the waste at disposal p to 90 percent and the weight by up to 75 percent depending on nature of the waste and the incineration system. Energy recovery employs the heat generated through combustion to create steam and/ or electrical energy . Sale of marketable energy may reduce the total long-term cost of solid waste disposal and may offset open ' ating costs . Public and private entities in King County have continually ' explored the potential for energy generation as part of a solid waste disposal strategy. Recent energy shortages and rapid ' energy price increases have prompted continued interest in potential of energy generation as an economic factor in solid ' waste disposal. 1974 Comprehensive Plan ' The 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan dis- cussed alternative energy recovery technologies and generalized markets for steam and electricty. The 1974 plan recommended commitment to a long-term goal of energy/ resource recovery as the primary waste management approach for the King County area and determination of interest of adjacent counties in joining King County in developing such a system. 245 The plan suggested conducting a detailed feasibilitv analysis of optional methods of achieving an energy/resource recovery system which would select a process for implementation, examine potential sites , determine specific environmental impacts , and generally establish all remaining details of the system to be selected. Installation of shredding equipment at transfer stations was recommended to make the waste more homogenous for energy re- covery. A schedule of implementation activities outlined in 1974 indicated that an energy/resource recovery plant could be opera- tional by 1981 . The Seattle Solid Waste Ammonia Project and the subsequent negotiations by the City of Seattle represented the , early public efforts at implementing an energy recovery system. CSI Resource S stems , Inc . Stud In September , 1979 , the Environmental Progection. Agency awarded grant monies to King County, Seattle , and Bellevue to help fund a joint energy/resource recovery project. A consul- tant , CSI Resource Systems , Inc . , was hired to do the feasibility analysis (Phase I) . The objective of the initial phase of the project was to make a preliminary assessment of whether the , recovery of energy from solid waste was a technically feasible and economically viable alternative to existing disposal systems ' so as to warrant further consideraiton. It was not a. definitive engineering report. The study identified combinations of markets , sites and technologies that showed promose for a successful energy recovery system. ' The final report made the following conclusions and obser- vations : a Energy recovery from solid waste is economically viable in the King County area. • The report deals only with economics ; it does not deal with other important aspects , such as environmental impacts ; 246 • Energy recovery plants will have a significant environ- mental impact which must be considered in deciding whether to implement; • Net system costs are very sensitive to plant scale and location; • Energy recovery is more expensive than landfill in the short term but less expensive in the long term. The economics get better over time because energy revenues are expected to escalate at a higher rate than operating costs . Based on the results of Phase I, King County and Seattle have decided to do jointly a Phase II project. Economic assumptions made in 1980, may not be valid at this time and must be re- evaluated in Phase II. Port of Seattle Study at Sea-Tac Airport The Franklin Associates , Ltd. prepared a technical and eco- nomic feasibility analysis for a solid waste energy recovery facility to be operated by the Port of Seattle at Sea-Tac Air- port. The facility options under consideration were sized to ' use more waste than generated by the airport , to meet energy requirements at Sea-Tac and to optimize first-year and life- cycle costs. Three mass burning technologies were considered, as were three sites . The analysis included risk assessment and procurement options as well as economic analysis and cost com- parisons. The Franklin Associates recommended that the Port proceed with implementation of a 240- to 250-tons-per-day facility. The plan was to be designed to produce steam and electricity, via a condensing extraction turbine, for use at Sea-Tac. A w aterwall incinerator was the recommended technology, 247 � 1 however, refractory walled furnaces were not eliminated from consideration. Because a number of technologies and vendors could supply a satisfactory system, proposals were to be sought from a number of potential contractors . The site which is just south of 188th Street and west of 28th Avenue was considered to be the best location for the facility. The Port Co=aission decided not to pursue an energy recovery facility as a public project . Puget Sound Power and Light Company Puget Power has been active in considering and promoting electricity generation from solid waste. Puget Power has indicated there willingness to own and/or operate an energy recovery facility with the capacity to handle the entire waste stream onsored a technical symposium y g ■ , of the count Puget Power cos p designed to increase the awareness of the potential and oppor- tunities for energy recovery. Puget Power continues to try to , develop a joint public-private partnership which will lead to a feasible electricity generating energy recovery facility with , their participation. A specific project proposal is still in the developmental phases . RAB,ANCO/Wheelabrator-Frye RABANCO, a solid waste management company, has proposed to privately operate an energy recovery facility using Wheelabrator- , Frye' s technology. RABANCO has entered into general discussions with Seattle City Light and King County to ascertain public in- terest in a joint venture . Written proposals do not exist at this time . 248 11 1 ' Seattle City Light Seattle City Light has considered energy recovery ilterna- tives over the past several years . _Seattle/Kin g County Energv Resource Recovery Project Phase II The Phase II Energy/Resource Recovery Study commended during December 1982 . The study is an 18-month, two-stage , ' project designed to culminate in a decision whether or not to proceed to procurement of an energy recovery system. The study will be guided by a project steering committee whose membership will consist of the County Executive , the Mayor of Seattle , one member each of the County Council and ' City Council and a neutral Committee Chair as voting members . The Committee will also include the Seattle City Engineer , the King County Public Works Director and one staff person from each jurisdiction. Program administrative duties will be the responsibility of the King County Executive through a program manager in the County Executive' s office. There will be a Citizen/Technical Advisory Committee. Those alternatives from Phase I , offering the greatest potential for the County and City, will be examined in greater detail . The most likely combinations of markets , sites and tech- nologies have been identified. The study will collect additional information to analyze project alternatives , sites and site selection criteria. Waste supply and financial and institutional alternatives will be examined. The best project and institu- tional alternatives will be subjected to detailed economic , en- vironmental and site analysis leading to the recommendation of a preferred alternative and institutional structure. ' 249 the project will include those listed below. , The tasks in P Institutional Options : , The possible institutional or jurisdictional arrange- The ments for the structure and management of an energy cilit or system will be considered in the initial stage of fa Y Phase II . 1 Technology The choice between cogeneration and electricity-only ' ties will depend primarily on the markets for the re- facilities Mass- covered energy and the economics of the two alternatives . be Mass- -derived fuel technologies Mass- burning and refuse and city wastes . Plant capacity will be sufficient for all county be removed from will be made for portions likely , Allowancerecovery facili- the waste stream for recycling or other energy will be left to ties . The final choice of a specific technology rocurement stage unless an architectural and engineering the p roach is adopted. a services contract-procurement app Sites : The A preferred system will be identified int Phase on the preferred system may include more than one si Benton Systems report, sites in the Duwamish, CSI Resource SY eand Cedar Hills areas are the (Quarry/Sternoff and Eastside) , most likely alternatives. Additional sites will be CBited red elec- to see if any desirable sites have been °ites°i11 bE' evaluated . tion criteria will be developed and the s ' Markets : rgy Letters of interest and' letters of intent imatr �eSwillebe Reliable price est products will be obtained. otiated. Co-disposal of sought and energy specifications neg , sludge will be examined. 250 1 i� assessment of the environmental impacts of energy An The assessment I� at the likely sites will be made . recovery of the kinds of control measures needeg ofsthe cri- tes , and ria ides Y I offset requirements . This information will be P will be judged. teria by which the alternative projects referred alternative environmental impact statement for the p will be completed and circulated before the end of phase II . Economics and Preliminary Engineering*project costs and re- An estimate of refined alternative estimated tipping will be completed. This will sneering will be done venues preliminary eng' fees and life-cycle costs. for final alternatives. An estimate will be made of the cost o siting a new landfill to replace Cedar Hills . i Financial : bot s dprivate , will metho , h public and Various financing d. In particular , be evaluated and a preferred one ideifiebenefits from the e evaluation will include the potentialpolicy the Regulatory Northwest Power Bill and Public Utrshlie8ndeoperation will be ' Act . Both public and private ownership dation of �rhich to pursue will be made . recommendation evaluated and a zocurement strategy will be management and p laws con- The desired tisk of existing described. There will be an analysis cerning procurement , and new legislation will be drafted and introduced, if advisable. Waste Supply: anteed before a A supply of waste will have to be guarin the issue of Legislation clarifying osition ' facility can be financed. Leg A waste stream comp waste stream control will if needed. The waste stream exam'- analysis will be conductedavail- . also project the amount of waste that lthe nation will facility . and thus determine able to an energy recovery 251 1 capacity for which it should be designed. This examination will , include consideration of recycling activities and impacts of private , energy recovery efforts . Consideration of an Energy Recovery Facility for Consistency , with the Plan The review of a proposed facility for consistency with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan , needs to be Ibased on an established basis . The goals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan include improved environmental quality , interjurisdictional coordination, waste reduction , cost-effective e ffective materials recovery, cost-effective energy re- covery, and a balance between , long- and short-term-term consideration . g When reviewing a specific proposed facility, the Solid Waste Management Board should assure that the project proponent has oals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- considered the g ment Plan in developing its project. The Solid Waste Management Board' s review of consistency would not be a technical analysis of the proposal . The review and evaluation should take into consideration the following issues . Compatibility with Recycling: An energy recovery system should be compatible with re- cycling and resource or materials recovery. Present recycling practices and adopted regional and local goals should be acknowledged in siting and sizing any proposed facil.ity(ies) . Direct reuse of materials is generally believed to be more ' resource and energy efficient than energy recovery from solid waste and has less potential for environmental degradation. Recycling and reuse of mateirals should be encouraged. , Site Location/Environmental: Locational considerations should include service area and waste shed, markets for energy, Zoning and adjacent uses , trans- portation access and traffic impact , air quality, surface and 252 ter impacts capacity and environmental characteristics around-,water osal sites , visual impacts of backup facilities and residual disp and site boundaries. Cost and Cost Effectiveness : The proposed project should have the minimum COresentthe Th p P ratepayer , compared to the life-cycle costs costtbenefits to and other actual alternatives . Tt► systema rather than a small seg- the ratepayer should benefit a larg Cost analysis should be based dsshouldlno�_ went oal f the population. o term system costs including envif�enwastestream within the be limited to a single Segr+ent o operating jurisdiction. Risk: rivate ' ro osal ed for public and p Thep should be evaluat PWaste supply assur- ances and commensurate risk allocation. coven should be adequate to minimize risk. Reliable , should be ' should be used. Firm markets f products technology of an energy recovery established . The financial integrity en and 1 system requires long-term contracts with the market. Open continuous communication between the msales �em should be in ' stplanners should occur . A backupdisposal of energy recovery system lace to accommodate waste in P failure , rapairs , or excess waste flow. Systemwide Coordination: act on all parts of dis The proposal should take into effect is ' the solid waste handling and P osalystem. Other affected jurisdictions should have been consulted in the ' planning -process . ' Interjurisdictional Impacts : should take into consideration probable The proposal sacent to the local impacts on jurisdictions within and adj Jurisdictions ' Ideally, these other affected j planning area. planning process . would have been consulted in the 253 Landfill Longevity: ' The life expectancy of the existing regional landfill at Cedar Hills should be maximized. Policy comparison of the i impacts of energy recovery and resource recovery versus land- fill as the primary means of disposal should be explicit in both cost and environmental terms . Retention of Options ' Energy recovery, consistent with the preceding criteria , is a preferred long-term solution to the area' s solid waste ' disposal problems since there will always be waste that requires disposal . ' Energy recovery should be encouraged because of the public benefits from significantly reducing the volume of solid waste , that has to be landfilled. Implementation of such a system would effectively lengthen the lives of existing landfalls . , There is a tradeoff between the environmental impacts of continued landfilling all solid waste and an energy recovery , system. Energy recovery is generally believed to be a more environmentally sound method of solid waste disposal . ' At this stage of the regional solid waste planning; pro- cess in 1982 , there are numerous alternatives for energy ' recovery facilities . Options exist in size and scale , location , technology, management , and operation. Additional baseline data on present solid waste operations may be necessary to fully evaluate alternatives and some assurance of continued fuel supply to secure financing and minimize risk will be necessary. The future of solid waste disposal through energy and resource recovery remain' unresolved. The City of Seattle , King County, and private enterprise are examining resource and energy recovery opportunities which may lead to policy and investment decisions . The Solid Waste Management Board--should_ 254 i ' evaluate all specific proposals for energy recovery. The Board Drum for discussion of alternatives during t e may serve as a f Proposed projects Yrop ro ects should beoeid evaluated Manage- I� the planning process . Comprehensive S V the CSP ermitting and funding Board for consistency public approval . P I� Ment Plan as part of the p a facility will necessi- ecific proposal to develop process . A sP plan. Recommendations on tate additions or new elements in the p facility will be con- tion of an energy recovery the implementation significant to amend the twenty-year sidered sufficiently sign conal strategies of the plan - improvement im rovement program and the reg. 1 255 1 NEEDS AND OPPORTUI4ITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM: ' 1) Greater expertise and efficiency , less costly financing , more diverse options and a smaller degree of public risk may be obtained by private sector participation in an energy recovery system. Every effort should be made by the public sector to involve interested private parties in the development and execution of studies and options which may lead to a system. 2) Continued availability of solid waste as a fuel is essential to assure a sound financial basis for energy recovery ' facilities . Availability of the waste as a fuel supply should consider the potentially competing interests of different parties and alternative uses for the waste . A task force involving all interest groups would provide an opportunity to consider alternatives and make recommen- dations . 3) Direct reuse of materials is generally believed to be more resource and energy efficient than energy recovery from solid waste and to have less potential for environ- mental degradation. Solid waste disposal strategies should encourage recycling and reuse of materials . , 4) As a matter of policy, the most benign environmental impact , from solid waste disposal should be pursued given comparable costs including all environmental impacts . An energy re- covery facility is believed to have the capability of less environmental impact (per unit of waste) than conventional means of final disposal . An energy recovery facility should be pursued as a means of enhancing environmental quality , consistent with the best available data. 256 inadequate information in the 5) At the present time there is sector to decide to construct or participate overy project. project must energy rec I� vubllc Any energy recovery p j . ro ect. nrimary means of be compared to the use of landfills as the . Economic and environmental costs anil fethes ° disposal phase the existing system should be defined. Resource Recovery Project has been developed as a Energy/ v recovery projects , pro- program to analyze alternative energy ferred alternative , prepare an environmental impact ' pose a pre decision by the ex- statement and lead to an energy recovery County and the respective councils . ecutives of Seattle and King should not constrain a totally private-sector energy Phase II letion of the recovery decision prior to the comp project is enhanced by the b) Public confidence in a major p the individuals , diversity of opinions considered �dby in the pro- ' s and expertise represented constituent group cess . Consideration of major solid waste handling an ' advantage of disposal facilities should take maxre through the use citizen interest and technical exp of advisory committees . ial compatibility of energy 7) Metro is interested in the Potent' e (co-disposal) .recovery and incineration of sewage sludgfacility should be The potential for compatible usrecoveryystrategies are de- ' considered as potential energy veloped. ' 257 1 SII 16 III i� i EXISTING CONDITIONS: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS i ma components of a consideration of the ef financial The two J stem ar characteristics of the solid waste managemoftCa capital assets . financing of operations and the financing p and private solid waste organi- ' This is true for both public nations . ILinancink 0 erations There are two major public solid waste operating entities in the County , City of Seattle and King County. 1 primarily SF:A_TTLE; The Seattle Solid Waste Utivenuetsources for The largest re supported by user fees . aid by Seattle the utility are the bi-monthly garbage bills p and the fees collected at the transfer stations and' residents cost com onents of the landfills . The major operating P and ' ,Taste Utility are the costs for residential collection eneral inspection, transfer station and disposal pdepreciatgon , customer billing, ' and administrative costs , income statements and taxes . The Seattle Solid i�stbudget u Utility shown in Figure for 1980 and 1981, and the utility g 259 i Figure F-1 SEATTLE SOLID WASTE UTILITY INCOME STATEMENTS 1980 and 1981 1980 1981 Operating revenue $16,398,793 $18,746,598 ' t g Other revenue/income246,911 461,142 Total revenue/income 16,565,704 19,207,740 ' Total expenses 16,792,773 17,793,490 Income (loss) $ (227,069) $ 1,414,250 , SEATTLE SOLID WASTE UTILITY BUDGET 1982 BY OPERATION Residential collection $ 8,697,000 ' Transfer stations 1,351,486 Transport/hauling 2,227,100 Disposal 2,558,174 General and administration 3,096,550 Billings 1,862,800 ' Capital equipment 1,311,738 Resource recovery 329,853 Total(2) $21,434,703 Estimated total revenue(3) $21,589,300 (')Includes interest, gain on sale of equipment and recycling , income. (2)The budget shown includes overhead contribution not adopted in the 1982 line item budget, 1981 capital equipment carryovers, 1982 salary settlements and other 1982 budget revisions, as of June 14, 1982. From the 1982 Rate Study. II 260 The King King County Solid Waste Division is the division to KING COU"�TY� airing the user I� an enterprise fund, req operated as Waste Division from the Solid finance operations °f The fees are collected at the I� fees . fees and other revenues • interest stations and landfills as t rantsg Ccuntyls transfer obtained fZoID S components revenues are mostly elating cost The other The major °p income and rental income. the costs of the transfer Solid ti]aste Division are ortation, shop operations , of the S transp stations disposal sites , 8�inistration, and depreciation. private solid waste Of the p charge OPERATORS: Operations The companies PRIVA'T`E user fees . also financed by rovide or the materials companies are services they p payments for the clers), or receive their customers case of recy are billed by the they deliver (in the customers ' where the collec- indirectly, as in Seattle anies with residential the two comp of the private com- City which then pays o erating costs Those ' The major P they provide• tion contracts . a of service they depending on the type Services vary on the collection disposal costs , 1 parries of the private haulers center and benefits , The recycling employee wages include billing and taxes • provide and interest , cited for the t fuel , maintenance , include most of those recyclable materials . companies major costs _ cost of Purchasing the haulers plus the which owns a transfer station ta io in - the one company that trans fer The costs of the of operating for the cost ,Porting the waste to a component of tran clude to the costs addition entire operation. station in administering the final disposal and Ca ital public Financia County whether i in the their waste organizations perform All solid e a variety of capital assets to p waste or private , require maj public solid ' or Of the two waste is Major assets at which most operations. transfer stations utilities include the 1 261 1 Figure F-2 t KING COUNTY DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE INCOME STATFMNTS 1980 - 1981 1980(1) 1981(1) ' Operating revenue $7,583,588 $10,310,134 Other income 186,157 292,958 ' Total $7,769,745 $10,603,092 Operating expenses 7,861,587 9,822,490 Other expenses 237,872 426,076 Total $8,099,459 $10,248,566 Operating transfers 25,331 -0- Change in accounting ' principle -0- (189,121) NET INCOME (LOSS) $ (304,383) $ 165,399 KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION 1982 BUDGET `") Administration $ 1,108,814 Shop 2,542,586 Transfer stations 3,385,857 Transportation 2,029,438 Disposal 4,337,657 Total $13,404,352 (1) Change in accounting principle between 1980 and 1981 (2) As appropriated. received, the landfills where the waste is disposed , the trucks that haul waste between the transfer stations and the landfills , and the equipment needed for transfer station and landfill op- eration. Typical major assets of the private companies are collection trucks to pick up the waste, containers to store waste, and office and shop facilities for administration and mainten- ance. 262 In 1980 the total book value , at cost less depreciation and amortization, of the capital assets of the Seattle Solid Waste Utility was $5 ,142 ,590. The original cost of the property, plant and equipment that makes up the capital assets was $10,106 ,613 . The book value of the property, plant 1 and equipment of the King County Division of Solid Waste in the same year was $13 , 289 ,845 , and its original cost without accumulated depreciation or amortization was $16, 933 ,586 . 1 The value of the assets owned or leased by the private haulers is not available , nor are there any estimates of their replacement cost in 1982 dollars , or of the replacement cost of the assets of Seattle or King County. However , the replacement cost must be considerably higher than the historic cost of the property , plant and equipment currently on their books . New capital assets for the Seattle Solid Waste Utility and 1:ing County Solid Waste Division may be purchased using internally generated funds , the proceeds from bond sales or 1 State grants, or they may be leased. In practice, since 1967 , Seattle has naid for all of its capital acquisitions with the exception of a leachate project 1 at the Kent-Highlands landfill with internally generated funds . The Cit- has indicated that it will make application to the State Department of Ecology for funding for transportation fleet re- placement and will seek Referendum 39 funds for landfill closure , transfer station rehabilitation, and centralized composting feasi- bility programs . In the past , King County relied on the proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds , grants from the State . and some user fees to pay for additions to the capital assets of its Solid. Waste Division. 263 n In King County, user fees will play a larger role in the future because the Solid Waste Division has established, by ordinance , ' a capital equipment replacement reserve , based on the depreciation schedules for major items of rolling stock. User fees and other revenues support the transfer of funds to this reserve account . Capital or leased assets purchased with the proceeds from , bonds are also ultimately paid for by user fees and other reve- nues generated by the King County Solid Waste Division. The County sets its user fees with the intention that the revenue they generate plus the other division revenue will be sufficient to cover debt service payments resulting from the purchase or lease of new , capital assets . Although the Seattle Solid Waste Utility is not paying off any bonds at this time, current city policy would re- quire that user fees produce sufficient revenue to cover the debt service payments of any future bond sales . The useful lives of the capital assets , except for land , of the Seattle Solid Waste Utility and the King, County Solid Waste Division are limited. To reflect the gradual consumption of the usefulness of their assets both Seattle and King County include a charge for depreciation in their calculation of operating expenses . The depreciation charge for each asset is based on an apportionment of its historic cost over its estimated useful life . Depreciation expenses are recovered through user fees and other revenues . Private solid waste operations use internally generated funds , debt , leases and additional investments by their owners to acquire new capital assets. Specific information on the importance of the various financial sources to any of the individual companies is not available . 264 Financin Future Capital Projects Count expect to continue using a Seattle and King y roceeds , grants, mixture of internally generated funds , bond p eases to finance capital projects in the future. Decisions and 1 case basis. on specific projects will be made on a case-by- borrowing or by Major new projects are expected to be financed by recovery facility leasing. The options for financing an energy will be discussed in Phase 11 of the Energy/Resource Recovery Study . available to the public The standard forms of borrowing obligation bonds and revenue solid waste utilities are general bonds . General obligation bonds are those which are b theeissuing authority by or ,full faith and credit of the taxing general obligation bonds body. The provisions under which g and other taxing may be issued by counties , cities , towns , in the Washington statutes (RCW 39 . 36 - 011) . forth districts are set ation bonds that may be issued The total value of general oblig cts : is limited in two respe 1 vies from which money for • Legal limits on tax le be obtained ; payment of principal and interest may Legal limits on the amount of debt outstanding nder as related to the value of thVernmenteissuing the the jurisdiction of the go general obligation bonds . capital issues of general obligation bonds to fund Past operations have been serviced 1 acquisitions for solid waste by solid waste user fee revenue rather than through contributions 1 from the general fund revenue of the issuer. 265 1 Revenue bonds are guaranteed only by the revenues received from a particular activity such as solid waste ' services . The bonds represent a lien on the revenuer received from the activities for which the bonds were issued and are ' not backed by the taxing power of the governmental entity that issued them. Revenue bonds were not used to fund any of the property, plant and equipment now in use by the Seattle , p Y or King County solid waste operations . However , industrial revenue bonds , a new form of public/private financing author- , ized by RCW 39 `and issued by the State or municipal corpora- tions , could play a role in financing an energy recovery facility in the future . Leasing is another method that could be used by Seattle or King County to acquire property , plant and equipment . At present Seattle leases the Kent-Highlands and Midway Landfills and some equipment and King County leases the Cedar Hills Landfill and occasionally leases equipment. Leasing may assume a larger role as a result of recent changes in rules governing federal income tax treatment of leases . 1 I II 266 EDS AND OPPORTUTIITIM FOR ZMPROVEME:RT OF THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF Di SYSTEM OF SOLID WASTE MANAGE 1 1) It should be recognized that dependence on user fees to finance operations and capital projects carries with it the risk that the fees will not be sufficient to cover costs as long as there is no effective contrimportantfthe waste stream. The risk would be especially or new solid waste to consider in the event that ma= ' capital project such as anecovery facility is proposed. rovide available finan- 2) Seattle and King County should p emenL Board as coal information to the Solid WandeRte �lasettin� activi- needed for use in its Planning 1 ties . j 1 I 1 1 1 1 267 EXISTING CONDITIONS: REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT The solid waste regulatory functions are separated from the operating and planning functions . Regulatory functions , in- 1 several entities . The cluding enforcement , are eofapubgic Health has the prin- cipal Department responsibility for solid waste regulation and enforcement . Specialized regulatory functions are also vesteda n and get Sound Air Pollution Control AuthoriYdanfor erousgand extremely emis- sions , the Department of Ecology forg hazardous waste , and the City of Seattle for litter, debris , and unlawful storage within the city limits - Seattle-King imits .Seattle-Kin County De artment of Public Health of Public The basis for the Seattle-King County Department 1 Health' s authority is found in RCW 70 .95 and WAC tt3 302 for 70 .95 , solid waste and RCW 70 .93 and WAC 173gna0for Resource Recovery Act , the Solid Waste Management-Recycling adopt , and administer requires the Health Department to develop , P standards relating to the handling and disposal of solid King see. 'n 1 the Health Department has develop ed theAccordingly,Y• King Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling The stare- ' Board of Health Rules and Regulations County permits for sites standards assign responsibility for issuing of Public 1 County and facilities to the Seattle-King to incorporated Health. The Minimum Functional Standards app1 Y ' 269 and unincorporated King County, except for Seattle. The City of Seattle, by Resolution #25434, adopted the Minimum Functional ' Standards under its authority in RCW 35A. The Minimum Functional. Standards are included in this plan for reference. ' Solid Waste Regulation TheP urP ose of the Minimum Functional Standards is to en- able the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health to regulate the storage, collection, transportation, treatment , ' utilization , processing, and final disposal of all solid waste generated in King County. This is accomplished, in part , ' through the issuance of permits for solid waste operations as an enforcement tool to protect public health, safety, and I welfare. The Health Department issues annual permits to and rou- tinely inspects sanitary landfills , landfills , incinerators , transfer stations , drop-boxes , compost sites , special waste sites , and transport vehicles. A special emphasis is placed on the inspection of landfills due to current problems identified in 1982 , regarding landfill compliance with the Minimum Func- tional Standards . All sites that are not in conformance are annually given updated compliance schedules by the :Health De- , partment. This practice is intended to ensure that affected solid waste sites are addressing their deficiencies in a timely and orderly manner. In 1982 , the Seattle-King County Depart- ment of Public Health began conducting methane studies at each of the existing landfills as well as abandoned landfill sites . Results of the studies will determine if potentially dangerous , gas is migrating offsite. The Health Department evaluates disposal sites according to three general criteria: 1) pollution control (air, water , and noise) ; 2) design and management; and 3) operations . Site ISI 270 III i 1 inspections are conducted randomly so that the Health Department might obtain a realistic appraisal of operating and site 1 conditions. Copies of the field inspection report are forwarded to the appropriate governing entity, Jurisdictional Health Service Center and to the Slsch dulesaste Program based on Coordinator for review. Compliance serious and/or recurring site deficiencies noted in these inspection reports . ' Littering and Unlawful Dumping he incidence of unlawful dumping in King County is on Tle dispose ose of their , the rise. This situation develoaut orizeds when olandfill or solid waste in areas other than j trans- fer station sites . The Seattle-King County Department of Public ursues cases of unlawful dumping that are witnessed by Health p rivate agency per- Health Department employees , other public or P sonnel , or those identified by citizens filing formal complaints . 1 Violations that occur in King County (exclusive of Seattle) are subject to civil penalties levied against the violator by ' the Health Department. Such a civil penalty, under esuKing lt nCounty Board of Health Rules and Regulations VIII , ca ' maximum fine of $250/day for both citizens and commercial operators for each separate unlawful dumping in in the incident .the City of Seattle Violations of unlawful dumping occurring are investigated by the Health Department in circumstances associated with rodent infestation. Littering occurring in the City of Seattle is subject 1 to primary regulation and enforcement by the City of Seattle. The Health Department maintains the authority to "monitor" 271 r r r the effectiveness of Seattle's program to ensure that state and local standards for littering or unlawful dumping are being met . 1 Hazardous Waste Regulation The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health does not perform a regulatory or enforcement function regarding dangerous or extremely hazardous waste . Regulatory ,and en- forcement functions for dangerous and hazardous wastes are the responsibility of the Department of Ecology. The Health De- partment artment has a working relationship with the Department of ' Ecology, Northwest Regional Office. The Seattle-Kind; County Department of Public Health has a Toxic/Hazardous Materials , Section in the Solid Waste Program to more effectively respond to increasing demands for hazardous waste control . This sec- , tion reviews specifications of questionable and potentially hazardous wastes from businesses and determines the safest , method of disposal . Small quantities of dangerous waste that are less than the 400 pounds per month exclusion specified in WAC 173-303 as the threshold for State Department of Ecology regulation, are regulated by the Health Department . These exempted small quantities of dangerous waste fall under the Health Department' s regulatory responsibilities for solid waste . They are identified as special wastes in the Minimum Functional Standards and dealt with accordingly. The ususal practice is to treat them on a case-by-case basis after analysis of con- ' tent and potential hazard. The Health Departmentclosely staff coordinates this "screening, process with hazardous from the Northwest Regional Office of the State Department of Ecology. Wastes determined to be dangerous or extremely hazardous by the WAC 173-303 standards are referred to the Department o Ecology for processing by permitted transfer, storage an dis- posal operators for hazardous wastes . Landfill and transfer - r station site personnel for both Seattle and King County r 272 r !II ously screen waste materials coming into their respective sitesinks , tank-bottom sludg paint wastes , sol- '� Waste haulers with questionable items such as P e dusts , vents , pesticide containers, prior chemicals , are intercepted at the gate. Haulers without p Department for clearance are requested to contact the He clearanceand disposal approval. Increasing numbers re-disposal aware of the requirement for p haulers are becoming screening and are calling the Health Department for clearance P rior to picking up the waste and transporting irief report is posal site . Following review and clearance , a authority iden- forwarded to the respective solid e ases disposal tifying the manufacturer and haul typed source of waste material , chemical-toxic analysis , amount , and frequency of delivery. Special Waste Regulation: The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has entl expanded its regulation of sludge management activi- rec Y ties . Sludge disposal and utilization are now covered under Health Department regulations following Policy outlined in the State Department of Ecology' s Munici al Sludge Utilization Guidelines and Best Management Practice for the sled a on 1 ' The practice of spreading g cipal SewaPe Sludge. vegetation growth over intermediate landfills to enhance operations , and final cover areas . and sludge composting o P regular solid waste disposal site are regulated under the seg Functional permit and inspection system based on the Minimum Standards . Recently defined and established methods f ion are sludge soil enhancement and utili8naiinspection program• under a separate, special permit projects is designed to The permit application for these pro j address the potential hazards that can developleabsorp- surface or groundwater contamination, heavyeta ' tion into- food chain crops , and persistence of patho- abs 273 1 genic or ) , along with future land use considerations ganisims g controlled site access , use of adjacent property, and other pertinent considerations . The permit application review process is coordinated with the Northwest Office of the Department of Ecology and following approval , a site inspection schedule is established. On-going project monitoring is also required of the sludge applicator or other responsible 1 personnel. Regulatory authority of the City of Seattle , :regarding solid waste and littering, is found several places in the city code : 1) garbage (Chapter 21. 36 - Ordinance 96003) ; 2) street use (Chapter 15 .46 - Ordinance 90047) ; 3) litter (Chapter 12A. 52 - Ordinance 89021) ; 4) relates to overgrowth (Chapter, 10.52 Ordinance 78076 ; and 5) housing code (Chapter 22 . 200 - Ordinance 106319 - Section 4. 5 , Paragraph 8) . , City of Seattle and Other Cities The City of Seattle , as a city of greater than 100 ,000 population, has the authority under RCW 35A to develop and adopt its own Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal provided they equal or exceed the strin- gency of the Minimum Functional Standards adopted by the State ' Department of Ecology. The City of Seattle has , by Resolution 25434 , adopted the Minimum Functional Standards developed by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. It is unlawful to dump an matter in any street or gutter Y in the City of Seattle . The Director of Engineering is empowered , to require the cleanup of spilled loads , removal of hazards or nuisances from public places . It is unlawful to litter any public place or on private property in the City of Seattle , (City Code Chapter 12A.52) . The use of and materials deposited in city-provided litter 274 r receptacles is regulated to exclude litter accumulated on private property, ignited materials, and dead animals . Accumulation or storage of litter on private property is also 1 prohibited. The Director of Construction and Land Use enforces ulations relating to private property and the Director of reg Engineering enforces all other provisions . The City of Seattle regulates the hauling of garbage in the city (City Code Chapter 21. 36 .030) . It is unlawful for anyone to haul garbage through the city streets except the University of Washington , military establishments , the City' s garbage contractors , certificated haulers, or business concerns hauling garbage originating on their own premises . The City retains the right to designate the disposal , p rocessing, or recovery site for the deposit of all garbage . The regulatory authority exercised by the City of Seattle is typical of the regulatory authority available to other cities operating under the Optional Municipal Code . TheY Of Seattle' s exercise of that authority is more extensive than that of other cities. The Bellevue Anti-litter Code , Bellevue City Code , Chapter 9 :11 prohibits littering within the City limits , sets standards for litter receptacles and declares violation of the provi- sions of Chapter 9 :11 to be a misdemeanor. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control A enc Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Regulation 9 .11(a) states that it is unlawful to emit an air contaminant or safety vapor if such emission is detrimental to human Historically, the and welfare, or causes damage to property. Air Pollution Control Agency regulations caused the closure of burning dumps . The air quality problems resulting from solid waste handling which are currently subject to regulation are 275 1 S particulate emissions from refuse incinerators and the presence of odors . Particulate Emissions Particulate emissions are related to the ash content of refuse , incinerator design and operation, and to pollution control equipment. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulates particulate emissions in King County. The Agency has established attainment areas , where air quality ' standards have been met for particulates and nonat:tainment areas where the ambient air quality is worse than the current minimum air quality standards . New incinerators , refuse burners or energy recovery plants located in attainment areas must be designed or have auxilliary systems to prevent signi- ficant deterioration of air quality if they are designed to charge or burn more than 250 tons per day or emit more than , 100 tons of particulate matter per year. The auxiliary air pollution control devices are required on a case-by-case basis , to meet "best available control technology." New large inciner- ators and other particulate discharging facilities located in nonattainment areas are subject to more rigorous pollution abatement standards . Such facilities will be required to achieve the "lowest acheivable emission rate . " Remedial measures to reduce pollution in one area to compensate for new particulate discharges in other areas , known as "offsets" may need to be employed. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency reviews each new facility on a case-by-case basis and requires appropriate controls to meet emission standards . Sulfur dioxide and ni- trogen oxides as well as certain toxic chemicals may, be present and require a special control strategy. 276 Odor 1�1 tted by solid waste handling and disposal Odors emi eneral provisions of facilities are regulated under the g le 9. 11(a) . The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Ru An does not initiate enforcement of the odor abatement o a formal comPlaint and be prepared individual must sign testify before the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ° will enforce Rule 9. 11(a) . StateDepartment of Ecology has all regulation and The State Department of Ecology ounds 1 t owers regarding dangerous wastes over 400 p enforcemen p per month, and all extremely hazardous wastes . 1 r 277 1 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT IN REGULATIO14 AND ENFORCEMENT: (1) Uniform legal enforcement procedures utilizing cavil penal- ' ties in the City of Seattle and King County would increase efficiency and equity in enforcement . The civil penalty process used by King County appears to be very effective , in the abatement of unlawful dumping problems . (2) A legislative appropriation for an allocation of Department ' of Ecology funds to assist the Health Department in carrying out its regulatory program--as authorized in RCW 70. 95 . 220 , Financial Aid to Jurisdictional Health Departments--would significantly ease local financial burdens , improve enforce- ment of the Minimum Functional Standards and have an impact on littering. (3) The costs of enforcement exceed the resources available . As a result , enforcement actions continue at a level which is not commensurate with the problems . Currently , enforce- ment ment is solely paid for out of King County Solid Waste Di- vision funds and tonnage fees on waste leaving the three � Seattle transfer stations . Allocation of a portion of State Model Litter Control and Recycling Act (RCW 70 . 93) r funds to support the Health Department ' s investigation of unlawful dumping activities would finance increased enforce- ment in the King County area. (4) Compliance of all municipalities with the Health Department solid waste Minimum Functional Standards needs to 'be veri- fied and monitored by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. (5) The Department of Ecology should be encouraged to provide greater emphasis on the timeliness of its review and com- ment on the initial and renewal permit applications received from disposal site operators . 278 1'I 6 Large illegal disposal sites such as the Evergreen11C a astcite and the Star Lake site should be abated. lean- up$ and denial of public access are essentialtoEnforcement , closure of these public health hazards . r . i 1 1 1 279 it !l 11 II SIX-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Public agencies annually prepare capital improvement pro- grams , usually covering a six-year period. The solid waste ' elements of these six-year capital improvement programs are P melded together to reflect anticipated improvements ithe countywide solid waste handling system over the time of one to six years . The compilation of programmed improve- ments is included in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The six-year capital improvement programs are adopted by ' each local government. The annual budget and appropriation pro- cess commit projects contained in local government capital improvement programs to implementation. implementation is pre- ceded by feasibility studies , preliminary engineering , and ' environmental analysis which may result in changes in schedule , or modification of projects . Changes in the priority of a pro- ject in the six-year capital pram may result from emergency g conditions elsewhere or from unforeseen delays . Consequently projects may be added to the six-year capital improvement Pro- gram immediately before implementation. Solid waste projects are placed in the six-year element of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan by request ro rams . operating agencies based on adopted capital improvement p g Adoption of the plan will include concurrence with the original project list. Subsequent to adoption of the plan , new capital 281 improvement projects of operating agencies will be submitted to the plan as amendments . Updated six-year project lists are amendments to the appendix of the plan, subject to approval of , the Solid Waste Management Board. Public operating agencies are encouraged to submit projects to the Solid Waste Manage- , ment Board prior to the project 's inclusion in local government capital improvement programs to allow Board comment on the pro- , jects for consistency with the plan and potential interjurisdic- tional impact . Operating entities , as designated implementing agencies , are given substantial latitude to establish priorities and capital improvement programs for solid waste projects . The Solid Waste Management Board will use the six-year capital im- provement program in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, as amended, as a guide in reviewing projects seeking Washington Futures funding (Referendum 39) through the A-95 process . i KING COUNTY , Cedar Hills Development , Cedar Hills improvements will provide fencing, berm con- struction, and an extension of the leachate collection system. Fencing is necessary to enclose the area used for solid waste ' disposal . The eventual construction of all the berms will pro- vide for additional capacity, increasing the total volume which can be disposed of at the Cedar Hills Landfill by an estimated 27 million tons . The leachate collection extension is the third , phase of a system to collect leachate onsite and transport it to the Metro waste water treatment facility at Renton. , The current cost estimate (1981) is $6 ,111 ,930 for all three improvements . Project funding will be from a limited general obligation bond sale authorized by Ordinance No. 5694 and anticipated Referendum 39 grant monies from the Department of Ecology. 282 'll Duvall Landfill Closure acity and was closed on The Duvall Landfill reached ctc project will conclude closure June 15 , 1981- Phase II of this p j de operations for the Duvall Landfill in accordance with e the i is um th Functional Standard signcriteria for landfill closures set rnthe Duvall Standards . It is pSe planned to replace The current Landfill with the Northshore Transfer jct funding will be cost estimate (1980) is $498 ,000. ' a limited general obligation bond sale authorized y from ated Referendum 39 grant monies Ordinance No. 5694 and anticipated from the Department of Ecology- ui ment Re lacement Pro ram - Phase I E ed to increase replacement program is design The equipment of countywide solid waste services as the efficient delivery air and maintenance of well as controlling the costs of rep 1 service is a seven- utility equipment. The solid waste tion, which accelerates the 362-day-per-year operation, day-per-week, 362-day-p trailers , replacement need for equipment such as tractors , completed loaders , trucks and compactors . The project has been comp ' except for the purchase of 20 trailers . The original cost estimate for Phase I & I (19for retro- $6 ,990 ,000 - 75) was The equipment is on order . APplu26 grant award has been approved and appro- active Referend priated. Cedar Hills Leachate Collection S stem Lan is required to This project at the Cedar Hills L County' s Minimum Functional Standards and a docket meet the artment of Ecology- from the Washington State Dep tion of a This project involves the design and construc ' around resent disposal areas and under new solid drain system ar P s osal cells . The drain network will collect the waste di p 283 leachate v&i ch will flow into the leachate interceptor surround- ing Cedar Bills. This project and the leachate interceptor will result in a total leachate control system. The original cost estimate (1976) for the project was $326 ,000 . In 1982 , the project had a budget of $2 ,340 ,189 of , which $1 ,031 ,996 was from Referendum 26 funds . Hobart Landfill Leachate Control This project involves the design and construction of a leachate control system at the existing Hobart Landfill . The justification for this project is based primarily on compliance requirements with the Seattle-King County Depart- ment of Public Health permit . According to the Health Depart- ment permit stipulations , the King County Solid Waste Division is obligated to provide a leachate control system at Hobart . The current cost estimate (1981) is $293 ,470 .. Project funding will be from a limited general obligation bond sale authorized by Ordinance No. 5694 and anticipated Referendum 39 grant monies from the Department of Ecology. Northshore Transfer Station The Northshore Transfer Station development program con- sists of the planning , site selection, design, and construction of a solid waste transfer station to replace the closed rural landfill in Duvall . The proposed site is at approximately 14401 N.E . 190th near Woodinville. The proposed transfer station design will be similar to the Bow Lake Transfer Station. The proposed design will incorporate a maceration pit that allows temporary holding of solid waste on site . Such holding capa- bility permits operational flexibility in leveling peak and off-peak use of the facility in order to meet the expanding solid waste needs of the Northshore community. 284 The current cost estimate (1982) is $9 ,222 ,723. Project fund- ing will be from a limited general obligation bond sale authorized by Ordinance No. 5694 and anticipated Referendum 39 grant monies from the Department of Ecology. Construction, including final design, should run from January 1984 through November 1985 . Rural Landfill Upgrade- Vashon , Cedar Falls , Enumclaw, and Hobart rThis project will provide for periodic analysis of on- site groundwater and the development of plans for future leachate control systems at the Cedar Falls , Enumclaw, Hobart and Vashon Island rural landfills . Groundwater wells will be constructed at each of the four rural landfills to provide a means to sample and analyze the leachate content of the groundwater. Running water , septic tanks and drainfields will be installed at each site. Leachate control measures will be designed for each site and installed as required. This project is intended to provide for the continued use of rural landfills by meeting conditions for environmentally ' safe operation as specified in the nonconforming use permits issued by the Public Health Department. ' The current cost estimate (1981) is $243 ,200 . Project funding will be from a limited general obligation bond sale rauthorized by Ordinance No. 5694 and anticipated Referendum 39 grant monies from the Department of Ecology. ' Vashon Landfill Leachate Control ' This project involves the construction of a leachate con- trol system at the existing Vashon Island Sanitary Landfill including the installation of a leachate holding tank and the 1 purchase of a truck and tank trailer to transport the leachate from the landfill to appropriate disposal facilities . The ' justification for this project is based primarily on compliance 285 requirements with the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health permit . According to the health permit stipulations , the King County Solid Waste Division is obligated to provide a leach- ate control system at the Vashon Island landfill. This project is included in the $14.5 million Solid Waste capital improvement program general obligation band issue approved by the King County Council in September 1981 . The original cost estimate (1982) was $165 ,900. The Solid Waste Division is preparing grant applications for Referendum 39 funding assistance from the Department of Ecology for this pro- ject . , CITY OF SEATTLE Kent Highlands and Midway Landfill - Closure Plan The City operates two solid waste landfill sates which are about 15 miles south of Seattle . These sites are nearing capa- city. Statutory and public health regulations require prepara- tion of a comprehensive closure plan. The plan will determine , the best means to address methane gas control , leachates , sur- face water collection, and final grading. The cost of prepara- tion of the closure plan will be $210 ,000. Additional funds will be needed to prepare the necessary State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documents and to design and construct the improvements identified in the closure plan and future capital improvement programs. Work on the landfills closure plan commenced in the fourth quarter of 1981 . It is anticipated that the closure plan will be completed , in 1982 and preparation of the necessary SEPA documents and some of the design activities for the various improvements will be done in 1983. Completion of design activities are expected in 1984 and 1985 as well as the beginning of some construction activities . It is anticipated the construction activities will continue through 1987 or 1988 depending on the life of the landfills . 286 NI IIS Major capital improvements will be construction of drainage collection and discharge facilities . methane gas collection and control facilities . leachate collection and control facilities , monitoring facilities , maintenance roads , landscaping and fencing. The estimates shown in the six-year capital improvement program NIare preliminary and will be refined once the closure plan is com- pleted and adopted. it Transport Fleet The City of Seattle long-haul transport fleet is also reach- ing an age where the equipment needs replacing. Several of the tractors are significantly past the projected useful life . The 1 first of the "live floor" trailer fleet is now approaching the end of their useful life. The increasing age plus the longer and steeper haul to Cedar Hills will require upgrading the fleet . The long-haul equipment replacement program is expected to ' commence in 1985 and extend over a four-year period. The esti- mated project cost (1982) is $7 ,230 ,000 . Referendum 39 funds will be sought for $3 ,615 ,000. North and South Transfer Stations ' Rehabilitation The Solid Waste Utility maintains one transfer station in the Fremont area (north) and a second station in South Park (south) . These stations need extensive rehabilitation. The North Station needs rehabilitation of dumping and compacting areas , construction of concrete stairways , and pavement resur- facing. The South Station needs construction of concrete stair- ways , rehabilitation of compacting pits , relocation of trans- formers and pumps , rehabilitation of roof T-beams , and an addition to the scalehouse. Repairs by city crews in 1982 will be made to the North Station dumping area. In 1982 work will focus on repairing both stations ' compacting pits and ' expanding the scalehouse at the South Station. 287 Expended thru 1982 1983 1984 TOTAL Annual Capital Improvement 114 ,000 575 ,000 340,000 1 ,029 ,000 Program Additional Improvements and Projects The City of Seattle is considering additional capital pro- jects which may seek to use Referendum 39 funds . The City' s planning process may recommend projects such as equipment acqui- sitions , energy recovery facilities , recycling and composting , facilities . CITY OF CARNATION Truck Acquisition Beds garbage compactor truck to re- The city urgently n a g g place the Ford 600 dump truck currently used. Landfill An asphalt-coated steel holding tank and concrete inter- ceptor back filled with a minimum of three feet of coarse gravel will be installed along the east edge of the property in the event leachate is detected in either surface runoff or groundwater. The landfill site needs to be fenced. The fencing will be extended in annual increments to enclose working cells . r 288 I{ HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING Hazardous waste was not addressed in the present revi- sion of the plan because of continuing ambiguity in the roles I� and responsibilities for hazardous waste handling and the absence of baseline waste data. Under present laws and by tregu- lations , hazardous waste planning will beconducted Solid Waste Management Board. Hazardous waste will be covered in a second phase to be completed in 1984. The hazardous waste section will be incorporated into the plan through the amend- ment process for major changes as described in the nlan . The ' funding undin for the hazardous waste element of the plan and exact description of the work to be completed remains to be deter- mined by the Solid Waste Management Board. The hazardous waste element will parallel the original plan in scope and ' format . Greater detail will be provided , to the extent that the information is available . A set of tasks and schedule for completion of the hazardous waste element of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ' are set forth. 289 i Tasks and Schedule for ' Addition of Hazardous Waste Element To 'The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ' TASK COMPLETION I. Activate Advisory Committee and subcommittee March 1983 a) Review work plan b) Restructure and expand subcommittee ' II. Review laws, regulatory system and responsi- April 1983 bilities , a) Review laws, regulations, programs b) Existing responsibilities c) Proposed legislation I:II . Review and compile existing data base June 1983 ! a) Information available b) Identified problems and issues c) Sources and adequacy of data d) Identify information deficiencies IV. Waste generation information September 1983 ' a) Identify potential generators b) Inventory actual and potential generators by survey and contact c) Inventory wastes, compile waste stream information d) Identify wastes entering county for treatment and disposal e) Identify small-scale generators or users f) Forecast generation rates V. Describe existing system November 1983 a) Inventory operators, treatment facilities and disposal sites b) Inventory former disposal sites c) Analyze disposal practices for small amounts of waste d) Identify special programs, studies or evaluations e) Identify regulatory practices, and adequacy 'VI . Analyze capacity of system January 1984 a) Assess systemwide capacity for treatment and disposal b) Identify changes or planned improvements c) Consider operating procedures and safety d) Review regulatory and enforcement prac- tices e) Compare system capacity with treatment -or disposal need 1 290 r Ai f) Forecast capacity and future need for I'I treatment and disposal quantities in `` g) Analyze disposal of small mixed municipal disposal facilities VII. Identify needs, opportunities and alternatives February 1984 a) Develop scenarios b) Identify needs for system expansion and improvement c) Consideo prator recommendationsblic- and ctor roles d) Secure Pe e) Develop alternatives r f) Identify priority problems March 1984 VIII . Draw conclusions ' a) Make responsibility recommendations b) Agree on system impacts rational c) Make facility, program, and operational suggestions d) Amend 6-year and 20-year implementation programs IX. Prepare supplemental environmental impact April 1984 statement a) Draft D£IS ' b) Circulate for review and comment c) Hold hearing dWaste Management Plan June 1984 X. Amend Comprehensive Soli ' a) Add hazardous waste element b) Make substantive changes as warranted 291 r OPERATIONAL PLANNING The Solid Waste Management Board has prepared the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The compre- hensive plan is viewed by the Department of Ecology as a policy plan which needs to be substantiated by more detailed ' operational plans . The operational plans will be prepared by individual operating agencies . Each operating agency is obligated to provide , the opportunity for Department of Ecology staff consultation in the preparation of the operating flan. The State Environmental Policy Act process , the A-95 re- view, and Seattle-King County Department of Public Health per- mitting process will be used by the Solid Waste Management Board to verify consistency of operational proposals with ' the policy plan and to promote consistency between long- range goals and operational plans over time . General operational programs will be incorporated into the regional plan as appendices after consultation with the Department of Ecology. Operational programs will not be subject to ratifi- cation by individual member jurisdictions of the Solid haste Management Board , but consistency with the plan will be de- termined by the Board. The schedule for completion of operational plans will be determined by each operating agency. The Solid Waste Management Board encourages all operational plans to be com- pleted and adopted by June of 1984. The Washington State Department of Ecology may provide incentives for timely com- pletion of some or all elements of the operational plans . The 293 City of Seattle Engineering Department is preparing an ' operational plan for submission to the Seattle City Council by October 15 , 1983 . OPERATION PLANS TO BE PREPARED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES City of Seattle : collection, transfer , long;-haul transport , and disposal , transfer , long-haul transport , and King County: ' 'disposal Carnation collection, long-haul transport , and disposal , Enumclaw: collection Skykomish: collection Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle : sludge 294 ' I'I GLOSSARY "Conforming Permit": Permit for a solid waste disposal site that conforms to A-95: federal aT'Tantsstate ozTlaansebenzeviewed all applicable sections of the Minimum bequests for g Functional Standards. by regional and local governmentsfor consistency with their adopted p and plans. construction and demolition waste: waste building materials and rubble resulting aerobic: the biological state of living from construction, remodeling, repair,and demolition operations on houses, and growing in the absence of oxygen. pavements, and commercial buildings, p SACT: "best available control technology' other structures. for reductions of particulate emissions storage: galvanized metal or from incinerators or boilers. containers, plastic containers specifically in- 82 �erm: an artificial ridge of earth. tended for use to store sizes normally y solid waste. vary from 20 to ht xboard: paperboard used in the manufactpaper-aur- allons. The container has tight- itting cover and suitable handles. ing of cartons and rigid boxes (See board) - containers, storage (detachable) : A par- containers, (British thermal unit) : the quantity of tially mechanized self-service zefuse- removal procedure with specially heat required to increase the temperature constructed containers and vehicles. of one pound of water from 59.50 to It is mechanized in that special 60.50F• equipment is used to empty the con- : a white ductile metallic element tainers and haul refuse to the disposal ' used for coating small steel articles site. It is self-service in that the as a protection against corrosion. Added customer puts the refuse in the Ion- to overhead copper conductors to increase tainez. strength Symbol— Cd. cover material: granular material, generally [ell: the volasoil, that is used to cover compacted e of compacted colic waste solid waste in a sanitary landfill , enclosed by natural soil and/or cover material in a sanitary landfill. generally free of large objects that would hinder compaction and free of certificate: the certificate of public organic content that would beandiozclve convenience and necessity authorized to to vector harborage, feeding be issued for the operation of garbage breeding. and/or refuse collection companies under scrap glass, usually broken up into ' the provisions of chapter 295, Laws of cullet: feces. 1961, as amended (often called a certi- small, uniform p ficate of public necessity) - category of dangerous wastes: a second categ _ hazardous wastes ely hazardousare swastest. �o-disposal: disposal of mixed municipal solid ening than extremely waste and waste water treatment sludge in Dangerous wastes include not only re- the same process or facility- active, corrosive, ignitable, and ir.fec- co-generation: generation of stream and tious materials, but wastes whchare ' moderately toxic and less persistent Ex- -generation from the same leuse ofthethan extremely hazardous wastes. Co-generation 1s the req spent amples of dangerous wastes are used fuel source to produce both electricity acetone (because of flammability) . P and some other useful form of thermal or sulfuric acid (because of corrosivity), mechanical energy. hospital wastes UP refuse at and certain untreated hosp' collection: the act of picking p (because of their infectious nature) . home, business or industrial site and put- Hore specific procedures and te criteria ting it in a truck. outlined in the ltazazdous caste Reg employees— tion must be followed particulartw=teeis collection, municipal: city Pays departments. whether or not a particular operation conducted by city dep classified as extremely Radioactivedangerous, or nonhazardous. ' composting: • controlled microbial dsgra• (Continued) dation of organic waste yielding a nuisance-free product of potential value as a soil conditioner. 2 95 wastes are also hazardous, but are spe- for ensuring that governmental , residen- cifically exempted from control by the tial, commercial and industrial waste- ' Department of Ecology (RCW 70.105.110) . disposal activities ido not adversely The federalgovernment and the State impact the physical environment. Department of Social and Health Services share responsibilities for radioactive waste management. ' decomposition (anaerobic) : reduction of franchise: authority given by UTC to oper- the net energy level and change in chem- ate in a geographic area. ical composition of organic matter caused ' by microorganisms in an anaerobic environ- garbage: includes, but shall not be limited went„ to, offal or animal and vegetable wastes which may be mixed with refuse. Garbage demolition waste: waste materials produced includes scrap, waste materials, dead from the destruction of buildings, roads, animals, discarded articles, garbage dis- ' sidewalks, etc. The materials usually posal, and swill. The term does not include large broken pieces of concrete, include sewage disposal or cesspool wastes pipe, radiators, duct work, electric wire, which are hauled in special equipment as broken-up plaster walls, lighting fixtures, an incidental part of a septic tank or ' cesspool cleaning service. dewatering: the removal of water by fil- tration, centrifugation, pressing, open- hazardous waste: those hypes of solid waste air drying or other methods. Dewatering which present the most serious threat to ' makes sewage sludge suitable for dis- human health and the environment. They posal by burning or landfilling. The may be considered hazardous because of term is also applied when removing their reactive, corrosive, ignitable, water from pulp. infectious, toxic, or persistent nature. digester: specially designed equipment In Washington, under the Hazardous Waste ' in which waste materials are softened Disposal Act (Ch. 70.105 RCW) and the or decomposed, usually for further pro- Hazardous Waste Regulation (Ch. 173-302 cessing. WAC) , hazardous wastes are categorized , into two groups: Extremely hazardous disposal, on-site: includes all means of wastes are those wastes which are most disposal of refuse on premises before t neatening to man and the environment. collection. Examples are garbage Wastes are designated as extremely grinding, burning or incineration, hazardous when they (1) are highly and burial. toxic to man and wildlife, (2) exist in such quantities as to present an extreme disposal site: the location where any hazard to man or wildlife, or (3) per- final treatment, utilization, process- sist and affect genetic makeup or may be ing, or deposition of solid waste concentrated by living organisms. Depend- occurs. (RCW 70.95.030) . This in- ing upon concentration and quantity, ex- cludes , but is not limited to, amples of extremely hazardous wastes are sanitary landfills, incinerators, heavy metal sludges, polychlorinated bi- compost plants, pyrolysis plants, phenyls (PCBs) , or pesticide residues , transfer stations, salvage and recla- such as parathion, aldrin, and DDT. mation sites, grinding facilities and hog feeding. (Minimum Functional incineration: the controlled combustion Standards) . process of burning solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible wastes to gases drop box: a large-volume (10 cu. and to a residue containing little com- yds. - 7.645 cu. m.) detachable con- bustible material. tainer that can be pulled onto a ser- , vice vehicle mechanically and trans- incinerator: any device used for the ported to a disposal site for emptying. burning of refuse where the factors of combustion, i.e. , temperature, retention energy recovery: the extraction from solid time, turbulence; and combustion air, can waste, either of materials with fuel be controlled. ' value or of heat during incineration. The materials may be used as extracted landfill, sanitary: 1) a method of dispos- or may be bricketted or converted to ing of refuse on land without creating other fuels, e.g. , alcohol or fuel gas. nuisances or hazards to public health ' or safety, by utilizing the principles Environmental Protection Agency 13F PA) : an of engineering to confine the refuse to agency of the Federal Government, formed (continued) in 1970, which has the responsibility 296 ' H: negative log of b7drogen ion concentra- the smallest practical area to reduce P tion—Measure of alkalinity or acidity. it to the smallest practicer ool me, and to cover it with a lay trescible: eithof esulficieen�toced at the conclusion of each day's opera- b microorganisms rapidity as to cause nuisances from tion or at such more frequent intervals odors, gases, etc. Kitchen wastes, ae may be necessary. (ASCE definition) . Z) a sanitary landfill is a system for offal, and dead animals arefesolidewaste. of putrescible comp s 0 final disposal of solid waste on land, a given waste material in which the waste is spread and tom- res cling: separating 8 _ patted on an inclined, minimized working (e g glas ) from the waste be usedand face in a series ofrcvidedells aso thatino processing it so that it may again cover of earth is p as the raw material for products which may r hazard or insult to the environment or may not be similar to the original. results. (Environmental Protection worthless, Agency, Office of Solid-4Jaste Manage- ment Programs, Training Branch, defini- refuse: includes all c�ected oy useless, discarded, rejected andeanimaleanded tion) • material, excep leachate: liquid emanating from a land vegetable waste materials; also it in scrap, waste materials, rubbish, disposal cell that contains dissolved, non-commercial lamp black, waste acid, suspended an microbial contaminants sludge, broken building and fire bricks, from the solid waste. discarded rubber tires , noncommercial sawdust, debris, trade waste, discarded litter: all waste material including, sawdust articles and industrial waste. The tern but not limited to disposable p does include earth or dirtmixed with re ' or containers thrown or deposited as here- in prohibited but not including the waste fuse but not commercially or primary processes of mining, gg g' whirs ate, etc. VOTEed as 1 The, roaincideatal haul- cati+cilling, farming or manufacturing. ing of pure refuse as herein defined may ' (RCI: 70.93.030) . be a part of a regular garbage collection and disposal service. methane: an odorless, colozless�e°source Act of poisonous and explosive gas Resource Conservation and Recovery is from sanitary landfills undergoing anaerobic microbial decomposition. 1976: the basic federal solid waste manage- went act. (See the section of thegalan nonconforming permit: permit for a non- on ' Legislative Background Authority".) conforming site. which does resource recovery is a open dump: any disposal facility resource recovery: usable materials not meet the criteria for a sanitary general ter a used t desc ibe the ex- landfill promulgated under the Resource from waste materials. The ' or energy or con-, Conservation and Recovery Act. concept may involve recycling paperboard: a broad category of paper version into dipossibilferent itiesoinclude:es un- related uses. v recovery by products heavier, thicker and more rigid Conversion, mainly energ, uel values; than paper. Paperboard includes wood- using pulp paperboard manufactured from virgin Transformation, chemical processes which ' pulp, and combination paperboard menu- roducts: Reuse_e.g. create new y-p factured from a combination of recycled returnable bottles) ; and Recvcll (e.g fibers and sometimes a small amount of Glacphalt," a glass-base ig y p ' saterial-) virgin pulp. paperstock: a general term used to desiR- ers which have been sorted reuse: the use of a waste material or p= - nate waste pap duct more than once. For example, a or segregated at the source into various company and i recognized grades. It is a principal soft-drink bottle is reused when t s returned to the bottling ingredient ierthe manufacture of certain refilled. types of pap a solid waste disposal site d. rubbish: non-bulk domestic ommPrcla ' permit: solid waste exclusive of garbage. permit, or a vehicle permit, a:rtsmentdof y the Seattle-King County Dep Public Health, in conformance with these standards. 297 handling: the management, stor- i sanitary landfill: a controlled method for solid waste collection,gttransportation, treatment, the disposal of waste on land. The end utilization, processing, and final dis- ' goal is sometimes the eventual economic oval of solid wastes, including the re- use of the filled area. The technique cover and recycling of materials from includes careful preparation of the fill Y the re- area, control of heavyter tractorlike equipment sourcese and then solid afromstes�such wastesrorothenconveze �" P act waste in alternate &ion of the energy in such wastes to more i tto spread and comp useful forms or combinations thereof. :layers with dirt. When the area is com- used for pletely filled, a final 2- to 3-ft. layer Of dirt is spread. In the trench method traTemovinsfer tarefuse fromXcollectionytrucks and the fill area is a series of trenches. A git in long-haul vehicles. ' ]landfill is often turned into a park, golf placing course, etc. Because of the relative softness of the fill area, buildings con- waste stream: the hicalsarea,wfacility, or strutted on the site must be supported any geographical source. ' with piles or special foundations in con- specific tact with solid ground. (See Dump.) watershed: total area above a given point on a stream or waterway which contri- secondary materials: those materials which butes runoff to that point. ' might go to waste if not collected and Processed for reuse. Includes scrap, working face: that portion of the compacted metals, waste, and junk. (See under solid waste at a sanitary landfill which definitions of each.) will have more waste placed on it and/or is being compacted prior to placement of sept,age: the residual from septic tanks cover material. and cesspools. sewage sludge: a semiliquid substance i consisting of suspended sewage solids combined with water and dissolved mater- ial in varying amounts. sludge: waste materials which are in the ' form of a highly concentrated fslusrom hy residue. Sludge is produced he treatment of sewage. ' solid waste: useless, unwanted, or dis- carded material with insufficient liquid content to be free flowing. 1.) agricultural - the solid waste that results from the rearing and slaughtering of animals and the processing of animal pro- ducts and orchard and field crops; 2) commercial - solid waste generated by stores, offices and other acti- vities that do not actually turn out a product; ' 3) industrial - solid waste that re- sults from industrial processes and manufacturing; 4) residential - all solid waste that norally originates in environma environment. Sometimescallededo- mestic waste. RCW 70.95.030 defines solid waste as: all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demo- lition and construction wastes, aban- ' doned vehicles oz parts thereof, and discarded commodities. i 298 1 1 1 FINAL � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 0 STATEMENT ON THE 1982 If COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE 1 MANAGEMENT PLAN - FOR � KING COUNTY 1 1 1 1 1 Puget Sound Council of Governments Solid Waste Management eo.a aM wo-.oie.i cweN 299 The preparation of this environmental impact statement was assisted by a grant from the Department of Ecology pursuant to Referendum 39. �� II IBM 'I 300 INTRODUCTION SPONSOR: ' King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments acting as the Solid Waste Management Board for the King County area. ' BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The 1_982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for King County is a revision of the 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan entitled Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area, Part IV: Solid Waste. The revised comprehensive solid waste manage- ment plan complies with local planning requirement in RCW 70.95. The plan establishes broad regional goals to guide solid waste plan- ning and long-range decisions. The goals promote interjurisdictional coordination; seek to improve the public health and the quality of the environment, and promote cost-effective materials and energy recovery. The plan examines existing conditions in the solid waste system and notes "needs" and opportunities to improve the system including plan- ning, operations, and enforcement. Responsibilites for facets of the solid waste management system are assigned consistent with applicable laws. LEAD AGENCY : King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments functioning as the Solid Waste Management- Board. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mart Kask, Executive Director Puget Sound Council of Governments CONTACT PERSON: Henry Sharpe, (206) 464-7549 Solid Waste Management Board Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 301 I� AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS: Henry Sharpe (introduction, description, alternatives, impacts, ele- ments of the environment, short-term versus long-term, responses to DEIS comments) . I James Billing: (elements of the environment.) LICENSES REQUIRED: _ None. The Plan will be adopted by resolution by the resolution by the King Subregional Council acting as the Solid Waste Management Board. The Plan will be approved by the King County Council and the city councils of each city in King County (per the planning guidelines of the Washington Department of Ecology must approve the The De State Department of Ecology) . p Plan. Licenses, permits, grants, contracts and capital expenditures by state and local entities, public and private, will be required to imple- ment the provisions of the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The types of agencies in a position to implement the provisions of the plan include those shown in the table on the following pages. 100CATION OF EIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Puget Sound Council of Governments Offices 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 COST TO PUBLIC: Free, while the supply lasts; thereafter, Xerox cost @10 cents per page. Loan copies available. DATE OF ISSUE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: November 30, 1982 Final Environmental Impact Statement: January 24, 1983 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: December 14, 1982 and December 15, 1982 COMMENT DEADLINE: January 5, 1983 DATE OF ACTION: Committee on Solid Waste - February 9, 1983 Solid Waste Management Board - February 10, 1983 Cities and County - After February 10, 1983 302 p�LE}SE`�'TATION OF THE COMPREH£AISIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MAIN EFFLCTS TYPES OF It1r EKENTI!1G ACTIONS AGENCY/ENTITY _ Councilmanic adoption resolutions 'l Local Seneral purpose Endorse plan Collection franchise, license and contract mii govarrents Intergovernmental provisions for implementation actions and coordination waste control Participation in ecapzehensive solid waste Operate solid waste systems planning Facility siting Litter regulation Recycling goals Joperations 7� COMP Compilation solid waste Plan revisions, regional goals ovement programs Solid waste Management Compilation of capital imp Board planning and long range plans Implementation schedules Intergovernmental coordination Provide a forum for coordination, protect review 1� projects . Matching grants from Referendum 39 Washington State Fund capital p 7 Statewide comprehensive solid Technical assistance Department of Ecologywaste planning NDDEP5 permits for leachate systems Enforcement Minimal functional standards and hazardc'- waste enforcement i Monitoring Seattle-King County Regulation Enforcement Department of Public Minimum functional standards Health Capital improvement programs Solid waste operating Operations, handling and rational plans Agencies implementation activities operations Compliance with the minimal functional standards I _ Provision of services: , Facilities operations including energ": Private operators recovery collection, transfer, Capital investment Hazardous waste handling hauling and disposal and disposal ' Hazardous waste operations and management Recycling operations Recyclers Waste reduction Innovation and development Materials recovery Issuance of certificates of putllc Was=,ingtor, State Regulation convenience and necessit•," Utllitiei and Transportation — Coemission Designation of attainment and non- Puget Sound Air Regulation attainment areas _echnologies - pollution Control Emission standards and t Agency offsets Risk standards and security Financial Cosmunity Financing waste control 1 303 11 11 �� TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 I Introduction 5 IL Table of Contents 7 III Distribution List 15 IV Summary 15 Proposed Action 16 Environmental Impacts 18 1lOmission of Hazardous Waste 21 V Description of Proposed Action 21 Proposed Action 21 Sponsor 21 Area Affected 21 1 Land Use 23 Timing 24 Plan Description 43 VI Existing Environmental Conditions 43 Physical Environment 43 Human Environment 65 Existing Solid Waste Management System ' 69 VII Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Action and Mitigating Measures 6Q Impacts on the Physical Environment 72 Impacts on the Human Environment VIII Relationship Between Local SHort-term Uses of 75 ' Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 77 IX Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments 79 1 X Alternatives to the Proposal 95 XI Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 97 XII List of Elements of the Environment XIII Omission of Hazardous Waste from the Environmental 99 Impact Statement XIV Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental 103 Impact Statement ' 305 �I DISTRIBUTION LIST A' FEDERAL GOVERNMENT II - Lironmental Protection Agy. US Dept. Health & Human Svcs. US Dept. of Agriculture Regional Director US Forest Service l:lcl Waste Program 1601 Second Avenue 0( sixth Avenue 1321 Second Avenue Seattle WA 98101 a IF a WA 98101 Seattle WA 98101 ipt. of Interior US Dept. of Energy Federal Aviation Administration c•IINE gical Survey Regional Administrator NW Region Ci 45th 915 Second Avenue 9010 E. Marginal Way South t� le WA 98105Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98101 US Army Corps of Engineers, Pt. of Interior US Dept. of Agriculture Seattle District Office 915 Second Avenue sand Wildlife Service Seattle WA 98104 4735 E. Marginal Way South 0 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 attle WA 98101 ; ipt. of Interior US Dept. of Housing and Urban Bureau of Indian Affairs )nneville Power Administrator Development, Seattle Office Portland Office Second Avenue reg Community Planning & Development EnvironmentalP � 6Coordinator 1!i first Avenue North 1321 Secoportand OR 97208 eattle WA 98109 Seattle WA 98101 STATE AGENCIES Dept, of Health and Social Washington State Energy Office ei tment of Ecology 1000 South Cherry Street f ce of Land Programs Services Health Services Division Olympia WA 98504 olid Waste Division P.O. Box 1788 ;a Stop DV-11 Ilia WA 98504 Olympia WA 98504 aepartment of Ecology Department of Transportation Washington State Dept. of :n ronemtnal Review Highway Administration Bldg. Commerce & Economic Developmen WA 98504 101 General Administration Bldg. loOlympia pia WA 98504 Olympia WA 98504 Planning and Community Affairs Washington State University Irtment of Ecology Washington Archaeological e ional Office Agency Research Center 150th N.E. 400 Capitol Center Bldg. Pullman WA 99163 nd WA 98052 Olympia WA 98504 Office of Archaeology and rtment of Game Parks and Recreation Com. - Historic Preservation Regional Office P.O. Box A 9 307 Olympia WA 9-504 State of Washington 45 Fairview Avenue North Ymp 111 West 21st Street tle WA 98109 Olympia WA 98504 ' Department of Fisheries Department of Natural Resources Office of Fiscal Management , Public Lands Building Legislative Building 5803 Capital Blvd. South Olympia WA 98504 Tumwater WA 98501 Olympia WA 98504 Department of Game Department of Natural Resources Utilities and Transportation- 600 North Capital Way Area Manager Commission Olympia WA 98004 28329 S.S. 448th Street Highway and Licenses Bldg. Enumclaw WA 98022 Olympia WA 98504 , REGIONAL AGENCIES Central Puget Sound Economic Seattle-King County Dept. of Snohomish County Dept. of Development District Public Health Public Health 216 First Avenue South Public Safety Bldg. , Rm. 903 Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 Puget Sound Air Pollution Agcy. King County Boundary Review University of Washington libral Art R. Dammkoehler Board Attn: College of Engineering 410 West Harrison Street King County Courthouse Seattle WA 98101 Seattle WA 98119 516 Third Avenue ' Seattle WA 98104 Municipality of Metropolitan Puget Sound Council of University of Washington Libr Seattle Governments Attn: College of Architecture Environmental Review 216 First Avenue South and Urban Planning 821 Second Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Gould Hall ' Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98105 Municipality of Metropolitan Pierce County Dept. of Public Seattle Health Water Quality 821 Second. Avenue Seattle WA 98104 ' LOCAL GOVERNMENT Willis Tucker, County Executive Roy Ferguson, Mayor Isabel Hogan, Mayor Bellevue City Hall Kent City Hall Snohomish County 220 S. Fourth Carnegie Building 11511 Main Street P.O. Box 1768 Kent 'WA 98032 3001 Oakes Avenue Everett WA 98201 Bellevue WA 98009 308 ' LOCAL GOVERNMENT (con.) Vivian Bainton, Mayor D.V. Hurst, Mayor hairman, Snohomish County City o�r Black Diamond City of Kirkland Council 210 Main Street nohomish County Courthouse P. 0. Box Diamond, WA 98010 Kirkland WA 98033 ,j, 002 Wetmore ;verett WA 98201 "hairman, Pierce County Council Mayor, City of Bothell Ben Cashman, Mayor 1$ 046 County-City Building Bothell City Hall City of Lake Forest Park �30 Tacoma Avenue 18305 101st N.E. 17711 Ballinger Way N.E. ';racoma WA_ 98402 Bothell WA 98011 Seattle WA 98155 Nick Loutsis, Mayor Beth Bland, Mayor oot'h Gardner, Pierce County City of Carnation Mercer Island City Hall ' Executive P. 0. Box 267 3505 88th Ave. S.E. _)35 County-City Building Carnation, WA 98014 Mercer Island WA 98040 930 Tacoma Avenue I�racoma WA 98402 Bill Mahan, Chairman Dwayne Richards, Mayor John Dawson, Mayor City of Clyde Hill Normandy Park City Hall Kitsan Countv Commissioners 9615 N.E. 24th Street 19900 4th S.w. I�614 Division Street Bellevue WA 98004 Normandy Park WA 98166 Port Orchard WA 98366 IlMayor Tom Mannard, Mayor Oscar B. Miller, Mayor Everett City Hall Des Moines City Hall City of North Bend 3002 Wetmore Avenue 21630 11th Avenue South P.O. Box 896 I-Everett WA 98203 Des Moines WA 98188 North Bend WA 98045 Doug Sutherland, Mayor Mayor, City of Duvall Christine Himes, Mayor Tacoma Municipal Building Duvall City Hall City Hall 740 St. Helens Ave. Suite 1220 Main & Stella Streets 15670 N.E. 85th Street Tacoma WA 98402 P.O. Box 47 Redmond WA 98052 I' Duvall WA 98019 William Larson, Mayor mayor, Cit of Enumclaw Barbara Shinpoch, Mayor Renton City Hall City of Algona Enumclaw City Hall 200 Mill Avenue S. 402 Warde Street 1309 Lafromboise Renton WA 98055 Algona WA 98002 Enumclaw WA 98022 i Bob Roegner, Mayor J. W. Barton, Mayor Charles Royer, Mayor Auburn City Hall Town of Hunts Point City of Seattle 25 West Main 3000 Hunts Point Road 12000 Munile cipal Building Auburn WA 98002 Bellevue, WA 98004 1 04 Mayor, Town of Beaux Arts Mayor, City of Issaquah Jeanette Williams, Presiden Village Issaquah City Hall Seattle City Council 1 1100 Municipal Building 0550 S.E. 27th P.O. Box M Seattle WA 98104 ' Bellevue WA 98004 Issaquah WA 98027 309 r i i Joyce Timpe, Major Minor C. wile Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Inc , Mayor, Town of Yarrow Point 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. Town of Skykomish 4705 _ 91st Avenue N.E. Auburn WA 98002 P. 0. Box 308 8004 , Skykomish WA 98288 Bellevue, WA 9 Darwin Sukut, Mayor Randy Revelle, County Executive Suquamish Tribe ' P.O. Box 498 � City Hall _ King County Courthouse P.O. Box 337 516 Third Avenue Suquamish WA 98392 Snoqualmie WA 98065 Seattle WA 98104 , Gary Van IDusen, Mayor Lois North, Chairman, King Port Gamble Klallam Tribe ' Tukwila City Hall County P.O. Box 280 6200 Southcenter Blvd. King County Courthouse Kingston WA 98346 Tukwila WA 98188 516 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98104 , LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS i Seattle City Light Seattle City Council King County Department of Office of Environmental Affairs Administrator Public Works 1015 Third Avenue 1100 Municipal Bldg. 900 King County Admin. Bldg. i Seattle WA 98104 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 Gene Avery, Director of Seattle Public Library Office of the King County i Engineering 1000 Fourth Avenue Prosecuting Attorney Seattle Municipal Bldg. Seattle WA 98104 King County Courthouse, W-55� Seattle WA 98104 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Seattle Solid Waste Utility Manager, King County Solid King County Council Muicipal Buildling Waste Division Administrator 600 Fourth Avenue 601 F.X. McRory Building 402 King County Courthouse 419 Occidental Avenue 516 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 Seattle Engineering Department, King County Planning Division King County Library System Office for Planning King County Courthouse Rm W-217 Service Center 910 Municipal Bldg. Seattle WA 98104 300 Eith Avenue North Seattle WA 98109 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Office of Intergovernmental King County Dept. of Budget Geoff Ethelston Relations and Program Development Bellevue Utility Department 306 Municipal Bldg. King County Courthouse, Rm 400 P.O. Box 1768 , 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Bellevue WA 98009 Seattle WA 98104 310 1 COUNCIL ON SOLID WASTE, MEMBERS (not otherwise listed) Councilmember Dick Rainforth Counc106401NEemr 45th Doris Cooper touncilmember Fred Jarrett .14,46 77th Place SE 3221 181st if Seattlele WA 98155 Kirkland WA 98033 iercer Island WA 98040 Councilmember Gary Grant Councilmember Nan Campbell Td 'Fitzsimmons Courthouse 480 W. Lake Sammamish Blvd NE it. King County Courthouse 402 King County CourBellevue WA 98005 51E Third Avenue 516 Third Avenue t.tle WP, 98104 Seattle WA 98104 S4 '1 C zcilmember Jack Richards Councilmember Michael Stensen Councilmember Audrey Gruger 1309 LaFramboise 402 King County Courthouse 13 Municipal Building 516 Third Avenue Ef Fourth Avenue Enumclaw WA 98022 Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 11CouncilmemberCouncilmember Doreen Marchione Co02King Couuncilmember Dru Briggs 4ngCouScott Blairnty Courthouse 16532 NE 98th Ct 402 1 >19 SE 19th Redmond WA 98052 ,B��1levue WA 98005 516 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98104 NEWSPAPERS SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER SEATTLE TIMES FLIER NEWSPAPERS Attn: Dan Coughlin Fairview Ave N. & John St, 704 West Meeker Street 521 Wall Street Seattle WA 98111 V t WA 98031 Seattle WA 98109 3 ISH VALLEY NEWS ROBINSON NEWSPAPERS 4. Vox 716 10033 13th Avenue S.W. .Redmond WA 98052 Seattle WA 98148 .fOURNAL-AMERICAN NORTHSHORE CITIZEN P.O. Box 706 Box 310 11-evue WA 98008 10200 N.E.Citizen Place Bothell WA 311 MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ms. Chris Chapman Miles Fuller Warren Razore, President Washington Citizens for Public Works Director RABANCO, Ideal Paper, Unite , Recycling 3505 86th Avenue S.S. Waste Control P.O. Box 2449 Mercer Island WA 98040 9 South Massachusetts St. Seattle WA 98111 Seattle WA 98134 Harriet Woods Peg Sparkman William Segale League of Women Voters League of Women Voters RST Disposal Co. Inc. 6711 39th Avenue S.W. 5726 N.E. 71st 15424 Des Moines Way S. ' Seattle WA 98136 Seattle WA 98115 Seattle WA 98188 Randle Thornton Richard Owings Mr. Arun G. Jhaveri ' Fredrick and Nelson Solid Waste Division Mgr. John Graham & Co. 5th and Pine Dept. of Public Works 1110 3rd Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Co. Administration Bldg. Seattle WA 98101 Everett WA 98201 Mr. Byron Ward Dennis Parish Dr. Gary Zimmerman 11204 106th Avenue N.E. Seattle City Light Liberal Arts Building ' Kirkland WA 98033 1015 Third Avenue Seattle University Seattle WA 98104 900 Broadway Seattle WA 98122 , Timothy Powell Corey Knutsen Don Spickard SEAFIRST human Resources Puget Sound Power and Light 1111 McGilvra Blvd. E. P.O. Box 3977 Puget Power Building Seattle WA 98112 Seattle WA 98124 Bellevue WA 98009 Earl Tower, Supervisor ervisor Mr. Ron West, President Eileen Briem NO DUMP INC. Solid Waste Mgmt Division Chemical Processors 15350 230th S.E. Mail Stop PV-11 5502 Airport Way South Olympia WA 98504 Seattle WA 98108 Issaquah WA 98027 Evan Morris Mr. Gene Tuura, President Palmer Coking Coal Co. Wash. State Recyclers Assn. Box A P.O. Box 3573 Black Diamond WA 99010 Terminal Station Seattle WA 98124 George Cvitanich, Exec. Sec. Bob Schille Wash. Waste Management Assoc. Bayside Disposal 6813 42nd Ave. Ct. N.W. P.O. Box 46018 Gig Harbor WA 98335 Seattle WA 98146 312 II INTERESTED PARTIES AND INDIVIDUALS al .Jean Bacon Ron Posthuma Don Norman 14553 SE 55th Street Metro Mail Stop 95 P.O. Box 307 levue WA 98006 821 Second Avenue Medina WA 98039 Seattle WA 98101 Sam Sperry Andre J. Pack S even Bancherp SCS Engineers 9 . Massachusetts ST. Seattle Energy Office 1008 140th NE SEattle WA 98134 Municipal Building Bellevue WA 98005 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 98104 nara Berry, Admin. Asst. Greg Bishop Mike Paar of Duvall Seattle-King County Health Dept. P.O. Box 267 Box uv 47 900 Public Safety Bldg. Carnation WA 98014 Duvall WA 98019 Seattle WA 98104 11Mr. Conrad Lee BabBergstrom Burr Stewart ty of Renton Planning Department 900 Municipal Bldg. 0 Mill Ave. S. Port of Seattle 600 Fourth Avenue Inton WA 98027 P.O. Box 1209 Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98111 Ine Buggy Pat Proebsting Wilbur Platt 1100 Municipal Bldg. P.O. Box 267 Metro-Exchange Bldg. Carnation WA 98104 1 Second Avenue 600 Fourth Avenue attle WA 98101 Seattle WA 98104 Mr. Paul Tanaka Ron Main fm Evans 400 King County Courthouse 402 King County Courthouse 56 University Way NE 516 Third Avenue 516 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98105 Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 Mab Tocher Michael Waller Karl Fischer get Sound Power & Light City of Seattle, Municipal Bldg 12233 6th NW get Power Bldg. 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 96177 llevue WA 98009 Seattle WA 98104 mber Sue Walsh Councilme Mar lin Monk Beryl Reznandes Mary lin Department 9236 NE 193rd METRO MS 81 (00 00 Municipal Bldg. Bothell WA 96011 821 Second Avenue Fourth Ave. Seattle WA 98101 Seattle WA 98104 tog Schmitz Avery Wells Robert Myers (-llevue ty of Bellevue Solid Waste Div. , Office of Puget Power & Lig t 0. Box 1768 Land Programs 10608 N.E. 4th WA 98009 Dept. of Ecology Bellevue WA 98004 Olympia WA 98504 leen Simmsng County Energy Plan Proj. John Lamb Nelson A Johnson Municipal Res. & Services RABANCO vice President 400 King County Courthouse 4719 Brookly Ave. NE 9 South Massachusetts St Pier Seattle WA 98105 SeaPier 35 6 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98134 Lattle WA 96104 INTERESTED PARTIES AND INDIVIDUALS (con. ) cilmember Bruce Lain , Holly Kean Coun g Dave Haley 401 King County Courthouse 402 King County Courthouse Seattle City Council Staff 516 Third Avenue 516 Third Avenue 1100 Municipal Bldg. , Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 600 Fourth Ave. Seattle WA 98104 Ms Ruth Kees Doug Rotter Donna Gordon , 9506 240th Ave SE Division of Solid Waste 400 King County Courthouse Issaquah WA 98027 601 F.X. McRory Bldg. 516 Third Avenue 419 Occidental Ave S. Seattle WA 98104 Seattle WA 98104 Teri Klein, Manager Miles Fuller Carol Hoppler Puget Sound Relations City of Mercer Island SE:PA Grants Coordinator Weyerhaeuser Co. 3505 88th Ave SE City of Issaquah Tacoma WA 98277 Mercer Island WA 98040 P.O. Box "M" Issaquah WA 98027 Councilmember Paul Kraabel Todd Cromwell/Ronald Ropazio Jerry Jewett/Peter Haskins 1100 Municipal Bldg. Howard, Needles, Tammen and DCE Solid Waste Division ' 600 Fourth Avenue Bergendoff Olympia WA 96504 Seattle WA 98104 600 108th Ave SE, Suite 405 Bellevue WA 98004 , SOLID WASTE COLLECTORS , Warren Razore, President BOB SCHILLE , William Segale RABANCO, Ideal Papez, united BAYSIDE DISPOSAL RST Disposal Co. Inc. Waste Control F' 0 BOX 2317 15424 Moines Way S. 9 South Massachusetts St. REDMOND WA 98052 Seattlee,, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98134 8onald Tweed Jerre Lawson Disposal General Disposal ashon Maury Disposal 40 N.W. Alder Place 22'.010 - 76th S Burton, Washington Issaquah, Washington Kent, Wa 98031 S Washington Disposal Co. Harold LeMay Enterprises Points Garbage Service 19306 69th Place W P_0 BOX 399 Lynnwood, Wshington 98036 Puyallup, Washington 98371 Mighty Mite Rubbish Removal Ralph M. Balzo Profess. 7030 - 156h N.W. Seattle, Washington 314 �1 IV SUMMARY �u Proposed Action The proposed action is adoption of the 1982 sive King County Comprehen ID d Waste Solid Waste Management Plan. The adoption will be by the Soli Management Board and then by King County and the cities in the county. The action will accomplish having an approved solid waste management plan that will aid in long-range planning, mitigating the environmental effects of uI� solid waste disposal practices, improving coordination, and reducing costs for capital improvements. The basic elements contained in the proposed action consist of five types: 1) regional solid waste goals, 2) Solid Waste Management Board, 3) energy and resource recovery, 4) improvement program, and 5) needs and opportunities for change in existing conditions and practices. ' 1, Re conal Solid Waste Goals. The regional solid waste management goals constitute the broadest and most general objectives of the entire solid waste management system. The continued attainment and future achievement of the onsibilit of each operating entity in cooperation regional goals is the res p y ' with the Solid Waste Management Board. The regional goals are divided into organizational goals, environmental goals, and ser -vice -imp act goals. Operational goals were provided by public and private operating entities- Lt Solid Waste Management Board. State law, Chapter 70.95 RCW, requires comprehensive solid waste management local government to prepare and adopt a comp is required plan. Each county, in cooperation with cities within the county, Each cit to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid waste management plan. y ' has three options regarding preparation of the plan. The primary responsibility for comprehensive planning is placed on counties in King County, this responsibility has been delegated to the Solid Waste Management Board. The duties of the Solid Waste Management Board are now being performed by the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments. 315 r 3 Energy and Resource Recovery. The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage-- went Plan continues the recommendation of the 1974 Plan in support of energy and resource recovery. The 1982 Plan recognizes that recycling and direct reuse of , materials is generally believed to be more resource and energy efficient than energy recovery from solid waste and to have less potential for environmental degradation. Solid waste disposal strategies should encourage recycling and , reuse of materials. 4. Improvement Program. The proposed plan includes a listing of solid , waste handling and disposal projects which have been proposed 'by operating agen- cies or have been incorporated in the capital improvement programs of each ' jurisdiction. 5. Needs and Opportunities for Change in the System. The! 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan analyzes the existing solid waste management system ' in Ring County. Each functional element of the system is examined, "needs" are identified, and "opportunities" for change are reported. Environmental Impacts The proposed action does not recommend specific solid waste facilities. The short-term environmental impacts which could result from the implementation actions in the plan include reduction in litter- ing, illegal disposal, health hazards, and problems associated with vectors from greater enforcement of the Minimum Functional Standards. ' These environmental impacts would be positive. Long-term environmental impacts could also result in a reduction in the amount of land required for solid waste handling facilities as a result in volume reductions in the amount of solid waste requiring disposal. , Adverse environmental impacts on air and water quality will be reduced through waste reduction, recycling, and a lower volume of waste ' processed. Air pollution and water pollution will be similarly reduced; potential changes in technology will further reduce air and water quality Impacts. Potential site specific adverse traffic, noise, water, and air quality impacts in the vicinity of specific facilities (existing,-proposed, or future) cannot be identified until location and environmental studies are , done on specific proposals. 316 r �11 �11 Mitigating Measures IUI The plan is itself a mitigating measure that will reduce redundancy and improper location and sizing in the solid waste handling system through coordination and comprehensive planning. Mitigating measures are principally under the control of operating and regulatory agencies. Specific types of mitigating measures include air I pollution control equipment and "offsets," leachate collection systems, �R proper design, and construction techniques. Noise, light, and glare impacts can be mitigated through design and siting. Other broader impacts are controlled through local land use planning and zoning powers. Regulatory and enforcement powers of the Health Department through the Minimum Functional Standards and the Department of Ecology are a major technique to assure minimal health, safety, and environmental impact. l� Alternatives to the Proposed Action A "no action" alternative resulting from failure to adopt the Plan would leave the outdated 1974 Plan in force. The King County area would loose eligibility for capital improvement matching grants from the Department I�I of Ecology. A conditional adoption of the Plan is an alternative action. The significance and impact, environmental or financial, would depend entirely on the conditions attached to each adoption and their interpretation by others. An alternative comprehensive planning structure in lieu of the Solid Waste Management Board would be alternative planning systems which could be adopted as an alternative to the existing proposal. ' Alternatives to the Plan's emphasis on recycling and resource recovery could lead the solid waste system toward different capital investment programs. The Plan contains a wide array of "needs and opportunities"; ' alternative problems and recommendations could be incorporated in the plan. Operational alternatives are within the purview of operating agencies. 317 1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Implementation of the plan will not result in any specific unavoid- able adverse impacts. Those which will occur will result from the con- struction of specific facilities and will be treated in the environmental impact statements prepared for those facilities. Environmental impacts, including unavoidable adverse impacts where appropriate, are listed in the table describing "needs and opportunities" in the proposed action section of this environmental impact statement. Hazardous Wastes omitted The first phase of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan covered by this environmental impact statement does not include considera- tion of hazardous wastes. The hazardous waste element was delayed until the second phase to allow clarification of the responsibilitj'.es of local governments for hazardous waste planning. Hazardous waste management and regulation have been in a state of flux and new information is becoming available as WAC 173-303 is implemented. The Committee on Solid Waste deemed it important to direct its full attention to completion of the comprehensive plan for mixed municipal, industrial and special wastes in the , first phase. The Solid Waste Management Board recognizes the importance of hazardous wastes and is committed to the completion of a hazardous waste ' element of the plan during 1983 and 1984. A preliminary list of tasks and completion schedule is under consideration by the Committee on Solid Waste. The Advisory Committee will be utilized in the preparation of the plan element. A supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared. The summary schedule is as follows: ' 318 If �I. 'D PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF TASKS AND SCHEDULE FOR ADDITION OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TASK SCHEDULED COMPLETION 1. Review responsibilities, laws and April 1983 regulations 2. Compile and review existing data base June 1983 3. Secure waste generation information September 1983 III4. Describe existing system November 1983 5. Analyze capacity of system January 1984 f 6. Identify needs, opportunities, and February 1984 �II alternatives 7. Propose recommendations March 1984 B. Draft plan element March 1984 9. Prepare supplemental environmental April 1984 impact statement -10. Amend Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan June 1984 Ol �I 1 1 � 1 319 �I �) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Proposed Action The proposed action is adoption of the 1982 King County Comprehensive I� Solid Waste Management Plan. The 1982 Plan is a revision of Environmental Mana ement for the Metropolitan Area• Part IV Solid Waste. The proposed action covered by this environmental document and process includes all adop- tive actions necessary to secure full approval of the Plan. These adoptive actions include but are not limited to adoption by the King Subregional Council functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board, King County, each of the cities IIIIin King County, the Muckleshoot Tribe, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Sponsor The sponsor is the King Subregional Council functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board. Area Affected The plan is a nonproject action which affects all portions of King County and the cities within the county. Some actions covered in this plan may have effects which transcend county lines. Particular areas within King County which are the location of existing, proposed, or future solid waste handling III facilities may be more directly, and to a greater degree, affected by the pro- posed action or secondary actions (as yet unknown) arising from the proposed action. III Land Use Spacial distribution of waste generation is basically a function of the I�I type and density of land use. There are distinct bands of urbanization, generally occupying the ridges and separated by water or bands of less deve- loped valley lands. The western-most band is the oldest and most intensely developed. The �I western band contains a full range of employment and housing land uses and 321 , generates the most waste and the greatest diversity of waste types. It is cen- tered on the City of Seattle, which contains 40 percent of the county's population ' and 58 percent of its employment. It also includes the suburbs of gighline, Federal Way, and Shoreline. In total, the western band has 60 percent of the county's population and 67 percent of its total employment. , The western band, with the exception of Federal Way, has relatively little , vacant land remaining and can only accommodate a limited amount of new growth without redevelopment. Waste generation levels are not likely -to grow greatly ' as a result of land use changes. Federal Way is the only part of the western band that is still in the early ' stages of development. The changes will result in the gradual conversion of most of the semirural lands in the eastern and southern parts of Federal Way to urban uses by the end of the century and a concomitant increase in waste. The western band of development is separated from the second band by Lake WaEhington and the Green River Valley. The north valley is over fifty percent developed predominately with commercial and industrial uses. Agriculture and ' open-space uses will be generally limited to a belt along the Green River, the western margin of the valley in Kent, and whatever land is required to provide storage for the water drained from the rest of the valley. New wastes will be from commercial or industrial activities or multifamily housing. The second major band of urban development in King County :Lies to the east of Lake Washington and the Green River Valley. Starting from the north in Bothell, the band includes Northshore, Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue, Mercer Island, part of Renton, and the Soos Creek Plateau. , The area in and around the City of Bellevue forms the heart of the second band and has been one of the fastest growing parts of King County during the last twenty years. Today its land use pattern is stabilizing and there will be few changes in the type of use or waste generated related to land use types for the remainder of the century. To the north and south of the Bellevue area, the construction of both single-family and multifamily housing will continue at a rapid pace. Com- 322 'I mercial development will also continue, but is likely to be concentrated in a few major business and industrial parks located in North Creek, near Redmond's downtown, in Kenmore, at Evergreen Highlands, Overlake, and at the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes' I-90 Business Park in Bellevue. Although much vacant land remains in the second band, especially in Northshore, Newcastle, and the Soos -Creek Pla- teau, it is expected to approach full development by early in the next century. Major new contributions to the waste shed are expected to be generated in this I� area. Beyond them lies a third band that is physically suitable for urban deve- lopment but which is primarily rural or semirural today. This band includes Bear Creek, the East Sammamish Plateau, Tahoma and Enumclaw Plateau. Substan- tial new housing construction at suburban densities is expected at several places I� in the band during the next twenty years. However, the third band is likely to remain mostly undeveloped until sometime during the next century. Major changes in waste generation related to growth are not expected before the end of the III century. Beyond the third band are rural and agricultural lands that extend into Vthe Cascade mountains. Scattered through the rural area are a number of small pN towns and communities including Carnation, Duvall, Fall City, Snoqualmie, North Bend, Black Diamond, and Enumclaw. Although some large company may choose one �II of these communities as the site for a major plant, it is unlikely for the fore- seeable future. Plans for the area generally continue its rural status. Plans IIIfor the area generally continue its rural status. Changes in waste generation as a result of growth should be considered on a case-by-case basis. T imin The proposed action, adoption of the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage-ment Plan, is expected to commence with adoption of the Plan by the Solid Waste Management Board in February 1983. The action of the Management Board will be followed by adoption actions by each city and King County. I� Implementation of the recommendations contained or implied in the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will continue over a period of many years. The impacts of the planning and implementation actions will extend past I� the year 2000. ��d 32;3 Individual projects and operational actions which are subject to the State Environmental Policy Act will be subject to further environmental analysis at the discretion of each project sponsor or lead agency subject to the State En- vironmental Policy Act Guidelines (WAC 197-10) . Plan Description ' 1982 Com rehensive Solid Waste The proposed action is the adoption of the P ement Plan which is a revision of the preceding plan. na � o ' The 1982 Plan was prepared in accordance with the Washington State Solid — and Recovery Recycling Act as amended (RCW 70.95.080,090,110) , Waste Management ment ofd Local or and with the Department of Ecology Guidelines for Develop Plans and Plan Revisions.' Regional Solid Waste Management ' he ro osed action consist of five types . sic elements contained in t P p and The ba :3) energy ' 1) regional solid waste goals, 2) Solid Waste Management Board, rogram$ and 5) needs and opportunities for resource recovery, 4) i�rprovement P ' change in existing conditions and practices. ion al solid waste management goals 1, Re Tonal Solid Waste Goals. The reg constitute the broadest and most general objectives of the entire solid waste system. The continued attainment and future achievement coo f the n managemententity P ' regional goals is the responsibility of each operating with the Solid Waste Management Board. goals, environmental The regional goals are divided into organizational g goals were provided act goals. Operational g goals, and service-level/ecnonomic-imp goals of public juris- ' by public and private operating entities. The operating dictions are adopted by the appropriate legislative body and are recorded in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan by the Solid Waste Management Board. REGIONAL SOLID WASTE GOALS ' Organizational Goals encies, including ' 1) Promote countywide coordination between ag e ment adjacent counties where appropriate, in solid waste me.nag policy development and planning. , 2 Develop the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan coordination with other entities in the region. ' allowing for c 32 4 3) Continue and encrurage increased joint public and private participa- tion in solid waste goal and policy setting, planning, implementation and operations. 4) Support timely adoption and review of solid waste plans. Environmental Goals �I 1) Promote protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. �N2) Promote protection p and improvement of the overall quality of the MI environment. 3) Promote the handling and disposal of dangerous and extremely I� hazardous wastes in compliance with Federal, state and local laws, ordinances and guidelines. Na 4) Encourage reduction in litter and illegal dumping. 5) Encourage E a reduction in materials entering the waste stream. g I� Service-Level/Economic-Impact Goals 1) Consider the effect on the rate payers of programs or projects NII undertaken. NII2) Encourage a balance of short- and long-term considerations includ- ing risk when assessing the cost effectiveness of solid waste handling NNII and disposal systems. IN�I 3) Promote cost-effective materials recovery. IIII4) Promote cost-effective energy recovery from solid waste . 5) Encourage utilization of existing facilities and sites to the I� fullest extent feasible within legal, regulatory, economic, environ- mental and technical considerations. I� 325 I� 2 Solid Waste Management Board. State law, Chapter 70.95 RCW, requires local government to prepare and adopt a comprehensive solid waste management plan. Each county, in cooperation with cities within the county, is required to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid waste management plan. Each city has three options regarding preparation of the plan. 1) Prepare their own plan and provide it to the county for integration ' into the comprehensive county plan; with the count ' 2) Enter into an agreement t Y (or the Solid Waste Manage- ment Board in the case of the revised plan) to prepare a joint plan; ' 3) Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. ' All participating jurisdictionsdictions entered into a joint agreement with the ' Management Board for revision of the plan. State law requires that the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan be ]kept current. ' The revision of the plan was done cooperatively by the Solid Waste Management Board. The primary responsibility for comprehensive planning is placed on counties; in King County, this responsibility has been delegated to the Solid Waste Management Board. The duties of the Solid Waste Management Board are now ' being performed by the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments. The responsibilities of the Solid Waste Management Board are: 1) Prepare, update and amend the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, ' by identification and articulation of regional goals through compilation, development, and adoption of the plan by all participating jurisdictions (per the Department of Ecology planning guidelines) . 2) Annually compile capital improvement program projects and major opera- tional changes and present as amendments to the regional plan (with ' appropriate notification and opportunity for local jurisdictions to object) as the six- and 20-year implementation programs as required by RCW 70.95.090. , 326 ' N N 3) Provide a forum for discussion about, and make recommendations regarding areawide planning and goals for solid waste management. N 4) Provide a forum for discussion of interjurisdictional impacts of pro- posed local actions (such as rate policies, waste flaw control, inter- Ncounty waste transfers) . S) Coordinate policy planning between cities, towns, and counties. 6) Provide a forum for discussion, and consideration of changes in the state-of-the-art of operation, technology, or management that could have systemwide effects. 7) Review projects, grant applications, new facility permits, and de- velopment plans for consistency with the regional plan and regional �Igoals. 8) Encourage when appropriate, waste reduction and/or recycling and/or energy recovery; and encourage coordination with private sector, regulatory agencies, and the Department of Ecology. 'I NOTE: "Operations and operational planning remain the responsibility of local jurisdictions consistent with the goals of the Solid Waste �I Management Plan." 3 Energy and Resource Recovery. The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan continues the recommendation of the 1974 Plan in support of energy and �I resource recovery. The 1982 Plan recognizes that recycling and direct reuse of materials is generally believed to be more resource and energy efficient than energy recovery from solid waste and to have less potential for environmental �I degradation. Solid waste disposal strategies should encourage recycling and reuse of materials. 327 N� Energy recovery is a preferred long-term solution to the area's solid waste disposal problems. The plan notes that there will always be waste which requires disposal. Energy recovery should be encouraged because of the public benefits from significantly reducing the volume of solid waste that. has to be landfilled. Implementation of such a system would effectively lengthen the lives of existing landfills. There is a tradeoff between the environmental impacts of continued landfilling all solid waste and an energy recovery system. Energy recovery is generally believed to be a more environmentally sound method of solid waste disposal. The 1982 Plan notes the efforts underway to secure energy recovery system(s) as part of solid waste handling and disposal in King County. Additional information is necessary before deciding to proceed with an energy recovery system. Phase II of the Energy/Resource Recovery Project and joint or parallel private analysis will provide information and recommendations. In addition, assurance of continued availability of waste for alternative uses is necessary to provide a sound financial basis for continued recycling and the possibility of an energy recovery component of the disposal system. 4 Improvement Program. The proposed plan includes a listing of solid waste handling and disposal projects which have been proposed by operating ager- , cies or have been incorporated in the capital improvement picograms of each jurisdiction. , Public agencies annually prepare capital improvement programs, usually covering a six-year period. The solid waste elements of these six-year capital , improvement programs are melded together to reflect anticipated improvements in the countywide solid waste handling system over the time frame of one to six ' years. The six-year capital improvement programs are adopted by each local government. The annual budget and appropriation process commits projects con- ' tained in local government capital improvement programs to implementation. Implementation is preceded by feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, and environmental analysis which may result in changes in schedule, or modification ' of projects. An environmental assessment will be done by the operating agency for each project for which it is responsible. Changes in the priority of a project in the six-year capital program may result from emergency---tanditions elsewhere or from unforeseen delays. Consequently, projects may be added to , the six-year capital improvement program immediately before implementation. 328 improvement projects Subsequent to adoption of the plan, new capital imp of operat- p appendix of :ung agencies will be submitted to the plan as amendments to the a p the plan. SIR-YEAR IMPROVEMENT 'PROGRAMS Project Status eratin A enc CIP approved ' King County Cedar Hill Developmen�.6 (fencing, beam and exten- sion of leachate collec- tion system) King County Duvall Landfill Closure CIP approved Equipment Replacement CIP approved King County Program (long-haul and landfill) King County Cedar Hills Leachate CIP approved Collection System King County Hobart Landfill Leachate CIP approved Control King County Northshore Transfer Station CIP approved Ring County Rural Landfill Upgrade: CIp approved Vashon, Cedar Falls, Enum-• claw, and Hobart Vashon Landfill Leachate CIP approved Ring County Control CIP approved Seattle Kent-Highlands and Midway Pp Landfill Closure Plans Seattle Transport Fleet Replacement CIP approved Transfer Station Rehabilj. CIP approved Seattle tation (North and South Stations) Truck Acquisition Unknown Carnation Unknown Carnation Landfill Improvements The long-range improvement plan anticipates system improvements which dears in the future. It is may be made in the time frame between six and twenty 1P eriod. p based on an extrapolation of present trends and assumptions over that ty-year rovement plan System improvements which are contained inthe nto make the investments do not represent commitments by operating agencies �I �� 329 necessary to implement those specific projects. Proposed projects in the six- to-twenty-year period are generally the staff recommendations of planners and IN do not have the approval of elected officials. These projects have not been subject to public processes, alternatives analysis, or feasibility studies. dl'I They do not constitute public policy. TWENTY-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1��1 Operating Agency Project Status _ King County S.E. Area Transfer Station 20-Year Plan King County Bel/Red Transfer Station 20-Year Plan III System 20-Year Plan King Count Recycling y County King County Hazardous Waste Feasibility Study 20-Year Plan + King County Enumclaw Landfill Closure 20-Year Plan �II King County Hobart Landfill Closure 20-Year Plan King County Vashon Landfill/Modular Incinerator 20-Year Plan I� Rehabilitate Existing King County Upgrade and Reh abil g Trans- 20-Year Plan fer Stations King County Replacement of Cedar Hills Landfill 20-Year Plan ��II King County Closure of Cedar Hills Landfill 20-Year Plan King y Count Energy/Resource Recovery 20-Year Plan I' • Phase II (Detailed Feasibility Procurement Planning) • Phase III (Procurement, Plans Specification) • Construction City of Seattle Midway Landfill Closure 20-Year Plan City of Seattle Kent-Highlands Landfill Closure 20-Year Plan Metro Enhanced Sludge Treatment Capability 20-Year Plan Private Sector Energy/Resource Recovery Facility(ies) 20-Year Plan Private Sector Hazardous Waste Transfer Station, Storage 20-Year Plan Storage Facility, and Disposal System Private Sector Demolition Debris Facility 20-Year Plan Private Sector Continuous Replacement of Collection 20-Tear Plan Equipment; Introduction and use of Mechanized Collection Equipment 5 Needs and Opportunities for Change in the System. The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan analyzes the existing solid waste management system in King County. Each functional element of the system is examined, "needs" are identified, and "opportunities" for change are reported. The following table summarizes each need and opportunity, refers the reder to the plan document for ' the full text, reports a suggested action, identifies probable responsibility, and potential environmental impact. 330 r O S N C — M N V N Y \ N C y c A— u A c ✓ u� u to N > C V ✓_ ✓ CA v— A— v A du N u v e u v w e Q M ImC C N Al � O D1 W C ✓ V V C �, � C 7 a A ua d u pp w N u S AD— ✓ C N ✓ u Vc _ v, T ✓� A ✓ � N w = N u w N C C A c o V w c u C d cV c ? 4 L U t C M.+ NV u E 06 v u V c ✓ >. N L— O O ✓ > A q V � v w ► O O ✓ ✓ L U `— �p N w l► N u d CL l 4) c u- c o Ife ii Z = S M N L V A m V W— ✓ L C O u C C E > o E F u r u A y V u o J A W C A A A ✓ C C C A II m_ c o u o s 'L — = r ✓ U V V v r O CyV1 N � r r r-. C ✓ E s A V N A V s N to • • • fA m N m Z A ✓ 1 Cl 'I oW r L CO 1 r C T y su pV A . " T cay N— y u c ✓ N A c E E v u - � u u o� '^ A V rn 1 i s o N a r N E ,�„ ° ✓ Lu AAa� cnr c u � cu A— V N rN A� r O 17, C N W Z ✓ D — � A C m NOL A C A A N >C 9 W -• ✓ A N w 0 a A � N "^ u0A N ` � � cn✓ LA. u u u v u c u ` t o c 91� ✓y V u C C V+ E Z d A " WA — O p A u m �� u lin rn • • • a v N � r'� a O� u T w ' v N � � N 1 N N ✓ 7 A N N NC u N CV - 0— 1,.? AL, uCC NAC .VN' Lc ✓ p ._ N u N 0. ma -- cucO IV IV c > CM` - 7 ✓ A T CNV C � W ` CC — CT �ICOC' 40 6i pCE. li H O A N cc V 9 O A 7 C V— A C ` _O+ O N V V C V N lye A A n IC A C O p 9 N T r — ID C C C O p V ` CII d A T C n C C V C� T E ✓ N o A d •r y C s n — p •- O C c o O D L U 0 0 A > c- 9 n ✓ v u 8 9 =vr r ✓ y Y A V U n ` ✓ V C p u N V u N Ic o a V O I N — O O pp w S > N N V C ✓ O N N C ` C r— C O - W w O V u 10 A C - w E u L Cpp w 9 A C+ C C O ��++ N ✓ E N r0 r N C [p O ✓— O C ✓ L D 7 C C OI N ✓ L C-- r r t C [ E V > > T D C U A •- C C N C V V ._ --�A ✓ A C u N U U t u N r D O D C r A y� n 87[ ✓D — O C V C r V— pp C � E pp � V r V.- � V •- N N g tg U C EppN _O A A ` O O g� vI C C C E N 0 < C d�+ < C ILII 0 C s E w t U O — �+ V d s 1► V V n A d d V V V._ V N w w W� C C C C C C C u v v V v u rn u a c s s a �d �o �s ua 331 1 C c N L C C Q ✓ C �+ u o C v C Y ✓ A A w mQ [ N L O N U C 7 U T ✓ O A ✓ V C L u c O CCy ✓ NC L r V U [ u c N N [ N U A a L C N ✓ »� --a - 'a— N Q y u a c 3 a N ✓ A ✓ . Y O A a N •� N •� U•C L L fa u u — N A 1► 2 U V C V o - m in A L V A O U [ a A ¢ a > T 9 y L U ✓ O c c y v •E_ t '_ A ++ fa Y 3 - c C >- u u A c N E C ✓ vi w w OL a :° 1cp 0. A 7 V > O c c ` [ E [ c S c C u o y , C Y -_ p > o L O u 0 0 8 [ ._ L u N Q ✓ CL N OC u U V V ✓ E W U W•_ u C C O N V V N- > - N CI V V O+ U d u F C a ✓ N U C ✓ U W Y J 7 Cy C ✓ V C m C O v E S .� V = •E w ✓ 6] U Qt EQ m y _ a N [y U O V L a y u ✓ V Z C E V u U OI V 0) C H d O L O a T a " C a L c �` L Y - •- a � ✓ o o ✓ u L to N V V ✓ O G +' Q - v v N a U ` C N A a ✓ N 7 Q N m Q C O N m Q C W d Q J • • • • • Z • • • N • • • V C _ V C V .L.. •''' pl U 7 V A LO d j N O C L O L C a 7 '- - 7 N C 'tq Y O O C C ✓ tq L ✓ C C+ 0 3 Y a CI W ✓ E ;� Cl L U ✓- 7 a [ y - N L a L X a C V 7 C 0 V L [ y •- a•_ N N L 0 C N O U U E U •- C+ O 0 L ✓._ a U a O O q a E c 7 L-� E 3•� O E ID C6 m m 0 Y O a N `" eNp y N n - L o.In c E Z C E IO Y L L V a C O a a V v .. C•- 0 0 > o a L L a Z Q y V O V V L N a _ ✓ >.— N a O s~ ✓ N 7 a C U V O 0 u 0 a L C — — L L N N- C ✓ '- V ✓ N CT N a V- L L V a - O m D.✓ N a A >._ .- - Im u N a _ Uw ._ u - 3 � ✓- •- c a a Y v 9_ o. Y U ✓ a of N_ Y Q N s Q C •- L •- V 3 �y L w Q L Lp Q Cy C ' a 0.0 , C ` .0 C G V E E N•- C a L N L •- O•- 7 0 - c N a c Y y E cO ✓w a v •- O Y as u •- u N Y o 1°n'� v o a nd m L a N L L u u rn w op(1 C N C 7 C1 a N U w C d- a C a 6C1 U C V E 7 U a a a a Y a o Y v Y Y c a c q Ci Y 0 V V C L 1� L O C V 7 C , L L O L- L V L t L L 0 O•- E O L CT c.7 L a ✓ M- U a •-' 4 a u ✓ m H C N L ✓ ✓ A u � 1 ✓ U C ✓ L E a:+ E c a � 0) 0---Q +> N N ✓ C N a �O C'� U ✓aL UNT Q O UQ N EEa cO a Q a 0 ° > [ a aC ✓To 0. o VrnC 0) s O = d Q V 'D Op u C E IM ✓u - v. Oa CI L a ? ✓ ' ¢ a a u C N O N •c - u a a c Y 3•� T O V _O a 0 [ c a O lu N E a mo L 7 C a N O y V C N U N to .C y 3 L - Z D O a V V) N a c j 8 L- C ✓ N L a•-.- C C C E G •- w a a 0 a U V C a V G L -0 O Y O C V C N LM a: m a✓ C '- v u N O Y o U N a 0 Y vl a- >_ _ '_ ✓ > Q•� V [ y N a 1 G•N a Y O m Q ✓ L ✓— y C N U� � O ✓ C+.y l� C L [ W ' ✓ C- 7 C G y C O A C CT C U C U•- 3 'y v C L C D O L N Ir ✓ O C 0 •N W yy 7 a L C E C� 7 ✓ C' V �C L E o a L V O ✓ ✓L V ✓ N > C L U V V V > A > >•� U L L V ✓ V _ C CI L L O ✓�• •- [ L U 7 L L y �+ a C 7 N - 4 L- V•N C a._ E 7 .• m A A ✓0 C O N C 4) 4 0 a- a •N [ 0 N Y Y a E Y u c a 0. N E •L � L � M �. � ✓ ✓o �� r a � g u uu s�0 u 0 9 C. U V - a p L ✓w o f ✓ u O y C'W O C L 06 L 0 T 1- '2 > U U > > > > D O - •� N N � WM •N C C V O+ 6 W OC C V C ZC L C L C t C N F¢� E C A N W 7' p O O- V 0. L J d 3 Y �eC ua ua V� 332 r1 C L 1fti y L �+ Ip rn to E v '^ p c v i 10 Acu ivy in N A N Q —r w i [ y j y N u y w M C N �+ w E C fr Y N P O [ �— • L [ E w y c - g C V y 7 �.— [ L C YOY �p.w. 0E � � — N y Y—m c go c c C w n u ^ [ c a Y c w w � " w o Y w ` wrz e „ o c w Epy u w N YL u o f C1 Ypp y�y >C C C ° y u c N I u T•- Y r N Y OI A > a [ on. (� U c u c CID u m '^ c c rn o c 0 G O c > Y C p Y pp cej A > lI U Y� Y Y Y J N O S JOf/ 0 — u C Jf/ 02 C J • • f� • • • • • or Dr�°'+= DL z I GL xN 0 3 05 t0 n lu V U� w s .O O 2 LnA> CY r 0 L u n y c u N yy Y Y L Y > 7 t C L 7 y fr N Y tr QE C O » > d E ✓ C C n u L 61 �+ N Y O. 6! C L A O n L •� A C A O fr N Y = E m V v O = E V L N y C A A L A O > .A. p .. N w L y Y N Y Y sv Y L U C D• Y•- v.- n N �+ L �+ 0 A C G U V .+ Y 3 _ N c u so O u t Y c c ,p c A c a - a A E 0 oc0zi cv Y � vY � u � Y:, � � NxN > yluo� � � weT= w '^ uY n ejci on yntO vim s v .. Y w Mc Lcf� NL . Li nu o u - r L aG u u n.+ Y YY > C .0 f0 67 C C C4 y Y� > V � G+- ((11_�' 9 � .- E u .- O. A A N L C = N L P A A T A �+ Y U CI y A C C6 C '° g G y y L A w Y U Y Y U 0 u-0 'a Lp L A y Z O v �^ A C > > > y C p L V.- L 7 L L �1 C C C i E w O N Y C O y C A D 07 O Y C y w O u 0 `+ U O— U U N U �+ O y Y O L•- y 6i C .t.1 G N N C z C N•- w U n U bL 2 O A N N U N n V Y T C, A C N E T c Y ' io c E L c u L r _ p cA Y c o y JD Y yr C u Y I� C Y C L C N o ✓ r L .N L u L SII d' L r > O N y z A G 2 ` L n C. c <E C p C G ` N 4 Y O A v+ i 10 i C u C E N v p O r Y C M Y C C V U O III L N w c YIL 6 4 8� u C D V fr Y C L U C w A N O �+ y L Y T^ O+L Y y f Y 1 9 7 f!1 Q L > C .D _ N N A Y C C C G Y 7 � 0 r~ L Y Y L L E > pl L R T C �+ v 11.1 T U v �L00 °v �II �I T W_ C V Y O I� 0.O N C ffn p w 333 I� V 0 _ v �p Y O A a i u `•_ ''' m u G u C c N 0 `+ S E A A u E v T vY z !u L p N 9 4 In w C L^ � O n Y >• U L N NO E C N C+ N C u c m y A • v - A c v _u Y L 0 D �•� L C L v L � u ._ L C U N ++ O C 6' > L Z N L �0 C 9 �•' T N L C Y C on a t i C N O ' T � C •_ 1p N N H 7 C L 7 C E O y E -J `O E ti cc Y Ip L C O L _ CD y Q ? C I)o v 0 v U) p y O Y Y N Y W v U U Y Y v •— A v m Y r C > Y r — Y•— > to 4) � " Y O.— L Ln x n` x to o n u a c A N 4! 10 U G L p N N L E T y i •� A A u A O Y u O Ip Y Y— Q' v Q1 L p v O L C •— Y O U•— L 0) U o L C C �0 C C C -- U a1 " L Y._ p L — al m u•_ > C aJ 9 v W C�•- 7 4! O•- r- N O-► U > N U L'9 > L U al •- — C O L u 1 .D L aJ v E C >-•_ L C— v c1� m L v•- > n 0 '0 ; O NL — ea O v v c — v c N L A C O L •_ � JNi A C L .`. N� i y 0 U G L l v 7 w— N'O d•- v U— •- - 7 v Y Y L C �D O �'' L > L v v O ac c c — m L E Y— L L m Y r a > u A C N 4 a1 0 7o Y v a) n 7 Y L N p— E A y A A w L c Z i c v u a Y Y L m u y v— o po N u i j i y N ep L U C LT^ C O G !- 3 N Y O �+ v n v t •- N C.� N'O N �0 C •- Y C p Y d C MC L7 A A Y y N L U Y T _ r N 7 Y C v N— U— C --O-0 >. 10 G u vii 4� L E O i L w. O mLO m - Ev a+ O m O 7 •_ Y w v L ^ v Y O w a/ a1 L w v u E r- N U C Y U w T L •O a) l U a1 L U a> >N Y d NN Y m O L 0 LUL>— L U c c+ 1 p O^ aC w nL T C Cppn—v0 ^ C YT 'LBOL o '-^ L) c � > N w � r N C N i i0 v n m " C N d iC aJ •- N N— E -0 m 3 L c �_ v _ O — — L c > m w i u 0 O— 0) c n A a L Tt W H 0 U v a1 L n•_ 9 C " Y op 0 0 c L v ° _o— > m a N Y c L u c c o Q T O N ` A T> O o u ^ v v o is u v YO v S o Y Y pi . L c v v c > CLA N Nc 71 nu ouzo` cc3 W N N N Ip C Y O 1t w v _ mac. uLvu� L4 nE ELcfo'� N g rW V Ow G v N Y N r U N N p N p 2 0 0 0 C H 2 C oaa c u r- o A uj Y Z - iO 334 L 'r q w O N • C ✓ C ..- N � q- N ✓ u V n {r'r T E � �' N N p O N T✓ {u� pp O Y C O17 ` N ✓ U Y S C EC L L .� .� N - C V ✓C 4 9 C Y- Y ✓ C L w C V w C pE N > C 4 �1 ✓ y O C Q ✓ i� O Y 7 E CPC P C C u O O Y > u C ~ = 4 N Y c w � c o ' ✓�r. q w V ✓ V V C N L .� aL Y� V V `o C tot-,-- -W O L N p C C 9 O Y C y Y 7 t g q 0 V M _ Y C Y•� P �+ > q_✓ C ✓ Y u 0 V ✓ > V q ✓ Yc •- c go 0 31, y O Y V Y V g L L q•� L L g N 7 9 L r 7 1pLgp U gpAr+ q ✓ > Y paV L p p E V E O E 6 e c r t O E v E G E u y._ u •- C' T Y N 'I T Q O W O O L O E ✓ c � u✓ v O u P c >_ W 0 u L ac ✓ C c • • • A c A Y Y Y Y Y E O EL Y Nu LAY O O C c u N c 6Ai m � N n c u c E N G Y O _O L V V L C L O A U C O A i ✓A N L ye N'T n _ L N r+ N V EYO Y A ✓ U ✓ Q L L A Y L✓ A C yi a✓ C > A L A V T c c C c q >.N .. N ✓ C N- W N ✓ ✓ A M V •N N N r. N A ..`+ 11cIuDl HujC�Q' L✓_�LLVAV LONaT7G LYC`VpV.L✓CiYA•CGqC�'V✓sYCNY1 ✓OC;°F•Gfl-—LOC' .VL�wQgNO o q-s>U NOc+Nu—►�NN y✓t✓'i°w—N7TY TUA CEN✓✓o CO.0�VA.V.0��Y LgC$LAO YUVN'�CCQ✓7�OU wYANCYL7. _V✓CV✓AV.00V�rD+ wNL✓•�✓AYLV yO-O+-LAPCuGT L L p 9 C E O O Y U OU O L V DY N V q Z V ; N V O V A ccWC CC - A 7- CN O q Y NC CA'CV ✓ rO O V ✓ UC p' 0C— 7 - j C>O _V U A ? C 0, ✓ A 11 cc A O CNC Y Lc) o CC O OU LO L 'u NO i L g N C p nc ° r vz 4 c ° ✓Y--sYP C�l.E�`Y SN,l+l'uJ LCe_>MCY—V p+c V>d C•VL 4 L�vd r~.V+C � e omU mc > K7 G _✓'Oo^L0.0LC y + q a N N [ ` l y COP 20 v u00 y ` Cr= OC _•C.O.... C L > u L O c E P c � C O. Y . p G v t u✓ y e� COAYV 7 > C L. �10 , v^ ~ Va Gc ac 2 > �v� Y �ooc EE�jj V N L c Y L O' C ✓ L T Q �. L- V C zV, rp+ A Y T✓ N y N O P V rv«+✓.+ e C C ✓ q Y j C ✓ >rM C e V + > C V p O O O N E C C L u o c O oeivaa-t L .`,o 4 1r o O. T V " N N ✓ L A ✓ A N A yEN lV' 1'�'•rc L ✓ ✓ V w C C Y A M O ✓ L Q O N- .� N O O P✓ Cw N 0 S V M�✓ C O ie► �e✓ S _ _ c ,_ Q c N O G 9 u a,- a s c v. V q = O L- Q A r+ u A U a L V • N O &7;.c• N O O.` L N _ A a' �► A C7, V V V V I N C > L N A✓.�+r+i.+ C C u -0, C L r L C N A V • V `+i �" o Y "' C Y T > Y O c p V A Z1 Y L L N O a = c W ` L ✓.�d �► q ✓L L Y V ✓ L V ✓ C P l L O •: O = r CC ✓ C L ✓ ✓ LQp G Y V O L S V V 7 U Y ✓ L P 9•� C V NL �,� V— ie ✓ P OeL l L J M C C.•'G V 46 M uw E L Y T ✓ N c ✓ y. Y ✓ C ✓ ✓�9 C� N O ca+� - Y a c r N " ✓ C N O V O q.� LS !•. L� ✓ O C V- Vt V� G aL I NYa[ CTLlO LEP- OVM > >✓� �y✓ i q M P r+ u 1 it I I� H 1 = { I WIL " ~ L V I V N C CC lid F O N Cq A - 335 > o L I�I Illr y p ✓ C O L m ✓ EE u — o ✓ p " E 0 1 O O L ''' ✓ ; L N C wI N C Q O c a m _ 7 L — O m u c u N L p m E u 0 c u ✓E Q> L c u u « u uo u N 0 o a C Z �• 0 •� U— U L n N v •- _ E ✓ 0 3 ' ✓ eup aU+ N E m m C Cp N C •C ✓—a 9 O S " � unL — cq� u ✓ LLE ✓ LE ie o-- �+ > ✓ N ud � c .`o o u c u r n r- L 7 p W u L N ✓ U U V•`+ N C Cy d C X U mm L «+ C ._ ✓ d U L E C U o U > L ✓ m m C L ✓ ✓ O ✓L O O f.•- p N d L O y r. > E _. ✓ 7 N U O U C L C •- �9 u N CL o u E m o v o> — u ✓ _ 3 �• pp L c ✓ E u � u r u'v r ✓ t m N L U m �p N•- N L T ✓L L — N N N O m L0. '� L ✓ N �) L L L L > •- C L ✓ �+ ✓ u u N U m L N U U T•U ✓ m O m U 3 3 c U >L 7 L i m C L L C U U O C m C m U L L L O O c O L O L U O•_ L — m•_ L 2 ✓ ✓ Z uw n 3 U c d✓ —w �. — 3 >. m r u J T j ✓ C C C W O .. �n u 0t m c a Y L) N U Y 1 c c 0 0 = n c a o ° " z ep p N O 0 ,0 C — L u 1 a L .._ W 00 7 ' ✓ - 0-0 u c u t c ^ `u� u uGi _ C G— p a— > Ocd O E '- •- U m 7 N N L •_ - O w L z •+ C1 C u u 0 L L r U O L U 0 C Q¢ U 7 7 6u u Lp u0 C L) ' W L L✓ 7 ✓ m C C U A— U z C C GL .+ V C U 'a L m U m 7 ._ 7 U 3— .+ m0 U m m > — 01 u `m L O e0 C� L - 6l 7 C C ✓ L ; y L �„ ✓ U i t 0 L U U O N IO•- L C C U Nc > C U O+ L C •- .L.. tr d L m U .- o Nom c — pn �'— • c �v � � ✓ c ✓> ` CNV m N n- 3 c > •- u Qj m� 0 Q U U C — ¢ _ E r ✓ E W O� Q c u N u u uu c u u ti m y c c u L - 0. C t u mL 0L N ¢ L N > O m C > O L U w C ¢ M N L •- W Q. N W— ✓ L 0 ✓ L eD C m L w " ✓ 1 9 T C ✓_ L U U �► 9 U C C C U-o m w U,0— U C r U J •- L A w E O U V A v U 0 L 7 m m C L u J y` C U ✓ U y Y Q •. U W r m ✓ O mL u u m N a✓ m N !• ✓ v v ✓ a X L > O' L m—u u C U N v� X U - ✓ >- 3 U U N > aC d ✓w > m ..+ E d d L U C U U= T N N C C N ¢ O m ✓ — 7 m — C E U r.'L U > 010 v+ U 0 a+ to u N m U L L N 0> C U U L U ' N ¢ V C O D U 7 0 01 m N C N w 7 C L :05 •u w O �► � m .� �� ✓ O m4 m L N U'D U N 1 C C C — m Lt > o o b a rn u c c O L ' «+ L u O t L L L C U Y v U ro Av+ r�► ✓ T f' 7 N2 r ✓ ✓ - D U ✓ L L N 'C C � ` L = r r " C 336 H In Y q O V T 1� YC L v N •u.. M✓Ir N `� S G n— L N ne, C O S ✓ C a > • L 9 >- E � �YT� y— pN u „ T • V q p ; L p 1 Ir- V =ww' 1~+� � yC A d y • „ 0 a V l r O U v W 'd w yqi «- N N v A N z bG g a— c c ad 6 U- D '• O. 1 a vL o c N c — ««I t u+o c e T T o u N L � o I > — Y � Y a Y L a a u m G N C O 7 O C 0- V o eWc c V g'i acuua c c = A C a[O • • • • Y Y e Li = 00 > 0 0 + O v CCT T c V C H r L V D C N r �p v O I Y y N ` lS� A V V •' to o r. Y Cn - UN C 7 Y > E L NLS c A•� fu dL r 6i Dv c 31 6' Z- r q O A .r+c-g✓00 - G li V O > L -- L 31` V NLo-P~� C W - � E y�► N Ol O .�.. +T7 O O �� N G -TCac e C 0 > r -a a 0 0 7 0. 0 0- > v, C O C v p •+ � � O �G��+ C ¢ O OYLL up D97L- yACC Nio 7� tia+-� Y �� = EO LQQ N E L E 11�� c,� a� •, u, �` c.+�.— y �' Y n L�� L Y C u �v E •O V V E L y eO f�N E V )[.r�r ]� N Y a Z ` a 0 V jNuo �+•� OL LO N+t D O 7- O ✓ �' ' O v E �+ u ILn 0. E S V P✓ N c c 16 0 0 0 F V C V G! u ut pp u u I� a N a a Y ` >0p44✓y L +pvvl' >.D Of a N 9 V �•1 Q— a U A N C L Is V ECO p T p P C C Mp—v C L V'> L E L T C C O L o E C I y r ed C+ O C U U 1► u L .Vr a L Y let•r V L N-p1. Y D L L C O T T9 > C •- O 7 ► V E C C V O I O �� D E rrp•u s N YL a GL YL L aL u OLL r2 L ta�YY La•^ O N Y G 6 = ✓ > a Y N u � a -0q Ann c u 0 O � AI CUa 1yo� UEy _r - p L C O V E V L, z 7 Y s a {+ o C .0 v _ _ E u Y V N O N 1"—•� IIIWHO DVUV—✓^— N [ T YL.✓C�vLv—NQpaM NN NO C w Cp V iNX 4) N E?E =1q► �a uV ✓Vqa O C Cp O - MY UVO— L> `— a CL oV C v Q 3 0 uL q— o —lrN�'VVIO N+t rLVd•LO.YYOEi� - LNC LY— a V U _ + c vN0 �[ OLQgn - 7V v ��° ` � N> •t V Y 7 A A'O Y 1r L v 6 C =Lrz L w V V W N p t� > O CG a O a C 7 C N N Ir p IIII 7 a M — V V L N ✓L L Y N L C L N r E ✓ - Y V v v u c N L ■■■ O Y �— u L D✓V W IO 7 w— p ✓ V Y U C C L L N V > V L V L Z �D N p A C N 10 L. v a O.•' C E C Y Y L_✓ _ Y Yav vL 7v T� � sv 7uvvo > O +— y C L C .Yy CC L y V L k v M u C = Q Lpi O_>9 - P C a u n • a O C Y V L - Y Na V T •. U N CT - DLC 0 K O N V LN ✓ >D N OC T✓E✓ON N L Y iD v u Ir Y— V r 1L V r 3. aft S 8 Cc a O O F- h• _ N � ? Cr �I 2 1111 od M N N n g S g N wibe c o O O !1'1 337 II a ro L ^ C ✓ a a0 C II L 0 0 L v n c y V C L in a a ✓ C aro O N •> U - > L C V O ro 0 ✓ Q1 O C C a)- O N O ✓ 'll ✓ V1 7 Q1 _.- �+ u L T O ✓1 O u ro 9L i u E u u u c c 0 u c j C M u a c c ,a O V E C E N U N 2 E v L y C v L 10 L a �' v C-n L OLu 0 L L C v O C L I n u ' T•- ✓ C � 7 7 O a > v r w c. o _ _ N m c ]4 C v 7 1 y N O v E Z V y L O L p ✓ L y L a a 0+✓ a - y n N c a 0. a I .T• _ L Y C U C v C � - C. C a 7 U �+ >• U a a L O P CI a O 7 C O" 7 C •- - ro E C p 01 y L 7 NG v N yy Q7•7 G.a.a 7 a O C C V� l-� 3 C a C 7 N .vr N v .• aro v •L O v > U v L L VI v L O O' C yay O L CL y 0 �' C G N y`� Ip L u+ :: N L a c E L G i .c p ro E 6�7 �' v+ C y a a y w v^ v > > U ✓ a 0 �' y c o u•- > aro a o. m ro ro ro `,� u u N L L tl oai o v c i a ✓ v+•E c > c o. x y p t c L ro c•+ :: �^ i- y v - N U L v ._ Y C C C v a v- O O .+ O cEj IVi+ro v o n o J �v 3 v c W ro a 7 1 U L O O ✓ ✓ U� - y p Y E a u Q N -v U 0 > a O , L7 C- ro O C v•_ v•- U•- N l •- n U U ✓ eo 7 C ro E O T ro u+ L L._ N L In ro l a v v N C C 0 a •_ 61 ._ V �•.' N a a- ✓ y V O y pp O L VI ��11 L L E C ✓ L w v 0 v 07 c, a a) N_ L ._ C L n In 3 n v a a E v a v ro N y o u C y 7 Oro v w L I/I L L C y _ N tT•- ro yl > T L v a L C v v� 0 a a U ro > O O v a y .- v•- a a L O C O N T T .- a L C v 0 ^ L C'L E v a L C U V a 0 L 0]C f ro O O E O v •- ro L v y 7 •• O C > ✓ L Q7 0 Eo 0 n✓ a 0 a 0 v -- V L ro U •- E o _ o y•- N w _ u L n c v N > 7 " Qz a a a L ro v L Q) Q a L O C T U ✓ C U > ✓ L n a a y a 01 C N a •- r c ✓ 7 L V C O V a v C•- 0•- ✓ ✓ u E c V V u a0aro•_ L ✓ 0 > V L - u.0m > VVEnOOacTw Oa We rotLVL ¢ CO L^ ✓ J C y y O C L n L a n Y u c 0. Q1 3 o C U N a N u y a v a ✓^ _ c � aro ,. - a :,,_ ; .� a a a= v T v v a a v C - v -w A v v a ✓ Vi c o c C', L 9 N L ro «v a Q y .v C > U .- L L V+ v C v •- - -- N CY a M L 1 p� C 0 .- L M Z 'O v �, ci a L w L C L y L C > a C U a y O+ro y a n y v 0 a •- 7 N C ._ -- V ro - c a ar a� a•-^- V a.- C c 7 cc _u L c m 7 O 7 a ` v O ^ ac v E 3 ro C - o n•- v 7G z M v m 3 O N N L c? ~ A IEq -O •3 ✓ 0 1L- w'0 A E o r- u w r •- n 3 a E v ✓ O a V ro a v 1 - In 01 7 O 0 c c U L ✓� y C r > ✓ c t 3 aai u 'D0 L c 0 c 0 - r 31u N V N a 0 M v 01 O N v U C Z S �ro O = O •C C L EE y C ^ v•- O nro 4 7 L j 1L H L 7 A v a ✓ - vi to "N O a.O w w N L N ; O o n a N L L C •✓ ro •y N •L 0 w Ji T ro ✓ L Q) L O ro C 7 7 v a v v v c > S V V O In L Y L ✓ 0+ •ro INp v L u a v .•+ T .� o v �n ¢ G u L O v a a 0; C ,L 0, t V O O 0� V O va ¢ o ✓ ✓.- N n•- C - IC O u v L o L 7 3 _ _ E y L > u- G t C C U V O 0 0m V OL C T n > V O > C a i ro 0 '� ✓ N _ O L - w it c v a 0 u pro 0 '_ V � L c _ ro n z ✓ v v - T P ✓ N ¢ V E L In y a '^ y ✓ a r fo z a V- a ^ N ✓._ L = :t a ro V Vro O E i lco 0 •- rn G a X N aro _ _ v� �� C T✓ C Z to x u t OI C - to N a z 61 ✓ L C r In C a 7 a D+ O L•_ ro C > cOcroroc L ✓ c NEEoNC L uac � 0 ro a ro r r u c a > O.-_ v- u^ v o a a ✓_ V y o L d c ✓ L ._ . c u,u ��- a ✓ 7 •- u I- � V u u v u c •- w ^w- 7 N N•- Q O V-' L >' v L a a T 7 7 ro _ u ro L j N a N L QI n U C C C C >N C C ✓� N 67 Ua n O C C C E �r L U O Q a n U L G IT L. p p U ro Y w L O a U � L 117 v > ro 0 u r c u a v z m 4 cc v+ W r UN C U C ad U N io u v YO N N � a� G C Y a o 338 �I N a Y C - A c M V E 1 w u Ir 7 cc _ L V V N E V$$r w L) C c ` E u y u 1 C N Q u O �► T O O y ` q 0 M L O C �+ L S u u— N V. T C w L^ O y— y .JT ` cud r N w N w N _ r�• C iv v N Y E p L V 0 T V C c w N L p C CQQ �Cp A T r r E L u y u I� ® > � z w•- u- 1 u r L Q >— c A— u M t Q, O O O pC u ud trl d a Q J VI C0 N 1 y y • OC > > [ u L L rC o u C- p p >u u o u - L L u 7 v E L 10— Ou 6 — N u 7 0 > C n o— ° — u o L 0: �I N QW •u 11Eu�p uppa 0'yY N pp N YLL L «nu LyN L O+ O_ 1 ^ NNL—LC° u 0 — u O u O— C > pQ C u ° L n °w r A N ` ,-a r u u y rCC IV v O r✓^ E ^D ` C L T [ y L •C y Q, NO — ..+ N u G u ° .y+ r ° .°. C 1► 7Q O y L r N L y .� Ip O ° pQp O1 u E j N O. u L E C N CJI w w r N A X u r Y u U y V r r N L u 10 ` IL. L C L U z u L 1p .� C N L N �' 7 vu u CT ° C" u — O N U " >Ir OP T q w > Ip 10 T w t 9 T r O N O E T - y_ �� a u ° u c N , S d c = u u u u N n m u c r C u u o L _ c n u N u u u �, v u pE ` p ` « E u u v A I.y L u w 10 N > L ._ yp >po 9 7 C Ir w 7 67 C G >L Ir w 6i ` ` Y N y eyg+ U. U ot O O 61 u 7 6� Ci eC p O E L u > 7 C U 4 0 0 0 0 .0 y- r �+ O C '.' H E L u N r L L a r r b N L L o t0 L C O V ` V u n r- TT - 1 L c 1[0 C V N 0 7 > U C .0 1`p y Vi C N O C N ` - N Ip u o L•� N U r 9 .L.+ z �► u — u a 11�� _ A — O U L N L E N O E ,► L C ^ N C N O �+•� - N A EQ u c z p v— C u N O c o w N - ` p y L w T u L N N C > It _ .0 c N V .yi r 0 ya � _ o >� n _ o r v .� rO _ w w � uo no— N Q w N [ L C �' L V— CT u N E A o w — n. $e c u : v u c c s y c c au wL c — .. n n A E u jp L r 0 u N O 7 EOQ N r V •- C— V Y V V � p L c = L u t ` � T ` > O ~ V p C G A 0 ; 10 C I� W Cn H w Pa C y u.o u n I 4k L! u T O V N v N l�l gz oU10 u0 r� s a c c W & w" a C " ` 339 C � V O v N tp_. 7 i. tp L fCpp y C N 9 C• T � E j o C L to O tJ- C _ V1 N — L — c A c to �, p V ., u tp _ r@ M 7C rn E a 0 E L V — ep - C n i a o V L r L z d t L Vw t O V to O U > M to to u ., c c ., ., E L N V— - C C L N N > C— E? TG V N N O u L - e Y c > .. u V, e� y u v L L u _ u L to A L C N v i y O C 0.to u CL •- V L) N = tp U V u ° In o d a 7 u c N O C W L v -0tp v p .' - t0 C ~ p p M CV M i1 N ' J Y a V V CJ V m C C 0 C Q L V •�' L u u :+ -M to o ♦+ ._ to N L Cl c L L _ — > to u tp z•- > L V) a p a — mi > > z Bio go0.as c IL Q.- <: a E c 1 N > t C I •4) L L C p C V V V -C A L U > O w C tp u to ACL qC� n T C r-•; E L -m u 0 U - u C 0 - •C) L O 4J L ;+ c o • O a u is c w to L L a,Y. tp j = i •_ N •_ tT t0 V 9 V fD L L V •_ c — y „ o tEq 3 N O c a N c � c — > E c c rn a L N u W v 6ui d L - ` 70 N V T-- O V t0 Q•- Op•� Oa tp V T Iri, - rn G o tD c t c v W C c N- O N C — .L v a+ c ., Y •.. �' p t d- N to c : c Em v Lo N u : v N- .M, O c M v u N > E u t — to > N N — L tp U L 61 4 9 0 c� .9 G d t'J U 4) N C ,-� t0— N >. to•u•N to N 7 �+ > N - aL.•._ N O V ,� N N V C O In r T d o u u C u to c)— L L tp tD '0 to N E c c u > N U C N > i N O O 3 — u d V N d d T p v v o tp � � �� -� Ad a v� rnofl CL cn � u �wv n uo - N c m tp V O L T V C C L C G O V_ O- >• u L c to Iv to L C y t0 N tp O'«+— j to U C C N 1• O' > N C c 0 to.� v O A E N lm p c c — V) u N rn D tp O c _ '- C >• „ L•.. to 4)�- a+ E •y C L U •— C O V " C T L C C L N— O O t0 L N C tp N 3 O a .- c t- .- u u 0•- to 41 tD•- d N•- E E 6- ._ N u ._ to — d n L n L O — u L L- u •- i L U T i V O u L A u N•- C O A G- O t > .D y p a)._ ._ C ✓ V Q•- v d C C T w - L T L T- N ._ d L C v U u 0 ..• _ 0 7 a > — d U w V u tp C u N v d > L v- u _ to V >' a V-- E `t p a, S� U L O H C n v 3 i <[C A tp Law N N . n C o 3— N V L C 1 u _ V tp N U r V V•— .T•� � C L T ... N N — ., C L E crp N c C c 0 � N to•to •, ty r y. r V tp o v ° a u> z OL LLu - - r v p ep L. .r _ N u E C Z •o to tD w E E fp T au) o c — — y•u o d m - tp tT tT to t0 > - > V N E U L V t0 U m .L^w O LL 1•- CO N L CSL d 7-L V w N L _ Q C U N C C tp c N V•C •L O C/ N C � o a • E O Y t s n C E Im a T v u > a c y 1 u T rn 3 �- to T T L — a 1— L tp u c . : LV / C L m e a c a o 3 -• .n _ > c c u u c m to c �o•- E u L > u— = O N -.0 V C•- '- tp N N to U > V > V C > y Z G pQ L L �, O L ._ ✓ - C 1 ._ �. - W V C U to n a; to d tp u U U C r, C_. L c -- 6/L u O_ U C L Cw E d >'- L E N Q c L N C V/w ._.� u- n O yy 1� j a V >w 7 L V V O p tp-- tp V O N to d .0 G >,v a T C N L c T•+ C _ fD O O D C O W _N to.fl u w �+ p - O L a m y d y y t7 N M Z O 9 �/ m., C �+ N [ E .0 O to N O C C iJ N to L L - V C t0 > VV 7 tp V C W O E to t- j•- v v ' u u N d c E a' V c �' to L>yU �N,-•- t- yE o w - utp VCV O C T to V> V V to U C C V to N OU n N V9 {) to V .0 0 c 0. VO O u N L) j O O V O NUL yCtD +NrTr+ LC LL LT w L �I V L i. D A V tp V tp V O u U. W f- C R. OC d <U V CT CT C Zp: N a U m CL H O u 7 u 7 u n T O >' O >' O V tJ C Y Y Q O u aC N u N U N C t: W Z V V OC CC ccfY W W W 340 C 'I VIII _ g Y y E L Y N E E - ✓e O N C M = C Y L E C 0 E C LO • Y U Ch tom VN Y n y E t Y c V L uuu C •Y V —Q a N D C U >. p✓ M C ` 9 ✓� R O L. N Y 9 ✓ L me h- V wee N m Y C� Y C L V Y L • 8 V • 8 8 � 120g 61 -80 4 av o w > • I.- �► �. r T J N N L n w h- D III L) 0 0 9 vu& u y O L rn -: r� a L L Y > Ip L C u Q, u A C N * M 4 r C N D7 P O Y 7 V O > C Y �. Y • C r N n L r r C r CC s a .� N r Y V C r ` ✓ O u.� O u = r' I� • cL u • • N > O :° e n w 2 006 4c w m <D n u N r O C A IIIT V' Y O O > L L ✓ C N L T m 0 U n ^ > u o d C u u > m n C T.Y. v'— IIII m C6 C Jm Y03 � W 7 O 7 m «D U V L U m U O C Y C ✓ � m c — > ✓ v > u Dc [ � d D. N aC W • • • • • • • • • • � u L of L II N Y u y C L = m•X m — r p a� i ON1y u ^ 7Y u'p9 �' .m. N✓ lY N OnE u ✓ p Y y [ .-. vL y LL N fp— G C O C c E ft T [ C O C f0 U « N u ii T�LCC •u V✓ � � Y _ c7 m O c ✓ 0- o o m N > > cNC �o • � .✓EeD p pOOYO « �. unu a— _mOmm-- O U L Y N V Y V +e e r C C L Y « L fe y Q Y •m m G Y 7 Q+ C D t sY Y Y✓C O N O N Of C L, ,� T ✓ U �+ m C F L n C 0— r u n e O «t N Z A u c A d N S p 0-YO A A O C II 4 T V U S L A u A - T u rn.0 c - m o o c O o u t ✓ > N^ L m T > >, ^9 u « p 0 0 u 0 E ✓^ L rn._ ._ Y L ✓ m — L S N V L > V •� Y— m L L N > — C m r > O m •" C C •— C N N O Y L U m p C G VC O Y « •N V 1e V r}_ �+« u c v u ✓ K v t Y C u > c e Ta u 2 E Y m r 7 u 1 L N L Y N 1 �► w _ - N O T C 1- Y m L w m — c u N > m L N^ Z N C O ✓ [ 0 61 I >aAe~Coao —VAT✓nUvEc rLrCY. -C +r+Cr_� u •cY DV.Tu. CC ACN �Y tOn `uNG Y�O C•O_L«TN—Oc �N•NC✓Y "CC� 7 m u uU Y • O 1. CO[ c•Npu 0.1 oil 10 — 9 > L i c w N Y p u uO S v E E N p c z > > O p c tm s o u u `` -• N r� Ol l' YO9 n C T m L Y r L N Y Y C m j n IOJL LSI .,_dao c� o � � � > gN [ [ N I� W r [ p • +MOL p TLIM v C O y m O C E W t Y r r ✓ ✓ r « C L 4 y Y O N �' u "_ [ Y u ✓ m m u u _ L U u N T C N >'✓ Y17, v c v O L L Y•� C C y o j a .� n Y C O m Y Y Y C 9 tJ O O C ✓ V C — L .t.Lr. t C O E CL so O••' .+ T `43-' = o �r- W W u v a, at • = a s >,� C u T� u c 341 L Y > C Y C C C v Y a LW W W II r u c N E p L C O c E ' N u QI � OI C a_ M •O L a ✓ c_ _ � v a u 0 �� v U ✓ _ C L C � ✓ N a L w N -- v- > a a 0 c 3 u N a•- N 7 •- a N a O a C L L 0 A IM In v C v N C U �+ C •-� T j U� a 0Nv- 4• v L a v v C IV U N N u v L C L C o L v v u L v - c v IS v o a ✓ ✓ ) [ L m 2 m > p > n n 4, , a u Ico c � y c 4pL '- ✓ a v [ S N -0 a L v•- c v c � a+ N p C C O O a n v a c m n U (1)c E c Q ). p � � ✓ O ✓ o L [ O L C u r OU C y « E y F- u 4• a W a u y E w � C` u O L O L n C J a « N a 1` L O L C C Q p L v ✓ l u ✓ LD ^ N c 0. V) G`n a n ° - w • • • • • • • J S O N a u S J N U a C ✓ v L N O 1 1 c a 61 1 -O •> C a c 7 L �' « N p C 01 L N • _ ina[i O O c E O c a N « N > L a « p c•- ✓ a r L, _ ` u N c a v _ « G 0. a s u L :r T G« c a a - O c v w w J u G E v c ^ G u v a O oI c E N a u t O (w •� p a 0 w i s a L+ 0 7 - N O Q 7 N O u^ u C� c > v O 0 6� L m E L w E u - - - - O m �n .+ - - L y- •L c `u a� Ico c v rn N�+ m ✓ c 4. v c o G a G u L -• 0 O+ c L p [ O c- c c 7 L v �+ u O N a u u - w l C ._ 7•- 0 0 0 0 v•- a S � [ p N ✓ ._ p._ u v�W v E .0 W v C U - V O •- L) IM CL L 0- L L C v •_ - a « £- E EE _ O ..+ ✓ W a p ; N r a C O L O •--- u Y •N 3 v a u N ✓ ; v - a E �'' i• L N c •- a. u c O C •_ v v n- U ✓ y L w a L .- _ U y T C L a U a - GI •- > a O - •_ > C u 0 U C IT - L v a 2 C N A n 7 •- a C � O U p ._ p ✓- ro v ,� v s v �p c c - _ _ ✓ ✓ C C v C w ✓ a N..1 O a- G 1.- v 7 pp 1- a > y L O 7 C O a > a o S ✓ N v Q t/� O ; c O L v L T y d G.0 ,C 7 N N U N 7 v v V7 w C� ✓O N v v ✓ y C F v N u T ✓ L « v 0 a ••- ✓ • 0 - d IJ �+ E > C •- C: n a 10 C C T I IA'a C T N W v O a m L _ L a v N •- C•- v 7 C •+ a'v C a G v Q c y ✓ L E - E « O 2 v L c c o a O ✓ N O a•- 3 L I� O o. L - u a - N L L u C U_ V' ✓ L a O L C w OIL 0 0 C v a u •- ; u L U N a > a•C L W U a Y •u ✓ .d a U T '7 a L ._ [ ✓ « ✓ Z a•- c - - O C 10 W C - v n N 0 3 n l .-_ C v a L C u v O+« U C E 61- a �7_ C a 0C 61 •C L v C - v v v O N L u 0 v O a O oz ✓ O O - L•- u C •- O•- O " L '- v L L L C C c N W O nna LE Q [ c a ✓ nz ✓ O unof ✓ N nu�.ru « a•- Y uu NVn aYS rNCC ._ 1 W UC N E c O 3 C ✓ O_ E v - C Cv U N N v N r ^ X Q N^ _ a n v .U+ a v v % L4. E t v C L `� « v a 0 7 O v 0 •- d o O « E ✓^ n o y " E .0 a ✓ Na• c ac v v - c v v [a..r a E A i v O A v+ n r� O CL O N E C L kA v a -0I T -0 y C a l Q c L c v E 0 v "ac _ v L y nW - Q O ✓ p L•I -u M L 4• > v [- [ [ [ � v i a u_ a vc d pA.nule a N T 4. L ✓ _ o u w ✓ ✓ L ✓ a_ W N a U v O ✓ p v ., C C - ✓ T v C L ✓1t. V p U a U ` 7 ✓ rI cr U N v C A O R C 7 C L L O C 7 E L L v O 0 J a a 1r. C n J ✓I _ Y ✓ ✓ v w ._ f• ✓ L U U a = to a ✓ « « W W ¢ O � O v O � � � � �' •« cn Ch Q ✓ ✓ v ✓ v r Y Q d W C W G. C C C Q W 1' W G W CL W 342 r V1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Earth. The area covered by the proposed action involves ' icing County, Washington. King County is centrally located on the east side of Puget Sound in the central Puget Sound region. i The county covers 2 , 128 square miles lying between the ridgeline of the Cascades and the shore of Puget Sound including Vashon and Maury Islands in Puget Sound. King County is bounded on the north by Snohomish County , on the east by Kittitas and Chelan counties , and on the south by Pierce County. There are twenty- eight incorporated cities in the county. Topography and Geology- The topography of King County ranges from sea level on the western periphery to the ridge line ' of the Cascades . The western third of the county has been found suitable for extensive human habitation. Elevations range from zero to 800 ' feet. The area is bisected by the Green River Valley and Lake Washington with tributary systems from the Cedar and Sammamish drainages. The land forms tend to be plateaus and valleys punc- tuated with hills and uneven slopes . The valley bottoms tend ' to cut into the plateaus resulting in steep slopes. The area is characterized by undulating country affording many spectacular ' views. The central third of the county is characterized by the heavily timbered slopes of the foothills and ridges of the Cas- cades . The area is drained by the headwaters of the Green , the ' Cedar , and the White rivers in the south , and the Snoqualmie in the north. This area includes portions of the Seattle and Tacoma watersheds. The population of the area is located in six small incorporated towns principally located along the rivers. The eastern third of the county is characterized by the rug- ged ridges and summits of the central Cascades. National Forest lands , City of Seattle and Tacoma watersheds , and the Alpine Lake ' 343 1 Wilderness Area cover most of the area. It is drained through deeply incised valleys by the Green , Cedar , Snoqualmie and Sky- komish Rivers . ' Soils . The soils of the western or urban/urbanizing por- tions of King County are principally the product of the succes- sive periods of glaciation. The resulting soil formations bear the major classifications or groupings : Alderwood , Oridia-Seattle- Woodinville , Buckley-Alderwood , Everett, Beausite-Alderwood , A1- derwood-Kitsap-Indianola, and Puget-Earlmont-Snohomish. The pre- valent soil associations are described in the published King County Area Soil Survey published by the U . S . Department of Agri- , culture , Soil Conservation Service , in cooperation with Washing- ton Agricultural Experiment Station issued November , 1973 as fol- lows : Alderwood association : Moderately well drained , undulating to hilly soils that have dense , very slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of 20 to ' 40 inches ; on uplands and terraces . Oridia-Seattle-Woodinville association : Somewhat , poorly drained and very poorly drained , nearly level soils ; in major stream valleys. Buckley-Alderwood association : Poorly drained and moderately well drained , nearly level to rolling soils that have dense , slowly peremeable and very slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of , 20 to 40 inches ; on glacial till plains and uplands . Everett association : Somewhat excessively drained , , gravelly, gently undulating soils underlain by sand and gravel ; on terraces. Beausite-Alderwood association : Well drained and , moderately well drained , gently rolling to very steep hills that have sandstone or shale or dense , very slowly permeable glacial till at a , depth of 20 to 40 inches ; on uplands. Alderwood-Kitsap-Indianola association : Moderately well drained , nearly level to steep soils that have very slowly permeable glacial till or glacial lake deposits at a depth of 16 to 40 inches , and 344 somewhat excessively drained, rolling , deep sandy soils ; on uplands and terraces. Pu et-Earlmont-Snohomish association: Poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained , nearly level soils that have layers of peat within a few feet of the surface ; ' in major stream valleys. The most commonly occurring soils in western Ling County for Of are of the Alderwood association which account' soils in occur oxconsall 45% of the land area. In general , Alderwood so the major uplands in the western third of the county with the exception of the Enumclaw plateau. The Alderwood soils arein- terspersed with pockets or bands of other common soil types. _Air Quality and Odor . Current solid waste handling prac- tices ' tices and disposal options are affected by air quality stan- dards . Transfer station and landfill operations may generate dust , gases , odor and windblown particulate matter . Air quality monitoring is not performed in the vicinity of any transfer sta- tions , but most of the pollutants are monitored on a regular ' basis throughout the region. Section 9 . 15 of Regulation I applies to the operation of transfer stations and landfills . In general ' these emissions do not come under the purview of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency unless a complaint is filed . Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Regulation 9 . 11(a) states that ' it is unlawful to emit an air contaminant or water vapor if such emision is detrimental to human health, safety , and welfare , or ' causes damage to property. Odor falls under the general provi- sions of this regulation and is also specifically covered in Section 9 . 12 of Regulation I . An individual must sign a formal complaint before the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency will enforce rule 9 . 11(a) . climate . Sustained rainfall presents difficulties in ' landfill operation for cover and compaction. Precipitation also increases the amount of leachate. Within King County attempts to locate landfills in areas of lower precipitation increase the conflicts between landfills and more urban uses. Sustained ' sub-freezing temperatures impair cover and compaction at land- fills and may close roads to heavily laden vehicles. Climatic 345 1 considerations are not significant , however, in the siting of solid waste facilities in the county when compared to other , operations or locational considerations . Water. Surface Water Movement ,_ Quantity , Quality , Runoff and Absorption. Water resources play a major role in the King County area. Puget Sound , rivers and lakes provide major transportation routes , commerce , resource extraction , recreation ' and aesthetics. The City of Seattle has developed watersheds and reservoirs on the Tolt River (Tolt-Seattle Water Supply Reservoir) , the Cedar River (Chester Morse Lake) and at Lake Youngs . The City , of Tacoma has a reservoir on the Green River above Froward Han- sen Dam. The dominant soil in King County is of the Alderwood series . Alderwood soils are generally poorly drained due to impervious substrata. The lack of permeability of the soil combined with , the amount and duration of rainfall creates a high rate of run- off. ' Although the general quality of surface water in King County is good , there are surface water problems. Many small lakes and streams are contaminated by effluent from septic tanks and by runoff. Solid waste disposal facilities may cause surface water contamination. Landfills can pose a particularly serious threat to surface water. Landfills are currently responsible for some surface water contamination in King County. , Floods. Flooding in King County usually occurs as the result of one of two major climatic phenomenon. During the win- ter months , cyclonic Pacific storms sweep inland depositing heavy rain on lower elevations and saturating and/or melting the snow- , 346 ' pack at higher elevations . Rapid and heavy runoff results from soil saturation combined with excessive precipitation. Winter 1 floods have historically been the most damaging. The second less-frequent , flood-prone period is spring melt and runoff . Flooding may occur when sustained high temperatures rapidly melt and saturate the accumulated snow pack. ' familiar Moderate winter season flooding is the county' s most natural hazard . Larger and more damaging floods have occurred at four- to five-year intervals . Floods attaining the 100-year level 1 have occurred in the central Puget Sound area in 1933 , 1951 and 1 1959 . (1) Flood hazards are not uniformly distributed across the flood plain. Hazards are related to topogrpahy within the flood plain ' and combinations of flood depth , velocity , duration and sedimen- tation. 1 It is estimated that 42 ,600 acres of King County are subject to inundation by flooding : (2) ' Snoqualmie River 13 , 000 acres Sammamish River 3 ,600 acres Green-Duwamish Rivers 14 ,000 acres 1 Cedar River 800 acres Ground water Movement , Quality and Ouantity. Groundwater ' comprises ten per cent of the Metro service area water supply. Principal users of public water from groundwater sources are Renton (5. 4 million gallons per day) , Kent (5. 0mgd) , Redmond 1 (0. 9 mgd) , Issaquah (0.8 mgd) and small water districts (2 .6y mgd) .�3� Man of the aquifers in King County are associated with alluvial post-glacial deposits and occur at relatively shallow 1 depths. These aquifers are usually in hydraulic continuity with adjacent water courses. The alluvial deposits are porous in nature and will allow water retention up to twenty per cent of the ' aquifer' s volume. ' ) Puget Sound Council of Governments , Regional Disaster 1 gation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region , Volume ' 1975 , pp. 40-45. 2) Ibid. , p. 71. ' 3) Environmental Protection Agency , Draft Environmental im�a��d 347 tat m nt or etro olitan Seattle , . o � ndence The Georgetown-Langley aquifer used extensively by the City of Kent is one of four snow aquifers in the foothills. _ There are major aquifer recharge areas in the Federal Way region and in swales throughout the Alderwood drift plain. , Groundwater is generally available in the urbanizing and rural ' portions of King County. In most areas , lack of water is not a deterrent to growth. ' Recharge of groundwater results from direct precipitation and adjacent stream flows. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle materials state that 16 inches of rainfall is adequate to , recharge aquifers although approximately one-half of the preci- pitation in urban areas is lost to manmade contrivances such as , storm sewers and sanitary sewer infiltration and inflow. Solid waste disposal facilites , especially landfills , can , contaminate ground water. This is a problem of all of the land- fills in King County to varying degrees , depending on the leach- ate interception equipment currently installed. Closed landfills , without leachate interception equipment also contribute to the groundwater contamination problem. This problem is discussed ' in the plan. Flora and Fag una. Kin County was once covered by a dense ' coniferous forest. Douglas fir was the dominant foriDst type and western hemlock an important associate. Western red cedar grew in the wetter places , silver fir at the higher altitudes , red alder in poorly drained places , and black cottonwoods along the , sandy stream bottoms. Coniferous saw-timber types are the most significant use of forest land. Most of the virgin timber has , been cut, and Douglas fir is the preferred second growth species . Broadleafed types consist principally of black cottonwood and , red alder , but other common trees and shrubs include cascara , buckthorn , vine maple , Oregon maple , dogwood , willow blackberry , evergreen blackberry, salmonberry , salal , Oregon grape , rhododen- 348 ' dron, yew, madrona , elderberry, devil' s-club, huckleberries and wild blueberries. Moss and lichens cover the forest floor , and bracken grows profusely in all open places at the lower altitudes . There are no known plants which are unique to King County. The reader is referred to Regional Agriculture Land Use Technical ' Study for a discussion of agricultural crops in King County. ' King County has a wide variety of fish and wildlife that offer a range of opportunities from hunting and fishing to bird ' and animal watching. The wildlife species are commonly classi- fied as big game , upland game birds and animals , waterfowl , fur- bearers , animals of lesser significance , and rare and endangered species , and the fish species are classified as anadromous fish ' and resident fish. The raze and endangered species of the county include the bald eagle , which prefers high altitude places for nesting , and the Beeler ' s Ground Beetle which occurs in Kings Lake Bog near North Bend. Both of these species are protected by law. Noise. Noise levels in the county have never been compre- hensively measured but generally would be similar to other major ' metropolitan areas. In general , a gradient exists with higher levels of background noise in central urban areas grading through ' suburban areas to very quiet levels in rural , forest and moun- tain environments . Isolated locations within the county possess distinctly different noise levels even though the types of urban , suburban and rural development are similar. Many jurisdictions ' within the county have ordinances regulating noise . On a local level , solid waste disposal facilities and truc3;s can increase ' noise levels. These noise levels have lead to complaints on occasion. tLight and Glaze . similar to noise , light and glare is speci- fic to areas and has not , and probably cannot, be adequately inven- toried on a comprehensive scale. The intensity and type of light 1) Leroy Jones , Regional Agriculture Land Use Tec1nic4a1� , ' Puget Sound Council of Governments , 1974 , pp. 349 andglare is largely controlled by local regulations. solid waste disposal facilities contribute to the light and glare levels of the areas in which they are located. Light and glare from dis- posal facilities is not considered to have adverse impacts because the facilities are either separated from other uses by a buffer ' or sited in industrial areas . Land use . The land use pattern of King County has been strongly influenced by the post-glaciation topography . Beginning in the last century , urban development proceeded along a north- south axis stretching from Tacoma to Everett . Today , there are distinct bands of urbanization, generally occupying the ridges and separated by water or bands of less-developed valley lands . King County was once fully covered with forests . In the western portion of the county the dominant tree cover has been removed and largely Y replaced by urbanization and second growth. In eastern King County , most of the forest cover remains in virgin or second growth . The western-most band is the oldest and most intensely devel- oped. The western band contains a full range of employment and housing land uses ranging from office towers and huge factories to low-density , homes . It is centered on the City of ' single-family Seattle , which is home to 40 percent of the county ' s population and 56 percent of its total employment. It also includes the older ' suburbs of Hingline and Shoreline and the young suburb of Federal Way. In total , the western band has 60 percent of county ' s popula- tion ula- tion ' and 67 percent of its total employment. The western band , with the exception of Federal Way , has rela- tively little vacant land remaining and can only accommodate a � vel limited amount of new growth without redevelopment. Planning for the area indicates that redevelopment will not be a major factor except in downtown Seattle where large new office buildings p will replace smaller old buildings . Elsewhere , the iaxisting land ' use pattern will remain largely unchanged. Housing and employment densities will gradually rise as new apartments , condominiums , office ' buildings and stores are built on the remaining parcels of vacant land. ' Federal Way is the only part of the western band that is still in the early stages of development. It will continue to be one ' 350 1 of the county' s most important areas for the construction of new single-family and multifamily homes and will become an important area of commercial activity. The changes will result in the grad- ual conversion of most of the semirural lands in the eastern and southern parts of Federal Way to urban uses by the and of the II century. The western band of development is separated from the second �I band by Lake Washington and the Green River Valley. Until about twenty years ago, urban development in the Valley was restricted 'I by floods to a few high spots along its east margin and its north end. Since then, flood and drainage control projects , new highways 'I and thousands of acres of vacant land have combined to make the valley a prime location for new development. Today , the north 'I valley is over fifty percent developed with commercial and indus- trial uses predominating . By the end of the century , most of the remaining vacant land between Auburn and Renton will have been'I de- veloped and the Green River Valley will be nearly entirely de- voted to commercial or industrial activities and multifamily hous- ing. Agriculture and open-space uses will be generally limited to a belt along the Green River, the western margin of the valley in Kent, and whatever land is required to provide storage for the water drained from the rest of the valley. The second major band of urban development in King County lies to the east of Lake Washington and the Green River Valley . Starting from the north in Bothell, the band includes Northshore , Kirkland, Redmond , Bellevue , Mercer Island , part of Renton , and ' the Soos Creek Plateau. The area in and around the City of Bellevue forms the heart of the second band and has been one of the fastest growing parts ' of King County during the last twenty years. Today its land use pattern is stabilising and there will be few changes in thetype of use for the remainder of the century. The most significant changes will occur in the Bellevue central business district ' where redevelopment projects will replace many existing low den- sity uses with high rise office buildings , condominium towers and 351 1 '' an enlarged shopping center. To the north and south of the Bellevue area, the construction of both single-family and multifamily housing will continue at a rapid pace. Commercial development will also continue , but is likely to be concentrated in a few major business and -industrial parks located in North Creek , near Redmond ' s downtown , in Kenmore , at Evergreen Highlands , Overlake , and at the Cabot , Cabot and Forbes ' I-90 Business Park in Bellevue. Although much vacant land remains in the second band , especially in Northshore , Newcastle , , and the Soos Creek Plateau, it is expected to approach full de- velopment by early in the next century. Planning for the area assumes that it will eventually be almost entirely urbanized . t The second urban band is bordered on the east by the Sammamish River Valley , Lake Sammamish , and Soos Creek. Beyond them lies ' a third band that is physically suitable for urban development but which is primarily rural or semirural today. This band in- ' cludes Bear Creek , the East Sammamish Plateau, Tahomat and Enum- claw Plateau. Substantial new housing construction at suburban ' densities is expected at several places in the band during the next twenty years. However , the third band is likely to remain mostly undeveloped until sometime during the next century. Beyond the third band are ruraland agricultural :Lands that ' extend into the Cascade mountains. Scattered through the rural area are a number of small towns and communities including Car- , nation , Duvall , Fall City , Snoqualmie , North Bend , Black Diamond , and Enumclaw. Although some large company may choose one of these communities as the site for a major plant , it is unlikely that the , rural area will receive significant urban development for the foreseeable future . Plans for the area generally continue its ' rural status. Natural Resources. The natural resources of King County include the major geographical features which are attractive ' forces for tourism and trade . Forest resources provide — a continuing source of employment. Extractive industries have 352 I' deposits and developed around the alluvial sand and gravel de p his- torically around coal seams. The available remaining agricul- tural soils and the marine environments of Puget Sound and ad- jacent waters provide employment and food products for the re- gion. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions . There is a risk of explosion in landfills that contain putrescible wastes . As 11 these wastes decay, they produce methane gas . This gas can explode if it is not properly vented. The potential exist for the disposal of explosive materials through the collection , transfer and disposal system. Such disposal is illegal under WAC 173-303 and the Minimum Functional Standards . ' 353 ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ' The scale and nonproject nature of the proposed action precludes an ex- ' haustive treatment of the human environment. PopulationaHousing and Employment. King County has more population and employment than any other county in Washington. In 1980, 1,269,749 people and 647,723 jobs were located within its boundaries. The 1980 ' totals were 110,708 people and 219,173 jobs higher than the totals for 1970 which shows that King County is continuing to attract large amounts of new urban activity. According to PSCOG's forecasts the county is expected to continue to ' grow at least through the end of the century. The population is expected to rise by 422,268 persons during the period to a total of 1,692,017 and employment is expected to increase by 327,519 to 975,242. The forecast totals for 2000 AD are 33% and 51% higher than the totals in 1980. The county's population and employment are very unevenly distributed. , The great majority are located in the western part of the county. Eastern King County and Vashon Island, in contrast,remain largely rural with a pop- , ulation of less than 20,000 and only a few thousand jobs. The PSCOG's fore- casts do not point to any change in this situation for the near future. ' Within the western portion of King County, several major concentrations of urban development can be identified. The most notable of these is Seattle which has about 40% of the total county population and 58% of the ' employment. Seattle is the oldest urbanized area in the county and also the most densely populated. With little remaining vacant land, its poten- tial for growth lies mainly in the development of additional office buildings and multifamily residential projects. The PSCOG's forecasts indicate that Seattle's population will remain stable through the end of the century while employment within the city increases by 115,000, mostly in the downtown. ' Although Seattle is still the dominant urban center in the county, other centers have developed during the last thirty years. On the eastside of Lake Washington the cities and unincorporated communities have been devel- oping rapidly since the early 19501x. The city of Bellevue is now second 354 only to Seattle in both population and employment. ' To the north of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirland, Bothell and Northshore have also added large numbers of people and jobs during the last two decades. in addition, there are nearly 100,000 acres of undeveloped land to the east of these urbanized areas that may receive substantial growth ' during the next twenty years. The PSCOG estimates the eastside's share of county population will rise from 21% in 1980 to 26% by 2000 and its share of employment will increase from 12% in 1980 to nearly 18% by 2000. ' Other important urban centers include the Green River Valley which has the county's second greatest concentration of employment, the southwest county which includes the mature suburb of Highline and the fast growing suburb of Federal Way and the southeast county which is one of the fastest growing residential areas but as yet has little employment. Those three areas, along with the mature suburb of Skyway make up the southern half ' of the county and collectively had about 34% of its population and 28% of its employment in 1980. The PSCOG has forecast that this share will ' rise by the end of the century to about 40% and 30% respectively primarily due to growth in Federal Way and the southeast county during the period. Additional Population Characteristics (Distribution of age, sex and ethnic characteristics of residents in King County) . Not applicable. Transportation Network. King County's surface transportation network ' is based on the thousands of miles of road which link every populated part of the county. The heart of the network is formed of the freeways and ' major highways that connect the large centers of employment and commerce in the county with each other, the county's major residential areas, and ' with the rest of the region. Rail plays only a minor role in intra-county transportation, but rail lines do provide links to many parts of the county. The county is also ' linked to other parts of the region by water routes on Puget Sound. All solid waste in the King County waste stream is collected, hauled ' to transfer stations, and hauled to landfills via roads. No waste is cur- rently moved by rail and none is moved by water. The situation may change ' in 1983 if a proposal to barge waste from Pier 35 in Seattle to a landfill ' 355 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN KING COUNTY 1970 - 2000 ACTUAL FORECAST SOUTHWEST KING COUNT( 1990 2000 Local Planning Areas 1970 1980 52523 75,013 101,011 128,0513 , 3000 Federal May 42,8119 , 3700 South= Highline 39,067 37,915 38,967 3800 North Hi hline 72 450 64 061 63,670 64,389 TOTAL 164,040 176,989 203,648 235,301 SHARE OF COUNTY TOTAL 14.4% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% ' GREEN RIVER VALLEY Local Planning Areas 29,782 36,400 44,800 3100 Auburn 25'284 3500 Kent 14,560 18,926 21,831 25,214 10,501 9,577 13,897 18,551 ' 3600 Kent Industrial 3,938 3,177 3,505 3,909 3900 Tukwila 33.137 39491 4100 R , enton 27 654 29 326 ' TOTAL 81,166 91,116 111,174 131,994 SHARE OF COUNTY TOTAL 7.2% 7.4% 7.8% 8.01. SOUTHEAST KING COUNTY ' Local Planning Areas 15,506 20,332 3200 Enumclaw Plateau 9,248 12,643 16,116 51,692 ' 25.188 36,117 3300 Tahoma/Raven Heights 43,397 68,726 94,986 3410 North Soos Creek 28,061 13,147 21997 35,018 50,969 , 3420 South Soos Creek 43.192 58.,723 ' 4200 Newcastle 26,183 31,973 TOTAL 8.2% 135,398 198,619 276,702 SHARE OF COUNTY TOTAL 8.2% 10.9% 14.D% 1G.8% SKYWAY Local Planning Area 17001 15.230 15,412 16,701 , 4000 Skyway/Boeing Field , SHARE OF COUNTY TOTAL 1.5x . 1.2% l.lx 1.0*. 356 100 - 2000 - Page Two W1 TSIDE ACTUAL FORECAST Local Areas 1970 1980 990 2000 ' 4,200 6.328 7,470 7.596 4300 Issaquah 4400 Herter Island 19.819 21.522 22.784 25.002 4500 Eastgate 15.265 23.026 27.090 32,196 5.978 12.673 22.015 36.889 4600 East Saamamish 13.724 19.714 4700 Bear Creek 5.539 8.909 15.138 14,924 16,160 19,056 4800 hest Bellevue�f 2,831 4.797 4900 Bellevue CBD 1,010 33,4545 0 38,816 40,911 44,523 5000 East Bellevue 7.812 9.237 5100 Point Cities 8.121 7.993 2.038 3.123 4.103 4,752 5200 Bel-Red 16.858 19.713 23,411 $300 Kirkland 14.737 5400 Redmond 21,557 37,459 53,305 70,600 5500 Northshore 33.234 62,973 91.645 117,854 5600 Bothell 5.945 8.444 10.611 12,338 TOTALS 185.695 264,056 340,174 429.965 SNARE OF COUNTY TOTAL 16.32 21.32 23.92 26.12 SHORELINE i Local Planning Area 6400 Shoreline 64.532 62.067 62.144 63,146 ' SNARE OF COUNTY TOTAL 5.7% 5.0% 4.4% 3.8% SEATTLE Local Planning Area $700 west Stettle 77.139 69,016 68.678 69.560 5800 puwamish-Harbor Itland 7.703 6.382 5.741 4,587 5400 Southeast Seattle 79.316 74.897 73.205 72,813 9.805 10.496 14.329 20.365 6000 Downtown 72,094 70.682 70.399 6110 Central Stattle 75.748 6120 Magnolia-Quten Anne 52.010 $0.672 50.502 49.218 6210 U-District $7.610 53.392 $3.023 53.655 6220 Northtast Seattle 85.630 79.803 79.929 80,627 6300 Northwest Seattle 85.870 71.094 74,935 72,471 - TOTALS 530.831 493.546 491.024 493.695 SNARE OF COUNTY TOTAL 46.7% 39.9% 34.5% 30.02 TOTAL KING COUNTY 1 135 730 1.238,704 1,422-)95 1 645 504 (within the forecast 357 r HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION IN KING COUNTY , 1970-2000 SOUTHWEST KING COUNTY ACTUAL FORECAST Local Planning Areas 1970 1980 1990 2000 ' 3000 Federal May 13,427 25,627 36,44B 47,847 3700 South Highline 11,852 14,797 16,954 18,536 3800 North Highline 23,055 25,295 26.995 27.595 TOTAL 48,334 65,719 80,397 93.978 Share of County Total 12.6. 13.5% 13.9% 13.8% ' GREEN RIVER VALLEY Local Planning Areas 31 DO Auburn 8,114 11,620 16,100 19,250 ' 3500 Kent 5.205 7,153 8.169 9,550 3600 Kent Industrial 2.590 3,710 5,782 8,734 3900 Tukwila 1.217 1,603 2,153 2,225 ' 4100 Renton 9,152 12,042 14,509 18.302 _ TOTAL 26,278 36,328 46,713 58,061 Share of County Total 6.8% 7.5% 8.1% SOUTHEAST KING COUNTY Local Planning Areas 3200 Enumclaw Plateau 2.870 4,398 5,588 7.532 , 3300 Tahoma/Raven Heights 4,123 8,047 12,190 17.931 3410 North Soos Creek 7.669 13.880 23.048 33,107 3420 South Soos Creek 3,447 6,733 11,190 16,962 ' 4200 Newcastle 7 193 10 500 14 720 20 941 _ TOTAL 25.322 43.558 66,736 96.473 Share of County Total 6.6; 9.0% 11.5% 14.2% ' SKYWAY Local Planning Area 4000 Skywayl Boeing Field 5.744 5,986 6.165 7,445 Share of County Total 1.5% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 358 Household Distribution in King County EASTSIDE ACTUAL FORECAST Local Planning Areas 1970 1980 1990 2000 4300 Issaquah 1.726 2,354 2,710 2.809 4400 Mercer Island S.872 7.514 8.442 9.483 45DO Eastgate 4.094 7.369 9.311 11.250 4600 East Sanmamish 1.841 4,072 7.507 13,176 4700 Bear Creek 1.816 2,967 4,801 7,129 4800 West Bellevue 4,805 5,908 6,988 7.927 4900 Bellevue CBD 346 525 1.470 2,533 5000 East Bellevue 9.741 14,504 16.045 17.546 5100 Point Cities 2.270 2,642 2.673 3.115 $200 Bel-Red 586 989 1.366 1.653 5300 Kirkland 4.996 6.839 8.391 10,392 5400 Redmond 5,257 13,533 20.068 27,788 5500 Northshore 9.150 20,763 31.835 41.876 5600 Bothell 1.721 2,967 3.849 4.714 TOTALS 54.218 92.946 125,456 161.391 ' Share of County Total 14.1% 19.1% 21.7% 23.7% SHORELINE 1 Local Planning Area 6400 Shoreline 18,468 22,237 24.286 24,975 Share of County Total 4.8% 4.6% 4.2% 3.7% ' SEATTLE Local Planning Areas 5700 West Seattle 27,356 29,285 30,560 31.769 ' 5800 Duwamish/Harbor Island 3,085 2,799 2,446 2.241 5900 Southeast Seattle 27.132 28,290 29.038 29,851 6000 Downton 6.559 6.605 8.289 11.847 ' 6110 Central Seattle 35.821 36.590 37,507 38,626 6120 Magnolia/Queen Anne 22.715 24.335 25,195 25,952 6210 U. District 20.051 21.203 21.840 22.154 1 6220 Northeast Seattle 29.908 34.672 36.684 19,125 6300 Northwest Seattle 33,460 35.690 36.744 36.782 TOTALS 206.087 219.469 228.303 238.347 Share of County Total S3.6% 4S.1% 39-5% 35.05 TOTAL KING COUNTY 384,451 486.'[43 578.056 680.670 (Within the forecast r 359 1 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT* WITHIN KING COUNTY 1961 - 2000 SOU THWEST KING COUNTY ACTUAL FORECAST ' Local Planning Areas 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 _ 3000 Federal Way 1,190 4,221 10,833 18,493 23,584 , 3700 South Highline 4,062 11,368 16,638 19,532 22,506 , 3800 North Highline 5,286 9,938 15,626 18,678 22,206 TOTAL 25,52756,703 58,296 , Share of County Total 3.2% 5.9% 6.7% 7.0% 7.1% GREEN RIVER VALLEY ' Local Planning Areas 3100 Auburn 4,043 11,410 18,968 25,560 30,093 1,447 3,498 7,917 11 ,856 14,573 3500 Kent ' 3500 Kent Industrial 1,449 10,102 21,239 27,403 33,962 3900 Tukwila 206 4,035 18,742 31,353 40,611 4100 Renton 26,308 22,268 39,935 45,513 50,477 ' TOTAL 33,453 51,313 106,801 141 ,685 169,016 Share of County Total 10.1% 12.0% 16.7% 17.5% 17.51 SOUTHEAST KING COUNTY ' local Planning Areas 3200 Enumclaw Plateau 1,316 1,619 2,940 3,510 5,098 418 660 950 1,977 3,295 3300 Tahoma 4,089 6,809 3410 North Soos Creek 254 1,183 2,102 3420 South Soos Creek 111 651 905 3,140 4,915 4200 Newcastle 600 1,182 1,409 2,453 4,042 ' TOTAL Y 2,699 5,295 8,306 15,559 24,159 Share of County Total .8% 1.2% 1.3% 1.91. 2.5 , SKYWAY Local Planning Area 4000 skyway/Boeing Field 32,972 16,364 21,706 23,122 24,754 Share of County Total 9.9% 4.3% 3.4% 2.9s 2.5 300 1 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT* 1970 - 2000 ACTUAL FORECAST kSTSIDE _,cal Planning Areas 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 I' ,60 {DO Issaquah 1,146 1,155 2,716 34 4,608 100 Mercer Island 1,621 1,917 4,188 5.321 6,441 4.iDO Eastgate 973 2.254 S,597 9.271 12,439 iDO East Swaamish 207 331 $69 1,061 1,429 ?DO Bear Creek 403 475 541 1,020 1,343 41300 West Bellevue 1.877 4,113 6,728 8,783 10,305 900 Bellevue CBD 1,437 4.641 12.091 23,690 34,9D6 000 East Bellevue 909 3.682 8.862 13,119 17,181 ?i100 Point Cities 183 589 645 693 1.365 Bel-Red 1,145 4,916 9,223 12,560 14,668 fO0 00 Kirkland 1,625 2,913 5,353 8. 95 11,264 5400 Redmond 1,536 3,476 12.516 20.483 29.011 °500 Northshore 1.675 3,165 7.147 10.989 14,171 F+600 Bothell 633 1,192 2,163 7,141 12,214 fOTALS 15.370 35,019 78.339 125,930 171,345 are of County Total 4.61 8.2% 12.1% 15.51 :7.7 HORELINE oval Plannin Area 6400 Shoreline 4.023 9.025 12,893 16,551 19,572 here of County Total 1.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.01 2.M FEATTLE Local Planning Area Local Seattle 7.547 7.936 10,098 10.943 11.595 5700 15800 Duwamish-Harbor Island 59,376 $5.824 70.916 76,431 78,851 5900 Southeast Seattle 10,699 14,757 19,574 22,325 25,266 6000 Downtown 68.746 90,603 114.926 143.000 '179,090 6110 Central Seattle 22,431 27.107 44.474 46.700 49,286 6120 Magnolia-Queen Anne 23.978 28.795 35.042 40.000 43,017 '6210 U-District 16,235 27.328 38.601 44,759 49,488 6220 Northeast Seattle 13.272 17.088 22.110 25.1399 29,425 6300 Northwest Seattle 10,844 13.953 18.876 20,951 23.852 TOTALS 233.128 283.391 374.617 432,02 4Ra,870 Share of County Total 70.2% 66.2% 58.0% 53.2% 50.7. F811,462 967.012 TOTAL KING COUNTY' 332,183 427.954 645 759 (Within the forecast area) *(Employment figures do not include the following categories of employment: agriculture, forestry. fishing. Mining and construction.) 361 M' �i 1 in Kitsap County is implemented. The roads used to move waste to the transfer stations and the land- fills are adequate for that purpose. The major routes to the landfills are well established, used by all of the haulers and, except for rare periods, are without restrictions. No changes that alter the existing conditions are expected for the foreseeable future. Public Services. Public services such as fire protection, police, parks, libraries and schools are available throughout the populated portions of the county. These services are provided by both local gen- eral purpose governments and special districts. For the specific location and nature of any of these services, the responsible department or institu- I tion should be contacted. Energy. Electrical energy to the various areas of the county is currently supplied through public and private power companies including Seattle City Light and Puget Sound Power and Light Company. Other fuels such as fuel oil, gasoline, steam, and natural gas, are supplied to the county by private firms via trucks and pipelines. For specific amounts used in various areas, the individual energy suppliers should be contacted. utilities. Solid waste services are generally operated as utilities. The largest operations are those of the City of Seattle and King County. Others are operated by many of the other cities in the county. in addi- tion, the private disposal companies that are not regulated by cities, are regulated by the Washington State utilities and Transportation Commission. These are described in detail in the Solid Taste Plan. other utilities include sewer and water services which are widely available in the urbanized portions of King County through local governments, special districts, associations, and companies. Most sewage is delivered to regional treatment plants at Renton and Seattle's Nest Point via Metro's interceptor system. Additional sewage treatment plants are located at several points along Puget Sound and in the rural parts of the county not connected to the Metro system. Water service is more widely available than sewer service and is provided by 34 purveyors ranging in size �I 363 from the City of Seattle (which also provides wholesale service to other purveyors) to small special purpose districts. Community water as are numerous as are individual wells. Human Health. Hospitals and other medical facilites are located throughout the county in response to localized demands. In general, full service hospitals have been located in the urban areas where the population is availavle to support them. In rural areas of the county, clinics and smaller hospitals provide health services to local residents. The location , of medical facilities has been increasingly influenced by government and this trend is expected to continue. The chief government body for health care ' in King County is the Puget Sound Health Systems Agency. Recreation. King County is well supplied with parks and recreation ' facilities ranging from the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in the Cascades to ur- ba.n playgrounds in Seattle. Lists of parks and recreation facilities are available from local, state, and federal agencies responsible for their , operation. Archaeological and Historical. King County has been home for people for at least several thousand years. The beginning of European settlement was about 150 years ago. The emergence of King County as a major population center was only about 70 years ago. Numerous archaeological sites in the county have been located and investigated by scientists during the last couple of decades. More such sites will undoubtedly be discovered as the land is disturbed for urban development. Although the county :has a rela- tively short history of European settlement, it does have a number of his- toric and significant sites and structures. Notable among these are Pioneer Square and the Pike Place Public Market in Seattle. Aesthetics. King County is widely noted for being one of the most desirable places to live in the United States. This is largely because of the natural setting and amenities of the county. As development has occurred many of these natural aesthetic features have been degraded—This degradation has been partly balanced by the creation of a desireable urban environment in the cities of the county. 364 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Solid waste management within King County is based on a i ' division of the functions of comprehensive planning , operations , acid enforcement . Comprehensive planning is conducted by the rKing County Solid Waste Management Board. The Board was created as a result of the 1974 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste rManagement Plan which called for the creation of a "regional management board" to coordinate agency activities through joint planning , policy establishment and demonstration programs . RCW 70 .95 . 080 vests planning responsibilities in each county within the state. Upon request by the King County Exe- cutive , the Puget Sound Council of Government' s King Subregional Council organized and was subsequently designated as the Solid Waste Management Board for King County. In King County , the Solid Waste Management Board has undertaken the primary re- sponsibility for countywide comprehensive solid waste planning . The Management Board also serves as the local planning agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 , (Public Law 94-580) . rSolid waste operations are carried out by operating enti- ties , public and private. The operating agencies function ' under authority vested in them by the Revised Code of Washington under implementation designations conferred under the Resource ' Conservation and Recovery Act , permits granted by the Seattle- King County Department of Public Health certificates of public ' necessity granted by the Washington Utilities and Transpor- tation Commission or under licenses , franchises , or contracts from cities . Operational planning or master plans are done by the operating agencies. Enforcement of public health and safety standards pertinent ' to solid waste handling and disposal is principally the responsi- bility of the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health . 365 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ' COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING OPERATIONS ENFORCEMENT ' • Comprehensive Plans (Implementation) Seattle-King County Depart- 9 Coordination ment of Public Health • Regional Goals • Minimum Functional Standards ' Enforcement Puget Sound Asir Pollution Control Agency ' Air Quality • Ordor Seattle and Cities • Litter • Road Use State Department of Ecology • Hazardous Wastes PUBLIC PRIVATE Cities, County • Collection (Cities only) • Collection (Certificates of • Transfer Necessity, Franchises , or • Disposal Contracts) , • Resource Recovery • Transfer • Operational Plans • Disposal • Grant Awards • Resource Recovery • Capital Improvement Plans • Recycling , • Operational Plans ........... • PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ......•••.. The examination of the solid waste handling and disposal system in King County describes the status of the system in the spring of 1982• The most recent and complete data available is for calendar year 1981 . The reader should note the dynamic nature of the solid waste handling and disposal system. The industry and the technology employed for solid waste handling and disposal are rapidly changing. Existing operations and facilities are 366 being retrofitted. The principal constraint on the rate of change is the high cost of equipment and facilities. The Exising Conditions : Operations section of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan considers each aspect of the solid waste system sequentially: waste reduction, storage, collection, transfer, long-haul transportation, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal. The section on solid waste handling operations considers each of the basic types of waste individually, since waste types are frequently handled separately through one or more steps in the disposal process . The waste types considered are mixed municipal solid waste, including residential and commercial wastes, industrial wastes , and special wastes . Hazardous wastes will be considered in a second phase of the planning process wh:ch is scheduled to be completed in 1983 . The existing solid waste management system is described in detail in the draft plan, pages 115 to 282 of the November 12 draft as existing conditions. The draft plan and the draft environmental impact statement are companion docu- ments. The reader is referred to the draft plan for the complete description of existing conditions in the solid waste management system. II 367 V" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION I AND MITIGATING MEASURES Environmental impacts from implementation of the Comprehensive Solid Management Waste Plan can only be discussed in general terms. Specific impacts cannot be determined for most of the recommendations in the plan because they are not related to specific decisions. If and when specific actions are proposed, especially in the case of facilities, an environmental impact statement will be prepared for that action. �i ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT i Earth: Topography, Geology and Soils. The proposed action can be expected to have minor impacts on the topography and soils of King County. From a countywide perspective the net of these impacts should be favorable. They will flow from the plan's emphasis on energy recovery and recycling as an alternative to new or enlarged landfills. Adverse impacts from clear- ing, grading, filling, and soil erosion may occur when new disposal facil- ities are constructed. These can be mitigated with proper construction techniques. Air: Air Quality and Climate. Current solid waste handling and dis- posal practices create localized air quality impacts. Primarily these consist of dust, windblown particulate matter, odor, and gases from col- lection, transfer station and landfill operations. They can be mitigated by good facility design and proper vehicle maintenance. The primary impact on air quality that may result from implementation of the plan will be emissions from a proposed energy recovery facility. These will consist of particulates and gases. Particulate emissions are related to the ash content of refuse, incinerator design and operation, and to pollution control equipment. A typical municipal incinerator emits 15 pounds of particulates from the combustion chamber per ton of refuse burned. Three types of air pollution control devices have been used suc- cessfully on incinerators to reduce particulate emissions: electrostatic precipitators, bag filters, and high-pressure drop scrubbers. 369 The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulates particulate emissions in King County. The Agency has established areas called attain- ment areas, where air quality standards have been met for particulates. Areas where the ambient air quality is worse than the current ,minimum air ' :quality standards are called nonattainment areas. New incinerators, re- fuse burners, or energy recovery plants located in attainment areas must , be designed or have auxilliary systems to prevent significant deterioration of air quality if they are designed to charge or burn more than 250 tons per day, or emit more than 100 tons of particulate matter per year. The auxilliary air pollution control devices are required on a case-by-case basis to meet "best available control technology." ' New large incinerators and other particulate discharging facilities located in nonattainment areas are subject to more rigorous pollution ' abatement standards. Such facilities will be required to achieve the "lowest achievable emission rate." Remedial measures to reduce pollution , in one area to compensate for new particulate discharges in another area are known as "offsets" and may need to be employed. Other pollutants are not regularly emitted in stack gasses in signi- ficant quantities from municipal refuse incinerators. If they occur spe- cific measures may be necessary. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and , certain toxic chemicals may be present and require a special control stra- tegy. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency reviews each new facil- ' ity on a case-by-case basis and requires appropriate controls to meet emis- sion standards. water: Surface and Ground Water Quality. Leachate from landfills that contaminates surface and ground water is the major environmental ' problem currently caused by solid waste disposal in King County. Implemen- tation of the plan should help to gradually mitigate the leachate problem. , The plan supports capital investment in leachate treatment and contain- ment systems for active and closed landfills in King County. It also sup- ' ports the consideration of water quality impacts as part of the facility siting and design processes. Finally, the plan supports energy recovery and recycling as ways of reducing the volume of waste requiring final dis- posal in landfills. 370 Flora and Fauna. Implementation of the plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the flora and fauna of King County. Site specific ' impacts may result from construction of a solid waste facility. These can be mitigated by good design and construction practices. Noise. Implementation of the plan is not expected to result in any sig- nificant change in the total amount of noise produced by solid waste activities. Noise from new transfer stations or an energy recovery plant may impact new areas, but this should be more than balanced by the closure of existing facili- ties and the improved design of the new ones. Noise reduction and mitigation measures such as buffering and design controls are available to reduce the impact of specific facilities or operations. Light and Glare. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan should not have any significant affect on the total light and glare produced by solid waste disposal facilites. Existing and new light and glare impacts can be mitigated through site design and the use of lighting equipment which minimizes the impact on adjacent property. ' Land Use. Land use impacts due to implementation of the plan will be minimal. Such impacts will occur as existing facilities are modified ' or closed and as new facilites are built. The impacts will be considered in the environmental impact statement prepared for each facility. They can rbe mitigated through the site selection and design process followed for each facility and through the application of the land use controls of the ' jurisdictions in which the facilites are located. Natural Resources. The plan will not have an impact on the natural resources of King County. Risk of Explosion. Implementation of the plan could change the risk of explosion of a solid waste facility. Currently the major risk is that ' methane gas from decaying waste in a landfill may explode if it is not pro- perly vented. The plan supports construction of a waste to energy facility. ' The facility will reduce the need for landfills and thus the long-term risk of landfill explosions. However, there is a risk that explosive waste mai• enter the conversion plant and be detonated during the conversion process. 371 I� ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Population, Housing and Employment. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan should not significantly impact the size or distribution of the population, housing or employment in King County. Transportation Network. Currently solid waste impacts on the transpor- tation network are limited to the use of streets and highways by the trucks that collect and haul solid waste. The impacts of the trucks include use of existing road capacity and responsiblity for a small percentage of countywide road maintenance expenses. These impacts are most concentrated ' near major disposal facilities. Implementation of the plan is not expected to significantly affect the total impact of solid waste management activities on the transportation network in King County. Transportation impacts caused by specific facil- ities can be mitigated by careful design and siting of the facility and by specifiying truck routes that will minimize the impact on areas along the route. Public Services. The plan will not significantly impact public ser- , vices in Icing County. Energy. Implementation of the plan should have a favorable impact on King County's supply of energy. The plan supports recycling and materials recovery, both of which reduce the energy input required to produce products. Reducing the demand for energy helps to stretch the supply from existing, lower-cost sources. In addition, the plan supports the construction of cost- effective energy recovery facilites which will add their output to the county's total supply of energy. utilities. The plan should not have any significant countywide impacts on utilities not involved in solid waste management. Leachate from active and closed landfills may by piped into municipal or sewer district sewer- age systems. This may require special treF.tment methods or extension of the system to the landfill. Construction of a major facility, especially for 372 I energy recovery, could require a significant investment in utilites systems to provide the facility with adequate water, electrical and sewer service. �fHuman Health. Protection and enhancement of the health of the people i of King County is an underlying goal of the plan. Its implementation should not cause any significant adverse impacts on human health. f li I �I 1 Q 1 373 V"' RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Implementation of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan should cause few short-term impacts. Most of the plan's impacts will be long-term and will develop over a period of many years. In general, these impacts should enhance the long-term productivity of the environment. The beneficial impacts of the plan will include a reduction in the amount of land used for landfills, a reduction of the adverse impacts caused by ac- tive and closed landfills, increased recycling and materials recovery from waste, a possible new energy source from a cost-effective energy recovery facility, improved collection and transportation of waste, and overall im- provement in the health and welfare of the county's citizens. :375 1 Ix i IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS 1 The major resource commitments that will result from implmentation of the plan will be the use of land for transfer stations, landfill, energy recovery facilities, and other solid waste related uses. Development of an energy recovery facility should reduce the amount of land needed for future 1 landfills in King County. It should be noted that the land used for solid waste facilities can be reclaimed if and when a facility is closed. The King County Solid Waste Management Plan does not, in itself, ir- reversibly or irretrievably commit resources, but rather, provides policy guidelines for the commitment of future resources. Each individual project initiated in accordance with this plan will have its own environmental 'I analysis which will address irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 1 In general, implementation of the plan will involve continuous commit- ment of land for solid waste disposal, but to a lesser degree than a de- cision not to implement the plan. An unavoidable commitment of this land will decrease the amount of land available for grazing, recreation, wildlife habitat, and agricultural crops. The existence of a solid waste disposal system commits an indeterminate amount of energy to run all facilities and equipment. However, the long- term goal of this plan includes developing systems for energy/resource re- covery from solid waste, which will provide a net energy or resource gain for King County. 1 i 1 1 1 377 1 I� X ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ' The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for Ring County is a revision of the 1974 Plan, Environmental Management for the Metro- politan Area; Part IV Solid Waste. The major institutional, handling and disposal alternatives were assessed in the planning process which lead to the 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The Environmental Impact Statement on the 1982 plan considers changes which have been made to ' the recommended system since the adoption of the 1974 plan. Many of the recom- mendations of the 1974 plan have been implemented since the adoption of the plan. Most of the changes since 1974 reflect execution of recommendations in the 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan such as closure of the Tulalip landfill, the formation of a management board, the installation of systems to minimize degradation of the environment such as leachate collec- tion facilities as the Cedar Hills landfill. ' The consideration of the major s y stem alternatives and the environmental impacts of each alternative were discussed in the 1974 plan. Environmental ' Management for the Metropolitan Areas Part IV: Solid Waste and the environ- mental impact statement prepared on the plan and the Minimum Functional fStandards. The basic alternatives from the 1974 analysis are summarized in this document for reference and convenience. Major system alternatives ' were not altered as part of the planning process leading to the 1982 plan. The basic intent of improvements in the solid waste handling system is ' to improve efficiency and to reduce adverse environmental impacts. Resource recovery and energy recovery remain means to reduce the amount of waste re- quiring disposal by conventional methods. The system and alternatives evalua- tion conducted in 1974 remain essentially valid in 1982 for the purposes of ' comprehensive policy planning. Operational alternatives and details are the province of operating ' agencies. Environmental assessments and analysis of alternatives will occur as part of the preparation of operational plans by each operating 379 I. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no action alternative consists of not completing the comprehensive , solid waste planning process. Failure to complete the planning, process could result from a breakdown in the planning process, a change in the responsibilities of the planning agency (the Solid Waste Management Board) or failure to have ' the revised plan adopted by the county and cities in the county. The no actions alternative would leave the 1974 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management ' Plan in full effect. The Washington State Department of Ecology has determined that the 1974 Plan is inadequate and in need of substantial revisions. t According to the Department of Ecology, failure to revise the plan will leave the public operating agencies in the region ineligible for Washington Futuresg rants through Referendum 39. The ineligibility for Referendum 39 matching grants would in effect double the cost of eligible ca»ital improve- ments to the solid waste handling and disposal system to local governments. ' The proposed action, adoption of the revised Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, promotes a coordinated approach to solid waste planning through joint planning. The benefits of cooperation and coordination would ' be lost or diminished through the no action alternative. The major environmental impacts of the no action alternative would include some combination of the following impacts: ' • Increased solid waste disposal rates to cover the full. cost of all required capital improvements, maintenance, and operations; ' • Increased littering and illegal disposal reflecting the increased solid waste rates; , a Reduction in the number, type, or sophistication in the capital improvements to the solid waste handling system withiia the capacity , of local budgets; 9 Fewer environmental impact mitigation measures for new or existing facilities, e.R. , closure plans and operations for landfills or ' leachate interception or collection systems, etc. 380 II. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING SYSTEMS The institutional arrangements for comprehensive solid waste management planning were assessed during the planning process. Criteria were developed by the staff working group and the Advisory Committee for the evaluation of alternatives. The criteria used for evaluation of alternatives were as follows: 9 Elected officials from general purpose governments are responsible for regional policy planning decisions; Regional policy planning process allows for ex-officio participation by solid waste operators; (Note: State requirement for advisory committee) ' • Collection, transfer and disposal rates are set by directly elected officials of the operating jurisdictions; ' • Legal authority is adequate to develop and maintain a regional comprehensive solid waste management plan and is consistent with the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington Administrative Code; ' • Financial support of a regional policy planning operation is available; Duplication of administrative staff effort minimized; • Fosters coordination and cooperation by acting as a forum for affected entities and jurisdictions; ' • Appropriate consolidation of authority to discharge the responsibi- lities of regional solid waste policy planning; ' • Public health, safety and welfare are enhanced; • Politically acceptable. ' Each alternative was fully developed to respond to the ten criteria. The table "Matrix Comparing Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Solid ' Waste Planning" compares alternatives. The Committee on Solid Waste chose the Solid Waste Management Board/King Subregional Council alternative as the ' recommended alternative. The recommended alternative was subsequently modified, the initial recommendation recognizing that state law, Chapter 70.95 RCW, requires local government to prepare and adopt a comprehensive solid waste management plan. Each county, in cooperation with cities within the county, is required to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid waste management plan. Each city has three options regarding preparation ' of the plan. ' 381 r t63ek F: ty {�9 . IF fr: 9� �ol<<. -' t: :€� moo• �' � -`d _ I..�J It°� ` t i L Lo to • � t F v 382 i 1. Prepare their own plan and provide it to the county for integration ' into the comprehensive county plan; 2. Enter into an agreement with the county (or the Solid Waste Manage- ment Board in the case of the revised plan) to prepare a joint plan; 3. Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city for inclusion ' in the comprehensive county plan. All participating jurisdictions entered into a joint agreement with the ' Management Board for revision of the plan. State law requires that the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan be kept current. The revision of the plan was done cooperatively by the Solid Waste tManagement Board. The primary responsibility for comprehensive planning is placed on counties; in King County, this responsibility has been delegated to ' the Solid Waste Management Board. The duties of the Solid Waste Management Board are now being performed by the King Subregional Council of the 1 Puget Sound Council of Governments. Environmental impact identification, assessment, and mitigation occur in two ways: through the regulatory process and through the planning process. ' The regulatory process is based on the King County Minimum Functional Standards, Dangerous and Extremely Hazardous Waste Regulations of the State of Washington ' (WAC 173-303) , and city ordinances which influence solid waste handling. The Minimum Functional Standards are the most significant element in determining and controlling environmental impacts. They remain constant through all the institutional alternatives considered in this environmental analysis. ' The planning process includes local government comprehensive plans, zoning, land use permits, and conditions which may be attached to those permits. Those requirements and conditions have a substantial impact on the location and design of solid waste facilities. Although there are instances where the operating agency and the land use agency may be the same, ithe land use conditions or impacts are assumed to remain the same as each of the institutional alternatives is considered. ' The assessment, permitting, and monitoring of air quality is the responsibility of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Air quality 1 standards are assumed to remain the same for each institutional alternative. It is acknowledged that differences may exist in the ability of various institutional alternatives to locate facilities in attainment or non-attainment ' areas thereby influencing environmental degradation. 383 Further, each alternative institutional arrangement considered has within reason the ability to develop and promote a comprehensive solid waste .strategy which in itself has a wide range of potential environmental impacts, positive or negative. Consequently, only those environmental impacts which may be influenced by comprehensive planning structures rather ithan the substance of the comprehensive plan are discussed. , The environmental impacts of the alternative institutional arrangements for planning differ slightly with each alternative. The existing system , would have probable environmental impacts which are indistinguishable from the present case. The recommended system, King County delegating planning responsibility to the Solid Waste Management Board whose functions are currently being performed by the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments, will have substantially the same environmental impacts as the present system. The ability to assess and plan for mitigation of the environmental impacts of operations will be more closely linked to the , comprehensive planning process for King County operations and capital projects. The fragmented„ multijurisdictional system would result in substantially greater environmental impacts, particularly in the areas of direct air, surface and ground water pollution. A fragmented planning system would reflect and be conducive to the perpetuation of a fragmented operational system. A fragmented operational system would create more opportunities for air and water pollution and require more separate environmental control and mitigation systems. A fragmented system may result in a decrease in long-haul distances for solid waste. Changes in the long-haul pattern could be unfavorably offset by reduction in transfer operations and in increase in long haul with collection vehicles. Reductions or increases in vehicle mileage for solid waste transport would have probable decreases or increases, respectively, in environmental impacts associated with travel, congestion, CO emissions, risk of accident and/or upset, and wear on existing roadways. Routes, vehicle types, efficiency, and facility location would contribute substantially to ' the magnitude of the impact and the cost and level of mitigation that is practical. The environmental impacts of an integrated planning and management , structure within the form of a regional sanitation or disposal district or as with the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle operating as a single entity authority would be theoretically similar. The differences which might exist could occur because of operational or planning characteristics, which distinguish 384 the approach of a single purpose authority or district from a multipurpose district such as Metro. In general, integrated operating and planning functions on a countywide basis could provide the opportunity for development of solid waste handling plans and facilities which minimized environmental Impacts on a systemwide basis, through comprehensive siting, economies of scale, enhanced efficiency, utility funding for difficult problems, and wider choices and resources to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. ' tnvironmental impact management and mitigation cannot be separated from the accountability of management entity. All forms of countywide solid waste management, planning, and operations lack the direct accountability of local general purpose governments. The alternative described as "Single Entity Authority--King County" ' could have the same kind of countywide advantages of a single system for solid waste handling and planning as the previous alternative. Unlike ' Metro in the previously discussed alternative, the single entity authority-- King County--would not provide representation for incorporated cities in the ' system. Major changes in the existing system and balance would be required to implement this alternative. The changes necessary to implement the alternative could reduce the emphasis on the environmental issues in the ' solid waste planning process. The potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures resulting ' from the choice of the alternative institutional structure described as "King County planning authority with independent utilities" are a combination ' of impacts of other alternatives. The institutional arrangement would have the disadvantages of the lack of a comprehensive approach as examined under the fragmented multijurisdictional alternative compounded by the use of existing institutions as operating agencies. The issue of planning and responsibility for mitigation of environmental impacts associated with ' existing and closed facilities, particularly landfills, operated by cities or independent utilities may not be adequately addressed under this structure as part of the comprehensive planning process. Waste stream control measures as a key element in instituting environmentally sound handling and disposal alternatives are institutionally separated from the planning agency. The master interlocal agreement approach to planning would commit the institutional structure to the product of an intergovernmental negotiation process which would assign responsibilities (potentially public and private) , identify a lead agency, and establish a hearing examiner or rate commission. 385 The examiner or rate commission would have the responsibility to assure that the rates are adequate to finance environmental mitigation measures. ' The full reliance on a private handling and disposal system would mean planning would occur in the private sector. The advantages discussed above , which result from a consolidated authority would occur in this alternative. The environmental mitigation measures would be most likely to occur as a ' result of the enforcement and permitting process outside of the political and public participation process. , III. OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES Operational alternatives are the responsibility of the operating agencies, both public and private. By necessity, some operating alternatives were discussed as part of the planning process. Operational recommendations are , Tet forth in the need and opportunity statements in the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Alternatives to those specific actions exist but were not exhaustively examined in the comprehensive planning process. Operational alternatives will be examined as specific programs and projects are proposed. In most cases, the details and impacts of operational alternatives ' are beneath the threshold of concern in the comprehensive planning process because they lack regional or interjurisdictional significance. There are ' cases, in which the abundance of regulation constrains charges, in the existing system; an assessment of the environmental impacts of the regulatory changes ' by the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Utilities and Transportation Commission, or the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health should be ' made at the time of those proposed actions rather than speculatively as part of the regional planning process. Waste Reduction There are several recommended actions aimed at reducing the amount of , waste requiring disposal. A feasibility study of mass composting of urban yard waste is encouraged. Governments are to provide encouragement to those , who wish to pursue independent waste reduction objectives. Most waste reduction actions take place outside of the solid waste management system. Waste reduction may be accomplished by a variety of means. There are many alternatives to the proposed actions. The most promising long-term , approach to waste reduction is through individual and cultural behavioral change. 386 ISE I� In the short term, new and/or different products or processes may be developed that generate a smaller volume of waste through use of less material. Products with longer life cycles contribute to waste reduction as do products that are recyclable or are used over and over. The principal benefits of waste reduction occur in material and resource savings. Numerous other alternative strategies for achieving similar savings exist. Reduction of the amount of material entering the waste stream reduces the total cost of handling and disposal at all steps of the process. Unit costs for handling and disposal may increase when averaged over a smaller number of tons in the waste stream. There has been little successful imple- mentation of waste reduction programs and policies. Analysis of the alternatives identified four reasons for the notable lack of success of various waste reduction strategies. Limited available resources have been directed to solving problems that represent an immediate threat to public health and safety, such as improper disposal of chemical wastes rather than to waste reduction. Governments tend to avoid programs where it is difficult or impossible to predict or measure results. Government has so little control over waste generation that it is difficult to achieve measurable results. The economy is so complex (materials are used for so many different reasons and materials use decisions are made at so many different levels) that broad government programs are difficult to design and administer, while programs that are targeted at a few products are labeled as discriminatory and are difficult to justify. Industry encourages consumption patterns that result in increased--not reduced--waste generation. Governments in general have not felt that they should dictate consumer preferences or reduce avenues for competitive opportunity. Solid waste handling and disposal systems often operate below the point of increasing marginal disposal cost. Additional volumes of waste are encouraged to reduce the unit cost. Disposal facility replacement costs are not part of the financial analysis. Private industry has shown an interest in reducing its own internal waste although often motivated by material cost savings rather than waste disposal cost reductions. Local government roles in waste reduction are viewed as limited. Constructive local government options include the establishment of a program I� of public compensation equal to cost differentials to support or compensate for material diverted from the waste stream and not requiring disposal. 11 387 Most local government alternatives for waste reduction are likely to be voluntary. Governments may assist businesses, individuals, volunteer organi- zations, and others, to build on the established recycling and waste reduction system abiding by existing market forces. Both public and private ' roles are appropriate to reduce waste in Seattle. Public alternatives include demonstrating leadership in encouraging waste reduction by: (1) its ' policies, such as zoning code amendments that allow recycling centers in neighborhood business zones; (2) the example it sets by its own actions, such , as paper procurement practices and office-paper recycling; (3) the services it provides, such as information, technical assistance, and planning; and (4) promoting waste reduction through education and pursuasion to achieve voluntary changes in residential and business waste-generation habits. Private sector waste reduction alternatives include: (1) organizing ' volunteer labor to provide multimaterial home collection on a regularly scheduled basis; (2) developing equipment to reduce the cost of collecting recyclable and handling materials; (3) establishing drop-off recycling , centers as a complement to buy-back centers until home collection programs develop; (4) increasing recycling rec clin of commercial materials (high-grade office , 'paper, corrugated) through existing channels; (5) providing a system of 'privately operated, regularly scheduled, multimaterial home collection, and , buy-back recycling centers for residential recycling; and (6) voluntarily modifying product designs and marketing practices to reduce waste through ' reuse, recycling, and design for end-use marketability. Storage Alternatives Storage alternatives are governed by Minimum Functional Standards. The Minimum Functional Standards are adopted by the Health Department and included ' in the Plan. The only legal alternative to the King County Minimum Functional Standards contained in the appendix pursuant to state law (RCW 70.95.090(3) (a)) , , would be the Department of Ecology's Minimum Functional Standards (WAC 173-301 et.seq.). , Implementation of this alternative would have a negligible environmental impact different from the present standards. The proposed Minimum Functional ' Standards are a refinement of the Department of Ecology's Standards adapted to the needs of King County. ' r 388 Collection Alternatives I' The proposed action for solid waste collection is continued reliance on private industry for provision of service. Alternatives to this recommenda- tion include self haul and mandatory collection. The self-haul alternative is permitted under state law, which allows waste generators to haul their own wastes. Only a few large industries, like the Boeing Company and Sternoff Metals, haul a portion of their wastes. it is estimated that residential wastes in rural areas and in 25 percent of I' the urban areas outside Seattle are self-hauled. The self-haul alternative may be economically and environmentally viable Ifor large industries which can invest in refuse collection trucks and maintain them to meet the Minimum Functional Standards. However, for the vast majority of business and private residents, the self-haul alternative is economically nomicall and environmentally inefficient, and has been rejected with urbanization. The self-haul alternative allows businesses and residents to accumulate wastes for indiscriminate periods of time, with attendant aesthetic and health problems. The urban environment requires the guarantee against the potential for fly breeding and rodent harborage due to infrequent waste removal. I� The environmental impact of the self-haul alternative is most clear in the comparison of one collection truck servicing over 1,000 homes per day as opposed to 1,000 homeowners delivering their wastes to a transfer station 1� onceP er week. The impacts of energy consumption, air pollution, traffic � ! congestion, and economic costs are measurably against self-haul. Mandatory collection represents an alternative in which all consumers must pay for solid waste collection whether the collection service is used or not. Mandatory collection would increase the efficiency of collection in urbanized areas. Areas now receiving service could expect to pay a lower !' cost per unit of service. Service extension to areas presently without collection service in the more rural parts of the county would be expensive. Mandatory collection would reduce the amount of illegal dumping and littering. Mandatory collection would reduce the cost incentives for recycling with a fixed rate collection service or within each tier in a variable can rate structure. Legislative changes would be necessary to bring the county into the I' collection business. Those changes are not sought or foreseen and are not considered as alternatives. �� 389 There are alternative collection system options available! to local governments. Choice among these options are up to individual cities under , existing state and local laws. COLLECTION SY31EM CHARACTERISTICS , Certificate Licensel Contractl Mhuzlclpasl Collector Private Private Private Public , Review of Utilities L KZlicipa'_Sty Mlunicipality Mlsnicipalit% Operating Trans, or Utilities Canditions Carr-ssIon Trans. Corp- mission orrymission Approval Utilities i City or Utili- MAm1 clpality MLraicip_:.t of Rates Trans. Cora ties Trans. , mission Carrissior. Billing Collector Collector kinllclpaiity Municipality or Private , (1) Licenses and contracts take various form in different cities and are rx)t shay` readily di.at1.rg6A3hab1e as categories. Transfer Alternatives The preferred alternative is continued use of the existing transfer ' system and its maintenance, replacement, and expansion as appropriate. Alternatives to the preferred alternative include utilization of small or modular resource/energy recovery facilities as transfer stations. Privately , operated transfer stations and the integration of recycling facilities into transfer operations represent evolutions of the present and preferred system which may be considered alternatives. Systemwide service levels and the provision of service equity between urban and rural areas provide a range ' of alternatives for operational consideration. Operational alternatives are the responsibility of the operating agencies. Alternatives will be developed as part of the operational planning, process and subjected to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act process at the time specific transfer alternatives are considered. , Long-Haul Transport Alternatives , Long-haul transport by truck is expected to continue to be the most cost- effective means of moving solid waste from collection or consolidation points , 390 11 to the site of final disposal. The long-haul system has noise, air pollution safety, traffic congestion, and road operating and maintenance impacts along I' the haul routes. Alternatives to long-haul transport by truck were considered by I� Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area. A11 options were rejected as impractical or not cost efficient. Alternatives to the present system I� could be evaluated and impacts on haul routes and adjacent areas- could be reassessed. An alternative to the present long-haul system which is currently 11 receiving consideration is barge haul across Puget Sound. Marine Disposal is negotiating with the Port Gamble-Klallam Tribe for development of a balefill disposal operation on tribal lands. If the discussions reach fruition, Marine! I� Disposal expects to commence operations in 1983. The King County terminus of the barge-haul operation will be located at Pier 35 on the Seattle waterfront . A shoreline permit and a building permit for redevelopment of the Pier 35 site have already been issued by the City of Seattle. However, long-haul transport alternatives are basically a function of other system characteristics such as the location of collection routes and transfer points in relation to the point of disposal. The most significant alternatives to the truck-based long-haul system involve the scale and location of energy recovery and resource recovery facilities. A small scale modular system of recovery facilities could minimize the amount of long-haul transport to a level of hauling the incineration residual to the point of final disposal; I roughly 10 percent by volume of the present volumes. I Disposal Alternatives There are two principal preferred alternatives in the 1982 Plan. The Cedar Hills landfill is evolving into the only regional disposal facility with capacity expected to extend beyond a decade. Energy recovery, consistent with the criteria incorporated in the comprehensive plan is a preferred long-term solution to the area's solid waste disposal problems since there will always be waste that requires disposal. Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area considered alternatives to the prevailing disposal technologies of the 1970'x. The alternatives are shown in the figure entitled "Alternative Disposal Systems/Cycle I." Alternatives to the conventional landfilling practices as means of disposal I, considered vaiable in 1982, include combinations of waste reduction, recycling and materials recovery, and energy recovery. Energy recovery is distinguished 391 from incineration as a means of disposal by the generation of marketable ' energy from the combustion process and using the proceeds from the sale of that energy to reduce the cost of disposal. II 392 u ji :: c z' i xL art ?Et._ f`r 0 .''"s, tYas= �xr si r"-ai€ �fr�-� =��==� •i"-: : t#�i _L�Y I'gS FY€ L fiygL_! ?�>^ L��tF =rES2 =orb✓ `>: eF' Ff E' g'.��'2``Lt Y`?goL �rN� Y!`««�'� �8loe �o.'�i.c'.�r n-Y�r `°o �:�� --°o`er-• �� €F z� g`t+ a :� '. :�T:e€�8 � -o.-.._� o€- 8 -E �r �>� •o �� r Y y ►4r r Y L ��O Y lures$ • °?$' ooag=ae� =� _aib �` 'i�e ^Y-= �aYoo Yrr rx 11 Y or r • E<-fir •� .yr O .-. `O ♦ tCr err Y v y O ♦ �€ ♦ O�p !Sor I V V� � O O_ ^:r` O r L,•O�r Y a�_ >r I r„ rL$r P 0— S_O Y■CO E f�C0 �'Cf `•� O`r�I• y; 11 r_ =i� V� r ♦�� ~S_ i O ` 0 3 0 Y t C O Y C ::f' L� O• I� � ,V �[�� ': Y YM-i. �`� :C � �Y v� � 'C€€y r E � J ` I C Ii,i SC[r ' � .Y y I• Ce�OY �i� •f: F €. ICY< r:_S Gy`- _. og p: u � - rIt FY `i b" I: - I ri V ,fie i- _:YY€-s =fo. lz ?s be e.'� €mss F:� I€� • in' TLE t; Lt ♦ t :zFi 1E`€ : -sg p u YiI � r ten ac � y � 393 Y � C �u X' pNAVOZDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS I� Implementation of the plan will not result in any specific unavoidable adverse impacts. Those which will occur will result from the construction I' of specific facilities and will be treated in the environmental imp state- ments prepared for those facilities. rEnvironmental impacts, including unavoidable adverse impacts where appropriate, are listed in the table describing "needs and opportunities" in the proposed action section of this environmental impact statement. 3!95 1 I� X" II LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT II� ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT +' A. Earth 1. Topography 2. Geology 3. Soils B. - Air 1. Air Quality 2. Odor 3. Climate I' C. Water 1. Surface Water Movement , Runoff, Quantity, Quality I� 2 . Floods 3. Groundwater Movement, Quantity, Quality D. Flora IE . Fauna F. Noise I' G. Light and Glare H. Land Use I' I. Natural Resources J. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions I' ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT A. Population I' B. Housing C. Employment I� D. Additional Population Characteristics E. Transportation/Circulation I' F. Public Services G. Energy I� H. Utilities I. Human Health (Including Mental Health) I� J. Recreation K. Archeological/Historical L. Aesthetics I� I� 397 X111 OMISSION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -The first phase of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan covered by this environmental impact statement does not include considera- tion of hazardous wastes. The hazardous waste element was delayed until the second phase to allow clarification of the responsibilities of local governments for hazardous waste planning. Hazardous waste management and I� regulation have been in a state of flux and new information is becoming available as WAC 173-303 is implemented. The Committee on Solid Waste I� deemed it important to direct its full attention to completion of the comprehensive plan for nixed municipal, industrial and special in the first phase. The Solid Waste Management Board recognizes the importance of I' hazardous wastes and is committed to the completion of a hazardous waste element of the plan during 1983 and 1984. A preliminary list of tasks I' and completion schedule is under consideration by the Committee on Solid I Waste. The Advisory Committee will be utilized in the preparation of (' the plan element. A supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared. The summary schedule is as follows: I� I� 11 I� I I� 399 Tasks and Schedule for Addition of Hazardous Waste Element To The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ' TASK COlIPLETION I . Activate Advisory Committee and subcommittee l9arch 1983 a) Review work plan ' b) Restructure and expand subcommittee II. Review laws, regulatory system and responsi- April 1983 bilities a) Review laws, regulations, programs b) Existing responsibilities c ) Proposed legislation III . Review and compile existing data base June 1983 ' a) Information available b) Identified problems and issues c) Sources and adequacy of data ' d) Identify information deficiencies IV. Waste generation information September 1983 a) Identify potential generators b) Inventory actual and potential generators by survey and contact C) Inventory wastes, compile waste stream t information d ) Identify wastes entering county for treatment and disposal ' e) Identify small-scale generators or users f) Forecast generation rates V. Describe existing system November 1983 a.) Inventory operators, treatment facilities and disposal sites b) Inventory former disposal sites ' c ) Analyze disposal practices for small amounts of waste d) Identify special programs, studies or , evaluations e) Identify regulatory practices, and adequacy VI. Analyze capacity of system January 1984 ' a) Assess systemwide capacity for treatment and disposal b) Identify changes or planned improvements c) Consider operating procedures and safety d) Review regulatory and enforcement prac- tices e) Compare system capacity with treatment or disposal need 400 �I f) Forecast capacity and future need for treatment and disposal g) Analyze disposal of small quantities in mixed municipal disposal facilities � �. Identify needs, opportunities and alternatives February 1984 a) Develop scenarios II b) Identify needs for system expansion and N� improvement c) Consider public- and private-sector roles d) - Secure operator recommendations e) Develop alternatives f) Identify priority problems 'I. Make recommendations March 1984 a) Make responsibility recommendations b) Make system recommendations c) Make facility, program, and operational �i recommendations d) Amend 6-year and 20-year implementation programs Prepare supplemental environmental impact April 1984 statement It a) Draft DEIS b) Circulate for review and comment c) Hold hearing (� X. Amend Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan June 1984 a) Add hazardous waste element b) Make substantive changes as warranted I' I I� I� 401 1 xv RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONDENT PAGE Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 104 ' RABANCO 106 110 Jane L. Paige 114 Nancy McCormick Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 116 ' Washington State Department of Natural Resources 118 City of Normandy Park 120 ' Washington State Department of Ecology 122 124 City of Issaquah Washington State Department of Transportation 135 ' Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 137 39 City of Issaquah River and Streams Board 1 King County 14422 Comments received at the public hearings 144 1 403 1 COMMENT 1 'METRO „ Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ' I Exchange Bldg. 9 &U Second Ave„Seattk,Washington 96104 December 20 , 1982 -Henry Sharpe ' King Subregional Council/Solid Waste Management Board Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 1st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for King County ' Dear Mr. Sharpe: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no ' adverse impacts to its wastewater treatment facilities or the public transit system. We anticipate no significant degradation to surface water quality, ' 1 �A provided that all site-specific mitigating measures for erosion and stormwater control are implemented and that stormwater ' facilities are inspected and maintained on a regular basis. Metro would appreciate being kept informed on a continuing basis of energy resource recovery facility planning activities ' 1 1B within King County, especially as they relate to sludge disposal opportunities. Regular consultation with and participation by relevant Metro staff is, therefore strongly recommended. ' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, t odney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division RGP: lds I � �_ 404 �S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE: 1-A) The goals of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan endorse protection and improvement of the overall quality of the environment. operating agencies will be preparing operating plans which will in- clude specific projects and system changes. These plans will be reviewed for consistency and incorporated into the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Environmental reviews will be con- ducted for each project by the lead agency as per the State Environmental Policy Act. NI 1-B) Metro will continue to receive meeting notices and information from the Committee on Solid Waste on behalf of the Solid Waste Management Board. Metro is encouraged to play an active part in Phase II of the Environmental Protection Agency funded energy/resource recovery project. Tom Fitzsimmons, Program Development Manager for the King County Executive should be contacted. Metro may wish to +' request a position on the technical advisory committee for the pro- ject. I� The plan and the environmental impact statement recognizes the po- tential of incineration (coupled with energy recovery) for the disposal of sludge and identifies Metro as one of the responsible and interested entities. I' 405 COMMENT 2 LET&K0C� SS.ST./PIER 35 9 SO.MA ' SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98134 (206)624-1570 TELEX:329441 December 14, 1982 Icing Subregional Council Puget Sound Council of Governments Solid Waste Management Board Re: Draft E.I.S. - Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for King County - November 30, 1982 Draft. ' The comments outlined below represent RABANCO, LTD. response to the Draft King Count Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, November 12, 1982 ' Ki g and to the November 30, 1982 Draft E.I.S. associated with The Plan. In general we feel that the substantial effort put into the Draft Plan ' has resulted in a quality product. We especially appreciate the opportunity given to us, along with other interested parties, to participate as a member of the Advisory Committee and several sub-commities in the actual ' formulation of The 'Plan. While not all of our recommendations were accepted, we certainly had ample opportunity to present our comments and suggestions. With respect to specific comments please note the following: 1 - RABANCO feels 'The Plan and the E.I.S. should emphasize involvement of the private sector, in all areas of solid waste management. While joint public and private participation in solid waste management is generally encouraged (see organization goal #3, page 25 of Draft E.I.S.) we feel The Plan and the E.I.S. can be more specific. For example, in ' the "Needs and Opportunities" table beginning on page 31 of the Draft E.I.S. 1) Under transfer 4b (page 35); it is true that King County transfer stations (aside from Bow Lake) are inefficient and need upgrading or replacing. The private sector on several occasions has rec- ommended that the County consider contracting the transfer station operation and the long haul transport to the private sector. Therefore under the "Action Suggested" column of the table, we propose that a sentence be added as follows: "Consider contracting ' 2—A transfer station operations to the private sector if such action results in a cost savings to the County". Under the "Impact" column add the following after the last word:". . . costs, there- , fore producing a positive impact for the ratepayers,." This last phrase will make the suggested action (i.e. contracting to private sector at a cost savings to the County) consistent with Service Level/ Economic Impact Goal #1 on page 25 of the Draft E.I:.S. Page 1 406 Ring Subregional Council Solid Waste Management Board Page 2 2) Under "Disposal 11",Page 37: The statement that Cedar Hills landfill is the long-term landfill for Ring County could be interpreted as excluding any other landfill as a viable disposal site for Ring County refuse. We believe that if the private sector demonstrates it can develop an environmentally sound 2'-B disposal site and can operate such a site in an environmentally acceptable manner such that economic benefits accrue to the ratepayer (again being consistent with the number one economic impact goal identified on page 25) , then the private sector should be encouraged by the public sector to proceed. The "impact" again would be a positive benef it to the ratepayer. 3) Under "Energy Recovery #1" (page 40) : We totally agree with the statement that "Greater expertise and efficiency, less costly financing and more diverse options and a smaller degree of public risk may be obtained by private sector participation 2-C in an energy recovery system." We suggest the following sentence should be added under the "Action Suggested" column: "The public sector should encourage the private sector to pursue energy recovery systems". 4) Under "Energy Recovery $5 (page 41) : The statement under the "Need and Opportunity" column -• "At the present time there is inadequate information to decide to construct or participate in an energy recovery project" refers to the public sector only. 0p It should be noted that the private sector and specifically a joint venture involving RABANCO, LTD. and Wheelabrator-Frye I' Inc. has already determined that an energy recovery project is viable in the City of Seattle and has proceeded with preliminary plans for same. i' S) Under Operational Alternatives, Waste Reduction,(page 87): The statement, "Private industry's profit is not directly affected by externalities such as the depletion of resources or increased ��E disposal costs", is misleading. In a highly competitive market or in an economically depressed market, increased disposal costs are not necessarily passed on dollar-for-dollar to the consumer. Your consideration of our comments is appreciated. c er Sin , i � 1 Nelp Johnson NJ;smj 407 Response to comments by RABANCO 2-A) "Need and opportunity 4b" on page 35 of the Draft Environmental , Impact Statement and page 177 of the November 12 draft of the plan has been modified. King County proposes to evaluate each of the old style transfer stations for productivity and efficiency, develop alternatives to improve productivity and efficiency, and develop plans to implement the selected alternative(s) for improvement. One of the factors to be considered in determining the need for new or upgraded transfer stations is "minimization of operational ' costs to system users." One of the strategies for cost reductions could include "consideration of contracting transfer station opera- ' tion and long-haul transport with the private sector" as you propose. Private-sector proposals for alternative operations would need to be made to the operating agency (the King County Solid Waste Division) . , Your interest in reducing costs to the rate payer is appreciated and shared by the Committee on Solid Waste and the Solid Waste Management , Board. 2-B) Disposal need and opportunity #1 in the draft environmental impact statement is identical to the statement in the plan (page 219 of the November 12 draft) . It is the product of much deliberation by the Committee on Solid Waste in preparing the plan. However, the availability and longevity of Cedar Hills as a disposal facility should not preclude development and issuance of permits for other environmentally sound and economically viable disposal sites for mixed municipal solid waste or residual from energy and resource recovery projects. An important consideration when assessing proposed new disposal facilities would be the cumulative effect of the proposed facility on all rate payers. The final environ- mental impact statement has been modified to reflect your comments. 408 1 ' 2-C) As presently stated, the language in the plan and in the en- vironmental impact statement does not preclude the encourage- ment you suggest. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in no way limits energy recovery to the public sector. , e.g. page 259 of the November 12 draft of the plan. 2-D) Your suggestion has been incorporated. 2-E) The potent P potential impact of increased disposal costs on waste disposal behavior is recognized. The statement you commented on has been deleted from the environmental impact statement. I' I� i' I� I, 1' 409 COMMENT 3 245 Lake dills Blvd. Bellevue, WA, 98008 December 14, 1982 Mr. Henry Shorne Solid Waste Management Board -L" r Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South j Seattle, WA 98101 , 9ubfect: The Draft EIS of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for Ring County ' Dear Mr. Sharne : I am concerned that the subject of hazardous waste has not ' been addressed in this document. While I an aware that a -A conscious decision was made by your body to treat hazardous waste as a senerate issue , I am concerned that the complexity of the nroblem and conflicting jurisdictional responsibilities might preclude any significant solution in the near future . That would bee tragedy indeed. Mere is no question that if g 9 t the hazardous materials problem is not dealt with corrp rehen- lively now (ie. , their use , storage , transportation, and ultimate ' disposal ) , future government officials will be faced with liability and jurisdictional disputes that will make your decision making process Dale by comparison. The result of inaction on this matter may well result in con- ' taminated water tables , long term health Droblems , explosions, and massive cost to municipalities to correct problems that ' well may have been Drevented. I urge the Council to rroceed immediately on a course of action that will do more than study the issue. To a great extent, the b m is inadequate enforcement of state and federal largest aro le q '3_B art law already in force. This is due , in part, to a lack of dove- tailing between various levels of government and jurisdictions . , I '�,elieve, however, that the greatest Droblem we face is reg- ulation and enforcement. ?here is no question that 16 DOE employees cannot be expected to adequately inspect the entire state and promise each municipality that there will be no leaks , no spills , no rusting cans buried in obscure , forgotten sites . The staffing nroblem is compounded when we consider recent state ' and, federal cutbacks and the new reliance on local control . We on the local level could choose to ignore the problem untill it reaches crisis Droportions , but if we take that cou;rse,,we , risk considerable financial liability, and some very irrate constituents . i 1 410 ' -2- Or, we could choose a course that recognizes what has been done and takes responsibility for what is yet to be done. I urge you, the Council, to take a somewhat novel approach to the v roblem. To coordinate efforts by individual auni- cipalities to: l.Inspect and liscense those companies who handle toile 1C materials; 2.In the inspection, ask how the company plans to store, - transport, and dispose of the material: and 3-Prepare a brochure for those companies dealing in small amounts of chemicals that expalins proper handling and disposal. The appropriate agency for this task might well be the fire departments , in that they must deal with explosions and spills and that they already have the right to enter buildings to insect for hazards . This program could effectively dove-tail with state and federal e-Kmertise and hopefully all levels of agencies concerned with hazardous waste (ie. , water quality, drajnage, air, and trans- ' oortation) . The funding could be accomplished by a simple licensing fee. Thank you for taking time to consider these thoughts, which, while seemingly simplistic in approach, embody my feeling that "an ounce of rreventi on Is worth a pound of cure. ". Sincerely, Jane L. Paige 411 1 Response to comments by Jane L. Paige 3-A The Committee on Solid Waste has prepared the plan in phases. The major planning has addressed mixed municipal waste, commercial industrial and special wastes. The countywide data base, goals, and needs and opportuni- , ties constitute the policy plan and were completed in the first phase. Operational plans and hazardous waste are scheduled as separate planning ' processes. Hazardous wastes and operational plans (including site-specific =projects) were excluded from the environmental impact statement because they were not covered in the first phase of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. A supplemental environmental impact statement will be issued on ' hazardous waste planning at the completion of a draft of that section of the plan. Comprehensive solid waste planning will also continue with the preparation of operational plans by each of the major operating entities over approxi- mately the next twelve months. de and significance , Waste recognized the ma g The Committee on Solid g magnitude identifying and planning for hazardous wastes as defined by the Washington Administrative Code. The Committee has embarked on a schedule to develop ' and complete an analysis of hazardous waste generation, handling, treatment and disposal. A preliminary set of tasks and schedule is included in the ' final environmental impact statement and in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. ' In order to adequately address the hazardous waste issue, there must be agreement on the authority and responsibility for hazardous waste planning. ' That agreement must exist across the spectrum of local governments, private solid waste operators, the Department of Ecology, the Environmental Pro- ' tection Agency and the citizenry at large. In the past, that common agree- went has not existed. Many local governments have been uncertain about their ' authority or responsibility. At the present, at least one major government in the planning area is seeking legislation which will reassign the responsi- bility for hazardous waste planning from local government to state government. This change is sought due in part to the intercounty nature of hazardous waste shipment and treatment. 412 3-B There are three major elements in hazardous waste management; planning, operations, and regulation. Regulatory and enforcement functions and procedures are stipulated by local, state and federal laws. Under various statutes and regulations the regulation authority is assigned to the 1 Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Seattle-King County Health Department, and (for fire safety) local fire _ departments. Individual municipalities may enact ordinances for the pro- ' tection of their citizens from particular hazards associated with dangerous wastes. Inspection programs are an essential element of enforcement programs. The Solid Waste Management Board does not have enforcement or regulatory authority. The weakness you perceive in the enforcement programs ' for hazardous waste management would be best addressed to the appropriate enforcement agencies. The operation and adequacy of the regulation and enforcement structure will be examined when reviewing the existing conditions in hazardous waste management in King County. Your proposal 3-C for individual municipalities to inspect and license companies which handle hazardous materials and/or generate hazardous wastes will be con- sidered as the "needs and opportunities" are examined. The recommended draft of the plan and the final environmental impact I� statement include a preliminary schedule and a description of the tasks to be performed in preparing the hazardous waste section of the plan. I' We thank you for your interest in this matter. 11 r 413 1 COMMENT 4705 159th Avenue N� Redmond, Washington 98052 December 14, 1982 Puget Sound Council of Governments: It has come to my attention that the solid waste report that is the basis for hearings today, neglects the issue of toxic; wastes. I hope this is an oversight and that the important area of toxic waste will be included in the final report . Sincerely, Nancy McCormick I s 414 Response to the Comments by Nancy McCormick: NPlease see the response to comments by Jane Paige, Comment 3, responses -3-A. A preliminary schedule for completion of the hazardous waste element in the plan is included in the final environmental impact statement. I� 11 415 1 A,, COMM ENT 5 - = IAN TVETEN JOHN SPELLMAN - / Earector Governor yl ' STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 7150 0eanwater Lane,KY-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (2015)753-5755 December 23, 1982 Re: 35-2650-1820 DEIS - Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan For King County (E-2488) Mr. Henry Sharpe Solid Waste Management Board Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Sharpe: The staff of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the above-noted document and does not wish to make any comment. , Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, r David W. Heiser, E.P. Chief, Environmental Coordination bh 416 I�f �I Response to comments by the Washin ton State Parks and Recreation Commission NIThank you for reviewing the draft environmental impact statement. �I 11 it II Ir 417 S:AT� Department of Natural Resources COMMENT BRIAN J. BOYLE �I c ` ' Puget u et Sound Area —'� g Commissioner of Pubic Lends P. 0. Box 68 0 Enumclaw, Washington 98022-0068 'I 288° DATE: 12-23-82 82 - TO: Henry Sharpe Solid Waste Management Board ' Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Ave. South Seattle, WA 98104 FROM: Donald Theoe Goverromental Forester ' South Puget Sound Area SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT , ACTION SPONSOR King Subregional Council of They Puget Sound Council of Governments PROJECT 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for King County _X We do not have an interest in the above project and ' have no comments on the proposal. We do have an interest in the above project and wish ' to make the following comments: cc: DNR SEPA Center , Equal Opportunity Employer 418 If �11 IY Response to comments by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources: 11 Thank you for reviewing the draft environmental impact statement. IN II NI NI MI �1 11 II 11 II , 4y I' COMMENT _ 7 �pR Mq� i �< CITY OF NORMANDY PARK December 29 , 1982 , Councilmember Fred Jarrett , Chairman ' Committee on Solid Waste PSCOG Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Jarrett: , We have reviewed the final draft of the 1982 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, dated November 12 , 1982 , and the November , 30 , 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the plan. The City of Normandy Park is not now, nor does it plan to be in the ' future, in the business of collecting solid waste . Private disposal companies now collect all of the solid waste generated within the City. The City does not regulate the private haulers , although it may elect to do so in the future . , The only impact the plan might have upon the City would be through increased collection rates, due to King County' s increase in their rates to the private haulers. If King County decides that an energy recovery system is needed, the City of Normandy Park would like to 7�A know what the direct costs to the residents of Normandy Park would be , before a final decision to proceed is made . , Our staff has reviewed the plan with the Normandy Park City Council , and find it quite satisfactory. They feel that the goals expressed by the plan are compatible with those of the City. X truly yours, ' , ",e ,�e'If David G. Crow r City Manager DGC: sp 199004TH S.W. NORMANDY PARK.WA 98166 TELEPHONE(206)824.2602 420 Response to comments by the City of Normandy Park: Thank you for reviewing the environmental impact statement. 7-A Your interest in the potential impacts of the energy/resource ' recovery study have been relayed to King County and the City of Seattle. 421 1 ` ""'' COMMENT 8 ,a - D(>',A l D �% M, d)� JOHN SPELLMAN Governor r" Drrr(lor ST ATE OF Vv ASHINGI ON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • 0ympra, Washington yftSU-a • (205) 459-60CX7 December 30, 1982 , Mr. Henry Sharpe Solid Waste Management Board Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Sharpe: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact statement for the King County comprehensive solid waste management plan. As noted in the EIS, the Department of Ecology must review and approve the proposed plan. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Peter Haskin at ' 459-6292. Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR: I 422 I�I - �I Response to comments by the Washington State Department of Ecology: �! Thank you for reviewing the draft environmental impact statement and g for the participation of the Department's staff in preparation of the �I Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. �f I� I� p' I� 423 COMMENT 9 City of - incorp&ati_,d l q P. O. Box M. Issaquah, WA. 99027/63 7 'I January 5, 1983 FUv't Mr. Henry Sharpe Solid Waste Management Board Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1982 Solid Waste Management Plan for King County Dear Mr. Sharpe, ' The City of Issaquah staff has reviewed the subject draft environmental impact statement and submits the following comments for inclusion and response in the , final E.I.S. Timing It is noted on Page 24 of the D.E.I.S. that projects and operational actions subject to S.E.P.A. will be subject to further environmental analysis at the discretion of each project sponsor. In fact, any determinations of environmental 9—A significance for those actions initiated by a governmental entity will be at the discretion of the project sponsors; but the S.E.P.A, determinations for other projects, such as energy/resource recovery proposals sponsored by private ' entities, would be made by the public lead agency rather than the sponsoring agent. It is noted throughout the proposed Plan that it will be amended in 1983 to include , 9—B analysis of hazardous waste. Will a supplemental E.I.S. be prepared for that amendment? , 9_C ' Improvement Program, 'Page 30, Twenty Year Improvement Plan - The number "1" inserted in the matrix needs an explanation; no footnote appears in the text. Needs and Opportunities for Change in the System, Page 37 (Disposal 1 ) notes that r a ong-term usage and closure plan for the Cedar Hills landfill is needed, in- cluding an environmental assessment of the current and probable impacts over the entire life of the landfill . The 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan i is predicated on the establishment of Cedar Hills as the regional landfill , the 9—D closure of smaller facilities and the expansion of the transfer network. The environmental impacts associated with the landfill therefore fall within the , purview of the D.E.I .S. for the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. If a viable analysis of landfill impacts is not included in the subject E.I.S. , when is such an assessment to be undertaken by King County? Is there future licensing involved in the use of Cedar Hills (e.g. renewal or revision of King County Special Use Permit, Department of Ecology Operational Permit or Seattle-King County Health Department approval ) that would initiate the S.E.P.A. process? , 424 i� _2_ January 5, 1982 Mr. Henry Sharpe The 1982 Plan and D.E.I.S. envision the Cedar Hills facility as the long-term landfill for King County, whether for primar recoverd1spstem.orue Ti;I bsccontraryku dto the �! dis osal in conjunction with used I an which specifica ly eo haItzma that thatcedar theladditionshould of the be for residue disposal after 198 Y r� acts collection system and other improvements acts asucheasathoselndfillassociatedwill 9with ate itrans-of long-term use. However, P portation, human health, water quality and other elements of the environment are fully disclosed and resolved, omeslinvalid'orfineaninglesst bIndadditiona more the whole planning process bec specific information is needed in regard to the particular functions of the landfill during the next 20 Page 190 ofthePlanonlystipulain tes the For instance, the figure on g solid waste currently acraltfacalithesvarious closedalandfills. where willWhen thethe deadtanemals, landfills and smaller ru "bulky items" and other waste types not presently accepted at Cedar Hills be disposed? Since it is clear that the energy recovery program may not be operational for several years and that the landfill will be utilized for regional primary disposal during the interim, this kind of information is N pertinent to the planning process. N Earth Molre in-depth data is needed on earth impacts associated with new/enlarged JL disposal facilities or energy recovery projects, and tnstruction ionitigimpaa sing measures should be delineated. In addition, an assessment and unique physical conditions is appropriate in this section. Air The comment appears on Page 45 that air contaminants associated with transfer station and landfill oper�alconductednot inmonitored general arearegular sojidnwasteAhandling current air monitoring data facilities for total suspended particulates, ozone or other air pollutants of �� regional concern should be included in the Final E.I.S. ; as well as any information Ion air emissions associated with the vehicular traffic generated by existing and projected truck traffic associated with the solid waste system. I' Water i' The contamination of surface and ground water asaesesult ofsolid aste land- la_G fills needs to be addressed in greater detail (pa9 4Vs public agencies have conducted chemical analyses of streams, watercourses and private wells potentially affected by landfills. This data should be included in the Final E.I.S. �t Noise No measures to mitigate the acknowledged noise impacts are regofferedlated hin the .E.I .S. , such as landscaped buffers at energy recovery plants operation and vehicular movement• In addlnrecomrnendations should, King County's noise obeladdressed. its relevancy to implementation of theplan's 425 1 Mr,. Henry Sharpe -3- January 5, 1982 Transportation �I The Plan identifies the City of Issaquah's concerns relative to the significant impacts of long-haul transport to Cedar Hills on City streets and environs, and the need to fully assess these impacts. The D.E.I.S. for the Comp. Plan fails to accomplish this assessment. The non-project nature of the document does not preclude quantifiable analysis of significant impacts that are reasonably identifiable and an indirect consequence of implementation of a plan that permits continuation of a solid waste management system that has contributed to those impacts. Average daily vehicular traffic figures are summarized in the Draft Plan, but the Final E.I.S. should project volume increases on specific arterials within the waste management network and compare the increases to existing volumes and street capacities. Measures to mitigate transportation impacts and the costs of same should also be included. In general , the information presented on the physical and human elements of the quantitative real no environment is minimal and very general in nature. There is q � data from which to make responsible decisions as to the environmental impacts of 9—J the proposed solid waste management system or its alternatives. Some areas have been totally omitted; for example, the Recreation, Archaelogical and Aesthetic elements are briefly addressed under Existing Conditions but not included in the Impacts/Mitigations section. , Alternatives The D.E.I .S. states (page 79) that major system alternatives were not altered from those of the 1974 analysis as part of the planning process leading to the 1982 plan. Since the assessment of alternatives is probably one of the most significant components of any planning process, it would appear that new or g—K revised alternative concepts must have been considered since 1974 in developing an amended solid waste management plan. The D.E.I.S. justifies the approach taken by noting that a comparison of viable alternatives will occur at the project , level for transfer, storage, disposal , etc. However, because the Comprehensive Plan in effect commits the County to attainment of a particular objective, different means of achieving that objective and the impacts associated with alternative concepts are an important element of the E.I.S. process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject D.E.I .S. Sincerely, CITY_PF ISSA UAH , Carol Hoppler, , Environmental Coordinator CH:mf 426 • City of Issaquah incorporalw 1892 p. O. Box M. iscaquah, WA. 91027-1307 October 26, 1982 C.oaa,ittee on solid waste Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue south Seattle, WA. 98104 kttention: Mr. Fred Jarrett, Chairman Dear Mr. Jarrett: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft 1982 K1theCdepth ofounty mine hensive solid waste Management Plan. I was impressed by formation and the clarity of the explanation of the draft document. YA coincidental trip to the Cedar Hills Landfill with Mr. Randy Revelle last week, and our tour of the facilities and discussion ion with the gtaofdhelped me understand the magni . . of the d values y More importantly, the visit provided valuable information on the methods, current and planned, used to protect this area's environment. In looking at the Draft Management Plan, a number of things jump out at US. First, most of the regions large volume landfills, to lnear dfuturee the city of Seattle and Snohomish County, will close within the very the Cedar Hills site will receive the majority, if not all, of Secondly, all solid waste the solid waste from those closetrfillfortthe life oftheplan. All of transfer will continue to be by these things combine to impact Issaquah, and its southern neighbors in the County, to a substantial degree. app roximately 75 of King County's large trucks grove through Right now, from various transfer stations, to the Cedar Hills Issaquah on their way landfill. , r will increase as the other regional land- Obviouslythat numbeof fills close. while it seems reasonable to assume the continued solidewaste, trucks will be ntthefullctive impacts aans Of rofsthering use of those it seems equallyy reasoablethat trucks should be recognized. It Your plan does consider the operational, theawearnandeteara andreplacement refurbishment of the fleet; but it fails to transportation system. In areas cost those trucks cause on the regions where the trucks travel over roads whose maintenancezihsapsaefcosby flroad ' the people of the region, County and State roads, pe 427 1 11 IN Committee on Solid Waste 'r October 26, 1982 Page Two 'I maintenance and replacement necessitated by the heavy use of the solid p waste trucks can be assumed to be art of the regional budget. As Issaquah sits at the narrow end of the road system funnel leading to Cedar Hills, and across the apparent route of choice by the County's solid waste manage- ment staff, the citizens of this City are being required to accept an un- reasonably high share of the road maintenance cost generated by the regional solid waste problem. I would recommend that a section on transportation be added to the Draft !Management Plan, which, as a minimum, would assess the following: A, The routes, primary and alternate, that trucks will travel from the transfer stations to the landfills. B. That the number, and type, of trucks that will travel over , each route be established. C. That the high hazard locations, if any, along each route ' be identified. This could include such areas of potential pedestrian impact as schools, etc. , D. That a wear and tear factor be developed for each route„ which in turn would be used to develop a cost of mainten- ance factor. ' E. That for those communities, like Issaquah, that are subjected to disproportionate volumes of truck traffic ' and street maintenance, a method of street maintenance assistance (based upon the above maintenance factor) should be established. Or, if the maintenance assis- tance procedure is too costly, an alternative route be ' established, the maintenance of which is funded through regional sources. The viability of accepting Snohomish County's solid waste, and their monetary contribution for transportation system maintenance, should also be deter- mined once the costs of the transportation system maintenance .is established. We may find it is not worth the cost of maintenance of King County roads to accept Snohomish County's solid waste; or Snohomish County may find it more cost-effective to seek a different alternative if King County does include a road maintenance surcharge. 428 i I� I�I Cogm►ittee on solid Waste October 26, 1982 page Three have been While my visit to the Cedar Hills Landfill showed me thassaquasteps Creek drainage and will be taken to protect the water quality Of basin, the Management Plan should discuss the o tooth of monitoring nface and grthat will be used to insure that the water quality rtance considering the pri- water is maintained. This is of particular impo vate water wells, used for human consumption, in the area between Issaquah �I and the landfill. Again, let me thank you for being included in the review of the raft ting ng County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and the noppd above will provide input. I feel the inclusion of the small Po aced provide the final touch to a very comprehensive and thoroughly prepared document. Yours truly, THF kITY OF ISSAQUAH �I A� J. Culver Mayor AJC:dt CC: Carol Hoppler II 1 �I �1 429 1 s the Cit of Issaquah: Response to the comment by y 4 9-A The reference to the role of the public lead agency has been noted. 'f 9-B A supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared when a �I _ hazardous waste section is added to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. The plan contains a set of tasks and a schedule for completion ' of the hazardous waste section of the plan. Completion of that section is now scheduled for 1984 instead of 1983 as originally stated. 9-C When those projects were listed in the plan, it was indicated that they were not funded, pending approval of the King County Executive. That , reference has been deleted but the status of the projects is unchanged. 9-D Cedar Hill is the presumed long-term landfill for King County because ' its known capacity to accommodate waste from the County exceeds the potential capacity of all other immediately available options. Major ' capital investments for protection of the environment are already in place at Cedar Hills. Other disposal strategies, including; volume re- ' duction through incineration coupled with energy recovery, are being actively pursued. It is premature to make a commitment to an alterna- tive disposal strategy. Hence, landfilling of solid waste (or residual of an energy recovery facility) at Cedar Hills will continue. Alterna- tives to disposal at Cedar Hills are not precluded by the .identification of Cedar Hills as the long-term regional landfill. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is a policy ,plan designed to provide overall regional goals for the management of the solid waste systems. One of the regional goals is to "encourage utilization of existing facilities and sites to the fullest extent feasible within legal, regulatory, economic, environmental and technical considerations." Operating agencies will prepare operational plans which will examine operational alternatives and impacts and make choices among those ' alternatives. Specific environmental impacts for the recommended alternative will be assessed as part of the operational planning process ' or as part of the design or implementation program, at the discretion of the operating agency. ' 430 Detailed environmental analysis would occur for major capital improve- I� ments or operating charges to Cedar Hills. For example, the grant request to the Department of Ecology for the berm includes $140,400 for an environmental impact statement. Environmental safeguards for landfill II operations continue to be provided through the permitting and inspection -process. Compliance schedules are developed to remedy unsound practices. I'I I-E The comments pertaining to earth impacts will be dealt with as operational �I and design plans and associated environmental analyses are conducted. General statements about the suitability of various soil types to accommo- date major facilities or landfills or to serve as barriers to percolation I and the dispersion of leachate would be misleading since unique circum- stances exist at each potential site. 9-F Changes in the referenced page have been made at the suggestion of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Air quality monitoring to establish baseline data for specific sites of interest has not been 'I conducted. Such monitoring may occur in regard to specific proposed projects and would be expected to be reported in the environmental data NIassociated with those projects or alternatives. 9-G Water quality and stream-flow monitoring exist but are not included in the environmental impact statement because of the policy nature of the plan. The plan and the environmental assessment process recognize I' monitoring as the basis for problem identification and the development of mitigation strategies. The agencies which have monitored water �f quality near the Cedar Hills landfill in recent years and summary statements about their findings are included in the response to the A� comments by the Issaquah River and Streams Board (Comment 12) . 9-H Rudimentary mitigation measures for noise reduction are noted in the final environmental impact statement per your suggestion. +� 4:31 9-I The planning process for the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was designed to raise issues and identify policy questions„ Some very specific problems are also identified as "needs and opportunities." The resolution of the issues and needs can occur in the comprehensive �!I planning process or be carried forward into the conflict resolution and amendment portions of the comprehensive plan. Most specific needs and 'I problems will be addressed in the operational plans prepared by operating agencies. Parallel data generation, alternatives analysis and environ- �) mental assessment are expected to occur at that time. The Committee on Solid Waste has identified transportation impact issues raised by the City of Issaquah as appropriate for inclusion in the plan. t The Committee further decided that the central issues are bilateral, between Issaquah and King County, and resolution should first be attempted at that level. A long-haul and direct-haul trip table has been compiled for 1981 and fore- cast for 1990 as shown on the following page. The estimates are very general and based on "worst-case" assumptions. Most operators of long-haul ' trucks allow wide driver discretion in the routes to follow based on travel times, congestion and other traffic or safety conditions. It is , therefore difficult to forecast the probable impacts on particular routes. 432 F < Y p < OD � P 1 1 1 N V e 7 H ~ � Y V t V II c c �! ~ r+ F I 6 G N 1 e 1r.) . P. c: a CY,I F N N f- C P 'O �I V n 1 G m �I F d z 'I c e C d +� V V � to c d d c d d a c ., a J d U o a 16 v d d O •+ C d P y V CC F p � s F O K .P. .r r e d C Y V. "� .,a V C •O U3 ^ e y r � u, tr or < > =j d Y d <I Y O e O < G C/ a L < T e w v K p 'p r V O w g to Lt Y C e F : OD d O C u e e .� C P r i ¢ a .r L' F G" 01 N O e d Yppp OC t.j .r en M P1 L m O N O V M O e G PY ..� ..' V it EOE. U C ter.' a N e e 1.1 .e. .. ¢ .~i V i S L 6 .+ Y Q V1 N < �[ N O we, 8 — z e > Y ..+ ppO P .Q 0 N A N P'+ Ld A C R V Y D. V d 7 {I rr Y C .•• w i V V d w r c e e O. U r Y 01 .r O S v v e .mo W i i •p ^' EGE V i O w C ..� K r .+ rr CC ac V u u .+ aAd — C e e 6 O I' a YL p w GrV r r �.. h bc Z: 433 9-J The amount of detail and inclusion of elements of the environment covers the areas affected by the level of the policy decisions included in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. An inordinate amount of detail on alternatives and impacts would be highly speculative in the face of the broad :range of alternative systems, configurations and facilities under current or possible consideration by operating entities, both public and private. The :reader is encouraged to follow the operational planning process and the 'I environmental sequel to each operational and/or facility plan. II 9-K The reader is referred to the entire discussion of the "Alternatives to the ' Proposed Action" section in the environmental impact statement. The Compre- hensive Solid Waste Plan revision focused on goal, policy, planning and institutional arrangements. Those alternatives are fully discussed. It would be outside the scope of the environmental impact statement analyze , alternatives outside of the policy-planning process including those specifically reserved to subsequent phases such as operational plan- ning. The environmental impact statement does contain, for informational purposes, a discussion of operational alternatives. Some of the operational alternatives were discussed in preparing the compilation of existing condi- tions contained in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The generic alternatives in disposal systems remain basically the same at the policy level as they were in 1974 and are included on that basis. 9-L The letter from Mayor A. J. Culver was received during the review process and the essence included in the November 12 draft of the plan. The bi- lateral nature of the solid waste transport impact is being negotiated between the two principal jurisdictions -- King County and the City of Issaquah. The final language in the plan will reflect the results of that negotiation through the adoption, amendment3or conflict-resolution processes. ' II 434 J I� `+ Af COMMENT 10 )C)HN SPELLMAN Ut Governor I� STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (� Office of District Administrator • D-1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C-81410 981(Ab L� I Jarmary 4, 1983 IIT Jr�J Mart Kask, Executive Director `. . Puget Sound Council of Governments III 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 DEIS Review III! Coa>prehensive Solid Waste Managment Plan for King County PSCOG (K-461) Dear Ix. Kask: We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following ccments for II'III your consideration: 1. The state highway network is subject to a considerable amcnnzt of litter from private and public solid waste haulers. This litter 6 0 A falls or is blown off hauling conveyances in poor condition or inproperly loaded or unloaded. Trucks and trailers should be Iinspected for loose waste prior to hauling and following duriping. Illegal duuiping also causes us an additional maintenance burden. ' -B Perhaps signing at dump sites and improved enforcement could help alleviate this costly burden. II, O W. Leachate from waste sites into highway drainage systems have caused problems in the past and should be prevented in all cases. Trunk you for the opportunity to review this document. We would appreciate receiving other envirormental documents as individual sites are proposed. Please forward all environmental correspondence to: II Washington State Department of Transportation District Design Engineer/Environmental. Review 9611 S.E. 36th Street Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Very truly yours, R.E. BOOMRUCK, P.E. District Administrator G.L. GII-.BERT, P . 435 District Design Engineer PRL:I' Jcw 3 I� Response to comments of the Washington State Department of Transportation: 10-A Public and private certificated haulers are subject to the Minimum Functional Standards which include provisions to assure the integrity of the trucks and �I trailers used to haul solid waste. Vehicles used by all haulers are designed l to conform with the Minimum Functional Standards. The vehicles are subject �I to inspection by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Some wear and tear and operating procedures result in less than optional perform- �I ante. The Health Department scrutiny attempts to rectify these problems. Littering enforcement also occurs through police department enforcement of ordinances. ' 10-B Illegal dumping and littering are universally recognized as problems. Illegal dumping tends to correlate with economic recessions and with increases in disposal costs. 10-C Leachate collection systems have been installed at major solid waste disposal sites. Monitoring occurs on and off site. Efforts are being made to minimize leachate entry into surface and subsurface water systems. 436 COMMENT 11 "J zoo wM M..am 6cn.1,Room 205.P.O.Box 9863 I� corm..Wnhinpton 98109 (206)344-7330 1 , ' • 191 �AN 10 P..1yi. • ' • January 7 , 1983 pUGET SCej%D CDN C� GOti'EJkNWk TS I� Mr. Henry Sharpe Solid Waste Management Board I� Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle , WA 98104 I� Dear Mr. Sharpe : Solid Waste Management Plan I�I We have received the subject draft environmental impact statement and are submitting the following comments . I� On page 45 in the air quality and odor discussion it is stated that the pollutants generated by transfer station and landfill operations are not monitored in a regular (� manner. While no air quality monitoring is performed in A the vicinity of any transfer stations , most of these pollutants are monitored on a regular basis throughout the Puget Sound region. The problem of odor is specifi- cally covered in Section 9 . 12 of Regulation I, as well as 9 .11(a) . Section 9 .15 of Regulation I would also apply to operations of transfer stations and landfills . I�I A copy of Regulation I is enclosed for your reference. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. S'ncerely, um ls�� `RUNG A t ur R. Dammkoehler KING COUNTY Air Pollution Control Officer Wls,Lie,Ce,$1 Bo.9bf.� Ir lt-e 98109 { L,W 344 7330 s J 10375AP COUNTY 1u poe,elor Tai Enclosures ee Nu.noet Zt Zennr 638'. morgp.•ISlano RQsoents I Lai 344 7330 FRGECOUNT Y 1 Hess Bu.brn9 .Coma '08402 383 5851 GNC}N04Ii15M COUNTY i 2590288 PARD Of DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN Gene Looe ColnrnrsS.CMler KIISaC COunly 437 MMOM$IOrUn Councuma•for Boom(atone, County El .Demes B Me�nls (,punCtMnan$nplgmran County Willis,E Moore Mao, Fve,en _ "rce Sup iviano Mayor Tacoma Ranby Revelle.King Covnly Esecutwe Cho,*,Royer Mayo,Seattle it Response to comments by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency: iM I� 11-A Your comments have been included under the existing environmental conditions discussion of air quality and odor. a� iN IN IN �� 11 ! 11 '' 1 ' 1 1� 438 � �I III COMMENT 12 IIIIa) City of Issaquah II� (206) 392-6477 P. O. Box M, Imquah, WA. 96027-1307 January 12, 1983 JL F; I�I PuL,_. Henry Sharpe O Solid Waste Management Board ' I� Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South 'I Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan For King County Dear Mr. Sharpe: The Issaquah River and Streams Board submits the following comments with 'I regard to the impact of the plan on the rivers and streams of Issaquah: 1 . Was a thorough hydrogeologic site analysis undertaken before dumping was initiated at the Cedar Hills site (or any other site in the King 11 2—A performed system)? Has one been done since? What checks or tests are performed on groundwater that might have leached out metals from the �I dump? Are the streams and small tributaries monitored for presence or changes in levels of pollutants such as suspended particles and metals? 2. it is inaccurate to state outright that "The second flood-prone period is spring melt and runoff". The event described is relatively rare in King County. Spring flooding occurs about once every 14 years in the NSnoqualmie Valley and. . .no where elese in King County. The "flood 10 season„ is generally known to be October through March, with "June” 112 --El floodsrare. . .quite rare. The Green-Duwamish Rivers and the 3,600 %0 acres of the Sammamish River Valley being subject to flooding is s questionable. It would be useful to know what magnitude of flood the '^ author is viewing in making this statement , particularly in light of the Corp of Engineer's Rechannelization Project which was complete Na in 1961 3. An initial reading of this makes the reader think that the County is denuded of coniferous forest; however the DEIS does state that there are so trees remaining in the County. It might be more appropriate to state a 2 that Western King County "once was completely covered", etc, an indicate that Eastern King County still has forests as a renewable a resource subject to current forest management practices. ve/�y truly, J / V River s Streams Board 439 II ea Response to comments by the Issaquah River and Streams Board 12A Ground and surface water testing programs in the vicinity of the Cedar Hills Landfill have been conducted. Metro maintained nine water quality monitoring sites in the Issaquah creek drainage and one on the Cedar River near Jones Road at 196th and the Maple Valley Highway. Five of the nine sites were closed after two years of monitoring without showing water pollution problems. Four of the nine sites in the Issaquah creek drainage are still. in operation. The site on Mason Creek (aka McDonald Creek) near the landfill has been in operation for three and one-half years. Monthly tests indicate an absence of problems at all sites. No metals have been found at any site. Prior to the 'I installation of the leachate collection system at Cedar Hills "'sewage fungus" was identified in Issaquah Creek and caused problems in hatchery operation. Presence of the sewage fungus diminished below observable levels after in- stallation of the leachate collection system. The Environmental Protection Agency has done some single-sample testing in ' the vicinity of Cedar Hills. In March of 1981 seven or eight samples were taken south of Cedar Hills adjacent to the county road contiguous with the Queen City Hog Farms site. Another "single-grab" set of samples were taken on Mason Creek and its tributaries in the mid 1970s. King County Solid Waste Division maintains approximately 17 onsite monitoring wells at the Cedar Hills landfill in compliance with the Seattle-King County Department of Public health's disposal permit requirements and Department of Ecology permit for discharge to ground waters of the state. The Solid Waste , Division reports to the Health Department quarterly. The onsite wells are used to evaluate .the operation of the leachate control system. The Seattle King County Department of Public Health. in a joint program with the Department of Ecology, sampled and tested the water in every domestic well within one mile of the perimeter of the landfill in the fall of 1981. Tests were run for coliform bacteria and heavy metals. One well tested abnormally, high in lead; a retest showed normal headings and the initial values were attributed to faulty laboratory procedures. 440 J ilw The Department of Ecology conducted an intermittent monitoring program in watersheds draining the Cedar Hills area in the fall and winter of 1982-1983. Department of Ecology monitoring and sampling sites include Miller Springs, an area west of Miller Springs, adjacent to the Queen City Hog Farms site,and in INi the vicinity of the Solid Waste Division's operations building. Samples are monitored for heavy metals and nutrient content. The data are unavailable I� at the present time but a preliminary examination indicates no unusual findings. The Department has recently also monitored and analyzed private wells upon re- quest. The principal tests are conducted for heavy metals; none have been found. Changes have been made in the text of the environmental impact statement in response to your comments. The reader is referred to the original sources cited in the text for additional information and clarification. Flooding is generally not a hazard for existing solid waste facilities and avoidance of flood-prone sites would be a consideration in locating new facilities. 11 .2 The suggested language has been incorporated in the final environmental impact statement. I� 44-41 1 COMMENT 10 N S king County Executive Randy Revelle Budget Department Shelly Yapp,Budget Director January 13, 1983 Mr. ;Henry Sharpe Solid Waste Management Board Puget Sound Council of Governments 'I 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Draft E.Z.S. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for Ring County Dear Mr. Sharpe: ' Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft E.I.S. for the 11982 Ring County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) . Because Ring County has been significantly involved in the drafting of the Plan through the Committee on Solid ' Waste of the Solid Waste Management Board, we have no additional comments at this time., Sincerely, , CftaChairman ' Environmental Impact Committee SY/PT/pt cc: Randy Revelle, Ring County Executive ATTN: Tom Fitzsimmons, Director, Program Development 442 400 King County Courthouse SH Tturd Avenue Seattle.Washington%164 120613"34:ti IIS Response to comments from King County: DI Thank you for reviewing the draft environmental impact statement and for �I the contribution of county staff and resources to the planning process. �f �I �I II 11 II' I� ISI III II!I III II��I 44.3 IIII Iil'I I� 1� Response to comments made at the public hearings on December 14 +� and December 15: The response to comments made by Nels Johnson at the December 14 public hearing are contained in the response to the RABANCO, Inc. letter. Response to comments made by Glen Odell at the December 15 public hearing were in the form of a general briefing on the content of the plan and the planning process in Ring County. I� 444 �I d � MINIMUM FUNCTIONAL � STANDARDS FOR d SOLID WASTE HANDLING A 1 u 0 Q Seattle-King County p Department of Public Health � 445 MINIMUM FUNCTIONAL STANDARDS 1 Before the King County Board of Health of King County, Washington �I 2 RULES AND REGULATIONS NO. VIII 3 RULES AND REGULATIONS establishing minimum functional iitI�IIV standards for solid waste handling; prohibiting 4 certain conduct. l� 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE KING COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH: II 6 Article 1. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 7 1.01 Authority RCW 70.95 SOLID WASTE I� YAC 173-301 RCW 70.93 LITTER 9 WAC 173-310 10 1.02 Purpose. Regulations governing solid waste handling covering 11 storage, collection, transportation, treatment, util-iZation. processing and f 12 final disposal of all solid waste generated within King County including 13 issuance of permits and enforcement to assure that All solid waste operations 14 and/or facilities within King County are performed and/or maintained in 15 such a manner so as to protect the public health, safety, welfare, prevent 16 air, water and noise pollution, and to avoid the creation of nuisances. ��III111 17 Article II. DEFINITIONS 1B 2.01 "Agricultural Solid Wastes" are wastes resulting from the production 19 of farm or agricultural products, including manures, wherever produced and 1fwf1lI�� 20 carcasses of dead animals weighing in excess of 15 pounds (6.82 kilograms). 81� 21 2.02 "Ashes" is the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke, or Z2 other comtMn table materials. 23 2.03 "Board of Health" means the Board of Health of King County. 24 2.04 "Bulky Wastes" are large itan of refuse, such as appliances, 25 furniture, trees and stumps, and other oversize wastes. 36 2.05 "Cell" a unit of compacted solid waste which is covered on all 27 surfaces by compacted earth. 25 2.06 "Collecting Agency' is any agency, business or service operated 29 by a person or a private, or municipal corporation for the collection of � solid waste. �� 447 N J v d r c ol N v d ✓ L o c - d q o .� N C: O L d L d t p� q LH P O v d q U O v C n C C O p u _> V V C J N O P A > L N C m ^ + y. ^ C7N P d O d p $ _ •1 L bn L iV J v T � T r a c A C y j q O w 4C C q C P C A j A N n u p C O O A J ^ A n ^ E d d �p •.- C qE N ✓ V q q E Y L 7 d C O ! d L p O M E t L C {I d N t P _q .O C S P L N A O N = V C >• L D VOV T n >, pJ U r V r LS N C J A V C S. ✓ p A n d C C q g C t P O ✓ C N .-- q P d A O C C A d 4 r X ✓ q r N L O V ` L O N - L r• V L N d C n r L d .7 r ^• V V q p ^ O AE V q d ^ L d d L r ✓ w D O U N T q 1 7 V A d N L p O q C V O W 1=0 L c .- L E $+ C • ^ E 4l4 O ~ p .110 L ✓ O a a L c c c w N w C 6 Alb 0 (41 C ✓ N O v >, q r D T A 10 11 > C C a U d _O n C ^ t . w C l •n r N ✓ v i p q L L q ! L q N DN N q q n ?i 7 P d OI I V V A O r O. 7 ✓ L C d O O A V ^ L q ✓ y C Vp C w d r r ✓ X 6 C d L .- V C v NO N d Vd d4 D oo Pd Nd 7 x �LCj V 3 7 m O rq 7 pdEVr ICC NOd o • n _Odp ONN J - A X 1 O i + p L P A E ✓ '^ y- O C D L N A O d d ^ A A d V r P C ✓ p n r E N L d L I d m Q V d V 61 V V 7 q O C v ✓ % r C N N C V q d ✓ OL N L L N N IF r q d ✓ O J O ✓ W L q o d V q d o u 7 O L d L L r V E L p L V ✓ L V C C d L L V C d C d q S V d U O � NN1 Q A ✓ E n A r O P ✓ r u q L OI p L N C L N ✓ d E L v _ O 7 v d ✓ c d d d L ✓ .- V q O ✓ q C ✓ CCC O N 10. C U - A d + O L D P O >� 7 P N L d d 4- A X N d ✓ ✓ 7 C C D N N p E q ^ L ✓ - d d L N N p ^ ✓ r q V ✓ C _d a'S 2 pl N p + po P ✓ L A d C L ^ % V N L d C vv O L C ^ d ^ E K A G - N ✓ j ✓ q N O A 7 V ✓ O N A V d r ^ N A N L d w L E v r q 7 ✓ 4- ++ r n N +_ C T L N ✓ j N 2 A N q ✓ N O C L • q I•- + N d N L l l� O v ^ N 7 2 L N d ^ L J V C V 7 d p N O d 7 d V C 7 N ✓ O O A N q n O N v A ✓ C r' - r T d d q ^ •- N A E p L d d v T L O d L P d W ^ r N q L > V A q E C m A d CT L O O v N q C d O > C O D C N E C L 3 N d •U V A O L d N ✓ r ! ✓ + A r r JV ✓ .--. N d ^ p p CL T C a N w A L 4 V N N L d V Y U d t V r A d O O q L d N N n L A N N d O V N N V i L ✓ 7 d A V n L o L eQ ✓ w E A o d o I► o q d 7 L L l� v -� V >, n a ✓ ✓ ✓ a v n d L - C - A l = ✓ O p O N % L � % q ✓ v ^ ; ✓ E L q d '� ^ (D ✓ d ^ C L ^ ✓ +- N N N 10 E Y N N O Q m V A N 7 O d D P E (L d N CV ✓ A d L V P C N n ✓ C > O I V U O H ••^ H H N M f r A ^ ifV O• O •" �L � r r .••• r N H N H h N 1�1 M1 M� IH C L O d O c C m C r " .d+ L + Nq d L O 12 q A ✓ _ C N L ✓ 1 L ✓ O d Ll'1 ✓ A N A ✓ P L L n d C N C QI P q q �I O+ 3 O C L n O O n > O + L L1�[1 - E T E O N L ^ p d d V A V >> ✓ L C O A C v l V Ln C 7 L 10 T ✓ d E L N A C ✓ A n O • 0' N d N V � ✓ O+ N d D L A O L >> O v ✓ � L _ y C N A N d C ✓ q d L O ✓ d i A v d p E 'I O p d n ✓ 3 L O C L C N ✓ V n >I N O d C C U L d C Oy ^ 7 7 r L N E E 7 I L r A ^d ✓ L y q O v A L P L O V V q ✓ 7 E ^ A E d d N L yy11 T d O Y p N C n ^ d N N a A C A A O C D• > r L L O •' Z 7 O C d A 7 A L L j + O C A o. d LL) O N U q w 4- m U d p A ^ d d 1 C d L V d L Y- O A I p ^ d E O O C c ✓ MD N d 7 CO p N a N ^ ✓ V d d O O A ^ q ✓ A r E N ^ E C q N d P q d C P • N ^ w j D O d L E %- n O O A D p L > L D A v OL L + N ^ r r N ♦TI O J d q N O N P d p ^ r _ u L N V O L d C 7 p LD r ✓ L N N 1 n L C L r >, A V A C w ✓ V O D V r N N = ^ + V j L ✓ E V w 7 ✓ ► o n L .d- d y p >+ o A N O O T L O C N r ✓ v O 2 U A A A r q v N V O L O L P "'^ C n ^ E 7 7 �- V 7 d C L d d V I► C d C O WNNE L N C L U p L► p A O A n L ^ N V O A w d C O ✓ L + N A W r D L N �•' A d A N N E p O ✓ n O N > ^_ q > q N V v U C C d 777 d L l U _✓ C + L �- C N r OI O '^ T 10 d ^ ^ O 1 V 7 A ✓ O p E _✓ • v A L r ✓ N >� O L w O r w N O O N d O V m 2 C V ✓ 01 �-' d N V n C L N v - O d n ✓ U L r N NE + r + n Iti- L v ^ N a ^ q O ✓ O d N L LT d d - d O L N d O d C d T 7 N A .- ++ A + n ✓ ✓ L D N L d ✓ ♦ d P C A P ^ N L'7 d L ✓ C ✓ N d C p A ^ ✓ d a v N q d + ✓ A r ^ ^ u J r �+ +- v E � c ^ c L E A C P J L C q N L N C A q q q N w C V A C O A C O d ✓ O 1 d + L ✓ C d V d A N O d d + - c O ✓ N d N ✓ n V 6 O c v u 0 P C OI (1 7 O C q C A V N %- w d _d N L O ^ N � L Y d ✓ 6 C >i r _ ✓ v N V d N d _T r d d O C d .- V N V L ^ T ^ % V F ^ 7 L C C D X C L P O L C 7 L d 1► A N O •^ O L A N 7 C ^ L O O A O r n C ^ p� •� D O C 1► ^ N N L V n) d O C O A ✓ N A n p ✓ D A 1 •'� O q n A C n U O d O n V- N ^ ✓ ✓ L A ✓ ✓ ✓ q ^ ✓ L N L A 7 n w n ^ E q C C yN1 O O O O r N ON P O C. ✓ _ __ O ✓N C - _ , L ✓ n 7 ^ q • d C v V L C q C t v L u L 0 v L E C v T O 1� d CD ( w T E O d O n N V L V P O N > C _ A f•1 L f n L LO ^ N O O C O P r L q N c ✓ p ✓ ✓ O q C ✓ O' q A N T N V N C ✓ ✓ N n C ^ A N ✓ A + N N C C L N {V{,1 N N r N - N L L d p r V ✓ Y to + L Aww C r ✓ 6 QI ^ T O d A ✓ ✓ V Q U r N q •► LE L7 q N N ✓ O. 7 L C '^1 � ✓ y v s L 7 V l t m d q On O O d '- ✓ D p N Y �' ^ N L j V w V G O 7 V p q IS A O .~. .f.+ h N fil N N II1 ~ 448 J� oil M V 4 O O Y u N O Z C M L D D N L P A C{I A O D+ {+ �+ N A V q C ^ A p Y 1 C V U O tTt C V O L L L T L w U T C C C c cr P O u > C O • 1 y1 A l' A A ± C 11 A O. L A ' C .0 O C L t M C L C II �' e N O O >. P N L- C � M 0 Y V A y- C n L q 1.. M ^ L �+ L 0 O U C O T O A ' V O �. N u C L A o • L V L A V U 7 O M u � C g M N �.O• Cn Q A A L C > V O M C p L ^O 1+L� G C ; 1111 IIII t�iiO%�_7 j�+ LTT .0N, LO LYM u ^VT ^ n .� YN aN L f^•1 NA vV iCr OA Lc N w .+ CO rO u O O V u n O qn L. Vn` O O A L CO 4c n P A I o O n 7 ( q A T N q d N Y Y CL gE + u 4, 'n A V U O Y ; O N r O O O I T I Y C Y N n y N T v C U q P Cl. n U O tl O U q U q L EE v C - •+ d N O U t r Y ! O V l 01 L T V t L 7 0: V 9I A V > A d A C d N .+ Y .+ li �+ L u d G C 'O ►+ C r N O T 2 O go,, U L p EE N q Z q N N Y d P P A V U C D O I► N w A P Eq Y Y 7 Y V Z �1 L C �II A ^ r r - ^ Y • N ` J D r L U J D J L J J q O J OW L L « q V L u r C y n T 'O y Q m L_ P O O 0 ; N N N q .+ L �•1 T �•f W L D d �" O N q P E d T n N Y V C O! N N C ; N N N N N O C N Y N L N L 9i L = L N u •- N O O C V O c n N L n cu «' > P L {� C - -- N n u c v q i n c n e � G � r c r qE �! a, p III L L L L O v q L E L c c w o O >+ 9 N A D N v O N O V �. Lp P I U P C A V O � L + � A C A • O D � ^ L) N d T C L N O L V L L V _� l C d I C O O L Y �+ C Vt N N 7 N D L C Y S S Y D V • _V Z W y T V r 01 u w K q >t A N C ! t q ICO Y C A v V N C L . • ► v A C N Y N O 1► U V N L III 8 n C' OC .... M {! O L u A C I ♦ v U O ~ L N A U Y 1Y�,,r1 o C 01 c t � OVyI c � _ 0 079 C n O O C 4 U P V V A V L O O A M L` N ppL V L 0 V u A P � P O � U 48 C 6 = t I� M n V L L T C • M C A T Y L U D �► O Y A M P L A > V yF A u D V D C A E V O C L y N O C C V NA L A U V vA L r N N dA O T O V o 9 7 L q Y V � .J L A L Y OI M O N L L o Y N u T c �+ o v �+ �► g .' �.. n � T .r T o I�I c c o o v n CC o Y ' O V O t 0 r N C I C L {I A V A st M !� O NO N C T y ` Y O t1 OI �+ 6 N OI V O Y OI Y L T A LO .+ C ^ t r + L A o E A �+ u t _ + p1 C w+ t A L ^ N U M } �+ Y O • �I ■ * �+ A C A C C O L {I f O • {NYI T {AI C L L L 3 'III LSI O Y A O O � r � M A L >> � 6 ♦ 2 G !1 .+ C {LP L c P to v a L V A L Y r: .+ �ICC �I r ac 4 K D C • P M O G s Y = V = O d E L ♦ Y N V A O. M i1 A O N Y Y G O Y MN 40K {cc N N 10 N N a V E a JIL 8 S 9 ; o a III r w !' w V ►• • w � � � r � .w. � ^. � .w. �i « � �i « �. � �i �i �i �i r r .wn 449 0 d C O V C P L C •••. A C v d L V O A V N N N q L •-, O N N V V A V 7 V L V V C V L O V P q d q O V p D C Iti C N L q V r r C d j 4 u ! N fA A N N O N ^ s G V N d N T v N N d 7 yd N O O T V ^ V a� C N V L N O r V L O C N t• V L 77 d V D O W V U L d N L N ^ O O r L D V .••. U = V 11,,,�� U' N V L SCI d C L p N E _ u o L V O ' V •N T V N A n � 7 A 6 N' v q C A O A V O _ d C N ^ V D V C V V O d O O O a L N D C r O V ppp> q O E6 V C N O O q N N N O d V U A v p IH 7 V E L O L V V A c 1(1 O •O E N V W 7 A V V• O O N U C fL! V W P C w A P V ^ C ALD N q o l V T L V L V C CL N O U q N v N O V U ^ ^ q N D _ ��11 yyI O y{I qq>I _ L n 2 G D N Z V w w r A j A L L p C L i V A C q n U V L V s ql Ld d N q N L L d d N V E d 7 A C N w V VCO -•d� gyqLp' q VE LN ^V- TOC O V VO •rA 7 L V O V O 7 L P NNn L L41 A u LVC - r C N q L �+ L O+ Vl E •r A d C 7 N • L V L d N V O - d P N r ^ O u p E C d C L V A C 6' A d C = IN C d V N V V d L O L O d = N ••• J •� d T d P N 7 V V VL•u VC N V V C V C T •r ^ P Vf P p i A 7 C C r C r- d N O d y R mm A d d L V 0! P L N L q Z q = w+ E E E ^ P P I� v.+ c ^ A L c 4+ d n n r A r A r U q A A + A " d P A O C v N C V v N r p q ^ A >1 > > d L U L > L q L V .- V �- y V V r V ^ r C L p V q O j V C •-- r r r d w V d A A A U V U 61 D v O N V Q a. d p ¢ rCp L Vl N N V L q j Vf w V1 d d C N A ^ VO1 V 11 L 7 V Lr = .t Q d _ 7 O '^ N V w O p L N yA A L d �•'� V C O co L P V P O L• w r 6J a E v e a V ct V c V L _ O A q •r r O �+ O N a7 \ > L d ^ y U A n C N V E O q N 7 N V O v V A .••� N N N V N C e•I ..� r 10 n e a o n y e. o n w•, •r .n �o �I••.� ee p� o ev ws ...�� ••w •� N N N N N N H N M N 111 M 111 111 Ql C a+ d O q L N V 1] L d L V A q ^ O T O V d IEn M CL O+ p O L O • W T IA.+ L L C C E v V C ^ d A O D N C N p ' +••I 7 d V V O L L 7 L D _ a C V V C L U N E U A 7 V C A N L O n N 7 q O O q ^ O V C L O V l p O L U LO d X C d d V C C W 11 t•/ L V L L y O r N O V d A V O C • O V V O V d a+ T7 IPI d > V O V O T S E V L O WN C E V Y d d d U ^ 7 G C m A V P L r ^ ^ N L L O+ C L V V p NV T O T A N V E V W ^ d A V L p 7 O C P q D O+ O N O O ¢ V O v It L q C C V L d C = WS- U C V q L D A d w d d W •r j O V A + Z L > L L d d N N y V T V ^ p • T O E L C O V N 6! C ¢ q C V qq cc C, A V Q 10 V T O O T L d q V E n T O 0 N O L ^ V V C ^ L N E O O L r Z D d A L O A >> V r O q V O a C EE d 7 C U O C A L C q N V G, N V O L O D O A n 7 V p d v A q L V d 7 V1 N O a L N U N V d A A i d P q D q j A d N V �•+ P A C N C N N y ^ d '� D T C O E 7 V I► 7 N V N E oto d E V A mc L 0 r Q. E 7 A Y L L 2 ^ N O V IF N O j V C r V P v j 61 A T V A N 7 C L O N q O A L V C A ' ^ C w U T V j V O a 7 Iw- L V V V L V C C V C i d C A d 7 C N C C •� V A A c V A T N L V L 10 �•' O O A L L q V P p Y A A O D d VP V = V T 7 L U O d N •A 0 C C N_ O L C D V � N Vl 7 d L V 7 y • p C ^ O d O L VT V O a •- E p V q q A d r D U V j T A d N C L q O U V U d N V q V L L d > d V d •r V 7 V V d j V E A V d V C V L L V L L qq V O N O L L 7 V C A V v V A A V L L O C V N A V C O V A r C 7 E D L V V 7 p N PN I0 N ! ` > T N D N N q C C O V C O v 7 w ^ O N O C A V C d N U V n q C d A O •A- C L IH Q C O T N UE C O N j N D v w n d o L _ c o : VNA yCOV otVC rvDN O rcOOp idVNL sn rVNdqO vN inN P V q u O mL V d O IC O NVV —qO ^NA I- CD O C V NOVN VVN VnqdL zA LC LCO7C CL oIn -Ir 'I •- � d A ^ C U T r r D V Vf O C IO A � p m �- U P N O r L .- N /► ^ dl D d S e+f r- V Pf t.f e•• A n P O A R N r__�.. _`._-_T__.... E q M p P L V d V V C QE N V q 7 O N •e- V C d N n T Q N O 7 N G N V p V L Q V v V ••+ V A D v L d N V C v ^ •rte r r T .- Ct d U d D d N L q r D C _ L V L O C P A d V V C L 7 C O O L V q p V q Q N p L > S G 6 a A C V O 3 '. w� N iR 'V M V /� a a � � .~r r r w~i .�.• w^r � .moi C � M M1 •f N N � � h � � fV M1 N N fV N N � 4501 �' n cc w •' 41 dj ILII E ■p M tpw M ^ O • C « r w 10 L C t + O OM�11 7 O � v t ■ rE O O C �1 yc1 ♦CC « {� « H « OM1 CpU w }�Os^ « Q 41 III N N n L L r L N Y S YYL C d P p O L O� O o c v _V « E w ♦ + n g n . w OraQ M` N cO r O G♦1 � _CNn r �C M w L 1Y' N O N M QI V O O U + U O �+ O O a L N V E O + ♦ C « N .- 1� CC E rr O w G OL W n ♦ rC w`` �+ M T CC Q ♦ r >p O O N C O O V O {1 + • OI N ' n C }' 40 o u n N N w u v w « ♦ p d N u o L n - _v L c o g w 1� d C N p q s 4 M L Obe ^ L ^ ^ ! NN 7 •L.• .- n O O Q n > v T V r n V v w L n C r+ � C « v �1 « N H p O LL•+ O L N yE� O _V {LI + O C O w « t O G ♦ P E vl p P t ♦ V n �I N p C C C C S C q y V w r T N = O v O C C V O V N cx P w O L O O L +-+ Y N � �+ D �+ « r E V N C O C ♦ � p n O 4 + 4 V + � V ffflll O n U C .9D n ♦ � L `� � u u � � u _w v a > 1► �+ v _N n t E t c + o N N p o C A •••• •r U a+ r q L L J N E « vVCCLLp �Er I%= L V « N E ♦ Y q CL O N 4 4 n V N Q N G O N O u CCL L 1.- M w a III aj y O 4 N N > 4 d L q -. N w � M �p r • P O .. � n ^ M �p � � ^ � .. M �t1 •1 M fV � N N M M M T •n r h h N h N C H Y.I « V N d T O V V O • O ♦ C L + O N « C T LC L C L ♦ N L N CL q O u « C C N S �+ v P v T v� + 9 i L • _ y \C > •.+ T d L L L T L O + O Y Yp� V T 7 N C N N O Im C O 9 n T p a+ + r ^ O ^ C f D V V N C N � T C r A �{11 w C w « n C L L N c w + vw p N N w O O V O + T u L V v V + _N • N V v 4 u O V O O N N N T ff� + �+ L t C , T « O C v L uullnn'' L « �+ � w+ O �! •+ M « �r G O L r u N qCj L O E N P c V L C VV ♦ N o N E L L0 r v A ♦ {I C V O V C > ,► O C v O O « N w ATF+ 7 NN V V N M + « Np In cc J2 C {1 N y [ O N C V C ` M M ` ; M r r+ C L N C � N C 41� p� {1 ' v Y p L A � « E LI n � A L. 4 O L • v C O L x p N L V Q Ir >, L 7 O u v L C �i > G : L C O 4 - f + v C r L L 7 O m C r « A n ^ r N N V C + « LL L L L >+ V ^ V « N n « V « � C 1► L N V ss {Y1 � r N t w T N {Lr Y L D v E aL+ C S M � C V ♦ ► r L _ 1. ♦ L r t L f O r O O 41 + N V V T « NN N Y L 7 w d • « t {41 C ♦ L N r « w N a = r p « r C L N + r o E = u Ei p « c ` LO C L w L ppG �J + ♦ L ♦ N �r {« O 4 O O L _ C n O ♦ p L n 1C► ^ L « �+ 10 4C �; « a v � Np N D � U � L L r r U L M n O « ♦ ♦ L MCL O u y .. • .. • . S = = = = = = R x !Z !C R ��' 45 f vd u tJ L V V � n 7Z V 1- q T C Y d ^ v Y Y V V • �7 {1 d • Q L Y ^ s ' O Y S A ' L Y � 1 � `+ a O Ll d q O O D n is T V = G �_ O ii V 7 Y q N d V N G C Y _ trC .1 N S L �F r L ^ N U V q +- TN �+ ^ CL p ^ Y q q _G T C ^ D V O q 6 U Y G N • O ( O O 7 C t n O D OL O C T < a N O iV O V O N i Y U q LL a d v :� 4- " c v u �j)rl v n a0 Y V V n v • V C d e a T ^ a+ CL •f O d D ^ C d ud IO N O C C ^ q L ' U O U OL q Y L ^ L 1' q ^ C Y n E ^wq1 qdnECV DO41 qN Gu• Yq `H .N- rYU ^ d NVL qqO+ ^T .w- •rd 6q _V yVt1 dN 41/,' V> 2 U C L U 12 C111YE111 VYro nqYCi0 pD V V V y 7 L L G ^ D Y d v O_Y _^ q N = q Y q L v - ^ d 4 q d CL N C N 7 L CE N t O Y G Y Y L n L G' Y O V V C N M • N EE L d V d q eec O T d 6 q Y L U V N Z n N Y tC1 V N ' 7 U G d iJ C S v V q b V C q E L U C �► t C C d C T d D 6 Q V Y 6: Y Q Q qL d E V T L N G L Q T O T i0 O L L L O Y 1+ d Y g V C Q Y C u ^ N L dN U T L A Y ^ U V w 7 ^ yy q L ^ q E C •0 q n v a CO q O pp G V ^ Q a O Y O 2 L O+ C C L p� •L.r TO Y S ^ Q q •r C V Y Y V c L d N 7 q a v aL u D L Q d N O V U Q L j Y .- N n d V V d q t Y — C N ^ 9 T C to c Q 1J U q w Y d q C d 6 L d N O nd Y q N N 6 Q L Y d ^ ^ E YEE E c > n q m c E v c N q O Y aL+ fLif c ►L- ¢ n Y N O d L O r d d C C ". Q 2 Q v H N Li q d V 9 ID s N Mt � M �p ►� ! a O r ~.. .�.. .�. .�. r r O „�,• Ory r M � r Iv iti � N � '� H �n C t L L L > T Y T d } Y w O L C L D L p O C Q d Q Y d d 7 q L S L 8 O C L L O U Z Q I O' V l!1 U V1 O d O Y V d 7 d V q w q w d P i0 q M - L ^ ^ N T N L L �► d T O O O O Q L v L D L Y L v 2 W d 0 q • Y N Q V d U V V ,O ^ U d Y C l L E q q V q d q q V Q q d C C O G Y C y d U d V d Y Q d U q O O Y L q ^ L L V L d L N N q l V T T U q q L O +•+ O O O q Y O D to C L d w Q L w O w O w V w O V O dd L d w Y Y L L E O Y W ^ Y d Q Y v . t O O O O Y p n i T O Y M Ow O w .• IJ') U v v ^ C C C Y w p C q _ 4 pl L 7 N '• q M C 30 O 7 d 7 d 7 V v q C 7 d E d C G n w Q d N V q L O N N Y L K q OC A CT Q L N V ^ N T L O q O q CD- In q d d w O q C O U M Y w U O d d N C ^ Id 41 q v y C � 6 L Y Y D q N E N d d Y Yw d L q d E �° w N n o o o Q �' d nq Y ^ O ^ N C 1 C q O w � Y q ^ Y q q L Y O L v O C Y q q L D J O N = O v N y N C L ^ qq V Y O• Y C C C q C E O V v D A q C L Oi % q O •r q O O C ^ n q C ^ L L Y ^ V C ^ O L w c u±+ u .+ L a x w W Y G o u N N c u c OICL = •r q L q D — •" p A C O+ T V n •.•• 7 d L C C V E u r V o V d N L N U q C �O L t C N q .C. C d L cc f.— Wx N 0 a d O W Y Y O J �) U v N Y w n T qt1 C tt�! C N Q D D r Q i0 Q j Q f► ^ N t•f O u'1 �C n CD O� Q t> L v c V f► O+ 452 —IIII------ � L V s N N Y v L ot >, � e L L c ♦ N 0 41 « > IIII A MM L N C r � O C • • IIII r M L _ O • N C _ • s Y C Y O C MO _• N � O L V V �► • Y � G � V bIII • �+ wYi C Y G M Y C YO • O L c aqc + G « • �n C > 6 O V OV T O � • T o u but c a La61 a 41 Q Dd �+ �i Z r n t < • �o Y « C • C L O M N Y L U T N v y O III! T ^ ^ « O ^ Ld ^ �► T N ^ • L C C • N O N 0 r O V p>[ w < L V P W « L O F- t T L39 b L L V Y C O d = ^ 4a z + d N �► V � � 7 L W w �► O v � L �► � • C V a f. C T V n = L O w • C O V C C V E V • Y O Y L O O Y • �n M N .e S C L b L LM u �v a Ln �O r� aD P t O E 2 c CC w o G v N G UII N h H h N n d Ij b N C O �E C III Cd Y - L « �+ N O N _N ~ C P C U Y Y .r O V ^ T 7 C ' V L n Y t C • C U C + 7 C ^ O EE + Y Y n L V O 2Y C V .e « b M g, G L r III N Y V C O L Y [ L D 7 M r A t g is G U N n L 41 L O E C FL n N4 Cpp b • p q �+ n V C « O C • N • O « L�1 L V C C V- • " L L D V • L Y L • C t ' G O � II O T O � _ « V + Y • L Y Y d V O � L• « « �1II ��gg ^ p _• L � y � •' C O v L O t « O � V O O 4 O O O O � � Y w L d ` b L C � N NC T � L e • b � u + id n 0 � b � }� Y a � _ N • C � • ? • � Y M 8 • L • t O O III Y « • N V L � ^• j N L • C O • U Y T Y d « V n �► O Y L L 8 � Y 77 r- L N n b O C • G V v U " Y b Y K+ r• U L " ^ L C N • ^ Y • V j L Y N • • • Y N • n • Y �• N T V V N �► C T • p O N M O C O V n • C • d 1 C L T w • S L C C C O Y pn N V C N S 3' p 7r • Y O E " L Y • N (IIII N L ^ L Ntl M n V ^ N Y w T L V V ^ p n • CCC _N • O Y < +' '^ C C • O g b ^ L L N w O � N CL Y$ � � � � W � x O Y N « > L o v + n n N C 4 LOS LLLL ` V M O V } M O E V N �► r M V Y I� Y Ep ' n Y V >. V 1► K « >� >y. C C L L O T V O O L O • • O C C V « C L L L W • np C v d « « T Y V _ • g L v O tWi ` b Y w • • N Y • « Q G� p� J Y _ III � " � � � � � � a • Z i L O b • W u • + L d P J • N Q. n Y mONu M ON II! 4 53 �II' u O ++ O V C: dd w A A N ✓ C 1 O ✓ -.- P C C 7 ^ C i L C A C N L n O n d C ' E d n p A A N U 6 A v r ✓ ✓ v v L d V d N Ld N d C C C O C d C G w P L d 61 6 L C V ✓ V A .- > d r N d O q C q L G ✓ n C A d O > p Q V C L ✓ N C w O L p> L L d app C O q WC N C L. L Q E r O C _U E ✓ n n L L L 7 L A q +7-� d ✓ A q d O d O O d d L Y V ✓ L d U � L d P L �F L ✓ L O +-� ✓ Y L � q N A q N N ' L A ✓ �► ✓ ✓ N N CO d d w T A ✓ W A O O L O N ✓ v d .- >< 7 L 7 +-� o N ✓ c o v d $' E e c w c° cg O O p r N ✓ N L r q ✓ d O .q Y N ✓ 7 C A O E > N d +, It",, L d A C L V A d d O L CD C N A L O d 7 d ✓ A A L 7 q L O O d d l� q C ✓ N C 2 p d '•--� C L L p A C N p V d L L N d C d M p O 7 V q d 9 O. q L ✓ ✓ A d L 6 d L N P C _ L L M N GO A N 7 d d L N w � N ✓ > ✓ d d N A i O A U L d N A C N O d d N V ✓ E L v O 'J ✓ C p I A E V- L L p q r N d O C ✓ N L S A r C C ✓ Ol O d n _ T w A �- ✓ A !. V 7 ✓ C L A 7 d d N L C n ♦ j D N d ` A C O d d ✓ ✓ ✓ O C n C A q N O O q n C L L d d d O A A L 7 .- L d U ✓ E r C = ✓ C p L N O L q 6 L r O r U CD V .1A L ✓ C C N p L 1-- q C V CD w - ' d ✓ N C L ✓ V O A L ✓ 7 L 6 •• p L U ✓ E Y pm d p r L •O E ✓gg A d L +dol ad 4)-� A V L > 7 ^ E N P A Z C d ✓ N OJ L p V N rt V- A N ly d ✓ O WLm 0 ad N U ✓ C w L Q ✓ Z C E N d d C L E P E A J•, L P n' V- O E d L L A A d L d d d O T N v 9 .41 i5 H ✓ ✓ o L P N +-� L C +� C +-' J H L W E w V +� L d d L V (i l O F Cu O L G W L O _d d q L r y d ✓ P A Q ✓ N U Z d - r O O ✓ p ; t O V E D • r ✓ C W U Q C C a a yr L C N N O ✓ C O J i-- A Z q O �A s- r d N N ^ P L � r d } V L +-' Q T J ✓ Q r N ✓ q H L r A E C O q +-+ q q L ✓ V n' 3 Q 7 7 W q A d ✓1 q r L i I' >� >, L 11 7 L L O L C d W ✓ K C r C L N T L Q +-L ✓ d 1 n N N E t7 d O N F- to q O Q N C A Z n L ✓ N A C d ✓ V Q N H N O D d d r d d C d m d 7 P O y d L L ✓ N E P J D W •- P d J V N d p O P •O L d C ` P O O L C GGG L O L C N A P Q U C P V A n � L d 7 A ✓ r d L H C d U E L Q d - C q �•• q O q q L L ✓ L Y N ✓ ✓ S j Q C r r d 2' C > r L V n L d ✓ X L d >i ✓ L7 O tJ C K C ✓ O •r D A 0 W +, N O p L r A q (z A �-' A L V L 2 T E L7 3 L Q J O J � 2 E Q E T N ✓ [> p N N C L N A N P Q m U O W W O• O r ^ .�►. h y m .moi O -•� H .+1 'I M �O n • h I� '� fV A ww ••� fV H H N iY N 1f•I fV IV T M'� In ✓ N G L C V L O ✓ q ✓ A w L ✓ ✓ Eidn r✓Jy a+ _p>A� qN ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n p L P T ✓ c CN OL V O C - IU, P N9 A 5- C C n C YLa� I� O L d D ✓ d w Y ✓ r ✓ r 1H r C W 4- n A A It O A V d O L p t d ✓ A p O E > O N w d ✓ d +-� �- EC EC d ✓ L L A ✓ r A T O ■�� C O u +T+ d L i s O C W ✓ d d d 2 d N ✓ p C j � A d L L d O r- C d ✓ L U O t U 7 C +-� d ✓ d d p d w ✓ ✓ q ✓ yy ✓ d ✓ C U O q > C D 2 ✓ O C T C L L r• y O L d G O A L C ✓ r ✓ w O N d 9 T L L O O N p L A A d C C N L O U q L L 1- ✓ O d n N C L L O d WC ✓ C r L •.N- V p� d L L n r A N r d O O O V L N O ✓ r p N O L r- q L d - p d N L U k r ✓ d A O L ✓ p N C d ♦ T d V L C A ✓ N n n j O C d L V O D w N U C d q 7 C T d r d d N L Z A L n ✓ r >� r q ✓ r V N O p N O O C 7 1J1 4• P p >� A W p n L AV L r r L C d r p O d C p w L q d L q d N N A O A L L ✓ r N d O r > O O L C N C O A ✓ V ✓ ✓ ✓ d C N d O p. S ✓ d >> ^ V U j d r L d r n ✓ q C -0 r C 6 L r r P O L V O >i +-� q L 7 N d W A N U d q O O d ✓ L L O rl ✓ q L N ✓ O -0 N 7 d A r n E u > L T P ++ d +•� A C u C O V Irr■. = T •- N W V ✓ q P O A C V L N T O A d p A ✓ C, 7 N L A d C q V >> d r Q 4- 7 V L L M rO qd OL C C d p n S W d OV •C _ LoLqd Ld O dC 1 q V L C r L N L O V d ✓ E q ✓ ✓ L p d L N r q L n -� r L) ++ •- w d > L 6 ✓ A d Z ✓ O L 7 L L A d > q A OI E L L d C C W d V O N r p V p ✓ j d ✓ L �� 'd w r L +++777 O ✓ q P n O •-•• q ✓ d A C L C ✓ iC: L O C d L AC {1 C E L L /- 3 CCE q L ✓ d d V ++ O w N C ✓ d C C T A v Q A T O p d N p L O N p q O q O � +� d .- q O d CD O r d d O U a.+ j N N O E 7 d d V q U O L O q C L ✓ v W ./f P L J C N 7 L d d O d q CC J 0 q r L O d d V- Q d 1 P +•� L L M d d 4) CXL 6 L ^ E , O +J O j P V Cr T O CL n C O L O ✓ d (,J p L ✓ q d qq N .il O N ✓ q p L ✓ P d ✓ U n q O ✓ L d L d ✓ L d d N C L r d C Q O. P C L W d N ! U L •r G L L 1 N 7 C L C C N ✓ L ✓ ✓ O p d a_ q N >� > r d " L d V (•'S p r ✓ d r P �► >> ✓ O L N L W d p .► ✓ ✓ A L Z C L ! v G N A d C r d d p� -9 w U O d A (7 P C w A L ✓ L d � q L 7 N L O q Y L _O Q q in ✓ C ✓ � C q •-•• O I '•- N O I ', ©[ 6 I; d d P p d N ✓ N d ✓ Vf r L m D Q N q t ✓ U C >i AO- W 7 L w d C d C A L d n 0 O V L d 7 A N < qq S N N q q d r d 7 V O L A C O W ✓ L > J] N r t7 C7 A L o v T w d c J Q N A V EE d /- N w ✓ m N n w v r • a O .•, y n om.. M li t. t it r R+ P+ n p+ x ;z Is It 46% 0% 4541 O � + 41 L 41 LL 06 « g + CL ' g « + g Y L + YCL A U C ! D L » P 16 L + C ■ 6 O g 53bg t 8 g + « S 0 g 3 y� gto 6J CL V OU IIII N " 4 « N C g + N « « ZJ so V I V �CC �A! SLI « �p s 11 U EQp+ �► r N �Gy! OC �1 « CL t ^ C C « {� L SO M r 3 O d7 NO L+ ^ O L. O + CLO C y Z ^ C +L YJ 7 '7 L a " V O N > •7 N yE O w N M S H JJ �! O •L! � � O �l � m m 0 S E G> > 7 p O L E + L U J '� N C n C F- + y O C C9 C ^ J + eC D m O. O N c N O + t + N L r1 ttt rf f 1f1 �O � m D « A Ay ✓ O d �I N r « A • w r • w r ^ i .� .. .� r r r « « f'1 r r N h w w dila--- C v y r L d d > N d L ^ C p O d N ^ L } l G o w c n a p T t ✓ v ° ., III ✓ d L ✓ d C A N O d A D L N E P O P A N d 4 C T A y d d A �•' O N O ^ L L �► �+ A d C O d T L ^ V > T y y C L ✓ ✓ P L I✓p aL.! N E O O y O V V d V N d D O N d d L T O L N L + ^ N C ^ T d A s D p L v N p d N A L C C O ^ 6 d •r N d p N C C �+ C A + C • E d �r aJ T O p Cg WI V D ^ N A A A T A C d p ^ �•' d D L d V L V .O-. O g T p + ^ e u O L d v D E N O L N •+ �+ v d C D C D � y � C yVy Q �` > C d pCp N ✓ C « O d ` ^ T L O C L P O O n O. C O O O O ICp L 1ti 'S A C C L V d N P C p d N! + N p ry 011 L ^ _ G ► V O d ^ A ' N C P N d O d A O {I Z J C N A •Q� EN L O d C• O d O V N C d d " C _ V L �► _O d C V P L C L e+ > a+ T {I p L +. A U n d L A L +• C L �+ p N ^ A N d !y vT N � � ^ �+ E N C L I ^ O II N L A C d d A C a.! S On V H D ` V - III C L L O d d D V L ^ s O A C C d C d + L V O N N C y y d L E d L X p 011 LL O Ld7 �LD+ «NVn pSOIILpp TA`V WZ AL _qM y`COU NdV S t• p«C YC + n VC t L. nV7 += \ + C dC C VOL — or qC O U ~ L > C d C od c LTLyP Du v L N ^ . W M Z O 6 C y ^ O e+ d c' o v � + o s D ~ n L W C F- + L u a SII C N M V d i V C N + C d C O C + `_ C C L .J.. C ' •t! U V yZ _ _ p p yl O O O j y O N O d L O O V tV A �! y N L 7 Y O ^ D y C + T. W 0 ��V!! N L + V yLj� •r `n Q8 U V \ �[ ^ U V �+ d O ^ V L v {! r i7C O Jt L nIIIwo C �► n V M P ! > + + M N > �r O C O C d N D « « L G N « « . _ O V + f udi � « u + + u t o 6 N + N G - �II� v ww p III 455 VIII r L EE ✓ L u d N d ••- L W L � N N A L v L ✓ d V- N d V r C N L j u C V A d N d A V CL) O ✓ L O C u P V j L C D O E O Ccr 7 d 1K n ✓ O r Y d O ^ ✓ .r d O d A v c " D �] O V L C D O •- u A q COd>L. LLNd +qd ✓O A VOO LN Nj -•rdn > ddC rO- ✓A L✓ dn> d O r O > np17 VOCT7 rwVL T L 17 L c 'o O O r- dRfV Vj E tUN C N O O tG� ' v V L ✓1 i d ✓ ✓ > b ✓ _d L gg A D O L q O A A ✓ O O (71A E L ✓ r- L Y •J q G C L N C A 1 N d , Q d n d U A C O A d n ^ C CU L 'o n U Y N L C D A L RI D O p A L C O y Q A RI C L ✓ V N G 1. ✓ G ][ ✓ 4- V A N C q O Ar- Li ✓ n A A d O C CC O n n0 C�)1. RI C d q d A O d Nu C N d N L ✓ — �o v+ E c N d q J. •r C N d r- q j A C X "o ✓ C. L N d •- O A O D ✓ +� 7 d O d y ✓ 4 L E C: V ' d T U u A ✓ N L yy r A d T) O d C E O Q VVi Cl. ^ W u .4 ✓ C A N N O V C A r- N L A N V RI d T d P L C q •.- L d O '-OC O V D L d D r- C g q ✓ d E a NyO u O d Q O w E 1 C N O N V C dG d r• D L L Q G C P d r q CD C - A C CL T A q •• n n L U O O A )F- n ✓ N L C d ✓ Q 3 w O i N L ✓ F A d N n T C C •- n q N M d d C L V C V L V) N q A N yy OOCE d L d d A W > O d •r O D d Q N V C T Q u q W L N d V M d A 7 •.• d J A q C > A V L N N u L n T L O q L G d V d O d V L L W Z q L O r_ ✓ O r ✓ n J E � Lc L d C V J O O ✓ O � ^-• •.- 1-- N � +- E Z T � N dl c A c o V o n A a d U L- Q A c V O • C d C D fr L L CL d O O L ¢ L u N C EE H C K O d N L L N w V- Z A O S LL b 4 L Z A w D a O C H •r L O O A Gl .OZ. O V � %. ✓ w P V Z d A V ^ D C O C {I m D wr d c m ¢ D n V) + d q N d CI- CD n d O d O Ld p J E t V W •� W H d O d A n w i d q cx J n d D P q3 F- A W d U V V ✓ d N Z V) �+ L rx L 4+ F+ •r yl t N O O >� E1 N C v D ¢ v 0 o q v d o c u -0 L d n I n q a N M .Q 1+ i fT O .Nn � '•� ~ b•. i' �+ O r N )N C4 r N r ^—_,� ••+ •+ N N N N N f4 M1 C O N C V T d D d w V C A C L w CU C V L d d > A C A L O ✓ A D A N 7 C C C O A 7 u d d N V L L C 1 N d G A r_ L L L C O D C u d A C C L ✓ A L C E 4 N 6 A L C d U C O d O d O O C C N L O ✓ C A L d C l O v V P u L O+ V A f.+ L ^ d — Cl C q N D O j C C V ✓ C N d N D ✓ N d A d N C C ✓ d A 10 O N N q C N v L N A O d rl L Q a p d U ✓ O L V 7 N L r A N q w L d N L d v C d C V > C q D A d d V •^ r- d V r- d ✓ d L w N 7 L L C d c r d r- C C > r- N ✓ A d L L d d C V -- d N C > L N �• A O A i C •r L C ✓ ✓ N C O V• ✓ V A O C A L L L A RI 030 •r j N L ✓ L O q q V ✓ n ✓ L L V j L > ✓ V C d N n d L C C 7 V d n A O A d A > C 4 d) 4) C ✓ •r d d V L d d d d L V r- > d L O L d A D A •.• A d ✓ N •- C C L n •r O, A ✓ d •r d D d d E d w V L L L 7 d d y ✓ C L ✓ d CGo w L ✓ ^ d> N ✓ )► ✓ yuN1 E N L C u s C N C ✓ C N A N N O >> O d L A C ✓ RI N q A O A L d d T V G. D CCC CI A fT t N A ✓ d N L .- ✓ D C 7 .- u d E D w L C N A C ✓ C t ✓ A RI r- 7 d 4 r OU' A d C d O d C N ✓ •• O+ N C CL P D r L C tl L v 9 rLAE17- {LJ LRyyI ✓V DV LD .- ✓ ✓ A D A L dV ✓ 7 L r^- NC O C d C d L > 10 V d O V ✓ V C- Y✓EJ VNj1 _DN d C 'o L d V O v .1 V d Ci � N } dp d O V O L NVV m _O M L A 1 ✓ D N A V O U d L ✓ D V _✓ CL )- d A 7 t 2 t C V A ✓ n 7 N V ✓ O� E +•') Y ✓ •� D V D ^ .- N C L Y ;p •- d r L d O [L )► G C )O N ✓ t V A N V N n D ✓ L V O L yy n A r L + ✓ V A 4 Y Q d N L C r• C d ✓ r- N V- C _• � � j O Q � A d L � >> O � � • V O p1 O L C '1 N L N ✓ O V V yN �� C N d C O ✓ C p L d O m ✓ d ✓ N O ✓ z V C Z w d N E L ✓ w V 6 r- A t C r- L O L N L C ^ C ✓ C N A A L ✓ RI V V O N ✓ V •••• T N L Z T A C O _ L C O C >� A L ✓ D 4 t O C U U u ! ) O v d L A d � O V A L d D C L A C N 1•- Y C C ♦ d V D L V ✓ O U L RI C d O 31 P 4 �• Q �+ W C O H x �- )► r- C L M 4 C Q O d r ✓RI d !y ✓ W K z L d L O L d O d C L V C ✓ O D _ J O L 7 •r 4 d L A 4 ✓ r P d V 4 O Z u d V) i ✓ V) > C O O Z H M QQQNO r• r- — 4q• N L�N1 1•-004- V ar C L L 4 7 r q V �+ O M O W n Q ✓ w ✓ D O W 456 pill CL a + M 44 M p O C C V V L✓ C + Y T + S O ✓ + > !V OL J< V L U 61 O M + + CL M'_N- ' r ♦ rr V L r Q N N + O ' � • G « Y S O 1 I O yC ML' Y aJ+ O + + ` C " • v V YE V + M O ■III _+ C M C i M 9 LN >� L. Q� ••• N M Np 1 + P ^ O V T C N C+ V M M LOv Y'Y L n C 7 v V �_ N C ~ L w V L L d r L V L S • O r ' M A N ■II L ^ O O L �+ O ✓ 4AK V ' C d ^ _V Y L II ✓ y C p� �► S C _ ✓ _ V t C .F i V C w + ✓ i + Q q N Y+ S N C yy vQ ✓ G �L P i 7 + Y1 J U G C S ` ^ C « L. Z t v S tY {i M G Y L O a �► 4 ! O + M _ O QLn M {UI -+ 4 N Oi • 9s Cps t tV M �p M ` ✓ q O W L • Yp' �` Q v Y Q n 4 L Y C C V L > Y N + _4 ✓ cs P O O O yO 9 C L = M L 0 ` 41 1111 V C O •� + C V ✓ FU q L Q p V L O M G L V q C L b- F- V 7 ✓ + C q H C Q O •- S ii r w O- ✓ v W C -C n Z + w ft K c V {� L ✓ L V V O O V • D L �1 V �► ✓ qq S E M r r H y� '► pN O_ V 3- O C QO >cc 0 r Z Z ^ r_ V 1'- {`I 0 ! 4pD 6 ^ + Z LOj Cp EyL n W �+ W M 1--illC v ✓q SCK D > v`tl O 2" 4ZA5 + - All-=— Jill-.—_— , v L L VV ill • • N C L v in V P C L �7 ✓C D N 4 C V V t C N q � 7 O N ♦ O O V LL 7 + V �O V ' q O C N ✓ L Y w V v v V L V r N L q ✓ v L V C O N n V C +S N q ' V O C O ✓ C c l _ ` $ Y C g N Ill g •• n > c �+ + C yM1 + V + + y P u O C q V + • o N o N L L L C O� _ C ✓ P M + � L g N e v + v' V y r C r N C ✓ L C V N ✓ V C _ on + ✓ L D + V T O d 4 y N O. v V41 a . + as 41 � � : r EnE CC R C ✓ N + O L S S ' s r ✓ •` C E L O O D V 7 C N C 1K '� u U V A ^ 6 • + M C + C' N p� IIIQ + 311 S G L C ^O C r M + 7 M N Mp Q ! C V S N O. D G L V n r y v S y s L C C Q q pp C LLL `` N r V L C .. ✓ N .V. w r L V ✓ S N 1 illi g c O. ^ g ' %- + + _ u'^ ✓ N ^ ^ T q ✓ cJ ` O � � 7 O S ',go C 4. J O Y + C n JJ ` �► L r- + C +- N M Z V • ✓ • O. N r V 7 + O S O e G + C s � a K 2 � � ill �_ � � v � � w2 � � � � � � g � aw0 ✓C� N 7 " s 'm W O� u c r ~_ w m S O > m I EJ N 7 L > K O ! v N r r W M Y V C V Q 9L O ✓ O r+C C i cc+ N N1 f Gf1 6 + N wf f N �D m Li c Jill- 457 _ r --A q ! N L Y A W O N T W ♦- C n W N C W W IF• O L IF• O w N ',. T n ]� d W W L P 9 �► O A P � L U � D O N aC, w L �► � 4 A t L L t- O 7 C 1� O L L C r• Q O V L V O. v CU ^ Q_ 9 >> �l � , ycx q O r C L N O O. O �► O L � _A yJ E O q • S E L q r O N w fi G P N P N t o �+ N L A w C Y C A yPy v R 9 > L V G L O P CC q 7 > M N C U {O� L w Z N L q 2 ■ N ■ L U >> U 7[ C y 7 C U , A J r {! N A M r P N N W W P W D A N O L W W N Y C 1 p L C _q t d O C O U y n 61 W Y N q O Cq O 7 N V- �>u!> J u v, w {I r >� 10 u t X L N 1 O LpL w d D O L D10 C {I r N n C N N C W v u C + 3 N % q 7 D u yy w u 4! N {NI L Y A 10 N s CL W C u W J W JO L N L _q _N w L L C J A j N N C O U L q A L Q N WO 3 d L q W c N W L r O W N > W LM O L to L O W u W P N L d u P v W N N O u C > N L A r j O yy E N S q O W W �• C 1 , U P N V W E N L L C N Z N > L N N O W u O r C W p CL C N r C 9 > V v u u n W O W ^ q D L q O W q W + J N L N u N C N V L L a7 n. q N i w A q N L > > V O W 7 •^ W O O C X W u L N % V PPP f� C U N 61 O V � •^ C n C v N n V n W O O W Z O E O S v N E O O E q W W q q d AI o ry W% w N 'p P• • O. O ..1 ~.. r te. w~.1 .�.. .n. .W`i ry " ry •n •W M F! f•i ry �1 ry ad > O N � u u w c O1 O 7 q C O v L W v d A w a-1 O 10 C 7 O L N C O O L N = C O O 7 • N N C A a y, L C n C� •o > O L O D W i N q O W u W O V vLN N W u q n 7 W C v C u C W N Q� L d 3 C D O A N C u q L O O C ms_ W L W u O W A u n o - n N W 9 q C N A T! L w r r L C If1 C cCU W •- a0-1 d N q v W P L m ' ao0.+ q v L N O a w 1 mT v O j O • V N 4+ N P W N P r L A O C N r _T N +- .o •^ W W s A q u u O W A W W 1 T q q L d > O n V j E j N N l A N D O C W w•1 > u u C A EE C O q .- 7 L V r N N v C � V � � d C O C N N W 7 u W q �• V d v •. C ~ q q L L u 7 P O L E 01 W d d N •^ W W n V u T q W W W T D O u N A u C A U u n O W uaWw• q t d C A L q N C W j Q d G n ✓! v T O T n E N P W L q u r O C _ V _ C C A C V- Y L C L O A u O A C A A A w n A E A L U ." W q P N j C L) N N • W A O T 9 r C W _O r N v d O w•' u y> O L D d C1 r D E C N L �pp N C Y 7 u O A q V ✓1 A 2 O. y L N N N W ^ O W O W W L N u v r r W C {{11 C C L A C OL q N IV v W i o g P a r L .+ o c r d 4 o N E P d W W N v • W d U ~ W d w O A D V N T v !i , W C w •- 0 e Q .. n w� � r .p r • w r .: ~+ ..�•1 .'. .~. .moi � Aw.1 IV N1 W M �i N � �i � N � M •ryn � i 458 , oil ✓ v c _ _ q r {�11 � q T G 4 NN C L V N V T ~ C8 �1 YL' Y °i c � T pp� IH w o v � c ✓ ✓ L O .J L'ln Y M _C n 9 � q � ✓ M L C N w ± q AL1 ! p> q G{JI dy N O ✓ {LQ1 �1 �pq1 M L L q C CC Y V O y p O L n r_+ Yn Y 9 1 {{11 N N > ✓ p1 {� O O q n L S V C QC Y O _O O ✓ CT V v �Lp1 > r _Mp a N C O 7 C n q �� T q N �+ ✓ q C C ^ p ✓ q O M L M N + 1� M L • {{�1 L ✓ V v ✓ n q V � ✓ 7 ✓ u q T a P 72 p _p T 111 1C� O _✓ a v N Y L C S Y L V L s fs ✓ 7 O V O T C IFS C O q L N C (_�,�1 ✓C w > L Y L L L Y V C N O q n E Y C U O 7 O M O n a ✓ n Y C N n O P P C ✓ r V N V q L q C �� a Y T L C ✓ L C Y 7 n X q N d D V q L ✓ u is v d ,� ✓ n e _� ✓ 1 C L L i q � of o � 'r r ✓ n � o N v q Y 7 L �1 N q IF r t v r N � � N P O 7 N {I Y G r E � ^ N � 0 r N ✓ y � 1► N w L 1 EQQ ✓ D v ✓ ca � Y r Ir {� Ir d u 10 T {rJ < r_yy N 1► O p q C N 1L� N ' t q q L C It >� a D N A q O IH L N G 6 q O N N N U O V C N _ ✓ J _ C L q O C Y O q L O P O D L P r r O %-p O �+ O C P q d z C O L q n U C q C L O C 7 ✓ �+ L ✓ N ✓ V D L 7 d m O �+ � L r � ✓ C O ✓ q 7 O Z _ rv jO� D�L>L,',. dT r_a> CtOq _.Yd, tA✓E qCqYqq •v-d>LsT Z� Cd Wdu vrL' ✓�L1 1Lq► _O>YN oc7 v�Yp ronL a7CL Odu6L. 1t SupCL OdNV on •'qN L� CNA c�+ Dd C�dp Irri p L C L O C L r 6 d S t q 6 L)q r S O 6 m N L O N U Lf' F- < O Z q N > L J n O O Q O ✓ U G d O C d O t D U D d IH P � C q D V D Y ♦ P t C D Od D � III h n � r � w • a O .n M In ✓ ♦ L M C{ ✓ •�i� 41 c ✓ Y> r qT T O q q Ir L U s r a0+ dl Y ✓£C Y L Ep V L ♦ 7 X q1 1 > •N ♦ r n it �E1 pY� d 1✓� 1� O 7 M O C V S L r 0 V O p L N r . 10 L ' E r ~ A y✓ CO Y ✓ o L E M .' ' r bp. S C ✓ N � M � P � � q C O Yp � O vy i� Y {I _M Y ^ Y C v M E T C 2 ✓ L q 1�' .O a= C > N ✓ O P C SSS Ni {L1 {DJ a + L CC V S L L z In C C T N ✓ L P /�� C N a ✓ l N {I Y Yp1 _T p ✓ O q N 6 S L 7 ` ✓ >+ M o N �'' $ " r ✓ a V O q L q .02q r O a N _ ✓ y L S {L� u E p 1 On G >> 7 N V L q 10 L O L a N Y q p C M 1 Y C C G C P d L O LL M ✓4 ✓ C `+ O L 1 QY d O �On L C 4 �1 _O N V n C ✓ C � C O L u a v a < q '✓ G Y V N � � aZ ✓ � I �1 N C t 777 C q N � v�1 W v ME q N V r C G L C 7 Y > r rR. 1 N L o r r C lot V ✓ C I. 41 C M q 11 •GOu+ 0 3 g e L C N O '• ` r i �+ N N q r M = V L C q N = r _7 tl v u U61 - T q L q T O y ✓ ; L LD �p yyt M � q N O L i � L IS S Y � M S L ✓ Y N `Y C Y _V �1 L p r vl M E ✓ ✓ C � N q S W CO N C �y11 N = �Yr1 N M Y � M i N M N C M ♦ � N Q M O O � O Y v 7 G VIO G N LF L O CCLV q O s 00 O iDL 7 •r VVf V N = N of u� vl g g v+ v o < IIr �� 459 L N L V C C A D C C V V V yy ^ v L r q l r > C A q A O q LI •- W V d C d 7 r o ++ E > q A Q V q a q N c of L r d L V E O d O O L q q O V V A L C y V V d C nq G A T L V L iA C 1.1 O r S V d L �•+ LL r q �+ C ' ^ q d V N N O A N N L GG i•1 D 41 C 1► q L C D O V N V q q N w D pp C V L O �- N L r v C O q u r M• C q C L n 7 O q G O N n i N V and.l tvV dO r _ O LC 2 d V- Sq OYi rV LA dN6 AL qtp! VO Co L NT >En P + V U n O Y D �_ + i q N C L O 7 v V L d v d A q L C q V U in N L P L D N C q w L O V q q > d n O -O LL L q C V (I A L O L d O t L V q q > V D N d V O P d y1 d A V v n U N j V r L L O N V S U L7 C d d O d w•pp�1 C O q O C V CIO w O q Q d A U D n U O O N S d nn q v N V y V 1 v V q n N C N C N N N r A A L C C V T L N E D L n L .- U q V L q L V U C n N A 7 q '- P r V N J Dd r V V V 10 r q d L V L c O L r r N N C V 1 pp V O u C N > n n C •- V O D O V P U w 7 L N O q C L q V V O q_ T C 7 ? d 1►• v Y- •..' _C P O u 4q D ^ j Z n E d L O . C N d V N C N v L C N 1► + J L C Z I► _U v +- U A N d' V C w D V r• r V N r L E u W N O P N V W P U N U• V n n A N N d 7 7 H j N N •• C V O d d C r V n n O V O O V N O E d W O U A f ✓ V q N V1 j d N 4 r q r d A V '••' V N N V C P C A O > N C J N V n Q N n IV O 1- + L C V A •• N W S r N 7 q d d L 1•• C j q u E L 2 + w d q O + d + ! d C U > N L v V J C7 U C V d V q V > L C r L v v d A z H v wIr • z c u 7 CO V1 r j U r N CD is N M `O n O a O .•a .~.• r r M r .^.• .�.• R ••.� N try f M R N II'1 r --� r M H N H h nn M D' C � L d •� d d v L > V C d N I V + + C d A C L Y C L u C N > C C d O O + A T L a EE > C L D L - V V L v n �' �•' A O > CC L V � L v •- N ^ L C v v i � v N E + L V + U T +� d •- q Q u 1 C L N N a moo a- d N j w C L O L O IDad V r O o V A L d L O C A E d > u L d n q n + L u d u y N A a L C L O U A a > O N j C V N C L n V i Q C O V v L + V j C C A E N Z n ? d 7 L +! C O v d C V O O V N V O V N T Y U n q A •O 6! V L r + r L d V d •^ 61 A q V N O d N V v + V V C V V .0 L 'o L N 7 L A 7 V V 7 U N A v d n d > A a N 1•+ o r n u v c o c A d d a u V P N r d d r• L a L + V r �' ^ r V N L r t-• P N T 7 V v V C n O C q V L + d V V l O A v N C A L d + + A V C L A L A •�• •� u u L N W ^ n n C L V V u V W q •�- V l O v L N r- O A C O N d P N E v 7 V C ^ W N v w C N v L ^- L + N n O C L ' d ✓1 A d c �o ¢¢I� V .- d N P O A v O L v A d v cE C A W t 'TV' C J n y T c D u n c QI > T C N ••- N !p V 7 d v C EE O w O > d d L d O A C n d V +• N U + C v N � 8 � .T, L d d L N D C N q N V n O C d V V P O N A d d O > L n r 7 O j N U T V N P N O T +- L r• n r T w D •+ V �O N n V •- C Q C E V C a N •- d C •� N p� q A O N V r C C 2 P L V V A T u V- A D WO V A O .� d V A L L V V q N A P V d w C L 4+ A L N n V V L C A V QdAP QV7 V -w C y VdA d C V C L VA VO W 20 QV LVV •- ly A L L O ~ T V q q V L �O•+ v Z C Q .O 21 L q V V V w C N N ^ O V r Z .� pp V N d O O N n 4 C A q N L v J d U d L O N V 1 O q r L O q V N 3 A O d V v V n N L V ^' A L O N f- L IY v A C N Q E u V V C O U V v C •-` O q n Z n 4 q •^ W Sl •- +- V L O O ' tZ P u n Q C U L ^ n v E Q N A 2 Z H V O Q O d W L P 7 N j V O O V C _U v O E d v {,� Z MW V i+ W O C LL q q D d n C N Z v C Z W N •^ N ! OW u L > H N C L r d + O ••^ V > W Z d L O V C W ✓ N J V L d Z + V W d d 1- r V d v P V i W L �-• A d' l V O V V Z O V Q H C 4 V N O q O O L U U H A G T W C r h 1460 oil 11111111 rl ----- a g � N rI ^_ ` � N V • i N C 1► T c « ♦ t D « N � _O � L • Z N C � � N L a U « L d r T C _U C � T • • P n N • C O ♦ 9 V rl . g o � • . tp � aCC � � L � Y ° • � TV {Lj C d Z C ° 1� C ^ • Z C w 'A « N V C N O N L i+ L' v 4 My L • L C �F •GI O U v r y ` CL CA. • c o d ♦ ♦ e T • Y M • M O O d r O L n C_ a L O O EEELLLy L U C N 1 « V U III r O Y L y q { q Y {I ^ « Z « N O C �+ L L q N 7 • q C C > V ad N c L V « 7 L n _d M « r ♦ 1t C d L O d C N a • M DO {{11 �u1 C C p� O n L L ^ < In O N S N q O T a N N L L ^ • T C « N l' S _ N C d N 4- d L N n v < « U N « « v N V O • d ' O O ^ q y 4 44 V 4 q U w > P C C N �► d • N O d V ♦ > L EEE W OX 171 z: OJ WOyV dE UQ d ♦« ^ «( cCV v•C ^N •NC Wd _Oq' CL• dn C L N> 4-L«• <OdY« t O d C LN yNyE aV=. vCq ^a^C T•q.+ d a0 Eq 0• NK W q 7 ~ r d O d q ^ r rut j C 4Gt� O j T q III' O < a W ♦ ^ I Q E u d d N _ d ~ L « V s ° q W IW. tyL «EC OOp L n J r N L C V W L Z D t L Y f[ r O O •' w C C: s N •- ^ d P « N N d O 4 V N O n ^ N n « W • u N S O E e� m P ^ I « tw • r �o n • w o � ^. �' �i r i"i n r r Fi �.t IN r v g d v M L q q r t V • d C L L « t V O O 11{ T N d O SIC V C q P c d a « d d n ♦ � " � w N i v u ^ d 7 O N q d d P N t d N v N a C E C • « L C E O N ~ Z ! d q N L C O M ♦ L O n P �+ N • C duw TIA j■■II' L L N w C -TO W V C ° Cpp O ps C fpa « L q d EE C 7 n V d d t P E C ♦ �t E v a ♦ « > O q q q q ^ ^ u ! V a V O x q N ill a 4 ctj N D V r C Ep « U d N d d q C q V L d • L • q ♦ C ♦ L M 77 ^ O « « Q q L N « L +'' V • O q C p O Lp O Y " C C Z ♦_ CL q «g N {v� O v « C• M = V L 1M4t L P L ^ N V O a N d S L IV 4 C P O N « n C !4w P C e Z N t III n a < « d N O ad+ V d w ° _g a[ a � 8 O t C u v v c c n :+ N s g ^_ d N N y V ♦ • O vr 9 E v v .pdp+ v € j y .- tqn c d A tue ^ T L L G a « q q nV LA �t V « r• L d O ♦ t N • C p pN D Q M L V • Y ` • O u {i « 7 co N N O. O • d L • C C ` N O M L L O. 8 t q d N III • V ^ ^ L M V n ^ ♦ q N E V i t g �i � • c r41 • S O Q i M c N N U C •V.t N > L V • t0 w" C V N qT j C • L C 1l ^ ^ 8 C z y C EO V _CCC • N M (� M • ^ W d O �t « 'r q V _ O S a) M 1� C`` N _Y N ^ a Z NCC Q O • > ♦t r v Qi v W ^ « C S >+ L O V « S C V � M- O ' v t• � J l y • « s ! � « d N � N L N L V ♦ M N N O = Y c G t� ��11 p O O � ♦ �0 � � • p W ' > O � W _ Z M V � d q �' �y[� V O � • ps >� _ Zw ♦ O Q Y d V ♦ P t7 O. 'III 461 WIN CO C N O Itlid A C 7 N N D A N C T Ni TO O q L T A C q d 7 V p y d N N Y P L V V N q O ED D N C N d V O N J C L N Y C N C L V C V T V T q d p r n V O r d O N P yu _ CO C d + d q D G O d q T Y U C P r' d yyp _7 q V V q N C C d U O N N q q +• L _d C N C O d C d O U C ^" A r q C A U r r Vy r q Y q q ^ P t T q J p U q ^ v d N L {4� a T d t O+ D C V 7 N C L p ^ C Y q L Y > N d - O d P s O O a C Y C A c v pJ d L u O > d FO N 7 ^ d c Cl. T A L v V N q u {q� N VI T v N v r N O A q q D ^ P d V r• EpE ~ d L d oo q d 1.1 P u s V a+ h edl N Y D V d N A qVN yppp 4L �w►O vkP NU u2 A d r %- IW Uf3eT _AT uDd CVOL! Ld q pD q I- CL C- OOL — Q UN dDN O C L O N O d p V a C C L q V U O q A ^ Y C C Jq yV ON O _ O O O 0 C7 A r L c 'V 41 d w L L w d Y d A q C a D r D p q L N q O ' q Y L N d q D d Y s � N N 7 S- C, EOC •YrN D�T YP CA YAL COd YyEL Y _O LYN NCAV OCO OOL SY NCO aN' w�LJ w dl -C LCE rNq1a L p d V q c C, LrwtN ^Yj qO7 TYapO•+ ^CdV YO C > > N LOO a A j Na f'll N V ^ l O L Y A O C Y O F- v L N a +� i A N U d C q N N A d d C W L H Y V L W N V O ^ T w ^ a C L n C p a d C Z C d A C 7 A r p N J W O ^ E V i! L L d D O q CL N •r O d Y T t C O E N A O H P A •r d t tp O >> O V V A D V v v D C Q V Y d Y C W A Y N `•- a v w w u v N o_ q o v a z o 1O d a0i u P c > _ _ -- A c C a F- Y A a V N a x T C q O N O d w d N O W Y. L d E U v a u U v V Wu Y V d N ^ ' J + O 2 U L Y J H W Y v Y ^ < EE p N J VI H w J A q a a V L Z > L L L A L A N U W O O p q O C Z Q L L d x Y r O 7 Y a C t 3: n q D V O .+ r d P V N N d O W V N O p � N a c a z a ¢ o c 7 N fn O 4n u ..0 fV M1 M f` O A O •r r .�.1 .'i ~ � n••1 m .moi N fV N H N H h N N h M1 M M M d C V O N q Y A C C d L d a a d Y v d C C V a N L A v O N V a+ 1 U ••- P > > q d N Y a A A N C V C O •^ N t C D V A V O L w N V L A L C C O N L N v p L U O L > d C 7 C n 1 d d C A T d 1 d r C C O ^ V Y v 2 d N Vu n T ^ T V > O V V Y n + P A O A d W L V L A V v — S O A C C N C P A A d L O C C L a O O Y a T a a O 7 O d V T T A Y a O O v C w 7 w a C L N D N r D L N p D L P S- L L Y C Z D A a V t J Y L Y A V U O ^ O a O C in L O O V A O O w p a Y d Y •r I V O N 0c > ^ d N w v v N O C A d N C d d C T 7 O V d W L N A A Y r v v 7 2 w p77 L D A _ E N O O P L L V a P a A P X V W L O O A N V O E 'ti Y N O V 7 L Y U C N V Y d C C a C d •� J N V ^ A a Y q d N q C N 7 v d E ^ w p -r O T r W a Y d L pp G P N Y L q C d C L L d d D E r- v D d ' N O L O C L N d d O V O d O Q a L v O C t ^ r 1► a N Y a L O > O Z L - p 4. V d V a T V q L ^ LX C O E V N L Y C Y V Y p A d a O O V A �••� ^ O O A C A C N A C d C O L t C •^ ^ C d Vo +'• L N ^ Y V U C A n O d L L J Y N ^ N A x C D C T Y a O q C O O L d p d E O 7 7 C ^ • WO Yd ACP Yd YaL NN1 YVL Vq Vl CW' NN L N t Td ^ A >dc O L.J p v d L W O D dL Cn D V O a N T w K A L p W N J ^ 7 w V C .- W v p d A N V7 T ^ A D +- Y Y T d v ^ U C p V d O C O W d Y ^ C ^ O Vu A N A r V {V� P L aZ ^ A o a Z V O L O O A d ^ N V L N n v D L Q c V L q V q Y •r O N V T L V ^ H V T �-' LP 7 -Nr C d ^ 7 r C t W W O d Z V N A O C N .••• A U q C T N 10 Y 1 �- v Y a L � a A W P C L E 1► O v N C C V t Y O Z C C d D ^ a q V d Z 7 Y Y p A V D V E O 2 Y- O C P d V 1 Q S A O C w i L L v N s 1 Q E A ^ A ^ L O: C V pp C r• O d• O V 7 h- C ^ T Z M L ^ V w T p y 4 L E ^ D C ^ 11•f L V V ^ N q A T L V A or C L C d d T A V O N O d L O Ca ' O L qq L O Q ^ Y W V L W ^ .- Y W M r• Y v O q Y O E Z q p ^ N C O C V v E O O Q Y d d qq T O U q q d _Y En yNy f0 ^ >+ O E Y V D d L D > V L ql i t V1 N D r 4 L 1A D V C V Z C D ^ L N Y y p q N L EE V S 7 N P O C T O A T O V A d ^ Z Y a N d W ^ L 7 v v } n 7 ^ N V Y N d C ^ q V S L uu N L C' r d r- 1- C V d A S S ^ > A L N G a V ^ y Y y ^ U A J C L O +- O t..) w V Y r '•� d J W O d w d q N k• Z V P Y L V q Y ' C w V L ^ L d v n x w d c ^ q O p C L Y T q d 3 E ^ V1 O 'r r Y L c n h- O v A O. q I aC V �- d t D T ^ x w ^ ^ Z P A A •r Y q q ..+ L t C C V V V D a 1► O C q •-+ Y C d p w T ^ 3 V Y V N Y. O W q q 1► V O O L c ^ L d D O ^ QQV N L q r v Vyy L E N 2 E Y L V L V D C7 C W C N d Y a d Y Sj Q O A V ^ V ^ 2 V O Y O ^ V ex u q r• L O C Y L r• +- 7 E a O V Y O L p OW d q 7 d L v 7 a H L Y d U A V L Y Q E > V N L Y V d N Y > C Y O > d d L w d J 7 C a d C d W q O d p r O W w C ^ M N L O t L T q ¢ q vl N N 7 L D U L Q q L C fl' O v C Cl. O A N q q Y O N M1 t{ ^ r r fV h M r n • A i ,..1 r .�.� n'.1 r i C fV N f`I H N 1'V N d1 A eve w•1 L 462 r r + Cc Y V U ° 41 M r ` w C + O O O Lr O M w w M L ri _M N w � + _ « O U _ O C ♦ w + L CL G 19 O + Y N «` 4 i N o N c 4 V NC g ou « « + « '� c N e• ° w r v w _w a « r O O L O w ¢ r N V r V T N W wu v V d n q n « 2 Y g 2 C P L = U M t • V A t M � V v GOz ISI N L Y C 4 F- ■■■■■�Ipp ¢ O O C L V M. C N C C y p L O y a •J U O a L v V N N N N O N G V w r V O C �q1 N1�� T O• K « s V a C N O N w S O L O V O (7 V r C a3 a F } . V N A q +•� C r V W w >� r V r W ` r y r Z N C N V L U V L Y _ - ^ " r A A ! V O a N + + w W n V V ¢ P O w Y L T r L r n a g+ c n u v n o C N V S W N o n o F- w C r A C A C Y L Y L N C Y N r A r N O A A A A A N N O �+ O �► Y A A Y C W N + N C C A • N l N A 6 L y O r > Y L .+ A A O •r •r T C C A O {� V y v S O N Y y C _Y all N U r O O9 Y _O �► O r C n cc V1 C O L O a N O N L V Y T V U V coo v + O O w Y v r 7 V Y V D A O w n Y y d N V Io n A r T L 7 V Y C L C > 2 , 10 N L A Y T {� Y L Y n a T r Y N y P X T W L O T + N e A P A ! O r- J P V r V w Y C Y W N Y V A l C V ¢ r L D ' �+ T P >+ r {� C 2Q C N y A E {r L V L ♦ p � �r V �' O a � t O Y C c t w O EO .•' N L lel n N O C D r _ _O L P > L Vf r y U O O 6 C O A E pA + L O V N -5 a Y V V L O N Cp Y y C7 + r O T A W y N V v V + �► Y + W O 4 r r VJ N q y q Y YYy Y N L N � V W M AL ~ N {I O N ¢ O C Y y _Y n M Y N Y V U O Y M >> �► [Y L n C Y O C?? Ep Y L W c C CO �► O P Y + N v 7 O O P • w F O 7•. O �+ + O Y L O CO C y r 4 a r r r w Y N L pp T U V L Z C V T L v r H V r N V O w O C tO•f C r A C L +o••i 4 + W p� C r �► Z C at !� n S L uC E a C ^ E+ V ^_ {� A a .+ P .+ _ ++ p L Y r I C r vC N N a N L N O W Y i n 1f r r V J r is r O L = T N C L + !1 C M v A O Inl n o > i « u < n c a > u r �' +s ' v O Y + O V � O Z �► r' «+ � L N r � V �1 O. + N ¢ Y _ V � M N l C v O L y M q Y r w V Y l`� .-. •+ C Y W ^ !� u ^ Y V Y + S r ! O _V v w C CC Q U �► V c C Y W Y YQ O N r {C� L{r y �N9 0 O n ¢ �► E r .L. r v+ L c n �_ O G C N O GF _ i C N ^ O J A C L r t �+ LGG c Li 4 �r �,p O + Y « L r a Y w ! « Y w O ~ C7 O w eN V M U ¢ V C o Q E r � v i g a g 0 41.1 I O L. o = 4 a o III � . 0 463 rII�� i 1 r A P q 4ti N 1 L C C P I .V ^ r O T O L V N W O •r p� W p 41 O C W ••- C W ^ L �•+ ^ A $ OUr r C C •�Y qq yyII 4+ {1 L q \7 a C O C C q N V q IC J; J) C N N D O C c 1 n fi! L C C N N p c N �+ L N O q is E > W C L V. 4N L q L. •~•• N W .00 C O N T u U t O N Y- L q 7 y1 yIp yOl W �1 NC pC C9 U 9 O O �1 ] oo -D C L u a+ L L W N IT 4+ •l E C O C ,''..F O O C 7 L {+ OE V C N u fn r N N D C C N L P q (~ "7 V HCl N u q QE q q u T is JO 1 .01 L a C O O a.+ L EE p� - N L C C C q 4- N L C n L q > Q N N O L u _ •- {ul Er� wow E C E T V Y O q O q O O N i0 4 A L n L i_ C ' 4 n o C C pp O N N L w F+ . O A L •fl+ C J^ V O q G IGD A N ~ N L~ T u d L E O U yyL A u N C Y O a+ > �+ '0 u n N r u 7 u O >> _ N 1 w WC, € O V O a C N A P C L V L.> � u L. N lf) n n ; T •� L _N O '•• r '- L O !7 �+ O C N IA d f1 d' i.+ q A 7 n n L d O N A t Q N A 1 q V 'o j N 41 L O T N 17. P N P P a a N O JC W U L D j C i- 7 fY C L A c C ] u n W ^ L N C q I► O CC fU d E N O O A U to L A j A n q O d 1 N OO O J A T L C J P L A V A N W �7 V 0 O O O Cr 9 __ O .QL N C O Cr W W C C L u T W � .. ^ O 4' � � O O O W C C t Y A 7 q V 7 W N C b+ L } q i CC q A q O A 1] O A w aC36 u N ] y- ~ N L O z N to L W T n 2 N O i +C- 20 j O y yDj Cl w r aH C C - a L EO t•- qC N O 7 © N C 7 C C T 'C d O O a E C]'] C W N > H W A N L •r W d T N n O n a L d U O W CC Y H A N L W J O C W W EE W W 7 O CC > C L C W C V H O O W L A W d A u U u W O CC > N CV N O N L - 7 7 'D L C N O ^ O Q N u L L >• L L LJ L L L O N L �+ y7 •r r H Q L N M N E A O O a L N N fD N w CC �-' +� w N w •r �' Q E n N y eC to r � r W ..Y NIFM np n ftp a O r .~i i .�•• .~.I .�.• .^•+ e ^ N N N fY W N CV �`• N ,i1 At M~1 H N P C W y C O ' a+ L N N o u u E ^ .W+ On - r W j P L W L a A r U A E V O O d C 2 +J O W L t N �+ O O A O L W W 7 L W L r O L �- Y• le L A fY L O r N _ O N A P j O 3 a W O O OO T E L + r ') L O L C u •^ C G N � O q A 7 n N U T T A 61 1 > N N E > > cur_ c+ v+ 3 > o o c 4) _� c aloL c c c c CL :0 4pW N L E L O L O A u 7 L V A a7 A W L T V V O 7 d W L. q Q U W ✓ Q G a, C d N A AP y C u .5.. C C a P •L A u C r r w .- 7 O O c V d W N O D C C .0 L r A N f7 V r w 1J c T •N r O 'O W W Y q q N q A W n l C A C E? P C L al A A T d L C > �-' I L L O C H q U E L u A W L W ^ N > t7 •^ �+ O W L N O w C 4 W N P 41 C r 7P L V L V N W A C �+ L �•' q j T E U w O E U W U O W d V L W O y W N n W g L W U W CV C PpT, C C ^ C A O N V j C O N N E C O L Yf L L u ^ O r •^ Ar C u A r A W W w L O n P N O q L L W L N C C W N N ++ O O L Y O ++ C O D D L q L •••' C A T W W Y1 L q I V A O r L ^ W r V C W L O 7 D j C C L A A N 7t 7 N q O q u r O a u o —" � Qyct � s a+ N O ! +o N d u V L E 1 O ICO C 4 L) Q V w t cc WIV q _ _ JJ L I O n A N W u !n ~C N r V C W ^ a r✓ da u .+ L q N O > A 7 L A q n N O 4 V DE A L U E r 3 P L ~ ^I N c N O J P A T A L W C q n w W P d C _P 41 tY q L N) q q �+ N CC V p� > Ol O W C O O 1 W 4n L T n O 4+ T L" A O q L W +J N v �• a « A o c 2 �i o u v o L � r i r o a o t r t Si t T n o �qq w. :+ CL N > L q d L CC E N n r L V A V m u u U CI L CL u w q O �••� L a, Y D t'1 t N A D L C N C v Y O C d A N O L OAOS+ r- �-+ On+ ICO .,J •^ q q C u V W S C O f^ A C vl W D C ILO pG� c v Ln r dL Crr °i W N W O yWj ^ C N Z w+ W u7 u N q W A S U O CO V a q fL u t� A W u O O ficx OL Y C n V O � h fiY f ttn � A � f1Y .�.. � ^~•I r w .~i V � � � O PV H � f� (Y fV ry ry N � � � /a1 I, 464 oil 'I o w { +n D d ^ E + N �► � O N O � ^ Y L r j � L N pN C �► w L Y S M �+ O w r L w V >> Y O O 4 Y19 ICU v4 ' O pL �► >• r _ Y '� 11 r � i �► Qa N ► 7 E C e Y L + N •• r P Q « r ♦+ w p F- V {i t o o a q ~ •°n N y ♦ L E n V E r N y1 y Yw N L w w 4 C V O q d a+ O u Y L C ` L Y 7 W O C L ♦ N 9 r V uq L D + 4Y+ > C Y uw uN =w N q � .O- Y O q � C 4 � p � •► v � r N .r � u N V o " ' '� N q + O u N Cy N C �► r D « O Y d N � O Y � 7 O ^ Y O �+ D Y E U O q Y L N ► p �+ L M L �► ++ L 0EE8 O V+ 7 Y N V N O Z O i u C u C V C 4 7 V D C n C U O L w O N q O 7 7 + Y ` N ' N d= +• E. 9 G O Nq u u Y n q a O Y l C Y N u O C N Op o E 7V 7 LO q T v0 q C o 2 Y w A c • l + j u n N u w 4. 7 Y u + i + ^- O O C P O Y O M O q L 2 •� ♦+ L + L u •r � d Y Y L A N n N 7 N O 7 O �+ 9 tl Z ^' � n q •� r N Y A Y Y O L O Y L >. N Y O O n N r L U �► L t A L N O A O L O L O CC L V n q O N O O Y C u A Y W N L C + Y V + q A Y A L ' L+ p n D O u {' E N L C• d O q O V o y~y Gni L Aj LY OL E 7 0 u V L D u Q Q u L �► L C A 'I r N n IF r V n • �• .•n r N •� r r h h M h N fV �i1 M L ILI q ^ r D Y ^ N L a C w �' >> �+ Y u w A C y L L q L O u U O N O N O q L A u Y L u q Y C N N O N q N r u O Y >. Y > N u EnE Y C C Y C C n q N 0 OLn C n r L �+ �+ 2 !• D w u p� .- D C T 6 �► U C D + N L O C + N Y U O C Y Y A C Y u Y q N u Y n L Y L A Y L E w L Y O r Y c n n L D L s c o c fYt N P te n C C +Ep V L V L u L, 40 -vN C L >> C v q �► Y > u + p Y Y C u C Y q C O V N Y w € D N C C c,- Y Y T A yf1. y L r S u '� CE C •► r L Y O L �+ �+ O C N q � q u Y U L V M O 41 n L it U Vn uN Mu7 V rSuw >uqq+ ^L=uYL SrDA7 +u2cq yVVYE oCV oY C >> 0 9 DCwqfiVn. �L>C+ �~tO GOL L qOC►nO QrMLCON> LLOqYV +DCONOn>L CC4 QVY C; CCLIC" t iO22 + u j P q >. O Y d n N i LOO 7 j M w P CLL+YAqU L. L u O LqY u %- = V n N C EY O Z n t L r M N C 7 K d r V N C 7 w + + + 7 �+ w r L L w Y Q w V �C � O Y ✓ p 1 L Y N Ll Y 7 �► C L L ` e+ n q l� u (�j �•• M E ' � € � L ` (r� L � V � � N � O « {�1 `yb ^ C 7 N r N V J a. � n _� L 9N 1NN �w L c E N n � � N l� O ► 2 N •^ �X O O P u q C L �r L y N N �. L �► C q �r � ° � � V O 7 E � i n C a+ D N �► O n D O L M C u O o CO E _Y c ��,,pp p y V �+ O Y � r L + N w � � N P 4 w T r q ✓ � ♦ O• r d �L Z Y C u {{C�r +Q L ^ Y � O • yY N � � N w LLY M O G Y M j q N N L C C �+ L w ECCC V L O Y C N s g D � �+ � N � L Vr"+ � P V V « ✓ p> O + R L N t q N M V t n L C d >• C M L w 1L � N N w C N N � C Y � N M Y� ,► G L O r L 7 N O O n vis=__:�:; C •� !� pp �' r ^f r1 f M V 1'� • I• .�. r .Ni r .f. .~r .^. .�. C N !� �i �T � � 02%M h 465 N C O ~ CO T L q y C > {L1 N H d d L t e v '► � q L L t v q C N tl q C cc p z z l O v q O = ac Y i L 10 n C L q C q L pl ? tI _O d V d ■ s L L d u P 7 C O C 7 O r C N w Q N d L d T y 1► ♦ N C d L > L C O O N N L O N L C q A �+ O L d u n c v v N n d > L q O L n O y L y w J d N V p q O n w t > IW a+ C w d c c n a OOCC O C — r d q r W T q C { T N N L L N O O N y OI w O O I U >> y G �+ r q C L T C •"' C 7 L d O N O T O O W w C L w q v y p p M M� f M V I� • 1. � ~y .�.1 i .~n .�..1 N H N M M ft- L. L W C 1► L � P w q ! O 1� O d O � q O � q L C IV T y C E Y q V ! ow a cCy �n O } O yyT V C Y v O 1► C V d w d T O N O O C L C Std CL w N L C Y E L u d 1► O y T L O N Q N {dl le EE[ O q � �.+ 10 d •1 q `k OG �1 7 d N L C y t r y �.1 V Q C M 7 N 1► G O w N C w r yQ C N E 10 n L r N d r C C d T O C N C r ♦ q d 7 O CC Q - d w d U t C t L O t O V N C _N y N 1 q V d O Y d d q d pO� d V N to C L 7 n 1► C N L N T L Lp � d Y d w > G N N y M Q t C T d Q N a q r r N L y r 61 M V O 1► C n y t D W O O q r O O X. S r 7 L U u y N y C C \ O q N H L C L n q y- a y N N C = O s 1 1 N 7 q C d N • g ac O > V O �cr yNj yd r N y 7 N > d 7 N y C ^ O G le C > d C d O N ! N y C V a N y N n U O t ! a r w U ~ r q c L O q F QL. ~ CL1 C } {r1 0 Q COC �+ p d V tVi QLV d C Y O L y C 1 O q w n N q 7 O q q O O M �► O L L � N �1 ��11 M a n C s d C N O q O d T C O C d 7 7 • O L IY � pip or b`c ISi W u Y d r d q N n q >. L O n y Gy1 L a P F O Ct1 N d N r 7 e^f ♦ C f _O q C ■ � V Li N y ^ a C y L 0 C pu O C L L L q w O M1 C C y 1► 1n C n q In > r 7 C y V p �i+ Q y • ' N q s ^ N V L y O N ^ d ` >� � N q • N t L � O L � ' t � d L V N q q y {{Lr� > L tq{11 O Y K __ , N � • � rl L r r C n S 466 Committee on Solid Waste - 1982 Councilmember Fred Jarrett, Mercer Island, Chairman County Executive Randy Revelle, King County (Tom Fitzsimmons, alternate) Mayor Charles Royer, Seattle (Gene Avery/Lynn Larson, alternates) Councilmember Jack Richards, Seattle Councilmember Dru Briggs, Bellevue Councilmember Michael Stensen, Enumclaw Councilmember Scott Blair, King County Councilmember Jeanette Williams, Seattle Councilmember Doris Cooper, Kirkland Councilmember Nan Campbell, Bellevue Councilmember Audrey Gruger, King County Councilmember Lois North, King County Councilmember Gary Grant, King County Councilmember Dick Rainforth, Lake Forest Park Executive Director Si Whitman, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Councilmember Doreen Marchione, Redmond Dr. Gary A. Zimmerman, Ex-officio �I Solid Waste Management Planning Advisory Committee Membership - 1982 Gary Zimmerman, Ph.D. , Seattle University, Chairman Eileen Breem, 140 DUMP, Inc. Chris Chapman, Citizens for Recycling George Cvitanich, Washington Waste Management Association (' Robert Davis, Fibres International Geoff Ethelston, City of Bellevue Public Works Department George Fies, City of Seattle Engineering Department Miles Fuller, City of Mercer Island/Suburban Cities (� Arun G. Jhaveri, John Graham and Co. Corey Knutsen, Puget Sound Power and Light Richard Owings, Snohomish County Solid Waste Division Dennis Parrish, City Light Timothy Powell, Energy/Resource Recovery Project Advisory Committee Warren Razore, RABANCO, Inc. Bob Schille, Bayside Disposal Bill Segale, RST Disposal Dick Southworth*or Doug Rotter, King County Solid Waste Division Peg Sparkman, League of Women Voters Don Spickard, Municipal League Wally Swofford, Seattle-King County health Department Randle Thornton, Frederick and Nelson Department Store Earl Tower, Department of Ecology Gene Tuura, Washington State Recyclers Association Byron Ward, Energy/Resource Recovery Project Advisory Committee Ron West, Chemical Processors Harriet Woods, League of Women Voters 1 *Resigned May 31, 1982 II �II �I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. 200 MILL AVE.SOUTH RENTON,WA 98055 1 II 1 1 Ili